-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2017 PRE-BAR REVIEW NOTES

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

by: ATTY. CARMENCITA CALUNTAD-DABU

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------

A. LEGAL ETHICS encompasses an ethical code on conduct of people engaged in the

practice of law, defining the features of Legal Ethics, respect of client confidences, candor
to courts, truthfulness in statements to others and professional independence.

1. THE LAWYERS OATH-

I, ____do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of
the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, or 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; and I impose upon
myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
So help me God.

2. PRACTICE OF LAW: any activity in or out of court which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.

CASE: Cayetano vs. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, Sept. 3, 1991)- Atty. Monsods past
experience more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in
the practice of law for at least 10 years.

FACTORS determinative of engaging in the practice of law:

1. HABITUALITY
2. COMPENSATION-
3. APPLICATION OF LAW
4. ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

Practice of law is a mere privilege, not a right; may be withheld or extended; and only
those qualified can practice law. It is also in the nature of a right because a lawyer cannot
be prevented from practicing law except for valid reasons.

REQUIREMENTS before a candidate can practice law

A. Initial requirements for admission to the Bar

1. Filipino citizen
2. 21 years of age;
3. of good moral character
4. resident of the Phil.
5. produce to the SC satisfactory evidence of proof of good moral character;
6. no charges having been filed or any pending case anywhere in the Philippines
7. complied with academic requirements
8. pass the bar examinations
9. take the Lawyers Oath
10. sign the Roll of Attorneys
 B. Continuing requirements:
1. good and regular standing
2. membership in the IBP and pay the IBP dues
3. pay the PTR
4. comply with MCLE
5. good moral character.

BAR MATTER 1161 Additional requirement for admission to the practice of law-
The law dean must submit a certification that the candidate has no derogatory
record in school; if there is any, the details and status thereof,

Who may practice law:

General Rule: only those licensed and admitted

Student practice rule- completed 3rd year legal educ. Program approved by the SC to
represent indigent clients; w/o compensation under the direct supervision and control of
a lawyer; (Sec, 1 and 2, Rule 138-A)
Limitations non adversary; not habitually engaged; no compensation

May a party represent himself>

a. in civil cases Yes
b. in criminal cases for grave or less grave offenses, must be represented
by a lawyer since right to counsel cannot be waived.

Filipino citizenship- NOT a requirement when one enters law school and at the time of
taking the Bar. But at the time of admission, he must prove Filipino citizenship.

Case: People vs. Santocides, GR 109149 Dec. 1999 Where an accused was not
duly represented by a member of the bar during the trial the judgment should be set aside,
and the case remanded to the trial court for new trial.

May a lawyer who graduated from a foreign law school be admitted to the bar
examinations?
YES Applicant must be a Filipino citizen and submit an affidavit and a certification
of the law school/university attesting to the following facts: (Sec. 5, Rule 138. RRC):
1) satisfactory proof that they have regularly studied law for four years;
2) successfully completed all prescribed courses
3) law school or university is officially approved and recognized by the
Sec. of Education.

Bar Matter No. 1153, Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza A Filipino citizen who
graduated from a foreign law school must also submit the above requirements.

Remedies against unauthorized practice of law:

1. declaratory relief
2. petition for injunction
3. contempt of court
4. criminal complaint for estafa for representing himself as a lawyer

May a corporation practice law?

NO. It cannot practice law directly or indirectly by employing a lawyer to practice for it
or to appear for others for its benefit.
Why? Nature confidential; cannot perform the requisites

2
1. AUTHORITY TO APPEAR (1991 2015)
Can a private practitioner represent and appear as counsel for a government
agency or government owned-and-controlled corporation?

NO, as a general rule.

Exception: extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or cases, provided there is written
confirmation and acquiescenc of OGCC and concurrence of COA. (COA Circular No. 8
5255 dated April 2, 1986; Office of the President Memo-Cir.#9).(The Law Firm of
Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo vs. COA 745 SCRA 269)

2. Can a mayor, who is a lawyer, represent his Local government unit (LGU) in civil cases
for or against said LGU?
YES. He can appear, but only as representative of the LGU to represent the
interest of the LGU.

3. Can he appear as counsel for the LGU?

NO, because he cannot practice his profession. There is a Legal Officer authorized
by the Local Government Code to represent and appear as counsel for the LGU.
(Sec.90, LGC)

Case: Javellana vs. DILG, G.R. 102549, August 10, 1992

Proceedings where lawyers not allowed

1. Katarungang Pambarangay Court
2. Small Claims cases

4. May a lawyer decline an appointment as counsel de officio?

NO. Lawyers cannot decline appointment of amicus curiae; free legal aid upon request
of IBP; counsel de officio; and must perform his duties with the same competence and
standards as paying client;

Grounds for Valid Refusal:

a. not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently;
b. conflict of interest;

5. May a lawyer who has never handled a case in court be appointed as judge?
Yes. (see definition of practice of law Cayetano v. Monsod case)

6. May a suspended lawyer continue to prepare legal documents without having to

appear in court?
Yes, provided that he does not sign the document or his name does not appear
therein as lawyer.

7. May a lawyer who migrated and became a US citizen continue to be a lawyer

here? What if he became a dual citizen?

8. May a retired judge/justice appear in court to practice law?

For former government lawyers He cannot accept engagement/employment in
regard to any matter in which he had taken part while he is still in the government.

Lawyers in the government service have additional standards to observe. They are
required to and bound by:
a. Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
b. The Civil Service Act

A government lawyer must not use his position to advance his private interests or allow his
private interests to interfere with his public duties.

3
A public prosecutors duty is not to convict but to see to that justice is done. He should not
suppress facts or conceal witnesses that will help establish the innocence of the accused.

A lawyer who appears corruptly or willfully without authority, he may be disciplined or

punished for contempt of court as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transaction. (Dr. Villahermosa, Sr. v. Atty. Caracol AC 7325m Jan. 21, 2015)

Is practice of law a pre-requisite before the IBP can collect IBP dues?

No, A lawyer pays his dues being a member of the IBP and to establish the welfare
funds of the IBP. (BM 1370)

Barratry vs.Ambulance chasing:

a. Barratry - any action while ambulance chasing - personal injury cases;

b. Barratry- may refer to suites before judicial or non-judicial bodies while ambulance
chasing refers to cases brought before the judicial forra.

Order of duty of a lawyer: a. Court ; b. Bar ; c. Society; d. Client

ADVERTISING AND SOLICITATION:

General Rule: A lawyer cannot advertise his talent as he is a member of an
Honorable profession whose primary purpose is to render public service and help secure
justice and in which the remuneration is mere incident.
Exception - Advertisement must be true, fair, hones and not self laudatory.

A lawyer who agrees with a non-lawyer to divide attorneys fees paid by clients supplied or
solicited by the non-lawyer is guilty of malpractice, the same being a form of solicitation of
cases.

LAW FIRM NAME

1. Law firm must be named after a lawyer; not abbreviated; not acronym.
2. name of deceased partner must be dropped;Letterhead - may be included in
the letterhead but must indicate therein as deceased.
3. Filipino lawyers cannot use name of a foreign law firm.

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS: (1991-2014)

a. Requisites: 1. attorney-client relationship

2. made by the client in the course of the engagement;
3. intended to be confidential
b. Duration of the privilege - exists even after the termination of the attorney-client
relationship; ceases only when waived by the client, or after his death, waver by his heir,
legal representative

c. Are the contents of pleadings covered by said privilege?

Pleadings ceased to be privileged after the pleadings have been filed in court.

d. Communications for 3rd person ceases to be confidential as soon as it reaches the

hands of said 3rd person;

e. Purpose of the rule:

1. encourage a client to make a full disclosure of the facts of the cases without fear;
2. allow lawyer freedom to obtain full information

f. Burden of proof He who avers that the communication is privileged unless from the
face of the document it is privileged.

