LEGAL ETHICS I. ABRAGAN vs. RODRIGUEZ Lawyers violate their oath of office when they represent conflicting interests.

They taint not only their own professional practice, but the entire legal profession itself. FACTS: Petitioners hired the respondent lawyer in a case for forcibly entry. The case was won. A writ of execution was issued in favor of petitioners. Respondent however, surreptitiously sell some property rights (land) to other persons without the consent of the petitioners herein, they decided to sever their client-lawyer relationship. In the meantime, an indirect contempt case was filed by petitioners against Sheriff Fernando Loncion, with respondent as counsel for Loncion. HELD: Rule 15.03 CPR- A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. WHEREFORE, Maximo G. Rodriguez is found guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. II. SENCIO VS. CALVADORES FACTS: Complainant Emily Sencio charged respondent Atty. Robert Calvadores with violation of the lawyers oath, malpractice and gross misconduct. Petitioners son died in a vehicular accident, respondent was hired to undertake the civil aspect of the case. After payment of attorneys fees, petitioner found out that respondent did not file any case. A promise to return the money paid by petitioner did not occur. Hearings were reset for a couple of times because of respondents failure to appear. HELD: The respondent violated: Canon 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. In failing to file the case he undertook to handle, the respondent violated: Rule 18.03 which provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. In not returning the money to the complainant after a demand therefor was made following his failure to file the case, the respondent violated:

ZPG & ASSOCIATES

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when 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 disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also 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. WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ROBERT CALVADORES is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective immediately, and ordered to return to Emily Sencio, within thirty (30) days from notice of this Resolution, the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000) with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the promulgation of this Resolution until its return. The respondent is further warned that a commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. III. GAMALIEL ABAQUETA vs. FLORIDO FACTS: Complainant engaged the services of respondent through his attorney-in-fact, to represent him in Special Proceedings No. 3971R, entitled, In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Deceased Bonifacia Abaqueta, Susana Uy Trazo, petitioner before the RTC Cebu. Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta filed an action for sum of money against complainant, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-11453 and entitled, Milagros Yap Abaqueta vs. Gamaliel Abaqueta and Casiano Gerona. Respondent signed the Complaint as counsel for plaintiff Milagros Yap Abaqueta. Milagros and Gamaliel are conjugal owners of certain parcel of lands. The parcels of land referred to as conjugal property of complainant and Milagros YapAbaqueta are the very same parcels of land in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R which respondent, as lawyer of complainant, alleged as the sole and exclusive properties of complainant. In short, respondent lawyer made allegations in Civil Case No. CEB-11453 which were contrary to and in direct conflict with his averments as counsel for complainant in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R. HELD: Respondent violated: 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. WHEREFORE, Atty. Bernardito A. Florido is

LEGAL ETHICS SUSPENDED from the practice of law for Three (3) months. He is further ADMONISHED to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties towards his clients and the court. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. IV. IMBING vs. TIONGSON FACTS: Respondent Judge Benjamin C. Tiongson was charged with alleged abandonment and non-support of his two children with complainant Priscilla Imbing. Respondent denies that he was married to complainant, as the latter is married to another man. And that he is not the father of Benjamin Jr. and admits paternity over Freya. Case was dismissed however by the desistance of complainant. However the Court finds grounds to discipline respondent because of his admission of paternity over a child born out of a married woman. HELD: The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. His personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach, for no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary. RULE 1.01 CJC - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. RULE 2.01 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. WHEREFORE, on the foregoing premises, we find respondent Judge Benjamin C. Tiongson guilty of gross immorality. He is hereby DISMISSED from the service and, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 14 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No, 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), 26 such dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from reemployment in the government-service, all without prejudice to criminal or civil liability. Respondent is hereby ORDERED to cease and desist immediately from rendering any judgment or order, or continuing any judicial action or proceeding whatsoever, effective upon receipt of this decision.

