You are on page 1of 8

Canon 1

Penticostes vs Ibanez
This Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense of morality, honesty
and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
It is glaringly clear that respondent's non-remittance for over one year of the funds
coming from Encarnacion Pascual constitutes conduct in gross violation of the above
canon. The belated payment of the same to the SSS does not excuse his misconduct.
Rivera vs angeles
Canon 6
Penticostes vs ibanez
Respondent's claim that he may not be held liable because he committed such acts,
not in his capacity as a private lawyer, but as a prosecutor is unavailing. Canon 6 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
"These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
official tasks."
As stated by the IBP Committee that drafted the Code, "a lawyer does not shed his
professional obligations upon assuming public office. In fact, his public office should
make him more sensitive to his professional obligations because a lawyer's
disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public's eye.[3] Want of
moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible
public office.
CANON 7
1. TOPACIO NUENO VS SANTOS
respondent had openly been running a club for gambling purposes
2. Canlas v ca
rivera vs angeles
Respondents act of deceit and malpractice indubitably demonstrated his failure to
live up to his sworn duties as a lawyer. The Supreme Court repeatedly stressed the
importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyers equipment in
the practice of his profession.[4] For it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants
for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays
their trust and confidence.[5]
The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he
has extended to his client but such right should not be exercised whimsically by
appropriating to himself the money intended for his clients. There should never be an
instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his own
lawyer.
Ducat jr. Vs villalon jr
The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest
standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A
lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in
honesty, in probity and good demeanor, thus rendering unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.[9] Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates
that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the
lawyer a high standard and appreciation of his duty to them. To this end, nothing
should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in

any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the
profession.[10]
It has been established that the subject parcel of land, with an area of five (5)
hectares located in Barrio Pinugay, Antipolo, Rizal, is owned by and registered in the
name of complainant herein, Jose Ducat, Jr. Respondent Villalon insists nonetheless
that the property was orally given to him by complainants father, Jose Ducat, Sr.,
allegedly with the complete knowledge of the fact that the subject property belonged
to his son, Jose Ducat, Jr. It is basic law, however, that conveyance or transfer of any
titled real property must be in writing, signed by the registered owner or at least by
his attorney-in-fact by virtue of a proper special power of attorney and duly notarized.
Respondent Villalon, as a lawyer, is presumed to know, or ought to know, this
process. Worse, when the transfer was first reduced in writing in October, 1991 per
Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land,[11] purportedly in favor of Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon
and/or Andres Canares, Jr., respondent Villalon knew that it was Jose Ducat, Sr. who
signed the said document of sale without any Special Power of Attorney from the
registered owner thereof, Jose Ducat, Jr.; and that Jose Ducat, Sr. also signed it for his
wife, Maria Cabrido, under the word Conforme. As regards the subsequent Deed of
Absolute Sale of Real Property dated December 5, 1991, covering the same property,
this time purportedly in favor of Andres Canares, Jr. only, respondent Villalon admitted
that there was in fact no payment of P450,000.00 and that the said amount was
placed in that document only to make it appear that the conveyance was for a
consideration.
All these taken together, coupled with complainant Jose Ducat, Jr.s strong and
credible denial that he allegedly sold the subject property to respondent Villalon
and/or Andres Canares, Jr. and that he allegedly appeared before respondent notary
public Ducusin, convince us that respondent Villalons acts herein complained of
which constitute gross misconduct were duly proven.
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and
improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport
himself in such a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the
legal profession. Members of the Bar are expected to always live up to the standards
of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility
inasmuch as the relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in
nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.[
Narido vs linsangan
The spectacle presented by two members of the bar engaged in bickering and
recrimination is far from edifying, although it is understandable, if not justifiable, that
at time zeal in the defense of one's client may be carried to the point of undue
skepticism and doubt as to the motives of opposing counsel. Some such reflection is
induced by these two administrative cases wherein respondents Jaime S. Linsangan
and Rufino B. Risma, who represented adverse parties in a workmen's compensation
case, did mutually hurl accusation at each other.
Laput vs remotigue
respondent Atty. Remotigue guilty of unprofessional conduct inasmuch as he entered
his appearance, dated February 5, 1955, only on February 7, same year, after Mrs.
Barrera had dispensed with petitioner's professional services on January 11, 1955,
and after petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn his appearanceon February 5, 1955.
Tan tek beng vs david
The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against lawyer
Timoteo A. David (admitted to the bar in 1945) for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a
nonlawyer (alleged missionary of the Seventh Day Adventists), one-half of the
attorney's fees received by David from the clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng.
The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any lay
agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A

