LEGAL

ETHICS
POINTERS IN LEGAL ETHICS

1. Disbarment was imposed on a repeat offender lawyer
The present case comes clearly under the grounds given in Section 27,18 Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court. The Court, however, does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when
the guilty party has become a repeat offender. Considering the serious nature of the instant
offense and in light of Atty. Limos' prior misconduct which grossly degrades the legal profession,
the imposition of the ultimate penalty of disbarment is warranted. In imposing the penalty of
disbarment upon Atty. Limos, the Court is aware that the power to disbar is one to be exercised
with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
character of the lawyer as a legal professional and as an officer of the Court. However, Atty.
Limos' recalcitrant attitude and unwillingness to heed with the Court's warning, which is deemed
to be an affront to the Court's authority over members of the Bar, warrant an utmost disciplinary
sanction from this Court. Her repeated desecration of her ethical commitments proved herself
to be unfit to remain in the legal profession. Worse, she remains apathetic to the need to reform
herself. PACAO vs LIMOS, A.C. No. 11246, June 14, 2016


2. Filing of numerous pleadings by Atty. Al Argosino that caused delay is a violation of the
Lawyers Oath and deserves more than just a reprimand
Despite the simplicity of the issue involved in the HLURB case, the path towards its resolution
became long, tedious, and frustrating because of the deliberate attempts of respondent to delay
the actual execution of the judgment therein. He continued to file pleadings over issues already
passed upon even after being enjoined not to do so, and made unfounded accusations of bias or
procedural defects. These acts manifest his propensity to disregard the authority of a tribunal
and abuse court processes, to the detriment of the administration of justice.

The defense that respondent is merely defending the cause of his client is untenable.

As a lawyer, respondent indeed owes fidelity to the cause of his client and is expected to serve
the latter with competence and diligence. As such, respondent is entitled to employ every
honorable means to defend the cause of his client and secure what is due the
latter.62chanrobleslaw

Professional rules, however, impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with necessary
restrictions and qualifications.63 Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers are
required to exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.64The Code also obliges lawyers to employ only fair and honest means
to attain the lawful objectives of their client.65chanrobleslaw

In Millare v. Montero,66 the Court ruled that it is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use

Page 1 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS
the judicial process - such as the filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation, and frivolous
appeals - for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of a judgment.

In Garcia v. Francisco,67 a lawyer willfully and knowingly abused his rights of recourse - all of
which were rebuffed - to get a favorable judgment. He was found to have violated his duty as a
member of the bar to pursue only those acts or proceedings that appear to be just, and only
those lines of defense he believed to be honestly debatable under the law.

Respondent cannot hide behind the pretense of advocating his client's cause to escape liability
for his actions that delayed and frustrated the administration of justice.

He even attempted to turn the tables on complainant by pointing out that the "legal blunders"
of the latter's counsel contributed to the delay in the execution of the judgment. Whether or not
the actions or omissions of complainant's counsel brought dire consequences to its client's cause
is not a factor in the instant case. Even assuming for argument's sake that complainant's counsel
committed procedural errors that prolonged some of the case incidents, these errors did not
prejudice the delivery of justice, as they were later cured. More important, the so-called
"blunders" were independent of respondent's actions, which were the direct cause of the delay.

Respondent argues that he could not have possibly delayed the execution of the judgment, as no
Motion for Execution of Judgment had been filed when the instant administrative case was
instituted. This argument can no longer be considered viable, as he continued to employ dilatory
tactics even after the Writ of Execution had already been issued, and complainant later filed
Supplemental Complaints against him.

What is patent from the acts of respondent as herein narrated and evident from the records -
is that he has made a mockery of judicial processes, disobeyed judicial orders, and ultimately
caused unjust delays in the administration of justice. These acts are in direct contravention of
Rules 10.3 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provide:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution
of judgment or misuse court processes.

Further, respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath68 by disobeying the legal orders of a duly
constituted authority, and disregarding his sworn duty to "delay no man for money or malice."

While the IBP similarly found respondent guilty of professional misconduct, we find that its
recommended penalty of reprimand is not commensurate with respondent's transgression.