4
g. Parties who can invoke the privilege:
1. the client;
2. the lawyer or clients employee;
3. attorneys secreaty, stenographer or clerk who acquired the information.
unless the lawyer and the client consent

Basic limitations:
a) the communication was transmitted for the purpose of seeking legal advise;
b) limited to those within the ambit of lawful employment and not extended to those
transmitted in contemplation of future crimes of frauds but information on crimes or
fraud already committed fall within the privilege.

Note: The privilege communication rule applies to those under Student Practice law.

h. A lawyer should not use abusive, offensive or otherwise improper language.

Note: Utterance, petitions and motions made in the course of judicial proceedings have
consistently been considered as absolutely privileged, however false or malicious they
may be for so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of inquiry.

A Congressman-lawyer, may, on her privilege speech, criticize a courts decision since he

is covered by the legislative parliamentary immunity. But said immunity cannot be allowed
to be used as a vehicle to ridicule, demean and destroy the reputation of the Court and its
magistrates, nor as armor for personal wrath and disgust. But Courts do no interfere with
the legislature or its members in the manner they perform their functions in the legislative
floor or in committee rooms. Any claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala
fides of the statement uttered by the member of Congress does not destroy the privilege.
The disciplinary authority of the assembly and the voters, not the courts, can properly
discourage or correct such abuses committed in the name of parliamentary immunity.
(Ponce vs. Defensor-Santiago, August 25, 2005)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Conflicting interest ===a criminal offense (2nd par. of Art. 209 RPC)

Tests to determine conflict of interest:

a. Conflicting Duties- Will the lawyer be required to contest for that which his duty
to another client requires him to oppose?

b. Invitation of Suspicion Will the acceptance of a new relation invite suspicion,

and /or actually lead to unfaithfulness or double-dealing towards another
client?

c. Use of prior knowledge obtained: Will the lawyer be called upon in his new
relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired in the
employment?

NEGATIVE PREGNANT with alternative admission ; lack of knowledge or information to

form a belief as to the truth of an allegation; may amount to an admission of the material
allegations if within defendants knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be
palpably untrue.

MORAL TURPITUDE: imports an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the duties

which one person owes to another or to society in general which is contrary to the usually
accepted and customary rule of rights and duty which a person should follow. (murder,
5
estafa, rape, Viol. Of BP 22, bribery, bigamy, adultery, seduction, abduction, concubinage,
smuggling)

ATTORNEYS FEES :

a. Contract express or oral; implied when the client allowed the lawyer to render legal
services not intended to be gratuitous without objection. And the client is benefited by
reason thereof. not enrich at the expense of the lawyer.

b. Lawyers should be frank about their fees; by having a clear cut agreement on the fees,
lawyers can avoid the embarrassment they have to suffer when they have tile cases
against their own clients;

c. A written contract is generally conclusive as to the amount of the fees., unless found by
the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

d. In case of unjustified dismissal of the attorney, he shall be entitled to recover from the
client full compensation stipulated in the contract.

e. When lawyer cannot recover full amount, despite written contract ---
1. when the services called for were not performed
But If withdrawal is justified, lawyer can recover full amount
2. when dismissal is justified or contract is nullified, attorneys fees shall be based
on quantum meruit;
3. when the stipulated attorneys is unconscionable;
4. when in excess of what is expressly fixed by law; Ex: :Labor code -10%;
5. lawyer is guilty of fraud and bad faith toward his client;
6. when the services were worthless due to negligence\
7. when contract is illegal, against morals or public policy
8. serving adverse interests, unless with the consent and acquiescence of client;

f. Kinds of payment - a) fixed or absolute regardless of the result of the case

b) contingent fee conditioned on securing a favorable judgment;
c) a fixed fee payable per appearance;
d) a fixed fee based on place of work.

g. Kinds of retainer agreement:

1. general or retaining fee to secure future services as general counsel; paid

Whether or not there are cases referred to the lawyer.
2. special retainer for a specific case or service rendered by the lawyer;

h. QUANTUM MERUIT - as much as he has deserved; a legal mechanism in legal ethics

which prevents an unscrupulous client from running away with the fruits of the legal
services without paying thereof.

i. Attorneys lien-

1. Charging lien- secured to him out of a judgment;

- statement of claim duly recorded with notice on the client and adverse party.
2. Retaining lien- retain the funds, documents and papers of a client that comes to
his possession legally. (Miranda vs. Carpio, 658 SCRA 197, {2012})

j. Suit in Assumpsit- action filed by a lawyer against his client for the collection of
attorneys fees.

6
Prohibition against purchase of property in litigation (Art. 1491, NCC)- applies if the
sale or assignment of the property takes place during the pendency of the litigation
involving said property.

Requisites:
1. attorney-client relationship
2. property is in litigation
3. attorney is the counsel or record in the case
4. attorney, by himself or thru an authorized representative purchases such
property during the pendency of the case;

Money of the client or 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.

Lawyers who misappropriated the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of
professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public trust.

Prohibition against purchase of property in litigation (Art. 1491, NCC)-

(1996; 2002; 2007-2011; 2013)

Requisites:
*attorney-client relationship
*property is in litigation
*attorney is the counsel or record in the case
*attorney, by himself or thru an authorized representative purchases such property
*purchase is made during the pendency of the case

ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
(1999;2001-02; 2007-98;2011-13)

When is there attorney-client relationship - advice/assistance is sought and

advice/assistance is received in any manner pertinent to his profession. (Ruby v. Atty.
Espejo, A.C. No. 10558, February 4, 2015)

Dr. Villahermosa, Sr., vs. Atty. Caracol, Jan. 21, 2015

Even if lawyer is retained by client the relationship terminates upon the death
of either lawyer or client.

CLIENTS FUNDS:

Lawyers who misappropriated the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of
professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public trust.
* account upon demand
* do not co-mingle with own funds

BORROWING MONEY FROM CLIENT:

Sps. Concepcion v. Atty. Dela Rosa, 2/3/15

Return of money received from a client not in consideration of professional services
is beyond the ambit of administrative case; civil liability for money not intrinsically linked to
professional engagement is separate and distinct from professional liability.

7
IX. BAR MATTER 850- MCLE 36 units (6-legal ethics; 4 trial and pre-trial skills; 5-
aternative dispute resolution; 9-updates on substantive and procedural laws and
jurisprudence; 4-writing and oral advocacy\ 2-internation law and international
conventions;6- MCLE prescribed subject)

Purpose of MCLE :
1. to keep abreast with law and jurisprudence;
2. maintain the ethics of the profession;
c. enhance the standards of the practice of law

Exempted from MCLE (2006)

1. President
2. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives
3. Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the SC; incumbent and retired justices of the
judiciary, incumbent members of the JBC

X. THE NOTARIAL LAW-

1. Term of office of notary public two years

2. Petition is filed with the Regional Trial Court of the place where the lawyer intends to be
commissioned as Notary Public place where he practice his profession/office;

3. An applicant cannot notarize documents unless he had taken his oath of office and his
appointment or commission had been issued by the Executive Judge.

4. Notarial register refers to a permanently bound book with numbered pages (page 1 to
105) containing a chronological record of notarial acts perfomed by a Notary Public. It is
secured from the Supreme Court upon presentation of the Notarial Commission.

5. The Notary Public has the duty submit to the Executive Judge Office, Notarial Section
every 10th day of the month a true and correct notarial report with copies of documents
notarized; and when the Notarial Register had been fully utilized and filled up.

