You are on page 1of 5

32. Diana Ramos vs. Atty. Jose R.

Imbang
AC No. 6788; August23, 2007

Facts : This case is about the disbarment or Suspension against Atty. JoseR. Imbang for multiple
violations of the Code of Profess ional Responsibility.
1992, Ramos sought the assistance of Atty. Imbang in filing civil andcriminal actions against the spouses
Roque and ElenitaJovellanos. She gave Imbang P8, 500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued areceipt
for P5,000 only.Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases againstthe Jovellanoses.
Imbang never allowed her to enter thecourtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would
thencome out after several hours toinform her that the hearing hadbeen cancelled and rescheduled.
This happened six times and foreach appearance in court, respondent charged her P350.Ramos
was shocked to learn that Imbang never filed any caseagainst the Jovellanoses and that he was
in fact employed in thePublic Attorney's Office (PAO)

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Imbang should be disbarred.

HELD: YES, as per SCs decision Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and
integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious
of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also
public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service.
The SC supported this with three explanations:
1. Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In
addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed inthe Constitution and
existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and
employee and are hereby declared unlawful (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto,
public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not (1) Engage in the private practice of
profession unless authorizedby the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will notconflict
with their official function. In this instance, Imbang received P5,000 from the complainant
andissued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with thePAO. Acceptance of money from
a client establishes an attorney-clientrelationship.
2. Revised Administrative Code Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative
Code provides:oThe PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending free
legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil,labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.
As a PAO lawyer, Imbang should not have accepted attorney's fees fromthe complainant as this was
inconsistent with the office's mission.
3. Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:o
CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECTFOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Every lawyer is obligated to
uphold the law. This undertaking includesthe observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly
violated byImbang when he accepted the complainant's cases and receivedattorney's fees in
consideration of his legal services. Consequently, Imbang's acceptance of the cases was also a breach
ofRule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because theprohibition on the private
practice of profession disqualified him fromacting as Ramos' counsel.

33) Gisela Huyssen vs. Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez


March 24, 2006 A.C. No. 6707

FACTS: This treats of a Complaint[1] for Disbarment filed by Gisela Huyssen against respondent Atty. Fred
L. Gutierrez. Complainant alleged that in 1995, while respondent was still connected with the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation (BID), she and her three sons, who are all American citizens, applied for
Philippine Visas under Section 13[g] of the Immigration Law. Respondent told complainant that in order that
their visa applications will be favorably acted upon by the BID they needed to deposit a certain sum of
money for a period of one year which could be withdrawn after one year. Believing that the deposit was
indeed required by law, complainant deposited with respondent on six different occasions from April 1995
to April 1996 the total amount of US$20,000. Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as proofs that he
received the amounts deposited by the complainant but refused to give her copies of official receipts despite
her demands. After one year, complainant demanded from respondent the return of US$20,000 who
assured her that said amount would be returned.When respondent failed to return the sum deposited, the
World Mission for Jesus (of which complainant was a member) sent a demand letter to respondent for the
immediate return of the money. In a letter dated 1 March 1999, respondent promised to release the amount
not later than 9 March 1999. Failing to comply with his promise, the World Mission for Jesus sent another
demand letter. In response thereto, respondent sent complainant a letter dated 19 March 1999 explaining
the alleged reasons for the delay in the release of deposited amount. He enclosed two blank checks
postdated to 6 April and 20 April 1999 and authorized complainant to fill in the amounts. When complainant
deposited the postdated checks on their due dates, the same were dishonored because respondent had
stopped payment on the same. Thereafter, respondent, in his letter to complainant dated 25 April 1999,
explained the reasons for stopping payment on the checks, and gave complainant five postdated checks
with the assurance that said checks would be honored. Complainant deposited the five postdated checks
on their due dates but they were all dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds or payment
thereon was ordered stopped by respondent. After respondent made several unfulfilled promises to return
the deposited amount, complainant referred the matter to a lawyer who sent two demand letters to
respondent. The demand letters remained unheeded.
Thus, a complaint[2] for disbarment was filed by complainant in the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING: Yes. We agree with the IBP Board of Governors that respondent should be severely sanctioned.
We begin with the veritable fact that lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task
have more restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely
condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.[7]
It is undisputed that respondent admitted[8] having received the US$20,000 from complainant as shown by
his signatures in the petty cash vouchers[9] and receipts[10] he prepared, on the false representation that
that it was needed in complainants application for visa with the BID. Respondent denied he misappropriated
the said amount and interposed the defense that he delivered it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who assisted
complainant and children in their application for visa in the BID.[11]Such defense remains unsubstantiated
as he failed to submit evidence on the matter. While he claims that Atty. Mendoza already died, he did not
present the death certificate of said Atty. Mendoza. Worse, the action of respondent in shifting the blame
to someone who has been naturally silenced by fate, is not only impudent but downright ignominious. When
the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he deny the charges against him;
he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him.[12] He must show proof that he still
maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him. In the case at bar,
respondent clearly fell short of his duty. Records show that even though he was given the opportunity to
answer the charges and controvert the evidence against him in a formal investigation, he failed, without
any plausible reason, to appear several times whenever the case was set for reception of his evidence
despite due notice.
Respondents act of asking money from complainant in consideration of the latters pending application for
visas is violative of Rule 1.01[17] of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of
the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts
constitute a breach of Rule 6.02[18] of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting
their private interest. Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in
any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office.[19]
Respondents conduct in office betrays the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers,
especially from one occupying a high public office. A lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain
from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government;
he must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty
and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is
burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than his brethren in private practice.
As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands and
high standards of the legal profession.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended
by this Court for any of the following acts: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4)
grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude ; (6) violation of the lawyers
oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an attorney
for a party without authority to do so.[27]

