Ethics Digests Compiled

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
1 LEDESMA V CLIMACO
FACTS:
Ledesma is counsel de parte of one accused. Thereafter, he was appointed
as Election Registrar of Cadiz, Negros Occidental by COMELEC
Ledesma withdrew as counsel on the basis that his appointment as Election
Registrar would require full time service as well as on the volume or
pressure of work will prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
Judge Climaco denied his motion, and even appointed him as counsel de
officio of the accused.
ISSUE: WoN the withdrawal of Ledesma should be allowed
HELD: No.
RATIO:
1. There is obvious reluctance of Ledesma to comply with his responsibilities
as counsel de oficio. Then, even assuming that he continues his position, his
volume of work is likely to be very much less than present. There is no
excuse for him to shirk from his obligation as member of the bar, who
expects to remain in good standing, should fulfill.
2. Ledesma was not mindful of his obligation as counsel de oficio. He ought to
know that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.
Being appointed as counsel de oficio requires a high degree of fidelity (law
is a profession and not a mere trade). Requires counsel of repute and
eminence.
3. In criminal cases, right to counsel is absolute. No fair hearing unless the
accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel.
4. The denial by Judge Climaco was due to the principal effect to delay the
case (case has already been postponed for 8 times)
2 IN RE SYCIP
FACTS:
This is a consolidated petition. The first one filed by the surviving partners
of atty. Alexander Sycip and the other filed by the surviving partners of Atty.
Herminio Ovaepa. They pray that they be allowed to continue using the
names of partners who had passed away.
Petitioners based their petitions on the following arguments:
o Art. 1840 of the Civil Code,
o in regulating other professions, the legislature has authorized the
adoption of firm names without any restriction as to the use of the
name of a deceased partner,
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
o the Canons of Professional Ethics allows the continued use of a

deceased partner when permissible by local custom.
ISSUE:
W/N law firms may continue to use the names o deceased partners in their
firm names
HELD:
NO!
Art. 1840 primarily deals with the exception of liability on cases of a
dissolved partnership, of the individual property of the deceased partner for
debts contracted by the person who continues the business using the
partnership name. what the law contemplates is a hold over situation
preparatory to formal reorganization. Art. 1840 treats more of a
commercial partnership with a good will to protect rather than a
professional partnership whose reputation depends on the personal
qualifications of its individual members.
A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships
formed by other professionals or for business. a partnership for the practice
of law is not a legal entity. It is not a partnership formed for then purpose of
carrying on trade or business or of holding property. Thus, assumed or
trade name in law practice is improper. The right to practice law is not a
natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise.
It must be considered that in the Philippines, no local custom permits or
allows the continued use of a deceased partners name. Therefore, the
cited provision on Canons of Professional Ethics is not applicable.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated in the
letterheads of the 2 firms that Sycip and Ovaepa are dead or the period
when they served as partners sould be stated therein.
3 CAYETANO V MONSOD
Facts:
Pres. Aquino nominated Christian Monsod to the position of COMELEC
chairman.
The Commission on Appointments affirmed the nomination and appointed
Monsod to the position.
Renato Cayetano now assails the appointment. He says that Monsod is not
qualified to the position because he has not been engaged in the practice
of law for ten years (requirement is provided by Consti Art. 9-C Sec. 1(1)).
Issue:
W/n Monsod is qualified for the position of COMELEC chairman.
Held:
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
SC says yes. Monsod passed the bar in 1960 and had been consistently
paying his professional fees. He worked in a law firm for several years after
graduating but after that, had been more engaged in business and politics
(for a list of his jobs, see p.238). Still, the SC said that he can still be
considered as practicing law, if we consider the modern concept of the
practice of law. This modern concept pertains to any act, whether in or out
of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience.
SC now says that since most of Monsods jobs involved the law, even if he
has not been engaged in traditional lawyering (i.e. making pleadings or
appearing in court), he can still be considered as to have been engaged in
the practice of law.
Dissents:
Most of the dissents focused on the issue that the Consti requirement
pertains to habitual practice of law. The dissenters pointed out that for the
past ten years, Monsod really seldom practiced law. This group believed
that the Consti required that the practice of law be on a regular basis.
Justice Padilla even came up with qualifications habituality; compensation;
application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure; and atty.-client
relationship to determine w/n a person has been engaged in the practice
of law..
4 CUI V CUI
Facts:
The main concern in this case is the respective qualifications of Jesus Cui
and Antonio Cui to the position of administrator of Hospicio de San Jose de
Barii, a charitable institution established by Don Pedro Cui and Dona
Benigna Cui.
Jesus and Antonio are the sons of Mariano Cui, a nephew of the founders of
the institution. Antonios claim to the position is based on a convenio
where then administrator Teodoro resigned in favor of him. Jesus, however,
had no prior notice of this.
Jesuss claim is that he should be preferred pursuant to the deed of
donation (which recognized their father Mariano as a legitimate descendant
to the position) as he is the older of the two.
The deed, however, gives preference to a descendant who has a titulo de
abogado or a doctor, or a civil engineer, or a pharmacist (in order). Or to
the one who pays the highest taxes. Jesus holds the degree of Bachelor of
Laws but is not a member of the Bar, while Antonio is a member of the Bar
(he was formerly disbarred, though, by the SC and was just reinstated
weeks before assuming the position)
Issue:
Who has a better right to the position of administrator between Jose and Antonio?
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
What does the term titulo de abogado mean?

Held:
Antonio. The term titulo de abogado is not just mere possession of the
academic degree of Bachelor of Laws but membership in the bar after due
admission thereto, qualifying one to the practice of law. Possession of the degree
is not indispensable to qualify as a lawyer since completion of the prescribed
courses may be shown in some other way.
It was also argued that Antonio is disqualified for having been previously
disbarred since the deed also provided that an administrator may be removed if
found to lack a sound moral character. However, Antonio was reinstated. This
reinstatement is a recognition of his moral rehabilitation after proving what was
required by the Bar. Antonios restoration to the roll of lawyers wiped out
restrictions and disabilities resulting from the previous disbarment.
5 ALAWI V ALAUYA
PARTIES
ALAWI, sales rep of E.B. Villarosa
ALAUYA, incumbent executive clerk of court
FACTS
Through ALAWIS agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on
installments by ALAUYA of a housing unit
A housing loan was also granted to ALAUYA by the National Home Mortgage
Finance Corporation (NHMFC)
Subsequently, ALAUYA wrote a letter to the President of Villarosa advising
termination of his contract on the grounds that his consent was vitiated by
gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence
by ALAWI and proceeded to expound using acerbic language
A copy of the letter, which bore no stamps, was sent to the VP of Villarosa
ALAUYA also wrote the NHMFC repudiating as void his contract with
Villarosa and asking for cancellation of his loan
Finally, ALAUYA wrote 3 other letters to officers of the SC to stop deductions
from his salary regarding the loan from NHMFC
NHMFC also wrote the SC requesting it to stop said deductions
Learning of the letters, ALAWI filed a complaint alleging that ALAUYA
o Committed malicious and libelous charges
o Usurped the title of attorney
ISSUE
W/N ALAUYA VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL

STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
HELD
YES, PARTICULARLY SECTION 4

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
RATIO
Section 4 public officials and employees at all times respect the rights of
others, and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, public order, public
safety and public interest
ALAUYA, being a member of the Sharia Bar and an officer of the Court, may
not use language which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing or
otherwise improper
His radical deviation from these norms cannot be excused
ISSUE
W/N ALAUYA BEING A MEMBER OF THE SHARIA BAR CAN USE THE
TITLE ATTORNEY
HELD
NO, RESERVED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS

MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR
RATIO
Court has already had an occasion to declare that persons who pass the
Sharia Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar and may
practice law only before Sharia courts
ALAUYAS wish of not using counsellor because of confusion with
councilor is immaterial because disinclination to use said title does not
warrant his use of the title attorney
6 IN RE CUNANAN
Facts:
This is the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 case.
As per the Rules of Court. A bar candidate must have a general average of 75% in
all subjects without failing below 50% in any subject.
In spite of this, the court passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who
had obtained an average of only:
72% in 1946
69% in 1947
70% in 1948
74% in 1949
In 1950 to 53, the 74% was raised to 75%
A few candidates who missed the above marks set by the courts approached
Congress. Congress made a bill, which was allowed by the president to become a
law without his signature. This is RA 972.
Pursuant to the law in question, those who, without a grade below 50 per cent in
any subject, have obtained a general average of 69.5 per cent in the bar
examinations in 1946 to 1951, 70.5 per cent in 1952, 71.5 per cent in 1953, and
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
those will obtain 72.5 per cent in 1954, and 73.5 per cent in 1955, will be
permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of
the Bar, notwithstanding that the rules require a minimum general average of 75
per cent, which has been invariably followed since 1950.
A breakdown of the numbers is on page 538.
The additional candidates who want to be admitted claim that they suffered from
insufficiency of reading materials and of inadequacy of preparation.
Issue:
W/N RA 972 is valid.
Held:
RA 972 is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who
confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession. The
public interest demands of the legal profession, adequate preparation and
efficiency, precisely more so as legal problems evolved by the times become
more difficult.
In decreeing that bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of 1946 to
1952, a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any
subject, be admitted in mass to the practice of law, the disputed law is not a
legislation; it is a judgment a judgment revoking those promulgated by this
Court during the years affecting the bar candidates concerned
Although the SC certainly can revoke these judgments even now, for justifiable
reasons, it is no less certain that only the SC, and not the legislative nor executive
department, that may be so. Any attempt on the part of any of these
departments would be a clear usurpation of its functions, as in this case.
Congress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by this court,
but the authority and responsibility over the admission, suspension, disbarment
and reinstatement of attorneys-at-law and their supervision remain vested in the
Supreme Court.
Section 13, article VIII of the Constitution provides:
"Section 13.
The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate
rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the
admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
the same grade and shall not diminish increase or modify substantive
rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice, and procedure are hereby
repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Courts, subject to the power
of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress shall
have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law
in the Philippines."
The Constitution has not conferred on Congress and the SC equal responsibilities
concerning the admission to the practice of law. The primary power and
responsibility which the Constitution recognizes continue to reside in the SC.
Had Congress found that this Court has not promulgated any rule on the matter,
it would have nothing over which to exercise the power granted to it.
The Constitution does not say nor mean that Congress may admit, suspend,
disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at law, or a determinate group of individuals
to the practice of law. Its power is limited to repeal, modify or supplement the
existing rules on the matter, if according to its judgment the need for a better
service of the legal profession requires it. But this power does not relieve this
Court of its responsibility to admit, suspend, disbar and reinstate attorneys at law
and supervise the practice of the legal profession.
There is no motive stated by the authorities for the qualification in RA 972
because of this, the classification is fatally defective.
1.
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.
2.
That, for lack of unanimity in the eight Justices, that part of article 1 which
refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law, that is from
1953 to 1955 inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in force, in conformity
with section 10, article VII of the Constitution.
Consequently, (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed
in the examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied, and (2) all candidates
who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71.5 per cent or
more, without having a grade below 50 per cent in any subject, are considered as
having passed, whether they have filed petitions for admission or not. After this
decision has become final, they shall be permitted to take and subscribe the
corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar on the date or dates that the
Chief Justice may set.
7 ECHEGARAY V SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
pp. 111-112

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
The 1973 Constitution

Article X, Sec5 (5):
The 1987 Constitution

Article VIII, Sec5 (5):
The Supreme Court shall have the

following powers:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure in
all courts, the admission in the
practice of law, and the integration of
the Bar, which, however, may be
repealed,
altered,
or
supplemented by the Batasang
Pambensa. Such rules shall provide
a
simplified
and
inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases, shall be uniform in all courts
of the same grade and shall not
diminish,
increase,
or
modify
substantive
rights.
The Supreme Court shall have the

following powers:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning
the protection and enforcement
of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice and procedure in all courts,
the admission in the practice of law,
the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform in all courts of the same
grade and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.
The 1987 molded an even stronger and more independent judiciary. It expanded
the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. For the first time, the court was
given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement
of constitutional rights. It also granted for the first time the power to disapprove
rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But most
importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to
repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice, and
procedure.
8 IN RE GUTIERREZ
In re Gutierrez
Facts:
Gutierrez is a member of the Philippine Bar. While he was the municipal
mayor of Calapan, he and other co-conspirators murdered the former municipal
mayor of Calapan, for which they were held guilty and sentenced to the penalty
of death. Upon review by the Supreme court the penalty was changed to
reclusion perpetua. After serving a portion of the sentence, Gutierrez was granted
conditional pardon by the President. The unexecuted portion of the prison term
was remitted on condition that the shall not again violate any of the penal laws of

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
the Philippines.
The widow of the murdered victim then filed a complaint with the Supreme
Court asking that Gutierrez
be removed from the rule of lawyers pursuant to Rule 127, section 5.
Issue: W/N the conditional pardon to Gutierrez places him beyond the rule of
disbarment
Held: NO.
Under section 5 of Rule 127, a member of the bar may be removed or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court by reason of
his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Murder is, without
doubt, such a crime. Moral turpitude includes everything contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
In the Lontok case, on which Gutierrez relies, the respondent, Lontok, was
granted absolute or unconditional pardon after conviction for the crime of
crime of bigamy. It was held that such pardon releases the punishment and
blots out existence of guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as
innocent as if he had never committed the offense.
In the case at bar, the pardon granted was conditional, and merely remitted
the unexecuted portion of his term. It was not a full pardon which could
have blotted out the offense committed.
The crime was qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been
committed in band, by taking advantage of his official position, and with the
use of a motor vehicle. The degree of moral turpitude warrants disbarment.
Admission of a candidate to the bar requires academic preparation and
satisfactorytestimonials of good moral character. These standards are
neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer must adhere
to them or incur the risk of suspension or removal.
9 ROYONG v OBLENA
FACTS:
Royong, the niece it the common-law wife of Oblena, filed a rape case
against the latter.
In her complaint, Royong alleged that in 1958 Oblena forced her to have
intercourse with her and that she refrained to report the incident because
Oblena threatened to kill her family.
As a result if the sexual intercourse, Royong gave birth to a child
Oblena denied all the allegations and argued that he and Royong had a
relationship and Royong consented to have intercourse with him.
The Solicitor General recommended that Oblena be permanently removed
from the roll of attorney eventhough the acts of the Royong before and after
the rape incident showed that she is more of a sweetheart than a victim
because of the circumstances behind the incident
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of falsifying and deliberately

alleging in his application in the bar in1958 that he is a person of good
moral character while having an illicit and adulterous relationship with
Angeles who is not only the aunt of Royong but also has a legal husband in
the province
Oblena moved to dismiss the case because the offenses charged are
different from those originally charged in the complaint but the court
overruled his petition
After the hearing, the investigators concluded that A.) Oblena used his
knowledge in law to commit immoral acts without incurring any criminal
liability; B.) he committed gross immorality by continuously cohabiting with
Angeles, his common-law wife, even after he became a lawyer and C.)
Oblena falsified the truth as to his good moral character in his application to
take the bar.
ISSUE:
W/N the illicit relationship with Royong and the open cohabitation with
Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient grounds to cause Oblenas
disbarment
HELD:
YES!
Although Oblena is not yet convicted of the crime of rape, seduction or
adultery and he is not guilty of any of the grounds for disbarment
enumerated in Sec 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, the enumeration is
not exclusive and the power of the court to exclude unworthy members of
the bar is inherent and is a necessary incident to the proper administration
of justice and can be exercised even without any statutory authority, in all
cases unless properly prohibited by statutes.
American jurisprudence provides that the continued possession of a good
moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the
practice of law. The loss requires suspension or disbarment eventhough the
statues do not explicitly specify that as a ground of disbarment.
Oblenas argument that he believed himself to be a person with good moral
character when he filed his application to take the bar examination is
wrong. Ones own approximation of himself is not a gauge of his moral
character. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which
corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what the person really is
and not what he other people thinks he is.
His pretension to wait for the 18th birthday of Royong before having carnal
knowledge with her shows the scheming mind of Oblena and his taking
advantage of his knowledge of the law.
Also, Royong is the niece of his common-law wife and he enjoyed moral
ascendancy over her. Oblena took advantage of Royongs trust on him.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Oblenas contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in

filing the present complain which is entirely different from the original
complaint filed is untenable. There is nothing in the law requiring the
Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same offence charged in the
original complaint. What the law provides is that if the Solicitor General
finds sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent, he shall file the
corresponding complaint accompanied by the evidence introduced in his
investigation.
10 CORDON v BALICANTA
(complaint for disbarment against Balicanta)
Facts:
Cordon and her daughter inherited 21 parcels of land in Zamboanga City
when Cordons husband died.
Sometime after, Balicanta enticed Cordon to organize a corporation to
develop the properties. 19 parcels of land was transferred in the name of
the newly formed corporation. Balicanta became the Chairman of the
Board, President, General Manager and Treasurer of the corporation (kupal
talaga)
Balicanta was able to transfer some of the land to a certain Tion Suy Ong
through an SPA signed by Cordon. Balicanta was also able to obtain a loan
from Land Bank using as collateral 9 parcels of land.
Balicanta did not even try to redeem the properties and even sold the right
to redeem to another person.
Gago talaga to si Balicanta. Cordons ancestral home was demolished and
Cordon was detained in a nipa shack. Buti na lang at nadiscover ni daughter
kung ano nangyari. Sabi kasi ni Balicanta na hes just going to have the
house remodeled and repainted, tapos dinemolish na niya. Gago talaga.
Cordon and daughter demanded that Balicanta return all the properties
given by them to the corporation but Balicanta is unable to do so (napunta
na sa ibang tao eh)
IBP investigation recommended that Balicanta be disbarred. Balicanta
fought back and said that the investigation is prejudiced against him and
filed a complaint for disbarment against the people who investigated his
case and the lawyers of Cordon. Balicantas complaint was dismissed.
Issue:
W/N Balicanta should be disbarred
Held:
Hello?! Siyempre he should be disbarred.
Balicanta cannot invoke the separate personality of the corporation (wow,
piercing the corporate veil)
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Balicanta has perpetuated massive fraud against his client.

Lahat ng ginawa niya against The Code of Professional Responsibility.
11 TING-DUMALI v TORRES
FACTS:
Isidra Ting-Dumali charges Rolando Torres with violating his oath as a
lawyer and canons of legal and judicial ethics.
Isidras parents died intestate and left many parcels of land to their 6
children (Isidra, Marcelina, Miriam, Eliseo and Vicente and Felicisima
(married to Rolando Torres))
Torres consented to the forgery of Isidras signature for an Extrajudicial
settlement making it appear that his wife and Miriam were the only sole
heirs.
Torres, on a reconstitution hearing, presented false testimony that Miriam
and Felicisima were the only sole heirs
Torres presented the reconstituted deed to the RD to enable them to profit
by selling the land
Torres contends that his acts were done in good faith believing for himself
that his and the siblings had already agreed on how to dispose of the said
lot. That the false testimony was a clear oversight. And that his conformity
through his signature was pro forma because the property was a
paraphernal property of Marcelina and his wife.
Investigating Commissioner of IBP suggested disbarment
ISSUE: WoN Torres should be disbarred?
HELD: YES
RATIO:
1. The lawyers oath, to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn
agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice, is not a mere
ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards, nor is it
mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold
and keep inviolable at all times.
2. A lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which
society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of
justice, he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate
and he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and he
should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3. The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of
misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as
an officer of the court and member of the bar.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
12 MACARRUBO v MACARRUBO
Facts:
Florence Macarrubo by herself and on behalf of her 2 children files a complaint for
disbarment against Edmundo Macarrubo alleging that Edmundo deceived her
into marrying him despite his prior subsisting marriage with a certain Helen
Esparza.
Florence further averred that Edmundo entered into a 3rd marriage with
Josephine Constantino; and that he abandoned Florence without providing them
w/ regular
support.
Edmundo denied the allegations, insisting instead that complainant Florence was
fully aware of his prior subsisting marriage, but that Florence dragged Edmundo
against his will to a 'sham wedding'.
Edmundo submitted the decision of RTC declaring his marriage to complainant
void ab initio. Edmundo claimed that he left complainant and their 2 children w/
her consent.
Issue:
W/n Edmundo should be disbarred...
Held:
Yes.
Facts show that while Edmundo has a subsisting marriage w/ Helen Esparza s/
whom he had 2 children, he entered into a 2nd marriage with complainant. While
the
marriage between complainant Florence and Edmundo has been annulled by final
judgment, this does not cleanse his conduct of impropriety.
Even assuming arguendo that Edmunod was coerced by complainant to marry
her, the duress has ceased after wedding day. Edmundo having freely cohabited
with her
and even begot a 2nd child.
The decision of RTC annulling their marriage is not res judicata on the final
resolution of this case. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely
civil nor criminal but is rather an investigation by the court on the conduct of its
officers.
13 SICAT v ARIOLA
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
Arturo Sicat, Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal
charged Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola of committing fraud, deceit, and falsehood
in notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA).
Said SPA was purportedly executed by Juanito Benitez, of the JC Benitez
Architect and Technical Management. Said company had a contract with
the Municipality of Cainta for the construction of low cost houses.
What is fraudulent about it is the fact that the SPA was notarized more than
2 months after the death of Benitez, the person who supposedly executed
it.
P3,700T was paid to JC Benitez Architect and Technical Management for
services not rendered (as consultants).
Ariola claims that the document he notarized was superfluous and
unnecessary, and prejudiced no one, and therefore he should be exonerated
the document was cancelled the same day he notarized it, hence legally
there was no public document that existed.
Issue:
W/N Ariola can be held liable.
Held:
Yes.
Notaries public should not authenticate documents unless the persons who
signed them are the very same persons who executed them an personally
appeared before the, to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated
therein.
His assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened one of the
most cherished tenets of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion
on the truthfulness of every notarial act.
Ariola is disbarred, and not merely suspended for a year.
14 CHUA v MESINA, Jr
Facts:
Atty Simeon Mesina is the legal counsel of spouses Anna Chua and Chua
An. The spouses leased a building owned by Mesinas family. The property,
however, was actually mortgaged in favor of a bank for a loan obtained by
Mesinas motherFelicisima Melencio (who was the registered owner as
well).
When Felicisima failed to meet her obligations to the bank, the spouses
were convinced by Mesina to help his mother in consideration for the
purchase of the same lot at a certain price. A deed of sale was made
conveying the property to the spouses.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
But when the spouses were appraised for capital gains tax, Atty Mesina
suggested to execute another deed of salethis time, the date of the
transaction is 1979, which is before the effectivity of the law imposing
capital gains tax.
Not long after the title was handed over to the spouses, another lessee of
the buildingTecsonquestioned the transaction as he was, himself,
interested in buying the property. Tecson filed charges for falsification of
documents.
To avoid the falsification charge, Mesina proposed to simulate a deed of sale
wherein the spouses would appear to resell the property to Felicisima. A
new title was issued to Felicisima by virtue of said deed but this was
entrusted in the hands of the spouses.
Later on, Tecson desisted from pursuing the charges. Meanwhile, Mesina
borrowed the title of the property from the spouses and promised to
transfer, yet again, title in the name of the spouses.
But Mesina failed to effect such transfer and the spouses learned that the
property is being offered to a public sale. Hence the action. The case was
investigated by the IBP and recommended that Mesina be suspended for
gross misconduct.
Issue:
Was Atty. Mesina guilty of gross misconduct?
Held:
Blimey! Of course! When Atty Mesina advised Chua to execute a deed of sale
antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains tax, he violated his duty to
promote respect for law and legal processes. When he convinced Chua to execute
another deed to make it appear that the property was conveyed back to
Felicisima, Mesina committed dishonesty. And when he obtained the title upon the
misrepresentation that he will return the same after 4 months, he committed
dishonesty again. There were also badges of fraud that can be attributed to
Mesina as there were marked differences in the signatures of Felicisima.
Clearly, Mesina violated his oath of office and Canons 1, 7, 15, and 17 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. His disbarment is warranted.
15 DE YSASI III v NLRC
FACTS
This is a case filed by a son against his father
Father employed Son as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao
Son suffered various ailments and was hospitalized on 2 separate occasions,
June and August 1982
Father took care of medical expenses while son continued to receive
compensation
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
However, in April 1984, Father ceased to pay Sons salary

Son filed an action in NLRC for illegal dismissal with prayer for
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of full
back wages
NLRC dismissed case stating that Son has abandoned his work and
termination is for a valid cause though ordered Father to pay P5,000 as
penalty for failure to serve notice of said termination to son
ISSUE
HELD
W/N SON WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

YES
RATIO
Article 282 of Labor Code enumerates causes for which an employer may
valid terminate an employment
Father banks on the fact that Son has abandoned his work
However, to constitute abandonment there must be a clear, deliberate and
justified refusal to resume employment and not mere absence
In the case at bar, the reason for the Sons absence was due to his illness of
which Father was aware of since he paid hospital and medical bills
Father is ordered to pay Son backwages in lieu of reinstatement and
separation pay equivalent to 1 month for every year of service
ISSUE
W/N COUNSELS OF EACH PARTY ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
HELD
NO
RATIO
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Responsibility explicitly provides a lawyer shall
encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a
fair settlement
In the case at bar, records do not show that counsel of both parties took
pains to initiate steps geared toward a rapprochment between their clients
In the same manner, the labor arbiter has been less than faithful to the spirit
of the Labor Code as he did not exert all efforts towards the amicable
settlement of the labor dispute
16 PEOPLE v ROSQUETA
Facts:
There was a criminal case against Antonio Rosqueta, Jr., Eugenio Rosqueta
and Citong Bringas. On appeal, the SC issued a resolution ordering Atty.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Gregorio Estacio (counsel de parte of the accused) to explain why disciplinary

actions should not be taken against him for his failure to file the brief for
appellants during the required period.
Estacio failed to explain, so he was suspended from the practice of law.
He then filed a motion for reconsideration saying that he did file the briefs
but he sent it to Rosqueta Sr., whose house was burned down along with the
briefs. He also said that the reason why he did not file the briefs was
because the accused declared that they intended t withdraw their appeal for
lack of money.
The SC did subsequently receive affidavits from the accused withdrawing
their appeal.
Issue:
W/n Estacios acts should be punished.
Held:
SC says yes. His acts were not consistent with the idea that the law is not a
business but a profession. Lawyers do their job not for the sole consideration
of money. Estacio should have continued with his duties despite knowing
that the accused did not have money anymore.
SC commended what some lawyers would have done in that situation which
was to be declared as counsel de officio so that the client remains properly
represented by a lawyer who is already familiar with the case.
SC said that Estacios suspension for 5 mos. is already sufficient punishment
for his acts. Thus, the suspension is lifted and Estacio is not anymore
required to file the briefs but he is censured for negligence and inattention to
duty.
17 CANOY v ORTIZ
Facts: A Complaint was filed Canoy accusing Atty. Ortiz of misconduct and
malpractice. It was alleged that Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Coca Cola Philippines. Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy in
this proceeding. Canoy submitted all the documents and records to Atty.
Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. Thereafter, he made several
unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the progress of the
case. He was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually dismissed
way back in 1998, for failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted
their position papers. Canoy alleged that Ortiz had never communicated to
him about the status of the case.
Atty. Ortiz informs the Court that he has mostly catered to indigent
and low-income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to himself. Atty.
Ortiz admits that the period within which to file the position paper had
already lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file the position paper to
the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, he was frankly
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
preoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and as a

practicing lawyer.
Issue: W/N Atty. is liable to be sanctioned.
Held: Atty. Ortiz is to be sanctioned. Suspension from the practice of law for one
(1) month.
Several of the canons and rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility
guard against the sort of conduct.
CANON 18A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
Rule 18.04A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status
of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients
request for information.
His failure to do so constitutes a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. A lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He owes
entire devotion to the interest of the client. The relationship of lawyer-client
being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the client to be
adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and should
not be left in the dark.
Neither is the Court mollified by the circumstance of Atty. Ortizs
election as a City Councilor of Bacolod City, as his adoption of these
additional duties does not exonerate him of his negligent behavior.
18 PEOPLE v STA TERESA
Facts:
Angeles Sta. Teresa was found by the trial court to be guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of raping his 12-year old daughter, and was given the penalty of death.
The case is now on automatic review.
When accused was arraigned, he pleaded not guilty. After 9 days, his counsel de
oficio made a manifestation that the accused wanted to change his plea to
guilty. The prosecution no longer presented testimonial evidence and merely
presented exhibits to which counsel de oficio did not comment nor object. During
the promulgation of RTCs decision, counsel failed to appear and the trial judge
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
had to appoint
another counsel de oficio for the purpose of promulgation.
Issue: W/N counsel de officio discharged his duties properly
Held: NO.
The abbreviated and aborted presentation of the prosecution evidence and
the improvident plea of guilty was not in accordance with requirements of
due process
Considering the gravity of the offense charged and the finality of the penalty,
the counsel de oficios performance was utterly wanting. As a lawyer sworn
to uphold justice and the law, he had the duty to exert utmost efforts to
defend his client and protect his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he
appears to be. This duty becomes more compelling is his client is accused of
a grave crime and is in danger of forfeiting his life
The right to counsel means more that just the presence of a lawyer in the
courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections.
Counsel must provide effective legal assistance and commit himself to the
cause for the defense. There must be active involvement by the lawyer and
he must be well-versed on the case, the procedures, law, and jurisprudence.
19 KHAN V SIMBILLO
FACTS:
An advertisement in Philippine Daily Inquirer came out which reads:
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE SPECIALIST 532-4333/521-2667.
SC ordered its staff to call the number and ask some information.
Espeleta called the number and the wife of Atty. Rizalino Simbillo answered
who said that his husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and
guarantees a court decree within 4-6 month. The services of Atty. Simbillo
is for P48,000. half of which is payable at the filing of the case and the
balance after the decision has been rendered.
Similar advertisement also appeared in The Philippine Star and Manila
Bulletin.
Khan, Assist. Court Administrator, filed a case against Simbillo for violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 2.03 and 3.01.
Simbillo admitted that he caused the advertisement but he argued that
solicitation and advertisement is not prohibited per se and that it is about
time to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and
solicitation. He also said that the interest of the public is not served by the
prohibition and suggested that the ban be lifted.
IBP recommended that Simbillo be suspended for 1 year and that repetition
of similar act will be dealt with more severely.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
While the case was being investigated upon by the court, Simbillo again
advertised his legal services, for 2 times, in the Buy & Sell Free Ads
Magazine.
ISSUE:
W/N Simbillo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
YES!
Rule 2.03 provides a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business while Rule 3.01 states that a
lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding
his qualifications or legal services.
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.
It is a profession in which the duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration. The gaining of livelihood should be a secondary
consideration.
Aside from advertising himself as an Annulment of Marriage Specialist, his
assurance of his clients that an annulment may be obtained in 4-6 months
from the filing of the case encourages people, who might other have 2nd
thought, to dissolve their marriage.
Solicitation of legal business is not proscribed. However, solicitation must
be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. The use of simple
signs stating the name/s of the lawyers, the office and residence address
and the fields of expertise, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals
bearing the same brief data, are permissible.
The use of calling cards is now acceptable.
20 IN RE TAGORDA
Facts:
Luis Tagorda is a member of the provincial board of Isabela
Previous to the last election, he used placards which in a way was
advertising his services as a lawyer and notary public
He also wrote a letter to a lieutenant of a barrio in Echague,Isabela. In
essence he was informing the lieutenant that he will be in Echague during
the weekends and the lieutenant should convey this information to the
other people in his town.
Issue:
W/N the acts of Tagorda is advertising

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Held:
Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and this is contrary to the
Canons of Professional Ethics (wala pa yung code of professional
responsibility, 1929 case to)
The most worthy and effective advertising for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity.
Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal
communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations, is
unprofessional.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring lawsuit.
Solicitation of cases result in the lowering of the confidence of the
community and integrity of the members of the bar. It results in needless
litigations and in incenting to strife.
Tagorda suspended for a month.
21 DIR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS V BAYOT
FACTS:
Bayot was charged with malpractice by publishing Marriagelicense

promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity
avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation
on any matter free for the poor. Everything confidential. In the Sunday
Tribune
Bayot first denied the publication but later on admitted, and asked for
mitigation saying:
o I only did it once. I wont repeat it again!
o I never had any case by reason of the publication
ISSUE: WoN Bayot can be charged with malpractice?

HELD: YES.
1. The publication is tantamount to a solicitation of business from the public.
Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally
or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is highly
unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant
advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade.
2. In In re Tagorda, 53 Phil., the respondent attorney was suspended from the
practice of law for the period of one month for advertising his services and
soliciting work from the public by writing circular letters. That case,
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
however, was more serious than this because there the solicitations were
repeatedly made and were more elaborate and insistent..Considering his
plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the Court is
of the opinion and so decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby
is, reprimanded.
3. "The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young
lawyer is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the
outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)
22 ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC
FACTS:
Ulep prays the Supreme Court to order the Legal Clinic to cease, issuing
advertisement similar to or of the same tenor as that of annexes A and B
(p381). Legal Clinic admits the facts of publication of said advertisement
that claims that it is not engage in the practice of law but in the rendering
of legal support services through paralegals with the use of modern
computers and electronic machine.
ISSUE:
W/N the services offered by Legal Clinic as advertised by it constitutes
practice of law
Whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisement
complained of
HELD:
According to the IBP, notwithstanding the manner by which respondent
endeavored to distinguish the 2 terms, legal support services and legal
services, common sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially
without substantial distinction. The use of the name the Legal Clinic gives
the impression that the respondent corporation is being managed by
lawyers and that it renders legal services. The advertisement in question is
meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to law, morals, public
order and public policy. This is in violation of Canon 1 Rule 1.02 that is
counseling illegal activities.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court which requires that
application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience.
Applying the case Cayetano vs. Monsod, the court agrees that the activities
of the respondent Legal Clinic constitute the practice of law. Such a
conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent does not

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
represent clients in court since law practice is not limited merely to court
appearances.
Regarding the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the
Code of Profession Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in making known
his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, and objective information
or statement of facts. The proscription against advertising of legal services
rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession.
Exceptions:
o Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canon
o Ordinary, simple professional card. The card may contain only the
statement of his name, the law firm, address and branch of law
practiced.
Considering that Atty. Nogales who is the prime incorporator, major
stockholder and proprietor of the legal clinic is a member of the Philippine
Bar, he is hereby reprimanded with a warning that the repetition of the
same or similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with
more severely.
23 SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS V ROMANILLOS

Facts:
This is a disbarment case against Atty. Roberto Romanillos, for representing
conflicting interests and for using the title Judge despite having been
found guilty of grave and serious misconduct (in Zarate v Romanillos).
Apparently, Romanillos was previously an active board member as
corporate secretary of Durano Corp. Inc. (DCI). But it allowed itself to
represent San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc (SJHAI) before the human
Settlements Regulation Commission in a case against the same DCI.
Irrelevant info: the case above was an alleged violation of DCI of the
Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protection Act. DCI sold a land
designated as a school site, without disclosing it as such. (page 106)
When SJHAIs petition over the land was denied, the SJHAIs Board
terminated Romanillos services.
Also, Romanillos acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who
substituted for DCI.
Thus, a disbarment case was filed for conflicting interests.
The IBP handled the case, but he was merely reprimanded.
In spite of this, he still continued to serve as counsel for Durano-Rodriguez.
Thus, a second disbarment case was filed. It also included his use of
judge although he was found guilty of grave and serious misconduct.
Issue:
W/N Romanillos should be disbarred
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Held:
Yes.
It is inconsequential that SJHAI never questioned the propriety of
respondents continued representation of Durano-Rodriguez. The lack of
opposition does not mean consent. As long as the lawyer represents 2 or
more opposing clients, he is guilty of violating his oath.
His continued use of judge violated Rules 1.01 and 3.01. The penalty
imposed on him in the Zarate case forfeiture of all leave and retirement
benefits and privileges: including the title judge. (he was a judge before,
but he resigned instead of being booted out)
The title judge should be reserved only to judges, incumbent and retired,
an not to those who were dishonorably discharged from the service.
24 DIMATULAC v VILLON
Facts:
In the prosecution of the Yabuts for the murder of Dimatulac, the Office of
the Public Prosecutor (particularly the Asst Prosecutor) and two Judges (who
handled the case) committed serious procedural flaws resulting in the
impairment of due process (prejudicial to both the offended party and the
accused).
Procedural irregularities in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor:
o Warrants of arrest were issued by the MCTC, with no bail
recommended, but the Yabuts were not arrested or were never
brought unto the custody of the law. Yet, Asst Fiscal Alfonso-Reyes
conducted a reinvestigation. Though a prosecutor may disagree with
the findings of the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation
(and conduct his own), the circumstance that the accused waived the
filing of their counter-affidavits left Alfonso-Reyes no other choice but
to sustain the MCTC findingswhich she did not do. And later on,
Alfonso-Reyes allowed the Yabuts to file their counter-affidavits
without first demanding that they surrender by virtue of the standing
warrants of arrest.
o Alfonso-Reyes recommended a bond of 20k for the Yabuts despite the
fact that they were charged of homicide and that they were fugitives
from justice (having avoided service of warrant of arrest).
o Alfonso-Reyes was aware of the private prosecutions appeal to the
DOJ from her resolution. (The subsequent resolution of the DOJ
Secretary exposed her blatant errors.) And despite the pending
appeal, she filed the Information. It would be more prudent to wait for
the DOJ resolution.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Office of the Prosecutor did not even inform the trial court of the
pending appeal to the DOJ Secretary.
Judge Rouras procedural lapses:
o Deferred resolution on the motion for a hold departure order until
such time that all the accused who are out on bail are arraigned
o Denied the motion to defer proceedings for the reason that private
prosecution has not shown any indication that the appeal was given
due course by DOJ
Judge Villons procedural lapses:
o Ordered arraignment despite: a motion to defer proceedings; a tenday period with which the complainants can file petition with the CA;
resolution of the CA ordering the Yabuts to comment on the
complainants action; pending appeal with the DOJ.
o
Issue:
Can the orders of Judge Roura and Judge Villon be sustained despite procedural
defects?
Held:
No. The orders of Judge Roura denying Motion to Defer proceedings are void and
set aside. The order of Judge Villon on the arraignment, and the subsequent
arraignment of the Yabuts are void and set aside. Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor is ordered to comply with the DOJ Secretarys resolution.
Prosecutors are the representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but
of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its
obligation to govern at all; and whose interest in a criminal prosecution is not that
it shall win every case but that justice be done. They are servants of the law
whose two-fold aim is that guilt shall not escape and innocence shall not suffer.
The judge should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility
in the discharge of his obligation to promptly and properly administer justice.
The judges action must not impair the substantial rights of the accused, nor the
right of the State and offended party.
When the State is deprived of due process in a criminal case by reason of grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, the acquittal of the accused or
dismissal of the case is void.
25 TRIESTE v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
TRIESTE was charged with 23 separate violations of the Anti Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act* because while being the Municipal Mayor and
member of the Committee on Award of the Municipality of Numancia in
Aklan and having financial or pecuniary interest in TRIGEN Agro-Industrial
Development Corporation, he awarded purchases of construction materials
by the said municipality from the said corporation and signing the vouchers
as evidence of said purchase
The Sandiganbayan found TRIESTE guilty and sentenced him to suffer
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment and perpetual disqualification
TRIESTE, in his defense, alleges that he signed the vouchers only after all
the purchases had already been made, delivered and paid for by the
Municipal Treasurer hence he cannot be guilty under the provisions of the
Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
ISSUE
W/N TRIESTE IS GUILTY UNDER THE ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT

PRACTICES ACT
HELD
NO
RATIO
TRIESTE already sold his shares to a certain MRS TUASON before he
assumed office and despite the absence of it in the SEC records, the court
finds this fact immaterial as there is no law requiring submission of reports
regarding sales and disposal of stocks (what is required is only submission
of annual financial reports)
The Municipal Treasurer testified that there was never a public bidding
hence if there is no bidding then there could be no awarding by TRIESTE
Testimonial and documentary evidence both confirm that TRIESTE signed
vouchers after payment and since what is contemplated in the Anti-Graft
Law is the actual intervention in the transaction which one has financial or
pecuniary interest in, TRIESTE cannot be held liable under such Law
TRIGEN did not gain any undue advantage in the transaction such that
there is no complaint for non-delivery, underdelivery or overpricing in the
transactions
Hence, TRIESTE should be acquitted
NOTE
*Section 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers
(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any
business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or
takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the
Constitution or by any law from having any interest
26 TATAD v SANDIGANBAYAN

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
Oct. 1974 Antonio de los Reyes, former Head Executive Assistant of the
Department of Public Information (DPI), filed a report to the Legal Panel of
the Presidential Security Command (PSC) containing charges of violations of
RA30191 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts) against Sec. of DPI
Francisco Tatad.
1979 Tatad had a falling out with then Pres. Marcos and the charges
became widely known.
Dec. 12, 1979 a formal complaint was filed with the Tanodbayan
Apr. 1, 1980 Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the PSC for

investigation and report.
June 16, 1980 report by PSC was submitted recommending the filing of
charges for graft and corruption.
Oct. 25, 1982 all affidavits and counter-affidavits were in and the case was
ready for disposition.
July 5, 1985 Tanodbayan issued a resolution calling for the filing of charges
against Tatad in the Sandiganbayan. 5 informations were filed against
Tatad in 1985.
Tatad now questions the propriety of the filing of charges. He alleges that
his rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases have been
violated.
Issue:
W/n Tatads rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases have
been violated.
Held:
SC says yes they were violated by the long delay in the termination of the
preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan. Substantial adherence to the
requirements of the law and substantial compliance with the time limitation
prescribed by law is part of procedural due process.
The case was ready for disposition as early as 1982 but the informations
were only filed in 1985. A delay of close to 3 years can not be deemed
reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the
case at bar. The charges in the complaint, specially his failure to file his
Statement of Assets and Liabilities, are not that complicated to require 3
years before formal complaints are filed.
(a) Giving DGroup, a private corporation owned by his brother in-law unwarranted benefits; (b) receiving a check from Roberto Vallar, Gen. Manager
of Amity Trading Corp., as consideration for the release of a check to the said corp. for printing services rendered during the Constitutional Convention
Referendum; and (c) failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
27 PNB v ATTY CEDO

