Legal Ethics Digests Print

ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty191
I. LA!E"#S FID$CIA"! %&LI'ATI%(S

(Laarnie Llamas)
1. Angeles )s. $y *r. ++, SC"A - 1/ 0,,,2
Facts: In a letter addres sed to the Office of the Chief Justi ce, Judge Angeles of the RC of Calooc an Cit! charged
Att!. "! Jr. #ith $iolation of Canon 1% of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!.
he accused manifested that she had alread! settled in full the ci$il as'ect in the criminal case handled ! res'ondent
under the sala of udge com'lainant. Accused further alleg ed that she 'aid &*+,+++.++ directl! to the 'ri$ate
com'lainant and the alance of &1%,++.++ #as deli$ered to Att!. "!, Jr., the la#!er of the 'ri$ate com'lainant and
conformal! 'roduced in o'en court the recei't for such 'a!ment signed ! no less than the aforesaid la#!er.
-o#e$er, 'ri$ate com'lainant manifested that she did not recei$e the amount 'aid to his la#!er, herein res'ondent,
there! constraining the court to direct res'ondent to turn o$er the mone! to 'ri$ate com'lainant #hich he recei$ed in
trust for the client. Att!. "! ho#e$er argued that his client did not lie to acce't the mone! ut the assertion of the
la#!er #as elied ! his o#n client, the herein 'ri$ate com'lainant, #ho manifested in o'en court her #illingness to
acce't the mone!. he Court again directed Att!. "! to 'roduce the mone! ut the latter argued that he e't it in his
office. Conse/uentl!, the Court sus'ended the 'roceedings to enale Att!. "! to get the mone! from his la# office
#hich is located onl! at the second floor of the same uilding #here this court is located. -o#e$er, res'ondent did not
sho# u' an!more.
Issue: Is the res'ondent guilt! of 'rofessional misconduct0
-eld: 23. he relationshi' et#een a la#!er and a client is highl! fiduciar!4 it re/uires a high degree of fidelit! and
good faith. It is designed 5to remo$e all such tem'tation and to 're$ent e$er!thing of that ind from eing done for the
'rotection of the client.5 hus, Canon 1% of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! 'ro$ides that 5a la#!er shall hold in
trust all mone!s and 'ro'erties of his client that ma! come into his 'ossession.5 Furthermore, Rule 1%.+1 of the Code
also states that 5a la#!er shall account for all mone! or 'ro'ert! collected or recei$ed for or from the client.5 he
Canons of &rofessional 2thics is e$en more e6'licit: 5he la#!er should refrain from an! action #here! for his
'ersonal enefit or gain he auses or taes ad$antage of the confidence re'osed in him ! his client.
In the 'resent case, it is clear that res'ondent failed to 'rom'tl! re'ort and account for the &1%,++ he had recei$ed
from raano on ehalf of his client. Although the amount had een entrusted to res'ondent, his client re$ealed during
the hearing that she had not !et recei$ed it. 7orse, she did not e$en no# #here it #as.
he records do not clearl! sho# #hether Att!. "! had in fact a''ro'riated the said amount4 in fact, his client
acno#ledged that she had recei$ed it. he! do sho#, ho#e$er, that res'ondent failed to 'rom'tl! re'ort that amount
to her. his is clearl! a $iolation of his 'rofessional res'onsiilit!. It is settled that mone! collected ! a la#!er in fa$or
of his clients must e immediatel! turned o$er to them and that la#!ers are ound to 'rom'tl! account for mone! or
'ro'ert! recei$ed ! them on ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes 'rofessional misconduct.
8eril!, the /uestion is not necessaril! #hether the rights of the clients ha$e een 'reudiced, ut #hether the
la#!er has adhered to the ethical standards of the ar. In this case, res'ondent has not done so.
*. (a34il )s. 5al6es 17- SC"A /87 019972
Facts:Jose 9a'il #as interested in a 'iece of 'ro'ert! situated in oran, ;aguio. -e #ent into an agreement #ith
Att!. Carlos 8aldes for thelatter to u! the 'ro'ert! in trust for 9a'il. 8aldes did u! the 'ro'ert! ! contracting *
loans. he lands< titles #ere transferred to his name.7hen Jose 9a'il died, Imelda 9a'il (his #ife) ac/uired the
ser$ices of 8aldes and his accounting and la# firms for the settlement of the estate of Jose 9a'il. 7hat 8aldes did
#as to e6clude the 'ro'ert! in ;aguio from thelist of assets of Jose 9a'il (he actuall! transferred the 'ro'ert! to his
com'an!, the Ca$al Realt! Cor'oration) #hile including the loans he contracted.7hat Imelda did #as to file a suit for
recon$e!ance in the CFI.7hile the case #as 'ending, Imelda also filed an administrati$e com'laintf or disarment
against 8aldes. he CFI dismissed the action for recon$e!ance. he CA re$er sed the CFI.he com'laint for
recon$e!ance #ent u' to the 3C and #as decided in fa$or of 9a'il. he 3C held that 8aldes onl! held the lots intrust
for 9a'il.
Issue:7=n Att!. 8aldes should e administrati$el! sanctioned for hisacts, namel!:o 26cluding the 'ro'ert! in ;aguio
from the estate of Jose 9a'il4
• Including his loans as claims on the estate4 and
• A''arentl!, re'resenting conflicting interests #hen his accounting firm 're'ared the list of claims of creditors
Angel 9a'il and 29OR9 against the estate of Jose 9a'il, #hich #as re'resented ! his la# firm.
-eld:he 3C found 8aldes guilt! of misconduct and sus'ends him for 1 !ear.he Court held that the first t#o acts
clearl! sho# that 8aldes roe the trus t re'osed on him ! Imelda 9a' il #hen the latt er agreed to use his
'rofessional ser$ices as a la#!er and an accountant. As to the third charge, #e hold res'ondent guilt! of re'resenting
conflicting interests #hich is 'roscried ! Canon 1 Rule1.+>. In the case at ar, there is no /uestion that the
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19
interests of the estate and that of its creditors are ad$erse to each other. Res'ondent?s accounting firm 're'ared the
list of assets and liailities of the estate and, at the same time,com'uted the claims of t#o creditors of the estate.
here is clearl! a conflict et#een the interests of the estate #hich stands.
>. Liwag )s. (eri 1,/ hil. 78 019-,2
Facts:
he com'lainants #ere re/uested ! the &inedas to act as counter@indemnitor #ith the anila 3uret!  Fidelit!
Com'an! in a ond 'osted for the &inedas in fa$or of 9ARIC. 7hen the &inedas failed to li/uidate their oligation, the
9ARIC enforced the ond against the anila 3uret!  Fidelit! Com'an! and the latter in turn collected from the
com'lainant. -a$ing failed to collect from the &inedas, the com'lainant engaged the ser$ices of the res'ondent #ho
agreed to handle the matter on a contingent fee of fort! 'ercent.
he res'ondent tried to tal to the &inedas. 7hen no 'a!ment had een made, the res'ondent #rote a letter of
demand, threatening to tae udicial action if the &Inedas #ould still not meet their oligation. he com'lainant gi$e the
res'ondent the needed filing fee for the com'laint. he res'ondent did not actuall! file an! com'laint, although he
informed the com'lainant that he alread! done so. It did not tae long efore the truth #as disco$ered and efore the
com'lainant #as 'ro$oed to file an administrati$e case.
Issue:
7hether or not Att!. Bilerto 9eri should e disar.
-eld:
he res'ondent has committed a reach of 'rofessional ethics #hen he made the com'lainant elie$e that the &ineda
s'ouses had alread! een sued in court and did not return the amount intended for the filing fee.
Considering ho#e$er, that the res'ondent has not !et recei$ed an!thing for his ser$ices and that the com'lainant has
suse/uentl! een 'aid, disarment or e$en sus'ension of the res'ondent from the 'ractice of his 'rofession #ould
e too harsh and unind. he res'ondent #as re'rimanded for his offense, #ith the #arning that a re'etition of similar
misconduct or an! $iolation of his oath #ill e dealt #ith more drasticall!.
. Dia )s. ;a4<nan =8 hil. 7=7 019+2