34) Ruthie Lim-Santiago vs Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio


AC No. 6705, March 31, 2006

FACTS: This is a disbarment complaint against Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio for violating Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and for defying the prohibition against private practice of law while working
as government prosecutor.
Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat Industries,
Inc. until his appointment as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan in 1992.
Ruthie Lim- Santiago contends that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. Respondent,
being the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat very
well Respondent should have inhibited himself from hearing, investigating and deciding the case filed by
Taggat employees. Furthermore, complainant claims that respondent instigated the filing of the cases and
even harassed and threatened Taggat employees to accede and sign an affidavit to support the complaint.
Also, the complainant contends that respondent is guilty of engaging in the private practice of law while
working as a government prosecutor. Complainant presented evidence to prove that respondent received
P10,000 as retainers fee for the months of January and February 1995, 16 another P10,000 for the months
of April and May 1995, 17 and P5,000 for the month of April 1996. .
Respondent asserts that no conflicting interests exist because he was not representing Taggat employees
or complainant. Respondent claims he was merely performing his official duty as Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor. Respondent argues that complainant failed to establish that respondents act was tainted with
personal interest, malice and bad faith. Respondent denies complainants allegations that he instigated the
filing of the cases, threatened and harassed Taggat employees. Respondent claims that this accusation is
bereft of proof because complainant failed to mention the names of the employees or present them for
cross-examination.
Respondent does not dispute his receipt, after his appointment as government prosecutor, of retainer fees
from complainant but claims that itwas only on a case-to-case basis and it ceased in 1996. Respondent
contends that the fees were paid for his consultancy services and not for representation. Respondent
submits that consultation is not the same as representation and that rendering consultancy services is not
prohibited.
The IBPs Report and Recommendation
IBP Commissioner Funas Report and Recommendation ("Report") finding respondent guilty of conflict of
interests, failure to safeguard a former clients interest, and violating the prohibition against the private
practice of law while being a government prosecutor. The IBP Board of Governors recommended the
imposition of a penalty of three years suspension from the practice of law.
Clearly, as a former Personnel Manager and Legal Counsel of Taggat, herein Respondent undoubtedly
handled the personnel and labor concerns of Taggat. Respondent, undoubtedly dealt with and related with
the employees of Taggat. Therefore, Respondent undoubtedly dealt with and related with complainants in
I.S. No. 97-240. The issues, therefore, are very much familiar with Respondent. While the issues of unpaid
salaries pertain to the periods 1996-1997, the mechanics and personalities in that case are very much
familiar with Respondent.
As to the propriety of receiving "Retainer Fees" or "consultancy fees" from herein Complainant while being
an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, and for rendering legal consultancy work while being an Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor, this matter had long been settled. Government prosecutors are prohibited to engage
in the private practice of law. The act of being a legal consultant is a practice of law. To engage in the
practice of law is to do any of those acts that are characteristic of the legal profession.It covers any activity,
in or out of court, which required the application of law, legal principles, practice or procedures and calls for
legal knowledge, training and experience.
Respondent clearly violated this prohibition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Respondent should be found guilty of conflict of interest
2. Whether or not the respondent violated the prohibition against the private practice of law while
being a government prosecutor.
HELD
1. No. Complainants evidence failed to substantiate the claim that respondent represented conflicting
interests.
One test of inconsistency of interests is whether the lawyer will be asked to use against his former client
any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment. In essence, what
a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the clients confidence or to refrain from doing
anything which will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously represented him. 50
In the present case, we find no conflict of interests when respondent handled the preliminary investigation
of the criminal complaint filed by Taggat employees in 1997. The issue in the criminal complaint pertains to
non-payment of wages that occurred from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997. Clearly, respondent was no longer
connected with Taggat during that period since he resigned sometime in 1992.
In order to charge respondent for representing conflicting interests, evidence must be presented to prove
that respondent used against Taggat, his former client, any confidential information acquired through his
previous employment. The only established participation respondent had with respect to the criminal
complaint is that he was the one who conducted the preliminary investigation. On that basis alone, it does
not necessarily follow that respondent used any confidential information from his previous employment with
complainant or Taggat in resolving the criminal complaint.
The fact alone that respondent was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat and
the case he resolved as government prosecutor was labor-related is not a sufficient basis to charge
respondent for representing conflicting interests. A lawyers immutable duty to a former client does not
cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyers employment with the client. The intent of the law is to
impose upon the lawyer the duty to protect the clients interests only on matters that he previously handled
for the former client and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated.
2. Yes. The Court has defined the practice of law broadly as any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the
practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice
law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree
of legal knowledge or skill." "Private practice of law" contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature
habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a lawyer. 52
Respondent argues that he only rendered consultancy services to Taggat intermittently and he was not a
retained counsel of Taggat from 1995 to 1996 as alleged. This argument is without merit because the law
does not distinguish between consultancy services and retainer agreement. For as long as respondent
performed acts that are usually rendered by lawyers with the use of their legal knowledge, the same falls
within the ambit of the term "practice of law."
Nonetheless, respondent admitted that he rendered his legal services to complainant while working as a
government prosecutor. Even the receipts he signed stated that the payments by Taggat were for
"Retainers fee." 53 Thus, as correctly pointed out by complainant, respondent clearly violated the
prohibition in RA 6713.
On the Appropriate Penalty on Respondent
However, violations of RA 6713 are not subject to disciplinary action under the Code of Professional
Responsibility unless the violations also constitute infractions of specific provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Certainly, the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate violations of RA 6713 the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees unless the acts involved also
transgress provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Here, respondents violation of RA 6713 also constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which
mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
Respondents admission that he received from Taggat fees for legal services while serving as a government
prosecutor is an unlawful conduct, which constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01.
The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on
the surrounding facts. Under Civil Service Law and rules, the penalty for government employees engaging
in unauthorized private practice of profession is suspension for six months and one day to one year. .
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio GUILTY of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio
from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision.