Facts:
PNB filed a complaint against Atty. Cedo for violation of Rule 6.02 that
states: A lawyer shall not, after leaving govt. service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter which he had intervened with in
said service. Cedo was the former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset
management Group of PNB.
During Cedos stint with PNB, he became involved in 2 transactions:
1.) sale of steel sheets to Ms. Ong and 2.) intervened in the handling of a
loan of spouses Almeda. When a civil action arose because of #1, Cedo, after
leaving the bank appeared as one of the counsel of Ms. Ong. Also, when #2
was involved in a civil action, the Almedas were represented by the law firm
Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates of which Cedo was a Senior Partner.
Cedo claims that he did not participate in the litigation of Ms. Ongs
case. He also claims that even if it was his law firm handling the Almeda
case, the case was being handled by Atty. Ferrer.
Issue: W/N violated Rule 6.02.
Held: Cedo violated Rule 6.02.
In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between
the atty. and the client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the
revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further
prejudice the complainant cause. Whatever may be said as to w/n the atty.
utilized against his former client information given to him in a professional
capacity, the mere fact that their previous relationship should have precluded
him from appearing as counsel for the other side.
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except
by express consent of all the parties concerned after the disclosure
of facts. A lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of
one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another
client requires him to oppose.
28 DINSAY v CIOCO
Facts:
Planters Machinery Corporation (PLAMACO) mortgaged to Traders Royal

Bank (the Bank) certain properties as security for the payment of its loan.
PLAMACO defaulted in the payment of the loan so the Bank extrajudicially
foreclosed the mortgage. At a foreclosure sale conducted by the sheriff, the
property was sold to the bank, who was the sole bidder. A certificate of
Sheriffs sale was executed by Atty. Cioco, then clerk of Court and Ex-officio
Sheriff.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Records disclose that page four of the said Certificate was surreptitiously
substituted. The new page lowered the bid price from the original amount
of P3, 263, 182.67 to only P730,000. Cioco and the sheriff who conducted
the sale had previously been administratively charged and dismissed from
service.
Now, Atty.Cioco is sought to be disbarred. He argues that there was res
adjudicata due to the administrative case, and that disbarment was
deemed adjudicated therein, thus he may now longer be charged.
Issue: W/N Cioco may be charged with disbarment (W/N res adjudicata appplies)
Held:
Ciocos contention has no merit. Res adjudicata applies only to judicial or
quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of the Courts
administrative powers, as in this case.
Disbarment has not been adjudicated in the previous case. Therein, Cioco
was administratively proceeded against as an erring Court personnel under
the supervisory authority of the court. Herein, Cioco is sought to be
disciplined as a lawyer under the courts plenary authority over members of
the legal profession.
While Cioco is in effect being indicted twice for the same misconduct, there
is no double jeopardy as both proceedings are administrative in nature.
The general rule is that a lawyer who holds a government office may not be
disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his
duties as a government official. The exception is , if that misconduct affects
his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency.
Ciocos participation in changing the bid price in the Certificate of Sheriffs
Sale affects his fitness as a member of the bar. He knows it is patently
illegal to alter its contents after notarization, since it is already a public
document.
Cioco is disbarred.
29 IGOY v SORIANO
FACTS:
Igoy is one of the petitioners in the case of Heirs of Gavino Igoy, et al. vs.
Mactan Shangrila Hotel.
Eng. William Redoblado introduced Atty. Soriano to Igoy as a Justice of the
CA.
According to Igoys friend, Atty. Soriano will be able to help him in his case
which is pending in the CA
Atty. Soriano demanded from Igoy P20,000 but the former reminded the
latter the he will only be able to help in the case as soon as the case was
lifted to the SC
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Igoys case received an unfavorable decision in the CA and Atty. Soriano

offered to prepare the Petition for Review to be filed in the SC.
Atty. Soriano asked for an additional P20,000
Igoy send the amount by courier to the address of Atty. Soriano which was
received by his son.
SC denied the petition for review of Igoy with finality
Igoy later found out that Atty. Soriano is not a CA Justice and filed this
complaint against Igoy in the SC
Arguments of Atty. Soriano:
o It is unnatural for a person to give money to someone whom he does
not know well and whom he met only for the first time
o The money was offered gratuitously by Igoy
o it is impossible the Igoy handed the money to him on the SC parking
lot for many employees were passing in that place
o it is not Eng. Redoblado who introduced him to Igoy but Mr. Taneo
o if the SC finds that he is guilty, he will retire from the service
Atty. Soriano filed his letter of resignation/retirement under RA 1616
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Soriano violated Canon 6, Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD:
Yes! Atty. Soriano was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits and is suspended from the practice of law.
Atty. Sorianos offer to resign was obviously an attempt to evade whatever
penalty may be imposed on him. However, resignation will not extricate
him form the consequences of his acts
Resignation should not be used either as an escape or an easy way out to
evade administrative liability by court personnel facing administrative
sanctions
To accept the claim of Soriano that the money was offered gratuitously will
open the floodgates to fraud or graft and corruption.
Government lawyers who are public servants owe utmost fidelity to the
public service for public service is a public trust. Government lawyers
should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as their reputable
conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye.
The nature and responsibilities of public officers enshrined in the
Constitution are not mere rhetorical words to be taken lightly as idealistic
sentiments but as working standards and attainable goals that should e
matched with actual deeds.
30 PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN
*kalokohan na kaso to, 140++ pages (disclaimer) main decision 28 pages lang
** merong history of Rule 6.03 and other historical stuff sa case
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial
difficulties. Central Bank extended loans to Genbank in the hope of
rehabilitating it (P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed to recover.
1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbanks
assets was held with the Lucio Tan Group winning the bid. Solicitor General
Mendoza, representing the government, intervened with the liquidation of
Genbank.
1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten
wealth of Marcos, his family and cronies.
1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta
marami sila). In relation to this case, PCGG issued several writs of
sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents by taking
advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos.
Sandiganbayan heard the case.
Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented
the respondents.
1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his
participation in the liquidation of Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is
one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from the
Lucion Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Sandiganbayan denied PCGGs motion. According to the Sandiganbayan,
Mendoza did not take an adverse position to that taken on behalf of the
Central Bank. And Mendozas appearance as counsel was beyond the 1 year
prohibitory period since he retired in 1986.
Issue:
W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito
Mendoza
Held:
No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed.
The matter (see 3rd note), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is
advising the Central Bank on how to proceed with the liquidation of
Genbank. This is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from
the matter involved in the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group.
The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and
important. The role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered
insubstantial.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the
motion to disqualify Mendoza. Apparently, PCGG already lost a lot of cases
against Mendoza. Kyles interpretation: PCGG getting desperate
Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6.03 will
make it harder for the government to get good lawyers in the future to work
for them because of the prohibition of accepting cases in the future that
were related to ones work as a government counsel.
Concurring Opinions:
Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 should have
a prescriptive period
Tinga: Rule 6.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza (when he was
Solicitor General, no Rule 6.03 yet)
Bottom line, they are all questioning the unfairness of the rule if applied
without any prescriptive period and if applied retroactively
Notes:
Adverse-interest conflicts where the matter in which the former
government lawyer represents a client in private practice is substantially
related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed with the
government and the interests of the current and former are adverse
Congruent-interest conflicts the use of the word conflict is a misnomer,
it does not involve conflicts at all, as it prohibits lawyers from representing a
private person even if the interests of the former government client and the
new client are entirely parallel
Matter any discrete, isolatable act as well as indentifiable transaction or
conduct involving a particular situation and specific party
Intervention interference that may affect the interests of others
31 IN RE GALANG
FACTS:
Ramon Galang has a pending criminal case of slight physical injuries in the
City Court of Manila
He took the Bar Exams 7 times and was allowed to take the lawyers oath in
1972. BUT, he was allowed to do so only because he fraudulently concealed
and withheld from the Court his pending criminal case in
1962,63,64,66,67,69 and 71. And in 1966,67,69 and 71 he committed
perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending criminal case
in court
ISSUE: WoN Galang should be disbarred?

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
HELD: YES!
RATIO:
1. It is well-settled in a long string of cases that concealment of an atty in his
application to take the Bar of the fact that he had been charged with, or
indicted for,an alleged crime is a ground for revocation of his license to
practice law. (Guilty of Fraud upon the Court)
2. Galangs persistent denial of his involvement in any criminal case (which he
later admitted) and his failure to clear his name for 13 years indicate his
lack of the requisite attributes of honesty, probity and good demeanor. He is
therefore unworthy to be a lawyer. (he did not offer any explanation for
such omission).
3. Among other grounds for disbarment:
a. Misrepresentations of, or false pretenses relative to, the reqt on
applicants educational attainment
b. Lack of good moral character
c. Fraudulent passing of the Bar exams
32 IN RE CUEVAS
Facts:
Petitioner Arthur Cuevas Jr., recently passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. His oath
taking was held in abeyance in view of the Court's resolution which permitted him
to take the Bar Exams subject to the condition that should he pass the same he
shall not be allowed to take the lawyer's oath pending approval of the court. This
resolution was due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Homicide. The conviction stemmed from Cuevas' participation in the initiation
rites of the LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITAS, a fraternity in the SAN BEDA College of
Law, where Raul Camaligan, a neophyte, died as a result of personal violence
inflicted upon him.
Thereafter, petitioner applied for and was granted probation. He was later
discharged from probation and his case considered closed and terminated.
In this petition, Cuevas prays that he be allowed to take the lawyer's oath at the
court's most convenient time.
Issue:
W/n Cuevas should be allowed to take the lawyers oath...
Held:
YES.
His deliberate participation in the senseless beatings over a helpless neophyte
shich resulted to the latter's untimely demise indicates absence of that moral
fitness required for admission to the bar. The court nonetheless is willing to give
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Cuevas a chance in the same manner that it recently allowed Al Caparros

Argosino (case sa legprof), petitioner's co-accused below, to take the lawyer's
oath.
His discharge from probation without any infraction of the attendant conditions
therefor and the various certification attesting to his righteous peaceful and civicoriented character prove that he has taken decisive steps to purge himself of his
deficiency in moral character.
33 DIAO v MARTINEZ
Facts:
Telesfor Diao was admitted to the Bar in 1953.
Two years after, Severino Martinez charged him for having falsely
represented his application: that he had the requisite academic
qualifications.
The Solicitor General investigated and recommended that Diaos name be
erased from the roll of attorneys.
Diao has not completed BEFORE taking up law, the required pre-legal
education prescribed by the Department of Private Education:
o Diao did not complete his HS training; and
o Diao never attended Quisumbing College
Diao claims that he left HS in his third year, he entered the US Army,
passed the General Qualification Test, which according to him, is equivalent
to a HS diploma, and upon return to civilian life, the education authorities
considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year HS.
Also, he claims that he really got his college diploma from Arellano
University in April 1949. He says he was erroneously certified, due to
confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing Collge, in his school records.
Issue:
W/N Diao should be removed from the roll.
Held:
Yes. Diaos name is removed from the roll.

The error or confusion was to his own making. Had his application
showed that he graduated from Arellano, it would have showed that he took
up law 6 months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. He then
would have not been permitted to take the Bar.
Rule: That PREVIOUS to the study of law, he had successfully and
satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education as prescribed by
the Department of Education.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
The fact that he hurdled the bar is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the
only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed
courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.
34 CALUB v SULLER
Facts:
Atty Suller raped the wife of his neighbor Cristino Calub.
A criminal complaint for rape was filed against Suller. A complaint for
disbarment was also filed by Calub before the SC.
The CFI acquitted Suller for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
Issue:
Can Atty Suller be disbarred?
Held:
Yes. Acquittal in a criminal case is not determinative of an administrative case for
disbarment. A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in
his professional or private capacity, which shows that he lacks moral character to
continue as officer of the court. The rape by a lawyer of his neighbors wife
constitutes such serious moral depravity.
35 UI v BONIFACIO
FACTS
LESLIES side of the story
o LESLIE Ui married CARLOS and had 4 children with him
o Subsquently, LESLIE found out CARLOS was having illicit relations with
Atty IRIS Bonifacio and begot a daughter
o CARLOS admitted this relationship with LESLIE who confronted IRIS
o IRIS told LESLIE everything was over between her and CARLOS
o However, LESLIE found out later the illicit relations continued and IRIS
even had 2nd child with CARLOS
o LESLIE filed a complaint for disbarment against IRIS on ground of
immorality
IRIS side of the story
o Met CARLOS who represented himself as a bachelor with children by a
Chinese woman with whom he had long been estranged
o CARLOS and IRIS got married in Hawaii
o Upon return to Manila, they did not live together because CARLOS
wanted his children with the Chinese woman to gradually know and
accept his marriage with IRIS
o When IRIS knew about the 1st marriage, she cut all ties with him
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
In proceedings before the IBP Commission, LESLIE filed a motion to cite IRIS
in contempt for making false allegations in her Answer to impress upon the
IBP that her 1st child by CARLOS was within wedlock
o IRIS indicated in Answer she got married to CARLOS in Oct 22, 1985
o However, Certificate of Marriage certified by State Registrar revealed
that date of marriage was actually Oct 22, 1987
ISSUE
W/N IRIS SHOULD BE DISBARRED
HELD
NO
RATIO
Immorality
Requisites to admission to practice of law includes being a person of good
moral character and possession of such must be continuous
Loss of good moral character is a ground of revocation of the privilege of
the practice of law
In the case at bar, IRIS was imprudent in her personal affairs
Circumstances existed which should have at least aroused her suspicion
that something was amiss (i.e. not living together as husband and wife,
children by another woman, etc) but she did not do anything about it
However, the fact remains that IRIS relationship with CARLOS was clothed
with marriage and cannot be considered immoral
Moreover, such conduct to warrant disciplinary action must be grossly
immoral that is so corrupt and false to constitute a criminal act or moral
indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community
IRIS act of immediately distancing herself belies the alleged moral
indifference and proves she has no intention of flaunting the law
Hence, IRIS should not be disbarred
False allegation
Any normal bride would recall date and year of marriage
Difficult to fathom how IRIS could forget the year of her marriage
Moreover, any prudent lawyer would verify the information contained in an
attachment to her pleading especially in this case since IRIS had personal
knowledge of facts stated therein
Hence, IRIS should be reprimanded for attaching marriage certificate with
an altered date
36 ROYONG v OBLENA
FACTS:
Royong, the niece it the common-law wife of Oblena, filed a rape case
against the latter.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
In her complaint, Royong alleged that in 1958 Oblena forced her to have
intercourse with her and that she refrained to report the incident because
Oblena threatened to kill her family.
As a result if the sexual intercourse, Royong gave birth to a child
Oblena denied all the allegations and argued that he and Royong had a
relationship and Royong consented to have intercourse with him.
The Solicitor General recommended that Oblena be permanently removed
from the roll of attorney eventhough the acts of the Royong before and after
the rape incident showed that she is more of a sweetheart than a victim
because of the circumstances behind the incident
The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of falsifying and deliberately
alleging in his application in the bar in1958 that he is a person of good
moral character while having an illicit and adulterous relationship with
Angeles who is not only the aunt of Royong but also has a legal husband in
the province
Oblena moved to dismiss the case because the offenses charged are
different from those originally charged in the complaint but the court
overruled his petition
After the hearing, the investigators concluded that A.) Oblena used his
knowledge in law to commit immoral acts without incurring any criminal
liability; B.) he committed gross immorality by continuously cohabiting with
Angeles, his common-law wife, even after he became a lawyer and C.)
Oblena falsified the truth as to his good moral character in his application to
take the bar.
ISSUE:
W/N the illicit relationship with Royong and the open cohabitation with
Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient grounds to cause Oblenas
disbarment
HELD:
YES!
Although Oblena is not yet convicted of the crime of rape, seduction or
adultery and he is not guilty of any of the grounds for disbarment
enumerated in Sec 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, the enumeration is
not exclusive and the power of the court to exclude unworthy members of
the bar is inherent and is a necessary incident to the proper administration
of justice and can be exercised even without any statutory authority, in all
cases unless properly prohibited by statutes.
American jurisprudence provides that the continued possession of a good
moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the
practice of law. The loss requires suspension or disbarment eventhough the
statues do not explicitly specify that as a ground of disbarment.
Oblenas argument that he believed himself to be a person with good moral
character when he filed his application to take the bar examination is
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
wrong. Ones own approximation of himself is not a gauge of his moral

character. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which
corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what the person really is
and not what he other people thinks he is.
His pretension to wait for the 18th birthday of Royong before having carnal
knowledge with her shows the scheming mind of Oblena and his taking
advantage of his knowledge of the law.
Also, Royong is the niece of his common-law wife and he enjoyed moral
ascendancy over her. Oblena took advantage of Royongs trust on him.
Oblenas contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in
filing the present complain which is entirely different from the original
complaint filed is untenable. There is nothing in the law requiring the
Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same offence charged in the
original complaint. What the law provides is that if the Solicitor General
finds sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent, he shall file the
corresponding complaint accompanied by the evidence introduced in his
investigation.
37 DE LOS REYES v AZNAR

Facts:
Delos Reyes filed a complaint against Atty. Aznar for gross immorality.
It appears that Atty. Aznar raped Delos Reyes. From the evidence, it
appears that Aznar was the Chairman of the Board of Southwestern
University.
Delos Reyes failed her Pathology subject. As such, she approached
Aznar for reconsideration. Aznar assured her that she would pass. Despite
her plea, she failed the subject. Aznar told Delos Reyes that she should go
with him to Manila or else she will flunk. They went to Manila. After dining in
a restaurant, Aznar raped her twice in the evening and thrice the next
morning inside the Ambassador Hotel.
Aznar denies all the allegations and says that when he went to Manila,
he slept at the house of his friends.
Issue: W/N Aznar is guilty of gross misconduct.

Held: Aznar is guilty of gross misconduct.
The court agrees with the Sol. Gen.s finding that Aznar committed
gross misconduct. While Aznar denied having taken Delos Reyes to the
Ambassador Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her, he did not present
any evidence to show where he was on that date. It is the duty of the
lawyer, whenever his moral character is put into question, to satisfy
the court that he is fit and proper to enjoy continued membership
in the bar. He cannot dispense with the high exacting moral
standards of the profession. Good moral character is a continuing

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
qualification necessary to entitle on to continue in the practice of

law
38 SOBERANO v VILLANUEVA
Facts:
Soberano filed a petition for disbarment alleging that after Atty. Villanueva
had induced her to take part in a fake wedding, the latter cohabited with
her and later lived with her as husband and wife. As a consequence of this,
she bore him two children, and subsequently, Villanueva abandoned them.
Soon thereafter, Soberano sent a letter to the court asking that no action be
taken on her petition until her mother has arrived and decided whether it
should push though.
Soberano sent another letter saying that her mother has arrived and that
the case must case.
Soberano again wrote a letter saying that the filing of the petition was not
sincerely her own wish, and that she was finally withdrawing her complaint
the last letter written by Soberano to the court however, prayed that her
motion to withdraw the petition be denied, since Villanueva had procured
the motion by means of threat and intimidation.
Issue: W/N Villanueva should be disbarred
Held: NO
The letters of Soberano to Villanueva clearly indicated that intimate
relations had existed between them prior to the date when the alleged fake
wedding occurred. These indicate that there was o need for Villanueva to
stage a fake wedding to induce Soberano to cohabit with him.
Some of the letters showed that Soberano reminded him of his promise to
marry her after he passed the bar
As to whether the extra-marital relations between Soberano and Villanueva
warrants disciplinary action, SC held that in light of the circumstances in
this case, these acts are neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act,
nor so unprincipled as to warrant a disbarment of disciplinary action.
Also, distinguished members of the bar had attested to Villanuevas good
moral character. One is no less than the Executive Judge of the CFI of
Negros Occidental, where Villanueva is practices his profession. The other
is the Dean Montemayor of the Ateneo College of Law. The last one is Hon.
Guillermo Santos, former Chairman of Agricultural Tenancy Commission,
then Judge of CFI and Court of Agrarian Relations.
39 RAO SHENG v VELASCO

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
FACTS:
Rau Sheng Mao is a Taiwanese national who engaged the services of Atty.
Angeles Velasco as his legal consultant and counsel of his company Foreign
Investors Consultancy and Management, Inc (FICMI).
Haru Gen Beach Resort and Hotel Corporation ,represented by Atty, Velasco
as its director and stockholder, entered into a management agreement with
FICMI
Atty Velasco sold to Rau Sheng his 10,000 shares in Haru Gen for
P1,000,000 but the former refused to deliver the certificates to the
Taiwanese despite complete payment made by the Taiwanese
Also, 3 lands of Atty. Velasco was bought by Rau Sheng for P3.3M with a
remaining balance of P300,000, but Atty. Velasco still refused to deliver the
titles
Rau Sheng filed an administrative case against Atty. Velasco. Rau Sheng
presented as evidence letters made by Atty. Velasco wherein the latter was
asking money from the former to be given to judges hearing his cases
An additional charge for immorality because of his illicit relationship with
Lucy Matienzo who is not his legal wife was filed by Rau Sheng wherein he
presented the baptismal certificate of Jenny Velasco which listed Atty.
Velasco as its father together with the affidavits of several people
confirming Velascos illicit relationship with Lucy as evidence
Atty. Velasco denied all the allegations of Rau Sheng with these arguments:
o He could not deceive Rau Sheng for the Taiwanese was always
represented in all their transactions by Atty. Purog
o He refused to deliver the certificate of stocks and the land titles
because of the Rau Shengs incomplete payment of the purchase
price
o As to the immorality claim, Atty. Velasco presented affidavits of his
wife and Lucy Matienzo
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Velasco is guilty of all the allegations made by Rau Sheng
HELD:
YES! Atty. Velasco was found guilty of the having illicit relationship with
Matieza and giving Rau Sheng the impression that he was in the position to
influence the court and he was ordered suspended from the practice of law
for 2 years
The court found it unlikely that Rau Sheng was deceived by Atty. Velasco in
all their transactions for he was always represented by Atty. Purog in all the
dealings
But Atty. Velasco is guilty of having an adulterous relationship with Matienza
with whom he has 3 children all bearing his surname as seen in all the
school records of the children.
Velasco violated Canon 1, Rule 1.101 by engaging in unlawful and immoral
acts. Lawyers are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility
and thus must handle their personal affairs with the greatest caution. Their
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest
degree of morality.
What is more, Velasco violated one of the basic tenets of legal ethics by
giving Rau Sheng the impression that he was in the position to influence the
courts. Velasco claimed that he has connections with judges and they were
claiming money from Rau Sheng.
A lawyer is duty bound to avoid improprieties which gave the appearance of
influencing the courts and place the integrity of the administration of justice
in peril.
No profession offers greater opportunity for public service than that of a
lawyer. For the privilege conferred upon him, a lawyer was tasked with the
equally greater responsibility of upholding the ideals and ethics established.
40 OLBES v DECIEMBRE
Facts:
Spouses Olbes (Franklin & Lourdes) were employees of the Central Post
Office in Manila. They filed this case for disbarment against Atty. Deciembre.
Lourdes, with the help of Deciembre, acquired a loan from Rodela Loans in
the amount of P10K.
Lourdes then issued 5 PNB blank checks to respondent to serve as
collateral.
Subsequently, Lourdes paid Deciembre the amount of the loan plus interest
and surcharges.
Notwithstanding payment, Deciembre filled up the blank checks in the
amount of P50k each. Siyempre tumalbog yun mga cheke.
Deciembre then filed BP22 & estafa cases against the Olbes spouses.
Reklamo siyempre sila Olbes. They are even saying that some of their
officemates suffered the same fate under Deciembre.
Investigating officer: Deciembres version of the facts is highly doubtful.
There are discrepancies between his oral and written testimonies.
Issue:
W/N Deciembre should face disciplinary sanctions
Held:
Siyempre! He is in violation of Rule 7.03
He committed falsification when he filled up the blank checks even if this
was not agreed upon and despite knowledge that the loan had already been
paid.
He even filed BP22 cases against the couple. This shows the vileness and
wretchedness of his soul. Franklin was even detained for 3 months because
of the cases.
Deciembre is found to be lacking good moral character. Good moral
character includes at least common honesty.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
The penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for 2 years is too mild.
Deciembre is suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.
41 GRANDE v DA SILVA
FACTS:
Emilio Grande is the private offended party (of estafa and BP 22) against a
certain Sergio Natividad, the client of Atty. De Silva
De Silva tendered a check to Grande as settlement of the civil aspect of the
case.
The check was returned with the notation that the ACCT CLOSED
Grande filed a suit against De Silva for violation of BP 22 and Estafa (sha
naman ang nakasuhan tuloy hehe)
De Silva refused to comment on notices of complaints sent to her.
IBP recommended that de Silva be suspended for two years.
ISSUE: WoN de Silva should be suspended?
HELD: YES
RATIO:
1. The nature of the office of an atty requires that a lawyer shall be a person of
good moral character. Gross misconduct which puts the lawyers moral
character in serious doubt may render her unfit to continue in the practice
of law. A lawyer may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt validly
incurred. The loss of moral character of a lawyer for any reason whatsoever
shall warrant her suspension or disbarment.
2. Any wrongdoing which indicates moral unfitness for the profession, whether
it be professional or non-pro, justifies disciplinary action. For a lawyers
professional and personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond
reproach and above suspicion.
Her deliberate refusal to accept the notices served on her stains the nobility of
the profession. How else would a lawyer endeavor to serve justice and uphold the
law when she disdains to follow even simple directives. Also, Canon 1 says that a
lawyer shall uphold the consti, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
the legal processes.
42 COJUANGCO v PALMA
Facts:
Complainant Cojuangco wa a client of Angara Concepcion Regala and Cruz Law
Offices and Palma was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. Palma's
relationship with the Cojuangcos became intimate. He frequented theis house
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
and even tutored Cojuangco's 22-year old daughter Maria Luis Cojuangco.
Wihtout the knowledge of complainant Cojuangco's family, Palma married Lisa in
Hongkong. It was only the next day that Palma informed complainant of such
fact. Complainant was shocked, knowing fully well that Palma is a married man
and has 3 children.
Complainant filed with CFI a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage
between respondent Palma and Lisa. CFI delared that marriage null and void.
Thereafter, Cojuangco fileed with the SC the instant complaint for disbarment.
Meanwhile, the first division of SC issued a resolution setting aside the CFI
Decision declaring the marriage null and void and remanding the case to the CFI
for proper proceeding. To this date, the records fail to disclose the outcome of
this case.
Issue:
W/n Palma should be disbarred...
Held:
YES.
There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the
lawyer's professional capacity or in his private life. Professional competency
alone does not make a lawyer worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character
is always an indispensabel requirement.
The truth is respondent married Lisa while he has a subsisting marriage with
Elizabeth Herosisima. Therefore he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of
morality required of him as a member of the bar. Respondent's culpability is
aggravated by the fact that Lisa was just 22 years old and was under
psychological treatment for emotional immaturity.
The subsequent judgment of annullment of marriage has no bearing to the instant
disbarment proceeding. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is an investigation
by the court into the conduct of its officers.
43 REYES v CHIONG JR.
Facts:
Atty. Ramon Reyes counsel for Zonggi Xu.
Atty. Victoriano Chiong, Jr for Chia Hsien Pan.
Xu, a Chinese-Taiwanese went into a business venture with Pan. Pan was
supposed to set up a Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products
factory. He did not establish it, and so Xu asked that his money be
returned.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Xu then filed a case of estafa against Pan. Prosecutor Salanga then issued
a subpoena against Pan.
Atty. Chiong then filed a motion to quash, but he also filed a civil complaint
for the collection of a sum of money and damages as well as for the
dissolution of a business venture against Xu, Atty Reyes, and Prosecutor
Salanga.
He alleged that Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant because
of the irregularities the latter had committed in conducting the criminal
investigation he still filed the complaint against Pan in spite of Pans
motions.
Atty. Reyes was allegedly impleaded because he allegedly connived with Xu
in filing the estafa case which was baseless.
IBP recommended that Chiong be suspended for 2 years.
Issue:
W/N Chiong should be suspended.
Held:
Yes.
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel.
If Chiong believed that the two had conspired to act illegally, he could have
instituted disbarment proceedings.
As a lawyer, Chiong should have advised his client of the availability of
these remedies. Thus the filing of the cases had no justification.
Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with
courtesy, dignity and civility.
Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their
conduct and demeanor toward each other.
44 ALCANTARA v PEFIANCO
Facts:
Atty Pefianco is counsel in a criminal case. One day the private offended
party went to the Public Attorneys Office to have her civil claims (in the
criminal case) settled. Atty Salvani attended to her.
While Atty. Salvani was talking to the woman, Atty Pefianco shouted at them
and questioned the actions of the woman (pertaining to the settlement).
Atty Pefianco was asked to calm down but he did not refrain from his
outburst. District Public Attorney Alcantara, as head of the agency, talked to
Pefianco.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
But Pefianco called Alcantara an idiot and a stupid (loud enough for other
people to hear). A commotion in the office ensued (Pefianco even tried to
attack Alcantara).
A complaint was filed against Pefianco for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer
and for using improper and offensive language.
Pefianco says that he was just moved by the sight of a crying woman whose
husband had been murdered. He also averred that it was Alcantara who
punched him and called him stupid.
Issue:
Did Pefianco violate the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Held:
Yes. Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code which requires lawyers to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. It was
Pefiancos meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so that caused the
untoward incident (shouting at Salvani and the woman). Though he thought that
this is righteous, his public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in
the eyes of the public and erode respect for it.
Atty Pefianco was fined and reprimanded.
45 CAMACHO v PANGULAYAN
FACTS
9 students of AMA were expelled for having apparently caused to be
published objectionable features or articles in the school paper
Denial of the appeal to AMA President Aguiluz gave rise to Civil Case 9730549
CAMACHO was the hired counsel of the expelled students in an action for
the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injuction in the said civil
case
While the civil case was still pending, letters of apology and Re-admission
Agreements were separately executed by the expelled students without the
knowledge of CAMACHO
CAMACHO filed a complaint against lawyers comprising the PANGULAYAN
AND ASSOCIATES Law Firm (lawyers of AMA) because without his knowledge
they procured and effected on separate occasions compromise agreements
(letters of apology and Re-admission Agreements) with 4 of his clients
which in effect required them to waive all kinds of claims they may have
with AMA
CAMACHO averred that such an act was unbecoming of any member of the
legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
PANGULAYAN in his defense claimed that the agreements were executed for
the sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case
ISSUE
W/N PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES SHOULD BE

SUSPENDED/DISBARRED
HELD
YES
RATIO
It would appear that when individual letters of apology and Re-admission
Agreements were formalized, CAMACHO was already the retained counsel
of the expelled AMA students
PANGULAYAN and associates having full knowledge of this fact still
proceeded to negotiate with the expelled AMA students and their parents
without at least communicating the matter to their lawyer CAMACHO
This failure of PANGULAYAN and associates, whether by design or oversight,
is an excusable violation of the canons of profession ethics and in utter
disregard of a duty owing to a colleague
The excuse that agreements were executed for settling the administrative
case was belied by the Manifestation which states 9 signatories agreed
among others to terminate ALL civil, criminal and administrative
proceedings they may have against AMA arising from their previous
dismissal
Hence, PANGULAYAN should be suspended for 3 months
DOCTRINE
A lawyers 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 only deal 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 law.
46 TORRES v JAVIER
Facts:
This is an administrative case filed by Atty. Ireneo Torres against Atty. Jose
Javier for malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an attorney and/or
violation of the lawyers oath. There were 3 causes of action
First, the allegations stem from statements/remarks made by Javier in the
pleadings he filed in a petition for audit of all funds of the University of the
East Faculty Association (UEFA) (Torres is the President). Javier implied that
Torres had a motive to burglarize the office of UEFA to get certain
documents.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Second, Torres alleges that Javier used language that was clearly abusive,
offensive, and improper, inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a
quasi-judicial officer. This was with regard to Javiers Reply to Respondents
Answer/Comment in the attorneys fees case where Javier made a
comment on the intellectual capacity of Torres.
Third, Torres finds fault in Javiers statement that implies that it is normal for
notaries public to let their relatives sign the documents for them. Torres
says that this statement is demeaning to the legal profession and the
notarial service.
IBP found Javier guilty and reprimanded him.
Issue:
W/n Javier should be held liable for his acts.
Held:
SC says only as regards the second cause of action. The court made
mention that it is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for
reasons of public policy, utterances made in the course of judicial
proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions and motions, are
absolutely privileged so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the
subject inquiry, however false or malicious they may be.
For the first cause of action, the SC held that such statements made by
Javier were necessary in order to resolve the petition for audit filed. These
statements give a possible scenario as to the reason for the burglary in the
UEFA office. As to the third cause of action, the SC gave Javier the benefit
of the doubt that he issued these statements only in the defense of his
client.
As to the second (for which the SC found Javier guilty), the Court ruled that
the statements made regarding Torres intellectual aptitude were not
relevant to the attorneys fees case. The issue in the said case was
whether the 10% attorneys fees checked off from the initial
backwages/salaries of UEFA members is legal (I dont really understand this
pero yan lang yun nakalagay).
The SC pointed out that Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
instructs that respondents arguments in his pleadings should be gracious
to both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be
properly addressed by one gentleman to another. Javier has disobeyed
such mandate and is thus suspended from the practice of law for 1 month.
47 CAMBALIZA v CRISTOBAL-TENORIO
Facts: Cambaliza, a former employee of Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, charged the latter

with grossly immoral conduct. Cambaliza alleged that Atty. has been falsely
representing herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio, when in fact
Felicisimo was already married to another woman (Atty. got a fake marriage
license.). She also alleges that the Atty. caused the dissemination to the
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
public of a libelous affidavit against a Makati Councilor. At the helm of her

complaint was the allegation that the Atty. cooperated in the illegal practice
of law by her husband Felicisimo, who is not a member of the bar.
Atty. denies all the allegations. She says that her firm is a soleproprietorship; hence, she had no partners in her law office.
Issue: W/N the lawyer is guilty of cooperating in the illegal practice of law.
Held: The lawyer is guilty.
The court agrees with the finding of the Commissioner on Bar
Discipline. According to the Commissioner, Atty. cooperated in illegal
practice, in violation of Rule 9.01 based on the ff. evidence: (1) letterhead of
Cristal-Tenorio Law office, with Felicisimo as senior partner, (2) Sagip Radio
Comm. Group card of Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio (3) an ordered by the MTCC
where Felicisimo entered his appearance as counsel.
Any lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent
himself as a lawyer is guilty of violating rule 9.01. The lawyers duty to
prevent or not assist in the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public
interest and policy. The purpose is to protect the public, the client, the bar,
and the court from the incompetence and dishonesty of those unlicensed to
practice.
48 TAN TEK BENG v DAVID
Facts:
Tan Tek Beng is a non-lawyer while David is a lawyer. David drafted a
contract signed by him and Tan Tek Beng stating among others that On all
commissions and attorneys fees that we shall receive from our clients, we
shall divide fifty-fifty. In the same contract, David also agreed not to deal
directly with their clients.
The business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last
since there were mutual accusations of doublecross.
Tan Tek Beng accused David of not complying with the agreement and
denounced the latter to then Presidential Assistant Ronaldo Zamora, to the
Office of Civil Relations at Camp Crame, and to the Supreme Court. He did
not file any action to enforce the agreement.
While the case was being investigated by the Solicitor General, Tan Tak
Beng died. This case was submitted for decision.
Issue:
W/N the agreement was valid.
Held: NO.
The agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is
the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
personally or through paid agents or brokers. This meaning is in

consonance with the principle that the practice of law is a profession, not a
business.
The commercialization of law practice is condemned in certain canons of
professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association:
34. No division of fees for legal services is proper, except with
another lawyer, based upon a division of service or responsibility.
35. The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or
exploited by any law agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes
between client and lawyer
David should have known better than to enter and act upon such void and
unethical agreement.
He is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice.
49 PEOPLE v DE LUNA
FACTS:
De Luna, ET al., respondents, know that they did not pass the bas
examination. Although they sought admission under the Bar Flunkers Act,
they were notified of the decision of the SC denying their petitions. But
notwithstanding their disqualification to be admitted to the bar, they took
their oaths as lawyers before a notary public and formally advised the SC of
such oath taking and that they will engage in the practice of law in all
courts of the Philippines
RTC: not guilty of contempt of court unless the respondents actually
engaged in
the practice of law or held out to the public that they are
lawyers by means of circulars
ISSUE:
W/N the act of the respondents of taking their oath before a notary public
constitutes contempt of court
HELD:
YES!
The oath as lawyer is a prerequisite to the practice of law and may be taken
only before the SC by those authorized by the latter to engage in such
practice.
Respondents clearly defied and challenged the orders of the SC by willfully
taking the lawyers oath before the notary public despite the resolution of
the SC denying their petition to be admitted to the bar.
The ruling of the lower court is wrong for assuming to be an attorney, x x
x, and acting as such without authority, is only one of the grounds under
Rule 64, section 3.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Also, by taking the oath of office as attorney-at-law and notifying the SC of

what they had done and their intent to practice law in all courts of the
Philippines, the respondents had, for all intent and purposes, held out to the
public as such as attorney-at-law
The case is remanded to the court of origin
50 PHILIPPINE LAWYERS v AGRAVA

Facts:
Agrava is the Director of the Philippines Patent Office (PPO).
Agrava issued a circular announcing that there will be an examination to
determine who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the PPO.
Phil. Lawyers Assoc. (PLA) filed this case for prohibition and injunction
against Agrava.
PLA: one who passes the bar is licensed to practice law and is qualified to
practice before the PPO. Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction in issuing the
additional qualification
Agrava: prosecution of patent cases does not involve entirely or purely the
practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical
knowledge. That like his US counterpart, he can require additional
requirements to practice before the PPO.
Take note Agrava has been issuing examinations before but it was only
now that this power has been contended
Issue:
W/N appearance before the PPO constitutes or is included in the practice of
law
Held:
Yes, it is still within the ambit practice of law. Agrava is in excess of his
jurisdiction when he requires an additional examination for lawyers.
The SC has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to
admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.
The practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of court, which requires
the application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure and calls for
legal knowledge, training and experience.
Although it is admitted that there is some technicality involved in the work
for PPO, but everything still goes back to the Patent law as well as other
laws.
As to Agravas contention that he has the authority just like his US
counterpart, this contention is wrong. The Phil. Patent law and the US Patent
law are different as to the sections involving the powers of the director.
Nowhere in the Philippine law is it provided for that the director has the
power to require additional examinations for attorneys.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
51 SANTOS v LLAMAS
FACTS:
Soliman Santos, a member of the Bar filed a complaint for
misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues against Atty.
Francisco Llamas
Santos bases his claims on the grounds that 1) Llamas has been dismissed
as Pasay City Judge and 2) his conviction for estafa
Llamas contends that 1) his dismissal was reversed and set aside 2) that his
principal occupation was a farm, which he had declared in his Income Tax
Return. And moreover, since he was a senior citizen, he was exempt in
paying (in pursuant to Sec 4, RA 7432),and that Llamas believed in good
faith that he is only allowed a limited practice
ISSUE: WoN Llamas can be held administratively liable?
HELD: YES.
RATIO:
1) a lawyer by indicating BP- Rizal xxxx in his pleadings, thereby
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP due, is
guilty of violating
a. Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonet, immoral or
deceitful conduct
b. Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all timed uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession, and support the activities of the IBP
c. Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
Court
d. Rule 10.01- A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any court, nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be
misled by an artifice
2) a lawyers failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the
pleadings that he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty --HOWEVER, in view of Llamasadvanced age, his express willingness to pay his
dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, the Court held a
penalty of 1 year suspension or until he paid his dues, as appropriate.
52 FAR EASTERN SHIPPING v CA
Facts:
M/V Pavlodar owned and operated by the Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC)
arrived at the port of Manila. Senen Gavino was assigned by the Manila Pilot's
Association (MPA) to conduct docking manuevers for the safe berthing of the
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
vessel. Gavino stationed himself in the bridge, with the master of the vessel,
Victor Kavankov, beside him.
When the vessel was already about 2000 feet from the pier, Gavino ordered the
anchor dropped. Kavankov relayed the orders to the crew of the vessel. However
the anchor did not hold as expected. The speed of the vessel did not slacken. A
commotion ensued between the crew members. When Gavino inquired about the
commotion, Kavankov assured Gavino that there was nothing to it.
The bow of the vessel rammed into the apron of the pier causing considerable
damage to the pier. PPA filed a complaint for a sum of money against FESC,
Gavino and MPA. CA ruled in favor of PPA holding them liable with MPA (employer
of Kavankov) entitled to
reimbursement from Gavino.
Issue:
Are the counsels for the parties committed acts which require the exercise of the
court's disciplinary powers?
Held:
YES. The records show that the law firm of Del Rosario and Del Rosario thru its
associate, Atty Tria, is the the counsel of record for FESC in both GR no 130068
and GR no 130150. GR 130068 which is assigned to the Court's second division,
commenced with the filing of a verified motion for extension of time which
contained a certification against forum shopping signed by counsel Tria stating
that to the best of his
knowledge there is no action or proceeding pending in the SC, CA or any other
tribunal.
Reviewing the records, the court finds that the petition filed by MPA in GR no,
130150 then pending with the third division was duly filed with a copy thereof
furnished by registered mail to counsel for FESC (atty Tria). It would be fair to
conclude that when FESC filed its petition GR no 130068, it would aready have
received a copy of the copy of the petition by MPA. It wa therefore encumbent
upon FESC
to inform the court of the pending action. But considering that it was a
superfluity at that stage of the proceeding , it being unnecessary to file such
certification of non forum shopping with a mere motion for extension, the court
disregarded such error.
On the other hand it took the OSG, representing PPA, an ordinately and
unreasonably long period of time to file its comment, thus unduly delaying the
resolution of these cases. In GR no 130068, it took 210 days before the OSG filed
its comment. FESC was not even furnished with a copy. In Gr no 130150 it took
180 days before comment was filed. This disinclination of the OSG to seasonably
file required pleadings constitutes deplorable disservice to the public and can only
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
be categorized as inefficiency on the part of the govt law office.