5. Jurisdiction of notary public and place of notarization within the territorial jurisdiction
where his appointment of commission was issued

6. Competent evidence of identity- valid ID preferably government issued ID with picture

Signature;
7. The notarization of a photocopy of a document does not convert it to an authentic copy.

XI. THE DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS:

A. Administrative Liabilities:

1. Nature of Administrative Proceedings on the discipline of lawyers

confidential; not penal nor civil; Sui generis

2. Penalties or Sanctions imposable - admonition; warning; censure; suspension (fixed or

indefinite); disbarment.

3. Prescription

B. Criminal Liabilities of a Lawyer- In addition to administrative sanctions lawyers may also

be liable for:
1) Violation of Art. 209 of the Revised Penal Code for:

8
 a) malicious breach of professional duty or inexcusable negligence or
ignorance
b) Revealing clients secrets

2) Libel for libelous words in pleadings

a) General Rule Lawyers are exempted from criminal liability for libel for as
long as the statements are connected with, relevant pertinent and material to
the cause on hand or the subject of inquiry.

Exception: Lawyer loses this privilege if pleader goes beyond the

requirements
b) Absence intent or expressing an apology is mitigating only, unless the
apology is not sincere, or sham or artful only.

3) Contempt direct or indirect

a) Whether or not an act constitute contempt depends on the nature and not in
the presence of offensive intent.

JUDICIAL ETHICS -

I. OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS

a. INDEPENDENCE = free from inappropriate outside influence; fearless, and

unafraid to displeased any person; rule fairlt.

b. INTEGRITY personal demeanor and conduct of judges

c. IMPARTIALITY with respect to the decision and to the process in arriving at

the decision.

d. PROPRIETY - avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his

activities (public or private).

Even acts that are not per se improper can be perceived by the larger
community as such.

e. EQUALITY - in the performance of his judicial duties, the judge shall not by
words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person on irrelevant
grounds.

f. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE - prerequisite in the due performance of

judicial duties; his official duty precedes his other activities.

The judicial functions of a judge take precedence over all other

activities.

* hear and decide cases without delay
* take reasonable steps to enhance their
knowledge of the law, jurisprudence
and procedure

2. The judge, even if disqualified or inhibited, if the decision has been rendered, will not
invalidate the decision because the judge had acquired jurisdiction over the case.

9
3. If the judge denied the motion for inhibition filed by a party, trial shall proceed. Should
the decision be adverse the aggrieved party may appeal from the judgment and
raise the denial of the inhibition as a ground for the appeal.

4. if the motion for inhibition is denied the remedy is Certiorari under Rule 65.

5. May a judge consult other judges in making a decision?

As a rule the discussion in the decision must be penned by the judge himself. While
there is no prohibition to consult other judges, he is not however bound by their
opinion.

6. May a judge acquire property subject matter of a case pending before him?
If the acquisition took place after the finality of the decision, it is valid.

7. Judges should respect orders of higher courts. A resolution of the Supreme Court is not
to be construed as a mere requests, nor should it be complied with partially,
inadequately or selectively;

8. Judges are bound to review the bond documents before approving the bond;

9. The Supreme Court usually allows reasonable extensions of time to decide cases in
recognition of the heavy caseload of the trial courts; but judge must file request for
extension.

10. Disqualification vs. Inhibition:

a. D-The Rules enumerates the specific and exclusive grounds under which
any judge or judicial officer is disqualified from acting as such;
I The Rules does not expressly enumerate the specific grounds for
inhibition but merely gives a broad basis thereoff.

b. D Rules give the judicial officer no discretion to try or sit in a case

(mandatory)
I - Rules leaves the matter of inhibition to the sound discretion of the judge
(voluntary)

Some acts of a judge- not illegal but still violate CJE:

a. Heard case on a day he was supposed to be on official leave ( Judge E. Acuna,

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891m July 28, 2005 [censure]

b. heard a motion while on vacation in his room wearing a polo jacket (Ignacio v.
Valenzuela, 111 SCRA 12)

c. Though no clear evidence of sexual congress between the judge and his
subordinate, photos showing the two of them coming out of a hotel together - gave
rise to appearance of impropriety. (Liwanag v. Lustre, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1168m
April 21, 1999)

d. A joking remark to a litigant suggesting the litigant to prove he harbored no ill

feelings to the judge (Co v. Plato, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1501, March 14, 2005)

May a judge acquire property subject matter of a case pending before him?

Rule on acquisition of property

* after finality of decision - valid (Macariola v. Hon. Asuncion, May 31, 1982.)

10
 However, even if his actuation is not within the prohibition under Art. 1491, NCC, he
may still be held liable because as a member of the Bar, he must be free from any act of
impropriety.

May a judge receive a gift, award or benefit?

YES, provided it was given at the appropriate occasion. (Sec. 13-15, Canon 4,
CJE); subject to RA 6713 and 3019)

-------------------------------------

THE BAR AND THE BENCH: IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW:

SEXUAL HARASSMENT (RA 7877-Anti Sexual Harassment Law-1995)

Work-related employment sexual harassment is committed when:

1) sexual favor is made a condition in the hiring or in the employment or continued
employment of individual;
2) sexual favor is made as a condition in granting said individual favorable
compensation, terms, conditions, promotions or privileges.

Effect: Refusal to grant said sexual favor results in:

a) limiting, segregating or classifying employee which discriminates, deprives or
diminishes, employment opportunities;
b) otherwise adversely affect employment;
c) impair employees rights, privileges under existing labor laws
d) intimidating, hostile or offensive environment on complaining employee;

Prosecution: must be filed within 3 years

Penalties : imprisonment -1 month not more than 6 months; or
Fine of P10,000.00 to P20,000.00 or both;

Notes: 1. RA 7877 is not gender based

2. Sexual harassment is not about a man taking advantage of a woman in the
workplace, but about power being exercised over subordinates.
3. Administrative sanction is not a bar to filing of criminal or civil case for damages;

SEXUAL HARRASSMENT INVOLVING LAWYERS AND JUDGES

DOMINGO V. REYALA GR. No. 155831; RAYALA V. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

G.R. NO. 155840; REPUBLIC V. RAYALA, 158700, February 18, 2008)

Facts: A complaint for sexual harassment was filed against Atty. Rayala, then NLRC
Chairman, before the DOLE, for unsolicited and untoward acts of body contact, making
statement with sexual overtones, initiating inappropriate conversations and giving her
unsolicited money for school expenses, among others, promises of future privileges.

Ruling: The demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor need not be articulated to
a categorical oral or written statement and instead may already be sufficiently discerned
from the offenders acts, even though no offer or work favors, such as continued
employment or promotion nor threats such as dismissal from employment.
Atty. Reyala was dismissed from the service.
________________

ATTY. AQUINO V. HON. JUSTICE ACOSTA (CTA), A.M. No. 01-1, April 2, 2002)

11
Facts: CTA Justice Acosta entered the room of complainant, a lady lawyer, greeted her by
shaking her hand. He pulled her towards him and kissed her on her cheek. In another
occasion, he called her by phone that he will get something in her room. When he
entered, he shook her hand and greeted her, Merry Christmas, and then, he embraced
and kissed her.

Ruling: Complainant failed to show by convincing evidence acts of respondent in greeting

her with kiss on the cheek, in beso-beso fashion, were carried out with lustful, lascivious
desires motivated by malice or ill-motive. Most of kissing are done on festive, special
occasions. CASE DISMISSED.
---------------------------------------------

BIBOSO V. HON. JUDGE, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1356, 16 April 2001)

Facts: Complainant alleged that respondent judge invited her to his chamber for personal
conference. When inside, he locked the room and to her surprise he embraced, kissed,
hugged and hurriedly removed her blouse and took advantage of her by caressing her
breasts, began unzipping her pants. Shocked and helpless she cried and cried.