Under the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline's Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (IBP

Page 2 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS
Guidelines), reprimand is generally appropriate as a penalty when a lawyer's negligence causes
injury or potential injury to a client or a party.69 In this case, respondent's injurious acts were
clearly not caused by his negligence in following procedures or court orders. He knowingly abused
the legal process and violated orders of the HLURB Board and Regional Office with the intent of
delaying the execution of a judgment that had long been final and executory. That he continued
to do so even if a Complaint was already filed against him proved that his acts were deliberate.

Further, ethical violations analogous to respondent's infractions have not been treated as lightly
by the Court.

In Foronda v. Guerrero, the respondent therein was suspended for two years from the practice
of law for filing multiple petitions before various courts concerning the same subject matter in
violation of Canon 1270 and Rule 12.0471 of the of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In Saladaga v Astorga,72 the respondent was found guilty of (1) breach of the Lawyer's Oath; (2)
unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct; and (3) disrespect for the Court and causing the
undue delay of cases. For these offenses, a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for
two years, as recommended by the IBP, was imposed.

The respondents in Millare73 and Garcia,74 meanwhile, were suspended for one year from the
practice of law.

In Saa v. IBP,75 the petitioner was found to have violated Canon 12,76 Rule 12.04,77 and Rule
1.0378of the Code of Professional Responsibility for delaying the resolution of a case. He was also
suspended from practice of law for one year.

Thus, We have meted out the penalty of one to two years' suspension in cases involving multiple
violations of professional conduct that have caused unjust delays in the administration of justice.
The IBP Guidelines similarly provide that "suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knows that
he is violating a court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or
interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding."79chanrobleslaw

Respondent, therefore, should not receive a mere reprimand; he should be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year. A.C. No. 7437, August 17, 2016 - AVIDA LAND
CORPORATION (FORMERLY LAGUNA PROPERTIES HOLDINGS, INC.), Complainant, v. ATTY. AL C.
ARGOSINO, Respondent.

3. In a disbarment case, does service of notice to the last known address of the lawyer as
appearing in the records of the IBP sufficient?

Page 3 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS
As for the sufficiency of notice to respondent of the disbarment proceedings against him, this
Court notes that on May 14, 2014, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines directed respondent to
answer the complaint against him, but he failed to file his answer.35 The Integrated Bar of the
Philippines set two (2) separate dates for mandatory conferences36 after respondent failed to
attend the first setting, but he failed to appear in both instances.37 All issuances from the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines had the requisite registry receipts attached to them.

Stemmerik v. Mas38 discussed the sufficiency of notice of disbarment proceedings. This Court
held that lawyers must update their records with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines by
informing it of any change in office or residential address and contact details.39 Service of notice
on the office or residential address appearing in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines records
shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for administrative proceedings against him or her.
A.C. No. 11350 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4211], August 09, 2016 - ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE,
Complainant, v. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA, Respondent.

4. What was violated the lawyer who unlawfully withholds the funds entrusted to him by his
client?
In Macarilay v. Seria,24 this Court held that "[t]he unjustified withholding of funds belonging to
the client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action against the lawyer."25 By absconding with
the money entrusted to him by his client and behaving in a manner not befitting a member of
the bar, respondent violated the following Canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

xxx

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.

xxx

CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession.

Rule 16.01. - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.

xxx

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be

Page 4 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

xxx

CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

xxx

Rule 18.03. - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04. - A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for
information.

A.C. No. 11350 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4211], August 09, 2016 - ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE,
Complainant, v. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA, Respondent.

5. Can a lawyer imply that he can bribe the judge?

When complainant refused to give respondent any more money to process his work permit,
respondent persuaded complainant to give him an additional P8,000.00 purportedly to ensure
that a motion for reconsideration pending before a Las Pias judge would be decided in
complainant's favor.31 However, after receiving P28,000.00 from complainant for the work
permit and ensuring the success of complainant's court case, respondent made himself scarce
and could no longer be contacted.
Although nothing in the records showed whether the court case was indeed decided in
complainant's favor, respondent's act of soliciting money to bribe a judge served to malign the
judge and the judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are won by the party with the
deepest pockets and not on the merits.32cha

nrobleslaw

"A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system."33 Further, "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to
influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body."34ch

anrobleslaw

By implying that he can negotiate a favorable ruling for the sum of P8,000.00, respondent
trampled upon the integrity of the judicial system and eroded confidence on the judiciary. This
gross disrespect of the judicial system shows that he is wanting in moral fiber and betrays the
lack of integrity in his character. The practice of law is a privilege, and respondent has repeatedly

Page 5 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS
shown that he is unfit to exercise it.
A.C. No. 11350 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4211], August 09, 2016 - ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE,
Complainant, v. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA, Respondent.

