Legal/judicial ethics

Attorney-client relationship. Respondent must have known that her act of constantly and actively
communicating with complainant, who, at that time, was beleaguered with demands from investors of Multitel,
eventually led to the establishment of a lawyer-client relationship. Respondent cannot shield herself from the
inevitable consequences of her actions by simply saying that the assistance she rendered to complainant was only
in the form of friendly accommodations, precisely because at the time she was giving assistance to complainant,
she was already privy to the cause of the opposing parties who had been referred to her by the SEC.
Respondent also tries to disprove the existence of such relationship by arguing that no written contract for the
engagement of her services was ever forged between her and complainant. This argument all the more reveals
respondents patent ignorance of fundamental laws on contracts and of basic ethical standards expected from an
advocate of justice. The IBP was correct when it said: The absence of a written contract will not preclude the finding
that there was a professional relationship between the parties. Documentary formalism is not an essential element in
the employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that
the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession. Rolando
B. Pacana, Jr. vs. Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez, A.C. No. 8243, July 24, 2009.

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Perez claimed that her transactions with
Agustin, Jr. had no relation to her position as court stenographer and that they were private in nature. The Court is
not impressed. The image of the Judiciary is mirrored in the conduct of its personnel whether inside or outside the
court. Thus, court personnel must exhibit a high sense of integrity not only in the performance of their official duties
but also in their personal affairs. While there is nothing wrong in engaging in private business, caution should be
taken to prevent the occurrence of dubious circumstances that may impair the image of the Judiciary. Every act of
impropriety ultimately affects the dignity of the Judiciary, and the peoples faith in it. As the OCA correctly stated,
Perezs activities dragged the Court into the fake receipts scam at the City Treasurers Office. Perez must be held
accountable. Liberty M. Toledo vs. Liza Perez, Court Stenographer III, Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC,
Manila, A.M. No. P-03-1677 & A.M. No. P-07-2317, July 15, 2009.

Conflict of interest. Given the situation, the most decent and ethical thing which respondent should have done
was either to advise complainant to engage the services of another lawyer since she was already representing the
opposing parties, or to desist from acting as representative of Multitel investors and stand as counsel for
complainant. She cannot be permitted to do both because that would amount to double-dealing and violate our
ethical rules on conflict of interest. Rolando B. Pacana, Jr. vs. Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez, A.C. No. 8243,
July 24, 2009.

Dishonesty. Estonilos act of punching in another employees daily time card falls within the ambit of falsification.
Worse, he did not do it for only one co-employee, but for two others. He made it appear as though his co-employees
personally punched in their daily time cards. Estonilo also made Padillas daily time card reflect a log-in time different
from the latters actual time of arrival, as well as made Bambillas daily time card falsely show that the latter was at
the Supreme Court premises in BaguioCity when he was not there at all. It is patent dishonesty, which inevitably
reflects on Estonilos fitness as an employee to continue in office and on the level of discipline and morale in the
service.

Indeed, dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. We have defined dishonesty as the
(d)isposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or
integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[14]
Falsification of daily time records is an act of dishonesty, for which all three respondents must be held
administratively liable under Rule XVII, Section 4 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations (Civil Service
Rules).
Under Rule XIV, Section 21 of the Civil Service Rules, falsification of official documents (such as daily time records)
and dishonesty are both grave offenses. As such, they carry the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture
of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in
government service. Re: Unauthorized disposal of unnecessary and scrap materials in the Supreme
Court Baguio Compound, and the irregularity on the bundy cards of some personnel therein, A.M. No.
2007-17-SC, July 7, 2009.

Dishonesty. Even assuming that the payment of P10,000.00 was made on behalf of the defendant, respondent
acknowledged having received a total of P12,500.00 as sheriffs expenses. The estimated expenses which he
submitted to and were later approved by the RTC amounted to only P7,500.00, which reveals that complainant had,
in fact, overpaid him by P2,500.00. While respondent was able to submit a Liquidation of Expenses dated August
30, 2005 in which he claimed to have spent P13,000.00, he was only able to present two receipts to prove his
expenses: (1) P1,500.00 issued on June 6, 2005 as rent for the jeep hired to haul objects and (2)P2,000.00 issued
on July 1, 2005 as guarding fee for two (2) tricycles. Notably, it does not appear that said liquidation was approved
by the RTC. Respondent has undoubtedly violated Section 4, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel,
which provides that court personnel shall not accept any fee or remuneration beyond what they receive or are
entitled to in their official capacity. Respondent failed to substantiate that the expenses amounting to P9,500.00,
without receipts to qualify the same, was actually incurred and duly accounted for. Geronimo Francisco
vs. Sebastian Bolivar, etc., A.M. No. P-06-2212, July 14, 2009.