Ruling: No sexual harassment. It took complainant more than one year to file the case
and her explanation why she executed the affidavit and filed the case was conflicting. She
said that she was only able to execute the complaint-affidavit because rumors spread that
she was respondents lower or kabit. CASE DISMISSED
---------------------------------
ADVINCULA V. ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA

Facts: Advincula, client of Atty. Macabata filed a complaint for disbarment for Gross
Immorality for kissing him.

Ruling: Her bare allegations that respondent lawyer made use and took advantage of his
being a lawyer to lure her to have sexual relations with him, deserves no credit. The
burden of proof rests on the complainant; and she must establish the case by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. Moreover, while respondent admitted having kissed her
on the lips, the same was no motivated by malice, he immediately apologized.
The incident happened in public place, at Roosevelt Ave., which is a major jeepney
route for 24 hours. If respondent truly had malicious intention, then he could have brought
her to a private or remote place where he can freely accomplish the same.The case was
DISMISSED, but respondent was REPRIMANDED to be more prudent and cautious in his
dealings with his clients with a STERN WARNING that a more severe sanction will be
imposed on him for any repetition of the same.

Uphold the Constitution and Obey the Laws:

Advertisement/Solicitation

KHAN v. SIMBILLO, 409 SCRA 299 (2003)-

Facts: A lawyer posted paid advertisements that appeared in different issued of the
Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin and the Philippine Star:

ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist ; Tel. No. 522-4333/521-2667

Complainant Asst. Court Administrator Atty. Khan directed a public information staff of the
Supreme Court to call the number. Wife of lawyer claimed her husband is expert in
annulment cases and can guarantee court dcreee within 4-6 months; that her husband
charges P48,000.00, half payable at the time of filing, other half after a decision.

12
Ruling :Lawyer was found guilty of unauthorized solicitation and was suspended for one
year with STERN WARNING. In this case, the Supreme Court had the occasion to
distinguish the legal profession from a business, to wit:
1. duty of public service where emolument is a by product, and in which one may
attain the highest eminence without making much money;
2. a relation as an office of the court to the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. a relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. a relation to colleagues at the bar characerized by candor, fairness and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients;
-------------------------------------------

In re: Lawyer, 29 March 1929 -

Facts: Lawyer has card written in Spanish and Ilocano:

As Notary Public execute for you a deed of sale for the purchase of land; renew
lost documents of your animals; make your application and final requisites for your
homestead and can execute any kind of affidavit; help you collect your loans, although
long over due, as well as any complaint for or against you. Come or write to him in his
town. He offers free consultation and is willing to help and serve the poor.

RULING: Lawyer was SUSPENDED FOR 15 DAYS, being a new lawyer and did
not realize what he did was wrong.
------------------------------------------

VENTURA vs. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON, AC 9608, Nov, 27, 2012

Facts: An administrative complaint was filed by Ventura against Atty. Samson stating that
in Dec. 2001 and on 19 March 2002 when she was only 13 years old, she was raped by
Atty, Samson, married, 38 years old. In the related criminal complaint, the Prosecutor
dismissed the charge of rape but filed an Information for Qualified Seduction.
Respondent lawyer admitted that there was sexual intercourse but it was upon
mutual agreement and upon payment of compensation and that he did not know that
Ventura was then only 13 years old. Furthermore, he claimed that the filing of the criminal
and administrative cases were just in vengeance against him as a result of her separation
from his law office and when he did not give in to their demand of P2M. Complainant and
her mother filed their respective Affidavits of Desistance in the criminal case and withdrew
the criminal and administrative complaints against respondent.
The IBP CBD found him guilty and recommended one year suspension.The IBP
Board of Governors adopted the findings of the CBD, but modified the penalty to FIVE year
suspension.

Issue: Whether respondent can be disciplined for any misconduct in his private capacity.

Ruling: As held in several decisions of the Court, the possession of good moral character
is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar
and to retain membership in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of the members of
the bar to observe the highest degree of morality to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.
Thus, the lawyers errant behavior whether in his public or private activities which
tend to show his deficient in his moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.
Penalty DISBARMENT for Gross Immoral Conduct, Violation of his Oath of Office
and CPR.

(See also : Bides-Olaso v. Noe-Lacsamana, 601 SCRA 184 (2009); Roa v. Moreno, 618
SCRA 693 (2010)
---------------------------------------

13
NELIA PASUMBAL DE CHAVEZ-BLANCO v. ATTY. JAIME B. LUMASAG, JR.,
AC No. 5195, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 56

Facts: On November 20, 1989, complainant executed a document authorizing respondent

lawyer, her husbands cousin, to sell her two (2) lots in Quezon City. Respondent reported
that he sold only one lot for P320,000.00; and deducted the amount of P38,130.00 for
taxes and commissions and remitted the remaining balance of P281,900.00 to Belen
Johnes allegedly upon complainants instruction; that the other lot remained unsold
because there were squatters therein. Complainants husband discovered the truth that
the 2 lots were sold on March 11 1990 for P1,120,000.00 and that new titles had been
issued in the name of the buyers. Complainant further alleged that the Special Power of
Attorney dated January 1989 was a forgery.
Respondent denied all the accusations of deceit, dishonesty and gross misconduct
and denied having transacted with the complainant and the charge of falsification of the
Special Power of Attorney

Issue: Whether or not the respondent committed dishonesty, falsification and gross
misconduct .

Ruling: The acts of the respondent constitute gross misconduct. The CBD and BOG
recommended 1 year suspension; but SC imposed the penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS
SUSPENSION, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with
more severely; and ordered him to deliver to complainant the amount of P240,000.00 plus
6% interest from March 1990.
---------------------------------------

VELASCO vs. ATTY. CHARLIE DOROIN and ATTY.HECTOR CENTENO

AC. NO. 5033, 560 SCRA 1, July 28, 2008

Facts: Velasco was appointed administratrix in the Special Proceedings for the
Settlement of the Estate of the late Eduardo Doroin. Respondents Attys. Doroin and
Centeno are the collaborating counsels for Oppositor Abarquez.
Atty. Doroin enticed thru deceitful means and convinced Velasco to sign an Extra-
Judicial Settlement and Deed of Partition; but the surviving legal wife of the deceased and
Velascos mother was not included in the said settlement and partition. Velasco was also
required to sign a Confirmation of Authority to Sell the property located in Quezon City
which was included in the Inventory of Property submitted to the court. The said property
was sold by Atty. Doroin to Evangeline Reyes-Tonemura on January 21, 1997 by forging
the signature of the deceased and the document was notarized by respondent Atty. Hector
Centeno. The deceased died on 21 January 1996. A criminal case for Falsification of
Public Document was filed against Atty. Hector Centeno.
The Commission recommended the disbarment of the Atty. Doroin and Centeno.
The Board of Governors adopted the findings of the Commission, but modified the penalty
to indefinite suspension.

Issue: Whether respondents are guilty of violating their oaths and the Code of
Professional Responsibility to warrant their disbarment.

Ruling: Yes, the respondents are guilty of violating their lawyers oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility. The findings and recommendation of the Board of
Governors of the IBP was approved but modified the penalty -
Atty. Doroin Indefinite suspension; Atty. Centeno Disbarment.

