CANON

14 and 15
CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.
Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as
Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
account of the latter's race, sex. creed or status of life, or because of his own
opinion regarding the guilt of said person. Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and
honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case,
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request
from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any
of free legal aid. public official, tribunal or legislative body.

Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws
client if: and the principles of fairness.

(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently; Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation
concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether
(b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
client or between a present client and the prospective client.

Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his
professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his DOMINADOR P. BURBE VS. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA AC NO. 99-634.
relations with paying clients. JUNE 10, 2002

CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN Facts:

ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help him recover a
claim of money against a creditor. Respondent prepared demand letters for
the petitioner, which were not successful and so the former intimated that a
Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain case should already be filed. As a result, petitioner paid the lawyer his fees
as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with and included also amounts for the filing of the case.
another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the
prospective client.

A couple of months passed but the petitioner has not yet received any
feedback as to the status of his case. Petitioner made several follow-ups in
Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication the lawyer’s office but to no avail. The lawyer, to prove that the case has
in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client. already been filed even invited petitioner to come with him to the Justice
Hall to verify the status of the case. Petitioner was made to wait for hours in
the prosecutor’s office while the lawyer allegedly went to the Clerk of Court
to inquire about the case. The lawyer went back to the petitioner with the
Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
news that the Clerk of Court was absent that day.
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
 conduct on his part, unbecoming a member of the law profession. The
subsequent reimbursement by the respondent of part of the money
Suspicious of the acts of the lawyer, petitioner personally went to the office deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not exculpate the respondent
of the clerk of court to see for himself the status of his case. Petitioner for his misappropriation of said funds.”
found out that no such case has been filed.


DE GUZMAN vs. DE DIOS A.C. No. 4943. January 26, 2001
Petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta where he continued to lie to with the
excuse that the delay was being caused by the court personnel, and only FACTS:
when shown the certification did he admit that he has not at all filed the
complaint because he had spent the money for the filing fee for his own In 1995, complainant De Guzman engaged the services of respondent De
purpose; and to appease petitioner’s feelings, he offered to reimburse him Dios as counsel in order to form a corporation. Later, in 1996, with the
by issuing two (2) checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in the assistance of the latter, Suzuki Beach Hote Incorporated (SBHI) was
amounts of P12,000.00 and P8,000.00, respectively. registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Complainant paid
on respondent a monthly retainer fee of P5,000.00. In, 1997, the
Issue: corporation required complainant to pay her unpaid subscribed shares of
stock amounting to P2,235,000.00 or 22,350 shares on or before December
Whether or not the lawyer violated the Code. 30, 1997. Then in 1998, De Guzman received notice of the public auction
sale of her delinquent shares and a copy of a board resolution authorizing
Ruling:
such sale. Complainant soon learned that her shares had been acquired
Yes. Lawyers must exert their best efforts and ability in the prosecution or Ramon del Rosario, one of the incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted
the defense of the client’s cause. They who perform that duty with diligence complainant from the corporation completely. While respondent rose to be
and candor not only protect the interests of the client, but also serve the president of the corporation. Complainant alleged that she relied on the
ends of justice. They do honor to the bar and help maintain the respect of advice of Atty. De Dios and believed that would help her with the
the community for the legal profession. Members of the bar must do management of the corporation. She pointed out that respondent appeared
nothing that may tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public as her counsel and signed pleadings in a case where complainant was one of
in the fidelity, the honesty, and integrity of the profession. the parties. Respondent, however, explained that she only appeared
because the property involved belonged to SBHI, that the complainant
misunderstood her role legal counsel of Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline
of the IBP as follows: “It is evident that the P25,000 deposited by
complainant with the Respicio Law Office was for the filing fees of the ISSUE:
Regwill complaint. With complainant’s deposit of the filing fees for the
WON there is attorney-client relationship between the parties
Regwill complaint, a corresponding obligation on the part of respondent
was created and that was to file the Regwill complaint within the time WON there is violation of lawyers oath
frame contemplated by his client. The failure of respondent to fulfill this
obligation due to his misuse of the filing fees deposited by complainant, and
his attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the client, which caused
complainant additional damage and prejudice, constitutes highly dishonest RULING:
Yes. Attorney-client relationship existed between the parties. It was the
complainant who retained respondent to form a corporation. She appeared
as counsel in behalf of complainant. Complainant was delinquent in paying the monthly rentals, Pinlac
terminated the lease. Together with Novie Balageo (Balageo) and
Yes, there is violation of lawyers oath. Lawyers must conduct themselves, respondent, Pinlac went to complainant's music bar, inventoried all the
especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with equipment therein, and informed her that Balageo would take over the
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. As a lawyer, he is operation of the bar. Complainant averred that subsequently respondent
bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its commission and to acted as business partner of Balageo in operating the bar under her
conduct herself as a lawyer according to the best of her knowledge and business name, which they later renamed Amarillo Music Bar.
discretion. The lawyers oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof
is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.

There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and Complainant alleged that she filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and
respondent. Indeed, the board of directors nowe included respondent as Balageo before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Baguio
the president, Ramon del Rosario as secretary, Hikoi Suzuki as chairman, City. At that time, Davis & Sabling Law Office was still her counsel as their
Agnes Rodriguez as treasurer and Takayuki Sato as director. The present Retainer Agreement remained subsisting and in force. However, respondent
situation shows a clear case of conflict of interest of the respondent. appeared as counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case

Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition against representing conflicting In his Comment, respondent denied participation in the takeover or acting
interests and engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. as a business partner of Balageo in the operation of the bar. He asserted
that Balageo is the sole proprietress of the establishment. He insisted that it
was Atty. Sabling, his partner, who initiated the proposal and was in fact the
one who was able to convince complainant to accept the law office as her
DARIA O. DAGING, Complainant vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS, retainer. Respondent maintained that he never obtained any knowledge or
Respondent. information regarding the business of complainant who used to consult only
Atty. Sabling. Respondent admitted though having represented Balageo in

the ejectment case, but denied that he took advantage of the Retainer
This administrative complaint for disbarment arose from an Affidavit Agreement between complainant and Davis and Sabling Law Office.
Complaint1 filed by Daria O. Daging (complainant) before the Integrated Bar

of the Philippines (IBP), Benguet Chapter,2 against Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis
(respondent). The Investigating Commissioner rendered a Report and Recommendation
finding respondent guilty of betrayal of his client's trust and for misuse of

information obtained from his client to the disadvantage of the latter and to
Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music the advantage of another person. He recommended that respondent be
Lounge. She leased it from Benjie Pinlac (Pinlac). suspended from the practice o flaw for a period of one year.

Issue:

Meanwhile, complainant received a Retainer Proposal from Davis & Sabling WON respondent violated the Canon upon appearing as lawyer in the
Law Office signed by respondent and his partner Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling ejectment case?
(Atty. Sabling) and eventually resulted in the signing by the complainant.
 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
Held: 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
Based on the established facts, it is indubitable that respondent
them in their legal tussle; otherwise, they would be representing conflicting
transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
interests and violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. Indeed,
Responsibility. It provides:
respondent could have simply advised both complainant and Balageo to
instead engage the services of another lawyer.

Rule 15.03 -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by

written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC., represented by
"A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as GABRIEL H. ABAD vs. ATTY. RICHARD V. FUNK A.C. No. 9094, 15 August
counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or 2012
former client." The prohibition against representing conflicting interests is
Facts:
absolute and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and
with no intention to represent conflicting interests. In Quiambao v. Atty. Complainant Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. filed a complaint for
Bamba, this Court emphasized that lawyers are expected not only to keep disbarment against Atty. Richard Funk. It alleged that Atty. Funk used to
inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of
treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to the foundation from 1983 to 1985.
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.

Hocorma Foundation further alleged that in 2006 Atty. Funk filed an action
for quieting of title and damages against Hocorma Foundation on behalf of a
Respondent argues that while complainant is a client of Davis & Sabling Law client.
office, her case is actually handled only by his partner Atty. Sabling. He was
not privy to any transaction between Atty. Sabling and complainant and has
no knowledge of any information or legal matter complainant entrusted or
confided to his law partner. He thus inveigles that he could not have taken Issue:
advantage of information obtained by his law firm by virtue of the Retainer
whether or not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former
Agreement. We are not impressed.
client in violation of the CPR when he filed several actions against such
client on behalf of a new one.

In Hilado v. David, reiterated in Gonzales v. Atty. Cabucana, Jr.,this Court

held that a lawyer who takes up the cause of the adversary of the party who
Ruling:
has engaged the services of his law firm brings the law profession into public
disrepute and suspicion and undermines the integrity of justice. Thus, Yes. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot
respondent's argument that he never took advantage of any information represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
acquired by his law firm in the course of its professional dealings with the given after a full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty.
Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after In 2003, complainant Lydia Castro-Justo engaged the services of respondent
terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint Atty. Rodolfo Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila
against it on behalf of another client, without the foundation’s written City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid his professional fees,
consent. the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment of
the checks. Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the
period indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint.
complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and
This rule is so absolute that good faith and honest intention on the erring
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor
lawyer’s part does not make it inoperative.
of Manila. Complainant then received a copy of Motion for Consolidation
that was filed for the respondent on behalf of the opposing party.

Atty. Richard Funk was suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent

violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. He admitted that he
SEARES, JR. VS. ATTY. GONZALES-ALZATE, AC#9058, 11/14/12 – drafted a demand letter for complainant but argued that it was made only
in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of a
professional engagement as professed by complainant. He denied receiving
any professional fee for the services he rendered.
Complainant charged Respondent who was his lawyer in his 2007
election protest with misconduct for representing conflicting
interests for serving as Turqueza’s counsel in an administrative case filed
against Complainant who was elected mayor in 2010 for usurpation of It was allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to retain
authority. the services of another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that
agreement, engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Ao. Respondent stated
that the movants in these cases are mother and daughter while
complainants are likewise mother and daughter and that these cases arose
SC dismissed the complaint against Respondent reasoning that,
out from the same transaction. Thus, movants and complainants will be
representing conflicting interests would occur only where the attorney’s
adducing the same sets of evidence and witnesses. Respondent argued that
new agreement would require her to use against a former client any
no lawyer-client relationship existed between him and complainant because
confidential information gained from the previous professional relation. The
there was no professional fee paid for the services he rendered.
prohibition did not cover a situation where the subject matter of the
Complainant filed filed the instant administrative complaint against
present engagement was totally unrelated to the attorney’s previous
Atty.Galing seeking his disbarment from the practice of law for violation of
engagement.
Canon 15 of Code of Professional Responsibility and conflict of interest.


CASTRO V. GALING (A.C. No. 6174 November 16, 2011)
ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 Rule 15.03 of Code of
FACTS: Professional Responsibility.
 The excuse proffered by respondent that it was not him but Atty. Ao who
was eventually engaged by complainant will not exonerate him from the
HELD: clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
take- over of a clients cause of action by another lawyer does not give the
Yes, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
former lawyer the right to represent the opposing party. It is not only
found respondent guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of
malpractice but also constitutes a violation of the confidence resulting from
Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests and for his
the attorney-client relationship. Considering that it is respondents first
daring audacity and for the pronounced malignancy of his act.
infraction, the disbarment sought in the complaint is deemed to be too
severe. As recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP, respondent
is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.
Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a]
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent was
SIBULO VS CABRERA
therefore bound to refrain from representing parties with conflicting
interests in a controversy. FACTS:
In a case, entitled "Brenda Sucaldito versus Reynaldo Marcelo, et al."
defendant Reynaldo Marcelo retained the services of the herein respondent
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on
as his lawyer. Subsequently, however, the respondent also entered his
principles of public policy and good taste. A lawyer-client relationship can
appearance as counsel for plaintiff Brenda Sucaldito in the same case,
exist notwithstanding the close friendship between complainant and
without withdrawing his appearance as counsel for defendant Reynaldo
respondent. The relationship was established the moment complainant
Marcelo. In view of such development Atty. Reyes Geromo, former counsel
sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By
of Brenda Sucaldito, filed with the Manila Regional Trial Court a motion to
drafting the demand letter respondent further affirmed such relationship.
disqualify the respondent on the ground of unethical conduct.2 Finding
The fact that the demand letter was not utilized in the criminal complaint
merit in the said motion, the trial court ordered the disqualification of
filed and that respondent was not eventually engaged by complainant to
respondent in the case. Complainant Romeo Sibulo, an intervenor in the
represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment.
aforementioned Civil Case No. 90-55209, brought the present
administrative complaint against respondent, praying for the latter's
removal from or suspension in the practice of law, on the ground of
In the course of the lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts unethical practice/conduct.
connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the
case. The nature of the relationship is, therefore, one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. It behooves lawyers not only to keep
HELD:
inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to Violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.

Respondent has all but admitted the wrongdoing complained of, when he
stated in his Answer that he "merely accepted a case from a plaintiff and at
the same time I [he] was the counsel as intervenor of one of the Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension forsix months.
defendants." Such a revelation is a categorical admission that he The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
(respondent) represented two conflicting interests, which representations recommendation of Commissioner Reyes but increased the penalty of
or appearances are prohibited by Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of suspension from six months to one year.
Professional Responsibility. Respondent was bound to faithfully represent
his client in all aspects of subject civil case. When he agreed to represent
the defendant and later on, also the plaintiff in the same case, he could no
Issue:
longer serve either of his said clients faithfully, as his duty to the plaintiff did
necessarily conflict with his duty to the defendant. The relation of attorney Whether or not, the respondent is guilty for violation of Canons 1, 10 and 21
and client is based on trust, so that double dealing which could sometimes of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
lead to treachery, should be avoided.


Ruling:
FINAL PENALTY: FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00)
Pesos, with a warning. Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency that
may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a lawyer,
SAMALA V. ATTY. LUCIANO VALENCIAA.C. NO. 5439, 512 SCRA 01, January
immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful,
22, 2007
flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion
of respectable members of the community. In this case, respondent
admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who are all over 20
This is a complaint filed by Clarita J. Samala (complainant) against Atty. years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has
Luciano D. Valencia (respondent) for Disbarment on the following grounds: eight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of
(a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties; (b) age, and after his wife died, he married Lagmay. These admissions made by
knowingly misleading the court by submitting alse documentary evidence; respondent are more than enough to hold him liable on the charge of
(c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees; immorality. The Court also found that the respondent failed to comply with
and (d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Facts:
Complainant Clarita J. Samala filed against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for It was shown that the respondent knowingly submitted to the court a title
Disbarment on the following grounds: serving on two separate occasions as that was already cancelled, thus, false documentary evidence, in lieu of a
counsel for contending parties, knowingly misleading the court by new title issued in the name of Alba which misleads the decision of the
submitting false documentary evidence, initiating numerous cases in lower court. Lastly, as a lawyer, respondent is bound to comply with Canon
exchange for nonpayment of rental fees and having a reputation of being 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that "a lawyer
immoral by siring illegitimate children. Commissioner found respondent shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the
guilty of violating Canons 15 and21 of the Code of Professional attorney-client relation is terminated." In this case, it is evident that
respondent's representation of Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and her prohibits conflicting interests for lawyers. “It is unprofessional to represent
husband, in one case, and Valdez against Alba, in another case, is a clear conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after
case of conflict of interests which merits a corresponding sanction from this a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer
Court. Thus, respondent is reminded to be more cautious in accepting represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to
professional employments, to refrain from all appearances and acts of contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. The
impropriety including circumstances indicating conflict of interests, obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge
and to behave at all times with circumspection and dedication his secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of
befitting a member of the Bar, especially observing candor, fairness and retainers or employment from others in matters adversely affecting any
loyalty in all transactions with his clients. interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been
reposed.”And despite Atty Hernando’s claim that he had never seen nor
taken hold of the Transfer Certificate of Title or that he divulged any
confidential information belonging to the Bolisay couple, that the mere fact
BUTED VS ATTY. HERNANDO
that respondent had acted as counsel for Benito Bolisay in the action for
specific performance should have precluded him from appearing as counsel
for the other side in in the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title of
FACTS: the spouses. There is no necessity for proving the actual transmission of
confidential information to an attorney in the course of his employment by
Atty. Hernando was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and Angela Buted for a his first client in order that he may be precluded from accepting
partition case of the late Teofilo Buted’s lot. He successfully defended the employment by the second or subsequent client where there are conflicting
case. When Luciana died, Hernando withdrew appearance. Luciana once interests between the first and the subsequent clients. The prohibition on
sold the property to Benito Bolisay but it appears that the TCT was issued to conflict of interest was designed not only to prevent the dishonest
the Sy couple. Upon filing specific performance, Bolisay got Atty. Hernando practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest
to represent him (free of charge). They succeeded in ejecting the couple. lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. Although the
Atty. Hernando claims to have terminated relationship with Bolisay. In relation of attorney and client has terminated, and the new employment is
February 1974, Atty. Hernando filed a petition, in behalf of Luciana’s heirs in a different case; nor can the attorney use against his former client any
without their consent, to cancel TCT of Bolisay couple over the lot. The knowledge or information gained through their former connection.
couple filed disapproval. The case was dismissed for prescription. In August
of 1974, Bolisay couple filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
Hernando for having abused personal secrets obtained by him as their
counsel SUSPENDED for 5 months.

ISSUE: PEREZ V DELA TORRE

Whether or not respondent Hernando had a conflict of interests FACTS:

HELD:

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Hernando had a conflict of interest. Perez alleged that he is the barangay captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga,
In the action for specific performance, Atty Hernando defended the Bolisay
Camarines Sur; that in December 2001, several suspects for murder and
couple’s right to ownership but assailed the very same right in the cadastral
kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila, were
proceeding in favor of Luciana’s heirs. The Canons of Professional Ethics
apprehended and jailed by the police authorities; that respondent (Dela
Torre) went to the municipal building of Calabanga where Ilo and Avila were To negate any culpability, respondent explained that he did not offer his
being detained and made representations that he could secure their legal services to accused Avila and Ilo but it was the two accused who
freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions; that unknown sought his assistance in executing their extrajudicial confessions.
to the two accused, Respondent (Dela Torre) was representing the heirs of Nonetheless, he acceded to their request to act as counsel after apprising
the murder victim; that on the strength of the them of their constitutional rights and after being convinced that the
accused were under no compulsion to give their confession. aCTHEA
extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against them, including herein
complainant (Perez) who was implicated in the extrajudicial confessions as The excuse proferred by the respondent does not exonerate him from the
the mastermind in the criminal activities for which they were being charged. clear

Respondent denied the accusations against him. violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests except by written
ISSUE: consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
W/N There was conflict of interest? As found by the IBP, at the time respondent was representing Avila and Ilo,
two of
RULING:
the accused in the murder of the victim Resurreccion Barrios, he was
YES. There is conflict of interests when a lawyer represents inconsistent
representing the family of the murder victim. Clearly, his representation of
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in
opposing clients in the murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and
behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but
infidelity to his clients.
it is his duty to oppose it for the other client”. In brief, if he argues for one
client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other What is unsettling is that respondent assisted in the execution by the two
client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications accused of
have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been
bestowed or will be used. There is a representation of conflicting interests if their confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various
the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything serious criminal offenses knowing fully well that he was retained previously
which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he by the heirs of one of the victims. Respondent, who presumably knows the
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, intricacies of the law, should have exercised his better judgment before
to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their conceding to accused's choice of counsel. It did not cross his mind to inhibit
connection. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is himself from acting as their counsel and instead, he even assisted them in
founded on principles of executing the extrajudicial confession.

public policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship,

the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client's case, including the
weak and strong points of the case. The nature of that relationship is, PENILLA V ALCID
therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. It behooves
FACTS:
lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid
the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing for only then can Complainant Julian Penilla entered into an agreement with Spouses Rey and
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of Evelyn
paramount importance in the administration of justice.
Garin (the spouses) for the repair of his Volkswagen automobile. Despite full allegations in the complaint. In the instant case, complainant was only able
payment, the spouses defaulted in their obligation. Thus, complainant to prove
decided to file a case for breach of contract against the spouses where he
engaged the services of respondent as counsel. Respondent sent a demand respondent's violation of Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of
letter to the spouses and asked for the refund of complainant's payment. the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath.
When the spouses failed to return the payment, respondent advised Complainant failed to substantiate his claim that respondent violated
complainant that he would file a criminal case for estafa against said Canon 15 and Rule 15.06 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when
spouses. Respondent charged P30,000 as attorney's fees and P10,000 as respondent allegedly instructed him to give a bottle of Carlos Primero I to
filing fees. Complainant turned over the relevant documents to respondent Asst. City Prosecutor Fortuno in order to get a favorable decision. Similarly,
and paid the fees in tranches. Respondent then filed the complaint for complainant was not able to present evidence that respondent indeed
estafa before Asst. City Prosecutor Jose C. Fortuno of the Office of the City violated Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 by allegedly collecting money from him in
Prosecutor of Quezon City. Respondent attended the hearing with excess of the required filing fees.
complainant but the spouses did not appear. After the hearing, complainant

paid another P1,000 to respondent as appearance fee. Henceforth,
complainant and respondent have conflicting narrations of the subsequent AREOLA V MENDOZA
events and transactions that

transpired. Complainant alleges that when the case was submitted for
resolution, respondent told him that they have to give a bottle of Carlos FACTS:
Primero I to Asst. City Prosecutor Fortuno to expedite a favorable
resolution of the case. Complainant claims that despite initial reservations,
he later acceded to respondent's suggestion, bought a bottle of Carlos
In the letter-complaint, Areola stated that he was filing the complaint in
Primero I for P950 and delivered it to respondent's office. Asst. City
behalf of his co-detainees Allan Seronda, Aaron Arca, Joselito Mirador,
Prosecutor Fortuno later issued a resolution dismissing the estafa case
Spouses Danilo Perez and Elizabeth Perez. He alleged that on October 23,
against the spouses. 2006, during Prisoners' Week, Atty. Mendoza, visited the Antipolo City Jail
and called all detainees with pending cases before the Regional Trial Court
Issue: (RTC), Branch 73, Antipolo City where she was assigned, to attend her
speech/lecture. Areola claimed that Atty. Mendoza stated the following
Was there a violation of Rule 15.[06, Canon 15] — A lawyer shall not state during her speech:
or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative
body;

Ruling: "O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pangareglo

All said, in administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against ay maging praktikal sana kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya agad.
lawyers, it is
Upang makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo ay sa akin
the complainant who has the burden to prove by preponderance of
evidence the ninyo ibigay o ng kamag-anak ninyo ang pera at ako na ang bahalang

maglagay kay Judge Martin at Fiscal banqui; at kayong mga detenidong

mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge and crying in order for their cases to be dismissed”. As such, the Court
agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Mendoza made
Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon." irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07
of the Code of Professional Responsibility . It is the mandate of Rule 1.02

that "a lawyer shall not counselor abet activities aimed at defiance of the
Atty. Mendoza allegedly said that as she is handling more than 100 cases, all law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Rule 15.07 states that
"a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
detainees should prepare and furnish her with their Sinumpaang Salaysay so principles of fairness."
that she may know the facts of their cases and their defenses and also to
give her the necessary payment for their transcript of stenographic notes. Atty. Mendoza's improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public
in our
Atty. Mendoza admitted in her Answer that she advised her clients and
legal system. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence
their relatives to approach the judge and the fiscal "to beg and cry" so that from external forces or factors according to the merits of a case. Atty.
their motions would be granted and their cases against them would be Mendoza's careless remark is uncalled for. It must be remembered that a
dismissed. To the Investigating Commissioner, this is highly unethical and lawyer's duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that
improper as the act of Atty. Mendoza degrades the image of and lessens the end, his client's success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and
confidence of the public in the judiciary. must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means,
not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in
Issue: the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and
unethical. In spite of the foregoing, the Court deems the penalty of

suspension for two (2) months as excessive and not commensurate to Atty.
W/N Atty Mendoza is guilty of the accusation of Areola. Mendoza's infraction. Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer, being the
most severe forms of disciplinary sanction, should be imposed with great
caution and only in those cases where the misconduct of the lawyer as an
officer of the court and a member of the bar is established by clear,
Ruling: convincing and satisfactory proof. The Court notes that when Atty. Mendoza
made the remark "Iyakiyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na

kayo. Malambot ang puso noon", she was not compelled by bad faith or
No. The first accusation of of Areola that Atty. Mendoza demanded money malice. While her remark was inappropriate and unbecoming, her comment
from his co-detainess were just self-assertions and was not supported by is not disparaging and reproachful so as to cause dishonor and disgrace to
evidence. the Judiciary. LLpr

Interestingly, Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised her clients to

approach the
CAPINPIN V CESA
judge and plead for compassion so that their motions would be granted. This

admission corresponds to one of Areola's charges against Atty. Mendoza —
that she told her clients "Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain FACTS:
na kayo. Malambot ang pusonoon." Atty. Mendoza made it appear that the
judge is easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such as begging
Complainant executed a real estate mortgage (REM) on his two lots in favor We are in full accord with the findings of the Investigating Commissioner
of Family Lending Corporation (FLC) as security for a loan amounting to that
PhP5 Million with interest at two percent (2%) per month. Due to
complainant's default in payment, FLC, through its President Dr. Eli Malaya respondent violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 and Canon 16, Rule 16.01 of the
(Dr. Malaya), initiated foreclosure proceedings against the mortgaged CPR.
properties.
CANON 15 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
Complainant availed of legal remedies to stop the said foreclosure
LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS
proceedings,
CLIENTS.
to wit. For these cases, FLC engaged respondent's (Atty. Cesa) legal services.
The complaint alleges that during the above-cited proceedings, respondent, Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
without the knowledge of his client FLC, approached complainant to interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
negotiate the
full disclosure of the facts.
deferment of the auction sale and the possible settlement of the loan
obligation at a CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND

reduced amount without resorting to the auction sale. Respondent allegedly PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
represented himself as being capable of influencing the sheriff to defer the
auction sale, as well as his client FLC through Dr. Malaya to accept the Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or
amount of PhP7 Million to fully settle the loan obligation. For this, the
property collected or received for or from the client.
complaint alleges that on April 13, 2005, respondent demanded payment of
professional fees amounting to Php1 Million from complainant. For his part, Based on the records, We find substantial evidence to hold the respondent
respondent denies that he was the one who approached complainant for liable
negotiation, the truth being that it was complainant who asked for his help
to be given more time to raise funds to pay the loan obligation. for violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the said Code. It must be stressed that
FLC

engaged respondent's legal services to represent it in opposing
Issue: complainant's actions to forestall the foreclosure proceedings. As can be
gleaned from respondent's position paper, however, it is admitted that

respondent extended help to the complainant in negotiating with FLC for
Should Atty. Cesa, Jr. be administratively disciplined based on the the reduction of the loan payment and cessation of theforeclosure
allegations in the complaint and evidence on record? proceedings. The case of Hornilla v. Salunat is Instructive on the concept
of conflict of interest, viz.:

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
Ruling:
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in
behalf of
one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his conflicting interests. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the
duty to client's

oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-
argument dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of
will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers justice.
not
Respondent's allegation that such negotiation was within the knowledge of
only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but his
also
client will not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the
those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. x x x. CPR.
Another
Respondent presented a number of documents to support his allegation
test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new that all the
relation
communications between him and the complainant were relayed to his
will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided client but We find no record of any written consent from any of the parties,
fidelity especially from his client, allowing him to negotiate as such. Respondent's
admission that he received advance payments of professional fees from the
and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double[-
complainant made matters worse for him. As correctly found by the
]dealing
Investigating Commissioner, it was highly improper for respondent to accept
in the performance thereof. professional fees from the opposing party as this creates clouds of doubt
regarding respondent's legal practice. As aptly stated by the Investigating
Evidently, respondent was working on conflicting interests — that of his Commissioner, if a lawyer receives payment of professional fees from the
client, adverse party, it gives an impression that he is being paid for services
rendered or to be rendered in favor of such adverse party's interest, which,
which was to be able to foreclose and obtain the best amount they could needless to say, conflicts that of his client's. Simply put, respondent's
get to cover the loan obligation, and that of the complainant's, which was professional fees must come from his client. This holds true even if
to forestall the foreclosure and settle the loan obligation for a lesser eventually such fees will be reimbursed by the adverse party depending on
amount. DETACa the agreement of the parties. Respondent cannot justify his act of accepting
professional fees from the complainant by alleging that such was in
Indeed, the relationship between the lawyer and his client should ideally be
accordance with the arrangement between his client and the complainant
imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. Necessity and public as there is no clear proof of such arrangement.
interest
ROMERO V EVANGELISTA
require that this be so. Part of the lawyer's duty to his client is to avoid

representing
FACTS:
 Ruling:

Maria alleged that in several cases, Atty. Evangelista represented her and
her aunt Adela A. Romero (Adela), in their individual capacities and as Heirs
of the Late Adela Aguinaldo Vda. De Romero. However, Atty. Evangelista "The relationship between a lawyer and his client should ideally be imbued
subsequently represented the Spouses Joseph and Rosalina Valles in suits with
against Adela, enumerated as follows:
the highest level of trust and confidence. Necessity and public interest
1. (Forcible Entry with Damages) — require that this be so. Part of the lawyer's duty to his client is to avoid
representing conflicting
2. (Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages) —
interests." In Hornilla vs. Salunat, the Court explained the concept of
3. Adela Romero vs. Spouses Joseph conflict of

In his Answer, Atty. Evangelista admitted that he had handled cases interest, viz.:
involving
There is confliict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests
the properties of the Romero clan, but not a single case for Maria. He of
explained that:
two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one
a) there was never a lawyer-client relationship between him and Maria; b) client,
his
it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to
professional services were never retained by Maria nor did he receive any oppose it
privileged
for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be
information regarding Maria's cases; and c) Maria never paid him any legal
fee. opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not
only
Atty. Evangelista also contended that Adela is not a complainant in the
disbarment case against him nor is there any proof that she authorized cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also
Maria to file a those

complaint on her (Adela's) behalf. in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is
conflict

of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to
Issue:
perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which

W/N Atty Evangelista is guilty of representing conflict of interest? he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation
to

use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. In her Complaint, complainant (Cerilla) stated that she is one of the co-
owners of a parcel of land located at Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a Sibulan, Negros. .Being a co-owner of the subject property, complainant
engaged the services of respondent (Atty. Lezama) to file an unlawful
new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
detainer case against Carmelita S. Garlito with the Municipal Trial Court
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness (MTC) of Sibulan, Negros Oriental. At that time, the complainant was
or working at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, and for this reason, she executed
a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of the respondent to perform the
double dealing in the performance thereof. following acts, to wit:

The rule against confliict of interest also "prohibits a lawyer from (1) To represent and act on my behalf in filing a case of ejectment against
representing Lita

new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, Garlito of Sibulan, Negros Oriental;
whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated
cases," since the (2) To appear on my behalf during the preliminary conference in Civil Case

representation of opposing clients, even in unrelated cases, "is tantamount No. 497-04 and to make stipulations of facts, admissions and other matters
to
for the early resolution of the same including amicable settlement of the
representing conflicting interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of
case if necessary.
doubledealing which the Court cannot allow."
Complainant said that on the basis of the SPA, respondent entered into a
The only exception is provided under Canon:
compromise agreement with the defendant in the unlawful detainer case to
15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR — if there is a written consent from all the parties
sell the
after full
subject property of the complainant for P350,000.00 without her consent or
disclosure. "Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and
a special authority from her. Complainant contended that respondent
good taste
misrepresented in the Compromise Agreement that she was willing to sell
as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the subject property for
the highest degree."
P350,000.00. Complainant averred that she did not authorize the
respondent to sell the property and she is not willing to sell the property in
the amount of P350,000.00,
CERILLA V LEZAMA
considering that there are other co-owners of the property. Complainant
contended that by entering into the compromise agreement to sell the
subject property without any special power to do so, respondent committed
FACTS: gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties to his client. She asserted
that respondent's misconduct was the proximate cause of the loss of the

subject property in the ejectment case, which prejudiced her and the other
co-owners, as respondent knew that the ejectment case was filed by her for does not persuade, because his alleged honest belief prejudiced his client,
the benefit of all the co-owners of the property. since the property she was not willing to sell was sold at a price decided
upon by respondent on his own, which caused his client and her co-owners
to file further cases to recover their property that was sold due to
respondent's mistake. He overlooked the fact that he was not authorized by
Issue:
his client to sell the property.
W/N the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by
As found by the IBP Board of Governors, respondent also violated Canons 15
entering into a compromise agreement with the defendant in the unlawful
and
detainer case without the consent of the complainant?
17 of the Code of Responsibility:

CANON 15 — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
Ruling:
his dealings and transactions with his client.

CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
YES. Respondent entered into the Compromise Agreement on the basis of
the SPA be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
granted to him by complainant. The SPA authorized respondent to The Court sustains the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that
represent
respondent be penalized with suspension from the practice of law for a
complainant in filing the ejectment case and "[t]o appear on [complainant's] period of two (2)
behalf during the preliminary conference in said ejectment case and to
make stipulations of fact, admissions and other matters for the early years.
resolution of the case, including amicable settlement of the case if
necessary." Nowhere is it expressly stated in the SPA that respondent is PADILLA V ATTY. SAMSON
authorized to compromise on the sale of the property or to sell the
FACTS:
property of complainant”. The records show that respondent admitted that
he entered into the compromise agreement with the defendant in the
unlawful detainer case and stated that the plaintiff, who is the complainant
herein, was willing to sell the property to the defendant in the amount of Complainant Rafael Padilla filed a Complaint on November 25, 2013 against
P350,000.00 even if the complainant did not instruct or authorize him to sell his
the property, and he merely acted upon his own belief. As the SPA granted
to him by the complainant did not contain the power to sell the property, former counsel, respondent Atty. Glenn Samson, in connection with his
respondent clearly acted beyond the scope of his authority in entering into case, entitled Indelecia Balaga and Enrique Balaga v. Rafael Padilla , Case
the compromise agreement wherein the property was sold to the defendant No. 00-05-07038-08. Padilla contends that Samson suddenly cut all
Carmelita S. Garlito. Respondent, in his Answer and Motion for communications with him, which almost caused him to miss the due date for
Reconsideration of Resolution No. XXI- 2014-386, stated that his action was the filing of a required pleading. He even wrote a demand letter asking
based on an honest belief that he was serving both the interest of his client Samson to withdraw his appearance and return all the documents pertinent
and the policy of the law to settle cases amicably. However, his justification to his case, but to no avail. Also, Padilla had been asking Samson for the
refund of his overpayment amounting to P19,074.00. However, Samson CANON 17 — A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS
failed to offer any response, despite aforementioned demands. Likewise,
when ordered by the Court as well as the Commission on Bar Discipline of CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to refute the allegations in
REPOSED IN HIM.
Padilla's complaint and explain his side, Samson refused to do so.
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
ISSUE:
xxx xxx xxx

Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
W/N There was a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
his

negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
RULING:
xxx xxx xxx

CANON 19 — A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL
YES (Obvious dba???). Ordinarily, lawyers may decline employment and
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
refuse to accept representation, if they are not in a position to carry it out
effectively or competently. But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys Rule 19.01 — A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
are required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility (CPR) to undertake
the task with zeal, care, and utmost devotion. Acceptance of money from a lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting
client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of or
fidelity to the client's cause. Every case which a lawyer accepts deserves full
attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of importance. threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper

Canons 15, and 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of advantage in any case or proceeding.
the
xxx xxx xxx
CPR provide:
In the case at bar, Samson completely abandoned Padilla without any
xxx xxx xxx
justification, notwithstanding his receipt of the professional fees for services
CANON 15 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND rendered as well as the latter's efforts to reach him. His continuous inaction
despite repeated follow-ups reveals his cavalier attitude and appalling
LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS indifference toward his client's cause, in blatant disregard of his duties as a
lawyer. Also, despite numerous demands, Samson has unjustifiably refused
CLIENTS. to return Padilla's documents and the amount of P19,074.00 as
overpayment for his legal services. It is a hornbook principle that a lawyer's
xxx xxx xxx
duty of competence and diligence includes, not merely reviewing the cases
entrusted to his care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of Complainant (Reyes) endorsed to the respondent (Atty. Reyes), all pertinent
properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending papers regarding the anomalous and fraudulent actuations of one Angelica
scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required Offemaria, an alleged President and General Manager of the Bicol Veterans
pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and Handicrafts Enterprises, Inc., in which complainant was defrauded of
urging their termination even without prodding from the client or the court. P31,863.30, for the purpose of filing the necessary criminal action against
Further, Samson failed to file his Answer to the complaint despite due said Angelica Offemaria and for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. That
notice from the Court and the IBP. His unwarranted tenacity simply shows, the respondent agreed to handle the case, and asked for, and was given the
not only his lack of responsibility, but also his lack of interest in clearing his amount of P1,500.00, as his fee therefor.That once having received the
name, which, as pronounced in case law, is indicative of an implied documents and the check for P1,500.00, complainant has not heard from
admission of the charges levelled against him. Clients are led to expect that respondent, although said complainant has been calling said respondent
lawyers would always be mindful of their cause and, accordingly, exercise almost daily, to inquire as to the status of the case he has endorsed. At the
the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. On the other hand, request of complainant, another letter was addressed to the respondent
the lawyer is expected to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal demanding the return of the P1,500.00, within five (5) days from receipt
proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the thereof, but respondent failed to return the aforesaid amount up to the
case, regardless of its importance and whether or not he accepts it for a fee. present, although he received the letter of demand on January 23, 1980.
To this end, he is enjoined to employ only fair and honest means to attain That, however, due to respondent's inaction in the case endorsed to him by
lawful objectives. The CPR requires lawyers to give their candid and best the complainant for a period of more than four (4) months; his failure to
opinion to their clients on the merit or lack of merit of the case. Knowing return all the documentary evidence entrusted to him, and his failure to
whether a case would be potentially successful is not only a function, but return the amount he received, the case against Offemaria has not yet been
also an obligation on the part of lawyers. If ever Samson found that his commenced up to the present.
client's cause was defenseless, then he should have met with Padilla so that
they would be able to discuss their possible options, instead of abruptly
dropping the case without any notice or explanation. Samson's failure to
ISSUE:
fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a violation of his duty to observe
candor, fairness, and loyalty in W/N the lawyer violated the CPR?
all his dealings and transactions with his clients. Withal, his persistent RULING:
refusal to return Padilla's money and case files despite frequent demands
clearly reflects his lack of integrity and moral soundness; he is clinging to
something that does not belong to him, and that he absolutely has no right
to keep or use without Padilla's permission. Lawyers are deemed to hold in YES. Such lawyer has sufficiently demonstrated conduct showing his
trust their client's money and property that may come into their possession. unfitness for the confidence and trust which characterize the attorney-client
relationship. By his unexplained failure to return the amount of P1,500.00
demanded by complainant-client receipt of which he had acknowledged and
which he had agreed to return at the earliest possible opportunity, he failed
REYES V ATTY. MAGLAYA to live up to his duties as a lawyer. He has in particular disregarded Canon
16, Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that
FACTS:
"a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand . . . ." His inexcusable act of withholding money belonging to
his client warrants the imposition of disciplinary sanction. This Court also
finds that respondent has not exercised the diligence required of lawyers in complainant met with respondent in Manila, he relayed to her Atty. Reyes'
the handling of their clients' cases. He failed to act upon complainant's case offer to replace the check with cash.
for a period of more than three (3) months from the time the complete
filing of complainant against Angelica Offemaria was endorsed to him by
Atty. Abando of the PC-CIS. To make matters worse, respondent failed to
Issue:
respond to complainant's inquiries regarding the status of his case, a duty
which was incumbent upon him. Considering the foregoing, the W/N there was violation of Canon 16?
recommendation of the IBP that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year is approved.

Ong V Atty Grijaldo Ruling:

YES, when respondent used the money which he received from Atty. Reyes
to pay
FACTS:
for his own obligations, he violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which states that "[a] lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his possession."
Complainant Goretti Ong is a widow residing in Talayan Village, Quezon City.
Furthermore:
Sometime in the early part of 1996, she engaged the services of respondent,
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected
a practicing lawyer in Bacolod City(Atty. Grijaldo), as private prosecutor in
Criminal Case No. 52843 before the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities of or received for or from the client.
Bacolod City, Branch 5, against Lemuel Sembrano and Arlene Villamil for
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 . During one of the hearings of the Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and
case, the accused offered to amicably settle their civil obligation to
complainant by paying the amount of P180,000.00. Complainant accepted apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
the offer on the condition that payment shall be made in cash. At the
Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
hearing held on July 17, 1996, respondent advised complainant to wait
outside the courtroom. When he came out, he handed to complainant cash when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds
in the amount of P100,000.00 and Metrobank Check No. 0701263862 for and may
P80,000.00, postdated August 16, 1996, drawn by Atty. Roger Reyes,
counsel for the accused. Complainant objected to check payment and apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
refused to settle the case, but he assured her that the check was the drawn
by a reputable lawyer. Complainant was prevailed upon by respondent into disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also
signing an affidavit of desistance, but she instructed him not to file it in have a
court until the check is cleared. Upon presentment on its maturity date, the
lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for
check was dishonored due to a stop- payment order from the drawer.
his
Complainant immediately informed respondent of the dishonor, and the
latter told her that he will talk to Atty. Reyes about it. Later, when client as provided for in the Rules of Court. Respondent's misappropriation
of the money entrusted to him and his refusal to account for it to his client
despite repeated demands were competent proof of his unfitness for the
confidence and trust reposed on him. His acts showed a lack of personal
honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public Issue:
confidence. He held the money in trust for his client as settlement of the

case he was handling. Upon receipt
W/N the lawyer violated Canon 16?
thereof, he was under obligation to immediately turn it over, in the absence
of a showing that he had a lien over it. As a lawyer, he should have been
scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional
capacity, because a high degree of fidelity and good faith on his part is Ruling:
exacted. A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for
money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his
clients. He is obligated to report promptly the money of his client that has
YES. Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
come into his possession. He should not commingle it with his private
requires the lawyer to account for all money or property collected or
property or use it for his personal purposes without his client's consent.
received for or from his client. Where a client gives money to his lawyer for
Respondent, by converting the money of his client to his own personal use
a specific purpose, such as to file an action, appeal an adverse judgment,
without her consent, was guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross consummate a settlement, or pay the purchase price of a parcel of land, the
misconduct. Not only did he degrade himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he lawyer should, upon failure to take such step and spend the money for it,
besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession. immediately return the money to his client. In the instant case, respondent
received the amount of P100,000.00 as legal fees

for fling additional claims against the estate of Nicolasa S. de Guzman
ARROYO V ATTY. VITAN Arroyo. However, he failed to institute an action, thus it was imperative that
he immediately return the amount to complainant upon demand therefor.
Having received payment for services which were not rendered, respondent
was unjustified in keeping complainant's money. His obligation was to
FACTS:
immediately return the said amount. His refusal to do so despite
complainant's repeated demands constitutes a violation of his oath where
he pledges not to delay any man for money and swears to conduct himself
Sometime in August 1996, respondent (Atty Vitan) contacted complainant with good fidelity to his clients. A lawyer should refrain from any action
(Arroyo) and showed her documents consisting of tax declarations of whereby for his personal benefit or gain, he abuses or takes advantage of
properties purportedly forming part of the estate of Nicolasa S. de Guzman- the confidence reposed in him by his client. A lawyer should be scrupulously
Arroyo, but were not included in the Inventory of Properties for distribution careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional capacity,
in Special Proceeding No. C-525. He convinced complainant to file another because a high degree of fidelity and good faith on his part is exacted.
case to recover her share in the alleged undeclared properties and
demanded P100,000.00 as legal fees therefor. After several months,
however, respondent failed to institute any action. Complainant decided to
VIRAY V ATTY. SANICAS
forego the filing of the case and asked for the return of the P100,000.00, but
respondent refused despite repeated demands. Consequently, complainant
filed an action for sum of money and damages.
Facts: collected or received for or from the client." Rule 16.03 thereof, on the
other hand, mandates that "[a] lawyer shall deliver the funds . . . of his client
when due or upon demand." In this case, respondent on nine separate
occasions from February 5, 2004 to April 30, 2004 received payments for
Complainant alleges that he engaged the services of respondent relative to
attorney's fees and partial payments for monetary awards
a labor
on behalf of complainant from spouses Lopez. But despite the number of
case he filed against Ester Lopez and Teodoro Lopez III (spouses Lopez). On
times over close to three months he had been receiving payment,
February
respondent neither informed the complainant of such fact nor rendered an
26, 2001, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of complainant. Complainant also accounting thereon. It was only when an Alias Writ of Execution was issued
discovered that respondent misrepresented to spouses Lopez that he is and being implemented when complainant discovered that spouses Lopez
authorized to receive payments on his behalf, when in truth and in fact he is had already given respondent the total amount of P95,000.00 as partial
not. Consequently, complainant made several verbal demands to the payment for the monetary awards granted to him by the labor tribunal. To
respondent to remit to him the amount of P95,000.00, less his attorney's make matters worse, respondent withheld and refused to deliver to the
fees of P20,000.00. But respondent did
complainant said amount, which he merely received on behalf of his client,
not budge. Thus, complainant lodged a complaint before the Office of the even after demand. Complainant brought the matter before the barangay,
Punong but respondent simply ignored the same. Such failure and inordinate refusal
on the part of the respondent to render an accounting and return the
Barangay of Brgy. Felisa, Bacolod City. Respondent, however, ignored the money after demand raises the presumption that he converted it to his own
summons to attend a conference before the barangay to resolve the issues. use. His unjustified withholding of the funds also warrants the imposition of
disciplinary action against him. Respondent justifies his action by asserting
that complainant authorized him to receive payment. He implies that he is
also authorized to apply the sum of money he received from spouses Lopez
ISSUE:
to his additional 25% attorney's fees and reimbursement for all expenses he
The essential issue in this case is whether the respondent is guilty of gross incurred for the case, in the total amount of P72,275.13. However, after
misconduct for his failure to promptly account to his client the funds
deducting from the amount of P95,000.00 the amounts of P20,000.00,
received in the
P17,000.00, and P2,000.00, what was left to respondent, to his dismay was
course of his professional engagement and return the same upon demand. only P56,000.00.

The Court is not impressed. As aptly observed by the Investigating

Commissioner,
RULING:
other than his self-serving statements, there is nothing in the records which
would support respondent's claim that he was authorized to receive the
payments. Neither is there proof that complainant agreed to pay him
YES. "The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree additional 25% attorney's fees and reimburse him for all expenses he
offidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers allegedly incurred in connection with the case. Respondent did not present
because of their fiduciary relationship." Specifically, Rule 16.01 of the Code any document, retainer's agreement, or itemized breakdown of the amount
imposes upon the lawyer the duty to "account for all money or property to be reimbursed to support his claim. In any event, even assuming that
respondent was authorized to receive payments, the same does not exempt The Court finds respondent is guilty of violating of Canon 16, Rule 16.01,
him from his duty of promptly informing his client of the amounts he Rule 16.03,and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
received in the course of his professional employment. "The fiduciary Accordingly, respondent Atty. Rodolfo Macalino shall be suspended from
nature of the relationship between counsel and client imposes on a lawyer the practice of law for one year effective upon finality of decision.
the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or Respondent failed to inform and to respond to Inquiries of the complainant
from the client. He is obliged to render a prompt accounting of all the regarding the status of the case. As it was held in Tolentino v. Mangapit, The
property and money he has collected for his client." "The fact that a lawyer relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, it is the lawyer’s duty
has a lien for his attorney's fees on the money in his hands collected for his to keep the client regularly and fully updated on the developments of the
client does not relieve him from the obligation to make a prompt client’s case. The Code provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep the client
accounting." Moreover, a lawyer has no right "to unilaterally appropriate informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable
time to the client’s request for information." Moreover, respondent failed
his client's money for himself by the mere fact alone that the client owes to account a and return the money he received from complainant. The Code
him attorney's fees." In sum, "[r]espondent's failure to immediately account provides that “The Code mandates that every “lawyer shall hold in trust all
for and return the money when due and upon demand violated the trust moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.” The
reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral soundness, Code further states that “[a] lawyer shall account for all money or property
and warrants the imposition of disciplinary action." collected or received for or from the client.” Furthermore, “[a] lawyer shall
deliver the funds and property of his client when due and upon demand.”


MENESES v. MACALINO
(A.C. No. 6651, February 27, 2006)
ALDOVINO v. PUJALTE


FACTS:
FACTS:
Complainant Edgardo Meneses filed a disbarment case against respondent
after respondent got hold of the entire settlement amount, he did not
Atty. Rodolfo Macalino for violation of lawyer’s oath. Complainant alleged
immediately turn over the said amount to the complainants who had to
that respondent offered his legal services to help the former claim his car
look and search for him. It was only when respondent was threatened with
from the Bureau of Customs for a package deal amounting to P60, 000.00.
a legal action (Estafa, docketed as Grim. Case No. 99-1017, RTC Br. 58,
In order to expedite the case, complainant entrusted to respondent lawyer
Lucena City) that he decided to return the balance of the settlement
initial amounts of P10, 000.00 and P30, 000.00 on two separate instances
amount but after deducting P250,000.00 which he claims to be his attorneys
respectively, without the issuance of a receipt. Yet respondent promised to
fees. Complainants alleged that they have already paid respondent the
furnish complainant with a receipt from the Bureau of Customs. After
amount of P86,000.00 which was more than double the agreed upon
receiving an amount of P40, 000.00, respondent failed to give complainant
professional fees. Complainants even agreed to pay an additional
an update on the matter. Complainant repeatedly went to respondent’s P14.000.00 to complete the amount of P100,000.00 but there was no
house to inquire on the status of the release of the car. Complainant was agreement to the effect that respondent will be paid P250,000.00.
always told that respondent was not around and to just return another day. Respondent unilaterally appropriated the amount of P250,000.00 without
This went on for more than a year. the conformity of complainants.