ZPG & ASSOCIATES

V. TUZON vs. PURUGGANAN FACTS: Respondent denied Tuzons motion to allow cross-examination of his witness and directed that the case be submitted for resolution. A petition therefore was filed by complainant in the CA. The CA ordered private respondent (Catral) in the civil case to file a comment to show cause why the prayer for injunctive relief should not be granted. However respondent made such comment. The CA dismissed complainants petition relating to the civil case. Now complainant filed an administrative complaint against Judge Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan for illegal practice of law, gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct, evident bias and partiality, knowingly rendering unjust judgment, and willful violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He alleged the illegality of the comment made by respondent and the ante-dating of the decision made by the respondent in another civil case. HELD: Under Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law. This is based on public policy because the rights, duties, privileges and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges of a judge. RULE 5.07 - A judge shall not engage in the private practice of law. Unless prohibited by the Constitution or law, a judge may engage in the practice of any other profession provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with judicial functions. Regarding the other charges of complainant, we find no proof that respondent antedated her decision in Civil Case 4269. Further, no adequate evidence supports complainants charges of gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct, evident bias and partiality, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Thus, these charges should be dismissed. WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds respondent judge Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan guilty of illegal practice of law, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Revised Rules of Court. The Court hereby metes out on her the penalty of suspension from office for a period of three (3) months, without pay, and to pay a fine of ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos, with a warning that the commission of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

LEGAL ETHICS VI. ZARATE vs. MAYBANK Facts: Spouses Zarate filed a complaint against Respondent bank regarding the alleged failure of the latter to include the formers partial payment for the redemption of their foreclosed property. This failure allegedly resulted in the Petitioners failure to redeem the property during the period allotted to them. Respondent bank contended that the partial payment was included and partially applied to the outstanding penalties and interests after foreclosure. The pre-trial case was set on January 18, 1999 and reset several times, due to the parties attempts to settle the case amicably, which failed in finality on March 20, 2000. The trial was set on May 22, 2000, but was reset to June 10, 2000, because Petitioners counsel had another hearing to attend. The hearing was postponed again due to the same reason, and was reset on September 11, 2000, whereon the spouses counsel asked for another resetting, due to complication vis--vis getting in touch with the Petitioners. Trial was reset again on October 23, 2000, with a warning that failure of appearance would warrant dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time. Petitioners, refusing to receive notices of the scheduled trial from their counsel, prompted the trial court to direct the process server to personally serve the said order to them. Again they failed to appear, Rosario Zarate was advised by her doctor to rest, no reason was given for Ernesto Zarates absence, and the trial was reset to November 28, 2000, whereon they failed to appear again because Petitioners allege their counsel was attending another hearing and claimed they received the notice of resetting only on December 21, 2000. The trial court ordered the dismissal of the case due to lack of interest to prosecute the case. Held: The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The records show that the court accommodated in patience the motion for rescheduling and postponements of the Petitioners and their counsel several times resulting in the repeated resetting of the trial. The petitioners and their counsel acted in negligence and inaction. A lawyer must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Every case he accepts deserves his full attention, and is required to inquire the status of handled cases. It is a general rule that the mistake and negligence of counsel is binding on the client. As held by CA the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of personal hostility.

ZPG & ASSOCIATES 3 IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66321, dated May 22, 2003, and the Resolution dated October 8, 2003 are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners.

Code of Professional Responsibility- Canon 18 Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. VII. ROMERO vs. REYES Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a party but, first and foremost, as officers of the court.Thus, their duty to protect their clients interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. While they are obliged to present every available legal remedy or defense; their fidelity to their clients must always be made within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the law, and the fair administration of justice. FACTS: Facts: A case was filed by the heirs of Herman Romero against Atty. Reyes for willful and intentional falsehood. A compromise agreement was entered into by the complainants, Elizabeth Reyes and VR. Gonzales Credit Enterprise as regards to the sale of a property. The agreement states that in exchange to the acquirement of the land by VR. Gonzales Enterprises, complainants and Elizabeth Reyes shall receive certain amount of money after two years. Two year had lapsed and VR. Gonzales did not fulfill their obligation to deliver the amount due to the respondents. Atty. Reyes argued that such Motion to issue a writ of execution filed by the complainants is premature. This is because according to respondent the implementation should be counted from the date of the courts ratification and not from the execution by the parties. After respondent Atty. Reyes gave emphasis to the fact that both parties are binded by their valid compromise agreement as seen in previous contentions, respondent suddenly opposed his stand. He stated that Elizabeth Reyes never signed such agreement and therefore has no right to bind his client, VR. Credit Enterprise, with the provisions of the compromise agreement. As a result, the court denied the motion for a writ of execution filed by the complainants. Later, the complainants during the proceeding before the IBP proved that they have properly signed the agreement.