Dishonesty. Respondent was undeserving of the trust reposed in him. Instead of using the money for the bond of
the complainants son, he pocketed it. He failed to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings with his client.
He failed to live up to his fiduciary duties. By keeping the money for himself despite his undertaking that he would
facilitate the release of complainants son, respondent showed lack of moral principles. His transgression showed
him to be a swindler, a deceitful person and a shame to the legal profession. Dolores C. Belleza vs. Atty. Alan
S. Macasa, A.C. No. 7815, July 23, 2009.

Dishonesty.

Dishonesty is a serious offense which has no place in the judiciary. Each false entry in

the DTR constitutes falsification and dishonesty. The falsification of a DTR constitutes fraud involving government
funds. It bears stressing that the DTR is used to determine the salary and leave credits accruable for the period
covered thereby. Falsifying ones DTR to cover up absences or tardiness automatically results in financial losses to
the government because it enables an employee to receive salary and earn leave credits for services which were
never rendered.
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty and falsification of official
document are punishable with dismissal even for the first offense. However, the Court, in certain instances, has not
imposed the penalty of dismissal due to the presence of mitigating factors such as the length of service,
acknowledgment of the infractions, and remorse by the respondent. Judge Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr. vs. Concepcion
Z. Ching, etc./Concepcion A. Ching vs. Judge Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., etc., A.M. No. P-06-2245/A.M. No. MTJ09-1741, July 31, 2009.

Execution of judgment. Sheriffs have an important role to play in the administration of justice cannot be
overemphasized. They form an integral part, as they are called upon to serve writs, execute all the processes, and
carry into effect the orders, of the court. When placed in their hands, it is their duty, in the absence of any instruction
to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness, to execute writs according to their mandate.
As noted by the OCA, no restraining order was issued by the appellate court on October 17, 2003 to excuse the
delay in the execution of the writ. It was only on October 21, 2003 or four days later that the appellate court issued a
temporary restraining order pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration. At all events, even if a writ is later
ruled to be improvidently or improperly issued, the sheriff is not in a position to question it, as his duty in executing
the same is purely ministerial.

Atty. Nelson T. Antolin, et al. vs. Judge Alex L. Quiroz, et al./Edwin

V. Garrobo Vs. Judge Alex L. Quiroz, RTV, Pasig City, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2186/A.M. No. RTJ-09-2187, July
14, 2009.

Exhaustion of judicial remedies. The rule on exhaustion of judicial remedies does not erase the gross
ignorance of the law that he exhibited. It is not a mandatory sine qua non condition for the filing of an administrative
case in the way that it is required in the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and other similar rules in the
Rules of Court. The filing of an administrative case is not an extraordinary remedy that demands that the lower court
or tribunal be given every opportunity to review its finding. In fact, it is not a remedy at all required in the underlying
case that was attended by gross ignorance to challenge or reverse the ruling in that case. It is a totally separate
matter whose objective is to seek disciplinary action against the erring judge.

Prosecutor Robert

M. Visbal vs. Judge Wenceslao B. Vanilla, MTCC, Br. 2, Tacloban City, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1651, July 15,
2009.

Falsification. Although dishonesty through falsification of DTRs is punishable by dismissal, such an extreme
penalty cannot be inflicted on an errant employee such as herein respondent, especially so in cases where there
exist mitigating circumstances which could alleviate her culpability. Respondent has been Branch Clerk of Court for
about ten (10) years and this is her first administrative complaint. The OCA recommended that respondent be
suspended from the service for one (1) year without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
will

be

dealt

with

more

severely. Concerned

Employees

of

the

Municipal

Trial

Court

of Meycauayan, Bulacan Vs. Larizza Paguio-Bacani, Branch COC II, MTC, Meycauayan, Bulacan, A.M. No. P-062217, July 30, 2009.

Grave abuse of authority. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve order
in judicial proceedings as well as to uphold the administration of justice. The courts must exercise the power of
contempt for purposes that are impersonal because that power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges but for
the functions they exercise. Thus, judges have, time and again, been enjoined to exercise their contempt power
judiciously, sparingly, with utmost restraint and with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and
preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication. Respondent judges act of unceremoniously
citing complainant in contempt is a clear evidence of his unjustified use of the authority vested upon him by
law. Venancio Inonog vs. Judge Francisco B. Ibay, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch
135, Makati City, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2175, July 28, 2009.

Grave misconduct. We thus find petitioner guilty of grave misconduct. By his actuations, he violated the policy
of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. Public officers and employees must at all

times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Public servants must bear in mind this constitutional mandate at all
times to guide them in their actions during their entire tenure in the government service.
Under the Civil Service Law and its implementing rules, grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal from service.
Atty. Emmanuel Pontejos vs. Hon. Aniano Desierto and Restituto Aquino, G.R. No. 148600, July 7,
2009.