Facts:
• 8icente DiaE and 3ecundino de endeEona formed a usiness 'artnershi'. he usiness failed to 'ros'er
and suffered losses. he! formulated a document of sale and mortgage in #hich endeEona recogniEed a
det in fa$or of DiaE in the sum of + laid u'on endeEona<s hacienda.
• Later on, endeEona #as no#here to e found and his famil! #as unale to meet the 'a!ment. hus, the
hacienda #as offered for sale at 'ulic auction.
• DiaE<s la#!er, Att!. Ga'unan told the de'ut! sheriff of Le!te that he #as read! to id on the 'ro'ert! u' to 1%
in order to assist the endeEona famil!.
• Later, DiaE and Ga'unan entered into an agreement #herein Ga'unan should #ithdra# his id and refrain
from idding in consideration of 1,+++ 'esos from DiaE.
• Follo#ing the termination of the sheriff<s sale, DiaE 'ressed charges against Ga'unan for alleged
un'rofessional conduct.
• It #as found that Ga'unan #as also the la#!er of the endeEona famil! and #as gi$en e6tensi$e authorit!.
7hen
and notGa'unan too 'art
for the enefit in the
of his sale, it must e assumed that he #as idding in re'resentation of his clients
clients.
• hree charges #ere considered against Ga'unan. he firs t t#o #ere related to Ga'unan< s attem't to
re'resent oth the 'arties in the case and to molest and distur DiaE ! fr$iolous motions. he third
charge has to do #ith Ga'unan ha$ing inter$ened in the manner in #hich he did in the sale of the
'ro'ert! of his client endeEona.
• he Att!@Beneral is of the o'inion that the facts constitute a flagrant $iolation of the 'ro$isions of
article 1 of the Ci$il Code and article * of the &enal Code.
Issue: 7O9 Ga'unan is guilt! of such $iolations.
-eld:
• Article 1 of the Ci$il Code 'ro$ides that the follo#ing 'ersons, naming them, Hcannot tae ! 'urchase,
e$en at a 'ulic or udicial auction, either in 'erson or through the mediation of another. he 'ro$ision
contained in the last 'aragra'h of said article is made to include la#!ers.
• he Court does not elie$e this article has een infringed ! the res'ondent ecause he has not 'urchased
'ro'ert! at a 'ulic or udicial auction and ecause his 'artici'ation #as in re'resentation of his client.
• In article * of the &enal Code, it 'unishes Han! 'erson #ho shall solicit an! gift or 'romise as a
consideration for agreeing to refrain from taing 'art! in an! 'ulic auction.
• he agreement of oth 'arties #herein DiaE 'a!s Ga'unan the sum of 1,+++ 'esos to #ithdra# from the sale
is e6actl! the situation co$ered ! article * of the &enal Code.
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19+
• 26ecution sales should e o'en to free and full com'etition in order to secure the ma6imum enefit
of the detor.
• he Court concluded that Att!. Ga'unan has een guilt! of a technical $iolation of art. * of the &enal Code.
• -o#e$er, since the com'lainant is e/uall! guilt! #ith the res'onded Ga'unan and the latter #as found to e
acting in good faith, Ga'unan shall onl! e re'rimanded.
. Canlas )s. CA 1-= SC"A 1-,
Facts:
Att!. &aterno R. Canlas, 'etitioner, #as the la#!er of the 'ri$ate res'ondent, Francisco -errera, in an inunction case
against L  R Cor'oration. . #o !ears later, and #ith no imminent end to the litigation in sight, the 'arties entered into
a com'romise agreement #here! L  R Cor'oration accorded the 'ri$ate res'ondent another !ear to redeem the
foreclosed
lie#ise 'ro'erties
sti'ulated thatsuect to 'a!ment
the 'etitioner shall of
e&%++,+++.++, #ith interest
entitled to attorne!?s thereon
fees of at one 'er
&1++,+++.++. On cent 'er month.
9o$emer he!the
1, 1*,
court a''ro$ed the com'romise.
he 'ri$ate res'ondent, ho#e$er, remained in dire financial straits for #hich reason he failed to ac/uire the finding to
re'a! the loans in /uestion, let alone the sum of &1++,+++.++ in attorne!?s fees demanded ! the 'etitioner. hat
not#ithstanding, the 'etitioner mo$ed for e6ecution insofar as his fees #ere concerned. he court granted e6ecution,
although it does not a''ear that the sum #as actuall! collected.
3ometime thereafter, the 'etitioner and the 'ri$ate res'ondent met to discuss relief for the latter #ith res'ect to his
liailit! to L  R Cor'oration on the one hand, and his oligation to the 'etitioner on the other. he 'ri$ate res'ondent
said that it #as the 'etitioner himself #ho ?offered to ad$ance the mone!,5 'ro$ided that he, the 'ri$ate res'ondent,
e6ecuted a 5transfer of mortgage5 o$er the 'ro'erties in his fa$or.
he 'arties, 'ursuant to their agreement, e6ecuted a 5Deed of 3ale and ransfer of Rights of Redem'tion and=or to
Redeem,5 a document that enaled the 'etitioner, first, to redeem the 'arcels in /uestion, and secondl!, to register the
same in his name. he 'ri$ate res'ondent contends that the 5Deed of 3ale and ransfer of Rights of Redem'tion
and=or to Redeem5 on file #ith the Register of Deeds (for KueEon Cit!) had een falsified. "'on learning of the same,
the 'etitioner mo$ed for the cancellation of the ad$erse claim and for the issuance of a #rit of 'ossession. he court
granted oth motions. he 'ri$ate res'ondent countered #ith a motion for a tem'orar! restraining order and later, a
motion to recall the #rit of 'ossession. &redictal!, the 'etitioner mo$ed for dismissal.
Issue:
7hether or not the inailit! of the client to 'a! la#!er<s fee e a reason for the la#!er to claim the 'ro'ert! in /uestion,
as his 'a!ment.
-eld:
For o$ious reasons, he 'laced his interests o$er and ao$e those of his client, in o''osition to his oath to 5conduct
himself as a la#!er #ith all good fidelit! to his client.5 he occasion fit to stress that la#!ering is not a mone!maing
$enture and la#!ers are not merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as a matter of udicial notice, eluded not a
fe# la# ad$ocates. he 'etitioner?s efforts 'artaing of a shaedo#n5 of his o#n client are not ecoming of a la#!er
and certainl!, do not s'ea #ell of his fealt! to his oath to 5dela! no man for mone!.5
It is true that la#!ers are entitled to mae a li$ing, in s'ite of the fact that the 'ractice of la# is not a commercial
enter'rise4 ut that does not furnish an e6cuse for 'lain lust for material #ealth, more so at the e6'ense of another.
La# ad$ocac!, #e reiterate, is not ca'ital that !ields 'rofits. he returns it irths are sim'le re#ards for a o done or
ser$ice rendered. It is a calling that, unlie mercantile 'ursuits #hich eno! a greater deal of freedom from go$ernment
interference, is im'ressed #ith a 'ulic interest, for #hich it is suect to 3tate regulation. >Anent attome!? s fees,
section *, of Rule 1>, of the Rules, 'ro$ides in 'art as follo#s:
32C. *. Com'ensation of attorne!s, agreement as to fees. M An attorne! shall e entitled to ha$e and reco$er from
his client no more than a reasonale com'ensation for his ser$ices, #ith a $ie# to the im'ortance of the suect matter
of the contro$ers!, the e6tent of the ser$ices rendered, and the 'rofessional standing of the attorne!... A #ritten
contract for ser$ices shall control the amount to e 'aid therefor unless found ! the court to e unconscionale or
unreasonale.
3o also it is decreed ! Article **+ of the Ci$il Code, re'roduced in 'art, as follo#s:
Art. **+ ...
In all cases, the attorne!?s fees and e6'enses of litigation must e reasonale.
he Court dismissed the case and order the 'etitioner to 'a! the 'ri$ate res'ondent the sum of & >*%,+++.++, as and
for damages. he 'etitioner is also ordered to sho# cause to not im'ose a disci'linar! action on him for $iolation of his
oath as a la#!er.
%. Ca4<long )s. Alino  SC"A =91 019-72

FAC3: In 1, the s'ouses 2milio and Cirila Ca'ulong lost a ci$il case. he! #ere re'resented ! Att!.
anuel AliNo. he s'ouses then ga$e &*.++ (then a significant amount of mone!) in order for the la#!er to use the
mone! in 'a!ing for fees in a''ealing the case. -o#e$er, the a''eal #as dismissed ecause Att!. AliNo failed to 'a!
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19=
the docet fees and other re/uired fees.

he s'ouses then filed an administrati$e case against Att!. AliNo. In his defense, Att!. AliNo claimed that he #as gi$en
the o'tion to either use the mone! for a''eal if in his udgment an a''eal is 'ro'er or to a''ro'riate the same for his
legal ser$ices. he in$estigating fiscal recommended disci'linar! action against Att!. AliNo. he 3olicitor Beneral
agreed #ith the fiscal. 7hen the case reached the 3u'reme Court, Att!. AliNo manifested his intent to 'roduce
additional e$idence. he 3C granted his re/uest ut, after four 'ost'onements #hich Att!. AliNo ased for, he still failed
to adduce additional e$idence #ithin the 'rescrie 'eriod. he 3C still ga$e him a chance and scheduled an oral
argument ut again, Att!. AliNo ased for 'ost'onement. In lieu of the oral argument, the 3C re/uired AliNo to sumit
his memorandum #hich he again failed to com'l! #ith.
I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. AliNo should e suected to disci'linar! action.
-2LD: es. AliNo #as alread! negligent #hen he failed to 'a! the docet fees. In the first 'lace, he alread! filed the
a''eal, hence, he should ha$e a''lied the mone! gi$en to him to 'a! for the docet fees. It is clear that AliNo
misa''ro'riated the funds #hen he a''lied the same as 'a!ment for his fees.
;ut his later actions in this case sho#s his high degree of irres'onsiilit!. -e #as gi$en all chances ! the 3C ut he
continuall! failed to com'l! #ith the orders of the court. 3uch dis'la! of irres'onsiilit! indicates his un#orthiness as a
memer of the legal 'rofession. AliNo #as disarred ! the 3u'reme Court.
. Cale>o ). Soriano
. enticostes )s. I?ane +,= SC"A 71 019992
FAC3: he sister@in@la# of Att!. &enticostes #as sued for non@remittance of 333 'a!ments. he res'ondent, &ros.
IaneE #as gi$en ! the sister@in@la# of &enticostes &1,+ as 'a!ment of her 333 contriution arrears ut
said res'ondent did not remit the amount to the s!stem. Com'lainant filed #ith the RC a com'laint for
'rofessional misconduct against IaneE due to the latter<s failure to remit to the 333 her contriution and
for res'ondent<s misa''ro'riation of the amount.
I33"2: 7hether or not res'ondent<s act amounted to $iolation of his oath as a la#!er.
-2LD: es. 9on@remittance ! a 'ulic 'rosecutor for o$er one !ear of funds entrusted to him constitutes conduct in
gross $iolation of Rule 1.+1 of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! #hich 'ro$ides that a la#!er shall not engage
in unla#ful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.P La#!ers are ound to 'rom'tl! account for mone! or 'ro'ert!
recei$ed ! them on ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes 'rofessional misconduct.
II. LA!E"#S D$TIES I( @A(DLI(' CLIE(T#S CASES
1 Santiago )s. Fo>as * 3CRA % (3e'temer , 1)
he Case:
&etitioners: he Com'lainants, former clients of the res'ondent, 'ra! that the latter e disarred for 5mal'ractice,
neglect and other offenses #hich ma! e disco$ered during the actual in$estigation of this com'laint.5 Attached in their
Affida$it of erit, the! allege that ecause of the res'ondent<s neglect and mal'ractice of la# that the! lost their case
to Judge Ca'ulong and their a''eal in the Court of A''eals.
Res'ondent: he unfa$orale udgment ! the Regional rial Court in the case is not im'utale to Qhis mistae ut
rather im'utale to the merits of the case. -e further claims that the com'lainants filed this case to harass him
ecause he refused to share his attorne!?s fees in the main laor case he had handled for them. he res'ondent then
'ra!s for the dismissal of this com'laint for utter lac of merit, since his failure to file the ans#er #as cured and, e$en
granting for the sae of argument that such failure amounted to negligence, it cannot #arrant his disarment or
sus'ension from the 'ractice of the la# 'rofession.
he Antecedent Facts:
3antiago, -onti$eros, anas, and 9ordista, memers of Far 2astern "ni$ersit! Facult! Association (F2"FA), #ere
alleged to ha$e illegall! e6'elled &aulino 3al$ador from the union. he latter filed a com'laint #ith the De't. of Laor
and 2m'lo!ment
(RC) (DOL2)
of 8alenEuela #hich ruled
a com'laint in fa$or
against of 3al$ador. 3use/uentl!,
the com'lainants 3al$ador
for actual, moral, filed #ith damages
and e6em'lar! the Regional
andrial Court
attorne!?s
fees.
he res'ondent, As the com'lainants? counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the said case on grounds of (1) res udicata
and (*) lac of urisdiction. Later, he filed a su''lemental motion to dismiss. Judge Ca'ulong granted the motion ut
#as later re@instated u'on 3al$ador<s motion for reconsideration and re/uired the com'lainants herein to file their
ans#er #ithin a none6tendile 'eriod of fifteen da!s from notice. Instead of filing an ans#er, the res'ondent filed a
motion for reconsideration and dismissal of the case. his motion ha$ing een denied, the res'ondent filed #ith this
Court a 'etition for certiorari. ;oth 'etition and the suse/uent motion for reconsideration #ere denied, res'ondent still
did not file the com'lainants< ans#er. he res'ondent then filed a motion to set aside the order of default and to sto'
the e6@'arte rece'tion of e$idence efore the Cler of Court, ut to no a$ail. hereafter, the RC rendered udgment in
fa$or of 3al$ador. Com'lainants, assisted ! res'ondent, ele$ated the matter to the Court of A''eals ut affirmed the
decision in toto ! the RC.
he res'ondent admits that it #as his dut! to file an ans#er in the ci$il case= -e ustifies his failure to do so n his
o$erEealousness to /uestion the Denial Order of the trial court, so he instead, thru honest mistae and e6cusale
neglect, filed a &2IIO9 FOR C2RIORARI #ith the -onorale Court, and, #hen the Court of A''eals, to #hich
B.R. 9o. 1++> #as referred, dismissed the 'etition, he again 5inad$ertentl!5 failed to file an ans#er due to honest
mistae and ecause of his o$erEealousness as stated earlier. &etitioner contends that the res'ondent<s act #as not
an honest mistae ut #as 5delierate, malicious and calculated to 'lace them on the legal disad$antage, to their
damage and 'reudice5 for, as admitted ! him in his motion to set aside the order of default, his failure to do so #as
5due to $olume and 'ressure of legal #or.5
Issue: 7hether the res'ondent committed cul'ale negligence, as #ould #arrant disci'linar! action, in failing to file for
the com'lainants an ans#er in Ci$il Case 9o. >*%@8@1.
Ruling: It is a6iomatic that no la#!er is oliged to act either as ad$iser or ad$ocate for e$er! 'erson #ho ma! #ish to
ecome his client. -e has the right to decline em'lo!ment, suect, ho#e$er, to Canon 1 of the Code of &rofessional
Res'onsiilit!1. Once he agrees to tae u' the cause of a client, the la#!er o#es fidelit! to such cause and must
al#a!s e mindful of the trust and confidence re'osed in him. -e must ser$e the client #ith com'etence and diligence,
and cham'ion the latter?s cause #ith #holehearted fidelit!, care, and de$otion. 2lse #ise stated, he o#es entire
de$otion to the interest of the client, #arm Eeal in the maintenance and defense of his client?s rights, and the e6ertion
of his utmost learning and ailit! to the end that nothing e taen or #ithheld from his client, sa$e ! the rules of la#,
legall! a''lied. his sim'l! means that his client is entitled to the enefit of an! and e$er! remed! and defense that is
authoriEed ! the la# of the land and he ma! e6'ect his la#!er to assert e$er! such remed! or defense. If much is
demanded from an attorne!, it is ecause the entrusted 'ri$ilege to 'ractice la# carries #ith it the correlati$e duties not
onl! to the client ut also to the court, to the ar, and to the 'ulic. A la#!er #ho 'erforms his dut! #ith diligence and
candor not onl! 'rotects the interest of his client4 he also ser$es the ends of ustice, does honor to the ar, and hel's
maintain the res'ect of the communit! to the legal 'rofession.
&ressure and large $olume of legal #or 'ro$ide no e6cuse for the res'ondent?s inailit! to e6ercise due diligence in
the 'erformance of his dut! to file an ans#er. 2$er! case a la#!er acce'ts deser$es his full attention, diligence, sill,
and com'etence, regardless of its im'ortance and #hether he acce'ts it for a fee or for free.
All told, the res'ondent committed a reach of Canon 1 of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! #hich re/uires him
to ser$e his clients, the com'lainants herein, #ith diligence and, more s'ecificall!, Rule 1.+> thereof #hich 'ro$ides:
5A la#!er shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there#ith shall render him
liale.5
*.) Cantiller )s. otenciano 17, SC"A =- 019792
Facts: -umerto 8. &otenciano is a 'racticing la#!er and a memer of the &hili''ine ;ar under Roll 9o. *1%*. -e is
charged #ith deceit, fraud, and misre'resentation, and also #ith gross misconduct, mal'ractice and of acts
unecoming of an officer of the court.
An action for eectment #as filed against &eregrina Cantiller. he court issued a decision against the latter. A notice to
$acate #as then issued against Cantiller.
Cantiller then ased the res'ondent to handle their case. he com'lainant #as made to sign ! res'ondent #hat she
descried as a 5Qhastil! 're'ared, 'oorl! concei$ed, and ha'haEardl! com'osed 'etition for annulment of udgmentP.
he 'etition #as filed #ith the Regional rial Court in &asig, anila. Res'ondent demanded from the
1 Canon 1. La#!er shall not refuse his ser$ices to the need!.
1.+1 @ A la#!er shall not decline to re'resent a 'erson solel! on account of the latter<s race, se6, creed or status of
life, or ecause his o#n o'inion regarding the guilt of said 'erson.
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19-
1.+* S A la#!er shall not decline, e6ce't for serious and sufficient cause, an a''ointment as counsel de oficio or as
amicus curiae or a re/uest from the Integrated ;ar of the &hili''ines or an! of its cha'ters for rendition of free legal
aid.
1.+> S A la#!er shall not refuse to acce't re'resentation of an indigent client unless: (a) he is not in 'osition to carr!
out the #or effecti$el! or com'letel!4 () he laors under conflict of interest et#een him and the 'resent client and
the 'ros'ecti$e client.
1.+ S A la#!er #ho acce'ts the cause of a 'erson unal e to 'a! his 'rofessional fees shall oser $e the same
standard of conduct go$erning his relations #ith 'a!ing clients.
com'lainant & l,+++.++ as attorne!?s fee. -o#e$er the udge of the said court ased the res'ondent to #ithdra# as
counsel ! reason of their friendshi'.
Later, Cantiller 'aid &otenciano &*,+++.++ as demanded ! the latter #hich #as allegedl! needed to e 'aid to
another udge #ho #ill issue the restraining order ut e$entuall! &otenciano did not succeed in locating the udge.
Com'lainant 'aid & 1+,+++.++ to &otenciano ! $irtue of the demand of the latter. he amount #as allegedl! to e
de'osited #ith the reasurer?s Office of &asig as 'urchase 'rice of the a'artment and & 1,+++.++ to co$er the
e6'enses of the suit needed in order for the com'lainant to retain the 'ossession of the 'ro'ert!. ;ut later on Cantiller
found out that the amounts #ere not necessar! to e 'aid. A demand #as made against &otenciano ut the latter did
not ans#er and the amounts #ere not returned.
Contrar! to &otenciano<s 'romise that he #ould secure a restraining order, he #ithdre# his a''earance as counsel for
com'lainant. Com'lainant #as not ale to get another la#!er as re'lacement. -ence, the order to $acate #as
e$entuall! enforced and e6ecuted.
Issue: 7hether or not &otenciano reached his duties as counsel of Cantiller.

