CAYETANO v MONSOD professional corporations and the members called shareholders.

In either case, the

TOPIC : PRACTICE OF LAW; DEFINE members of the firm are the experienced attorneys. In most firms, there are younger or
more inexperienced salaried attorneys called "associates."
DOCTRINE: Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the Hence, the Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in hearings on Monsod's confirmation, implicitly determined that he possessed the
the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. necessary qualifications as required by law. The judgment rendered by the
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device Commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged power is beyond judicial
or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill." interference except only upon a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only
FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the
Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Commission's judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the
Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner opposed Court's corrective power, since no abuse, much less a grave abuse of discretion, that
the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance of the
of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. writs prayed, for has been clearly shown.
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the
nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he took his
oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the
instant petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the
consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be
declared null and void.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the
bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying member
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also
been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years.

ISSUE: Whether the appointment of Chairman Monsod of Comelec violates Section 1

(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution?

HELD: The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1(1), Article IX-C:

"There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the
time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college
degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the
immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the
Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.”
At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as
commonly understood, means "an individual or organization engaged in the business
of delivering legal services." (Ibid.). Lawyers who practice alone are often called "sole
practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called "firms." The firm is usually a partnership
and members of the firm are the partners. Some firms may be organized as
ULEP v LEGAL CLINIC
TOPIC: PRACTICE OF LAW ISSUE: whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as
advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can
DOCTRINE: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It properly be the subject of the advertisements herein complained of.
includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and
contracts by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not be HELD: YES. The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and
pending in a court out of court. Applying the aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we agree with the
perceptive findings and observations of the aforestated bar associations that the
FACTS: Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from activities of respondent, as advertised, constitute "practice of law.”
issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of Annexes `A' and `B' Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
(of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession.
allowed by law." Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that involves
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows: legal knowledge or skill.
Annex A The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes
SECRET MARRIAGE? legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by
P560.00 for a valid marriage. which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not be pending in a
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. court.
ANNULMENT. VISA. While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely
THE Please call: 521-0767, involve mechanical and technical know-how, such as the installation of computer
LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 systems and programs for the efficient management of law offices, or the
CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am-6:00 pm computerization of research aids and materials, these will not suffice to justify an
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg. UN Ave., Mla. exception to the general rule. What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation
gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such function is
Annex B non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real.
GUAM DIVORCE It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by private
DON PARKINSON respondent which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a
person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, and who is in good and regular
Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours. Guam divorce. standing, is entitled to practice law.
Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res.
& Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.
LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232521-7251
522-2041; 521-0767
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are
champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the
confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a
member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said
advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as herein before quoted.
IN RE: CUNANAN (1) The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from
TOPIC: ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW 1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to
the end of World War II;
DOCTRINE: * see decision * (2) The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the
petitions of the said candidates;
FACTS: In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest (3) The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who
and concern as Republic Act No. 972, popularly known as the “Bar Flunkers' Act of may be admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to
1953." Under the Rules of Court governing admission to the bar, "in order that a repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The rules laid down by Congress
candidate (for admission to the Bar) may be deemed to have passed his examinations under this power are only minimum norms, not designed to substitute the
successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, judgment of the court on who can practice law; and
without falling below 50 per cent in any subject." (Rule 127, sec. 14, Rules of Court). (4) The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation.
Nevertheless, considering the varying difficulties of the different bar examinations As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster
held since 1946 and the varying degree of strictness with which the examination enough votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in
papers were graded, this court passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had 1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission
obtained an average of only 72 per cent was raised to 75 per cent. to the bar of an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the power to
Believing themselves as fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice of law.
and passed by this court, and feeling conscious of having been discriminated against
(See Explanatory Note to R.A. No. 972), unsuccessful candidates who obtained
averages of a few percentage lower than those admitted to the Bar agitated in Congress
for, and secured in 1951 the passage of Senate Bill No. 12 which, among others,
reduced the passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per cent effective since
1946. The President requested the views of this court on the bill. Complying with that
request, seven members of the court subscribed to and submitted written comments
adverse thereto, and shortly thereafter the President vetoed it. Congress did not
override the veto. Instead, it approved Senate Bill No. 371, embodying substantially
the provisions of the vetoed bill. Although the members of this court reiterated their
unfavorable views on the matter, the President allowed the bill to become a law on
June 21, 1953 without his signature. The law, which incidentally was enacted in an
election year.

ISSUE: Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.

HELD: That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No. 972 referring to the
examinations of 1946 to 1952, and (b) all of article 2 of said law are unconstitutional
and, therefore, void and without force and effect.
Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being
embraced in the title of the Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the bar
flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent system
for an indefinite time. It was also struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing
to take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional,
while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion that was
stricken down was based under the following reasons:
IN RE: MEILING - ON USE OF ATTY: Although there is no showing that Meling is engaged in the
TOPIC: QUALIFICATIONS IN ADMISSION TO THE BAR practice of law, the fact is, he is signing his communications as "Atty. Haron S.
Meling" knowing fully well that he is not entitled thereto. As held by the Court in
DOCTRINE: The standard form issued in connection with the application to take the Bar Matter 1209, the unauthorized use of the appellation "attorney" may render a
2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant to aver that he or she "has not been person liable for indirect contempt of court.
charged with any act or omission punishable by law, rule or regulation before a scal, Consequently, the OBC recommended that Meling not be allowed to take the
judge, ofcer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or convicted by any Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys in the event that he passes the Bar
court or tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any Examinations. Further, it recommended that Meling's membership in the Shari'a Bar
pending case or charge against him/her." Despite the declaration required by the form, be suspended until further orders from the Court.
Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. His deliberate silence We fully concur with the ndings and recommendation of the OBC. Meling,
constitutes concealment, done under oath at that. however, did not pass the 2003 Bar Examinations. This renders the Petition, insofar as
it seeks to prevent Meling from taking the Lawyer's Oath and signing the Roll of
FACTS: On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) led with the Attorneys, moot and academic.
Ofce of the Bar Condant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari'a Court, is not a matter
from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in
disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari'a Bar. the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The requirement of
In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of
to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases before law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City, namely: Criminal Cases The standard form issued in connection with the application to take the 2002
Nos. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 Bar Examinations requires the applicant to aver that he or she "has not been charged
for Less Serious Physical Injuries. with any act or omission punishable by law, rule or regulation before a scal, judge,
The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident which occurred on May ofcer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or convicted by any court or
21, 2001, when Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any pending
wife in front of media practitioners and other people. Meling also purportedly attacked case or charge against him/her." Despite the declaration required by the form, Meling
and hit the face of Melendrez' wife causing the injuries to the latter. did not reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. His deliberate silence
Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using the title constitutes concealment, done under oath at that.
"Attorney" in his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite
the fact that he is not a member of the Bar. Attached to the Petition is an indorsement
letter which shows that Meling used the appellation and appears on its face to have
been received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City on November 27,
2001.

ISSUE: W/N Meling may be prohibitted from taking the Lawyer's Oath and signing
the Roll of Attorneys

HELD: YES.
OBC RULING:
- ON CHARGES: The non-disclosure of Meling of the criminal cases led against him
makes him also answerable under Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that "a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly
making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar.”
IN RE: PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW , The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This
TOPIC: QUALIFICATIONS IN ADMISSION TO THE BAR is because "all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA
DOCTRINE: * under RA 9225 part * 9225]." Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is
deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance
FACTS: Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed never to have terminated his membership
law until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues.
ailments. He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada's free Under RA 9225, before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship
medical aid program. His application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court
in May 2004. the authority to do so, conditioned on:
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention (a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;
and Re- Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On (b) the payment of professional tax;
that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine (c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal
Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and education; this is specially signicant to refresh the applicant/petitioner's
now intends to resume his law practice. knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyer's oath which will not only remind him of his duties
ISSUE: whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an ofcer of the Court, but also renew his
Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004. pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member
HELD: YES. In a report dated October 16, 2007, the Ofce of the Bar Condant cites of the Philippine bar.
Section 2, Rule 138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar) of the Rules of Court:
SECTION 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. — Every
applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines,
at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the
Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of
good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude,
have been led or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
Applying the provision, the Ofce of the Bar Condant opines that, by virtue of
his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, in 2006, petitioner has again met all the
qualications and has none of the disqualications for membership in the bar. It
recommends that he be allowed to resume the practice of law in the Philippines,
conditioned on his retaking the lawyer's oath to remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a member of the Philippine bar.
We approve the recommendation of the Ofce of the Bar Condant with certain
modifications.
The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the
Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law. 15
Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof
terminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage
in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure
terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a
privilege denied to foreigners.
PAFLU v BINALBANGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY attorney-client relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with
TOPIC: COLLECTION OF ATTORNEY’S FEES PAFLU, and he cannot, therefore, recover attorney's fees. Certainly public policy
demands that legal work in representation of parties litigant should be entrusted only to
DOCTRINE: Such a relationship cannot exist unless the client's representative in those possessing
court be a lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot establish an tested qualications and who are sworn to observe the rules and the ethics of the
attorney-client relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with profession, as well as being subject to judicial disciplinary control for the protection of
PAFLU, and he cannot, therefore, recover attorney's fees. courts, clients and the public.
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be violated;
FACTS: The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo, that acting as an attorney without authority constitutes contempt of court, which is
entitled, "PAFLU, et al, vs. Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the Court punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, and the law will not assist a person to reap
of Industrial Relations rendered a decision, on 29 March 1961, ordering the the fruits or benefit of an unlawful act or an act done in violation of law; and that if
reinstatement with backwages of complainants Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas. fees were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless
Said decision became final On 18 October 1963, Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel confusion as to whom to consult in case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic
of record for the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's hen equivalent to condition, aside from the fact that nonlawyers are not amenable to disciplinary
30% of the total backwages. On 22 November 1963, Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a measures.
similar notice for a reasonable amount. Complainants Entila and Tenazas, on 3
December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their non-objection to an award of
attorney's fees for 25% of their backwages, and, on the same day, Quintin Muning
filed a "Petition for Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages.
Muning's petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates on the ground that he is
not a lawyer.
The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the charge was filed by
Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Atanacio Pacis. All the hearings were held in
Bacolod City and appearances made in behalf of the complainants were at first by
Attorney Pacis and subsequently by respondent Quintin Muning.
On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the
backwages as compensation for professional services rendered in the case, apportioned
as follows:
Attys. Cipriano Cid & Associates 10%
Quintin Muning 10%
Atty. Atanacio Pacis 5%
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning, who is not a lawyer according to the
order, is sought to be voided in the present petition.

ISSUE: May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered?

HELD: NO. For Section 24, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, providing —
"Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's agreement as to fees. — An attorney shall be
entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services, . . . "
imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition h the recovery of
attorney's fees. Such a relationship cannot exist unless the client's representative in
court be a lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot establish an
CATU v RELLOSA While, as already discussed, certain local elective ocials (like governors,
TOPIC: PROHIBITED APPEARANCE OF A LAWYER mayors, provincial board members and councilors) are expressly subjected to a total or
partial proscription to practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no such
DOCTRINE: As punong barangay, respondent should have therefore obtained the interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the members of the sangguniang
prior written permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government before he barangay. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius . Since they are excluded from any
entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This he failed to do. prohibition, the presumption is that they are allowed to practice their profession. And
this stands to reason because they are not mandated to serve full time. In fact, the
FACTS: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building sangguniang barangay is supposed to hold regular sessions only twice a month.
erected thereon located at 959 San Andres Street, Malate, Manila. His mother and Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was not forbidden to practice his
brother, Regina Catu and Antonio Catu, contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz- profession. However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization from
Catu and Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the building. The latter ignored the head of his Department, as required by civil service regulations.
demands for them to vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated against them As punong barangay, respondent should have therefore obtained the prior
in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District of Manila written permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government before he
where the parties reside. entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This he failed to do.
Respondent, as punong barangay of Barangay 723, summoned the parties to The failure of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the
conciliation meetings. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the
respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. laws. Lawyers are servants of the law, vires legis, men of the law. Their paramount
Thereafter, Regina and Antonio led a complaint for ejectment against duty to society is to obey the law and promote respect for it.
Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11. In acting as counsel for a party without rst securing the required written
Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in that case. Because permission, respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also
of this, complainant led the instant administrative complaint, claiming that respondent violated civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public ocer when he stood as Responsibility:
counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay. deceitful conduct.
In his defense, respondent claimed that one of his duties as punong barangay For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting
was to hear complaints referred to the barangay's Lupong Tagapamayapa . As such, he ethical standards of the legal profession, respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of
heard the complaint of Regina and Antonio against Elizabeth and Pastor. As head of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
the Lupon, he performed his task with utmost objectivity, without bias or partiality CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY
towards any of the parties. The parties, however, were not able to amicably settle their AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
dispute and Regina and Antonio led the ejectment case. It was then that Elizabeth ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
sought his legal assistance. He acceded to her request. He handled her case for free
because she was nancially distressed and he wanted to prevent the commission of a
patent injustice against her.

ISSUE: W/N as an elective official, respondent contravened the prohibition under

Section 7 (b) (2) of RA 6713

HELD: NO. Section 7 (b) (2) of RA 6713 prohibits public ocials and employees,
during their incumbency, from engaging in the private practice of their profession
“unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not
conict or tend to conict with their ocial functions." This is the general law which
applies to all public officials and employees.
ZETA v MALINAO HELD: YES. It is clear to Us that respondent, apart from appearing as counsel in
TOPIC: UNAUTHORIZED APPEARANCE various municipal courts without prior permission of his superiors in violation of civil
service rules and regulations, falsified his time record of service by making it appear
DOCTRINE: In the premises, it is quite obvious that the offense committed by therein that he was present in his office on occasions when in fact he was in the
respondent is grave, hence it warrants a more drastic sanction than that of reprimand municipal courts appearing as counsel, without being a member of the bar, which,
recommended by Judge Zosa. We find no alternative than to separate him from the furthermore, constitutes illegal practice of law.
service Judge Restituto Duran of Sta. Rita, Samar, declared that according to his
docket books the respondent appeared as counsel for Vicente Baculanlan in criminal
FACTS: Administrative complaint against Felicisimo Malinao, court interpreter of the case No. 1247 in the Municipal Court of Sta. Rita, Samar, for grave threats and in
Court of First Instance of Catbalogan, Samar charging as follows: criminal case No. 1249 for the same accused and Romulo Villagracia for illegal
"1 — ILLEGALLY APPEARING IN COURT. — Mr. Malinao has been appearing in possession of firearm on August 5, 1960 and on September 17, 1970.
the municipal court of this town for parties like attorney when he is not an attorney. Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar, declared that the respondent
Reliable information also says he has been appearing in the municipal courts of appeared as counsel in civil case No. 39 in the Municipal Court of Daram, Samar,
Daram, Zumarraga, Talalora and even Sta. Rita. He is not authorized to do so we entitled Felix Versoza versus Victor Payao, et al., for forcible entry on December 15,
believe. He makes it his means of livelihood as he collects fees from his clients. He 1962, January 26, 1963, February 18, 1963 and on March 1, 1963.
competes with attorneys but does not pay anything. We believe that his doing so Judge Juanito Reyes declared that on March 27, 1969, the respondent
should be stopped for a good government. These facts can be checked with records of appeared as counsel for the defendant in civil case No. 318 of the Municipal Court of
those municipal courts. Zumarraga entitled Restituto Centino versus Jesus Tizon for forcible entry and again
"2 — GRAVE MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE. — Being employed in the Court of First on June 17, 1970 in the same case.
Instance he would instigate persons, especially in his barrio to grab land rob or coerce. From the certification of the Clerk of this Court, it appears that the respondent
In fact he has cases in the municipal court in this town involving himself and his men. had the following entries in his daily time record which when compared the dates
He incite them telling them not to be afraid as he is a court employee and has influence when the respondent appeared before the aforementioned Municipal Courts with his
over the judges. Those persons being ignorant would believe him and so would daily time records, he made it appear that on December 15, 1962 and February 18,
commit crimes. This act of Mr. Malinao is contrary to good order and peace as he is 1963 he was present in his office although according to the testimony of Judge Miguel
using his supposed influences to urge persons to commit crimes. Avestruz he was before his Court on December 15, 1962 as well as on February 18,
"3 — CRIME OF FALSIFICATION. — Information has it that he is unfaithfully 1963. Again according to Judge Juanito Reyes the respondent appeared in his Court on
filing his time record in the CFI. Even he has been out practicing in the municipal June 17, 1970. The respondent again made it appear in his daily time record that he
courts sometimes he would fill his time record as present. He receives salary for those was present with an undertime of five hours. The respondent did not offer any
absent days. This can be checked with time record he has submitted and if he has any plausible explanation for this irregularity.
application for leave. He may try to cure it by submitting application for leave but this With respect to the fourth charge, for violation of Section 12, Rule XVIII,
should not be allowed as he has already committed crime. Republic Act 2260, as amended, again the evidence shows that respondent had been
"4 — VIOLATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AND CIVIL SERVICE LAW. — We appearing as counsel in the municipal courts of Sta. Rita, Daram and Zumarraga in
have reliable information it is prohibited for a civil service employee to engage in violation of the rules of the Civil Service Law.”
private practice any profession or business without permission from the Department
Head. Mr. Malinao we are sure has not secured that permission because he should not
be allowed to practice as he is not an attorney. If that were so, he violated that
Executive Order and Civil Service Law and we are urgently and earnestly requesting
the Commissioner of Civil Service to investigate him on this. If warranted he should
be given the corresponding penalty as dismissal because we believe he deserve it."

ISSUE: W/N respondent is guilty of said offenses.

IN RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer' s oath, the Court recognizes that
TOPIC: POWER OF THE COURT TO REGULATE THE ADMISSION TO Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral ber. On the contrary, the various
THE PRACTICE OF LAW certications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties
and public service.
DOCTRINE: The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for
atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benet of the the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benet of the doubt,
doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious taking judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and
and uncalculating. uncalculating.

FACTS: Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993.
The Court however deferred his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide.
The criminal case which resulted in petitioner's conviction, arose from the
death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime in September 1991.
Petitioner and seven (7) other accused initially entered pleas of not guilty to homicide
charges. The eight (8) accused later withdrew their initial pleas and upon re-
arraignment all pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
On the basis of such pleas, the trial court rendered judgment dated 11
February 1993 imposing on each of the accused a sentence of imprisonment of from
two (2) years four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years.
On 18 June 1993, the trial court granted herein petitioner's application for
probation. On 11 April 1994, the trial court issued an order approving a report dated 6
April 1994 submitted by the Probation Officer recommending petitioner's discharge
from probation.
On 14 April 1994, petitioner led before this Court a petition to be allowed to
take the lawyer's oath based on the order of his discharge from probation.
On 13 July 1995, the Court through then Senior Associate Justice Florentino
P. Feliciano issued a resolution requiring petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the
Court evidence that he may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of
good moral character imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar.
In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than 15
certications/letters executed by among others two (2) senators, ve (5) trial court judges,
and six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a
scholarship foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing
victim, through joint efforts of the latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the
criminal case.

ISSUE: W/N to allow or disallow petitioner's admission to the practice of law.

