Fernandez vs.

Grecia
42 SCAD 438 Legal Ethics Gross Misconduct
In 1990, Linda Aves was admitted to St. Lukes Hospital. Among the doctors who treated her was Dr. Alberto
Fernandez. She was treated well hence she was sent home but then the next day she died together with her
unborn child. Damaso Aves, husband, then filed a damage suit against the hospital and he impleaded the
attending doctors which included Fernandez. Aves hired Atty. Benjamin Grecia to represent him.
Grecia requested St. Luke to surrender before the court the medical records of Linda Aves. St. Luke complied and
the medical records were delivered to the Clerk of Court. In the morning of July 16, 1991, Grecia went to the office
of the clerk of court to borrow the said medical records. While Grecia was examining the said medical records, he
tore in front of the Clerk and one office staff two pages from the medical records and then handed it back to the
Clerk. The Clerk was stunned as she watched Grecia walk away. She then reported the incident to the judge. The
judge immediately took action and the torn pages were eventually recovered as it turned out that Grecia handed
the torn pages to someone else.
Grecia was then administratively charged by Dr. Fernandez. Apparently, Grecia has been disbarred before.
However, he was able to get to the good side of the Supreme Court hence he was reinstated to the profession.
ISSUE: Whether or not Grecia should be disbarred again.
HELD: Yes. Grecia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer, he should not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is like
the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice. Considering that this is his second
offense, an incorrigible practitioner of dirty tricks, like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge the role of an
instrument to advance the ends of justice. By descending to the level of a common thief, respondent Grecia has
demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member
of the honorable fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the BAR.
In Re: Argosino, 270 SCRA 26
FACTS:
Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but was denied of taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign
the Rolls of Attorneys due to his conviction of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide from a hazing incident.
Later in his sentence, he was granted probation by the court. He filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying that
he be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath and sign the Rolls of Attorneys. As a proof of the required good moral
character he now possess, he presented no less than fifteen (15) certifications among others from: two (2)
senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious order. In addition, he, together with the others
who were convicted, organized a scholarship foundation in honor of their hazing victim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath, sign the Rolls of Attorneys, and
practice law.
HELD:
YES. Petition granted.
RATIO:
Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent proof that he possessed the required good moral
character as required before taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys, the Supreme Court
considered the premises that he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of the doubt, Mr.
Argosino was finally reminded that the Lawyers Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality before the practice of
law, and that the community assistance he had started is expected to continue in serving the more unfortunate
members of the society.
Quingwa vs. Puno [A.C. No. 389 February 28, 1967]
FACTS:

Complainant Flora Quingwa filed before the Supreme Court a verified complaint charging respondent Atty.
Armando Puno, a member of the Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct. Complainant and respondent were
engaged to be married. One time, the respondent invited the complainant to watch a movie, but later they went to
a hotel to perform the sexual act with a promise and assurance of marriage. Complainant begged respondent not
to molest her but respondent insisted, telling her: anyway I have promised to marry you. Complainant submitted
to respondents plea for sexual intercourse because of respondents promise of marriage and not because of a
desire for sexual gratification or of voluntariness and mutual passion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Puno should be disbarred.
HELD:
YES. Respondents name was ordered to be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
RATIO:
[T]he respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has, thus disregarded and violated the fundamental
ethics of his profession. Indeed, it is important that members of this ancient and learned profession of law must
conform themselves in accordance with the highest standards of morality. As stated in paragraph 29 of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics:
The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar against the admission to the profession of candidates unfit or
unqualified because deficient in either moral character or education. He should strive at all times to uphold the
honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law but the administration of
justice.
[A] grossly immoral conduct is now one of the grounds for suspension or disbarment. (Section 27, Rule 138,
Rules of Court).
Laguitan vs. Tinio, A.M. No. 3049 December 4, 1989
Ruling:
The Court agrees that respondent Tinio deserves to be suspended from the practice of law but not merely
because he has failed in his obligation to support the children complainant bore him but also because for a
prolonged period of time, he lived in concubinage with complainant, a course of conduct inconsistent with the
requirement of good moral character that is required for the continued right to practice law as a member of the
Philippine Bar, Concubinage imports moral turpitude and entails a public assault upon the basic social institution
of marriage.
LEE VS ABASTILLAS
A.M. No. RTJ-92-863 and A.C. No. 3815.
July 11, 1994
Facts
The complainant alleged that the respondent solicited a bribe by asking their council to double his attorneys fee
so the Respondent can share. Because of bad experience in judiciary, the complainant herein agreed to give the
money on installment of which P20, 000.00 was given through Atty. Chua on May 2 or 3, 1991.
Jonny K.H Uy
testified that he visited the respondent herein in his residence 11:30 in the morning on October 7, 1991 to discuss
the course of the case under his sala. And before Uy parted, the respondent ask if Lee could help him with the
$5,000.00.
After sometime and realizing that the respondent herein was giving a runaround, not having done anything to their
case under his sala, the complainant appeared before JBC sometime in 1992 to oppose Judge Abastillas
application for transfer to Manila RTC.