6. The Court may further reduce an already minor penalty to reprimand if it sees fit.

Villena, who has an unblemished career, has been truly remorseful and apologetic for his
opposition to the motion to dismiss, which resistance he deemed as pro forma comment. The
Court is of the considered view that because the penalty imposed would remain in his record, it
would affect his promotion or application for a higher office. Accordingly, the Court favors the
grant of the motion and reduces the penalty from payment of Fine in the amount of P10,000.00
to Reprimand, the same penalty imposed on his corespondents. There is no need to stem the
growth of his promising professional career. Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to
punish but to correct offenders. While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring
officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its
purpose. Boto vs. Billena, 787 SCRA 439, A.C. No. 9684 March 16, 2016

7. Can the Supreme Court dispense with the established procedure of referring the case to the
IBP for complaint for disbarment?

The proceedings for the disbarment, suspension or discipline of an attorney may be taken by the
Court, motu proprio, or by the IBP itself upon the verified complaint of any person. Should the
disciplinary complaint against the attorney be filed directly with the Court, the complaint is
referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. The reference to the IBP is
resorted to whenever the factual basis for the charge may be contested or disputed, or may
require the reception of the evidence of the complainant and the respondent attorney. After the
referral and hearings, the IBP renders its findings and recommendations on the complaint,
subject to the review by the Court. Yet, the Court may dispense with the referral to the IBP and
resolve the charge without delay. This happens particularly when the charge is patently frivolous,
or insincere, or unwarranted, or intended only to harass and spite the respondent attorney. The
Christian Spiritists in the Philippines, Inc., Pico Local Center vs. Mangallay, 787 SCRA 445, A.C. No.
10483 March 16, 2016

8. The Supreme Court clarified that it can receive complaints for disbarment directly.

The Court has not enunciated any rule that prohibits the direct filing with it of administrative
complaints against attorneys in order to emphasize its role as the guardian of the legal profession
with the ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. The disciplinary power of the Court is both
a right and a duty. Quite recently, however, the Court has revised Rule 139-B to eliminate any

Page 6 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS
ambiguity about the authority of the Court to directly receive administrative complaints against
attorneys. The Christian Spiritists in the Philippines, Inc., Pico Local Center vs. Mangallay, 787
SCRA 445, A.C. No. 10483 March 16, 2016

Under the foregoing revisions of Rule 139-B, the administrative complaints against attorneys are
generally not dismissed outright but are instead referred for investigation, report and
recommendation either to the IBP, or the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), or any office of the
Court or even a judge of a lower court. Such referral ensures that the parties right to due process
is respected as to matters that require further inquiry and which cannot be resolved by the mere
evaluation of the documents attached to the pleadings. Consequently, whenever the referral is
made by the Court, the IBP, the OBC or other authorized office or individual must conduct the
formal investigation of the administrative complaint, and this investigation is a mandatory
requirement that cannot be dispensed with except for valid and compelling reasons because it
serves the purpose of threshing out all the factual issues that no cursory evaluation of the
pleadings can determine. The Christian Spiritists in the Philippines, Inc., Pico Local Center vs.
Mangallay, 787 SCRA 445, A.C. No. 10483 March 16, 2016

The referral to the IBP is not compulsory when the administrative case can be decided on the
basis of the pleadings filed with the Court, or when the referral to the IBP for the conduct of
formal investigation would be redundant or unnecessary, such as when the protraction of the
investigation equates to undue delay. Dismissal of the case may even be directed at the outset
should the Court find the complaint to be clearly wanting in merit. Indeed, the Rules of Court
should not be read as preventing the giving of speedy relief whenever such speedy relief is
warranted. The Christian Spiritists in the Philippines, Inc., Pico Local Center vs. Mangallay, 787
SCRA 445, A.C. No. 10483 March 16, 2016