HELD: ALLOW. After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow
petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys
and practice the legal profession with the following admonition:
CORONAN v CORONAN was requesting his presence at its ofce in Taft Avenue, Manila, in relation to an
TOPIC: ADMISSION TO THE BAR investigation involving respondent who, at that point, was using the name "Atty.
Patrick A. Caronan." Accordingly, on May 18, 2009, complainant appeared before the
DOCTRINE: Since complainant — the real "Patrick A. Caronan" — never took the Anti- Fraud and Computer Crimes Division of the NBI where he was interviewed and
Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" asked to identify documents including: (1) his and respondent's high school records;
be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. The IBP was also correct in ordering that (2) his transcript of records from the University of Makati; (3) Land Transportation
respondent, whose real name is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from admission to the Ofce's records showing his and respondent's driver's licenses; (4) records from St.
Bar. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to the Mary's University showing that complainant's transcript of records from the University
Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed of Makati and his Birth Certicate were submitted to St. Mary's University's College of
a pre-law course. Law; and (5) Alumni Book of St. Mary's University showing respondent's photograph
under the name "Patrick A. Caronan." Complainant later learned that the reason why
FACTS: Complainant and respondent are siblings born to Porferio R. Caronan, Jr. and he was invited by the NBI was because of respondent's involvement in a case for
Norma A. Caronan. Respondent is the older of the two, having been born on February qualied theft and estafa led by Mr. Joseph G. Agtarap (Agtarap), who was one of the
7, 1975, while complainant was born on August 5, 1976. Both of them completed their principal sponsors at respondent's wedding.
secondary education at the Makati High School where complainant graduated in 1993 Realizing that respondent had been using his name to perpetrate crimes and
and respondent in 1991. Upon his graduation, complainant enrolled at the University commit unlawful activities, complainant took it upon himself to inform other people
of Makati where he obtained a degree in Business Administration in 1997. He started that he is the real "Patrick A. Caronan" and that respondent's real name is Richard A.
working thereafter as a Sales Associate for Philippine Seven Corporation (PSC), the Caronan. However, problems relating to respondent's use of the name "Atty. Patrick A.
operator of 7-11 Convenience Stores. In 2001, he married Myrna G. Tagpis with Caronan" continued to hound him. In July 2013, PSC received a letter from Quasha
whom he has two (2) daughters. Through the years, complainant rose from the ranks Ancheta Peña & Nolasco Law Ofces requesting that they be furnished with
until, in 2009, he was promoted as a Store Manager of the 7-11 Store in Muntinlupa. complainant's contact details or, in the alternative, schedule a meeting with him to
Meanwhile, upon graduating from high school, respondent enrolled at the discuss certain matters concerning respondent. On the other hand, a fellow
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM), where he stayed for one (1) year before churchmember had also told him that respondent who, using the name "Atty. Patrick
transferring to the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) in 1992. In 1993, he was A. Caronan," almost victimized his (church-member's) relatives. Complainant also
discharged from the PMA and focused on helping their father in the family's car rental received a phone call from a certain Mrs. Loyda L. Reyes (Reyes), who narrated how
business. In 1997, he moved to Nueva Vizcaya with his wife, Rosana, and their three respondent tricked her into believing that he was authorized to sell a parcel of land in
(3) children. Since then, respondent never went back to school to earn a college Taguig City when in fact, he was not. Further, he learned that respondent was arrested
degree. for gun-running activities, illegal possession of explosives, and violation of Batas
In 1999, during a visit to his family in Metro Manila, respondent told Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22.
complainant that the former had enrolled in a law school in Nueva Vizcaya.
Subsequently, in 2004, their mother informed complainant that respondent passed the ISSUE: whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name "Patrick A.
Bar Examinations and that he used complainant's name and college records from the Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name "Richard A. Caronan"
University of Makati to enroll at St. Mary's University's College of Law in be barred from being admitted to the Bar.
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya and take the Bar Examinations. Complainant brushed
these aside as he did not anticipate any adverse consequences to him. HELD: YES. As correctly observed by the IBP, complainant has established by clear
In 2006, complainant was able to conrm respondent's use of his name and and overwhelming evidence that he is the real "Patrick A. Caronan" and that
identity when he saw the name "Patrick A. Caronan" on the Certicate of Admission to respondent, whose real name is Richard A. Caronan, merely assumed the latter's name,
the Bar displayed at the latter's ofce in Taguig City. Nevertheless, complainant did not identity, and academic records to enroll at the St. Mary's University's College of Law,
confront respondent about it since he was pre-occupied with his job and had a family obtain a law degree, and take the Bar Examinations.
to support. To the Court's mind, the foregoing indubitably confirm that respondent
Sometime in May 2009, however, after his promotion as Store Manager, falsely used complainant's name, identity, and school records to gain admission to the
complainant was ordered to report to the head ofce of PSC in Mandaluyong City Bar.
where, upon arrival, he was informed that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
 Since complainant — the real "Patrick A. Caronan" — never took the Bar
Examinations, the IBP correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. The IBP was also correct in ordering that
respondent, whose real name is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from admission to the
Bar. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to the
Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed
a pre-law course.
In the case at hand, respondent never completed his college degree. While he
enrolled at the PLM in 1991, he left a year later and entered the PMA where he was
discharged in 1993 without graduating. Clearly, respondent has not completed the
requisite pre-law degree.
The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent may later on
complete his college education and earn a law degree under his real name. However,
his false assumption of his brother's name, identity, and educational records renders
him unt for admission to the Bar. The practice of law, after all, is not a natural,
absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is
a privilege limited to citizens of good moral character.
Here, respondent exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack of moral tness to be a
member of the Bar when he assumed the name, identity, and school records of his own
brother and dragged the latter into controversies which eventually caused him to fear
for his safety and to resign from PSC where he had been working for years. Good
moral character is essential in those who would be lawyers. This is imperative in the
nature of the ofce of a lawyer, the trust relation which exists between him and his
client, as well as between him and the court.
Finally, respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by pretending to
have the necessary qualications to be a lawyer. He also tarnished the image of lawyers
with his alleged unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the ling of several criminal
cases against him. Certainly, respondent and his acts do not have a place in the legal
profession where one of the primary duties of its members is to uphold its integrity and
dignity.
IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW 6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010;
IN THE PHILIPPINES 7. Certicate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd compliance period; and
TOPIC: RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW 8. Certication dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator,
UC-MCLE Program, University of Cebu, College of Law attesting to his
DOCTRINE: The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance, compliance with the MCLE.
particularly with the MCLE. After all the requirements were satisfactorily complied The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance, particularly
with and nding that the petitioner has met all the qualications and none of the with the MCLE. After all the requirements were satisfactorily complied with and nding
disqualications for membership in the bar, the OBC recommended that the petitioner that the petitioner has met all the qualications and none of the disqualications for
be allowed to resume his practice of law. membership in the bar, the OBC recommended that the petitioner be allowed to
resume his practice of law.
FACTS: The petitioner alleged that he became a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) on March 21, 1966; that he lost his privilege to practice law when he
became a citizen of the United States of America (USA) on August 28, 1981; that on
September 15, 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9225 or the "Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003" by
taking his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate
General in Washington, D.C., USA; that he intends to retire in the Philippines and if
granted, to resume the practice of law. Attached to the petition were several documents
in support of his petition, albeit mere photocopies thereof.

ISSUE: MAY PETITIONER BE RE ADMITTED TO THE BAR?

HELD: YES. Thus, in pursuance to the qualications laid down by the Court for the
practice of law, the OBC required the herein petitioner to submit the original or certied
true copies of the following documents in relation to his petition:
1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration;
5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
6. Certication from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership dues;
DSCIEa
7. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
8. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.

In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted the following:

1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Certicate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine Citizenship issued by the
Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of the IC;
5. Certication dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City Chapter attesting to his
good moral character as well as his updated payment of annual membership dues;
BRUNET v GUAREN be a moneymaking venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields
TOPIC: DUTIES OF A LAWYER prots. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to
public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration
DOCTRINE: In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
of P7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance fee. He, however, failed to perform themselves.
his obligation to le the case for the titling of complainants' lot despite the lapse of 5 In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of
years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with competence and P7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance fee. He, however, failed to perform his
diligence when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. obligation to le the case for the titling of complainants' lot despite the lapse of 5 years.
Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence when
FACTS: On August 9, 2002, complainant spouses Stephan and Virginia Brunet he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.
(complainants) led a complaint against respondent Atty. Ronald L. Guaren (Atty.
Guaren) before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP).
Complainants alleged that in February 1997, they engaged the services of
Atty. Guaren for the titling of a residential lot they acquired in Bonbon, Nueva
Caseres; that Atty. Guaren asked for a fee of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)
including expenses relative to its proceeding; that it was agreed that full payment of
the fee shall be made after the delivery of the title; that Atty. Guaren asked for an
advance fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) which they gave; that Atty. Guaren
took all the pertinent documents relative to the titling of their lot-certied true copy of
the tax declaration, original copy of the deed of exchange, sketch plan, deed of
donation, survey plan, and original copy of the waiver; that on March 10, 1997, Atty.
Guaren asked for additional payment of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) which they
dutifully gave; that from 1997 to 2001, they always reminded Atty. Guaren about the
case and each time he would say that the titling was in progress; that they became
bothered by the slow progress of the case so they demanded the return of the money
they paid; and that respondent agreed to return the same provided that the amount of
Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) be deducted to answer for his professional fees.
Complainants further alleged that despite the existence of an attorney-client
relationship between them, Atty. Guaren made a special appearance against them in a
case pending before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, Oslob, Cebu (MCTC).
In the Report and Recommendation, dated August 24, 2012, the Investigating
Commissioner found Atty. Guaren to have violated the Canon of Professional
Responsibility when he accepted the titling of complainants' lot and despite the
acceptance of P7,000.00, he failed to perform his obligation and allowed long years to
elapse without any progress in the titling of the lot. Atty. Guaren should also be
disciplined for appearing in a case against complainants without a written consent
from the latter. The CBD recommended that he be suspended for six (6) months.

ISSUE:

HELD: The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public
service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to
LINGAN v CALUQUIB hold the position of [Regional Director] [during the effectivity of the order of
TOPIC: DUTIES OF A LAWYER suspension]." The Commission on Human Rights, according to complainant Lingan,
should have ordered Atty. Baliga to desist from performing his functions as Regional
DOCTRINE: The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on Human Director. Complainant Lingan prayed that this court give "favorable attention and
Rights Regional Director constitutes practice of law. Thus, the Regional Director must action on the matter."
be an attorney — a member of the bar in good standing and authorized to practice law.
When the Regional Director loses this authority, such as when he or she is disbarred or ISSUE: whether Atty. Baliga's motion to lift order of suspension should be granted.
suspended from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a necessary
qualification to the position he or she is holding. The disbarred or suspended lawyer HELD: We find that Atty. Baliga violated this court's order of suspension. We,
must desist from holding the position of Regional Director. therefore, suspend him further from the practice of law for six months. Practice of law
is "any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
FACTS: For our resolution is respondent Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga's motion to lift one- procedure, knowledge, training and experience."
year suspension from the practice of law. It includes "[performing] acts which are characteristics of the [legal]
In the resolution dated June 15, 2006, this court found Attys. Romeo I. profession" or "[rendering any kind of] service [which] requires the use in any degree
Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of of legal knowledge or skill.”
Professional Responsibility and of the Lawyer's Oath. Respondents allowed their Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered
secretaries to notarize documents in their stead, in violation of Sections 245 and 246 of practice of law.
the Notarial Law. This court suspended respondents from the practice of law for one These powers and functions are characteristics of the legal profession. Oaths
year, revoked their notarial commissions, and disqualified them from reappointment as and affirmations are usually performed by members of the judiciary and notaries
notaries public for two years. public — officers who are necessarily members of the bar. Investigating human rights
Complainant Victor C. Lingan filed his motion for reconsideration, praying complaints are performed primarily by the Commission's legal officer. Discussing
that respondents be disbarred, not merely suspended from the practice of law. In the immediate courses of action and protection remedies and reviewing and approving
resolution dated September 6, 2006, this court denied complainant Lingan's motion for draft resolutions of human rights cases prepared by the legal officer require the use of
reconsideration for lack of merit. extensive legal knowledge.
On March 22, 2007, Atty. Baliga, also the Regional Director of the All told, performing the functions of a Commission on Human Rights
Commission on Human Rights Regional Office for Region II, filed the undated ex Regional Director constituted practice of law. Atty. Baliga should have desisted from
parte clarificatory pleading with leave of court. holding his position as Regional Director.
In his ex parte clarificatory pleading, Atty. Baliga alleged that on July 14, The Commission on Human Rights erred in issuing the resolution dated April
2006, complainant Lingan wrote the Commission on Human Rights. Lingan requested 13, 2007. This resolution caused Atty. Baliga to reassume his position as Regional
the Commission to investigate Atty. Baliga following the latter's suspension from the Director/Attorney VI despite lack of authority to practice law.
practice of law. We remind the Commission on Human Rights that we have the exclusive
After this court had suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law, the jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. The Commission cannot, by mere
Commission on Human Rights En Banc issued the resolution dated January 16, 2007, resolutions and other issuances, modify or defy this court's orders of suspension from
suspending him from his position as Director/Attorney VI of the Commission on the practice of law. Although the Commission on Human Rights has the power to
Human Rights Regional Office for Region II. According to the Commission on Human appoint its officers and employees, it can only retain those with the necessary
Rights En Banc, Atty. Baliga's suspension from the practice of law "prevent[ed] [him] qualifications in the positions they are holding. As for Atty. Baliga, we remind him
from assuming his post [as Regional Director] for want of eligibility in the meantime that the practice of law is a "privilege burdened with
that his authority to practice law is suspended.
Complainant Lingan claimed that the discharge of the functions of a
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director necessarily required the practice of
law. A Commission on Human Rights Regional Director must be a member of the bar
and is designated as Attorney VI. Since this court suspended Atty. Baliga from the
practice of law, Atty. Baliga was in effect "a non-lawyer . . . and [was] disqualified to
AGUIRRE v RANA MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he had "authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to
TOPIC: RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW represent him" before the MBEC and similar bodies.
On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also "retained"
DOCTRINE: The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a respondent as her counsel. On the same date, 14 May 2001, Erly D. Hao informed the
privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications MBEC that "Atty. Edwin L. Rana has been authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the
duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of legal counsel of the party and the candidate of the said party." Respondent himself
integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he was entering his "appearance as counsel for
is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law Mayoralty Candidate Emily Estipona- Hao and for the REFORMA LM-PPC." On 19
simply by passing the even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in the petition filed before
person seeking admission had practiced law without a license. the MBEC praying for the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for
mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.
FACTS: On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of All these happened even before respondent took the lawyer's oath. Clearly,
successful bar examinees as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie respondent engaged in the practice of law without being a member of the Philippine
Aguirre ("complainant") filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to Bar.
the Bar. Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in
Complainant charged respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do
misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. The Court allowed so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent
respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar during the scheduled oath-taking on called himself "counsel" knowing fully well that he was not a member of the Bar.
22 May 2001 at the Philippine International Convention Center. However, the Court Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no authority to practice law,
ruled that respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of the respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
charge against him. Thus, respondent took the lawyer's oath on the scheduled date but
has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now.
Complainant charges respondent for unauthorized practice of law and grave
misconduct. Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as
counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of
Election Canvassers ("MBEC") of Mandaon, Masbate. Complainant further alleges
that respondent filed with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal
Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office
of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent represented himself as "counsel for and in
behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan," and signed the pleading as
counsel for George Bunan ("Bunan").

ISSUE: Respondent engaged in unauthorized practice of law

HELD: YES. Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. However, the
records show that respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22 May 2001,
before respondent took the lawyer's oath.
In the pleading entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing
of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001,
respondent signed as "counsel for George Bunan." In the first paragraph of the same
pleading respondent stated that he was the "(U)ndersigned Counsel for, and in behalf
of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, GEORGE T. BUNAN." Bunan himself wrote the
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance record, he could
MEDADO, no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid justication. At that point, Medado
TOPIC: ADMISSION TO THE BAR should have known that he was not a full-edged member of the Philippine Bar because
of his failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, as it was the act of signing therein that
DOCTRINE: While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from would have made him so.
the legal consequences of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law When, in spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law without
cannot be utilized as a lawful justication, because everyone is presumed to know the taking the necessary steps to complete all the requirements for admission to the Bar, he
law and its consequences. Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat. willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by one's assuming to be an
FACTS: Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with the degree of attorney or ofcer of the court, and acting as such without authority, may constitute
Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and passed the same year's bar examinations with a general indirect contempt of court, which is punishable by ne or imprisonment or both. Such a
weighted average of 82.7. nding, however, is in the nature of criminal contempt and must be reached after the
On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney's Oath at the Philippine International ling of charges and the conduct of hearings. In this case, while it appears quite clearly
ConventionCenter (PICC) together with the successful bar examinees. He was that petitioner committed indirect contempt of court by knowingly engaging in
scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but he failed to do so on unauthorized practice of law, we refrain from making any nding of liability for indirect
his scheduled date, allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of contempt, as no formal charge pertaining thereto has been filed against him.
Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went home to his province for a vacation. Turning now to the applicable penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have
Several years later, while rummaging through his old college les, Medado warranted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. As Medado is not yet a
found the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was then that he realized that he had full-edged lawyer, we cannot suspend him from the practice of law. However, we see
not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was it t to impose upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the
probably just an attendance record. Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of this Resolution. For his transgression of
By the time Medado found the notice, he was already working. He stated that the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law, we likewise see it t to ne him
he was mainly doing corporate and taxation work, and that he was not actively in the amount of P32,000. During the one year period, petitioner is warned that he is
involved in litigation practice. Thus, he operated "under the mistaken belief [that] not allowed to engage in the practice of law, and is sternly warned that doing any act
since he ha[d] already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as that constitutes practice of law before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be
urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer"; and "the matter of signing in the Roll dealt with severely by this Court.
of Attorneys lost its urgency and compulsion, and was subsequently forgotten."
In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his roll number in order for his MCLE
compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable
to provide his roll number.
About seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado led the instant
Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.

ISSUE:

HELD: While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the
legal consequences of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law
cannot be utilized as a lawful justication, because everyone is presumed to know the
law and its consequences. Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
Applying these principles to the case at bar, Medado may have at rst operated
under an honest mistake of fact when he thought that what he had signed at the PICC
entrance before the oath-taking was already the Roll of Attorneys. However, the
MERCULLO & MEDANO v RAMON informed them that the redemption was under process, and that the certificate of
TOPIC: RULE 1.01 redemption would be issued in two to three weeks time.
After communicating through text messages with the respondent, Verlita and
DOCTRINE: Evil intent was not essential in order to bring the unlawful act or Raymond finally went to see the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court in
omission of the respondent within the coverage of Rule 1. 01 of the Code of Caloocan City On November 27, 2013 to inquire on the status of the redemption.
Professional Responsibility. The Code exacted from her not only a firm respect for the There, they discovered that the respondent had not deposited the redemption price and
law and legal processes but also the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing had not filed the letter of intent for redeeming the property.
with clients and the moneys entrusted by them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship. On December 5, 2013, Verlita and Raymond again went to Branch 145 of the
Regional Trial Court in Makati City where the respondent had a hearing, and handed
FACTS: In the period from 2002 to 2011, the National Home Mortgage Finance to her their demand letter requiring her to return the amount she had received for the
Corporation (NHMFC) sent several demand letters to Carmelita T. Vedaño regarding redemption. She acknowledged the letter and promised to return the money on
her unpaid obligations secured by the mortgage covering her residential property in December 16, 2013 by depositing the amount in Verlita's bank account. However, she
Novaliches, Caloocan City. To avoid the foreclosure of the mortgage, Carmelita did not fulfill her promise and did not show up for her subsequent scheduled hearings
authorized her children, Verlita Mercullo and Raymond Vedaño (complainants herein), in Branch 145.
to inquire from the NHMFC about the status of the obligations. Verlita and Raymond
learned that their mother's arrears had amounted to P350,000.00, and that the matter of ISSUE: With their attempts to reach the respondent being in vain, Verlita and
the mortgage was under the charge of respondent Atty. Ramon, but who was not Raymond brought their disbarment complaint in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
around at that time. (IBP).
On June 20, 2012, Carmelita received a letter from the sheriff of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) in Caloocan City, stating that her property would be put up for HELD: The Court declares the respondent guilty of dishonesty and deceit.
auction in July 2013. Verlita and Raymond thus went to the NHMFC to see the The Lawyer's Oath is a source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer.
respondent, who advised them about their right to redeem the property within one year Any violation of the oath may be punished with either disbarment, or suspension from
from the foreclosure. the practice of law, or other commensurate disciplinary action.Every lawyer must at no
In August 2013, Verlita and Raymond called up the respondent, and time be wanting in probity and moral fiber which are not only conditions precedent to
expressed their intention to redeem the property by paying the redemption price. The his admission to the Bar, but are also essential for his continued membership in the
latter agreed and scheduled an appointment with them on August Law Profession. Any conduct unbecoming of a lawyer constitutes a violation of his
30,2013. oath.
On August 30, 2013, the respondent arrived at the designated meeting place at The respondent certainly transgressed the Lawyer's Oath by receiving money
around 1:30 p.m., carrying the folder that Verlita and Raymond had seen at the from the complainants after having made them believe that she could assist them in
NHFMC when they inquired on the status of their mother's property. After the ensuring the redemption in their mother's behalf. She was convincing about her ability
respondent had oriented them on the procedure for redemption, the complainants to work on the redemption because she had worked in the NHFMC. She did not inform
handed P350,000.00 to the respondent, who signed an acknowledgment receipt. The them soon enough, however, that she had meanwhile ceased to be connected with the
respondent issued two acknowledgment receipts for the redemption price and for agency. It was her duty to have so informed them. She further misled them about her
litigation expenses, presenting to the complainants her NHMFC identification card. ability to realize the redemption by falsely informing them about having started the
Before leaving them, she promised to inform them as soon as the documents for redemption process. She concealed from them the real story that she had not even
redemption were ready for their mother’s signature. initiated the redemption proceedings that she had assured them she would do.
On September 4, 2013, the respondent met with Verlita and handed a letter Everything she did was dishonest and deceitful in order to have them part with the
that she had signed, along with the special power of attorney (SPA) for Carmelita's substantial sum of P350,000.00. She took advantage of the complainants who had
signature. reposed their full trust and confidence in her ability to perform the task by virtue of her
Verlita and Raymond went to the NHMFC on September 9, 2013 to follow up being a lawyer. Surely, the totality of her actuations inevitably eroded public trust in
on the redemption, but discovered that the respondent had already ceased to be the Legal Profession.
connected with the NHMFC. On September 20, 2013, they met with her at Branch 145
of the Regional Trial Court in Makati City where she was attending a hearing. She
NULADA v PAULMA any conduct, in his professional or private capacity, which renders him unfit to
TOPIC: MORAL TURPITUDE continue to be an officer of the court.
In this case, respondent's conviction for violation of BP 22, a crime involving
DOCTRINE: Clearly, the issuance of worthless checks in violation of BP Blg. 22 moral turpitude, had been indubitably established. Such conviction has, in fact, already
indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such become final. Consequently, respondent violated the lawyer’s oath, as well as Rule
lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, as aptly found by the IBP and, thus, must be subjected to
confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. disciplinary action.

FACTS: Complainant alleged that on September 30, 2005, respondent issued in his
favor a check in the amount of P650,000.00 as payment for the latter's debt. Because
of respondent's standing as a respected member of the community and his being a
member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Miagao, Province of Iloilo,
complainant accepted the check without question.
Unfortunately, when he presented the check for payment, it was dishonored
due to insufficient fluids. Respondent failed to make good the amount of the check
despite notice of dishonor and repeated demands, prompting complainant to file a
criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22 against
respondent, before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Province of Iloilo, docketed
as I.S. No. 2006-637, which issued a Resolution dated May 26, 2006 recommending
the filing of the appropriate information against respondent before the Municipal Trial
Court of Miagao, Province of Iloilo (MTC). Subsequently, said information was
docketed as Criminal Case No. 2604.
Prior to the promulgation of the RTC Decision, or on February 12, 2009,
complainant filed this administrative complaint before the Court, through the Office of
the Bar Confidant. In his defense, respondent denied that he committed dishonesty
against complainant, as prior to September 30, 2005, he informed the latter that there
were insufficient funds to cover the amount of the check. Respondent claimed that he
merely issued the check in order to accommodate a friend in whose favor he obtained
the loan, stressing that he did not personally benefit from the proceeds thereof.
Unfortunately, said friend had died and respondent had no means by which to pay for
the amount of the check. He also claimed that complainant threatened him and used his
unfunded check to the latter's personal advantage.

ISSUE: whether or not respondent should be administratively disciplined for having

been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.