-eld: 7hen a la#!er taes a client?s cause, he there! co$enants that he #ill e6ert all effort for its 'rosecution until its
final conclusion. he failure to e6ercise due diligence or the aandonment of a client?s cause maes such la#!er
un#orth! of the trust #hich the client had re'osed on him. he acts of res'ondent in this case $iolate the most
elementar! 'rinci'les of 'rofessional ethics.
he Court finds that res'ondent failed to e6ercise due diligence in 'rotecting his client?s interests. Res'ondent had
no#ledge eforehand that he #ould e ased ! the 'residing udge to #ithdra# his a''earance as counsel !
reason of their friendshi'. Des'ite such 'rior no#ledge, res'ondent too no ste's to find a re'lacement nor did he
inform com'lainant of this fact.
La#!ers should e fair, honest, res'ectale, ao$e sus'icion and e!ond re'roach in dealing #ith their clients. he
'rofession is not s!non!mous #ith an ordinar! usiness 'ro'osition. It is a matter of 'ulic interest.
>.) "%D%LF% ILLA"E 4etitioner )s. ATT!. E$STAB$I% . %(TE"% res4on6ent.

A.C. 9o. >*> Jul! 1>, 1
Facts:
&acifica illare, the mother of the com'lainant, otained a fa$orale udgment from the C of Ara #hich ordered
2lsa D! Co to $acate the 'remises suect of the eectment case (Ci$il Case 9o. ). Co, through res'ondent as
counsel, a''ealed the decision to the RC. 3he neither filed a su'ersedeas ond nor 'aid the rentals adudged ! the
C. he RC affirmed in toto the decision of the C.
he CA dismissed Co?s a''eal from the decision of the RC for failure to com'l! #ith 3ection ** of ;.&. ;lg. 1* and
3ection **() of the Interim Rules and Buidelines. According to the CA, Co should ha$e filed a 'etition for re$ie# and
not an ordinar! a''eal.
he udgment of the C ecame final and e6ecutor! on 9o$emer 1, 1%.
Res'ondent filed a total of si6 a''eals, com'laints or 'etitions to frustrate the e6ecution of the C udgment in Ci$il
Case 9o. , to #it:

(1) Ci$il Case 9o. > M A''eal from the decision rendered in Ci$il Case 9o.  of the unici'al rial Court,
;angued, Ara, #ith the Regional rial Court, Ara4
(*) CA@B.R. C8 9o. 11+ M A''eal from the decision of the Regional rial Court, Ara4
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19/
(>) CA@B.R. 3& 9o. 11%+ M An Action For the Annulment of Decisions And=Or Reformation or 9o$ation of
Decisions filed #ith the Court of A''eals4
() B.R. 9o. %+ M &etition For Re$ie# On Certiorari filed #ith the 3u'reme Court4
() CA@B.R. 3& 9o. 1++ M A''eal And=Or Re$ie# ;! Certiorari, 2tc. filed also #ith the Court of A''eals4 and,
(%) 3& Ci$il Action 9o. %* M &etition For Certiorari, &rohiition, andamus #ith &reliminar! Issuance of
&rohiitor! Order filed #ith the Regional rial Court, ;ranch 1, ;angued, Ara.
I33"2:
1. 7hether or not res'ondent resorted to de$ious and underhanded means to dela! the e6ecution of the
udgment rendered ! the C ad$erse to his clients. 23
*. 7hether or not res'ondent is guilt! of forum sho''ing. 23
-2LD:
"nder Canon 1 of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!, a la#!er is re/uired to re'resent his client 5#ithin the
ounds of the la#.5 he Code enoins a la#!er to em'lo! onl! fair and honest means to attain the la#ful oecti$es of
his client (Rule 1.+1) and #arns him not to allo# his client to dictate the 'rocedure in handling the case (Rule 1.+>).
In short, a la#!er is not a gun for hire.
"nder Canon 1* of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!, a la#!er is re/uired to e6ert e$er! effort and consider it his
dut! to assist in the s'eed! and efficient administration of ustice. A la#!er shall not file multi'le actions arising from
the same cause (Rule 1*.+*). A la#!er shall not undul! dela! a case, im'ede the e6ecution of a udgment or misuse
court 'rocesses (Rule 1*.+)
he rights of res'ondent?s client in Ci$il Case 9o.  of the C #ere full! 'rotected and her defenses #ere 'ro'erl!
$entilated #hen he filed the a''eal from the C to the RC. ;ut res'ondent thereafter resorted to de$ious and
underhanded means to dela! the e6ecution of the udgment rendered ! the C ad$erse to his client. he said
decision ecame e6ecutor! e$en 'ending its a''eal #ith the RC ecause of the failure of Co to file a su'ersedeas
ond and to 'a! the monthl! rentals as the! fell due. Furthermore, his 'etition for annulment of the decisions of the
C and RC #hich he filed #ith the CA (CA@B.R. 9o. 11%+) #as defecti$e and dilator!. According to the CA, there
#as no allegation therein that the courts had no urisdiction, that his client #as denied due 'rocess, or 5that the
udgments in the former cases #ere secured through fraud.5
Judging from the numer of actions filed ! res'ondent to forestall the e6ecution of the same udgment, res'ondent is
also guilt! of forum sho''ing. he Court e6'lained that forum sho''ing e6ists #hen, ! reason of an ad$erse decision
in one forum, defendant $entures to another for a more fa$orale resolution of his case
;! ha$ing #ilfull! and no#ingl! aused his rights of recourse in his efforts to get a fa$orale udgment, #hich efforts
#ere all reuffed, res'ondent $iolated the dut! of a memer of the ;ar to institute actions onl! #hich are ust and 'ut
u' such defenses as he 'ercei$es to e trul! contestale under the la#s
7-2R2FOR2, res'ondent is 3"3&29D2D for one !ear.
. Choa )s. Chiongson(A.. 9o. J@@1+%>. Feruar! , 1%)
FAC3:
A com'laint #as filed against Alfonso Choa for maing untruthful statements or falsehoods in his &etition for
9aturaliEation. he case #as doceted as Criminal Case 9o. +>** and #as assigned to unici'al rial Court in
Cities (CC) of ;acolod Cit! ;ranch III 'resided ! the res'ondent Judge Roerto Chiongson. On Feruar! *1,
1, res'ondent Judge found the com'lainant guilt! of the crime of 'erur!. Later on, Att!. Ra!mundo A. KuiroE as
counsel for the com'lainant and $erified ! the latter, charged Judge Chiongson #ith gra$e misconduct, gross ias
and 'artialit!, and ha$ing no#ingl! rendered an unust udgment ased on ne6t@door@neighor relationshi' et#een
Choa?s #ife the 'ri$ate com'lainant in the 'erur! case and res'ondent udge. Also, a''eal on the criminal case #as
filed together #ith the administrati$e com'laint.