The above allegations of the complainants was denied by the respondent.

Ratio
The conversation was taped.
The court finds no sufficient proof to sustain the charge that Judge Abastillas accepted the amount of P20, 000.00
in view of Atty Chuas uncertainty as to the date he delivered the money.
However, there is strong and convincing evidence that Judge Abastillas had willingly and knowingly discussed
with interested parties.
Canon 1 of Code of Judicial Conduct requires that:
(Rule 1.01) A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.
(Rule 1.02) - Administer justice impartially and without delay.
(Rule 2.01) - Behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Decision
Judge Renato E. Abastillas, RTC, Branch 50 Bacolod city, is hereby found GUILTY of serious misconduct, for the
purpose of discussing or soliciting bribe in connection said cases and is hereby DISMISSED from office.
Atty. Enrique S. Chua administratively liable for alleged bribing of Judge Abastillas. He is STERNLY WARNED
that a repetition of a similar acts or violation committed by him in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Canon 1 of the IBP Code of Professional Responsibility
A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in
the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
mans cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair
settlement.
Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union (CFSWU) and Filemon Alvarez v. Lo Bu and Court of Appeals No.
L-40136, March 25, 1975, 63 SCRA 321
Facts:
After Cosmos Foundry Shop was burned , Ong Ting established Century Foundry Shop where he and his family
resided in the premises. After several attempts to settle a pending unfair labor practice case proved unsuccessful,
Ong Ting sold all his business, including equipment and rights in the New CenturyFoundry Shop to
his compadre Lo Bu, for Php20,000.
On Jan 16, 1973, petitioner CFSWU obtained from the Court of Industrial Relations the third alias writ of
execution for the satisfaction and enforcement of the judgment in its favor. Thereafter, writ was served January 17
and 18, 1973, levying on the personal properties of the Cosmos Foundry Shop or the New CenturyFoundry Shop
for the purpose of conducting the public auction sale.
Respondent Lo Bu filed an urgent motion to recall writ of execution, asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Court of
Industrial Relations (CIR). The CIR, in its order dated Feb 23, 1973, denied his motion. So likewise was the
motion for reconsideration.
Lo Bu appealed by certiorari but the Court denied this petition in its resolution dated July 17, 1993. In the
meanwhile, there was a replevin suit by Lo Bu in the Court of First Instance (CFI) Manila covering the same
properties.

Upon receipt of order from the Court denying certiorari, petitioner Labor Union filed a second motion to dismiss
complaint. After the complaint was dismissed by the lower court, decision was elevated to the Court of Appeals.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not petitioner Labor union has made out a case for certiorari and prohibition.
(2) Whether or not counsel Atty Busmente performed his obligation as an officer of the court while sustaining the
dignity of the profession while acting as counsel for Lo Bu.
Held:
Writ of certiorari is granted and the order of Respondent CA reinstating appeal is nullified and set aside.
The writ of prohibition is likewise granted, respondent CA being perpetually restrained from taking any further
action in such appeal, except that of dismissing it.
Courts should dismiss a suit which has all the earmarks of a subterfuge that was resorted to for the purpose of
frustrating the execution of a judgment in an unfair labor controversy. There was a replevin suit by the same
vendee in bad faith, Lo Bu, which was dismissed by the CFI Manila. What is worse, private respondent Lo Bu
certainly cannot plead ignorance , as he himself was the petitioner in the certiorari proceedings before this Court.
He was a prinicipal in the nefarious scheme to frustrate the award in favor of the petitioner labor union.
Rule that certiorari will not be granted where petitioners have plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law will not be enforced where it would result in further delay in satisfaction of judgment that ought to have been
enforced years ago. It is about time that a halt be called to the schemes utilized by respondent Lo Bu in his farfrom-commendable efforts to defeat labors just claim.
A legal counsel is expected to defend a clients cause but not at the expense of truth and in defiance of the clear
purpose of labor laws. For even such case, Atty Busmente had not exculpated himself. He ought to remember
that his obligation as an officer of the court, no less than the dignity of the profession, requires that should not act
like an errand-boy at the beck and call of his client, ready and eager to do his every bidding. If he fails to keep that
admonition in mind, then he puts into serious question his good standing in the bar.