lawyer's responsibilities and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all


relations which direct the performance of his duties by or in the interest of such
intermediary.
Canon 9
Camacho vs pangulayan
Although aware that the students were represented by counsel, respondent attorney
proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without at the very
least communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel
of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of respondent, whether by design
or because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional
ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of
the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code of Professional Ethics,
specifically Canon 9 thereof, viz:
"A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a
party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or
compromise the matter with him, but should 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."
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices, namely, Attorneys Luis Meinrado C.
Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine V. Laurel, and Herbert Joaquin P. Bustos.
Complainant, the hired counsel of some expelled students from the AMA Computer
College ("AMACC"), in an action for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction and for Damages, docketed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City, charged that respondents, then counsel for the
defendants, procured and effected on separate occasions, without his knowledge,
compromise agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with four of his clients in the
aforementioned civil case which, in effect, required them to waive all kinds of claims
they might have had against AMACC, the principal defendant, and to terminate all
civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it. Complainant averred
that such an act of respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal
profession warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
CANON 10
CUARESMA VS DAQUIS
An order to demolish the property where Cuaresma was staying was issued by a trial
judge pursuant to a civil case filed by Daquis. Cuaresmas lawyer, Atty. Macario
Directo, filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court where he alleged that
they had no knowledge of the said civil case hence the order of demolition is unjust.
The Supreme Court however later found out that Cuaresma and his lawyer in fact
knew of the existence of said civil case. The Supreme Court then directed Directo to
show cause why he should not be disciplined.
Heirs of Elias Lorilla vs CA
-Failure to inform the court of the death of his client
The failure of Atty. Concepcion to serve notice on the court and the adverse parties
regarding his clients death binds herein petitioners as much as the client himself
could be so bound. Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that a client is bound
by the conduct, negligence and mistakes of his counsel.
Avelino vs Palana
As regards respondent's failure to appear in court on the day set for the trial,
We are inclined to accept his claim that it was due to the fact that early in the

morning of that date he had "a severe stomach ache, followed by constant moving of
bowel and vomiting and that as a consequence he became very weak." But while this
might be, to a certain extent, a good excuse for his non-appearance in court, it is
obviously not sufficient to explain his failure to notify his clients in due time of the
date of the trial. Had he done so, his clients would probably have tried to contact him
in due time, and upon discovering that he was sick they would have either gone to
court to ask for the postponement of the trial, or they would have looked for another
lawyer to represent them in court.
4 DIMAN VS ALUMBRES.
he had sought an extension of 30 days "due to the other volume of legal works
similarly situated and school work of the undersigned as professor of law and dean of
the University of Manila," and had entertained "the honest belief" that it would be
granted. However, he learned belatedly that only a 15-day extension had been
conceded. He forthwith completed the comment and filed it, albeit five days late.
TOPACIO NUENO VS SANTOS
-respondent attorney consented to the doing of a falsehood and deceived the court
when he had an accused plead guilty to an offense which he had not committed.
CANON 11
1. Avelino vs Palana
As regards respondent's failure to appear in court on the day set for the trial,
We are inclined to accept his claim that it was due to the fact that early in the
morning of that date he had "a severe stomach ache, followed by constant moving of
bowel and vomiting and that as a consequence he became very weak." But while this
might be, to a certain extent, a good excuse for his non-appearance in court, it is
obviously not sufficient to explain his failure to notify his clients in due time of the
date of the trial. Had he done so, his clients would probably have tried to contact him
in due time, and upon discovering that he was sick they would have either gone to
court to ask for the postponement of the trial, or they would have looked for another
lawyer to represent them in court.
SAULOG VS CUSTOMBUILT
Concededly, at the start of the pre-trial on November 5, Custombuilt's attorney was
present. But he unceremoniously left the courtroom. Counsel averred in his petition
for relief that he had to leave posthaste because "he was summoned home all too
suddenly" as "(h)is pregnant wife had been having labor pains" which "were cause for
alarm" because "his wife was due for confinement x x x and she finally delivered on
November 10, 1964."
In his petition for relief, Custombuilt's lawyer also made the statement that his wife
did not give birth until five days later, that is, on November 10. It is unreasonable to
assume that during the whole period of time - from November 5 to November 10 - his
mind was in blank, such that it was impossible for him to have taken steps to tell the
court personally or otherwise that his absence during the pre-trial was excusable.
Again, he did not. He received copy of the decision on November 10. He did not file
the petition for relief until November 14.
CANON 12
DIMAN VS ALUMBRES.
he had sought an extension of 30 days "due to the other volume of legal works
similarly situated and school work of the undersigned as professor of law and dean of
the University of Manila," and had entertained "the honest belief" that it would be
granted. However, he learned belatedly that only a 15-day extension had been
conceded. He forthwith completed the comment and filed it, albeit five days late.
SAULOG VS CUSTOMBUILT