ISSUE : ISSUE:
Is respondent guilty of violating the Code of professional Responsibility? Is respondent guilty of violating the Code of professional Responsibility?


HELD:
RULING:
respondent violated Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility and Complainant hired the services of the respondent to annul her marriage to
suspending him from the practice of law for one (1) year. Danilo Soriano. Complainant gave the respondent a diskette containing a
narration of what happened between her and her estranged husband.
Canon 16 and its Rule 16.03 provide: Complainant also gave respondent money as part of the acceptance fee and
the filing fee for the case. Inquiring on the status of her case, respondent
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND told the complainant that their first hearing was postponed to a later date.
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. Unconvinced complainant went to RTC Branch 64 to inquire on the status of
her case. Much to her surprise, there was no such case filed in court.
x x x x x x x x x Respondent promised to return what the complainant gave. However, the
amount was only given after complainant filed for a disbarment case with
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when the IBP
due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may
apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and ISSUE:
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also Whether or not respondent is guilty of Canon 16 and 18 of the Code of
have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has Professional Responsibilty?
secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
RULING:
Respondent should have complied with the above provisions. When Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the Code) provides
complainants demanded that the sum of P1,001,332.26 be delivered to that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected for or from
them, he should have heeded promptly. Had they not hired a lawyer and the client. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
charged him with estafa, he would not have turned over the money to relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause.Money
them. While it may be true that he has a lien over the funds, he should have entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing fee, but not
notified complainants about it in due time. used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the client
on demand.Paguinto returned the money only after Parias filed this
Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral administrative case for disbarment.A lawyer should give adequate
character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold attention, care and time to his case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty,
omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Hence, a lawyer must accept only as
in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Membership in much cases as he can efficiently handle, otherwise his clients interests will
the legal profession is a privilege. And whenever it is made to appear that suffer. It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle
an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it the legal matter. He must also give adequate attention to his legal work.The
becomes not only the right but also the duty of this Court, which made him lawyer owes it to his client to exercise his utmost learning and ability in
one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to handling his cases. A license to practice law is a guarantee by the courts to
withdraw the privilege. the public that the licensee possesses sufficient skill, knowledge and
diligence to manage their cases. The legal profession demands from a
lawyer the vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family.Rule
PARINAS vs PAGUINTO 18.01 of the Code is clear. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service that
he is not qualified to render. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer
FACTS: shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. He has the
duty to prepare for trial with diligence and deliberate speed. Rule 18.03 of
the Code also provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit
entrusted to him and his negligence shall render him liable.Atty. Oscar P. or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by
Paguinto is GUILTY of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. his client.
Accordingly, the court penalizes Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto with SUSPENSION
for SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law. Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property
coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted
for promptly and should not under any circumstances be commingled with
SALOMON, JR. v. ATTY. FRIAL his own or be used by him.

Facts: Very patently, Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of taking good care of
A writ of preliminary attachment was issued in favour of Lucy Lo, the client the attached cars. He also allowed the use of the Nissan Sentra car by
of Atty. Frial, over two cars – a black 1995 Volvo and a green 1993 Nissan persons who had no business using it. He did not inform the court or at least
Sentra. According to Atty. Salomon, the attaching sheriff of Manila, instead the sheriff of the destruction of the Volvo car. What is worse is that he took
of depositing the attached cars in the court premises, turned them over to custody of them without so much as informing the court, let alone securing,
Atty. Frial. its authority.
The Nissan Sentra was spotted being used by unauthorized individuals on
several occasions. As for the Volvo, Atty. Salomon averred that during The Court, nevertheless, is not inclined to impose, as complainant urges, the
mediation, Atty. Frial deliberately withheld information as to its ultimate penalty of disbarment. The rule is that disbarment is meted out
whereabouts. As it turned out later, the Volvo was totally destroyed by fire, only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
but the court was not immediately put on notice of this development. moral character of a lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found in its Report that while there is bar. Thus, the Court found that a year’s suspension from the practice of his
perhaps no direct evidence tying up Atty. Frial with the use of the Nissan legal profession will provide him with enough time to ponder on and
Sentra, the unyielding fact remains that it was being used by other persons cleanse himself of his misconduct
during the time he was supposed to have custody of it. As for the Volvo,
Atty. Frials could not explain the circumstances behind its destruction, but DEL ROSARIO vs. MILLADO (January 31, 1969)
admitted not reporting the burning to the court or sheriff. Thus, the
Commission concluded that Atty. Frial committed acts clearly bearing on his FACTS:
integrity as a lawyer, adding that he failed to observe the diligence required Complainant, Florentino B. del Rosario seeks the disbarment of
of him as custodian of the cars. The Commission recommended that Atty. respondent, Attorney Eugenio Millado, upon the ground that the latter had
Frial be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year. committed malpractice, in violation of Article 1491 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines and Canon No. 10 of the Canons of Legal Ethics, by acquiring an
Issue: interest in the land involved in a litigation in which he had taken part by
Is Atty. Frial guilty of grave misconduct in dealing with the 2 cars belonging reason of his profession; that said interest was adverse to that of his client
to Luco Lo? in the aforementioned litigation; and that he filed therein pleadings
containing allegations which were inconsistent with those made in another
Ruling: pleading subsequently filed by him in the same proceedings, as well as false.
YES, Atty. Frial is guilty of grave misconduct arising from his violation of In his answer to these charges, respondent alleged that his interest in said
Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics that states: land had been acquired before he intervened in said proceedings, as
11. Dealing with trust property counsel for one of the parties therein; that his client therein was aware of
his aforementioned interest; that there is no conflict between the same and
that of his client; and that there is neither a false allegation of facts in the Philippines. It through this business hat he came to know and ask for legal
pleadings alluded to in the complaint herein nor any inconsistency between advice from respondent.
said pleadings.
Respondent advised that complainant cannot own real estate in the
ISSUE: Philippines since she is an alien, thus the remedy is to put up a corporation,
Whether or not an interest acquired before counsel intervened in and this corporation will be the one who will acquire the land. Three
litigation is a included in the prohibition mentioned in Article 1491 corporations then were created. Through the instance of respondent and
financed by complainants, several lots were purchased. However,
RULING: complainant was unaware that the transactions [sale of several lands] she
The provisions of the Civil Code and of the Canons of Legal Ethics, prohibit had entered into were all bogus, since the sellers were not the real owners
the purchase by lawyers of any interest in the subject matter of the of the land. This fact was known to the respondent since he is the one who
litigation in which they participated by reason of their profession, and arranged the transactions.
complainant herein has not established a violation of such injunction.
Issue:
The records show that respondent's alleged interest in said lots was Whether or not respondent is guilty of dishonesty, hence violating the
acquired before he intervened as counsel for Mrs. Pascual in the ejectment Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility.
cases against her and that said interest is not necessarily inconsistent with
that of his aforementioned client, aside from the fact that he had made no Ruling:
substantial misrepresentation in the pleadings filed by him in said cases. Yes, the commissioner who investigated the case of respondent [result of
This fact and the absence of said conflict are made more manifest by the the investigation was adopted by the Supreme Court] found respondent to
circumstance that the charges under consideration have been preferred, have committed fraudulent acts which constitute violations of the lawyer’s
not by Mrs. Pascual, but by her opponent in one of the ejectment cases oath and numerous provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
above mentioned. Finding no merit in the complaint herein, the same is, (CPR). He engaged in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct when he
accordingly, DISMISSED. offered properties for sale to complainant on the misrepresentation that
complainant was dealing with the true owners thereof.

REDDI v SEBRIO The court found that respondent’s dishonest and deceitful conduct with
respect to the intended transactions, real property acquisitions which
Facts: turned out to be bogus, is sufficiently established.
Complainant Tanu Reddi, an American citizen of Indian descent and a
practicing endodontist [dentist] in New York, seeks the disbarment of Explained the court, "to reiterate, by his own admission, respondent
respondent Atty. Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. for allegedly deceiving her into received a total of US$544,828 from complainant, which he could not
giving him a total of US $ 3,000,000 for the purpose of, among other things, properly account for. The orchestrated manner in which he carried out his
purchasing several real estate properties for resale. fraudulent scheme, in connivance with other persons, and by taking
advantage of complainant’s naivete in the workings of the real estate
Inspired by the charitable works of her parents, complainant decided to business in the Philippines, depict a man whose character falls way, way
build a hospital in the Philippines. However she needed more revenue to short of the exacting standards required of him as a member of the bar and
finance the said undertaking. Through the advice of her assistant an officer of the court. Thus, respondent is no longer fit to remain as such.
Immaculada Luistro, complainant ventured into the real estate in the
The court in admonition reiterates that if the practice of law, however, is to
remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in A complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in against the respondent was filed after the respondent failed to refund the
their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good initial payments made. The request for refund was due to the failure of the
moral character is, in fact, of much greater import, as far as the general respondent to present all the documents for the cases against Amar the
public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning." complainant has demanded. October 15, 2004, IBP Director for Bar
Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan ordered respondent to submit his answer to
WHEREFORE, respondent Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. is DISBARRED, and his the complaint. Respondent did not file an answer despite receipt of the
name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is ORDERED TO order. Mandatory conferences were set on March 3, March 30, April 14 of
RETURN to complainant the amount of US$544,828. 2005 but respondent failed to appear. On April 14, 2005 conference, only
complainant appeared despite respondent’s receipt of the notice. The
BARCENAS v. ALVERO, AC#8159, 4/23/10 – Commission on Bar Discipline considered the case submitted for resolution.

Facts: ISSUE:
Respondent received P300k from Complainant to be used to redeem the Whether or not respondent violated Canons 16, 18, and 19 of the Code of
latter’s rights as tenant of a ricefield. Respondent told Complainant that he Professional Responsibility and is subject for disbarment.
would deposit the money in court because the creditor refused to accept it.
Later, Complainant found out that Respondent was losing a lot in cockfights HELD:
and no judicial deposit was made. Complainant demanded for the return of Yes. The Report considered complainant’s evidence sufficient to find
his money but Respondent failed to comply. respondent guilty of violating Canons 16, 18, and 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Code provides that a lawyer shall serve his
Held: client with competence and diligence. The Code states that a lawyer shall
Supreme Court suspended Respondent. When a lawyer received money keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
from the client for a particular purpose, he is bound to render an accounting reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
to the client showing that the money was spent for that purpose. If he does
not use the money for the intended purpose, he must promptly return the IBP Commissioner Reyes recommended the imposition on respondent of a
money to his client. penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years and that
respondent be ordered to return complainant’s P80,000. The court
sustained the findings and recommendations of the IBP.
SMALL v. ATTY. BANARES
ARELLANO UNIVERSITY, INC. v. ATTY. LEOVIGILDO MIJARES III
FACTS:
Melvin Small sought for the services of Atty. Jerry Banares on August of Facts:
2001 in connection with several complaints against a certain Lyneth Amar. Respondent was disbarred for failing to turn over certain papers which he
P20,000 as acceptance fee was made. Complainant gave another P60,000 supposedly secured for Complainant after the latter had paid him P500k to
payment as filing fee on September of 2001. Respondent then informed Respondent as facilitation and processing expenses for the titling of a
complainant that he shall be preparing documents for the cases they are to certain property.
file. Complainant made several inquiry on the status of the cases but
respondent repeatedly told complainant to wait as respondent was still Held:
preparing the documents.
Supreme Court held that, “every lawyer has the responsibility to protect and The Court concurs with the IBP’s findings except as to its recommended
advance his client’s interest such that he must promptly account for penalty and its directive to return the amount of P2,500,000.00, with legal
whatever money or property his client may have entrusted to him”. A interest, to complainants. the complainants and incurring the same
lawyer’s conversion of funds entrusted to him is a gross violation of obligation.
professional ethics.
Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is prohibited from
SPS CONCEPCION v. DELA ROSA borrowing money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected:
Facts: CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
This is an administrative case that stemmed from a Verified Complaint filed clients that may come into his possession.
by complainants Spouses Henry A. Concepcion (Henry) and Blesilda S.
Concepcion (Blesilda; collectively complainants) against respondent Atty. Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the
Elmer A. dela Rosa (respondent), charging him with gross misconduct for client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by
violating, among others, Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except,
Responsibility (CPR). Complainants alleged that from 1997 until August when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
2008, respondent served as their retained lawyer and counsel. In this legal matter he is handling for the client.”
capacity, respondent handled many of their cases and was consulted on
various legal matters, among others, the prospect of opening a pawnshop The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a
business towards the end of 2005. Said business, however, failed to lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true
materialize. Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from as any natural tendency goes, this “trust and confidence” is prone to abuse.
their failed business venture, respondent, on March 23, 2006, called Henry The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended
to borrow money. The checks were personally encashed by respondent. to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client.
Demanded the return of payment but failed to do so. Respondent denied
borrowing P2,500,000.00 from complainants, insisting that Nault was the The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to
real debtor.18 He also claimed that complainants had been attempting to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation. A lawyer’s act of
collect from Nault and that he was engaged for that specific purpose. asking a client for a loan, as what respondent did, is very unethical. It comes
within those acts considered as abuse of client’s confidence. The canon
In fine, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP concluded that presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all
respondent’s actions degraded the integrity of the legal profession and the legal maneuverings to renege on her obligation.
clearly violated Rule 16.04 and Canons 7 and 16 of the CPR. Respondent’s
failure to appear during the mandatory conferences further showed his
disrespect to the IBP-CBD. Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner IGUAL v. JAVIER
recommended that respondent be disbarred and that he be ordered to
return the P2,500,000.00 to complainants, with stipulated interest. FACTS:
That very night, when Atty. Javier offered to collaborate in the appealed
Issue: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for case because Atty. Javier through sweet talk and pretense of influence to
violating the CPR. several justices of the Court of Appeals x x x that he could be of great help in
expediting the speedy disposition of the case complainant gave respondent
Held: P10,000.00 which money he intended to buy a refrigerator with.
Complainant alleged that he gave the money with the understanding that
the money is for safekeeping and as proof, according to him, x x x promising Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating the Code of professional
to return my money should my mother and her lawyer Atty. Ibadlit disagree Responsibility?
in his collaborating in the case - covered by receipt which provides:
Received the amount of P 10,000.00 Pesos from Mr. Giovani M. Igual as HELD:
Legal Fees and Filing Fees . April 1, 1991 signed by respondent Atty. Rolando We are in agreement with Commissioner Roxas findings and conclusions, as
S. Javier. -approved by the IBP Board of Governors. In addition, we note that
respondent not only unjustifiably refused to return the complainants money
Respondent thus entered his formal appearance as collaborating counsel. upon demand, but he stubbornly persisted in clinging to what was not his
Then complainant wrote respondent stating that he is demanding P7,000.00 and to which he absolutely had no right. Such lack of delicadeza and
balance since P3,000.00 had already been refunded by respondent. absence of integrity was further highlighted by respondents half-baked
excuses, hoary pretenses and blatant lies in his testimony before the IBP
Instead of filing an Answer, respondent filed an Affidavit, alleging that: he Committee on Bar Discipline represented by Commissioner Roxas. The sad
gave back the P3,000.00 not as a settlement because complainant said his thing is, he was not fooling anyone at all. He only ended up making a fool of
child was hospitalized and gravely ill and that the reason why complainant himself in the process.
wanted a refund of the remaining P7,000.00 is because it is not the fault of
the affiant if Giovani M. Igual had quarreled with his mother or his brother SOLIMAN v. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY
or his sister as to the reimbursement or sharing of the Legal Fees - because A.C. No. 10568, January 13, 2015
the truth was that Igual wanted to secure double or bigger reimbursement.
Complainant denied the allegation of respondent in a Reply-Affidavit. Facts:
Marilen (Soliman) engaged the services of Atty. Ditas (Lerios-Amboy) in
Respondent presented a certified xerox copy of the Decision dated March connection with a partition case. They both agreed that Ditas’ retainer fee
19, 1991 in Civil Case No. 2188 and LRC 215, Regional Trial Court of Aklan, will be P50,000.00, one half of which was paid to Ditas upon engagement.
Province. Later, Ditas told her not to proceed anymore with the partition since the
other co-owners were amenable to a partition, hence Ditas facilitated the
Respondents declared purpose in the Formal Offer of Evidence was to show issuance of the titles to the co-owners.
that Atty. Rolando S. Javier had accepted the appealed cases and had
obtained pertinent records or pleadings to work on it. Ditas later told her that there were some delays in the issuance of the titles
and she knows someone from the Registry of Deeds who can facilitate the
From the evidence, however, the decision is dated February 25, 1991 and issuance of the titles, in return for a payment of P80,000.00. After some
the March 19, 1991 is the date of the RTCs Order stating that the appeal had haggling, Ditas told Marilen that contact at the RD agreed to accept
been perfected. P50,000.00, which Marilen deposited in Ditas’ account.

Complainant testified that he went back on April 3, 1991, to claim back the Ditas informed her that the certificates of title were just awaiting signatures
P 10,000.00 given last April 1, 1991. Respondent also reimbursed the of the authorised officer.
P3,000.00 two (2) months after.
After some delay, Ditas’ secretary again asked for P10,000.00, allegedly
Respondent testified that he entered as collaborating counsel only and was demanded by her contact at the RD. Marilen refused. Marilen kept asking
promised P20,000.00 if he wins the case about the updates to the titling, but Ditas did not respond to her queries.
She then went to the office of Atty. Marasigan, the Deputy RD of Manila, to
ISSUE: ask him if he received the P50,000.00, but the latter denied receiving any
money from Ditas, and told her the reason the issuance of the certificates of that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client upon
title were delayed was the failure of Ditas to submit certain documents. demand. It is settled that the unjustified withholding of money belonging to
a client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.
Marilen thus demanded the return of the documents she entrusted to Ditas,
as well as the P50,000.00 but the latter refused. “A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf
of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same
In her defense, Ditas admitted the existence of the retainer agreement, but for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act
denied receiving any amount from the agreement. She denied failing to is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It
submit certain documents to the RD causing the delay in the issuance of the impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.”
titles; as well as denied receipt of the P50,000.00.
The respondent lawyer, Atty. Ditas Lerios-Amboy is found GUILTY of
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that Ditas be suspended violating Rule 16.03, Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the
from the practice of law for six months. The IBP Board modified the penalty Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the
recommended to two years suspension. practice of law for a period of two (2) years. She is also ordered to return to
Soliman the entire amount of P50,000.00, plus legal interest thereon,
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Lerios-Amboy is guilty of violating the Code of reckoned from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
Professional Responsibility by being negligent and incompetent in dealing
with a client. RAMOS v ATTY. MANDAGAN
A.C. No. 11128, April 06, 2016
Ruling: YES.
The circumstances of this case clearly show that Atty. Amboy failed to Facts: Ramos alleged that Atty. Mandagan demanded from him the amount
submit material documents relative to the issuance of separate certificates of P300,000.00 in connection with the criminal case filed against him for
of title to the individual owners of the property. It was her negligence which murder before the Sandiganbayan. According to Ramos, the amount shall
caused the delay in the issuance of the certificates of title. be used as bail bond in the event that his petition for bail in the said
criminal case is granted. Also, Atty. Mandagan collected an additional
To make matters worse, Atty. Amboy abetted the commission of an illegal amount of ₱10,000.00) for operating expenses. In both instances, an
act when she asked from Soliman the amount of P50,000.00 to be paid to Acknowledgment Receipt was issued in his favor as proof of payment.
her “contact” inside the office of the RD in order to facilitate the release of
the said certificates of title. Contrary to the assurance, however, of Atty. Mandagan, Ramos’ petition for
bail was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, Atty. Mandagan
Further, notwithstanding the payment of P50,000.00, Atty. Amboy still withdrew as his counsel without returning the amount of ₱300,000.00
failed to obtain issuance of the said certificates of title. Instead of procuring despite the demand sent by Ramos’ counsel.
the release of the certificates of title as she promised, Atty. Amboy asked
for an additional P10,000.00 from Soliman. Issue: WON Atty. Mandangan violated the CPR?

The Court finds improper the refusal of Atty. Amboy to return the amount Ruling: YES
of P50,000.00 which she paid in order to facilitate the release of the Clearly, Atty. Mandagan failed to act in accordance with the rule stated in
certificates of title. In not returning the money to Soliman after a demand Canon 16 of the CPR, to wit:
therefor was made, Atty. Amboy violated Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 16.03 thereof, which requires
Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client 2002; and that as a junior associate, he only received appearance fees in
that may come into his possession. attending to complainant's civil case. Respondent lawyer specifically denied
that he received an acceptance fee of P20,000.00.
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the code?

Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when Ruling: YES
due or upon demand.
Atty. Mandagan’s failure to make an accounting or to return the money to The Court finds respondent lawyer guilty of professional misconduct and of
Ramos is a violation of the trust reposed on her. As a lawyer, Atty. violating Canons 1, 16, and 18 of the CPR.
Mandagan should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to
her in her professional capacity because the CPR exacts a high degree of Respondent lawyer claims that as a mere associate, "he has NO
fidelity and trust from members of the bar. participation whatsoever regarding the fees the complainant is giving to the
office." But, as pointed out by Commissioner Cachapero, respondent lawyer
Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan is GUILTY of violating Canon 16, Rule himself admitted that he received "P7,000.00 for the docket fees and the
16.01 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and rest was paid as advance fees for his services and the usual visitation done
SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year [by] him at the hospital." Because of this admission, it can be concluded that
effective. respondent lawyer received fees "for his services" from the complainant
himself.

Further bolstering the fact that respondent lawyer did in fact receive fees
MALANGAS V ATTY. ZAIDE for his professional services are complainant's demand letters asking
AC#10675, May 31, 2016 respondent lawyer to return the amount of P20,000.00 acceptance fee and
to account for the docket fees paid to the RTC of Iligan City. To these,
Facts: Complainant accused respondent lawyer of committing acts of respondent lawyer merely replied that he "was made to understand that
dishonesty, breach of trust and violation of the canons of Judicial Ethics in the 'docket fee' in Alfeche case is part of [respondent's] claims" without
relation to the complaint for damages that he filed against one Paul Alfeche denying that he had received such amount. The complainant was thus
when he figured in an accident for which he incurred expenses worth 1.5 constrained to conduct his own investigation against his own lawyer, in the
million in hospital bills and major operation. course of which he discovered that of the F50,000.00 alleged filing fees that
he gave respondent lawyer, only P2,623.60 was paid by respondent lawyer
Complainant sought the service of respondent to prosecute his complaint to the RTC.
for damages and give him P20,000 as acceptance fee and P50,000 as filing
fee in order to commence a 5 Million damage suit caused by the accident Respondent lawyer's former law partners belied his claim that he did not
but respondent failed to prosecute the complaint due to his failure to receive the amounts paid by the complainant. They averred that "the
attend 2 hearings and submit a motion for reconsideration which resulted payment made by complainant to Atty. Zaide belongs to him exclusively…”
to dismissal of the case. And that only P250,000 was the amount filed by
respondent and not 5Million as agreed. Respondent lawyer's refusal to account for the funds given to him,
especially his refusal to return the amount paid in excess of what was
Respondent lawyer claimed that complainant was in fact a client of the required as docket fees, clearly violated Rules 16,01 and 16.03 of the CPR,
Zaragoza-Macabangkit Law Offices, a law firm that he joined way back in to wit:
 Complainant refused to recognize the complaint for annulment of title filed
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or by Atty. Abitria and claimed that she had no knowledge of Atty. Abitria's
received for or from the client. engagement as counsel. Besides, the complaint was filed 3 years late and
the property could no longer be redeemed from the bank. Also, the
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when complainant discovered that the respondent had been suspended
due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may indefinitely from the practice of law which the complainant suspected was
apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and the reason another lawyer, and not the respondent, filed the complaint for
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also annulment of title in court.
have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has
secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court. Issue: WON Atty. Ricafort should be held administratively liable?

"The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of Ruling: YES.
fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers
because of their fiduciary relationship."Any lawyer who does not live up to We find the respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct in his dealings with his
this duty must be prepared to take the consequences of his waywardness. client and in engaging in the practice of law while under indefinite
suspension, and thus impose upon him the ultimate penalty of
DISBARMENT.
LLUNAR V ATTY. RICAFORT
AC#6484 June 16, 2015 The respondent failed to return, upon demand, the amounts given to him
by the complainant for handling the latter's case. On three separate
Facts: Llunar engaged the services of Atty. Ricafort for the recovery of a occasions, the respondent received from the complainant the amounts of
parcel of land allegedly owned by the Banez family but was fraudulently P19,000.00, P70,000.00, and P6,500.00 for purposes of redeeming the
registered to a different name. mortgaged property from the bank and filing the necessary civil cases. The
complainant approached the respondent several times thereafter to follow
The respondent received from the complainant the following amounts: (a) up on the case/s to be filed supposedly by the respondent who, in turn,
P70,000.00 as partial payment of the redemption price of the property; (b) reassured her that actions on her case had been taken.
P19,000.00 to cover the filing fees; and (c) P6,500.00 as attorney's fees.
After the complainant discovered three years later that the respondent had
Three years later, no case involving the subject property was ever filed by not filed any case in court, she demanded that the respondent return the
the respondent. Thus, she demanded that the respondent return to her the amount of P95,000.00, but her demand was left unheeded. The respondent
amount of P95,000.00. later promised to pay her, but until now, no payment of any amount has
been made. These facts confirm that the respondent violated Canon 16 of
The respondent refused to return the whole amount of P95,000.00. He the CPR, which mandates every lawyer to "hold in trust all moneys and
argued that a complaint for annulment of title had actually been filed in properties of his client that may come into his possession" and to "account
court, though not by him, but by another lawyer, Atty. Abitria. Thus, he was for all money or property collected or received for or from the client."
willing to return only what was left of the P95,000.00 after deducting
therefrom the P50,000.00 that he paid to Atty. Abitria as acceptance fee for In addition, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds or property
handling the case. he holds for his client gives rise to the presumption that he has
appropriated these funds or property for his own use to the prejudice of,
and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.

Obviously, his unfulfilled promise to facilitate the redemption of the jewelry
YU V ATTY. DELA CRUZ and his act of issuing a worthless check constitute grave violations of the
AC#10912, January 19, 2016 CPR and the lawyer's oath. These shortcomings on his part have seriously
breached the highly fiduciary relationship between lawyers and clients.
Facts: Respondent lawyer agreed to represent Paulina T. Yu (complainant)
in several cases after having received various amounts as acceptance fees. The court, however, reduced the punishment from Disbarment to
Suspension from the practice of law for THREE YEARS with a STERN
While the lawyer-client relationship was subsisting, respondent lawyer WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with
borrowed pieces of jewery from complainant and pledged the same with more severely.
the Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. for the amount of P29, 945.50. Respondent
lawyer appropriated the proceeds of the pledge to his personal use. In order
to facilitate the redemption of the said jewelry, respondent lawyer issued to
complainant bank checks in the amount of P34, 500.00. The check was ISALOS V ATTY. CRISTAL
dishonored for the reason, "Account Closed." Complainant immediately AC#11822, November, 22, 2017
notified respondent lawyer of the dishonor of the check.
Facts: Complainant alleged that she is the Director and Treasurer of a
Demand letters were given by the complainant for the refund of the corporation and Respondent was their Corporate Secretary and Legal
acceptance fees received by respondent lawyer prior to the "abandonment" Counsel who handled its incorporation and registration with the SEC.
of the cases and the payment of the value of the jewelry, but to no avail.
And for his failure to heed the repeated demands, a criminal case for Respondent recommended the purchase of a resort in Laguna, with the
violation of BP22 was filed with against him. assurances that the title covering the property was "clean" and the taxes
were fully paid. Relying on respondent's recommendation, they agreed to
The Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of acquire the property and completed the payment of the purchase price.
respondent lawyer from the practice of law. Respondent lawyer was found
to have violated Rule 16.04 of the CPR which proscribed the borrowing of Respondent volunteered and was entrusted to facilitate the transfer and
money from a client, unless the latter's interests were fully protected by the registration of the title. Complainant personally handed the sum of 1.2M to
nature of the case or by independent advice. respondent at her office.

Issue: WON respondent violated the CPR? More than a year thereafter, however, no title was transferred the
company’s name. It was then discovered that the title covering the property
Ruling: YES is a Free Patent, rendering any sale or transfer thereof within a period of 5
years from issuance of the title null and void. Thus, formal demand was
In the case at bench, the complaint stemmed from the use by respondent made upon respondent to return the 1.2M entrusted to her for the
lawyer of his client's property. He had, indeed, come into possession of expenses which remained unheeded, prompting the company to file a
valuable pieces of jewelry which he presented as security in a contract of criminal complaint for Estafa as well as the present case for disbarment.
pledge. Complainant voluntarily and willingly delivered her jewelry worth
P135, 000.00 to respondent lawyer who meant to borrow it and pawn it In defense, respondent claimed that she paid the BIR registration, Mayor's
thereafter. This act alone shows respondent lawyer's blatant disregard of Permit, business licenses, documentation, and other expenses using the
Rule 16.04. money entrusted to her, and that she was ready to turn over the balance in
the amount of P885,068.00. However, the company refused to receive the Thus, and as the CBD-IBP had aptly opined, there was no longer any reason
said amount, insisting that the entire 1.2M should be returned. for respondent to retain the money. Furthermore, the expenditures
Moreover, she pointed out that the criminal case for Estafa filed against her enumerated in the Statement, except for the documentation and
had already been dismissed for lack of probable cause. As such, she prayed notarization fees for which no receipts were attached, do not relate to the
that the disbarment case against her be likewise dismissed for lack of merit. purposes for which the money was given, i.e., the documentation and
registration of the subject property. As such, even if official receipts had
Issue: WON grounds exist to hold respondent administratively liable? been duly attached for the other purposes which, the Court notes,
respondent failed to do despite the opportunity given - the expenditures are
Ruling: YES not legitimate ones. Hence, the Court finds respondent to have violated the
above-cited rules, to the detriment and prejudice of complainant.
The CPR, particularly Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, provides:
Respondent Atty.Cristal is found guilty of violation of Rules 16.01 and 16.03,
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND Canon 16 of the CPR. Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. law for a period of 1 year, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
RULE 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
TANGCAY V ATTY. CABARROGUIS
RULE 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when AC#11821, APRIL 2, 2018
due or upon demand.
Facts: Tangcay averred in his complaint that:
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for the (1) he inherited a parcel of land from his father and the same was registered
processing of transfer of land title, but not used for the purpose, should be in his name (subject property);
immediately returned. A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds (2) one Emilia S. Solicar filed a Petition for Probate of a purported Last and
held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has Will Testament of his late father (probate case);
appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed to (3) he engaged the legal services of Atty. Cabarroguis to defend and
him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality, as well as represent him in the probate case;
of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession (4) while handling the case, Atty. Cabarroguis learned, that the subject
and deserves punishment. property was mortgaged with the First Davao Lending Corporation (lending
corporation) for P100,000.00;
In this case, it is indubitable that respondent received the amount of P1.2M. (5) Atty. Cabarroguis then offered him a loan of P200,000,00 with an
Respondent claimed that she had spent a portion of it for various expenses, interest lower than, what the lending corporation imposed;
such as documentation, permits, and licenses, among others, as evidenced (6) he accepted the same and signed the real estate mortgage unaware of
by the Statement of Expenses with attached receipts. However, it has been the illegality and impropriety of a lawyer lending money to a client; and
established that the registration of the property could not have (7) when he defaulted in payment, Atty. Cabarroguis instituted a Judicial
materialized, as the subject property was covered by a Free Patent which, Foreclosure of the real estate mortgage.
consequently, bars it from being sold, assigned, or transferred within a
period of 5 years therefrom. In compliance with the Order of IBP-CBD, Atty. Cabarroguis filed, his Answer
and essentially claimed that, despite his generosity and liberality in the
collection of his professional legal fees, he was still not fully paid for the
cases he won for Tangcay. The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer's independence of mind so that
the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to
Issue: WON Atty. Cabarroguis should be held administratively liable? ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his entire
devotion and fidelity to the client's cause. If the lawyer lends money to the
Ruling: YES client in connection with the client's case, the lawyer in effect acquires an
interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its
Quite clearly, Atty. Cabarroguis violated the prohibition against lawyers outcome. Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his
lending money to their clients. own recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement which
may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in
Pertinent to the case at bar is Canon 16 of the Code of Professional violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the client's cause.
Responsibility (CPR) which states:
The law profession is distinguished from any other calling by the fiduciary
CANON 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his duty of a lawyer to his or her client. It is almost trite to say that lawyers are
client that may come into his possession. strictly required to maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the
fidelity, honesty and integrity of their profession. "Lawyers who obtain an
And Rule 16.04 thereof which mandates that: interest in the subject-matter of litigation create a conflict-of-interest
situation with their clients and thereby directly violate his fiduciary duties
A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's interests they owe their clients.
are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Neither shall a lawyer lead money to a client except, when in the interest Atty. Cabarroguis is suspended for 3 months.
of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is
handling for the client. (Emphasis ours)
SAGOVIA, et al V ATTY. JAVIER
There is hardly any doubt or dispute that Atty. Cabarroguis did lend money AC#10244, March 12, 2018
to his client, Tangcay, this fact being evidenced by a real estate mortgage
which the latter signed and executed in favor of the former. Facts: Complainants alleged that they engaged the services of respondent
as their counsel in a case involving falsification of documents and recovery
In fact, Commissioner Adriano noted that "[r]espondent did not deny the of property. During the existence of attorney-client relationship, respondent
existence of the mortgage in his favor. His answer did not directly touch on asked the complainants the amount of P30,000.00 as filing fee, which they
the propriety of his act of extending the loan to Tangcay, a client." have dutifully paid. Complainants discovered that respondent also
demanded from one Riza Rizabal Tesalona the amount of P27,000.00 in
In Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino this Court explained why the lending of connection with the case. Whenever they followed-up on the case, they
money by a lawyer to his client is frowned upon, viz.: always received a response from respondent to not worry as he would tile
the case within the week, and an assurance that the case will be resolved in
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only their favor. However, respondent never filed the case.
exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary
expenses (such as filing fees, stenographer's fees for transcript of Issue: WON the lawyer violated the CPR?
stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a
matter that he is handling for the client. Ruling: YES
The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) states: CANON 17

CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession. TAHAW V ATTY. VITAN
AC#6441, October 21, 2004
RULE 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand. Facts: Victoria Tahaw (Tahaw), the complainant, secured the services of
respondent Atty. Jeremias Vitan (Vitan) for filing appropriate action for a
In the instant case, it was undisputed that respondent failed to tile the case partition of a real property delivering to respondent checks amounting to
of falsification of public documents and recovery of property in favor of P30,000.00.
complainants despite receiving the money in connection with the said case.
Respondent's inaction despite repeated follow-ups and his promise that the Upon verification to check if a case has been filed for and in her behalf, she
case will be resolved in complainants' favor demonstrated his cavalier was issued a certification by the Clerk of Court that no such case was filed
attitude and appalling indifference to his clients' cause. prompting Tahaw to write the respondent informing him that she was
terminating his services as counsel and demanded the refund of the
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the P30,000.00 to which Vitan failed to return prompting to file a complaint of
lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the disbarment or suspension with IBP.
money was spent for the intended purpose. Conversely, if the lawyer does
not use the money for the intended purpose, he must immediately return Issue: WON respondent has been remiss in his duties?
the money to the client.
Ruling: YES
We note that while complainants allege that respondent specifically
received P57,000.00 for filing fees, only the amount of P30,000.00 was He is found guilty of violation of Canons 7 and 17 of the CPR for his failure to
supported by evidence. Since respondent failed to render any legal service file the necessary pleading for his client’s case and for the failure to return
to complainants for failing to file the said case, he should have promptly and immediately deliver the funds of his client advanced for the purpose of
accounted for and returned the money to complainants. filing the said case, upon demand, and even after his commitment with the
IBP to do so.
Respondent's failure to return the money to complainants despite failure to
use the same for the intended purpose is conduct indicative of lack of Canon 17 of the CPR provides: “A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
integrity and propriety and a violation of the trust reposed on him. His client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”
unjustified withholding of money belonging to the complainants warrants
the imposition of disciplinary action. The trust and confidence of clients require in a lawyer a high standard and
appreciation of his duty to them. Nothing should be done by any member of
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Javier GUILTY of violation of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence
the CPR Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
one (1) year. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. The respondent was suspended for six months with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same and similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.


MANALANG V ATTY. ANGELES concerned. A client has every right to expect from his counsel that nothing
AC#1558, March 10, 2003 will be taken or withheld from him, save by the rules of law validly applied.

Facts: Manalang and Cirillo alleged that they were the complainants in a By compromising the judgment without the consent of his clients,
case for overtime and separation pay filed against their employer, the respondent not only went against the stream of judicial dicta, he also
Philippine Racing Club Restaurant, before the NLRC Region IV Office. exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the interest of his clients as well as
Respondent was their counsel. Judgment was rendered in their favor, in the want of zeal in the maintenance and defense of their rights. In so doing, he
amount of P6,500. After the decision became final, a writ of execution violated Canon 17 of the CPR.
issued. However, without authority from his clients, respondent Further, his act of holding on to his clients money without their
compromised the award and was able to collect P5,500 only. acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. He was
clinging to something which was not his, and to which he had no right. He
Complainants said they made several demands upon respondent to turn appears oblivious of the admonition that a member of the legal fraternity
over to them the amount collected minus the agreed upon attorneys fees of should refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and
30%, but Atty. Angeles refused and offered to give them only the sum of confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of
P2,650. the legal profession.

In his answer, respondent stated that he offered to give complainants their He is suspended for 6 months.
money, but they insisted that he deduct from this attorneys fees the
amount of P2,000, representing the amount discounted by the counsel of
the Philippine Racing Club Restaurant, together with sheriff legal fees and GENATO V ATTY. SILAPAN
other administrative expenses. Respondent claimed that to accept AC#4078, July 14, 2003
complainant’s proposition meant that he would not be compensated for
prosecuting and handling the case. Facts: Respondent is the lawyer of the complainant in some of the latter’s
cases. Respondent borrowed P200,000.00 from complainant which he
Issue: WON the lawyer should be suspended for grave misconduct related intended to use as down payment for the purchase of a new car. In return,
to his clients’ funds? respondent issued to complainant a postdated check to answer for the six
(6) months interest on the loan. The document of sale of the car was issued
Ruling: YES in complainant’s name and financed through City Trust Company.

There is no dispute that complainants were awarded P6,500.00. Of this Subsequently, respondent failed to pay the amortization on the car and the
amount, 30% or P1,950 was agreed to be paid as attorneys fees. In other financing firm sent demand letters to complainant. Complainant tried to
words, complainants were to receive from respondent the net sum of encash respondents postdated check but it was dishonored as respondents
P4,550 or P2,275 each. Alleging difficulties in collecting the full amount account therein was already closed.
awarded, respondent compromised the award on execution and collected
only P5,500 from the losing party. This compromise was allegedly without Respondent failed to heed complainants repeated demands for payment.
authority from his clients. Complainant then filed a criminal case against respondent for violation of
BP 22 and a civil case for judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
Money claims due to workers cannot, as a rule, be the object of settlement
or compromise effected by counsel without the consent of the workers In the foreclosure case, respondent made the following allegation in his
Answer:
 It must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of
“4. That complainant is a businessman who is engaged in the real estate confidential communications or information is limited only to
business, trading and buy and sell of deficiency taxed imported cars, shark communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a
loans and other shady deals and has many cases pending in court;” lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in
contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. If the unlawful purpose
He further alleged that the complainant wanted him to offer bribe money to is avowed, as in this case, the complainants alleged intention to bribe
the members of the review committee of the DOJ where a petition for government officials in relation to his case, the communication is not
review of the resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor was pending at the covered by the privilege as the client does not consult the lawyer
time, x x x or, in the event that the said petition for review is denied, he professionally. It is not within the profession of a lawyer to advise a client as
wanted him to offer bribe money to the prosecutor and even to the to how he may commit a crime as a lawyer is not a gun for hire. Thus, the
presiding Judge, for his eventual acquittal, which he all refused to do not attorney-client privilege does not attach, there being no professional
only because such acts are immoral and illegal, but also because the employment in the strict sense.
complainant confided to him that he was really involved in the commission
of the crime that was charged of in the cases. Be that as it may, respondent’s explanation that it was necessary for him to
make the disclosures in his pleadings fails to satisfy us. The disclosures were
Complainant gripes that the foregoing allegations are false, immaterial to not indispensable to protect his rights as they were not pertinent to the
the foreclosure case and maliciously designed to defame him. He charged foreclosure case. It was improper for the respondent to use it against the
that in making such allegations, respondent is guilty of breaking their complainant in the foreclosure case as it was not the subject matter of
confidential lawyer-client relationship and should be held administratively litigation therein and respondent’s professional competence and legal
liable therefor. Consequently, he filed this complaint for disbarment, advice were not being attacked in said case. A lawyer must conduct himself,
praying also that an administrative sanction be meted against respondent especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner that is
for his issuance of a bouncing check. beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients should be characterized
by the highest degree of good faith and fairness.
Issue: Whether respondent committed a breach of trust and confidence by
imputing to complainant illegal practices and disclosing complainants Thus, the Court agrees with the evaluation of the IBP and finds that
alleged intention to bribe government officials in connection with a pending respondents allegations and disclosures in the foreclosure case amount to a
case? breach of fidelity sufficient to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction
against him.
Ruling: YES
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty. Essex L. Silapan is ordered suspended
owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is that an attorney is
not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his professional 1. Paces Industrial Corp vs Atyy. Salandan
character by a client, unless the latter consents. This obligation to preserve
the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their Facts:
relationship. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not
cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party’s This is a complaint which Paces Industrial Corporation (Paces) filed against
ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other its former lawyer, Atty. Edgardo M. Salandanan, for allegedly committing
change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client. malpractice and/or gross misconduct when he represented conflicting
interests. Salandanan became a stockholder of Paces, and later became its
Director, Treasurer, Administrative Officer, Vice-President for Finance, then grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. Throughout the course of a
its counsel. As lawyer for Paces, he appeared for it in several cases such as lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the
in Sisenando Malveda, et al. v. Paces Corporation (NLRC R-04 Case No. 11- client's case, including the weak and strong points of the case. Knowledge
3114-73) and Land & Housing Development Corporation v. Paces and information gathered in the course of the relationship must be treated
Corporation (Civil Case No. 18791). In the latter case, Salandanan failed to as sacred and guarded with care. It behooves lawyers, not only to keep
file the Answer, after filing a Motion for a Bill of Particulars, which the court inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
had denied. As a result, an order of default was issued against Paces. treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to
Salandanan never withdrew his appearance in the case nor notified Paces to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in
get the services of another lawyer. Subsequently, a decision was rendered the administration of justice. The nature of that relationship is, therefore,
against Paces which later became final and executory. one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.

Salandanan started handling the case between E.E. Black Ltd. and Paces, but In the absence of the express consent from Paces after full disclosure to it of
now, representing E.E. Black Ltd. Salandanan then filed a complaint with the conflict of interest, Salandanan should have either outrightly declined
application for preliminary attachment against Paces for the collection of its representing and entering his appearance as counsel for E.E. Black Ltd., or
obligation to E.E. Black Ltd. advised E.E. Black Ltd. to simply engage the services of another lawyer.
Unfortunately, he did neither, and must necessarily suffer the dire

consequences.
Thus, Paces filed a complaint against Salandanan. It argued that when he
acted as counsel for E.E. Black Ltd., he represented conflicting interests and 2. Chang vs Atty. Hidalgo
utilized, to the full extent, all the information he had acquired as its
Facts:
stockholder, officer, and lawyer.
Complainant Helen Chang filed this administrative complaint before the
Issue:
office of the Bar Confident on November 7, 2005. Chang prayed that this
WON Salandanan represented conflicting interests court discipline respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo for being remiss in his
duties as her counsel and as an officer of the court. She claimed that Atty.
Ruling: Hidalgo failed to “handle cases to the best if his ability and to deal with in all
honesty and candor.” Chang alleged that she engaged the services of Atty.
Court agrees with the IBP's finding that Salandanan represented conflicting
Hidalgo as legal counsel to represent her in several collection cases pending
interests and, perforce, must be held administratively liable for the same.
in various courts. Pursuant to the contract they executed, Chang issued five
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned to prevent situations (5) checks in favor of Atty. Hidalgo did not attend any of the hearings in the
wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly collection cases and, instead, sent another lawyer without her consent. The
adverse to any of his present or former clients. In the same way, a lawyer other lawyer failed to attend all hearings, which resulted in the dismissal of
may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a the cases. Chang prayed that Atty. Hidalgo be administratively disciplined by
substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client this Court. The Commission on Bar Discipline received a handwritten and
only if the former client consents to it after consultation. The rule is unverified comment from Atty. Hidalgo. In his comment, Atty. Hidalgo
admitted that Chang retained him as counsel but countered that he exercise the necessary diligent and competence in managing cases
attended the hearings. He denied allowing another lawyer to appear on his entrusted. They commit not only to review cases or give legal advice, but
behalf. Although he denied writing his appearance fee, he claimed that he also to represent their clients to the best of their ability without need to be
did not received “such a sum from Chang mainly because of the length of reminded by either the client or the court. In Nonato vs Fudolin, Jr. A
time passed.” Atty. Hidalgo insisted that due to the “transigient and lawyer is bound to protect his client’s interests to the best of his ability and
uncooperative” attitude of Chang, he decided that he “could no longer with utmost diligence. He should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent
perform adequately” He reasoned that he could not put up an effective and efficient manner, and provide the quality of service at least equal from
defense due to his illness and his impoverished state. He prayed that a competent lawyer in a similar situation. By consenting to be his client, a
administrative case against him to dismissed. lawyer impliedly represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that
reasonable degree care and skill demanded by his profession and hi client
Issue: may reasonable expect him to perform his obligations diligently. The failure
WON Hidalgo is administratively liable to meet these standards warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.