9. Lack of basic knowledge of the law will warrant an imposition of penalty

Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the
complainant. As the foregoing findings reveal, he did not know the distinction between the
grounds for legal separation and for annulment of marriage. Such knowledge would have been
basic and expected of him as a lawyer accepting a professional engagement for either causes of
action. His explanation that the client initially intended to pursue the action for legal separation
should be disbelieved. The case unquestionably contemplated by the parties and for which his
services was engaged, was no other than an action for annulment of the complainants marriage
with her husband with the intention of marrying her British fiance. They did not contemplate
legal separation at all, for legal separation would still render her incapacitated to remarry. That
the respondent was insisting in his answer that he had prepared a petition for legal separation,
and that she had to pay more as attorneys fees if she desired to have the action for annulment

Page 7 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS
was, therefore, beyond comprehension other than to serve as a hallow afterthought to justify his
claim for services rendered. Sanchez vs. Aguilos, 787 SCRA 457, A.C. No. 10543 March 16, 2016

10. Lawyers should be respectful to his colleagues

The respondents statement in his answer that the demand from Atty. Martinez should be
treated as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed by her counsel x x x to the
urinal project of the MMDA where it may service its rightful purpose constituted simple
misconduct that this Court cannot tolerate. In his motion for reconsideration, the respondent
tried to justify the offensive and improper language by asserting that the phraseology was not
per se uncalled for and improper. He explained that he had sufficient cause for maintaining that
the demand letter should be treated as a mere scrap of paper and should be disregarded.
However, his assertion does not excuse the offensiveness and impropriety of his language. He
could have easily been respectful and proper in responding to the letter. Sanchez vs. Aguilos, 787
SCRA 457, A.C. No. 10543 March 16, 2016

11. Errors committed by lawyers without intent to deceive will not warrant the imposition of
Penalty

In paragraph 12.4 of Extremely Urgent Manifestation/Motion for Issuance of Injunctive Relief

and/or Status Quo Ante Order with Entry of Appearance filed before the COMELEC, Atty. Sibayan
indeed erroneously wrote that the MTCC had rendered its Decision on May 5, 2014. Notably,
however, it was correctly indicated in paragraph 1 of the same Manifestation/Motion that the
date of the MTCC Decision was November 26, 2014. Prescinding therefrom, the Court finds
sufficient Atty. Sibayans explanation that he merely committed a typographical error, without
any real intent to mislead. While the lawyers are enjoined to be precise in the allegations in their
pleadings, occasional errors, if committed or omitted without apparent intent to deceive, do not
provide the Court with compelling grounds to impose disciplinary measures. Tolentino vs.
Millado, 774 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 10737 November 9, 2015

12. Amendment to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court

Under the old rule, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was given the
power to issue a decision if the lawyer complained of was exonerated or meted a penalty of
less than suspension or disbarment. In addition, the case would be deemed terminated unless
an interested party filed a petition before this court. The amendments to Rule 139-B is a
reiteration that only this court has the power to impose disciplinary action on members of the
bar. The factual findings and recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline and the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are recommendatory, subject to
review by this court. Vasco-Tamaray vs. Daquis, 782 SCRA 44, A.C. No. 10868 January 26, 2016

Page 8 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS

13. What is the nature of the lawyer-client relationship?

It must be stressed that a lawyer-client relationship is highly fiduciary in nature. The Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates every lawyer to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
his dealings and transactions with his client and to serve them with competence and diligence. It
is the duty of every lawyer to give adequate attention and time to every case entrusted to him
and to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense thereof and to exercise reasonable
and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case. Cagayan Economic Zone
Authority vs. Meridien Vista Gaming Corporation, 782 SCRA 345, G.R. No. 194962 January 27,
2016

14. How are disciplinary proceedings against sitting judges or justices made?

Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution grants the Supreme Court administrative
supervision over all courts and their personnel. This grant empowers the Supreme Court to
oversee the judges and court personnels administrative compliance with all laws, rules, and
regulations, and to take administrative actions against them if they violate these legal norms. In
the exercise of this power, the Court has promulgated rules of procedure in the discipline of
judges. Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, provides:
SECTION 1. How instituted.Proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts
and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by
the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have
personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said
allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable
integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and
omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules
of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct. Based on this rule, disciplinary proceedings against
sitting judges and justices may be instituted: (a) motu proprio, by the Court itself; (b) upon
verified complaint, supported by the affidavits of persons with personal knowledge of the facts
alleged, or by documents substantiating the allegations; or (c) upon anonymous complaint
supported by public records of indubitable integrity. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ruiz,
782 SCRA 630, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361 February 2, 2016