All of these facts point to one conclusion: lack of interest on the part of appellant to
defend itself against the complaint. Rather, the pattern of conduct discloses a desire
to delay disposal of the present case. Failure to prosecute is a ground for dismissal of
the appeal and revival of the judgment of the city court under Section 9, Rule 40 of
the Rules of Court.
PEOPLE VS CASIMIRO
FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF ON TIME
-This is yet another instance of a member of the Philippine Bar, this time, respondent
Manuel N. Sanglay, being administratively proceeded against for failure to file the
brief within the reglementary period for appellants Benjamin Icalla, Rodolfo Soriano
and Benjamin Cinco. He was given the opportunity to explain in our February 3, 1972
resolution, which reads thus: "For failure to file brief for appellants Benjamin Icalla,
Rodolfo Soriano and Benjamin Cinco within the period which expired on December 23,
1971, the Court resolved to [require] Atty. Manuel N. Sanglay to explain, within ten
(10) days from notice hereof, why disciplinary action should not be taken against
him."[1] It was not until the end of that month that his manifestation and explanation
came. He would absolve himself from any blame as, in his view, no fault could be
attributed to him.
CANON 15
PEOPLE VS NADERA
Not only did defense counsel fail to object to the documentary evidence presented
by the prosecution, according to the trial court's decision, he even expressed his
conformity to the admission of the same. Neither did he present any evidence on
behalf of accused-appellant.[37] Worse, nowhere in the records is it shown that
accused-appellant was informed, either by his counsel or by the court, of his right to
present evidence, if he so desires.
Atty. Brotonel, as counsel de oficio, had the duty to defend his client and protect his
rights, no matter how guilty or evil he perceives accused-appellant to be. The
performance of this duty was all the more imperative because the life of accusedappellant hangs in the balance. His duty was no less because he was counsel de
oficio.
CANON 16
ANGELES VS UY JR.
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary; it requires a high
degree of fidelity and good faith. It is designed "to remove all such temptation and to
prevent everything of that kind from being done for the protection of the client."[5]
Thus, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer
shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession." Furthermore, Rule 16.01 of the Code also states that "a lawyer shall
account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client." The
Canons of Professional Ethics is even more explicit:
"The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he
abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client. Sup rema
"Money of the client collected for the client or other trust property coming into the
possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and should
not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him."[6]
In the present case, it is clear that respondent failed to promptly report and account
for the P16,500 he had received from Norma Trajano on behalf of his client, Primitiva

Del Rosario. Although the amount had been entrusted to respondent on December
14, 1998, his client revealed during the February 10, 1999 hearing that she had not
yet received it. Worse, she did not even know where it was.
NAKPIL VS VALDES (1993)
BREACH OF TRUST
Jose "Pinggoy" Nakpil prior to his death had requested Valdes to purchase Pulong
Maulap and thereafter register the sale and hold the title thereto in trust for him
(Pinggoy Nakpil), which respondent Valdes did. But after her husband's death, Valdes
concealed and suppressed all information regarding the trust agreement; instead, he
transferred Pulong Maulap in the name of respondent Caval Realty Corporation, which
is 99.7% owned by him, in exchange for 1,500 shares of stock.
Liwag vs neri
the respondent has committed a breach of professional ethics when, contrary to the
fact, he made the complainant believe that the Pineda spouses had already been
sued in court and did not return the amount of P30.00 intended for the filing fee.
Diaz vs kapunan
The money received from the judgment creditor by the lawyer of the judgment
debtor as consideration for the lawyers desisting from participating in execution sale
of the debtors property is owned by and must be turned over to the client.
Canlas vs CA
By Atty. Canlas own account, due to lack of paying capacity of respondent Herrera,
no financing entity was willing to extend him any loan with which to pay the
redemption price of his mortgaged properties and petitioners P100,000.00 attorneys
fees awarded in the Compromise Judgment,[34] a development that should have
tempered his demand for his fees. For obvious reasons, he placed his interest over
and above those of his client, in opposition to his oath to conduct [him]self as a
lawyer . . . with all good fidelity. . .to [his] clients.[35] The Court finds the occasion fit
to stress that lawyering is not a money-making venture and lawyers are not
merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as a matter of judicial notice, eluded
not a few law advocates. The petitioners efforts partaking of a shakedown of his
own client are not becoming of a lawyer and certainly, do not speak well of his fealty
to his oath to delay no man for money
Celaje vs Atty Soriano
respondent asked for money to be put up as an injunction bond, which complainant
found out later, however, to be unnecessary as the application for the writ was
denied by the trial court. Respondent also asked for money on several occasions
allegedly to spend for or to be given to the judge handling their case, Judge Milagros
Quijano, of the Regional Trial Court, Iriga City, Branch 36. When complainant
approached Judge Quijano and asked whether what respondent was saying was true,
Judge Quijano outrightly denied the allegations and advised her to file an
administrative case against respondent
respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano is found GUILTY of violating Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of two (2) years from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Penticostes vs ibanez
While Pascual may not strictly be considered a client of respondent, the rules relating
to a lawyer's handling of funds of a client is applicable.
The failure of respondent to immediately remit the amount to the SSS gives rise to
the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use. This is a gross