Held:

3. De leon vs Atty. Geronimo

Respondent’s acts constitute violations of Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In Layos vs Villanueva this Facts:
court reiterated that a “lawyer must constantly keep in mind that his
actions, omissions, or nonfeasance would be binding upon his client. Due to This case stemmed from a Complaint1 dated July 10, 2012 filed by
respondent’s withdrawal as complainant’s counsel for the cases, he did not complainant Geronimo J. Jimeno, Jr. (complainant) before the Integrated
anymore attend any of the hearings. Since the withdrawal was without the Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), seeking the
conformity of complainant, new counsel was not engaged. This necessarily suspension/disbarment of respondent Arty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno
resulted in the summary dismissal of the collection cases as alleged by the (respondent) for alleged: (a) unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful
complaint. Due to respondent’s withdrawal as complaint’s counsel for the conduct, specifically, by falsifying a public document, in violation of Rule
cases, he did not anymore attend any of the hearings. This necessarily 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR); and (b)
resulted in the summary dismissal of the collection cases as alleged by the violation of her duty to preserve her client's confidences in violation of Rule
complainant. Complainant could have obtained the services of another 21.01, Canon 21 of the CPR.
lawyer to represent her and handle her cases with the utmost zeal and
Complainant claimed to have discovered that respondent, who is his cousin,
diligence expected from officers of the court. However respondent simply
sold the property of his parents, the late Spouses Geronimo P. Jimeno, Sr.
opted to withdraw from the cases without complying with the requirements
(Geronimo Sr.) and Perla de Jesus Jimeno (Perla; collectively, Spouses
under the Rules of Court and in complete disregard of his obligations
Jimeno) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-52411, through
towards his client.
a Deed of Absolute Sale3dated September 8, 2005 (subject deed) executed
In Ramirez vs Buhayang-Margallo, “the relationship between a lawyer and a by respondent as attorney-in-fact of Geronimo Sr.4 He claimed that the
client is imbued with utmost trust and confidence”. Lawyers are expected to subject deed was falsified. Complainant likewise alleged that respondent
mentioned "so many unnecessary and un-called for matters like [his] father
having allegedly (sic) illegitimate children" when his lawyer requested for That respondent had no hand in the preparation of the documents of sale is
copies of the titles and other documents respecting the properties covered of no moment because as a lawyer, she is expected to respect and abide by
by the SPA, in violation of her duty to keep in confidence whatever the laws and the legal processes.30 To say that lawyers must at all times
informations were revealed to her by the late Geronimo Sr. in the course of uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, but such statement can
their professional relationship (lawyer-client privilege). never be overemphasized. Considering that, of all classes and professions,
lawyers are most sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is imperative that
Issue: they live by the law.
WON respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts
complained of.
4. UCPB vs Atty. Noel
Ruling:
Facts:
Yes. All told, respondent is found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule
1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Complainant retained the legal services of respondent in a case for
CPR by allowing herself to become a party to the subject deed which injunction and damages with writ of preliminary injunction and prayer for
contained falsehood and/or inaccuracies. The Court finds itself in complete temporary restraining order (LMWD case) filed by Leyte Metro Water
agreement with Director Esguerra's finding that respondent's acts in District (LMWD) before the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte. Respondent,
relation to the subject SPA and the subject deed constitute blatant on behalf of complainant, attended the hearing in connection with the
transgressions of her duties as a lawyer, as ordained by Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 LMWD case. During the said hearing, respondent promised to file a
of the CPR, which engraves an overriding prohibition against any form of comment on the application for preliminary injunction within ten (10) days.
misconduct.29 Additionally, the Court finds that respondent fell short of her Respondent failed to file the promised comment. Respondent also failed to
duty to impress upon her client compliance with the pertinent laws in file an answer to the complaint. Hence, complainant filed herein complaint
relation to the subject transaction. In this case, while seemingly aware of for disbarment against respondent.
the demise of Perla that rendered the Malindang property a co-owned
Issue:
property of Geronimo Sr. and the Jimeno children, instead of advising the
latter to settle the estate of Perla to enable the proper registration of the WON respondent committed culpable negligence in failing to file an answer
property in their names preliminary to the sale to Aquino, she voluntarily on behalf of complainant in the LMWD case for which reason complainant
signed the subject deed, as attorney-in-fact of Geronimo Sr., despite the was declared in default
patent irregularities in its execution. These irregularities are: (a) the fact
that it bore the signature of Perla, who was already deceased; (b) the Ruling:
erroneous description of Geronimo Sr. as married to Perla despite the
Yes. Canon 17 of the Code provides that “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause
latter's demise and as being the absolute owner in fee simple of the
of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
Malindang property which is a co-owned property; and (c) the erroneous
him.”28 Canon 18, in turn, imposes upon a lawyer the duty to serve his client
statement of Geronimo Sr.'s residence and postal address.
with competence and diligence.29Further, Rule 18.03, Canon 18 expressly
states that “[a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and demanding that the P3 50,000.00 they paid her be refunded in full within
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” In the five (5) days from receipt of the letter. In a Certification dated 07 November
instant case, it is uncontested that respondent failed to file an answer on 2012 (Annex "F"), the Philpost of Dasmariñas, Cavite, attested that
behalf of complainant in the LMWD case. As a result, complainant was complainants' letter was received by respondent on 01 October 2012. No
declared in default. When the matter of default was referred to respondent refund was made by respondent.
by complainant, he assured it that he would take care of it. He, however, did
Issue:
not do anything, hence, LMWD was allowed to present evidence ex
parte and judgment was rendered in its favor. Again, complainant referred WON respondent should be disbarred.
the adverse judgment to respondent. Once more, he assured it that he
would take care of the matter. He failed to do so. Thus, the adverse Ruling:
judgment rendered on the basis of ex parte evidence was enforced and
No. While indeed respondent's condemnable acts ought to merit the
executed against complainant.
penalty of disbarment, we cannot disbar her anew, for in this jurisdiction we
The Court is of the view that respondent’s conduct constitutes inexcusable do not impose double disbarment.
negligence. He grossly neglected his duty as counsel to the extreme
Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court provides the penalties of disbarment
detriment of his client. He willingly and knowingly allowed the default order
and suspension as follows:
to attain finality and he allowed judgment to be rendered against his client

on the basis of ex parte evidence. He also willingly and knowingly allowed
said judgment to become final and executory. He failed to assert any of the Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
defenses and remedies available to his client under the applicable laws. This therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
constitutes inexcusable negligence warranting an exercise by this Court of from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
its power to discipline him. malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
5. Punla vs Atty. Ona
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
Facts: required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
A disbarment cases filed by complainants alleged that they got to know
or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
respondent lawyer sometime in January 2012 when they requested her to
authority so to do x x x.
notarize a Deed of Sale; that subsequently, they broached the idea to
respondent that they intend (sic) to file two (2) annulment cases and they Here, there is no question as to respondent's guilt. It is clear from the
wanted respondent to represent them; On the commitment of respondent records that respondent violated her lawyer's oath and code of conduct
that she will (sic) finish the cases in six (6) months, complainants followed when she withheld from complainants the amount of P350,000.00 given to
up their cases in September 2012 or about 6 months from their last her, despite her failure to render the necessary legal services, and after
payment in March 2012. They were ignored by respondent. On 25 complainants demanded its return.
September 2012, complainants sent a letter (Annex "E") to respondent It cannot be stressed enough that once a lawyer takes up the cause of a
client, that lawyer is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence and Yes. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reminds lawyers
zeal, especially when he/she accepts it for a fee. The lawyer owes fidelity to that they owe fidelity to the cause of their client. Inextricably linked to this
such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed duty is Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 which impresses upon lawyers not to neglect
upon him/her.Moreover, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the a legal matter entrusted to them. In Camara v. Reyes (Camara), we
monies he/she holds for his/her client gives rise to the presumption that reiterated that the duty of fidelity and the obligation not to neglect a legal
he/she has appropriated the said monies for his/her own use, to the matter entrusted by the client mean nothing short of entire devotion to the
prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in him/her by his/her client. client's genuine interest and warm zeal in the defense of his or her rights.
Lawyers must exert their best efforts to preserve their clients' cause.
6. Bondoc vs Atty. Datu
Unwavering loyalty displayed to a client also serves the ends of justice.
Facts: Hence, in Camara, where the respondent Atty. Reyes, after receiving his
attorney's fees, took no steps to protect his client's interest, we found him
Bondoc claims that sometime in November 2006, he consulted Datu liable under Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 and suspended him for a period of six
regarding a civil case for damages that he intended to file against a certain months.
John Paul Metcado (Mercado). Bondoc disclosed to Datu that he figured in a
vehicular accident caused by Mercado. Because of his injuries, Bondoc had The court finds that Datu fell short of the fidelity and diligence that he owed
to be hospitalized and was forced to spend P100,000 in medical expenses. his client Bondoc. Datu failed to protect Bondoc's interest by: (1) not acting
Mercado attempted to settle the matter with him but he was paid the small on the complaint he promised to file on behalf of Bondoc; (2) acting on the
sum of P30,000. Bondoc thus sought to hire Datu to file a civil case for matter only after 18 months and after Bondoc's persistent inquiries; and (3)
damages. Datu assured Bondoc that given the facts, he had a strong case. by believing Mercado's alleged payment to Bondoc without as much as
Bondoc and Datu then agreed that Datu will handle the filing of the case. He demanding any proof of this payment. Rather than securing Bondoc's
then regularly followed up on the progress of the case. However, Datu interest, Datu chose to side with Mercado. This is not the kind of
persistently told him to give the court more time. When Bondoc inquired unwavering loyalty and diligence that is expected of members of the legal
with the trial court in San Fernando City, he was informed that no civil suit profession.
for damages was filed against Mercado in his behalf. Bondoc then asked
Datu about the status of the case without disclosing that he had already Cabiles v Cedo
inquired with the court. However, notwithstanding the several months that
Facts:
had passed, Datu still took no steps to file the civil case. Because of this,
Bondoc demanded the return of the P25,000 which he paid. Datu, however, Complainant Elibena Cabiles filed an administrative complaint before the
refused. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment of Atty.
Leandro Cedo for neglecting the two cases she referred to him to handle.
Issue:
Cabiles, engaged the services of respondent lawyer to handle an illegal
WON Datu breached his obligation under Code of Professional dismissal case. Respondent lawyer was paid Php5,500.00 for drafting
Responsibility therein respondents' position paper and Php2,000.00 per appearance in the
NLRC hearings. During the hearing only Danilo Ligbos, the complainant
Ruling: therein, showed up. According to Cabiles, respondent lawyer misled
them by claiming that it was Da nilo who was absent during the said legal education for IBP members as an additional requirement to enable
hearing. Moreover Cabiles claimed that respondent lawyer failed to indicate them to practice law. This is to ensure that they keep abreast with law
his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance in the and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the st
position paper and in the memorandum of appeal that he prepared. Cabiles andards of the practice of law. Non-compliance with the MCLE requirement
presented a certification issued on June 29, 2010 by the MCLE Office that subjects the lawyer to be listed as a delinquent IBP member.
respondent lawyer had not at all complied with the first, second, and third In Arnado v. Adaza, the Court administratively sanctioned therein
compliance periods of the(MCLE) respondent lawyer for his non-compliance with four MCLE Compliance
requirement. Anent the second case, Cabiles claimed that, despite payment periods, in accordance with Section 12(d) of the MCLE Implementing
of his professional fees, respondentlawyer did not exert any effort to Regulations, even if therein respondent attended an MCLE Program covered
seasonably file her Complaint for unjust vexation before the City by the Fourth Compliance Period, his attendance therein would only cover
Prosecutor's Office; that the Office of the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa City his deficiency for the First Compliance Period, and he was still considered
dismissed her Complaint for unjust vexation on the ground of prescription. delinquent and had to make up for the other compliance periods.
Respondent lawyer did not refute Cabiles’ claim that he failed to indicate his
MCLE compliance in theposition paper and in the memorandum of appeal. In the present case, respondent lawyer failed to indicate in the pleadings
filed in the said labor case the number and date of issue of his MCLE
The IBP’s investigating commissioner found respondent lawyer guilty of
Certificate of Compliance for the Third Compliance Period, i.e., from April
having violated Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended his suspension for two years. Aside from 15, 2007 to April 14, 2010, considering that NLRC case had been pending in
2009. In fact, upon checking with the MCLE Office, Cabiles discovered that
respondent lawyer's failure to comply with the MCLE requirements, the
respondent lawyer had failed to comply with the three MCLE compliance
Investigating Commissioner also found him grossly negligent in representing
his clients, particularly (1) in failing to appear in the NLRC hearing, and file periods. For this reason, there is no doubt that respondent lawyer violated
Canon 5.
the necessary responsive pleading; (2) in failing to advise and assist his
clients who had no knowledge of, or were not familiar with, the NLRC rules 7. Gonzales vs Atty. Santos
of procedure, in filing their appeal and; 3) in failing to file seasonably the
unjust vexation complaint before the city prosecutor's office, Facts:
inconsequence of which it was overtaken by prescription. The IBP Board of
Complainant bought a parcel of land in Tumaga, Zamboanga City. As she
Governors reduced the suspension to one year.
was then living in Quezon City, complainant appointed her sister, Josephine
Issue: Gonzales (Josephine), to act as her representative in matters concerning
said property. Josephine thereafter engaged the services of respondent to:
Whether or not Atty. Cedo violated Canon 5 of the CPR when he failed to (1) register the title in complainant's name; and (2) commence an ejectment
indicate his MCLE compliance in the pleadings? suit against the occupants of the property. Complainant then entrusted the
owner's duplicate copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) to
Ruling:
respondent for its cancellation. On August 2, 2007, a new title was issued in
The Court found Atty. Cedo guilty of having violated Canon 5 of the CPR and complainant's name. This, however, was never surrendered to Josephine,
recommended his one suspension. Bar Matter 850 mandates continuing despite her efforts to claim it. Later, complainant discovered that her
property had been mortgaged to A88 Credit Corporation by one Norena F. 8. EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR.,
Bagui (Norena), who turned out to be respondent's relative. It appears that respondent
Norena used a forged special power of attorney to effect said mortgage.
Facts:
Complainant learned that respondent never filed an ejectment case against
the occupants of her property despite receipt of the corresponding filing Complainant, Eduardo Maglente, as President of “Samahan ng mga
fees. Maralitang Taga Ma. Corazon III, Incorporated” (Samahan), alleged that he
engaged the services of respondent, Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, for the purpose
Issue:
of filing a case in order to determine the true owner of the land being
WON respondent guilty of abusing his client's trust and confidence. occupied by the members of Samahan. In connection therewith, he gave
respondent the aggregate amount of P48,000.00 intended to cover the
Ruling: filing fees for the action to be instituted, as evidenced by a written
acknowledgment executed by respondent himself. Despite the payment,
Yes. Canon 17 of the CPR directs a lawyer to be mindful of the trust and
respondent failed to file an action in court. When confronted, respondent
confidence reposed in him.
explained that the money given to him was not enough to fully pay for the
In the present case, it is uncontested that respondent received an additional filing fees in court. Thus, complainant asked for the return of the money,
P20,000.00 from complainant. Respondent, however, denied that it is but respondent claimed to have spent the same and even demanded more
payment for the filing of an ejectment suit against the occupants of money. Complainant further alleged that when the persisted in seeking
complainant's property. Nonetheless, he does not proffer any reason to restitution of the aforesaid sum, respondent told him to shut up because it
explain why such amount was given him. As this is a "he said, she said" was not his money in the first place. Hence, complainant filed this
scenario, we find complainant's version more logical and convincing. We administrative complaint seeking the return of the full amount he had paid
agree with the IBP that it is incredible for respondent to receive an to respondent.
additional P20,000.00 without a clear reason for its payment. As
ISSUE
complainant stated, respondent received P20,000.00 through his ATM
account on June 20, 2007 for the ejectment case and even acknowledged its WON the respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts
receipt on June 22, 2007. 18 We find it more likely that the amount of complained of
P20,000.00 was for a given purpose, that is, to file an ejectment suit.
Ruling:
Respondent violated his client's trust when he received said amount despite
knowing that he could not file the ejectment suit because some of the Yes. Atty. Agcaoili is found GUILTY of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of
occupants of complainant's property are his friends. Indeed, he was not able Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR. Accordingly, he is hereby
to file the case but without informing complainant of his reasons. SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1)year, effective
upon his receipt of the SC Decision, with a STERNWARNING that a repetition
of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. He was also
Canon 18
ordered to return to complainant Eduardo A. Maglente the amount of
P48,000.00 he received from the latter within ninety (90) days from the
finality of this Decision. It must be stressed that once a lawyer takes up the WON Atty Baterina liable for gross negligence in his duty as counsel to his
cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, client
and to attend to such client’s cause with diligence, care, and devotion,
Ruling
whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause
and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. The Court adopts the IBP’s report and recommendation, with modification
Therefore, a lawyer’s neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client as to the
constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held penalty.The Code of Professional Responsibility governing the conduct of la
administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR. The wyers states.
lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the
money was spent for the intended purpose when a lawyer receives money CANON 18- A LAWYER SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
from the client for a particular purpose. Consequently, if the money was not DILIGENCE
used accordingly, the same must be immediately returned to the client. A
RULE 18.03- A LAWYERSHALL NOT NEGLECT A LEGAL MATTER ENTRUSTED
lawyer’s failure to return the money to his client despite numerous
TO HIM , AND HIS NEGLIGIENCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITHSHALL RENDER
demands is a violation of the trust reposed on him andis indicative of his
HIM LIABLE.
lack of integrity, as in this case.

9. JOSELITO F. TEJANO vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA

RULE 18.04- A LAWYER SHALL KEEP THE CLEINT INFORMED OF THE STATUS
OF HIS CASE AND SHALL RESPOND WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME TO THE
Facts: CLIENT’S REQUEST INFORMATION.

Joselito F. Tejano filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the Office of the Court When a lawyer agrees up a client’s cause, he makes a commitment to
Administrator exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Once a lawyer’s
of the Supreme Court against his counsel, Atty. Baterina "miserably failed to services are engaged, “ he is duty bound to serve his client’s cause with
advance his cause”, and Judge Dominador Arquelada of acting in diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or
conspiracy to take possession of his for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the
property, which was the subject matter of litigation in the judge’s court. The trust and confidence reposed on him. A lawyer’s acceptance to take up a
Court required Atty. Baterina to file a Comment on the complaint to which case “impliedly stipulates that he will carry it to its termination, that is, until
he explained that he had been recuperating from a kidney transplant then the case becomes final and executory.”.
he received a copy of the complaint. The Court, found Atty. Baterina’s
explanation "not satisfactory and admonished him "to be more heedful of
the Courts directives” and referred the case to the IBP for investigation, 10. Nebreja vs Atty. Reonal
report and recommendation, which found sufficient ground for disciplinary
action against Atty.Baterina. Facts:

Issue This is an administrative complaint for disbarment1 filed by Ma. Elena Carlos
Nebreja (complainant) against Atty. Benjamin Reonal (respondent) for his
failure to file the contracted petition for annulment of marriage in her Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for
behalf; for his misrepresentation on its status; and for his use of a fictitious the rule on negligence and states:
office address. Complainant filed a verified Complaint-Affidavit before the
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBP) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
against respondent. Complainant alleged in her complaint-affidavit and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
position paper that sometime in March 2004, she engaged respondent's This Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere
services to file her petition for annulment. After paying respondent, failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is
however, complainant did not receive any word from him with regard to the considered per se a violation.Thus, a lawyer was held to be negligent when
status of her petition for annulment other than his claim that they needed he failed to do anything to protect his client's interest after receiving his
to wait for her appointment with the psychologist evaluation. acceptance fee. In another case, this Court has penalized a lawyer for failing
to inform the client of the status of the case, among other matters. In
Respondent denied having been engaged by complainant to handle her
petition for annulment and having been paid therefor. In particular, another instance, for failure to take the appropriate actions in connection
with his client's case, the lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for
respondent averred that complainant did not engage him to be her lawyer
a period of six months and was required to render accounting of all the
because she was unemployed and could not afford his legal services; that he
was the retained counsel of one Desiree Dee, complainant’s associate, in sums he received from his client.
the prosecution of labor, civil and criminal cases, but not for her annulment; AGOT VS ATTY. RIVERA
that in the preparation of the affidavit for the University of Perpetual Help,
he did not mention her intention to pursue an annulment proceeding FACTS:
against her husband upon her request; and that no psychological test was
conducted because she refused to allocate time to accommodate the Chamelyn A. Agot claimed that she was invited as maid of honor
in her best friend’s wedding at the United States of America. To
schedule of the clinical psychologist.
facilitate the issuance of her United States (US) visa, Agot sought
Issue: the services of Atty. Luis Rivera who represented himself as an
immigration lawyer. Agot paid Atty. Riverathe amount of
WON respondent failed to file the requisite petition for annulment for P350,000.00 as downpayment and agreed to to pay the balance
complainant and misrepresented its status. of P350,000.00 after the issuance of the US visa. However, Atty.
Rivera failed to perform his undertaking within the agreed
Ruling: period. Worse, Agot was not even scheduled for interview in the
US Embassy. It was later found that Atty. Rivera did not
Yes. Despite the engagement of his services, respondent did not file the specialize in immigration law but merely had a contact with a
contracted petition. His conduct, as held in Vda. De Enriquez v. San purportedly US consul who was supposed to process the US visa
applications for him. Failure to refund the downpayment, Agot
Jose, amounted to inexcusable negligence. This was found to be contrary to
filed a criminal complaint for estafa and the instant
the mandate prescribed in Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional administrative complaint against Atty. Rivera.
Responsibility, which enjoined a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him.
ISSUE: Did Atty. Rivera violate the Code of Professional Responsibility for of a US visa in favor of complainant Agot was an inexcusable
mispresenting himself as an immigration lawyer? negligence for which he must be held administratively liable.

RULING:

Yes, Atty. Rivera was found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of TAN VS ATTY. DIAMANTE
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Facts:
Deception is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and
On April 2, 2003, complainant, claiming to be a recognized illegitimate son
dishonorable to the legal profession but also revealing a basic
of the late Luis Tan, secured the services of respondent in order to pursue a
moral flaw that makes a person unfit to practice law.
case for partition of property against the heirs of the late spouses Luis and

Natividad Valencia-Tan.[2] After accepting the engagement, respondent
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
filed the corresponding complaint[3] before the Regional Trial Court of
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
Bacolod City, Branch 46 (RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 03-11947. The
LEGAL PROCESSES.
complaint was eventually dismissed by the RTC in an

Order[4] dated July 25, 2007 for lack of cause of action and insufficiency of
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, evidence.[5] While respondent was notified of such dismissal as early as
immoral or deceitful conduct. August 14, 2007,[6] complainant learned of the same only on
August 24, 2007 when he visited the former's office.[7] On such occasion,
respondent allegedly asked for the amount of P10,000.00 for the payment
As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a of appeal fees and other costs, but since complainant could not produce the
high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, said amount at that time,... respondent, instead, asked and was given the
integrity, and fair dealing. Undoubtedly, respondent’s deception amount of P500.00 purportedly as payment of the reservation fee for the
is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the filing of a notice of appeal before the RTC. On September 12, 2007, Tan
legal profession but also revealing a basic moral flaw that makes handed the amount of P10,000.00 to respondent, who on even date,... filed
him unfit to practice law. a notice of appeal[9] before the RTC.

It was then that he discovered that the November 9, 2007 Order was
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND spurious, as certified by the RTC's Clerk of Court.
DILIGENCE Complainant also found out that, contrary to the representations of
respondent, his appeal had long been dismissed. Aggrieved, he filed the
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted instant administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent.
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable. respondent alleged that it was complainant's failure to timely produce the
amount of P1,400.00 to pay for the appeal fees that resulted in the late
Also, respondent Atty. Rivera’s failure to perform his obligations filing of his appeal. According to him, he informed... complainant of the
under the Contract, which is to facilitate and secure the issuance lapse of the reglementary period to appeal, but the latter insisted in
pursuing the same. He also claimed to have assisted complainant "not for
money or malice" but being a desperate litigant, he was blamed for the and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise
court's unfavorable decision. in such matters of professional employment.
In a Report and Recommendation dated September 21, 2010, the Integrated Worse, respondent attempted to conceal the dismissal of complainant's
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found respondent appeal by fabricating the November 9, 2007 Order which purportedly
administratively liable, and accordingly recommended that the penalty of required a DNA testing to make it appear that complainant's appeal had
suspension for a period of one (1)... year be meted out against him.[ been given due course, when in truth, the same had long been denied. In...
so doing, respondent engaged in an unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful
Issues:
conduct that caused undue prejudice and unnecessary expenses on the part
whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for of complainant. Accordingly, respondent clearly violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1
violating the CPR. of the CPR, which provides:
Ruling: CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
the Court concurs with the IBP's findings, subject to the modification of the and promote respect for law and legal processes.
recommended penalty to be imposed upon respondent. Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
Under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, it is the lawyer's duty to keep his deceitful conduct.
client constantly updated on the developments of his case as it is crucial in As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high
maintaining the latter's confidence, to wit: standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of fair dealing, failing in which whether in his personal or private capacity, he
whatever important information he may have acquired affecting his client's becomes unworthy to... continue his practice of law. A lawyer's inexcusable
case. He should notify his client of any adverse decision to enable his client neglect to serve his client's interests with utmost diligence and competence
to decide whether to seek an appellate... review thereof. Keeping the client as well as his engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct in order
informed of the developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding to conceal such neglect should never be... countenanced, and thus,
and loss of trust and confidence in the attorney. The lawyer should not administratively sanctioned.
leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the client's In view of the foregoing, respondent's conduct of employing a crooked and
interests.[22] In this connection, the lawyer must constantly keep in mind deceitful scheme to keep complainant in the dark and conceal his case's
that his actions, omissions, or nonfeasance would be binding upon his true status through the use of a falsified court order evidently constitutes
client. Concomitantly, the lawyer is expected to be acquainted with the Gross Misconduct. His acts... should not just be deemed as unacceptable
rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a client who deals... with him has practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral
the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and flaw that makes him unfit to practice law
competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to the client's cause.
However, in cases where lawyers engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and
In the case at bar, records reveal that as of August 14, 2007, respondent deceitful conduct by falsifying documents, the Court found them guilty of
already knew of the dismissal of complainant's partition case before the Gross Misconduct and disbarred them. In Brennisen v. Contawi,] the Court
RTC. Despite this fact, he never bothered to inform complainant of such disbarred the lawyer who... falsified a special power of attorney in order to
dismissal as the latter only knew of the same on August 24,... 2007 when he mortgage and sell his client's property. Also, in Embido v. Pe, the penalty of
visited the former's office. To add insult to injury, respondent was disbarment was meted out against the lawyer who falsified an inexistent
inexcusably negligent in filing complainant's appeal only on September 12, court decision for a fee
2007, or way beyond the reglementary period therefor, thus resulting in its
As already discussed, respondent committed acts of falsification in order to
outright dismissal. Clearly, respondent failed... to exercise such skill, care,
misrepresent to his client, i.e., complainant, that he still had an available
remedy in his case, when in reality, his case had long been dismissed for
failure to timely file an appeal, thus,... causing undue prejudice to the latter. This is to certify that on March 31, 2006 a
To the Court, respondent's acts are so reprehensible, and his violations of resolution rendered in the above-entitled
the CPR are so flagrant, exhibiting his moral unfitness and inability to case was filed in this Office, the dispositive
discharge his duties as a member of the bar. His actions erode rather than portion of which reads as follows:
enhance the... public perception of the legal profession. Therefore, in view
of the totality of his violations, as well as the damage and prejudice caused
to his client, respondent deserves the ultimate punishment of disbarment. WHEREFORE, the appeal in this case is
deemed ABANDONED and DISMISSED on

authority of Sec. 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1996

Rules of Civil Procedure.
CABAUATAN VS ATTY. VENIDA


FACTS:
SO ORDERED.

and that the same has on April 23, 2006 become final and
This is a Disbarment case filed by Complainant against
executor[y] and is hereby recorded in the Book of Entries of
Respondent for gross, reckless and inexcusable
Judgments. x x x"
negligence. Complainant alleged that she was the appellant in CA-

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

Memorandum."
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
Complainant made several follow-ups on her case until she lost
lost contact with him.
contact with the Respondent.

The fact that the Entry of Judgment issued by the Court of Appeals

that stated "x x x deemed ABANDONED and DISMISSED x x x,"
Complainant alleged the gross, reckless and inexcusable
including the fact that he was not one of the parties furnished with
negligence of the Respondent [which she] was able to prove with
a copy of the Entry of Judgment proved the inaction and negligence
the Entry of Judgment (attached as Annex "C" of her Position Paper,
of the Respondent.
and as Annex "D" of her Complaint) issued by the Honorable Court

of Appeals quoted hereunder.
Respondent did [furnish] Complainant x x x a copy of "Appearance
as Counsel/Dismissal of the Previous Counsel and a Motion for
"x x x
Extension of time to File a Memorandum," however, no further
actions were [made] by the Respondent to protect [the] rights and Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants
interest of his client. that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's
rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and
ISSUE: WON the respondent is guilty for violation of the CPR attention expected of a good father of a family makes the
lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client
HELD: YES. and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to
the legal profession, the courts and society. x x x
The Code of Professional Responsibility pertinently provides:
Canon 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed Complainant also established that she made several follow-ups with the
on him. respondent but the latter merely ignored her or made her believe that he
was diligently handling her case. Thus, complainant was surprised when she
received a notice from the Court of Appeals informing her that her appeal
Canon 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence had been abandoned and her case dismissed. The dismissal had become
and diligence. final and executory. This is a clear violation of Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to keep their
clients informed of the status of their case and shall respond within a
x x x x reasonable time to the clients' request for information.

Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter In addition, we concur with the findings of the IBP that respondent is guilty
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection of disregarding its notices and orders. Respondent did not heed the IBP's
therewith shall render him liable. Order to file his Answer. He also disregarded the IBP's directives for him to
attend the mandatory conference. Moreover, he did not submit his Position
Paper despite receipt of notice. Respondent's refusal to obey the orders of
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the the IBP "is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer,
time to the client's request for information. 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." Respondent should be reminded that -
It is beyond dispute that complainant engaged the services of respondent to
handle her case which was then on appeal before the Court of As an officer of the court, [he] is expected to know that a
Appeals. However, respondent merely showed to complainant the draft of resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order
the pleading "Appearance as Counsel/Dismissal of the Previous Counsel and which should be complied with promptly and
a Motion for Extension of time to File a Memorandum" but failed to file the completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the
same before the appellate court. Plainly, respondent had been remiss and investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases
negligent in handling the case of his client; he neglected the legal matter against lawyers.
entrusted to him by the complainant and he is liable therefor.

 Respondent should strive harder to live up to his duties of BUENO VS ATTY. RANESES
observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts,
respect for law and for legal processes, and of upholding FACTS:
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession in order to In her complaint,Bueno related that she hired Atty. Rañeses to represent
perfom his responsibilities as a lawyer effectively. her Case. In consideration for his services, Bueno paid Atty. Rañeses a
retainer fee of P3,000.00. She also agreed to pay him P300.00 for every
hearing he attended. No receipt was issued for the retainer fee paid.
SEGOVIA-RIBOYA VS ATTY. LAWSIN Atty. Rañeses prepared and filed an answer in her behalf. He also attended
hearings. On several occasions, Atty. Rañeses would either be absent or
Facts: late.
Azucena Segovia-Ribaya and Atty. Bartolome Lawsin entered into a Bueno alleged that on November 14, 1988, Atty. Rañeses asked for
retainership agreement for the processing of registration and delivery of the P10,000.00. This amount would allegedly be divided between him and Judge
certificate of title over a certain parcel of land. Respondent acted as the Nidea, the judge hearing Civil Case No. 777, so that they would not lose the
representative of Heirs of the late Isabel Segovia and received P15,000 for case. Atty. Rañeses told Bueno not to tell anyone about the matter. She
litigation and P39,000 for land registration expenses. In the lapse of 3 years, immediately sold a pig and a refrigerator to raise the demanded amount,
it was alleged that respondent failed to fulfill his undertaking to register the and gave it to Atty. Rañeses. According to Bueno, Atty. Rañeses asked for
subject land and deliver to complainant the certificate of the title over the another P5,000.00 sometime in December 1988, because the amount she
same. Complainant decided to withdraw the subject amount and sent 2 had previously given was inadequate. Bueno then sold her sala set and
demand letters but all to no avail. Respondent asserted that the colored television to raise the demanded amount, which she again delivered
complainant’s brother, Erlindo, asked to be reimbursed the amount of to Atty. Rañeses.
P7,500.00 which the latter purportedly paid to the land surveyor. He also Bueno later discovered that the trial court had required Atty. Rañeses to
found out that he could not perform his undertaking under the retainer comment on the adverse party’s offer of evidence and to submit their
because the ownership of the subject land was still under litigation. He also memorandum on the case, but Atty. Rañeses failed to comply with the
wanted to return the balance of the subject amount but it was prevented court’s directive. According to Bueno, Atty. Rañeses concealed this
because the complainant shouted and called him names in the presence of development from her. In fact, she was shocked when a court sheriff arrived
his staff in his office. sometime in May 1991 to execute the decision against them.
Bueno went to Atty. Rañeses’ office to ask him about what happened to the
Issue: Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively case. Atty. Rañeses told her that he had not received any decision. Bueno
liable for violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code. later discovered from court records that Atty. Rañeses actually received a
copy of the decision on December 3, 1990. When she confronted Atty.
Held: Rañeses about her discovery and showed him a court-issued certification,
The Supreme Court affirms with the findings of IBP that respondent is Atty. Rañeses simply denied any knowledge of the decision.
administratively liable but extends IBP’s recommendation from 6 months to On October 10, 2000, the IBP-CBD received a "Time Motion and Request for
a year of suspension due to his failure to comply with Rules 18.03 and Copies of the Complaint and Supporting Papers" (dated September 30,
18.04, Canon 18 of the Code. Respondent did not only accomplish his 2000) filed by Atty. Rañeses. Atty. Rañeses asked in his motion that the
undertaking under the retainer, but likewise failed to give an explanation for hearing on October 2, 2000 be reset to sometime in December 2000, as he
such non-performance despite the length of time given for him to do so. had prior commitments on the scheduled day. He also asked for copies of
the complaint and of the supporting papers, claiming that he had not been
furnished with these. In the interest of substantial justice, Commissioner
Gonzaga scheduled a clarificatory hearing on November 16, 2000
Atty. Rañeses failed to attend the hearing on November 16, 2000. In the
same hearing, Commissioner Gonzaga noted that the registry return card
refuted Atty. Rañeses’ claim that he did not receive a copy of the complaint. TRINIDAD VS ATTY. VILLARIN
Commissioner Gonzaga scheduled another clarificatory hearing on January
17, 2001. He stated that if Atty. Rañeses failed to appear, the case would be Facts
deemed submitted for resolution after the complainant submits her
memorandum. The instant case stemmed from a Complaint for specific performance filed
Atty. Rañeses did not attend the January 17, 2001 hearing. On the same day, with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) by the buyers of
Commissioner Gonzaga declared the case deemed submitted for resolution the lots in Don Jose Zavalla Subdivision against the subdivision's owner and
after the complainant’s submission of her memorandum developer- Purence Realty Corporation and Roberto Bassig. The HLURB
ordered the owner and the developer to deliver the Deeds of Sale and the
Issue: WON Atty. Raneses violated the CPR Transfer Certificates of Title to the winning litigants.
The Decision did not show any directive for the buyers to vacate the
Held: Yes. property. Purence Realty and Roberto Bassig did not appeal the Decision,
According to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers thus making it final and executory. Thereafter, the HLURB issued a Writ of
should serve their clients with competence and diligence. Specifically, Rule Execution. It was at this point that respondent Villarin entered his special
18.02 provides that "[a] lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without appearance to represent Purence Realty. Specifically, he filed an Omnibus
adequate preparation." Rule 18.03, on the other hand, states that "[a] Motion to set aside the Decision and to quash the Writ of Execution for
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence being null and void on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the improper
in connection [therewith] shall render him liable." service of summons on his client. This motion was not acted upon by the
"Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe fidelity to the HLURB. Respondent sent demand letters to herein complainants.
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in In all of these letters, he demanded that they immediately vacate
them." A client is entitled to the benefit of all remedies and defenses the property and surrender it to Purence Realty within five days from
authorized by law, and is expected to rely on his lawyer to avail of these receipt. Otherwise, he would file the necessary action against them. True
remedies or defenses. enough, Purence Realty, as represented by respondent, filed a Complaint
In several cases, the Court has consistently held that a counsel’s failure to for forcible entry before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against Trinidad,
file an appellant’s brief amounts to inexcusable negligence.In Garcia v. Lander, Casubuan and Mendoza.
Bala,the Court even found the respondent lawyer guilty of negligence after Aggrieved, the four complainants filed an administrative case
availing of an erroneous mode of appeal. To appeal a decision of the against respondent. A month after, Alojado, Villamin and Tolentino filed a
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the disbarment case against respondent. As found by the Integrated Bar of the
respondent therein filed a notice of appeal with the DARAB, instead of filing Philippines (IBP) and affirmed by its Board of Governors, complainants
a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Because of his error, asserted in their respective verified Complaints that the demand letters sent
the prescribed period for filing the petition lapsed, prejudicing his clients. by Villarin had been issued with malice and intent to harass them. They
In this case, Atty. Rañeses’ alleged failure to file a comment on the adverse insisted that the letters also contravened the HLURB Decision ordering his
party’s offer of evidence and to submit the required memorandum would client to permit the buyers to pay the balance of the purchase price of the
have amounted to negligence. However, as noted by Commissioner subdivision lots.
Limpingco, Bueno did not support her allegations with court documents that
she could have easily procured. This omission leaves only Bueno’s bare Issue: Whether or not the respondent should be administratively
allegations which are insufficient to prove Atty. Rañeses’ negligence. We sanctioned for sending the demand letters?
support the Board of Governors’ ruling on this point.
Ruling: The respondent’s action is clearly proscribed by Canon 18. client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or
conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination even
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. without prodding from the client or the court. Hence, considering
respondent’s gross and inexcusable neglect by leaving his client totally
Keeping with the foregoing rules, the Court finds that respondent failed to unrepresented in a criminal case, it cannot be doubted that he violated
exercise the required diligence in handling complainant’s cause since he: Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code.
first, failed to represent her competently and diligently by acting and
proffering professional advice beyond the proper bounds of law; and,
second, abandoned his client’s cause while the grave coercion case against
them was pending. CUIZON VS ATTY. MACALINO

Anent the first infraction, it bears emphasis that complainant's right over Facts:
the properties of her deceased husband, David, has yet to be sufficiently
established. As such, the high-handed action taken by respondent to The legal services of the respondent was sought by the complainant in
enforce complainant's claim of ownership over the latter’s interest in behalf of her husband Antolin Cuizon who was convicted for Violation of
Consulting Edge – i.e., causing the change of the office door lock which Dangerous Drug Act of 1972. When the spouses had no sufficient means to
thereby prevented the free ingress and egress of the employees of the said pay the legal fees, the respondent suggested that he be given possession of
company – was highly improper. Verily, a person cannot take the law into complainants Mistubishi car, which was delivered to the respondent. Later
his own hands, regardless of the merits of his theory. In the same light, respondent offered to buy the car for (P85,000.00) for which he paid a
respondent's act of advising complainant to go into hiding in order to evade down payment of (P24,000.00). After the sale of the car, respondent failed
arrest in the criminal case can hardly be maintained as proper legal advice to attend to the case of Antolin Cuizon, so complainant was forced to
since the same constitutes transgression of the ordinary processes of law. engage the services of another lawyer.
By virtue of the foregoing, respondent clearly violated his duty to his client On June 17, 1996, for failure to comply with the previous orders of the
to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice, in violation of Rule court, a fine of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) was imposed upon him and
19.01, Canon 19 of the Code as above-quoted. To note further, since such the order requiring him to file his comment on the complaint was
courses of action were not only improper but also erroneous, respondent reiterated.
equally failed to serve his client with competence and diligence in violation
On July 24, 1996 respondent paid the Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) fine
of Canon 18 of the Code. In the same regard, he also remained unmindful of
imposed on him, however he failed to fully comply with the order of the
his client’s trust in him – in particular, her trust that respondent would only
court.
provide her with the proper legal advice in pursuing her interests – thereby
violating Canon 17 of the Code.
Issue: WON the respondent is guilty of violating the CPR
With respect to the second infraction, records definitively bear out that
respondent completely abandoned complainant during the pendency of the
grave coercion case against them; this notwithstanding petitioner’s efforts
Held: YES
to reach him as well as his purported receipt of the P150,000.00 acceptance
fee. It is hornbook principle that a lawyer’s duty of competence and It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or
diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. However,
giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to
such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him. He must serve his client with competence and diligence, and FACTS:
champion the latters cause with whole-hearted fidelity. Among the
fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes Ford engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Daitol in a case against
to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. the Philippine Commercial International Bank ("PCIB") in the Regional Trial
Court. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Ford. PCIB
In the instant case, after agreeing to represent the complainants
thereupon appealed said judgment to the Court of Appeals ("CA"). After
husband, taking possession of their car and persuading the complainant to
PCIB had filed its appellant's brief, the CA directed Ford to file his appellee's
sell the same to him for a nominal amount, the respondent refused to carry
brief. Despite several inquiries by Ford about the status of the brief and
out his duties as counsel prompting the complainant to secure the services
reminders from him to file the same, Atty. Daitol never filed the appellee's
of another lawyer to defend her husband. The respondent clearly breached
brief with the CA. CA had issued resolution that the case was filed without a
his obligation under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
brief. Ford was aggrieved by this and worried that this may prejudice him in
Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
the case, Ford filed a complaint against Daitol before IBP and a complaint of
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
disciplinary action before the Court.
him liable.

The respondents infraction is compounded by the fact that he issued a Atty. Daitol alleged, in his response to the complaint against him, that
check in favor of the complainants husband which was later dishonored for before he could finish the draft of the appellee's brief, Ford allegedly
having been drawn against a closed account. Such conduct indicates the terminated his services due to "various difficulties and misunderstanding"
respondents unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows between them. Ford denied this allegation stating that he had already
such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him advanced an amount of P600.00 as attorney's fees to Atty. Daitol who had
unworthy of public confidence and constitutes a ground for disciplinary assured him that he was preparing the appellee's brief. Commission on Bar
action. Discipline found Atty. Daitol to have been remiss in the performance of his
duties as counsel of Ford. Daitol was particularly faulted for his failure to
The fact that the respondent went into hiding in order to avoid service
secure a written discharge from Ford before considering himself relieved of
upon him of the warrant of arrest issued by the Court exacerbates his
his duty to file the appellee's brief. The case went to the Supreme Court for
offense. His repeated failure to comply with the Courts Resolutions
Decision.
requiring him to file his comment on the complaint should also be taken

into account. By his repeated cavalier conduct, the respondent exhibited an

unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Daitol should be suspended due to his failure to make
As an officer of the court, it is a lawyers duty to uphold the dignity and an appellee‘s brief for Ford
authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is
shown by a lawyers obedience to court orders and processes. A lawyer who HELD: Yes. Atty. Daitol should be suspended due to his failure to make an
willfully disobeys a court order requiring him to do something may not only appeallee‘s brief for Ford.
be cited and punished for contempt but may also be disciplined as an officer
of the court RATIO: In failing to file the appellee's brief on behalf of his client,
respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel as set forth in Rule
12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which exhorts
every member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exertevery effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
FORD VS ATTY. DAITOL of justice.
 reglementary period certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence, more so if
After careful consideration of the records of the case, the court finds that the delay of FORTY THREE (43) days resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.
the suspension of respondent from the practice of law is proper. The Court
agrees with the IBP that respondent had been remiss in the performance of The fact that respondent was involved in a vehicular accident and suffered
his duties as counsel for complainant. A lawyer engaged to represent a physical injuries as a result thereof cannot serve to excuse him from filing
client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest his pleadings on time considering that he was a member of a law firm
with utmost diligence composed of not just one lawyer. This is shown by the receipt he issued to
complainant and the pleadings which he signed for and on behalf of the
Beltran, Beltran and Beltran Law Office. As such, respondent could have
BARBUCO VS BELTRAN asked any of his partners in the law office to file the Appellant’s Brief for
him or, at least, to file a Motion for Extension of Time to file the said
Facts: pleading.
Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent Beltran for
malpractice of law. Complainant, through her son, Benito B. Sy, engaged the Moreover, every member of the Bar should always bear in mind that every
services of respondent for the purpose of filing an appeal before the Court case that a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and
of Appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, which competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a
adverese to the complainants interest. On the same day, complainant, fee or for free. A lawyer’s fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to
through Benito B. Sy, gave respondent the total sum of P3,500.00 for be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected of him. He is
payment of the docket fees. mandated to exert his best efforts to protect the interest of his client within
the bounds of the law. The Code of Professional Responsibility dictates that
However, the appeal was dismissed by the CA for failure to file Appellant's a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence and he should
brief. The brief was only filed by respondent 43 days after the deadline of not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. "
submission of the same.
When asked to comment, respondent tried to evade liability by alleging that
he met a vehicular accident, which incapacitated him for several days, thus
he cannot finish the appellants brief. Moreover, he sustained injuries in the VILLARIASA- REISENBECK VS ATTY. ABARRIENTOS
head, which as a result respondent lost track of schedules of hearings and
deadlines for submitting briefs.
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not respondent's failure to file appellant's brief warrants Complainant alleges that respondent was her lawyer. The case was
sanctions. unfortunately decided against her, so she asked respondent to prepare a
Motion for Reconsideration. She paid him P5,000 for the motion.
Held:
Yes. the SC enunciated that "Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Respondent failed to apprise her about the status of her case. Respondent
Responsibility for Lawyers states:A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter never even called her at her landladys phone number which she left with
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him.
him liable. An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of
his ability and with utmost diligence. Failure to file brief within the When she heard that a resolution had arrived, it was not from respondent
but from Johannes, her husband. Respondent never gave her a copy of the
resolution. Later, respondent astounded her with the truth that the period
to file the petition had already expired. Respondent confessed that he Respondents failure to exercise due diligence in attending to the interest of
received the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent insists complainant caused her grave material prejudice. Respondent has indeed
he was diligent in the performance of his duties. He claims that after he committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client.
received the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration on April 18, 2000, he
tried to reach complainant. He had his secretaries call her several times at
the phone number she gave and even repeatedly sent a messenger to her CANON 18
house.
• GLORIA P. JINON vs. ATTY. LEONARDO E. JIZ
When complainant did go to his office, it was only on June 23, 2000, long A.C. No. 9615 March 5, 2013
after the period to appeal had lapsed. He blamed her for coming late.
FACTS: In 2003, Gloria Jinon engaged the services of Atty. Leonardo Jiz to
Respondent further alleges that from the very start, he made it clear to help her recover a land title from her sister-in-law. Jinon paid Atty. Jiz
complainant and her husband that she stood to lose the case even before Php17,000.00 as acceptance fee.
the Supreme Court.
After accepting the case, Atty. Jiz sent demand letters to Jinon’s sister-in-
Petitioner’s landlady, and housemaid, both averred that neither of them law, collected rents from the tenant of the disputed property, and gave
received any phone call or visit from respondent or any of his personnel. legal advice to Jinon. At the same time, he asked Php45,000.00 from Jinon
which he said will be used as expenses in the transfer of title. But Atty. Jiz
Held: never made a move to cause the title to be transferred in Jinon’s name.

The lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in Eventually, Jinon decided to terminate the services of Atty. Jiz. And since
the maintenance and defense of the clients rights, and the exertion of the the title was not transferred in her name, she demanded that Atty. Jiz
lawyers utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or
return the Php45,000.00 she earlier paid as well as the rents that Atty. Jiz
withheld from the client, save by the rules of law legally applied
had been collecting (amounting to Php12,000.00). Atty. Jiz only returned

Php5,000.00 from the rent.
Respondent failed to demonstrate the candor he owed complainant.

Respondent kept hiding from complainant the fact that he had received a
Jinon then filed an administrative case against Atty. Jiz. Jinon demanded
copy of the Resolution as early as April 18, 2000, despite complainants many
visits to his law office. Worse, respondent made complainant believe that that Atty. Jiz return the Php45,000.00, the remaining Php7,000.00 rent, as
the petition would be filed in time before this Court. well as the Php17,000.00 acceptance fee.

Needless to emphasize, a lawyer must not keep a client in the dark as to the In his defense, Atty. Jiz averred that Jinon agreed that his services will be
status of and developments in the clients case. The lawyer is obliged to worth Php75,000.00; and that his services will only cover the protection of
respond within a reasonable time to a clients request for information. A the rights of Jinon against her sister in law and not for the recovery of title.
client is entitled to the fullest disclosure of the mode or manner by which As such, deducting the Php45,000.00 and the acceptance fee of
that clients interest is defended or why certain steps are taken or omitted. A Php17,000.00, Jinon actually still owe Atty. Jiz Php13,000.00.
lawyer who repeatedly fails to answer the inquiries or communications of a
client violates the rules of professional courtesy and neglects the clients ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Leonardo Jiz violated the Code of Professional
interests. Responsibility.
 Responsibility involving negligence in handling a case. Complainant argued
HELD: Yes, he violated Canons 16 and 18. Atty. Jiz was remiss in his duties that he had no intention of reneging from his obligation, as he already had
as a lawyer in neglecting his client’s case and misappropriating her fund. prepared the draft petition, and he failed to file it because it lacked the
The defense raised by Atty. Jiz cannot be given credence because it needed documentary requirements that his clients should have furnished
appears that the receipt for the acceptance fee he received from Jinon him. The Investigating Commissioner of IBP made a finding negligence on
showed that the Php17 k was the “full payment”. The receipt was even the part of the respondent. This was affirmed by the IBP Commission on
signed by him. Said amount is also sufficient to cover the actual legal Bar Discipline.
services he rendered to Jinon.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent’s excuse is exculpatory.
Since he was not able to act on the transfer of title, he must return Jinon’s
money. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for the HELD: No. Respondent’s excuse is not exculpatory. He was imposed the
processing of transfer of land title, but not used for the purpose, should be (modified) penalty of suspension for six (6) months from the practice of
immediately returned. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds law and was ordered to return to the complainant the amount of Fifty
held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) with interest of twelve percent (12%) per
appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed to annum from the date of promulgation of the Decision until the full amount
him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as is returned.
of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession
and deserves punishment. Atty. Jiz was suspended for two years. In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is
• ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON vs. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to
A.C.8158 February 24, 2010 discharge. We fully considered the evidence presented and we are fully
satisfied that the complainant’s evidence, as outlined above, fully satisfies
FACTS: Complainant, through a mutual acquaintance asked respondent to the required quantum of proof in proving respondent’s negligence. Rule
handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land owned by complainant’s 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the
relatives. Respondent accepted the task to be completed within a period of rule on negligence and states:
eight (8) months and received Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as initial
payment; the remaining balance of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and
was to be paid when complainant received the certificate of title to the his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
property. Respondent has not filed any petition for registration over the
property sought to be titled up to the filing of this case. In the Complaint, The Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere
Position Papers and documentary evidence submitted, complainant failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is
claimed that he tried to contact respondent to follow-up on the status of considered per se a violation. (underscoring provided)
the case six (6) months after he paid the initial legal fees.
In addition to the above finding of negligence, [Court] also [found]
He did this through phone calls and text messages to their known respondent guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
acquaintances and relatives, and, finally, through a letter sent by courier to Responsibility which requires a lawyer to account for all the money
the respondent. However, he did not receive any return communication. received from the client. In this case, respondent did not immediately
Complainant sought the disbarment of respondent for violations of Rule account for and promptly return the money he received from complainant
16.01, Rule 18.03, and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
 even after he failed to render any legal service within the contracted time 2. Whether or not Atty. Ga violated Rules 18.03 & 18.04 of the
of the engagement. CPR?

• PATRICIO GONE vs ATTY. MACARIO GA HELD: 1. YES. Respondent’s sentiments against complainant Gone is not a
A.C. No. 7771 April 6, 2011 valid reason for him to renege on his obligation as a lawyer. The moment
he agreed to handle the case, he was bound to give it his utmost attention,
Facts: Complainant alleged that on Dec. 13, 1989, the NLRC building in skill and competence. Public interest requires that he exerts his best
Intramuros, Manila was burned and among the records destroyed was his efforts and all his learning and ability in defense of his client’s cause. Those
appealed case. As early as March 8, 1984, Atty. Ga had obtained a who perform that duty with diligence and candor not only safeguard the
certification from the NLRC that the records of Mr. Gone’s NLRC case were interests of the client, but also serve the ends of justice. They do honor to
burned. Despite Atty. Ga’s knowledge of the destruction of records, Atty. the bar and help maintain the community’s respect for the legal
Ga did not do anything to reconstitute the records of the appealed case. profession.