HELD: The Court sustains the findings and conclusions of the CBD of the IBP, as
approved, adopted, and modified by the IBP Board of Governors.
Canon 1 of the CPR mandates all members of the bar "to obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law x x x." Rule 1.01 thereof specifically provides that
"[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." By
taking the lawyer's oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of the law and an indispensable
instrument for the orderly administration of justice. As such, he can be disciplined for
HERNANDEZ v PADILLA Professional Responsibility (the Code). He recommended that respondent be
TOPIC: RULE 18.02 suspended from practicing law from 3 to 6 months.

DOCTRINE: Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal ISSUE: This is a disbarment case filed by Emilia Hernandez (complainant) against her
matter without adequate preparation. While it is true that respondent was not lawyer, Atty. Venancio B. Padilla (respondent) of Padilla Padilla Bautista Law
complainants lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this fact did not excuse Offices, for his alleged negligence in the handling of her case.
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 pertinent matters involved, as he was approached by HELD: We adopt the factual findings of the board of governors of the IBP. This
complainants husband only two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Court, however, disagrees with its Decision to reduce the penalty to one-month
Appellants Brief, respondent should have filed a motion for extension of time to file suspension. We thus affirm the six-month suspension the Board originally imposed in
the proper pleading instead of whatever pleading he could come up with, just to beat its 28 August 2010 Resolution.
the deadline set by the Court of Appeals. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship
and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause.
FACTS: On 9 September 2005, complainant filed an Affidavit of Complaint with the Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyers duty to serve the
Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), seeking client with competence and diligence. Respondent has failed to fulfill this duty.
the disbarment of respondent on the following grounds: deceit, malpractice, and grave According to respondent, he merely drafted the pleading that complainants husband
misconduct. Complainant prays for moral damages in the amount of ₱350,000. asked from him. Respondent also claims that he filed a Memorandum of Appeal,
Through an Order dated 12 September 2005, Director of Bar Discipline because he honestly believed that this was the pleading required, based on what
Rogelio A. Vinluan ordered respondent to submit an answer to the Complaint. In his complainants husband said.
Counter-Affidavit/Answer, respondent prayed for the outright dismissal of the First of all, there were several remedies that respondent could have availed
Complaint. Respondent explained that he was not the lawyer of complainant. He himself of, from the moment he received the Notice from the CA to the moment he
averred that prior to the mandatory conference set by the IBP on 13 December 2005, received the disbarment Complaint filed against him. But because of his negligence, he
he had never met complainant, because it was her husband who had personally chose to sit on the case and do nothing.
transacted with him. According to respondent, the husband despondently pleaded to Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his clients of the status
me to prepare a Memorandum on Appeal because according to him the period given of their case. His failure to do so amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code
by the CA was to lapse within two or three days. Lastly, the failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment on
Thus, respondent claims that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because he Duigans Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his part. Under 18.03 of the Code, a
honestly believed that it is this pleading which was required. Before filing the lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the clients case.
Memorandum, respondent advised complainants husband to settle the case. The latter Respondent has failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer. When a lawyer
allegedly gestured approval of the advice. violates his duties to his client, he engages in unethical and unprofessional conduct for
After the husband of complainant picked up the Memorandum for filing, which he should be held accountable.
respondent never saw or heard from him again and thus assumed that the husband
heeded his advice and settled the case. When respondent received an Order from the
CA requiring him to file a comment on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Duigan, he
instructed his office staff to contact Mr. Hernandez thru available means of
communication, but to no avail.
Thus, when complainants husband went to the office of respondent to tell the
latter that the Sheriff of the RTC had informed complainant of the CAs Resolution
dismissing the case, respondent was just as surprised. The lawyer exclaimed, KALA
KO BA NAKIPAG AREGLO NA KAYO.
In his 5 January 2009 Report, IBP Investigating Commissioner Leland R.
Villadolid, Jr. found that respondent violated Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of
BENGCO v BERNARDO The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public
TOPIC: service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to
be a moneymaking venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields
DOCTRINE: It can not be overstressed that lawyers are instruments in the profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to
administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration
maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial themselves
system is ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined whether in their professional or in their
private capacity for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good
demeanor

FACTS: That sometime on or about the period from April 15, 1997 to July 22, 1997,
Atty. Pablo Bernardo with the help and in connivance and collusion with a certain
Andres Magat [wilfully] and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud
herein complainants Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco by using false
pretenses, deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of the land
belonging to the Miranda family of Tagaytay City who are the acquaintance of
complainants herein and they convinced herein complainant[s] that if they will finance
and deliver to him the amount of [P]495,000.00 as advance money he would expedite
the titling of the subject land and further by means of other similar deceit like
misrepresenting himself as lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the
subject land, who is the owner of Plastic City at Canomay Street, Valenzuela, Metro
Manila and he is the one handling William Gatchalians business transaction and that
he has contracts at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO and REGISTER OF DEEDS which
representation he well knew were false, fraudulent and were only made to induce the
complainant[s] to give and deliver the said amount ([P]495,000.00) and once in
possession of said amount, far from complying with his obligation to expedite and
cause the titling of the subject land, [wilfully], unlawfully and illegally
misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said amount to his personal use and
benefit and despite demand upon him to return the said amount, he failed and refused
to do so, which acts constitute deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of
the Bar and Violation of Duties and Oath as a lawyer.

ISSUE:

HELD: The Court adopts and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the IBP.
The Court has held that administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe.
The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the
institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability
of a lawyer. Otherwise, members of the bar would only be emboldened to disregard
the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private
complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being
completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for.
RAFOLS v BARRIOS, JR. On January 20, 1998, Judge Dizon, Jr. called up the complainants residence
TOPIC: and instructed their son to request his parents to return his call, leaving his cell phone
number. When Manuel returned the call the next day, the judge instructed Manuel to
DOCTRINE: The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened with conditions. The see him in his office. During their meeting in his chambers, the judge demanded the
attorney is a vanguard of our legal system, and, as such, is expected to maintain not balance of P30,000.00. Manuel clarified to the judge that his balance was only
only legal proficiency but also a very high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and P20,000.00 due to the previous amount given being already P80,000.00. The judge
fair dealing in order that the peoples faith and confidence in the legal system are informed him that the amount that the respondent handed was short. Saying that he
ensured. Thus, he must conduct himself, whether in dealing with his clients or with the badly needed the money, the judge insisted on P30,000.00, and even suggested that the
public at large, as to be beyond reproach at all times. Any violation of the high moral complainants should borrow in order to raise that amount.
standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition on the attorney of the On January 22, 1998, Judge Dizon, Jr. called the complainants to inquire
appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment. whether the P30,000.00 was ready for pick up. After Manuel replied that he was ready
with the amount, the judge asked him to wait for 20 minutes. The judge and his driver
FACTS: On December 22, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., the respondent visited the complainants later arrived on board his Nissan pick-up. Upon instructions of the judges driver, the
at their residence and informed complainant Manuel that the judge handling their case complainants followed the Nissan pick-up until somewhere inside the Doa Soledad
wanted to talk to him. The respondent and Manuel thus went to the East Royal Hotels Estate, Espina, General Santos City. There, the judge alighted and approached the
coffee shop where Judge Dizon, Jr. was already waiting. The respondent introduced complainants and shook their hands. At that point, Manuel handed P30,000.00 to the
Manuel to the judge, who informed Manuel that their case was pending in his sala. The judge. The judge then told Manuel that the RTC judge in Iloilo City before whom the
judge likewise said that he would resolve the case in their favor, assuring their success perpetuation of the testimony of Soledad Elevencionado-Provido was made should still
up to the Court of Appeals, if they could deliver P150,000.00 to him. As he had no testify as a witness during the trial in his sala in order for the complainants to win. The
money at that time, Manuel told the judge that he would try to produce the amount. judge persuaded the complainants to give money also to that judge; otherwise, they
The judge then stated that he would wait for the money until noon of that day. Thus, should not blame him for the outcome of the case.
Manuel left the coffee shop together with the respondent, who instructed Manuel to The complainants were forced to give money to the judge, because they
come up with the money before noon because the judge badly needed it. The two of feared that the judge would be biased against them unless they gave in to his demands.
them went to a lending institution, accompanied by Allan Rafols, but Manuel was told But when they ultimately sensed that they were being fooled about their case, they
there that only P50,000.00 could be released the next day. From the lending institution, consulted Larry Sevilla, their mediamen friend, and narrated to Sevilla all the facts and
they went to the complainants shop to look for Ditas Rafols, Allans wife, who offered circumstances surrounding the case. They agreed that the details should be released to
to withdraw P20,000.00 from her savings account. the media. The exposẻ was published in the Newsmaker, a local newspaper.
On their way to the bank, Manuel, Allan and Ditas dropped off the respondent Thereafter, the respondent and Judge Dizon, Jr. made several attempts to
at the hotel for the latter to assure Judge Dizon, Jr. that the money was forthcoming. appease the complainants by sending gifts and offering to return a portion of the
Afterwards, Ditas and Manuel withdrew P20,000.00 and P30,000.00 from their money, but the complainants declined the offers.
respective bank accounts, and went back to the hotel with the cash. There, they saw the
judge and his driver, who beckoned to them to go towards the judges Nissan pick-up ISSUE:
then parked along the highway in front of the hotel. Manuel alighted from his car and
approached the judge. Manuel personally handed the money to the judge, who told HELD: Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which governs the disbarment and
Manuel after asking about the amount that it was not enough. Thereafter, Manuel suspension of attorneys, provides:
entered the hotels coffee shop and informed the respondent that he had already handed Section 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court; grounds
the money to the judge. therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
On December 24, 1997, at about 6:00 a.m., the respondent again visited the attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
complainants. He was on board the judges Nissan pick-up driven by the judges driver. misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction
The respondent relayed to the complainants the message that the judge needed the for a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
balance of P100,000.00 in order to complete the construction of his new house in time required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
for the reception of his daughters wedding. However, the complainants managed to lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
raise only P80,000.00, which they delivered to the respondent on that same day. attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting
 cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or Any gross misconduct of an attorney in his professional or private capacity
brokers constitute malpractice. shows him unfit to manage the affairs of others, and is a ground for the imposition of
The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the the penalty of suspension or disbarment, because good moral character is an essential
shoulders of the complainant. The Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the qualification for the admission of an attorney and for the continuance of such
complainant establishes the complaint by clearly preponderant evidence that warrants privilege.
the imposition of the harsh penalty.
As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the
charges made against him until the contrary is proved. An attorney is further presumed
as an officer of the Court to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath.
Here, the complainants successfully overcame the respondents presumed
innocence and the presumed regularity in the performance of his duties as an attorney
of the complainants. The evidence against him was substantial, and was not
contradicted.
To begin with, the respondents denial of knowledge of the transaction
between the complainants and Judge Dizon, Jr. was not only implausible, but also
unsubstantiated. It was the respondent himself who had introduced the complainants to
the judge. His act of introducing the complainants to the judge strongly implied that
the respondent was aware of the illegal purpose of the judge in wanting to talk with the
respondents clients.
Secondly, the respondents insistence that he did not see the complainants act
of handing the money to the judge is unbelievable. In his comment, the respondent
even admitted having himself received the P80,000.00 from the complainants, and
having kept P30,000.00 of that amount pursuant to the instruction of the judge as a
token of the friendship between him and the judge.
Thirdly, his attempt to explain that the complainants had given the money to
the judge as a loan, far from softening our strong impression of the respondents
liability, confirmed his awareness of the gross impropriety of the transaction. Being
the complainants attorney in the civil case being heard before the judge, the respondent
could not but know that for the judge to borrow money from his clients was highly
irregular and outrightly unethical.
And, lastly, the OBC has pointed out that the respondents act of requesting
the NBI Regional Office in Davao City to investigate was an afterthought on his part.
We agree with the OBC, for the respondent obviously acted in order to anticipate the
complainants moves against him and the judge. To be sure, the respondent sensed that
the complainants would not simply forgive and forget the mulcting they had suffered
at the hands of the judge and their own attorney from the time that the complainants
assured him that they were no longer interested to get back their money despite their
being very angry at the judges greed.
Verily, the respondent was guilty of gross misconduct, which is improper or
wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent
and not mere error of judgment.
PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN case was docketed as Civil Case No. 0005 of the Second Division of the
TOPIC: RULE 6.03 Sandiganbayan.
In connection therewith, the PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on
DOCTRINE: It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its properties allegedly acquired by the above-named persons by taking advantage of their
strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers who switch sides. It is claimed that close relationship and influence with former President Marcos.
switching sides carries the danger that former government employee may compromise On February 5, 1991, the PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent
confidential official information in the process. But this concern does not cast a Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. with the Second Division of the
shadow in the case at bar. As afore-discussed, the act of respondent Mendoza in Sandiganbayan in Civil Case Nos. 0005 and 0096-0099. The motions alleged that
informing the Central Bank on the procedure how to liquidate GENBANK is a respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor General and counsel to Central Bank, actively
different matter from the subject matter of Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK, which was subsequently acquired by
sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank. Consequently, respondents Tan, et al. and became Allied Banking Corporation. Respondent Mendoza
the danger that confidential official information might be divulged is nil, if not allegedly intervened in the acquisition of GENBANK by respondents Tan, et al. when,
inexistent. To be sure, there are no inconsistent sides to be bothered about in the case in his capacity as then Solicitor General, he advised the Central Banks officials on the
at bar. For there is no question that in lawyering for respondents Tan, et al., respondent procedure to bring about GENBANKs liquidation and appeared as counsel for the
Mendoza is not working against the interest of Central Bank. Central Bank in connection with its petition for assistance in the liquidation of
On the contrary, he is indirectly defending the validity of the action of Central GENBANK which he filed with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court)
Bank in liquidating GENBANK and selling it later to Allied Bank. Their interests of Manila and was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 107812. The motions to
coincide instead of colliding. It is for this reason that Central Bank offered no disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03
objection to the lawyering of respondent Mendoza in Civil Case No. 0005 in defense prohibits former government lawyers from accepting engagement or employment in
of respondents Tan, et al. There is no switching of sides for no two sides are involved. connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
On April 22, 1991 the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan issued a
FACTS: GENBANK had extended considerable financial support to Filcapital resolution denying PCGGs motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza in Civil Case
Development Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current account No. 0005. It found that the PCGG failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency
with the Central Bank. It was later found by the Central Bank that GENBANK had between respondent Mendozas former function as Solicitor General and his present
approved various loans to directors, officers, stockholders and related interests totaling employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. It noted that respondent Mendoza did
P172.3 million, of which 59% was classified as doubtful and P0.505 million as not take a position adverse to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank during his term
uncollectible. as Solicitor General.
As a bailout, the Central Bank extended emergency loans to GENBANK It further ruled that respondent Mendozas appearance as counsel for
which reached a total of P310 million. Despite the mega loans, GENBANK failed to respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one-year prohibited period under Section 7(b)
recover from its financial woes. On March 25, 1977, the Central Bank issued a of Republic Act No. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986. The
resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and unable to resume business with safety said section prohibits a former public official or employee from practicing his
to its depositors, creditors and the general public, and ordering its liquidation. profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with within
A public bidding of GENBANKs assets was held from March 26 to 28, 1977, one year from his resignation, retirement or separation from public office. The PCGG
wherein the Lucio Tan group submitted the winning bid. Subsequently, former did not seek any reconsideration of the ruling.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition with the then Court of First
Instance praying for the assistance and supervision of the court in GENBANKs ISSUE: whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
liquidation as mandated by Section 29 of Republic Act No. 265. respondent Mendoza.
In February 1986, the EDSA I revolution toppled the Marcos government.
One of the first acts of President Corazon C. Aquino was to establish the Presidential HELD: The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in comprehending first, the meaning of
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of matter referred to in the rule and, second, the metes and bounds of the intervention
former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family and his cronies. Pursuant to this made by the former government lawyer on the matter. The American Bar Association
mandate, the PCGG, on July 17, 1987, filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for in its Formal Opinion 342, defined matter as any discrete, isolatable act as well as
reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against respondents. The identifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party,
and not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency Thirdly, we now slide to the metes and bounds of the intervention
procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law. contemplated by Rule 6.03. Intervene means.
Firstly, it is critical that we pinpoint the matter which was the subject of In fine, the intervention cannot be insubstantial and insignificant. Originally,
intervention by respondent Mendoza while he was the Solicitor General. The PCGG Canon 36 provided that a former government lawyer should not, after his retirement,
relates the following acts of respondent Mendoza as constituting the matter where he accept employment in connection with any matter which he has investigated or passed
intervened as a Solicitor General. upon while in such office or employ. As aforediscussed, the broad sweep of the phrase
Beyond doubt, therefore, the matter or the act of respondent Mendoza as which he has investigated or passed upon resulted in unjust disqualification of former
Solicitor General involved in the case at bar is advising the Central Bank, on how to government lawyers. The 1969 Code restricted its latitude, hence, in DR 9-101(b), the
proceed with the said banks liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation prohibition extended only to a matter in which the lawyer, while in the government
with the CFI of Manila. In fine, the Court should resolve whether his act of advising service, had substantial responsibility. The 1983 Model Rules further constricted the
the Central Bank on the legal procedure to liquidate GENBANK is included within the reach of the rule. MR 1.11(a) provides that a lawyer shall not represent a private client
concept of matter under Rule 6.03. in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and
We hold that this advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to substantially as a public officer or employee.
liquidate GENBANK is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear as daylight in
stressing that the drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures,
regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall
within the scope of the term matter and cannot disqualify.
Secondly, it can even be conceded for the sake of argument that the above act
of respondent Mendoza falls within the definition of matter per ABA Formal Opinion
No. 342. Be that as it may, the said act of respondent Mendoza which is the matter
involved in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is entirely different from the matter involved in Civil
Case No. 0096. Again, the plain facts speak for themselves. It is given that respondent
Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the Central Bank to liquidate
GENBANK. It is also given that he did not participate in the sale of GENBANK to
Allied Bank. The matter where he got himself involved was in informing Central Bank
on the procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts and in filing
the necessary petition in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 in the then Court of First Instance. The
subject matter of Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore, is not the same nor is related to but
is different from the subject matter in Civil Case No. 0096. Civil Case No. 0096
involves the sequestration of the stocks owned by respondents Tan, et al., in Allied
Bank on the alleged ground that they are ill-gotten. The case does not involve the
liquidation of GENBANK. Nor does it involve the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank.
Whether the shares of stock of the reorganized Allied Bank are ill-gotten is far
removed from the issue of the dissolution and liquidation of GENBANK. GENBANK
was liquidated by the Central Bank due, among others, to the alleged banking
malpractices of its owners and officers. In other words, the legality of the liquidation
of GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the
PCGG does not include the dissolution and liquidation of banks. It goes without saying
that Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent
Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a
Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter different from
the matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096.
ALI v BUBONG misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect his qualification as a
TOPIC: CANON 6.02 lawyer or to show moral 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
DOCTRINE: The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for infractions he
lawyer simply because he has joined the government service. In fact, by the express committed as a government official, he may, however, be disciplined as a lawyer if his
provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the conduct of lawyers shall apply to misconduct constitutes a violation of his oath a member of the legal profession.
lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks. Thus, where a In the case at bar, respondents grave misconduct, as established by the Office
lawyers misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect his of the President and subsequently affirmed by this Court, deals with his qualification
qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as as a lawyer. By taking advantage of his office as the Register of Deeds of Marawi City
a member of the bar on such grounds. Although the general rule is that a lawyer who and employing his knowledge of the rules governing land registration for the benefit of
holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for his relatives, respondent had clearly demonstrated his unfitness not only to perform the
infractions he committed as a government official, he may, however, be disciplined as functions of a civil servant but also to retain his membership in the bar. Rule 6.02 of
a lawyer if his misconduct constitutes a violation of his oath a member of the legal the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on this matter. It reads:
profession Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
FACTS: On 26 February 1993, former President Fidel V. Ramos issued public duties.
Administrative Order No. 41 adopting in toto the conclusion reached by Secretary Respondents conduct manifestly undermined the peoples confidence in the public
Drilon and ordering respondents dismissal from government service. Respondent office he used to occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of the legal profession. The ill-
subsequently questioned said administrative order before this Court through a petition conceived use of his knowledge of the intricacies of the law calls for nothing less than
for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition claiming that the Office of the President did the withdrawal of his privilege to practice law.
not have the authority and jurisdiction to remove him from office. He also insisted that
respondents in that petition violated the laws on security of tenure and that respondent
Reynaldo V. Maulit, then the administrator of the LRA committed a breach of Civil
Service Rules when he abdicated his authority to resolve the administrative complaint
against him (herein respondent).
In a Resolution dated 15 September 1994, we dismissed the petition for
failure on the part of petitioner to sufficiently show that public respondent committed
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned order. Respondent thereafter filed a
motion for reconsideration which was denied with finality in our Resolution of 15
November 1994. On the basis of the outcome of the administrative case, complainant
is now before us, seeking the disbarment of respondent. Complainant claims that it has
become obvious that respondent had proven himself unfit to be further entrusted with
the duties of an attorney and that he poses a serious threat to the integrity of the legal
profession.

ISSUE: whether respondent may be disbarred for grave misconduct committed while
he was in the employ of the government.

HELD: We resolve this question in the affirmative.