Issue: 7hether or not Att!. KuiroE assisted in filing a groundless, unfounded, or false suit against res'ondent udge.
-eld:
23.La#!ers must al#a!s remind himself of the oath he too u'on admission to the ;ar that he #ill not #ittingl! or
#illingl! 'romote or sue an! groundless, false or unla#ful suit nor gi$e aid nor consent to the sameP4 9eedless to state,
the la#!er<s fidelit! to his client must not e 'ursued at the e6'ense of truth and the administration of ustice,and it
must e done #ithin the ounds of reason and common sense.
As to the res'ondent Judge<s eing a ne6t@door neighor of the com'lainant<s #ife @ the com'lainant in the 'erur!
case @ it must e stressed that that alone is not a ground for either a mandator! dis/ualification under the first
'aragra'h or for a $oluntar! dis/ualification under the second 'aragra'h of 3ection 1, Rule 1> of the Rules of Court.
In an! e$ent, the com'lainant has failed to disclose in his com'laint that he had raised this matter at an! time efore
the rendition of the udgment. In fact, the summar! of the grounds of his motion for reconsideration in the res'ondent<s
order den!ing the said motion does not include this matter. If indeed the com'lainant honestl! elie$ed in the ustness
of this grie$ance, he #ould ha$e raised it in an a''ro'riate 'leading efore the trial court and not filing an
administrati$e case.
7-2R2FOR2, #e here! im'ose u'on A. RA"9DO A. K"IROT a FI92 in the amount of Fi$e
housand &esos (&,+++.++) to e 'aid #ithin fi$e () da!s from notice hereof. -e is further 7AR92D that a
commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall e dealt #ith more se$erel!.
.) C%S%S F%$(D"! S@% %";E"S $(I%( 5 L% &$
Facts:
After Cosmos Foundr! 3ho' #as urned , Ong ing estalished Centur! Foundr! 3ho' #here he and his famil!
resided in the 'remises. After se$eral attem'ts to settle a 'ending unfair laor 'ractice case 'ro$ed unsuccessful, Ong
ing sold all his usiness, including e/ui'ment and rights in the 9e# Centur! Foundr! 3ho' to his com'adre Lo ;u, for
&h'*+,+++.
On Jan 1%, 1>, 'etitioner CF37" otained from the Court of Industrial Relations the third alias #rit of e6ecution for
the satisfaction and enforcement of the udgment in its fa$or. hereafter, #rit #as ser$ed Januar! 1 and 1, 1>,
le$!ing on the 'ersonal 'ro'erties of the Cosmos Foundr! 3ho' or the 9e# Centur! Foundr! 3ho' for the 'ur'ose of
conducting the 'ulic auction sale.
Res'ondent Lo ;u filed an urgent motion to recall #rit of e6ecution, asserting lac of urisdiction of the Court of
Industrial Relations (CIR). he CIR, in its order dated Fe *>, 1>, denied his motion. 3o lie#ise #as the motion for
reconsideration.
Lo ;u a''ealed ! certiorari ut the Court denied this 'etition in its resolution dated Jul! 1, 1>. In the mean#hile,
there #as a re'le$in suit ! Lo ;u in the Court of First Instance (CFI) anila co$ering the same 'ro'erties.
"'on recei't of order from the Court den!ing certiorari, 'etitioner Laor "nion filed a second motion to dismiss
com'laint. After the com'laint #as dismissed ! the lo#er court, decision #as ele$ated to the Court of A''eals.
Att!. ;usmente, counsel for res'ondent Lo ;u, did s'ecificall! maintain: 5...in order to $indicate his rights o$er the
le$ied 'ro'erties, in an e6'editious or less e6'ensi$e manner, herein a''ellant $oluntaril! sumitted himself, as a
forced inter$enor, to the urisdiction of res'ondent CIR, ! filing an urgent ?otion to Recall 7rit of 26ecution,? 'recisel!
/uestioning the urisdiction of said Court to 'ass u'on the $alidit! and legalit! of the sale of the ?9e# Centur! Foundr!
3ho'? to him, #ithout the latter eing made a 'art! to the case, as #ell as the urisdiction of said Court to enforce the
Decision rendered against the res'ondents in the "L& Case ! means of an alias #rit of e6ecution against his
'ro'erties found at the ?9e# Centur! Foundr! 3ho'.
Issues:
(1) 7hether or not counsel Att! ;usmente 'erformed his oligation as an officer of the court #hile sustaining the
dignit! of the 'rofession #hile acting as counsel for Lo ;u.
-eld:
A legal counsel is e6'ected to defend a client<s cause ut not at the e6'ense of truth and in defiance of the clear
'ur'ose of laor la#s. For e$en such case, Att! ;usmente had not e6cul'ated himself. -e ought to rememer that his
oligation as an officer of the court, no less than the dignit! of the 'rofession, re/uires that should not act lie an
errand@o! at the ec and call of his client, read! and eager to do his e$er! idding. If he fails to ee' that admonition
in mind, then he 'uts into serious /uestion his good standing in the ar.
%. 'AALI(DA 5S ALCA(TA"A
FAC3:
com'lainant Domingo Bamalinda charges retired Judge Fernando Alcantara and Att!. Joselito Lim #ith gra$e ause of
their 'rofession, dece'tion, threats, dishonoring and inuring the re'utation of said com'lainant and ringing aout the
loss of his land ut #as dismissed. the record estalishes that Att!. Lim #as merel! 'erforming his dut! as counsel for
the 'laintiffs in Ci$il Case 9o. >* #hen he did #hat is no# com'lained ofIn Ci$il Case 9o. >* and Felicidad ;alot
had sued the heirs of A'olinario Bamalinda for recon$e!ance, #ith damages, of the eastern half of Lot 9o. >*1.
'laintiffs #ere ale to secure a #rit of 'reliminar! inunction.
&ending a''eal to the CA, com'lainant entered a 'ortion of the area in dis'ute, in the elief that the #hole of Lot 9o.
>*1 elonged to him ! $irtue of a Deed of 26traudicial 3ettlement #ith Kuitclaim e6ecuted ! the heirs of A'olinario
Bamalinda #hich #as under the latter?s name at that time. hus, #hen the tenants of 3alud ;alot, entered the 'ortion
eing culti$ated ! com'lainant, the latter re'orted the incident to the 'olice.
From 3alud ;alot?s $ie#'oint, it #as com'lainant #ho intruded into her land. Rel!ing therefore on the inunction issued
! the lo#er court, she filed through counsel, Att!. Lim, a motion to declare com'lainant Bamalinda in contem't of
court.
Com'lainant inter'osed the defense that the area in dis'ute #as different from the area occu'ied ! him. he lo#er
court ordered a resur$e! #hich sho#ed that contrar! to com'lainant?s claim, the lot occu'ied ! him #as the $er!
same land in$ol$ed. Accordingl!, the lo#er court and CA declared com'lainant in contem't.
Att!. Lim mo$ed for the e6ecution of the affirmed udgment, and #hen the #rit of e6ecution #as returned unsatisfied,
filed an 5"rgent otion to Re/uire Domingo Bamalinda to 3urrender C #hich #as granted, ut com'lainant refused
to surrender the O#ner?s Co'! 'rom'ting Att!. Lim to file the /uestioned 5otion to Declare O#ner?s Co'! of C 9ull
and 8oid,5 #hich the lo#er court granted.
the /uestioned acts of Att!. Lim #ere all done in line #ith his dut! to 'rosecute his clients? cause in Ci$il Case 9o.
>*. he first motion #as filed to 'rotect his clients? 'ossessor! rights o$er the 'ro'ert! in dis'ute #hile the second
motion #as made to 'rocure e6ecution of the decision in Ci$il Case 9o. >*.
Issue: 7O9 the acts of att!. Lim #ere correct.

-eld:
es. A la#!er o#es fidelit! to the cause of his client and must e mindful of the trust and confidence re'osed in him.
-e shall ser$e his client #ith com'etence and diligence, and his dut! of entire de$otion to his client?s cause not onl!
re/uires, ut entitles him to em'lo! e$er! honorale means to secure for the client #hat is ustl! due him or to 'resent
e$er! defense 'ro$ided ! la# to enale the latter?s cause to succeed. An attorne!?s dut! to safeguard the client?s
interests commences from his retainer until the effecti$e release from the case 1% or the final dis'osition of the #hole
suect matter of the litigation. During that 'eriod, he is e6'ected to tae such reasonale ste's and such ordinar! care
as his client?s interests ma! re/uire.
his is 'recisel! #hat Att!. Lim #as doing #hen he filed the motions com'lained of. -e should e commended, not
condemned, for diligentl! and com'etentl! 'erforming his duties as an attorne!4
ACCORDI9BL, the administrati$e charges against retired Judge Fernando Alcantara and Att!. Joselito Lim are
DI3I332D for lac of merit.
.) *. . *$A(  S%(S I(C. 5S. LIA('A I(D$ST"IES I(C.
;acground:
his is a sim'le collection case that unnecessaril! reached the 3u'reme Court
&AL2 related 'hrase=s:
URules of Court #ere de$ised to limit the issues and a$oid unnecessar! dela!s and sur'rises. -ence mandator! (are
the) 'ro$isions of the Re$ised Rules of Court for a 're@trial conferenceP
he Rules further re/uire that 5e$er! 'leading shall e signed ! at least one attorne! of record Uthat signature
constitutes a certificate ! him that he read the 'leading and to the est of his no#ledge there is good ground to
su''ort it4 it is not inter'osed for dela!5 #ith the e6'ress admonition for a #illful $iolation of this rule, an attorne! ma!
e suected to disci'linar! action.