violation of general morality as well as professional ethics; it impairs public


confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.[
Daroy vs legaspi
Petitioner charged Attorney Ramon Chaves Legaspi of Cagayan de Oro City with
malpractice for having misappropriated the sum of four thousand pesos which he had
collected for them.
We find respondent Legaspi guilty of deceit, malpractice and professional misconduct
for having misappropriated the funds of his clients. His manufactured defenses, his
lack of candor and his repeated failure to appear at the investigation conducted by
the City Fiscal of Iligan and at the hearings scheduled by this Court, thus causing this
proceeding to drag on for a long time, demonstrate his unworthiness to remain as a
member of the noble profession of law.
Sotto vs lamson
She alleges that, as her attorney, Sotto had taken advantage of her financial
difficulties and mental weakness and of the confidence she had reposed in him.
Laig vs CA
Go beltran vs fernandez
complaint, charging respondent with having purchased a property of his client
involved in a pending litigation in which he appeared as counsel, and prayed that
appropriate disciplinary action be taken against him.
Rivera vs angeles
Respondents act of deceit and malpractice indubitably demonstrated his failure to
live up to his sworn duties as a lawyer. The Supreme Court repeatedly stressed the
importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyers equipment in
the practice of his profession.[4] For it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants
for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays
their trust and confidence.[5]
The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he
has extended to his client but such right should not be exercised whimsically by
appropriating to himself the money intended for his clients. There should never be an
instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his own
lawyer.
CANON 18
SAULOG VS CUSTOMBUILT
- Counsel left the court before the pretrial started.
People vs Casimiro
- Counsel did not file brief on time, and neglected his clients case.
People vs Nadera
- Counsel failed to object to the documentary evidence against his clients.
Liwag vs neri
the respondent has committed a breach of professional ethics when, contrary to the
fact, he made the complainant believe that the Pineda spouses had already been
sued in court and did not return the amount of P30.00 intended for the filing fee.
Laput vs remotigue
respondent Atty. Remotigue guilty of unprofessional conduct inasmuch as he entered
his appearance, dated February 5, 1955, only on February 7, same year, after Mrs.
Barrera had dispensed with petitioner's professional services on January 11, 1955,
and after petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn his appearanceon February 5, 1955.
CANON 20
CANLAS VS CA
It is true that lawyers are entitled to make a living, in spite of the fact that the
practice of law is not a commercial enterprise; but that does not furnish an excuse for

plain lust for material wealth, more so at the expense of another. Law advocacy, we
reiterate, is not capital that yields profits. The returns it births are simple rewards for
a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which
enjoy a greater deal of freedom from government interference, is impressed with a
public interest, for which it is subject to State regulation.[
We do not find the petitioner's claim of attorney's fees in the sum of P100,000.00
reasonable. We do not believe that it satisfies the standards set forth by the Rules.
Tan tek beng vs david
Tan tek beng vs david
The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against lawyer
Timoteo A. David (admitted to the bar in 1945) for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a
nonlawyer (alleged missionary of the Seventh Day Adventists), one-half of the
attorney's fees received by David from the clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng.
The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any lay
agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A
lawyer's responsibilities and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all
relations which direct the performance of his duties by or in the interest of such
intermediary.