Grave misconduct. Grave Misconduct is a malevolent transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer or employee which threatens the
very existence of the system of administration of justice. Estonilo, Padilla, and Bambilla committed grave misconduct
in unlawfully bringing scrap materials out of the court premises and using the court vehicle for the purpose, deviating
from the established or definite rule of action.
Section 52(A)(3) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies grave as a grave
offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense. Re: Unauthorized disposal of unnecessary and scrap
materials in the Supreme Court Baguio Compound, and the irregularity on the bundy cards of some
personnel therein, A.M. No. 2007-17-SC, July 7, 2009.

Grave misconduct.

Under Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, it is a serious charge to borrow money

or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court. Under the same provision, an act that
violates the Code of Judicial Conduct constitutes gross misconduct,[42] which is also a serious charge. In either
instance, a serious charge is punishable by: 1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as
the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case
include accrued leave credits; 2) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three but not
exceeding six months; or 3) a fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000. Concerned Lawyers
of Bulacan vs. Presiding Judge Pornillos, RTC Br. 10, Malolos City, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183, July 7, 2009.

Grave misconduct. We do not find respondents guilty of grave misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer. And when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule
are manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct. Respondents rightfully determined the
occupation by the SPFMPCI members unauthorized (albeit on a different basis).

The Republic of the

Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, in her
capacity as the Ombudsman vs. Rufino V. Maijares, Roberto G. Ferrera, Alfredo M. Ruba and
Romeo Querubin. G.R. Nos. 170615-16. July 9, 2009.

Gross ignorance of the law. Instead of first ruling whether the case fell under the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure, Judge Pangilinan immediately issued a warrant of arrest and fixed complainants bail at P2,000. There
being no showing that complainant failed to appear in court when required by Judge Pangilinan, the warrant of
arrest he issued had no legal basis.
Judge Pangilinans faux pas cannot be countenanced. For when a judge shows unfamiliarity with the fundamental
rules and procedures, he contributes to the erosion of public confidence in the judicial system and is guilty of gross

ignorance of the law and procedures. Lanie Cervantes vs.. Judge Heriberto M. Pangilinan, and Clerk of
Court III Carmencita P. Baloco, etc., A.M. No. MTJ-08-1709, July 31, 2009.

Gross ineffiency. The Constitution mandates that all cases or matters filed before all lower courts shall be
decided or resolved within 90 days from the time they are submitted for decision. Respondent repeatedly ignored
this mandate. She also violated Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to
dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
Failure to comply within the mandated period constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties
to a speedy disposition of their cases. The Court has always considered a judges delay in deciding cases within the
prescribed period of three months as gross inefficiency. Re: Report on the Judicial Audit in Municipal Circuit
Trial Court, Jiminez-Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental/ Judge Pricilla Hernandez, A.M. No. 03-170-MCTC,
July 14, 2009.

Gross inefficiency. No less than the Constitution mandates that all cases or matters must be decided or
resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission to the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all lower courts. In implementing
this constitutional mandate, Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct exhorts in the section on
Competence and Diligence that judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period, without
strong and justifiable reason, constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of an administrative sanction on
the defaulting judge. Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch
55, Malabon City, A.M. No. 08-3-73-MeTC, July 31, 2009.

Falure to decide cases. Judge Pantanosas, Jr.s explanation that the undecided cases were never brought to
his attention during his incumbency deserves scant consideration. Proper and efficient court management is the
responsibility of the judge, and he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions. It
should be emphasized that the responsibility of making a physical inventory of cases primarily rests on the presiding
judge. He ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision or resolution, and he is expected to keep his own
record of cases so that he may act on them without undue delay. It is incumbent upon him to devise an efficient
recording and filing system in his court so that no disorderliness can affect the flow of cases and their speedy
disposition.
A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court personnel since proper and
efficient court management is his responsibility. Court personnel are not the guardians of a judges responsibilities.
The efficient administration of justice cannot accept as an excuse the shifting of the blame from one court personnel
to another. A judge should be the master of his own domain and take responsibility for the mistakes of his
subordinates. Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch
2, Cagayan De Oro City, A.M. No. 02-8-207-MTCC, July 27, 2009.

Negligence. Respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure to give attention to a task or the
disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference,[16] which is classified as a less grave offense under the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and punishable with suspension for one month and one
day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Office of the Court Administrator
vs. Officer-in-charge and Legal Researcher Nilda Cinco, RTC, Br. 28, Catbalogan, Samar, A.M. No. P06-2219, July 13, 2009.