The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a lawyer
simply because he has joined the government service. In fact, by the express provision
of Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the conduct of lawyers shall apply to lawyers
in government service in the discharge of their official tasks. Thus, where a lawyers
ABELLA v BARRIOS JR. acceded on the condition that respondent would have to wait until he had already
TOPIC: CANON 1 AND 6 collected from PT&T. Before complainant could leave, respondent asked him for some
cash, compelling him to give the latter ₱1,500.00.
DOCTRINE: To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a condition
precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain ISSUE: whether respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules
membership in the legal profession."This proceeds from the lawyer’s duty to observe 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.
the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar’s integrity. Consequently, HELD: The Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of Commissioner
any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyer’s public or private Limpingco as adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.
activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the Code,
demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment. delineate the lawyer’s responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding
prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
FACTS: On January 21, 1999, complainant filed an illegal dismissal case against deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or
Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (PT&T) before the Cebu City proceeding or delaying any man’s cause for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile,
Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) of the National Labor Relations Commission Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in government service, enjoining them
(NLRC), docketed as RAB-VII-01-0128-99. Finding merit in the complaint, Labor from using one’s public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private
Arbiter (LA) Ernesto F. Carreon, through a Decision dated May 13, 1999, ordered interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties. It is well to note
PT&T to pay complainant ₱113,100.00 as separation pay and ₱73,608.00 as that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member of the
backwages. Dissatisfied, PT&T appealed the LA’s Decision to the NLRC. In a Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
Decision dated September 12, 2001, the NLRC set aside LA Carreon’s ruling and To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a condition
instead ordered PT&T to reinstate complainant to his former position and pay him precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
backwages, as well as 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, including moral membership in the legal profession."This proceeds from the lawyer’s duty to observe
damages and attorney’s fees. On reconsideration, it modified the amounts of the the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar’s integrity. Consequently,
aforesaid monetary awards but still maintained that complainant was illegally any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyer’s public or private
dismissed.Consequently, PT&T filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good
Appeals (CA). demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.
In a Decision dated September 18, 2003 (CA Decision), the CA affirmed the In this case, records show that respondent was merely tasked to recompute the
NLRC’s ruling with modification, ordering PT&T to pay complainant separation pay monetary awards due to the complainant who sought to execute the CA Decision
in lieu of reinstatement. Complainant moved for partial reconsideration, claiming that which had already been final and executory. When complainant moved for execution –
all his years of service were not taken into account in the computation of his separation twice at that – respondent slept on the same for more than a year. It was only when
pay and backwages. The CA granted the motion and thus, remanded the case to the LA complainant paid respondent a personal visit on November 4, 2005 that the latter
for the same purpose. On July 19, 2004, the CA Decision became final and executory. speedily issued a writ of execution three (3) days after, or on November 7, 2005.
Complainant alleged that he filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Based on these incidents, the Court observes that the sudden dispatch in respondent’s
Execution before the Cebu City RAB on October 25, 2004. At this point, the case had action soon after the aforesaid visit casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of his denial,
already been assigned to the new LA, herein respondent. After the lapse of five (5) i.e., that he did not extort money from the complainant.
months, complainant’s motion remained unacted, prompting him to file a Second
Motion for Execution on March 3, 2005. Eight (8) months thereafter, still, there was
no action on complainant’s motion. Thus, on November 4, 2005, complainant
proceeded to respondent’s office to personally follow-up the matter. In the process,
complainant and respondent exchanged notes on how much the former’s monetary
awards should be; however, their computations differed. To complainant’s surprise,
respondent told him that the matter could be "easily fixed" and thereafter, asked "how
much is mine?" Despite his shock, complainant offered the amount of ₱20,000.00, but
respondent replied: "make it ₱30,000.00." By force of circumstance, complainant
VILLATUYA v TABALINGCOS
TOPIC: ENGAGE IN BUSINESS HELD:
(1) While we affirm the IBP’s dismissal of the first charge against respondent, we do
DOCTRINE: A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful not concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge of complainant against
occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is respondent for the nonpayment of the former’s share in the fees, if proven to be
conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member true is based on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.0245 of the Code of
of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily lend Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree
itself to the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that can be to divide the fees for legal services rendered with a person not licensed to practice
used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of a nature that, if law. Based on the allegations, respondent had agreed to share with complainant the
handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law. legal fees paid by clients that complainant solicited for the respondent.
Complainant, however, failed to proffer convincing evidence to prove the
FACTS: Complainant averred that on February 2002, he was employed by respondent existence of that agreement.
as a financial consultant to assist the latter on technical and financial matters in the (2) It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi &
latter’s numerous petitions for corporate rehabilitation filed with different courts. Jane Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was
Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby he would be entitled indeed a vehicle used by respondent as a means to procure professional
to ₱ 50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases. Annex "C"49 of the
addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. He alleged that, from Complaint is a letterhead of Jesi & Jane. Rule 15.0850 of the Code mandates that
February to December 2002, respondent was able to rake in millions of pesos from the the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the former is acting as a
corporate rehabilitation cases they were working on together. Complainant also lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations related to
claimed that he was entitled to the amount of ₱ 900,000 for the Stay Orders issued by the practice of law. The reason is that certain ethical considerations governing the
the courts as a result of his work with respondent, and a total of ₱4,539,000 from the attorney-client relationship may be operative in one and not in the other. In this
fees paid by their clients.Complainant appended to his Complaint several annexes case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether respondent is offering
supporting the computation of the fees he believes are due him. Complainant alleged consultancy or legal services. Considering, however, that complainant has not
that respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases in violation of Section 27 of proven the degree of prevalence of this practice by respondent, we affirm the
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Allegedly respondent set up two financial recommendation to reprimand the latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the
consultancy firms, Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc., Code.
and used them as fronts to advertise his legal services and solicit cases. Complainant (3) What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into
supported his allegations by attaching to his Position Paper the Articles of marriage twice while his first marriage was still subsisting. Respondent exhibited a
Incorporation of Jesi and Jane, letter-proposals to clients signed by respondent on deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar.
various dates and proofs of payment made to the latter by their clients. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and
On the third charge of gross immorality, complainant accused respondent of dignity. His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct
committing two counts of bigamy for having married two other women while his first and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules
marriage was subsisting. He submitted a Certification dated 13 July 2005 issued by the of Court
Office of the Civil Registrar General-National Statistics Office (NSO) certifying that
Bede S. Tabalingcos, herein respondent, contracted marriage thrice: first, on 15 July
1980 with Pilar M. Lozano, which took place in Dasmarinas, Cavite; the second time
on 28 September 1987 with Ma. Rowena Garcia Piñon in the City of Manila; and the
third on 07 September 1989 with Mary Jane Elgincolin Paraiso in Ermita, Manila.

ISSUES: w/n the ff charge are correct

(1) Dishonesty for nonpayment of share in the fees
(2) Unlawful solicitation of clients
(3) Bigamy
ADVINCULA v ADVICULA medical practice here was not lucrative; that he supported his wife's nursing school
TOPIC: GOOD MORAL CHARACTER expenses; that Dr. Advincula left for the United States of America (USA) to work as a
DOCTRINE: The good moral conduct or character must be possessed by lawyers at nurse; that the custody of their children was not entrusted to him but he agreed to such
the time of their application for admission to the Bar, and must be maintained until arrangement to avoid further division of the family; that during the same period he was
retirement from the practice of law. also busy with his law studies; that Dr. Advincula proposed that he and their children
FACTS: In her complaint, Dr. Advincula has averred that Atty. Advincula committed migrate to the USA but he opposed the proposal because he would not be able to
unlawful and immoral acts; that while Atty. Advincula was still married to her, he had practice his profession there; that Dr. Advincula stated that if he did not want to join
extra-marital sexual relations with Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga (Ms. Gonzaga); that the her, then she would just get the children to live with her; that when Dr. Advincula
extra-marital relations bore a child in the name of Ma. Alexandria Gonzaga Advincula came home for a vacation he was not able to accompany her due to his extremely busy
(Alexandria); that Atty. Advincula failed to give financial support to their own schedule as Chief Legal Staff of the General Prosecution Division of the National
children, namely: Ma. Samantha Paulina, Ma. Andrea Lana, and Jose Leandro, despite Bureau of Investigation; and that when they finally met arguments flared out, during
his having sufficient financial resources; that he admitted in the affidavit of late which she threatened to file a disbarment suit against him in order to force him to
registration of birth of Alexandria that he had contracted another marriage with Ms. allow her to bring their children to the USA.
Gonzaga; that even should Atty. Advincula prove that his declaration in the affidavit ISSUE: Atty. Advincula prayed that the disbarment case be dismissed for utter lack of
of late registration of birth was motivated by some reason other than the fact that he merit.
truly entered into a subsequent marriage with Ms. Gonzaga, then making such a HELD: Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer, being an officer of the Court,
declaration was in itself still unlawful; that siring a child with a woman other than his must not only be in fact of good moral character, but must also be seen to be of good
lawful wife was conduct way below the standards of morality required of every moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
lawyer; that contracting a subsequent marriage while the first marriage had not been community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the Court is
dissolved was also an unlawful conduct; that making a false declaration before a required not only to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but
notary public was an unlawful conduct punishable under the Revised Penal Code; and also to conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that
that the failure of Atty. Advincula to provide proper support to his children showed his he is flouting those moral standards. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable
moral character to be below the standards set by law for every lawyer.Dr. Advincula profession and attain its basic ideals, whoever is enrolled in its ranks should not only
prayed that Atty. Advincula be disbarred. master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing
In his answer, Atty. Advincula denied the accusations. He asserted that during fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as
the subsistence of his marriage with Dr. Advincula but prior to the birth of their far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Immoral
youngest Jose Leandro, their marital relationship had deteriorated; that they could not conduct has been described as conduct that is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to
agree on various matters concerning their family, religion, friends, and respective show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
careers; that Dr. Advincula abandoned the rented family home with the two children to To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but
live with her parents; that despite their separation, he regularly gave financial support grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or
to Dr. Advincula and their children; that during their separation, he got into a brief so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such
relationship with Ms. Gonzaga; and that he did not contract a second marriage with scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
Ms. Gonzaga. Atty. Advincula further acknowledged that as a result of the relationship Yet, we cannot sanction Atty. Advincula with the same gravity. Although his
with Ms. Gonzaga, a child was bom and named Alexandra; that in consideration of his siring the child with a woman other than his legitimate wife constituted immorality, he
moral obligation as a father, he gave support to Alexandra; that he only learned that committed the immoral conduct when he was not yet a lawyer. The degree of his
the birth of Alexandra had been subsequently registered after the child was already immoral conduct was not as grave than if he had committed the immorality when
enrolled in school; that it was Ms. Gonzaga who informed him that she had the birth already a member of the Philippine Bar. Even so, he cannot escape administrative
certificate of Alexandria altered by a fixer in order to enroll the child; that he strived to liability. Taking all the circumstances of this case into proper context, the Court
reunite his legitimate family, resulting in a reconciliation that begot their third child, considers suspension from the practice of law for three months to be condign and
Jose Leandro; that Dr. Advincula once again decided to live with her parents, bringing appropriate.
all of their children along; that nevertheless, he continued to provide financial support
to his family and visited the children regularly; that Dr. Advincula intimated to him
that she had planned to take up nursing in order to work as a nurse abroad because her
VIOLETA FLORES ALITAGTAG v ATTY. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA HELD: YES. However, as to the issue of falsification of the subject deed of donation,
TOPIC: CANON 7 a review of the records at hand shows that there is no clear and convincing evidence to
prove that respondent is the author of the forged signature of the donor or that he
DOCTRINE: Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a actively participated or conspired with any party in forging the said signature as it
lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, appears in the questioned deed of donation. The only proven link respondent has to the
nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the falsified deed is the fact that he notarized it. The Court agrees with the observation of
discredit of the legal profession. By engaging in acts that undermine recognition of and the Investigating
respect for legal processes, respondent has clearly committed conduct that adversely Commissioner of the IBP that there is no proof that respondent knew that the signature
reflects on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. of Cesar Flores appearing on the deed of donation was falsified. Complainant never
disputed respondent's claim that the deed of donation was already signed when
FACTS: It appears that Atty. Garcia notarized the Deed of Donation covering a parcel personally handed to him by Cesar Flores, Sr. There is no reason shown why
of land. When said document was examined by the PNP Laboratory upon complaint of respondent should have doubted that the donor's signature was forged. Moreover, the
Violeta Flores Alitagtag, it certified that the questioned signature in the Deed of fact that respondent was later on given a special power of attorney to administer and
Donation and the standard signatures of the deceased donor, Caesar B. Flores, “WERE sell the property covered by the forged deed of donation does not prove his
NOT WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON”. Hence, the Deed of participation in the falsification of the said deed. Records reveal that there is a gap of
Donation was declared falsified and thus, null and void by the lower court. more than five years between the date of notarization of the subject deed of donation
In essence, respondent reiterates his innocence by denying authorship and on September 19, 1991 and the execution of the special power of attorney in favor of
participation in the falsification of the subject deed of donation. However, he admits respondent on November 7, 1996. If respondent was indeed part of a scheme to
his negligence and expresses remorse for his failure to diligently perform his duties as defraud the other children of Cesar Flores, we find it illogical that he and his cohorts
notary public with respect to the notarization of the said deed of donation. Respondent would wait that long for him to be given the power of attorney to dispose of the subject
pleads for compassion and mercy and asks that the Court be more lenient in imposing property.
penalty for the In sum, complainant failed to discharge her burden of proving the liability of
infractions he has committed. respondent with respect to the falsification of the questioned deed of donation.
There is no question that respondent was remiss in the performance of his Suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough to warrant the disbarment of
duties as a notary public. In fact, there is preponderance of evidence showing that he respondent.
subverted the clear provisions of Section 1 3 of Public Act 2103, otherwise known as Thus, taking into consideration the foregoing jurisprudence, the totality of the
"An Act Providing for the Acknowledgement and Authentication of Instruments and acts of misconduct proven to have been committed by herein respondent, his
Documents within the Philippine Islands" and Section 246 4 of Act 2711, otherwise admission of negligence, plea for compassion and the fact that this is his first offense,
known as the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. the Court finds it proper to reconsider the penalty imposed. Nonetheless, the Court
Respondent is likewise found guilty of harassing the occupants of the reiterates the principle that where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility
property subject of the donation by asking Meralco to disconnect its services to the is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no
property and by posting security guards to intimidate the said occupants. These acts do falsehood or consent to the doing of any. The penalty of suspension, both from
not speak well of his standing as a member of the bar. Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code respondent's practice of law and from his commission as a notary public is apropos to
of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that the offenses he committed.
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. By
engaging in acts that undermine recognition of and respect for legal processes,
respondent has clearly committed conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to be a
member of the legal profession.

ISSUE: disbarred?
ATTY. IRENEO L. TORRES v ATTY. JOSE CONCEPCION JAVIER A matter, however, to which the privilege does not extend must be so
TOPIC: CANON 8 palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable
man can doubt its irrelevancy or impropriety. That matter alleged in a pleading need
DOCTRINE: In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language not be in every case material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It must,
must be dignified and choice of language is important in the preparation of pleadings. however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the
In the assertion of his client's rights, a lawyer — even one gifted with superior intellect controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of the trial.
— is enjoined to rein up his temper. The issue in the attorney's fees case was whether the 10% attorney's fees
"checked off” from the initial backwages/salaries of UEFA members is legal. Clearly,
FACTS: The charges stemmed from the statements/remarks made by respondent in the above-quoted statements of respondent in the immediately preceding paragraph
the pleadings he filed in a petition for audit of all funds of the University of the East cannot be said to be relevant or pertinent to the issue. That Atty. Torres may have
Faculty Association (UEFA), as counsel for the therein petitioners UEFA then conducted himself improperly is not a justification for respondent to be relieved from
Treasurer Rosamarie Laman, and his wife-former UEFA President Eleonor Javier, observing professional conduct in his relations with Atty. Torres.
before the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), Department of Labor and Employment Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants, so whatever may be the ill-feeling
(DOLE) against herein complainants, docketed as NCR-OD-0105-004-LRD (audit existing between clients should not be allowed to influence counsel in their conduct
case), and from the pleadings filed by respondent in another labor case as counsel for toward each other or toward suitors in the case.
the one hundred seventy six (176) faculty members of the University of the East In the attorney's fees case, Atty. Torres was acting as counsel for himself as
complainants against herein complainant Atty. Ireneo L. Torres, et al., docketed as respondent and complainant was acting as counsel for his wife as complainant.
NCR-0D-0201-0005-LRD (attorney's fees case). Although it is understandable, if not justifiable, that in the defense of one's clients —
Respondent adds that he merely wanted to bring to the BLR's attention that especially of one’s wife or of one's self, the zeal in so doing may be carried out to the
Atty. Torres had the habit of hurling baseless accusations against his wife to embarrass point of undue skepticism and doubts as to the motives of opposing counsel, the
her, including one for unjust vexation and another for collection and damages both of spectacle presented by two members of the bar engaged in bickering and recrimination
which were dismissed after trial on the merits, thus prompting him to state that "these is far from edifying, and detract from the dignity of the legal profession.
dismissed cases indubitably indicate Atty. Torres' pattern of mental dishonesty." In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language must
Respondent further claims that in his Answer in the same attorney's fees case, be dignified and choice of language is important in the preparation of pleadings. In the
Atty. Torres accused his client, Prof. Maguigad, of forging the signature of a notary assertion of his client's rights, a lawyer — even one gifted with superior intellect — is
public and of "deliberately us[ing] a falsified/expired Community Tax Certificate" in enjoined to rein up his temper.
order to justify the dismissal of the case against him (Atty. Torres); and that Atty. As reflected above, the inclusion of the derogatory statements by respondent
Torres continued harassing his clients including his wife by filing baseless complaints was actuated by his giving vent to his ill-feelings towards Atty. Torres, a purpose to
for falsification of public document. which the mantle of absolute immunity does not extend. Personal colloquies between
counsel which cause delay and promote unseemly wrangling should be carefully
ISSUE: respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for avoided
using inappropriate and offensive remarks in his pleadings. As to the reference by respondent to the unfortunate and contemptible
practice of notaries public — basis of the last cause of action, while it may detract
HELD: It is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public from the dignity that should characterize the legal profession and the solemnity of a
policy, utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of notarial document, respondent, who justifies the same as legitimate defense of his
pleadings, petitions and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they are pertinent client who was being accused by Atty. Torres of forgery, may, given the relevance of
and relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or malicious they may be. the statement to the subject matter of the pleading, be given the benefit of the doubt.
The requirements of materiality and relevancy are imposed so that the
protection given to individuals in the interest of an efficient administration of justice
may not be abused as a cloak from beneath which private malice may be gratified. If
the pleader goes beyond the requirements of the statute and alleges an irrelevant matter
which is libelous, he loses his privilege.
CERINA B. LIKONG v ATTY. ALEXANDER H. LIM percent (75%) per annum. In addition, the compromise agreement provides that the
TOPIC: CANON 9 P150,000.00 debt would be payable in fifty-four (54) monthly installments at an
interest of forty percent (40%) per annum. No great amount of mathematical prowess
DOCTRINE: The violation of the aforementioned rules of professional conduct by is required to see that the terms of the compromise agreement are grossly prejudicial to
respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim, warrants the imposition upon him of the proper complainant.
sanction from this Court. Such acts constituting malpractice and grave misconduct Instead, even assuming that complainant was really abandoned by her
cannot be left unpunished for not only do they erode confidence and trust in the legal counsel, respondent saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and the
profession, they likewise prevent justice from being attained. result was the execution of the compromise agreement which, as previously discussed,
is grossly and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial to complainant.
FACTS: Sometime in September 1984, complainant obtained a loan of P92,100.00 With respect to respondent's failure to notify complainant's counsel of the
from a certain Geesnell L. Yap. Complainant executed a promissory note in favor of compromise agreement, it is of record that complainant was represented by two (2)
Yap and a deed of assignment, assigning to Yap pension checks which she regularly lawyers, Attys. Inting and Aumentado. Complainant states that respondent prevented
received from the United States government as a widow of a US pensioner. The her from informing her lawyers by giving her the reasons enumerated in the complaint
aforementioned deed of assignment states that the same shall be irrevocable until the and earlier quoted in this decision.
loan is fully paid. Complainant likewise executed a special power of attorney There is no showing that respondent even tried to inform opposing counsel of
authorizing Yap to get, demand, collect and receive her pension checks from the post the compromise agreement. Neither is there any showing that respondent informed the
office at Tagbilaran City. trial court of the alleged abandonment of the complainant by her counsel. Instead, even
The above documents were apparently prepared and notarized by respondent assuming that complainant was really abandoned by her counsel, respondent saw an
Alexander H. Lim, Yap's counsel. On 11 December 1984, about three (3) months after opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and the result was the execution of the
the execution of the aforementioned special power of attorney, complainant informed compromise agreement which, as previously discussed, is grossly and patently
the Tagbilaran City post office that she was revoking the special power of attorney. As disadvantageous and prejudicial to complainant.
a consequence, Geesnell Yap filed a complainant for injunction with damages against
complainant. Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared as counsel for Yap while Attys.
Roland B. Inting and Erico B. Aumentado appeared for complainant (as defendant).
On 2 August 1985, complainant and Yap entered into a compromise
agreement again without the participation of the former's counsel. In the compromise
agreement, it was stated that complainant Cerino B. Likong admitted an obligation to
Yap of P150,000.00. It was likewise stated therein that complainant and Yap agreed
that the amount would be paid in monthly installments over a period of 54 months at
an interest of 40% per annum discounted every six (6) months. The compromise
agreement was approved by the trial court on 15 August 1985.
Complainant's original obligation was to pay P92,100.00 within one (1) year
from 4 October 1984. There is no provision in the promissory note signed by her with
respect to any interest to be paid. The only additional amount which Yap could collect
based on the promissory note was 25% of the principal as attorney's fees in case a
lawyer was hired by him to collect the loan.

ISSUE: DISBARRED?

HELD: NO, SUSPENDED.