15. Disrespecting the elderly will warrant the imposition of a penalty for erring lawyers

We find rude and disrespectful the utterances made by respondent against complainant, who
was already 70 years old at that time. The tenor of the message cannot be taken lightly. It was
meant to annoy and humiliate complainant. Not only was it ill mannered; it was also unbecoming
of a lawyer, considering that he did it to an elderly and in front of co-litigants and National Labor
Page 9 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS
Relations Commission employees. Elderly people have, in our society, occupied a revered stature.
We teach our children to treat elders with utmost respect. A special week is dedicated to the
elderly every year to give them recognition and honor in order to raise the peoples level of
awareness of the important role senior citizens play in society. Canlapan vs. Balayo, 784 SCRA
135, A.C. No. 10605 February 17, 2016

As servants of the law, lawyers must be model citizens and set the example of obedience to law.
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who meet high standards of legal
proficiency and morality. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expresses the
lawyers fundamental duty to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land[,] and promote
respect for law[.] Respondents display of improper attitude and arrogance toward an elderly
constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession and cannot be tolerated by
this court. Respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Canlapan
vs. Balayo, 784 SCRA 135, A.C. No. 10605 February 17, 2016

Ill feelings between litigants may exist, but they should not be allowed to influence counsels in
their conduct and demeanor towards each other or towards suitors in the case. As officers of the
court and members of the bar, lawyers are expected to be always above reproach. They cannot
indulge in offensive personalities. They should always be temperate, patient, and courteous both
in speech and conduct, not only towards the court but also towards adverse parties and
witnesses. Canlapan vs. Balayo, 784 SCRA 135, A.C. No. 10605 February 17, 2016

16. It is the right of every lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice to those seeking
relief

Respondents participation and statements in the June 30, 2014 Executive Committee meeting
cannot be characterized as malicious and unprofessional. The issue of the criminal liability of
those who voted in favor of the Agreement arose because of the threats of criminal cases to be
filed by a certain Mr. Redillas and a certain Mr. Navarra, both former officers of the Mayon
Council. It is clear that respondent was merely expressing his legal opinion and not advocating
any course of action. We hold that the foregoing acts do not amount to obstruction of the
administration of justice. It is the right of every lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper
advice to those seeking relief. Respondents assertiveness in espousing with candor his clients
cause was merely in accord with his duty to act in the best interests of his client. Canlapan vs.
Balayo, 784 SCRA 135, A.C. No. 10605 February 17, 2016

Page 10 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS
17. Lifting of suspension is not automatic

Indeed, this Court, in a resolution dated August 1, 2012, in Administrative Case No. 6116,
suspended the complainant for one (1) year from the practice of law for violation of the Lawyers
Oath, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Unless his suspension has been lifted by this Court, the complainant remains to be suspended
and is prohibited from engaging in the practice of law. We have held that the lifting of suspension
from the practice of law is not automatic upon the end of the period stated in the decision; an
order from the Court lifting the suspension is necessary to enable the suspended lawyer to
resume his or her legal practice. Re: Complaint of Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco Against Justices Maria
Elisa Sempio Diy, Ramon Paul L. Hernando, and Carmelita Salandann-Manahan, of the Court of
Appeals Cebu, 784 SCRA 470, I.P.I. No. 14-222-CA-J February 23, 2016

18. Can bad faith be presumed over erring judges?

Respondent had already clarified that she issued the said Order merely to inform the OCA of her
inhibition from the subject case, and while it is true that there was no necessity therefor,
respondents act in itself is not indicative of bad faith. Moreover, she explained that she had
instructed her Branch Clerk to transmit the records of the Migano case to the pairing judge in
RTC-Alaminos City, only to discover later on that the transmittal letter was not properly attached
to the records, resulting in the delay in its transmittal. Hence, while it may be inferred under the
circumstances that respondent was careless and did not exercise diligence in ensuring that the
records of the Migano case were immediately transmitted to the pairing judge of RTC-Alaminos
City for proper disposition, records are bereft of evidence to show that the resulting delay was
deliberately or maliciously caused as to amount to bad faith. Instead, what is evident in this case
is that the delay was caused by inadvertence and negligence. As such, while it may be considered
an unfortunate error on respondents part to hold in abeyance the proceedings in the Migano
case and to fail to promptly transmit the records thereof to the pairing judge in RTC-Alaminos
City, such error does not appear to have been tainted with or impelled by bad faith. Bad faith
cannot be presumed and the Court cannot conclude that bad faith attended respondents acts
when none has been shown in this case. Consequently, respondent need not be subjected to
administrative sanction in this respect. Miano vs. Aguilar, 785 SCRA 338, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408
March 2, 2016

