Legal Ethics

Cobb argues that disbarment is excessive because there are no cases where a lawyer was
disbarred for “temporary conversion where” the money was repaid years before any BBO
inquiry. However, the Supreme Judicial Court stated that ​disbarment was appropriate
Matthew Cobb, numerous acts of professional misconduct.: (1) he because of multiple acts of misconduct,​ including ​baseless accusations against
Docket SIC 09333 claimed that the judge was a part of a 'criminal judges and attorneys ​as well as the c​ onversion of the clients’ funds​ as a
Supreme Judicial enterprise' (Jaraki case); (2) claimed that the judge in the result of the second sanction. In light of this repeated, serious misconduct, respondent has
Court (Mass.), Nutile case was biased and; (3) conflict of interest and not demonstrated that the imposition of the same discipline by this Court would result in
CANON 10-13 December 8, 2005 disclosure of confidential info in Malave case grave injustice.
People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza: Atty B: ​harsh insinuation Issue: Whether or not respondent Atty. Bagabuyo violates Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule
against Judge Buyser: Respondent caused the 13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Lawyer’s Oath. Held: •
publication ​of an article regarding the Order granting Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when ​he admittedly caused the holding of
bail to the accused in the August 18, 2003 issue of the a press conference where he made statements against the Order​ dated Nov. 12, 2002
Mindanao Gold Star Daily. : respondent allegedly called allowing the accused in CCN 5144 to be released on bail. :​ violated Canon 11​ when he
Judge Tan, a judge who does not know the law, a liar, and indirectly stated that judge Ian was displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled
In re: Suspension a dictator who does not accord due process to the “Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out,
of Atty. Rogelio C. people.: He justified his response during the ​interview which appeared in the Aug. 18,2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Dail. xxx The court is
Bagabuyo, AC No. as a simple exercise of his constitutional right of freedom not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges b​ut the rules clearly
7006, October 9, of speech and that it was not meant to offend or malign, provide for the proper venue and procedure for doing so​, precisely because respect
2007 and was without malice. for the institution must always be maintained
Atty. Ellis F. Jacobaand Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba Well-recognized is t​he right of a lawyer​, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen,​ to
(respondents): Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is criticize​ in ​properly respectful terms ​and through​ legitimate channels the acts of
counsel forplaintiff Alejandro R. Veneracion courts and judges.​ However, even the most hardened judge would be scarred by the
("Veneracion") in acivil case for unlawful detainer scurrilous attack​ made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacurom’s Resolution. On
against defendantFederico Barrientos : disrespectful, its face, the Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided the case according to
insulting and humiliating contents of the 30 July 2001 supporting law and jurisprudence. Though a lawyers language may be forceful and
motion.: Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of emphatic, it should ​always be dignified and respectful​, befitting the​ dignity of the legal
Judge Ulbadino A. contempt and penalized her with imprisonment for five profession.​ The use of unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to promote high
Lacuram v. Atty days and a fine of P1,000.: jacoba moved for esteem in the courts and trust in judicial administration. xxx We ​SUSPEND ​Atty. Ellis F.
Ellis Jacoba, AC No. reconsideration saying that she signed the pleading Jacoba from the practice of law for​ two (2) years​ effective upon finality of this Decision.
5921, March 10, handed to her without reading it, in trusting blind faith We also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from the practice of law for ​two ​(2) ​months
2006 on her husband effective upon finality of this Decision.

sarahjeanadado
 Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title: a
pleading that is interspersed from beginning to end
with the insolent contemptuous, grossly
disrespectful and derogatory remarks hereinbefore
reproduced, against this Court as well as its
individual members, a behavior that is as
unprecedented as it is unprofessional. Court waited
for him to surrender his Cert but no word came from
him. ​Virginia Yaptinchay (client); lost in a civil case but
Almacen filed for a Motion for Reconsideration.: appeal
was denied by CA, SC: appeal on certiorari denied in a
In re: Proceedings minute resolution: claimed minute reso is
for disciplinary unconstitutional: He argues that due to the minute
action against Atty. resolution, his client was made to pay P120,000.00
Vicente Almacen, without knowing the reasons why and that his client
GR No. L-27654, became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of
February 18, 1970 hypocrisy”. :
Joseph J.
Notopoulos v. The primary function of the​ Statewide Grievance
Statewide Committee ​is the review and adjudication of complaints.
Grievance : The committee had reprimanded the plaintiff after he
Committee, SC wrote a
(Connecticut), letter accusing a Probate Court judge of, inter alia,
17341, 2006 extorting money.
That the misconduct committed by Atty. Almacen is of ​considerable gravity ​cannot be
overemphasized. However, heeding the stern injunction that ​disbarment should never
be decreed where a lesser sanction would accomplish the end desired, ​and believing
that it may not perhaps be futile to hope that in the sober light of some future day, Atty.
Almacen will realize that abrasive language never fails to do disservice to an advocate and
that in every effervescence of candor there is ample room for the added glow of respect, it
is our view that ​suspension will suffice​ under the circumstances. His demonstrated
persistence in his misconduct by neither manifesting repentance nor offering apology
therefor leave us no way of determining how long that suspension should last and,
accordingly, we are impelled to decree that the same should be indefinite.xxx
Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
It is Such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.
Rule 8.2 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides in relevant part: ‘‘A lawyer shall
not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its
truth or falsity concerning the
qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . .’’ 3 Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct
provides in relevant part: ‘‘It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to... ‘‘(4) [e]ngage in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice . . . .’ xxx
sarahjeanadado

