JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN
416 SCRA 465

FACTS:
During the EDSA 2 Rally, some justices were present in the event and authorized the assumption of Pres. Arroyo to be
the president. Atty. Alan Paguia, in behalf of petitioners Pres. Estrada, said that the inhibition of the members of the
SC from hearing the petition was called for because of the rule on prohibiting judges from participating in any
partisan political activity, which according to him, the justices had violated by attending the said rally. Such act of the
justices, according to the petitioner, have prejudiced the case that would assail the legality of the act taken by
president arroyo. He added that during their motion for reconsideration, the justices have shown bias and partiality
against them which led to its dismissal. He also added that one of the justices uttered foul and disrespectful language.
Upon being discontented. Atty. Paguia continued his assault to the Court in Broadcast and Print Media.

ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of Atty. Paguia constitutes a violation of Code of Proffessional Responsibility?

RULING: YES.
Rule 13.02 of the CRP prohibits any member of the bar from making public statements that may tend to arouse
public opinion for or against a party. It is clearl that the acts of Atty. Paguia that he violated such rule because he
made his criticisms to the decision of the Court publicly through Broadcast and Print media which arouse the opinion
of the public which might be prejudicial to the development of the case.

MR. AND MRS. VENUSTIANO G. SABURNIDO VS. ATTY. FLORANTE E. MADROO

A.C. NO. 4497. SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
FACTS:
Spouses Venustiano and Rosalia Saburnido filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Florante
Madro Complainants allege that respondent has been harassing them by filing numerous complaints against them, in
addition to committing acts of dishonesty. The cases filed were:
1. Adm. Case No. 90-0755, for serious irregularity, filed by respondent against Venustiano Saburnido.
2. Adm. Case No. 90-0758, for falsification, filed by respondent against Venustiano Saburnido and two others.
3. Crim. Case No. 93-67, for evasion through negligence under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code, filed by
respondent against Venustiano Saburnido.
4. Adm. Case No. 95-33, filed by respondent against Rosalia
Saburnido for violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
Previous to this case, complainants (spouses Saburnido) also filed 3 separate administrative cases against respondent,
which led to the latters dismissal from the judiciary and forfeiture of his retirement benefits.

SC referred this case to the IBP, the latter concluded that complainants submitted convincing proof that respondent
indeed committed acts constituting gross misconduct that warrant the imposition of administrative sanction. The IBP
recommends that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Madronos act of filling multiple complaints constitute gross misconduct that will
warrant the imposition of administrative sanctions.
RULING: YES.
A lawyer may be disciplined for any conduct, in his professional or private capacity that renders him unfit to continue
to be an officer of the court. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to at all times
uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession. Clearly, respondents act of filing multiple complaints against
herein complainants reflects on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. His act evinces vindictiveness, a
decidedly undesirable trait whether in a lawyer or another individual, as complainants were instrumental in
respondents dismissal from the judiciary. We see in respondents tenacity in pursuing several cases against
complainants not the persistence of one who has been grievously wronged but the obstinacy of one who is trying to
exact revenge.
Respondents action erodes rather than enhances public perception of the legal profession. It constitutes gross
misconduct for which he may be suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
We find that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to discipline respondent. 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. While we will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed
brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice
to accomplish the desired end. In this case, we find suspension to be a sufficient sanction against respondent.
Suspension, we may add, is not primarily intended as a punishment, but as a means to protect the public and the legal
profession.

VENANCIO CASTANEDA AND NICETAS HENSON VS. PASTOR D. AGO

G.R. NO. L-28546 JULY 30, 1975
FACTS:
Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries. The
judgment is in favor of Castaneda and Henson. Thus, SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution;
Agos motion denied, levy was made on Agos house and lots; sheriff advertised the sale, Ago moved to stop the
auction; CA dismissed the petition; SC ffirmed dismissal- Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary
injunction to restrain sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied
Then, sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago failed to redeem. The sheriff executed final deed
of sale; CFI issued writ of possession to the properties
Hence, Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in the replevin suit saying it was his personal
obligation and that his wife share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy made; CFI of QC
issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda the Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the
final deed of sale; the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the restraining order continued.
Thereafter, Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff from enforcing writ of possession; SC
dismissed it; Agos filed a similar petition with the CA which also dismissed the petition; Agos appealed to SC which
dismissed the petition- Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which gave due course to
the petition and granted preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Agos lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy?
RULING: NO.
Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment of the sheriffs sale, justice demands that
the petitioners, long denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, the respondents
Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart
the satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners.- Forgetting his sacred mission as a
sworn public servant and his exalted position as an officer of the court, Atty.Luison has allowed himself to become an
instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for
compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth

and moral justice.- A counsels assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his clients cause must be
encouraged and is to be commended; what the SC does not and cannot countenance is a lawyers insistence despite
the patent futility of his clients position. It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his
case. If he finds his clients cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather
than traverse the in controvertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his clients
propensity to litigate