Negligence; failure to file memorandum on appeal. The appellant is duty-bound to submit his
memorandum on appeal. Such submission is not a matter of discretion on his part. His failure to comply with this
mandate or to perform this duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal.
Respondents failure to file the required pleadings is per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Natividad Uy vs.. Atty. Braulio RG Tansisin, A.C. No. 8252, July 21, 2009.
Negligence. A lawyers negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising from the relationship of counsel and
client may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant, particularly his client.
Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyers lethargy in carrying out his duties to his
client is both unprofessional and unethical.
If his clients case is already pending in court, a lawyer must actively represent his client by promptly filing the
necessary pleading or motion and assiduously attending the scheduled hearings. This is specially significant for a
lawyer who represents an accused in a criminal case. Dolores C. Belleza vs. Atty. Alan S. Macasa, A.C. No.
7815, July 23, 2009.

Negligence. When respondent accepted the amount of P50,000.00 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 that he would serve his client, herein complainant, with competence, and attend to her cause
with fidelity, care and devotion.
The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling complainants case and subsequently
failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Trinidad H. Camara, et al. vs. Atty.
Oscar Amondy Reyes, A.C. No. 6121, July 31, 2009.

Simple misconduct. Misbehavior by court employees within and around their vicinity necessarily diminishes
their dignity. Any fighting or misunderstanding becomes a disgraceful sight reflecting adversely on the good image of
the Judiciary.
Indeed, the two are guilty of conduct unbecoming of court employee amounting to simple misconduct, classified as a
less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service which merits suspension for
one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.
Under Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, in the determination of the
penalties to be imposed, the extenuating, mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances, among other
considerations, may be taken into account. As recommended then, the length of service, the performance ratings,
and the number of times an employee has been administratively charged may be considered. Re: Fighting
incident between two(2) SC shuttle bus drivers, namely, Messrs. Edilbert L. Idulsa and Ross C.
Romero, A.M. No. 2008-24-SC, July 14, 2009.

Simple misconduct. Sheriff Jundarinos duty is to implement the Writ of Execution dated 28 November 2007 at
No. 2519 Granate St., Sta.Ana, Manila. Given Quilos assertions that his residence was actually at No.
2518 Granate St., San Andres Bukid, Manila, and that he was not even a party to Civil Case No. 158273-CV, the
more prudent course of action for Sheriff Jundarino was to defer implementation of the said Writ until a
determination by the MeTC of Quilos Motion to Quash the same. It bears to stress that said Motion was already

scheduled for hearing on 28 March 2008, just a day after Sheriff Jundarinos second visit to Quilos residence on 27
March 2008.
Without even considering whether Quilos residence is the same as the property involved in Civil Case No. 158273CV, the Court finds that Sheriff Jundarinos acts herein i.e., his rude and inappropriate remarks and aggressive
behavior during his visits to Quilos residence on 12 February 2008 and 27 March 2008 to implement the Writ of
Execution issued in the aforementioned case; as well as his unreasonable insistence on implementing the said Writ
on 27 March 2008 despite the fact that Quilos Motion to Quash the same was already set to be heard the very next
day, 28 March 2008 constitute simple misconduct. Edgardo A. Quilo Vs. Rogelio G. Jundarino, Sheriff III,
Metropolitan Trail Court, Branch 19, Manila, A.M. No. P-09-2644, July 30, 2009.

Simple misconduct. Mom-issuance of official receipt for stenpgraphic fees is simple misconduct. Gaspar
R. Dutosme Vs. Atty. Rey D. Caayona, A.M. No. P-08-2578, July 31, 2009.

Unauthorized practice of law. Additionally, a judge should not permit a law firm, of which he was formerly an
active member, to continue to carry his name in the firm name as that might create the impression that the firm
possesses an improper influence with the judge which consequently is likely to impel those in need of legal services
in connection with matters before him to engage the services of the firm. A judge cannot do indirectly what the
Constitution

prohibits

directly,

in

accordance

with

the

legal

maxim,quando aliquid prohibitur ex directo, prohibitur et per obliquum or what is prohibited directly is prohibited
indirectly.
By allowing his name to be included in the firm name Bartolome Lelina Calimag Densing & Associates Law Offices
while holding a judicial office, he held himself to the public as a practicing lawyer, in violation of the Rules and the
norms of judicial ethics.
Under Sections 9 and 11(B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10 SC, unauthorized
practice of law is classified as a less serious charge punishable by suspension from office without salary and other
benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding
P20,000. Atty. Florencio Alay Binalay vs. Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr., A.M. No. P-08-2132, July 31, 2009.

Violation of lawyers oath. Respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
mandates lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For, as
the IBP found, he engaged in deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking advantage of the complaint against CDO to
advance his interest to obtain funds for his BATAS Foundation and seek sponsorships and advertisements for the
tabloids and his television program.
He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
For despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining
further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continued
with his attacks against complainant and its products. At the same time, respondent violated Canon 1 also of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes. For he defied said status quo order, despite his (respondents)
oath as a member of the legal profession to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities. Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., A.C. No. 7199, July 22, 2009.