Vizconde murders: Jennifer Alfaro-lying witness: There is 2005 and Resolution dated January 26, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
another thing about a lying witness: her story lacks sense 00336 and ACQUITS accused-appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael
or suffers from inherent inconsistencies. An
Lejano v. People, understanding of the nature of things and the common
GR No. 176389, behavior of people will help expose a lie. And it has an
February 15, 2011 abundant presence in this case.
Judge Blancaflor found petitioners Rodriguez and Tulali
guilty of direct contempt and ordered them to issue a
Rodriguez and public apology to the court.: People of the Philippines v.
Tulali v. Hon. Teksan Ami: Tulali was prosecutor: alleged bribery
Blancaflor, GR No. initiated by Randy Awayan (driver assigned to Judge
190171, March 14, Blancaflor: to assure the acquittal of the accused, Rolly
2011 Ami (Ami), and the dismissal of the arson case.:
In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains
doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all
possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it
would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt
hangs on to ones inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.
Will the Court send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testimony
of an NBI asset who proposed to her handlers that she take the role of the witness to the
Vizconde massacre that she could not produce?
WHEREFORE, the Court ​REVERSES and SETS ASIDE​ the Decision dated December 15,
A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of
the crimes of which they were charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention
unless they are confined for another lawful cause.
The power to punish a person in contempt of court is inherent in all courts to
preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the orderly administration of
justice.​ However, judges are enjoined to exercise the power judiciously and sparingly,
with utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and
preservation of the dignity of the court, and not for retaliation or vindictiveness. It bears
stressing that the power to declare a person in contempt of court must be exercised on
the preservative, not the vindictive principle; and on the corrective, not the retaliatory,
idea of punishment.6 Such power, being drastic and extraordinary in its nature, should
not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice. xxx Judge Blancaflor’s
conclusion, that th​e subject manifestation containing derogatory matters was
purposely filed to discredit the administration of justice in court, is unfounded and
without basis​. xxx This Court is not unmindful of a judge’s power to suspend an attorney
from practice for just cause pursuant to Section 28, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court. Judge Blancaflor, however, must be reminded that the requirements of due process
must be complied with, as mandated under Section 30, Rule 138 of the same Rules which
specifically provides, viz: Sec. 30. ​Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension.
xxx Indeed, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct showing any
fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. His guilt,
however, cannot be presumed. It must indicate the dubious character of the acts done, as
well as the motivation thereof. Furthermore, a disbarred lawyer must have been given full
sarahjeanadado

dishonesty and falsification committed in the pleadings
he filed in behalf of the defendants in the civil action in
which De Leon intervened.: correcting the transfer
certificates of title (TCTs) covering two parcels of land
located in Malabon City then registered in the names of
defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu: De Leon,
having joined Civil Case No. 4674MN as a voluntary
intervenor two years later (April 21, 2008), now accuses
the respondent, the counsel of record of the defendants
De Leon v. Castelo, in Civil Case No. 4674MN, with the serious
AC No. 8620, administrative offenses of dishonesty and falsification
January 21, 2011 warranting his disbarment or suspension as an attorney.
a ​memorandum ​in which he said, among other things,
that the judge had unduly favored the plaintiffs, to the
extent of advising Attorney Palacol "to fix the case
because his position was hopeless," and the
memorandum was filed as a protest against the "unjust,
hostile, vindictive and dangerous attitude of the judge."
The memorandum further stated that copies thereof had
been sent to the Secretary of Justice, the Supreme Court,
and the Office of the President of the Senate. xxx to show
cause why he should not be punished for contempt on
four counts, namely, for appearing in court without being
a party or attorney in the case, for using offensive
Cornejo v. Tan, No. language, for misbehavior in the presence of the court
L-2217, March 23, and for publishing his memorandum before it was
1950 submitted and decided by the court.
opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, produce
witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself and counsel.
WHEREFORE, w​e dismiss the complaint for disbarment or suspension​ filed against
Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo for utter lack of merit. xxx A plain reading indicates that the
respondent did not misrepresent that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still
living. ​On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in the answer to the complaint in
intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim, supra, and in the clarification and
submission, supra, that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were already deceased. xxx
A lawyers ​reputation is, indeed, a very fragile object.​ The Court, whose officer every
lawyer is, must shield such fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the
malicious. It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting down any patently frivolous complaint
against a lawyer; and, secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings any
accusation of unethical conduct. A Bar that is insulated from intimidation and harassment
is encouraged to be courageous and fearless, which can then best contribute to the
efficient delivery and proper administration of justice.
It is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights of his client,
should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is capable, but it is not, and never
will be so for him to exercise said right by restoring to intimidation or proceeding without
the propriety and respect which the dignity of the courts require. The reason for this is
that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of their institution. xxx Omitting
reference to the other points, enough has been stated to show that there was no clear
abuse of the respondent's powers in declaring Attorney Cornejo to be in direct contempt.
Petition denied.
sarahjeanadado

