Ong vs Delos Santos

A lawyer's issuance of a worthless check renders him in breach of his oath to

obey the laws. To accord with the canon of professional responsibility that
requires him to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote
respect for the law and legal processes, he thereby becomes administratively
liable for gross misconduct.
FACTS: Complainant Benjamin Ong was introduced to respondent Atty. William F. Delos Santos by Sheriff
Fernando Mercado of MTC Manila. Ong and Atty. Delos Santos became friends. In time, according to
Ong, Atty. Delos Santos asked him to encash his postdated check inasmuch as he was in dire need of
cash. To reassure Ong that the check would be funded upon maturity, Atty. Delos Santos bragged about
his lucrative practice and his good paying clients.

Ong handed to Atty. Delos Santos the amount of P100,000.00 in exchange for the latters Metrobank
Check No.When the check was dishonored upon presentment for the reason that the account was
closed.3 Ong relayed the matter of the dishonor to Atty. Delos Santos, and demanded immediate
payment, but the latter just ignored him. 4 When efforts to collect remained futile, Ong brought a criminal
complaint for estafa and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Atty. Delos Santos. 5 Ong also
brought this disbarment complaint against Atty. Delos Santos in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

ISSUE: W/N Atty. Delos Santos violate Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he issued a worthless check?

RULING: YES. Being a lawyer, Atty. Delos Santos was well aware of the objectives and coverage of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for the law was penal in
character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved herein knowingly violated Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, and exhibited his indifference towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public
interest and public order. He thereby swept aside his Lawyers Oath that enjoined him to support the
Constitution and obey the laws. He also took for granted the express commands of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03, viz:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A Lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
MADRID VS.DEALCA

Atty. Juan S.Dealca entered his appearance in Criminal, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Philip
William Arsenault" then pending in RTC Branch 51 of the in Sorsogon City, presided by complainant
Judge Jose L. Madrid.1 Atty. Dealca sought to replace Atty. Vicente Judar who had filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel for the accused. But aside from entering his appearance as counsel for the accused,
Atty. Dealca also moved that the case be re-raffled to another Branch of the which was denied by Judge
Madrid. Also, the Appearance of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as new counsel for accused Philip William Arsenault
is likewise DENIED.

Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint 4 in the Office of the Bar Confidant citing Atty. Dealcasunethical
practice of entering his appearance and then moving for the inhibition of the presiding judge on the
pretext of previous adverse incidents between them.t The IBP-Sorsogon Chapter recommended
DEALCAS
SUSPENSION in the practice of law for a period of six (6) month DUE TO "PROPENSITY" of the respondent
as a member of the bar in resorting to harassment cases instead of going through the procedures
provided for by the Rules of Court in the event of adverse ruling, order or decision of the court.

Issue

W/N DEALCA VIOLATED THE LAWYERS OATH WHEN HE FILED GROUNDLESS SUITS?

RULING YES. Atty. Dealca exhibited his proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant for harassment,
considering that, as IBP Commissioner Hababag pointed out, his bringing of charges against judges, court
personnel and even his colleagues in the Law Profession had all stemmed from decisions or rulings being
adverse to his clients or his side.

As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty under his Lawyers Oath not to initiate
groundless, false or unlawful suits. The duty has also been expressly embodied inRule 1.03, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility thuswise:

Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or
delay any mans cause.

The Lawyers Oath is a source of obligations and duties for every lawyer, and any violation thereof by an
attorney constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. 18 The oath exhorts
upon the members of the Bar not to "wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit." These are not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld
and keep inviolable.
SALABAO VS.ATTY VILLARUEL

Complainant narrates that in 1995 she filed a case against Elmer Lumberio for his deceitful or fraudulent
conduct of taking her precious real property situated in Taguig City. The RTC ruled in her favor.
Respondent then entered the picture as counsel for Lumberio. From then on, Complainant complained
that Respondent had made her suffer because of his abuse of processes and disregard for her rights as a
litigant; that after the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 162 issued a Resolution in Civil Case
No. 65147 adverse to his client, respondent filed a barrage of cases/pleadings such as an appeal to the
Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the RTC ruling, a petition for review with the Supreme Court which
was denied for having been filed out of time; a petition for annulment of the RTC judgment which was
dismissed by the CA; another petition for review before this Court which was again denied; a petition
for certiorari which was dismissed by the CA; another civil case before the RTC of Mauban, Quezon which
was dismissed for "improper venue, res judicata, and violation of the anti-forum shopping law" 7 and that
it involved the same issues as the one filed in Pasig RTC. Moreover, he filed several inhibitions, motions
and an administrative complaint against the presiding judge.

Issue W/N ATTY VILLARUEL VIOLATED THE LAWYERS OATH WHEN HE ABUSED THE USE OF COURT
PROCESSES?

RULING

YES.

Respondent however proceeded to file no less than twelve (12) motions and cases in various courts
subsequent to the Entry of Judgment. From the nature and sheer number of motions and cases filed, it is
clear that respondent's intention was to delay the execution of the final judgment.

x x x I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor
consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a
lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts
as to my clients x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Jimenez vs.atty verano

Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC),
sent a letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They stated that respondent had admitted to
drafting the release order, and had thereby committed a highly irregular and unethical act. They argued
that respondent had no authority to use the DOJ letterhead and should be penalized for acts
unbecoming a member of the bar. by his own admissions respondent drafted the release order
specifically for the signature of the DOJ Secretary. This act of "feeding" the draft order to the latter
was found to be highly irregular, as it tended to influence a public official.

ISSUE W/N ATTY VERANO VIOLATED THE CPR WHEN HE SHOWED THAT HE CAN INFLUENCE

RULING

Canon 13, , states that "a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety
which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court." We believe that other
provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility likewise prohibit acts of influence-peddling not
limited to the regular courts, but even in all other venues in the justice sector, where respect for the rule
of law is at all times demanded from a member of the bar.

Respondent admiited that he personally approached the DOJ Secretary despite the fact that the case
was still pending before the latter; and 2) respondent caused the preparation of the draft release order
on official DOJ stationery despite being unauthorized to do so, with the end in view of "expediting the
case."

The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and
consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type of improper behavior sought to be
regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Respondentis duty-bound to actively avoid any act that
tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the peoples faith
inthe judicial process is diluted.