FRANCISCO LORENZANA VS. ATTY. CESAR G. FAJARDO

Adm. Case No. 5712, June 29, 2005, 462 SCRA 1

14
Facts: Complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent for violation of the Civil
Service Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Fajardo while
employed as Legal Officer V of the Urban Settlement Office in Manila was a member of the
Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of Quezon City. Receiving a monthly honoraria
and was also a member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Novaliches Proper and
received a monthly allowance. Furthermore, Atty. Fajardo appeared as counsel in private
cases.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Fajardo violated the Constitution and the CPR for accepting
employment as PLEB member of Quezon City while employed concurrently as Legal
Officer V of Manila Urban Settlement Office, and in engaging in the illegal practice of law.

Ruling: YES. Atty. Fajardo violated the Constitution, his Lawyers Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and for engaging in the illegal practice of law. He was
SUSPENDED for 6 months, REPRIMANDED AND WARNED that any repetition of similar
acts would be dealt with more severely.
---------------------------------------------

ATTY. SUSAN MENDOZA-ARCE, Adm. Matter Nos. P95-144; P94-1080;

P95-128. November 19, 1999, 318 SCRA 465.

Facts: Atty. Arce was the Clerk of Court of RTC of Roxas City. She wanted to establish
that 2 of the court employees in their sala, Duran and Arches falsified their daily time
cards; she intimidated the professors to certify something contrary to their knowledge.
Atty. Arce was DISMISSED from the service for grave misconduct, oppression and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for intimidating CPC professors.
--------------------------------------------

WILSON CHAM V. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA, AC No. 7494

June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 1 (3rd Division)

Facts: Respondent entered into a contract of lease with Greenville Realty and Dev.
Corp, (GRDC).over an residential unit located in Quezon City, for a period of one (1) year
on a monthly rental of P8,000.00. GRDC is represented by its President and General
Manager, William Cham, the complainant. When the contract expired, respondent
manifested her intention not to renew the contract but requested for an extension up to
June 2000 with a commitment to pay the rentals during said extension period.
Complainant agreed but increased the monthly rental to P8,650.00 from October 1, 1989
up to June 2000. Respondent stayed in the premises up to October 2000, but did not pay
the rentals from July to October 2000 and failed to settle the electric bills for September
and October 2000. Her total unpaid obligation amounted to P71,007.88; and
surreptitiously vacated the leased premises and brought the door keys.
Respondent filed her answer and denied the claims of the complainant; but failed to
submit her position paper despite extension given. The Investigating Committee found
respondent guilty of violation the Code of Prof. Responsibility and recommended the
penalty of three (3) month suspension. The IBP BOG recommended the dismissal of the
complaint.

Issue: Whether or not the failure to pay just obligation constitutes gross misconduct
which would warrant respondents suspension or disbarment.

Ruling: Yes. Respondents unpaid rentals and electric bills constitute just debts. Having
incurred just debts, respondent had the moral and legal responsibility to settle them.
Respondent left the premises without paying her obligations and without the complainants
knowledge and consent. She did this to avoid her said obligations, thus constitutes
deceitful conduct violative of the CPR.
Penalty imposed: SUSPENSION FOR ONE MONTH, with warning.
------------------------------

15
Atty. Mauricio Batas AC No. 7199, July 22, 2009 Disbarment filed against a lawyer by
Food Manufacturer for continuously attaching it in lawyers column, radio and television
programs when one Cordero complained of quality of liver spread. Despite being settled
by parties and TRO issued against said lawyer by RTC. In the guise of helping Cordero
and family. Lawyer was threatened to publish articles unless Food Manufacturer pays
P150,000.00 to Cordero and P35,000.00 to his foundation.
RULING: Lawyer was suspended for 3 YEARS.
---------------------------------------------------------

Linsangan v. Tolentino, AC No. 6672, Sept. 4, 2009 A complaint was filed against a
lawyer who convinced of complainants clients, who are all overseas seafarers to transfer
legal representation.
RULING: Lawyer was SUSPENDED FOR ONE YEAR for soliciting cases for gain.
______________________

Doctrines:

1. Immoral Conduct that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show

indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the
basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but GROSSLY
IMMORAL. It must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled
as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstance as to shock the common sence of decency. (Narug v. Narug, AC No. 3405,
June 29, 1990, 291 SCRA 451.)

2. This Court often reminds members of the bar, the requirement of good moral character
is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned; than the possession of
legal learning.

3. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions; and

demands a high degree of good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to
admission, but also as a continuing requirement for the practice of law.

4. A lawyer had the privilege and right practice to law during good behavior and can only
be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after
opportunity to be heard has afforded him.

5. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to
the actual practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for that office and
unworthy of the privileges with which his license and the law invest him.

6. Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his or her professional or private capacity is a

ground for the imposition of suspension or disbarment. The deliberate failure to pay just
debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct. (Barriento v.
Libiran-Meteoro, AC No. 6408, 31 August 2004, 437 SCRA 209)

7. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from
adulterous relationship or keeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting moral standards.

8. The Court is mindful that disbarment is a grave penalty. Considering that the license to
practice law, though it is not a property right, sustains a lawyers primary means of
livelihood and to strip someone of such license amounts to stripping one of a career and a
means to keep himself alive.

9. The complained acts of the respondent lawyers constitute a blatant violation of the
Lawyers Oath to uphold the law and basic tenets of the Code of Professional
Responsibility that no lawyer shall engage in dishonest conduct.
-------------------------------------
16
Client is bound by the mistakes or negligence of his counsel; exception;

PUA vs. DEYTO, G.R. 173336, Nov. 26, 2012

Facts: Ang paid Pua post dated checks in payment for Puas truckload of rice delivered to
Ang worth P766,800, which were dishonored for closed account. When Pua could not
locate Ang, on Nov. 24, 2000, he filed a collection case with preliminary attachment against
Ang and Deyto as co-owners of the business firm. On January 24, 2003, the summons
were served to Ang and Deyto by publication. Since no further motion was filed by any of
the parties for more than 6 months, the case was archived; and then dismissed for lack of
interest to prosecute on October 1, 2004. In his motion for reconsideration, Pua reasoned
out that the delay in the prosecution of the case was due to the untimely death of his
counsel. Said motion was denied; so Pua appealed to the CA which was also denied. The
CA pointed out that the surrounding circumstances pointed out to gross and immoderate
delay in the prosecution of the case.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff incured unreasonable delay in prosecuting the case.
2. Whether the client is bound by the acts or mistakes of his counsel

Ruling: The Supreme Court gave scant consideration on Puas claim that the delay in the
prosecution of the case was due to the untimely death of his counsel. The Court pointed
out that he employed a law firm; hence, the death of one partner does not excuse such
delay because the firm had other lawyers who would take over the case. A client is
bound by the actions of his counsel, including mistakes in the conduct of the case.
Futhermore, he had secured the services of another counsel even before the death of his
counsel who entered his appearance on Oct. 15, 2001.
-------------------------------------------------
CMTC INTL. MKTG. CORP. vs. BHAGIS INTL. TRADING CORP.
G.R. NO. 170488, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 469

Facts. CMTC filed a complaint for Unfair Competition and/or Copyright Infringement and
Damages with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction
against Bhagis before the RTC of Makati. On appeal, the CA issued an order to file
Appellants Brief which was received by CMTCs counsel on May 30, 2005. CMTC failed to
file the Appellants Brief; consequently, the CA dismissed the appeal.
CMTCs Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Appellants Brief filed 42
days late from the expiration date was denied. Its counsel explained that the Notice to file
Brief was inadvertently misplaced and filed in another file. CMTC filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on the ground, among others, that the CA sacrificed
substantive justice in favor of procedural technicalities when it dismissed petitioners
appeal for failure to file its appellants brief on time without considering whether petitioners
appeal deserved full consideration on the merits.

Issues: 1. Whether or not the mistake/gross negligence of a counsel binds his client.
2. Whether or not procedural technicalities may be relaxed in the interest of
substantive justice.

