Compiled Rulings of Cases for Midterms Lawyers Censurable Acts: Negligence: People vs Sevillano

All three (3) of them displayed manifest disinterest on the plight of their client. They lacked vigor and dedication to their work. Atty. Agravante did not explain to the accused the nature of the crime of which he was charged and the consequences of his plea. Atty. Pabalinas, instead of assisting the accused, hastily left the courtroom after obtaining leave while the prosecution was presenting its three (3) witnesses. Resultingly, all three (3) witnesses were never cross-examined. On the other hand, Atty. Saldavia moved for the postponement of the scheduled hearings during which he was supposed to present evidence for the defense; worse, on the last scheduled hearing he submitted the case for decision without presenting evidence. In short, no evidence was ever presented for the defense. And, as if to compound his deficiency with ignorance, Atty. Saldavia relied on his client's plea of guilt in the mistaken belief that it would modify and reduce to reclusion perpetua the imposable penalty of death. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to serve his client with utmost dedication, competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable. Obviously, in the instant case, the aforenamed defense lawyers did not protect, much less uphold, the fundamental rights of the accused. Instead, they haphazardly performed their function as counsel de oficio to the detriment and prejudice of the accused Sevilleno, however guilty he might have been found to be after trial. Inevitably, this Court must advise Attys. Agravante, Pabalinas and Saldavia to adhere closely and faithfully to the tenets espoused in the Code of Professional Responsibility; otherwise, commission of any similar act in the future will be severely sanctioned.

Money Matters: Gatchalian Promotions vs Naldoza

The acts committed by respondent definitely constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney. These acts are noted with disapproval by the Court; they are in violation of his duty, as a lawyer, to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and to engage in no conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Such misconduct discredits the legal profession Respondent's acts are more despicable. Not only did he misappropriate the money entrusted to him; he also faked a reason to cajole his client to part with his money. Worse, he had the gall to falsify an official receipt of this Court to cover up his misdeeds. Clearly, he does not deserve to continue being a member of the bar.

Toledo vs Atty Abalos

This is a case of a lawyer who borrowed money without paying it back. We agree with the Commission that respondent may not be disciplined either by the IBP or by this Court for failing to pay her obligation to complainant. Complainant's remedy is to file a collection case before a regular court of justice against respondent. The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him, for misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity

Sebastian vs Calis- own report Pentecostes vs Ybanez

The Court repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense of morality, honest and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The failure of the respondent to immediately remit the amount to the SSS gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use. This is a gross violation of general morality as well as professional ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.

Co vs Bernardino
General rule: a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity (In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 5569 [1923]) Exceptions: the misconduct outside of the lawyer's professional dealings is so gross a character as to show him morally unfit for the office and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer on him, the court may be justified in suspending or removing him from the office of attorney (In Re Sotto, 38 Phil. 569 [1923] - His propinquity for employing deceit and misrepresentations as well as his cavalier attitude towards incurring debts without the least intention of repaying them is reprehensible. - This disturbing behavior cannot be tolerated most especially in a lawyer who is an officer of the court.

Respect of courts hierarchy: Villaflor vs Sarita

It is the duty of a lawyer to uphold the dignity and authority of the court, to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. It is his foremost responsibility to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers (Section 20 (b), Rule 138, The Rules of Court). The highest form of respect to the judicial authority is shown by a lawyers obedience to court orders and processes. Atty. Sarita committed an IMMEASURABLE DISSERVICE to the judicial system when he openly defied the TRO issued by the CA. By such act, he deliberately disregarded or ignored his solemn oath to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity to the courts. He neglected his duties to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers (Canon 11, CPR), and to act with candor, fairness and good faith to the

courts. (Canon 10, CPR). Assuming that the TRO issued by the CA was ambiguous in its phraseology, Atty. Sarita should have carried out the intent and spirit of the TRO rather than choose to be narrowly technical in interpreting and implementing the same. In doing so, he violated his oath of office and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR which provices that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. His conduct is starkly unbecoming of an officer of the court.

On Pleadings filed and the language of the lawyer: COMELEC vs Noynay

The judge should be reminded of his duty to be studious of the principles of law, to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself, to be faithful to the law, and to maintain professional competence. Balbuena should also be admonished for his utter carelessness in his references. Rule 10.02 mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority.

Duties of a Notary Public Arrieta vs Llosa

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantial public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties which are dictated by public policy and, as such, impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. As an individual, and even more so as a member of the legal profession, he is required to obey the laws of the land AT ALL TIMES, to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct AT ALL TIMES, to uphold the integrity of his profession AT ALL TIMES, to promote respect to his profession AT ALL TIMES, and to act with justice AT ALL TIMES It is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. [M]embership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. There being no lifetime guaranty, a lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him.

Businos vs Ricafort
CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESS. Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his unlawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court. Respondent's transgressions manifested dishonesty and amounted to grave misconduct and grossly unethical behavior which caused dishonor, not merely to respondent, but to the noble profession to which he belongs, for it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his client, his profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.

Likong vs Lim
The Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics states:

Negotiations with opposite party. A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law. The violation of the aforementioned rules of professional conduct by respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim, warrants the imposition upon him of the proper sanction from this Court. Such acts constituting malpractice and grave misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not only do they erode confidence and trust in the legal profession, they likewise prevent justice from being attained.

Fernandez vs Grecia
By descending to the level of a common thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the BAR." Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 in the Rules of Professional Responsibility being violated by Atty Grecia, notwitsanding that he was once disbarred to practice law on November 12, 1987 for his 'unholy alliance' with a judge in Quezon city to rip off banks and Chinese business firms. And that 8 months after the Supreme Court heeding his pleas for compassion and promise to mend his ways, it was just eight months after that he is faced with yet another disbarment case.

Mijares vs Villaluz- own report Ordonio vs Eduarte

RULE 10. Acquiring interest in litigation The lawyer should not purchase any interest in the subject matter of the litigation which he is conducting. Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall be misled or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Respondent violated the law in preparing and notarizing the deeds of absolute sale in making it appear that there were considerations therefor, when in truth there were none so received by the seller. Atty. Eduarte admitted that Ulibari did not actually sell the parcels of land to her children for the considerations stated in the deeds of sale and that she "utilized the form of deed of sale as the most convenient and appropriate document to effect the transfer of the parcels of land to Antonia Ulibari's children in accordance with her wish that said parcels of land be given to them. In so doing, respondent has manifestly violated that part of her oath as a lawyer that she shall not do any falsehood. In preparing the documents which do not reflect the true transaction, respondent has likewise violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall be mislead or allow the court to be mislead by any artifice.

Withdrawal of a counsel: Orcino vs Gaspar

The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation at any time with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyer's right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the client's written consent or from a good cause. Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: Sec. 26. Change of attorneys -- An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party. A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding with the written consent of his client filed in court and copy thereof served upon the adverse party. Should the client refuse to give his consent, the lawyer must file an application with the court. The court, on notice to the client and adverse party, shall determine whether he ought to be allowed to retire.