Legal Ethics IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY
ACTION AGAINST ATTY.
Canon 8
CASE DIGESTS
Laput vs. Remotigue
(6 SCRA 45 September 29, 1962)
Facts: Atty. Casiano U. Laput was the former counsel of
one Nieves vda. De Barrera, the administrator of the
estate of Macario Barrera, regarding the testate of the
latter. He charged respondents Atty. Remotigue and
Atty. Patalinghug with unprofessional and unethical
conduct in soliciting cases and intriguing against another
lawyer. Complainant alleges that weeks after his client
refused to countersign several pleadings that he
prepared, he found out that respondent Atty.
Patalinghug was the new counsel of Mrs. Barrera so he
voluntarily asked the court to be relieved as counsel for
Mrs. Barrera. After that, the other respondent Atty.
Remotigue entered his appearance. Complainant says
that the respondents nursed the desire of his former client
to replace him and also made Mrs. Barrera sign
documents sent to corporations which have stocks
owned by Macario Barrera revoking his power of
attorney. He further alleges that the motive of the
respondents was to embarrass him to the officials, lawyers
and employees of those companies picturing him as a
dishonest lawyer and no longer trusted by his client.
Issue: WON respondents were guilty of unethical and
unprofessional conduct
Held: No, the solicitor-general found that before
respondents filed their appearance, Mrs. Barrera had
already filed with the court, a pleading discharging the
complainant. The fact that complainant was not able to
get a copy was not the fault of the respondents. Also, it
was found that Mrs. Barrera dismissed Atty. Laput
because she no longer trusted him after finding out that
some checks were sent to the complainant instead of her
and that several withdrawals were made by complainant
in her account without her permission. There is no
irregularity in the appearance of respondents as
counsel. The revocation of power of attorney prepared
by respondent was done without malice and was made
only to safeguard his client. Charges DISMISSED.
CLEMENTE M. SORIANO IN L-24114, People's Homesite and
Housing Corporation and
University of the Philippines,
vs.
HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ELPIDIO TIBURCIO, MARCELINO
TIBURCIO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L- 24114 June 30, 1970
FACTS:
On October 10, 1969, Clemente M. Soriano, a member of
the Philippine Bar entered his appearance in the present
case (L-24114, PHHC and U.P. vs. Mencias, Tiburcio, et al.)
as "chief counsel of record" for the respondents Marcelino
Tiburcio, et al. This act in itself would have been
innocuous were it not for the fact that it was done one
year and eight months after the decision in this case
became final. Atty. Soriano asked the Court to exhume
the case from the archives. Atty. Soriano's subsequent
explanation did not, however, serve to dissuade this
Court from requiring him to show cause why disciplinary
action should not be taken against him for entering an
appearance at such a late date. He alleged that
sometime during the first week of October 1969, the
respondent Marcelino Tiburcio, in his own behalf and as
attorney-in-fact of the other respondents, went to him to
engage his professional services in two cases, to wit: this
terminated case (L-24114) and the Varsity Hills case (L-
30546). Atty. Soriano allegedly relied upon the assurance
of a mutual acquaintance and representation of
Marcelino Tiburcio that the two cases were pending in
the Court. He then agreed to render professional services
in the two cases in consideration of a contingent fee of
143.33 hectares of land out of the 430 hectares (more or
less) involved in the two cases.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Soriano is guilty of negligence.
HELD:
YES. Before taking over a case handled by a peer in the
Bar, a lawyer is enjoined to obtain the conformity of the
counsel whom he would substitute. And if this cannot be
had, then he should, at the very least, give notice to such
lawyer of the contemplated substitution. His entry of
appearance in the case without the consent of the first
lawyer amounts to an improper encroachment upon the
professional employment of the original counsel. Atty.
Soriano violates Rule 8.02, Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of another
lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear
or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
We find Atty. Clemente M. Soriano guilty of gross
negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer
and as an officer of this Court. This inexcusable
1
negligence would merit no less than his suspension from
the practice of the law profession, were it not for his
candor, at the hearing of this incident, in owning his
mistake and the apology he made to this Court. It is the
sense of this Court, however, that he must be as he is
hereby severely censured. Atty. Soriano is further likewise
warned that any future similar act will be met with
heavier disciplinary sanction.
Atty. Soriano is hereby ordered, in the present case, to
forthwith withdraw the appearance that he has entered
as chief counsel of record for the respondents Marcelino
Tiburcio, et al.
A.C. No. 3149 August 17, 1994
CERINA B. LIKONG, petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. ALEXANDER H. LIM, respondent.
PADILLA, J.:
Cerina B. Likong filed this administrative case against Atty.
Alexander H. Lim, seeking the latter's disbarment for
alleged malpractice and grave misconduct.
On September 1984, complainant obtained a loan of
P92,100.00 from a certain Geesnell L. Yap. Complainant
executed a promissory note in favor of Yap and a deed
of assignment, assigning to Yap pension checks which
she regularly receives from the United States government
as a widow of a US pensioner. The aforementioned deed
of assignment states that the same shall be irrevocable
until the loan is fully paid. Complainant likewise executed
a special power of attorney authorizing Yap to get,
demand, collect and receive her pension checks from
the post office at Tagbilaran City. The above documents