Counsel for FESC, the law firm of Del Rosario and Del Rosario, specifically its
asscociate Tria is reprimaded and warned that a repetition of the same acts shall
be dealt with severely.
The original members of the legal tean of the OSG are admonished and warned
tha a repetition shall also be dealt with more stringently.
Baka lang itanong kung ano ruling: The decision of the CA is affirmed. Gavino,
MPA and FESC are declared solidarily liable with MPA entitled to reimbursement
from Gavino for such amount of the adjudged pecuniary liability in excess of the
amount equivalent to 75% of its prescribed reserved fund.
53 COMELEC v NOYNAY
Facts:
Judge Tomas Noynay ordered the records of a certain election case to be
withdrawn and directed to the Comelec.
The case was against Diosdada Amor, a public school principal and other
public school teachers for having violated the Omnibus Election Code: for
having engaged in partisan political activities.
Comelec wanted to prosecute Amor et al. (This case is irrelevant to the
main case)
Apparently, the maximum imposable penalty in each of the cases does not
exceed 6 years.
The judge dismissed the cases, using as basis the Judiciary Reorganization
Act: Not exceeding 6 years, not with RTC but with MTC.
But the Omnibus Election Code states that the regional trial court shall have
the exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or
proceedings for violation of this code XXX
A closer reading of the Judiciary Reorganization Act (in its first sentence
says): Except in cases falling within the original jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court XXX
The Omnibus Election Code is an older law v the Judiciary Election Act
Judge Noynay did not read at all the opening sentence of the Judiciary
Election Act when he dismissed the cases.
Comelecs lawyer was Atty. Jose Balbuena from the Comelec legal
department.
In his Motion for Reconsideration (see p 263), he quoted the memorandum
of te Court Administrator (not the SC) and made it appear that these were
the words of the SC.
He cited a case, but erroneously:
o What he used: Alberto Naldeza/Alberto
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
o Alberto Naldoza
He said the case was in volume 245 of the SCRA, but it was really in volume
254.
Issue:
W/N Judge Noynay has the jurisdiction to handle the election cases in his
sala.
Held:
(RC Note: parts of the SC decision were in the Facts portion, since you will
not understand the case if I placed it in the bottom
Yes.
Judge Noynay and Atty. Balbuena should also be admonished.
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.
54 RIVERA v CORRAL
Facts:
A decision in a case for ejectment was sent to Atty Corral. His secretary
received the decision on Feb 23, 1990.
On March 13, 1990 Atty Corral filed a notice of appeal. The next day, Corral
went to the Office of the Clerk of Court to change the date of receipt of the
decision from Feb 23 to Feb 29 (which was later changed to Feb 28 when
Corral realized that there was no Feb 29 that year). Para hindi siya madisqualify ng 15-day appeal period.
Rivera filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty Corral for tampering
the courts records without such courts permission or knowledge.
The IBP investigating committee affirmed the charges and recommended
suspension. Later on, the IBP Board ordered Corrals suspension.
Corral claims he was not afforded due process or hearing.
Issue:
Can Atty Corral be suspended?
Held:
Yes. Contrary to Corrals claim that he was not afforded due process, he was in
fact given the opportunity to present his evidence during the course of the
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
proceedings. According to the records, the hearings had to be rescheduled

several times to accommodate his requests. But he did not appear on the
scheduled hearings. He cannot now claim that he was denied due process.
It should be remembered that the essence of due process is simply an
opportunity to be heard.
The Court finds that Atty Corral violated his oath by engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, or deceitful conduct. By altering the material dates to make it appear
that the notice of appeal was timely filed, Corral committed an act of dishonesty.
A suspension for 1 year is warranted.
55 YOUNG v BATUEGAS
FACTS
YOUNG is the private prosecutor in People of the Phil v Arana
BATUEGAS, et al are the counsels for the accused in the said criminal case
On Dec 13, 2000, BATUEGAS filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail
alleging that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in
authority and, as such, is now under detention
Upon verification with the NBI, YOUNG discovered that the accused
surrendered on Dec 14, 2000 (not 13)
BATUEGAS, et al in their defense alleged that
o On Dec 13, 2000, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued
against their client, they filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail
o They immediately fetched accused from Cavite and brought him to
NBI to voluntarily surrender
o However, due to heavy traffic, they arrived at NBI at 2am the next
day
o That was why the Certificate of Detention indicated that the accused
surrendered on Dec 14, 2000 and not 13
o As to lack of notice, YOUNG being a private prosecutor, is not entitled
to such as only the State and City prosecutors should be given notices
Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension of 6 months
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline in a resolution approved said
recommendation
ISSUE
W/N BATUEGAS, ET AL ARE GUILTY OF FALSEHOOD AND

SHOULD BE SUSPENDED
HELD
YES, CONCEALED TRUTH
RATIO
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
He swore upon his admission that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the
doing of any in court
As officer of the court, his high vocation is to correctly inform the court
upon the law and facts of the case to aid it in arriving at the correct
conclusion
The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty
from lawyers appearing and pleading before them
His a lawyers solemn duty is to defend his client, his conduct must never
be at the expense of truth
In the case at bar, BATUEGAS, et al feel short of the duties and
responsibilities expected of them as members of the bar
Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the Court found that
it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, they craftily concealed
the truth alleging that the accused had voluntarily surrendered
To knowingly allege an untrue statement in the pleading is a contemptuous
conduct that the Court strongly condemns
BATUEGAS, et al violated their oath when they resorted to deception
Hence, BATUEGAS, et al should be suspended for 6 months
56 HUEYSUWAN FLORIDO v FLORIDO

Facts:
Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido (H-F) filed this administrative complaint against

her husband James Florido for violating his oath as a lawyer by
manufacturing, flaunting and usng a spurious and bogus CA
resolution/order.
H-F admits that she and her husband live separately. They have two
children. Sometime in Dec. 2001, Florido went to H-Fs house and showed
her a photocopy of a resolution issued by the CA apparently giving to
Florido the legal custody of their children. H-F doubted the authenticity of
the CA resolution so she did not give her children to Florido.
Then in 2002, while H-F and her children were in the ABC Learning Center,
Florido arrived accompanied by armed men. Florido demanded that H-F
surrender custody of their children to him. H-F, fearing for her childrens
safety, called the police. In the police station, H-F agreed to let the children
sleep with Florido just for one night at a hotel. But when H-F heard of news
that Florido was planning to take the children to Bacolod, she immediately
took them away.
Florido then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of the
CA resolution he presented to H-F earlier. This petition was dismissed
because Florido did not appear and H-F presented a certification from the
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
CA that there was no resolution granting Florido with legal custody of their
children.
Thus, this present action. The IBP has recommended that Florido be
suspended from the practice of law for 6 years.
Issue:
W/n Florido should be held liable for his actions.
Held:
SC says that Florido should be held liable. He violated Canon 10 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 10.01 and 10.02, by his
act of making up a spurious CA resolution and using such false resolution to
his aadvantage.
The SC thinks that suspension of 6 years is too much so they lowered the
penalty to just a 2-year suspension.
57 ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts: Atty. Paguia is the counsel of Joseph Estrada in the case of Estrada vs.
Arroyo. Atty. Paguia asserts that the members of the Supreme Court should
inhibit themselves from hearing the petition because of Rule 5.10 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from participating in
partisan political activities. According the Atty. Paguia, the justices have
violated the rule by participating in the EDSA 2 rally and authorizing the
assumption of office by President Arroyo.
The Sandiganbayan denied the petition and motion for
reconsideration of Atty. Paguia to dismiss all the criminal cases against
Estrada. Atty. Paguia attacked the decision of the Court in the case of
Estrada vs. Arroyo by saying: similar in the decisions involving admin.
agencies, if the act of the justices is lawful, it is the act of the Supreme
Court, and if the act of the judges is not lawful, it is not the act of the
Supreme Court. As such, Atty. Paguia asserts that the decision in Estrada vs.
Arroyo being unlawful in view of Rule 5.10 of Code of Judicial Conduct, is not
the act of the SC.
Atty. Paguia repeated his assault on the court in both broadcast and
print media. For that reason, the court asked him to show cause why he
should not be sanctioned.
Issue: W/N Atty. Paguia should be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming.
Held: Atty. Paguia is sanctioned. He is indefinitely suspended from
practice of law.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates the
lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
judicial officers. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and

questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the
court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded seeking to impede, obstruct and
pervert the dispensation of justice.
Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar from
making such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public
opinion for or against a party.
58 TIONGCO v AGUILAR
(Canon 10 Morada)
Facts:
Atty. Tiongco filed a petition with the Supreme Court for a review of a lower
courts decision.
The petition contained malicious and intemperate language. Tiongco stated
that the decision of the trial court Judge was crafted to fool the winning
party, a hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs favor, it was the devil who
dictated it, the Judge was confused, being born and raised amongst the
non-propertied class
Tiongco also filed a pleading with the SC stating that it is hard to imagine
that this Honorable Court had read the petition and hold that the same
failed to sufficiently show that the respondent Court had committed grave
abuse of discretion.
In a previous resolution, the SC required Atty. Jose B. Tiongco to show
cause why he should not be dealt with administratively for the violation of
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In Tiongcos Compliance, he alleges that the SC failed to mention that he
also called the judge a robber, a rotten manipulator, and abetter of
graft and shady deals.
Issue:
W/N Tiongco must be held administratively liable.
Held: YES
Atty. Tiongco did not at all show cause why he should not be dealt with
administratively. While Tiongco tried to justify as true his descriptions of
the Judge as liar, thief, perfidious, and blasphemer, he did not offer
any excuse for the other intemperate words and phrases he used. Neither
did he show their relevance to the petition.
By insinuating that this Court did not at all read the petition, Tiongco
exhibited gross disrespect and attempted to discredit the Members of the
First Division. He charged them with violating their duty to render justice,
and he thereby promoted distrust in judicial administration.
He also showed disrespect to and contempt for the respondent judge,
thereby diminishing public confidence in the latter and in the judiciary.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Although a lawyer has the righteven the dutyto criticize the courts, this
right must be exercised responsibly. The criticism must be bona fide,
without using language that would tend to create or promote distrust in
judicial administration and undermine the peoples confidence in the
integrity of the members of this Court.
59 RHEEM OF THE PHILS v FERRER

FACTS:
The SC issued an order directing Atty. Armonio and the senior partners in
his law firm to show to cause why they should not be dealt with for
contempt of court
The law firm of Ponce Enrile. Sigiuon Reyne, etc. argued that:
o It has never been their intent to be disrespectful
o It was the result of overenthusiasm on the part of Atty. Armonio who
thought best to focus the attention of the court to the issue in the
case and was not in any way meant to slight or offend the court.
o It was because Atty. Armonio became emotionally involved in the case
o Not one of the partners was able to pass upon the draft or final form
of the said motion, and that Atty. Armonio, an associate, prepared,
signed and filed the motion without clearing it with any one of the
partner of the firm
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Armonio and the partners in his firm must be held in contempt
because of the disrespectful language contained of the pleading prepared
by Atty. Armonio.
HELD:
The SC decided that Atty. Armonio be warned that repetition of the incident
will be dealt with more severely and that necessary attention must be
employed by the partners in exercising adequate supervision and control of
the pleadings submitted by its associate
The pleading which contained one pitfall into which this court has
repeatedly fallen whenever the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
Relations comes into question and the sweeping charge that the decisions
of this court blindly adhere to earlier rulings without as much as making
any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statues implies that the
court is so patently inept in determining the jurisdiction of the industrial
court, it has committed error and continuously repeated that error to the
point of perpetuation.
Implicit in the quoted statement is that the pronouncements of this court on
the jurisdiction of the industrial court are not entitled to respect. It detract
much from the dignity of and respect due this court.
It is the duty of lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts of justice and judicial officers. It is his obligation to maintain towards
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary
incumbents of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme
importance.
It is proscribes to use unnecessary language which jeopardizes high esteem
in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration, or which
could have the effect of harboring or encouraging discontent which, in
many cases, us the source of disorder, thus undermining the foundation
upon which rests that bulwark called judicial power .
The claim of Atty. Armonio that his statements was not in any way meant to
slight or offend this court, want of intention is no excuse for the language
employed. One cannot escape responsibility by claiming his words did not
mean what any reader must have understood them as meaning.
60 ANDRES v CABRERA
Facts:
Stanley R. Cabrera (Cabrera) was a successful bar examinee in 1977.
Atty. Emilia Andres was a legal officer in the Ministry of Labor. She
dismissed a case filed by Cabreras mother against a certain Atty. Perez.
Because of the dismissal, Cabrera filed with the city fiscal of Manila criminal
charges against Andres (graft and corruption, falsification of public
documents)
Andres then filed a case of disqualification against Cabrera. Cabrera
apparently used in his affidavit vile, incivil and uncouth language (e.g.
moronic, unparalleled stupidity, idiotic)
Cabreras oath-taking was therefore postponed. The SC required him to file
an answer to why he should not be disqualified. In Cabreras reply he still
used unfit language (e.g. calling Atty. Andres a moron). In subsequent
motions by Cabrera, he used the words a victim of the courts inhuman
and cruel punishment through its supreme inaction
1979: The court thereafter deferred his oath-taking until he has shown that
he has changed his ways. Cabrera then filed a motion for contempt of court.
And guess what, he still used unfit language (e.g. supreme stupidity,
degradation of the administration of justice)
Napikon yata yung SC, they required Cabrera to file a reply to why he
should not be held in contempt. Cabrera filed an apology but guess what,
the language he used were still unfit and even insincere.
Issue:
W/N Cabrera should be held in contempt
Held:
Yes! Fine of P500 and imprisonment for 50 days.
The duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts devolves not
only upon lawyers but also upon those who will choose to enter the
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
profession. Their failure to discharge such duty may prevent them from
being inducted into the office of attorney.
Pikon yung Supreme Court, huwag niyo silang subukan.
61 COBB-PEREZ v LANTIN
FACTS:
Ricardo Hermoso commenced a civil case against Damaso Perez and
Gregorio Sumbong, for recovery of sum of P17,309.44 representing unpaid
purchases of leather materials used in the shoe manufacturing business of
Hermoso. Judgment was rendered in favor of Hermoso, ordering the
defendants to be held jointy and severally liable.
The Sheriff of Manila levied upon the shares of common stock registered in
Damaso Perezname with the Republic Bank.
Petitioners used the rules of procedure to suspend the execution of
judgment. (and they managed to have the sale suspended 6x)
o They alleged that levy was highly excessive and unjust
o Even the wife of Damaso Perez, filed to lift the writ of execution
alleging that the shares of stock were conjugal assets and that the
debt was a personal obligation.
ISSUE: WoN petitioners restored to tricky, sneaky and maneuvering tactics to
thwart the ends of justice?
HELD: YES
RATIO:
1. During the protracted litigation, the petitioners resorted to a series of actions
and petitions, at some stages alternatingly, abetted by their counsel, for the sole
purpose of thwarting the execution of a simple money judgment which has long
become final and executory. Some of the actions were filed, only to be abandoned
or withdrawn. The petitioners and their counsel, far from viewing courts as
sanctuaries for those who seek justice, have tried to use them to subvert the very
ends of justice.
62 MAGAT v SANTIAGO
Facts:
For delaying the termination of an unlawful detainer case by filing multiple
petitions before the SC, involving the same subject matters and cause of action,
which were attempts by the same party and his counsel to delay enforcement of
a judgment that has long become final and executory, the SC suspended Atty
Magat from the practice of law .
The court in ruling for the suspension of Magat stated that a lawyer owes the duty
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
of good faith and honorable dealing to the judicial tribunal before whom he
practices his profession. Inherent in that obligation is the duty to assist in the
speedy disposition of cases.
Atty Magat and members of his family is now praying for judicial clemency,
expressing their profound regret for his past misconduct and his avowal ot amend
his ways, in view if the said family's financial and economic difficulties to his
inability to earn his livelihood as a lawyer. This plea has been reiterated for a
period of more than 2 years since his suspension.
Issue:
W/n the suspension should be terminated...
Held:
YES. The court is satisfied that Magat appreciates the significance of his
dereliction and he has assured the court that he now possesses the requisite
probity and integrity necesary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to
the practice of law.
63 MILLARE v MONTERO
Facts:
(RC Note: The first part of the case is pointless. It just wants to impress on
you that Atty. Montero used procedure to circumvent the administration of
justice)
Pacfica Millare, the mother of the complainant, obtained a favorable
judgment against Elsa Co. The case was for ejectment filed with the MTC.
The judgment of the MTC became final and executory on November 1986.
Numerous appeals/complaints/petitions were filed to frustrate the execution
of the MTC judgment. The summary of which is in page 8. There is no
need to know what they are though.
Issue:
W/N Atty. Monteros acts are justified.
Held:
No.
Montero should be suspended for one year, as recommended by the IBP
which found him guilty of malpractice.
Judging from the number of actions filed, Montero is also guilty of forum
shopping.
By having willfully and knowingly abused his rights of recourse in his efforts
to get a favorable judgment, which efforts were all rebuffed, respondents
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
violated the duty of a member of the Bar to institute actions only which are
just and put up such defenses as he perceives to be truly contestable under
the laws.
Montero has made a mockery of the judicial process. And disregarded the
canons in intentionally frustrating the rights of a litigant in whose favor a
judgment in the case was rendered: thus abused procedural rules to defeat
the ends of substantial justice.
64 ETERNAL GARDENS v CA
Facts:
Seelin spouses filed a case against Central Dyeing for quieting of title. The
spouses won and the decision in their favor became final an executory.
When the spouses filed a Motion for an Immediate Writ of Possession,
Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp opposed claiming that it is the true and
registered owner of the propertyhaving bought the same from Central
Dyeing in good faith. It also argued that it was not bound by the decision
since it was not impleaded in the case.
But the trial court favored the spouses and dismissed Eternal Gardens
claim since the judgment (in the queting of title case) was binding upon the
latter, being the successor-in-interest of Central Dyeing. The CA, on the
same grounds, denied Eternal Gardens appeal.
So Seelin spouses filed for a second writ of execution. Dahil sa makulit (not
to mention optimistic) si Eternal Gardens, nag-file pa ito ulit ng motion
reconsideration. It further contended that since there is a pending issue on
possession (a different case), such should first be resolved before a writ of
possession be issued to the spouses.
Said motion was initially granted but was later denied. So nag-file ng
certiorari si Eternal sa CA. And of course, they filed the case to the SC,
essentially with the same arguments.
Issue:
Is Eternal Gardens bound by the decision in the quieting of title case?
Held:
Yes. Having admitted that they bought the property from Central Dyeing, Eternal
Gardens is the formers successor-in-interest who will be bound by the judgment.
Moreover, being a transferee, it does not have to be included or impleaded by
name in an action against the transferoraccording to the Rules of Court.
As to the fear that owners of the grave lots will be disturbed by the writ, the order
of the court shows that it took into account the interests of such lot ownersin
fact certain limits were provided. Hence, the execution of the judgment need not
necessarily desecrate these properties.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
*whats relevant to ethics:

The case has delayed the execution of a final judgment for 17 years. While
lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients rights, they should
not forget that they are officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist
in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. They should not misuse the
rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or unduly delay a case, or impede
the execution of a judgment.
65 SPS GALEN v PAGUIRIGAN
Spouses Galen, Rasdas and Villa (COMPLAINANTS) were defendants in a civil case
for recovery of a residential lot. PAGUIRIGAN was their attorney. Judgment was
rendered in favor of the COMPLAINANTS. Trusting in the able representation of
Atty PAGUIRIGAN, the COMPLAINANTS continued the services of the said lawyer
when the plaintiff in the civil case appealed.
The COMPLAINANTS were informed that the CA reversed the trial courts decision.
Upon inquiry in the CA, the COMPLAINANTS found out Atty PAGUIRIGAN failed to
file an appellees brief in their behalf. When COMPLAINANTS confronted
PAGUIRIGAN, the lawyer assured them that he would seek a review of the
decision of the CA. The COMPLAINANTS gave PAGUIRIGAN P10,000 for docket
fees.
On Oct 14, 1997, PAGUIRIGAN filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition
for review on certiorari which the SC granted in its resolution dated Nov 19, 1997.
On Nov 20, 1997, PAGUIRIGAN filed the petition. However, it was denied for
having been filed out of time, the due date being Nov 14, 1997. Subsequently,
the COMPLAINANTS were surprised to receive a writ of execution issued by the
trial court.
Hence, this petition.
PAGUIRIGAN alleges that he agreed to represent the COMPLAINANTS without
remuneration when their former counsel withdrew, that he did not file an
appellees brief since the filing of the same though required is not mandatory and
that the Court granted his motion for extension belatedly, considering that the 30
day extension was to expire on Nov 14, 1997 but the SC acted on it only on Nov
19, 1997.
ISSUE
NEGLIGENCE
HELD
W/N PAGUIRIGAN SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR
YES, FOR FAILING TO FILE PETITION AFTER BEEN GRANTED

EXTENSION OF TIME

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
PAGUIRIGAN was clearly negligent in the performance of his duties. He admits

that he failed to file the appellees brief which just shows the cavalier attitude he
took towards his clients cause. Although the failure to file the appellees brief in
a case is not a ground for an adverse ruling, the importance of filing an appellees
brief cannot be gainsaid because upon appeal, the appellate court, can only place
great reliance on the briefs and memoranda of the parties. Thus, the failure to
submit these pleadings could very well be fatal to the cause of the client.
To make matters worse, PAGUIRIGAN did not only fail to file an appellees brief but
after being granted a 30 day extension of the time to file a petition for review of
the decision of the CA, he again lost through default by failing to file said petition.
And PAGUIRIGANS allegation about the SCs belated action on the petition only
succeeds in showing his ignorance of 2 basic principles: first, that a party cannot
presume that his motion will be granted, and, second, that any extension granted
is always counted from the last day of the reglementary period which is Oct 14,
1997 (not from the day the resolution was dated).
PAGUIRIGAN is thus guilty of violation of Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides a lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of
time to file pleadings, memoranda and briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Hence, PAGUIRIGAN is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months and
ordered to refund the COMPLAINANTS P10,000 with a warning that repitition of
the same act will be dealt with even more severely.
66 SANTIAGO v RAFANAN
Assignment no. 11
Santiago vs. Rafanan Lopez
Facts:
This administrative complaint was brought by Jonar Santiago against Atty.

Edison Rafanan, a notary public, because of the latters failure to (a) make
the proper notation regarding the community tax certificate of the affiants;
(b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register; and
(c) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in
the documents he had notarized, all in violation of the Revised
Administrative Code.
Santiago also points out that Rafanan made an affidavit in favor of his
(Rafanan) client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein he
(Rafanan) was actively representing his client.
The IBP found Rafanan guilty of violating the requirements of the Notarial
Law and imposed a fine of 3,000.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Issue:
W/n Rafanans acts were contrary to law.
Held:
SC says yes. It is mandated by the Notarial Law that a notary public should
enter the number, place of issue and date of the Community Tax Certificate
of the affiant in his affidavit. The law also says that a notary public should
keep a notarial register to record all affidavits they have notarized. They
are required to enter the number of the register and the page where a
particular affidavit has been recorded. These requirements are mandatory
due to the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to
notarized documents. Having violated these requirements, Rafanan should
be fined.
As to the affidavit executed by Rafanan in favor of his client, the SC says

that this is in violation of Rule 12.08 of Canon 12, which says that a lawyer
should avoid testifying in behalf of his own client. The SC explained that
appearing both as counsel and witness of a client will provoke unkind
criticism and leave many people to suspect the truthfulness of the lawyer
because they cannot believe the lawyer as disinterested. Obviously, if a
lawyer appears as client and counsel, people would automatically think that
his testimony as a witness is biased in favor of his client.
Despite of this, Rafanan cannot be made administratively liable. First, the

SC considered that it is the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and
defense for the benefit of the client. Thus, in defense of his client, Rafanan
is supposed to do everything in his power. Since, he is a witness to the
crime, his affidavit is essential to the defense of his client. What he should
have done though was to exempt himself from being counsel. This would
ensure his credibility as a witness.
In the end, because of his violation of the Notarial Laws and Canon 5 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, Rafanan is fined 3,000.
67 BERBANO v BARCELONA
Facts: The heirs of Hilapo appointed Atty. Daen as their atty.-in-fact. Atty. Daen
was subsequently arrested by the Muntinlupa police. The heirs of Hilapo tried
to look for a lawyer to secure the release of Atty. Daen. The heirs were
recommended to Atty. Barcelona. When the spouses visited Atty. Daen, they
learned that Atty. Daen had decided to engage the services of Atty.
Barcelona. Atty. Barcelona then proceeded to tell the heirs if they could
produce P50K he could secure the release of Atty. Daen the next day.
Because the heirs could not produce the total amount, they merely gave
P15,700.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
There were several meetings between the heirs and Atty. Barcelona
regarding the grease money to be used to allegedly bribe an SC justice.
The heirs made another payment via a check worth P24,000. On another
occasion, the heirs went to the house of Atty. Barcelona and gave P10,000.
The total amount given by the heirs to Atty. Barcelona reached P64,000.
Commissioner Bautista found Atty. to be guilty of malpractice and
breach of duty and recommended that he be disbarred.
Issue: W/N Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred.
Held: Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred.
Disbarment proceedings are sui generis. Its intention is to safeguard
the administration of justice by protecting the court and public from the
misconduct of the officers of the court.
In this case, Atty. demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting that
he had connections to secure the release of Atty. Daen. Atty. Barcelona
misrepresented to the complainant that he could get the release of Atty.
Daen with his connection with a Supreme Court Justice. Instead of promoting
respect for law and the legal processes, Atty. Barcelona demeaned the legal
profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of having
connections with a member of this court.
68 ALMARVEZ v PAAS
Facts:
Pasay City Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Estrellita Paas administratively
charged Almarvez, a Court Aide/Utility Worker, with discourtesy to his fellow
employees, neglect in performing duties (by not maintaining the cleanliness
around the court premises and often being absent from work), and
solicitation of money (from prisoners before serving them their Release
Orders, and from litigants by offering to divulge confidential information in
advance of its unauthorized release).
The Court found that the aforementioned charges were not supported by
evidence since those who filed affidavits as evidence against Almarvez were
not presented at the hearings. The only offense which Almarvez was
found to commit was inefficiency in the discharge of his duties. Thus he
was suspended for 3 months.
Almarvez had filed a counterclaim alleging that Judge Paas ordered him to
undergo a drug test after the latter had already filed an administrative
complaint against him. Regarding this, the court held that this elicits the
suspicion the Judge is just fishing for more evidence to support the
administrative case she had already filed against Almarvez. This was held
to constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary, for which
Judge Paas should be duly reprimanded.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
In a separate case for inhibition of Judge Paas in a criminal case, it was

found that Judge Paas husband, Atty. Paas, who is a private practitioner,
was using his wifes office address in his law practice, particularly in a
criminal case he was handling which was docketed at an RTC also in Pasay.
In support of this charge, documents were submitted such as 1) a Notice of
Appeal signed by Atty. Paas, and 2) notices from Pasay City RTC, and from
the Supreme Court
This was admitted by Judge Paas, but she claims that this was done only to
ensure and facilitate the delivery of those notices.
Issue: W/N Judge Paas and Atty. Paas should be penalized for allowing the latter to
use the office of the former as his return address in his private practice.
Held: YES
Using the Judges address is a subtle was of sending a message that Atty.
Paas is the husband of a judge in the same building and should be given
special treatment by other judges or court personnel.
In SC Administrative Circular No. 01-99, it was stated that court officials and
employees must never use their officesfor any other purpose that for
court or judicial functions.
Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impropriety in
all activities and shall not allow the use of the judicial office to advance the
private interests of others.
SC Circular No. 3-92 prohibits the use of halls of justice for residential or
commercial purposes.
It is unprofessional and dishonorable to misuse a public office to enhance a
lawyers prestige. It violates canons 3, 10, 13, and 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Paas is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law,
while Judge Paas shall pay a fine of P12,000
69 NESTLE v SANCHEZ
FACTS:
From July 8-10, union members of Union of Filipro Employees or the
Kimberly Independent Labor Union, who filed a case in court intensified
their pickets that they had been conducting since June 17 in front of the
Padre Faura gate of the SC
Despite of the warning given by the court to their leaders and counsel, the
picketing continued
The union members are obstructing the access to and egress from the
courts premises. They have also constructed provisional shelters along the
sidewalks, set up kitchens and littered the place. they took turns
haranguing the court all day long with the use of loudspeakers
ISSUE:
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
W/N the rallyists must be held with contempt

HELD:
The contempt charges were dismissed
The Counsel of the union members apologized to the court and promised
that the incident will not be repeated again
The picketing was actually done by the members of the PAMANTIK
(Pagkakaisa ng MAnggagawa sa Timog Katalugan), an unregistered loose
allegiance of about 75 unions in the Southern Tagalog and not by either the
Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent Labor Union.
But the court will not hesitate in future similar incidents to apply the full
force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure
the court to acting one way or the other in any case pending before it.
The court is entitled to proceed to the disposition of its business in an
orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions
and tending to embarrass the administration of justice.
Any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice through the exercise
of either right amounts to an abuse thereof and is no longer within the
ambit of constitutional protection, and that any such efforts to influence the
court constitutes contempt of court.
70 REGALA v SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
Petitioners in this case and private respondent Roco were all then partners
of the law firm Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices
(commonly known as ACCRA)
ACCRA performed services for clients which included acquiring and/or
organizing business associations and/or organizations where it acted as
incorporators or simply as stockholders
As members of the law firm, petitioners and Roco admit that they assisted
in the organization and acquisition of companies included in Civil Case No.
0033. In keeping with the office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as
nominees-stockholders. Anong kalokohan yan?
o Civil Case No. 0033 RP v. Eduardo Cojuangco et. al., for the
recovery of ill-gotten wealth, which includes shares of stock in certain
corporations
PCGG later on filed a motion to admit 3 rd amended complaint, which
excluded Roco in Civil Case 33 as party defendant. PCGG was removing
Roco because Roco was going to make choochoo and reveal the identity of
the principals.
The ACCRA lawyers then filed a comment and/or opposition saying that they
should also be removed the way that Roco was.
PCGG then said that it will ask for their exclusion only if they will also
disclose the identity of their clients
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
During the proceedings, Roco did not actually reveal the identity of the
client for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder
The ACCRA lawyers motion for exclusion was denied (they refused to
comply with the PCGGs offer) by the PCGG and the court. Hence, this
motion for certiorari
Issue:
W/N the ACCRA lawyers should be excluded from the case
Held:
Yes. It is apparent that the ACCRA lawyers were only impleaded to force
them to disclose the identity of their clients.
PCGG has no valid cause of action
Issue:
W/N the attorney-client privilege prohibits the ACCRA lawyers from
revealing the identity of their clients
Held:
General rule: a clients identity should not be shrouded in mystery
o Exceptions: where a strong probability exists that revealing the
clients name would implicate that client in the very activity for which
he sought the lawyers advice
o Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability
o Where revealing the identity would furnish the only link that would be
necessary to convict an individual of a crime
The prosecution should rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the
weakness of the defense
Roco merely stated that he was acting as nominee-stockholder for the client
and is part of legitimate lawyering. The ACCRA lawyers also made such
statement and should also be dropped.
In re: Canon 14
the relation of attorney and client is strictly personal and highly confidential
and fiduciary
the lawyer is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses
special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client
71 DAROY v LEGASPI
FACTS:

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Complainants charged Atty. Ramon Chavez- Legaspi with malpractice for

having misappropriated the sum of P4,000.00 which he had collected for
them. They prayed that he be disbarred
FACTUAL EVIDENCE: Complainants hired Atty. Legaspi to represent them in
the intestate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the spouses
Gonzaga. The complainant-heirs in a joint petition, which Atty. Legaspi
signed as counsel agreed that the coconut land left by the decedents would
be divided into 6 equal parts and that the proceeds of the sale of the land
would be distributed among them.
Atty. Legaspi wrote to the father of Mrs. Daroy, Teofilo Legaspi that the
money deposited could be withdrawn. However, Atty. Legaspi had already
withdrawn the money (therefore he acted in bad faith). It turned out that
Atty. Legaspi was also an heir (although it wasnt shown how).
ISSUE: WoN Atty. Legaspi should be disbarred because he violated the relation
between attorney and his client?
HELD: YES!
RATIO:
1. The relation between an atty and his client is higly fiduciary in nature and of a
very delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a high degree of
fidelity and good faith. In view of that special relationship, lawyers are bound to
promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their
clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. The fact that a
lawyer has a lien for fees on money in his hands collected for his clients does not
relieve him from the duty of promptly accounting for the funds received.
2. The complainants, however, have to recover the money in an ordinary action,
and not in this disbarment proceeding.
72 DEE v CA
Dee and his father went to the residence of Atty Mutuc to seek his advice
regarding the problem of the alleged indebtedness of petitioners brother Dewey
Dee, to Ceasars Palace. Petitioners father was apprehensive over the safety of
his son, Dewey having heard of a link between the mafia and Ceasars Palace and
his possibility that his son may be harmed at the instance of the latter.
Atty Mutuc assured petitioner and his father that he would inquire into the matter,
after which his services were reportedly contracted for P100,000.
Further investigations revealed that the alleged debt of Dewey had actually been
incurred by Ramon Sy, with Dewey merely signing for the chits. Atty Mutuc talked
with the president of Ceasars palace and advised the president that for the sake
and in the interest of the casino it would be better to make Ramon Sy answer for
the indebtedness. The president told him that if he could convince Ramon Sy to
acknowledge the obligation, Dewey would be exculpated from liability. Ramon Sy
acknowledged the obligation, thereafter, the account of Dewey was cleared.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Atty Mutuc sent demand letters to petitioner demanding the balance of P50,000
as attorneys fees. Petitioner Dee ignored said letters. Atty Mutuc filed a
complaint against petitioner Dee for the collection of attorneys fees.
Petitioner denied the existence of any professional relationship of attorney and
client between hin and Atty Mutuc. Dee insists that the visits made to Atty Mutuc
was merely informal and that Atty Mutuc had not been specifically contacted to
handle the problem. The P50,000 given to Atty Mutuc was alleged to be given not
in the nature of attorneys fees but merely pocket money.
Issue:
W/n there was a lawyer-client relationship
Held:
YES. The absence of a written contract will not preclude the finding that there
was a professional relationship which merits attorneys fees for professional
services rendered. To establish the relationship, it is sufficient that the advice and
assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his
profession. An acceptance of the relation is implied on the part of the attorney
from his acting on behalf of his client in pursuance of a request from the latter.
Therefore, Mutuc is entitled to receive a reasonable compensation.
Atty Mutuc did not represent conflicting interests as claimed by Dee when Dee
alleged that Mutuc was acting as agent of Ceasars Palace. Mutucs
representations in behalf of petitioner Dee were not in resistance to the casinos
claim but were actually geared toward proving the liability of true debtor, Ramon
Sy.
73 BR SEBASTIAN v CA
Facts:
Eulogio Reyes, before he died filed an action for damages against the
Director of Public Works, and BR Sebastian.
BR Sebastian (BRS) was held to be liable, but the Director of Public Works
was exonerated.
BRS appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, Reyes died. He was
substituted by his heirs (the Reyeses).
In 1974, BRS received notice to file Appelants Brief within 45 days from
receipt.
Counsel for BRS (The Baizas, Alberto and Associates) failed to file the brief.
The appeal was then dismissed.
Much later, around 5 months after the deadline, Baizas Law Office (different
daw from the former one) file a motion for reconsideration. It alleged that
as a result of the death of Atty Crispin Baizas, senior partner, the affairs of
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
the aid firm are still being settled between Atty. Jose Baizas (son of Crispin)
and Atty Ruby Alberto. And that Atty Espiritu, the lawyer who handled this
case in the trial court and who is believed to have also attended to the
preparation of the Appelants Brief but failed to submit it through oversight
and inadvertence, had also left the firm.
Issue:
W/N the appeal of BR Sebastian should be reinstated.
Held:
No.
In this case, no fraud is involved. Only simple negligence on the part of the
BRS counsel.
The confusion in the office of the law firm following the death of Aty Crispin
Baizas is not a valid justification for its failure to file the brief.
The responsibility of the associates to the petitioner as counsel remained
until withdrawal by the former of their appearance in the manner provided
by the Rules of Court.
The law firm should have assigned the case to another associate. Or it could
have withdrawn as counsel in the manner provided by the Rules of Court so
that the petitioner could contract the services of a new lawyer.
The negligence of the counsel binds the client.
74 HILADO v DAVID
Facts:
Blandina Hilado (ganda ng pangalan!) brought an action against Selim
Assad to annul the sale of several houses and lot exected by Hilados
husband.
Delgado et al. was counsel for Hilado, while Ohnick et al filed an answer for
Assad.
Later on, Atty Vicente Francisco entered his appearance for Assad
substituting Ohnick et al.
The firm of Delgado urged Atty Francisco to stop representing Assad since
there exists an atty-client relationship between him (Francisco) and the
other party (Hilado) in the same case.
It was alleged that Hilado consulted Francisco regarding the case and that
the former turned over papers to the latter. From such documents,
Francisco sent a written opinion to Hilado.
Since makulit si Francisco, Delgado et al. sought to disqualify Francisco from
representing Assad in the case.
Franciscos defense was that he only met Hilado once and this was when
the latter informed him about the case. He added that when Hilado left
documents in their office, he told his assistant to tell Hilado that their firm
would not handle her case. And that the written opinion was made by his
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
assistant, which he signed without reading, and only for the purpose of
explaining to Hilado why his firm rejected the case.
David is the judge trying the case who dismissed the complaint for
disqualification against Francisco. Said judge reasoned that no attorneyclient relationship existed between Hilado and Francisco.
Issue:
Was there an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado?
Should Atty Francisco be disqualified from representing Assad?
Held:
The firm of Francisco mailed a written opinion to Hilado on the merits of the case
(with Franciscos signature); this opinion was reached on the basis of papers
submitted at his office; and that Hilados purpose in submitting those papers was
to secure Franciscos professional services. From these ultimate facts, an
attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado can be said to have
ensued.
To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should
have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not
necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for;
neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the
case about which the consultation was had. When a person consults with his
attorney in his professional capacity with the view of obtaining professional
advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such
consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established.
The existence of attorney-client relationship precludes the attorney from
representing (and receiving a retainer from) the opposite party in the same case.
An information professionally obtained by an attorney from a client is sacred to
the employment to which it pertains, and to permit it be used in the interest of
another, or in the interest of the adverse party is to strike at the element of
confidence which forms the basis of an attorney-client relationship.
The rule inhibiting an attorney from acting in behalf of both parties is implied in
the Rules of Court (wala pang codified codes of professional responsibility noon).
The defense that Francisco never read the written opinion nor the documents
submitted by Hilado will not preclude the existence of an attorney-client
relationship. The fact remains that his firm did give Hilado a formal professional
advice from which emerged the relation. The letter binds and estops him in the
same manner and degree as if he wrote it personally. And an information obtained
from a client by a member or assistant of the firm is information imparted to the
firm.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
The failure to object to counsels appearance does not operate as a waiver of the
right to ask for counsels disqualification.
Motion for disqualification against Attorney Francisco should be allowed.
*A retaining fee (just in case itanong) is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or
counsel to insure and secure his future services, and induce him to act for the
client.
75 SANTOS v BELTRAN
US.
76 NAKPIL v VALDES
Facts:
Jose Nakpil was interested in a piece of property situated in Moran, Baguio.
He went into an agreement with Atty. Carlos Valdes for the latter to buy the
property in trust for Nakpil.
Valdes did buy the property by contracting 2 loans. The lands titles were
transferred to his name.
When Jose Nakpil died, Imelda Nakpil (his wife) acquired the services of
Valdes and his accounting and law firms for the settlement of the estate of
Jose Nakpil.
What Valdes did was to exclude the property in Baguio from the list of
assets of Jose Nakpil (he actually transferred the property to his company,
the Caval Realty Corporation) while including the loans he contracted.
What Imelda did was to file a suit for reconveyance in the CFI. While the
case was pending, Imelda also filed an administrative complaint for
disbarment against Valdes.
The CFI dismissed the action for reconveyance. The CA reversed the CFI.
The complaint for reconveyance went up to the SC and was decided in favor
of Nakpil. The SC held that Valdes only held the lots in trust for Nakpil.
Issue:
W/n Atty. Valdes should be administratively sanctioned for his acts, namely:
o Excluding the property in Baguio from the estate of Jose Nakpil;
o Including his loans as claims on the estate; and
o Apparently, representing conflicting interests when his accounting
firm prepared the list of claims of creditors Angel Nakpil and ENORN
against the estate of Jose Nakpil, which was represented by his law
firm.
Held:
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
The SC found Valdes guilty of misconduct and suspends him for 1 year.
The Court held that the first two acts clearly show that Valdes broke the
trust reposed on him by Imelda Nakpil when the latter agreed to use his
professional services as a lawyer and an accountant. It was clear that Jose
Nakpil and Atty. Came to an agreement that the latter would be buying the
property in trust for Jose. By his act of excluding the property from the
estate and including the loans he contracted (and used for his own benefit)
as claims, Valdes took for granted the trust formed between Jose and him
(they had a close relationship since the 50s), which was the basis for
Imeldas decision to use his services.
As to the third charge, we hold respondent guilty of representing conflicting
interests which is proscribed by Canon 15 Rule 15.03. In the case at bar,
there is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors
are adverse to each other. Respondent's accounting firm prepared the list of
assets and liabilities of the estate and, at the same time, computed the
claims of two creditors of the estate. There is clearly a conflict between the
interest of the estate which stands as the debtor, and that of the two
claimants who are creditors of the estate.
77 ARTEZUELA v MADERAZO
Facts: Echavia had a vehicular accident in Mandaue City. Echavia was driving a
Ford Telstar owned by a Japanese national but in the name of his brother-inlaw Villapez. The car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Artezuela.
Artezuela engaged the services of Atty. Maderazo in filing a damage
suit against Echavia. Artezuela paid Maderazo the amount of P10,000 as
attorneys fees and P2,000 as filing fee.
Artezuela filed a suit for disbarment against Maderazo. She alleged
that Maderazo grossly neglected his duties as a lawyer. According to
Artezuela, atty. did not do anything to keep the case moving and atty.
withdrew his services without obtaining Artezuelas consent. Artezuela also
alleged that Atty. Maderazo engaged in activities inimical to her interests.
She says that while acting as her counsel, Atty. Maderazo prepared
Echavias answer.
Atty. Maderazo claims that the document of Echavia was not prepared
by him. According to him, the answer by Echavia was only printed in his
office.
Issue: W/N Atty. Maderazo represented conflicting interests.
Held: Atty. Maderazo represented conflicting interests. Suspension of 6
months.
To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record
of one party need not also be the counsel-of-record of the adverse party. He
does not have to hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party. It is
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation
of the pleading of another party who is claiming adverse and
conflicting interests with that of the original client.
Because of the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and the
client, sound public policy dictates that the lawyer be prohibited from
representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties.
78 HORNILLA v SALUNAT
Facts:
Salunat was a member of the Phil. Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA)
Board, which approved Atty. Salunats engagement as counsel of PPSTA
Complainants, who are members of PPSTA, filed an intracorporate case
against its Board of Directors. Atty. Salunat entered his appearance as
counsel for the board members in said cases.
Complainants contend the Atty. Salunat was guilty of conflict of interest
because he was engaged by PPSTA, of which complainants were members,
and was being paid out of its corporate funds where complainants have
contributed.
Atty. Salunat pointed out that he entered his appearance as counsel for the
board members for and in behalf of ASSA Law and Associates. He also stated
that it was another partner of the firm, Atty. Agustin who handled the case.
Issue: W/N Atty. Salunat engaged in conflicting interests.
Held: YES.
In a derivative suit such as the one filed by the complainants against the
BOD of PPSTA, the prevailing rule is that the lawyer engaged by the
corporation may not represent the directors, since that would give rise to a
conflict of interest. The interest of the corporate client is paramount and
should not be influenced by the interest of the individual corporate officials.
That Atty.Salunat entered his appearance in behalf of ASSA Law Firm doesnt
exonerate him. He admitted that ASSA was the retained counsel of PPSTA.
Since this is the first offense, respondent is admonished to observe a high
degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession.
79 NATAN v CAPULE
FACTS:
Natan is the administrator of the estate of the deceased Maria Patero.
Natan had filed an action against Santiago, the husband of Maria Patero to
recover Marias share in the conjugal property. of Santiagos share in
Hacienda Minit was ordered to be delivered to Maria
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Capule was contracted by Natan to file an action of forcible entry against

