Judicial Ethics

RE: Anonymous Letter Complaint v Judge Divina T. Samson and Utility Worker Francisco M.
Roque, Jr.
A.M. No. mtj-16-1870 June 6, 2017. EN BANC (Peralta)

DOCTRINE: The judge’s complicity in the appointment of a person to the judiciary despite knowing that
the latter is not yet discharged from probation when he applied for the position in court is a violation of the
Code of Judicial Conduct.

FACTS:

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an anonymous letter-complaint charging Judge
Divina T. Samson with misconduct for hiring Francisco M. Roque, Jr. as Utility Worker I in her court
despite knowing that Roque was convicted in Criminal Case No. 13388 for illegal possession of explosives
and was still on probation when he applied for a position in her court, as she was the public prosecutor who
handled the case, and for knowingly abetting the concealment of such fact, which led to Roque's
appointment in the Judiciary.

ISSUE:

Is Judge Samson is liable for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct?

RULING:

Yes. Judge Samson is liable for violation of Code of Judicial Conduct.

CANON 2 - A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND APPEARANCE OF

IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

Rule 2.01 --A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary.

Rule 2.03 - A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial
conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests
of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to
influence the judge.

When Roque applied for the position of Utility Worker I in Judge Samson’s court, she knew that
Roque was not yet discharged from probation and yet she recommended Roque for the position in a
recommendation letter, which forms part of the employment record of Roque in the Court. As the Presiding
Judge of the Court, Judge Samson should have been circumspect and waited for the final discharge of
Roque before she entertained his application and gave him her favorable recommendation, as it is only upon
the final discharge of Roque from probation that his case is deemed terminated and all his civil rights lost
or suspended are restored. Thus Judge Samson’s act of hiring Roque violates Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
Lawyers and the Legal Profession / the Court/ the Client

Virgilio J. Mapalad, Sr. v Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez

A.C. No. 10911 June 6, 2017. EN BANC (Tijam)

DOCTRINE: As vanguards of our legal system, lawyers are expected to maintain legal proficiency and a
high standard of honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.

FACTS:

Virgilio Mapalad alleged that in an action involving him as one of the plaintiffs and Atty. Anselmo
Echanez as the counsel for the defendants, as well as in a special civil action involving the same clients,
Atty. Echanez only indicated his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Compliance Number
without indicating the date of issue thereof.

Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, Mapalad discovered that Atty. Echanez had no MCLE
compliance yet. The MCLE Office then issued a Certification stating that Atty. Echanez had not yet
complied with his MCLE requirements for the First Compliance Period (April 15, 2001 to April 14, 2004)
and Second Compliance Period (April 15, 2004 to April 14, 2007).

Despite receipt of notice Atty. Echanez failed to comply with the resolution requiring him to file a
comment on the charges against him.

ISSUE:

Did Atty. Echanez violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING:

Yes. Atty. Echanez acts constitutes a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and Code of Professional
Responsibility.

The Lawyer's Oath in Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires commitment to obeying
laws and legal orders, doing no falsehood, and acting with fidelity to both court and client, among others.

Despite such non-compliance, Atty. Echanez repeatedly indicated a false MCLE compliance
number in his pleadings before the trial courts. In indicating patently false information in pleadings filed
before the courts of law, not only once but four times, as per records, the Atty. Echanez acted in manifest
bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit. In so doing, he indeed misled the courts, the litigants, professional
colleagues, and all others who may have relied on such pleadings containing false information. Atty.
Echanez’ act of filing pleadings that he fully knew to contain false information is a mockery of the courts,
especially the Supreme Court.

Also, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides:

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

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
 Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR likewise states:

CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice.

In using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, Atty. Echanez also put his own clients
at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to the client's cause as pleadings with such false
information produce no legal effect. In so doing, Atty. Echanez violated his duty to his clients. Canons 17
and 18 of the CPR provide:

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed upon him.

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

Court orders should be respected not only because the authorities who issued them should be
respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the
government, which is absolutely essential if our government is to be a government of laws and not of
men. Clearly, Atty. Echanez’ act of ignoring the said court orders despite notice violates the lawyer's oath
and runs counter to the precepts of the CPR. By his repeated dismissive conduct, Atty. Echanez exhibited
an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court. Therefore, he is guilty for violating the Code
of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.
Lawyer and the Legal Profession

Spouses Edwin and Greta Chua v SACP Teresa Belinda G. Tan-Sollano, et al.
A.C. No. 11533 June 6, 2017. EN BANC (Reyes)

DOCTRINES: 1. Presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties of the prosecutors; 2.
The complainant has the burden of proof with substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint. Mere
allegation is not equivalent to proof.

FACTS:

Spouses Chua filed a Complaint for Perjury and False Testimony against Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra,
Luz O. Talusan, Po Yi Yeung Go, Jessica W. Ang, Ricky Ang, Eden C. Uy, and Ana Tiu, before the Office
of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila.

In a Resolution, SACP Tan-Sollano recommended the dismissal of the charges against therein Atty.
Tasarra et al., for lack of probable cause. The same was recommended for approval by DCP Julianda-
Sarmiento and SDCP Sulla. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Spouses Chua but the same was
denied by SACP Ofrecio-Gonzales and approved by DCP Obejas after finding no cogent reason to reverse
the Resolution.

Aggrieved with such findings, Spouses Chua instituted the instant case and averred that the
dismissal of the charges was inappropriate and highly irregular considering that the prosecution offered an
"airtight case/evidence."

ISSUE:

Is there are violation under the Code of Professional Responsibility committed in this case?

RULING:

None. SACPs Tan-Sollano, Julianda-Sarmiento, Sulla, Ofrecio-Gonzales and DCP Obejas and all
of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila were found not guilty for any violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Spouses Chua failed to attribute clear and preponderant proof to show that SACP Tan-Sollano et
al., committed infractions in contravention with the standards provided for by the Code of Professional
Responsibility which would have warranted the imposition of administrative sanctions against them.
Considering that Spouses Chua failed to present substantial proof to show the prosecutors' culpability, the
possibility that the instant administrative case was ill motivated being retaliatory in nature and aimed at
striking back at them for having participated in the dismissal of a case filed by the Spouses Chua, either as
investigating prosecutor or approving officer cannot be ruled upon by the Court. In the absence of contrary
evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the prosecutors involved herein have regularly
performed their official duties. Hence, there was no violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility in
this case.