Ruling: 1. The rule, which states that the mistakes of counsel binds the client, may not
be strictly followed when observations of it would result in outright deprivation of the
clients liberty or property, or where the interest of justice so requires.
2. If the strict application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote
justice, this Court is not without power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules
of procedure. The dismissal of the appeal was completely attributable to the gross
negligence of its counsel.
------------------------------------------

BEATINGCO VS. GASIS, G.R. No. 179541,February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 539

17
Facts: A complaint for Annulment and Cancellation of Sale, Reconveyance, Delivery of
Title and Damages was filed by petitioner against respondent Gasis. The RTC rendered a
decision dismissing the complaint and declaring the respondent the lawful owner of the
subject property and ordered petitioner to pay attorneys fees, litigation expenses and
costs of suit. On appeal, petitioners counsel asked and was granted an extension of 90
days to file the Appellants Brief; and then twice moved for extension of time, for a total
additional period of 60 days. The CA denied the last 2 motions for extension; and
dismissed the appeal for failure to file the Appellants Brief. The motion for reconsideration
was also denied.
Petitioner elevated the case to the SC.

Issues: 1. Whether or not the CA was correct in dismissing the appeal for failure of the
petitioner to file the Appellants Brief.
2. Whether or not the petitioner is bound by the negligence of her counsel.

Ruling: 1. Yes, the CA was correct in dismissing the appeal for failure of the petitioner to
file the Appellants Brief. While the failure to file the Appellants Brief is not jurisdictional,
such failure, however, results in the abandonment of the appeal which may be the cause
for its dismissal.
2. It is clear and evident that petitioners counsel was negligent in failing to file the
required brief not only within the original period of 45 days, but also within the extended
period of 90 days granted by the CA. The counsels explanation that he could not comply
with the courts directive because he had to attend to other cases that he considered more
important and urgent than the instant case is unacceptable. (Jetri Const. Corp. v. BPI,
G.R. No. 171687, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 522)
The SC affirmed the dismissal of the case. Failure to file brief certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence, more so, if the delay results in the dismissal of the appeal.
------------------------------

BEJARASCO, Jr. VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328

Facts: On Feb. 18, 2001, Bejarasco was convicted for Grave threats and Grave Oral
Defamation by MTC Sibonga, Cebu which was affirmed on appeal. He was represented by
the Public Attorneys Office. In his motion for reconsideration, he claimed that he failed to
file his appeal memorandum because of the MTCs failure to give him free copies of the
TSN; and argued that the RTCs decision is premature and there were serious errors of
facts and law. The motion was denied. He appealed to the CA, this time he is
represented by a private practitioner, Atty. Besario. The CA granted his motion for
extension of time to file the petition for review. Despite the second extension, petitioner
failed to file the petition for review; thus the CA dismissed the appeal. The dismissal
became final and executory. Hence, the MTC issued a warrant of arrest.
Petitioner filed a petition for review through another lawyer and claimed that Atty.
Besario recklessly abandoned him and had disappeared without leaving a trace. Said
petition was not admitted by the CA and was ordered expunged from the records. He
appealed to the SC.

Issue: Whether or not the negligence of his counsel binds the client.

Ruling: Atty. Besarios negligence in handling the case was clear. His failure to file the
petition for review despite two extensions, warranted that he was negligent. The
petitioner was bound by the negligence of this counsel, including even mistakes in the
realm of procedural techniques. A counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do
all acts necessary or at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the case in
behalf of his client, such that any act or omission committed within the scope of the
authority is regarded in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself.

-----------------------------------------
Doctrines:
18
1. A lawyer is bound to protect his clients interest, to the best of his ability and with utmost
diligence. Every member of the Bar should always have in mind that every case that a
lawyer accepts deserved his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of
its importance, whether he accepts if for a fee or for free.

2. For the exception to apply, the gross negligence of his counsel, should not be
accompanied by the clients own negligence, or malice, considering that the client should
be vigilant in respect of his interests by keeping himself up-to-date on the status of the
case. Failing in this duty, the client should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered
against him.

3. In rendering justice, procedural infirmities take a backseat against substantive rights of

litigants. Corollarily, if the strict application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than
promote justice, this Court is not without power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing
the rules of procedure. (Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 188630, Feb. 23, 2012, 644
SCRA 358)

4. Where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of
law, or when the interest of justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered
by reason of the lawyers gross or palpable mistake or negligence.

5. Government of the Kingdom of Belgium v. CA, G.R. No. 164150, april 14, 2008,
551 SCRA 223, the Court laid down the following:

Guidelines in confronting the issue of non-filing of the Appellants

Brief:

a. The general rule is for the CA to dismiss the appeal when no appellants brief is filed
within the reglementary period prescribed by the Rules;
b. The power conferred upon the CA to dismiss an appeal is discretionary and directory
and not ministerial or mandatory.
c. The failure of the appellant to file his brief: within the reglementary period does
not have the effect of causing the automatic dismissal of the appeal;
d. In case of late filing, the appellate court has the power to still allow the appeal,
however, for the proper exercise of the courts leniency, it is imperative that:
1) the circumstances obtaining warrant the courts leniency;
2) that strong considerations of equity justify an exception to the procedural
rule in the interest of substantial justice.
3) no material injury has been suffered by the appellee by the delay;
4) there is no contention that the appellees cause was prejudiced;
5) at least there is no motion to dismiss filed.

e. In case of delay, the lapse must be for a reasonable period

f. Inadvertence of counsel cannot be considered as an adequate excuse as to call for
the appellate courts indulgence, except:
1) when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due
process of law;
2) when application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty
or property; or
3) when the interest of justice so requires.

Gross Immorality: May a lawyer be disciplined for his private

activities?

MARJORIE F. SAMANIEGO vs. ATTY. ANDREW V. FERRER,

A.C NO. 7022, June 18, 2008. 555 SCRA 1:

19
Facts: Atty. Ferrer agreed to handle the cases of Samaniego and their relationship
became intimate. Atty. Ferrer courted Samaniego. The latter admitted that she flirted with
him and Atty. Ferrer succumbed to her temptations. They lived together as husband and
wife from 1996 to 2000 and a daughter was born in March 1997. Since 2000 Atty. Ferrer
failed to give support to their daughter.
During the investigation conducted by the Commission on Bar Discipline,
Samaniego admitted that she knew that Atty. Ferrer was in a relationship, but not married;
that he failed to give support to their daughter. Atty. Ferrer did not appear during the
hearing but submitted his position paper. He admitted his indiscretion but reasoned out
that he cannot abandon his wife and 10 children to cohabit with Samaniego.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation of the
Investigating Committee and meted the penalty of SIX MONTHS SUSPENSION and
admonished him to be a more responsible member of the bar and to keep in mind his
duties as a father. Atty. Ferrer filed a motion for recommendation which was referred to
the Office of the Bar Confidant, which recommended to affirm the recommendation of the
IBP BOG.

Issues: 1. Whether or not Atty. Ferrer should be penalized.

2. Whether or not the fact that the complainant is in pari delcto would make the
acts of Atty. Ferrer less serious, thus mitigates the penalty to be imposed.