In the compromise agreement prepared by respondent, dated 2 August 1985,
complainant's debt to Yap was increased to P150,000.00 (from 92,100.00) after the
lapse of only ten (10) months. This translates to an interest in excess of seventy-five
RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED “RESTORING jury, the parties, the ofcers of the court, the counsel with reference to the suit, or
INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF tending to inuence the decision of the controversy, is contempt of court and is
THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF punishable.
PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT" The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty's less
TOPIC: CANON 10, 11, 13 than objective comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010 Decision in the Vinuya
case and undermine the Court's honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the
DOCTRINE: The court must "insist on being permitted to proceed to the disposition motion for its reconsideration. As if the case on the comfort women's claims is not
of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would fan the ames and invite resentment
functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice. against a resolution that would not reverse the said decision. This runs contrary to their
obligation as law professors and ofcers of the Court to be the rst to uphold the dignity
FACTS: Allegations of this intellectual offense were hurled by Atty. Harry L. Roque, and authority of this Court, to which they owe delity according to the oath they have
Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for his taken as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. Their
ponencia in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, actions likewise constitute violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and
2010. In said case, the Court denied the petition for certiorari led by Filipino comfort 11.05 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
women to compel certain ofcers of the executive department to espouse their claims
for reparation and demand apology from the Japanese government for the abuses
committed against them by the Japanese soldiers during World War II. Attys. Roque
and Bagares represent the comfort women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, which is
presently the subject of a motion for reconsideration.
The authors and their purportedly plagiarized articles are: (1) Evan J. Criddle
and Evan Fox-Decent from their article, "A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens"
published in 2009 in the Yale Journal of International Law; (2) Christian J. Tams from
his book, “Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law" published by the
Cambridge University Press in 2005; and (3) Mark Ellis from his article, "Breaking the
Silence: On Rape as an International Crime" published in the Case Western Reserve
Journal of International Law in 2006. The allegations of plagiarism centered on Justice
Del Castillo's discussion of the principles of jus cogens and erga omnes.
Notably, while the statement was meant to reect the educators' opinion on the
allegations of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, they treated such allegation not
only as an established fact, but a truth. In particular, they expressed dissatisfaction
over Justice Del Castillo's explanation on how he cited the primary sources of the
quoted portions and yet arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the authors of the
articles supposedly plagiarized

ISSUE:

HELD: The publication of a statement by the faculty of the UP College of Law

regarding the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court
was totally unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance. Of public
knowledge is the ongoing investigation precisely to determine the truth of such
allegations. More importantly, the motion for reconsideration of the decision alleged to
contain plagiarized materials is still pending before the Court. We made it clear in the
case of In re Kelly that any publication, pending a suit, reecting upon the court, the
ANTERO J. POBRE v SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSORSANTIAGO HELD: As American jurisprudence puts it, this legislative privilege is founded upon
TOPIC: CANON 11 long experience and arises as a means of perpetuating inviolate the functioning process
of the legislative department. Without parliamentary immunity, parliament, or its
DOCTRINE: Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their equivalent, would degenerate into a polite and ineffective debating forum. Legislators
private capacity, as long as their misconduct reects their want of probity or good are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duties, not
demeanor, a good character being an essential qualication for the admission to the for their private indulgence, but for the public good. The privilege would be of little
practice of law and for continuance of such privilege. When the Code of Professional value
Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of "conduct" or "misconduct", the if they could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial upon
reference is not conned to one's behavior exhibited in connection with the performance a conclusion of the pleader, or to the hazard of a judgment against them based upon a
of lawyers' professional duties, but also covers any misconduct, which — albeit judge's speculation as to the motives.
unrelated to the actual practice of their profession — would show them to be unt for No lawyer who has taken an oath to maintain the respect due to the courts
the ofce and unworthy of the privileges which their license and the law invest in them. should be allowed to erode the people's faith in the judiciary. In this case, the lady
senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
FACTS: In his sworn letter/complaint dated December 22, 2006, with enclosures, Responsibility,
Antero J. Pobre invites the Court's attention to the following excerpts of Senator Senator/Atty. Santiago is a cut higher than most lawyers. Her achievements
Miriam Defensor-Santiago's speech delivered on the Senate floor: speak for themselves. She was a former Regional Trial Court judge, a law professor,
. . . I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am an oft-cited authority on constitutional and international law, an author of numerous
suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like law textbooks, and an elected senator of the land. Needless to stress, Senator Santiago,
throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am as a member of the Bar and ofcer of the court, like any other, is duty-bound to uphold
nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts the dignity and authority of this Court and to maintain the respect due its members.
in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] Lawyers in public service are keepers of public faith and are burdened with the higher
if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than their brethren in private practice.
not in the Supreme Court of idiots . . . . Senator Santiago should have known, as any perceptive individual, the impact her
To Pobre, the foregoing statements reected a total disrespect on the part of the statements would make on the people's faith in the integrity of the courts.
speaker towards then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the other members of the A careful re-reading of her utterances would readily show that her statements
Court and constituted direct contempt of court. Accordingly, Pobre asks that were expressions of personal anger and frustration at not being considered for the post
disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions be taken against the lady senator. of Chief Justice. In a sense, therefore, her remarks were outside the pale of her ofcial
In her comment on the complaint dated April 25, 2007, Senator Santiago, parliamentary functions. Even parliamentary immunity must not be allowed to be used
through counsel, does not deny making the aforequoted statements. She, however, as a vehicle to ridicule, demean, and destroy the reputation of the Court and its
explained that those statements were covered by the constitutional provision on magistrates, nor as armor for personal wrath and disgust. Authorities are agreed that
parliamentary immunity, being part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her parliamentary immunity is not an individual privilege accorded the individual
duty as member of Congress or its committee. The purpose of her speech, according to members of the Parliament or Congress for their personal benet, but rather a privilege
her, was to bring out in the open controversial anomalies in governance with a view to for the benefit of the people and the institution that represents them.
future remedial legislation. She averred that she wanted to expose what she believed The lady senator belongs to the legal profession bound by the exacting
"to be an unjust act of the Judicial Bar Council [JBC]", which, after sending out public injunction of a strict Code. Society has entrusted that profession with the
invitations for nomination to the soon to-be vacated position of Chief Justice, would administration of the law and dispensation of justice. Generally speaking, a lawyer
eventually inform applicants that only incumbent justices of the Supreme Court would holding a government ofce may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
qualify for nomination. She felt that the JBC should have at least given an advanced misconduct committed while in the discharge of official duties, unless said misconduct
advisory that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would not be considered for also constitutes a violation of his/her oath as a lawyer.
the position of Chief Justice.

ISSUE: DISBARRED?
FLORENCIO SALADAGA v ATTY. ARTURO ASTORGA
TOPIC: CANON 11 AND 12 ISSUE: SUSPEND?

DOCTRINE: Respondent's breach of his oath, violation of the laws, lack of good HELD: The Court agrees with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to
faith, and dishonesty are compounded by his gross disregard of this Court's directives, suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years, but it refrains from
as well as the orders of the IBP's Investigating Commissioner (who was acting as an ordering respondent to return the P15,000.00 consideration, plus interest.
agent of this Court pursuant to the Court's referral of these cases to the IBP for Regardless of whether the written contract between respondent and
investigation, report and recommendation), which caused delay in the resolution of complainant is actually one of sale with pacto de retro or of equitable mortgage,
these administrative cases. respondent's actuations in his transaction with complainant, as well as in the present
actuations in his transaction with complainant, as well as in the present administrative
FACTS: Complainant Florencio A. Saladaga and respondent Atty. Arturo B. Astorga cases, clearly show a disregard for the highest standards of legal proficiency, morality,
entered into a "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase" on December 2, 1981 where honesty, integrity, and fair dealing required from lawyers, for which respondent should
respondent sold (with right of repurchase) to complainant a parcel of coconut land be held administratively liable.
located at Barangay Bunga, Baybay, Leyte covered by Transfer Certificate of Title When respondent was admitted to the legal profession, he took an oath where
(TCT) No. T-662 for P15,000.00. Under the said deed, respondent represented that he he undertook to "obey the laws," "do no falsehood," and "conduct [him]self as a
has "the perfect right to dispose as owner in fee simple" the subject property and that lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion." He gravely violated
the said property is "free from all liens and encumbrances." The deed also provided his oath.
that respondent, as vendor a retro, had two years within which to repurchase the The Investigating Commissioner correctly found, and the IBP Board of
property, and if not repurchased within the said period, "the parties shall renew [the] Governors rightly agreed, that respondent caused the ambiguity or vagueness in the
instrument/agreement." "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase" as he was the one who prepared or drafted
Respondent failed to exercise his right of repurchase within the period the said instrument. Respondent could have simply denominated the instrument as a
provided in the deed, and no renewal of the contract was made even after complainant deed of mortgage and referred to himself and complainant as "mortgagor" and
sent respondent a final demand dated May 10, 1984 for the latter to repurchase the "mortgagee," respectively, rather than as "vendor a retro" and "vendee a retro." If only
property. Complainant remained in peaceful possession of the property until December respondent had been more circumspect and careful in the drafting and preparation of
1989 when he received letters from the Rural Bank of Albuera (Leyte), Inc. (RBAI) the deed, then the controversy between him and complainant could have been avoided
informing him that the property was mortgaged by respondent to RBAI, that the bank or, at the very least, easily resolved. His imprecise and misleading wording of the said
had subsequently foreclosed on the property, and that complainant should therefore deed on its face betrayed lack of legal competence on his part. He thereby fell short of
vacate the property. his oath to "conduct [him]self as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and
Aggrieved, complainant instituted a criminal complaint for estafa against discretion."
respondent with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte, docketed as I.S. No. Respondent, as owner of the property, had the right to mortgage it to
95-144. The Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte approved the Resolution dated April 21, complainant but, as a lawyer, he should have seen to it that his agreement with
1995 in I.S. No. 95-144 finding that "[t]he facts of [the] case are sufficient to engender complainant is embodied in an instrument that clearly expresses the intent of the
a well-founded belief that Estafa . . . has been committed and that respondent herein is contracting parties. A lawyer who drafts a contract must see to it that the agreement
probably guilty thereof." Accordingly, an Information dated January 8, 1996 was filed faithfully and clearly reflects the intention of the contracting parties. Otherwise, the
before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Baybay, Leyte, formally charging respective rights and obligations of the contracting parties will be uncertain, which
respondent with the crime of estafa under Article 316, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the opens the door to legal disputes between the said parties. Indeed, the uncertainty
Revised Penal Code. caused by respondent's poor formulation of the "Deed of Sale with Right to
Complainant likewise instituted the instant administrative cases against Repurchase" was a significant factor in the legal controversy between respondent and
respondent by filing before this Court an Affidavit-Complaint 12 dated January 28, complainant. Such poor formulation reflects at the very least negatively on the legal
1997 and Supplemental Complaint 13 dated February 27, 1997, which were docketed competence of respondent.
as A.C. No. 4697 and A.C. No. 4728, respectively. In both complaints, complainant
sought the disbarment of respondent. The administrative cases were referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
SPOUSES JONATHAN and ESTER LOPEZ v ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS ISSUE: whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating
TOPIC: CANON 18, 18.03 the CPR.