Edonga, etc. and he delivered to him various documents including the
decision of the previous court on the partition of the property of Santiago,
specifically Hacienda Minit, which was received by Maria.
Partial payments were received by Capule from Natan amounting to P275
but Capule was unable to attend the hearing. Since the Judge refused to
grant postponement, Natan handled the case personally, being an attorney
himself.
Thereafter, Capule represented Olimpio Patero, claiming that he is the sole
heir of Santiago Patero and in possession of Hacienda Minit, and filed an
administrative case against Natan asking the court to order Natan to return
of Hacienda Minit.
ISSUE:
W/N Capule violated his duty as a lawyer
HELD:
YES! And the court sentenced him to be suspended him from the exercise of
his profession for the period of 2 years
Capule had utilized the papers, knowledge and information that he had
received from his former client Natan in connection to the Hacienda Minit
against Natan and for the benefit of his new client Olimpio Patero
Capule, because of his previous relationship with Natan, was disqualified to
accept the case of Olimpio who claims ownership over Hacienda Minit.
The fact the Capule retired from the forcible entry case prior to retaining
the case of Olimpio did not relieve him from his obligation of fidelity and
loyalty to his former client. The inconsistency between his position as
attorney of Natan and that of Olimpio is so apparent that it could not have
escaped his attention
An attorney may not do anything which will injuriously affect his former
client in any matter in which he formerly represented him, nor may he, at
any time, use against his former client knowledge or information acquired
by virtue of his previous relationship.
80 BAUTISTA v BARRIOS
Facts:
Rufina Bautista engaged the services of Atty. Barrios to draft an extrajudicial partition between Bautista and her brothers and sisters and Rovero
on the other side. Barrios prepared the deed.
Rovero later on refused to comply with the terms of the deed. Bautista sued
him.
Instead of representing Bautista, Barrios instead appeared for Rovero.
Barrios defense: it was Rovero who engaged his services in preparing the
deed and not Bautista

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Issue:
W/N Barrios may handle a case nullify a contract which he prepared
Held:
No, he may not. Suspended for 2 years.
When Bautista approached Barrios to enforce the deed, Barrios merely said
that she has no cause of action. Barrios did not inform her that he was
already representing Rovero.
Supposing that Barrios was indeed representing both Bautista and Rovero,
he could not appear for one as against another.
81 GAMILLA v MARIO
FACTS:
Atty Marino, Jr. as president of the UST Faculty Union and other union
officers entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the
management of UST for the provision of economic benefits amounting to
P35 Milllion. The 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired in 1988 but
efforts to forge a new one unfortunately failed. In 1989, the faculty
members of UST went on strike and as a counter-measure UST terminated
the employment of 16 officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union
including Atty Marino, Jr.
The Sec of Labor prescribed the retroactivity of the collective bargaining
agreement to 1988 when the 1986 collective bargaining agreement
expired. In the same year, the administration of UST and the UST Faculty
Union also entered into a compromise agreement for the payment to settle
backwages.
The important fact in this case is that Atty, Marino, as president, negotiated
with UST as union attorney, even though he was an interested party since
he was one of the officers who were dismissed (conflict of interests)
ISSUE: WoN Marino should be reprimanded?
HELD: YES
RATIO:
1. Atty Marino failed to avoid conflict of interests, first, when he negotiated for
the compromise agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of union
president, union atty and interested party being one of the dismissed
employees seeking his own restitution, and thereafter, when he obtained
the attys fees of P4,200,000.00 without full prior disclosure of the
circumstances justifying such clain to the members of the UST Faculty
Union.
2. As one of the 16 union officers and directors seeking compensation from
the UST for their illegal dismissal, Atty. Marino was involved in obvious
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act as concurrent lawyer

and president of the UST Faculty Union in forging the compromise
agreement. The test of conflict of interest among lawyers is whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an atty from the full discharge of
his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof. In the same
manner, it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an atty to put himself in
a position where self-interest tempts, or worse, actually impels him to do
less than his best for his client.
3. Atty Marino. Both as lawyer and president of the union was duty bound to
protect and advance the interest of the union members and the bargaining
unit above his own. This obligation was jeopardized when his personal
interest complicated the negotiation process and eventually resulted in the
lopsided compromise agreement that rightly or wrongly brought money to
him at the expense of the other faculty members. He also ought to have
disclosed his interest (which he only did only years after the consummation
of his share.. tsk bad.)
82 SUNTAY v SUNTAY
Facts:
The complaint for disbarment was filed by Frederico Suntay against his nephew,
Atty Suntay, alleging that respondent was his legal counsel who was privy to all
his legal, and political affairs. Since they parted ways, Atty Suntay had been filing
complaints and cases against complainant making use of confidential information
gained while their attorney-client relationship existed.
In addition, complainant Suntay alleged that respondent Atty Suntay pursued a
case against him for violation of PD 296 for the alleged disappearance of 2 creeks
traversing complainants fishpond. Complainant alleged that Atty Suntay s
possession of the TCT and the blueprint plan of the property while he was still
counsel for complainant provided him with the information that there used to be 2
creeks traversing the fishpond
In one case, Magno Dinglasan demanded from complainant P150,000 as
consideration for the destruction of complainants record in the BIR, in which
Dinglasan is an officer. When complainat declined the demand, Dinglasan
charged complainant with the crime of false testimony and grave oral
defamation. During the preliminary investigation, Atty Sntay acted as counsel of
Magno Dinglasan. Complainant testified that he consulted Atty Suntay about the
demand made by Dinglasan.
Issue:
Whether the acts of Atty Suntay in filing the complaints constitute malpractice
Held:
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
YES. Atty Suntay acted as counself for clients in case involving subject matters
regarding which he had either been previously helped complainant to administer
as the latters counsel and confidant. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences
and secrets of his clients even after termination of the attorney-client relation.
It is also not necessary to specify the alleged confidential information used. To
make the passing of confidential information a condition precedent would not
enhance the welfare of the litigants. Hence, the necessity of setting down the
existence of the bare relationship of attorney and client as the yardstick for
testing incompatibility of interests.
Atty Suntay is suspended for 2 years.
83 DOCENA V LIMON
Facts:
Atty. Limon was the Docena spouses lawyer for their appeal in a Forcible
Entry case.
He then required the Docena spouses to post a supersedeas bond in the
amount of P10,000.00 allegedly to stay the execution of the appealed
decision
The Docenas obtained a loan of P3,000.00 from the Borongan, Eastern
Samar Branch of the Development Bank of the Philippines; borrowed
P2,140.00 from a private individual; and applied for an agricultural loan of
P4,860.00 from the Borongan, Samar Branch of the Philippine National
Bank, wherein Limon himself acted as guarantor.
When The Docenas went to the CFI to withdraw the bond after the case,
they discovered that no such bond was ever posted by Limon.
Limon claims that the P10T was just his attorneys fees.
Issue:
W/N Limon should be sanctioned.
Held:
He should be DISBARRED!
By extorting money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation,
respondent Limon has reduced the law profession to a level so base, so low
and dishonorable, and most contemptible.
He has sullied the integrity of his brethren in the law and has, indirectly,
eroded the peoples' confidence in the judicial system. By his reprehensible
conduct, which is reflective of his depraved character, respondent has
made himself unworthy to remain in the Roll of Attorneys.
84 SEVILLA v SALUBRE
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
Salubre, prior to being a judge, was Sevillas counsel in a civil case for
repurchase and damages.
Upon advice of Salubre, Sevilla gave P45k to him to be consigned with the
court as repurchase money.
Instead of consigning it to the court, Salubre deposited the money in his
own account and later used personally by him.
Salubre promised Sevilla that he would pay the sum of money. He even
issued a promissory note for said amount. Several extensions were sought
by Salubre but he still failed to pay. Later on, checks were issued to cover
the indebtedness. But these were dishonored on the ground account
closed. By the time the case was referred to the Office of Court
Administrator, the amount due was around P77k (45k as principal and 32k
as interest).
Salubres appointment as judge did not extinguish the obligation incurred
by him when he was still a trial lawyer.
Salubres defense was that the complaint was a result of misunderstanding
and the filing of an Affidavit of Desistance is proof that the matter was
already resolved. It was shown that Salubre later returned the funds to
Sevilla after the case for estafa was filed.
Salubre also claimed that the money he received from Sevilla was supposed
to be the latters payment for his appearance and other litigation expenses
Issue:
Should Salubre still be held liable for his acts despite the desistance of the
complainant?
Held:
Yes. The Affidavit of Desistance did not divest the Court of its jurisdiction to
impose administrative sanctions upon Salubre. Complainants voluntary
desistance does not confirm nor deny Salubres non-culpability. The primary
object of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline
erring lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting
the courts and the public from the misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the
legal profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyers oath have proven
them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the
bar. Administrative cases against lawyers can still proceed despite the dismissal
of civil and/or criminal cases against them.
Salubre violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure
to return the funds of his client upon demand. His appointment as Judge is not a
valid reason not to properly address the demand of complainant. The fact that he
was eventually appointed as Judge will not exculpate him from taking
responsibility of the consequences of his acts as an officer of the court. His
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
defense that the money was supposed to be Sevillas payment for his services
should have been made known to the latter at the earliest time when the demand
was made. Instead, he bombarded complainant with a long line of promises
hoping that the latter would allow the matter to be, eventually, left unsettled.
Salubre, by delaying payment of his obligation, failed to keep up with the exacting
standards of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
There was an allegation of violation of Canon 17 but this was not substantiated.
Salubre is fined and given a stern warning.
85 CUNANAN v RIMORIN
FACTS
CUNANAN, a retired US citizen, engaged the services of ATTY RIMORIN in
the matter of settling his overstaying alien status with the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation so tat he could attend the funeral of his son,
Andrew Cunanan, in the United States
CUNANAN verbally agreed to pay ATTY RIMORIN P40,000
This amount was to be paid out of the goodwill money to be paid by ABSCBN, represented by NOLI DE CASTRO, in exchange for an exclusive
interview regarding the story of CUNANANS son, Andrew
For the 1st partial payment, NOLI acting in behalf of ABS-CBN, issued a
check for P100,000 payable to ATTY RIMORIN
To complete payment, ABS-CBN deposited the balance of P100,000 in the
bank account of ATTY RIMORIN
According to the affidavit of NOLI, the 2 payments were intended for
CUNANAN
ATTY RIMORIN sent a letter to CUNANAN stating due to rains there is no
way of checking whether the check deposited by ABS-CBN has been
clearedIll try my very best to produce the other P30,000 today
CUNANAN indeed received P30,000 but after that there was no more
communication from ATTY RIMORIN
Hence, CUNANAN filed an administrative case with the IBP Commission on
Bar Discipline for the disbarment of ATTY RIMORIN and for failing to render
the accounting of P200,000 which the lawyer received in trust for him]
ISSUE
HELD
W/N ATTY RIMORIN SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED

YES, VIOLATED CANON 16 RULE 16.01
RATIO

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
It was established that the P200,000 were received by ATTY RIMORIN for
the benefit of and in trust of CUNANAN, as corroborated by NOLI in his
affidavit
The highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and client require
that ATTY RIMORIN should promptly account for the said funds which he
received and held for the benefit of his client, CUNANAN, because those
funds properly belong to the latter
From the time of the filing of the administrative case until the present,
CUNANANS demand for accounting has not yet been satisfied by ATTY
RIMORIN
Thus, ATTY RIMORIN fell short of his duty as a lawyer under Canon 16 Rule
16.01 and should be penalized accordingly
JUDGMENT
Suspended for 1 year and to render an accounting of P170,000 representing the
balance of P200,000
86 LICUANAN v MELO
Facts:
Leonila Licuanan won in an ejectment case against Aida Pineda. Her
counsel in that case was Atty. Manuel Melo.
The judgment ordered Pineda to pay rentals, in arrears and succeeding, to
Licuanan.
It was Melo who demanded payment from Pineda. After being threatened
with another lawsuit, Pineda paid the rentals to Melo (worth P5,220).
Licuanan never got the payments so she filed an administrative complaint
against Pineda before the Chief of the Philippine Tuberculosis Society
accusing her of moral turpitude. In response, Pineda filed an action for
damages (on the ground of besmirched reputation and mental anguish)
against Licuanan because Pineda believed that she had already paid her
debt by paying to Melo.
After 1 year, Licuanan, through another lawyer, then finds out that the
money paid by Pineda was with Melo. Melo then gives the rentals to
Licuanan.
Licuanan then files this complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator
against Melo for breach of professional ethics.
Issue:
W/n Melo should be sanctioned for his acts.
Held:
Yes, he should be sanctioned. In fact, the SC disbarred him.
The acts of respondent in retaining for his personal benefit over a one-year
period, the amount of P5,220 received by him on behalf of his client,
Licuanan, depriving her of its use, and withholding information on the same
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
despite inquiries made by her, is a breach of the Lawyer's Oath to which he

swore observance, and an evident transgression of the Canons of
Professional Ethics (16.01, 16.02, 16.03).
Respondent's unprofessional acts considered, the SC was constrained to
find him guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in office. He
has displayed lack of honesty and good moral character. He has violated
his oath not to delay any man for money or malice, besmirched the name
of an honorable profession and has proven himself unworthy of the trust
reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. He deserves the severest
punishment, which is disbarment.
87 MARQUEZ v MENESES
Facts: Marquez was introduced by Atty. Peralta to Atty. Meneses as a prospective
client. Marquez retained the services of Atty. Meneses to prosecute a claim of
P210 against Igdanes. The agreement was that Marquez was to pay Meneses
a fee of P100 whether the case was won or lost. Marquez advanced the
amount from time to time, totaling P75.
The decision of the Justice of the Peace Court was in favor of Marquez,
ordering Igdanes to pay the P210 claim and P75 as attorneys fees. Marquez
received a letter from her brother saying that Igdanes had paid the P75 to
the sheriff as partial satisfaction and that Atty. Meneses had gotten all of the
P75. Marquez went to see Atty. Meneses to claim P50 of the P75 that the
latter got. Marquez claims that Meneses was only entitled to P25 of the
amount paid because she had already given the Atty. P75. Atty. Meneses
contends that Marquez owes her money because he was entitled to the
retainer fee (P100) and whatever contingent fees that may be awarded by
the court.
Sol. Gen. says that Atty. Meneses must return the amount of P50 to
Marquez. The Sol. Gen. also recommended the suspension of Atty. Meneses
for at least 6 months.
Issue: W/N Atty. Meneses should return the amount.
Held: Atty. Meneses should return the amount of P 50. Suspension of 1
month.
It is highly improbable that Marquez would agree to pay P175 as fees
to atty. considering the fact that the claim was only for P210. An atty.s fee of
P175 is unconscionable. It is well-settled that money collected by a lawyer in
pursuance of a judgment in favor of his client is money held in trust and
must be immediately turned over. Atty. Meneses should have made an
accounting with his client of the amount he received.
88 CASTILLO v TAGUINES

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
Castillo alleged that Atty. Taguines failed to delver to him P500 representing
the monetary settlement of a civil suit between Castillo and Licup.
Taguines was the counsel of defendant Licup in the said case, where Castillo
was the plaintiff. It was agreed that Licup will give P500.00 for the
settlement of the case to Taguines, and Taguines will give the amount to
Castillo. For this consideration, Castillo had the case against Licup dismissed.
No money was given to Castillo, and the latter only found out in the second
week of January 79 that Licup had already given the money to Taguines
since Dec.16, 78
Castillo found out when Licup showed him a certification signed by Taguines
that the latter received the amount.
Taguines defense is that although he received the money from Licup, he
never bound himself to go out of his way to personally deliver the money to
Castillo or his lawyer, and Taguines said he does not know personally Castillo
or his address.
Castillo states that Taguines set a date to meet with him but never showed
up nor called afterwards.
Taguines later on gave Castillo a bouncing check worth P500.
Issue: W/N Taguines must be held administratively liable for not delivering the
money to Castillo and for fooling the complainant by giving a bouncing check.
Held: YES.
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
shall hold in trust all money and property of his client that may come into his
possession. Rule 16.03 of the same canon provides that a lawyer shall
deliver the funds or property of his client when due or upon demand.
Taguines is suspended for one year.
89 LEMOINE v BALON
FACTS:
Lemoine is a French national who filed an insurance claim with Metropolitan
Insurance.
His friend Jesus Garcia arranged for the engagement of Balons services as
his counsel
Balon advised Lemoine that he was charging 25% of the actual amount to
being recovered payable upon successful recovery. An advance payment of
P50,000 to be deducted from whatever amount would be successfully
collected. P1,000 as appearance and conference fee for each and every
court hearing and legal expenses and other miscellaneous will be charged
to Lemoines account which would be reimbursed upon presentment of
account. Lemoine never gave his consent as to the fee.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Lemoine signed an undated Special Power of Attorney authorizing Balon to

bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of
Lemoines claim as well as to negotiate, sign, compromise, encash and
receive payments
Metropolitan Insurance offered to settle Lemoines claim and Balon
confirmed his acceptance of the offer
December 1998, Metropolitan Insurance issued a China Bank check payable
to Lemoine in the amount of P525,000 which was received by Balon
When Lemoine asked Balon as to the status of the case, Balon answered
that Metropolitan Insurance was offering P350,000 for settlement which
Lemoine suggested that Balon accept to avoid litigation
December 1999, Lemoine visited the office of Metropolitan Insurance to ask
on the status of the case and it answered that the case was long settled via
a check given to Balon.
Balon acknowledge that he is in possession of the check and that he is
keeping the check as attorneys lien pending Lemoines payment of his
attorneys fee equivalent to 50% of the entire amount collected. He also
threatened Lemoine that he will not hesitate to make proper representation
with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, DOLE and BIR if Lemoine
will make any trouble to Balon and that he has good network with the
mentioned agencies.
Balon later claimed that he gave P233,000 to Garcia on the representation
of Lemoine. No written memorandum of the turn-over was made because
Garcia was a co-Rotarian and co-attorney of Balon
Balon was in possession of the said check for 5 years
ISSUE:
W/N Balon violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
YES! And he was ordered disbarred by the SC

The lawyers continuing exercise of his retaining lien presupposes that the
client agrees with the amount of attorneys fees to e charged. In case of
disagreement, however, the lawyer must not arbitrarily apply the funds in
his possession to the payment of his fees. He can file the necessary action
with the proper court to fix the fees
Before receiving the check, he proposes a 25% attorneys fees, after
receiving the check, he was already asking for 50%.
under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful acts , must observe fairness in all his dealings with his client and
must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
a lawyer who practices deceit in his dealings with his client not only
violates his duty of fidelity loyalty and devotion to the clients cause but
also degrades himself and besmirches the name of an honorable profession.
90 MELENDRES v DECENA
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
(1st cause of action)
Aug. 5, 1975: Complainants (spouses Erlinda Dalman & Narciso Melendrez)
obtained from Atty. Reynerio Decena (Decena) a loan of P4K. This loan was
secured by a real estate mortgage.
It was made to appear in the REM that the amount borrowed was P5K.
Decena assured the spouses that the REM was a mere formality, and due to
this assurance the spouses signed the REM.
Despite the assurance, Decena collected from the spouses P500/month as
usurious interest. The spouses paid such usurious interest for 3 months.
Because of their failure to pay the amounts, Decena drafted a new REM
o New contract of mortgage in the amount of P10K with interest at
19%/annum
o A special power of attorney authorizing Decena to sell the mortgaged
property in public auction
Spouses never knew the implications of the new REM. They failed to pay
their obligation and so Decena acquired their property in pulic auction and
later sold it to Trinidad Ylanan for P12K
Spouses then went to Decena with P10K in the hopes of getting their
property back. Decena then informs them that their debt has soared to
P20.4K.
With shattered hopes and grief in their hearts (andrama!), the spouses filed
this case for disbarment.
(2nd cause of action)
Spouses filed a case for estafa against Reynaldo Pineda for recovery of P2K
Decena entered into a compromise agreement with Pineda. Pineda then
paid P500 to Decena. This settlement was never brought to the attention of
the spouses nor were they ever consulted about such.
Issue:
W/N Decenas acts show gross misconduct and should therefore be
disbarred
Held:
Yes, Decena shall be disbarred
The acts of Decena as to the 1st cause of action constitute deception,
dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.
As to the 2nd cause of action, Decena clearly failed to get the consent of the
spouses before entering into a compromise. Decena also failed to inform
the spouses or turn over to them the P500 given to him by Pineda as
downpayment for the settlement of the case.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Decenas failure to turn over to the spouses the money underscores his lack
of honesty and candor in dealing with his clients
91 JUNIO v GRUPO
FACTS:
Rosario Junio engaged the services of Atty. Salvador Grupo for the
redemption of a land belonging to her parents. She gave P25,000 to
be used in the redemption, yet Atty. Grupo did not redeem the
property and has continuously refused to refund the money given.
Junio filed a complaint for disbarment for malpractice and gross
misconduct
Attu. Grupo contends that the land could really not be redeemed
anymore, and that since Junio knew that the mortgage has already
expired, she knew that it was just a last ditch effort to redeem the
property. Atty. Grupo then borrowed some of the money for himself to
help defray his childrens educational expenses. (personal request
evidenced by a PN executed in favor of Junio Atty. Grupo contends
that their families were really very close and intimate with each other
Junios sisters were maids of Atty. Grupo)
Atty. Grupo claims that there was no atty-client relationship and

further contends that he did not ask for any fee, not even charity. He
claims that his services were just acts of a friend for a friend. (he
claims that he is willing to pay, though)
IBP found that Atty Grupo violated a rule forbidding lawyers from
borrowing money from their clients unless the clients interests are
protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice and
suspended him indefinitely.
what he violated was the rule that a lawyer is bound to observe

candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealing and transactions with his
client. And that Atty Grupo did Not violate Rule 16 because Junio
consented to and ratified to the use of the money, as evidenced by
the PN. The court is constrained to give credence to Atty. Grupos

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
claims that the money previously entrusted to him was later

converted into a loan
ISSUE: WoN Atty. Grupo violated Rule 16?
HELD: YES
RATIO:
What he violated was the rule that a lawyer is bound to observe

candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealing and transactions with his
client. ( he did not give security for the loan and he refused to pay
the amount)And that Atty Grupo did not violate Rule 16 because Junio
consented to and ratified to the use of the money, as evidenced by
the PN. The court is constrained to give credence to Atty. Grupos
claims that the money previously entrusted to him was later
converted into a loan
But in the dispositive portion, sabi he violated so ayun.
As to the contention that no atty- client relationship exists: it is not

necessary that any retainer should have been paid. All is needed is
when a person consults with his atty in his professional capacity to
obtain professional advice.
Atty Grupo is suspended from practice of law for 1 month and to

refund the money
92 BUADO v LAYAG
Facts:
Herein complainant Lising and her sister Rosita de Guzman ( mother of herein
complianat Susana Buado) were the plaintiffs in a civil case which was decided in
favor of the plaintiffs. Atty Layag represented the said plaintiffs in that case.
Inland Trailways, the defendant in that case, issued checks: (1)payable to Atty
Layag for P15,000 (2) payable to Lising for P30,180 (3) payable to De Guzman,
who had by then
passed away (for P45,000). The checks were received by Atty Layag. Atty Layag
did not inform the plaintiffs about the checks. Instead he gave the checks to one
Marie Paz Gonzales for encashment on the strength of a Special Power of
Attorney, purportedly executed by De Guzman constituting Gonzales as agent.
After discovering that checks have already been issued, Lising and Buado, as heir
of De Guzman demanded the delivery of the checks. Gonzales, the agent gave
Lising P10,000. No furhter amounts were remitted.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Issue:
W/n Atty Layag's act of delivering the checks to Gonzales, the purported agent,
constitutes malpractice...
Held:
YES. As a lawyer, with more than 30 years in practice, respondent is charged with
knowledge of the law. He should know that it was error for him to rely on a
Special Power of Attorney after the death of the principal, De Guzman. When De
Guzman died, the Special Power of Attorney ceased to be operative.
With respect to the check payable to Lising, Atty Layag should have delivered it
directly to Lising. The Power of Attorney did not cover Lising's case.
He is therefore, suspended indefinitely, subject to further orders by the SC.
93 DALISAY v MAURICIO
Facts:
This is the case against Batas Mauricio, the TV host.
Allegedly, Mauricio demanded and received exorbitant attorneys fees but
did not take any action on Valerina Dalisays case.
Initially, she paid P25T as acceptance fee.
In total, she paid Mauricio P56T: P8T filing fee (though the case was already
filed) the balance might be a combination of the ff:
o Additional acceptance fee P90,000.00, with the explanation that he
can give a discount should she pay in cash.
o P3,000.00 as appearance fee
notwithstanding her payments, respondent never rendered any legal
service. She terminated their attorney-client relationship and demanded
the return of her money and documents. Mauicio refused.
The IBP Board of Governors wanted to dismiss the case.
Issue:
W/N the case against Mauricio should be dismissed.
Held:
No. He should be suspended for 6 months.
When respondent accepted P56,000.00 from complainant, it was
understood that he agreed to take up the latters case and that an attorney-client
relationship between them was established. From then on, it was expected of
him to serve complainant with competence and attend to her case with fidelity,
care and devotion.
But there is nothing on record that Mauricio entered his appearance as

counsel of record.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
He did not even follow-up the case which remained pending up to the time
she terminated his services.
Regarding the P8T: (allegedly as docket fees for other cases): there was
no evidence nor any pleadings submitted to show that respondent filed
any case considering that the filing fee had to be paid simultaneously
with the filing of a case.
when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting his rights.
Just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his
services. However, he should charge only a reasonable amount of fees.
94 MORTERA v PAGATPATAN
Facts:
The Morteras sued their mother, and 2 other personsAguilar and Bradfield
for the rescission of a contract of sale. They secured a favorable judgment
in which they are to receive P155k.
Pagatpatan was counsel for the Morteras. After judgment was rendered, he
entered into a secret agreement with Aguilar where he received P150k as
partial payment of the judgment sum.
This money was later deposited, by Pagatpatan, in his personal account
without the knowledge of the Morteras.
Morteras filed an action because Pagatpatan refuses to surrender the
money despite the successive Orders of the RTC and CA.
Pagatpatans defense is that the Morteras and their mother owed him
money for services he previously rendered the family, and that he wouldnt
be paid if he did not do what he did.
Issue:
Should Pagatpatan be held administratively liable? What is the proper penalty?
Held:
Yes. Pagatpatan failed to observe Canon 15 and 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. As counsel he: owes candor to his clients; is bound to account
whatever money received for and from them; is obligated to keep his own money
separate from his clients and; although he is entitled to a lien over the funds in
order to satisfy lawful fees, he is bound to give prompt notice to his clients of
such liens and to deliver the funds to them upon demand or when due.
The claim that he need to protect his interests since there were other people
claiming the money from the Monteras was not proved.
The penalty of 1-year suspension recommended by the IBP is not commensurate
to the fault done. Several factors warrant a more severe penalty: Considering that
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Pagatpatan is a seasoned practitioner, his actions are inexcusable; Counsel tried

to subvert both law and proper procedure to recover his fees; Counsels actions
were clearly tainted with bad faith, deceit, and utter contempt of his sworn duty
as a lawyer.
Pagatpatan is ordered to return the P150k and is suspended for 2 years.
95 HERNANDEZ v GO
FACTS
Sometime in 1961, HERNANDEZS husband abandoned her and her son
Shortly thereafter, creditors of HERNANDEZS husband demanded payment
of his loans
Fearful of mortgage foreclosures, HERNANDEZ engaged the legal services of
ATTY GO
ATTY GO advised HERNANDEZ to give him land titles of lots in Zamboanga
City belonging to her so that he may sell them to enable her to pay the
creditors
Then, ATTY GO persuaded HERNANDEZ to execute deeds of sale in his favor
without any monetary or valuable consideration
ATTY GO also persuaded HERNANDEZ to execute deeds of sale involving the
other lots in Zamboanga City which were redeemed by HERNANDEZ when
their mortgages fell due
In 1974, HERNANDEZ came to know that ATTY GO did not sell her lots as
agreed but instead he paid her creditors with his own funds and had her
land titles registered in his name, depriving her of real property worth
millions
HERNANDEZ filed a complaint with the IBP
IBP: ATTY GO violated Canon 17 and should be suspended for 3 years
ISSUE
HELD
W/N ATTY GO SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED

YES, FOR VIOLATING CANONS 16 AND 17
RATIO
ATTY GO violated Canon 16
o His acts acquiring for himself HERNANDEZS lots entrusted to him are
acts constituting gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act,
a dereliction of duty, willful in character and implies a wrongful intent
and not a mere error in judgment
o Such conduct on the part of ATTY GO not only degrades himself but
also the honor of the legal profession
ATTY GO violated Canon 17

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
o Records show that HERNANDEZ reposed high degree of trust and

confidence in ATTY GO that when she engaged his services, she
entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell the same
o ATTY GO, however, abused this trust and confidence when he did not
sell her properties to others but to himself
o ATTY GO is duty bound to render a detailed report to HERNANDEZ on
how much he sold the lots and the amounts paid to her creditors but
failed to do so
In previous cases, the Court disbarred and expelled lawyers from the
practice of law in similar circumstances, thus, the penalty recommended by
the IBP is too light
JUDGMENT
ATTY GO is disbarred
96 REONTOY v IBADLIT
Facts:
Corazon Reontoy lost a decision in a civil case in the RTC with Atty. Liberato
Ibadlit as her counsel.
Ibadlit received the notice of the decision but he opted not to file an appeal.
He says that he informed Reontoys brother, Proculo Tomazar, to inform
Reontoy of his opinion that he did not think that an appeal would prosper.
This statement was refuted by the testimony of Proculo saying that he was
not given such info.
Reontoy also said that he would never authorized Proculo to represent her
to the court or to her lawyer because Proculo was unlettered.
Ibadlit only filed the notice of appeal after the reglementary period for
appeal. Obviously, the appeal was instantly dismissed.
Issue:
W/n Ibadlit should be sanctioned.
Held:
SC says yes, Ibadlit is suspended for 1 year.
A lawyer owes entire devotion in protecting the interest of his client,
warmth and zeal in the defense of his rights. He must use all his learning
and ability to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client
except in accordance with the law. He must present every remedy or
defense within the authority of the law in support of his client's cause,
regardless of his own personal views. In the full discharge of his duties to
his client, the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that he may
displease the judge or the general public.
A lawyer has no authority to waive his client's right to appeal. His failure to
perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and
malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03, Canon 18, of the Code of Professional
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Responsibility which provides that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable."
97 DE LAINO v CA
De Liano vs. CA Mendiola
Facts: The prior case involves the cancellation of 2 real estate mortgages in favor
of San Miguel executed by Tango. De Liano was a senior executive of SMC.
The prior case was decided against SMC. De Liano appealed the
decision to the CA. Their counsel, Atty. Afable filed an Appellants Brief which
failed to comply with the Rules of Court. Tango noticed this flaw of the Brief
and immediately moved for the dismiss of De Lianos appeal. The CA
decided that the Appellants Brief does not contain a Subject Index or a Table
of Cases and Authorities; and that these lapses justify the dismissal of the
appeal.
De Liano asserts that the CA erred in declaring that the appeal be
dismissed on the basis of the lapses in complying with the technical
requirements in making of brief.
Issue: W/N the dismissal of the Appeal was proper.
Held: The dismissal of the brief was proper.
All appeals are merely rights that arise from statutes; thus, they must
be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. It is to this end that rules
governing pleadings must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law.
These technical rules like the inclusion of the statement of facts or the
subject index in the brief are meant to enable the appellate court to have
a better grasp of the matter entrusted to it for appraisal.
Relevant to the topic: Generally, the negligence of the counsel
binds the client. Even if Atty. Afable may be said to be SMCs counsel, this
does not operate in favor of De Liano. A corporation is an artificial being
whose juridical personality is only a fiction created by law and it can only
exercise powers and transact its business through its board of directors and
its agents. That Atty. Afable was clothed with sufficient authority to
bind SMC is undisputable. SMCs board resolution attests to that. As
such, SMC must be held bound by the actuations of its counsel,
Atty. Afable.
98 TABAS v MANGIBIN
Facts:

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
A deed of mortgage was delivered to Hilda Tabas evidencing a real property

in La Union that was mortgaged to her by Galvan. The deed of mortgage
was registered in the Register of Deeds of La Union.
Subsequently, a certain Lilia Castillejos represented herself as Tabas and
appeared before Mangibin, who was a notary public, and asked the latter to
prepare a discharge of the mortgage and to notarize it afterwards.
Mangibin prepared the discharge of real estate mortgage without asking
Castillejos for anything to serve as identification except for a Community
Tax Certificate (CTC). This enabled Galvan to mortgage the property again,
this time to a rural bank
Tabas informed Mangibin that her signature in the questioned discharge of
REM was forged but Mangibin did nothing to help. He even threatened to
file a counter suit against her if she files a case against him.
Tabas filed this complaint for disbarment.
Mangibin admitted that the discharge of REM was a forgery but interposed
the defense that it was beyond the scope of his duty to ascertain the
identity of persons appearing before him, and that he had no available
means of ascertaining their real identities.
Issue:
W/N Mangibin should be held administratively liable for negligence in the
performance of his duty as a notary public to ascertain the identity of the person
appearing before him.
Held:
YES, Mangibin was negligent in performing such duty.
Notarization is invested with public interest. It converts a private document

into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity. Such document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public must be able to
rely upon an acknowledgement by a notary public appended to a
document.
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who
signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of matters stated in
the document.
Mangibin should have requested other forms of identification or asked
questions to ascertain her identity.
Mangibin violated the Notarial Law and Canon 1. His notarial commission is
revoked and he is disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2
years.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
99 SANTUYO v HIDALGO
FACTS:
Santuyo purchased a parcel of land covered by a deed of sale which was
notarized by Hidalgo and was entered in his notarial register
6 years after the date of notarization, Santuyo had a dispute with Danilo
German over the ownership of the land
Germen presented an affidavit of Hidalgo denying the authenticity if his
signature on the deed of sale and that it was forged
Santuyo argued that:
o The deed of sale contained all the formalities of a duly notarized
document
o They had no access to the dry seal of Hidalgo
Hidalgo on the other hand claimed that:
o He was on vacation at the time that the deed was allegedly notarized
o An examination of the document will prove that his signature was
forged
o He would have remembered Santuyo for he requires that the parties
exhibit their community tax certificates and made them personally
acknowledge the documents before he notarize documents
IBP: the signature was really forged but Hidalgo must be suspended for 2
years as a notary public
ISSUE:
W/N Hidalgo must be suspended
HELD:
YES!
The responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive. Hidalgo should
have been more discreet and cautious I the execution of his duties as such
and should not have wholly entrusted everything to the secretaries.
Hidalgo is negligent not only in the supposed notarization but foremost in
having allowed the office secretaries to make the necessary entries in his
notarial registry which was supposed to be done and kept by him alone and
should not have relied on somebody else.
100 ENDAYA v OCA
Facts:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his
wife. An answer was prepared by a Mr. Ramirez for the spouses.
At the beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses appeared without
counsel. Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorneys Office. Atty.
Oca was assigned to handle the case.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
At the continuation of the prelim conference, Oca filed motion for

amendment of answer. Motion was denied.
The judge then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position
papers. The court also said that 30 days after the submission of the last
paper or upon expiration of the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered
on the case.
Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper.
Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because
those who filed the case were not reall parties-in-interest.
The case was appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again. RTC
reversed the MTC decision. Spouses were ordered to vacate the property
and pay a certain amount for rentals.
Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not
receive anything. Upon checking with the clerk of court, Oca did indeed
receive a copy of the decision (liar!).
Hence this administrative complaint.
Issue:
W/N Oca committed professional misconduct
Held:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.
Facts to show may problema talaga to si Atty. Oca:
o In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper
in the MCTC because it would just be a repetition of the answer.
Endaya filed his reply which just reiterated what he put in his
complaint.
o SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder. Guess what, Oca once again failed
to file anything. Oca explained that he failed to file a rejoinder
because he believed in good faith that it was no longer necessary.
o In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything.
Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the
spouses thereafter.
The facts show that Oca failed to employ every legal and honorable means
to advance the cause of his client. For intentionally failing to submit the
pleadings required by the court, respondent practically closed the door to
the possibility of putting up a fair fight for his client.
Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses. A lawyer continues to be
a counsel of record until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated.
Ocas story shows his appalling indifference to his clients cause, deplorable
lack of respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a
lawyer.
Bakit hindi disbarred?