Complainant sent a letter to Atty. Ga requesting him to return the records If respondent believed that he will not be able to represent complainant
of the case in his possession. Atty. Ga has failed to turn over the records effectively because of what the latter has done to his family, then he
which has caused great injustice to Mr. Gone and his family. It must be should have withdrawn his services as a lawyer. Had it not been for
noted that Atty. Ga was a relative of Mr. Gone’s wife (daughter of Atty. complainant’s insistence, his labor case would have forever remained
Ga’s first cousin). IBP Commissioner Gonzalez-Delos Reyes issued an order dormant. The fact that respondent is retained as the lawyer of the
directing Atty. Ga to file his answer on the complaint. complainant, he was duty bound to give his best service. His failure to do
so constitutes an infringement of his oath.
Atty. Ga in his response explained that although the NLRC building caught
fire, he was relieved to know when he received summons from the NLRC 2. YES. Respondent Atty. Ga breached these duties when he failed to
setting the case for hearing. However, complainant failed to appear in the reconstitute or turn over the records of the case to his client, herein
two scheduled hearings set by the NLRC. For such absence, the NLRC complainant Gone. His negligence manifests lack of competence and
allegedly shelved their case. Atty. Ga averred that had it not been for the diligence required of every lawyer. His failure to comply with the request
instant complaint, he would not have, as he never, heard back from Gone of his client was a gross betrayal of his fiduciary duty and a breach of the
since 1984. What he last heard of him was that Mr. Gone abandoned his trust reposed upon him by his client.
own family way back in 1978.Several hearings were set for the case but Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
these were reset for failure of one or both parties to appear. his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
Commissioner of the IBP on Bar Discipline recommended that Atty. Ga be and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for
censured for violation of Rule 18.03 of the CPR and directed Atty. Ga to information.
reconstitute or turn over the records of the case to complainant with stern Respondent’s unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of this Court and
warning that failure to do so would merit a stiffer penalty. Atty. Ga still did the IBP is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for
not turn over the records of the case despite the directive order from the the Judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of a
Commissioner of the IBP. lawyer, for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey Court orders and
processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with Court
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not Atty. Ga violated Rule 15.03 of the CPR? directives being themselves officers of the Court.
 As an officer of the Court, respondent is expected to know that a HELD: SC agrees with the findings of IBP, but declared that Valdez be
resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be disbarred for falling below the standards required of lawyers.
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 Canon 18 provides that a lawyer must serve his client with competence and
lawyers. diligence. Rule 18.03 requires a lawyer to not neglect a legal matter
• TORBEN B. OVERGAARD vs ATTY. GODWIN R. VALDEZ entrusted to him and his negligence will make him liable. Valdez should
A.C. No. 7902 March 31, 2009 indeed be liable because he was not just incompetent, he was useless; not
FACTS: Overgaard is a Dutch national who engaged the services of Atty. just negligent, he was indolent; and rather than helping his client, he
Valdez. They entered into a retainer agreement, providing that for 900K, prejudiced him. He abandoned his client and left him without any recourse.
Valdez would represent Overgaard as counsel in 2 cases filed by him (Estafa It was a clear evasion of duty. Also, his failure to act on the disbarment case
and a mandamus case) and 2 cases filed against him (Other Light threats against him, without any explanation, is a clear evidence of negligence on
and violation of the Anti-Violation against women and their children act). his part.

Overgaard sent $16, 854 to Atty. Valdez via telegraphic bank transfer. 4 Rule 18.04 requires that a lawyer keep his client informed of the status of
months after, Overgaard demanded for a report on the status of his cases. his case and to respond within reasonable time to the client’s request for
In spite of many phone calls and emails, Valdez couldn’t be reached. Hence, information. Despite Overgaard’s efforts, Valdez avoided his client and
Overgaard inquired on his own, and discovered that Valdez didn’t file his never bothered to reply. Clearly, the rule was violated.
entry of appearance in any of the cases, that a counter-affidavit was
required from him, and that the criminal cases against him have already
been arraigned and warrants were issued for his arrest. He was constrained

to find a new lawyer.
• ROSARIO H. MEJARES vs ATTY. DANIEL T. ROMANA
Overgaard then wrote again and tried to locate Valdez to demand the
A.C. No. 6196 March 17, 2004
return of documents entrusted to the latter, as well as the $16K payment.
No word was heard from Valdez. Overgaard filed a case with the IBP for FACTS: In 1990, the Union members sued Greenfield for illegal
Valdez’s dismissal for gross malpractice, immoral character, dishonesty and termination. The Union retained respondent as counsel in prosecuting the
deceitful conduct. case against Greenfield. The Union and respondent agreed that
respondent would be paid attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of whatever
The IBP required Valdez to file an answer, but he did not comply. He also monetary benefits the Union members might recover from Greenfield.
failed to attend the hearing and was declared in default. Later, a Complainant claims that the Union members objected the sudden increase
clarificatory hearing was set, but Valdez never showed. IBP found him guilty in respondent’s fees to 30%.
of violating canons 1, 15, 16, 17, and 18 and his penalty was a 3-year
suspension and he was ordered to return Overgaard’s money. In retaliation, respondent allegedly abandoned the Unions case then
pending in the Court of Appeals. Thus, despite his receipt of the Court of
ISSUE: Whether or not Valdez should be disbarred. Appeals Decision dismissing the Unions petition, respondent neither
sought reconsideration of the ruling nor immediately informed the Union
members of its issuance.
 A.C. No. 10138 June 16, 2015
The Union, through another counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration of
the CA Decision. However, the Court of Appeals, denied the motion for FACTS: The father of the complainant, the late Restituto Nonato, was the
being filed late. Respondent subsequently withdrew as the Unions counsel owner of real property at Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. The property
on 23 March 2001. became a subject of ejectment proceedings before the MTC of Hinigaran.
Restituto was represented by Atty. Garcia but was replaced by Atty.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Romana violated Canon 18. Fudolin during the pre-trial stage. The complainant alleged that Restituto
paid the respondent his acceptance fees but no formal retainer agreement
HELD: Respondent is also Liable for his Failure to Timely and Properly was executed and did not issue any receipts for the acceptance fees paid.
Inform the Union Members of the Status of their Case. The respondent alleged that he received the minimal acceptance fee of
P20,000 and appearance fee of P1,000, and that he engaged his services to
The Code provides: CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with Restituto because they were relatives. During the pendency of the case he
competence and diligence. failed to inform Restituto of the status and developments in the case,
Rule 18.04 a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case Restituto could not contact him, and he failed to furnish Restituto copies of
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for the pleadings, motions and other documents filed with the court. MTC
information. dismissed Restituto’s complaint. Respondent filed 2 Motions for
Reconsideration, both of which denied. He also averred that he was
The lawyer’s duty to keep his client constantly updated on the suffering from "Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Atrial Fibrillation,
developments of his case is crucial in maintaining the client’s confidence, Intermittent, and Diabetes Mellitus Type II" and had an undetected stroke
thus: and arterial obstruction.
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of
whatever information he may have acquired which it is important that the ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent could be held liable for negligence
client should have knowledge of.[He should notify his client of any adverse in the performance of duty.
decision to enable his client to decide whether to seek an appellate review
thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case will HELD: The Supreme Court adopted the findings of IBP except for the
minimize misunderstanding and lost of trust and confidence in the recommended penalty. The respondent has been remiss in the
attorney performance of his duties as Restituto's counsel and his alibis were
unsatisfactory and merely an afterthought. Respondent is then suspended
Indeed, the relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is for 2 years for violating Rules 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18, and Canon
ever present the need for the lawyer to inform timely and adequately the 17 of the Code. He is also warned that the commission of similar acts will
client of important developments affecting the clients case. The lawyer be dealt more severely and is directed to formally Manifest to the Court
should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the the date of receipt which shall be the starting point of his suspension.
clients interests. Atty. Daniel T. Roman is guilty of violation of Rule 16.01
and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended
from the practice of law for six (6) months and direct him to render an • CELINA F. ANDRADA vs ATTY. RODRIGO CERA
accounting. A.C. No. 10187 July 22, 2015

• ROBERTO P. NONATO vs ATTY. EUTIQUIO M. FUDOLIN, JR.
FACTS: Sometime 2009, Celina F. Andrada (Andrada) engaged the services into his possession. Rule 16.03 of the same canon was also violated when
of Atty. Rodrigo Cera (Cera) to represent her in an annulment of marriage he failed to deliver the funds and property of Andrada when due and upon
case. Copies of the birth certificates of the children of Andrada, as issued demand.
by the National Statistics Office (NSO), were needed for the filing of the
case. Said certificates were however not filed with NSO since Andrada’s Wherefore, respondent Atty. Rodrigo Cera is hereby suspended from the
husband failed to completely accomplish the same. Hence, Andrada gave practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR. He is warned that a repetition of the
Cera P3,000.00 to process with the NSO the registration and issuance of same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
the certificates. An additional P10,000.00 was given to Cera for the
conduct of the psychological examination on Cera and her children relative
to the case. Upon follow up in 2010, Andrada was asked by the NSO to • SPOUSES VIRGILIO and ANGELINA ARANDA vs ATTY. EMMANUEL F.
produce the receipts. She then requested the same from Cera but Cera ELAYDA
failed to produce the same. Andrada also learned from the NSO that no A.C. No. 7907 December 15, 2010
payment was made. On May 29, 2011, Andrada demanded for the
surrender of the receipt and the return of the P10,000.00. Despite receipt FACTS: An administrative complaint filed by the spouses Virgilio and
of the demand on May 30, 2011, Cera did not heed the demand. Angelina Aranda (spouses Aranda) before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, charging their former
On June 7, 2011, Andrada filed an administrative complaint before the counsel, Atty. Emmanuel F. Elayda (Atty. Elayda), with gross negligence or
Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). gross misconduct in handling their case. The spouses Aranda were the
IBP Investigating Commissioner found Cera guilty of violating Canons 1 and defendants in Civil Case filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and recommended the Olongapo City, Branch 72.The spouses Aranda hired Atty Elayda to be their
imposition of three (3) years suspension from the practice of law. The IBP counsel for their civil case. They filed a complaint against the respondent
Board of Governors adopted his findings but modified the recommended for his failure to follow elementary norms and civil procedure and
penalty to one (1) year. evidence. However, to their surprise in July 2006, an adverse judgment
was issued against them, thus they lost possession of their car. Apparently,
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not Cera violated Canon 1 of the CPR. their counsel never appeared in court for them. Atty. Elayda failed to
2. Whether or not Cera violated Canon 16 of the CPR. inform the spouses of the date of hearing as well as the order of judgment.
No motion for reconsideration or appeal was interposed by the lawyer as
HELD: 1. Yes, Cera violated Canon 1. He did not exert effort on his client’s well.In his defense, Atty. Elayda said that it was the spouses who never
case, lied to her and reneged on his obligations. His actions show went to court; that the spouses neglected to check on their case in court;
negligence and lack of zeal. He violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 due to his that one time when their case was scheduled, he even notified the court
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. In relation thereto, he stenographer to notify him if the spouses are in court so that he could be
also violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 when he neglected the legal matter there for them as he was in another court branch for another case.An
entrusted to him. investigation was conducted and the result finding Atty. Elayda guilty of
gross negligence.
2. Yes, he violated Canon 16. He misappropriated the funds entrusted to
him when he unlawfully withheld the same and when he failed to use the ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda should be disciplined.
same for the intended purposes, thus violating Canon 16 which holds a
lawyer in trust of all moneys and properties of his client that may come
 HELD: Yes. It was established that Atty. Elayda was remiss and negligent in
handling the Aranda case. Although it is true that the client and their ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. San Juan is guilty of gross negligence.
counsel must equally share the burden of communication, it is the primary
duty of the counsel to inform the client of the status of their case in court HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court stated that securing a copy of the case
and the orders which have been issued by the court. He cannot simply wait records was within Atty. San Juan’s task as the lawyer. Second, Atty. San
for his clients to make an inquiry about the developments in their case. Juan knows that filing an appellant’s brief within the reglementary period
Close coordination between counsel and client is necessary for them to is critical. Third, the records also disclose Atty. San Juan’s lack of candor in
adequately prepare for the case, as well as to effectively monitor the dealing with his client. The Court found Atty. San Juan in violation of Rule
progress of the case. His act is clearly a violation of Canons 17 and 18 of 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
the Code of Professional Responsibility. As stated on the Canon, a lwayer which provide:
shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him and he shall
serve his client with competence and diligence.His excuse that he did not CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
appear in court because the spouses failed to appear in court is not diligence.
tenable. His attendance at the hearing should not be made to depend on
the whether the spouses Aranda will come or not.ATTY. EMMANUEL F. Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
ELAYDA is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
(6) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar
act will be Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
dealt with more severely. case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.

• REX POLINAR DAGOHOY vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO V. SAN JUAN The Court resolved to suspend Atty. San Juan for a period of one
A.C. No. 7944 June 03, 2013 year and to deny his motion to be allowed to return to the practice of law.

FACTS: Atty. San Juan was administratively charged for gross negligence, in
connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal filed before the Court of
Appeals (CA). Tomas Dagohoy, his client and the father of complainant Rex
Polinar Dagohoy, was charged with and convicted of theft. According to • JOHNNY M. PESTO vs MARCELITO M. MILLO
the complainant, the CA dismissed the appeal for San Juan’s failure to file Adm. Case No. 9612 March 13, 2013
the appellant’s brief. He further alleged that San Juan did not file a motion
for reconsideration against the CA’s order of dismissal. The complainant Facts: Johnny Pesto (Johnny), a Canadian national, charged Atty. Marcelito
also alleged that Atty. San Juan failed to inform him and Tomas of the real M. Millo with conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court, misleading his
status of Tomas’ appeal and did not disclose to them the real reason for its client, bungling the transfer of title, and incompetence and negligence in
dismissal. the performance of his duty as a lawyer.

In his comment, Atty. San Juan denied the charge. He imputed fault on In May 1990, his wife Abella Pesto (Abella) retained the services of Atty.
Tomas for failing to furnish him a copy of the case records to enable him to Millo to handle the transfer of title over a parcel of land to her name, and
prepare and file the appellant’s brief. the adoption of her niece, Arvi Jane Dizon. Johnny and Abella gave to
Atty. Millo the amounts of P14,000.00 for the transfer of title and Atty. Millo claimed that his belated response to the charge was due to the
P10,000.00 for the adoption case. Atty. Millo thereafter repeatedly gave assurances of Abella that she would be withdrawing the complaint. The
them false information and numerous excuses to explain his inability to Court disbelieves him, however, and treats his claim as nothing but a
complete the transfer of title and made them believe that the capital gains belated attempt to save the day for himself. He ought to remember that
tax for the property had been paid way back in 1991, but they found out the withdrawal of an administrative charge for suspension or
upon their return to the country in February 1995 that he had not yet paid disbarment based on an attorney’s professional misconduct or
the tax. When they confronted him, Atty. Millo insisted that he had already negligence will not furnish a ground to dismiss the charge. Suspension or
paid the same, but he could not produce any receipt for the supposed disbarment proceedings that are warranted will still proceed regardless of
payment. Atty. Millo then further promised in writing to assume the the lack or loss of interest on the part of the complainant. The Court may
liability for the accrued penalties. even entirely ignore the withdrawal of the complaint, and continue to
investigate in order to finally determine whether the charge of
Exasperated by Atty. Millo’s neglect and ineptitude, Johnny brought professional negligence or misconduct was borne out by the record. This
this administrative complaint in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). approach bespeaks the Court’s consistent view that the Legal Profession is
On October 11, 2001, the IBP-CBD, through Commissioner Victoria not only a lofty and noble calling, but also a rare privilege reserved only for
Gonzalez-De los Reyes, deemed the case submitted for resolution. On the deserving.
October 4, 2010, Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez, to whom
the case had been meanwhile transferred, submitted a report and Atty. Millo made his situation even worse by consistently absenting himself
recommendation, whereby he found Atty. Millo liable for violating Canon from the scheduled hearings the IBP had set for his benefit. His disregard
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended his of the IBP’s orders requiring his attendance in the hearings was not only
suspension from the practice of law for six months. irresponsible, but also constituted utter disrespect for the Judiciary and his
fellow lawyers. Such conduct was absolutely unbecoming of a lawyer,
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Millo violated Canon 18. because lawyers are particularly called upon to obey Court orders and
processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with orders
HELD: Every attorney owes fidelity to the causes and concerns of his from the duly constituted authorities.
clients. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him by the clients. His duty to safeguard the clients’ interests commences The recommended penalty is not well taken. We modify the penalty,
from his engagement as such, and lasts until his effective release by the because Atty. Millo displayed no remorse as to his misconduct, and could
clients. In that time, he is expected to take every reasonable step and not be given a soft treatment. His professional misconduct warranted a
exercise ordinary care as his clients’ interests may require. longer suspension from the practice of law because he had caused material
prejudice to the clients’ interest. He should somehow be taught to be
Without doubt, Atty. Millo had the obligation to serve his clients with more ethical and professional in dealing with trusting clients like Johnny
competence and diligence. Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of and Abella, who were innocently too willing to repose their utmost trust in
Professional Responsibility, expressly so demanded of him, to wit: his abilities as a lawyer and in his trustworthiness as a legal professional.
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND He should remember that misconduct has no place in the heart and mind
DILIGENCE. of a lawyer who has taken the solemn oath to delay no man for money or
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, malice, and to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. knowledge and discretion. Under the circumstances, suspension from the

 practice of law for six months is the condign and commensurate penalty the trust that is reposed in him.
for him. Even if respondent was honestly protecting the interests of complainant,
the former still had no right to waive the appeal without the latter’s
knowledge and consent. If he felt unable to continue his retainership, he
Abay vs Atty. Montesino should have properly withdrawn his appearance and allowed the client to
FACTS appoint another lawyer.
Atty. Montesino was the counsel of Negros Institute of Technology in an Respondent also violated Rule 12.03 for failing to file the appellant’s brief
action for Cancellation of Title of Ownership, Recovery of Ownership and despite being granted several extensions. Lawyers owe fidelity to their
Possession and Damages with Preliminary Injunction against Vicente Galo’s clients cause. Regardless of their personal views, they must present every
estate. RTC dismissed the case on Apr. 27, 1995. remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of that cause.
Nov. 3, 1995 – RTC denied the respondent’s MR. Respondent filed a Notice
of Appeal in the CA but failed to submit the appellant’s brief even after a Hernandez vs Atty. Padilla
total of 120 days extension (beyond the 45 reglementary period). Mar. 19, Facts:
1999 – CA dismissed the appeal. This is a disbarment case filed by Emilia Hernandez (complainant) against
Complainant prays for the disbarment of respondent alleging that the latter her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B. Padilla (respondent) of Padilla Padilla Bautista
abandoned the appeal without knowledge of NIT and never told that the Law Offices, for his alleged negligence in the handling of her case.
appeal had already been dismissed. In a Decision dated 28 June 2002, penned by Judge Rosmari D. Carandang
Respondent avers that his failure to file the brief was due to his discovery (Judge Carandang), the RTC ordered that the Deed of Sale executed in favor
that the property sought to be recovered was subject to another civil case of complainant be cancelled; and that the latter pay the complainant
as a result of overlapping rights of transfers: a Contract of Sale in favor of therein, Elisa Duigan (Duigan), attorney’s fees and moral damages.
Florserfina Grandea and a Contract of Mortgage in favor of Ludovico Complainant and her husband filed their Notice of Appeal with the RTC.
Hidalgo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals (CA) ordered them to file their Appellants’
Thus, respondent advised NIT to abandon the appeal and file instead an Brief. They chose respondent to represent them in the case. On their behalf,
appropriate Complaint against Grandea and Hidalgo to recover the he filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants’ Brief. Thus,
properties. However, complainant demanded to continue with the appeal. Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. The CA granted the Motion in a
Thinking that his advice was the best way to protect his client’s rights, he let Resolution dated 16 December 2003.
the period to submit appellant’s brief lapse. No Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the Resolution dismissing the appeal
The IBP Commissioner found him guilty of violating the CPR and expressed was filed by the couple. Complainant claims that because respondent
that the respondent should have given due importance to the decision of his ignored the Resolution, he acted with “deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to
client. She recommended a suspension of 6 months with warning, which malpractice of law.” Complainant and her husband failed to file an appeal,
was adopted by the IBP Board in its Resolution. because respondent never informed them of the adverse decision.
Complainant further claims that she asked respondent “several times”
ISSUE: W/N respondent was guilty of violating the CPR for failing to file his about the status of the appeal, but “despite inquiries he deliberately
client’s appellant’s brief? withheld response to the damage and prejudice of the spouses.
Ruling: YES. Issue: Whether or not Rules 18.02, 18.03 and 18.04 were violated
Respondent’s failure to file appellant’s brief was a violation of Rules Ruling:
18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal
Not filing an appellant’s brief is prejudicial because such could result to the matter without adequate preparation. While it is true that respondent was
dismissal of the appeal, as in this case. Respondent failed to exercise due not complainant’s lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this
diligence, and his abandonment of his client’s cause made him unworthy of fact did not excuse him from his duty to diligently study a case he had
agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have enough time to study the Vda. De Dominguez vs Atty. Agleron
pertinent matters involved, as he was approached by complainant’s Facts:
husband only two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Complainant Ermelinda Lad Vda. De Dominguez was the widow of the late
Appellant’s Brief, respondent should have filed a motion for extension of Felipe Domiguez who died in a vehicular accident in Caraga, Davao Oriental,
time to file the proper pleading instead of whatever pleading he could come on October 18, 1995, involving a dump truck owned by the Municipality of
up with, just to “beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.” Caraga. Aggrieved, complainant decided to file charges against the
Moreover, respondent does not deny that he was given notice of the fact Municipality of Caraga and engaged the services of respondent Atty. Arnulfo
that he filed the wrong pleading. However, instead of explaining his side by M. Agleron, Sr. On three (3) occasions, Atty. Agleron requested and received
filing a comment, as ordered by the appellate court, he chose to ignore the from complainant the following amounts for the payment of filing fees and
CA’s Order. He claims that he was under the presumption that complainant sheriffs fees, to wit: (1) P3,000.00; (2) Pl,800.00; and P5,250.00 or a total of
and her husband had already settled the case, because he had not heard P10,050.00. After the lapse of four (4) years, however, no complaint was
from the husband since the filing of the latter’s Memorandum of Appeal. filed by Atty. Agleron against the Municipality of Caraga.
This explanation does not excuse respondent’s actions.
First of all, there were several remedies that respondent could have availed Atty. Agleron admitted that complainant engaged his professional service
himself of from the moment he received the Notice from the CA to the and received the amount of P10,050.00. He, however, explained that their
moment he received the disbarment Complaint filed against him. But agreement was that complainant would pay the filing fees and other
because of his negligence, he chose to sit on the case and do nothing. incidental expenses and as soon as the complaint was prepared and ready
Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his clients of the for filing, complainant would pay 30% of the agreed attorney’s fees of
status of their case. His failure to do so amounted to a violation of Rule P100,000.00. On June 7, 1996, after the signing of the complaint, he advised
18.04 of the Code, which reads: complainant to pay in full the amount of the filing fee and sheriff’s fees and
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case the 30% of the attorney’s fee, but complainant failed to do so. Atty. Agleron
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for averred that since the complaint could not be filed in court, the amount of
information. P10,050.00 was deposited in a bank while awaiting the payment of the
If it were true that all attempts to contact his client proved futile, the least balance of the filing fee and attorney’s fee.2
respondent could have done was to inform the CA by filing a Notice of
Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel. He could have thus explained why he IBP-Investigating Commissioner: Atty. Agleron violated the Code of
was no longer the counsel of complainant and her husband in the case and Professional Responsibility when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to
informed the court that he could no longer contact them. His failure to take him; suspended from the practice of law for a period of four (4) months.
this measure proves his negligence.
Lastly, the failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment IBP-BOG: adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the
on Duigan’s Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his part. Under 18.03 of the Investigating Commissioner with modification that Atty. Agleron be
Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the client’s case, viz: suspended from the practice of law for a period of only one (1) month.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Issue: Whether the acts of Atty. Agleron violated Rule 18.03 of the CPR?
Respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of violating Rules 18.02,
18.03, 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, he is Ruling: Yes.
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS and STERNLY Atty. Agleron violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with which provides that:
more severely.
Rule 18.03-A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling: Yes.
Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty bound to serve his Their neglect of the legal matter entrusted to them by their client
client with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with diligence, constitutes a flagrant violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR:
care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. CANON 18-A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and DILIGENCE.
confidence reposed on him. Rule 18.03 -A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
In the present case, Atty. Agleron admitted his failure to file the complaint "Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve
against the Municipality of Caraga, Davao Oriental, despite the fact that it the latter with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with
was already prepared and signed. He attributed his non-filing of the diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He
appropriate charges on the failure of complainant to remit the full payment owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
of the filing fee and pay the 30% of the attorney's fee. Such justification, confidence reposed upon him xxx"
however, is not a valid excuse that would exonerate him from liability. Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16
of the CPR when they failed to return to complainant the amount of
Disposition: SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) P350,000.00 representing their legal fees:
MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar CANON 16 -A LA WYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
wrongdoing will be dealt with more severely. PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 -A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
Dongga-as vs Atty. Angeles received for or from the client.
Facts: Rule 16.03 -A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
Cleo B. Dongga-as engaged the law firm of Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angele, due or upon demand. x x x.
Atty. Wylie M. Paler, and Atty. Angeles Grandea of the Angeles, Grandea & "The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and
Paler Law Office to handle the annulment of his marriage with his wife prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary
Mutya. In their meeting, he was told that the case would cost him nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for
P300,000.00, with the first P100,000.00 payable immediately and the the money or property collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a
remaining payable after the final hearing. lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of
Dongga-as constantly followed-up his case, however, the respondents could his client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has
not present any petition and instead offered excuses for the delay, such as, appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in
the petition could not be filed since they have yet to talk to the judge who him by his client xxx"
they insinuated will probably resolve their petition. Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler misrepresented to complainant that the delay
The respondents sent a text message to Dongga-as, informing him that the in the filing of his petition for annulment was due to the fact that they were
NSO bore no record of his marriage. However, upon his independent still looking for a "friendly" court, judge, and public prosecutor who will not
verification through his friend, he discovered that the records of his be too much of a hindrance in achieving success in the annulment case.
marriage in the Civil Registrar were intact, and that the alleged absence of Such misrepresentations and deceits on the part of Attys. Cruz-Angeles and
such records was a mere ruse to cover up the delay in the filing of the Paler are violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR:
petition. Dongga-as got frustrated, so he went to respondent’s law office to CANON 1 -A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
terminate their engagement and to demand for a refund of the aggregate and promote respect for law and legal processes.
amount of P350,000.00 he earlier paid them. Rule 1.01 -A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
Issue: Whether or not the respondents can be held liable for violating the deceitful conduct.
“As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high labor arbiter's directive that he sign the position paper. His conduct evinces
standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and a willful disregard to his duty as officer of the court. This alone warrants the
fair dealing.“ imposition of administrative liability.
Atty. Cruz-Angeles and Atty. Paler were found guilty and suspended from
practice of law for a period of 3 years, and ordered to return the legal fees. Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with Rule 18.04 of the Code, which
Atty. Grandea was acquitted from the case for the complaint against her requires that "[a] lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status ofhis
lacks merit. case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information." for violating Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Gimena vs Atty. Sabio Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Salvador T. Sabio is hereby
Facts: SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS
Before us is a Complaint for Disbarment filed by Vicente M. Gimena
(complainant) against Atty. Salvador T. Sabio (respondent) for gross Cristobal vs Atty. Renta
negligence in handling RAB Case No. 06-11-10970-99 (case). Complainant Facts:
laments that his company, Simon Peter Equipment and Construction Complainant engaged the services of Renta Pe & Associates Law Office for
Systems, Inc. (company) lost in the case because respondent filed an the filing of a "petition for recognition for the minors Codie Darnell Green
unsigned position paper and ignored the order of the labor arbiter directing and Matthew Darnell Green" before the Bureau of Immigration.
him to sign the pleading. Aware of the unfavorable decision, respondent did Respondent, the managing partner of the firm, signed the "Special Contract
not even bother to inform complainant of the same. The adverse decision of Legal Services" and received the "full and package price" of P160,000 for
became fmal and executory, robbing complainant of a chance to file a the filing of the petition for recognition. However, no petition was filed.
timely appeal. Complainant then filed against respondent due to the latter's failure to file
Ruling: the petition for recognition and return the amount of P160,000 despite
Respondent violated Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demand. Respondent explained that it was supposedly Anneth Tan to file
The contention of respondent that there was no attorney-client relationship the petition but lost it without informing him of such fact and assured that
between him and the company is, at best, flimsy. It is improper for him to he will return the money. Respondent submitted complainant's Affidavit of
capitalize on the fact that no formal contract for legal retainer was signed by Desistance which averred that respondent cried for forgiveness and that he
the parties, for formality is not an essential element in the employment of has forgiven him. Complainant confirmed that respondent had already
an attorney. The contract may be express or implied and it is sufficient that refunded the amount he paid.
the advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and received, in matters
pertinent to his profession. An attorney impliedly accepts the relation when Issue:
he acts on behalf of his client in pursuance of the request made by the Whether or not respondent may be disbarred for his breached duty to serve
latter. complainant with diligence and neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the "Code") mandates Held:
that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. On complainant’s affidavit of desistance, it was held that execution cannot
Corollarily, Rule 18.03 directs that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter have the effect of abating the instant proceedings against respondent in
entrusted to him.47 He must exercise the diligence of a good father of a view of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of
family with respect to the case that he is handling. This is true whether he disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern. A disbarment case is
accepted the case for free or in consideration of a fee. not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an
officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. It
Respondent's inattention is further highlighted by his disobedience to the was held that the respondent violated Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and
reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar contradicted by the Finezas' allegations in their Petition for Relief.
act would be dealt with more severely.
Sanchez vs Atty. Aguilos
Atty. Francisco vs Atty. Flores Facts:
Facts: Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez has charged respondent Atty. Romeo G.
Atty. Francisco prays that Atty. Flores "be found guilty of violation of Canons Aguilos (respondent) with misconduct for the latter's refusal to return the
10 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The facts shows that amount of P70,000.00 she had paid for his professional services despite his
Atty. Francisco filed a Complaint for forcible entry against Rainier Fineza and not having performed the contemplated professional services.
his mother, Teodora Fineza, (Finezas who were represented by Atty. Flores. • She avers that in March 2005, she sought the legal services of the
respondent to represent her in the annulment of her marriage with her
ISSUE: The issue in this case is whether respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores estranged husband.
violated Canons 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. • She subsequently withdrew the case from him, and requested the refund
of the amounts already paid, but he refused to do the same as he had
Regarding the Finezas' Petition for Relief from Judgment, Atty. Flores alleges already started working on the case; that she had sent him a letter, through
that he only assisted in the filing of the Petition.40 He could not act as Atty. Isidro S.C. Martinez, to demand the return of her payment less
counsel because he had "no personal knowledge as to when the [Finezas] whatever amount corresponded to the legal services he had already
learned . . . of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration." performed
• That the respondent did not heed her demand letter despite his not
Atty. Flores also argues that he did not violate Canon 18 because in another having rendered any appreciable legal services to her;5 and that his
case,42 which also involved Atty. Francisco and the Finezas, he was able to constant refusal to return the amounts prompted her to bring an
prevent the demolition of the Finezas' family home.43 administrative complaint against him6 in the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) on March 20, 2007.
The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that Atty. Flores be found IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose I. De La Rama, Jr. declared that the
guilty of violating Rules 10.01 and 10.03 of Canon 10. The Board of respondent's insistence that he could have brought a petition for legal
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved separation based on the psychological incapacity of the complainant's
the said Report and Recommendation. However, the Board of Governors husband was sanctionable because he himself was apparently not
Resolution is also silent on the issue of whether Atty. Flores violated Canon conversant with the grounds for legal separation; that because he rendered
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. some legal services to the complainant, he was entitled to receive only
P40,000.00 out of the P70,000.00 paid to him as acceptance fee, the
RULING: P40,000.00 being the value of the services rendered under the principle of
Respondent is guilty of violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01 when Respondent did quantum meruit; and that, accordingly, he should be made to return to her
not state the exact date when he received a copy of the Motion for Issuance the amount of P30,000.00.
of a Writ of Execution. The record shows that he received it on June 3, IBP also recommended that Atty. Aguilos be suspended from the practice of
2009.74 Respondent then alleges that he immediately informed the Finezas law for a period of six months.
about the matter, but later on contradicted himself when he stated "that he
has no personal knowledge as to when the Fineza[s] learned or had Issue/s: (a) Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively
knowledge of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration."75 liable for misconduct; and (b) Whether or not he should be ordered to
return the attorney's fees paid
Respondent's statement that he had no knowledge when the Finezas Ruling:
learned about the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration is also Respondent was liable for misconduct, and he should be ordered to return
the entire amount received from the client towards his fellow attorney, with the stern warning that a repetition of the
Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and offense shall be severely punished.
skill to the complainant. As the foregoing findings reveal, he did not know
the distinction between the grounds for legal separation and for annulment The Court ORDERS Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos to RETURN to the complainant
of marriage. Such knowledge would have been basic and expected of him as within thirty (30) days from notice the sum of P70,000.00, plus legal interest
a lawyer accepting a professional engagement for either causes of action. of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of this decision until full payment.
His explanation that the client initially intended to pursue the action for
legal separation should be disbelieved. The case unquestionably Samonte vs Atty. Jumamil
contemplated by the parties and for which his services was engaged, was no Facts: Atty. Jumamil failed to file the necessary position paper before the
other than an action for annulment of the complainant's marriage with her National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which resulted into an adverse
husband with the intention of marrying her British fiancee. They did not ruling against Samonte, his client, who then filed a disbarment compliant for
contemplate legal separation at all, for legal separation would still render acts unbecoming of a lawyer and betrayal of trust. On the other hand, Atty.
her incapacitated to re-marry. That the respondent was insisting in his Jumamil maintained that his omission was due to his client’s failure to
answer that he had prepared a petition for legal separation, and that she adduce credible witnesses to testify in her favor. In the course of the
had to pay more as attorney's fees if she desired to have the action for proceedings, Atty. Jumamil admittedly prepared and notarized the affidavit
annulment was, therefore, beyond comprehension other than to serve as a of Samonte’s intended witness despite his belief that such was a perjured
hallow afterthought to justify his claim for services rendered. one.
As such, the respondent failed to live up to the standards imposed on him as
an attorney. He thus transgressed Canon 18, and Rules 18.01, 18.02 and Issue: Whether or not Atty. Jumamil should be held administratively liable.
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND Decision: Yes. Failure to produce any credible witness is not a valid
DILIGENCE. justification to completely abandon his client’s cause. Also, notarization of a
perjured affidavit constitutes a violation of the rules on notarial practice.
Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or Atty. Jumamil is ordered:
should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render 1. Suspended for one (1) year;
such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating 2. Revoked notarial commission;
counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter. 3. Disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2)
years;
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate 4. Sternly warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely
preparation.
Sps. Gimena vs Atty. Vijiga
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and Facts:
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. (Emphasis This administrative case stems from the complaint brought by the Spouses
supplied) Vicente and Precywinda Gimena (complainants), against Atty. Jojo S. Vijiga
(respondent) for the latter's failure to file the appellants' brief in their
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolution No. XVIII-2008-476 dated behalf, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal in the CA.
September 20, 2008 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors, with the MODIFICATION that Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos is hereby In their complaint, Spouses Gimena alleged that they hired the respondent
FINED P10,000.00 for misrepresenting his professional competence to the to represent them in a civil case for nullity of foreclosure proceedings and
client, and REPRIMANDS him for his use of offensive and improper language voidance of loan documents filed against Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company, involving eight parcels of land (subject properties) assigned to the dismissed further highlights respondent's indifference to his client's cause.
RTC. Interestingly, respondent failed to offer any explanation as to why he failed
After trial on the merits, the RTC dismissed the action. Aggrieved by the to submit the appellants' brief within the 45-day period from his receipt of
adverse decision, the complainants then brought the case to the appellate the notice to file the same, resulting to the dismissal of the appeal for the
court in which the CA issued a notice requiring complainants, (appellants first time. To the mind of this Court, such failure is an unequivocal indication
therein), to file the appellants' brief in accordance with Sec. 7, Rule 44 of of his guilt in the administrative charge. Indeed, failure to file the required
the Rules of Court. pleadings is per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Respondent failed to file the brief. As a result, the CA issued a Resolution Worse, respondent's failure to inform complainants of the unfortunate fate
then the respondent filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the reconsideration of their appeal further amplifies his lack of competence and diligence. As an
of such resolution citing illness and the damage to his law office due to officer of the court, it was respondent's duty to inform his client of
monsoon rains, as reasons for his failure to file the appellants' brief. whatever important information he may have acquired affecting his client's
The CA granted the motion in its Resolution and reinstated complainants' case. The purpose of informing the client is to minimize misunderstanding
appeal. Complainants were then given a period of fifteen (15) days within and loss of trust and confidence in the attorney. The lawyer should not
which to file the required brief.Respondent failed to file the appellants' brief leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the client's
within the given period. Hence, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the interests.
appeal.
Complainants alleged that throughout the proceedings in the CA,
respondent did not apprise them of the status of their case. They were thus
surprised when a bulldozer suddenly entered their properties. Complainants Borja v. Atty. Mendez, AC #11828
thereafter inquired on the status of their case, and it was then that they
Facts:
discovered that their appeal was dismissed.
Sometime in 2004, Jaime, as representative of the Heirs of Deceased
Issue: W/N the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member of the Bar Augusto De Borja, engaged the services of R.R. Mendez & Associates Law
in his dealings with the complainants? Offices where Atty. Mendez is a lawyer, for the reconveyance of a parcel of
Ruling: YES. land. Along with the prosecution of the case, Atty. Mendez demanded Three
The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) is clear. A lawyer owes his Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for the titling of a property situated
client competent and zealous legal representation. in Pateros. Jaime submitted a copy of the receipt of said amount of money
Respondent's failure to submit the appellants' brief and update his clients, which was acknowledged by Atty. Mendez.|||
complainants herein, of the status of their appeal falls short of the ethical
requirements set forth under the CPR.

When a lawyer agrees to act as a counsel, he guarantees that he will However, the complaint for reconveyance was dismissed, thus, Atty.
exercise that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by the character Mendez filed a notice of appeal. On October 20, 2011, the Court of Appeals
of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the clients' interests and ordered the Heirs of De Borja to file their Appellant's Brief within forty-five
take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor. (45) days from receipt of the notice.
As a lawyer, respondent is presumed to be knowledgeable of the procedural

rules in appellate practice. He is presumed to know that dismissal is an
inevitable result from failure to file the requisite brief within the period On February 3, 2012, Jaime was surprised to receive a Resolution dated
stated in the Rules of Court. In this case, the fact that the appeal was twice January 27, 2012 from the Court of Appeals dismissing the appealed case for
failure to file Appellant's Brief. He asked Atty. Mendez the reason why they constitutes inexcusable negligence, more so if the failure resulted in the
weren't able to file the required pleading, and he was told that the firm did dismissal of the appeal, as in this case.|||
not receive a copy of the notice which ordered them to file the appellant's
brief. Atty. Mendez assured him that he will file the motion for
reconsideration based on non-receipt of the notice, and will subsequently
Making the law office secretary, clerk or messenger the scapegoat or patsy
file the appellant's brief.|||
for the delay in the filing of pleadings, motions and other papers and for the
lawyer's dereliction of duty is common alibi of practicing lawyers. Like the
alibi of the accused in criminal cases, counsel's shifting of the blame to his
Unsatisfied, Jaime went to the Court of Appeals and the Postal Office of office employee is usually a concoction utilized to cover up his own
Caloocan. He discovered that the notice to file appellant's brief was in fact negligence, incompetence, indolence and ineptitude.
received by one Jennifer Lastimosa (Lastimosa), a secretary of the firm R.R.
Mendez & Associates Law Offices.

Other than Atty. Mendez' allegation of non-receipt of the notice, he has

failed to duly present any reasonable excuse for the non-filing of the
Disappointed, in a Letter dated February 13, 2012, citing loss of trust and appellant's brief despite notice, thus, the allegation of negligence on his
confidence due to the dismissal of their appeal, Jaime terminated the part in filing the appellant's brief remains uncontroverted. As a lawyer, it is
services of Atty. Mendez, and demanded the return of the Three Hundred expected of him to make certain that the appeal brief was filed on time.
Thousand (Php300,000.00). Unable to get a reply from Atty. Mendez even Clearly, his failure to do so is tantamount to negligence which is contrary to
after six months, on August 2, 2012, Jaime wrote anew to Atty. Mendez and the mandate prescribed in Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
demanded the return of the money. Thus, the instant administrative Responsibility enjoining lawyers not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to
complaint against Atty. Mendez for incompetence and malpractice. him.

Issue: We cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society,
WON Atty. Mendez is guilty of negligence, thus, violating Canon 18 of to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.
the Code of Professional Responsibility which directs lawyers to serve his
client with competence and diligence.|||

Martin v. Atty. Dela Cruz, AC #9832

Held:

In the instant case, Atty. Mendez' guilt as to his failure to do his duty to his Facts:
client is undisputed. His conduct relative to the non-filing of the appellant's
brief falls below the standards exacted upon lawyers on dedication and Complainant alleged that sometime in 2012, she engaged respondent's legal
commitment to their client's cause. An attorney is bound to protect his services in relation to several pending cases she filed before the following
clients' interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. Failure agencies: (a) the Professional Regulation Commission; (b) the Office of the
to file the brief within the reglementary period despite notice certainly City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCP-QC); and (c) the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board. After giving photocopies of the cases' files, complainant
paid respondent P60,000.00 as acceptance fee, evidenced by the Official Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
Receipt dated August 23, 2012. matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client
Complainant repeatedly went to respondent's office to inquire on the status informed of the status of his case and shall respond
of the cases, but respondent was not there. Thus, complainant wrote within a reasonable time to the client's request for
several letters to him requesting the return of the money she paid as information.
acceptance fee due to respondent's failure to take any action on her cases.
Under these provisions, a lawyer is duty-bound to competently
He even failed to appear in the hearing for preliminary investigation before
and diligently serve his client once the former takes up the latter's
the OCP-QC on January 16, 2013, causing it to be reset on February 20,
cause. The lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be
2013. Respondent also refused to answer any of her calls. mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. Hence, his
neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him amounts to inexcusable
negligence for which he must be administratively liable, as in this case.
After several months, respondent finally contacted complainant, and told The Court finds no credence to respondent's defense that he prepared
her not to worry as he would still handle the other cases, particularly pleadings for complainant given that he failed to provide any proof to
the Estafa case pending before the OCP-QC. However, respondent still failed substantiate his claim
to attend the scheduled preliminary investigation. Aggrieved, complainant
went to respondent's office, but the latter only answered "[k]asi alam ko
alas dose ng hapon ang hearing." CANON 19

Pena v. Atty. Aparicio, AC # 7298

Issue: Facts:

WON respondent should be held administratively liable for violating Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio (respondent) appeared as legal counsel for
the CPR. Grace C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). Sometime in August 2005, complainant
Held: Fernando Martin O. Pena, as President of MOF Company, Inc. (Subic),
A judicious review of the records shows that complainant secured received a notice from the Conciliation and Mediation Center of the NLRC
respondent's legal services for several cases and paid P60,000.00 as for a mediation/conciliation conference. In the conference, respondent, in
acceptance fee. However, respondent failed to perform legal services on behalf of his client, submitted a claim for separation pay arising from her
any of these cases, and upon demand, refused to return the acceptance fee alleged illegal dismissal. Complainant rejected the claim as being baseless.
paid by complainant. He also failed to respond to complainant's letters and Complainant thereafter sent notices to Hufana for the latter to explain her
calls inquiring on the status of said cases. These acts indubitably constitute absences and to return to work. In reply to this return to work notice,
violations of Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, which respectively respondent wrote a letter to complainant reiterating his client's claim for
read: separation pay. The letter also contained the following threat to the
company:
CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with
BUT if these are not paid on August 10, 2005, we will be
competence and diligence.
constrained to file and claim bigger amounts including
 moral damages to the tune of millions under established advantage in any case or proceeding." Under this Rule, a lawyer should not
precedence of cases and laws. In addition to other file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases
multiple charges like: against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel
the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's
1. Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of income
client.
not reported to the government.
In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its
2. Criminal Charges for Tax Evasion
Rule proscribe. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should
3. Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents the latter fail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement, he would file
and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple
4. Cancellation of business license to operate due charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of
to violations of laws. IDCHTE business license to operate due to violations of laws. The threats are not
These are reserved for future actions in case of failure to only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmail.
pay the above amounts as settlements in the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
Vda. De Enriquez v. Atty. San Jose, AC # 3569
Issue:

WON a lawyer is violated Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for writing a demand letter the contents of Facts:
which threatened complainant with the filing of criminal cases for tax
evasion and falsification of documents.

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Fidela Vda. De

Enriquez against respondent Atty. Manuel G. San Jose for gross negligence.
Held:


Complainant alleged that on August 28, 1989, she hired the services of
Respondent does not deny authorship of the threatening letter to respondent Atty. San Jose for the purpose of filing an unlawful detainer case
complainant, even spiritedly contesting the charge that the letter is against one Rugerio Alipante, who defaulted in the payment of monthly
unethical. rentals on complainant's property in Taban, Libmanan, Camarines Sur.
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a According to the complainant, respondent failed to file the appropriate civil
lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law," case, despite payment to him of P2,000 attorney's fees, so she decided to
reminding legal practitioners that a lawyer's duty is not to his client but to withdraw the case from respondent. She demanded the return of the
the administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly pertinent documents but despite repeated demands, respondent refused
subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously and failed to return the documents. As a result, the action for unlawful
observant of law and ethics. In particular, Rule 19.01 commands that a detainer prescribed. Complainant alleged further, that her daughter who
"lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful worked for respondent was not paid her salary. Complainant prayed that
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or Atty. San Jose be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper

Issue: vacancy in court did not suspend the court's official existence, much less
render it functus oficio.
WON respondent was negligent.


Millare v. Montero, 246 SCRA 1
Held:


Facts:
After a thorough review of the records in this matter, we are in agreement
with the IBP that respondent Atty. San Jose be held liable for negligence; Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the MTC which ordered
thus, his petition for exoneration should be denied for utter lack of merit. respondent’s client to vacate the premises subject of the ejectment case.
respondent as counsel, appealed the decision. CA dismissed Co's appeal

from the decision of the RTC for failure to comply with the proper
The Code of Professional Responsibility in Rule 18.03 enjoins a lawyer not to procedures. Respondent thereafter resorted to devious and underhanded
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection means to delay the execution of the judgment rendered by the MTC adverse
therewith shall render him liable. A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a to his client.
case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost

diligence. It is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and
diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds Held:
of the law, the interest of his client. It is not enough that a practitioner is
qualified to handle a legal matter; he is also required to prepare adequately
and give the appropriate attention to his legal work
SUSPENDED for (1) year. Rule 12.02. — A lawyer shall not file multiple
actions arising from the same cause. Rule 12.04. — A lawyer shall not
unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who processes.
undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
conclusion.However, respondent in this case failed to file the appropriate
civil case after sending a demand letter. The failure to file a pleading is by
itself inexcusable negligence on the part of respondent. Moreover, this Under Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is
Court finds reprehensible respondent's failure to heed the request of his required to represent his client "within the bounds of the law." The Code
client for the return of the case documents. That respondent gave no enjoins a lawyer to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
reasonable explanation for that failure makes his neglect patent. objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) and warns him not to allow his client to
dictate the procedure in handling the case (Rule 19.03). In short, a lawyer is
not a gun for hire.

Respondent aggravates his misconduct by blaming the courts. Respondent's

excuse that the MCTC having jurisdiction over the case was vacant; that
filing of a case would be useless; and that the best thing to do was to wait It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process,
for the vacancy to be filled, finds no support in the practice of law. The like the filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals
for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of a
judgment.
Held:

Yes. Canon 19 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility mandates lawyers
A judgment can be annulled only on two grounds: (a) that the judgment is to represent their clientswith zeal but within the bounds of the law. Rule
void for want of jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law, or (b) that it 19.01further commands that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
has been obtained by fraud. means to attain the lawful objectives of his clientand shall not present,
participate, or threaten to presentunfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improperadvantage in any case or proceeding.
Judging from the number of actions filed by respondent to forestall the Atty. Espina v. Atty. Chavez, AC # 7250
execution of the same judgment, respondent is also guilty of forum
shopping. Forum shopping exists when, by reason of an adverse decision in
one forum, defendant ventures to another for a more favorable resolution
of his case. Facts:

Ong v. Atty. Unto, AC # 2417 During the pendency of the ejectment suit, Atty. Chavez
committed an act apparently in his official capacity, which prompted
Atty. Espina to file his Complaint for Disbarment/Suspension with the
IBP.
Facts:
While the narratives of Atty. Espina and Atty. Chavez diverged
This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ongagainst Atty. Elpidio D. Unto, for on many points, the following facts are undisputed and stipulated
malpractice of law andconduct unbecoming of a lawyer.It is evident from during the preliminary hearing before the IBP Commissioner on June 24,
the records that he tried to coerce thecomplainant to comply with his 2005:
letter-demand bythreatening to file various charges against the latter.
1. Atty. Espina's parents, represented by Atty. Espina, filed an
Whenthe complainant did not heed his warning, he made goodhis threat
ejectment complaint against Enguio, represented by
and filed a string of criminal and administrativecases against the
Atty. Chavez.
complainant. They, however, did nothave any bearing or connection to the
cause of his client. 2. During the pendency of the ejectment case, Atty. Espina sent
a letter dated December 13, 2004 to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) Secretary captioned "Abrasive and
harassment tactics of Public Attorney III Jesus G.
The records show that the respondent offered monetaryrewards to anyone Chavez." The letter alleged that the Answer Atty.
who could provide him any informationagainst the complainant just so he Chavez prepared in the ejectment case contained
would have leverage inhis actions against the latter. offensive statements.
3. Also while the ejectment case was pending, Atty. Chavez, as a
Public Attorney, endorsed through a letter (transmittal
Issue: letter) to the Provincial Prosecutor, the filing of a
criminal complaint for Violation of Article 172
Whether or not Atty. Unto’s acts constitutemalpractice.
 (Falsification by private individual and use of falsified Facts:
document) of the Revised Penal Code(RPC) against Atty.
Espina, his wife (who is a partner in his law office) and Petitioner Potenciano R. Malvar filed a complaint for disbarment against
his parents. respondent Atty. Freddie B. Feir alleging that on December 17, 2014 and
January 22, 2015, he received threatening letters from Feir stating that
4. The criminal complaint was based on the affidavit-complaint should he fail to pay the sum of P18,000,000.00 to his client, Rogelio M.
executed by Enguio. In this affidavit-complaint, Enguio Amurao, a criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Documents and
alleged that "in order to fashion a case for Ejectment, Estafa, a civil complaint for Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title, and
respondents made an untruthful statement in the an administrative complaint for the revocation of his license as a physician
narration of facts would be filed against him.|||

According to Malvar, Feir's demands were tantamount to blackmail or
Held: extortion due to the fact that Feir tried to obtain something of value by
means of threats of filing complaints. Said acts are in violation of the
Atty. Espina contends that Atty. Chavez violated the above- Lawyer's Oath which provides that: "I will do no falsehood, nor consent to
quoted provisions when he indispensably participated in the filing of the the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
falsification complaint against him, his wife and his parents. The groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same."
falsification case was filed, according to Atty. Espina, solely for the
purpose of gaining an improper advantage and leverage in the
ejectment case.
In support of his complaint, Malvar submitted the following affidavits
Atty. Espina further argues that Atty. Chavez participated in the executed by: (1) his staff stating that said staff witnessed Amurao deliver to
filing of the baseless criminal complaint by (i) goading Enguio to file the the office a Deed of Absolute Sale signed by Amurao, Noemi Amurao,
criminal complaint and (ii) ensuring that the criminal complaint was Teodorico Toribio, and Fatima Toribio; and (2) Amurao himself stating that
acted upon by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor by sending the he is one of the sellers indicated in the Deed of Absolute Sale, that the
transmittal letter to the said office under Atty. Chavez's signature. signature appearing thereon is his, and that he personally witnessed Noemi
We find Atty. Espina's position unmeritorious and without basis. Amurao, Teodorico Toribio, and Fatima, Toribio sign said document.