DOCTRINE: Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly HELD: A judicious perusal of the records reveals that sometime in June 2006,
duciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great delity and good faith. The highly duciary complainants secured the services of respondent in order to le a petition for adoption
nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money of a minor child named Ethan Benedict Victore, and in connection thereto, paid the
or property collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's failure to latter the amount of P75,000.00 representing legal fees. However, despite the lapse of
return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client — as in this case — almost a year and for reasons unknown, respondent failed to perform anything in
gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in furtherance of the legal matter entrusted to her by complainants. As correctly pointed
violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of out by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, respondent's acts constitute a agrant
general morality, as well as of professional ethics. violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR,
Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly duciary and
FACTS: Complainants alleged that sometime in June 2006, and while living abroad, prescribes on a lawyer a great delity and good faith. The highly duciary nature of this
they secured the services of respondent as counsel in connection with their intention to relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property
adopt a minor child, Ethan Benedict Victore. In consideration therefor, complainants, collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's failure to return upon
through a representative, paid respondent the aggregate amount of P75,000.00, which demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client — as in this case — gives rise to
was duly received by the latter. A few months later, or on October 6, 2006, they the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the
purposely came back to the Philippines for a two (2)-week stay to commence the ling trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality, as
of the adoption case before the proper court. However, despite payment and well as of professional ethics.
submission of all the required documents to respondent, no petition was led during Even worse, respondent misrepresented to complainants that she had already
their stay. commenced an adoption proceeding on behalf of the latter, as evidenced by the letter
Sometime in May 2007, complainants, through Jonathan's employer, received dated March 6, 2007 she sent to Jonathan's employer requesting that he, together with
respondent's letter dated March 6, 2007, requesting that complainants be allowed to her wife, Ester, be allowed to come home to the Philippines to appear and testify in
come home to the Philippines to appear and testify in court for the adoption case she court. She even provided them with a case number, Spl. Proc. Case No. 2890, which
purportedly led on behalf of complainants before the Regional Trial Court of San was purportedly pending before the RTC. Such misrepresentation resulted in
Fernando City, La Union, Branch 30 (RTC), docketed as Spl. Proc. Case No. 2890. complainants going through the trouble of coming back to the Philippines, only to nd
Thus, complainants returned to the Philippines in June 2007, only to nd out that: (a) out that: (a) Spl. Proc. Case No. 2890 referred to a petition for the declaration of the
Spl. Proc. Case No. 2890 referred to a petition for the declaration of the presumptive presumptive death of another person led by another lawyer; and (b) respondent had yet
death of another person led by another lawyer; and (b) respondent had yet to le a to le a petition for adoption on their behalf.
petition for adoption on their behalf. Utterly dismayed, complainants withdrew all their Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR instructs that, as of cers of the court, lawyers
documents from respondent's custody and hired another lawyer to handle the ling of are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal pro ciency, but also of
the adoption case. Moreover, complainants demanded the return of the amount of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Indubitably, respondent fell short of such
P75,000.00 given as legal fees. However, respondent refused to return such money, standard when she committed the afore-described acts of deception against
retorting that as a standard operating procedure, she does not return "acceptance fees." complainants. Such acts are not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to
In view of the foregoing, complainants led the instant administrative case against the legal profession; they reveal basic moral aws that make him un t to practice law.
respondent before this Court.
Despite numerous directives to le a comment, respondent failed to do so; thus,
the Court was constrained to dispense with the ling of the same and to impose a ne in
the amount of P2,000.00 against her. The administrative case was then referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation,
wherein respondent similarly disregarded the IBP's directives to participate in the
Mandatory Conference and to submit her position paper despite due notice
SUZETTE DEL MUNDO v ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO petition, Tuparan's petition and his Withdrawal of Appearance in Tuparan's case with
TOPIC: CANON 16 & 18 instructions to file them in court, as well as a list containing the expenses he incurred
and the schedule of payment of the amount of PhP63,000.00, as follows:
DOCTRINE: Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will PhP20,000.00 August 15, 2005
exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of PhP20,000.00 August 29, 2005
vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer PhP23,000.00 September 15, 2005
unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the amount of PhP5,000.00 on
to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. His workload does August 15, 2005 and thereafter, refused to communicate with her, prompting the
not justify neglect in handling one's case because it is settled that a lawyer must only institution of this administrative complaint on September 7, 2005.
accept cases as much as he can efficiently handle.
ISSUE: whether Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional
FACTS: On January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan (Tuparan) Responsibility.
engaged the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of
nullity of their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00 each. On the HELD: The Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of the IBP -CBD
same date, a Special Retainer Agreement was entered into by and between Suzette and but takes exception to the amount of PhP140,000.00 recommended to be returned to
Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of PhP30,000.00, appearance fee of Suzette.
PhP2,500.00 per hearing and another PhP2,500.00 per pleading. In addition, Atty. Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will
Capistrano allegedly advised her to prepare amounts for the following expenses: exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of
PhP11,000.00Filing fee vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer
PhP5,000.00Summons unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just
PhP15,000.00 to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. His workload does
Fiscal PhP30,000.00 not justify neglect in handling one's case because it is settled that a lawyer must only
Psychiatrist accept cases as much as he can efficiently handle.
PhP15,000.00Commissioner To stress, the practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the
In accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty. Capistrano the total amount of high standards of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair
PhP78,500.00, to wit: dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the
January 8, 2005PhP30,000.00Acceptance fee courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal
January 15, 2005PhP11,000.00Filing fee profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Falling short of
February 3, 2005PhP5,000.00Filing fee this standard, the Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer by imposing an
May 4, 2005PhP2,500.00Filing fee appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion in consideration
June 8, 2005PhP30,000.00Filing fee of the surrounding facts.
For every payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty.
Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the latter made her believe that the
two cases were already filed before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and
awaiting notice of hearing. Sometime in July 2005, when she could hardly reach Atty.
Capistrano, she verified her case from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered
that while the case of Tuparan had been filed on January 27, 2005, no petition has yet
been filed for her.
Hence, Suzette called for a conference, which was set on July 28, 2005,
where she demanded the refund of the total amount of PhP78,500.00, but Atty.
Capistrano instead offered to return the amount of PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis
claiming to have incurred expenses in the filing of Tuparan's case, to which she
agreed. On the same occasion, Atty. Capistrano handed to her copies of her unfiled
SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO v ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, ISSUE: Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member of the Bar in his
JR. dealings with the complainants?
TOPIC: CANON 15 HELD: It was not disputed that only the ling of the two-paged Manifestation for
Information constituted the respondent's rendition of professional services for the
DOCTRINE: To determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees, the following factors complainants. Although he did claim that the ling of the Manifestation for Information
as enumerated in Rule 20.1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility may serve as a had prevented any intrusion on their property, thereby ful lling his end of the contract,
guide, to wit: (a) the time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required; (b) the worth of such minimal effort was exaggerated and disproportionate when taken in
the novelty and dif culty of the questions involved; (c) the importance of the subject the context of the attorney's fees being Lot No. 37925-G with 300 square meters in
matter; (d) the skill demanded; (e) the probability of losing other employment as a area. The two-paged Manifestation for Information was not even the procedural
result of acceptance of the proffered case; (f) the customary charges for similar precursor of the promised petition for certiorari. Moreover, he did not actually le the
services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs; (g) the petition for certiorari as he had promised. And, lastly, he did nothing more after ling
amount involved in the controversy and the bene ts resulting to the client from the theManifestation for Information. He certainly transgressed the Lawyer's Oath by
service; (h) the contingency or certainty of compensation; (i) the character of the receiving property of a substantial value from the complainants after having made
employment, whether occasional or established; and (j) the professional standing of them believe that he could ensure their land from intrusion by third parties. He took
the lawyer. advantage of them who had reposed their full trust and con dence in his ability to
perform the task by virtue of his being a lawyer. He was de nitely bent on obtaining
FACTS: This administrative case stems from the complaint brought on December 8, Lot No. 37925-G than in protecting the complainants' interest in their property. He
2009 by the Spouses Emilio and Alicia Jacinto, then 81 and 76 years of age, exhibited this zeal by refusing their offer to give cash for his attorney's fees instead of
respectively, against Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr. for the latter's unjust and dishonest the land. We sadly note in this connection that his changing the property ostensibly
treatment of them as his clients. They hereby seek that he be sanctioned for his agreed upon with the bigger lot as payment for his legal services re ected his deceit at
actuations. the start of the relationship. He maintained the deceit by ultimately enforcing the MOA
The complainants averred that a private survey team had conducted a survey against them through the action for specific performance.
of Cad. 237 Lot No. 1351 on October 10-11, 2008 pursuant to the order of the Surely, the totality of the respondent's actuations inevitably eroded public
Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, in Cagayan de Oro City in connection with the trust in the Legal Profession. On the basis of his acts and actuations, the attorney's fees
reconstitution of the lost certi cate of title of said lot by the owners; that after in the form of the lot he charged from them were unconscionable and unreasonable,
conducting the perimeter survey, the survey team had tried to enter the premises and should be struck down for failing to pass muster under the aforestated guidelines.
owned by them but they had prevented the team from doing so because their premises Although the complainants appeared to have initially bound themselves to
had already been segregated by virtue of the issuance of Original Certi cate of Title give a part of their land as the respondent's professional fees, they did so apparently
No. P-3387; that their land covered by OCT No. P-3387 had already been subdivided because he had misrepresented to them the gravity and extent of their legal matter. His
into nine lots; that the survey team had then desisted from proceeding with their survey misrepresentation was undeniably calculated to make them part with their valuable
of their land but had nonetheless informed them that they would return another time asset in lieu of cash. He did not thereafter render any worthy professional legal service
for the survey; and that this had forced them to consult a lawyer on the legal remedies in their favor. Verily, as the cliché goes, they did not get their money's worth from
to prevent the intrusion on their property. him. Even if this charge was his rst infraction, the grossness of his violations of the
The complainants further averred that they had then consulted with the Lawyer's Oath and the various relevant canons of theCode of Professional
respondent, brie ng him on their concern, and delivering to him the documents Responsibility quoted earlier absolutely warranted his suspension from the practice of
pertinent to their land; that after scrutinizing the documents, he had told them that he law for ve years effective upon his receipt of this decision, with warning of sterner
would be initiating a case for certiorari in their behalf to nullify the order for the sanctions should he hereafter commit a similar offense. This duration of suspension
reconstitution of the lost title covering Cad. 237 Lot No. 1351; that he had then was the penalty we prescribed in the recent case of Mercullo v. Ramon where the
insinuated that one of their lots would be his attorney's fees; and that they had not respondent lawyer had deceived the complainants into parting with the substantial sum
initially agreed to the insinuation because the lots had already been allocated to each of of P350,000.00 as her attorney's fees but did not subsequently perform her professional
their seven children, but they had ultimately consented to giving him only a portion of undertaking.
Lot No. 37926-H with an area of 250 square meters.
WILLIAM G. CAMPOS, JR v ATTY. ALEXANDER C. ESTEBAL Recovery of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is authorized (1) when
TOPIC: CANON 15, 16 & 20 there is no express contract for payment of attorney's fees (2) when although there
is a formal contract for attorney's fees, the fees stipulated are found unconscionable
DOCTRINE: While lawyers are entitled to the payment of attorney's fees, the same or unreasonable by the Court (3) when the contract for attorney's fees is void due to
should be reasonable under the circumstances. Even if we base the attorney's fees of purely formal defects of execution (4) when the lawyer for justi able cause was not
the respondent on . . . quantum meruit, still, the amount collected by the respondent is able to nish the case for its conclusion (5) when the lawyer and the client disregard
still excessive. the contract for attorney's fees and (6) when the client dismissed his client before
the termination of the case or the latter withdrew therefrom for valid reason
FACTS: In the early part of 2006, complainants engaged the services of Atty. Estebal (Rillaroza Africa de Ocampo and Africa vs. Eastern Telecommunications Phils.,
to assist each of them in securing tourist visas to the United States (U.S.). Toward this Inc., 128 SCRA 475).
end, on January 24, 2006, Campos and Atty. Estebal entered into a Service Contract Respondent violated Canon 15 for the reason that he was not candid enough
stipulating an acceptance/service fee of P200,000.00 exclusive of out-of-pocket to tell the complainants their chance[s] of getting [a] US visa. Instead, the respondent
expenses such as tickets, ling fees, and application fees; and that in case no visa is made the complainants believe that they will have a good chance of getting the US
issued, Campos is entitled to a refund of what has been actually paid less 7% thereof. visa if they will be joined with other groups. It turned out to be false. Complainants
Campos paid Atty. Estebal the sum of P150,000.00. For their part, Batac and Carpio waited for so long before the respondent could find other members of the group. In the
gave Atty. Estebal the amounts of P75,000.00 and P120,000.00, respectively. Unlike end, nothing happened.
Campos, their agreement with Atty. Estebal was not put in writing. He also violated Canon 16, Rule 16.01 because he did not account [for] the
Complainants claimed that despite receipt of their monies, Atty. Estebal failed money he received from the complainants. It is not clear to the complainants how
to apply or secure for them the U.S. tourist visas that he promised. Thus, they much is the amount due to the respondent.
demanded for the return of their monies. Atty. Estebal, however, failed to return the Lastly, it appears that the attorney's fees that he collected from the
amount despite repeated demands. Hence, they led this Complaint praying that Atty. complainants are excessive and unreasonable. Considering the degree of work and
Estebal be suspended or disbarred from the practice of law, and that he be directed to number of hours spent, the amount he collected from the complainants is not
return their monies. commensurate to the degree of services rendered. Obviously, respondent took
Atty. Estebal posited that complainants' demand for the return or refund of advantage of the weakness of the complainants in their desire to go the United States.
their money has no factual or legal basis at all, especially because he had invested After evaluating the evidence presented by both parties, the undersigned
considerable time, talent and energy in the processing of complainants' tourist visa believes that the complainants have satisfactorily shown the degree of the required
applications with the U.S. Embassy. evidence to convince this Commission that indeed, Atty. Estebal, Sr. should be held
administratively liable.
ISSUE: Is Atty. Estebal guilty of professional misconduct for violating the pertinent There is hardly any doubt that Atty. Estebal's act of receiving such substantial
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility? sums from complainants without in the least intending to honor his word to secure the
U.S. tourist visas that he promised to get for them constitutes a breach of his
HELD: What is clear is that the amount individually paid by the complainants went to professional responsibility. It was both a refusal and a failure to give complainants
the pocket of the respondent. It is not even clear if it is for the payment of his their due; it was also both a refusal and a failure to observe honesty and good faith in
attorney's fees or for the payment of the application for the US visa, as above stated, an his dealings with them. Indeed, Atty. Estebal acted unjustly; he denied complainants
applicant has to spend only P6,157.00. Thus, by mere mathematical computation, the their due; and he displayed unmitigated dishonesty and bad faith in his professional
amount of P200,000.00 contract with complainant William Campos is excessive. If it and personal relations with complainants.
is for the payment of attorney's fees, the same is also considered excessive and
unreasonable.
While lawyers are entitled to the payment of attorney's fees, the same should
be reasonable under the circumstances. Even if we base the attorney's fees of the
respondent on . . . quantum meruit, still, the amount collected by the respondent is still
excessive. The Supreme Court, in justifying quantum meruit, has laid down the
following requisites:
ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v HON. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO ISSUE: whether the attorney's lien of respondent Dalisay for services he had rendered
TOPIC: KINDS OF LIEN in the ejectment case can be ordered annotated on the back of Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 51585.
DOCTRINE: An attorney's lien is of two kinds: one is called retaining alien and the
other charging lien. The retaining lien is the right of the attorney to retain the funds, HELD: An attorney's lien is of two kinds: one is called retaining alien and the other
documents, and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession until charging lien. The retaining lien is the right of the attorney to retain the funds,
his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid and to apply such funds to the documents, and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession until
satisfaction thereof. The charging lien is the right which the attorney has upon all his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid and to apply such funds to the
judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of said satisfaction thereof. The charging lien is the right which the attorney has upon all
judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client (Section 33, Rule 127; judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of said
Rustia vs. Abeto, 72 Phil., 133). Under this rule, this lien, whether retaining or judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client (Section 33, Rule 127;
charging, takes legal effect only from and after, but not before, notice of said lien has Rustia vs. Abeto, 72 Phil., 133). Under this rule, this lien, whether retaining or
been entered in the record and served on the adverse party (Macondray & Company charging, takes legal effect only from and after, but not before, notice of said lien has
vs.Bastida, 63 Phil., 16). been entered in the record and served on the adverse party (Macondray & Company
vs.Bastida, 63 Phil., 16).
FACTS: Petitioners are the widow and children of the late Valeriano Caina who was It may therefore be seen that the right of a lawyer to insure the payment of his
the owner of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title No. 21702. A professional fee is either to retain the funds, documents, and papers of his client which
portion of this property was transferred to one Gavina Cierte de Andal and as a result may have lawfully come into his possession, or to enforce it upon any judgment for the
said title was cancelled and a new one issued in their names bearing No. 51585. payments of money he may secure in favor of his client. And it has been held that
Respondent Flaviano T. Dalisay, Jr. was the attorney of one of petitioners, retaining lien is dependent upon possession and does not attach to anything not in
Elena Peralta Vda. de Caina, in an action for ejectment led before the Justice of the attorney's hands. The lien exists only so long as the attorney retains possession ends.
Peace of Caloocan, Rizal, against one Ricardo Nabong, which was dismissed and In the instant case, the lien which respondent attorney tried to enforce for the
appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. In the latter court, the case was satisfaction of his professional fee is charging in the sense that his purpose is to make
docketed as Civil Case No. 3875, and because of the non-appearance of defendant, the of record his claim in order that it may be considered in the execution of the judgment
latter was declared in default and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff. This that may be rendered in the case, and this he has already done. Thus, he has already
judgment became nal and executory for lack of appeal. caused a statement of his claim to be entered in the record of the ejectment case and
On July 26, 1957, respondent Dalisay led a motion in the same ejectment case that is all what the rule requires of him to do. Certainly, he cannot go any further, such
for annotation of his attorney's lien on the back of Transfer Certi cate of Title No. as what he led the trial court to do, that is, to have his lien annotated on the back of the
51585 claiming that, notwithstanding the services he had rendered to the widow and title of petitioners which is beyond the province of the court. The lien of respondent is
her children who were represented by him in said case, they have failed to pay him his not of a nature which attaches to the property in litigations but is at most a personal
attorney's fees which he xed at P2,020. This motion was set for hearing and thereafter claim enforceable by a writ of execution. The respondent judge has therefore exceeded
the same was granted in an order entered on July 10, 1957 wherein the court ordered his authority in issuing the order subject of the present petition for certiorari.
petitioners to surrender their duplicate copy of said certi cate in order that the
annotation requested may be made. Upon receipt of a copy of this order, petitioners led
a motion for reconsideration alleging that they were never furnished with a copy of
respondent's motion, not noti ed of the date of its hearing, for which reason they were
not able to appear to contest the same. This motion was opposed by respondent
Dalisay who averred that petitioners were furnished with a copy of his motion by
registered mail three days before the hearing as shown by the return card attached to
his written opposition. And on August 27, 1957, the court denied the motion. Hence
the present petition for certiorari.
JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON v ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR. icting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
TOPIC: RULE 15.03 Responsibility.
On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, we nd substantial evidence to
DOCTRINE: One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to ght for an issue or claim support Atty. Sabitsana's violation of the above rule, as established by the following
in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client. circumstances on record:
Thus, if a lawyer's argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in One, his legal services were initially engaged by the complainant to protect
arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule. her interest over a certain property. The records show that upon the legal advice of
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new Atty. Sabitsana, the Deed of Sale over the property was prepared and executed in the
relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided delity and complainant's favor.
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida Cañete to discuss the latter's legal
performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon interest over the property subject of the Deed of Sale. At that point, Atty. Sabitsana
in the new relation to use against a former client any con dential information acquired already had knowledge that Zenaida Cañete's interest clashed with the complainant's
through their connection or previous employment. interests.
Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing interests between his two
FACTS: In her complaint, Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) related that she clients, Atty. Sabitsana accepted the engagement from Zenaida Cañete.
previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and Four, Atty. Sabitsana's actual knowledge of the con icting interests between
execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late his two clients was demonstrated by his own actions: first, he led a case against the
common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her con complainant in behalf of Zenaida Cañete; second, he impleaded the complainant as the
dence when he subsequently led a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed defendant in the case; and third, the case he led was for the annulment of the Deed of
of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The Sale that he had previously prepared and executed for the complainant.
complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the con dential information he obtained By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client against
from her in filing the civil case. another client in the same action; he also accepted a new engagement that entailed him
Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation to contend and oppose the interest of his other client in a property in which his legal
and execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any con services had been previously retained.
dential information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the present disbarment complaint was To be sure, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint provides an exception to the above prohibition. However, we nd no reason to apply the
who lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana) and had instigated the complaint exception due to Atty. Sabitsana's failure to comply with the requirements set forth
for this reason. under the rule. Atty. Sabitsana did not make a full disclosure of facts to the
complainant and to Zenaida Cañete before he accepted the new engagement with
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting Zenaida Cañete. The records likewise show that although Atty. Sabitsana wrote a letter
interests. to the complainant informing her of Zenaida Cañete's adverse claim to the property
covered by the Deed of Sale and, urging her to settle the adverse claim; Atty. Sabitsana
HELD: After a careful study of the records, we agree with the ndings and however did not disclose to the complainant that he was also being engaged as counsel
recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors. by Zenaida Cañete. Moreover, the records show that Atty. Sabitsana failed to obtain
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued the written consent of his two clients, as required by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code
with the highest level of trust and con dence. This is the standard of con dentiality that of Professional Responsibility.
must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client's most con dential information to
his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information between them. Needless to
state, a client can only entrust con dential information to his/her lawyer based on an
expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part,
is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions
with the client. 6 Part of the lawyer's duty in this regard is to avoid representing con
RAUL H. SESBREÑO v CA holding in abeyance the payment of the lawyer's fees pending the determination of the
TOPIC: CHARGING LIEN nal amount of such fees. However, instead of complying with the court order directing
partial payment, the province of Cebu directly paid the camineros the full amount of
DOCTRINE: A charging lien is an equitable right to have the fees and costs due to their adjudicated claims.
the lawyer for services in a suit secured to him out of the judgment or recovery in that ISSUE: whether or not respondents are liable for damages for breach of contract.
particular suit. It is based on the natural equity that the plaintiff should not be allowed
to appropriate the whole of a judgment in his favor without paying thereout for the HELD: The petition is bereft of merit.
services of his attorney in obtaining such judgment. We would like to stress at this point that the compromise agreement had been
validly entered into by the respondents and the camineros and the same became the
FACTS: On January 26, 1970, Mrs. Rosario Sen and other camineros hired the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court. Its validity, therefore, had been laid to
petitioner to prosecute Civil Cases Nos. R-1093 and R-11214, evidenced by an rest as early as 1979 when the Court promulgated its decision in Commissioner of
Agreement, the terms of which read as follows: Public Highways v. Burgos. 36 In fact, the judgment had already been fully satis ed by
AGREEMENT the respondents. It was precisely this full satisfaction of judgment that gave rise to the
WE, the undersigned, hereby agree to pay Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño, thirty (30%) instant controversy, based primarily on the petitioner's claim that he was prejudiced
percent of whatever back salaries, damages, etc. that we may recover in the because of the following: 1) the wrong computation in the camineros' money claims by
mandamus and other cases that we are ling or have led against the Province of using the provincial and not the national wage rate; and 2) the mode of satisfying the
Cebu, the Provincial Governor, etc., whether or not the said cases will be judgment through direct payment which impaired his registered charging lien.
amicably settled or decided by the courts by nal judgment. We shall take care of Petitioner's claim for attorney's fees was evidenced by an agreement for
all expenses in connection with the said cases. attorney's fees voluntarily executed by the camineros where the latter agreed to pay the
During the pendency of the aforesaid cases or on April 17, 1979, petitioner former "thirty (30%) percent of whatever back salaries, damages, etc. that they might
registered his charging/retaining lien based on the Agreement. recover in the mandamus and other cases that they were ling or have led." Clearly, no
The camineros obtained favorable judgment when the Court of First Instance xed amount was speci cally provided for in their contract nor was a speci ed rate
(now RTC) of Cebu ordered that they be reinstated to their original positions with back agreed upon on how the money claims were to be computed. The use of the word
salaries, together with all privileges and salary adjustments or increases. Aggrieved, "whatever" shows that the basis for the computation would be the amount that the
the Commissioner of Public Highways and the District Engineer led certiorari cases court would award in favor of the camineros. Considering that the parties agreed to a
before this Court where the petitioner willingly rendered further legal assistance and compromise, the payment would have to be based on the amount agreed upon by them
represented the camineros. in the compromise agreement approved by the court. And since the compromise
When respondent Eduardo R. Gullas (Gov. Gullas) assumed the position of agreement had assumed nality, this Court can no longer delve into its substance,
governor of Cebu, he proposed the compromise settlement of all mandamus cases then especially at this time when the judgment had already been fully satis ed. We cannot
pending against the province which included Civil Cases Nos. R-10933 and R- 11214 allow the petitioner to question anew the compromise agreement on the pretext that he
handled by the petitioner. suffered damage. As long as he was given the agreed percentage of the amount
On April 21, 1979, the camineros, represented by the petitioner, and the received by thecamineros, then, the agreement is deemed complied with, and petitioner
province of Cebu, through then Gov. Gullas, forged a Compromise Agreement, with cannot claim to have suffered damage.
the following terms and conditions. A charging lien is an equitable right to have the fees and costs due to the
Apparently, the camineros waived their right to reinstatement embodied in the lawyer for services in a suit secured to him out of the judgment or recovery in that
CFI decision and the province agreed that it immediately pay them their back salaries particular suit. It is based on the natural equity that the plaintiff should not be allowed
and other claims. This Court adopted said compromise agreement in our decision dated to appropriate the whole of a judgment in his favor without paying thereout for the
December 18, 1979. services of his attorney in obtaining such judgment.
In view of the nality of the above decision, the camineros, through their new In this case, the existence of petitioner's charging lien is undisputed since it was
counsel (who substituted for the petitioner), moved for its execution. The court then properly registered in the records. The parties even acknowledged its existence in their
ordered the issuance of a partial writ of execution directing the payment of only 45% compromise agreement. However, a problem arose when the respondents directly paid
of the amount due them based on the computation of the provincial engineering o ce as in full thecamineros' money claims and did not withhold that portion which
audited by the authority concerned. The court did not release the remaining 55%, thus corresponds to petitioner's fees
 Lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants.
Law advocacy is not capital that yields pro ts. The returns it births are simple rewards
for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which
enjoy a greater deal of freedom from governmental interference, is impressed with a
public interest, for which it is subject to state regulation.
Considering that petitioner's claim of higher attorney's fees is baseless and
considering further that he had settled his case as against his former clients, we cannot
sustain his right to damages for breach of contract against the respondents, even on the
basis of Articles 1191 46 or 1311. 47 Although we sustain his status to institute the
instant case, we cannot render a favorable judgment because there was no breach of
contract. Even if there was such a breach, he had waived his right to claim against the
respondents by accepting payment and/or absolving from liability those who were
primarily liable to him. Thus, no liability can be imputed to the province of Cebu or to
the respondent public officials, either in their personal or official capacities.
SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION and BLESILDA S. CONCEPCION v HELD: Respondent's receipt of the P2,500,000.00 loan from complainants is amply
ATTY. ELMER A. DELA ROSA supported by substantial evidence. As the records bear out, Blesilda, on March 23,
TOPIC: CANON 7 2006, issued three (3) EastWest Bank Checks, in amounts totalling to P2,500,000.00,
with respondent as the payee. Also, Annex "E" of the Veri ed Complaint shows that
DOCTRINE: The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a respondent acknowledged receipt of the checks and agreed to pay the complainants the
lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and con dence. And as true as any loan plus the pro-rated interest of ve percent (5%) per month within ve (5) days. The
natural tendency goes, this "trust and con dence" is prone to abuse. The rule against dorsal sides of the checks likewise show that respondent personally encashed the
borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from checks on the day they were issued. With respondent's direct transactional involvement
taking advantage of his in uence over his client. The rule presumes that the client is and the actual benefit he derived therefrom, absent too any credible indication to the
disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his contrary, the Court is thus convinced that respondent was indeed the one who
obligation. borrowed the amount of P2,500,000.00 from complainants, which amount he had
failed to return, despite their insistent pleas.
FACTS: In their Veri ed Complaint, complainants alleged that from 1997 until August Respondent's theory that Nault is the real debtor hardly inspires belief. While
2008, respondent served as their retained lawyer and counsel. In this capacity, respondent submitted a document purporting to be Nault's acknowledgment of his debt
respondent handled many of their cases and was consulted on various legal matters, to the complainants, Nault, in his Answer to Third Party Complaint, categorically
among others, the prospect of opening a pawnshop business towards the end of 2005. denied knowing the complainants and incurring the same obligation.
Said business, however, failed to materialize. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer
Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from their failed and his client is one imbued with trust and con dence. And as true as any natural
business venture, respondent, on March 23, 2006, called Henry to borrow the amount tendency goes, this "trust and con dence" is prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing
of P2,500,000.00, which he promised to return, with interest, ve (5) days thereafter. of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking
Henry consulted his wife, Blesilda, who, believing that respondent would be soon advantage of his in uence over his client. The rule presumes that the client is
returning the money, agreed to lend the aforesaid sum to respondent. She thereby disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his
issued three (3) EastWest Bank checks in respondent's name. obligation.
Upon receiving the checks, respondent signed a piece of paper containing: (a) In unduly borrowing money from the complainants and by blatantly refusing
photocopies of the checks; and (b) an acknowledgment that he received the originals of to pay the same, respondent abused the trust and con dence reposed in him by his
the checks and that he agreed to return the P2,500,000.00, plus monthly interest of ve clients, and, in so doing, failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
percent (5%), within ve (5) days. In the afternoon of March 23, 2006, the foregoing profession. Thus, he should be equally held administratively liable on this score. That
checks were personally encashed by respondent. being said, the Court turns to the proper penalty to be imposed and the propriety of the
On March 28, 2006, or the day respondent promised to return the money, he IBP's return directiv
failed to pay complainants. Thus, in April 2006, complainants began demanding
payment but respondent merely made repeated promises to pay soon. On July 7, 2008,
Blesilda sent a demand letter to respondent, which the latter did not heed. On August
4, 2008, complainants, through their new counsel, Atty. Kathryn Jessica dela Serna,
sent another demand letter to respondent. In his Reply the latter denied borrowing any
money from the complainants. Instead, respondent claimed that a certain Jean Charles
Nault (Nault), one of his other clients, was the real debtor. Complainants brought the
matter to the O ce of the Lupong Tagapamayapa in Barangay Balulang, Cagayan de
Oro City. The parties, however, failed to reach a settlement.