he coo'eration of litigants and their attorne!s is needed so that the salutar! oecti$es of these Rules ma! e
attained.P
oo+oo
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty191,
Facts:
&laintiff sought reco$er! from defendant of the sum of &++ re'resenting the un'aid alance of office e/ui'ment and
also for the 'a!ment of legal interests and costs for attorne!?s fees.
Judgment #as rendered in fa$or of 'laintiff and defendant a''ealed the same to the Court of First Instance of anila.
Defendant filed its Ans#er #here it denied s'ecificall! all the allegations of 'aragra'hs of the com'laint, #hich are the
material allegations referring to its 'urchase of the office e/ui'ment, its 'artial 'a!ment and refusal and failure to 'a!
the un'aid alance des'ite re'eated demands.
Defendant did not den! under oath the authenticit! of the 'urchase order anne6ed to the com'laint.
he lo#er Court rendered its decision granting 'laintiff?s motion for udgment on the 'leadings. "'holding the 'laintiff?s
'osition that 5#hen defendant?s ans#er denies the allegations ecause the defendant ?has no no#ledge or
information sufficient to form a elief? and ?s'ecificall! denies? other allegations, denials are in fact mere general denials
amounting to admissions.
Defendant filed its notice of a''eal asing that its a''eal e ele$ated to the Court of A''eals, resulting in further dela!
in the resolution of this sim'le collection case,
9o facts are dis'uted in this a''eal defendant@a''ellant sim'l! insists that it had tendered issues of fact and the Court
erroneousl! rendered udgment on the 'leadings. he /uestions 'resented are issues onl! of la#.
Conse/uentl!, the 'o#er of a''ellate re$ie# in this instance elongs to the 3u'reme Court.
Issue: 7hether the a''eal should e dismissed0
Issue related to &AL2: he dut! of a litigant and his attorne! in a$oiding the needless clogging of court docets.
Ruled
7e find defendant?s a''eal to e fri$olous. 9o error #as committed ! the Court elo# in ruling that 5s'ecific denials5
are in la# general denials amounting to admissions of the material allegations ased on the 'ro$isions of Rule ,
section 1+ and Rule , section 1 in relation to Rule 1, section 1 and Rule *+, section > of the Re$ised Rules of Court.
he 3u'reme Court has stressed that An une6'lained denial of information and elief of a matter of records, the
means of information concerning #hich are #ithin the control of the 'leader, or are readil! accessile to him, is e$asi$e
and is insufficient to constitute an effecti$e denial.P
Defendant@a''ellant has no cause to com'lain of the udgment a''ealed from. Its claim that it tendered an issue #ith
affirmati$e defense of ha$ing no oligation to 'a! #as a mere conclusion not 'remised on an allegation of material
facts.
Failure to den! under oath the authenticit! of the 'urchase order anne6ed re/uired ! Rule , section  of the Re$ised
Rules of Court #as 'ro'erl! deemed an admission of the genuineness and due e6ecution thereof.
Cases such as this contriute to the needless clogging of the court docets. he Rules of Court #ere de$ised to limit
the issues and a$oid unnecessar! dela!s and sur'rises. -ence, the mandator! 'ro$isions of Rule *+ of the Re$ised
Rules of Court for a 're@trial conference for the sim'lification of the issues and the consideration of all matters #hich
ma! aid in the 'rom't dis'osition of an action. he Rules further re/uire in Rule  section  that 5e$er! 'leading of a
'art! re'resented ! an attorne! shall e signed ! at least one attorne! of record in his indi$idual name5 and that 5the
signature of an attorne! constitutes a certificate ! him that he has read the 'leading and that to the est of his
no#ledge, information and elief, there is good ground to su''ort it4 and that it is not inter'osed for dela!5 #ith the
e6'ress admonition that 5for a #illful $iolation of this rule, an attorne! ma! e suected to disci'linar! action.5 he
coo'eration of litigants and their attorne!s is needed so that the salutar! oecti$es of these Rules ma! e attained.
. *$A( A%" com4lainant )s. ATT%"(E! E$STAB$I% &ELT"A( res4on6ent.
FAC3:
2usta/uio ;eltran, a memer of the &hili''ine ar, #as accused of taing or causing to e detached from the rollo of
3'ecial
AEor as &roceedings 9o. %%
e6ecutor, as #ell of the
as the Court
order of court
of the First Instance of Camarines
terminating the same4 of3ur, the financial re'ort of com'lainant Juan
thereafter filing a motion to re/uire com'lainant to render an accounting and to deli$er the 'ro'ert! left in the #ill to the
eneficiaries4 and of ha$ing instructed his client Lorelie ;ornales and the latter?s mother, Aniana 3adol@2scria to enter
forcil! a 'arcel of land forming a 'art of the estate #hen he ne# of its ha$ing een 're$iousl! sold, thus
necessitating a com'laint for forcile entr!.
I33"2: 7hether or not ;eltran is guilt! of mal'ractice and gross misconduct ased on the alleged acts.
-2LD:
9o. he court ado'ts the re'ort and recommendation of the 3olicitor Beneral #hich states that: 5he records are
entirel! ereft of an! direct, 'ositi$e and com'etent e$idence to su''ort the charge that res'ondent detached and
remo$ed official records from the Office of the Cler of Court of Camarines 3ur, 'articularl! the financial re'ort in, and
the order of closure of, 3'ecial &roceeding 9o. %%. If at all, com'lainant a''ears to ha$e merel! assumed that
ecause, #hen he #as allegedl! sho#n ! the cler of court the records of said case, the same 'ur'ortedl! contained
at the time onl! the 'roated #ill and res'ondent?s motion for an accounting therein then res'ondent must ha$e
s'irited a#a! the financial re'ort filed therein ! com'lainant and the order of the court for the closure of said
'roceedings. On the other hand, res'ondent did not onl! $igorousl! den! the im'utation that he too said records from
the e6'ediente of the case, ut he also sumitted in e$idence a certification of the ranch cler of the Court of First
Instance of Camarines 3ur attesting to the fact that the records of the aforecited 'roate 'roceedings, including the
allegedl! missing financial re'ort and order, are all intact and unaltered. 9eedless to state, mere assum'tions cannot
e the asis of an! finding against an! memer of the ar #ho, as an official of the court, is 'resumed to act #ith the
utmost decorum and good faith in all his dealings.5
As to the accusation that res'ondent still filed a motion for accounting on Jul! , 11 des'ite his 're$ious no#ledge
that the com'lainant as e6ecutor had alread! filed his financial re'ort and that in fact the 'roate 'roceedings had
een closed and terminated, the re'ort characteriEed it as 5unfounded and aseless. Res'ondent e6'lained that #hen
he e6amined the records of said case on Jul! , 11, he found on the last 'age thereof the financial re'ort of
com'lainant of a! 11, 1, together #ith the latter?s motion for the consideration and a''ro$al thereof, ut that as
said motion a''eared not to ha$e een resol$ed ! the court, he then got the im'ression that the 'roate 'roceedings
had not !et een finall! terminated. hat such e6'lanation is reasonale and elie$ale is sho#n ! the fact that e$en
the 'roate court found com'lainant?s financial re'ort on the last 'age of the record of the case still unacted u'on,
#hich situation lie#ise led it to elie$e that the case had not !et een terminated. Of course, had res'ondent made a
more diligent and e6hausti$e e6amination of the records of said 'roate 'roceedings, he #ould ha$e found
some#here therein com'lainant?s financial re'ort of Jul! , 1 and the court?s order of closure of Januar! , 1,
and he #ould not ha$e filed his motion for accounting in /uestion. ;e this as it ma!, ho#e$er, #e fail to discern in
res'ondent?s filing of his aforesaid motion for accounting an! delierate attem't or intention on his 'art to mislead the
'roate court in said case, or to cause com'lainant discredit or 'ut him in disre'ute so as to ustif! disci'linar! action
against him in this case. here #as no ustification either for the allegation that res'ondent induced his clients, Lorelie
;ornales and the latter?s mother Aniana 3adol@2scria, to enter forcil! one of the 'arcels of land suect of 3'ecial
&roceeding 9o. %%.
hus, res'ondent should he asol$ed of the charges hurled against him. Com'lainant ought to ha$e dis'la!ed a
greater sense of res'onsiilit!. -e should ha$e refrained from im'osing on this Court or the Office of the 3olicitor
Beneral a needless urden and incon$enience. A''arentl! #hat moti$ated him in filing his com'laint #as the Eeal #ith
#hich res'ondent fought for the interests of his client. Com'lainant
should e a#are that this Court does not loo #ith fa$or u'on accusations arising from dissatisfaction and resentment
at the mode in #hich a la#!er diligentl! and tenaciousl! 'rosecutes matters entrusted to him. Instead of eing
condemned under the circumstances, he should e commended. Fairness to oth com'lainant and res'ondent
com'els the oser$ation that the latter, as a memer of the ar, is called u'on to e much more careful and meticulous
in e6amining the records of a case and noting e$er! 'leading, e$en if as has ha''ened in not a fe# cases, the 'a'ers
are not e't in as orderl! a manner as is oth 'ro'er and desirale.
.) ALF%(S% 5ISITACI%( )s. 5ICT%" A(IT s<?stit<te6 ?y his wi6ow LE%(A"DA A(IT an6 6a<ghters
5I"'I(IA D$('%' 5ICT%"IA &AT$CA( an6 E"LI(DA A(IT 6efen6antsa44ellants. '.". (o. L/+1
arch 7 19-9
Facts:
&laintiff Alfonso 8isitacion filed a case against defendant 8ictor anit to hold him liale susidiaril! as em'lo!er for the
death of 'laintiff?s son, Delano. Delano?s death #as due to a $ehicular collision in$ol$ing laid defendant?s dri$er Biron,
#ho #as found insol$ent after ha$ing een con$icted and sentenced in a 're$ious criminal case arising out of said
death. An Ans#er to the com'laint #as filed in due course ! Att!. Barcia on ehalf of defendant. On June 1, 1%, the
case #as heard,

#as sumitted for#ithout defendant
decision. or his
Defendant, counselfiled
ho#e$er, eing 'resent,
a motion forand
ne#'laintiff 'resented
trial #hich his e$idence
#as granted ! theand
trial the case,
court.
&laintiff 'resented his oral and documentar! e$idence and #as cross@e6amined ! Att!. Barcia. he record further
sho#s that Att!. Barcia commenced the 'resentation of e$idence on ehalf of defendant. 7hen the case #as
scheduled for continuation of the trial, Att!. Barcia manifested that the srcinal defendant, 8ictor anit had recentl!
died, and the trial court on the same date directed him to furnish 'laintiff?s counsel the names of the said defendant?s
heirs, so that 'laintiff could amend the com'laint accordingl!. he onl! amendment in the com'laint consisted in
im'leading the #ido# and heirs of the deceased srcinal defendant in sustitution for him. he court admitted the said
Amended Com'laint. he case #as again set for hearing #ith notice to the 'arties through their counsels of record.
One da! efore the said hearing, Att!. Barcia filed a 5otion to 7ithdra# as Counsel5, alleging that 5the heirs of 8ictor
anit ha$e not hired him to re'resent them and conse/uentl!, his continued a''earance in re'resentation of a dead
client #ould e illegal5 and asing the trial court 5that he e relie$ed as counsel in the ao$e@entitled case for the
reasons stated herein.5 7hen the case #as called on the ne6t da!, neither defendants nor Att!. Barcia a''eared, and
the trial court noting 5defendants? a''arent lac of interest as can e gleaned from the records5 considered them to
ha$e renounced their right to a''ear and 'resent e$idence to contest 'laintiff?s claim. It did not 'ass u'on Att!.
Barcia?s otion to 7ithdra# as Counsel and 'roceeded to render udgment in fa$or of 'laintiff.
he CA certified the case to the 3C.