35) Edilberto M. Cuenca, Vs. CA


G.R. No. 109870, December 01, 1995

FACTS:
The rule that the Supreme Court is not authorized to entertain a Motion for Reconsideration and/or New
Trial Predicated on Allegedly Newly Discovered Evidence is relaxed. Although in "Goduco v. CA" decided
some twenty (20) years ago, this Court ruled that it is not authorized to entertain a motion for reconsideration
and/or new trial predicated on allegedly newly discovered evidence the rationale of which being: "The
judgment of the Court of Appeals is conclusive as to the facts, and cannot be reviewed by the Supreme
Court. Accordingly, in an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, the latter has no jurisdiction to entertain
a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, for only questions of fact are involved
therein," the rule now appears to have been relaxed, if not abandoned, in subsequent cases like "Helmuth,
Jr. v. People" (112 SCRA 573 [1982]) and "People v. Amparado" (156 SCRA 712 [1987]). In both cases,
the Court, opting to brush aside technicalities and despite the opposition of the Solicitor General, granted
new trial to the convicted accused concerned on the basis of proposed testimonies or affidavits of persons
which the Court considered as newly discovered and probably sufficient evidence to reverse the judgment
of conviction. Being similarly circumstanced, there is no nagging reason why herein petitioner should be
denied the same benefit. It becomes all the more plausible under the circumstances considering that the
"People" does not raise any objection to a new trial, for which reason the Solicitor General ought to be
specially commended for displaying once again such statesmanlike gesture of impartiality. The Solicitor
General's finest hour, indeed.

ISSUE: WON NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED

HELD: "The above duty is well founded on the instruction of the U.S. Supreme Court in Berger v. United
States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) that prosecutors represent a sovereign `whose obligation to govern impartially
is compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore in a criminal prosecution is not
that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done (Time to Rein in the Prosecution, by Atty. Bruce Fein,
published on p. 11, The Lawyers Review, July 31, 1994). (Italics supplied.)"
"Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, prosecutors who represent the
People of the Philippines in a criminal case are not duty bound to seek conviction of the accused but to see
that justice is done. Said Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 states:
`Canon 6 - These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
tasks. `Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see
that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the
innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.

You might also like