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
o Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a

non-lawyer when in fact it was prepared by a lawyer
o Endaya assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their
case. Endaya never gave anything to Oca to support their claim.
o The PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload.
101 DE JUAN v BARIA III
FACTS:
Emma de Juan dwas dismissed by Triple AAA without notice. She asked for
the assistance of Banahaw Broadcasting Company (BBC) to search for a
lawyer. The new lawyer, Atty. Oscar Barria III, who worked with BBC offering
free legal services to indigents became the counsel of de Juan in the NLRC
case against Triple
AAA for illegal dismissal.
When an adverse NLRC decision was rendered against de Juan, she asked
Atty Baria as to what to do next. Atty replied "Paano ba yan, iha eh hindi ako
marunong gumawa ng Motion for Reconsideration?" and the secretary of Atty.
Baria told de Juan and the husband "wag na tumawag uli dahil galit..."
De Juan charged Atty Baria with negligence and threats to her person.
Atty. BAria contends that he forewarned his client not to expect too much
from him because of his limited legal experience since he was a new lawyer.
Also, he alleges that De Juan pocketed the money that Triple AAA has already
paid off.
After that, the NLRC decision was reversed, and Atty. Baria accused de Juan
that she lied re: her employment, which made him lose his appeal.
May incident pa re: Raffy Tulfo (pero d na kelangan un.. gusto nya kasuhan ng
libel kasi may sinabing bad against him)
ISSUE: WoN Atty. Baria can be administratively charged?
HELD: Yes.
RATIO:
1. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity
to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
2. Rule 18.03 provides that the negligence of lawyers in connection with legal
matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable.
3. Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel, Atty
Baria remains counsel of record and whether or not he has valid cause to
withdraw from the case, he cannot just do so and leave his client out in the cold.
102 EDQUIBAL v FERRER

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
FACTS:
Edquibal charged Atty Ferrer with professional misconduct and neglect of duty.
Edquibal engaged the services of Ferrer to assist his mother Ursula in cases she
filed against his sister Delia involving a certain property. In one of the cases, the
trial judge rendered a decision adverse to his mother. Atty Ferrer then advised
complainant to appeal to the CA and that the cost involved is P4,000. When
complainant Edquibal informed respondent Atty Ferrer that he does not have
enough money, Atty ferrer said P2,000 is sufficient.
Edquibal followed up the appealed case. He then learned that the appeal was
dismissed for failure to file the required appelant's brief.
Respondent Atty Ferrer denied that he filed an appeal. He claimed that he never
agreed to handle the appeal.
ISSUE:
W/n Atty Ferrer is guilty of professional misconduct...
HELD:
YES. Records show that respondnet was the counsel of record for Edquibal. The
resolution of the CA clearly states that the "notice sent to counsel for defendantsappelants requiring him to file appelants brief wihtin 45 days from receipt thereof,
was received by him...". However, respondent failed to file the appellants' brief
despite receipt of such notice. Sec2 rule 44 of the Rules of CivPro provides that
the counsel of the parties in the court of origin shall be considered their counsel
in the CA.
If it were true that Atty Ferrer did not agree to represent Edquibals, why did he
not file with the CA a motion to withdraw as their counsel? The practice of law
does not require extraordinary diligence. All that is required is ordinary diligence
expected of a bonus pater familias.
Suspended for 3 mos.
103 CUIZON v MACALIN
Facts:
The legal services of the Atty Rodolfo Macalino was sought by the Susan
Cuizon in behalf of her husband Antolin Cuizon who was convicted for
Violation of Dangerous Drug Act.
Since they cannot pay, he suggested that he be given possession of their
Mitsubishi car.
He then offered to buy, and bought it for only P85T. (Too cheap, even if this
happened during the early 90s).
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
In spite of everything, he still failed to appear in the case of Antolin Cuizon.

The Cuizons got another attorney.
He (Macalino) was sanctioned by the lower courts, and was fined by the SC
for P1000. which he did not pay.
He was ordered to be arrested by the NBI, who was not able to serve the
warrant against him (allegedly, he no longer resided in his place)
The IBP wanted to suspend him for 3 years.
Issue:
W/N Atty. Macalino should be sanctioned.
Held:
He should be DISBARRED and not just suspended.
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
The respondent clearly breached his obligation under Rule 18.03, Canon 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
By his repeated cavalier conduct, the respondent exhibited an
unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court
As an officer of the court, it is a lawyers duty to uphold the dignity and
authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is
shown by a lawyers obedience to court orders and processes.
104 DE JUAN v BARIA III
Facts:
De Juan was an employee of Triple AAA. Based on a performance evaluation
she was terminated.
De Juan filed a case for illegal termination against the company. Atty Baria
III was her counsel.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of De Juan. When the
company appealed to the NLRC, the decision was reversed.
De Juan blamed Baria III for the reversal of the decision. She said that she
only came to know of the reversed decision a month after it was
promulgated. And when she asked counsel what to do, the latter said that
he did not know how to make a Motion for Reconsideration. And when her
husband called the office of the lawyer, the secretary told them not to talk
with said counsel anymore.
Baria IIIs defense was that he forewarned his clients that he was just new
in the profession and that they should not expect much from him. He also
claimed that did not fail in informing his clients regarding the development
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
of the case. And when the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter,
he advised De Juan to get a more experienced lawyer. He also cited that he
was lambasted on air by a radio announcer--Raffy Tulfo. And that he
received death threats after De Juans husband called their office and gave
a warning to his secretary. In sum, Baria III asserts that he did not commit
any breach of his oath and that he has vigorously pursued his clients
cause. He further averred that it was De Juans negligence and folly that
caused her to lose the case.
Issue:
Whether Baria III committed culpable negligence, that would warrant disciplinary
action, in failing to file for De Juan motion for reconsideration from the decision of
the NLRC.
Held:
Yes. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes fidelity to
such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. A
lawyer should carry the case of his client until its termination or until it has
become final and executory. A lawyer may only abandon his client and withdraw
his services for a reasonable cause and only upon appropriate notice.
Baria III did fail to file a motion for reconsideration. His excuse that he did not
know how to make one is inexcusable. After his client expressed her desire to file
such motion, it is incumbent upon him to familiarize himself with the procedure to
carry out such task. Anyway, filing a motion for reconsideration is not that
complicated. Though he did inform his client of his lack of experience, this cannot
absolve him. A lawyer is expected to be familiar with the rudiments of the law and
procedure. It is his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence and
should exert his best efforts to protect the interests of his client.
There was no proper revocation of authority and withdrawal by Baria III. So he
remained De Juans counsel in the case. He did not obtain the written consent of
his client or the permission of the court to withdraw from the case.
Negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for
handling shall render them liable (Canon 18 Rule 3). Baria III abandoned the
cause of his client without a just reason. He was warned and fined in the amount
of P5k.
105 ROLLON v NAVAL
FACTS
ROLLON, together with her SON, went to the office of ATTY NARAVAL to seek
his assistance in a case filed against her (Collection of Sum of Money)

LEGAL ETHICS
After going through the documents, ATTY NARAVAL agreed to be ROLLONS

lawyer and required her to pay P8,000 as filing and partial service fee
As per instruction of ATTY NARAVAL, ROLLONS SON returned to his office to
follow up however ATTY NARAVAL told the SON that he was not able to act
on the case because he was busy
After several follow-ups and still no action, ROLLON decided to withdraw the
amount paid to ATTY NARAVAL for failure of the latter to comply with their
mutual agreement
ATTY NARAVAL said that he could not return the documents because the
same were in his house and the P8,000 paid by ROLLON because he has no
money
ROLLON decided to refer the matter to the IBP President of Davao City
INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER: suspend for 1 year for neglect of duty
and/or violation of Canons 15 and 18
IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS RESOLUTION: suspend for 2 years for violation
of Canons 15 and 18 and restitution of P8,000
ISSUE
HELD
2nd Sem 2005-2006
W/N ATTY NARAVAL SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED

YES, FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 15.05 AND CANONS 16, 17 & 18
RATIO
Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates
of any person who may wish to become their client. They may decline
employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in a
position to carry it out effectively and competently. But once they agree to
handle a case, attorneys are required by the Canons of Professional
Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney clientrelationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to a clients cause. And
every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and
competence. Hence, practicing lawyers may accept only as may cases as
they can efficiently handle. Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced.
In the case at bar, records show that after receiving P8,000, ATTY NARAVAL
failed to render any legal service to ROLLON and despite ROLLONS
repeated demands, ATTY NARAVAL failed to return the files of the case that
had been entrusted to him and kept the money ROLLOON had likewise
entrusted to him
Furthermore, after going through her papers, ATTY NARAVAL should have
given ROLLON a candid opinion on the merits and status of the case.
Apparently, the civil suit against ROLLON had been decided against her and
had long become final executory. However, ATTY NARAVAL withheld such
vital information from ROLLON and even demanded P8,000 as filing and
service fee giving her hope that her case would be acted upon.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
JUDGMENT
Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16,
17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective
upon his receipt of this Decision. Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO
RESTITUTE, within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision,
complainants eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus interest thereon, at the
rate of six percent per annum, from October 18, 2000, until fully paid.
106 MIRAFLOR v HAGAD
Facts:
Nilo Miraflor, with the help of Primo Miraflor, filed a complaint against
Insular Lumber Co. Phils. (ILCOPHIL) for illegal dismissal. The Minister of
Labor and Employment initially denied the petition but the NLRC reversed
the ruling, which was affirmed by the Office of the President (OP).
Respondent Atty. Jose Aguirre, as the Executive Labor Arbiter, issued a writ
of execution to enforce the decision of the OP.
ILCOPHIL, through Atty. Juan Hagad, filed a motion for reconsideration.
Aguirre ordered ILCOPHIL to post a bond to stay the execution of the
decision and ordered a trial to determine the correct amount of backwages
and benefits to be awarded to Miraflor. Eventually, Aguirre lowered the
amount adjudged by the OP (from 27k to 14k).
Mirfalor now complains to the SC that the respondent-lawyers conspired to
thwart the execution of the decision of the OP which may constitute
malpractice, gross misconduct or violation of the lawyers oath.
Issue:
W/n Aguirre and Hagad acted properly as lawyers.
Held:
SC says YES.
Respondent Atty. Hagad can never be faulted for having filed said motion
for reconsideration. As counsel for ILCOPHIL, he has the duty to pursue with
zeal and dedication the best interests of his client and the filing of the
motion for reconsideration was well within the scope of his authority and
prerogatives as such counsel. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates that "a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence."
With respect to respondent Atty. Aguirre, Jr., his explanation is reasonable
and satisfactory. Complainants, except for their unsubstantiated allegations,
never offered any satisfactory evidence to warrant the conclusion that Atty.
Aguirre, Jr. acted maliciously in allowing ILCOPHIL to file the questioned
motion for reconsideration. His explanation that he "merely complied with
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
due process by granting the respondent company ILCOPHIL an opportunity

to present evidence relative to its claim that complainant (Nilo Miraflor) had
gainful employment during the time he was dismissed" is well taken. As a
matter of fact, in allowing said motion for reconsideration, Atty. Aguirre was
merely complying with the presidential directive to have a further
adjudication on Nilo's salary differentials and other benefits due him.
107 PEOPLE v PRIETO
Facts: Prieto was prosecuted in the Peoples Court for 7 counts of treason. He
entered a plea of guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, and 7, and made a plea of not guilty on
counts 4, 5, 6. Prieto was found guilty on count 4, 1, 2, 3, and 7despite the fact
that the prosecutor only presented evidence on count 4.
Prieto seeks the reversal of the conviction alleging that the court failed to appoint
another counsel de officio to him in "spite of the manifestation of the atty. de
officio that he would like to be relieved for obvious reasons."
Issue: W/N Prieto was denied the right to counsel.
Held: Prieto was not denied the right to counsel.
The court places reasonable presumption in favor of the legality and regularity of
all the proceedings of the trial court, including the presumption that the accused
was not denied the right to have counsel. The fact that the atty. appointed by the
trial court to aid Prieto in his defense expressed reluctance to accept the
designation (because he did not sympathize with Prietos cause) is not sufficient
to overcome the presumption. The statement of the counsel in the court below
did not necessarily imply that he did not perform his duty to protect Prieto.
The court also finds the Prieto is not guilty of counts 1,2, 3, and 7, because of lack
of evidence. His guilt in count 4 is maintained and the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua due to aggravating (torture) and mitigating (plea of guilt)
circumstances.
108 MILLARE v MONTERO
Millare v Montero
Facts:
This is a disbarment proceeding against Atty. Montero
Pacifica Millare, the mother of complainant, obtained a favorable judgment
from the MTC which ordered Co to vacate the premises subject of the
ejectment case.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Co, through Montero as counsel, appealed the decision to the RTC. She
neither filed a supersedeas bond nor paid the rentals adjudged by the MTC.
Thus the appeal was dismissed.
The CA also dismissed Cos appeal from the RTC decision for failure to
comply with BP Blg. 129 and with the Interim Rules and Guidelines.
According to CA, Co should have filed a petition for review and not an
ordinary appeal.
After the dismissal, the judgment of the MTC had already become final and
executory. However, Cos counsel filed four more defective and dilatory
petitions before the RTC, CA, and SC for the purpose of delaying the
execution of judgment by MTC.
Issue: W/N Millare should be disbarred for violating Canons 12 and 19

Held: Montero is suspended for one year.
Canon 19 requires a lawyer to represent his clients within the bounds of the
law. He must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client. He must not allow his client to dictate the
procedure in handling the case. In short, a lawyer is not a gun for hire.
The appeal from MTC to RTC was sufficient to protect Cos interest and fully
ventilate her defenses.
Montero is also guilty of forum shopping, considering the number of actions
he filed.
109 PHIL LAND v CEBU PORTLAND

FACTS:
PLASLU asked the Court of Industrial Relations to order Cebu Portland to pay
overtime compensation and differentials due to them under the RA 1880 or
the 40 Hours a Week Law.
The Company argued that the sucurity guards are not under the said law and
thery are not entitled to additional compensation
CIR: PLASLU are not within the coverage of RA 1880
After 2 years form the decision of the CIR, PLASLU through their new counsel
made ot of record that their former counsel was not authorized by them to
enter into stipulations of facts.
According to PLASLU, the stipulation of their previous attorney which states that
"they were required by the company to work for 56 hours a week was due
to the nature of thier services and in the interest of public notice" is a legal
conclusion and were not authorized by them
therefore, PLASLU filed a petition to reopen the case
CIR: denied the motion to reopen the case

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
ISSUE:
W/N the court can reopen the case after it has long been final and executory
HELD:
NO!
It has been settled that clients are bound by the acts and even mistakes of
counsel in procedural techniques. The facts that were agreed upon were
unfavorable to the client does not detract from the binding effect of the
stipulation.
the condition to reopen a case is: it must be upon grounds not already directly or
indirectly litigated and the grounds must not be available to the aprties in
the previous proceedings and the reopening must not affect the period
already elapsed at the time the order to reopen was issued.
110 CABALLERO v DEIPARINE
Caballero v. Deiparine
Facts:
There was a stipulation of facts stating the following:
o Plaintiffs are the children by the first marriage, defendants (Ragas)
are the children by the second marriage of Vicenta Bucao.
o Vicenta Bucao and Tomas Raga acquired land in Cebu. of this land
was sold to Antonio Caballero (one of the plaintiffs). Land was never
transferred thru title.
o Later on, Deiparine acquired the whole lot through purchase from
Tomas Raga. TCT was issued to Deiparine.
The stipulation was only signed by Atty. Guba(for plaintiffs) and Atty.
Davide(for respondents).
From the stipulation of facts, the CFI rendered decision in favor of the
defendants (that Deiparine owns the whole lot).
Plaintiffs filed for reconsideration saying that they were never made to
participate in the preparation and formation of the stipulation of facts
Issue:
W/N the stipulation of facts is valid
Held:
The case is remanded to court of origin for further proceedings and the
amended complaint should be accepted.
It is puzzling why the petitioners signatures were not affixed in the
stipulation.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
The conduct of Atty. Guba in entering into a compromise agreement without

the knowledge and consent of his clients is not in keeping with the sworn
duty of a lawyer to protect the interest of his clients. It amounts to fraud.
The stipulation of facts which was made the basis of the decision was null
and void as it contained serious unauthorized admissions against the
interest of the plaintiffs who had no hand in its preparation.
Attorneys cannot, without special authority, compromise their clients
litigation.
111 PHIL WHEELS v FASGI

PHIL ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC v FASGI
FACTS:
FASGI and PAWI entered into a distributorship contract wherein PAWI
obligated itself to ship wheels for FASGI (foreign company)
FASGI paid PAWI the FOB value of the wheels but later found the shipment to
be defective and in non-compliance with their stated requirements (non
stamping of country of origin, weight load limits, no proper indications and
markings on the wheels, not fitted to the automobiles, etc)
FASGI instituted an action against PAWI and FPS for breach of contract and
recovery of damages where I
was stipulated that PAWI and FPS would accept the return of not loess than
8,100 wheels after restoring to FASGI the purchase price via 4 irreovable
letters of credit.
PAWI was unable to comply with the foregoing agreement alleging that it was
due to a restriction by the Central Bank (for approval of the L/C)
PAWI and FASGI undertook a STIPULATION OF JUDGMENT agreeing that if
PAWI still failed to undertake its
obligation, FASGI would immediately have a right to apply to the Court for
entry of judgment.THis was
executed by the FASGI president and PAWI Counsel (Mr. Thomas Ready).
PAWI still defaulted so FASGI filed with the US District Court of the Central
District of California. (case was decided against PAWI to pay)
FASGI filed with the Makati RTC for enforcement of foreign judgment but the
latter held that there was unjust enrichment since PAWI was to pay, while
FASGI was not ordered to return the wheels. FURTHERMORE, it held that the
supplemental settlement agreement were a
NULLITY for having been entered into by Mr. Thomas Ready, counsel for
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
PAWI, without the latter's authorization.

ISSUE: WoN the decision is binding against PAWI?
HELD: YES
RATIO:
1. In this jurisdiction, it is clear that an atty cannot without a client's
authorization, settle the action or SM of the litigation even when he honestloy
believes that such settlement will best serve his client's best interest. BUT when a
client, upon becoming aware of the compromise and the judgment thereon, fails
to promptly repudiate the action of his atty, he will not afterwards be heard to
complain
about it. (PAWI could have sent a disclaimer, and not have waited for more than a
year to mention the
alleged lack of authority)
2. A party, should not, after its opportunity to enjoy the benefits of an agreement,
be allowed to later disown the arrangement when the terms thereof ultimately
would prove to operate against its hopeful expectations.(PAWI was spared from
possibly paying substantial amount of damages and incurring heavy litigation
fees, and was even afforded time to reimburse FASGI)
112 MANALANG v ANGELES
FACTS:
This is an administrative case agaisnt Atty Angeles for grave misconduct as a
lawyer and he stanes charged with infidelity in the discharge of fiduciary
obligations to his clients, herein complainant Manalang.
Manalang alleged that they were the complainants in a case for overtime and
separation pay filed against their employer, the Phil Racing Club Restaurant. Atty
Angeles was their counsel. Judgment was rendered in favor of Manalang, in the
amount of P6500. However,
without authority from his clients, Atty Angeles compromised the award and was
able to collect P5500 only.
Manalang made several demands upon Atty Angeles to turn over to them the
amount collected minus the agreed upon attorney's fees of 30%, but the lawyer
refuese and offered to give them only the sum of P2650.
Atty Angeles, in his defense, stated the he refused because he was ordered to
deduct from his attorney's fees the amount of P2000 representing the amount
discounted by counsel of the Phil Racing Club Restaurant together with sheriff
legal fees.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
ISSUE:
Whether respondent Atty Angeles should be suspended from the practice of law
because of grave misconduct related to his clients' funds.
HELD:
YES. In the instant case, there is no dispute that complainants were awarded
P6500 for unpaid overtime and separation pay. 30% was agreed to be paid ot
respondent as his attorney's fees. Alleging difficulties in collecting te full amount
awarded, respondent compromised the award on execution and collected only
P5500 from the losing party. This compromise was allegedly without authority
from his
clients. Atty Angeles failed to show any such authority.
Atty Angeles exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the interest of his clients
as well as want of zeal in the maintenance and defence of their rights.
Suspended for 6 months.
113 GARCIA v CA
Facts:
Angelina Guevarra, while talking to Consuelo De Garcia, owner of La
Bulakena Restaurant, recognized her (Guevarras) ring in the finger of Mrs
Garcia. She inquired where she bought it.
Apparently, Guevarras ring was stolen from her house in February 1952.
Garcia handed the ring to Guevarra and it fitted her finger.
They brought the ring to Mr. Rebullida, where the ring was allegedly bought,
and he concluded that it was indeed the ring that Guevarra bought from
him in 1947.
But the ring was returned to Garcia, who later on didnt return the ring
anymore. Garcia claims it was lost.
A case was filed. During which an extra-judicial admission by Garcia was
done. She claims there that she bought the ring from different persons, the
ultimate source being Aling Petring. And that the ring of Guevarra might
just be similar to hers.
Apparently, Aling Petring was just a hoax. As per the case: mysterious and
ephemeral figure. There was really no Aling Petring.
Issue:
W/N the extra-judicial admission of De Garcia, through his cousel, is binding
on her.
Held:
Counsels admission binds the client.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Defendant (De Garcia) is refuted by her own extra-judicial admissions,

although made by counsel. For an attorney who acts as counsel of record
and is permitted to act as such, as the authority to manage the cause, and
this includes the authority to make admission for the purpose of the
litigation.
Her explanation that her counsel misunderstood her is puerile (This means
silly) because the liability to error as to the identity of the vendor and the
exchange of the ring with another ring of the same value, was rather
remote.
114 SANTIAGO v DE LOS SANTOS

Facts:
Luis Santiago filed an application for registration of a piece of land in San
Mateo, Rizal.
The application was opposed by the Director of Lands, Director of Forestry,
and by a certain Pacita de los Santos.
Upon examination of the records, the property appeared to be a part of the
public domain. So Santiago was ordered to show cause to support his
application.
Motions to Dismiss (the application), on the ground that the property was
public domain, were filed by the oppositors. (Mrs de los Santos was actually
a lessee of the land by virtue of a Pasture Lease Agreement)
(Whats funny is that) When Santiagos counselthe firm of Luna and
Manalorequested that the case be calendared for hearing, the pleading
contained attachments showing that the land is indeed part of the public
domain (court said that counsel probably wanted to prove that despite the
public character of the property, there was open and uninterrupted
possession in the concept of an owner). This admission led to the dismissal
of the application.
Now, counsel wants to reverse the decision.
Issue:
Can Santiago (more appropriately his counsel) properly call for the reversal of the
decision?
Held:
NO. The court has adhered to the doctrine that an admission made in the
pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are
conclusive to him, and that all proofs submitted by him contrary or inconsistent
therewith, should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or
not (Justice JBL Reyes in Joes Radio v Alto Electronics). Even if there would be
a full hearing of the case, the result would still be the same. The lower court is
constrained to dismiss the application.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
In a desperate effort to save the case, counsel tried to rely on procedural

doctrinesparticularly citing that de los Santos has no interest in the case.
However, even if such was admitted, they still failed to show open, uninterrupted,
peaceful, and adverse possession in the concept of an owner. It should be noted
that technicalities should give way (and even aid) to substantial justice.
115 PINEDA v CA
FACTS
JOSE VICTORIA filed a complaint for recovery of possession of 2 parcels of
land in Taguig against EMMANUEL VICTORIA, ET AL praying after notice and
hearing that the latter be ordered to vacate the premises
Clerk of Court of Branch II issued a notice of pretrial to ATTY VICTORIA for
JOSE VICTORIA and ATTY GONZALES AND ASSOCIATES for EMMANUEL
VICTORIA, ET AL stating that the pre-trial will be held on May 29
On May 29, the designated judge, JUDGE NAVARRO was on leave so the
Clerk of Court of Branch II entered the following minutes: Presiding Judge
of this Court being on leave and as prayed by ATTY VICTORIA and ATTY
CAPISTRANO* let the pre-trial be transferred to July 3
On July 3, JUDGE NAVARRO was still on leave and entered similar minutes
noting the notification to ATTY CAPISTRANO as to the new date, Oct 16, of
the pre-trial
The case was transferred to the sala of JUDGE PINEDA without knowledge of
EMANNUEL VICTORIA, ET AL or their lawyer
On Oct 16, neither EMANNUEL VICTORIA, ET AL nor ATTY CAPISTRANO
appeared so JUDGE PINEDA entered a default order against EMMANUEL
VICTORIA, ET AL and commissioned the deputy clerk to receive evidence for
JOSE VICTORIA and to submit a report
A few days later, an associate in the office of ATTY GONZALES while
appearing in another sala of the same court stumbled upon the scheduled
reception of evidence of JOSE VICTORIA as ordered by JUDGE PINEDA
EMMANUEL VICTORIA, ET AL filed a verified motion to reconsider and/or setaside the order holding them in default but the same was denied
On the contrary, a motion for execution pending appeal was granted
EMMANUEL VICTORIA, ET AL elevated the matter to the CA who reversed
the decision of the lower court and ordered JUDGE PINEDA to proceed with
the pre-trial
Hence, this petition
Main argument of EMMANUEL VICTORIA, ET AL is that the minutes prepared
by the clerk of court merely singles out ATTY CAPISTRANO as having been
notified so since no notice was sent to them, the whole proceeding cannot
stand the test of validity
ISSUE
W/N NOTICE TO COUNSEL REGARDING SCHEDULED DATE OF

PRE-TRIAL IS NOTICE TO CLIENT
LEGAL ETHICS
HELD
2nd Sem 2005-2006
NO, THERE SHOULD ALSO BE NOTICE TO THE CLIENT
RATIO
Generally, notice to counsel operates as notice to the party/parties
represented
However, application in a given case should be looked into and adopted
according to its surrounding circumstances, otherwise, it may foster
dangerous collusions to the detriment of justice
The case at bar involves Section 1 and 2 of Rule 20 of the Rules of Court
which state In any action after the last pleading has been filed, the court
shall direct the parties AND their attorneys to appear
The Court interpreting these provisions, uniformly emphasized that the pretrial is mandatory, that the parties as well as their counsel, who are
required to appear thereat, must BOTH be notified of the same
In other proceedings presence of parties is not necessary so notice to
counsel operates as notice to client but in a pre-trial, presence of parties is
a must because one of the purposes of a pre-trial is to explore the
possibility of an amicable settlement (which a counsel cannot compromise
absent express authorization) so notice to the parties is necessary
Records show that since only the counsel for EMMANUEL VICTORIA, ET AL
was notified of the pre-trial, such notification is neither adequate nor
sufficient for purposes of a pre-trial
Judgment of CA affirmed
NOTE
*ATTY CAPISTRANO - not mentioned but I presume he is an associate of ATTY
GONZALES
116 SALONGA v CA
Facts:
Astra Realty Development Corp. (Astra) leased its property to Alelie
Montojima. The latter tried to open a restaurant but it was not a success.
Montojima then entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Paul
Geneve Entertainment Corp. (Paul Geneve) where the latter purchased the
lease rights of Montojima over the property.
Paul Geneve paid Montojima but when it was about to start its business, the
Bel-Air Village Homeowners Association filed a complaint for violation of
some municipal ordinances.
Now comes George Salonga who was interested in buying the lease rights
of Paul Geneve. Since Salonga had no money, he suggested that he (along
with his company Solid Intertain) and Paul Geneve enter into a joint
venture enterprise. The idea was to form a new corporation to be named
Solidisque Inc.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
All the documents were prepared by the counsels of both parties (Atty.
Garlitos for Salonga and Atty. Sadili for Paul Geneve).
Paul Geneve signed the papers but Dalonga didnt.
Having possession of the unsigned papers, Salonga started operating Metro
Disco on the subject property. No corporation under the name Solidisque
Inc. was ever registered as agreed upon in the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Paul Geneve was totally left out.
Paul Geneve filed a complaint for specific performance against Salonga and
his company.
Salonga and his counsel failed to appear in the trial dates so he was
declared in default and judgment was rendered by the RTC in favor of Paul
Geneve.
Salonga was also adjudged guilty of civil contempt for his failure to appear
in an earlier hearing. He was ordered arrested until he obeys the orders
and judgment of the Court.
The CA affirmed.
Issue:
W/n Salongas allegation of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process obtain
to justify annulment of the default judgment rendered by the RTC.
Held:
SC says NO.
Petitioners George Salonga and Solid Intertain Corporation allege that the
"inimical and antagonistic acts" of their counsel Atty. Onofre G. Garlitos
constitute extrinsic fraud (see p. 543 for list of acts). SC said that extrinsic
fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party which is committed
outside the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has been
prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case, by fraud or deception
practiced on him by his opponent. The nature of extrinsic fraud, as
discussed previously, necessarily requires that its cause be traceable to
some fraudulent act of the prevailing party committed outside the trial of
the case. The Court notes that the previously enumerated negligent acts
attributed to petitioner's former counsel Garlitos were in no way shown or
alleged to have been caused by private respondents. Atty. Garlitos neither
connived nor sold out to the latter.
On the other hand, it is well-settled that the negligence of counsel binds the
client. This is based on the rule that any act performed by a lawyer within
the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his
client. Consequently, the mistake or negligence of petitioners' counsel may
result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against them. Exceptions
to the foregoing have been recognized by the Court in cases where reckless
or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or
when its application "results in the outright deprivation of one's property
through a technicality." None of these exceptions has been sufficiently
shown in the present case.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Due process was never denied petitioners Salonga and Solid Intertain
Corporation because the trial court had given them a reasonable
opportunity to be heard and present their side in all the proceedings before
it. In fact, petitioners were declared in default only on the third ex parte
motion filed by private respondents.
117 PEOPLE v VILLANUEVA

Facts: Villanueva was accused of raping his 11 year-old stepdaughter Nia. (The
filing of the complaint was brought about by a kiss mark that Nias brother saw on
her neck.)
It was alleged that one night, Villanueva, holding a knife against Nias neck,
threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone of the odious act. Villanueva
attempted to insert his penis, but it would not fit. (According to Nia, it was too
big.) Villanueva contented himself to licking Nias genetalia.
In his defense, Villanueva gives an alibi that he could not have raped her and that
the semen found on the victims vagina could not have been his (he already had
vasectomy). The lower court, however, found Villanueva guilty of raping Nia and
imposes the death penalty.
In this mandatory review by the SC, Villanueva alleges that he is entitled to a new
trial because of his counsels failure to present his common-law wife (Nias
mother).
Issue: W/N Villanueva is entitled to a new trial.
Held: Villanueva is not entitled to a new trial.
The failure of the defense to present Nias mother by reason of the alleged
inexperience of his lawyer is not a ground for new trial. The error of his defense
counsel is neither an error of law nor an irregularity that will merit a new trial. The
client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of his case and cannot
be heard to complain that the result of the litigation might have been different
had his counsel proceeded differently. If this were to be allowed, then there would
be no end to suits so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege
that the previous counsel had not been diligent.
Villanueva is still guilty of rape. There is no question about the credibility of the
Nia as a witness. The trial judge had occasion to determine the demeanor of the
witness. The alibi of Villanueva is also self-serving. It doesnt matter if
Villanuevas [penis did not penetrate. What is important is that there was contract
between the peis and the labia of the vagina. The fact that Nias hymen was
intact does not negate rape, because it is not an element of rape. However, the

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
charge cannot qualify as qualified rape, because the allegation that the accused
is the stepfather (in fact he is not, he is merely a surrogate father and there exists
no legal relation of step-father and step-daughter) was not averred in the
complaint.
118 AGUILAR v CA
Facts:
Aguilar and Salvador were charged with Estafa in an Information filed before
the RTC. Both were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as
minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to indemnify
the offended party the amount of P250,000.
Aguilar, thru his former counsel, Atty.Arandia, timely appealed to CA.
Unfortunately, Atty. Arandia failed to file petitioners brief on its due date.
He neither communicated to Aguilar nor withdrew his appearance as
counsel. Aguilars attempts to contact his counsel were futile.
Aguilar hired Atty. Arias as his new counsel, and the latter entered his
appearance in the case and asked an extension of 45 days to submit the
appellants brief.
The motion was denied for having been filed out of time. CA subsequently
denied Aguilars motion to dismiss and his appeal.
On the other hand, Salvador was granted an extension of time to file her
brief, and the brief was admitted even though filed beyond the grace
period.
Issue: W/N CA committed GAD when it dismissed Aguilars appeal for failure to file
his appellants brief on time.
Held: YES.
There is no reason to treat the two appellants differently. Both allegedly
conspired in committing the crime of estafa. Their cases rest on the same
facts. Equal protection of the law demands that persons situated similarly
be treated alike.
Aguilar faces a jail term of 17 yrs and 4 mos to 20 yrs. He cannot lose his
liberty because of the gross irresponsibility of his lawyer.
Losing liberty by default of an insensitive lawyer should be frowned upon
despite the fiction that a client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. The
said rule must only be applied to advance the ends of justice, not when the
circumstances of the case it becomes a hindrance to justice.
In a criminal proceeding, where certain evidence was not presented
because of counsels error or incompetence, new trial may be granted if the
defendant satisfies the court that: 1) he has a good defense, and that 2)
acquittal would in all probability have followed the introduction of the
omitted evidence.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
CA should have considered the fact that the appellants brief was already
filed and is already in the records of the case. This shows earnest efforts of
counsel and petitioner to be heard and lack of intention to cause delay.
119 SALONGA v CA
FACTS:
Astra owned a propert located at Bel-Air Village, Makati.
Montojima leased this property and opened a restaurant which did not prosper
Montojima thereafter entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with Paul
Geneve Entertainment Corp (PGEC) with the consent of Astra under the
following term: Montojima will sell all his rights over the property to PGEC
for 3M.
Montojima received 1M
Bt before PGEC can open the business, the homeowners association of Bel-Air
filed a complaint against PGEC for violation of some municipal ordinances
PGEC and Salonga entered into a JVA wherein the corporation of Salonga and
PGEC will form a new corporation.
but the new corporation never existed and PGEC asked for specific performance
from Salonga
during the scheduled hearing, Salonga did not appear and was held in contempt
salonga also asked for 2 motions foe extension of time but no answer was filed
becasue of salonga's failure to file an answer, salonga was held in default and
cited in contempt
Salonga is now claiming that he received a copy of the decision only on 10-7 yet a
motion for reconsideration was filed on 7-28
ISSUE:
W/N the decision must be annulled on the ground of fraud on the part of
Salonga's counsel
HELD:
NO!
a decision can be annulle donly on 2 grounds: A. judgment is void for want of due
process or jurisdiction and B. it was obtained by fraud
there is no extrinsic fraud in the case
the negligence of counsel binds the client. this is based on the rule that any acts
performed by counsel within the scope of his general authority is deemed
as an act of the client.
lawyer of Salonga, Garlitos, is only guilty of simple negligence. although he failed
to file a timely answer, hus efforts at defending thier cause is real.
simple negligence would not amount to a deprivation of right to due process.
to see all the negligent acts of Atty Garlitos see page 543 1st paragraph.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
120 LEGARDA v CA
*mahaba, di ko na sinama mga dissenting. Talo naman sila eh
Facts:
New Cathay House, Inc. (Cathay) and Victoria Legarda entered into a lease
agreement for a property in QC owned by Legarda.
For some reason, Legarda refused to sign the contract. Cathay made a
deposit and downpayment of rentals then filed for specific performance.
Legardas counsel, Dean Antonio Coronel, requested a 10-day extension to
file an answer which was granted. But Dean Coronel failed to file an answer
within that period.
Cathay presented evidence ex parte. Cathay won the case (Katay si
Legarda). Service of decision was made on Dean Coronel but he still did not
do anything.
The QC property was then levied and auctioned off to pay for the judgment
debt. Cathays manager, Cabrera, was the highest bidder in the auction.
Legarda did not redeem the property within the 1 year period.
Kahit natalo na sila dahil walang ginagawa si Dean (hindi nga niya
sinabihan si Legarda kung ano na nangyari sa kaso nila, na wala na yung
lupa), Legarda still did not lose faith in her counsel.
Dean Coronel then filed a petition for annulment of judgment. Petition was
denied. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was made on the order of
denial (ibang klase ka dean!)
So, Legarda hired a new lawyer. New lawyer asked for annulment of
judgment upon the ground that the old lawyer was negligent in his duties.
The petition was granted and the sale of the QC property to be set aside.
The SC said that there was unjust enrichment on the part of Cathay
because of the reckless, inexcusable and gross negligence of Dean Coronel.
Hence this motion for reconsideration of SC decision.
Issue:
W/N Legarda can be bound by the gross negligence of her counsel
Held:
Yes. Original decision is reinstated (Legarda=loser)
As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend her interests in due
course, she cannot be said to have been denied due process of law.
If indeed Legarda is innocent, then all the more that Cathay is innocent.
Between two innocent parties, the one who made it possible for the wrong
to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss.
Legarda misjudged and hired the services of Dean Coronel who in the end
sort of abandoned her case.
Decision was res ipso final due to failure to appeal the decision.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
121 ALBANO v COLOMA

FACTS:
Angel Albano alleges that when he and his mom retained the services of Atty.
Perpetua Coloma as their counsel, Atty Coloma failed to expediet the hearing
and termination of the case, resulting to their having to procure another
lawyer.
Atty. Coloma intervened in the case to collect her atty's fees and presented a
document showing that the complainants promised to pay her a contingent
fee of 33 1/3% of whatever could be recovered whether in land or damages.
Atty. Coloma likewise denied that she could have been removed for her
failure to comply with her obligations as counsel as she served "faithfully,
efficiently, continuously and to the best of her knowledge and capacity". Her
dismissal, accdg to her, was made without cause and without her consent
and when she had already won the case for them in the CFI and the CA.
The facts as found by the SolGen in so far as the services of Atty Coloma as
counsel for the complainants reveal the utmost diligence and
conscientiousness on her part. The SolGen further saight that if there was
anyone guilty of bad faith in
this case, it is the complainants who, after benefiting from the valuable
services of atty COloma, tried to renege on their agreement for the payment
of the latter's contingent atty's fees by dismissing her as their counsel after
she had already won for them in the trial court and the CA, and later, by
attempting to impugn the authenticity and genuineness of their written
agreement for the payment of atty's fees
ISSUE: WoN Atty COloma is entitled to her atty's fees (as agreed upon in their
written agreement of contigent fee)
HELD: YES
RATIO:
1. Counsel is entitled to full recompense for his services He is entitled to the
protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of a client to
escape payment of his fees. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the best that is
in him to secure justice for the party he represents, he himself would not get due.
2. Also, Atty COloma has good reputation.. SO his reputation as a lawyer must be
protected.
122 TRADERS ROYAL BANK UNION v NLRC
FACTS:
Petitioner Union and private respondent Atty Cruz entered into a retainer
agreement whereby the former obligated itself to pay the latter a monthly
retainer fee of P3,000 in consideration of the Atty Cruz's undertaking to render
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
the services enumerated in their contract. Petitioner Union referred to Atty Cruz
the claims of its members for Holiday, mid year and year-end bonuses against
their employer Traders Royal Bank (TRB). NLRC rendered a decision in favor of
the union members. On appeal to the SC, the court modified the decision of the
NLRC by deleting the award of mid year and year-end bonus. Bank complied with
such decision.
Atty Cruz, thereafter, notified the union , the TRB management and the NLRC of
his right to exercise and enforce his attorney's lien over the award of holiday pay.
He demanded the payment of 10% of the total award. Union opposed the
demand. NLRC ruled in favor of Atty Cruz.
The union insists that it is not guilty of unjust enrichment because all attorney's
fees due to Atty Cruz were covered by the retainer fee of P3,000 which it has
been regularly paying to Atty Cruz under their retainer agreement. To be entitiled
to additional attorney's fees, it contends that there must be separate mutual
agreement prior to the performance of the additional services of the counsel.
Issue:
W/n Atty Cruz is entitled to compensation other than the P3,000 retainer fee.
HELD:
YES. He is entitled to P10,000.
An attorney is entitiled to have and receive a just and reasonable compensation
for services performed at the special instance and request of his client. As long
as the lawyer was in good faith and honestly trying to represent and serve the
interests of the client, he should have a reasonable compensation for such
services. The P3,000 which the union pays monthly does not cover the services
the counsel actually rendered before the labor arbiter and the NLRC. The monthly
fee is intended merely as a consideration for the counsel's commitment to render
the services.
The P3,000 was a general retainer. It is not payment for counsel's execution or
performance of the services of the counsel. The fact that petitioner union and
counsel failed to reach a meeting of the minds with regard to the payment of
professional fees for special services will not absolve the client of civil liability for
the corresponding remuneration. A quasi contract arose between the union and
counsel, from the counsel's lawful, voluntry and unilateral prosecution of union's
cause. Equity and fair play dictate that petitioner should pay the same after it
accepted and benefited from counsel's services.
The measure of compensation should be addressed by the rule of quantum
meruit, meaning "as much as he deserves".
123 ONG v GRIJALDO