Issue: 7O9 Att!. Barcia?s a''eal 5in his ca'acit! as officer of the Court and as former counsel of the deceased 8ictor
anit5 is tenale
-eld:
he 3C ruled in the negati$e. he trial Court #as 'erfectl! correct in rel!ing u'on Att!. Barcia?s re'resentation in
accordance #ith Rule 1>, section *1 of the Rules of Court #hich 'ro$ides that 5(A)n attorne! is 'resumed to e
'ro'erl! authoriEed to re'resent an! case in #hich he a''ears ....5 his a''eal must accordingl! e dealt #ith as an
a''eal on ehalf of said heirs as defendants@a''ellants and not in the 5uni/ue5 conce't #ith #hich Att!. Barcia #ould
circumscrie it. he contention that said defendants@a''ellants, as sustituted 'arties@defendants ! $irtue of their
eing the heirs of the deceased srcinal defendant should ha$e een rought #ithin the Court?s urisdiction !
summons is fallacious. For the record sho#s that Att!. Barcia at the time acno#ledged recei't of the Amended
Com'laint sustituting said defendants@heirs for the deceased srcinal defendant as 5Attorne! for the defendants5,
'resented no o''osition thereto, and furthermore 'ra!ed for and #as granted ! the Court a 'eriod of 1 da!s to file
an ans#er to the Amended Com'laint. -a$ing een dul! im'leaded and ha$ing sumitted to the Court?s urisdiction
through their counsel, Att!. Barcia, the issuance of a summons #as unnecessar!. Further, the trial court did not err in
ignoring the otion to 7ithdra# as Counsel filed ! Att!. Barcia. In the face of Att!. Barcia?s 're$ious re'resentations
and a''earance as counsel of record for the sustituted defendants, his last hour motion to #ithdra# as counsel and
disclaimer that said defendants ha$e hired him to re'resent them M #hich he filed one da! efore the date set for
resum'tion of the hearing M came too late and #as 'ro'erl! ignored ! the Court. -is motion #as not $erified. Aside
from the fact that his said motion carried no notice, in $iolation of the re/uirement of the Rules of Court, and could
therefore e treated as a 5mere scra' of 'a'er5, the said motion #as lie#ise fatall! defecti$e in that it carried no
notice to his clients on record, the defendants@a''ellants, as re/uired ! the Rules of Court. Furthermore, it is #ell
settled that 5(A)n attorne! seeing to #ithdra# must mae an a''lication to the court, for the relation does not
terminate formall! until there is a #ithdra#al of record4 at least so far as the o''osite 'art! is concerned, the relation
other#ise continues until the end of the litigation.5 he trial court?s ignoring of the last@hour motion and its handing
do#n of its decision on the da! of the hearing, u'on the failure of defendants and their counsel to a''ear, in s'ite of
their ha$ing een dul! notified thereof, #as in effect a denial of counsel?s a''lication for #ithdra#al. Att!. Barcia?s
une6'lained failure to a''ear #as une6cusale. -e had no right to 'resume that the Court #ould grant his #ithdra#al.
If he had then a''eared and insisted on his #ithdra#al, the trial court could then ha$e had the o''ortunit! to order the
a''earance of defendants@a''ellants and $erif! from them the truth of his assertion that the! had not 5hired him to
re'resent them.5 he circumstances of the case and the a''eal taen all together lead to the conclusion that the last@
hour #ithdra#al a''lication of Att!. Barcia and his a''eal 5as officer of the Court and then counsel of the deceased5
#as ut a de$ice to 'rolong this case and dela! in the e6ecution of the udgment, #hich should ha$e een carried out
!ears ago.
1+. FELIA . DE "%! an6 5I"'ILI% "A%S )s. C%$"T %F AEALS an6 L$IS &E"(AL S". 'LE(IA
&E"(AL L$IS &E"(AL *". @EI"S %F A"ISSA &E"(AL namely 'LICE"IA DELA C"$ &E"(AL an6 L$IS
&E"(AL S".
Facts:
he fire#all of a urned out uilding o#ned ! 'etitioners colla'sed and destro!ed the tailoring sho' occu'ied ! the
famil! of the 'ri$ate res'ondents resulting in inuries to 'ri$ate res'ondents had een #arned ! 'etitioners to $acate
their sho' in $ie# of its 'ro6imit! to the #eaened #all ut the former failed to do. In the RC, 'etitioners #ere found
guilt! of gross negligence. On the last da! of the 1 da!s 'eriod to file an a''eal, 'etitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration #hich #as again denied. he 3u'reme Court finds that Court of A''eal did not commit a gra$e ause
of discretion #hen it denied 'etitioner<s motion for reconsideration. Counsel for 'etitioner contends that the said case
should not e a''lied non@'ulication in the Official BaEette.

I33"2: 7hether or not the 3u'reme Court decisions must e 'ulished in the Official BaEette efore the! can e
inding.
-2LD:
9O.here is no la# re/uiring the 'ulication of 3u'reme Court decision in the Official BaEette efore the! can e
inding and as a condition to their ecoming effecti$e. It is ounden dut! of counsel as la#!er in acti$e la# 'ractice to
ee' areast of decisions of the 3u'reme Court 'articularl! #here issues ha$e een clarified, consistentl! reiterated
and 'ulished in the ad$ance re'orts of 3u'reme Court decisions and in such 'ulications as the 3CRA and la#
ournals.
In the instant case, 'etitioners? motion for e6tension of time #as filed on 3e'temer , 1, more than a !ear after the
e6'iration of the grace 'eriod on June >+, 1%. -ence, it is no longer #ithin the co$erage of the grace 'eriod.
Considering the length of time from the e6'iration of the grace 'eriod to the 'romulgation of the decision of the Court
of A''eals on August *, 1, 'etitioners cannot see refuge in the ignorance of their counsel regarding said rule for
their failure to file a motion for reconsideration #ithin the reglementar! 'eriod
;eginning one month after the 'romulgation of this Resolution, the rule shall e strictl! enforced that no motion for
e6tension of time to file a motion for reconsideration ma! e filed #ith the etro'olitan or unici'al rial Courts, the
Regional rial Courts, and the Intermediate A''ellate Court. 3uch a motion ma! e filed onl! in cases 'ending #ith the
3u'reme Court as the court of last resort, #hich ma! in its sound discretion either grant or den! the e6tension
re/uested.
11. C<aresma )s. Da<is '.". L+811+ arch 8 19/8
FAC3:
An order to demolish the house of 2ugenio Cuaresma, herein 'etitioner, #as issued. acario Directo, counsel of
Cuaresma, filed a 'etition for certiorari and alleged that he has no no#ledge of the e6istence of
the case. -o#e$er, it turned out that 'etitioner and his counsel #ere a#are of the e6istence of the case.
Directo #as gi$en o''ortunit! to sho# cause #h! no disci'linar! action should e taen against him for delieratel!
maing false allegations in such 'etition. Directo e6'lained that his no#ledge of the case came onl! after the decision
#as issued and that there #as no delierate attem't and intent of misleading the Court.
I33"2: 7hether or not Directo should e suect to disci'linar! actions
-2LD:
-e #as merel! re'rimanded. -is e6'lanation is merel! an afterthought. It could e $er! #ell that after his attention #as
called to the misstatements in his 'etition, he decided on such $ersion as a #a! out.
oreo$er, udging from the a##ardl! #orded 'etition and e$en his com'liance /uite indicati$e of either carelessness
or lac of 'roficienc! in the handling of the 2nglish language, it is not unreasonale to assume that his deficienc! in the
mode of e6'ression
contriuted to the inaccurac! of his statements. 7hile a mere disclaimer of intent certainl! cannot e6cul'ate him, still,
in the s'irit of charit! and forearance, a 'enalt! of re'rimand #ould
suffice. At least, it #ould ser$e to im'ress on res'ondent that in the future he should e much more careful in the
're'aration of his 'leadings so that the least dout as to his intellectual honest! cannot e entertained. 2$er! memer
of the ar should realiEe that candor in the dealings #ith the Court is of the $er! essence of honorale memershi' in
the 'rofession.
1*. A$"%"A CAA"A 5DA. DE $&I"I )s. E(CESLA% $&I"I alias &E( ET AL.
FAC3:
Aurora Camara 8da. de Tuiri, filed #ith the Court of First Instance of Lanao del 9orte a com'laint for the reco$er! of
her alleged share in t#o commercial lots situated in Iligan Cit! against 7enceslao ;en Tuiri, and the 3tandard
8acuum Oil Co., the occu'ant of 'ortions of the said 'ro'erties. he 'laintiff alleged that the said lots #ere conugal,
ha$ing een 'urchased ! her and her late husand during their marriage, so that at least one@half of the same
elonged to her 5'lus the e/ual share of the heir or heirs of the decedent.5 oreo$er, the 'laintiff claimed that the said
'arcels #ere in the 'ossession of the defendant #ho, 5unless he can 'ro$e efore this -onorale Court that he is a
dul! recogniEed natural child of the late Jesus Tuiri, Qhe has no right, interest, and 'artici'ation #hatsoe$er o$er the
ao$ementioned t#o lots.5