What Rule 19.01 prohibits is the filing or the threat of Held:

filing patently frivolous and meritless appeals or clearly groundless
actions for the purpose of gaining improper advantage in any case or An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or
proceeding. of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds
enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Two elements are indispensable before a lawyer can be deemed
to have violated this rule: (i) the filing or threat of filing a patently
frivolous and meritless action or appeal and (ii) the filing or threat of
filing the action is intended to gain improper advantage in any case or Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer
proceeding. shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law." Moreover,
Rule 19.01 thereof states that "a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
Malvar v. Atty. Feir, AC # 1181 participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges
to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding." Under this
Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless Complainant alleges that he did not promise to pay the respondent 1,000
criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to sq. m. of land as appearance fees.|||
secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own
cases against the lawyer's client.

Complainant went to the respondent's office to inquire about the status of

the case. Respondent informed him that the decision was adverse to them
In the instant case, Malvar claims that Feir sent him the demand letters in because a congressman exerted pressure upon the trial judge. Respondent
order to interpose threats that should he fail to pay the sum of however assured him that they could still appeal the adverse judgment and
P18,000,000.00, Feirwill file criminal, civil, and administrative complaints asked for the additional amount of P3,850.00 and another P2,000.00 on
which were, in truth, unfounded for being based neither on valid nor September 26, 2000 as allowance for research made.|||
relevant facts and law. Such demands, according to Malvar, are tantamount
to blackmail or extortion.

Complainant received a demand-letter from the respondent asking for the

delivery of the 1,000 sq. m. piece of land which he allegedly promised as
It bears stressing, moreover, that the monetary consideration Feir was payment for respondent's appearance fee. In the same letter, respondent
demanding from Malvar in the amount of P18,000,000.00 cannot be also threatened to file a case in court if the complainant would not confer
considered as the subject of blackmail or extortion. Feir's demand for said with him and settle the matter within 30 days.|||
amount is not an exaction of money for the exercise of an influence but is
actually a legitimate claim for the remaining balance subject of a legitimate
sale transaction.
Respondent alleged that||| complainant offered, in lieu of P3,000.00 per
appearance, 1,000 sq. m. of land from the land subject matter of the case, if
they win, or from another piece of property, if they lose.|||
In the absence, therefore, of any evidence preponderant to prove
that Feir committed acts constituting grounds for disbarment, such as the
violation of Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, Malvar's claims must necessarily fail.
Held:

Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited from
CANON 20
acquiring either by purchase or assignment the property or rights involved
Ramos v. Atty. Ngaseo, AC # 6210
which are the object of the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of
Facts: their profession.The prohibition on purchase is all embracing to include not
only sales to private individuals but also public or judicial sales.
Complainant Federico Ramos went to respondent Atty. Patricio Ngaseo's
However, the said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment
Makati office to engage his services as counsel in a case involving a piece of
of the property takes place during the pendency of the litigation involving
land in San Carlos, Pangasinan. Respondent agreed to handle the case for an
the client's property. Consequently, where the property is acquired after
acceptance fee of P20,000.00, appearance fee of P1,000.00 per hearing and
the termination of the case, no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the
the cost of meals, transportation and other incidental expenses.
Civil Code attaches.
 Invariably, in all cases where Article 1491 was violated, the illegal We note that the failure of respondent to include all the properties of the
transaction was consummated with the actual transfer of the litigated estate in his claim for attorney's fees runs counter to his other claim that
property either by purchase or assignment in favor of the prohibited complainant's entire estate was in litigation. If it were so, should he not
individual. then have also asked for 25 percent of the value of all such properties
enumerated in the Judgment?
In the instant case, there was no actual acquisition of the property

in litigation since the respondent only made a written demand for its
As regards his professional fees, we stress that the proper time to deal with
delivery which the complainant refused to comply. Mere demand for
this delicate issue is upon the commencement of the lawyer-client
delivery of the litigated property does not cause the transfer of ownership,
relationship. In this case, respondent should have determined and entered
hence, not a prohibited transaction within the contemplation of Article
into an agreement regarding his fees in 1991 at the latest, when he was first
1491. Even assuming arguendo that such demand for delivery is unethical,
retained by complainant as her counsel in the partition case. Such prudence
respondent's act does not fall within the purview of Article 1491. The letter
would have spared the Court this controversy over a lawyer's
of demand dated January 29, 2003 was made long after the judgment in
compensation, a suit that should be avoided except to prevent imposition,
Civil Case No. SCC-2128 became final and executory on January 18, 2002. ac
injustice or fraud.
CANON 20
To be sure, a lawyer is entitled to the protection of the courts against any
Vda. De Fajardo vs. Atty. Bugaring attempt on the part of a client to escape payment of legitimate attorney's
fees. However, such protection must not be sought at the expense of truth.
Facts: Complete candor or honesty is expected from lawyers, particularly when
Petitioner filed a complaint seeking disbarment of Atty. Bugaring for they appear and plead before the courts for their own causes against
untruthful statements in allegedly trying to fleece her of P 3, 53,170 in former clients, as in this case. With his armada of legal knowledge and skills,
attorney’s fees. Atty. Bugaring was recommended by Attty. Dantes to respondent clearly enjoyed the upper hand. More important, he had the
complainant to assist her and her co-heirs with the legal aspects of the sole opportunity to present evidence in the collection case after
disputes they were encountering. Complainant had always ask Atty. complainant was declared in default, and after he was allowed to present
Bugaring how much he would charge for his professional fees, but he would his evidence ex parte.
just answer,”Huwag na ninyo alalahanin inyon. Para ko na kayong nanay or
lola.”
WHEREFORE, Respondent Rexie Efren A. Bugaring is found LIABLE for gross
The IPB Commissioner found the respondent guilty of including in his claim misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
for attorney’s fees in civil case 25% of the value of the two lots, which were of ONE (1) YEAR, effective upon the finality of this Decision. He is WARNED
not among the properties in litigation in the “Mother Case” and had already that a repetition of the same or of a similar misconduct will be dealt with
been sold in 1987 and 1968, respectively. Respondent had not completely more severely. I
been honest, he decided to forego his professional fees amounting to P 2
million in civil case but actually those fees were included in his collection
case. It was also in the said case that he filed a petition for the recording Law Firm of Raymundo Armovit vs. CA
and enforcement of attorney’s lien. Facts:
Issue: WON respondent is guilty Petitioner was the legal counsel of Bengson Commercial Buikding Inc. (BCBI)
Held: YES when the latter filed an action against GSIS. The RTC ruled in favor of BCBI
and ordered GSIS to reimburse BCBI the amount of P 2, 760, 000 as rentals Petitioner also caused the delivery to the respondent of a check in the
earned by one of its properties. Atty. Armovit sought the execution thereof. amount of P 220, 107.51- allegedly equivalent to one half of 7.5% of
petitioner’s P 11,200,000.00 share in the estate of his deceased wife less
Subsequently however, BCBI directed Armovit not to take part in the Atty. Abrogar’s cash advances. On 2008, the petitioner write to respondent
execution proceedings and ignored his billings (supposedly 20% contingent offering to pay his attorney’s fees in accordance with the Retainer
fee (P552, 000) of the amount (P2,760,000) recovered by BCBI). Agreement minus the latter’s cash advances-and offer that the respondent
Armovit thus moved for the entry of an attorney's lien in the case records, had previously refused. Atty. Abrogar filed a Motion to Enter into the
but he later on withdrew this due to ongoing efforts to amicably settle with Records his attorney’s lien. The RTC issued an order granting the motion
BCBI. The Court approved the withdrawal, and directed the parties to and directed the petitioner to pay.
faithfully comply with their duties. However, BCBI only paid Armovit the
amount of P300,000, which the Court nonetheless deemed to be faithful Issue: WON the grant of claim for attorney’s fees without requiring a full-
compliance with its obligation. blown trial and without considering his advance payments is valid.

Issue: Held:

WON the lower courts erred in ruling that the petitioner's attorney's fees We find merit in the petition.
are limited to 20% of rental arrearages ONLY, excluding the rest of the
recoveries made by BCBI An attorney has a right to be paid a fair and reasonable compensation for
the services he has rendered to a client. As a security for his fees, Rule 138,
Held: Section 37 of the Rules of Court grants an attorney an equitable right to a
charging lien over money judgments he has secured in litigation for his
NO, the petition is dismissed. client.
For the lien to be enforceable, the attorney must have caused: (1) a
The fallo of the SC's decision ordered the payment of the sum of P252,000, statement of his claim to be entered in the record of the case while the
nothing more, nothing less. court has jurisdiction over the case and before the full satisfaction of the
Petitioner's claim in excess of this amount relies on the statement in the judgment; and (2) a written notice of his claim to be delivered to his client
body of the decision that "we do not find Atty. Armovit's claim for twenty and to the adverse party.
percent of all recoveries to be unreasonable." However, an order of
execution is based on the dispositive portion, not on the body, of the However, the filing of the statement of the claim does not, by itself, legally
decision. When there is a conflict between the dispositive portion and the determine the amount of the claim when the client disputes the amount or
body of the judgment, it is the former that prevails over the latter. claims that the amount has been paid. In these cases, both the attorney
and the client have a right to be heard and to present evidence in support of
their claims. The proper procedure for the court is to ascertain the proper
Navarez vs. Atty. Abrogar III
amount of the lien in a full dress trial before it orders the registration of the
Facts: charging lien. The necessity of a hearing is obvious and beyond dispute.

Petitioner engaged the services of Abrogar Valerio Maderazo and Associates In the present case, the RTC ordered the registration of Atty. Abrogar's lien
Law Offices though the respondent. The firm was to represent the without a hearing even though the client contested the amount of the lien.
petitioner as collaborating counsel which the case involved the settlement The petitioner had the right to be heard and to present evidence on the true
of estate pending before the RTC. Petitioner filed a manifestation with the amount of the charging lien. The RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion
RTC that he was terminating the services of respondent. On the same day,
because it denied the petitioner his right to be heard, i.e., the right to due 18 of the CPR mandates that once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is the
process. lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence and diligence.

We agree with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that
Ignacio vs. Atty. Alviar respondent failed to competently and diligently attend to the legal matter
entrusted to him. It is undisputed that respondent came to see
Facts:
complainant's son, his client, only once for about 20 minutes and no more
In March 2014, respondent was referred to complainant for purposes of thereafter; it is likewise undisputed that respondent failed to attend the
handling the case of complainant's son who was then apprehended and scheduled arraignment despite the latter's commitment to either find a way
detained by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Quezon City. to attend, or send a collaborating counsel to do so; that he forgot the date
Respondent agreed to represent complainant's son for a stipulated of arraignment is an equally dismal excuse.
acceptance fee of PhP100, 000. Respondent further represented that he
could refer the matter to the Commission on Human Rights to investigate Here, respondent only conferred once with the complainant's son for 20
the alleged illegal arrest made on complainant's son. minutes, filed his entry of appearance, obtained copies of the case records
and inquired twice as to the status of the case. For his efforts and for the
On the date of the arraignment, neither respondent nor his promised particular circumstances in this case, respondent should be allowed a
alternate, appeared. When asked, respondent replied that he forgot the reasonable compensation of PhP3, 000. The remainder, or PhP97, 000
date of arraignment. This incident prompted complainant to write another should be returned to the complainant.
letter dated May 6, 2014 to respondent, requesting the latter to formally
withdraw as counsel and emphasized that respondent's withdrawal as Dalupan vs. Atty. Gacott
counsel is necessary so that she and her son can hire another lawyer to take
Facts:
his stead. In said letter, complainant also reiterated her request that a
portion of the PhP100, 000 be remitted to them after respondent deducts The complainant claimed that she was a defendant in a criminal case for
his professional fees commensurate to the preparatory legal service he grave slander pending before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Puerto
rendered. Respondent failed to take heed. Princesa City, Palawan. Meanwhile, her son, Wilmer Dalupan, was also a
defendant in a separate criminal case for grave slander and malicious
Issue: mischief pending before the same court. In order to represent the
Whether respondent is guilty of negligence in handling the case of complainant and her son, the complainant engaged the legal services of the
complainant's son. respondent who then charged an acceptance fee of P10, 000.

Held: The complainant paid the respondent P 5,000.00 as initial payment for his
acceptance fee. The complainant requested the respondent to draft a
Respondent only performed preparatory legal services for complainant's
Motion to Reduce Bail Bond but was denied by the respondent claiming that
son, he is not entitled to the entire PhP100,000 but only to fees determined
it was beyond the scope his retainer services. Thereafter, the complainant
on the basis of quantum meruit, Section 24, Rule 138, and Canon 20, Rule
alleged that the respondent neglected his duties as counsel and ailed to
20.01 of the CPR and that the remainder should be restituted to
attend any of the hearings of the MTC. In view of his repeated absences
complainant.
before the MTC, the judge issued an order which appointed a counsel de

officio to represent the complainant.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client

relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. Canon
Issue: his law office.” Respondent intend for particular purpose that his law office
is one of the courts in the Philippines as to investigate thereat.
Whether the respondent should return the payment of the attorney's fee to
the complainant in the amount of P5, 000. Complainant averred further that the incorporation papers of the Philippine
Datus Cultural Minorities Assistance, Inc. and the Frontier's Mining
Held: Prospectors and Location Corporation were supposed to be notarized at
respondent's law office, but the charge for notarization amounting to P10,
We find that the respondent did not commit any fault or negligence in the
000.00 was "very dear, very expensive," and complainant could not afford
performance of his obligations under the retainer agreement which was
the same. He then accused respondent of soliciting cases for purposes of
willfully terminated by the complainant on the ground of loss of trust and
gain, which act constitutes malpractice, citing Section 27, Rule 138 of the
confidence. As held by the Investigating Commissioner, the evidence on
Rules of Court
record shows that the respondent is not liable for abandonment or neglect

of duty.
Issue: WON the respondent is guilty
However, we disagree with the conclusion of the Investigating
Commissioner that the respondent should return the payment of the Held:
attorney's fee to the complainant in the amount of P5,000.
With respect to the claim of exorbitant notarization fees, the same deserves
scant consideration in view of complainant's failure to offer corroborative
In the present case, based on a simple reading of the Official Receipt dated proof to support his bare allegations. While a lawyer is mandated under
August 20, 1996, the parties clearly intended the payment of P5,000 to Canon 20 of the CPR to charge only fair and reasonable fees, and that he
serve as acceptance fee of the respondent, and not attorney's fee. may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his office as an
Moreover, both parties expressly claimed that they intended such payment attorney for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the
as the acceptance fee of the respondent. Absent any other evidence CPR, such violation must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory
showing a contrary intention of the parties, we find that the Investigating proof, which was not done in this case.
Commissioner gravely erred in referring to the amount to be returned by
the respondent as attorney's fee. It has been stressed that the determination of whether an attorney should
be disbarred or merely suspended for a period involves the exercise of
Dumanlang vs. Atty. Intong sound judicial discretion. The penalties for a lawyer's failure to file a brief or
other pleading range from reprimand, warning with fine, suspension, and, in
Facts: grave cases, disbarment. In the present case, the Court finds too harsh the
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that respondent be
Complainant claims to be a leader of the Indigenous People of Bangcud,
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months.
Malaybalay and the President of the Philippine Datus Cultural Minorities

Assistance, Inc. and the Frontier's Mining Prospectors and Location
Corporation. He received a letter from respondent with regard to the Sanchez vs. Atty. Aguilos
settlement and pre-litigation conference prior to any legal actions against
him by the respondent’s client. Facts:

Complainant took offense with the aforequoted letter as it was allegedly Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez has charged respondent Atty. Romeo G.
intended “to force, compulsory, to investigate, or fiscalize, in the moment in Aguilos (respondent) with misconduct for the latter's refusal to return the
amount of P70,000.00 she had paid for his professional services despite his Facts:
not having performed the contemplated professional services.
The complainants were forced to consult a lawyer on the legal remedies to
She subsequently withdrew the case from him, and requested the refund of pre vent the intrusion on their property.
the amounts already paid, but he refused to do the same as he had already
The complainants further averred that they had then consulted with the
started working on the case; that she had sent him a letter, through Atty.
respondent, briefing him on their concern, and delivering to him the
Isidro S.C. Martinez, to demand the return of her payment less whatever
documents pertinent to their land; that after scrutinizing the documents, he
amount corresponded to the legal services he had already performed
had told them that he would be initiating a case for certiorari in their behalf

to nullify the order for the reconstitution of the lost title covering Cad. 237
Issue:
Lot No. 1351; that he had then insinuated that one of their lots would be his
Whether or not he should be ordered to return the attorney's fees paid. attorney's fees; and that they had not initially agreed to the insinuation
because the lots had already been allocated to each of their seven children,
but they had ultimately consented to giving him only a portion of Lot No.
Held: 37926-H with an area of 250 square meters. It appears that soon after the
respondent unilaterally prepared the document so-called Memorandum of
Respondent was liable for misconduct, and he should be ordered to return Agreement (MOA).
the entire amount received from the client.
Issue: Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member of the Bar
Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and in his dealings with the complainants?
skill to the complainant. As the foregoing findings reveal, he did not know
the distinction between the grounds for legal separation and for annulment Held:
of marriage. Such knowledge would have been basic and expected of him as
a lawyer accepting a professional engagement for either causes of action. We find and hold that the respondent grossly violated his Lawyer's Oath and
His explanation that the client initially intended to pursue the action for his ethical duties as an attorney because he did not observe candor and
legal separation should be disbelieved. fairness in his dealings with his clients.

The case unquestionably contemplated by the parties and for which his To determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees, the following factors as
services was engaged, was no other than an action for annulment of the enumerated in Rule 20.1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility may
complainant's marriage with her husband with the intention of marrying her serve as a guide, to wit: (a) the time spent and the extent of the services
British fiancee.They did not contemplate legal separation at all, for legal rendered or required; (b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions
separation would still render her incapacitated to re-marry. That the involved; (c) the importance of the subject matter; (d) the skill demanded;
respondent was insisting in his answer that he had prepared a petition for (e) the probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of
legal separation, and that she had to pay more as attorney's fees if she the proffered case; (f) the customary charges for similar services and the
desired to have the action for annulment was, therefore, beyond schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs; (g) the amount
comprehension other than to serve as a hallow afterthought to justify his involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the
claim for services rendered. service; (h) the contingency or certainty of compensation; (i) the character
of the employment, whether occasional or established; and (j) the
professional standing of the lawyer.
Sps. Jacinto vs. Atty. Bangot, Jr.
It was not disputed that only the filing of the two-paged Manifestation for Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of Atty. Cortes as his
Information constituted the respondent's rendition of professional services counsel in an illegal dismissal case against Philippine Explosives Corporation
for the complainants. Although he did claim that the filing of the (PEC). He further alleged that he and Atty. Cortes had a handshake
Manifestation for Information had prevented any intrusion on their agreement on a 12% contingency fee as and by way of attorney's fees.
property, thereby fulfilling his end of the contract, the worth of such
minimal effort was exaggerated and disproportionate when taken in the Atty. Cortes prosecuted his claim for illegal dismissal which was decided in
context of the attorney's fees being Lot No. 37925-G with 300 square favor of complainant. PEC then issued a check all payable in the name of
meters in area. The two-paged Manifestation for Information was not even complainant.
the procedural precursor of the promised petition for certiorari. Moreover,
he did not actually le the petition for certiorari as he had promised. And, Complainant alleged that when he was about to withdraw the amount of
lastly, he did nothing more after filing the Manifestation for Information. He the initial check deposited, Atty. Cortes arrived with his wife and ordered
certainly transgressed the Lawyer's Oath by receiving property of a the bank teller to hold off the transaction. When complainant asked why he
substantial value from the complainants after having made them believe did that, Atty.
that he could ensure their land from intrusion by third parties. He took Cortes answered that 50% of the total awarded claims belongs to him as
advantage of them who had reposed their full trust and confidence in his attorney's fees. When complainant questioned him, Atty. Cortes became
ability to perform the task by virtue of his being a lawyer. hysterical and imposingly maintained that 50% of the total awarded claims
belongs to him.

All the foregoing circumstances established that the respondent was Issue:
deceitful, dishonest and unreasonable in his dealings with the complainants
as his clients. He thus violated his Lawyer's Oath, whereby he vowed, among Whether or not the acts complained of constitute misconduct on the part of
others, to do no falsehood, and not to consent to the doing of any Atty. Cortes, which would subject him to disciplinary action.
falsehood, as well as not to delay any man's cause for money or malice but
to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and Held:
discretion "with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.
We rule in the affirmative.


In addition, the respondent should not be entitled to receive any attorney's
We have held that a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction.
fees in view of the worthlessness of the professional services he supposedly
It is generally recognized as valid and binding, but must be laid down in an
rendered. WHEREFORE, this Court FINDS and HOLDS respondent ATTY.
express contract. In this case, we note that the parties did not have an
EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR. guilty of violation of the Lawyer's Oath and of the
express contract as regards the payment of fees. Complainant alleges that
Code of Professional Responsibility; SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
the contingency fee was fixed at 12% via a handshake agreement, while
for five (5) years effective upon notice of this decision, with warning that
Atty. Cortes counters that the agreement was 50%.
sterner sanctions will be meted on him for a similar offense; and DECLARES

that he is not entitled to recover any attorney's fees from the complainants.
The IBP Commission on Discipline pointed out that since what respondent

handled was merely a labor case, his attorney's fees should not exceed 10%,

the rate allowed under Article 111 of the Labor Code. Although we agree
Cortez vs. Atty. Cortez
that the 50% contingency fee was excessive, we do not agree that the 10%
Facts: limitation as provided in Article 111 is automatically applicable.

The case of Masmud v. NLRC (First Division), et al., discussed the matter of
application of Article 111 of the Labor Code on attorney's fees: There are Issue: WON the respondent is guilty.
two concepts of attorney's fees. In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees
represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the Held:
legal services rendered to the latter. On the other hand, in its extraordinary
As the Code of Professional Responsibility provides, Rule 21.01.—A lawyer
concept, attorney's fees may be awarded by the court as indemnity for
shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client. A lawyer shall
damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. Article 111 of
preserve the confidences and secrets of his clients even after termination of
the Labor Code deals with the extraordinary concept of attorney’s fees. It
the attorney-client relation. As his defense to the charges, respondent
regulates the amount recoverable as attorney's fees in the nature of
averred that complainant failed to specify the alleged confidential
damages sustained by and awarded to the prevailing party. It may not be
information used against him. Such a defense is unavailing to help
used as the standard in fixing the amount payable to the lawyer by his client
respondent's cause for as succinctly explained in Hilado v. David
for the legal services he rendered.


Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "A lawyer Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of
shall charge only fair and reasonable fees." litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of entangled relevant and
irrelevant, secret and well known facts. In the complexity of what is said in
We believe and so hold that the contingent fee here claimed by Atty. Cortes the course of the dealings between an attorney and a client, inquiry of the
was, under the facts obtaining in this case, grossly excessive and nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of
unconscionable. The issues involved could hardly be said to be novel and other matters that might only further prejudice the complainant's cause.
Atty. Cortes in fact already knew that complainant was already hard up. We And the theory would be productive of other unsalutary results. To make
have held that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not the passing of confidential communication a condition precedent, i.e., to
merchants. Law advocacy, it has been stressed, is not capital that yields make the employment conditioned on the scope and character of the
profits. The returns it births are simple rewards for a job done or service knowledge acquired by an attorney in determining his right to change sides,
rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy a would not enhance the freedom of litigants, which is to be sedulously
greater deal of freedom from governmental interference, is impressed with fostered, to consult with lawyers upon what they believe are their rights in
a public interest, for which it is subject to State regulation. litigation. The condition would of necessity call for an investigation of what
information the attorney has received and in what way it is or it is not in
conflict with his new position. Litigants would in consequence be wary in
CANON 21
going to an attorney, lest by an unfortunate turn of the proceeding, if an
Suntay vs. Atty. Suntay
investigation be held, the court should accept the attorney's inaccurate
Facts: version of the facts that came to him.

A complaint for disbarment was filed by the complainant against his PACES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION V. ATTY. SALANDANAN, AC. NO. 1346
nephew, Atty.Rafael G. Suntay. Complainant alleged that respondent was
FACTS:
his legal counsel, adviser and confidant who was privy to all his legal,
financial, and political affairs from 1956 to 1964. However, since they parted Sometime in October 1973, Salandanan became a stockholder of Paces, and
ways because of politics, respondent had been filing complaints and cases later became its Director, Treasurer, Administrative Officer, Vice-President
against complainant, making use of confidential information gained while for Finance, then its counsel.
their attorney-client relationship existed.
As lawyer for Paces, he appeared for it in Land & Housing Development x x x xRule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
Corporation v. Paces Corporation (Civil Case No. 18791) Salandanan failed to written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.x x
file the Answer, after filing a Motion for a Bill of Particulars, which the court x x
had denied. As a result, an order of default was issued against Paces.
CANON 21 – A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCES AND SECRETS
Salandanan never withdrew his appearance in the case nor notified Paces to
OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS
get the services of another lawyer. Subsequently, a decision was rendered
TERMINATED.
against Paces which later became final and executory.
Under the aforecited rules, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from
Salandanan started handling the case between E.E. Black Ltd. and Paces, but
representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in
now, representing E.E. Black Ltd. Salandanan then filed a complaint with
any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally
application for preliminary attachment against Paces for the collection of its
unrelated cases.[4] Conflict of interest exists when a lawyer represents
obligation to E.E. Black Ltd. He later succeeded in obtaining an order of
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether
attachment, writ of attachment, and notices of garnishment to various
or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or
entities which Paces had business dealings with.
claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In short, if he argues
for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the
other client. This rule covers not only cases in which confidential
Thus, Paces filed a complaint against Salandanan. communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence
has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the
It argued that when he acted as counsel for E.E. Black Ltd., he represented
acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act
conflicting interests and utilized, to the full extent, all the information he
which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
had acquired as its stockholder, officer, and lawyer.
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation
Salandanan claimed that he was never employed nor paid as a counsel by to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
Paces. There was no client-lawyer contract between them. He maintained connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the
that his being a lawyer was merely coincidental to his being a stockholder- acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full
officer and did not automatically make him a lawyer of the corporation, discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite
particularly with respect to its account with E.E. Black Ltd. He added that suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of said
whatever knowledge or information he had obtained on the operation of duty. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good
Paces only took place in the regular, routinary course of business as him taste.
being an investor, stockholder, and officer, but never as a lawyer of the
Even the termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a
company.
lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the
HELD: former client. The spirit behind this rule is that the client's confidence once
given should not be stripped by the mere expiration of the professional
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the Code of Professional employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not
Responsibility (CPR) provide: do anything that will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in
CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY which the lawyer previously represented the client. Nor should the lawyer
IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS. disclose or use any of the client's confidences acquired in the previous
relation. In this regard, Canon 17 of the CPR expressly declares that: "A
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him."
Here, contrary to Salandanan's futile defense, he sufficiently represented or September 18, 1991, Atty. Gaspar filed before the trial court a Motion to
intervened for Paces in its negotiations for the payment of its obligation to Withdraw as Counsel without the consent of Orcino. The court issued an
E.E. Black Ltd. The letters he sent to the counsel of E.E. Black Ltd. identified order directing Gaspar to secure complainant’s consent to the motion and
him as the Treasurer of Paces. Previously, he had likewise represented his appearance as private prosecutor shall continue until he has secured this
Paces in two (2) different cases. It is clear, therefore, that his duty had been consent. Oricno refused to sign her conformity. Atty. Gaspar did not appear
to fight a cause for Paces, but it later became his duty to oppose the same at the hearings nor did he contact Orcino, thus she was compelled to
for E.E. Black Ltd. His defense for Paces was eventually opposed by him engage the services of another lawyer.
when he argued for E.E. Black Ltd. Thus, Salandanan had indisputably
obtained knowledge of matters affecting the rights and obligations of Paces ISSUE:
which had been placed in him in unrestricted confidence. The same Whether or not Atty. Gaspar had the right to terminate the attorney-client
knowledge led him to the identification of those attachable properties and relation
business organizations that eventually made the attachment and
garnishment against Paces a success.
HELD:
In the absence of the express consent from Paces after full disclosure to it of The client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation at
the conflict of interest, Salandanan should have either outrightly declined any time with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or
representing and entering his appearance as counsel for E.E. Black Ltd., or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,
advised E.E. Black Ltd. to simply engage the services of another lawyer. considerably restricted. An attorney who undertakes to conduct an action
Unfortunately, he did neither, and must necessarily suffer the dire impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He cannot abandon it
consequences. without reasonable cause. A lawyer’s right to withdraw from a case before
its final adjudication arises only from the client’s written consent or from a
CANON 22 good cause. Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
ORCINO V. GASPAR AC 3773 “Sec. 26. Change of attorneys — An attorney may retire at any time from
any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in
FACTS: court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding,
Orcino engaged the services of Atty. Gaspar to prosecute a criminal case she without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client
intended to file against several suspects in the slaying of her husband. and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to
Orcino bound herself to pay respondent legal fees ofP20,000.00 — retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed
P10,000.00 to be paid upon signing of the contract and the balance to be shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and
paid on or before the conclusion of the case. She was also to pay P500.00 written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party.” In the
per appearance of respondent before the court and fiscal. This agreement present case, Orcina did not give her written consent to Gaspar’s
was embodied in a contract executed on February 22, 1991. Orcino withdrawal. He did not even file an application with the court for it to
complied with the contract and Atty. Gaspar entered into his duties. Atty. determine whether he should be allowed to withdraw.
Gaspar, however failed to attend the hearing scheduled in August 1991. It
was at this hearing that the court, over complainant’s objections, granted
But granting that respondent’s motion without complainant’s consent was
bail to all the accused. Orcino immediately went to respondent’s residence
an application for withdrawal with the court, the Supreme Court found this
and confronted him with his absence. Gaspar explained that he did not
reason insufficient to justify the withdrawal. Atty. Gaspar’s withdrawal was
receive formal notice of the hearing. She asked for the records of the case
made on the ground that “there no longer exists the xxx confidence”
saying that she could refer them to another lawyer. Gaspar then gave her
between them and that there had been “serious differences between them
the records. Orcino never returned the records nor did she see Gaspar. On
relating to the manner of private prosecution. Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the conduct, and violation of oath as a lawyer committed by the latter. The
Code of Professional Responsibility provides: respondent was found guilty by the SC of falsehood and suspended him
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that a
“CANON 22 — A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD similar offense committed in the future will yield a harsher penalty.
CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Rule
The respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the court as per his
22.01– A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
suspension. During its pendency, petitioner filed a Motion for Contempt
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in
and/or Disbarment under the ground that Atty. Paras did not heed the SC’s
connection with the matter he is handling; b) When the client insists that
suspension order and was still practicing his legal profession. Eventually, the
the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules; c) When his
MR was denied by the SC and asked respondent to comment on the current
inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the
motion filed against him by the petitioner within 10 days. The respondent
client; d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it
filed a Manifestation with the court after more than a year, stating that he
difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively; e) When the client
has already complied with the 1-year suspension. In response, the SC issued
deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the
another resolution that compels respondent to explain why he should not
retainer agreement; f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public
be held in contempt for failing to comply with the previous resolution.
office; and g) Other similar cases.” The instant case does not fall under any
Respondent replied by denying the previous allegations made by petitioner
of the grounds mentioned. Neither can this be considered similar or
that he was engaged in the practice of law during his suspension.
analogous to any. Orcina was upset by Atty. Gaspar’s absence at the hearing
where bail was granted to the suspected killers of her husband and it was
thus natural for her to react by confrontation. Her words were uttered in a
burst of passion and cannot be construed to have intended to terminate ISSUES:
Atty. Gaspar’s services. She made this clear when she refused to sign his
“Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.” Even if Atty. Gaspar was justified in 1. Whether or not Atty. Justo Paras should be disbarred for violating the
terminating his services, he, however, cannot just do so and leave SC’s suspension order by practicing his legal profession during his
complainant in the cold unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume suspension period.
that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court. Until his
2. Whether or not Atty. Justo Paras should be disbarred by failing to file a
withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record.
comment on time as demanded by the SC.

Return the amount owed to Orcina. Admonished to exercise prudence.

HELD:
LAWYER’S ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY
NO. The SC found no factual basis on the petitioner’s allegations that the
respondent practiced law during his suspension. Respondent even took the
YAP-PARAS V. JUSTO PARAS AC 4947 initiative to inform the lower courts of his one-year suspension from the
practice of law, as the SC noted.
FACTS: NO. While it is clear that resolutions of the SC are not mere requests that
Rosa Yap-Paras (Petitioner) filed a case against Atty. Justo Paras can be brushed aside or partially complied with and that the SC’s authority
(respondent) praying for the disbarment of the latter, accusing that he should always be respected and observed, the SC held that the respondent’s
committed acts of deceit, malpractice, grave misconduct, grossly immoral failing health and surgical operations that he underwent are reasonable
excuses for him to not be able to file his comment on time. Moreover, the Bar of the Philippines (CBD-IBP). The CBD-IBP may have arrived at its
SC took note that respondent expressed his profound regret and conclusion on the basis alone of affidavits and pleadings without any
immeasurable sorrow for not being able to comply with the court’s order. testimonial evidence, contrary to established procedure, despite the fact
that the charges of blackmail and extortion are factual matters which must
Hence, a REPRIMAND with WARNING was deemed sufficient punishment by be established and proved with sufficient competent evidence.
the SC for respondent’s failures, coupled with a reminder that a more
drastic punishment shall be meted out accordingly if such offense shall be We must emphasize that a mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does
repeated by the respondent. not suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. There must always be
sufficient evidence to support the charge. This brings to the fore the
application of the age-old but familiar rule that he who alleges must prove
his allegations. In the case before us, it is enough for respondent to deny
SPS. WILFREDO BOYBOY AND LYDIA BOYBOY V. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. complicity in the alleged blackmail or extortion, without more, for he is not
YABUT, AC. No. 5225, 2003-04-28 under obligation to prove his negative averment, much less to disprove
FACTS: what has not been proved by complainants. Thus, we have consistently held
that if the complainant/plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his
Complainant-spouses alleged that sometime in November 1999 respondent cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which
called complainant Dr. Lydia Boyboy at her clinic in Angeles City threatening he bases his claim, the respondent/defendant is under no obligation to
to charge her with estafa before the NBI and cause the revocation of her prove his exception or defense.
physician's license unless complainant paid him P300,000.00 informing her
at the same time that he was in possession of incriminatory evidence The records are barren of any evidence that would prove respondent's
against her. culpability. Other than complainants' naked assertion that respondent
demanded P300,000.00 from them which was later allegedly increased to
The following day, complainant Wilfredo Boyboy visited respondent at his P400,000.00, in exchange for the dropping of the charges against them for
law office to discuss the case; respondent intimidated to Wilfredo Boyboy estafa, no other proof was presented to back up the accusation. Precisely,
that he had already persuaded Atty. Cris Balancio, NBI Director for Region the absence of any evidence of blackmail and extortion prompted the CBD-
III, to dismiss the case for a consideration of P400,000.00. IBP to resolve the case against respondent solely on the self-serving
declarations of the parties set forth in their pleadings
Respondent denied the charge as unfounded, baseless and groundless,
contending in his Answer that the disbarment case was deliberately The standard of substantial evidence required in administrative proceedings
resorted to by complainants to harass and make even with him as he filed is more than a mere scintilla.
criminal cases against the complaining spouses, and an administrative case
against Dr. Lydia Boyboy. While rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be
controlling, the obvious purpose being to free administrative boards from
The Court referred this case to the IBP for its Committee on Bar Discipline to the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter
investigate which thereafter submitted its Report and Recommendation, which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not
which was adopted by the IBP, for respondent's suspension from the invalidate the administrative order, this assurance of a desirable flexibility in
practice of law for three (3) months. administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without
basis in evidence having rational probative force.
HELD:
It is relevant to note at this point that on 16 October 2000 the Assistant City
After thoroughly going over the records, we feel very uncomfortable with
Prosecutor of Angeles City dismissed for lack of probable cause the criminal
the recommendation of the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated
case against respondent Atty. Victoriano Yabut, Jr., for violation of Art. 282
of The Revised Penal Code, in connection with the alleged blackmail and In his answer to the complaint, Sesbreño alleged that his sentence was
extortion filed by complainants against respondent commuted and the phrase “with the inherent accessory penalties provided
by law” was deleted. Sesbreño argued that even if the accessory penalty
It is significant that in its Order of 21 August 2001, the CBD-IBP dispensed
was not deleted, the disqualification applies only during the term of the
with a full-dress hearing, i.e., the presentation of testimonial evidence,
sentence. Sesbreño further alleged that homicide does not involve moral
purportedly to expedite the proceedings. Instead, it required the parties to
turpitude. Sesbreño claimed that Garcia’s complaint was motivated by
simply file their respective memoranda and thereafter submit the case for
extreme malice, bad faith, and desire to retaliate against him for
resolution on the basis of the pleadings.
representing Garcia’s daughters in court.
There can be no quarrel that the act of the CBD-IBP in dispensing with the

hearing is fairly within the bounds of permissible legal procedure; for after
all, as observed in the ponencia, "a trial-type hearing is not always de ISSUES:
rigueur in administrative proceedings."
1. Whether or not conviction for the crime of homicide involves moral
But we emphasize that since the CBD-IBP inexorably anchored its Report
turpitude.
and Recommendation on complainants' credibility, a trial-type hearing
becomes an indispensable requirement in this case. 2. Whether or not Sesbreño should be disbarred

GARCIA VS. SESBREÑO A.C. NO. 7973 AND A.C. NO. 10457 HELD:
1. Yes. This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of homicide do not
FACTS: involve moral turpitude. Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude
depending on the degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in
Garcia filed a complaint for disbarment against Sesbreño before the Office every criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional
of the Bar Confidant. violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral
turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the
Garcia alleged that in 2005 while he was in Japan, Sesbreño, representing surrounding circumstances. While x x x generally but not always, crimes
Maria Margarita and Angie Ruth, filed an action for support against him and mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibitado not, it
his sister Milagros Garcia Soliman. At the time of the filing of the case, Maria cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not
Margarita was already 39 years old while Angie Ruth was 35 years old. The exist by classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum, since
case was dismissed. In 2007, Garcia returned from Japan. When Sesbreño there are crimes which are mala in se and yet rarely involve moral turpitude
and Garcia’s children learned about his return, Sesbreño filed a Second and there are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita
Amended Complaint against him. only. It follows therefore, that moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and
indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial
Garcia alleged that he learned that Sesbreño was convicted by the Regional inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached.
Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 18, for Homicide in Criminal Case No. CBU-
31733. Garcia alleged that Sesbreño is only on parole. Garcia alleged that The IBP-CBD correctly stated that Amparado and Yapchangco were just at
homicide is a crime against moral turpitude; and thus, Sesbreño should not the wrong place and time. They did not do anything that justified the
be allowed to continue his practice of law. indiscriminate firing done by Sesbreño that eventually led to the death of
Amparado.
We cannot accept Sesbreño’s argument that the executive clemency In Resolution No. XX-2011-246 dated November 19, 2011, the IBP Board of
restored his full civil and political rights. Sesbreño cited In re Atty. Parcasio Governors adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
to bolster his argument. In that case, Atty. Parcasio was granted “an Commissioner with modification that respondent be suspended from the
absolute and unconditional pardon” which restored his “full civil and practice of law for one (1) year.
political rights,” a circumstance not present in these cases. Here, the Order
In fine, complainants charged respondent with dishonesty (1) when he
of Commutation did not state that the pardon was absolute and
stated in the defendants' Answer in Civil Case No. A-95-22906 that the
unconditional.
parties therein are strangers to each other; (2) when he introduced a
There are four acts of executive clemency that the President can extend: the falsified Certificate of Marriage as part of his evidence in Civil Case No. A-
President can grant reprieves, commutations, pardons, and remit fines and 95-22906; and (3) when he knowingly filed a totally baseless pleading
forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. In this case, the executive captioned as Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution of the Writ of
clemency merely “commuted to an indeterminate prison term of 7 years Preliminary Injunction in the same case.
and 6 months to 10 years imprisonment” the penalty imposed on Sesbrefio.
HELD:
Commutation is a mere reduction of penalty. Commutation only partially
extinguished criminal liability. The penalty for Sesbrefio’ s crime was never At the outset, we note that in order to determine whether respondent is
wiped out. He served the commuted or reduced penalty, for which reason guilty of dishonesty, we will have to delve into the issue of whether the
he was released from prison. complainants are indeed related to the defendants in Civil Case No. A-95-
22906 being half-brothers and half-sisters. We would also be tasked to
make an assessment on the authenticity of the Certificate of Marriage which
respondent submitted in the proceedings in Civil Case No. A-95-
2. Yes. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of
22906. Similarly, we will have to make a ruling on whether the Urgent
the bar may be disbarred or suspended as attorney by this Court by reason
Motion to Recall Writ of Execution of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. This Court has ruled
which respondent filed was indeed baseless and irrelevant to the
that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment
proceedings in Civil Case No. A-95-22906. Clearly, these prerequisites
for a crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is an act of baseness,
cannot be accomplished in this administrative case.
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes to his fellow
men or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good The resolution of whether the parties are related to each other appears to
morals. be one of the issues brought up in Civil Case No. A-95-22906 which is a
complaint for Partition, Reconveyance, Declaration of Nullity of Documents
and Damages. The complainants claimed that they are the legitimate
Respondent Raul H. Sesbreno is DISBARRED. children of the late Gregorio V. Felipe, Sr. This was rebutted by the
defendants therein, as represented by the respondent, who denied their
filiation with the complainants. Clearly, the issue of filiation must be settled
in those proceedings, and not in this administrative case. The same is true
NESTOR V. FELIPE V. ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL, AC. NO. 4549, 2013- with regard to the issue of authenticity of the Marriage Certificate which
12-02 was submitted in evidence as well as the relevance of the Urgent Motion to
Recall Writ of Execution of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Besides, as
FACTS:
complainants have asserted, a criminal case for Perjury had already been
A Petition for disbarment was filed against respondent Atty. Ciriaco A. filed against the defendants in Civil Case No. A-95-22906 and docketed as
Macapagal, docketed as A.C. No. 4549. Criminal Case No. 41667 pending before Branch 36 of the Manila MeTC for
their alleged "untruthful" statement that they are strangers to each Enriquez cited outdated materials in his complaint-affidavit, to argue that
other. They had also filed another Perjury charge against the defendants in Marisa had lost her filipino citizenship when she married an american and is
Civil Case No. A-95-22906 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon this prohibited from owning land in the Philippines - making her guilty of
City, docketed as I.S. No. 95-15656-A for allegedly submitting in evidence a falsification in the deed to buy property in Negros oriental. The complaint
falsified Marriage Certificate. Moreover, they already filed a Vigorous for his disbarment was a mere tactic to divert attention to the criminal
Opposition to the Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution of the Writ of charges against her.
Preliminary Injunction filed by the respondent. In fine, these issues are
proper subjects of and must be threshed out in a judicial action. The case was brought to Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Respondent only
appeared in P's position paper: respondent had maliciously and knowingly
We held in Anacta v. Resurreccion that –
fabricated cases against them and his acts were mere form of extortion.
x x x it is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls within the Respondent maintained that complainant Marisa Williams was no longer a
disciplinary authority of the Court or whether the matter is a proper subject citizen of the Republic of the Philippines as a result of her marriage to David
of judicial action against lawyers. If the matter involves violations of the Williams.
lawyer's oath and code of... conduct, then it falls within the Court's
disciplinary authority. However, if the matter arose from acts which carry HELD:
civil or criminal liablity, and which do not directly require an inquiry into the There is no evidence shown by respondent that complainant has
moral fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of a renounced her Filipino citizenship except her Certificate of Marriage,
judicial action which is understandably outside the purview of the Court's which does not show that she has automatically acquired her husband’s
disciplinary authority. x x x citizenship upon her marriage to him. The cases cited by respondent are
not applicable in this case as it is clear that they refer to aliens acquiring
SPOUSES DAVID AND MARISA WILLIAMS V. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ AC lands in the Philippines.
NO. 6353
Lawyers must keep themselves abreast of legal developments. He must
FACTS: acquaint himself at least with the newly promulgated laws, the recent
Atty. Enriquez, a retired judge, stands charged with “unlawful, dishonest, decisions of the Supreme Court and of the significant decisions of the Court
immoral and deceitful acts in violation of the Code of Professional of Appeals. There are other executive orders, administrative circulars,
Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, and with conduct regulations and other rules promulgated by other competent authorities
unbecoming an attorney.” filed by the petitioner. engaged in the administration of justice. The lawyer’s life is one of
continuous and laborious study, otherwise, his skill and knowledge of the
Marisa Williams bought the lot subject of the controversy, a TCT was then law and related disciplines will lag behind and become obscure due to
issued in her favor, stating that she is “Filipino, married to David W. obsoleteness (Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility.)
Williams, an American citizen.”
Indeed when the law is so elementary, not to know it constitutes gross
Respondent charged her with falsification of public documents before the ignorance, but since the respondent was a retired judge it is incumbent
Office of the City Prosecutor of Dumaguete City, declaring that her “act of upon him to be abreast with the latest rulings of the court on the issues
marrying” her husband was equivalent to renouncing her citizenship. He and legal problems confronting a client - he misconstrued the constitution
also doggedly attempts to show that the 1987 Constitution supports his which is the basic law of the land.
position
The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution and
only for a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and
character of a lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar. The ISSUE:
penalty of reprimand by the IBP commission on bar discipline will suffice
with it having been his first infraction. Whether or not the SC should follow the recommendation of the Board of
Governors, IBP and only suspend Atty. Suller for a year
Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and ADVISED to carefully study the

opinions he may give to his clients. He is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely. HELD:

NO. Abraham A. Suller is DISBARRED from the practice of law.
CALUB V ATTY. SULLER AC 1474

The record discloses that the Court of First Instance acquitted respondent
FACTS: Suller for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Such acquittal, however, is not determinative of this administrative
In the morning of January 20, 1975, while complainant was away, case.
respondent Atty. Suller went to the complainant's abode supposedly to
borrow a blade. Complainant’s wife let him in because he was a friend of The testimonies of witnesses in the criminal complaint, particularly that of
the family and that they were neighbors. Atty. Suller then began touching the complainant suffice to show that respondent acted in a grossly
her in different parts of her body. When she protested, respondent reprehensible manner in having carnal knowledge of his neighbor's wife
threatened her and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. At that without her consent in her very home.
moment, complainant returned home to get money to pay for real estate
taxes. When the complainant entered the house, he saw his wife and "A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for
respondent having sexual intercourse on the bed. She was kicking misconduct, whether in his professional or private
respondent with one foot while the latter pressed on her arms and other capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
leg, preventing her from defending herself. character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor
or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court."

January 23, 1975: A criminal complaint was filed against the respondent In this case, we find that suspension for one year recommended by the
(CFI, Agoo, La Union) Integrated Bar of the Philippines is not sufficient punishment for the
June 3, 1975: Complainant filed with the SC the instant complaint for immoral act of respondent. The rape of his neighbor's wife constituted
disbarment against the respondent. serious moral depravity even if his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable
doubt in the criminal prosecution for rape. he privilege to practice law is
1975-1978: SG conducted hearings bestowed upon individuals who are competent intellectually, academically
1991: The investigation for the case was transferred to the Committee on and, equally important, morally.
Bar Discipline, IBP.