ISSUE: whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating
the CPR.
EDGAR O. PEREA v ATTY. RUBEN ALMADRO end of 1997 up to the next five months of 1998, respondent was preoccupied with the
TOPIC: CANON 10 congressional elections in Biliran where he ran and subsequently lost; then he was
offered a position at the Philippine Stock Exchange as head of the Compliance and
DOCTRINE: As a lawyer, he must serve the client with competence and diligence, Surveillance Division which he accepted; his time and attention was spent in the
and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Indeed, performance of his demanding job at the PSE as well as in the preparation of his
he owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in connection with the "BW"
defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the scam; anent the case of herein complainant, he offered on several occasions to
end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law legally withdraw as one of the defense counsel of the complainant even to the extent of
applied. His client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is offering to return his acceptance fee which the latter however refused; it is not true that
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such complainant pleaded with respondent to withdraw as his counsel, the truth being that it
remedy or defense. was complainant who refused to let go of respondent as his counsel; also, while he is a
counsel of complainant in the criminal case before the RTC, he was merely a
FACTS: Respondent was his counsel before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City collaborating counsel, the lead counsel being Atty. Solomon Villanueva; finally, he
(Branch 99) where he (complainant Perea) is being charged with the crime of was actually mulling over the possible procedural steps to take with regard to
Frustrated Homicide. On February 26, 1996, the said RTC issued an order granting complainant's case when he received instead, a copy of the present complaint.
Atty. Almadro's motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days
from said date. All the while, complainant thought that respondent filed said demurrer ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS NEGLIGENT TO HIS DUTY
and the case against him dismissed. It was only sometime in 1999 that complainant TO THE COURT and VIOLATED CANON 10 OF CPR
learned that Atty. Almadro failed to file any demurrer. The trial court ordered the
herein complainant to present evidence in his defense. Later, a warrant was issued for HELD: We are in full accord with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
his arrest prompting him to surrender to the court and post bail. Complainant suffered It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer failed to submit a demurrer
financially and emotionally due to respondent's neglect of his duties. Respondent has to evidence for which he had earlier asked permission from the trial court and which
not attended any of his hearings which led complainant to plead with respondent to his client, herein complainant was relying on. More than that, he failed to contact his
withdraw formally as his counsel so he could hire another lawyer. Because of Atty. client and to apprise the latter about the developments of the case leaving complainant
Almadro's neglect, complainant is now facing the loss of his freedom and livelihood. completely surprised and without any protection when years later, he received
Respondent filed three motions for extension of time to file comment. On summons from the trial court asking him to present evidence in his defense and, not
November 13, 2000, the Court resolved to grant the said motions with a warning that long after, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest.
no further extensions shall be granted. On November 17, 2000, respondent, through Respondent's negligence is compounded by his attempt to have this tribunal
the law firm Sua and Alambra, filed a Manifestation and Motion that respondent has believe the story of how his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette, mysteriously
not yet received a copy of the complaint hence it asked the Court to order the disappeared and how the absence of such file in his diskette led him to believe that the
complainant to furnish them a copy. same was already filed in court. In his Answer, he even tried to depict himself as a
On December 20, 2000, respondent through said law firm submitted an conscientious lawyer by stating that he was actually mulling on the procedural steps he
Answer to the complaint, contending that: two days after the RTC granted the would undertake regarding complainant's case when instead he received a copy of this
manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, he had complaint for disbarment. Such story, as observed by the IBP, is not only outrageous
finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading which he stored in a but is contemptuous as it makes a mockery of the Court.
magnetic computer diskette intended for editing prior to its submission in court; a few Again, the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on this matter:
days before the deadline, herein respondent tried to retrieve the draft from the diskette CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
but said drafts were nowhere to be found despite efforts to retrieve them; this led him Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
to believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions accordingly any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
filed since it is his practice to expunge from the diskette drafts that were already
finalized and acted upon; meanwhile, the presiding judge of the RTC retired, as a
consequence, actions on pending cases were held in abeyance; moreover, ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v CA, PV POTENCIANO GALANIDA
communications with the herein complainant had become rarer; thereafter, towards the TOPIC: CANON 10
DOCTRINE: The syllabus of cases in official or unofficial reports of Supreme Court HELD: The phrase "[r]efusal to obey a transfer order cannot be considered
decisions or resolutions is not the work of the Court, nor does it state this Court's insubordination where employee cited reason for said refusal, such as that of being
decision. The syllabus is simply the work of the reporter who gives his understanding away from the family" does not appear anywhere in the Dosch decision. Galanida's
of the decision. The reporter writes the syllabus for the convenience of lawyers in counsel lifted the erroneous phrase from one of the italicized lines in the syllabus of
reading the reports. A syllabus is not a part of the court's decision. A counsel should Dosch found in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated ("SCRA").
not cite a syllabus in place of the carefully considered text in the decision of the Court. The syllabus of cases in official or unofficial reports of Supreme Court
decisions or resolutions is not the work of the Court, nor does it state this Court's
FACTS: Private respondent Potenciano Galanida was hired by petitioner Allied decision. The syllabus is simply the work of the reporter who gives his understanding
Banking Corporation on 11 January 1978 and rose from accountant-book(k)eeper to of the decision. The reporter writes the syllabus for the convenience of lawyers in
assistant manager in 1991. His appointment was covered by a "Notice of Personnel reading the reports. A syllabus is not a part of the court's decision. A counsel should
Action" which provides as one of the conditions of employment the provision on not cite a syllabus in place of the carefully considered text in the decision of the Court.
petitioner's right to transfer employees: In the present case, Labor Arbiter Almirante and Atty. Durano began by
"REGULAR APPOINTMENT: . . . It is understood that the bank reserves the quoting from Dosch, but substituted a portion of the decision with a headnote from the
right to transfer or assign you to other departments or branches of the bank as SCRA syllabus, which they even underscored. In short, they deliberately made the
the need arises and in the interest of maintaining smooth and uninterrupted quote from the SCRA syllabus appear as the words of the Supreme Court. We
service to the public." admonish them for what is at the least patent carelessness, if not an outright attempt to
Private respondent was promoted several times and was transferred to several mislead the parties and the courts taking cognizance of this case. Rule 10.02, Canon 10
branches. of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly
Effecting a rotation/movement of officers assigned in the Cebu homebase, misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision for authority. It is the duty of all
petitioner listed respondent as second in the order of priority of assistant managers to officers of the court to cite the rulings and decisions of the Supreme Court accurately.
be assigned outside of Cebu City having been stationed in Cebu for seven years
already. Private respondent manifested his refusal to be transferred to Bacolod City in
a letter dated 19 April 1994 citing as reason parental obligations, expenses, and the
anguish that would result if he is away from his family. He then filed a complaint
before the Labor Arbiter for constructive dismissal.
Subsequently, petitioner bank informed private respondent (Rollo, p. 86) that
he was to report to the Tagbilaran City Branch effective 23 May 1994. Private
respondent refused. In a letter dated 13 June 1994, petitioner warned and required of
private respondent.
On 16 June 1994, Galanida replied that "(w)hether the bank's penalty for my
refusal be Suspension or Dismissal . . . it will all the more establish and fortify my
complaint now pending at NLRC, RAB 7." In the same letter, he charged Allied Bank
with discrimination and favoritism in ordering his transfer.
On 5 October 1994, Galanida received an inter-office communication 7
("Memo") dated 8 September 1994 from Allied Bank's Vice-President for Personnel,
Mr. Leonso C. Pe. The Memo informed Galanida that Allied Bank had terminated his
services effective 1 September 1994. The reasons given for the dismissal were: (1)
Galanida's continued refusal to be transferred from the Jakosalem, Cebu City branch;
and (2) his refusal to report for work despite the denial of his application for additional
vacation leave.

ISSUE: Misquoting Decisions of the Supreme Court

ATTY. ANTONIO D. SELUDO v JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA Prosecutor Mananquil was able to pay the fine. The decision was promulgated on the
TOPIC: CANON 10 same afternoon and complainant was released from jail.
Complainant claimed that he attended all scheduled hearings of Criminal
DOCTRINE: A judge should avoid consciously falling into the attitude of mind that Case No. 58093 before respondent judge, and that it was only the promulgation set on
the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants. It is plain November 27 that he missed due to a conflict in schedule. He alleged that due to his
that respondent was impatient and discourteous in dealing with complainant. Judges incarceration, he failed to attend to the hearing of his cases involving six paying clients
should respect all people appearing before their courts, be they lawyers or litigants. set in the morning of November 29.
Respondent ordered complainant's arrest without according him the elementary right to
challenge the order. The violation of his right to due process cannot be denied. ISSUE: W/N THE RESPONDENT’S ORDER OF ARREST IS IN VIOLATION
OF PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
FACTS: It was alleged that on November 27, 2002, respondent judge ordered the
arrest of complainant "for the failure of accused, Errol De Villar and Rodeo Lerio, as HELD: In the case at bar, respondent based his authority in ordering complainant's
well as their counsel, Atty. Antonio Seludo, to appear in today's promulgation of (the) incarceration on Section 14, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. It does not need a
decision despite due notice, . . .." The Order of Arrest commanded any officer of the keen intellect to hold that the rule relied upon by the respondent cannot be used as
law to arrest complainant and to keep him in jail until the decision in Criminal Case basis for the detention of complainant since he is a counsel and not a material witness
No. 58093 shall have been promulgated. to a case. Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court is likewise of no help to the
Complainant averred that he was the defense counsel in two separate respondent. It does not require the presence of the counsel during the promulgation of
Criminal Cases: (1) Nos. 178462-64 before Judge Edwin B. Ramizo and (2) No. C- a judgment. We hold that respondent violated Rule 3.04, Canon 3 of the Code of
58093 before respondent judge. On November 11, 2002, complainant received an Judicial Conduct, which states: Rule 3.04. — A judge should be patient, attentive, and
order from respondent setting the promulgation of the decision in Criminal Case No. courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others
58093 on November 18. The promulgation did not push through as respondent judge appearing before the court. A judge should avoid consciously falling into the attitude
was confined in a hospital. On November 25, complainant received another order of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.
setting the promulgation at 8:30 a.m. of November 27. However, upon checking his It is plain that respondent was impatient and discourteous in dealing with complainant.
calendar, complainant noticed that on the said date and time, he had a previously-set Judges should respect all people appearing before their courts, be they lawyers or
hearing of Criminal Case Nos. 178462-64 before Judge Ramizo. Due to the conflicting litigants. Respondent ordered complainant's arrest without according him the
schedule, he instructed his secretary to inform the office of respondent judge that he elementary right to challenge the order. The violation of his right to due process cannot
could not attend the promulgation of his decision. He was thus surprised to receive on be denied. To be sure, complainant satisfactorily explained his absence in the
November 28, the aforementioned order directing his arrest and detention. November 18 scheduled promulgation. Before the promulgation, complainant's
Upon his arrest, complainant requested permission to go to the court of secretary called respondent's office to verify the schedule and was informed that all
respondent judge to ask for reconsideration. In court, respondent judge refused to see hearings for the day were cancelled due to respondent's confinement in the hospital. It
him. Complainant waited and was able to talk to respondent judge when the latter went is therefore inaccurate to contend that complainant was absent twice, and he has to be
out of his chambers and walked to his car. Complainant pleaded with respondent arrested to prevent delay in the promulgation of the decision. The Office of the Court
judge, who opened the windows of his car and, in the presence of the police officers, Administrator correctly observed that the respondent should have followed the
said, "kung gusto mo, pumunta ka sa harap ng kotse ko at sasagasaan na lang kita." following procedure: What respondent judge should have done under the
Complainant spent the night in jail. The next day, he was brought to court for circumstances obtaining at the time he issued the order of arrest of complainant was
the promulgation of the decision. However, Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., the first to issue an order directing him (Seludo), within a reasonable time, to show cause
public prosecutor, came late and was improperly dressed. Respondent judge flared up, why he should not be punished for indirect contempt of court and, reset the
fined him and held the promulgation in abeyance until Prosecutor Mananquil paid the promulgation of the decision to some other time at the convenience of the court. If the
cashier the one thousand peso (P1,000.00)-fine meted on him. Atty. Eduardo explanation is not satisfactory to the court, then and only then, that a penalty should be
Rodriguez, the lawyer assisting complainant, requested for a written order to be imposed upon the contemner.
presented to the cashier as basis for the payment of the imposed fine, but respondent
merely told him, "If you want an order, I will sign that order on Monday." Fortunately, JUDGE RENE B. BACULI v ATTY. MELCHOR A. BATTUNG
TOPIC: CANON 11.03
 continued to threaten Judge Baculi and acted in a manner that clearly showed
DOCTRINE: Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their position disrespect for his positioneven after the latter had cited him for contempt. In fact, after
and avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and initially leaving the court, the respondent returned to the courtroom and disrupted the
disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents. ongoing proceedings. These actions were not only against the person, the position and
the stature of Judge Baculi, but against the court as well whose proceedings were
FACTS: Judge Baculi claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the hearing on openly and flagrantly disrupted, and brought to disrepute by the respondent.
the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their position and
while arguing his motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his voice but avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and
instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that he would be disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents.
cited for direct contempt, the respondent shouted, "Then cite me!" Judge Baculi cited A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the
him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of P100.00. The respondent then left. latter's role, stature and position in our justice system. When the respondent publicly
While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi that he would file a case for gross
and shouted, "Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!" ignorance of the law against the latter, the respondent effectively acted in a manner
Judge Baculi ordered the sheriff to escort the respondent out of the courtroom and tending to erode the public con dence in Judge Baculi's competence and in his ability
cited him for direct contempt of court for the second time. to decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be handled with
After his hearings, Judge Baculi went out and saw the respondent at the hall sensitivity in the manner provided under the Rules of Court; an objecting or
of the courthouse, apparently waiting for him. The respondent again shouted in a complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring
threatening tone, "Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of the justice system into disrepute
you!" He kept on shouting, "I am not afraid of you!" and challenged the judge to a
fight. Staff and lawyers escorted him out of the building. Judge Baculi also learned
that after the respondent left the courtroom, he continued shouting and punched a table
at the Office of the Clerk of Court.
According to Judge Baculi, the respondent filed dilatory pleadings in Civil
Case No. 2640, an ejectment case. Judge Baculi rendered on October 4, 2007 a
decision in Civil Case No. 2640, which he modified on December 14, 2007. After the
modified decision became final and executory, the branch clerk of court issued a
certificate of finality. The respondent filed a motion to quash the previously issued
writ of execution, raising as a ground the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant for
lack of jurisdiction. Judge Baculi asserted that the respondent knew as a lawyer that
ejectment cases are within the jurisdiction of First Level Courts and the latter was
merely delaying the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The respondent
filed his Answer, essentially saying that it was Judge Baculi who disrespected him.

CANON 11 of CPR (A LAWYER

ISSUE: W/N Respondent violated
SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO
THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD
INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.)
HELD: YES. Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by shouting at him inside the
courtroom during court proceedings in the presence of litigants and their counsels, and
court personnel. The respondent even came back to harass Judge Baculi. This
behavior, in front of many witnesses, cannot be allowed. We note that the respondent
ROMEO G. ROXAS v ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR. amount, the records show that the amount turned over to the Zuzuarreguis by Atty.
TOPIC: CANON 13 Roxas amounted to P30,520,000.00 in NHA bonds.

DOCTRINE: Attorney's fees are unconscionable if they affront one's sense of justice, ISSUE: Whether or not the letter-agreement dated 10 december 1985, executed by the
decency or reasonableness. It becomes axiomatic therefore, that power to determine zuzuarreguis, and attys. roxas and pastor, fixing the exact amount that must go to the
the reasonableness or the, unconscionable character of attorney's fees stipulated by the former, should stand as law between the parties.
parties is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the courts
HELD: We sustain the Court of Appeals, but with modification in the computation.
FACTS: On 25 May 1983, said case was ordered archived by Branch 141. Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and Pastor are to receive
About a month before the aforecited case was ordered archived, the contingent fees for their professional services. It is a deeply-rooted rule that contingent
Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. fees are not per se prohibited by law.
Pastor, to represent them in Civil Case No. 26804. This was sealed by a Letter- However, in cases where contingent fees are sanctioned by law, the same
Agreement dated 22 April 1983. should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case, and should always be
A Motion to Set Case for Hearing, 8 dated 14 February 1984, was filed by subject to the supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness, such that under Canon 20
Attys. Roxas and Pastor in Civil Case No. 26804, praying that the case be revived and of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is tasked to charge only fair and
be set for hearing by the court at the earliest date available in its calendar. reasonable fees.
The appropriate proceedings thereafter ensued. On 29 October 1984, a Partial Indubitably entwined with the lawyer's duty to charge only reasonable fees is
Decision was rendered by Branch 141 in Civil Case No. 26804 fixing the just the power of this Court to reduce the amount of attorney's fees if the same is excessive
compensation to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis at P30.00 per square meter. The NHA and unconscionable
filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 November 1984 praying that the Partial Attorney's fees are unconscionable if they affront one's sense of justice,
Decision be reconsidered and set aside, and a new one rendered lowering the amount decency or reasonableness. It becomes axiomatic therefore, that power to determine
of just compensation in accordance with applicable laws. Pending resolution thereof, a the reasonableness or the, unconscionable character of attorney's fees stipulated by the
Joint Special Power of Attorney was executed by Antonio De Zuzuarregui, Jr., Enrique parties is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the courts
De Zuzuarregui and Pacita Javier, in favor of Attys. Roxas and Pastor. In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which was
As a result of the aforesaid NHA Resolution, a Compromise Agreement was equal to forty- four percent (44%) of the just compensation paid (including the yield
executed between the Zuzuarreguis and the NHA in Civil Case No. 26804. The on the bonds) by the NHA to the Zuzuarreguis, or an amount equivalent to
Compromise Agreement, stipulated among other things, that the just compensation of P23,980,000.00 of the P54,500,000.00. Considering that there was no full blown
the Zuzuarregui properties would be at P19.50 per square meter payable in NHA hearing in the expropriation case, ending as it did in a Compromise Agreement, the
Bonds. In a Decision dated 20 December 1985, the RTC, Branch 141, Makati, 44% is, undeniably, unconscionable and excessive under the circumstances. Its
approved the Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties. reduction is, therefore, in order. This is in accordance with our ruling in the earlier
On 27 December 1985, the NHA Legal Department, through Atty. Jose B. H. case of Tanhueco v. De Dumo 51 , where we reduced the amount of attorney's fees
Pedrosa, released to Atty. Romeo G. Roxas, in behalf of the Zuzuarreguis, the amount from sixty percent (60%) to fifteen percent (15%), for being excessive and
of P20,000,000.00 in NHA Bearer Bonds as "partial payment for several parcels of unreasonable.
land with a total area of 1,790,570.36 square meters located in Antipolo, Rizal." On It is imperative that the contingent fees received by Attys. Roxas and Pastor
even date, Atty. Romeo G. Roxas delivered NHA Bonds to Antonio De Zuzuarregui in must be equitably reduced. In the opinion of this Court, the yield that corresponds to
the amount of P15,000,000.00. On 04 February 1986, the amount of P34,500,000.00 in the percentage share of the Zuzuarreguis in the P19.50 per square meter just
Bearer Bonds was again released by the NHA to Atty. Romeo G. Roxas in behalf of compensation paid by the NHA must be returned by Attys. Roxas and Pastor.
the Zuzuarreguis. On 14 February 1986, the Zuzuarreguis issued a receipt for
receiving the amount of P30,070,000.00. This receipt included the P15,000,000.00
given to them last 27 December 1985. Again on 17 February 1986, the Zuzuarreguis, RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR
through Beatriz Zuzuarregui vda. De Reyes, issued another receipt for the amount of STATE PROSECUTOR
P450,000.00 in NHA bonds. The total amount in NHA bonds released to Atty. Romeo TOPIC: CANON 11
G. Roxas in behalf of the Zuzuarreguis amounted to P54,500,000.00. Out of this
DOCTRINE: Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others." Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states
appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and that a lawyer "shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only.”
liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the
them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility holding of a press conference where he made statements against the Order dated
mandates a lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to November 12, 2002 allowing the accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on
judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others." Rule 11.05 of bail.
Canon 11 states that a lawyer "shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan
authorities only." was displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts
Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the August
FACTS: Crim. Case No. 5144 was originally raffled to the sala of Judge Floripinas C. 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondent's statements in the
Buyser, RTC of Surigao City, Branch 30. In an Order dated March 14, 2002, Judge article, which were made while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also
Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused, declaring that the violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states that "a lawyer shall not make public
evidence thus presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime of statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for
homicide and not the charge of murder. Consequently, the counsel for the defense filed or against a party."
a Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, respondent violated
then Senior State Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to
mainly on the ground that the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion the proper authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent
perpetua, was not subject to bail under Sec. 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its of cer when he stated that
In an Order dated August 30, 2002, Judge Buyser inhibited himself from Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying
further trying the case because of the "harsh insinuation" of Senior Prosecutor Rogelio mahjong instead of studying the law, and that he was a liar.
Z. Bagabuyo that he "lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate," by allegedly Respondent also violated the Lawyer's Oath, as he has sworn to "conduct
suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel for the [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all
accused. good delity as well to the courts as to [his] clients."
The case was transferred to Branch 29 of the RTC of Surigao City, presided
by Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan. In an Order dated November 12, 2002, Judge Tan
favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond, and fixed the amount
of the bond at P40,000.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated November
12, 2002, which motion was denied for lack of merit in an Order dated February 10,
2003. In October, 2003, respondent appealed from the Orders dated November 12,
2002 and February 10, 2003, to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies, respondent caused the
publication of an article regarding the Order granting bail to the accused in the August
18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily.

ISSUE: W/N respondent violates canon 11 rule 11.05 of CPR

HELD: Lawyers are licensed oficers of the courts who are empowered to appear,
prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities
are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them
certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a
lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
GABRIEL v CA (In re: Contempt citation against Atty. Cornelio M. Orteza) Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall them. In contradistinction,
advocates are partisans — those who actively plead and defend the cause of others. It
TOPIC: Contempt of court, repetitious petitions is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness from
the zeal of an advocate. The question is one of propriety rather than of competency of
DOCTRINE: the lawyers who testify for their clients.

FACTS: The Court of Appeals’ Resolution of June 11, 1976 (2nd peitition), the FACTS: Complainant Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management
petition (filed on May 31, 1976) for review of the Court of Appeals decision of and Penology, lodged a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Edison
November 28, 1975 which affirmed in toto the Manila court of first instance's Rafanan before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleging, inter alia, that Atty.
judgment of convicting the two petitioners therein accused of the crime of theft, was Rafanan violated Rule 12.07 and Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
denied for lack of merit. However, the Court noted therein that a first petition for the Responsibility when the latter executed an affidavit in favour of his client and offered
same purpose filed through another lawyer on March 6, 1976 had been previously the same as evidence in a case where he is actively representing his client. The
denied and final judgment entered on May 10, 1976. The CA resolved that Atty. complaint also alleged that after the hearing of the case, respondent accompanied by
several persons waited for Complainant and after confronting the latter disarmed him
Cornelio M. Orteza is hereby required to SHOW CAUSE why he should not
of his sidearm and thereafter uttered insulting words and veiled threats.
be held in contempt and/or disciplinary dealt with for filing a second petition In his answer, He admitted that he executed an affidavit in favour of his client and
on behalf of the same petitioners for review of the same decision of the Court offered the same as evidence in a case where he is actively representing his client but
of Appeals which was already previously denied with finality within ten (10) interposed the defense that lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients "on
days from notice hereof substantial matters, in
cases where [their] testimony is essential to the ends of justice."