Ruling: 1. Yes, Atty. Ferrer should be penalized for violating Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
2. It is immaterial whether Samaniego is in pari delicto. The investigation is not
about Samaniegos acts but Atty, Ferrers conduct as one of its officers and his fitness to
continue as member of the Bar.
Penalty: no aggravating circumstances, SIX MONTHS SUSPENSION for the
grossly immoral conduct of the respondent lawyer.
--------------------------------------------

REBECCA ARNOBIT VS. ATTY. PONCIANO ARNOBIT

A.C. NO. 1481, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 247 (En Banc)

Facts: Complainant and respondent are husband and wife with 12 children. Rebecca
further alleged that she continuously supported Ponciano to law school until he became a
member of the Philippine Bar. Sometime in 1968, Ponciano left the conjugal home and
cohabit with another woman with whom he begot 4 children. Because of his infidelity,
Rebecca filed a case for separation and support and adultery against the paramour and
Ponciano. Rebecca was able to prove the case by clear, convincing and satisfactory
evidence. The CBD found him liable for abandonment andrecommended the penalty of 3
MONTHS SUSPENSION. The BOG adopted the findings and recommendation of the
Commission.

Issue: Whether respondent lawyer should be held liable only for abandonment?

Ruling: NO. The fact that respondents philandering ways are far remote from the
exercise of his profession would not save the day for him. For a lawyer may be
suspended or disbarred for any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual
practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for that office and unworthy
of the privileges with which his license and the law invest him. Respondent should be
held liable not only for Abandonment, but also for gross immoral conduct which was
sufficiently proven by the complainant. Respondent was DISBARRED.
------------------------------------
MANAOIS VS. DECIEMBRE, A.M. CASE NO. 5364, August 20, 2008

Facts: Manaois was granted a loan through Atty. Deciembre for P20,000.00. As
security for the said loan, Manaois issued and delivered to Atty. Deciembre blank checks
which will be filled out in accordance with their agreed monthly installments. The loan was
20
finally paid, but Atty. Deciembre did not return the remaining blank checks. It appears that
Atty. Deciembre filled out the said checks to make it appear that they were exchanged for
cash in the total amount of P257,000.0. Atty. Deciembre filed a criminal case against
Manaois for Estafa and violation of BP 22. Manaois filed disbarment case against Atty.
Deciembre.
Respondent averred that his dealings were in his private capacity and not as a
lawyer; hence he cannot be administratively sanctioned.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Deciembre can be administratively sanctioned in his private
dealings.

Ruling: Yes, the respondent committed an act of moral depravity not expected from and
highly unbecoming of a member of the bar. He violated Canon 1, Rule1.01 and Rule 7.03.
A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred or any misconduct even if it pertains to his
private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honest, probity,
or good demeanor.

TOLEDO V. TOLEDO, 117 Phil. 768, 776; 7 SCRA 767, 765 (1963) A lawyer was
disbarred from the practice of law when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with
another woman who had borne him a child.

Obusan v. Obusan, Jr., 213 Phil. 437, 440; 128 SCRA 485, 487 (1984)] A lawyer was
disbarred after complainant proved that he had abandoned her and maintained an
adulterous relationship with a married woman. The court declared that respondent failed
to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar.

Dantes v. Dantes, A,C, No. 6486, 22 Sept. 2004, 438 SCRA 582, 589 --- Respondents
act of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women during the subsistence of his
marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition
of appropriate sanctions. DISBARRED.

Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma A.C. No. 2474, 15 Sept. 2004 438 SCRA 306 - , Respondent
lawyer was disbarred when he abandoned his lawful wife and 3 children, lured an innocent
woman into marrying him and misrepresented himself as a bachelor so he could contract
marriage in a foreign land.

Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, A.C. No. 6148, 27 February 2004, 424 SCRA 42- Respondent
entered into multiple marriages and then resolrted to legal remedies to severe them. Such
pattern of misconduct of the respondent undermines the institution of marriage and family,
institutions that society looks to for the rearing of our children, for the development of
values essential to the survival and well-being of our communities, and for the
strengthening of our nation as a whole. As such, there can be no other fate than awaits
respondent than to be disbarred.
-------------------------------

Tucay v. Tucay, AC No. 5170, 17 Nov. 1999, 318 SCRA 229

Respondent contracted marriage with another married woman and left complainant
with whom he has been married for 30 years. Such acts constitute a grossly immoral
conduct and only indicative of an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his
profession, warranting respondents disbarment.
-------------------------------------

Naval v. Panday, 275 SCRA 654 [1997] By having secual intercourse with a girl who is
only 16 years old, a judge violated the trust reposed on his high office and utterly failed to
live up to the noble ideals and strict standards of morality required of members of the
judiciary.

21
-----------------------------

Narag v. Narag, 291 SCRA 451 A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not oly
required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also
so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards.
--------------------------------

Doctrines:

1. IMMORALITY has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and
dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to
opinions of respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward
good order and public welfare. (Madreijo v. Loyao, Jr., 375 Phil. 1; 316 SCRA 544
[1999]; Alfonso v. Juanson AM No. RTJ-92-904, 7 Dec. 1993, 228 SCRA 239)

2. Zaguirre v. Castillo, 446 Phil. 861,867; 398 SCRA 658 (2003) For such conduct to
warrant disciplinary action, the same must not be simply immoral, but grossly immoral.

3. GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT- It must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act,

or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high defree or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.

4. It is immaterial whether the complainant is in pari delicto. The investigation is not about
complainants acts but the respondent lawyers conduct as one of Courts officers and his
fitness to continue as member of the Bar.

5. The fact that respondent lawyers philandering ways are far remote from the exercise of
his profession would not save the day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended or
disbarred for any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his
profession, would show him to be unfit for that office and unworthy of the privileges with
which his license and the law invest him.
-----------------------------------------

Funds and properties of the client are held in trust by lawyer;

BARCENAS VS. ATTY. A. ALVERO, AC No. 8159, April 23,2010, 619 SCRA 1

Facts: Cardenas entrusted to Atty. Alvero P300,000 to be given to Gaster to redeem the
right of her father as tenant of a rice field located in Laguna. To check if the money was
still in tact, Cardenas pretended to borrow P80,000 from the P300,000; but Atty. Alvero
said that he could not just get the money from the court. Cardenas leaned that Atty. Alvero
did no deposit the P300,000 but used the same for his personal needs. Despite demands
made, Atty. Alvero did not return the said amount and admitted that he used the money
and promised to return it.

Issue: Whether respondent lawyer violated the trust reposed to him by his client, thus
warrant disciplinary sanction.
Ruling: Yes, respondent lawyers failure to immediately account the money when due
and upon demand violated the trust reposed to him, demonstrated lack of integrity and
moral soundness, and warranted the imposition of disciplinary sanction.
Penalty SUSPENSION TWO YEARS
---------------------------------------

GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW

22
DIPATUAN VS. JUDGE MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA,
A.M. RTJ-09-2190, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 48

Facts: Judge Mangotara, Presiding Judge of RTC Iligan City, was appointed Acting
Presiding Judge of RTC Marawi City. Complainant is the wife of the accused in said court
pending decision. In view of the mild stroke suffered by Judge Mangotara, his appointment
as Acting Pres.Judge was revoked on Dec. 26, 2007.
On Dec. 28, 2007, Judge Mangotara rendered a decision finding the accused Abdul
and Dipatuan guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In the Order dated
Feb.1,2008, the Motion for reconsideration was denied. Another Order was issued
increasing the bond of accused Abdul. On the same date, another Order was issued
recalling the said two orders.
The administrative complaint was filed alleging that Mangotara displayed bias and
prejudice against her husband Dipatuan when he did not inhibit himself from the case,
since Judge Mangotara is a relative by affinity and consanguinity by the victim and that he
also came from the same place as the victim; and considering that when the decision was
rendered, Judge Mangotaras appointment was revoked on Dec. 26, 2007 and a new
Judge was already appointed at the time.