1993: The Board of Governors, IBP issued a resolution recommending that
the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 FIDELA BENGCO AND TERESITA BENGCO V. ATTY. PABLO S. BERNARDO
year. A.C. NO. 6368

FACTS:
Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against The respondent is required to submit to the Supreme Court proof of
Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a compliance.
member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15
April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres
Magat – willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to
defraud against the complainants by using false pretenses and deceitful ELPIDIO P. TIONG v. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO A.C. No. 4428
words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to
the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the Facts:
complainants. Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses Elpidio and
Ma. Elena Tiong. Elpidio, a US citizen is often times away. For two years, he
It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and suspected that his wife and Atty. Florendo were having an affair. Finally in
deliver to him PhP 495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of 1995, he was able to listen to a telephone conversation where he heard
the subject land. He further committed misrepresentation by presenting Atty. Florendo mention amorous words to Ma. Elena. Atty. Florendo
himself as the lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the confronted the two and both eventually admitted to their illicit relationship.
land. He also led complaints to believe that he has contracts at NAMRIA, Atty. Florendo and Ma. Elena then executed and signed an affidavit, which
DENR, CENRO and the Register of Deeds which representation he well knew was later notarized, stating that they admit of their illicit relationship; that
were false, fraudulent and were only made to induce the complainants to they are seeking the forgiveness of their respective spouse. Elpidio forgave
give and deliver the said amount. Upon receipt of the money, he did not Florendo and Ma. Elena. But nevertheless, Elpidio filed a disbarment case
comply with his obligation to expedite the titling of the land but instead use against Florendo.
the money for personal use. The complainants demanded the return of the
money to no avail. Florendo said he can no longer be sanctioned because he was already
pardoned.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the provisions of the Code of ISSUE:
Professional Responsibility (CPR)? Whether or not Atty. Florendo is correct.

HELD: HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the respondent committed the acts No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is a sui generis case.
complained of. He, himself, admitted in his answer that his legal services This class of cases is meant to protect the public and the courts of
were hired by the complainants through Magat regarding the purported undesirable members of the legal profession. As such, pardon by the
titling of land supposedly purchase. He used his position as a lawyer in order offended party of the act complained of does not operate to offset the
to deceive the complainants into believing that he can expedite the titling of ground for disbarment or suspension. Florendo’s act of having an affair with
the subject properties. He never denied that he did not benefit from the his client’s wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of
money given by the complainants in the amount of PhP 495,000.00. marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral
depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession. He violated the
The Supreme Court find the respondent in violation of the Rule 2.03, Canon trust reposed upon him by his client (Canon 17, Code of Professional
2 and Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from Responsibility). His illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a
practice of law for one year and return the amount of PhP 200,000.00 to disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action.
Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco with 10 days upon receipt of decision. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be
disbarred or suspended from his office for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others. It CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
cannot be also said, as he claims, that their relationship is merely a moment PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
of indiscretion considering that their affair went on for more than two
years. Florendo was suspended for 6 months.

Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or

received for or from the client.
GRACE M. ANACTA vs. ATTY. EDUARDO D. RESURRECCION A.C. No. 9074,
14 August 2012
Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand. x x x

Facts:
Complainant engaged the services of respondent to file on her behalf a In this case, it is thus clear that respondent violated his lawyer’s oath and
petition for annulment of marriage for which she paid respondent P code of conduct when he withheld the amount of P 42,000.00 despite his
42,000.00. failure to render the necessary legal services and after complainant
demanded its return. He must therefore be directed to return the same.


A month later, respondent presented to the complainant a supposed copy
of a Petition for Annulment of Marriage which bore the stamped receipt of Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
the RTC, as well as its docket number. However, from then on, complainant four years and was also DIRECTED to return to the complainant the amount
did not hear from respondent or receive any notice from the trial court of P42,000.00 within thirty (30) days.
relative to the said petition. This prompted her to make inquiries with the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC. To her surprise and dismay, she
discovered that no petition for annulment was ever filed before the said
court. She then terminated the services of respondent and prayed for the [Re: Admin Liability]
disbarment of Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion (respondent) for “gross
misconduct, deceit and malpractice.”
It is thus clear from the foregoing provision that in any of the following
circumstances, to wit: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct; (4)
Ruling: grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer's oath; (7) wilful disobedience of any
In this case, respondent received the amount of P42,000.00 supposedly as lawful order of a superior court; or (8) corruptly or wilfully appearing as an
payment for his legal services and as filing fees. Canon 16 of the Code of attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so; the Court is vested
Professional Responsibility provides: with the authority and discretion to impose either the extreme penalty of
disbarment or mere suspension. Certainly, the Court is not placed in a
straitjacket as regards the penalty to be imposed. There is no ironclad rule
that disbarment must immediately follow upon a finding of deceit or gross
misconduct.
 W/N respondent should be disbarred.

Court is not bound to impose the penalty of disbarment in cases of gross

misconduct and/or dishonesty, if in its appreciation of facts and in the
exercise of its sound discretion, the penalty of suspension would be more Held:
commensurate.41 "Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches, should not be
Yes. The fact that the criminal case against the respondent involving the
decreed where any punishment less severe, such as reprimand, suspension,
same set of facts is still pending in court is of no moment. Respondent,
or fine, would accomplish the end desired.
being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases against
lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may
proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not
Spouses Yu vs Palana constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances
are attendant in the administrative proceedings.


Facts:
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: A member of the bar
Complainants met a certain Mr. Mark Anthony U. Uy (Mr. Uy) who may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
introduced himself asthe Division Manager of Wealth Marketing and Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
General Services Corporation (Wealth Marketing). Mr. Uy persuaded the grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
complainants, together with other investors, to invest a minimum amount moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
of P100,000.00 or its dollar equivalent with said company. They were made before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedienceof any lawful order
tobelieve that the said company had the so-called "stop-loss mechanism". It of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for
turned out, however, that Wealth Marketing’s promises were false and aparty to a case without authority to do so.
fraudulent. They discovered that Wealth Marketing had already ceased its
operation and a new corporation was formed named Ur-Link Corporation
(Ur-Link) which supposedly assumed the rights and obligations of the
former. Complainants proceeded to Ur-Link office where they met the The Court notes that this is not the first time that respondent is facing an
respondent. As Wealth Marketing’s Chairman of the Board of Directors, administrative case, for he had been previously suspended from the
respondent assured the complainants that Ur-Link would assume the practice of law in Samala v. Palaña and Sps. Amadorand Rosita Tejada v.
obligations of the former company. To put a semblance of validity to such Palaña. In Samala, respondent also played an important role in a
representation, respondent signed an Agreement to that effect which, corporation known as First Imperial Resources Incorporated (FIRI), being its
again, turned out to beanother ploy to further deceive the investors. This legal officer. As in this case, respondent committed the same offense by
prompted the complainants to send demand letters to Wealth Marketing’s making himself part of the money trading business when, in fact, said
officers and directors which remained unheeded. They likewise lodged a business was not among the purposes for which FIRI was created.
criminal complaint for syndicated estafa against the respondent and his co- Respondent was thus meted the penalty of suspension for three (3) years
accused. Despite the standing warrant for his arrest, respondent went into with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt
hiding and has been successful in defying the law, to this date. with more severely. Likewise, in Tejada, HE WAS SUSPENDED for six (6)
months for his continued refusal to settle his loan obligations.


Issues:
Cristobal v. Renta

NATANAUAN V. TOLENTINO

Facts:

Complainant engaged the services of Renta Pe & Associates Law Office for Facts:
the filing of a "petition for recognition for the minors Codie Darnell Green
and Matthew Darnell Green" before the Bureau of Immigration. January 03, 1978 - Dolores alleged that she is a co-owner of a parcel of land
Respondent, the managing partner of the firm, signed the "Special Contract with an area of about 50,000 square meters located in Tagaytay City.2 On
of Legal Services" and received the "full and package price" of P160,000 for January 3, 1978, they sold this land to Alejo Tolentino (Alejo) for
the filing of the petition for recognition. However, no petition was filed. ₱500,000.00.
Complainant then filed against respondent due to the latter's failure to file

the petition for recognition and return the amount of P160,000 despite
demand. Respondent explained that it was supposedly Anneth Tan to file August 09, 1979 - Despite several requests from Dolores, et al., Alejo,
the petition but lost it without informing him of such fact and assured that however, failed to settle the remaining obligation. May 14, 1991 - Dolores,
he will return the money. Respondent submitted complainant's Affidavit of et al. filed a case against Alejo and his wife Filomena for the recovery of
Desistance which averred that respondent cried for forgiveness and that he possession of immovable property, declaration of nullity of the deed of sale,
has forgiven him. Complainant confirmed that respondent had already and damages.
refunded the amount he paid.


June 1993 -Dolores discovered that the TCT No. 107593 under Alejo’s name
Issue: was issued not on the basis of the January 3, 1978 contract but on a Deed of
Sale dated August 3, 1979, purportedly executed by their father Jose
Whether or not respondent may be disbarred for his breached duty to serve
Natanauan. She further discovered a Joint Affidavit dated August 6, 1979,
complainant with diligence and neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.
purportedly executed by Jose, et al. attesting to the absence of tenants or
lessees in the property and another Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979,
executed between Dolores, et al. as vendors and Atty. Tolentino as vendee
Held: covering purportedly the same property. Dolores claims that the documents
were forged and falsified as their father died in Batangas on June 12, 1977
On complainant’s affidavit of desistance, it was held that execution cannot almost 2 years before the documents were allegedly ‘signed’ by him. The
have the effect of abating the instant proceedings against respondent in documents were also not duly notarized by a commissioned Notary Public in
view of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of Manila.
disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern. A disbarment case is
not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an
officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. It
was held that the respondent violated Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and June 1, 1994 - Dolores filed the present disbarment complaint against Atty.
reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar Tolentino and Perfecto for their alleged acts of falsification. In her
act would be dealt with more severely. complaint, Dolores attached an Affidavit dated December 2, 1980, where
Alejo and Filomena attested that the subject property never belonged to
them in truth or in fact, the true and absolute owner of the same being the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of
Alejo’s brother, Atty. Tolentino Atty. Tolentino denied all allegations. the Bar, this Court has held that substantial evidence is necessary to justify
the imposition of the administrative penalty.


IBP Ruling -
CHRISTIAN SPIRITISTS IN PHILIPPINES v. ATTY. DANIEL D. MANGALLAY, AC.
IBP Commissioner Edmund T. Espina (Commissioner Espina) found that Atty. No. 10483, 2016-03-18
Tolentino violated the Lawyer’s Oath as wellas Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility as he was found to have falsified the
mentioned documents. Commissioner Espina thus recommended that Atty.
Tolentino be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) Facts:
months.


An administrative case against the respondent attorney... arise from... from
Issue: the ejectment action in which the respondent attorney, as the plaintiff,
successfully defeated the local congregation of the Christian Spiritists in the
W/N Atty. Tolentino committed deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct Philippines, Inc., Pico Local Center (CSP-PLC). Defendants filed their notice
through the aforementioned falsifications in violation of the Code of of. The parties agreed to settle, defendants withdrawing the notice of
Professional Responsi appeal and agreeing to voluntarily vacate and remove their structures in
consideration of the respondent's financial assistance of P300,000.00.
bility and the Lawyer’s Oath which would merit his disbarment and removal Defendants reneged at the respondent's instance. Trial court issued the writ
from of execution and the writ of demolition and the structures were ultimately
demolished. Local Minister, Edwin A. Pante decided to bring the disbarment
the legal profession.
complaint against the respondent based on his allegedly gross misconduct
and deceit in causing the demolition of the structures without the
demolition order from the court... violation of the Lawyer's Oath, and
Ruling: disobedience to a lawful order of the court. He thereby abused his legal
knowledge
YES. The totality of evidence (consisting of the falsified documents, Dolores’
testimony detailing the transactions surrounding the land, and the
investigation conducted by this Court) leaves no doubt as to Atty.
Tolentino’s involvement in, or at the very least, benefit from the acts of Issues:
falsification imputed against him.
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.


The purpose of disbarment is not meant as a punishment to deprive a
Ruling:
lawyer of a means of livelihood. Rather, it is intended to protect the courts
and the public from members of the bar who have become unfit and The complaint for disbarment is absolutely devoid of merit and substance.
unworthy to be part of the esteemed and noble profession.61 Considering


Under the foregoing revisions of Rule 139-B, the administrative complaints His act of taking the materials of the demolished structures was
against attorneys are generally not dismissed outright but are instead undoubtedly the exercise of the right of appropriating them in light of the
referred for investigation, report and recommendation either to the IBP, or fact that the P300,000.00 earlier delivered as financial assistance was most
the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), or any office of the Court or even a likely meant to indemnify the supposed builders in good faith.
judge of a lower court.


the letter of the Christian Spiritists in the Philippines, Inc.
Referral to the IBP is not compulsory when the administrative case can be
decided on the basis of the pleadings filed or when the referral to the IBP
for the conduct of formal investigation would be redundant or unnecessary.
it was disavowing knowledge of or participation in the disbarment
complaint, and that it was categorically declaring that the complaint had
been filed by Pante only for his personal interest at the expense of the
Dismissal of the case may even be directed at the outset. congregation... the Court DISMISSES the complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Daniel Dazon Mangallay for its utter lack of merit


It is upon this that we dispense with the need to refer the complaint against
the respondent to the IBP for the conduct of the formal investigation. Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago (A.C. No. 7399)

The documents he submitted to substantiate his denial of professional FACTS:

wrongdoing are part of the records of the trial court, and, as such, are
sufficient to establish the unworthiness of the complaint as well as his
lawful entitlement to the demolition
In one of her privilege speeches before the Senate, Sen. Miriam Defensor-
Santiago delivered the following remarks:

Specifically, the demolition was authorized by the order issued by the MTC
on December 19, 2013... the sheriffs dutifully discharged their functions...
x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I
presence of the respondent during the execution proceedings was by no
am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I
means irregular or improper... complainant... who did not manifest any
feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature.
resistance... elements of the Philippine National Police were also present to
I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and
ensure the peaceful implementation
his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position
[of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in a
different environment than in a Supreme Court of idiots. x x x
Neither do we find anything wrong, least of all criminal, in the act of the
respondent of taking away the materials of the demolished structures.
Her speech came as a response to the decision of the Judicial and Bar remedial legislation on the JBC struck the Court as being a mere
Council (JBC) declaring that only sitting members of the Supreme Court can afterthought in light of the controversy her utterances had managed to stir.
be nominated for the impending vacancy of the CJ post. Consequently,
nominees who were not incumbent members of the Court, including Sen.
Defensor-Santiago, were automatically disqualified.
Still, the Court held that parliamentary immunity is essential because
without it, the parliament or its equivalent would "degenerate into a polite
and ineffective forum." However, it should be noted that "[l]egislators are
Private complainant Antero J. Pobre filed the instant petition before the immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of of their legislative
Court, contending that the lady senator's utterances amounted to a total duties, not for their private indulgence, but for the public good."
disrespect towards then CJ Panganiban and a direct contempt of Court.
Accordingly, he wanted disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary
actions to be taken against Sen. Defensor-Santiago.
Festin vs Zubiri


ISSUE:
Facts:

Festin was elected as Mayor of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro in 2013
Whether or not there is a ground for Sen. Defensor-Santiago to be disbarred elections. His opponent, Villarosa, filed an election protest against him
or subjected to disciplinary action by the Court for her questioned speech. before the RTC. After deciding in favor of Villarosa, the RTC issued an Order
dated January 15, 2014 granting his motion for execution pending appeal.


HELD:
Festin filed a petition for certiorari before the COMELEC, seeking a TRO
against the issuance of the writ. On February 13, 2014, the COMELEC issued
a TRO. The RTC issued another Order dated February 25, 2014 which
No, the Court sided with Sen. Defensor-Santiago's defense that she should directed the COC NOT TO ISSUE a Writ of Execution in accordance with the
be afforded parliamentary immunity from suit pursuant to Section 11, Art. January 15, 2014 Order until
VI of the 1987 Constitution, which section states in part that "no [Senator] x
x x shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech further notice.
or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof." Although there was
no express admission on the part of the lady senator that she did indeed say
those words, there was no categorical denial either, which the Court
Despite the TRO and the RTC's February 25, 2014 Order, Atty. Zubiri, as
ultimately regarded as an implied admission.
counsel of

Villarosa, filed five (5) manifestations addressed to the COC insisting on the
Despite the dismissal of the letter-complaint, the Court heavily chastised the writ's
lady senator for indulging in "insulting rhetoric and offensive personalities."
In fact, her excuse that her questioned speech was a prelude to crafting
issuance. He did not serve copies of these manifestations to the other party. party was not afforded due process by being deprived of an opportunity to
In these manifestations, respondent insisted that the COC could legally issue oppose the manifestations.
the writ of execution pending appeal. The COC eventually issued a Writ of
Execution Pending Appeal addressed to the sheriff. Festin only found out
about respondent's manifestations when the sheriff attempted to serve the
The IBP Board adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of
writ on him. Festin filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Zubiri.
the

Investigation Commissioner. Respondent moved for reconsideration,
In his complaint, Festin argued that respondent violated his ethical duties however,
when he misled and induced the COC to defy lawful orders - particularly, the
denied.
COMELEC's TRO and the RTC's February 25, 2014 Order. As a result,
respondent allegedly violated Canons 1, 10, 15, and 19 of the CPR.
Issue:
In his answer, Atty Zuburi claimed that, first, since the case records had Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the
been transmitted to the COMELEC on January 31, 2014, the RTC was acts complained of.
divested of jurisdiction over the case; therefore, it had no more power to
issue the February 25, 2014 Order. Second, the manifestations contained no
misleading statements or factual deviations. He merely stated in his
manifestations his honest belief that the twenty-day period had already Held:
lapsed when the COMELEC issued its TRO; hence, it no longer had any
Under the amended provisions cited above, the IBP Board's resolution is
binding effect. He explained that the filing of manifestations to highlight his
merely recommendatory regardless of the penalty imposed on the lawyer.
position did not violate any rule. Third, he allegedly filed those
The amendment stresses the Court's authority to discipline a lawyer who
manifestations pursuant to his duty under Canon 18 of the CPR to represent
transgresses his ethical duties under the CPR.
his client with competence and diligence.


After a judicious review of the case records, the Court agrees with the IBP
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
that respondent should be held administratively liable for his violations of
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be the CPR. However, the Court finds it proper to impose a lower penalty.
suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. He observed that by

filing manifestations instead of motions, respondent was able to disregard
the rule that motions shall be served on the other party and shall contain a Canon 1 of the CPR mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution and
notice of hearing. In the present case, however, the manifestations filed by promote respect for the legal processes. Additionally, Canon 8 and Rule
respondent were actually motions as these contained arguments to support 10.03, Canon 10 of the CPR require lawyers to conduct themselves with
his prayer for the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal. Moreover, fairness towards their professional colleagues, to observe procedural rules,
the respondent acted in bad faith when he convinced the COC to disregard and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
the COMELEC's TRO. Hence, respondent was unfair to the other party and
employed deceit when he filed the manifestations. As a result, the other
Respondent improperly filed the five (5) motions as "manifestations" to complainant, in his second demand letter to Mr. Chung, had attached two
sidestep the requirement of notice of hearing for motions. In effect, he draft pleadings. The first was a draft petition for certiorari against the latter;
violated his professional obligations to respect and observe procedural the second, a draft complaint for disbarment against Atty. Blanco. According
rules, not to misuse the rules to cause injustice, and to exhibit fairness to respondent, these drafts were meant to intimidate him and Mr. Chung.
towards his professional colleagues. True enough, after Atty. Blanco sent his second letter to complainant, the
latter filed with the Court of Appeals the draft petition, which was later
dismissed. Complainant subsequently filed the Complaint for Disbarment.
The Court has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers. In the exercise
of its sound judicial discretion, it may to impose a less severe punishment if
such penalty would achieve the desired end of reforming the errant Issue:
lawyer.43 In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court deems that a
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months is Whether or not Atty. Blanco should be disbarred.
sufficient and commensurate with respondent's infractions.


Ruling:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri (respondent) is found
No. As early as 1996, this Court declared in Intestate Estate that T.P. 4136
GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Canon 8, and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code
was null and void. Given the nullity of T.P. 4136, the claim of the Heirs of
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the
San Pedro against EMIDCI has no legal basis. On the other hand, the records
practice of law for three (3) months effective from the finality of this
reveal that the Sampaloc property is registered in the name of EMIDCI as
Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
TCT 79146 under the Torrens system. As such, the TCT enjoys a conclusive
act shall be dealt with more severely.
presumption of validity.


Dumanlag vs Atty. Blanco
Consequently, there was no misconduct to speak of on the part of Atty.
Blanco. In fact, he should even be commended as he remained steadfast, in
maintaining the cause of his client even as he was subjected to harassment.
Facts:

Complainant filed this administrative case for disbarment against Atty.
Blanco, alleging that Mr. Chung, El Mavic Investment and Development Co., As a rule, a complainant should not be penalized for the exercise of the right
Inc. (EMIDCI)’s president was a squatter on the Sampaloc Property and Atty. to litigate.21 But the rule applies only if the right is exercised in good
Blanco had unjustly prevented the exercise of complainant's rights over the faith.22 When a groundless complaint is filed in bad faith, the Court has ' to
same considering that they are the real owners of Sampaloc Property step in and penalize the erring complainant.
pursuant to a Spanish Title, Titulo de Propriedad No. (T.P.) 4136.


The Complaint filed against respondent is nothing but an attempt to
In his Verified Comment, Atty. Blanco alleged that the Complaint was intimidate, harass and coerce him into acceding to the demands of
frivolous, unfounded and retaliatory. He averred, among others, that complainant. This is the only logical conclusion that can be derived from the
filing of a Complaint for Disbarment that is baseless — a fact that converting the money of his client to his own use without her consent, his
complainant was very much aware of. failure to use the proceeds for the transfer of the title in complainant’s
name. He did not only betray the trust and confidence of his client, he is
likewise guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct.
Considering the circumstances present in this case, complainant appears to
be devious, persistent and incorrigible, such that mere censure as penalty
would not suffice. He has trifled with the Court, using the judicial process as A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended from
an instrument to willfully pursue a nefarious scheme. The imposition of a his office as an attorney, for violation of the lawyer's oath and/or for breach
P5,000 fine is appropriate. of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. For the practice of law is "a profession, a form of public trust,
the performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who
possess good moral character." The appropriate penalty for an errant
EUFEMIA A. CAMINO v. ATTY. RYAN REY L. PASAGUI
lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the
surrounding facts.

FACTS

Here, Atty. Pasagui demonstrated not just a negligent disregard of his duties
as a lawyer but a wanton betrayal of the trust of his client and, in general,
Disbarment complaint was filed against respondent Atty. Ryan Rey L. the public. Accordingly, the Court finds that the suspension for one (1) year
Pasagui before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-commission on bar recommended by the IBP-Board of Governors is not sufficient punishment
Discipline (IBP-CBD), that the respondent violated their agreement for the for Atty. Pasagui's unacceptable acts and omissions. The acts of the
latter to facilitate and secure a loan to finance the payment of necessary respondent constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as
expenses to transfer the title of a certain property under her name, she attorney. His incompetence and appalling indifference to his duty to his
claimed that respondent obtained a loan using their property as a collateral, client, the courts and society render him unfit to continue discharging the
but atty. Pasagui arrogated the proceeds. trust reposed on him.

Atty. Pasagui was disbarred.

ISSUE

Whether or not a malpractice or gross misconduct can be used as grounds ANITA SANTOS MURRAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. FELICITO J. CERVANTES
for disbarment of a lawyer.


FACTS:
RULING:

Yes. The court ruling was in favor of the complainant, the Court found that
the respondent was guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in
On February 2, 2001, complainant filed before this Court a Complaint
charging respondent with violating Canon 188 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Complainant alleged that sometime in June 2000, she sought ISSUE:
the services of a lawyer to assist in the naturalization (that is, acquisition of

Philippine citizenship) of her son, Peter Murray, a British national.
Respondent was later introduced to her. On June 14, 2000, she and Whether or not, Respondent falls short of the standards imposed by Canon
respondent agreed on the latter's services, with complainant handing 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and entitled for suspension.
respondent the sum of Php 80,000.00 as acceptance fee. About three (3)
months passed without respondent doing "anything substantial." On
September 11, 2000, complainant wrote respondent to inform him that she
was terminating his services and expected that respondent return the said
fees. As respondent failed to return the Php 80,000.00 acceptance fee,
HELD:
complainant instituted the Complaint in this case and a criminal proceedings
against respondent for violation of Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal
Code.
Disciplinary sanctions more severe than those considered proper by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines are warranted.
This case was subsequently referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
for its investigation, report, and recommendation. . After the proceedings
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Investigating Commissioner Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court sanctions and spells out the terms of the
Demaree J.B. Raval (Commissioner Raval) furnished a Report dated Integrated Bar of the Philippines' involvement in cases involving the
September 9, 2002 recommending that respondent be reprimanded and disbarment and/or discipline of lawyers. The competence of the Integrated
required to return the sum of Php 80,000.00 to complainant. Respondent Bar of the Philippines is only recommendatory. Under Article VIII, Section
filed before this Court a Motion for Leave to Admit Additional Evidence with 5(5)30 of the 1987 Constitution, only this Court has the power to actually
Motion to Dismiss. This Motion was forwarded to the Integrated Bar of the rule on disciplinary cases of lawyers, and to impose appropriate penalties.
Philippines and was treated as respondent's Motion for Reconsideration.
Respondent suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, with an
additional three (3)-month suspension for every month (or fraction) that
Rule 139-B merely delegates investigatory functions to the Integrated Bar of
respondent fails to deliver to complainant the sum of P80,000.00.
the Philippines. With the exercise of its delegated investigatory power, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines refers proposed actions to this Court.
Recognizing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' limited competence in
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines refers proposed actions to this Court. disciplinary cases impels a concomitant recognition that, pending favorable
Recognizing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' limited competence in action by this Court on its recommendations, its determinations and
disciplinary cases impels a concomitant recognition that, pending favorable conclusions are only provisional. Therefore, rulings on disciplinary cases
action by this Court on its recommendations, its determinations and attain finality and are enforceable only upon this Court's own determination
conclusions are only provisional. that they must be imposed.

The oral instruction given to respondent in the August 18, 2004 hearing has, prosecutor; and approved by City Prosecutor Archimedes Manabat
thus, not attained such a degree of finality as would immutably require him (Manabat). Villena was the trial prosecutor assigned to the MeTC. In her
to comply, such that failure to comply justifies additional or increased Affidavit-Complaint, Boto charged respondents Villena, Manabat and de
penalties. Penalizing him for non-compliance is premature. Dios with gross ignorance of the law for filing the information and for
opposing the motion to quash despite the knowledge that the MeTC had no
jurisdiction over the case.
The Court ruled that respondent acknowledged his duty to compensate
complainant for the amount of P80,000.00 and made his own commitment
to make this compensation. He may not have been bound by a juridical Issue:
instruction, but he was certainly bound by his own honor. That he has failed
to adhere to his own freely executed commitment after more than a decade
speaks volumes of how he has miserably failed to live up to the "high
W/N the penalty of disbarment is proper?
standard of ... morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing" that is apropos
to members of the legal profession. For this reason, Court exact upon
respondent a penalty more severe than that initially contemplated by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. Moreover, to impress Ruling:
upon respondent the urgency of finally returning to complainant the
amount he received, the Court impose on him an additional penalty
corresponding to the duration for which he fails to make restitution.
NO. From his motion for reconsideration, Villena appears contrite to what
he

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Felicito J. Cervantes is SUSPENDED from the considers as an act short of what was expected of him. He does not deny
practice of law for one (1) year and six (6) months. He is ORDERED to what he did
restitute complainant Anita Santos Murray the sum of P80,000.00. For every
and he is not proffering any excuses therefor. All Villena is asking is
month (or fraction) the he fails to fully restitute complainant the sum of
compassion from
P80,000.00, respondent shall suffer an additional suspension of one (1)
month. the Court as he deems that the penalty imposed is not commensurate to
the infraction the Court thought he did and, to his mind, did not distinguish
BOTO V. VILLENA
his lapses from one incited by ill motive or corrupted by malice. In other
words, he stresses that there was no malice or bad faith on his part. Villena,
who has an unblemished career, has been truly remorseful and apologetic
FACTS: for his opposition to the motion to dismiss, which resistance he deemed as
"pro-forma comment." The Court is of the considered view that because the
penalty imposed would remain in his record, it would affect his promotion
or application for a higher office. Accordingly, the Court favors the grant of
this administrative matter stemmed from an information for Libel against
the motion and reduces the penalty from payment of Fine in the amount of
complainant Mary Rose A. Boto (Boto) filed before the Metropolitan Trial
P10,000.00 to Reprimand, the same penalty imposed on his co-respondents.
Court, Branch LXXIV, Taguig City (MeTC). The information was prepared by
There is no need to stem the growth of his promising
Assistant City Prosecutor Patrick Noel P. de Dios (de Dios), the investigating
professional career. "Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to Issue:
punish but to correct offenders. While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to
discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the
penalty imposed has already served its purpose."
W/N the issues regarding falsification were properly ventilated in an
administrative/disbarment proceeding?

SALADO V. VILLANUEVA

Ruling:

Facts:

No. The complainants support their allegations of falsification by presenting

the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal itself and its annotation on TCT No. 7919;
Lily Flores-Salado, Minda Flores-Lura, Anacorito Flores, Angel Flores, Jr., and and by denying their having signed the same. However, such proof was
Fe inadequate to establish that the respondent had been the author of the
alleged falsification of the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal. We emphasize
Flores presented their adverse claim on the parcel of land situated in that allegations of falsification or forgery must be competently proved
Nasipit, Agusan because falsification or forgery cannot be presumed. As such, the
allegations should first be established and determined in appropriate
del Norte and registered under the names of Spouses Roman Villanueva,
proceedings, like in criminal or civil cases, for it is only by such proceedings
Jr. and Rosario L. Alipao. the Register of Deeds issued two new TCTs in the that the last word on the falsity or forgery can be uttered by a court of law
name of the respondent. On October 29, 2009, complainants Lily Flores- with the legal competence to do so. A disbarment proceeding is not the
Salado, Minda Flores-Lura, and Fe Flores lodged their complaint with the occasion to determine the issue of falsification or forgery simply because
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) charging the respondent (Atty. the sole issue to be addressed and determined therein is whether or not the
Villanueva) with gross dishonesty on the basis of their assertion therein that respondent attorney is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the
they had not signed the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal. They thereby dispensation of justice. Accordingly, we decline to rule herein whether or
further charged him with dishonesty for concealing his true age in order to not the respondent had committed the supposed falsification of the
secure his appointment in 2006 as a state prosecutor. They avered that he affidavit of waiver/withdrawal in the absence of the prior determination
was disqualified for the position because he had already been 70 years old thereof in the appropriate proceeding. Moreover, the complainants have
at the time of his appointment. The respondent denied the charges, and hereby challenged the due execution and authenticity of the affidavit of
imputed ill-motives to the complainants in filing the disbarment complaint waiver/withdrawal, a notarized document. In view of this, the complainants'
against him. He contended that the complainants did not present sufficient mere denial of having signed the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal
proof showing that he had falsified the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal; and
did not suffice to overcome the positive value of it as a notarized document.
asserted that the basis for the partition of the contested property had been
It is
the compromise agreement entered into by him and his siblings, including
Francisca, the complainants' mother; and that he had been born on settled that notarization converts a private document into a public
November 29, 1943, as indicated in his birth certificate. document, whereby the document becomes entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face. The notarized document then has in its favor the presumption

of regularity, and to overcome the presumed regularity of its execution,
whoever alleges the contrary should present evidence that is clear, Whether or not the penalty of disbarment is proper?
convincing and more than merely preponderant.


Ruling:
ADVINCULA V ADVINCULA


NO. Immoral conduct has been described as conduct that is so willful,
Facts: flagrant, or

shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable

members of the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such
Dr. Advincula has averred that Atty. Advincula committed unlawful and conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral, that is, it must be
immoral acts; that while Atty. Advincula was still married to her, he had so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
extra-marital sexual relations with Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga (Ms. Gonzaga); reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or
that the extra-marital relations bore a child in the name of Ma. Alexandria revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. On
Gonzaga Advincula (Alexandria); that Atty. Advincula failed to give financial different occasions, we have disbarred or suspended lawyers for immorality
support to their own children, namely: Ma. Samantha Paulina, Ma. Andrea based on the surrounding circumstances of each case. In Bustamante-
Lana, and Jose Leandro, despite his having sufficient financial resources; Alejandro v. Alejandro, the extreme penalty of disbarment was imposed on
that he admitted in the affidavit of late registration of birth of Alexandria the respondent who had abandoned his wife and maintained an illicit affair
that he had contracted another marriage with Ms. Gonzaga; that even with another woman. Likewise, disbarment was the penalty for a lawyer
should Atty. Advincula prove that his declaration in the affidavit of late who carried on an extra-marital affair with a married woman prior to the
registration of birth was motivated by some reason other than the fact that judicial declaration that her marriage was null and void, while he himself
he truly was also married. In another case we have suspended for two years, a
married attorney who had sired a child with a former client. In Samaniego v.
entered into a subsequent marriage with Ms. Gonzaga, then making such a
Ferrer , suspension of six months from the practice of law was meted on the
declaration was in itself still unlawful; that siring a child with a woman other
philandering lawyer. Yet, we cannot sanction Atty. Advincula with the same
than his lawful wife was conduct way below the standards of morality
gravity. Although his siring the child with a woman other than his legitimate
required of every lawyer; that contracting a subsequent marriage while the
wife constituted immorality, he committed the immoral conduct when he
first marriage had not been dissolved was also an unlawful conduct; that
was not yet a lawyer. The degree of his immoral conduct was not as grave
making a false declaration before a notary public was an unlawful conduct
than if he had committed the immorality when already a member of the
punishable under the Revised Penal Code; and that the failure of Atty.
Philippine Bar. Even so, he cannot escape administrative liability. Taking all
Advincula to provide proper support to his children showed his moral
the circumstances of this case into proper context, the Court considers
character to be below the standards set by law for every lawyer. Dr.
suspension from the practice of law for three months to be condign and
Advincula prayed that Atty. Advincula be disbarred.
appropriate.

De leon v Atty. Pedrena
Issue:


Facts: Jocelyn de Leon filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a because he thereby took advantage of her vulnerability as a client then in
complaint for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law against desperate need of his legal assistance.
Atty. Tyrone Pedreña, a Public Attorney. She averred in her complaint
affidavit that Atty. Pedreña had sexually harassed her.

Atty. Pedreña averred that De Leon's allegations were unsubstantiated; that Cojuancgco v Atty. Palma
entertaining such a complaint would open the gates to those who had evil

desires to destroy the names of good lawyers; that the complaint was
premature and should be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping Facts: In this case the complainant is a client of Angara Concepcion Regala &
because De Leon had already charged him with acts of lasciviousness in the Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA), who assigned the case to Atty. Palma, the
Parañaque City Prosecutor's Office; and that he had also filed a complaint respondent. The former hired the latter as his personal counsel for his
for theft against De Leon.[2] business. The same becomes very close to the family, dine and goes with
them abroad. He even tutored, complainant’s 22-year old daughter Maria

Luisa Cojuangco (Lisa).
Issue: w/o Atty. Pedrena is guilty of violating rule 1.01 of canon 1 of the CPR.


Respondent married Lisa in Hong kong without the knowledge of the
Held: Yes. The possession of good moral character is both a condition complainant despite the facts that the former is already married and with
precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar three children. Complainant sends his two sons to persuade Lisa to go home
and to retain membership in the Legal Profession. Members of the Bar are with them, which she did. In the celebration of respondent’s marriage with
clearly duty bound to observe the highest degree of morality and integrity in Lisa he misrepresented himself as a bachelor.
order to safeguard the reputation of the Bar. Any errant behavior on the

part of a lawyer that tends to expose a deficiency in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor, be it in the lawyer's public or private Complainant filed with the Court of First Instance, a petition for declaration
activities, is sufficient to warrant the lawyer's suspension or disbarment. of nullity of the marriage and which was granted. Subsequently complainant
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, provides that a member of the filed a disbarment complaint on the ground of grave abuse and betrayal of
Bar may be disbarred or suspended for grossly immoral conduct, or the trust and confidence reposed in him.
violation of his oath as a lawyer. Towards that end, we have not been remiss
in reminding members of the Bar to live up to the standards and norms of
the Legal Profession by upholding the ideals and principles embodied in
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent in his answer filed a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of
action. As he contends that complaint fails to allege acts constituting deceit,
Atty. Pedreña's misconduct was aggravated by the fact that he was then a malpractice, gross misconduct or violation of his lawyer’s oath.
Public Attorney mandated to provide free legal service to indigent litigants,

and by the fact that De Leon was then such a client. He also disregarded his
oath as a public officer to serve others and to be accountable at all times,
Issue: W/o respondent’s acts constitute deceit, malpractice, gross Held: yes, the court finds the respondent guilty of bp 22 which imports
misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a deceit and violation of his attorney’s oath and code of professional
lawyer that would warrant his disbarment. responsibility.in this case, the court also finds disbarment as the appropriate
penalty and ordered that the name of the respondent be stricken from the
roll of attorneys.
Held: There is no question that respondent as a lawyer, is well versed in the
law, fully well that in marrying Maria Luisa he was entering into a bigamous
marriage defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code. The respondent betrayed the trust reposed in him by complainant. He
was treated as part of the family and was allowed to tutor Maria Luisa.

For the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that respondent committed Wilkie v Atty. Limos
grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and it is

recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of three (3) years and which later lessen to one (1) year. Facts: Complainant alleged that on 2 April 2003, he engaged the services of
respondent regarding his intention of adopting his wife's nephew, Reynal

Alsaen Taltalen. Complainant has given his full trust and confidence on
respondent. Notwithstanding their lawyer and client relationship, on March
30, 2003, respondent borrowed money from complainant in the amount of
Barrios v Atty. Martinez P250,000.00. The loan agreement was evidenced by a Contract of Loan with
a stipulation of interest in the amount of 24% per annum and that
respondent will issue two (2) post dated checks representing the principal
amount of P250,000.00 and the interest in the amount of P60,000.00.
Facts: atty. Martinez was convicted of the crime involving bp 22. He was
also involved in another estafa case pertaining to his legal services rendered
When the checks became due, complainant deposited the same to his
on the victim of dona paz tragedy. The victim he represented filed a
account at Equitable PCI Bank but to his surprise and dismay, the checks
complaint because of the compensation that the victim had received from
were returned as they were drawn against insufficient funds. Despite
sulpicio lines which was later deducted by atty. Martinez. On Sept. 27, 2003 demands made, respondent failed to pay her obligation.
the ibp board of governors passed a resolution approving the report and the
recommendation of its investigating commissioner. On Dec. 3, 2003 Complainant decided to engage the services of a counsel who also made a
respondent filed an MR and reinvestigation. formal demand to respondent but to no avail. Criminal complaints were
filed against respondent before Branch 2, Municipal Trial Court of San

Fernando City, La Union.
Issue: W/o the crime of issuing worthless check constituting moral
turpitude?Was the act of the respondent considered to be a ground for Complainant has also withdrawn the adoption case from respondent who
disbarment? did not do anything regarding the case despite the lapse of almost a year.

Issue: W/o the act of the respondent considered to be a ground for

disbarment? Dizon was eventually convicted for frustrated homicide but was allowed
probation, conditioned on payment of civil liabilities. However, four years
Held: yes. A lawyer who issued bouncing checks violates the law and is after judgment was rendered, Dizon has not yet fulfilled his civil obligation.
subject to disbarment or suspension. Violation of B.P. 22 is considered a
crime involving moral turpitude as this mischief creates not only a wrong to
the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. Although it does not
Soriano filed complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP
relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer, however, it certainly
for Dizon’s disbarment. The Commissioner of the CBD recommended that
relates to and affects the good moral character of a person. The Court has
respondent be disbarred for having been convicted of a crime involving
stressed that the nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that she
moral turpitude and for violating Rule. 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a
Professional Responsibility. The IBP adopted the recommendation of the
condition precedent to the practice of law; its continued possession is also
essential for remaining in the practice of law. CBD and sent their resolution to the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the crime of frustrated homicide committed by
Atty. Dizon involved moral turpitude.
2. Whether or not Atty. Dizon’s guilt warrants his disbarment.
Soriano v Atty. Dizon


HELD:
FACTS: Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his car under the influence of liquor
1. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the CBD that the
when along Abanao Street, Baguio City, a taxi driver overtook him.
crime of frustrated homicide committed by Atty. Dizon involved
Incensed, Dizon tailed the taxi, pulled it over, and berated Roberto Soriano,
moral turpitude. The court defined moral turpitude as “everything
the taxi driver, and held him by his shirt. To stop the aggression, Soriano
which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act
forced open his door, causing Dizon to fall to the ground. Soriano tried to
of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties
help Dizon get up, but the latter was about to punch him so Soriano
which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary
punched Dizon first to fend off an impending attack. Soriano prevented
to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.” Moral turpitude was
another attempt by Dizon to hit him. Dizon went back to his car and got his
shown when Atty. Dizon shot a taxi driver for no justifiable reason.
revolver with the handle wrapped in a handkerchief. As Soriano was
His act definitely did not constitute self-defense. It was he who was
handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked up from the pavement,
the aggressor because he first tried to punch Soriano. The latter was
Dizon fired and shot him. Soriano fell on the thigh of the accused, and the
merely defending himself when he counterpunched Dizon.
latter merely pushed him out and sped off. The bullet hit Soriano’s neck and
Moreover, Dizon’s act was aggravated with treachery when he shot
lacerated his carotid artery. According to the doctors who treated him, he
Soriano when the latter was not in a position to defend himself.
would have died if not for the timely medical assistance. Soriano sustained
Soriano was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked up,
spinal cord injury causing the left side of his body to be paralyzed, disabling
when he was shot. Furthermore, Dizon tried to escape punishment
him for his job as a taxi driver.
by wrapping the handle of his gun in handkerchief in order not to
leave fingerprints on the gun used. Dizon’s violent reaction to a
simple traffic incident indicated his skewed morals.


2. The Supreme Court held that Dizon also violated Canon 1 of the Santeco v Atty. Avance
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “A lawyer
shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.” Dizon failed to obey
Facts: In an En Banc Decision dated December 11, 2003, the Court found
the laws of the land through his illegal possession of an unlicensed
respondent guilty of gross misconduct for, among others, abandoning her
firearm. He failed to respect legal processes through his unjust
client’s cause in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful
refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities, the condition for his probation.
orders directed at her without any explanation for doing so. She was

ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years.
Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Dizon’s
violation was exhibited when he tried to reach an out-of-court Subsequently, while respondent’s five-year suspension from the practice of
settlement with the family of Soriano but when the negotiations law was still in effect, Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar, Presiding Judge of the
failed, he made it appear as if it was the family who approached him RTC of Iba, Zambales, Branch 71, sent a letter-report dated November 12,
to get a referral to a neurosurgeon. In addition, Dizon fabricated a 2007 to the Court Administrator informing the latter that respondent had
story that it was Soriano and two other persons who mauled him. appeared and actively participated in three cases wherein she
According to the three doctors who examined Dizon, his injuries misrepresented herself as “Atty. Liezl Tanglao”. When opposing counsels
were so minor that his allegation was so improbable. confronted her and showed to the court a certification regarding her
suspension, respondent admitted and conceded that she is Atty. Luna B.
Avance, but qualified that she was only suspended for three years and that
her suspension has already been lifted.
The court ruled that the appalling treachery and brazen dishonesty
of respondent clearly showed his unfitness to continue as a member Acting on Judge Amog-Bocar’s letter-report, the Court, in a Resolution dated
of the bar. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege April 9, 2008, required respondent to comment within ten days from notice.
demanding a high degree of good moral character, which is not only Respondent, however, failed to file the required comment. On June 10,
a condition precedent to admission, but also a continuing 2009, the Court reiterated the directive to comment. Still, respondent failed
requirement for the practice of law. While the power to disbar must to comply despite notice. Accordingly, this Court issued a Resolution on
be exercised with great caution, and that disbarment should never September 29, 2009 finding respondent guilty of indirect contempt.
be decreed when any lesser penalty would accomplish the end Respondent was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of Php 30,000.00
desired, the court held that meting out a lesser penalty would which respondent failed to pay.
be irreconcilable with the lofty aspiration that every lawyer be a
shining exemplar of truth and justice. Atty. Dizon was disbarred.

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

Held: Respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance is disbarred for gross misconduct the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of
and willful disobedience of lawful orders of a superior court. Her name is disbarment.
ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

Rationale: As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold the
dignity and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial
authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes.
Ellciano v Atty. Lozada
We have held that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross
FACTS:
misconduct, insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyer’s
suspension or even disbarment. Sebastian v. Bajar teachers Alvin Feliciano filed an injunction and TRO against Atty. Carmencita
Bautista – Lozada in representing his husband Edilberto Lozada in the
Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring orders of the Supreme
latter’s case against the complainant on June 5, 2007. Feliciano alleged that
Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent’s
Atty. Bautista – Lozada appeared as a counsel for his husband and actively
conduct indicates a high degree or irresponsibility. A Court’s Resolution is
participated in the court proceedings while she is still suspended from the
“not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with
practice of law in reference to a court judgment on December 15, 2005.
partially, inadequately, or selectively. Respondent’s obstinate refusal to
Feliciano argued that the act of the respondent constitutes willful
comply with the Court’s orders not “only betrays recalcitrant flaw in her
disobedience to a court order. In her reply, Atty Bautista – Lozada claims
character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders
that she was only forced by the situation that she needed to defend the
which is only too deserving of reproof.”
right of his husband who is embroiled in a legal dispute. She believes that
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the bar may since she is representing his husband and not a client, it is not within the
be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for gross misconduct prohibition of the law. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation and
and/or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, to the IBP Investigating Officer recommended disbarment for Atty. Bautista –
wit: Lozada in violation of Rule 1.01, 1.02 and Rule 18.01 of the CPR. The IBP-
BOG adopted the recommendation with modification to suspension of only
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds 3 months.
therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or ISSUE:
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
Whether or not the acts of Atty. Bautista – Lozada warrant
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or of any violation of
disciplinary action?
the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly RULING:
or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority
so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, Yes. Atty. Bautista – Lozada’s act of representing his husband in
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. court proceedings while still serving her suspension is an act prohibited by
(Emphasis supplied.) law that should warrant disciplinary action. Sec 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court clearly stated that a willful disobedience of any lawful order
In repeatedly disobeying this Court’s orders, respondent proved herself of the superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney
unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains for a party to a case without authority to do so is a ground for disbarment or
indifferent to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge suspension from the practice of law. The practice of law is defined as any
activity, in or out of the court, which requires that application of law, legal Issue: W/o respondent is liable for disbarment
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. In the case at bar, Atty.
Bautista-Lozada in appearing, signing for and in behalf of his husband in
pleadings and court proceedings constitutes practice of law where she
Held: no. It must be pointed out that the relation of attorney-client may be
should desist herself from engaging during the period of her suspension.
terminated by (1) the act of the client; (2) the act of the attorney; (3) the
The prior judgement of her suspension was promulgated on December 15,
death of the client; (4) the death of the attorney; or (5) the accomplishment
2005, therefore she cannot engage in the practice of law until December
of the purpose for which it was created.[28] Ordinarily, the attorney-client
2007.
relation is ended by the completion of the specific task for which the
Gonzaga v Atty. Villanueva attorney was employed. In this case, the attorney-client relationship
between the complainants and the respondent was terminated by the
complainants upon their appointment as special co-administrators of the
estate of their deceased parents.
Facts: For final resolution by this Court in this case is the complaint for
disbarment filed by complainants Napoleon R. Gonzaga and Ricardo R. Notably, the difference between the revocation of the authority by the act
Gonzaga against respondent Atty. Eugenio V. Villanueva, Jr. The grounds of the client and by the act of the attorney is that the first may be done at
alleged therein are deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of any time with or without cause, whereas the second can be made only with
oath of office. the clients written consent or for justified cause.
Evidently, respondents obstinate refusal to withdraw from the intestate

proceedings was improper. Since his unauthorized appearance was willful,
The failure of the complainants to examine the document closely is justified he could have been cited in contempt as an officer of the court who has
by the following attending circumstances: (1) it was presented to them for misbehaved in his official transactions. In addition, he may be disciplined for
their signing at the church when they were busy preparing for the misa professional misconduct.
requiem; (2) they were still emotionally shocked by the brutal killing of their A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath, a
parents two days earlier; (4) they were busy with the investigation of the patent disregard of his duties, or an odious deportment unbecoming an
murder; (5) they had to attend to the wake activities of their deceased attorney. Among the grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the
parents; and (6) finally, they trusted that the respondent would reflect in Rules of Court are deceit; malpractice; gross misconduct in office; grossly
the document their agreement that he would represent them only in the immoral conduct; conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; any
criminal case. violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to the
To avoid embarrassing the respondent after learning of the actual content practice of law; willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court;
of the 1 August 1977 document, the complainants executed a document corrupt or willful appearance as an attorney for a party to a case without
giving the former authority to appear in the intestate case until they shall authority to do so. The grounds are not preclusive in nature even as they
have been appointed as co-administrators of the estate of their deceased are broad enough as to cover practically any kind of impropriety that a
parents.[25] But, even after the appointment of the complainants as co- lawyer does or commits in his professional career or in his private life. A
administrators and the termination by them of respondents services,[26] the lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber which are not
respondent continued to appear in the intestate proceedings.[ only conditions precedent to his entrance to the Bar but are likewise
essential demands for his continued membership therein.

However, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and
must be used only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member April 2006 to April 2007, and he was unaware of the pre-termination of his
of the Bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty, contract when he filed pleadings
such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired -IBP Board of Governors reversed the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner and dismissed the case for lack of merit.


Vargas v Atty. Ignes
Issue: did the IBP Board of Governors err in dismissing the case? Are the
respondents liable for appearing as attorneys for a party to a case without
authority to do so?
Facts: Atty. Michael Ignes was hired by Koronadal Water District (KWD) as
private legal counsel for one year; the Office of Gov’t. Corporate Counsel
(OGCC) and Comm on Audit (COA) consented. Dela Pena (DP) Board filed a Held: Yes, the IBP Board of Governors erred in dismissing the case; and YES,
case to annul the appointment of two directors who will allegedly connive the respondents are administratively liable.
with Director Allan Yapchockun who is against the present Board of Section 10, Chapter 3, Title III, Book IV of the Admin Code of 1987 says that
Directors (the Dela Pena Board) the OGCC shall act as the principal law office of all Government Owned and
. DP Board appointed respondents Atty. Rodolfo U. Viajar, Jr. And Atty. Controlled Corporations (GOCCs); Sec. 3 of Memo Circular No. 9: in
Buentipo Mann as private counsels for all cases of KWD and its Board of exceptional cases, the written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor
Directors, under Atty. Ignes’s supervision General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, and the
. they filed cases “KWD represented by Gen. Manager Eleanor Pimentel- written concurrence of the COA shall first be secured before the hiring or
Gomba vs Efren V Cabucay” and “KWD vs. Rey J. Vargas” employment of a private lawyer or law firm.
-Attys. Nadua, Viajar, Jr. and Mann had no valid authority to appear as
OGCC approved retainership contract of Atty. Benjamin Cunanan as new collaborating counsels of KWD in SCA Case No. 50-24 and Civil Case No.
legal counsel of KWD and stated that the retainership contract of Ignes had 1799. Nothing in the records shows that Atty. Nadua was engaged by KWD
expired on Jan. 14, 2007 as collaborating counsel.
OGCC addressed Eleanor P. Gomba’s insistence that the retainership -In the case of Attys. Viajar, Jr. and Mann, their appointment as
contract of Atty. Ignes will expire on April 17, 2007. The OGCC stated that collaborating counsels of KWD under Resolution No. 009 has no approval
as stipulated, the KWD or OGCC may terminate the contract anytime from the OGCC and COA.
without need of judicial action; that OGCC’s grant of authority to private -In the case of Atty. Ignes, he also appeared as counsel of KWD without
counsels is a privilege withdrawable under justifiable circumstances; and authority, after his authority as its counsel had expired. True, the OGCC and
that the termination of Atty. Ignes’s contract was justified by the fact that COA approved his retainership contract for one (1) year effective April 17,
the Local Water Utilities Administration had confirmed the Yaphockun 2006. But even if we assume as true that he was not notified of the pre-
board as the new Board of Directors of KWD and that said board had termination of his contract, the records still disprove his claim that he
terminated Atty. Ignes’s services and requested to hire another counsel. stopped representing KWD after April 17, 2007.
Alleging that respondents acted as counsel for KWD without legal authority, - In a Jan. 28, 2008 case, Atty. Ignes portrayed that his appearance was
complainants filed a disbarment complaint against the respondents before merely as counsel of Ms. Gomba. He indicted himself, however, when he
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline said that Ms. Gomba represents KWD per the case title. In fact, the
extremely urgent motion sought the return of the facilities of KWD to its
Investigating Commissioner recommended that the charge against Atty. Arellano Office. Clearly, Atty. Ignes filed and argued a motion with the
Ignes be dismissed for lack of merit. The Investigating Commissioner held interest of KWD in mind. The notice of appeal in the case further validates
that Atty. Ignes had valid authority as counsel of KWD for one (1) year, from
that Atty. Ignes still appeared as counsel of KWD after his authority as remorse, tiguwang na pajud di na productive, etc. So no judicial clemency
counsel had expired. for him.

Facts:
Suspension of Atty. Maquera The Court meted the supreme penalty of disbarment on petitioner Torres
for "presentation of false testimony; participation in, consent to, and failure

to advise against, the forgery of complainant's signature in a purported
Facts: The District Court of Guam informed the SC of the 2-year suspension Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in court for
of Atty. Maquera from the practice of law in Guam. The IBP sent Maquera the purpose of profiting from such forgery," thereby committing gross
a Notice of Hearing requiring him to appear before the IBP's Commission on misconduct and violating Canons 1 and 10 the Code of Professional
Bar Discipline but the notice was returned unserved because Maquera’s Responsibility.
current address was unknown. The IBP found that Maquera was admitted to
practice law in the Philippines in 1958 and in Guam in 1974.He was Torres twice moved for reconsideration and filed numerous submissions for
suspended in Guam for misconduct, as he acquired his client's property as reinstatement, all of which were denied with finality by the Court.
payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a consequence obtained
an unreasonably high fee for handling his client's case. Based on More than ten (10) years from his disbarment, Torres filed a Petition
the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam, the IBP concluded that although seeking judicial clemency from the Court to reinstate him in the Roll of
the said court found Maquera liable for misconduct, "there is no evidence to Attorneys. The Court denied the petition, holding that Torres had failed to
establish that [Maquera] committed a breach of ethics in the Philippines. provide substantial proof that he had reformed himself, especially
However, the IBP still resolved to suspend him indefinitely for his failure to considering the absence of showing that he had reconciled or attempted to
pay his annual dues as a member of the IBP since 1977, reconcile with his sister-in-law, the original complainant in the disbarment
case against him; nor was it demonstrated that he was remorseful over the
Issue: W/N member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred or suspended fraudulent acts he had committed against her.
from the practice of law in a foreign jurisdiction may likewise be disbarred
or suspended in this country for the same infraction? Despite the foregoing, Torres filed the instant petition, again seeking judicial
clemency from the Court to reinstate him in the Roll of Attorneys.
Held: Yes.As Maquera has not yet been able to adduce evidence on his
behalf, the SC required him to show cause why he should not be suspended Issue:
or disbarred for said acts. In the meantime, Atty. Maquera was SUSPENDED Whether or not the petition seeking judicial clemency from the court to
for 1 YEAR or until he shall have paid his membership dues, whichever reinstate him in the RoA is meritorious.
comes later.
Held:
July 11, 2017
The petition is not meritorious. Torres failed to comply with the guidelines
A.C. No. 5161
for the grant of judicial clemency; hence, the instant petition must
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO
necessarily be denied.
S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR


The principle which should hold true for lawyers, being officers of the court,
Quick facts: Disbarred petitioner. Sought for reinstatement kawanmilyon
is that judicial clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification,
but denied. Sought judicial clemency. WON karapatdapat ba sya. SC laid
should be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts.
down guidelines for JUDICIAL CLEMENCY. See digest. Samok siya, walay
Thus, the Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited. The
Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial Milagros Villa Abrille, one of the defendants in the case filed by Rico for
clemency, to wit: Forcible Entry, filed a separate case for Unlawful Detainer against Rico
covering the same property. On November 6, 2001, the MTCC ordered Rico
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but to vacate the premises. Subsequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or affirmed the MTCC ruling and issued a Writ of Execution.
chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges
associations and prominent members of the community with proven Court’s sheriff executed a Return Service stating that the writ could not be
integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case served on Rico since the property subject of the case was different from the
for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of lot which Rico was occupying. Thereafter, Villa Abrille, through her counsel,
non-reformation. respondent Atty. Salutan, filed a motion for the issuance of an Alias Writ of
Execution. The sheriff executed a Return of Service again since the alias writ
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to could not be enforced for the same reason as the first time. Abrille once
ensure a period of reform. again filed a motion for the issuance of another Alias Writ of Execution,
which, this time, the MTCC denied. Hence, Villa Abrille went to the Court for
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to compel the MTCC to issue another
productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a Writ of Execution and for the sheriff to implement the same. The Court,
chance to redeem himself. however, dismissed the case.

4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, For the fourth (4th) time, Villa Abrille filed another motion for the issuance
learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the of a Writ of Execution. This time, the MTCC granted it. Sheriff led the
development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), demolition of the house and other improvements on the property. Thus,
as well as potential for public service. Rico filed the administrative complaint against Atty. Salutan.

5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify For his part, Atty. Salutan denied the charges and argued that he merely
clemency. advocated for his client’s cause and did the same within the bounds of the
law and of the rules. He merely did what a zealous lawyer would naturally
do in representation of his client.
05 MAR 2018
A.C. No. 9257 The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
EDGAR M. RICO v. ATTY. REYNALDO G. SALUTAN recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint against Atty.
Salutan. The IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution which adopted the
Quick Facts: Atty. Salutan is the counsel of Abrille in “Abrille versus Rico” CBD’s recommendation. Rico moved for reconsideration of said Resolution.
case. Loser si Rico. Way lain mabasul so he filed admin case against Atty. The IBP Board of Governors passed another resolution denying said motion
Salutan. From Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the for reconsideration
Philippines, IBP Board of Governors (twice kay ni MR), to SC, in favor tanan
of course ni Salutan because he’s the good guy. So unsa man jud needed for Issue: Whether or not the administrative case filed by Rico is meritorious.
an ADMINISTRATIVE CASE to prosper. See digest.
Held:
Facts:
The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings and Whether or not a lawyer should be subject to disciplinary actions
recommendation of the IBP that the instant administrative complaint considering that the deception was made in her private capacity.
against Atty. Salutan must be dismissed.
Held:
Here, despite the charges hurled against Atty. Salutan, Rico failed to show Yes, a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his
any badge of deception on the lawyer’s part. There was no court decision professional or private capacity. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
declaring that Villa Abrille’s title was fake or that it had encroached on Responsibility mandates all lawyers to uphold at all times the dignity and
Rico’s property. All that Atty. Salutan did was to zealously advocate for the integrity of the legal profession. Lawyers are similarly required, under Rule
cause of his client. He was not shown to have misled or unduly influenced 1.01, Canon 1 of the same Code, not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest
the court through misinformation. He merely persistently pursued said and immoral or deceitful conduct.
cause and he did so within the bounds of the law and the existing rules.
In the case at bar, Atty. Gumba’s actions clearly show that she deceived
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding complainant into lending money to her through the use of documents and
of guilt is substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence false representations and taking advantage of her education and
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. complainants ignorance in legal matters.
Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence
the allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not However, suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to discipline
evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Likewise, charges based on mere respondent. Disbarment will be imposed as a penalty only in a clear case of
suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. Besides, the misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of the
evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence-as opposed to preponderance lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.
of evidence-is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential
considerations attending this type of cases.
June 11, 2018
A.C. No. 3921
5 October 2011 DELFINA HERNANDEZ SANTIAGO v. ATTY. ZOSIMO SANTIAGO AND ATTY.
A.C. No. 9000 NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
TOMAS P. TAN, JR. vs. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA
Quick facts:
Facts: Absenot nga govt employee. Gitarong siya pagterminate. Iya giquestion and
Atty. Gumba obtained a loan of P350,000.00 from Mr. Tan and offered the napildi siya. Gikiha ang legal officers (and mayor pud separate case) kay di
parcel of land registered in her father’s name as security. She even showed siya nahan nga loser siya. In this case, gireiterate that disbarment is a severe
Special Power of Attorney that she was authorized to sell or encumber the disciplinary sanction. Dili pataka file disbarment.
property. However, Atty. Gumba defaulted on her loan obligation and failed
to pay the same despite repeated demands. So, Mr. Tan went to the Facts:
Register of Deeds to register the sale, only to find out that the SPA did not Complainant was the City Personnel Officer of Caloocan City while
give respondent the power to sell the property but only empowered respondents Santiago and Tolentino respectively held the positions of City
respondent to mortgage the property solely to banks. Legal Officer and Legal Officer II in the City Government of Caloocan.

Issue: Complainant applied for, and was granted, a sick leave of absence with
commuted pay covering 240 days from January 25 to December 31, 1988.
Complainant received a Memorandum from then Mayor, which cancelled all malice or with the intent to do wrong. Gross misconduct, on the other hand,
leaves of absence of city officials and employees and another one detailing is "any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a
her to the Office of the Secretary to the Mayor. Complainant apparently person concerned with the administration of justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial
paid no heed to said memoranda. She was later directed to return to work to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. The
in a letter. Complainant received a memorandum from Mayor Asistio motive behind this conduct is generally a premeditated, obstinate or
terminating her employment. Enclosed therewith was a Resolution signed intentional purpose." Similarly, on the charge of the alleged violation of the
by respondents Santiago and Tolentino, which recommended her dismissal Attorney's Oath, the settled rule is that:
from service
The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a lawyer
Complainant then filed the present case, accusing the respondents of simply because he has joined the government service. In fact, by the express
making deceitful statements in said Resolution, committing gross provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the conduct of lawyers
misconduct and violating their Attorney's Oath for recommending her '"shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
dismissal without just cause or due process. official tasks." Thus, where a lawyer's misconduct as a government official
is of such nature as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral
Issue: Whether or not the complaint is meritorious. delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such
grounds. Although the general rule is that a lawyer who holds a government
Held: office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for infractions he
The Court finds no merit in the complaint. committed as a government official, he may, however, be disciplined as a
lawyer if his misconduct constitutes a violation of his oath [as] a member of
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides for the grounds for the the legal profession.
imposition of the penalty of disbarment, to wit:
Before the Court may impose against respondents the severe disciplinary
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds sanction of disbarment, complainant must be able to establish by
therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his substantial evidence the malicious and intentional character of the
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or misconduct complained of that evince the moral delinquency of
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason respondents. Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence that a
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a
wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly Complainant cannot simply rely on speculations and suspicions, no matter
or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority how deep-seated, without evidence to support the same. Charges meriting
so to do. x x x disciplinary action against a lawyer generally involve the motives that
induced him to commit the act charged and that, to justify disbarment or
In this case, complainant accused the respondents of deceit, gross suspension, the case against the lawyer must be clear and free from doubt,
misconduct and of violating their Attorney's Oath in issuing the Resolution not only as to the act charged but as to his motive. Mere allegation is not
that allegedly contained false statements and which was arrived at without evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion
her being informed of the charges or given the opportunity to present and speculation likewise cannot be given credence.
evidence.
Complainant admitted in her complaint and consolidated reply that she had
As Commissioner Andres correctly ruled, deceit covers intentional indeed filed administrative cases against respondents before the CSC, as
falsehoods or false statements and representations that are made with well as a separate administrative case against Mayor Asistio, in order to
impugn the validity of her dismissal from service. However, the specific This case is ordered REMANDED to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
details, stages and/or outcome of said cases were not properly manifested Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further investigation, report and
before this Court. Complainant merely stated that she was not satisfied with recommendation.
these other proceedings so she opted to file the instant case for disbarment.
Question of due process. There must be an opportunity to be heard.

June 18, 2018 There seems to be truth that "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta" was not a lawyer at
A.C. No. 10267 all as Helen was made to believe. His name does not appear in the Law List,
HELEN GRADIOLA v. ATTY. ROMULO A. DELES and there seems to be truth to the information Helen gathered that this
"Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta" was disbarred because in A.C. No. 1109 (which
Facts: this Court promulgated on April 27, 2005), this Court ordered the
Complaint for disbarment filed by Helen Gradiola (Helen), charging disbarment of a certain "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta" due to his conviction of a
respondent lawyer Atty. Romulo A. Deles (respondent lawyer) with violating crime involving moral turpitude.
the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 9.01 and Rule 9.02
of Canon 9; and Rule 10.1 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 thereof. While "Atty. Araneta" admitted of his involvement in a fraudulent scheme in
defrauding litigants that included Helen, we cannot immediately conclude
Helen claimed that respondent lawyer was her counsel in a civil case then that respondent lawyer himself was likewise part of this racket that duped
pending before the Court of Appeals. Helen. It must be stressed that, because of his medical condition,
respondent lawyer could not yet explain his side. While indeed, an Answer
Moreover, Helen averred that she was assured the case was in "good was filed, it was John who signed the same and not respondent lawyer. As
hands" because respondent lawyer and "Atty. Araneta" have a "contact" in such, we cannot consider respondent lawyer to have been adequately
the CA in Cebu City. "Atty. Araneta" soon billed Helen for these expenses represented.
and issued her all the receipts for these payments. These receipts all bore
the signatures "Atty. Ernie/Ernesto Araneta." Helen discovered that this With respondent lawyer not yet in a position to factually dispute the
"Atty. Araneta" had not only been disbarred from the practice of law. accusations and defend himself, and considering that there was no
established lawyer-client relationship at all between him and Atty.
hereupon, Helen immediately filed with the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City Mampang, albeit the latter acted for respondent lawyer's best interest,
a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of public document proceeding with the investigation of the administrative case against him
against respondent lawyer and "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta." The City would amount to a denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Prosecutor of Bacolod City found Helen's criminal complaint well grounded,
and instituted a criminal information therefore, now pending before Branch This Court has consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal
53 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City. presumption that he is innocent of charges against him until the contrary is
proved, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have
Helen likewise filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against performed his duties in accordance with his oath. "For the Court to exercise
respondent lawyer before the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent [lawyer] must be
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Indeed, considering
the serious consequences of disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Issue: Whether or not the complaint is meritorious. Bar, the Court has consistently held that a clear preponderant evidence is
necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty." "The
Held:
burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on She alleged that Atty. Maglalang admitted to all these when he was
the shoulders of the complainant." confronted by Goopio's representative and niece, Milogen Canoy (Canoy),
which supposedly resulted in Goopio's revocation of the General Power of
Attorney on May 17, 2007. Goopio finally alleged that through counsel, she
July 31, 2018 made a formal demand upon Atty. Maglalang for restitution, which went
A.C. No. 10555 unheeded; hence, the disbarment complaint.
EVELYN T. GOOPIO v. ATTY. ARIEL D. MAGLALANG
Issue: Whether or not the disbarment case is meritorious.
Facts:
Held:
In her disbarment complaint, Goopio primarily alleged that sometime in Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang is hereby REPRIMANDED, but the disbarment
2005, in relation to her need to resolve property concerns with respect to complaint against him is nevertheless DISMISSED for lack of merit. Let a
12 parcels of land located in Sagay City, Negros Occidental, she engaged the copy of this decision be attached to his records.
services of Atty. Maglalang to represent her either through a court action or
through extra-judicial means. Having been employed in Switzerland at the In our ruling in Concepcion v. Fandiño, Jr.,a disbarment case which involved
time, she allegedly likewise executed a General Power of Attorney on June as documentary evidence mere photocopies of the notarized documents
18, 2006 in favor of Atty. Maglalang, authorizing him to settle the upon which the main allegation stood, we aptly reiterated how even in
controversy covering the properties with the developer, including the filing disbarment proceedings which are sui generis in nature, the Best Evidence
of a petition for rescission of contract with damages. Rule still applies, and submission of mere photocopies of documentary
evidence is unavailing for their dearth of probative weight.
Goopio further alleged that Atty. Maglalang supposedly informed her that
the petition for rescission was filed and pending with the Regional Trial In Concepcion, the basis for the complaint for disbarment was the allegation
Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, and that as payment of the same, the latter that the lawyer therein notarized documents without authority. Similarly
requested and received the total amount of P400,000.00 from her.[6] involving a disbarment proceeding that centered on the authenticity of the
Goopio similarly alleged that Atty. Maglalang presented an official receipt purported documents as proof of the violative act alleged, what we said
covering the alleged deposit of the P400,000.00 with the court. therein is most apt and acutely instructive for the case at bar, to wit:

Goopio further contended that Atty. Maglalang rendered legal services in A study of the document on which the complaint is anchored shows that the
connection with the petition, including but not limited to, appearances at photocopy is not a certified true copy neither was it testified on by any
mediations and hearings, as well as the preparation of a reply between the witness who is in a position to establish the authenticity of the document.
months of December 2006 and April 2007, in relation to which she was Neither was the source of the document shown for the participation of the
supposedly billed a total of P114,000.00, P84,000.00 of which she paid in complainant in its execution. x x x This fact gives rise to the query, where did
full. these documents come from, considering also the fact that respondent
vehemently denied having anything to do with it. It is worthy to note that
Goopio also claimed that she subsequently discovered that no such petition the parties who allegedly executed said Deed of Sale are silent regarding the
was filed nor was one pending before the RTC or any tribunal, and that the incident.
purported inaction of Atty. Maglalang likewise resulted in the continued
accrual of interest payments as well as other charges on her properties. x x x x x x x We have scrutinized the records of this case, but we have failed
to find a single evidence which is an original copy. All documents on record
submitted by complainant are indeed mere photocopies. In fact, respondent
has consistently objected to the admission in evidence of said documents July 23, 2018
on this ground. We cannot, thus, find any compelling reason to set aside the A.C. No. 12005
investigating commissioner's findings on this point. It is well-settled that in ATTY. ACHERNAR B. TABUZO v. ATTY. JOSE ALFONSO M. GOMOS
disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon complainant. x x x x Quick Facts:
x x x Naay nagfile admin complaint against Atty. Tabuzo before the CBD. Ang case
naassigned ni Atty. Gomos (commisioner taga CBD). Pildi and reprimanded
The general rule is that photocopies of documents are inadmissible. As held chuchu si Atty. Tabuzo. Loser iyang pamati, iya gifilan complaint ang
in Intestate Estate of the Late Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban v. Court of commissioner.
Appeals, such document has no probative value and is inadmissible in
evidence. Facts:
Before the Court is a Verified Complaint filed by Atty. Achernar B. Tabuzo
In both Concepcion and the case at bar, the allegations at the core of the (complainant) against Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos (respondent) who was
disbarment complaints both involve alleged violations, the truth or falsity of then a Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for
which relies on a determination of the authenticity of the documents that allegedly committing the following acts:
serve as the paper trail of said punishable acts.
2.1 Violation of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the Rules
In the case at bar, the fact that Atty. Maglalang offered to restitute to of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Goopio the money award in no way precludes the Court from weighing in Court and Republic Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
on the very merits of the case, and gauging them against the quantum of Public [O]fficials and Employees;
evidence required. No less than the public interest in disbarment 2.2 Violation of Canon[s] 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the
proceedings necessitates such independent, impartial, and inclusive Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions of the Commission on Bar
contemplation of the totality of evidence presented by the parties. Discipline;
Regrettably for the complainant in this case, her failure to comply with the 2.3 Nonfeasance in deliberately refusing to institute disciplinary action for
elementary Best Evidence Rule caused her probative submissions to be serious violations of duties owed to the Courts and the Legal Profession
weighed and found severely wanting. committed by a lawyer, despite repeated notice, and contrary to the
mandate of his office and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;
As has been avowed by the Court, while we will not hesitate to mete out the 2.4 Gross Ignorance of the Law;
appropriate disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to live up to 2.5 All the foregoing were aggravated by: a) pattern of misconduct; b)
their sworn duties, we will, on the other hand, protect them from multiple offenses; [c)] substantial experience in the practice of law; and [d)]
accusations that have failed the crucible of proof. betrayal of the trust of his office as Commissioner of the Honorable
Commission on Bar Discipline.
Accordingly, all premises considered, we cannot find Atty. Maglalang guilty
of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court as the case levelled The controversy stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by Lucille
against him by Goopio does not have any evidentiary leg to stand on. The G. Sillo (Sillo) against complainant before the IBP, docketed as CBD Case No.
latter's allegations of misrepresentation and deceit have not been 12-3457. The case was assigned to respondent for investigation and report.
substantiated as required by the applicable probative quantum, and her
failure to present the best evidence to prove the authenticity of the subject recommending that complainant be reprimanded for the impropriety of
documents places said documents well within the ambit of doubt, on the talking to Sillo, without her counsel, prior to the calling of their case for
basis of which no punitive finding may be found. mediation conference, and for the abusive, offensive or improper language
used in the pleadings she filed in the said case.

Complainant averred that respondent was very cruel and heartless to an The Court has, in some instances, even conceded that "a lawyer may think
inexperienced lawyer when he mutilated statements made in her pleadings highly of his [or her] intellectual endowment." Such observation is but a
in CBD moderate and fair commentary to remind members of the legal profession
to espouse humility in all their dealings not only with their clients and with
Issue: Whether or not the administrative complaint is meritorious. their fellow lawyers but also against their adversaries.

Held: The filing of an administrative complaint against an adjudicator is not the
DISMISSES the administrative complaint filed against Atty. Jose Alfonso M. proper remedy for assailing the legal propriety of an adverse decision,
Gomos. order, resolution or recommendation, in the case of administrative
complaints against lawyers. More importantly, the reckless practice of filing
Furthermore, the Court STERNLY WARNS Atty. Achernar B. Tabuzo and her baseless administrative complaints against fellow lawyers undeniably
collaborating counsel Atty. Gaudencio A. Barboza, Jr. to REFRAIN from degrades rather than cleanses the ranks of the legal profession.
abusing the disciplinary proceedings thru filing and maintaining frivolous
administrative complaints against fellow members of the Bar. Tabon v Atty. Bathan AC 10202, 7/11/2018 - Google, CD Asia, and Batas
App. I exercised due diligence in looking for this case. Wala jud.
Obviously, the filing of baseless and unfounded administrative complaints
against fellow lawyers is antithetical to conducting oneself with courtesy, June 27, 2018
fairness and candor. It reduces the Bar's disciplinary process into an avenue A.C. No. 8502
for childish bickering and trivial catfights. Realistically, filing harassment CHRISTOPHER R. SANTOS v. ATTY. JOSEPH A. ARROJADO
administrative complaints definitely causes undue anxiety and considerable
psychological stress on wrongly charged respondents. Thus, it should be Quick Facts:
understood that the aforementioned Canon proscribes the filing of frivolous Gi filan admin case si Atty Arrojado because he acquired DAW an interest in
administrative complaints against fellow members of the legal profession to the land involved in a litigation in which he had taken part by reason of the
prevent exploitative lawyers from abusing the disciplinary process. Besides, exercise of his profession. Di mana pwede under Article 1491(5) of the Civil
an important portion of the Lawyer's Oath which should be the guiding Code. Pero actually ANAK ni achurney ang nibuy with no slightest proof
beacon of every member of the legal profession states: "I will not wittingly showing that the son was used by respondent to acquire the property of his
nor willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give clients. Duh, wala siya niviolate, pwede ra anak.
aid nor consent to the same."
Facts:
Lawyers are reminded to treat their fellow members of the legal profession Complainant Christopher R. Santos (Complainant Santos) sought the
and even their non-lawyer adversaries with utmost candor, respect and disbarment of respondent Atty. Joseph A. Arrojado (Atty. Arrojado) for
dignity. More importantly, the primary purpose of administrative violation of Article 1491 of the Civil Code, by acquiring an interest in the
disciplinary proceedings against delinquent lawyers is to uphold the law and land involved in a litigation in which he had taken part by reason of the
to prevent the ranks of the legal profession from being corrupted by exercise of his profession
unscrupulous practices—not to shelter or nurse a wounded ego. Such is the
reason why lawyers should always set a good example in not using the law Complainant Santos alleged that he was the defendant in the unlawful
and the rules as weapons or tools of malicious vindication during petty detainer case filed by Lilia Rodriguez (Lilia) wherein the respondent lawyer,
squabbles as it degrades the credibility of the legal profession and tarnishes Atty. Arrojado, was the counsel for Lilia. The case eventually reached the
its integrity. Supreme Court which resolved the same in favor of Atty. Arrojado's client.
 (2) judges; (3) prosecuting attorneys; (4) clerks of court; (5) other officers
Complainant claimed while the case was pending before the Supreme and employees connected with the administration of justice; and (6)
Court, Lilia sold one of the properties in litis pendentia to Atty. Arrojado's lawyers. The enumeration cannot be stretched or extended to include
son, Julius P. Arrojado (Julius) and that Atty. Arrojado even signed as a relatives of the lawyer - in this case, Julius, son of respondent lawyer.
witness of that sale. Believing that Atty. Arrojado committed malpractice
when he acquired, through his son Julius, an interest in the property subject Article 1491 provides that "[t]he following persons cannot acquire by
of the unlawful detainer case in violation of Article 1491 of the Civil Code, purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through
complainant instituted the instant complaint. the mediation of another xx x." However, perusal of the records would show
that complainant failed to adduce any shred of evidence that Julius acted or
In his Verified Comment, Atty. Arrojado admitted: (1) that Lilia was a client mediated on behalf of respondent lawyer, or that respondent lawyer was
of the law firm wherein he was a senior partner; (2) that Julius was his son; the ultimate beneficiary of the sale transaction. The mere fact that it was
and (3) that one of the subject properties in the ejectment suit was Julius, son of respondent lawyer, who purchased the property, will not
purchased by his son from Lilia. Atty. Arrojado maintained that he did not support the allegation that respondent lawyer violated Article 1491(5) of
violate Article 1491 as he had absolutely no interest in the property the Civil Code. As aptly noted by the Investigating Commissioner, "[t]here is
purchased by his son; and that the proscription in the said article did not no evidence to show that respondent had used his son as a conduit to gain
extend to the relatives of the judicial officers mentioned therein. He the property in question xx x."
postulated that, when the sale took place, Julius was already of legal age
and discretion, as well as a registered nurse and an established
businessman; and that while it was through him (respondent lawyer) that August 06, 2018
Lilia and Julius met, he did not at all facilitate the transaction. Respondent A.C. No. 9850
lawyer also pointed out that complainant failed to cite a specific provision ATTY. MA. ROWENA AMELIA V. GUANZON v. ATTY. JOEL G. DOJILLO
or canon in the Code of Professional Responsibility which he had allegedly
transgressed or violated. Facts:
Complaint for Disbarment1 dated September 25, 2007, filed by Atty. Ma.
Issue: Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon (Atty. Guanzon) against Atty. Joel G. Dojillo
Whether or not the administrative complaint is meritorious. (Atty. Dojillo), for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Rules of Court on confidentiality of documents and proceedings, gross
Whether or not the prohibition in Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code against misconduct, discourtesy, unfairness, malicious and unethical conduct
justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of court, and other officers towards a fellow lawyer.
and employees connected with the administration of justice, as well as
lawyers, from purchasing property and rights which may be the object of Complainant Atty. Guanzon was the counsel of Rosalie Jaype-Garcia
any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession, (Rosalie) and her minor children when they filed a Petition for Temporary
extends to their respective immediate families or relatives. Protection Order under R.A. No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-
Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 against Jesus Chua
Held: Garcia (Garcia), Rosalie's husband. Later, the Regional Trial Court
The present administrative case is DISMISSED for lack of merit. (RTC),Branch 41 of Bacolod City granted the temporary protection order
(TPO) and financial support in favor of the clients of Atty. Guanzon.
As worded, Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code covers only (1) justices;
Subsequently, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Garcia then
filed a disbarment complaint against herein complainant Atty. Guanzon
docketed as CBD Case No. 06-1710 and Administrative Case No. 7176 for but neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to them when the
immorality, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a member of the accusation against them is not indubitably proven.
Bar. In the said disbarment complaint, Garcia submitted the affidavits of
Sheryl Jamola, former "yaya" of their child and a certain Bernadette Yap In the instant case, we find that Atty. Guanzon failed to provide clear and
(subject documents), who both alleged that Atty. Guanzon has "romantic convincing evidentiary support to his allegations against Atty. Dojillo. As the
and pecuniary interest" on Rosalie and the financial support which was IBP aptly concluded, Atty. Dojillo cannot be faulted in attaching the
ordered by the court. disbarment records in his client's Answer and Counter-Affidavit in the three
cases which Atty. Guanzon filed against his client as he found it necessary to
On June 13, 2006, Atty. Guanzon filed a case for Damages against Garcia establish factual basis on the motive of Atty. Guanzon in filing said cases
and docketed as Civil Case No. 802-C before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), against his client. In effect, Atty. Dojillo's act of attaching said subject
Branch 60, Cadiz City. On September 27, 2006, Atty. Guanzon filed anew a documents to his client's Answer was to defend his client's cause which is
case for Unjust Vexation against Garcia and docketed as Criminal Case No. his duty as counsel. In the absence of proof that Atty. Dojillo was motivated
06-10-12695 before the MTCC, Branch 6, Bacolod City. On October 12, 2006, by malice or bad faith, or intent to harass or damage Atty. Guanzon's
Atty. Guanzon filed a case for Grave Oral Defamation against Garcia and reputation, the instant disbarment complaint deserves no merit.
docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-10-12696 before the MTCC, Branch 5,
Bacolod City. It must also be pointed out that the confidentiality in disciplinary actions for
lawyers is not absolute. It is not to be applied, under any circumstance, to
In Garcia's Answer and Counter-Affidavits in the aforesaid three (3) all disclosures of any nature. The confidentiality rule requires only that
complaints, respondent Atty. Dojillo as counsel of Garcia, attached the proceedings against attorneys be kept private and confidential. The rule
documents in the disbarment case, i.e., the affidavits of Sheryl Jamola and does not extend so far that it covers the mere existence or pendency of
Bernadette Yap against Atty. Guanzon. Thus, the filing of disbarment disciplinary actions. Thus, Atty. Dojillo, in attaching the subject documents
complaint against Atty. Dojillo for violating the Code of Professional to his client's Answer, did not per se violate the confidentiality rule as the
Responsibility and Section 18, Rule 139 on the confidentiality of disbarment purpose was to inform the court of its existence.
proceedings and documents.
CANON II
Atty. Guanzon lamented that Atty. Dojillo knew that there was a disbarment CONFIDENTIALITY
suit filed by his client against her, yet, with malice and bad faith, he
submitted the subject documents as part of Garcia's Answer and Counter-
Affidavits. By doing so, Atty. Dojillo caused the exposure of confidential SECTION 1. Court personnel shall not disclose to any unauthorized person
records in the disbarment case which damaged her good reputation. any confidential information acquired by them while employed in the
Judiciary, whether such information came from authorized or unauthorized
Issue: Whether or not the disbarment case is meritorious. Whether or not sources.
confidentiality was breached.
Confidential information means information not yet made a matter of
Held: public record relating to pending cases, as well as information not yet
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. made public concerning the work of any justice or judge relating to
pending cases, including notes, drafts, research papers, internal
This Court will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment discussions, internal memoranda, records of internal deliberations, and
upon lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties, similar papers.

The notes, drafts, research papers, internal discussions, internal SPS. DECENA V. JUDGE MALANYAON AM#RTJ-10-2217, APRIL 8, 2013
memoranda, records of internal deliberations and similar papers that a
justice or judge uses in preparing a decision, resolution or order shall FACTS:
remain confidential even after the decision, resolution or order is made Respondent appeared in the administrative hearing of the case against his
public. wife and entered his appearance therein as counsel for counsel of the
respondent. Respondent contended that he did so out of filial duty because
Even if Atty. Dojillo attached said subject documents to Garcia's Answer and their daughter who was a recent barpasser and still inexperienced was
Counter-Affidavit filed before the courts, the same remains private and representing his wife. During the pendency of the case, Respondent’s wife
confidential. In fact, even after the decision, resolution, or order is made moved for the dismissal claiming that Respondent’s right to due process
public, such information that a justice or judge uses in preparing a decision, would be violated considering that he suffered a heart attack that left him
resolution, or order shall remain confidential. with a permanent mental impairment and would be incapacitated to
understand the nature and object of the administrative proceedings.

ISSUE:
PART 2- JUDICIAL ETHICS WON the actuations of Judge Malanyaon complained of constituted conduct
unbecoming of a judge. - YES
CANON 1
VIDAL V. JUDGE DOJILLO AM#MTJ-05-1591, JULY 14, 2005 RULING:
SC imposed a fine on Respondent reasoning that, the issue of violation of
FACTS: due process was unfounded considering that he had not only been given the
Judge Dojillo “sat beside the counsel of his brother” and “actively coached, opportunity to be heard but had been actually heard since prior to his
aided, assisted, and guided said counsel by now and then saying something, massive stroke, he already submitted his comment containing his
handing piece of writing, reminding, and or stopping the counsel from explanations and refutations of the charge against him. His occupying a seat
manifesting something to the court, and other similar acts.” beside his daughter reserved for the lawyers during the hearing displayed
Respondent, in his defense, stated that he attended the hearing of his his presumptuousness and probably even his clear intention to thereby
brother’s election protest case just to give moral support and, in the exert his influence as an RTC judge on the hearing officer in order for the
process, also observe how election protest proceedings are conducted. latter to favor his wife’s. His excuse, seemingly grounded on a filial duty
towards his wife and his daughter, did not furnish enough reason for him to
ISSUE: forsake the ethical conduct expected of him as a sitting judge. He ought to
WON Judge Dojillo violated Code of Judicial Conduct. - YES have restrained himself from sitting at that hearing, being all too aware that
his sitting would have him cross the line beyond which was the private
RULING: practice of law.
Although concern for family members is deeply ingrained in the Filipino
culture, respondent, being a judge, should bear in mind that he is also called
upon to serve the higher interest of preserving the integrity of the entire TOBIAS V. JUDGE LIMSIACO, AM#MTJ-09-1734, JANUARY 19, 2011
judiciary. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to avoid
not only impropriety but also the mere appearance of impropriety in all FACTS:
activities. Complainant accused Respondent Judge of corruption for allegedly offering
package deals to litigants claiming that the court stenographer informed her

sister that Respondent asked for P30,000 to provide counsel, prepare necessary only when the inhibition is by a judge of a single sala court, and
pleadings and ensure a favourable decision in her ejectment case. the case has to be transferred to another judge of another station.
The duty of executive judges, therefore, is merely to elevate an order of
ISSUE: inhibition to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court
WON the Judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. - YES Administrator or, otherwise, to appoint another trial court judge under their
supervision to handle the case. It is not within their authority to resist or
RULING: overrule the order of recusation. By disapproving Judge Anasarios inhibition,
Respondent committed acts unbecoming of a judge, in particular, talking to respondent acted contrary to the aforesaid Circular. Respondent judge’s
a prospective litigant in his court, recommending a lawyer to the litigant, lack of awareness of the Circular and the decisions concerning inhibitions of
and preparing a motion for the litigant, which pleading was filed in his court judges indicates a failure to live up to the Code of Judicial Conduct that
and was acted upon by him. The conduct of a judge should be beyond enjoins judges to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional
reproach and reflective of the integrity of his office. Indeed, as stated by competence. Being the visible representation of the law, judges must be
the OCA, the said acts of respondent violate Section 1 of Canon 2 (Integrity), familiar with the circulars and issuances of this Court and must diligently
Section 2 of Canon 3 (Impartiality), and Section 1 of Canon 4 (Propriety) of keep themselves abreast with developments in our legal system.
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. The
aforementioned acts of respondent constitute gross
misconduct. “Misconduct” means a transgression of some established and OCA V. JUDGE DUMAYAS, AM#RTJ-15-2435, MARCH 6, 2018
definite rule of action, wilful in character, improper or wrong behavior.
“Gross” has been defined as “out of all measure, beyond allowance; FACTS:
flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused.” This case stemmed from the charges against respondent Judge Winlove M.
Dumayas of RTC for allegedly rendering a decision without citing the
required factual and legal bases and by ignoring the applicable
CARRIAGA V. JUDGE BALDADO, AM#RTJ-03-1810, OCTOBER 21, 2004 jurisprudence, which constitutes gross misconduct and gross ignorance of
the law.
FACTS:
Bernabe L. Carriaga charged Executive Judge Ismael O. Baldado of RTC with ISSUE:
(1) bias and partiality and (2) abuse of authority claiming that Judge Baldado WON Judge Dumayas violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. - YES
gravely abused his discretion when he revoked the Order of Inhibition of
Judge Anasario. Carriaga contended that respondent judge should have RULING:
instead forwarded the matter to the Supreme Court because the same is Judge Dumayas failed to hear and decide the subject case with the cold
already beyond his authority as Executive Judge. neutrality of an impartial judge. Judge Dumayas downgraded the offense
charged from murder to homicide, inappropriately appreciated the
ISSUE: privileged mitigating circumstance of self-defense and the ordinary
WON Judge Baldado had exceeded his authority. - YES mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender despite the overwhelming
testimonial and physical evidence to the contrary and others. The pattern of
RULING: his acts appears to be deliberate, calculated, and meant to unduly favor the
Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1988, provides that accused, and at the same time, can be characterized as flagrant and
inhibitions and disqualifications [of judges] are judicial actions which do not indifferent to the consequences caused to the other parties, including the
require prior administrative approval. Administrative intervention is State.
Under Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, impartiality applies not In the meantime, a separate case was pending against the respondent, to
only to the decision itself, but also to the process by which the decision is which a certain parcel of registered land might be taken from their property
made. When Judge Dumayas chose to simply ignore all the evidence, not in the event of loss. Facts show that the title to such land was kept by
even bothering to explain the irrelevance or lack of weight of the same, respondent in his drawer. When respondent could not find the title in his
such act necessarily put the integrity of his entire Decision in question. usual place for safekeeping, he sought the advice of the Register of Deeds
Corollarily, the Court finds Judge Dumayas guilty of gross ignorance of the who told him to execute the affidavit of loss, to which he did. Respondent
law and gross misconduct. The Code of Judicial Conduct orders judges to then registered the title but in the name of his child, a minor at that time.
ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in ISSUE:
the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary. He simply used oversight, WON respondent guilty of immorality, dishonesty, and serious misconduct. -
inadvertence, and honest mistake as convenient excuses. He acted with NO
conscious indifference to the possible undesirable consequences to the
parties involved. RULING:
Judge Dumayas is also guilty of gross misconduct. Misconduct is a Respondent is not guilty of immorality, dishonesty and serious misconduct
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more but only simple misconduct.
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. To First, the complainants failed to present any proof of respondent’s alleged
warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, relationship with another woman, so as to justify a charge for immorality.
important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The Court takes the There was no evidence presented that respondent engaged in scandalous
numerous cases against Judge Dumayas as evidence of respondent's conduct that would warrant the imposition of disciplinary action against
stubborn propensity to not follow the rule of law and procedure in him. However, the Court reminded respondent of the judge's duty to
rendering judgments and orders. This definitely has besmirched the conduct himself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial
integrity and seriously compromised the reputation, not only of his court, office. As such, he must comport himself at all times in such a manner that
but more importantly, of the entire judicial system which he represents. his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of
the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice.
CANON 2 Second, respondent was not guilty of dishonesty as regards the declaration
of loss of title because respondent did not appear to have acted in bad faith
CAMPOS V. JUDGE CAMPOS, AM#MTJ-10-1761, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 or committed dishonesty in executing the affidavit of loss of the title to the
property. As shown by the facts, he merely took the advice of the Register
FACTS: of Deeds in the execution of the document.
This is a complaint Aida for serious misconduct, immorality and dishonesty Third, while respondent has not committed any serious misconduct, it is
filed by complainants against respondent, former Presiding Judge of MTC. clear that respondent is guilty of simple misconduct. In this case,
Aida and respondent were married in 1981. In 2008, respondent filed a respondent knew at that time of the registration of the property that he had
petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, alleging that he and Aida a pending case and that he could possibly lose the case. In order to
were both psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital manipulate the situation and taking advantage of his knowledge of the law,
obligations. For his part, respondent is a homosexual who could not be respondent caused the registration of the property in his child’s name with
intimate with his wife unless he imagined he was with another man, while the intention of defrauding a possible judgment-obligee. Clearly, it was an
his wife had affairs with other men as a result of his homosexuality. To her improper behavior that warrants a disciplinary sanction by the Court.
defense, Aida denied the allegations and filed for legal separation.
According to her, respondent wanted their marriage annulled so that he
could marry another woman with whom he was having a relationship. KAW V. JUDGE OSORIO, AM#RTJ-03-1801, 2004
 "oversight" on her part, not misrepresentation, when she reported the
FACTS: status of the subject case as decided. Judge Mariano averred that Mondala
This is a complaint filed by Kaw against Judge Osorio of RTC for dishonesty, should have called her attention regarding the status of the subject case to
extortion, graft and corruption, and violation of Rule 5.04, Canon 5 of the enable her to address the situation; that Mondala's failure to inform her of
Code of Judicial Conduct. Complainant Kaw avers that while his Criminal the status of the case showed her inefficiency and unworthiness as a public
Cases were ongoing, he was approached by a state prosecutor who said that servant. Moreover, respondent judge insisted that what prompted Mondala
he was sent by Judge Osorio to ask if the complainant wanted to be assured to write the letter-complaint was to seek revenge and harrassment due to
of a favorable judgment. their quarrel which transpired on August 22, 2005.

ISSUE: ISSUE:
WON Judge Osorio is accountable for gross misconduct. – YES WON Judge Mariano is guilty of administrative transgressions. - YES

RULING: RULING:
The Court held that while the respondent judge may not be held liable for Judge Mariano is guilty of administrative transgressions. The January 2005
extortion and corruption as it was not substantially proven, he should be monthly report of reveals that there were cases submitted for decision but
made accountable for gross misconduct. The acts of the Judge in meeting a remained undecided beyond the 90-day reglementary period without any
litigant in a case pending before his sala, and telling her, “Sige, kay ako na request for extension of time within which to decide the same being
bahala gamuson nato ni sila” (Okay, leave it all to me, we shall crush them) submitted.
constitute gross misconduct. Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct in the section on "Competence and
deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior in connection Diligence", judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of
with one’s performance of official functions and duties. For grave or gross reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
misconduct to exist, the judicial act complained of should be corrupt or Judges should therefore be prompt in the performance of their judicial
inspired by the intention to violate the law, or a persistent disregard of well- duties for delay in the administration of justice is a common complaint.
known rules. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere They are enjoined to strictly comply with the reglementary period of 90
error of judgment. The arbitrary actions of respondent judge, taken days in disposing of a case submitted for decision.
together, give doubt as to his impartiality, integrity and propriety. His acts Also, under Sec. 1, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges
amount to gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of ought to ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is
Judicial Conduct, particularly Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2 and Sections 2 and perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. Integrity is essential
4 of Canon 3 and Section 1 of Canon 4. not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the
personal demeanor of judges. In the instant case, respondent was guilty of
intentional misrepresentation of her records resulting in a breach of trust
MONDALA V. JUDGE MARIANO, AM#RTJ-06-2010, JANUARY 25, 2007 and confidence, amounting to the serious charge of gross misconduct due
to violations of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and provisions of
FACTS: Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 4-2004; as well as of making
Complainant Mondala charged respondent judge with misrepresenting in untruthful statements in the monthly reports, as provided in Sec. 8, Rule
her "Report of Pending Cases for January 2005" that she had already 140 of the Rules of Court.
decided Civil Case No. 00-564 when in fact the case was still with Mondala
for research and drafting of the decision. On the other hand, Judge Mariano
denied Mondala's allegations and insisted that at the time she prepared the CANADA V. JUDGE SUERTE, AM#RTJ-04-1884, FEBRUARY 22, 2008
monthly report, a decision had actually been prepared and it was mere
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that sometime in 1998, he refused Respondent who FACTS:
was trying to sell him a dilapidated cargo truck and Daewoo car. Later, Respondent asked Complainant to see him in his office at 5pm to discuss
Respondent allegedly offered to act as broker for the sale of Complainant’s the BP22 case she filed. Respondent then told Complainant to buy him
real property, to which Complainant agreed. When he had a prospective drinks. Along the way, Respondent kept touching Complainant’s breast and
buyer, Respondent demanded that of the P1.6M purchase price he would asking her personal questions. Inside the bar and even on the way home,
get a P1M-commission. Complainant refused, and the sale did not push Respondent repeatedly kept touching her private parts. Complainant
through, thereupon Respondent became angry and threatened Complainant charged Respondent for acts of lasciviousness committed against her.
that, as a judge, he could deprive Complainant of his property, even have
him arrested and executed. Later, despite the deal being botched, ISSUE:
Respondent demanded a P200T-commission, Complainant allegedly paid WON Judge Calderon is guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. - YES
P100T. In his defense, Respondent denied forcing Complainant to purchase
certain vehicles but made no mentioned about receiving P100T from RULING:
Complainant. Time and again we have admonished judges to conduct themselves in a
manner that is free even from the appearance of impropriety. For judicial
ISSUE: officers to enjoy the trust and respect of the people, it is necessary that they
WON Judge Suerte is guilty of violation of Code of Professional live up to the exacting standards of conduct demanded by the profession
Responsibility. – YES and by the Code of Judicial Conduct. This is especially true in the case of
judges who, on a daily basis, interact with the public. Their official conduct,
RULING: as well as personal behavior, should always be beyond reproach.
Respondent is DISBARRED for violating Canons 1 and 11 and Rules 1.01 and
10.01 of the CPR; his name ORDERED STRICKEN from Attorney’s Roll. PERFECTO V. ESIDERA
Respondent should be held for dishonesty. Respondent claimed he never A.M. NO. RTJ-11-2270; JANUARY 31, 2011
owned a dilapidated cargo pick-up truck and could not recall if he had a
Daewoo car in 1998. But his Statements of Assets and Liabilities for the FACTS: Eladio filed a complaint against Judge Alma Consuelo Esidera,
years 1998 to 2001 on file in the Court prove otherwise. They show that accusing her of soliciting and receiving the amount of one thousand pesos
among his personal properties were a Daewoo car acquired in 1996 and an from practitioner Atty. Yruma and the same amount from Public Prosecutor
L-200 double cab acquired in 1998. Diaz, allegedly to defray expenses from a religious celebration and barangay
Dishonesty is defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; fiesta. Attached to the Complaint was an affidavit executed by Prosecutor
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in Ching who claimed to have witnessed the first incident and heard that
principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, respondent solicited the same amount from Diaz. There were also claims
deceive or betray. This is a grave offense that carries the extreme penalty of regarding respondent's conduct in performing her duties and dealing with
dismissal from the service, even for the first offense. Respondent showed colleagues unprofessionally.
his capacity to lie and evade the truth. His dishonesty not only tended to
mislead the Court but also tarnished the image of the judiciary. It will The respondent denied the allegations.
warrant the maximum penalty of dismissal, if not for the fact that he has
already been dismissed from the service in another administrative case. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that respondent be
faulted for Impropriety and Unbecoming Conduct.