LEGAL ETHICS HELD: Atty. Reyes is proved to have misled the presiding Judge Nieves causing the latter to declare the agreement void due to respondents allegation that such agreement lacks the signature of the other party. Lawyers are not only the representative of their clients but they are also officers of court. As stated in the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers should not commit any falsehood and they must observe the rules of procedure to promote justice. A lawyer must give a candid and honest opinion on the probable result of the case of his client. A lawyers fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and administration of justice. 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, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case. CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. Rule 10.01 - 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. WHEREFORE, Respondent Venancio Reyes Jr. is found guilty as charged. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. VIII. GONZALES vs. RAMOS FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Marina C. Gonzales against Atty. Calixto B. Ramos because of the latters alleged misconduct in notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale involving the complainant. Respondent compared the signatures of Marina C. Gonzales on the Deed of Absolute Sale with her other signatures in his files, the spouses Gonzales being his clients from way back. Convinced that the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was indeed the signature of complainant Marina C. Gonzales, respondent notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale, without the appearance of one the parties. HELD: VIOLATION: Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility, the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Calixto

ZPG & ASSOCIATES 4 B. Ramos, if still existing, is REVOKED effective immediately and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective immediately. He is further WARNED that a repetition of same or of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of receipt of this Decision in order to determine when his suspension shall take effect.

IX. FERRER vs. TEBELIN FACTS: Respondent agreed to render legal services to complainant in the latters case for the vehicular accident caused by the driver of Global Link. Respondent received P5,000 as acceptance fee. Respondent refused to see complainant. Complainant filed a verified complaint against respondent for allegedly abandoning the case. He claimed that respondent would hang up when he tried to contact him, and would not reply to his letters. Respondent denies the allegations and claimed that he prepared a draft of the petitioners complaint. He also said that he was willing to return the P5,000 and records of the case as demanded by the petitioner. However, he still failed to return the money and respond to the notices of the Commission on Bar Discipline and failed to comply with his obligation to his client. HELD: VIOLATION: Rule 22.02 CPR A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retaining lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for Two (2) Months and ORDERED to return to complainants heirs the amount of P5,000.00, with legal interest, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offenses will be dealt with more severely. X. LORENZANA vs. FAJARDO FACTS: In a verified complaint dated May 27, 2002, complainant alleged that respondent, while employed as Legal Officer V at the Urban Settlement Office in Manila, until his retirement on May 15, 2002, was a member of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of Quezon City, receiving a monthly honorarium of P4,000.00. He was also a member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Novaliches Proper, also receiving a monthly allowance/ honorarium. Complainant also alleged that respondent was engaged in the private practice of law, receiving

LEGAL ETHICS acceptance fees ranging from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00. He lives in a house and lot owned by complainants family without paying any rental and refuses to leave the place despite the latters demands. HELD: Respondent failed to establish that his primary functions as Legal Officer of the Manila Urban Settlements Office allow his appointment as PLEB member, an exception to dual appointment prohibited by the Constitution and the statutes. Indeed, respondent, in accepting such appointment, has transgressed the Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, and the Local Government Code of 1991. Being contra leges, respondent also violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Attorneys Oath. CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND, PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. WHEREFORE, for accepting employment as a member of the PLEB of Quezon City while concurrently employed as Legal Officer V of the Manila Urban Settlement Office, in violation of the Constitution and the statutes, which in turn contravene his Attorneys Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility; and by engaging in the illegal practice of law, Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective from notice and is REPRIMANDED and WARNED that any repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. XI. VISITACION vs. LIBRE FACTS: A complaint for ignorance of the law, misrepresentation, grave/gross misconduct and violation of Canon 1 Rule 1.02, Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Ethics was filed against herein respondent judge. The following acts were alleged by the complainant as amounting to serious misconduct and gross ignorance of the law (both in the corporate and libel case): 1) Reorganizing the new MANCOM(Management Committee) of St. Peters College allowing more nominees in favor of one of the trustees. 2) Ordering complainant to have its books audited by an external auditor not accredited by SEC. 3) Requiring complainant to post bail bond. 4) Allowing the admission of the prosecutions exhibits in the libel case, which were not listed in the pre-trial order. 5) Respondent cross-examined her when she took the witness stand. 6) Denying admission of complainants documentary exhibits;