Issues: 1. Whether the failure of Judge Mangotara to inhibit himself from the case
constitutes bias and resulting to grave abuse of authority;
2. Whether respondent judge is guilty of grave ignorance of the law;

Ruling: 1. No. Complainant failed to specify the degree of relationship of respondent

Judge to a party in the case. She failed to present clear and convincing proof that
respondent judge was related within the prohibited degree with the victim. Inhibition is
discretionary, voluntary and primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion on the
part of the judge. Furthermore, complainant failed to institute any motion for inhibition. She
failed to cite any act that would indicated bias,

2. Judge Mangotara admitted the issuance of the order increasing the bailbond; but
explained that it was error or judgment. As a matter of public policy, not every error or
mistake of a judge in the performance of his official duties renders him liable. In the
absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his official capacity do
not always constitute misconduct although the same acts may be erroneous. While the
judge may not be disciplined for errors of judgment, this does not mean that a judge need
not observe propriety, discreetness and due care in the performance of his official
functions.
In this case, however, the act of Judge Mangotara in increasing the bailbond instead
of cancelling it, is not a mere deficiency in prudence, discretion or judgment but a patent
disregard of well-known rules. When a error is so gross and patent, it produces an
inference of bad faith, making him liable for gross ignorance of the law. It is pressing
responsibility for the judge to keep abreast with the laws and changes therein as well as
Supreme Court decisions.
GUILTY OF GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW(Retired) FINE-P20K
----------------------------
Doctrines:

1. The inhibition is discretionary or voluntary as the same is primarily a matter of

conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge.

2. The complainant must institute a motion for inhibition citing an act that would indicate
bias, prejudice or vengeance warranting voluntary inhibition. To be disqualifying the bias or
prejudice must be shown to have stemmed from an extrajudicial source and result in an
opinion on the merits on some bias other than what the judge learned from his participation
in the case.

23
3. Opinions formed in the course of judicial proceedings, although erroneous, as long as
they are based on the evidence presented and conduct observed by the judge, do not
prove personal bias or prejudice. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith,
malice or corrupt purposes, in addition to the palpable error which may be inferred from the
decision or order itself.

4. May a judge be held liable for misconduct or be disciplined for error of judgment or
mistakes?

a) As a matter of public policy, not every error or mistake of a judge in the

performance of his official duties renders him liable. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty,
or corruption, the acts of a judge in his official capacity do not always constitute
misconduct although the same acts may be erroneous.

b) While the judge may not be disciplined for errors of judgment, this does not
mean that a judge need not observe propriety, discreetness and due care in the
performance of his official functions.

5. But when that error or mistake is not a mere deficiency in prudence, discretion or
judgment but a patent disregard of well-known rules; or when it is so gross and patent, it
produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.
It is pressing responsibility for the judge to keep abreast with the laws and changes therein
as well as Supreme Court decisions.

Privilege d Commincations:

MERCADO VS. VITRILIO, AC No. 5108, may 26, 2005-

Facts: Complainant Mercado alleged that a lawyer filed criminal complaint for falsification
of public document against her when she disclosed confidential facts in a case for
annulment handled by said respondent lawyer. Complainant filed disbarment case against
said lawyer for breach of privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship.

Ruling: Without any testimony as to the specific information allegedly divulged by

respondent lawyer without complainants consent, it is difficult, if not impossible to
determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication. It is not
enough to merely assert the relationship. The burden of proof is upon the party asserting
the privilege.
----------------------------
Doctrines:

1. Matters disclosed by prospective client to lawyer is protected by the Rule on Privileged

Communication even if prospective client does not retain lawyer or lawyer declines
engagement.

2. The burden of proof is upon the party asserting the privilege.

-----------------------------------

In Matter of CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM ETC. AGAINST ASSOCIATE DEL CASTILLO,

AM CASE NO. 10-7-17=-SC, Feb. 8, 2010

Facts: Justice del Castillo was charged with PLAGIARISM , twisting of cited materials,
and gross neglect as ponente of the decision in Vinuya vs. Republic (G.R. No. 162230).
In their motion for reconsideration in Vinuya case, they claimed that through the
said decision, it approved of the commission of Plagiarism in the Philippines.

24
Ruling: NO. A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted
from charge of plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article, novel
thoughts published in a legal periodical or language from a partys brief are used without
giving attribution. Thus, judges are free to use whatever sources they deem appropriate to
resolve the matter before them. This exemption applies to judicial writings intended to
decide cases for two reasons: a) the judge is not writing a literary work; and more
importantly, the purposes of the writing is to resolve a dispute. As a result, judges
adjudicating cases are not subject to a claim of legal plagiarism

Practicing lawyers, as a rule, should not be exposed to charges of plagiarism in

what they write so long as they do no depart, as officers of the court, from the objective of
assisting the court in the administration of justice.

Suspended lawyer cannot practice law during suspension ;

No automatic lifting of order of suspension,

MANIEGO VS. ATTY. DE DIOS, March 30, 2010

Facts: In a criminal case filed by Maniego, Atty. Lourdes De Dios represented the
accused. Maniego later learned that Atty. De Dios had an outstanding Suspension Order
issued by the Supreme Court since 2001. Complainant further alleged that in several
cases against Miyata, Atty. De Dios appeared as his counsel. Maniego filed a disbarment
case against Atty. De Dios on the ground of flagrant violation and deliberate disobedience
of a lawful order of the Supreme Court. Atty. De Dios admitted that she was suspended for
six months; but claimed that she had already served the same upon receipt of the Order
on May 16, 2001 up to November 16, 2001 and informed the Supreme Court that she will
resume to practice law on November 17, 2001; and that during the time she represented
Miyata she was neither suspended or in any way prohibited from practice of law.

Issue: Whether the lifting of the suspension order was automatic after expiration of the
period of suspension.

Ruling: NO. There must be an Order from the Supreme Court lifting the suspension of the
end of the period in order for the suspended lawyer to resume the practice of this
profession. Considering the motion for clarification dated March 14, 2007 filed by Atty. De
Dios, the Court resolved that she have SERVED her six-month suspension and her
recommencement of law practice on 17 November 2001 is PROPER.

Doctrines:

1. The Maniego case laid down the following guidelines to be observed on the matter of
lifting of an order of suspending lawyer from the practice of law:

a After the finding that the respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice
of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;

b. Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executor upon
receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for
reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final
and executor;

c. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn
Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein
that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any
court during the period of his or her suspension.

25
 d. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the
IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases
handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel.

e. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents compliance

with the order of suspension.

f. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath
shall be a ground for the imposition of more severe punishment, or disbarment as
may be warranted.

2. The Quantum of Proof in disbarment proceedings is that the case against the
respondent lawyer must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.

MENDOZA VS. ATTY. DECIEMBRE, A.C. NO. 5338,

FEB. 23, 2009

Same facts and ruling as the Manaois case - Loan was paid through deposits to Atty.
Deciembre s Metrobank account, He filled out2 checks for P50,000.00 each.
------------------------

KUPERS VS. ATTY. JOHNSON HONTANOSAS,

May 8, 2009

Facts: Atty. Hontanosas prepared four (4) contracts involving a Swiss national :

1. Memorandum of agreement and contract of lease for fifty (50) years and
renewable for another 50 years; and
2. Memorandum of agreement and contract of lease for 49 years and renewable for
another 49 years.

All said documents were notarized by Atty. Hontanosas. Complainant averred that
said contracts violate the limitations on alien on lease of private lands.

Issue: Whether or not respondent should be penalized for drafting contracts which are
contrary to law.

Ruling:

1. 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 and
member of the bar. Where the evidence calls for disbarment, the Court will also not disbar
him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.

2. Suspension is not primarily intended as punishment, but as a means to protect the

public and the legal profession. (Garcia v. Atty. Manuel, 443 Phil. 478; 395 SCRA 386
[2006]).

26
27
28