were apparently prepared and notarized by respondent
Alexander H. Lim, Yap's counsel.
About three (3) months after the execution of the
aforementioned special power of attorney, complainant
informed the Tagbilaran City post office that she was
revoking the special power of attorney preventing
complainant from getting her pension checks from the
Tagbilaran City post office, As a consequence, Geesnell
Yap filed a complaint for injunction with damages
against complainant. He was represented by Atty Lim the
respondent in the case.
On July 1985, complainant and Yap filed a joint motion to
allow the latter to withdraw the pension checks, wherein
Cerina was not represented by her counsel, same with
Aug 1985 where a compromise agreement were entered
into by Cerina and Yap, Atty Lim wasn’t there to
represent her client.
With this, petitioner filed a complaint for disbarment,
based on the following allegations:
* complainant was prevented from seeking assistance,
advise and signature of any of her two (2) lawyers; no
copy thereof was furnished to either of them or at least to
complainant herself despite the latter's pleas to be
furnished copies of the same.
* Complainant was even advised by respondent that it
was not necessary for her to consult her lawyers under the
pretense that: (a) this could only jeopardize the
settlement; (b) she would only be incurring enormous
expense if she consulted a new lawyer; (c) respondent
was assisting her anyway; (d) she had nothing to worry
about the documents foisted upon her to sign; (e)
complainant need not come to court afterwards to save
her time; and in any event respondent already took care
of everything;
* Complainant had been prevented from exhibiting fully
her case by means of fraud, deception and some other
form of mendacity practiced on her by respondent;
* Finally, respondent fraudulently or without authority
assumed to represent complainant and connived in her
defeat;
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct
under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that YES, the respondent
was guilty of MISCONDUCT under the Code of
Professional Responsibility particularly Canon 9 which
states that “Negotiations with opposite party. A lawyer
should not in any way communicate upon the subject of
controversy with a party represented by counsel; much
less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the
matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is
incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid
everything that may tend to mislead a party not
represented by counsel and he should not undertake to
advise him as to the law”, and Canon 1.01, 8.02 and
15.03.
The Code of Professional Responsibility states:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Rule 8.02 — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of another
lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear
or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.
The violation of the aforementioned rules of professional
conduct by respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim, warrants
the imposition upon him of the proper sanction from this
Court
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim is
hereby imposed the penalty of SUSPENSION from the
practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR, effective
immediately upon his receipt of this decision.
Such acts of the respondent constituting malpractice
and grave misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not
only do they erode confidence and trust in the legal
profession, they likewise prevent justice from being
attained. Respondent was suspended from the practice
of law for 1 year.
2
Camacho vs. Pangulayan
(328 SCRA 631, March 22, 2000)
Facts: Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, the hired counsel of
some expelled students from the AMA Computer
College, filed a complaint against the lawyers of
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices (Atty.
Pangulayan, et al.) for having procured and effected on
separate occasions, without his knowledge, compromise
agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with four of his
clients which, in effect, required them to waive all kinds of
claims they might have had against AMACC, the
principal defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal
and administrative proceedings filed against it.
Complainant averred that such an act of respondents
was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession
warranting either disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law.
The students, members of the Editorial Board of the school
paper, were expelled by the school as recommended by
the Student Disciplinary tribunal for publishing some
objectionable features or articles. They were found guilty
of using indecent language and unauthorized use of
student publication funds. Atty. Pangulayan admits that
he only participated in the formulation and execution of
the various Re-Admission agreements complained of and
alleges that the agreements had nothing to do with the
civil case but were purely administrative.
Issue: WON Atty. Pagulayan act in accordance with
ethical standards for procuring said agreements.
Held: No, the IBP found that Atty. Pangulayan was aware
that when the letters of apology and Re-Admission
agreements were formalized, the complainant was
already the counsel for the students in the civil
case. However, he still proceeded to negotiate with the
students and their parents without communicating the
matter to their lawyer. His failure is an inexcusable
violation of the canons of professional responsibility and
an utter disregard of the duty he owes to his
colleague. His defense that the agreements were purely
administrative does not hold because the manifestation
stated that the students shall drop all civil, criminal and
administrative proceedings against AMA. The IBP
recommended a 6-month suspension but the SC found it
too harsh and ruled only a 3-month suspension.
ALCANTARA v PEFIANCO
A. C. No. 5398. December 3, 2002
FACTS:
This is a complaint against Atty. Mariano Pefianco for