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
This is a case for disbarment of Atty. Jose Grijaldo.
Goretti Ong, the complainant, initially had Grijaldo as his counsel for a BP
22 case. The opposing party owed Ong, but they reached a compromised
in the amount of P180T. Ong agreed to a compromise, provided he be paid
in cash.
When the time of payment came, Grijaldo (who facilitated the compromise
deal) handed over P100T in cash and an P80T check. Ong initially refused,
but was made to accept it. Grijaldo claims that the check is good, since it
was drawn on the checking account of the opposing partys counsel, Atty.
Reyes.
Ong was made to execute an affidavit of desistance, but Ong instructed
Grijaldo to file it with the court, only when the check has been cleared.
But the check bounced. Later on, after many excuses, Ong went to Bacolod
(where the case was filed) to find out for himself the status of the case and
to seek payment.
Ong found out that the affidavit was already filed in court and the case was
already dismissed.
Worse, Grijaldo already received the money from Reyesm but he used it to
pay for his (Grijaldos) financial obligations.
Hence this case.
Ong filed a number of affidavits by other disinterested persons who
complained of Grijaldos mischief. (bottom part of p 5) (irrelevant)
Issue:
W/N Grijaldo should be disbarred.
Held:
Yes.
It is clear that respondent gravely abused the trust and confidence reposed
on him by his client. Were it not for complainants vigilance in inquiring into
the status of her case, she would have not know that the case was already
dismissed. Grijaldo deliberately withheld the fat from her.
Grijaldo breached his futy wwhen he failed to inform the complainant of the
status of the criminal case. his negligence shows a glaring lack of the
competence and diligence required of every lawyer. His infraction is
rendered all the more deplorable by the fact that complainant is a resident
of QC, but the case was filed in Bacolod. That was the reason why Ong
hired a Bacolod-based lawyer, to protect her interests. This is a gross
betrayal of the fiduciary duty: failure to look after the clients welfare. And
it is also a breach of the trust and confidence which was reposed on him.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
124 SESBREO v CA
Facts:
Raul Sesbreo replaced Atty Pacquiao as counsel for 52 employees in a
case against the Province of Cebu and Governor Espina for reinstatement to
work and backwages.
32 of the employees agreed that Sesbreno would be paid 30% of the
backwages as attorneys fees and 20% for expenses of litigation.
RTC granted employees petition. CA affirmed. Judgment became final.
Later on, a compromise was made between the employees and the
Province of Cebu whereby said employees waived their right to
reinstatement. Cebu released P2.3M (representing back salaries, terminal
leave pay, gratuity pay) to Sesbreno for the employees as Partial
Satisfaction of Judgment.
10 of the employees asserted that they only agreed to give 40% of their
back salaries to Sesbreno. Lower court agreed with them and fixed
attorneys fees for Sesbreno at 40% plus the 20% expenses.
Employees filed an MR asserting that there was inadvertence in placing
60% where it should only be 50%. This was granted.
Sesbreno was not satisfied by the decision so he went to the CA. And
kawawang Sesbreno nabawasan pa lalo ang bayadCA deemed the award
of 20% of the back salaries as the fair, equitable, and reasonable amount
for attorneys fees. Punta siya ngayon sa Padre FauraSupreme Court
Issue:
Whether the court acted properly in reducing Sesbrenos attorneys fees despite a
pre-existing contract between the parties.
Held:
Yes. It is a settled rule that what a lawyer may charge and receive as attorneys
fees is always subject to judicial control. When the courts find the amount to be
excessive or unreasonable, public policy demands that the contract be
disregarded to protect the client. When a lawyer takes his oath, he submits
himself to the authority of the court and subjects his professional fees to judicial
control.
A stipulation on a lawyers compensation in a written contract for professional
services ordinarily controls the amount of fees that the contracting lawyer may be
allowed, UNLESS the court finds such stipulated amount unreasonable or
unconscionable. Though generally, a much higher compensation is allowed in a
contingent fee agreement (as in this case) in consideration of the risk that the
lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails. But contingent fee contracts are under
the supervision of the court in order that clients may be protected from unjust
charges. Its validity rests largely on the reasonableness of the stated fees under
the circumstances of the case. An attorneys fee is unconscionable when it is so
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
disproportionate compared to the value of the services rendered. Nevertheless,

the existence of an unreasonable fee (no matter the degree) does not bar
recovery. It is only that the courts will fix a reasonable amount.
Quantum Meruit which means as much as he deserves is often the courts
basis for determining the amount.
Considering its a labor case, an award of 50% of back salaries is excessive. The
20% award is justified.
125 FABILO v IAC
FACTS
JUSTINA Fabillo bequeathed to her brother FLORENCIO Fabillo a house in lot
in San Salvador St, Leyte (San Salvador property) and to her husband
GREGORIO Brioso a lot in Pugahanay, Leyte (Pugahanay property)
FLORENCIO filed a petition for probate of JUSTINAS will who approved of the
partition placed a reservation on the ownership of the San Salvador
property
2 years later, FLORENCIO sought the assistance of ATTY MURILLO to recover
the San Salvador property
FLORENCIO and ATTY MURILLO entered into a Contract for Services wherein
o If the property is awarded to FLORENCIO, ATTY MURILLO will be
constituted as attorney in fact to sell and convey said property and
will be given 40% of the purchase price
o If mortgaged, ATTY MURILLO will be entitled to 40% of the proceeds of
the mortgage
o If leased, ATTY MURILLO will be entitled to 40% of the rentals
o If the property is just occupied by FLORENCIO, ATTY MURILLO will
have the option of occupying or leasing to any interested party 40%
of the said property
ATTY MURILLO filed a case for FLORENCIO against GREGORIO which ended
in a compromise settlement wherein FLORENCIO was declared owner not
only of the San Salvador property but also of the Pugahanay property
ATTY MURILLO proceeded to implement the contract by taking possession of
40% of the properties and even installed a tent in the Pugahanay property
FLORENCIO claimed exclusive right over the properties which prompted
ATTY MURILLO to file a complaint
LOWER COURT: ATTY MURILLO is owner of 40% of the properties
FLORENCIO argued that the contingent fee of 40% is excessive, unfair and
unconscionable
ISSUE
W/N THE CONTRACT OF SERVICES PROVIDING FOR

CONTINGENT FEES VIOLATED ARTICLE 1491
LEGAL ETHICS
HELD
2nd Sem 2005-2006
NO, CONTINGENT FEES NOT COVERED BY ARTICLE 1491
RATIO
Article 1491 prohibits lawyers from acquiring by purchase even at a public
auction, properties and rights which are objects of litigation in which they
may take part by virtue of their profession
However, said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment takes place
during the pendency of litigation involving the clients property
Following that principle, a contract between a lawyer and his client
stipulating a contingent fee is not covered by Article 1491 because
payment of said fee is not made during the pendency of litigation but only
after judgment has been rendered
Hence, the Contract of Services entered into by FLORENCIO and ATTY
MURILLO having provided for contingent fees is not violative of Article 1491
ISSUE
HELD
W/N FLORENCIO IS OWNER OF 40% OF THE PROPERTIES

NO, CONTRACT OF SERVICES VAGUE AS TO WHO IS THE
OWNER SO MUST BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE LAWYER WHO
MADE IT, ATTY MURILLO
RATIO
The Court disagrees with the lower court that FLORENCIO is the owner of
40% of the properties for careful scrutiny shows that the parties intended
40% of the value of the properties as ATTY MURILLOS contingent fee
The provisions are clear in cases where the properties are sold, mortgaged
and leased as ATTY MURILLO is entitled to 40% of the purchase price,
proceeds of the mortgage or rentals respectively
However, with respect to a situation wherein the properties are neither sold,
mortgaged or leased, the contract is vague and only provides that ATTY
MURILLO shall have the option of occupying or leasing to any interested
party 40% of the properties
The ambiguity of said provision should then be resolved against ATTY
MURILLO as it was he himself who drafted the contract
Moreover, if the parties intended that ATTY MURILLO should become the
lawful owner of 40% of the properties in case the same is not sold,
mortgaged or leased, then they would have clearly and unequivocally
stipulated in the contract such
JUDGMENT
Considering the nature of the case, the value of the properties subject matter
thereof, the length of time and effort exerted by ATTY MURILLO, the Court holds
that ATTY MURILLO is entitled to P3,000 as reasonable attorneys fees (nyek lugi!)

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
126 BAUTISTA v GONZALES

Facts:
- Angel Bautista filed a complaint against Ramon Gonzales for the following
acts:
o Accepting a case where he agreed to pay all expenses for a
contingent fee of 50% of the value of the property in litigation;
o Acting as counsel for the Fortunados in a case where Eugenio Lopez,
Jr. is one of the defendants and, without said case being terminated,
acting as counsel for Lopez in another case;
o Transferring to himself one-half of the properties of the Fortunados,
which properties are the subject of the litigation, while the case was
still pending;
o Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a
contract with him for the development of the land involved in a case
into a residential subdivision, claiming that he acquired fifty percent
(50%) interest thereof as attorney's fees from the Fortunados, while
knowing fully well that the said property was already sold at a public
auction;
o Submitting to the CFI falsified documents purporting to be true copies
of "Addendum to the Land Development Agreement" and submitting
the same document to the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City, in
connection with the complaint for estafa filed by respondent against
complainant.
Issue:
- W/n Gonzales should be punished for these acts.
Held:
- Yes, SC suspends him for 6 months.
- For the first allegation, the SC pointed out that a lawyer may indeed
advance expenses of litigation but such payment should be subject to
reimbursement. In this case, the contingent fee agreement between the
Fortunados and Gonzales did not provide for such reimbursement. Such
contract is against public policy because it gives undue leverage in favor of
the lawyer.
- Second, the Court found that Gonzales did not violate any law because the
Fortunados consented to his appearance for Lopez.
- Third act, the Court said that such is a violation of Art. 1491 of the Civil
Code, which prohibits a lawyer from buying/acquiring the property of his
clients which is the subject of a pending case. This Court has held that the
purchase by a lawyer of his client's property or interest in litigation is a
breach of professional ethics and constitutes malpractice. And although the
Code of Professional Responsibility does not anymore contain Canon 10 of
the old Canons of Professional Ethics, which states that "[t]he lawyer should
not purchase any interests in the subject matter of the litigation which he is
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
conducting," the Code still provides that a lawyer should follow the laws of
the Phil. At all times. By acquiring the property in litigation, Gonzales has
violated Art. 1491 of the Civil Code and can be administratively punished
for such violation.
The SC held that in withholding such information, respondent failed to live
up to the rigorous standards of ethics of the law profession which place a
premium on honesty and condemn duplicitous conduct. The fact that
complainant was not a former client of respondent does not exempt
respondent from his duty to inform complainant of an important fact
pertaining to the land which is subject of their negotiation.
Lastly, the SC held that the original copies of the documents Gonzales
submitted were false because they bore the signatures of the Fortunados
when, in fact, they did not sign the original copy but only a photocopy of
the original. Such conduct constitutes willful disregard of his solemn duty as
a lawyer to act at all times in a manner consistent with the truth. A lawyer
should never seek to mislead the court by an artifice or false statement of
fact or law.
127 BIASCAN v LOPEZ

Facts: This controversy pertains to a 600 sq. m. lot.
The lot was in the name of Florencio Biascan. Florencio died intestate. When
Florencio died, Rosalina Biascan filed a complaint alleging that she is the
administratrix of the estate of her father, Florencio. However, Maria Biascan
opposed the claim of Rosalina. At that instant, Atty. Lopez entered his appearance
as the counsel of Maria in the opposition.
Rosalina complained that, without the approval of the intestate court, Atty. Lopex
caused the registration of 210 sq. m. of the 600 sq. m. lot in his name (made
through a deed of assignment executed by Maria and Atty. Lopez). According to
Rosalina, the registration was made during the special proceedings regarding the
settlement of the estate.
In his defense, Lopez says that the transfer of a portion of the land was valid
since it was a payment of his contingent fees. Atty. Lopez claims that Maria
agreed to give him 35% of the area of the disputed land. Atty. Lopez argues that
due to the absence of a notice of lis pendens on the TCT, he accepted the offer of
Maria.
Issue: W/N the land was a lawful payment of contingent fees.
Held: The land cannot be regarded as contingent fees. Illegal. Suspend
6 months.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
When Atty. Lopez entered his appearance as Marias counsel, Rosalina had
submitted an inventory report which listed the land as part of the estate of the
deceased Florencio. As respondent of Maria, Atty. Lopez should have gone over
the records. Also, the deed of assignment itself stated that the TCT was registered
in Florencios name. Therefore, Atty. Lopez had actual knowledge that the lot
formed part of the estate of Florencio.
By registering the land in his name, Atty. Lopez transgressed Art. 1491, because
he had knowledge that the land was the subject of the litigation. Because the
transfer was made during the pendency of the Special Proceedings, Art. 1491
clearly applies.
128 DALISAY v MAURICIO
Facts:
This is the case against Batas Mauricio, the TV host.
Allegedly, Mauricio demanded and received exorbitant attorneys fees but
did not take any action on Valerina Dalisays case.
Initially, she paid P25T as acceptance fee.
In total, she paid Mauricio P56T: P8T filing fee (though the case was already
filed) the balance might be a combination of the ff:
o Additional acceptance fee P90,000.00, with the explanation that he
can give a discount should she pay in cash.
o P3,000.00 as appearance fee
notwithstanding her payments, respondent never rendered any legal
service. She terminated their attorney-client relationship and demanded
the return of her money and documents. Mauicio refused.
The IBP Board of Governors wanted to dismiss the case.
Issue:
W/N the case against Mauricio should be dismissed.
Held:
No. He should be suspended for 6 months.
When respondent accepted P56,000.00 from complainant, it was
understood that he agreed to take up the latters case and that an attorney-client
relationship between them was established. From then on, it was expected of
him to serve complainant with competence and attend to her case with fidelity,
care and devotion.
But there is nothing on record that Mauricio entered his appearance as

counsel of record.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
He did not even follow-up the case which remained pending up to the time
she terminated his services.
Regarding the P8T: (allegedly as docket fees for other cases): there was
no evidence nor any pleadings submitted to show that respondent filed
any case considering that the filing fee had to be paid simultaneously
with the filing of a case.
when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting his rights.
Just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his
services. However, he should charge only a reasonable amount of fees.
129 BARONS MARKETING v CA

FACTS:
- Phelps Dodge appointed Barons Marketing as its dealer of electrical wires
and cables
- Barons was given a 60 day credit for the purchase of Phelps Dodges
products
- Barons purchased electrical wires and cables worth P4.1M, on credit
- Under the sales invoice issued by Phelps Dodge, there is a stipulation:
interests at 12% per annum will be charged on all overdue accounts plus
25% on said amount for attorneys fees and collections
- Barons failed to pay Phelps Dodge. The former asked the latter for
installment payment but the request was refused
- An action for collection for sum of money was instituted by Phelps Dodge
against Barons with a prayer for attorneys fees amounting to 25% pf the
amount demanded
- RTC: ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge and ordered Barons to pay P3.1M and
25% of the preceding obligation for and as attorneys fees
- CA: corrected the amount due to Phelps Dodge and ordered Barons to pay
P3.8M and 5% of the preceding obligation for and as attorneys fees
ISSUE:
- W/N Barons is liable to Phelps Dodge for interest and attorneys fees
HELD:
- YES! But the amount stated in the sales invoice is reduced from 25% to
10% of the principal amount for attorneys fees.
- Barons is expressly liable as stated in the sales invoice of Phelps Dodge
which provides that: interests at 12% per annum will be charged on all
overdue accounts plus 25% on said amount for attorneys fees and
collections

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
The attorneys fees stated are in the nature of liquidated damages and the
stipulation is aptly called a penal clause. It is settled that as long as such
stipulation does not contravene law, morals, or public order, it is strictly
binding.
BUT, the courts are empowered to reduce such penalty of the same is
iniquitous or unconscionable
In the case at bar, the interest alone runs to some P4.5M, even exceeding
the principal debt which is only P4M. 25% of the principal and the interest
amounts to roughly P2M. In real terms, therefore, the attorneys fees and
collection fees are manifestly exorbitant.
130 LIZARDO v MONTANO

FACTS:
Lizardo instituted a collection case against Eddie Mirano. Lizardo won.
Judgment included 25% of the amount payable as attorneys fees.
Miranos land was levied and Lizardo won the bidding.
13 years after the case, Atty. Montano, the lawyer of Lizardo, filed with the
trial court (same trial court as in the previous decision) an omnibus motion
for payment of his attorneys fees.
Without hearing petitioner, the trial court rendered an order that Lizardo
pay Montano 25% of the property and/or annotate in the TCT the attorneys
lien.
CA affirmed the RTC decision, hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
W/N the trial court still has jurisdiction over the case 13 years after it
rendered a final judgment
HELD:
No, the court no longer has jurisdiction over the claim for attorneys fees.
Once a court acquires jurisdiction over a case, it retains such jurisdiction
until the final termination of the case. It loses its jurisdiction upon the
finality of the decision
A final decision cannot be amended or corrected except for clerical errors,
mistakes or misprisions.
In the questioned order, the court ordered Lizardo to pay attorneys fees to
counsel. That is not decreed in the judgment. Such variance rendered the
order void.
What the lawyer may do is file an independent action against petitioner for
collection.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
131 CUETO v JIMENEZ

FACTS:
- Engr. Alex Cueto engaged the services of Atty. Jose Jimenez Jr. as notary public,
being the father of the building of the Construction Agreement to be notarized.
After notarizing the agreement, Jimenez demanded P50,000 as notarial fee. Alex
Cueto paid P30,000 in cash and issued a check of P20,000. However, Cueto
requested Jimenez not to deposit the check for lack of sufficient funds. Cueto also
informed Jimenez that his son had not yet paid his services as general contractor.
- Jimenez still deposited the check, and of course, the check bounced (insufficient
funds nga!)and the check issued by Jimenez' son was also dishonored for having
been drawn against a closed account.
- Atty. Jimenez filed a BP 22 case against Cueto. In return, Cueto filed his own
administrative complaint against Jimenez and alleged that he violated Code of
Prof Responsibility and Canons of Prof Ethics when he filed BP22 so that Jimenez
can recover the balance of his notarial fee.
ISSUE: WoN Jimenez can be held administratively liable?
HELD: YES. Atty. Jimenez is severely reprimanded.
RATIO:
1. It is highly improper for Jimenez in filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22
against Cueto when the check representing the balance of his notarial fee was
dishonored because "A LAWYER SHALL AVOID CONTROVERSIES WITH CLIENTS
CONCERNING HIS COMPENSATION AND SHALL RESORT TO JUDICIAL ACTION ONLY
TO PREVENY IMPOSITION, INJUSTICE or FRAUD". In the
case at bar, there was clearly no imposition, injustice or fraud... 1)Cueto already
paid more than half of the fee 2) In all probablity, the reason why Cueto lacked
funds was because of Jimenez' son failure to pay (so dapat mas lenient si Jimenez
sa delay ng payment sa kanya ng balance)
2. AS to the contention that P50,000 was exorbitant--> IBP and SC held that is is
reasonable recompense (1% of the 5,000,000 of the contract price sought to be
notarized.) and also Cueto should have inquired first about the reasonableness.
ALso, facts show that they
agreed on the amount.
132 LEMOINE v BALON
FACTS:
- Lemoine is a French national who filed an insurance claim with Metropolitan
Insurance.
- His friend Jesus Garcia arranged for the engagement of Balons services as
his counsel

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Balon advised Lemoine that he was charging 25% of the actual amount to
being recovered payable upon successful recovery. An advance payment of
P50,000 to be deducted from whatever amount would be successfully
collected. P1,000 as appearance and conference fee for each and every
court hearing and legal expenses and other miscellaneous will be charged
to Lemoines account which would be reimbursed upon presentment of
account. Lemoine never gave his consent as to the fee.
- Lemoine signed an undated Special Power of Attorney authorizing Balon to
bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of
Lemoines claim as well as to negotiate, sign, compromise, encash and
receive payments
- Metropolitan Insurance offered to settle Lemoines claim and Balon
confirmed his acceptance of the offer
- December 1998, Metropolitan Insurance issued a China Bank check payable
to Lemoine in the amount of P525,000 which was received by Balon
- When Lemoine asked Balon as to the status of the case, Balon answered
that Metropolitan Insurance was offering P350,000 for settlement which
Lemoine suggested that Balon accept to avoid litigation
- December 1999, Lemoine visited the office of Metropolitan Insurance to ask
on the status of the case and it answered that the case was long settled via
a check given to Balon.
- Balon acknowledge that he is in possession of the check and that he is
keeping the check as attorneys lien pending Lemoines payment of his
attorneys fee equivalent to 50% of the entire amount collected. He also
threatened Lemoine that he will not hesitate to make proper representation
with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, DOLE and BIR if Lemoine
will make any trouble to Balon and that he has good network with the
mentioned agencies.
- Balon later claimed that he gave P233,000 to Garcia on the representation
of Lemoine. No written memorandum of the turn-over was made because
Garcia was a co-Rotarian and co-attorney of Balon
- Balon was in possession of the said check for 5 years
ISSUE:
- W/N Balon violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
- YES! And he was ordered disbarred by the SC
- The lawyers continuing exercise of his retaining lien presupposes that the
client agrees with the amount of attorneys fees to e charged. In case of
disagreement, however, the lawyer must not arbitrarily apply the funds in
his possession to the payment of his fees. He can file the necessary action
with the proper court to fix the fees
- Before receiving the check, he proposes a 25% attorneys fees, after
receiving the check, he was already asking for 50%.
- under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful acts , must observe fairness in all his dealings with his client and
must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
-

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
a lawyer who practices deceit in his dealings with his client not only
violates his duty of fidelity loyalty and devotion to the clients cause but
also degrades himself and besmirches the name of an honorable profession.
133 SCC CHEMICALS v CA

Facts:
SCC Chemicals Corporation, through its chairman and vice president,
obtained a loan from State Investment house (SIHI).
Loan amount was P130T, with a 30% interest rate p.a.
Surcharges: 2% per month on the remaining balance.
The officers above mentioned executed a comprehensive security
agreement on the loan.
But SCC failed to pay the loan. SIHI sent demand letters, but no payment
was made.
SIHI presented one witness to prove his claim. The cross-examination was
postponed many times. SCC was finally declared to have waived its right to
cross examine.
A lot of challenges were made by SCC on the validity of the document. But
this is of no moment. (and irrelevant)
Now, SCC is questioning the preponderance of evidence (irrelevant) and the
amount of attorneys fees awarded.
Issue:
W/N SIHI is entitled to attorneys fees.
Held:
No.
The appeal is partially granted. Attorneys fees are deleted.
Radio Communications of the Philippines v Rodriguez stated that the reason
for the award of the attorneys fees must be stated in the text of the courts
decision. Since the trial court did not state any reason for awarding the
attorneys fees, the fees should have been disallowed by the appellate
court.
The award of attorneys fees is the exception rather than the rule, \hence it
is necessary for the trial court to make findings of fact and law, which would
bring the case within the exception and justify the grant of the award.
Given the failure of the trial court to explicitly state the rationale for the
award of attorneys fees, the same shall be disallowed.
134 IN RE HAMILTON
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
L. Porter Hamilton advised and counseled Luciano Andrada in regard to a
claim (by Andrada) against Isabelo Alburo.
In lieu thereof, Hamilton received various documents (vouchers, notes) from
Andrada. Hamilton prepared a formal petition for Andrada, and also
prepared papers relating to attachment proceedings against the property of
Alburo. It appeared, however, that Hamilton was not noted as attorney of
record for Andrada.
Later on, Hamilton entered appearance as attorney of record for Alburo (the
defendant in the same case). Hamilton only surrendered the documents
received from Andrada when the court ordered him to do so.
Another misconduct was committed by Hamilton when he proposed,
through a letter, to S.L. Joseph of Cebu that he be employed as attorney for
S.L. Joseph Lumber Yard, under a threat to compel said person to accept his
proposition.
Judge Wislezinus said: Ah hindi pwede yan! He orderd the fiscal to file an
action for disbarment against Hamilton for professional misconduct.
Hamiltons defense was that there was no attorney-client relationship
between him and Andradasince he was not the attorney of record. On the
second misconduct, Hamiltons defense was that the letter (where he made
the proposition) was privileged communication so it cannot be used as
evidence against him.
Issue:
Is Atty Hamilton guilty of professional misconduct?
Held:
Yes, and he should be suspended for 6 years. The existence of an attorney-client
relationship could be established by overt acts. By accepting papers relating to
the claim, the confidential relationship was established. Hamilton also counseled
with Andrada regarding the subject matter of the suit. The fact that he did not
allow his name to be place by the clerk of court as attorney of record for Andrada
(when the papers were filed) can only be considered as proof of lack of good faith
with the client to whome he was rendering professional services. A stipulated fee
is not necessary to establish the relationship either.
By representing the opposing party in the same case (without the others
consent) and by refusing to surrender the documents received from Andrada
(until there were court orders), counsel violated the confidence between him and
Andrada. He did not offer his services in good faith to his client.
As to the claim that the letter to S.L. Joseph was privileged, there was no proof
that there was an attorney-client relationship between Hamilton and S.L. Joseph.
Furthermore, in a disbarment proceeding, where the alleged client himself is not
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
insisting on the privilege, counsel cannot be permitted to shield himself behind

the privilege.
135 HILADO v DAVID
Facts:
Blandina Hilado (ganda ng pangalan!) brought an action against Selim
Assad to annul the sale of several houses and lot exected by Hilados
husband.
Delgado et al. was counsel for Hilado, while Ohnick et al filed an answer for
Assad.
Later on, Atty Vicente Francisco entered his appearance for Assad
substituting Ohnick et al.
The firm of Delgado urged Atty Francisco to stop representing Assad since
there exists an atty-client relationship between him (Francisco) and the
other party (Hilado) in the same case.
It was alleged that Hilado consulted Francisco regarding the case and that
the former turned over papers to the latter. From such documents,
Francisco sent a written opinion to Hilado.
Since makulit si Francisco, Delgado et al. sought to disqualify Francisco from
representing Assad in the case.
Franciscos defense was that he only met Hilado once and this was when
the latter informed him about the case. He added that when Hilado left
documents in their office, he told his assistant to tell Hilado that their firm
would not handle her case. And that the written opinion was made by his
assistant, which he signed without reading, and only for the purpose of
explaining to Hilado why his firm rejected the case.
David is the judge trying the case who dismissed the complaint for
disqualification against Francisco. Said judge reasoned that no attorneyclient relationship existed between Hilado and Francisco.
Issue:
Was there an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado?
Should Atty Francisco be disqualified from representing Assad?
Held:
The firm of Francisco mailed a written opinion to Hilado on the merits of the case
(with Franciscos signature); this opinion was reached on the basis of papers
submitted at his office; and that Hilados purpose in submitting those papers was
to secure Franciscos professional services. From these ultimate facts, an
attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado can be said to have
ensued.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should

have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not
necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for;
neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the
case about which the consultation was had. When a person consults with his
attorney in his professional capacity with the view of obtaining professional
advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such
consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established.
The existence of attorney-client relationship precludes the attorney from
representing (and receiving a retainer from) the opposite party in the same case.
An information professionally obtained by an attorney from a client is sacred to
the employment to which it pertains, and to permit it be used in the interest of
another, or in the interest of the adverse party is to strike at the element of
confidence which forms the basis of an attorney-client relationship.
The rule inhibiting an attorney from acting in behalf of both parties is implied in
the Rules of Court (wala pang codified codes of professional responsibility noon).
The defense that Francisco never read the written opinion nor the documents
submitted by Hilado will not preclude the existence of an attorney-client
relationship. The fact remains that his firm did give Hilado a formal professional
advice from which emerged the relation. The letter binds and estops him in the
same manner and degree as if he wrote it personally. And an information obtained
from a client by a member or assistant of the firm is information imparted to the
firm.
The failure to object to counsels appearance does not operate as a waiver of the
right to ask for counsels disqualification.
Motion for disqualification against Attorney Francisco should be allowed.
*A retaining fee (just in case itanong) is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or
counsel to insure and secure his future services, and induce him to act for the
client.
136 REGALA v SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
Petitioners in this case and private respondent Roco were all then partners
of the law firm Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices
(commonly known as ACCRA)

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
ACCRA performed services for clients which included acquiring and/or

organizing business associations and/or organizations where it acted as
incorporators or simply as stockholders
As members of the law firm, petitioners and Roco admit that they assisted
in the organization and acquisition of companies included in Civil Case No.
0033. In keeping with the office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as
nominees-stockholders. Anong kalokohan yan?
o Civil Case No. 0033 RP v. Eduardo Cojuangco et. al., for the
recovery of ill-gotten wealth, which includes shares of stock in certain
corporations
PCGG later on filed a motion to admit 3 rd amended complaint, which
excluded Roco in Civil Case 33 as party defendant. PCGG was removing
Roco because Roco was going to make choochoo and reveal the identity of
the principals.
The ACCRA lawyers then filed a comment and/or opposition saying that they
should also be removed the way that Roco was.
PCGG then said that it will ask for their exclusion only if they will also
disclose the identity of their clients
During the proceedings, Roco did not actually reveal the identity of the
client for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder
The ACCRA lawyers motion for exclusion was denied (they refused to
comply with the PCGGs offer) by the PCGG and the court. Hence, this
motion for certiorari
Issue:
W/N the ACCRA lawyers should be excluded from the case
Held:
Yes. It is apparent that the ACCRA lawyers were only impleaded to force
them to disclose the identity of their clients.
PCGG has no valid cause of action
Issue:
W/N the attorney-client privilege prohibits the ACCRA lawyers from
revealing the identity of their clients
Held:
General rule: a clients identity should not be shrouded in mystery
o Exceptions: where a strong probability exists that revealing the
clients name would implicate that client in the very activity for which
he sought the lawyers advice
o Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability
o Where revealing the identity would furnish the only link that would be
necessary to convict an individual of a crime
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Suing the lawyer to force him to disclose the identity of his client in any of
these instances is improper and the suit, upon motion, may be dismissed on
such ground.
The prosecution should rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the
weakness of the defense
Roco merely stated that he was acting as nominee-stockholder for the client
and is part of legitimate lawyering. The ACCRA lawyers also made such
statement and should also be dropped.
the relation of attorney and client is strictly personal and highly confidential
and fiduciary
the lawyer is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses
special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client
137 PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts: Honrada was the clerk of court and acting stenographer of the First MCTC.
Paredes was the Provincial Attorney of Agusan. Sansaet was the counsel of
Paredes.
It appears that Paredes applied for a free patent and Certificate of Title over a lot.
It was initially approved, but the Director of lands subsequently filed for the
cansellation of the patent and title on the ground that the land had been reserved
as a school site. The lower court ruled to nullify the patent and title after finding
out that Paredes obtained the same through fraudulent misrepresentations.
An information for perjury was filed against Paredes. However, the fiscal directed
the Deputy Minister of Justice to move for the dismissal of the case on the ground
of prescription. After some time, Gelacio, the one who filed the perjury case, sent
a letter to the OMB seeking the investigation of the 3 personalities for falsification
of public documents. The alleged falsified documents were documents purporting
to be a notice of arraignment and stenographic notes supposedly taken during
the arraignment of the perjury charge.
In a sudden turn of events, Atty. Sansaet revealed that Paredes contrived to have
the graft case dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy by making it appear
that the perjury case had been dismissed by the trial court . Atty. Sansaet was, in
effect, asking to be a state witness against Paredes. However, the OMB denied
the request of Atty. to be a state witness on the ground that the confession made
by Paredes to Atty. was privileged communication.
Issue: W/N the confession made by Paredes to Atty. is privileged communication.
Held: The confession made by Paredes is not covered by privileged
communication.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
This case is actually an exception to the rule. It can be assumed that there was
confidential information made by Paredes to Sansaet in connection with the
falsification case, because Sansaet was the counsel.
A distinction must be made between communications relating to past crimes
already committed, and future crimes intended to be committed by the client. It is
true that by now those crimes had already been committed. But for the
application of the atty.-client privilege to apply, the period to be considered is the
date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the atty. In
other words, if the client seeks the advice of the atty. with respect to a crime
already committed at the time of the communication, it is privileged information.
But if the client consults the atty. regarding a crime he is about to commit after
the consultation, such is not privileged information.
In the present case, the confession made by Paredes to Sansaet were in reference
to a crime of falsification which had not yet been committed in the past by
Paredes but which he later committed. Having been made for purposes of a future
offense, those communications are outside the pale of the atty.-client privilege.
Besides, for the rule to attach, the purpose of the consultation must be for a
lawfule purpose. Without the lawful purpose, the privilege does not attach.
138 NGAYAN v TUGADE
Facts:
-Ngayan asked Tugade to prepare and affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint
against Soriano and Leonido as a consequence of the latters entry into
complainants dwelling. Ngayan signed the affidavit without thoroughly reading it
but she noticed one paragraph which did not mention that Leonido was with
Soriano when they both barged into complainants residence.
-Upon being informed of this omission, Tugade crossed out the said paragraph.
Ngayan asked Tugade to make another affidavit and the latter promised to do so.
-Ngayan discharged Tugade as their counsel and found out that Tugade did not
include the name of Leonido in the criminal case filed.
-When the omission was remedied by their new counsel, the adverse parties filed
a motion for reinvestigation through their counsel, Atty. Gaminda, who was a
former classmate of Tugade.
-Tugade was also a lawyer of the brother of Leonido in an insurance company.
-In the hearing for the motion for reinvestigation, the adverse parties in affidavit
which Tugade prepared for Ngayan, with one paragraph crossed out. Tugade
himself presented an affidavit controverting the discarded affidavit which he
prepared for Ngayan.
-Thus Ngayan charged Tugade for violation of paragraphs (e) and (f), Sec.20, Rule
138 Rules of Court
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
(e) to maintain inviolate the confidenceand to preserve the secrets of his

client
(f) to abstain from all offensive personality..against a party or witness
Issue: W/N Tugade must be disciplined for violation of the said Rule
HELD: YES, he is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.
-When Tugade furnished the adverse parties with a copy of the discarded
affidavit, thus enabling the adverse parties to use it as evidence against
complainants, he betrayed the trust and confidence of his clients in violation of
paragraph (e) Sec.20 Rule 138
-Tugades actuations from the beginning show that he was partial to the adverse
parties. This could be explained by the fact that he was a former classmate of
Atty.Gaminda, the adverse parties counsel, and also by the fact that he was the
lawyer of Leonidos brother in an insurance company.
-Tugade submitted an affidavit containing facts prejudicial to his former client
such as the fact that the crime charged by Ngayan had already prescribed, and
that Ngayan asked him to make the offense more grave to prevent the offense
from prescribing. This constitutes an act of offensive personality against
complainants, violative of par.(f) Sec.20 Rule 138.
139 PFLEIDER v PALANCA
FACTS:
- Palanca is the lawyer of Pfleider.
- Pfleider leased to Palanca an agricultural land, Hacienda Asia in Negros
Occidental for a period of 10 years
- It is stipulated in the lease agreement that a specified portion of the lease
rentals would be paid to Pfleider and the remainder would be delivered by
Palanca to the listed creditors of Pfleider
- Pfleider filed a suit for the rescission of the lease agreement of the ground
of alleged default in the payment of rentals of Palanca.
- Pfleider also filed for the disbarment of Palanca on the grounds of:
o Palanca did not follow the instructions of Pfleider to settle his estafa
case against Matiao in 1965 and the latter also failed to deposit the
sum of P5,000 with the court
o Palanca has fraudulently charged the P5,000 as part of the lease
rental of the Hacienda Asia
o Palanca also falsely represented having paid one Guintos the sum of
P866 for the account of Pfleider when in truth and in fact, Guintos
only received P86
o The list of creditors which Pfleider has confidentially supplied Palanca
was disclosed by Palance in violation of their attorney-client
relationship
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
ISSUE:
- W/N Palanca committed a breach of fidelity owing form a lawyer to his client
HELD:
- NO!
- There is no substantial blame against Palanca inasmuch as the latters
services were implicitly terminated by Pfleider when he sued his lawyer.
- While the object of the suit is the rescission of the lease contract, the
conflict of interest became incompatible with the mutual confidence and
trust essential to every lawyer-client relationship.
- Also, Pfleider delivered the list of creditors to Palanca not because of the
professional relation then existing between them, but on account of the
lease agreement. A violation thereof would partake more of a private and
civil wrong than of a breach of fidelity owing from a lawyer to his client.
140 MERCADO v VITRIOLO
FACTS:
Rosa F. Mercado (complainant) is a Senior Education Program Specialist of
CHED. Atty. Vitriolo is a Deputy Executive Director IV of CHED.
Complainants husband filed an annulment case entitled Ruben Mercado v.
Rosa Francisco. The case was dismissed.
Complainants counsel later on died. Atty. Vitriolo substituted the counsel
who just died.
Later on, Atty. Vitriolo filed a criminal action against complainant.
(falsification of documents: birth certificates of her children, making it
appear that she was married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez when in fact
she was legally married to Ruben Mercado.
Complainant alleged that the criminal complaint disclosed confidential facts
and information relating to the civil case for annulment. She claims that in
filing the criminal case, respondent is guilty of breaching their privileged
and confidential relationship.
4 years later, the results of the investigation recommended that Vitriolo is
indeed guilty and should be suspended for a month. Complainant then
wrote Justice Davide that she is desisting from pursuing the case because
she has found it in her heart to forgive respondent. Such desistance has no
bearing.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Vitriolo is indeed guilty of violating the privilege and confidential
relationship of attorney-client relationship
HELD:
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
NO. Case dismissed.

Complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence
disclosed by respondent. All her claims were couched in general terms and
lacked specificity.
Court cannot be involved in a guessing game as to the existence of facts
which the complainant must prove.
The confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the
rule on privileged communication.
Burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party
asserting the privilege.
141 GENATO v SILAPAN

FACTS:
- Complaint for disbarment filed by William Ong Genato against Atty. Essex
Silapan
- The various criminal and civil cases were not discussed, because it was left for
the trial courts to decide. (Genato lent Silapan money to purchase a new car.
Silapan mortgaged his house and lot. When SIlapan failed to pay, GEnato sought
the foreclosure of the mortgage and tried to encash a postdated check issued by
Silapan, which subsequently bounced.) The Court, in this case, cannot sanction
Atty. Silapan
for his issuance of a bouncing check.
- When Genato filed a BP 22 case against Atty. Silapan, the latter alleged in his
answer that during the previous case (criminal case), Genato wanted Atty Silapan
to offer bribe money to members of DOJ, even the prosecutor, and presiding
judge. Atty. SIlapan refused since such acts are immoral and illegal but also
because 'the complainant confided to him that he was really involved in the
commission of the crime
that was charged'.
ISSUE: WoN Atty. Silapan committed a breach of trust and confidence by imputing
to Genato illegal practices and disclosing alleged intention to bribe govt officials
in connection with a pending case?
HELD: NO. The privilege against disclosure of confidential communications or
information is limited only to communications which are legitimately and properly
within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those
made in contemplation of a crime or perpetuation of a fraud. A lawyer is not a
gun for hire.
ISSUE: WoN disclosures were indispensable to protect Atty. Silapan's rights
because they were pertinent to the foreclosure case

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
HELD: NO. It was improper for the respondent to use it against Genato in the
foreclosure case because it was not the subject matter of litigation and ATty.
SIlapan's professional competence and legal advice were not being attacked in
that case. A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his
clients, with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. (Atty Silapan was
ordered 1 year suspension)
142 BACARRO v CA
FACTS:
Bacarro is the registered owner of a lot located in Cagayan de Oro city. He claims
that he was compelled by the Municipal Judge of Baungin, Bukidnon to appear
before the judge's ofice and then and there coerced and forced, under threat of
prosecution and loss said
land, to execute a deed of reconveyance of 1/2 of the land to Gaerlan. Bacarro
then filed a complaint for the annulment of said deed of reconveyance.
Atty Luminarias and Caballero entered their appearance, in said cas as counsel of
Bacarro in collaboration with Atty Pacana.
The judge of the lower court ordered an amendment to th complaint of Bacarro.
Mrs. Gaerlan filed a written manifestation inviting attention to the fact that
petittoner Bacarro had not complied with said order. The judge then issued an
order dismissing the
complaint.
A motion for new trial/ reconsideration was filed by Atty Caballero on behalf of
Bacarro. Motion was denied in an order issued by the judge dated November 14,
1966. Notice of said order was not received by Atty Caballero until March 15,
1967, on which date he
filed a notice of appeal. Gaerlan objected to the approval of said notice of appeal,
upon the ground that the period to appeal should be reckoned from Nov 14, 1966,
when a copy of the order was served upon Atty Pacana. On this allegation, the
motion was dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not period to appeal from order denyingh motion for new trial/
reconsideration began to run on Nov 14, 1966, when a copy of said order was
served upon Pacana, or on March 16, 1967, when notice was served upon Atty
Caballero.
HELD:
March 16, 1967.
This is not a case of substitution. By entering his appearnce, Atty Caballero did
not substitute Atty Pacana but became one of the attorneys for Bacarro. Neither
did Atty Caballero substitute or try to substitute Atty Pacana. The statement in
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
the motion for reconsideration to the effect that, through Atty Caballero,
petitioner Bacarro, "after duly relieving his previous counsel moved for the
reconsideration of
the order, had the effect of continuig the services of Caballero and dropping
Pcana. (walang substitution... sabay silang lawyer tapos na-terminate ung
employment ni Pacana...)
Whether Bacarro could - as regards the Court of Gaerlan - validly dispense with
the services of Pacana, without securing his consent, or without proof that he had
been notified of Bacarro's motion for reconsideration...
HELD:
YES. Client may at any time dismiss his attorney. The relatioship between
Bacarro and Pacana ceased to exist from the filing of the motion for
reconsideration/ new trial, insofar as the court is concerned and form receipt of
copy thereof by Atty Salcedo, insofar as Gaerlan was concerned.
143 PEOPLE v CASIMIRO
Facts:
Atty. Manuel Sanglay was filed an administrative complaint for his failure to
file a brief within the reglementary period for his clients Benjamin Icalla,
Rodolfo Soriano and Benjamin Cinco.
Sanglay was given 10 days from Feb 3, 1972 to explain, but his explanation
came at the end of the month.
He absolved himself from any blame as, in his view, no fault could be
attributed to him.
According to him, he contacted the parents of the appellants. It was
mentioned to him that another lawyer whose services presumably were
hired by the parents of appellants Icalla and Cinco.
Sanglay then reminded them that failure to file the (appellants) brief would
mean automatic withdrawal of the appeal.
He was then assured that the new lawyer will file the brief, and that as a
token for his hard work, he shoud not withdraw.
Issue:
W/N Sanglay is liable for the late filing of the appellants brief.
Held:
No. (but he is reprimanded)
It was not a willful act on his part.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Nonetheless, the exculpation he seeks cannot be granted. Under the

circumstances, the least that was expected of him was that he would inform the
Tribunal of the developments set forth in his explanation and as that he be
allowed to withdraw as counsel. Such a step he did not take until after the Feb 3
resolution.
It did not wipe out the previous manifestation of negligence on his part. He
cannot therefore escape liability.
144 BICOL FEDERATION v CUYUGAN
Facts:
Certain members of the Bicol Federation of Labor were hired by Doa
Jacinta Cuyugan to clear her land and plant coconut seedlings on it. These
planters were also allowed to plant other crops over the land.
When the coconut trees bore fruit, the planters were being given half of 1/3
of the harvest. But the custom in the area was that the planter and the
owner should share 50-50 in case the owner would not give monetary
payment to the planters.
During the harvesting, the agent of the owner of the land hired other
people. This, in effect, was ousting the planters and preventing them from
claiming their rightful compensation.
Bicol Federation of Labor, in behalf of its individual members, filed an action
before the Agrarian court to change their arrangement with the owner from
sharing to a lease-hold system. Such desired arrangement would enable
them to have a wider area to cultivate and with the least intervention by
the landowners agents.
During the pendency of the action, counsel for Bicol FederationAtty
Quirico Fabuldeclared that his authority to represent the group has been
terminated and that the retainer was in behalf of the individual claimants
and not of the Federation. This fact was used by the defendants (Cuyugans
and the agents) as another defense.
The Agrarian Court dismissed the claim of Bicol Federation solely on the
ground that the action was not within its jurisdiction.
Issue:
Was the action by Bicol Federation within the competence of the Agrarian Court?
(Ethics iss
ue) Can Atty Fabul still represent the claimants despite the dismissal of his
services (by Bicol Federation)?
Held:
Yes, the Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction. Under the Code of Agrarian
Reforms, and considering the policy and objectives of such legislation, the
Agrarian Courts has jurisdiction over issues involving an individual(s) claiming for
compensation from a landowner.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
(the relevant issue)

Yes, Atty Fabul can represent the claimants in this case despite the declared
termination. This is one of those rare instances where an attorney, whose
authority has been terminated by his client, may be allowed to continue his
representation. To prevent failure or miscarriage of justice and pursuant to the
provisions of the Rules of Court, the names of the individual claimants should be
added to the complaint under the legal representation of Atty Fabul until and
unless each individual claimant should otherwise manifest before the court.
Case was remanded to the Agrarian Court.
145 DOMINGO SR. v AQUINO
FACTS
Court of First Instance approved money claim of AQUINO against the Estate
of Domingo and ordered Administratrix STA MARIA to pay P20,000 to
AQUINO
Both parties appealed
CA affirmed the ruling of the CFI
Copies of the judgment were sent to ATTY UNSON through registered mail
The new administratrix DE LOPEZ alleges the co-administratrix of STA
MARIA, ATTY DOMINGO, was removed from his trust by the intestate courts
order for having squandered cash so being the one (ATTY DOMINGO) who
engaged the services of ATTY UNSON, the removal of ATTY DOMINGO is in
effect the removal of ATTY UNSON as counsel of the estate
DE LOPEZ prays that the clerk of court be directed to serve a copy of the CA
judgment on her counsel instead of ATTY UNSON
(In other words, yun court nagsend ng copy ng decision ng ca kay atty unson
pero sabi ng estate hindi valid yun pagsend ng notice kasi hindi na nila lawyer
si atty unson at the time notice was served)
ISSUE
VALID
HELD
W/N SERVICE OF THE JUDGMENT ON ATTY UNSON WAS

YES, EVEN IF ESTATE CLAIMS THAT ATTY UNSON WAS NOT
THEIR LAWYER AT THE TIME COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WAS
SENT, ABSENCE OF MANIFESTATION OR NOTICE OF DISCHARGE
FILED WITH THE COURT MAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE SENT TO THE
COUNSEL OF RECORD BINDING UPON THE CLIENT
RATIO
Records show that ATTY UNSON was the counsel of record of the ESTATE OF
DOMINGO in the appellate court and never filed any withdrawal as such counsel.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Even after the removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administrator of the estate, ATTY
UNSON filed in the appellate court his memorandum for the estate.
Moreover, while it may be true that ATTY UNSON ceased as counsel for the estate
and for the former administrator when the intestate court granted his motion to
withdraw as counsel by virtue of his appointment to and assumption of public
office of Assistant Administrator of the Sugar Quota Administration, this was true
only as far as the intestate court was concerned. He continued on record in the
appellate court and did not file any withdrawal as counsel. In addition to that, no
appearance of new counsel for the estate was ever filed.
It follows that since notice and copy of the appellate courts decision were served
by registered mail on the estates counsel of record ATTY UNSON and the latter
failed to claim his mail on the 5th day after the first notice of the postmaster, such
service was deemed completed and effected and binding upon the client, in this
case the Estate of Domingo.
As to the contention that removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administratrix means
removal of ATTY UNSON as the estates counsel because ATTY DOMINGO was the
one who engaged the services of ATTY UNSON, the fact that ATTY UNSONS
services were engaged by ATTY DOMINGO in his official capacity as administrator,
did not make ATTY UNSON his personal counsel. ATTY UNSON continued to be
authorized to represent the estate as its counsel until the new administrator
DOMINGO DE LOPEZ should terminate his services which she never did.
JUDGMENT
SC: ATTY REGINO (petitioners counsel in this case) is reminded that cooperation
of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the court
dockets with unmeritorious cases may be avoided. Hence, petition is dismissed
and ATTY REGINO is ordered to pay treble costs.
146 AQUINO v BLANCO
Facts:
- Petitioners Santiago Aquio and Dionisia Aguirre filed a complaint against
Dominga Salveron in the CFI, which the petitioners won.
- Salveron was represented in that case by Atty. Basilio Sorioso. Atty. Sorioso
was appointed as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo on Feb. 11, 1947.
- Despite the appointment, the judgment in the earlier mentioned case was
served on Atty. Sorioso.
- Salveron was only informed of the judgment on Mar. 26, 1947 when a writ
of execution was served on him.
- Salveron then filed a petition to vacate said writ of execution. This was
granted by Judge Blanco.
Issue:

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
W/n the service of judgment made on Atty. Sorioso constitutes service upon
his client, Salveron.
Held:
- SC says NO.
- When Attorney Sorioso was appointed to the position of assistant provincial
fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law he ceased to engage in
private law practice, and as a consequence he became simultaneously
disqualified to continue representing his former client, the herein
respondent Dominga Salveron, in the above-mentioned case. So that in
contemplation of law the notice of the decision upon him on February 11,
1947, was not a notice upon said respondent, and the period for perfecting
an appeal on the part of the latter in reality did not then commence to run
but only, if at all, when she acquired knowledge of said decision upon the
service on her of the writ of execution on March 26, 1947.
147 WACKWACK GOLF v CA
Facts: Arcangel, a former employee of Wack Wack (WW), filed with the CFI a
money claim case for overtime services rendered to WW, for unenjoyed vacation,
moral damages, and atty.s fees. At the hearing of the case, neither WW nor its
counsel, Balcoff et. al., appeared, despite notification. As a result, the lower court
rendered judgment in favor of Arcangel.
The firm of Chuidian, on behalf of WW, filed a petition to set aside the judgment
on the ground of mistake, misunderstanding, and excusable neglect. According
to the firm of Chuidian, WW was first represented by Balcoff et. al. Thereafter,
WW decided to replace Balcoff et. al. with the Chuidian Law Office. When the
representative of Chuidian went to the firm of Balcoff to inform the latter of the
replacement, Mr. Balcoff was not in the office. Atty. Cruz of Balcoff et. al. declared
that he had no authority to turn over the records of the case to Chuidian Law
Office. As a result, Atty. Chuidian called Atty. Balcoff. Atty. Chuidian said that,
inasmuch as Balcoff et. al. was still representing the WW, the Chuidian Law Office
will send a representative on the hearing day. However, no representative from
the Chuidian Law Office came. (This is the misunderstanding that was mentioned
above. Balcoff thought that Chuidian will be the one to appear instead of him.
Issue: W/N the judgment in favor of Arcangel should be set aside based on
misunderstanding.
Held: The judgment should not be set aside. Misunderstanding alibi not
accepted.
The law firm of Balcoff and Cruz was still WWs counsel of record, because the
firm of Chuidian only entered appearance after the date of the hearing mentioned
above. As such counsel of record, Balcoff et. al. must have known that it is under
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
obligation to protect WWs interest until its final release from the professional
relationship.
The lack of coordination and understanding between the two law firms cannot be
considered a legal excuse within the ambit of excusable negligence.
148 AMPIL v AGRAVA
Facts:
-Ampil was the counsel for Angela Perez in several cases. The principal cases
handled by Ampil were filed in the CFI by Angelas husband and son, Antonio and
Benigno Perez, asking that Angela be placed under guardianship and that a
suitable person be appointed to administer her properties. Later on, the parties
submitted to court, which dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. This
dismissal was affirmed by SC.
-A case was later filed by Antonio and Benigno with the domestic court of Manila,
seeking the courts approval of the compromise agreement. The domestic court
dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because the case
which was to be settled amicably by the compromise agreement had already
been dismissed by CFI as affirmed by SC.
-Ampil asserts that Angela terminated his services as counsel without just cause
and without paying him for his profiessional services, for which he presented his
bill and asserted his retaining lien over the three titles entrusted to him by Angela
in the course of his professional employment.
-Eventually, the compromise agreement mentioned above was approved by the
Supreme Court. Benigno and Antonio thus filed a case to obtain the titles held by
Ampil. They claimed that the attorneys lien must be exercised over the
properties belonging to Angela, not over the properties belonging to them in the
compromise agreement. They also argued that the compromise agreement was
entered into 8 years before Ampil was discharged as Angelas counsel, besides,
Ampil took a position adverse to them by seeking to have the compromise
agreement annulled. They concluded that Ampil was therefore bound by the
compromise agreement.
Issue:
W/N whether Ampil has a right to keep his retaining lien over the said titles until
his services are paid for.
Held: YES.
-Three elements of attorneys retaining lien were met: 1) lawyer-client
relationship; 2) lawful possession of the clients funds, documents, and papers;
and 3) unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees.
-Ampil obtained possession of the titles when they still belonged to his client
Angela. It was only when Angela later on confirmed the compromise agreement
that it became valid. The transfer of the properties to Antonio and Benigno could
not retroact to the time the compromise was originally executed.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
-The situation would be different where title to the property is the very subject in
dispute in the case and the court adjudges the clients adversary to be rightfully
entitled thereto. In such as case the titles to the property could not be said to be
properties of the client. The attorney may enforce his lien only over the
properties of his client and not against those of his clients adversary.
-Petitioner is in no way interfering with the taking possession of the properties
and enjoyment of the fruits thereof. All that petitioner asserts and exercises is his
passive lien of retaining the muniments of title thereto. Such retention only
impedes the corresponding registration and transfer of titles to respondents.
149 MATUTE v MATUTE
FACTS:
Jose Matute filed an action against the administrator Matias Matute.
Jose is asking Matias to surrender 17 titles to various properties of the
estate
Probate court granted the prayer of Jose and ordere3d the surrender of the
titles
Matias and his counsel Atty. Canlas appealed the decision
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Canlas may be compelled to surrender the titles even though he
was not yet paid his fees
HELD:
NO!
An attorney is entitled to retain documents in the case pending settlement
of attorneys fees.
Sec 37 of Rule 138 provides that attorneys cannot be compelled to
surrender the documents in his possession without prior proof that his fees
has been duly satisfied
But the court may require the attorney to deliver the papers in his
possession provided that the client files proper security for the attorneys
compensation
150 RUSTIA v ABETO
FACTS:
Atty. Rustia filed this case to annul orders of the CFI of Manila in the case of
Intestate Estate of Antonio de la Riva.
Atty. Rustia was the counsel of respondent, Milagros Schmid, the
administrator of the intestate estate.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
When Rustia was relieved as attorney, he sent a bill for P32,330. He wanted
to have a lien over all funds and documents that he is currently holding for
the administrator.
CFI of Manila ordered Atty. Rustia to hand over the certificate of a land. Atty.
Rustia is objecting saying that he has a lien over the TCT for his professional
fees.
CFI nonetheless still went on with its previous order. Atty. Rustia obeyed the
order. And then this case was filed.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Rustia has a valid lien over the documents in his possession
HELD:
YES. An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents, and papers
of his client which have lawfully come into his possession, and may retain
the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and may
apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.
The general or retaining lien of an attorney is dependent upon the
possession and does not attach to anything not in the attorneys hands.
The courts may require the attorney to deliver up the papers in his
possession provided the client files proper security for the attorneys
compensation.
151 METROPOLITAN BANK v CA
FACTS:
- ANTECEDAL FACTS (up to you guys kung gusto nyo basahin tong paragraph na
toh... not pertinent to our lesson): Celedonio Javier bought 7 parcels of land
owned by Eustaqio Alejandro. Javier mortgaged with Metrobank the lots to secure
a loan of Bautista?Int'l
Hotel Corp. Metrobank foreclosed on the properties. Alejandro alleged fraud in the
sale, and brought suits against Javier and Metrobank. During the pendency of
these suits, Metrobank sold lots to Service Leasing, resold to Herby Commercial,
which mortgaged the same
to Banco de Oro.
- Arturo Alfariz and Associates handled the civil cases of Metrobank. All the civil
cases were for the declaration of nullity of certain deeds of sale, with damages.
The lawyers did not have any knowledge of any of the transfers made by
Metrobank. They filed a
motion to enter its charging lien (25% of the actual and current market values of
the litigated properties as its attys fees.) Despite due notice, Metrobank failed to
appear and oppose, so the RD annotated the atty's liens on the TCTs.
- Alejandro (plaintiffs) filed a motion to dismiss which was granted with prejudice
to the earlier order of annotation. The lawyers filed a motion to fix the atty's fees
based on quantum meruit. CA affiremed order to Metrobank to pay ALfariz and
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
ASsociates attys
fees.
ISSUE: WoN lawyers are entitled to atty's fees
HELD: NO
RATIO:
1. A charging lien to be enforceable requires as a condition sine qua non a
judgment for money and execution in pursuance of such judgment. In the case at
bar, the civil cases were dismissed upon the initiative of the plaintiffs "in view of
the full
satisfaction of their claims". The dismissal neither provided for any money
judgment nor made any monetary award to any litigant. The charging lien was
WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS.
2. The lien of respondent is not of a nature which attached to the property in
litigation but is at most a personal claim enforceable by a writ of execution.
3. While a client cannot defeat an atty's right to his charging lien by dismissing
the case, terminating the services of his counsel, waiving his cause or interest in
favor of the adverse party or compromising his action, this rule cannot find
application here as the termination of the cases was not at the instance of the
client, but of the opposing party.
4. There is an obvious necessity for a hearing because the persons who are
entitled to or who must pay attys fees have the right to be heard upon the
question of propriety or amount.
5. Regarding American jurisprudence stating a contrary rule - the Court held that
in the absence of a statute or special agreement providing otherwise, the general
rule is that an atty has no lien on the land
152 DORONILA-TIOSECO v CA
FACTS:
AS a result of dispute among the heirs of the late Alfonso Doronila and their
counsel Ramon Gonzales, over his claim for attorney's fees, the RTC denied the
heirs' Motion to Cancel Attorney's lien and declare Ramon Gonzales entitiled to
10% of the shares of the heirs of the late Doronila. Both of the parties appealed
the decision.
Ramon Gonzales filed a motion to annotate attorney's lien, praying that his
attorney's lien be annotated on the title of parcels of land of the estate which the
heirs had inherited.
Administrator of the estate opposed the said motion by contending that an
attorney's lien does not extend to land and that the proper remedy is attachment.
Trial court granted the counsel's motion for annotation.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
ISSUE:
W/n an attorney's lien extends to land...
HELD:
"We have ruled that an attorney's lien does not extend to land which is the
subject matter of the litigation." (eto lang yung sinabi sa case... ung mga prior
cases, applicable...)
ISSUE:
W/n the trial court retained jurisdiction to grand Ramon Gonzales' Motion to
Annotate Attorney's lien on the title of the parcels of land of the estate after the
perfection of the appeal of both the petitioners and respondent from the order
declaring Ramon Gonzales entitled to attorney' fees...
HELD:
Trial court has no jurisdiction. Motion was filed long after they have perfected
their appeals, therefore the trial court had no more jurisdiction.
153 GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS v NALDOZA
Facts:
Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. filed a disbarment case against
Atty. Promo Naldoza, their former counsel.
Naldoza appealed a decision of the POEA. In line with this, Gatchalian
assers that the disbarments should prosper since Naldoza committed the ff
acts:
o Appealing a decision, knowing that the same was already final and
executory
o Deceitfully obtaining two thousand, five hundred and fifty-five US
dollars (US$2,555) from complainant, allegedly for cash bond in the
appealed case
o Issuing a spurious receipt to conceal his illegal act.
Naldoza was claimed to ask for a Cash Bond in UNITED STATES DOLLAR
amounting to TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE (U.S. $2,555.00)
(for payment) to the Supreme Court in order that the said appealed case
could be heard or acted upon by the Supreme Court.
Gatchalian came to know that there was no such Cash Bond paid to the SC,
and in fact, the fees were only nominal (P622). Moreover, the receipt that
Naldoza presented to Gatchalian which allegedly emanated from the SC
was spurious.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
An estafa case was filed against Naldoza. It was later on dismissed, but he
was held liable for the amount of $2,555.
Naldoza seeks that he not be suspended in the practice of law.
Issue:
W/N Atty Naldoza should be punished for his acts?
Held:
Yes.
Atty. Primo Naldoza is DISBARRED, not just suspended.
On the first issue:
o Complainant has failed to present proof regarding the status of the
appeal. Neither has there been any showing that the appeal was
dismissed on the ground that the POEA Decision had become final
and executory. Worse, there has been no evidence that respondent
knew that the case was unappealable. Indeed, the records of this
Court shows that the Petition for Review was dismissed for
petitioners (Gatchalians) failure to submit an Affidavit of Service and
a legible duplicate of the assailed Order. Clearly, this charge has no
leg to stand on.
On the next two issues:
o When Naldoza paid P10,000 and issued a check to complainant as his
moral obligation, he indirectly admitted the charge. Normally, this
is not the actuation of one who is falsely accused of appropriating the
money of another. This is an admission of misconduct. (RC Note:
Naldoza claims that Gatchalian owes him P180T in attorneys fees,
and after accounting, he paid him P10T as his moral obligation)
o the amount of $2,555 was not a part of his attorneys lien. He
demanded the money from his client on the pretext that it was
needed for the Petition before the Supreme Court, but he actually
converted it to his personal gain.
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.
154 VDA DE BARRERA v LAPUT
Facts:
Casiano Laput was Nieves Rillas Vda de Barreras counsel in the settlement
proceedings for the estate of de Barreras husband.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
One time, Laput presented a Notice for Rendition of Final Accounting and
Partition of Estate to de Barrera. Barrerra refused to signed and asked
Laput to just leave the document in order that she may ask someone to
interpret it for her.
But Laput became angry and even placed a revolver on the lap of de
Barrera (who actually was 72 years old). This compelled the old lady to sign
the document.
Laput denied the charges
Issue:
Should Laput be disciplined?
Held:
Naku po naman! Of course. Laput was suspended for 1 year.
It was found by the court that the documents were made by the counsel to end
the proceedings and be able to collect his fees. The act of placing the gun on the
clients lap cannot be interpreted other than as an act of threatening such client.
Laputs acts were improper and censurable (especially considering that de
Barrerra was 72 years old). Being a member of the Bar, Laput should have set the
example as a man of peace and a champion of the Rule of Law. An attorneys
client is a person who is supposed to be defended and protected by such counsel.
155 BARRIENTOS v DAAROL
FACTS
Victoria BARRIENTOS is single, a college student and about 20 years and 7
months old during her relationship with Transfiguracion DAVID, a lawyer and the
General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative who was about 40
years old and married to SUMAYLO.
Flashback Parang sine
DAVID had been known by the BARRIENTOS family for quite sometime being the
former student of Victoria BARRIENTOS father and a former classmate of Victoria
BARRIENTOS mother. DAVID courted BARRIENTOS and after a week of courtship,
BARRIENTOS accepted DAVIDS love. At this time, DAVID was separated from his
wife for 16 years.
BARRIENTOS, with her parents permission, was DAVIDS partner during the
Chamber Commerce affair. After the event and before going home, they parked
the jeep at the beach and after the usual preliminaries (what a term), they
consummated the sexual act. This was their set up until BARRIENTOS got
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
pregnant. DAVID suggested abortion but BARRIENTOS disagreed. During her

pregnancy until she gave birth, it was BARRIENTOS family who took care of her.
BARRIENTOS then filed an administrative case against DAVID with the National
Electrification Administration which was however dismissed. Hence, the present
petition.
ISSUE
HELD
W/N DAVID SHOULD BE DISBARRED

YES, LACK GOOD MORAL CHARACTER --- A CONTINUING
REQUIREMENT TO BE ABLE TO PRACTICE LAW
RATIO
From the records, it is indubitable that BARRIENTOS was never informed by DAVID
of his real status as a married individual. The fact of his previous marriage was
disclosed by DAVID only after BARRIENTOS became pregnant. Moreover, DAVID
misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-marry for having been separated
from his wife for 16 years and even dangled a marriage proposal.
Interestingly enough, DAVID lived alone in Dipolog City though his son also
studies in the same area. Moreover, he never introduced his son and went around
with his friends as though he was never married. These circumstances belie
DAVIDS claim that the BARRIENTOS family knew about his marital status at the
very start of the courtship.
But what surprises the Court is the perverted sense of DAVIDS moral values when
he said that I see nothing wrong with this relationship despite my being
married. Worse, he even suggested abortion.
The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to the
exacting standards of mental and moral fitness. DAVID having exhibited debased
morality, the Court is constrained to impose upon him the most severe
disciplinary action --- disbarment.
156 FLORES v CHUA
Facts:
- Ban Hua Flores seeks the disbarment of Atty. Enrique Chua on the following
grounds:
o Chua notarized a deed of sale which contains the forged signature of
Chua Beng (CB). The wife of CB says that CB could not have signed
the deed because she was with CB the whole time before his death.
Flores points out that Chua notarized the deed even if CB did not
appear personally.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
o Chua falsified a petition filed with the SEC in order to molest and
harass Flores. Apparently, Chua altered the petition to apply for a
notice of lis pendens over the property of Flores. But, his plan failed
because the register of deeds denied his application.
o Chua caused the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
the Visayas of a portion of a SEC decision which ordered complainant
and others to pay 68 million. In these publications, Chua was always
in the forefront claiming to e the lawyer of the winning parties.
However, this publication is false because the order had not yet
become final, it was still pending appeal. In his defense, Chua
submitted evidence to show that a complaint for libel filed by Flores
against him was dismissed by the prosecutors office.
o Chua had already and has the propensity to bribe judges to gain a
favorable judgment. Flores further alleges that there is a pattern of
conduct on the part of Chua that tends towards the frustration of
justice. Chua apparently uses dilatory tactics and has been
reprimanded before.
o Chua is also charged with forum shopping.
Issue:
- W/n Chua is guilty of these acts and should be disbarred.
Held:
- SC says YES. Chua is disbarred
- On the first ground, SC finds Chua guilty of notarizing the deed of sale
which contains a forged signature. Chua failed to exercise the required
diligence and fealty to his office by attesting to the fact that CB appeared
before him and signed the deed when in truth and in fact said person did
not do so. This is clearly a violation of the duties of a notary public to
certify that the person signing the instrument is known to him and that he is
the same person who executed it.
- There was no basis for the second ground but the Court said that his filing
of the application for notice of lis pendens even if he was not counsel for
the petitioners in the SEC case meant that he knew of such case. Thus, he
shouldnt have filed the civil case involving the same issues. His act of
filing the civil case amounted to forum shopping.
- The SC also found sufficient evidence to support the third ground. The
other grounds were dismissed for lack of merit.
- The Court reiterated that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession
by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to
his clients.
157 BERBANO v BARCELONA
Facts: The heirs of Hilapo appointed Atty. Daen as their atty.-in-fact. Atty. Daen
was subsequently arrested by the Muntinlupa police. The heirs of Hilapo tried
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
to look for a lawyer to secure the release of Atty. Daen. The heirs were
recommended to Atty. Barcelona. When the spouses visited Atty. Daen, they
learned that Atty. Daen had decided to engage the services of Atty.
Barcelona. Atty. Barcelona then proceeded to tell the heirs if they could
produce P50K he could secure the release of Atty. Daen the next day.
Because the heirs could not produce the total amount, they merely gave
P15,700.
There were several meetings between the heirs and Atty. Barcelona
regarding the grease money to be used to allegedly bribe an SC justice.
The heirs made another payment via a check worth P24,000. On another
occasion, the heirs went to the house of Atty. Barcelona and gave P10,000.
The total amount given by the heirs to Atty. Barcelona reached P64,000.
Commissioner Bautista found Atty. to be guilty of malpractice and
breach of duty and recommended that he be disbarred.
Issue: W/N Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred.
Held: Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred.
Disbarment proceedings are sui generis. Its intention is to safeguard
the administration of justice by protecting the court and public from the
misconduct of the officers of the court.
In this case, Atty. demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting that
he had connections to secure the release of Atty. Daen. Atty. Barcelona
misrepresented to the complainant that he could get the release of Atty.
Daen with his connection with a Supreme Court Justice. Instead of promoting
respect for law and the legal processes, Atty. Barcelona demeaned the legal
profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of having
connections with a member of this court.
158 TABAS v MANGIBIN
Facts:
-A deed of mortgage was delivered to Hilda Tabas evidencing a real property in La
Union that was mortgaged to her by Galvan. The deed of mortgage was
registered in the Register of Deeds of La Union.
-Subsequently, a certain Lilia Castillejos represented herself as Tabas and
appeared before Mangibin, who was a notary public, and asked the latter to
prepare a discharge of the mortgage and to notarize it afterwards.
-Mangibin prepared the discharge of real estate mortgage without asking
Castillejos for anything to serve as identification except for a Community Tax
Certificate (CTC). This enabled Galvan to mortgage the property again, this time
to a rural bank
-Tabas informed Mangibin that her signature in the questioned discharge of REM
was forged but Mangibin did nothing to help. He even threatened to file a counter
suit against her if she files a case against him.
-Tabas filed this complaint for disbarment.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
-Mangibin admitted that the discharge of REM was a forgery but interposed the
defense that it was beyond the scope of his duty to ascertain the identity of
persons appearing before him, and that he had no available means of
ascertaining their real identities.
Issue:
W/N Mangibin should be held administratively liable for negligence in the
performance of his duty as a notary public to ascertain the identity of the person
appearing before him.
Held:
YES, Mangibin was negligent in performing such duty.
-Notarization is invested with public interest. It converts a private document into
a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.
Such document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts,
administrative agencies, and the public must be able to rely upon an
acknowledgement by a notary public appended to a document.
-A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed
the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before
him to attest to the contents and truth of matters stated in the document.
-Mangibin should have requested other forms of identification or asked questions
to ascertain her identity.
-Mangibin violated the Notarial Law and Canon 1. His notarial commission is
revoked and he is disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2 years.
159 IN RE ALMACEN
FACTS:
Atty Almecen is the counsel of Calero in the case of Yaptinchay vs. Calero
The trial court, after the hearing rendered judgment against his client he moved
for reconsideration (MR) and served copy of the motion to the adverse party but
failed to notify the latter of the date and place of the hearing
In the CA, the court moved to also disamiss the case for the reason that the MR
does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing and is nothing but a
useless piece of paper
The SC refised to tkae the cse and in a minute resolution denied the appeal
It was at this pont that Atty Almacen filed his "PETITION TO SURRENDER
LAWYER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE"
The pleading filed by Atty Almacen is interspersed from beginning to end with
insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and deregoratory remarks agaist
the court, as well as its individual members.
Atty Almacen described the court as "a tribunal peopled by men who are
calloused to our pleas of justice, who ignore without reason thier own applicable
decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. he
also referred to his client as "on who was deeply aggrieved by the court's unjust
judgment" and has become " one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
hypocrisy." He also referred to the member of the court as "justice as

administered by the present members of the SUpreme Court is not only blind, but
also deaf and dumb."
The court asked Atty Almacen to show cause why no disciplinary actions must be
taken against him
Atty Almacen asked that he be given permission permission to give his answer in
an open and public hearing. He reasoned that since the court is the complainant,
prosecutor and judge, he preferred that he answer and be heard in an open and
public hearing sa that the court could observe its sincerity and candor.
The court allowed Atty Almacen to file a written answer and thereafter be heard in
an oral argument
But his written answer offers no apology but is full of sarcasm and innuendo (SEE
PAGE 569-572)
ISSUE:
W/N Atty Almacen is guilty
HELD:
YES! and he is indefinitely suspended until further order form the SC
Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as
citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels
the acts of courts and judges. The decisions of the courta public property and the
press and the people have the undoubted right to comment on them, criticize and
censure them as they see fit.
BUT it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and
shall not spill over the walls of decency and rpopriety. A wide chasm exist
between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and
justices thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation
of the duty of respect to courts. it isn such misconduct that subjects a lawyer to
disciplinary action
In his relations with the court, a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be
an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Statements made by an
attorney in a private conversation or in the course of political campaign, if
couched in insulting language as to bring scorn and disrepute to the
administration of justice may subject the attorney to disciplinary action.
post-litigation utterances or publication made by lawyers, critical of the courts
and their juducial actions, whether amounting to a crime or not, which transcends
the permissible bounds of fair commetns and legitimate criticism constitute grave
professional misconduct.
there is no comfort in the argument of Atty. Almacen that his utterances were
made after the judgments against his client attained finality. he could still be
liable for contempt as if it had been perpetrated during the pendency of the said
appeal. THe pendency or non-pendency of a case in court is of no consequence.
the sole objective of the proceeding is to preserve the purity of the legal
profession.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
160 RAYOS-OMBAC v RAYOS

Facts:
Mrs. Irene Rayos-Ombac (lola) is the petitioner in this case. The respondent
is Atty. Orlando Rayos (lawyer), her nephew.
Jan. 1985: lawyer induced lola, who was then 85 years old, to withdraw all
her bank deposits and entrust it to him for safekeeping.
Lawyer made lola believe that if she would do so, all the money will be
excluded from the estate of her deceased husband and therefore exclude
the other heirs from inheriting.
Lola then withdrew all her money (P588K) and deposited it in the account of
lawyer in Union Bank.
Upon demands that the amount be returned, lawyer informed lola that he
can only return P400K on installment. Pumayag na lang si lola kasi kelangan
niya talaga ng pera. They signed a MOA regarding this transaction.
However, the check given by lawyer to lola was dishonored due to
insufficient funds.
Lola then filed an estafa case against lawyer. Lawyer offered as settlement
2 second-hand cars and cash amounting to P40K. Lola refused the offer.
Lawyer also filed cases against Lola. Estafa - because lola allegedly reneged
on her promise to sell a certain parcel of land. Another accusing lola of
making false statements in the testate proceedings of her deceased
husband.
Lola then filed a case for disbarment on 2 grounds. (1) defrauding lola and
(2) filing frivolous cases against her.
IBP recommended that lawyer be suspended for 2 years.
Lawyer then filed this motion to lift the suspension stating that lola has
already withdrawn her complaint for disbarment
Issue:
W/N lawyer should be suspended for 2 years
Held:
Yes. In fact the SC raised the penalty to disbarment. (pinabayaan na lang
sana niya yung suspension, baka di pa siya disbarred)
The withdrawal of lola of her complaint has no effect on the disbarment
proceedings.
Lawyer violated the CPR as well as his oath when he deceived his 85 year
old aunt.
Lawyers wicked deed was aggravated by the series of unfounded suits he
filed against lola.
Lawyers deceitful conduct makes him unworthy of membership in the legal
profession.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
161 IN RE LOZANO
FACTS
- There was a complaint against a Judge of First Instance which was referred to
the Atty General for investigation, report and recommendation. There was an SC
resolution which makes such proceedings condiential in nature
-The investigation was conducted secretly. Notwithstanding, the editor of El
Pueblo, Severino Lozano, printed an article written by Anastacio Quevedo,
indicating that the hearing was held behind closed doors, and that the info of the
reporter was obtained from outside the screen and from comments in social
circles. The testimonies of the witnesses were mutilated and the report reflected
upon the action of
the complainant to his possible advantage
ISSUE: WoN Lozano and Quevedo are quilty of contempt of court?
HELD: YES. They are each required to pay the nominal sum of P20
RATIO:
1. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in the SC. This power extends to
administrative proceedings, as well as to suits at law.
2. As important as is the maintenance of an unmuzzled press and the free
exercise of the rights of the citizen is the maintenance of the independence of the
judiciary
162 CUENCO v FERNAN
See attachment=)
163 IN RE LAURETA
Facts:
This case is purely a discussion of Atty. Lauretas Motion for Reconsideration
finding him guilty of grave professional misconduct and suspending him
indefinitely. Also, there is a discussion on Eva Maravilla-Illustres Motion for
Reconsideration holding her in contempt.
Laureta is the counsel of Illlustre.
In my understanding, Illustre lost a case with the SC First Division. And

because of this, she filed a case with the Tanodbayan, in exasperation
against those whom she felt had commited injustice against her in an
underhanded manner.
Laureta is in hot water for he had allegedly circulated/distributed copies to
the press copies of the complaint filed before the Tanodbayan. And with

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
this, he has manifested lack of respect for and exposed to public ridicule
the two highest courts of the land.
He also said that he has not authorized or assisted and or abetted and
could not have prevented the contemptuous statements, conduct, acts and
malicious charges of Eva Ilustre who was (allegedly) no longer his client.
But he is sorry for the adverse publicity generated by the filing of the
complaint against the Justices before the Tanodbayan!
Issue:
W/N Laureta should be punished for his alleged acts.
Held:
Yes.
Firstly, Laureta is really the counsel of Ilustre.
o The copy of the Tanodbayan resolution indicated that he is the
counsel for the complainant . And he didnt complain!!
o Lauretas wife received from the process server the
documents/resolutions of the court. If Laureta was really not the
counsel, then the wife could have easily not accepted.
o Atty. Laureta admitted that he is the counsel to a reporter of DZRH by
the fact of his commenting with alacrity (RC note: this means
eagerness) regarding the case.
Lauretas protestations that he has done his best to protect and uphold the
dignity of the Court are belied by environmental facts and circumstances.
His apologetic stance for the adverse publicity rings with insincerity.
He has deliberately sought to destroy the authenticity, integrity and
conclusiveness of collegiate acts to undermine the role of the SC as the
final arbiter of all justiciable disputes.
164 IN RE LONTOK
Facts:
Marcelino Lontok is a member of the Bar who was convicted, by final
judgment, of bigamy.
Subsequently, the Governor-General granted him absolute pardon.
However, the Attorney-General prays for the removal of Lontok from the roll
of attorneys despite such pardon. He argues that Lontok should still be
disqualified from the practice of law as he was convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude.
Issue:
Should Lontok be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys?

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Held:
No. An absolute pardon, unlike a conditional one, reaches not only the offense
and the guilt for which a person was convicted of, but it also releases the
punishment and blots out the existence of guilt, so that he may not be looked
upon as never to have committed the offense. If granted before conviction, it
prevents any of the penalties and disabilities; if granted after conviction, it
removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores the person to all his civil
rights. It does not, however, restore offices, property, or interests that have been
forfeited.
If the proceedings to disbar an attorney are founded on, and depend alone, on a
statute making the fact of a conviction for a felony ground for disbarment, the
pardon operates to wipe out the conviction and the attorney cannot be disbarred.
But if the disbarment proceedings are founded on the professional misconduct in
a transaction which resulted in a conviction for a felony, a pardon relieves the
counsel of the penal offense but can still be subject to disbarment on the ground
of lack of good moral character.
Here, the motion for disbarment is based solely on the conviction for a crime for
which Lontok has been pardoned.
165 IN RE DE GUZMAN
FACTS
A complaint for ejectment was filed by FLORO against LAPATHA. Judgment was
rendered ordering LAPATHA to vacate the premises and surrender possession to
FLORO. LAPATHA filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, Orders & Other
Proceedings (nax civpro ) alleging that at the initial hearing, she appeared
without counsel so she approached ATTY DE GUZMAN, lawyer of FLORO, and
begged for a 5 day postponement to which ATTY DE GUZMAN verbally agreed to
with the condition that she (LAPATHA) sign the courts expediente of which she
did. She then gave ATTY DE GUZMAN a check for P350 as partial payment of her
arrears in the rentals. That was why she was surprised later on to receive a copy
of a decision from the City Court wherein it appeared that she confessed
judgment and upon verification of the expediente which she signed, she
discovered ATTY DE GUZMAN wrote the words Confess Judgment below her
signature without her consent.
FLORO filed his Answer alleging that the decision of the City Court was based on
an open admission by LAPATHA made in open court and it was after such open
admission that the words Confess Judgment was written on the expediente.
Moreover, the check of P350 was not given as partial payment of LAPATHAS
arrears in rentals but was given to forestall the execution of judgment.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
ISSUE
W/N ATTY DE GUZMAN SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR HIS ACTS
HELD
NO, NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE HENCE PRESUMPTION OF

REGULARITY RULE APPLIES
RATIO
The Clerk of the City Court testified that when the ejectment case was called for
hearing, the Trial Judge asked LAPATHA if she admitted the indebtedness alleged
in the complaint filed by FLORO to which LAPATHA answered in the affirmative. It
was then that the word Confess Judgment was written on the expediente which
was afterwards signed by both ATTY DE GUZMAN and LAPATHA. This testimony of
the Clerk of court deserves credit because the Clerk was present at the said
hearing and is substantiated with the ruling of the City Judge who, sans evidence
to the contrary, is presumed to have regularly performed his official duty.
The only objective of LAPATHA in filing a Petition for Relief was to gain more time
to stay in the leased premises.
The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that in the instant case, evidence is
wanting to sustain a finding that ATTY DE GUZMAN committed any deceit or
misconduct. As held in Go v Candoy, it is elementary in disbarment proceedings
that the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and that to be made the
basis for suspension of disbarment, such proof must be convincing. In the case at
bar, LAPATHA failed to provide such convincing proof.
Hence, the administrative complaint is dismissed and ATTY DE GUZMAN
exonerated of the charge.
166 LACHICA v FLORDELIZA
Facts:
- One day, Dr. Amparo Lachica, the Municipal Health Officer of Jose Abad
Santos, Davao del Sur, was approached by Dina Masaglang and Norma
Ruton, who were asking Dr. Lachica to sign a death certificate. Dr. Lachica
refused to sign saying that the attending physician in Gen. Santos should be
the one to sign.
- Later in the day, Dr. Lachica met the two again and the two told her that
Judge Rolando Flordeliza, MTC judge, was ordering her to sign the death
certificate. Dr. Lachica again refused.
- Later in the evening, at the Municipal Employees Night Party, Judge
Flordeliza, who was drunk, asked Dr. Lachica to sit beside him. Judge
Flordeliza then said to Dr. Lachica, in an angry manner, Bakit hindi mo
pinirmahan and death certificate? Dr. Lachica then tried to explain but to

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
no avail, this is when Judge Flordeliza threatened to bring an administrative

complaint against Dr. Lachica.
Issue:
- W/n Judge Flordeliza should be penalized.
Held:
- SC says YES, Judge Flordeliza is fined 10,000
- The SC was convinced that the charge of misconduct against the
respondent judge was established by substantial evidence. Dr. Lachica
presented the testimony of certain witnesses confirming that Judge
Flordeliza was indeed drinking that night. There was also testimony
debunking Judge Flordelizas excuse that he could not have acted in such a
manner because the mayor was sitting with them (the testimony proved
that the mayor was not with them). The Court believed that Judge
Flordeliza did threaten Dr. Lachica in order to coerce the latter to sign the
death certificate.
- Also, his inebriated demeanor and incoherent behavior during the
festivities, as attested to by a witness, is reprehensible in a judge. Allowing
himself to get intoxicated is not the conduct expected of a judge.
167 ESTOYA v ABRAHAM-SINGSON
Facts: A complaint signed by 47 employees and officers of several branches of the
RTC Antique was filed with the SC. The signatories allege that Judge Singson
"treats her staff in a dictatorial and terroristic manner without regard to
the basic dignity and self-respect of the individual," making the "working
atmosphere entirely dependent on her moods on the particular day
which most often fluctuates with the moon" The signatories allege that
they could not understand the judges bizarre actuations and that sometimes
she is excessively generous but in most occasions she is "oppressive, dictatorial,
despotic, and unbearable, if not hysterical."
The judge was further accused of gross and culpable incompetence for having
delegated her authority to the Clerk of Court by requiring the latter to make
orders or resolve or decide cases for her.
Several persons testified regarding her attitude towards her workers (refer to P.
9).
The lower court adjudged her to lack the temperament required of a judge. Her
acts, according to the lower court, were not mere admonitions to correct the
employees wrongdoings.
Issue: W/N judge is guilty of gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law.
Held: The judge is guilty of gross incompetence and gross ignorance of
the law.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
On gross ignorance of the law:

She is grossly ignorant of the law because she considered unlawful aggression as
a mitigating circumstance. She also made errors in the implementation of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. She also allowed the release on bail of several
accused individuals without giving the prosecution to prove if the evidence of
guilt is strong (on the fact that the crime committed by the accused individuals).
A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with
statutes and procedural rules. It is imperative that that he be conversant with
basic legal principles. A judge owes it to the legal profession he belongs and to
the public who depends on him to know the law which he is called to interpret and
apply.
On gross incompetence:
According to the canons, a judge should organize his court with a view to a
prompt and convenient dispatch of its business and he should not tolerate abuses
and neglect by clerks. To be a good manager, one must be a good leader. The
judge does not possess the virtues, qualities, temperament, aptitude, and skill of
a good manager of court employees. She is tyrannical. (Please refer to the
lengthy testimonies to have an idea of her tyrannical behavior.)
168 CUARESMA v AGUILAR
Facts:
-The Olarte, the Provincial Prosecutor of Mindoro charged Banite with the murder
of Acosta, a relative of herein complainants. The Information carried no
recommendation for bail.
-The case was docketed in Branch 44 of the RTC, presided over by Judge Tarriela.
Banite was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty.
-Olarte amended the Information to homicide and recommended bail of P20,000
without leave of court. Judge Tarriela ordered the Olarte to explain his action
considering Banite had already been arraigned.
-Mrs. Zubiri, a Steno-Reporter at the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor went to
see Aguilarthe Executive and Presiding Judge of Branch 45 of the RTCin his
chambers. Zubiri was sent by Olarted to request for the release of the accused
Banite on bail of P20,000.
-All pertinent papers, including the Property Bail Bond, the Order approving the
bond and directing the release of Banite were already prepared for the signature
of respondent judge.
-On the same day, Judge Aguilar signed and issued the order approving the
property bond. Banite was released upon such order.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Issue: W/N Judge Aguilar committed grave abuse of authority in ordering the
release of Banite while the latters case was being tried in the sala of
Judge Tarriela.
Held: YES
-Sec.14(a) Rule 114 states that : Bail in the amount fixed maybe filed with the
court where the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge
thereof, with another branch of the same court within the province or city
-Judge Aguilar violated this rule and had no power to act on the request to release
Banite on bail.
-The record does not show that at the time Aguilar ordered Banites release, Judge
Tarriela was absent or unavailable and could not have acted on said request.
-It was also irregular for the judge to entertain the request considering that it did
not appear that a formal motion had been filed by the accused to that effect.
-He did not even examine the records of the case as he merely signed the Orders
allegedly prepared by Olarte. His indifference prevented him from discovering
that at the time he ordered the release of Banite, the information had not been
properly amended.
-The judge is ordered to pay a fine of P2,000 and is admonished to exercise
greater care and prudence in the performance of his official duties.
169 IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS
FACTS:
- State prosecutor Formaran charged Yu Yuk Lai, together with her nephew
before the RTC Manila with violation of RA 6425
- Accused of a non-bailable offense, both the accused were held at the
detention cell of PNP Narcotics Group in Camp Crame
- Yu Yuk Lai filed a petition for bail on the ground that the evidence against
her was not strong. Denied!
- Upon receiving information that the accused had been playing regularly in
the casinos of Heritage Hotel and Holiday Inn Pavilion, Formaran filed an
urgent ex-parte motion to transfer the detention of the accused to the city
jail. Motion was granted by Judge Laguio
- Accused filed a Motion for Inhibition arguing that Laguio do not inspire the
belief that its decision would be just and impartial. Laguio inhibited himelf
- Case was re-raffled to Branch 53 which was handled by Judge Muro.
- Muro granted accused motion to order the confinement of the accused in a
hospital for a period not exceeding 7 days. He also granted the extension
of medical confinement of the accused for a period of 1 month or until such
time that she is fit to be discharged from the hospital
- Muro also grnated the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence
with motion to admit demurrer to evidence.
- Rumors started to circulate that Muro was partial towards the accused

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Also, unidentified employees of the RTC manila calling themselves

concerned court employees wrote to the Secretary of Justice alleging that
Muro ordered the hospitalization of the accused even if she was not sick
and there was already a rumor circulating that Muro had given the go signal
to the counsel of the accused to file a motion to quash which would be
granted for a consideration of millions of pesos and that the contact person
is the daughter of the judge who is an employee in the said branch
Formaran filed a motion for inhibition praying that Muro inhibit himself from
further handling the case
Thereafter, yu Yuk lai was arrested inside the VIP room of the Casino Filipino
at the Holiday Inn Pavilion while playing bacarrat unescorted.
The motion for inhibition against Muro was submitted for resolution when
Formarans secretary informed Formaran that Demetria called and that he
wanted to speak to Formaran.
Demetria, Go Teng Kok and a close friend friend of Demetria went to the
office of Formaran in the DOJ. But even prior to that meeting, Go Teng Kok
was already asking Formaran to go easy on Muro and that Formaran has
been politely declining the request. But in this meeting, he told them that
he would bring the matter to his superior Zuno. When Demetrio heard this,
he said:iyon pala, and left the office.
Zuno then received a call from Demetrio requesting him to instruct
Formaran to withdraw his motion for inhibition aginst Muro so that the judge
could already issue an order. Zuno politely replied that he would see what
he can do.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that Justice Demetria and Go Teng Kok
are drug lawyers
ISSUE:
- W/N Justice Demetria is guilty
HELD:
- YES! And is dismissed from service with prejudice to re-employment in any
government agency and GOCC with the forfeiture of all retirement benefits
except accrued leave credits
- The timely call to Zuno was a logical follow up and no one could have made
that call except Justice Demetria.
- Even the requested help for Go Teng Kok, whom Demetria claims he did
not know and met only that time, could not have meant any other
assistance but the withdrawal of the motion to inhibit Muro
170 MARTINEZ v GIRONELLA
Facts:

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Martinez was the principal accused in a murder case. Duclan and Bayongan
were alleged to be accessories after the fact. Gironella is the Judge of CFI of
Abra that tried the case.
Bayongan was the only one arraigned so trial proceeded only against him.
Bayongan was acquitted.
Thereafter, Martinez surrendered to the police. He pleaded not guilty to the
charge.
Counsel for Martinez moved that the Gironella inhibit himself on the
grounds that Gironella already had a chance to pass upon the issue and has
formed an opinion as to who committed the murder. That the judge is no
longer fair and impartial. Motion was denied.
During the rebuttal stage, this petition for prohibition was filed.
Issue:
W/N there should be a new trial for Martinez
Held:
No.
Due process requires that a case be heard by a tribunal that is impartial and
disinterested.
In this case, there was no proof shown that the judge was unfair and
impartial.
After the motion for inhibition was denied, petitioner no longer filed a
motion for reconsideration. Petitioner no longer took any action until the
rebuttal stage.
The conclusion that can be inferred is that the trial was fair and impartial.
Issue:
W/N the judge should inhibit himself from proceeding in the case
Held:
Yes.
A judge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial decision, but
also to render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its
fairness and impartiality and as also to the judges integrity.
The statement of the judge in the decision acquitting Bayongan to the
effect that the crime was committed by Martinez render it impossible for
the judge to be free from suspicion of impartiality.
171 COJUANGCO v PCGG
172 LUQUE v KAYANAN
FACTS:
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Civil Case 4871 was commenced in the CFI of Quezon by Ilao, Enriquezes against
Ona, Luque (petitioner herein), Africao, Castillo, and the Baldeos. Ilao etc., sought
to set aside the decision in civil cases 6 and 26 approving the parties
compromise agreement which was alledgedly procured thru duress and
intimidation.
Civil case 4871 was set for trial before Branch I of the CFI of Quezon presided
over by Judge Valero. On the date set for hearing, Judge Kayanan first took
cognizance of said Civil Case 4871. It was alleged by the Ilaos attorney that he
found that civil case 4871 was not included in the calendar of cases scheduled for
Branc I and that he found the case in the sala of Judge Kayanan. Defendant
Luque (petitioner) was absent therein. Luque alleged that he was at Branch I.
Hearings were rescheduled many times.
Petitioner lodged a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground of estoppel. The
motion was dismissed. Petitioner then moved to disqualify Judge Kayanan. He
claimed that the judge doctored the records of the case in that he suppressed the
true and genuine proceedings in open court in that the judge did not state that he
moved the case to be dismissed.
Petitioner was then ordered by Judge Kayanan to explain why he should not be
cited for contempt. Petitioners explanations were filed and later on declared by
the judge unsatisfactory to warrant his disqualification from trying the case.
At a hearing, judge asked Luque to withdraw his pleading moving for the judges
disqualification. Luque refused. Judge then verbally ordered a guard to commit
petitioner to jail. Petitioner was restrained for 2 hrs.
ISSUE:
W/n Judge Kayanan should be disqualified
W/n Luque a lawyer, should be disciplined
HELD:
YES. The act of the judge ordering the restraint of Luque; that at one instance
judge irately told him I will have you disbarred!; that Judge Kayanan would not
give Luque leeway to speak in court, interrupting him and continuing to say
things against him in a derisive tone and in a humiliating and abusive manner;
that after the judge became tired of talking, the judge told petitioner, who wasn
not given the chance to speak fully: that is enough, sit down, and strongly
banged the gavel
There was also an irregularity in the venue of the case as stated above. Taken all
together, respondent judge is ordered to refrain from taking cognizance of the
case.
173 HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
Judge Nartatez issued a Hold Departure Order.

It was against Eileen Lope for alleged violations of BP 22.
The Secretary of Justice calls attention to the fact that the order in question
is contrary to Circular No. 39-97 of the SC, which limits the authority to
issue hold departure orders to the RTC in criminal cases within their
exclusive jurisdiction.
Judge Nartatez admits his mistake, and thus recalls his hold departure
order.
Issue:
W/N Judge Nartatez should be penalized?
Held:
The Court Administrator recommended, that the SC reprimand the Judge

and remind him to keep himself abreast of SC issuances so as not to
commit the same mistake in the future. SC finds this well taken.
The Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to be faithful to the law and
maintain professional competence. They can live up to this expectation
only by diligent effort to keep themselves abreast of the legal and
jurisprudential developments. The learning process in law is never ending
and ceaseless process.
174 DELGRA v GONZALES

Facts:
Martin Delgra was the assistant provincial fiscal of Davao. Gonzales was
judge of the CFI of Davao.
During the trial of a criminal case (entitled People v Suarez), where Delgra
was the prosecutor and Gonzales was the presiding judge, an incident
occurred which triggered this controversy.
It so happened that while a witness was being cross-examined by the
defense counsel, confusion arose as to the proper interpretation of the
witness statement (since it was in the Cebuano dialect).
Delgra objected to the translation (argued that it should be I called Angel
instead of I called their names), but the Judge overruled him immediately.
Delgra insisted. Judge Gonzales ordered that Fiscal Delgra be brought out of
the court and into jail.
Delgra was not brough to jail. When the Judge learned of this, he declared
Delgra in direct contempt and called on the police for the Fiscals arrest.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Issue:
Was the action of Judge Gonzales proper?
Held:
No. The incident could have been prevented had the Judge listened with care to
the Fiscals observation on the allegedly wrong translation of the witness answer.
The situation would not have reached grave proportions if the judge only listened
carefully to the pleas of the fiscal and patiently allowed the fiscal to make his
manifestation.
From the transcript of records, Delgra did not so misbehave as to obstruct or
interrupt court proceedings. Judge Gonzales abused his discretion in declaring the
fiscal in contempt of court. Judges should be temperate and patient, courteous to
counsel. They should avoid interrupting advocates in their arguments and shy
away from a controversial tone in addressing them. In conversations between
judges and counsel, the judge should be studious to avoid controversies.
Remember, restraint is a desirable trait in those who dispense justice... right
class?! The order adjudging Delgra in direct contempt was nullified.
175 FERNANDEZ v BELLO
FACTS
TIMOTEA Perreyras through ATTY MANUEL Fernandez, as her counsel,

instituted Special Proceedings for her appointment as guardian over her
minor brothers
Upon her appointment, she petitioned the court for authority to sell a nipa
land owned in common by the wards for the purpose of paying outstanding
obligations to UMANGAY
The request was granted and the nipa land was sold to UMANGAY
However, the nipa land sold by the guardian had already been previously
sold with right to repurchase to RICARDO Perreyras and UMANGAY by
FLORENTINO Perreyras, the father of the guardian and wards
The interest of RICARDO and UMANGAY were in turn sold for P200 to ATTY
MANUEL and another P200 for services rendered by him
JUDGE BELLO issued an order requiring ATTY MANUEL to show cause why he
should not be suspended from the practice of law and declared in contempt
for having abused his relationship with the guardian and taken money from
her without prior approval from the court
ATTY MANUEL explained that when he received the P200, he was no longer
the attorney of the guardian as at that time, TIMOTEA secured the services
of ATTY BRAULIO Fernandez and that he was only paid P50 for his services
to the guardian
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
However, the Court found

o ATTY MANUEL guilty of contempt because he had taken the amount of
P400 from the proceeds of the sale without previous approval from
the court and
o ATTY MANUELS conduct anomalous for the reason that he instituted
the guardianship proceedings only to enable him to collect the unpaid
attorneys fees
ISSUE
HELD
W/N ATTY MANUEL SHOULD REFUND THE P200 HE GOT

NO, WOULD DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS LAWFUL FEES
RATIO
While the reprimand is in order for ATTY MANUELS mistake, the mistake is
no sufficient ground for the non-payment of the fees he lawfully earned
Duty of the courts is not alone to see that lawyers act in a proper manner
but also that they are paid their just and lawful fees
JUDGE BELLO justifies his order for return of the P200 on the ground that
ATTY MANUEL is below average standard of a lawyer
However, the opinion of the judge as to the capacity of the lawyer is NOT
the basis of the right to a lawyers fees but rather the contract between the
lawyer and his client
In the case at bar, P200 is the amount admitted by the guardian TIMOTEA
as due ATTY MANUEL
ISSUE
W/N ATTY MANUELS CONDUCT WAS ANOMALOUS
HELD
NO, GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING WAS THE PROPER REMEDY
RATIO
Wards were indebted to UMANGAY but they had no money with which to
pay the debt thus the only way to settle was to sell the nipa land
However, the nipa land could not be sold without the intervention of the
guardian
Hence, ATTY MANUEL was justified in instituting the guardianship
proceedings in order to sell the nipa land, it being the proper remedy
ISSUE
W/N THE DESIRE OF THE JUDGE TO HAVE PORTIONS OF ATTY

MANUELS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BE STRICKEN OUT
FOR EMPLOYING STRONG LANGUAGE SHOULD BE GRANTED
HELD
NO, JUDGE BELLO STARTED IT
RATIO
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
JUDGE BELLO used language such as calling the act of ATTY MANUEL
anomalous and unbecoming and charging ATTY MANUEL of obtaining his
fee through maneuvers of documents from the guardian
If any one is to be blamed for the language used by ATTY MANUEL, it is
JUDGE BELLO himself who has made insulting remarks in his orders which
provoked ATTY MANUEL
If a judge desires not be insulted, he should start using temperate language
himself he who sows the wind will reap a storm!
176 TE v CA
Facts:
- Arthur Te civilly married Liliana Choa. They did not live together but
occasionally met until Choa gave birth to a girl, which was when Te stopped
seeing her.
- Choa then found out that Te married another woman (Santillo).
- Thus, upon the complaint of Choa, a criminal case was filed against Te for
bigamy.
- On the other hand, Te filed a case for annulment in the RTC.
- Choa also filed administrative complaints against Te and Santillo with the
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) to revoke their engineering
licenses on the ground that they committed acts of immorality.
- Te filed a demurrer and motion to inhibit (directed at the Judge) in the
criminal case. Both were denied. Thus, Te filed a petition for certiorari with
the CA.
- Te also filed a motion to suspend proceedings in the PRC, which was also
denied. Te also filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
- CA consolidated the two petitions and denied both.
Issues:
- W/n the civil case constituted a prejudicial question to the criminal case and
administrative case.
- (More Important) W/n the motion to inhibit Judge Peralejo (on the ground of
bias and prejudice) in the criminal case should be granted.
Held:
- SC says that there was no prejudicial question. The validity of the marriage
of Te to Choa was considered valid at the time he contracted the marriage
with Santillo even is Te alleges that it was void ab initio. This is because
jurisprudence at that time say that there has to be a declaration of nullity
before a marriage can be considered as void. Without such declaration, the
marriage is presumed valid.
- SC says that the motion to inhibit should not be granted. The grounds
raised by petitioner against Judge Peralejo did not conclusively show that
the latter was biased and had prejudged the case. While bias and prejudice
have been recognized as valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of a
judge, the rudimentary rule is that the mere suspicion that a judge is partial
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the
charge of bias and partiality. The test for determining the propriety of the
denial of said motion is whether petitioner was deprived a fair and impartial
trial.http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/126746.
htm - _edn40 The instances when Judge Peralejo allegedly exhibited
antagonism and partiality against petitioner and/or his counsel did not
deprive him of a fair and impartial trial. As discussed earlier, the denial by
the judge of petitioners motion to suspend the criminal proceeding and the
demurrer to evidence are in accord with law and jurisprudence. Neither
was there anything unreasonable in the requirement that petitioners
counsel submit a medical certificate to support his claim that he suffered an
accident which rendered him unprepared for trial. Such requirement was
evidently imposed upon petitioners counsel to ensure that the resolution of
the case was not hampered by unnecessary and unjustified delays, in
keeping with the judges duty to disposing of the courts business promptly.
177 MANTARING v ROMAN
Facts:
Mantaring filed an administrative complaint against Judge Roman charging the
latter of conduct unbecoming of members of the judiciary.
Thereafter, Judge Roman issued a warrant of arrest against Mantaring and his son.
The Judge alleges that the warrant was issued against Gamo and it just so
happened that the place where the illegal firearms were seized was owned by
Mantaring; hence, Mantaring
and his son were arrested for they were in constructive possession of the illegal
firearms. Mantaring now comes before this court alleging that it was improper for
the Judge to take cognizance of the application of the arrest warrant. According to
Mantaring, the Judge should have inhibited himself for there was a pending
administrative case which involved him and Mantaring. Mantaring claims that the
judge
issued the warrant of arrest as a form of revenge against Mantaring and his son
for filing the administrative case.
Issue:
W/N the judge should have inhibited himself from taking cognizance of the
application for the warrant of arrest.
Held:
Yes, the judge should have inhibited himself. For the judge's failure to inhibit, he is
reprimanded and warned that commission of the same act shall be severely dealt
with in the future.
It is true that the court had consistently held that mere filing of an administrative
complaint against a judge does not constitute a ground for the disqualification of
the judge. However, the factual milieu of these cases is different from the case at
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
hand. In those cases, the administrative complaint was filed during the pendency
of the criminal case. In the case at hand, however, the admiinistrative
complaint was filed before the involvement of the judge in the criminal case
against Mantaring. It cannot be otherwise concluded that the judge's action in this
case was dictated by a spirit of revenge against Mantaring for having filed the
administrative complaint. This circumstance should have underscored for the
judge the need of steering clear of the case because he might be perceived to be
suceptible to bias and partiality.
178 HECK v SANTOS
Facts:
-In a previous case entitled Flor v. Heck which was lodged at the Regional Trial
Court, defendants therein, including Heck, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground
that the RTC has no jurisdiction since the case involved an intra-corporate matter
which was within the jurisdiction of the SEC.
-The motion was denied by Judge Santos.
-Counsel for therein defendants, Atty. Jardin, subsequently filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel which was granted by Santos, who reset the hearing date
from April 1 to June 10.
-As the defendants never received a copy of the order granting Jardins motion to
withdraw, neither defendants nor their counsel appeared at the hearing on June
10.
-At the said hearing, Santos admitted the evidence of the plaintiff and considered
the defendants as having waived their right to present evidence.
-The judge then authorized the counsel for the plaintiffs, Atty.Singson, to draft the
decision. The defendants did not receive a copy of such order.
-In October, Santos rendered a decision which was copied verbatim from the draft
decision submitted by Atty. Singson.
Issue: W/N Judge Santos act of ordering the counsel for one of the parties to draft
a decision warrants disciplinary sanction.
Held:YES.
-Santos violated Canons 2* and 3** of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Section 1
Rule 36 (A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in
writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge) of the Revised Rules of
Court.
-By such order, the judge abdicated a function exclusively granted to him by the
Constitution. Decision making is the most important duty of a judge. He must
use his own perceptiveness in analyzing the evidence before him and his own
discretion in determining the proper action.
-Lack of malice or bad faith in issuing the questioned order is not an excuse.
-Such act falls under the classification of a serious charge. The sanctions
provided by Rule 140 Sec.10 are 1) disbarment 2) suspension for 3 mos, or 3) fine
P20,000 40,000.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
-Since Santos had already retired, his dismissal or suspension is no longer

feasible. He is thus ordered to pay a fine of P20,000 to be deducted from his
retirement benefits.
*A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities.
**A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and
diligence adjudicative responsibilities.
179 AVANCEA v JUDGE LIWANAG
FACTS:
- Avancena charged judge Liwanag of the MTC of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan
with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- Avancena is the accused in a criminal case for violation of BP 22
- Her counsel filed a Motion to Postpone promulgation and to Re-Open Trial to
Allow Accused to Present Further Evidence but the judge denied the
motion on the ground that she was able represented by her counsel during
the trial of the case
- Prior to the dismissal of her motion, Liwanag summoned Avancena to his
chamber and told her that she will be convicted unless she pay P1M.
- Avancena refused to pay since her unpaid balance was only P140,000 and
there is no reason for her to pay P1M
- Liwanag summoned Avancena again and told her to raise only P500,000 if
she could not afford the P1M
- Also, Liwanag sent Raymunda Flores a common friend of Avancena and
Liwanag who was tasked to bring Avancena to the chambers of Liwanag but
Avancena refused
- Liwanag also made Cora Espanola, a court interpreter, to telephone
Avancena and tell her that the Judge is waiting for her until 4:30pm
- Judge Liwanag denied the allegations of Avancena and argued that all the
contentions of Avancena are lies and fabricated.
- The case was referred to Executive Judge Herrera of the RTC Malolos,
Bulacan for investigation, report and recommendation
- Judge Herrera gave more weight to the testimonies of Avancena and
concluded that the charges against Liwanag are true. But he did not
recommend a specific penalty to be meted out to respondent
ISSUE:
- W/N Liwanag is guilty
HELD:
- YES! And Judge Liwanag is dismissed from service with prejudice to reemployment in any government agency and GOCC with the forfeiture of all
retirement benefits except accrued leave credits

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
The period of almost 4 months which elapsed form May 7, 1999, the date
originally set for the promulgation of the decision of the criminal case and
August 27,1999, the date it was actually promulgated indicates a deliberate
effort on the part of the Judge to delay the promulgation of the decision in
order to give complainant more time to raise the money demanded by him
180 CITY OF TAGBILARAN v HONTANOSAS

Facts:
City of Tagbilaran is charging Judge Hontanosas with (1) open defiance of a
higher court ordering his inhibition from a case and (2) open and notorious
habitual gambling in casinos.
1st charge:
o RTC ordered MTC Judge Hontanosas to inhibit himself from a criminal
case filed by the city against Ong.
o Hontanosas forced the fiscal to rest its case and rendered a judgment
of acquittal despite the order for him to inhibit
nd
2 charge:
o Hontanosas goes to Cebu on the afternoon and goes back to
Tagbilaran early the next day in order to go to the casinos in Cebu
o Every Sunday, Hontanosas can be seen around cockpits
o That a favorable judgment can be bought from Hontanosas with
prices ranging from P500 P5K
Hontanosas answer to 1st charge:
o The order of the RTC was unlawful due to lack of hearing and failure to
include the real parties in interest
o Order was issued in connection with a petition for certiorari which is a
prohibited pleading in cases covered by rules on summary procedure
Hontanosas answer to 2nd charge:
o He is merely accompanying his wife to Cebu. That his wife just wants
some excitement and recreation.
o He admits that he goes to the cockpits on Sundays and holidays and
gambles sometimes on this occasions.
Issue:
W/N Hontanosas should be sanctioned for disobeying the order that he
inhibit himself
Held:
No. The order was merely mandatory.
Rules of Court provide instances when a judge is under obligation to inhibit
himself from hearing a case. The judges case does not fall under any of
those mentioned in the provision.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
His case falls under the 2nd paragraph which leaves it to his discretion
whether or not to inhibit himself.
Issue:
W/N Hontanosas should be sanctioned for gambling in casinos and cockpits
Held:
Yes. Fine of P12K for violation of Circular No. 4 of August 1980.
That circular prohibits actual gambling and mere presence in gambling
casinos.
Bases for the circular was PD 1067-B and Par. 3 and 22 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics.
181 RE: APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE CUBE
FACTS:- Judge Cube was appointed Presiding Judge of MTC, Branch 22 of Manila.
Information was received by the Judicial and Bar Council that he had previously
been dismissed as Asst. Fiscal of Pasay City. It was bourne out of the records that
an administrative case for gross misconduct and dereliction of duty was filed
against Fiscal Cube by Sec of Justice Jose Abad Santos for failure to prosecute a
criminal case which led to its dismissal with prejudice. Fiscal Cube was found
guilty as charged.
- Cube applied for appointment to the Judiciary and in the Personal Data Sheet
that he was required to accomplish he deliberately concealed the fact that he was
dismissed. He contended that he didnt act dishonestly in not disclosing such fact
because his removal from office was WITHOUT PREJUDICE which legally meant
that he can still be recalled by the govt to render public service, and that he was
in fact RECALLED AND APPOINTED to sensitive positions in the govt prior to the
questioned appointment and that he was even allowed by the same govt to avail
of the Optional Retirement under RA 1145.
ISSUE: WoN Judge Cube acted dishonestly?
HELD: YES1.Judge Cube did not disclose the relevant fact that he had been
dismissed for gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties as ASst FIscal of
Pasay. That fact was deliberately suppressed. Judge Cube could not equate his
dismissal with retirement and give both modes of separation an innocent
character. By such disclosure, the Council was led to believe, on the strength of
his misrepresentations, that he had a clean record and was not disqualified from
appointment to the Judiciary
2. The circumstance that the dismissal was without prejudice is not material, and
neither is his subsequent appointment to a municipal position. The fact remains
that he was REMOVED and that he DID NOT RETIRE. He was removed after
investigation and found guilty of gross misconduct and dereliction of duty in the
prosecution of a smuggling case. He cannot now brush his removal aside as if it
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
had never existed at all. It is a blot on his record that has spread even more
because of his concealment of it.
3. Judge Cube committed an act of dishonesty that rendered him unfit to be
appointed to, and to remain now in, the Judiciary he has tarnished with his
falsehood.
182 ALFONSO v JUANSON
FACTS:
Complainant a doctor of medicine by profession filed with this court a sworn
complaint charging the respondent with immorality and violation of the Code of
Judicial Ethics. He accuses the respondent of maintaining illicit sexual relations
with his wife Sol Alfonso.
Complainant received a phone call from the wife of the respondent, Mrs. Juanson
who informed him that Sol and respondent judge have been carrying on an affair
and that she has in her possession the love letters of Sol which she wants to show
to the complainant. When he told this to Sol, she denied it.
Sol and complainant left for the USA. Sol returned ahead of complainant. Mrs.
Juansosn called up father of complainant and divulged to the latter the illicit affair
between respondent judge and Sol. The father of complainant engaged the
services of a private investigator who discovered that Sol, after arrival from USA
met with respondent judge at an apartment and stayed there for 3 hours.
Complainant upon knowing this, complainant confronted Sol. At first she denied it
but later, however, admitted having an illicit sexual affair with the judge.
Respondent judge denied the allegations and claimed that they have been
communicating with each other casually and innocently and not as lovers. He
alleges that he came to know of Sol when Sol engaged his professional services
prior to appointment to the office of RTC judge.
ISSUE:
Is the judge guilty of the charge of immorality?
HELD:
NO. It must be stressed that the respondent is not charged with immorality or
misconduct committed before he was appointed to the judiciary. As to the postappointment period, we find the evidence for the complainant insufficient to
prove that the respondent and Sol continued their extramarital affair. In fact, no
love notes were presented during trial that are dated after the appointment.
Proof of prior immoral conduct cannot be a basis for his administrative discipline
in this case. The respondent judge may have undergone moral reformation after
his appointment.

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
The imputation of the sexual acts upon the incumbent must be proven by
substantial evidence, which is required in admin cases. This the complainant
failed to do.
However, judge should be held liable for becoming indiscreet. Such indiscretions
indubitably cast upon his conduct an appearance of impropriety. Respondent and
Sols meetings could incite suspicion of either the relationships continuance or
revival. He violated Canons 3 and 2 requiring judges official conduct to be free
from appearance of impropriety.
Sentence to fine of P2,000.
183 MACALINTAL v TEH
Facts:
Atty. Romulo Macalintal filed a case against Judge Angelito Teh, the
Executive Judge and the Presiding Judge of the RTC Branch 87 of Rosario
Batangas.
His case stemmed from Atty. Macs Election case. In that case, Atty. Mac
received an adverse resolution from the Judge Teh. Mac then questioned
the resolution, via a petition for Certiorari with the Comelec.
While the case was pending with the Comelec, Judge Teh actively
participated in the proceedings by filing his comment on the petition, and
by also filing an urgent manifestation.
Mac filed a motion for inhibition, but what Judge Teh did was to hire his own
lawyer and files his answer before his OWN court.
Teh ordered that Mac pay P100T in attorneys fees and litigation expenses.
Issue:
W/N Judge Tehs actions were correct.
Held:
No.
Judge Teh was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, and he is
dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice
for reemployment.
The active participation of Teh being merely a NOMINAL or FORMAL party in
the certiorari proceedings is not called for.
Judges cannot also act as both party litigant and as a judge before his own
court.
Tehs gross deviation from the acceptable norm for judges is clearly
manifest.
184 ZIGA v AREJOLA
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
Nelia Ziga and Ramon Arejola are two of the heirs of Fabian Arejola. They
inherited a land from Fabiana and became co-owners (with 8 others) of the
property.
Ramon Arejola was an attorney in the Public Attorneys Office (PAO). He
filed in behalf of his co-heirs an application for registration of title of the
land. The petition was granted.
A substantial portion of the lot was sold to the City of Naga. The unsold
portion was subject to a dispute between the heirs and a 3rd party.
Meanwhile, Ramon Arejola was appointed judge of the MTC of Daet,
Camarines Norte.
Notwithstanding such appointment, Judge Arejola continued to appear in
the Land registration case (the dispute with the 3rd person). The court
requested him to submit a written authority from the SC to appear as
counsel. He did not comply. A second request was made but Judge Arejola
insists that it is not needed.
Then Judge Arejola wrote the City of Naga for the terms of payment for the
sale of the land and his claim for contingent atty fees.
Now, Nelia Ziga filed a complaint praying that Judge Arejola be disciplined
for appearing before the court without the SCs permission and for asking
contingent attys fees and commission.
Judge Arejolas defense was that there was no need for the SCs permission,
as he was appearing as representative of the heirs and not as counsel. He
argues that he was a party-in-interest being one of the heirs. He also said
that the complaint was filed merely to harass him and that complainant
Ziga had a disturbed mind.
The executive judge of the RTC found the charge of unauthorized legal
practice to be without basis. The Office of the Court Administrator
recommended that Judge Arejola be found guilty.
Issue:
Was Judge Arejola guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in
the unauthorized practice of law?
Held:
Yes and FINED 10,000. Practice of law is not confined to appearance in court as
it also covers the preparation of pleadings and giving of advice to clients. Based
on the records, Ramon Arejola engaged in the practice of law after he was
appointed MTC Judge (And even if the complaint was filed before he became
judge, the fact that he continued to act as counsel after the appointment sustains
his liability). It was shown that he: prepared and signed pleadings; appeared for
applicants in the case; wrote a letter to the buyer asking for checks and attys
fees; etc. The representation made by Arejola was not just isolated as there was a

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
succession of acts. His argument that he appeared as co-heir was belied by the
tenor of the pleadings and letters showing that he was acting in representation of
the heirs.
Judge Arejola violated the Rules of Court and Code of Judicial Conduct which
prohibits members of the bench from engaging in the private practice of law. Note
that the purpose of the prohibition is founded public policythat is to ensure that
judges give their full time and attention to judicial duties and prevent them from
advancing private interests.
The Civil Service Rules require him to secure a written permission to appear as
counsel from the SC. Judge Arejola was even requested by the RTC to procure this
written authority. But he did not comply. It appeared from the records that he
tried to get a written authority later on. But when he was told by the Court
Administrator to provide the details of the case in which he is appearing, he failed
to comply. Nevertheless, his act of trying to procure authority was an admission
that he was appearing as counsel and that he was aware that he is required to
present such before the court.
*side issue: Judge Arejola argues that he was not afforded due process as there
was no hearing conducted by the Executive Judge. But due process does not
require a hearing. Opportunity to be heard is sufficient. In this case, he was given
ample opportunity to be heard when he was made to file oral arguments through
pleadings.
185 OCA v SARDIDO
FACTS
In a Deed of Absolute Sale, MAGBANUA allegedly sold 2 parcels of land to
DAVAO REALTY represented by ONG with PAGUNSAN as broker
Judge HURTADO , who at that time was clerk of court and ex officio notary
public but now an RTC judge, notarized the said deed
However, MAGBANUA denies signing the Deed of Absolute Sale which states
that the consideration for the sale was P600,000 and asserts that what she
signed was a deed with a stated consideration of P16,000,000
MABGUNUA filed a case of falsification against PAGUNSAN, ONG and Judge
HURTADO
The case was raffled to JUDGE SARDIDO then presiding MTC judge
Judge HURTADO filed a motion praying that the criminal complaint against
him be forwarded to the SC pursuant to Circular # 3-89 requiring all cases
involving justices and judges of the lower courts, whether or not such
complaints deal with acts apparently unrelated to the discharge of their
duties, forwarded to the SC

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Provincial Prosecutor opposed arguing that Judge HURTADO is not within the
scope of Circular # 3-89 because the offense charged was committed when
he was still a clerk of court and ex officio notary public
JUDGE SARDIDO issued an Order excluding Judge HURTADO from the
criminal Information filed by MAGBANUA on the ground that Circular # 3-89
does not qualify whether the crime was committed before or during his
tenure of office and since the law does not qualify, he must not qualify
(this Court cannot and shall not try this case against JUDGE HURTADO
unless the Supreme Court shall order otherwise)
Court Administrator BENIPAYO issued a Memorandum pointing out that
Circular # 3-89 refers only to administrative complaints filed with the IBP
against justices and judges of lower courts and does not apply to criminal
cases before trial courts
Court asked JUDGE SARDIDO to explain in writing why he should not be held
liable for gross ignorance of the law for excluding Judge HURTADO from the
Information filed by MAGBANUA
ISSUE
W/N JUDGE SARDIDO COMMITTED GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE

LAW
HELD
YES
RATIO
Under Circular #3-89, the Court has directed the IBP to refer to the SC for
appropriate action all administrative cases filed with the IBP against justices
of appellate courts and judges of lower courts
Thus, Circular # 3-89 does NOT refer to criminal cases against erring
justices and judges so trial courts retain jurisdiction over the criminal aspect
of the offenses committed
In the case at bar, the case filed against Judge HURTADO is not an
administrative case filed with the IBP but a criminal case filed with the trial
court
Eto na ang mga pangaral ni lola basyang
A judge is a called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance
with statues and procedural rules such that he must be conversant with
basic legal principles and well-settled doctrine
JUDGE SARDIDO failed in this regard when he excluded Judge HURTADO
as one of the accused in the Information and instead forwarded the
criminal case to the Supreme Court
Moreover, in a number of cases, JUDGE SARDIDO was reprimanded, fined
and even dismissed from service
With an unflattering service record, JUDGE SARDIDO eroded the peoples
faith and confidence in the judiciary
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
The Court still imposes a fine of P10,000 for gross ignorance of the law
despite his dismissal from the service
186 CASTILLO v CALANOG

Facts:
- In a sworn complaint filed with the SC, Emma Castillo charged Judge Manuel
Calanog, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
76, with immorality and conduct unbecoming of a public official.
- Castillo alleges that when she intervened for the intestate estate of her
deceased husband, a friend of hers referred her to Calanog who was
supposedly going to help her.
- Castillo also alleges that when she met with Calanog, the latter brought her
to a motel and made sexual advances on her. When she refused, she says
that Calanog offered to her the proposition that he be her sub-husband and
that he would give Castillo his condominium unit in QC as well as provide
financial support for her two minor children and place them in an exclusive
school for girls. Castillo agreed to such a proposition. Their relationship
also bore a son, who was allegedly named Jerome Christopher Calanog.
- Castillo is now complaining that Calanog has reneged on his promise. She
says that Calanog is not anymore giving support, that her two children are
not in an exclusive girls school and that Calanog has failed to pay the
monthly installments on the condominium.
- While the complaint was being investigated on, Castillo filed an affidavit of
desistance with the SC. She was saying that everything in the complaint
were all lies. However, the Court had two witnesses (Ernesto Bustamante
and Jose Javier) attesting to her earlier complaint. Plus, the National Bureau
of Investigation Intelligence Service, upon the instruction of the Court,
carried out a discreet verification of the facts raised in the testimonies and
found them to be true.
Issue:
- W/n Calanog should be held liable despite the desistance of the
complainant, Castillo.
Held:
- SC says YES and Calanog is dismissed from the roll of judges.
- Generally, the Court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of
desistance, especially when executed as an afterthought, as in the case at
bar. Even if Emma Castillo had not filed her "Affidavit of Desistance," the SC
says that they would not have been swayed solely by her allegations, and
they actually found from the testimony of Jose Javier that the Castillo's
charges, indeed, rest on sufficient grounds.
- It is of no import that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the facts of concubinage having indeed existed
and been committed. This is not a criminal case for concubinage but an

LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
administrative matter that invokes the power of supervision of this Court

over the members of the judiciary.
- The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be
free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his
judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private
individual.
- It is worth noting here that the respondent judge, in violating a judicial
precept, has also committed a grave injustice upon the complainant, who
had sought his assistance in expediting the intestate estate proceedings of
her deceased common-law husband. The judge, who was in the first place,
prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct from intervening in a case in any
court, took advantage of the complainant's helplessness and state of
material deprivation and persuaded her to become his mistress. The
exploitation of women becomes even more reprehensible when the offender
commits the injustice by the brute force of his position of power and
authority, as in this case.
Gutierrez, Dissent:
- He is mainly saying that Calanog should not be held solely liable and that
the penalty of dismissal is too harsh.
- He believes that Castillo is a liberated woman who was, at that time, willing
to enter into the sexual relationship for the perks it included.
- He is also saying that Castillo and Calanog are both offenders and victims.
Thus, he thinks that the dismissal of Calanog is too severe, considering the
situation.
187 DIONISIO v ESCANO
Facts:
Dionisio filed a complaint against Judge Escano charging the Judge of illegally
using court facilities in advertising the hiring of attractive waitresses and
personable waiters and cooks in the restaurant of the judge. Admissions to the
effect that he was hiring the waitresses for his pub that will cater to the prurient
desires of males was acquired through the help of the program "Hoy Gising." The
judge, in his comment, said that he was only establishing a restaurant -- some
sort of watering hole for friends. The judge said that the reason he posted the ad
at the Court Bulletin Board was due to the fact that conducting the interviews in
his office in the court will be more convenient for him. (He says that his house is
too far from the gate and difficult for the applicants to locate.) The judge further
alleges that he immediately ordered the removal of the ads when he learned of
the displeasure of some people regarding his use of the Court Bulletin Board.
The Investgating Justice of the CA who hadled the case recommended that the
judge be fined in the amount of 15,000 for the misuse of the court facilities.
Issue:
W/N the Judge is guilty of misuse of court facilities.
LEGAL ETHICS
2nd Sem 2005-2006
Held:
Yes, the judge is guilty of misuse. Suspended for 6 months with a warning.
It is of no import that the judge's act of using court facilities be motivated by good
cause, no matter how honorable. The moment such act deviates from purposes
not directly related to the functioning and operation for which the courts of justice
have been established,
it must be immediately rectified. Judges are not only to avoid impropriety, but
must also avoid the appearance of impropriety. His act of
posting the ads at the Court Bulletin Board tend to corrode the respect and
dignity of the courts as the bastion of justice because there occured an
interference in the judicial duties of Judge Escano by reason of his own business
interests.


Ethics Digests Compiled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics Digests Compiled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL ETHICS

2nd Sem 2005-2006

2nd Sem 2005-2006

o the Canons of Professional Ethics allows the continued use of a

2nd Sem 2005-2006

2nd Sem 2005-2006

What does the term titulo de abogado mean?

W/N ALAUYA VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL

YES, PARTICULARLY SECTION 4

2nd Sem 2005-2006

NO, RESERVED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS

2nd Sem 2005-2006

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana

2nd Sem 2005-2006

The 1973 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution

The Supreme Court shall have the

The Supreme Court shall have the

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana

2nd Sem 2005-2006

2nd Sem 2005-2006

The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of falsifying and deliberately

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Oblenas contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Balicanta has perpetuated massive fraud against his client.

2nd Sem 2005-2006

2nd Sem 2005-2006

2nd Sem 2005-2006

2nd Sem 2005-2006

However, in April 1984, Father ceased to pay Sons salary

W/N SON WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Gregorio Estacio (counsel de parte of the accused) to explain why disciplinary

2nd Sem 2005-2006

preoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and as a

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Bayot was charged with malpractice by publishing Marriagelicense

ISSUE: WoN Bayot can be charged with malpractice?

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana

2nd Sem 2005-2006

23 SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS V ROMANILLOS

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana

2nd Sem 2005-2006

W/N TRIESTE IS GUILTY UNDER THE ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Apr. 1, 1980 Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the PSC for

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana

2nd Sem 2005-2006

27 PNB v ATTY CEDO

Planters Machinery Corporation (PLAMACO) mortgaged to Traders Royal

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana

2nd Sem 2005-2006