Four () 'leadings #ere filed namel!: 1) the herein a''ellant?s ans#er #hich sho#ed on its face that it #as signed !
the latter in his o#n ehalf and unassisted ! counsel4 *) a 3ti'ulation of Facts, signed ! the 'laintiff, assisted !
counsel, and the defendant, #ithout such assistance4 >) a motion to render udgment on the 'leadings, again signed
! the 'laintiff, dul! assisted ! counsel, and the defendant@a''ellant herein, signing alone, #ithout enefit of counsel4
and ) the defendant 3tandard 8acuum Oil Com'an!?s ans#er to the ao$e com'laint.
rial court rendered udgment in accordance #ith the aforementioned 3ti'ulation of Facts. 3ince in oth the ans#er of
the herein defendant@a''ellant and the sti'ulation of facts the latter admitted 'racticall! all the allegations of the
com'laint, the decision rendered in accordance there#ith #as actuall! in fa$or of the 'laintiff.
7enceslao Tuiri for the first time thru counsel, filed #ith the trial court a 'etition to set aside udgment u'on t#o
grounds, to #it: first, the three 'leadings filed namel!: a''ellant?s ans#er, the sti'ulation of facts and the motion to
render udgment on the 'leadings #ere all 're'ared ! the 'laintiff?s counsel and that he, the a''ellant, #as made to
sign all of them #hen he #as ill and inca'ale of realiEing the full conse/uences of the act.
7enceslao sees annulment of udgment ased on the allegations to #it: that it #as the 'laintiff?s counsel #ho
're'ared and induced the defendant to sign all the 'leadings u'on #hich the assailed decision #as ased, including
and 'articularl! the said defendant?s ans#er, that the dismissal of the same, in the asence of the 'etitioner and
#ithout affording him the chance to e heard thereon, indeed #as incom'atile #ith the e6ercise of sound udicial
discretion.
I33"2:
7hether or not the la#!er of the 'laintiff can communicate #ith the defendant directl! and testif! u'on the signing of
documents
-2LD:
he acti$e 'artici'ation of a la#!er in one 'art!?s affairs relating to a 'ending case in #hich the said la#!er is the
counsel for the o''osing 'art! is raEenl! unethical to sa! the least. he Canons of Legal 2thics $er! e6'licitl! declare
that 5it is un'rofessional to re'resent conflicting interests5 (9o. %), and command that M
A la#!er should not in an! #a! communicate u'on the suect of contro$ers! #ith a 'art! re'resented ! counsel4
much less should he undertae to negotiate or com'romise the matter #ith him, ut should deal onl! #ith his counsel.
It is incument u'on the la#!er most 'articularl! to a$oid e$er!thing that ma! tend to mislead a 'art! not re'resented
! counsel and he should not undertae to ad$ise him as to the la#. (9o. )
As #e ha$e alread! said in the case of Cantorne $. Ducusin,  &hil. *>, the simultaneous re'resentation ! a la#!er
of oth 'arties to a suit constitutes mal'ractice #hich should e se$erel! condemned and the la#!er corrected !
disci'linar! action. If ut for this consideration alone, the court elo# should ha$e allo#ed the motion for
'ost'onement 'leaded ! the a''ellant and heard the merits of the latter?s 'etition to set aside udgment.
oreo$er, the affida$its of merit a''ended to the 'etition to set aside udgment recited that the defendant@a''ellant
#as seriousl! sic at the time he #as made to sign and s#ear to the ao$e three re'udiated 'leadings. o e sure, no
less than the officer efore #hom the said 'leadings #ere suscried and s#orn to admitted that this $erification #as
conducted at the a''ellant?s residence in Ceu #here the latter #as confined 5suffering from fe$er, #ith an ice ca' on
his head and 'rofusel! 'ers'iring.5 "nder the circumstances, therefore, the mental ca'acit! of the a''ellant to
res'onsil! assent to commitments set forth in the same three 'leadings ecame doutful and the trial court should
ha$e e6erted its earnest efforts to resol$e the dout. 2s'eciall! so #hen account is taen of the fact that the suect
matter of the suit #as not ust an insustantial sum ut 'ro'erties allegedl! #orth some &1%,+++.++.
I9 8I27 OF ALL -2 FOR2BOI9B, the order of the court elo# den!ing the a''ellant?s 'etition to set aside
udgment is here! re$oed and set aside.
1>. Del<ao )s. Casteel
Facts:
9icanor Casteel filed a fish'ond a''lication for a ig tract of s#am'! land. 3'ouses Inocencia Deluao and Feli'e
Deluao entered into a contract of ser$ice #ith 9icanor Casteel for the administration of fishfond. In a decision of the
3ecretar! of Agriculture and 9atural Resources Casteel #as a#arded #ith the suect fish'ond. hereafter, 9icanor
Casteel forade Inocencia Deluao from further administering the fish'ond, and eected the latter?s re'resentati$e from
the 'remises. Conse/uentl!, s'ouses Deluao filed a ci$il case for s'ecific 'erformance and damages against Casteel.
After the issues #ere oined, the case #as set for trial. hen came a series of 'ost'onements. he lo#er court (;ranch
I, 'resided ! Judge 2nri/ue A. FernandeE) finall! issued on arch *1, 1% an order in
o'en court transferring the hearing to a! * and >, 1% at :>+ o?cloc in the morning. And considering the case #as
'ending since A'ril >, 11 and under an! circumstance the Court #ill not entertain an! other transfer of hearing of this
case and if the 'arties #ill not e read! on that da! set for hearing, the court #ill tae the necessar! ste's for the final
determination of this case.
he defendants, thru counsel, filed a motion for 'ost'onement. he lo#er court (;ranch II, 'resided ! Judge BomeE)
issued an order that #hile the motion for 'ost'onement #as filed #ith the conformit! of the counsel for 'laintiff , the
same should e referred ac to ;ranch I, so that the same ma! e dis'osed therein.
On the scheduled date of hearing, that is, on a! *, 1%, the lo#er court (;ranch I, #ith Judge FernandeE 'residing),
#hen informed aout the defendants? motion for 'ost'onement issued an order reiterating its 're$ious order handed
do#n in o'en court on arch *1, 1% and directing the 'laintiffs to introduce their e$idence e6 'arte, there eing no
a''earance on the 'art of the defendants or their counsel.
Issue: 7hether the 'ost'onement of hearings de'end u'on agreement of the 'arties.
-eld 9o.
It is of no moment that the motion for 'ost'onement had the conformit! of the a''ellees? counsel. he 'ost'onement
of hearings does not de'end u'on agreement of the 'arties, ut u'on the court?s discretion.
It #as the dut! of Att!. RuiE, or of the other la#!ers of record, not e6cluding the a''ellant himself, to a''ear efore
Judge FernandeE on the scheduled dates of hearing &arties and their la#!ers ha$e no right to 'resume that their
motions for 'ost'onement #ill e granted. For indeed, the a''ellant and his 1* la#!ers cannot 'retend ignorance of
the recorded fact that since 3e'temer *, 1> until the trial held on a! *, 1%, the case #as under the
ad$isement of Judge FernandeE #ho 'resided o$er ;ranch I. here #as, therefore, no necessit! to 5re@assign5 the
same to ;ranch II ecause Judge FernandeE had e6clusi$e control of said case, unless he #as legall! inhiited to tr!
the case M and he #as not.
here is truth in the a''ellant?s contention that it is the dut! of the cler of court M not of the Court M to 're'are the
trial calendar. ;ut the assignment or reassignment of cases alread! 'ending in one sala to another sala, and the
setting of the date of trial after the trial calendar has een 're'ared, fall #ithin the e6clusi$e control of the 'residing
udge.
1. @eirs of Elias Lorilla )s. CA
Facts:
&ri$ate res'ondent &entaca'ital Finance Cor' (&entaca'ital) filed a com'laint #ith RC aati for sum of mone!
against 3an!u achineries Agencies, Inc. and se$eral other defendants including 'etitioner herein 2lias Lorilla (no#
re'resented ! his heirs) #ho acted as suret! for * cor'orate detors.
During the 'endenc! of the case, Lorilla e6ecuted a dacion en 'ago o$er a 'ro'ert! in fa$or of JOint Resources
anagement De$elo'ment Cor' (JRDC) as 'a!ment of his oligation to the latter. -o#e$er, he same 'ro'ert! #as
the suect of e6ecution in fa$or of &entaca'ital.
;efore the #rit of e6ecution #as issued ! RC aati, 2lias Lorilla died. 9o a''eal #as taen ! Att!. Alfredo
Conce'cion, counsel of record of 2lias Lorilla.
hereafter, &etitioners(heirs) filed a motion to /uash the #rit of e6ecution and annulment of dacion en 'ago, arguing
that the udgment cannot e enforce since Lorilla 'assed a#a! 1 !r and > months efore RC aati rendered
udgment raising sec. *1 of Rule > of the Rules of court as asis, #hich states: #hen the action is for reco$er! of
mone!, det, interest and the defendant dies efore the final udgment in the CFI, it shall e dismissed in the manner
'ro$ided in these rules.
Issue: 1.7O9 the udgment should e final and e6ecutor! against 'etitioners des'ite Att!. Conce'cion?s failure to
notif! the court of 2lias death and to a''eal such udgment.
*. 7O9 'etitioners #ere denied due 'rocess of la# as there #as no sustitution due to Att!. Conce'cion?s fault.
-eld:
1. es. 9o notice of death #as filed ! Att!. conce'cion thus, the court nor &entaca'ital #ere made a#are of the death
of
the2lias Lorilla.ha$e
'etitioners he trial
eencourt
a#arecould notad$erse
of the e e6'ected to no#
udgment or all
since tae udicial
notices andnotice of the
orders death
of the of #ere
court 2liassent
Lorilla. 9either
to Lorilla?s
counsel of record.
It is the dut! of the counsel to 'rom'tl! inform the court of the death of his client. he failure of such counsel inds
herein 'etitioners as much as the client himself could e so ound. Juris'rudence holds that a client is ound ! the
conduct, negligence and mistae of his counsel.
Furthermore, since there #as no timel! a''eal taen from the udgment of the RC aati, such udgment had
'ro'erl! ecome final and e6ecutor!.
*. &etitioners claimed that the! #ere denied due 'rocess of la# since there #as no 'ro'er sustitution as defendants
due to Att!. conce'cion?s fault, ho#e$er, the 'ro'ert! #hich the! claim as la#ful inheritance #as no longer 'art of the
estate of at the time of lorilla?s death. Lorilla earlier e6ecuted a dacion en 'ago in fa$or of JRDC as his 'a!ment of
his oligation to the latter. A ne# C therefore #as issued in fa$or of JRDC. herefore, 'etitioners do not ha$e an!
interests in the 'ro'ert! for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
1.) A)elino )s. ALA(A
Facts: A com'laint #as filed ! 8alentin A$elino against Att!. &edro G. &alaNa. the latter #as charged #ith mal'ractice
in connection #ith his 'rofessional conduct as the com'lainant?s counsel. such mal'ractice ha$ing gi$en rise to the
rendition of udgment against said com'lainant and his #ife.
1. Att!. &alaNa did not dul! inform his cli ent of the date of the trial sche duled for 9o$emer 1, 1 #hen the
e$idence sho#s that he recei$ed notice of such hearing on Octoer 11, 1.
*. he filing of the motion for ne# trial on Januar! , 1 #as made out of time. he dela! in the filing of the
said motion remains une6'lained.
>. Att!. &alaNa?s *nd motion for ne# trial, after the Court had afforded him all the o''ortunit! to 'lead his motion
successfull!, #as denied ! the lo#er court on the ground that he failed to com'l! #ith an order of the court dated
Feruar! 1, 1. 7hile the said motion #as dul! filed on time, a 're$ious order of the Court directed the mo$ant (Att!.
&alaNa to ser$e a co'! of his amended motion to the other 'art! through counsel, ut com'liance there#ith does not
a''ear on the said motion).
he trial #as set for hearing ut the res'ondent instead of attending the hearing, ust sumitted the memorandum
and the re'resentati$e from O3B didn?t a''ear efore the court.
Issue: 7O9 &alana is guilt! of mal'ractice.