conduct unbecoming a member of the bar for using
improper and offensive language and threatening and
attempting to assault complainant. The complainant,
Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the incumbent District Public
Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office in San Jose,
Antique. He alleged that while Atty. Ramon Salvani III was
conferring with a client in the Public Attorney’s Office
(PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose, Antique, a
woman approached them. Complainant suggested Atty.
Salvani to talk with her when respondent Atty. Mariano
Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted
at Atty. Salvani and his client. Atty Pefianco was asked to
calm down but he did not refrain from his outburst. This
caused a commotion in the office wherein respondent
tried to attack complainant and even shouted at him,
"You’re stupid!" Complainant also submitted the affidavits
of Atty. Ramon Salvani III, Felizardo Del Rosario, Atty.
Pepin Joey Marfil, Robert Minguez, Herbert Ysulat and
Ramon Quintayo to corroborate his allegations.
In his Comment and Counter-Complaint, respondent
Pefianco said that the sight of the crying woman, whose
husband had been murdered, moved him and
prompted him to take up her defense. He also averred
that it was Alcantara who punched him and called him
stupid.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s act violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
YES. Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility: CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL
CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND
CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND
SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING
COUNSEL.
Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal
profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly
toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves
without reproach at all times. In this case, respondent’s
meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so
caused the untoward incident. Though he thought that
this is righteous, his public behaviorcan only bring down
the legal profession in the eyes of the public and erode
respect for it. An injustice cannot be righted by another
injustice.
Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and,
considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FINED in
the amount of P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a
warning that similar action in the future will be sanctioned
more severely.
3
ATTY. REYES v. ATTY. CHIONG JR.
(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003)
FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Reyes filed a case for
disbarment against respondent Atty. Chiong because of
the latter’s violation of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility dealing with the idea that
lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity
and civility. Chiong’s client did not appear upon the
court when Prosecutor Salonga issued a subpoena for
their preliminary investigation, the Prosecutor filed a
criminal complaint for estafa against said client. After
which Chiong made an urgent motion to quash the
warrant concomitant with his filing for a civil complaint
and collection for a sum of money and damages against
Atty. Reyes, Xu (the complainant’s client) and the
Prosecutor. Upon their confrontation, no settlement was
reached.
Chiong argues that there was no disrespect impleading
Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil Case No. 4884 and
no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless. He
argues that he impleaded the Prosecutor because the
criminal investigation had irregularities due to the action
of the Prosecutor to file estafa case despite the
pendency for his client’s motion for an opportunity to
submit counter affidavit and evidence.
ISSUE: Did respondent violate Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
HELD: Yes, it was recommended by the IBP that
defendant’s purpose of filing for the collection suit with
damages was to be able to obtain leverage against the
estafa case of his client. Clearly there was no need to
implead complainant and Prosecutor Salonga because
they never had any participation in the business
transactions between Pan and Xu, clearly it was for the
mere harassment of the two. Chiong was suspended for
two (2) years from the practice of law and was
implemented immediately.
TORRES v JAVIER
AC 5910 September 21, 2005
Facts:
This is an administrative case filed by Atty. Ireneo Torres
against Atty. Jose Javier for malpractice, gross
misconduct in office as an attorney and/or violation of
the lawyer’s oath. There were 3 causes of action
First, the allegations stem from statements/remarks
made by Javier in the pleadings he filed in a petition for
audit
of all funds of the University of the East Faculty Association
(UEFA) (Torres is the President). Javier implied that
Torres had a motive to burglarize the office of UEFA to get
certain documents.
Second, Torres alleges that Javier used language that
was clearly abusive, offensive, and improper, inconsistent
with the character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial
officer. This was with regard to Javier’s “Reply to
Respondents Answer/Comment” in the “attorney’s fees
case” where Javier made a comment on the intellectual
capacity of Torres.
Third, Torres finds fault in Javier’s statement that implies
that it is normal for notaries public to let their relatives
sign the documents for them. Torres says that this
statement is demeaning to the legal profession and the
notarial service.
IBP found Javier guilty and reprimanded him.
Issue:
W/n Javier should be held liable for his acts.
Held:
SC says only as regards the second cause of action. The
court made mention that it is well entrenched in
Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy,
utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings,
including all kinds of pleadings, petitions and motions, are
absolutely privileged so long as they are pertinent and
relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or malicious
they may be.
For the first cause of action, the SC held that such
statements made by Javier were necessary in order to
resolve
the petition for audit filed. These statements give a
possible scenario as to the reason for the burglary in the
UEFA office. As to the third cause of action, the SC gave
Javier the benefit of the doubt that he issued these
statements only in the defense of his client.
As to the second (for which the SC found Javier guilty),
the Court ruled that the statements made regarding
Torres’ intellectual aptitude were not relevant to the
“attorney’s fees case”. The issue in the said case was
whether the 10% attorney’s fees “checked off” from the
initial backwages/salaries of UEFA members is legal (I
don’t really understand this pero yan lang yun
nakalagay).
The SC pointed out that Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility instructs that respondent’s
arguments in his pleadings should be gracious to both the
court and opposing counsel and be of such words as
may be properly addressed by one gentleman to
another. Javier has disobeyed such mandate and is thus
suspended from the practice of law for 1 month.
4
ATTY. DALLONG- GALICINAO V. ATTY. CASTRO
AC 6396 October 25, 2005
FACTS:
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and
Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and VP of IBP-
Nueva Vizcaya. Respondent went to complainant’s
office to inquire whether the records of Civil Case No. 784
had already been remanded to the MCTC. Respondent
was not the counsel of either party in that case.
Complainant replied that the record had not yet
been transmitted since a certified true copy of the CA
decision should first be presented. To this respondent
retorted, “You mean to say, I would have to go to Manila
to get a copy?” Complainant replied that respondent
may show instead the copy sent to the party he
represents. Respondent then replied that complainant
should’ve notified him. Complainant explained that it is
not her duty to notify the respondent of such duty.
Angered, respondent yelled stuff in Ilocano and left the
office, banging the door so loud. He then returned to the
office and shouted, “Ukinnam nga babai!” (“Vulva of
your mother, you woman!”)
Later, complainant filed a manifestation that she
won’t appear in the hearing of the case in view of the
respondent’s public apology, and that the latter was
forgiven already.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility?
RULING:
Respondent is fined the amount of 10,000 with a warning.
Respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case
No. 784. His explanation that he will enter his appearance
in the case when its records were already transmitted to
the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of
record respondent had no right to impose his will on the
clerk of court. He violated Rule 8.02, because this was an
act of encroachment. It matters not that he did so in
good faith.
His act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar
invectives to the clerk of court was not only ill-mannered
but also unbecoming considering that he did these in
front of the complainant’s subordinates. For these, he
violated Rules 7.03 and 8.01 and Canon 8. The penalty
was tempered because respondent apologized to the
complainant and the latter accepted it. This is not to
say, however, that respondent should be absolved from
his actuations. People are accountable for the
consequences of the things they say and do even if they
repent afterwards.
Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. Melencio L. Mauricio, Jr. A.C.
No. 7199,
July 22, 2009
FACTS:
This is a disbarment case against Atty. Melanio L.
Mauricio, Jr., popularly known as “Batas Mauricio” by
Foodsphere, Inc. (complainant under the brand name
“CDO after a certain Alberto Cordero purportedly
bought a can of CDO Liver spread discovering a colony
of worms in it. He filed a lawsuit and asked CDO to pay
Php150,000 on a conciliation done by BFAD but CDO
refused and instead offered to pay the actual medical
and incidental expenses of Mr. Cordero. He brought the
matter to the media where Atty Mauricio threatened
CDO that he would publish and air in his TV and Radio
programs the re the said issue. After a KASUNDUAN was
made between Atty Maurcio as witness and the
Corderos of a money settlement of Php 50,000 including
placing paid advertisements in the tabloids and television
program where Atty. Mauricio is working, respondent
(Mauricio) still not satisfied with the offer threatened to
proceed with the publication of the articles/columns. He
then made several libellous write ups and comments
about CDO. Complainant thus filed criminal complaints
against respondent for Libel and Threatening to Publish
Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal
Code. The complaints were pending at the time of the
filing of the present administrative complaint but Atty
Mauticio didn’t stop from making write ups and
comments about the matter and questioned the integrity
of the prosecutor’s office using coarse languages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Mauricio has violated:
1. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides: “A lawyer [s]hall [o]bserve
and [m]aintain [t]he [re]spect [d]ue [t]o [t]he [c]ourts
[a]nd [t]o [j]udicial [o]fficers [a]nd [s]hould [i]nsist [o]n
[s]imilar [c]onduct [b]y [o]thers.”
2. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3. Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
4. CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.
5. Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper,
6. CANON 7 - A Lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession
RULING:
Yes Atty. Melanio Mauricio violated the lawyer’s oath and
has committed a breach of ethics of the legal profession
as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility
mentioned above and is therefore SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for three years effective upon his receipt
of this Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
5
 HELD:

ATTY. BARANDON, JR v. ATTY. FERRER, SR. No, there was no reason to disagree with the
(A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010) findings of the IBP because it can be seen that there was
an appropriate and tedious investigation set upon him for
administrative purposes and it can be inferred that the
FACTS: decision went through a rigorous process.

On January 11, 2001 Atty.Barandon filed a

complaint-affidavit with the IBP seeking the disbarment,
suspension or proper disciplinary action against
Atty.Ferrer,Sr. for offenses such as the use of offensive
language when insinuating that the complainant
presented a falsified document in court, filing a
fabricated charge against Atty. Barandon, the usage of
threatening phrases before the start of a hearing such as
“…patayan kung patayan, kasamaang lahat ng
pamilya.”, accusing Atty. Barandon without bothering to
check the facts and lastly the plethora of cases he was
facing that time predominantly the one that deals with
sexual harassment.
Yes, because as stated in Canon 8 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, all lawyers conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards
their fellow lawyer and more specifically in Rule 8.01 a
lawyer shall not in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. It was
clearly seen in this case that there was a violation of this
Canon and also Canon 7 which dealt with the proper
conduct of a lawyer and how he should not behave in a
scandalous manner that would discredit the legal
profession, appearing drunk and having multiple cases
piled against him would be very clear that there is a
clear-cut violation of said Canon.

Atty. Ferrer filed an answer concomitant with his

motion to dismiss. In his answer contains the improbability
of the charges against him because he could have not
said those remarks without being reprimanded while the
court was in session. Also, the offended party in the
falsification case vouchsafed that her thumbmark in the
document has been falsified and other conflicting stories
against what Atty. Barandon filed.

While there was this constant clash between the

complainant and the respondent on December 29, 2000,
Atty. Barandon boarded a taxi that was owned by
defendant’s son and it was involved in an accident, the
incident was shady because no help was given to the
victims and that respondent denied knowing the driver of
said taxi. Atty. Ferrer also prevented an eyewitness from
reporting the accident to the proper authorities.

On October 10, 2001 the IBP investigation

commissioner recommended the suspension of
respondent for two (2) years because they have found
enough evidence to prove his violation of Canon 8.01
and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On
June 29, 2002 the IBP board of governors accepted the
recommendations of the investigation commissioner with
the reduction of one (1) year from the suspension.

ISSUES:

1. Did the IBP err in finding Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges
set against him?
2. In the affirmative, was the penalty imposed on him
justified?