ZPG & ASSOCIATES

7) Not applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 8) Promulgation of the judgment in the Libel Case in absentia notwithstanding that Marilou was not properly notified of the date of promulgation. HELD: Respondent judge is not guilty. It is only where the error is so gross, deliberate and malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith that administrative sanctions may be imposed. The impropriety of ordering complainant to have its books audited by an external auditor and requiring complainant to post bail bond was addressed by the court as not constituting any violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. Judicial appointment of external auditors need not have an accreditation by the SEC. The filing of the bond is only a guarantee of complainants appearance of the hearing. The respondent however, because of his intemperance is admonished to exercise proper care and restraint in his language. RULE 3.04 CJC - A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants. WHEREFORE, the present administrative complaint against Judge Maximino Magno-Libre is DISMISSED. However, he is ADMONISHED to exercise prudence and restraint in his language and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt more severely. XII. ALMONTE vs. BIEN FACTS: Respondent Judge issued a warrant of arrest (after just hearing probable cause that crime of robbery is possible) for the crime of robbery instituted by one Isauro Lique against complainant Thelma Almonte and her husband and fixed a bail bond of P40, 000.00 each for their provisional liberty (bail bond was posted by complainant). Isauro Lique was charged of a criminal case for acts of lasciviousness for molesting the Almontes 9-year old daughter, Brenda Almonte, which case is still pending with the Regional Trial Court at Masbate, Branch 48 (Family Court). Complainant asserts that Lique maliciously filed the complaint for robbery in order to compel her and her husband to drop the earlier criminal case for act of lasciviousness they filed against him. Respondent judge was charged with gross ignorance of the law by complainant. Complainant alleged that respondent disregarded the procedure for preliminary

LEGAL ETHICS investigation which deprived husband due process of law.

her

and

her

Respondent judge admits that no subpoenas were issued to the accused, such an omission was an honest mistake on his part in the performance of his duties, and not due to his ignorance of the law or procedure, adding that he had been extra-careful and diligent in the discharge of his duties, dispensing justice without delay, fear or favor. Respondent also alleges that complainant has posted her bail bond, so she waives her right to question any defect in the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Held: Respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the law. Doubtless, the root of the controversy is respondent judges unfamiliarity with the rules applicable in cases requiring preliminary investigation. Respondent judge disregarded the procedure for preliminary investigation in the criminal case as prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 26, Rule 114 of the New Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, application for bail or the admission to bail is no longer considered as a waiver of the accuseds right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest as regards its attendant illegalities or irregularities. The provision reads: As advocates of justice and visible representation of the law, they are expected to keep abreast with the developments in law and jurisprudence, and to be proficient in their application and interpretation thereof. When a law or a rule is basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; anything less than that is gross ignorance of the law. RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Thus, respondent judge is hereby declared GUILTY of gross violation of Section 3, Rule 112, Section 26, Rule 114, of the Revised Rules of Court, and Rule 3.01, Canon 3, of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and, as recommended, is hereby meted the penalty of fine of ten thousand pesos (P10,000), with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. XIII. ORTIZ vs. JACULBE FACTS: Complainant is a respondent in a case filed before the sala of Judge Jaculbe. Atty. Richard Enojo, who is the son-in-law of Judge Jaculbe, represents the plaintiff in the same case; that a compromise agreement was entered into by the parties; that pursuant to the compromise agreement, plaintiff filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution; and that the motion was hastily granted by Judge Jaculbe without holding a hearing to prove the failure of defendants to comply with the

ZPG & ASSOCIATES 6 compromise agreement. Complainant claims that the relationship between Judge Jaculbe and Atty. Richard Enojo is within the third degree of affinity and thus violative of the CJC.

HELD: Violation: RULE 3.12 CJC - A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. These cases include among others, proceedings where: (d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree; WHEREFORE, Judge Ibarra B. Jaculbe Jr., presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 42, is found GUILTY of violating Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and Rule 3.12 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and a FINE of P11,000 is hereby imposed on him.