19. What are the penalties imposable on judges who failed to decide cases within the
prescribed period?

The rules and jurisprudence are clear on the matter of delay. Failure to decide cases and other
matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the
imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. Judges must decide cases
and resolve matters with dispatch because any delay in the administration of justice deprives
litigants of their right to a speedy disposition of their case and undermines the peoples faith in

Page 11 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS
the judiciary. Indeed, justice delayed is justice denied. In light of all the foregoing, the Court finds
that respondent is administratively liable for Undue Delay in Issuing Orders in Several Cases and
Undue Delay in Transmitting the Records of a Case, which are classified as less serious charges
under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court that merit the penalty of (a) suspension from
office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months;
or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. Considering the
circumstances of this case and the fact that this is not the first time that respondent has been
held administratively liable, the Court finds it appropriate to impose the penalty of suspension
for a period of three (3) months against respondent. Miano vs. Aguilar, 785 SCRA 338, A.M. No.
RTJ-15-2408 March 2, 2016

20. Disgraceful and immoral conduct, defined.

This Court has issued codes of conduct, most notably A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC or the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel, in addition to the existing civil service rules under the
Administrative Code and Civil Service Rules to guide court personnel in the performance of their
duties and personal affairs. Section 1, Memorandum Circular No. 15 of the Civil Service
Commission defines disgraceful and immoral conduct as a willful act that violates basic decency
or morality of society. It states: Section 1. Definition of Disgraceful and Immoral conduct.
Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct refers to an act which violates the basic norm or decency,
morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the society. It refers to conduct which is
willful, flagrant or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinions of the good
and respectable members of the community. Committee on Ethics & Special Concerns, Court of
Appeals, Manila vs. Naig, 764 SCRA 67, A.M. CA-15-32-P July 29, 2015

21. Do ordinary court personnel have the responsibility to maintain the good name of the
judiciary?

Respecting the proper penalty to be meted out, we cannot agree with the OCA that a fine would
suffice. To reiterate court personnel, from the judge to the lowest clerk, are invested with the
sacred duty to maintain the good name and standing of the institution they serve. This Court
cannot countenance any transgressions committed by court personnel as they reflect on the
judiciary as an institution. Considering that this is respondents first infraction and his repentant
attitude, we thus deem it proper to impose the penalty of suspension for a period of six months
and one day. We would like to strenuously stress that respondent desist from furthering his
relationship with Emma until there has been a legal resolution to his subsisting marriage with
Elena. Committee on Ethics & Special Concerns, Court of Appeals, Manila vs. Naig, 764 SCRA 67,
A.M. CA-15-32-P July 29, 2015

Page 12 of 13

 LEGAL ETHICS
22. Maintaining a disbarred lawyers name in the firm name is different from maintaining a
deceased lawyers name in the firm name.

Maintaining a disbarred lawyers name in the firm name is different from using a deceased
partners name in the firm name. Canon 3, Rule 3.02 allows the use of a deceased partners name
as long as there is an indication that the partner is deceased. This ensures that the public is not
misled. On the other hand, the retention of a disbarred lawyers name in the firm name may
mislead the public into believing that the lawyer is still authorized to practice law. The use of a
deceased partners name in the firm name was the issue in the consolidated cases Petition for
Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo and
In the matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name Ozaeta, Romulo,
De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes, 92 SCRA 1 (1979). Petitioners prayed that they be allowed to
continue including Atty. Alexander Sycips and Atty. Herminio Ozaetas names in their firm
names. This court denied the petitions, explaining that there is a possibility of deception in the
use of a deceased partners name. Also, Article 1815 of the Civil Code shows that the partners in
a partnership should be living persons who can be subjected to liability. Further, the use of a
deceased partners name is not a custom in the Philippines. On the contrary, the local custom
shows that the firm name usually identifies the senior members or partners of a law firm. Kimteng
vs. Young, 765 SCRA 410, G.R. No. 210554 August 5, 2015

Page 13 of 13