Complainant Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court
has had enough of the respondent, a law practitioner,
who had engaged in the ​unethical practice of filing
frivolous administrative cases against judges and
personnel of the courts​ because the latter filed a
motion to inhibit the complainant from hearing a
pending case. Hence, the complainant has initiated this
Madrid v. Dealca, complaint for the disbarment of respondent on the
AC No. 7474, ground of gross misconduct and gross violation of the
September 9, 2014 Code of Professional Responsibility. xxx
Baculi v. Battung, disbarment: during the hearing on the motion for
AC No. 8920, reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent
September 28, was​ shouting while arguing his motion.​: shouted at the Atty. Battung was ordered ​suspended ​from the practice of law for ​one (1) year ​with a
2011 judge:
1. Atty. Dealca must guard against his own impulse of initiating unfounded suits. xxx 2.
Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
xxx Atty. Dealca maintains that Judge Madrid should have "in good grace inhibited
himself" upon his motion toinhibit in order to preserve "confidence in the impartiality of
the judiciary."31 However, IBP Commissioner Hababag has recommended that Atty.
Dealca be sanctioned for filing the motion to inhibit considering that the motion, being
purely based on his personal whims, was bereft of factual and legal bases. xxx Lawyers are
licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the legal
causes for their clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities
are devolved upon them by law. Verily, their membership in the Bar imposes certain
obligations upon them. xxx ​SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one year
effective from notice of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that any similar
infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
respondent failed to observe Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that
requires a lawyer to observe and maintain respect due the courts and judicial
officers​. xxx a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the courts. xxx The Supreme Court held that litigants and counsels,
particularly the latter because of their position and avowed duty to the courts, cannot be
allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and disrespect a judge, and the court that he
represents. xxx A lawyer wh​o insults a judge inside a courtroom completely
disregards the latter’s role, stature and position in our justice system. ​When the
respondent publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi that he would file a
case for gross ignorance of the law against the latter, the respondent effectively acted in a
manner tending to erode the public confidence in Judge Baculi’s competence and in his
ability to decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be handled with
sensitivity in the manner provided under the Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining
lawyer cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring the justice
system into disrepute.
warning that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
sarahjeanadado
 is ​disbarred ​fo​r gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders of a
superior court.​ xxx We have held that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes
gross misconduct, insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyer’s suspension or
the Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct even disbarment. xxx Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring orders of the
for, among others, abandoning her client’s cause in bad Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent’s
Santeco v. Avance, faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders conduct indicates a high degree or irresponsibility. A Court’s Resolution is “not to be
AC No. directed at her without any explanation for doing so. xxx construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or
5834-formerly during 5 yr suspension, respondent had appeared and selectively. Respondent’s obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s orders not “only
CBD 01-861, actively participated in three cases wherein she betrays recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court’s
February 22, 2011 misrepresented herself as “Atty. Liezl Tanglao”: lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.”
There are thus three solutions which we can adopt in resolving the case at bar: the first is
for the parties to assert their claims anew, the second is to determine which judgment
came first, and the third is to determine which of the judgments had been rendered by a
court of last resort. xxx Petitioner’s arguments presuppose that he had been removed
from his position as Undersecretary of the DND. He, however, did not present any
evidence to that effect, whether in this Petition or in his earlier Petition for Quo Warranto
and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals. xxx ​In the first place, petitioner has not
established by any quantum of certainty the veracity of his claim that he was
Collantes instituted a Petition for Quo Warranto and promised an equivalent position in the government. ​Assuming, however, that such
Mandamus before Us on 29 January 2001, docketed as promise was true, petitioner, as a ranking member of the bureaucracy, ought to have
C.A. G.R. SP NO. 62874. Collantes maintained that he was known that such promise offers no assurance in law that the same would be complied
Collantes v. CA, GR constructively dismissed from work, without any cause with. The time-honored rule is that public office is a public trust, and as such, the same is
No. 169604, March and due process of law, and thus, his position in the DND governed by law, and cannot be made the subject of personal promises or negotiations by
6, 2007 was never vacated at all.: private persons.

sarahjeanadado