The IBP recommended the dismissal of the complaint for alleged violation of Rule
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Cornelio M. Orteza should be cited for contempt. 12.07 and Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
insufficiency of evidence. Hence, the present action was commenced.
HELD: Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Court's processes and
improper conduct that tends to impede obstruct and degrade the administration of ISSUE: May a lawyer testify on substantial matters relative to the cause of the party
justice and will be punished as contempt of court. 2 Needless to add, the lawyer who which he is actively representing in a case without violating the Code of Professional
filed such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a Responsibility?
final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence
(for not knowing any better or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act HELD:
with all good fidelity to the courts and to maintain only such actions as appear to him Rule 12.08 of the CPR: "A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client."
to be just and are consistent with truth and honor.
Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness,
Respondent Atty. Orteza is therefore adjudged guilty of contempt of court and is except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged communication arising from an
ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred (P500.00) pesos with ten (10) days from notice attorney-client relationship.
hereof failing which, he shall be imprisoned for a period of (50) days. While further The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task
administrative action against him is herewith forborne, he is hereby warned that a of dissociating their relation to their clients as witnesses from that as advocates.
future repetition or the same or similar incident will be dealt with more severely. Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall them. In contradistinction,
JONAR SANTIAGO v Atty. EDISON V. RAFANAN advocates are partisans — those who actively plead and defend the cause of others. It
TOPIC: CANON 12 is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness from
the zeal of an advocate. The question is one of propriety rather than of competency of
DOCTRINE: The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers by the the lawyers who testify for their clients.
task of dissociating their relation to their clients as witnesses from that as advocates.
Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and at the same Cordero’s and Atty.Mauricio himself – resulting in the dismissal of the Cordero case,
time counsels for a cause, the preference is for them to refrain from testifying as Atty.Mauricio still inexplicably launched a media offensive to the companies.
witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to withdraw from ISSUE:
active management of the case.
Notwithstanding this guideline and the existence of the Affidavit executed by Atty. HELD: The Court finds the findings/evaluation of the IBP well-taken.
Rafanan in favor of his clients, we cannot hastily make him administratively liable for The Court, once again, takes this occasion to emphasize the necessity for
the following reasons: every lawyer to act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence
in the integrity of the legal profession, which confidence may be eroded by the
First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that is irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar.
authorized by law for the benefit of the client, especially in a criminal action in which He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
the latter’s life and liberty are at stake. mandates: A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
Second, paragraph (b) of Rule 12.08 contemplates a situation in which lawyers give By failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of
their testimonies during the trial. In this instance, the Affidavit was submitted during the legal profession, respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
the preliminary investigation which, as such, was merely inquisitorial. Responsibility which directs a lawyer to "at all times uphold the integrity and the
dignity of the legal profession."
The power of the media to form or influence public opinion cannot be
FOODSPHERE, INC. v ATTY. MELANIO L. MAURICIO, JR. underestimated. In Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr., the therein complainant engaged therein-
TOPIC: CANON 13.02 herein respondent's services as "she was impressed by the pro-poor and pro-justice
advocacy of respondent, a media personality", only to later find out that after he
DOCTRINE: The Court, once again, takes this occasion to emphasize the necessity demanded and the therein complainant paid an exorbitant fee, no action was taken nor
for every lawyer to act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public any pleadings prepared by him. Respondent was suspended for six months.
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession, which con dence may be eroded by On reading the articles respondent published, not to mention listening to him
the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. over the radio and watching him on television, it cannot be gainsaid that the same
could, to a certain extent, have affected the sales of complainant.
FACTS: Foodsphere, a corportation engaged in the business of meat processing and DANTE JIMENEZ v ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR.
manufacture of canned goods of ―CDO‖ filed an administrative complaint against TOPIC:
Atty.Melanio Mauricio, Jr. for violation of the code of professional responsibility. The
case at hand involved a certain Alberto Cordero who purportedly found a colony of FACTS: Brodett and Tecson (identified in media reports attached to the Complaint as
worms inside the can of liver spread by CDO and Foodsphere that he bought from the the “Alabang Boys”) werethe accused in cases filed by the Philippine Drug
grocery. The Cordero family sued the company for P150,000 for damages, but the Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the illegal sale and use ofdangerous drugs. In a Joint
companies did not agree to the demands. The Cordero’s thereafter threatened to resort Inquest Resolution issued on 2 December 2008, the charges were dropped for lackof
to the media, if their demands are not met. Consequently, Atty. Mauricio the counsel probable cause.Because of the failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask clarificatory
of the Cordero’s, was involved in various media productions such as being a questions during the evaluation of thecase, several media outlets reported on incidents
writer/columnist of tabloids including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, of bribery and “cover-up” allegedly prevalent in investigationsof the drug trade. This
TORO and HATAW!, and a host of a television program KAKAMPI MO ANG prompted the House Committee on Illegal Drugs to conduct its own
BATAS telecast over UNTV and of a radio program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN congressionalhearings. It was revealed during one such hearing that respondent had
aired over DZBB. Atty. Mauricio, in many cases utilized these media outlets to place prepared the release order for his threeclients using the letterhead of the DOJ.Jimenez
the said company in a bad light by declaring to the masses the liver spread of worms; and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and
even after his receipt of the Order addressed to him to desist from ―further Corruption (VACC), sent aletter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They
publishing, televising and/or broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the stated that respondent had admitted to drafting therelease order, and had thereby
instant case more specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on plaintiff and its committed a highly irregular and unethical act. They argued that respondent hadno
products‖. Even after the parties have performed an agreement, signed by the authority to use the DOJ letterhead and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a
member of the bar.For his part, Atty. Lozano anchored his Complaint on respondent’s
alleged violation of Canon 1 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility, which states
that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land,and promote
respect for legal processes. Atty. Lozano contended that respondent showed disrespect
for the lawand legal processes in drafting the said order and sending it to a high-
ranking public official, even though thelatter was not a government prosecutor. Atty.
Lozano’s verified Complaint-Affidavit was filed with the Committeeon Bar Discipline
of the IBP.The Commissioner noted that both complaints remained unsubstantiated,
while the letter-complaint of Jimenezand Vizconde had not been verified. Therefore,
no evidence was adduced to prove the charges. However, by hisown admissions in
paragraphs 11 and 12 of his Comment, respondent drafted the release order
specifically forthe signature of the DOJ Secretary. This act of “feeding” the draft order
to the latter was found to be highlyirregular, as it tended to influence a public official.
Canon 14-15
Hence, Commissioner Abelita found respondent guilty ofviolating Canon 13 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be issued a warning WILLIAM S. UY v ATTY. FERMIN L. GONZALES
notto repeat the same or any similar action. TOPIC: CANON 21
Issue: W/N the respondent’s actuations of influence peddling run counter to Canon 13 FACTS:
of CPR Complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer to prepare and file a petition
HELD: After a careful review of the records, we agree with the IBP in finding for the issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding with respondent the
reasonable grounds to holdrespondent administratively liable. Canon 13, the provision circumstances surrounding the lost title and discussing the fees and costs, respondent
applied by the Investigating Commissioner, statesthat “a lawyer shall rely upon the prepared, finalized and submitted to him a petition to be filed before the Regional Trial
merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends toinfluence, or gives Court.
the appearance of influencing the court.” We believe that other provisions in the Code When the petition was about to be filed, respondent went to complainant’s office
of Professional Responsibility likewise prohibit acts of influence-peddling not limited demanding a certain amount other than what was previously agreed upon. Respondent
to the regular courts, buteven in all other venues in the justice sector, where respect for left his office after reasoning with him. Expecting that said petition would be filed, he
the rule of law is at all times demanded from a member of the bar. The way was shocked to find out later that instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new
respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and certificate of title, respondent filed a letter-complaint against him with the Office of
consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type of improper the Provincial Prosecutor for Falsification of Public Documents. The letter-complaint
behavior sought to be regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Respondent is duty- contained facts and circumstances pertaining to the transfer certificate of title that was
bound to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be seen to influence , the subject matter of the petition which respondent was supposed to have filed.
the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people’s faithi n the judicial process is Respondent claims that he gave complainant a handwritten letter telling complainant
diluted.In the present case, we find that respondent fell short of these exacting that he is withdrawing the petition he prepared and that complainant should get another
standards. Given the import of the case, a warning is a mere slap on the wrist that lawyer to file the petition thereby terminating the lawyer-client relationship between
would not serve as commensurate penalty for the offense. Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, him and complainant; that there was no longer any professional relationship between
Jr. is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.02 and 15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of the two of them when he filed the letter-complaint for falsification of public document;
theCode of Professional Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED from the that the facts and allegations contained in the letter-complaint for falsification were
practice of law for six (6) monthseffective immediately. culled from public documents procured from the Office of the Register of Deeds.
The IBP found him guilty of violating Rule 21.02, Canon 21 of the Canons of
Professional Responsibility and recommended for his suspension for 6 months.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Canon 21 of the CPR?
HELD:
No. Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of among others, the organization and acquisition of business associations and/or
Public Documents filed by respondent against complainant were obtained by organizations, with the correlative and incidental services where its members acted as
respondent due to his personal dealings with complainant. Respondent volunteered his incorporators, or simply, as stockholders. More speci cally, in the performance of these
service to hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the land he has redeemed services, the members of the law rm delivered to its client documents which
from complainant. Clearly, there was no attorney-client relationship between substantiate the client's equity holdings, i.e., stock certi cates endorsed in blank
respondent and complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing of the petition representing the shares registered in the client's name, and a blank deed of trust or
was only incidental to their personal transaction. assignment covering said shares. In the course of their dealings with their clients, the
Whatever facts alleged by respondent against complainant were not obtained by members of the law rm acquire information relative to the assets of clients as well as
respondent in his professional capacity but as a redemptioner of a property originally their personal and business circumstances. As members of the ACCRA Law Firm,
owned by his deceased son and therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for petitioners and private respondent Raul Roco admit that they assisted in the
estafa against herein complainant, which necessarily involved alleging facts that would organization and acquisition of the companies included in Civil Case No. 0033, and in
constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any way, violating Canon 21. There is no way keeping with the of ce practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-stockholders of
we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint against herein complainant to a the said corporations involved in sequestration proceedings.
misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor On August 20, 1991, respondent Presidential Commission on Good
or that renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise government (hereinafter referred to as respondent PCGG) led a "Motion to Admit
would be precluding any lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to protect his Third Amended Complaint" and "Third Amended Complaint" which excluded private
personal or proprietary interests. respondent Raul S. Roco from the complaint in PCGG Case No. 33 as party-defendant.
Respondent PCGG based its exclusion of private respondent Roco as party-defendant
PETITION DISMISSED for lack of merit. on his undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the principal/s for whom he acted
as nominee/stockholder in the companies involved in PCGG Case No. 33.

TEODORO R. REGALA v SANDIGANBAYAN (PCGG CASE V DANDING) ISSUE:

TOPIC:
HELD: In the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules, ethical conduct
DOCTRINE: In the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules, ethical and duties that breathe life into it, among those, the fiduciary duty to his client which
conduct and duties that breathe life into it, among those, the duciary duty to his client is of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high degree
which is of a very delicate, exacting and con dential character, requiring a very high of fidelity and good faith, that is required by reason of necessity and public interest
degree of delity and good faith, that is required by reason of necessity and public based on the hypothesis that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is an
interest based on the hypothesis that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good evil which is fatal to the administration of justice. It is also the strict sense of fidelity
cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration of justice. of a lawyer to his client that distinguishes him from any other professional in society.
This conception is entrenched and embodies centuries of established and stable
FACTS: The matters raised herein are an offshoot of the institution of the Complaint tradition. Considerations favoring confidentiality in lawyer-client relationships are
on July 31, 1987 before the Sandiganbayan by the Republic of the Philippines, through many and serve several constitutional and policy concerns. In the constitutional sphere,
the Presidential Commission on Good Government against Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., the privilege gives flesh to one of the most sacrosanct rights available to the accused,
as one of the principal defendants, for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, which the right to counsel. If a client were made to choose between legal representation
includes shares of stocks in the named corporations in PCGG Case No. 33 (Civil Case without effective communication and disclosure and legal representation with all his
No. 0033), entitled "Republic of the Philippines versus Eduardo Cojuangco, et al." secrets revealed then he might be compelled, in some instances, to either opt to stay
Among the defendants named in the case are herein petitioners Teodoro away from the judicial system or to lose the right to counsel. If the price of disclosure
Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose C. Concepcion, Rogelio A. Vinluan, is too high, or if it amounts to self incrimination, then the flow of information would
Victor P. Lazatin, Eduardo U. Escueta and Paraja G. Hayudini, and herein private be curtailed thereby rendering the right practically nugatory. The threat this represents
respondent Raul S. Roco, who all were then partners of the law rm Angara, Abello, against another sacrosanct individual right, the right to be presumed innocent is at once
Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Of ces (hereinafter referred to as the ACCRA Law self-evident. Encouraging full disclosure to a lawyer by one seeking legal services
Firm). ACCRA Law Firm performed legal services for its clients, which included, opens the door to a whole spectrum of legal options which would otherwise be
circumscribed by limited information engendered by a fear of disclosure. An effective that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client's most confidential
lawyer-client relationship is largely between lawyer and client which in turn requires a information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information between
situation which encourages a dynamic and fruitful exchange and ow of information. It them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information to his/her
necessarily follows that in order to attain effective representation, the lawyer must lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the
invoke the privilege not as a matter of option but as a matter of duty and professional lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
responsibility dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer's duty in this regard is to
avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03.
JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON v ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR. On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, we find substantial evidence to
TOPIC: RULE 15.03 support Atty. Sabitsana's violation of the above rule, as established by the following
circumstances on record:
DOCTRINE: "The proscription against representation of con icting interests applies One, his legal services were initially engaged by the complainant to protect her
to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an interest over a certain property. The records show that upon the legal advice of Atty.
unrelated action." The prohibition also applies even if the "lawyer would not be called Sabitsana, the Deed of Sale over the property was prepared and executed in the
upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, complainant's favor.
or that there would be no occasion to use the con dential information acquired from Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida Cañete to discuss the latter's legal interest over
one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated." To be the property subject of the Deed of Sale. At that point, Atty. Sabitsana already had
held accountable under this rule, it is "enough that the opposing parties in one case, knowledge that Zenaida Cañete's interest clashed with the complainant's interests.
one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing interests between his two clients, Atty.
lawyer's respective retainers with each of themwould affect the performance of the Sabitsana accepted the engagement from Zenaida Cañete.
duty of undivided fidelity to both clients. Four, Atty. Sabitsana's actual knowledge of the conflicting interests between his two
clients was demonstrated by his own actions: first, he filed a case against the
FACTS: In her complaint, Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) related that she complainant in behalf of Zenaida Cañete; second, he impleaded the complainant as the
previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and defendant in the case; and third, the case he led was for the annulment of the Deed of
execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late Sale that he had previously prepared and executed for the complainant. IcaHCS
common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client against
confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the another client in the same action; he also accepted a new engagement that entailed him
Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The to contend and oppose the interest of his other client in a property in which his legal
complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained services had been previously retained.
from her in filing the civil case. To be sure, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation provides an exception to the above prohibition. However, we nd no reason to apply the
and execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any exception due to Atty. Sabitsana's failure to comply with the requirements set forth
confidential information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the present disbarment under the rule. Atty. Sabitsana did not make a full disclosure of facts to the
complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the complainant and to Zenaida Cañete before he accepted the new engagement with
disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana) and had Zenaida Cañete. The records likewise show that although Atty. Sabitsana wrote a letter
instigated the complaint for this reason. to the complainant informing her of Zenaida Cañete's adverse claim to the property
covered by the Deed of Sale and, urging her to settle the adverse claim; Atty. Sabitsana
ISSUE: whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting however did not disclose to the complainant that he was also being engaged as counsel
interests. by Zenaida Cañete. Moreover, the records show that Atty. Sabitsana failed to obtain
the written consent of his two clients, as required by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code
HELD: After a careful study of the records, we agree with the findings and of Professional Responsibility.
recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors.
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued
with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality
VERONICA S. SANTIAGO v ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS (Failure to file Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and
Answer) competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
TOPIC: CANON 14 Furthermore, a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence and, more
DOCTRINE: Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, liable.”
save by the rules of law, legally applied.
Atty. Fojas’s negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91
FACTS: Respondent without informing the complainants in a case handled by him for was in fact a “losing cause”. The Supreme Court held that he should have seasonably
the latter abandoned, failed to act accordingly, or seriously neglected to answer the informed the complainants thereof. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
civil complaint against the complainant resulting to there default. Responsibility expressly provides: A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a
That under false pretenses Atty. Fojas assured us that everything was in order. candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case,
That he had already answered the complaint so that in spite of the incessant demand neither overstating nor understanding the prospects of the case.
for him to give us a copy he continued to deny same to us. Only to disclose later that REPRIMANDED AND ADMONISHED
he never answered it after all because according to him he was a very busy man. Please
refer to Court of Appeals decision dated August 17, 1993. LYDIA CASTRO-JUSTO v ATTY. RODOLFO T. GALING
That because of Atty. Amado Fojas' neglect and malpractice of law we lost TOPIC: CANON 15.03
the Judge Capulong case and our appeal to the Court of Appeals. So that it is only
proper that Atty. Fojas be disciplined and disbarred in the practice of his profession. DOCTRINE: A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close
friendship between complainant and respondent. The relationship was established the
ISSUE: whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant moment complainant sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored
disciplinary action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer in Civil Case No. checks
3526-V-91 for which reason the latter were declared in default and judgment was
rendered against them on the basis of the plaintiff's evidence, which was received ex- FACTS: Complainant Justo alleged that sometime in April 2003, she engaged the
parte. services of respondent Atty. Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by
Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid his professional fees,
HELD: HELD: the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment of the checks.
Yes. The Supreme Court upheld Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause demand letter before filing her complaint.
and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. This means On 10 July 2003, complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for
that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such Prosecutor of Manila.
remedy or defense. In his motion for reconsideration of the default order, the On 27 July 2003, she received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation filed by
respondent explained his non-filing of the required answer by impliedly invoking respondent for and on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in the criminal cases, and the
forgetfulness occasioned by a large volume and pressure of legal work, while in his latter's daughter Karen Torralba (Ms. Torralba). Further, on 8 August 2003, respondent
Comment in this case he attributes it to honest mistake and excusable neglect due to appeared as counsel for Ms. Koa before the prosecutor of Manila.
his overzealousness to question the denial order of the trial court. Whether it be the Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent
first or the second ground, the fact remains that the respondent did not comply with his violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
duty to file an answer.
ISSUE:
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent’s
inability to exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer.
HELD: We agree with the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating FACTS: Jimenez vs Francisco (2014) Facts: Mario Crespo (aka Mark Jimenez) filed a
Commissioner, as adopted by the Board of Governors of the IBP. complaint for estafa against Caroline Castaneda Jimenez (complainant in the
A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close friendship disbarment case) and several others with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati
between complainant and respondent. The relationship was established the moment City. Jimenez claimed to be the true and beneficial owner of the shares of stock in
complainant sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By Clarion realty and Development Corporation (Clarion) which was incorporated for the
drafting the demand letter respondent further affirmed such relationship. The fact that purpose of purchasing a residential house located in Forbes Park. The Forbes house
the demand letter was not utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that respondent was purchased for P117,000,000 but it was undervalued to make it appear that it was
was not eventually engaged by complainant to represent her in the criminal cases is of sold for only P78,000,000. Later on, Jimenez was informed by his lawyer, Atty. Edgar
no moment. As observed by the Investigating Commissioner, by referring to Francisco, that Caroline fraudulently sold the Forbes property to Philmetro Southwest
complainant Justo as "my client" in the demand letter sent to the defaulting debtor, Enterprise for P118 million. This sale was again undervalued at P78 million.
respondent admitted the existence of the lawyer-client relationship. Such admission Thereafter, Jimenez, with the assistance of Atty. Francisco, sued them for estafa.
effectively estopped him from claiming otherwise. Caroline was shocked and felt betrayed especially by Atty. Francisco as he was the one
Likewise, the non-payment of professional fee will not exculpate respondent who assisted her with the transactions. Atty. Francisco also happened to be the legal
from liability. Absence of monetary consideration does not exempt lawyers from counsel of Clarion. Hence, she filed a complaint against him with the IBP-CBD,
complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases with conflicting interests. The seeking his disbarment, on the basis of the affidavit executed by Atty. Francisco in the
prohibition attaches from the moment the attorney-client relationship is established estafa case. On his part, Atty. Francisco argued that he did not violate the rule on
and extends beyond the duration of the professional relationship. We held in Burbe v. disclosures of privileged communication nor the proscription against representing
Atty. Magulta that it is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised or charged; conflicting interests, on the ground that he was the personal counsel of Jimenez and
neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for not of Caroline. The IBP-CBD found that Atty. Francisco violated the rules on
which his service had been sought. privileged communication and conflict of interest, and that he participated in unlawful
Under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, "[a] transactions. It was recommended that he be suspended for one year from the practice
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all of law. The IBP-BOG affirmed.
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." Respondent was therefore bound
to refrain from representing parties with con icting interests in a controversy. By doing Issue: Whether or not Atty. Francisco violated the rules on privileged communication
so, without showing any proof that he had obtained the written consent of the and conflict of interest.
conflicting parties, respondent should be sanctioned.
The prohibition against representing con icting interest is founded on Held: No. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR provides that, "[a] lawyer shall not
principles of public policy. In the course of the lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
learns of the facts connected with the client's case, including the weak and strong full disclosure of the facts." 24 "The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client
points of the case. The nature of the relationship is, therefore, one of trust and should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the
confidence of the highest degree. standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client's
most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of
information between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential
CAROLINE CASTAÑEDA JIMENEZ v ATTY. EDGAR B. FRANCISCO information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost
TOPIC: RULE 15.03 secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty- bound to observe candor,
DOCTRINE: From the foregoing, it is obvious that the rule on conflict of interests fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the
presupposes a lawyer-client relationship. The purpose of the rule is precisely to protect lawyer's duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests. . ." 25 Thus,
the fiduciary nature of the ties between an attorney and his client. Conversely, a lawyer even if lucrative fees offered by prospective clients are at stake, a lawyer must decline
may not be precluded from accepting and representing other clients on the ground of professional employment if the same would trigger a violation of the prohibition
conflict of interests, if the lawyer-client relationship does not exist in favor of a party against conflict of interest.
in the first place.
Those rules presuppose a lawyer-client relationship. Also, the rule on lawyer-client
privilege requires the following factors: (1) Attorney-client relationship; (2) The client
made the communication in confidence; and (3) The legal advice must be sought from
the attorney in his professional capacity. In this case, Caroline failed to establish the
professional relationship between her and Atty. Francisco. Nevertheless, Atty.
Francisco was suspended from the practice for six months for having participated in
the unlawful transactions concerning the purchase of the Forbes property in violation
of Canons 1 and 10 and Rule 1.0 of the CPR.