NABHAN V. JUDGE CALDERON, AM#MTJ98-1164, FEBRUARY 4, 2000 ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of Impropriety and Unbecoming Conduct?
 c) Let it be put on record, that he has a moronic attitude;
HELD: YES d) I don’t know if this guy is really stupid.

With respect to respondents alleged solicitation from Prosecutor Diaz, albeit The respondent judge explained that he has been suffering from a heart
Prosecutor Ching merely claimed to have "heard" of it, respondent did not ailment and diabetes causing him considerable anxiety and pain and that
deny it categorically as she merely, as reflected above, brushed off this must be the reason why he could not control his outburst.
Prosecutors Chings Affidavit as coming from one with a "dubious
personality" and possessed of a "narcissistic personality disorder." With ISSUE: Does the respondent’s behavior fall short of the standards expected
respect to the alleged solicitation from Prosecutor Diaz, respondent never of a magistrate of the law?
disclaimed or disavowed the same.
HELD: YES.
Respondents admission of having received the sum of P1,000.00 from Atty.
Yruma albeit allegedly as a mere accommodation to the latter, and her In ascribing the words "moronic attitude," "stupid", "if he knows how to
failure to disclaim the same act with respect to Prosecutor Diaz, only read English" and putang ina mo to complainant during the proceeding,
confirms her lack of understanding of the notion of propriety under which respondent displayed a conduct so unbecoming of a magistrate. The
judges must be measured. remarks uttered are patently defamatory and outrageous.

Respondents act of proceeding to the Prosecutors Office under the guise of That respondent was suffering from heart ailment and diabetes is not an
soliciting for a religious cause betrays not only her lack of maturity as a excuse. He could have asked the assistance of a lawyer to represent him in
judge but also a lack of understanding of her vital role as an impartial prosecuting the case. As correctly observed by the Court Administrator, his
dispenser of justice, held in high esteem and respect by the local disgraceful behavior tainted the good image of the judiciary he is expected
community, which must be preserved at all times. It spawns the impression to uphold at all times.
that she was using her office to unduly influence or pressure Atty. Yruma, a
private lawyer appearing before her sala, and Prosecutor Diaz into donating His choice of words, aside from being inflammatory and uncalled for,
money through her charismatic group for religious purposes. betrays a lack of judicial decorum. The respect and dignity of the court has
to be upheld hence, respondent should not have acted with anger and
To stress how the law frowns upon even any appearance of impropriety in a shouted at complainant. He should have maintained his composure for
magistrates activities, it has often been held that a judge must be like patience and courtesy are marks of culture and good-breeding.
Caesars wife - above suspicion and beyond reproach. Respondents act
discloses a deficiency in prudence and discretion that a member of the The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that a judge must be free of a whiff of
judiciary must exercise in the performance of his official functions and of his impropriety not only with respect to his performance of official duties, but
activities as a private individual. also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual.

ATTY. ANTONIO D. SELUDO vs. JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA We have admonished judges to observe judicial decorum which requires
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1864, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 73 that they must at all times be temperate in their language, refraining from
inflammatory or excessive rhetoric or from resorting "to the language of
FACTS: During the hearing, respondent judge uttered the following vitriolic vilification."
language against complainant:
a) Putang ina mo;
b) If respondent knows how to read English…; P/INSP. FIDEL vs JUDGE CARAOS
AM#MTJ-99-1224, 12/12/2002 activities and should be beyond reproach. For a judge's official life cannot
simply be detached from his personal life.
FACTS: Complainant P/SInsp. Omega Jireh D. Fidel, Chief of Police of
Candelaria, Quezon, charged respondent Judge Felix A. Caraos with Grave
Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge. RUFINO CASIMIRO v. JUDGE OCTAVIO FERNANDEZ, et al.
422 SCRA 293 (2004)
Complainant averred that at 10:45 in the evening of February 29, 1996,
respondent judge, who was heavily drunk, went to the Municipal Police FACTS: Petitioner Rufino Casimiro filed complaint against respondents Judge
Station, uttered intemperate invectives and attempted to forcibly release Octavio Fernandez and Clerk of Court Teresita Esteban for refusing to return
one Natividad Braza from detention without any preliminary investigation his P4,000.00 cash bond which he posted for his provincial liberty in a
or written order for the latter's release. criminal case despite its dismissal.

"PUTANG INA NINYONG MGA PULIS KAYO, NASAAN SI HEPE? HOY, ILABAS Casimiro gave the cash bond to Fernandez who, in turn, handed it to
NINYO ITO NGAYON DIN, PUTANG INA NINYONG MGA PULIS. SINONG Esteban with the directive that the latter issue the corresponding receipt.
MASUSUNOD DITO, MAYOR, PULIS, O JUDGE?" No receipt was issued, however. As despite the order directing Esteban to
release Casimiro’s cash bond, the latter failed to secure it.
ISSUE: WON the Judge is Guilty of Conduct Unbecoming a Judge?
Esteban asserted that Casimiro did not post the cash bond with her, in
HELD: YES support of which she submitted a copy of an undated letter from Mrs.
Fernandez, the wife of Judge F, wherein Mrs. F stated that she had ―sent
By losing his cool and uttering intemperate language at the policemen on complainant P4,000.00 via Allied Bank check.
duty regarding the release of detention prisoner Braza, respondent judge
has overstepped the norm demanded of a member of the bench. Fernandez averred that ―the cash bond of P4,000 of Casimiro was already
received by him, when he personally sent him a check for refund thereof,
The Canons of Judicial Ethics mandates that a judge should so behave at all which the latter had encashed.
times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary. When he took personal action in ensuring the temporary ISSUES: WON Fernandez is guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty when
release of detention prisoner Braza even in the unholy hours, he has cast his they did not follow the usual procedure for the acceptance of cash bail
integrity in a serious doubt. bonds and the return thereof?

Although, respondent judge may attribute his intemperate language to HELD: YES
human frailty, his noble position in the bench nevertheless demands from While there is no direct and hard evidence that respondent Judge made
him courteous speech in and out of the court. Judges are demanded to be personal use of the cash bond, his wife's issuance of her personal check to
always temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and in language. complainant in the amount of the cash bond, which check respondent judge
even admitted in his letter of April 17, 2002 to have been drawn from an
The observance of the Canon of Judicial Ethics does not end at the close of account which was treated as "a joint account" with his wife, indicates so.
office hours nor is limited within the performance of his official duties. The His subsequent justification for such issuance of a check by his wife —
Canon of Judicial Ethics commands that a judge's behavior, official or mistaken belief — is too shallow to merit persuasion.
otherwise, should be free from the appearance of impropriety in all
By his actuations then Judge Fernandez placed his honesty and integrity "ANO NAMAN ANG MAGIGING KAPALIT NG PAGPIRMA KO RITO? MULA
under serious doubt. NGAYON GIRLFRIEND NA KITA. ARAW-ARAW PAPASOK KA DITO SA OPISINA
KO, AT ARAW-ARAW, ISANG HALIK."
The Code of Judicial Conduct dictates that a judge should avoid impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. And Rule 2.01 of Canon 2 to which I replied that it could not be possible because look[ed] up to him
of the Canon of Judicial Ethics mandates that a judge should so behave at all like a father to me;
times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary. 5. As he signed my papers, he stood up from his chair, went to my back
where I was seated, and to my shock suddenly kissed my left cheek;
A judge should thus be above reproach and free from the appearance of
impropriety and should at all times conduct himself in such a manner as to 7. Then, on August 5, 1997 at around 9:30 o'clock in the morning, Court
be above suspicion. Interpreter Medina told me I was being called by Judge Esteban regarding
our payroll, and although in trauma over my experience in said chamber, I
Both the safekeeping of funds and collections are essential to an orderly was constrained to enter said room, as I had no choice, being a mere lowly
administration of justice and no protestation of good faith can override the subordinate;
mandatory nature of the circulars which are designed to promote full
accountability for government funds. It needs no emphasis that failure to 8. As I was about to take a seat infront of Judge Esteban's table, he
deposit fiduciary collections immediately with the authorized bank deprives instructed me to stand beside his table near where he was seated;
the National Treasury of the interest which such collections should have
earned. 9. Judge Esteban asked me since when I ha[d] been receiving [a] book
binder's salary, and I told him quite some time already, and after that, he
Judge Fernandez’s paying back of the collection does not thus absolve him. told me:

"MATAGAL NA PALA EH BAKIT HINDI KA PUMAPASOK DITO SA KUWARTO
SIMBAJON V. ESTEBAN KO? DI BA SABI KO SA IYO, GIRLFRIEND NA KITA?"
A.M. NO. MTJ-98-1162, [AUGUST 11, 1999]
to which I firmly answered back it could not be possible for he was only like a
Complainant charged respondent judge with grave misconduct and sexual father to me. I really felt insulted to be treated that low by a Judge at that,
harassment. Simbajon narrated the following: being a married woman with two sons;

3. When the local position of book binder became vacant, I applied for it, but 10. At that point, Judge Esteban suddenly stood up from his seat, uttering:
my papers requiring the signature of Judge Esteban remained unacted upon
for some time; "HINDI PUEDE 'YAN, MAHAL KITA."

4. On June 25, 1997, I decided to approach Judge Rogelio M. Esteban about and then grabbed me, started kissing me all over my face, embraced me,
the matter, inside his airconditioned chamber, but during the course of our and touched my right breast;
conversation, said Judge uttered the following:
11. I freed myself from his embrace, left the said chamber hurriedly, and
threw the payroll on top of the table of co-employee, teary-eyed, trembling
in shock and fear;

ISSUE: WON Judge’s conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct? Contrary to Judge Rosete's representation that he had "only a handful of
cases pending for trial before his sala numbering to a little more than one
HELD: YES hundred," the records of the OCA showed that Judge Rosete had 326
pending cases in MTCC of Santiago City, Isabela, where he is the Presiding
Not only did he fail to live up to the high moral standards of the judiciary; he Judge, and 212 pending cases in the MTC of Cordon, Isabela, where he is the
even transgressed the ordinary norms of decency expected of every person. Acting Presiding Judge.
As the Court has often stressed, the conduct of a judge, whether official or
private, must be beyond reproach and above suspicion. A member of the The records of the OCA likewise showed that there were no vacant courts in
bench must not only be a good judge; he or she must also be a good person. NCR. In contrast, there was a scarcity of judges in Isabela at the time. Lastly,
This is necessary so as not to erode the faith and confidence of the public in an assignment in the NCR is considered a promotion, and Judge’s record
the judiciary. does not show any exemplary performance warranting such reassignment.

Respondent's lustful conduct was aggravated by the fact that he was the The Chief Justice denied his request for transfer. Further, Judge was
superior of the complainant. Instead of acting in loco parentis toward his directed to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against
subordinate employee, he took advantage of his position and preyed on him for what appears to be a misrepresentation with respect to the volume
her. of cases pending before his sala.

In Dawa v. De Asa, the respondent judge was dismissed for making sexual ISSUE: WON Judge Rosete committed an act of dishonesty and lack of
advances on three of his subordinates. Herein respondent's conduct does candor?
not become less reprehensible for having been perpetrated on only one
employee. Without a doubt, respondent acted beyond the bounds of HELD: YES
decency and morality. He has shown himself unworthy of the judicial robe.
He evidently suppressed information with respect to the cases pending
WHEREFORE, Respondent Rogelio M. Esteban is hereby DISMISSED from the before the MTC, Cordon, Isabela.
service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits and with
prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the Plainly, the statement was made with no other intention than to deceive the
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Court as to the number of pending cases for trial handled by Judge Rosete
for the sole purpose of justifying his desire to be reassigned to a court of his
choice. Such deportment and actuation by no less than a member of the
RE: COMPLIANCE OF JUDGE MAXWEL S. ROSETE, Judiciary towards the Court is, regrettably, an outward manifestation of an
A.M. NO. 04-5-118-MTCC (RESOLUTION), [JULY 29, 2004 attitude which does not put service above oneself.

Judge Maxwel S. Rosete, Presiding Judge of the MTC of Santiago City, While the act for which respondent Judge is being disciplined is not in
Isabela requested that he be designated as acting judge to any vacant sala connection with his dealings with litigants, the lack of candor he has shown
within Metro Manila. by the misrepresentation which he made before the Court is incongruent
with the primordial character which a magistrate must possess, especially so
Judge Rosete stated in his letter that he had "only a handful of cases in this case where the act of dishonesty was committed against the Court. A
pending for trial before his sala numbering to a little more than one member of the bar owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court. He
hundred." must not do any falsehood or consent to the doing of any in court; neither
shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. The moral The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA finding Judge guilty
standard of honesty is equally, if not much more, expected from members of dishonesty in filling out his PDS, but modifies the recommended penalty
of the Judiciary, as they are the agents through which the Court ensures of dismissal to suspension of 1 year.
that the end of justice is served. Dishonesty is anathema to the very nature
of functions which a magistrate performs. Undoubtedly, the finding of the OMB against Judge Contreras for simple
misconduct is considered an administrative offense, which he should have
declared in his PDS when he was asked: "Have you ever been convicted of
In Re: Judge Jaime E. Contreras any administrative offense?"
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452, [March 9, 2016]
A careful perusal of the wording of the question "Have you ever been
FACTS: OCA received an anonymous complaint charging Judge Contreras charged?" would show that it solicits an answer that pertains to either past
with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Perjury, relative to an or present charge, whether it was already dismissed or not. Judge Contreras
administrative case filed against him before the OMB. should have known fully well the consequences of making a false statement
in his PDS. Being a former public prosecutor and a judge now, it is his duty
The complaint alleged that when Judge Contreras applied for a position in to ensure that all the laws and rules of the land are followed to the letter.
the judiciary, he failed to disclose in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) that a His being a judge makes the act all the more unacceptable. Clearly, there
previous administrative case was filed against him while he was the 4th was an obvious lack of integrity, the most fundamental qualification of a
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Libmanan, CamSur wherein he was found member of the judiciary.
guilty by the OMB for simple misconduct and was meted out a penalty of
admonition. As visible representation of the law, respondent judge should have
conducted himself in a manner which would merit the respect of the people
In his Comment, Judge Contreras surmised that the anonymous complaint to him in particular and to the Judiciary in general.
was filed a former Sheriff of the RTC of Naga City, whom he dismissed from
service before by reason of his shady and anomalous transactions and Dishonesty is considered a grave offense. It carries the maximum penalty of
improper conduct. dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except
Moreover, Judge Contreras averred that he cannot categorically deny or accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in
affirm the charge against him due to complainant's failure to attach the the government service.
questioned PDS. Nonetheless, he maintained that during the Judicial and
Bar Council's (JBC) interviews, he had been disclosing information relating to
the cases filed against him with the OMB. Anonymous v. Buyucan
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1879, [July 24, 2018]
Also, Judge Contreras claimed that in administrative cases, admonition is
not a penalty but merely an advice. The OMB informed the OCA of an anonymous text message received by the
Ombudsman Lifestyle Check Hotline accusing Judge Buyucan of allegedly
ISSUE: WON Judge Contreras is guilty of dishonesty? constructing a house in a lot owned by the Department of Agriculture and
without the required building permit. And he also keeps his fighting cocks in
HELD: YES the said lot.

Judge Buyucan denied knowledge of the DA's ownership of the Subject
Property and claimed that the house actually belonged to his nephew and
that what he constructed were merely a "temporary Ifugao native house" OCA recommended that the enforcement of the penalty of the 1 month
and an adjacent shanty. suspension should be held in abeyance because the OCA had uncovered
another infraction committed by Judge White in connection with her case
ISSUE: WON Judge Buyucan is guilty of gross misconduct? before the OMB.

HELD: YES According to the OCA, Judge White's Personal Data Sheet (PDS)
accomplished on February 9, 2004 (when she first assumed the position of
In this case, the liability of Judge Buyucan hinges on whether he is in fact RTC Judge) revealed that she had failed to disclose that an administrative
illegally occupying a portion of the Subject Property. The Court finds in the case had been filed against her before the OMB and that she had, in fact,
affirmative. been penalized therefor.

At the outset, respondent Judge Buyucan's continued illegal settlement ISSUE: WON Judge is guilty of Misconduct?
erodes the public's confidence in its agents of justice considering that such
act amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of the DA's ownership rights over HELD: YES
the Subject Property. Even worse, his continued refusal to vacate instigated
the continued illegal occupation of other informal settlers residing therein. Dishonesty has been defined as:
Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct 55 requires that the conduct
of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary x x x intentionally making a false statement on any material fact, or
and that their conduct must, at the least, be perceived to be above reproach practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his
in the view of a reasonable observer. Based on the foregoing acts alone, it is examination, appointment, or registration. It is a serious offense which
clear the respondent Judge Buyucan fell short of the required conduct of all reflects a person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually
members of the bench. destroys his honor, virtue and integrity. It is a malevolent act that has no
place in the judiciary, as no other office in the government service exacts a
greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position
Office of the Court Administrator v. Adalim-White in the judiciary.
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2440, [September 4, 2018]
The importance of accomplishing a PDS with utmost honesty cannot be
FACTS: An admin complaint for misconduct was filed by Mr. Lim before the stressed enough.
OMB against Judge Adalim-White, or prior to her appointment as judge, for
acting as counsel for her brother. The accomplishment of a PDS is a requirement under the Civil Service Rules
and Regulations in connection with employment in the government. The
Mr. Lim's complaint was grounded on the prohibition against respondent making of untruthful statements therein is, therefore, connected with such
Judge White, being then a PAO lawyer, from engaging in private practice or employment. As such, making a false statement therein amounts to
from acting as counsel for immediate members of her family and relatives dishonesty and falsification of an official document. Dishonesty and
within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity without the necessary falsification are considered grave offenses.
approval therefor.
Relative to Judge White's argument that she had honestly believed that the
The OMB found Judge Adalim-White guilty of simple misconduct and meted term 'guilty' in the question meant final and executory judgment, the OCA
against her the penalty of one (1) month suspension without pay. correctly stated that Judge White ought to have known that penalties
imposed in administrative cases are immediately executory.
 The complainant also recounted rumors of Judge Dagala's involvement in
Even granting that Judge White had been motivated by good intentions illicit activities, namely: illegal drugs, illegal fishing, illegal gambling, illegal
leading her to disregard the laws governing PDS forms, these personal logging, maintaining a private army, owning high-powered firearms and
motivations cannot relieve her from the administrative consequences of her having several mistresses.
actions as they affect her competency and conduct as a judge in the
discharge of her official functions. It turned out that Judge Dagala sired 2 children prior to his marriage and
another 1 while his marriage was subsisting.
To be able to render substantial justice and maintain public confidence in
the legal system, judges should be embodiments of competence, integrity The OCA also noted Judge Dagala's failure to disclose that he already had a
and independence. Judges should exhibit more than just a cursory child in his PDS which he filed with the Judicial and Bar Council for his
acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules and should be diligent application to the Judiciary in 2006. For the OCA, this omission is a
in keeping abreast with developments in law and jurisprudence. deliberate attempt to mislead. As a former prosecutor, Judge Dagala knew
or ought to know that making false statements in the PDS amounts to
The Court has previously held that when a law or rule is basic, judges owe it dishonesty and falsification of a public document. Hence, his failure to
to their office to simply apply the law. Anything less is ignorance of the law. disclose the fact that he fathered a child in his PDS constitutes dishonesty.
There is gross ignorance of the law when an error committed by the judge
was "gross or patent, deliberate or malicious." It may also be committed ISSUE: WON Judge is guilty of immorality and gross misconduct?
when a judge ignores, contradicts or fails to apply settled law and
jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. Gross HELD: YES
ignorance of the law or incompetence cannot be excused by a claim of good
faith. The OCA identified Judge Dagala as the man brandishing an M-16 armalite
rifle in the video footage. In his comment and manifestation, however,
In this case, respondent Adalim-White's utter disregard to apply the settled Judge Dagala failed to deny or refute the allegation. We emphasize that
laws and jurisprudence on the accomplishment of PDS forms constitutes Judge Dagala was given sufficient notice of this allegation against him
gross ignorance of the law which merits administrative sanction. because the anonymous letter-complaint was included in the OCA's
Indorsement. Although Judge Dagala was informed of the existence of the
Judge is dismissed from service. accusation and ought to have understood the implications, he made no
efforts to refute the claims against him. We thus rule that there is
Anonymous Complaint v. Dagala substantial evidence before us to prove that Judge Dagala brandished a
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886, [July 25, 2017] high-powered firearm during an altercation in Siargao.

FACTS: In a letter-complaint, an unnamed resident of Siargao Island, wrote Also, Judge Dagala is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind
to report, among others, an altercation involving his neighbors and Judge and caliber.
Dagala. According to the unnamed complainant, he was in his hut when he
witnessed an argument between his neighbors and Judge Dagala over the Judge Dagala's actuations are unacceptable for a member of the bench and
ownership of his neighbor's lot and the trees planted thereon. There, he should merit a finding of administrative liability.
saw Judge Dagala walking back and forth, shouting invectives at the lot's
occupants and brandishing an M-16 armalite rifle to intimidate them. We also agree with the OCA's findings that Judge Dagala is guilty of
immorality.

Judge Dagala has admitted "without any remorse" that he "was able to Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely and
impregnate" three different women. willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome
by the ordinary citizen.
We find Judge Dagala guilty of immorality, for siring a child out of wedlock
during the subsistence of his marriage. A judge should personify judicial integrity and exemplify honest public
service. The personal behavior of a judge, both in the performance of official
We have repeatedly said that members of the Judiciary are commanded by duties and in private life should be above suspicion.
law to exhibit the highest degree of moral certitude and is bound by the
highest standards of honesty and integrity. In Regir v. Regir, 44 we held: Thus, in Castillo, we dismissed a judge from service for siring a child outside
of wedlock and for engaging in an extramarital affair. The absence of a
It is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to maintain intimate public and private dichotomy when it comes to the ethical standards
relations with a person other than his or her spouse. Moreover, immorality is expected of judges and justices has since become an unyielding doctrine.
not based alone on illicit sexual intercourse. It is not confined to sexual
matters, but includes conducts inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of
corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or CANON 3
shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable 1. Dialo vs Judge Macias
members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good
order and public welfare. Facts:

Engracio Simyunn Dilao, Jr., by counsel Reynaldo S. Llego charged herein
Immorality is a recognized ground for the discipline of judges and justices
respondent the Honorable Mariano S. Macias, Presiding Judge of Branch 28
under the Rules of Court. The New Canon of Judicial Conduct for the
of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Norte with station at Liloy,
Philippine Judiciary requires judges to avoid "impropriety and the
along with his co-respondent Sheriff Camilo Bandivas, with oppression,
appearance of impropriety in all their activities."
abuse of authority, incriminating an innocent person, grave misconduct and

obstruction of justice. It appears that Margie Corpus Macias, wife of
In Castillo v. Calanog, Jr. (Castillo), we laid down the doctrine of no
respondent judge, had earlier filed an administrative complaint against him
dichotomy of morality. We explained why judges as public officials are also
for immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
judged by their private morals:
Complainant Engracio Simyunn Dialo, Jr. narrating that in December 2000

he was requested by Mrs. Macias to help her catch and gather evidence to
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be
prove that her husband is philandering; and that he granted the request
free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his
and carried it out soon after, entailing a period of more than 3 months
judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private
during which he witnessed, among other things, respondent repair to the
individual. There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged
boarding house of his suspected mistress with whom he went out and, upon
by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote
their return, they brought with them groceries. Respondent judge denied
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must
the charges. He explained that it was only on March 12, 2002 when his
behave with propriety at all times. As we have very recently explained, a
counsel was served a copy of complainants Affidavit dated January 31, 2002
judge's official life [cannot] simply be detached or separated from his
that he knew that complainant was a witness in the immorality complaint,
personal existence. Thus:
the latter not having been in the list of witnesses submitted by Mrs. Macias,

hence, he could not have obstructed justice.
Issue: was not even, by his claim, in Pasay where the warantless arrest was
effected.
WON respondent Judge committed obstruction of justice?
By respondents act of requesting for complainants and his companions
Ruling: warrantless arrest, he violated complainants constitutional right, an act
which partakes of the nature of oppression, defined as an act of cruelty,
Yes. While respondent judge may not indeed have known that complainant
severity, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of authority.
was going to testify against him in the immorality case, complainant not
having been in the list of witnesses submitted by Mrs. Macias in the 2. Rallos vs Judge Gako
immorality complaint, respondent was well aware that Mutia, who was in
the company of complainant in the same boat ride taken by respondent Facts:
judge (and who was also arrested and detained by the Pasay City Police),
was in the said list of witnesses. Respondents disclaimer then that he could Two administrative cases were filed against Judge Ireneo Lee Gako Jr. of the
not have committed obstruction of justice does not readily persuade. Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 5. Filed by Executive Secretary
Ronaldo B. Zamora, the first is a Letter-Complaint charging him with
But assuming arguendo, however, and giving respondent the benefit of the ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority. Allegedly, respondent
doubt that he did not intend to obstruct justice, being a judge, respondent ordered the release of 25,000 sacks of imported rice to the claimants,
was aware or should have known that a warrantless arrest could only have notwithstanding the pendency of seizure and forfeiture proceedings before
been lawfully effected if any of the circumstances enumerated in Sec. 5 of the Bureau of Customs.
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
The second was an Administrative Complaint filed by Joselito Rallos, Simon
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private Rallos, Josefina Rallos Vallar and Teresita Rallos Yap. They assailed the
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: respondents Order dated March 15, 1999, which had falsely stated that
complainants, who were petitioners in Special Proceedings Case No. 1576-R
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, entitled "Intestate Estate of Simeon Rallos," were present during the
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; hearing on the said date.
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has After respondent filed his separate Comments to these two Complaints, the
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be Court, in its September 1, 1999 Resolution, docketed the two cases as
arrested has committed it; and administrative matters and referred them to Deputy Court Adminstrator
Bernardo T. Ponferrada for investigation, report and recommendation.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final After conducting hearings, the investigator submitted his findings and
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has recommendations to this Court in a Memorandum dated January 4, 2000.
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Issue:
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station WON respondent judge committed bias or partiality?
or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112,
Section 7, was present. But not one of these circumstances was present. To Ruling:
begin with, the alleged would-be victim of assassination respondent judge
Yes. Respondent Judge committed bias or partiality that calls for disciplinary
sanction. Worse, respondent manifested dishonesty when he altered his
Order and made it appear that the complainants were present during a WON respondent Judge violated Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
hearing that they had not in fact attended.
Ruling:
Respondent judge violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.02, as well as Canon 2 and
Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Thus, he must be sanctioned. Yes. With respect to the charge of borrowing money in exchange for a
favorable judgment, Rule 5.02, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
"Well-known is the judicial norm that judges should not only be impartial mandates that a judge shall refrain from financial and business dealings that
but should also appear impartial. Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that tend to reflect adversely on the courts impartiality, interfere with the
litigants are entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement with
judge. The other elements of due process, like notice and hearing, would lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so
become meaningless if the ultimate decision is rendered by a partial or manage investments and other financial interests as to minimize the
biased judge. Judges must not only render just, correct and impartial number of cases giving grounds for disqualification.
decisions, but must do so in a manner free of any suspicion as to their
fairness, impartiality and integrity. "This reminder applies all the more Under Rule 5.04 of Canon 5, a judge may obtain a loan if no law prohibits
sternly to municipal, metropolitan and regional trial court judges like herein such loan. However, the law prohibits a judge from engaging in financial
respondent, because they are judicial front-liners who have direct contact transactions with a party-litigant. Respondent admitted borrowing money
with the litigating parties. They are the intermediaries between conflicting from complainant during the pendency of the case. This act alone is patently
interests and the embodiments of the peoples sense of justice. Thus, their inappropriate.The impression that respondent would rule in favor of
official conduct should remain free from any appearance of impropriety and complainant because the former is indebted to the latter is what the Court
should be beyond reproach." seeks to avoid. A judges conduct should always be beyond reproach.

3. Burias vs Judge Valencia This Court has time and again emphasized that no government position is
more demanding of moral righteousness and uprightness than a seat in the
Facts: judiciary. Judges as models of law and justice are mandated to avoid not
only impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety, because their
Perla Burias (complainant) charged Judge Mirafe B. Valencia (respondent), conduct affects the peoples faith and confidence in the entire judicial
then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Irosin, Sorsogon, system.
of gross misconduct. Complainant alleged that on 12 October 2005,
respondent endorsed a check and thereafter exchanged the same for cash 4. Tormis vs Judge Paredes
in the sum of P5,000.00 that complainant provided. Said check however was
dishonored when presented for payment by complainant. She also averred Facts:
that sometime in March 2007, respondent verbally demanded from her the
Jill charged Judge Paredes with grave misconduct. Jill was a student of
sum of P50,000.00 and that her P30,500.000 indebtedness be written off in
Judge Paredes in Political Law Review... at the Southwestern University,...
exchange for a favorable decision in Civil Case No. 590. According to
Cebu City. She averred that sometime in August 2010, in his class
complainant, she refused to accede to the demands of respondent. In April
discussions, Judge Paredes named her mother, Judge Rosabella Tormis
2007, respondent reportedly called her up and threatened that she would
(Judge Tormis)... as one of the judges... involved in the marriage scams in
release any of the two (2) draft decisions she allegedly prepared favoring
Cebu City. Judge Paredes also mentioned in his class that Judge Tormis was
respondent in the civil case. Complainant claimed that by reason of these
abusive of her position as a judge, corrupt, and ignorant of the law.
threats, she was constrained to file the instant administrative case.
Jill added that Judge Paredes included Judge Tormis in his discussions not
Issue:
only once but several times. In one session, Judge Paredes was even said to
have included in his discussion Francis Mondragon Tormis (Francis), son of functions. Jurisprudence,[17] as well as the New Code of Judicial Conduct,
Judge Tormis, stating that he was a "court-noted addict." required that he conduct himself beyond reproach, not only in the discharge
of his judicial functions, but also in his other professional endeavors and
To avoid humiliation in school, Jill decided to drop the... class under Judge everyday activities.
Paredes and transfer to another law school in Tacloban City.
Justice Diy found merit in Jill's allegation that Judge Paredes violated the
Jill also disclosed that in the case entitled "Trinidad O. Lachica v. Judge subjudice rule when the latter discussed the marriage scams involving Judge
Tormis"[5] (Lachica v. Tormis), her mother was suspended from the service Tormis in 2010 when the said issue was still being investigated.
for six (6) months for allegedly receiving payment of a cash bail bond for the
temporary... release of an accused for the warrant she had issued in a case Issues:
then pending before her sala. Judge Paredes was the one who reviewed the
findings conducted therein and he recommended that the penalty be WON Judge Paredes be held liable for misconduct, much less for grave
reduced to severe reprimand. misconduct.

Jill, however, claimed that Judge Paredes committed an offense worse than
that committed by her mother. She averred that on March 13, 2011, Judge
Ruling:
Paredes accepted a cash bail bond... for the temporary release of one Lita
No. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of Justice Diy. To
Guioguio in a case entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Lita Guioguio,"...
constitute misconduct, the act or acts must have a direct relation to and be
she prayed that Judge Paredes be administratively sanctioned for his
connected with the performance of his official duties. Considering that the
actuations.
acts complained of, the remarks against Judge Tormis and Francis, were
Justice Diy found Judge Paredes guilty of conduct unbecoming of a made by Judge Paredes in his class discussions, they cannot be considered
judge. She opined that his use of intemperate language during class as "misconduct." They are simply not related to the discharge of his official
discussions was inappropriate. His statements in class, tending to project functions as a judge. Thus, Judge Paredes cannot be held liable for
Judge Tormis as corrupt... and ignorant of the laws and procedure, were misconduct, much less for grave misconduct.
obviously and clearly insensitive and inexcusable.
On subjudice matters, Section 4, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial
Justice Diy disregarded the defense of Judge Paredes that his discussions of Conduct provides:
the administrative case of Judge Tormis in class was an exercise of his right
CANON 3
to freedom of expression. She cited the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary[15] which urged members of the Judiciary to be IMPARTIALITY
models of propriety at all times. She quoted with emphasis Section 6 which
stated that "Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or could
expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising... such rights, come before them, make any comment that might reasonably be expected
they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of
dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the the process. Nor shall judges make any... comment in public or otherwise
judiciary." that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.

Justice Diy likewise rejected Judge Paredes' position that he could not be Notably, when Judge Paredes discussed the marriage scams involving Judge
held administratively liable for his comments against Judge Tormis and Tormis in 2010, the investigation relative to the said case had not yet been
Francis as these were uttered while he was not in the exercise of his judicial concluded.
In 2010, he still could not make comments on the administrative case to Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established and definite
prevent any undue influence in its resolution. Commenting on the marriage rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a
scams, where Judge Tormis was one of the judges involved, was in public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional
contravention of the subjudice... rule. Justice Diy was, therefore, correct in elements of corruption, willful intent to... violate the law, or to disregard
finding that Judge Paredes violated Section 4, Canon 3 of the New Code of established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. As
Judicial Conduct. distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear
intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be
The Court shares the view of Justice Diy that although the reasons of Judge manifest in a charge of... grave misconduct. Corruption, as an element of
Paredes for discussing the marriage scams in his classes seemed noble, his grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who
objectives were carried out insensitively and in bad taste. The pendency of unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some
the administrative case of Judge Tormis and... the publicity of the marriage benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights
scams did not give Judge Paredes unrestrained license to criticize Judge of... others.
Tormis in his class discussions.
The subjudice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the
The Court cannot sustain the assertion of Judge Paredes that he cannot be judicial proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the
held administratively liable for his negative portrayal of Judge Tormis and court, or obstructing the administration of justice. The rationale for the rule
Francis in his class discussions. Judge Paredes should be reminded of the was spelled... out in Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Sanchez, where it was stated
ethical conduct expected of him as a judge not... only in the performance of that it is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts
his judicial duties, but in his professional and private activities as and juries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from
well. Sections 1 and 2, Canon 2 of the Code mandates: every extraneous... influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence
produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be
CANON 2
uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.
INTEGRITY
5. Versosa vs Judge Contreras
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office
Facts:
but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
Julio Versosa charged Judge Manuel E. Contreras of the Municipal Trial
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
Court with Grave abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct (Harassment and
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
Oppression), and Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, relative to
observer.
Criminal Case No. 2071, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Rodrigo E.
Any impropriety on the part of Judge Paredes, whether committed in or out Candelaria."Verzosa alleges that he is a forest ranger of the Department of
of the court, should not be tolerated for he is not a judge only Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Protected Area Office. While
occasionally. It should be emphasized that the Code of Judicial Ethics conducting surveillance on treasure hunting activities in Mt. Isarog Natural
mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of... Park, Ocampo, Camarines Sur, he and hisco-forest rangers discovered an
impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties, open pit left in damaged condition, allegedly in violation of Republic Act No.
but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. 7586. They likewise found and confiscated in favor of the Government two
metal chains used to overturn huge stones in the treasure hunting site. He
Principles: found out later that the alleged treasure hunters were led by a certain Jose
Credo (Credo) a.k.a."Labaw" and Basilio Sumalde (Sumalde) a.k.a. "Moren".
The Executive Director of the DENR Region V Office thereafter ordered
Verzosa to continue monitoring the said treasure hunting site. Because of of Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct. In Oktubre v. Velasco, citing Perez v. S
his involvement in the treasure hunting activities and on the basis of the uller, thecourt held that the rule on disqualification of judges under Rule
testimony of Credo, he was implicated as an accessory in Criminal Case No. 3.12 and Section 1, Rule137 -[S]tems from the principle that no judge should
2071against Rodrigo Candelaria (Candelaria), et al. for robbery. The said preside in a case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and
case arose from the alleged information relayed by Judge Contreras to the independent. A Judge should not handle a case in which he might be
Philippine National Police (PNP) Officers of Ocampo, Camarines Sur which perceived to be susceptible to bias and partiality. The rule is intended to
led to the arrest of the principal accused. Judge Contreras did not inhibit preserve the people’s faith and confidence in the courts of justice.
himself from conducting the preliminary investigation despite his proven
bias against all of the accused, in apparent violation of the guiding principles True, a judge should possess proficiency in law so that he can competently
of Judicial Ethics and Responsibilities. Verzosa was not among the persons construe and enforce the law. However, it is more important that he should
on board the truck when the same was apprehended by members of the act and behave in such a manner that the parties before him have
PNP. On the basis of the affidavit executed by Credo, Judge Contreras confidence in his impartiality. Indeed, even conduct that gives rise to
hastily issued an order for Verzosa's arrest. After the information reducing the mere appearance of partiality is proscribed. Records reveal that Judge
the charge from robbery to simple theft was filed before the Regional Trial Contreras had prior knowledge of the looting and dismantling at the PLDT
Court (RTC), Branch 32, Pili, Camarines Sur, Judge Nilo Malanyaon, in an Tower in Ocampo, Camarines Sur and he was instrumental in the
Order dated September 13, 2004 dismissed the case due to lack of probable apprehension of the robbers. Judge Contreras should have been aware of
cause. Judge Contreras is the mastermind behind the treasure hunting the impropriety of conducting the preliminary investigation considering that
activities in Ocampo, Camarines Sur and the robbery case for which Rule 3.12(a), Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins a judge from
complainant was implicated as an accessory was a way of harassing taking part in proceedings where the judge's impartiality might reasonably
anybody who opposes the activities. be questioned. Judge Contreras ignored said rule, warranting disciplinary
sanction from this Court. Judge Contreras should have inhibited himself
Issue: from conducting the preliminary investigation, it did not render as void the
act of Judge Contreras in issuing a warrant of arrest. He acted within the
Whether or not Judge Contreras should be sanctioned for violation of Canon bounds of the then existing Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court
3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. which provides, inter alia, that without waiting for the conclusion of the
investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after an
Held:
examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses
YES. Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine in the form of searching questions and answers, that a probable cause exists
whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate
crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
and should be held for trial.
6. Ortiz vs Judge Jacube


The issue of whether a judge should voluntarily inhibit himself is addressed
Facts:
to his sound discretion pursuant to paragraph 2 of Section 1, Rule 137, Rules
of Court, which provides that a judge may, in the exercise of his sound This is an administrative complaint filed by Alexander B. Ortiz against Judge
discretion, disqualify himself fromsitting in a case, for a just or valid reason Ibarra B. Jaculbe, Jr. In a verified letter-complaint, Ortiz averred the
other than those mentioned in the first paragraph. However, respondent following: That he is a respondent in a case filed before the sala of Judge
failed to consider the proscription under Rule 3.12(a) Jaculbe; that Atty. Richard Enojo, who is the son-in-law of Judge Jaculbe,
represents the plaintiff in the same case; that a compromise agreement was trying is a patent violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of
entered into by the parties; that pursuant to the compromise agreement, Court. In Sales v. Calvan,[6] the Court found that Judge Calvan violated the
plaintiff filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution; and that the rule on disqualification of judges as set out in the Code of Judicial Conduct
motion was hastily granted by Judge Jaculbe without holding a hearing to and the Rules of Court when he conducted the preliminary investigation of a
prove the failure of defendants to comply with the compromise agreement. criminal case where his wife was the niece of the private complainant. The
Complainant further claims that the relationship between Judge Jaculbe and Court articulated therein, as follows -
Atty. Richard Enojo is within the third degree of affinity and thus covered by
the rule. Judge Jaculbe alleges that it has been his practice to voluntarily In Garcia v. De la Pea, we explained the rationale for this disqualification:
inhibit himself when a case handled by his son-in-law is raffled to his sala or,
The rule on compulsory disqualification of a judge to hear a case where, as
alternatively, for his son-in-law to withdraw his appearance. The Judge
in the instant case, the respondent judge is related to either party within
further claims that there is only one exception to his above-stated practice
the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity rests on the salutary principle
and that is the case now subject of this complaint. He contends, however,
that no judge should preside in a case in which he is not wholly free,
that there is no legal, equitable and reasonable necessity to inhibit himself
disinterested, impartial and independent. A judge has both the duty of
and the case can be counted as a disposal from his court.
rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely
Issue: free from suspicion as to his fairness and as to his integrity. The law
conclusively presumes that a judge cannot objectively or impartially sit in
WON respondent Judge violates the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules such a case and, for that reason, prohibits him and strikes at his authority to
of Court. hear and decide it, in the absence of written consent of all parties
concerned. The purpose is to preserve the people's faith and confidence in
Ruling: the courts of justice.
Yes. As indicated by the Office of the Court Administrator, Judge Jaculbe The disqualification is mandatory, and respondent has no option other than
does not dispute the fact that Atty. Richard Enojo is his son-in-law and is, to inhibit himself from the criminal case. The appropriate step for
therefore, related to him by affinity in the first degree. respondent to take would have been to immediately desist from hearing the
case, even at the preliminary investigation stage. His failure to do so is a
The prohibition against the Judges sitting in the case is found in the Rule
glaring violation not only of the Rules of Court but also of the Code of
3.12 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct as quoted above and in
Judicial Conduct, which mandates in Canon 3, Rule 3.12:
Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which states:
7. Tiggangay vs Judge Wacas
SECTION 1. Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officer shall sit in
any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, Facts:
legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the Tiggangay ran for the mayoralty position of Tanudan in the May 2007
fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which election but lost to Dagadag. Following Dagadag’s proclamation, Tiggangay
he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in filed an electoral protest which was raffled to the sala of Judge Wacas.
which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the Judge Wacas rendered a decision finding Dagadag to have won the protest
subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, election. Tiggangay filed a verified letter-complaint charging Judge Wacas
signed by them and entered upon the record. witn impropriety and Partiality. He alleged that, during the course of the
proceedings , he learned that Judge Wacas is Dagadag’s second cousin by
The prohibition under the rules is clear. Therefore, Judge Jaculbes failure to affinity. The relationship notwithstanding, Judge does not inhibit himself
inhibit himself when his son-in-law appeared as counsel in a case he was
from hearing said electoral case in violation of the New Code of Judicial of Rule 135; and, c) the last paragraph of Section 3 of Rule 71. According to the
Conduct and Rule 137 of Revised Rules of Court. respondent judge, the complainants allegation that he failed to contact any
relative is belied by the fact that during the hearing of September 29, 1999,
Issue: the complainant was assisted by Atty. Eduardo P. Flores of the MMDA, as
evidenced by the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the
WON the relationship of Judge Wacas with Dagadag is sufficient to
proceedings. The respondent prayed that the instant complaint be
disqualify him from hearing the case.
dismissed for lack of legal or factual basis.
Ruling:
Issue:
No. granting arguendo that the aunt of Judge Wacas is married to the uncle
WON by respondent Judge ordering the party in contempt of court is valid
of Dagadag. Such reality is not a ground for mandatory inhibition of a Judge
under Sec.1 of Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, since there is actually Ruling:
no relation of affinity between Wacas and Dagadag. In the case, Wacas is
related to his aunt by consanguinity in third degree, it follows by virtue of No. In Cortes v. Bangalan, we held that a judge may not hold a party in
the marriage of his aunt to the uncle of Dagadag that Wacas is the nephew contempt of court for expressing concern on the judges impartiality through
in law of the uncle of Dagadag but is not related by affinity to the blood a motion for voluntary inhibition, even if the latter may have felt insulted
relatives of Judge Wacas and Dagadag asthey are notb in-laws of each therein.
other. Thus, Judge Wacas is not disqualified under Sec.1 Rule 137.
We agree with the Investigating Justice when he opined that the respondent
8. Sison vs Judge Caoibes judge should have refrained from ordering the arrest and detention of the
complainant, since the incident involved his own son, and the matter was
Facts: very personal to him. The fact that the respondent judge insisted that the
complainant personally file his comment in court gives rise to doubts as to
An administrative complaint arose when Salvador Sison, a Metropolitan
the motive behind it; as the Investigating Justice puts it, the requirement of
Manila Development Authority (MMDA) traffic enforcer, filed a verified
personal filing was deliberately inserted so that the respondent could
Complaint, charging Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. and Sheriff Teodoro Alvarez of
confront and harass the complainant.
the Regional Trial Court with grave abuse of authority.
The act of a judge in citing a person in contempt of court in a manner which
The complaint stemmed from an Order in Criminal Case which the
smacks of retaliation, as in the case at bar, is appalling and violative of Rule
respondent judge issued, requiring the complainant to appear before him to
2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judge should so
explain a traffic incident involving his son and the complainant. Because of
behave at all times to promote public confidence in the integrity and
the complainants failure to appear before the respondent judge as directed,
impartiality of the judiciary.The very delicate function of administering
the latter, after verifying that the said order was duly served on the
justice demands that a judge should conduct himself at all times in a
complainant, issued another Order for the complainants arrest and
manner which would reasonably merit the respect and confidence of the
commitment, and for the latter to appear for hearing before his sala. The
people, for he is the visible representation of the law.The irresponsible or
respondent sheriff then served the order on the complainant. On the
improper conduct of judges erodes public confidence in the judiciary; as
scheduled hearing, the complainant appeared and executed an
such, a judge must avoid all impropriety and the appearance thereof.
affidavit admitting to the court that he made a mistake and that it was all a
misunderstanding. The respondent judge also alleged that he initiated the We do not agree, however, that the respondent judge should be merely
complaint for contempt pursuant to the following provisions of the Revised reprimanded for his actuations. The Court has not been blind to the
Rules of Court: a) Section 3(d) and Section 4 of Rule 71; b) Section 5(c) of improper use by judges of the erstwhile inherent power of contempt which,
in fine, amounts to grave abuse of authority. The penalty imposed by the Yes. In the case at bar, respondent Judge Asdalas actions as above discussed
Court in such cases ranges from a fine of P2,500; one months salary; put into question the impartiality, independence, and integrity of the
suspension from the service without pay for a period of three months; and process by which the questioned amended orders were reached. Her
even the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service. actions miserably fell short in the discharge of her duty as an officer of the
court and as a living embodiment of law and justice.
9. Edao vs Judge Asdala
As rightly observed by the Investigating Justice, the private meeting was
Facts: improper, to say the least. It deprived the complainant of her right to be
heard on matters affecting her vital interests. The secret meeting cannot
This administrative complaint was initiated by a handwritten complaint to
but invite suspicion, for no minutes or stenographic notes of the meeting
the Supreme Court, through Assistant Court Administrator Antonio H.
have been presented, if any existed. Respondent judge cannot feign
Dujua, by the complainant Carmen P. Edao charging Judge Fatima G. Asdala,
ignorance of the fact that our courts are courts of record.
Regional Trial Court (RTC), of grave abuse of discretion and authority, and of
conduct unbecoming of a judge. The complaint stemmed from a civil case Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It
for Support with a prayer for Support Pendente Lite filed by the complainant applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the
on behalf of her two minor children, Carlo and Jay-ar, against George Butler, decision is made. As such, judges must ensure that their conduct, both in
who denies paternity of the children. A writ of execution was subsequently and out of the court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public,
issued which included the garnishing of rental payments for the apartments the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the
in Cubao, Quezon City, which are being managed by defendant Butler. It judiciary. In the same vein, the Code of Judicial Conduct behooves all judges
was at this juncture that respondent Judge Asdala took cognizance of the to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their
case. Due to the failure of defendant Butler to comply with the November activities, as such is essential to the performance of all the activities of a
12, 1999 Order of the trial court, despite several reprimands and orders to judge in order to maintain the trust and respect of the people in the
implement, complainant Edao moved to cite defendant Butler in judiciary.
contempt. On November 23, 2004, respondent Judge Asdala found
defendant Butler guilty of indirect contempt. In the complainants letter- Note:
complaint, she laments the fact that without notice, much less consent,
respondent Judge Asdala met privately with defendant Butler in her As the visible representation of the law and justice, judges, such as the
chambers to discuss the finding of indirect contempt against the latter respondent, are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that would
without any hearing or minutes of the proceedings and without her or her enhance the respect and confidence of the people in the judicial system.The
counsels participation. In her defense, respondent Judge Asdala avers that New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary mandates that
the recall of the bench warrant and the reduction of the fine are matters of judges must not only maintain their independence, integrity and
judicial discretion. She insists that, after the representation of Mr. Butler of impartiality; but they must also avoid any appearance of impropriety or
his financial inability to pay the original fine, the amendment to her partiality, which may erode the people’s faith in the judiciary. Integrity and
previous orders was more in keeping with justice and fairness. impartiality, as well as the appearance thereof, are deemed essential not
just in the proper discharge of judicial office, but also to the personal
Issue: demeanor of judges. This standard applies not only to the decision itself, but
also to the process by which the decision is made. Section 1, Canon 2,
WON respondent Judge actions violated impartiality to the proper discharge specifically mandates judges to ensure that not only is their conduct above
of the judicial office reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of reasonable
observers. Clearly, it is of vital importance not only that independence,
Ruling:
integrity and impartiality have been observed by judges and reflected in
their decisions, but that these must also appear to have been so observed in
the eyes of the people, so as to avoid any erosion of faith in the justice
system. Thus, judges must be circumspect in their actions in order to avoid
doubt and suspicion in the dispensation of justice. To further emphasize its
importance, Section 2, Canon 2 states:

Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the

people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not
merely be done but must also be seen to be done.

As early as June 6, 2003, OCA Circular No. 70-2003 has directed

judges as follows:

In view of the increasing number of reports reaching the Office of

the Court Administrator that judges have been meeting with party
litigants inside their chambers, judges are hereby cautioned to
avoid in-chambers sessions without the other party and his
counsel present, and to observe prudence at all times in their
conduct to the end that they only act impartially and with
propriety but are also perceived to be impartial and proper.