-eld:
"'on consideration of the #hole record, 7e find no sufficient ustification to re$erse the finding made ! the Office of
the 3olicitor Beneral to the effect that res'ondent 5did not dul! inform his client of the date of the trial scheduled for
9o$emer 1, 15 in s'ite of the fact that, according to the e$idence, he had recei$ed notice of such hearing four
da!s efore.
As regards res'ondent?s failure to a''ear in court on the da! set for the trial, 7e are inclined to acce't his claim that it
#as due to the fact that earl! in the morning of that date he had 5a se$ere stomach ache, follo#ed ! constant mo$ing
of o#el and $omiting and that as a conse/uence he ecame $er! #ea.5 ;ut #hile this might e, to a certain e6tent, a
good e6cuse for his non@a''earance in court, it is o$iousl! not sufficient to e6'lain his failure to notif! his clients in
due time of the date of the trial. -ad he done so, his clients #ould 'roal! ha$e tried to contact him in due time, and
u'on disco$ering that he #as sic the! #ould ha$e either gone to court to as for the 'ost'onement of the trial, or the!
#ould ha$e looed for another la#!er to re'resent them in court.
1%. Diman )s Al<m?res : 1+1=-- : (o)em?er / 1997 :
FAC3:
he 'etition for re$ie# on certiorari in this case #as initiall! dismissed ! Resolution dated Januar! 1, 1 ut after
delierating on 'etitioners? motion for reconsideration dated Feruar! *>, 1, the 'ri$ate res'ondents? comment
thereon, the re'l! to the comment, as #ell as the record of the case itself, the Court #as con$inced that the order of
dismissal should e reconsidered and the 'etition reinstated. he court accordingl! 'romulgated a resolution to that
effect on Octoer 1*, 1, and re/uired res'ondents to file their Comment on the 'etition #ithin ten (1+) da!s from
notice. 9otice of the Resolution #as dul! ser$ed on 'ri$ate res'ondents? attorne! on Octoer *1, 1. he latter filed
a motion for
e6tension e6tension
sought, of time
ut onl! for of thirt! (1)
fifteen (>+) da!s.
da!s to filecomment
he comment,#as
counted from on
filed late, Octoer >1. he
9o$emer *+,Court
1,granted the
Counsel?s
e6'lanation is that he had sought an e6tension of >+ da!s 5due to the other $olume of legal #ors similarl! situated
and school #or of the undersigned as 'rofessor of la# and dean of the "ni$ersit! of anila,5 and had entertained 5the
honest elie f5 that it #ould e granted. -o#e$er, he learned elatedl! that onl! a 1@da! e6tension had een
conceded. -e forth#ith com'leted the comment and filed it, aleit fi$e da!s late.
I33"2: 7hether or not the comment should e admitted ! the court
-2LD:
he Court admits the late comment, ut taes this occasion to reiterate the familiar doctrine that no 'art! has a right to
an e6tension of time to com'l! #ith an oligation #ithin the 'eriod set therefor ! la#4 motions for e6tension are not
granted as a matter of course4 their concession lies in the sound discretion of the Court e6ercised in accordance #ith
the attendant circumstances4 the mo$ant is not ustified in assuming that the e6tension sought #ill e granted, or that it
#ill e granted for the length of time suggested ! him. It is thus incument on an! mo$ant for e6tension to e6ercise
due diligence to inform himself as soon as 'ossile of the Court?s action on his motion, ! time in/uir! of the Cler of
Court. 3hould he neglect to do so, he runs the ris of time running out on him, for #hich he #ill ha$e nood! ut
himself to lame.
1. L$CIA(% A. SA$L%' ) C$ST%&$ILT A($FACT$"I(' C%"%"ATI%( ET AL.
FAC3: &laintiff 3aulog sued in the Cit! Court of anila for damages and attorne!s? fees against defendants
Customuilt anufacturing Cor'oration (Customuilt), 9orth#est Insurance  3uret! Co., Inc. (9orth#est), and the
Cit! 3heriff of anila. &laintiff com'lained that Customuilt caused to e sold on e6ecution certain 'ro'erti es
elonging to him #hich he leased to one Adriano Bo, Customuilt?s udgment detor in another case. hose 'ro'erties
consisted of a 'iano #ith a stool, and a rattan dinner and sala set. &laintiff filed a third@'art! claim to sta$e off le$!. ;ut
Customuilt 'osted a &1,*++@ond to 'a$e the #a! for the e6ecution sale of said 'ro'erties. he court rendered
udgment in fa$or of the 'laintiff (udgement #as ased on 'laintiff?s e$idence e6@'arte ecause all of the defendants
failed to a''ear for trial des'ite due notice). Customuilt a''ealed to CFI anila. 7hen the 're@trial #as had,
Customuilt?s counsel #as in the courtroom ut left efore the case #as called. On 'laintiff?s motion, the udge, on the
same da!, dismissed the a''eal and re$i$ed the cit! court?s udgment. he co'! of the dismissal #as recei$ed !
Customuilt?s counsel on 9o$emer 1+ and filed a 'etition for relief  da!s after. &laintiff o''osed. On 9o$emer *,
the court denied the 'etition for lac of merit. Customuilt a''ealed.
I33"2: 7O9 it #as 'ro'er for the CFI to den! the defendant?s 'etition for relief from udgment.
R"LI9B: he cit! court?s udgment as re$i$ed ! the Court of First Instance must e sustained.
At the start of the 're@trial, Customuilt?s attorne! #as 'resent. ;ut he unceremoniousl! left the courtroom. Counsel
reasons that he had to lea$e ecause 5he #as summoned home all too suddenl!5 as 5his 'regnant #ife had een
ha$ing laor 'ains5 #hich 5#ere cause for alarm5 and she finall! deli$ered  da!s after.
Counsel did not ha$e the foresight re/uired of him. &ursuant to 3ection 1, Rule *+ of the Rules of
Court, oth client and counsel must a''ear at the 're@trial. his is mandator!. Failure of the client to a''ear is ground
for dismissal. If one re'resenting his client, a cor'oration, #as 'resent, counsel could ha$e easil! left #ord for the
former to tell the udge that he #as suddenl! summoned to his home. If the client #ere not 'resent, then the case ust
the same #ould ha$e een dismissed. ;ut, the 'oint is that allegedl! someone summoned said attorne! to go ac
home. If this #ere true, then it #ould ha$e een /uite eas! for the la#!er to ha$e ased that man to sta! around and
tell the udge or the cler or the ranch de'ut! cler of court of his 'redicament. Or, he himself could ha$e as easil!
told the udge, or either cler, or the ad$erse counsel, the court stenogra'her, the inter'reter, the ailiff, or an!one for
that matter, of his inailit! to #ait for the 're@trial. -e failed to do an!one of these.
In his 'etition for relief, Customuilt?s la#!er also made the statement that his #ife did not gi$e irth until fi$e da!s
later. It is unreasonale to assume that during the #hole 'eriod his mind #as in lan, such that it #as im'ossile for
him to ha$e taen ste's to tell the court 'ersonall! or other#ise that his asence during the 're@trial #as e6cusale.
Again, he did not. -e recei$ed co'! of the decision on 9o$emer 1+. -e did not file the 'etition for relief until
9o$emer 1.
All of these facts 'oint to one conclusion: lac of interest on the 'art of a''ellant to defend itself against the com'laint.
Rather, the 'attern of conduct discloses a desire to dela! dis'osal of the 'resent case. Failure to 'rosecute is a ground
for dismissal of the a''eal and re$i$al of the udgment of the cit! court under 3ection , Rule + of the Rules of Court.
1. eo4le )s. @ILA"I%( CASII" % ET AL. 6efen6ants &E(*AI( ICALLA  "%D%LF% S%"IA(% an6
&E(*AI( CI(C% 6efen6antsa44ellants A($EL (. SA('LA! res4on6ent.
FAC3:
his is !et another instance of a memer of the &hili''ine ;ar, this time, res'ondent anuel 9. 3angla!, eing
administrati$el! 'roceeded against for failure to file the rief #ithin the reglementar! 'eriod for a''ellants ;enamin
Icalla, Rodolfo 3oriano and ;enamin Cinco.
-e #as gi$en the o''ortunit! to e6'lain in our Feruar! >, 1* resolution, #hich reads thus: 5For failure to file rief for
a''ellants ;enamin Icalla, Rodolfo 3oriano and ;enamin Cinco #ithin the 'eriod #hich e6'ired on Decemer *>,
11, the Court resol$ed to Qre/uire Att!. anuel 9. 3angla! to e6'lain, #ithin ten (1+) da!s from notice hereof, #h!
disci'linar! action should not e taen against him.5 1 It #as not until the end of that month that his manifestation and
e6'lanation came. -e #ould asol$e himself from an! lame as, in his $ie#, no fault could e attriuted to him.
As set forth in such 'leading, this is ho# he #ould e6'lain matters: 5"'on recei$ing the notice from this -onorale
Court ad$ising me to file the rief for the a''ellants, I immediatel! contacted the 'arents of the three a''ellants. &alo
Icalla and the father of ;enamin Cinco came ut the mother of Rodolfo 3oriano failed to a''ear. At that time Rodolfo
3oriano #as alread! at large for he esca'ed from 'rison at the La "nion &ro$incial Jail. In our conference, the father of
;enamin Cinco reiterated his former desire not to a''eal the case of his son. ;ut later on, &alo Icalla, father of
a''ellant ;enamin Icalla 're$ailed on the father of ;enamin Cinco that the! continue the a''eal. According to &alo
Icalla he had alread! engaged the ser$ices of a good la#!er to 're'are their rief. &alo Icalla further informed me
that he had alread! taen all the transcri't of the case from the stenogra'her.5 -e felt ustified in concluding then: 5!
failure therefore to file the rief for the a''ellants is attriutale to the fault of the accused themsel$es re'resented !
their 'arents. heir 'arents disauthoriEed me to 're'are and file the rief for the a''ellants ! engaging another
la#!er to do the same. In so far as the a''ellant, Rodolfo 3oriano, I could not ha$e also filed his rief for the reason
that he esca'ed from ail.5
I33"2: #=n there #as negligence for failing to file the rief #ithin the reglementar! 'eriod.
-2LD:
In the light of the ao$e, the most that can e admitted is that a''ellant?s failure to file the rief #as not a #illful act on
his 'art. At least his good faith cannot e im'ugned. 9onetheless, the e6cul'ati on he sees cannot e granted. -e
ne# that the 'eriod for filing the rief #as running. -e #as e/uall! a#are that this Court e6'ected that the matter #ill
e taen care of ! him, as he #as the counsel of record. here #as no other a''earance. "nder the circumstances,
the least that #as e6'ected of him #as that he #ould inform this riunal of the de$elo'ments set forth in his
e6'lanation and as that he e allo#ed to #ithdra# as counsel. 3uch a ste' he did not tae until after the resolution of
Feruar! >, 1* re/uiring him to e6'lain the failure to com'l! #ith his dut! as officer of the Court. It came too late. It
did not #i'e out the 're$ious manifestation of negligence on his 'art. -e cannot therefore esca'e liailit!. If this sad
state of affairs came to 'ass, he had onl! himself to lame.
7-2R2FOR2, res'ondent anuel 9. 3angla! is re'rimanded.
1. eo4le )s. ELE'I% (ADE"A *". ! SADSAD

QB.R. 9os. 1>1>@. Feruar! *, *+++
Facts:
Accused@a''ellant 2legio 9adera, Jr. has four children ! his #ife Dais!, namel!: Ole!4 aricris4 arch Anthon!4 and
3heril!n.
Dais! left for a o in ;ahrain.
Ole! and aricris, assisted ! a neighor, Lita acalalad, told their mother that the! had een ra'ed ! their father,
herein accused@a''ellant. hereu'on, the! #ent to the 'olice authorities of 9auan and filed a com'laint against
accused@a''ellant.
After 'reliminar! e6amination, four informations charging accused@a''ellant #ith ra'e on $arious dates #ere filed in
the Regional rial Court, Cala'an, Oriental indoro.
he record sho#s that at his arraignment, accused@a''ellant, assisted ! Att!. anolo A. ;rotonel of the &ulic
Attorne!?s Office, 'leaded not guilt! to the charges filed against him.-o#e$er, after the 'rosecution had 'resented Dr.
C!nthia 3. Fesalon, accused@a''ellant 'leaded guilt! to the crime charged in all the informations.
After Ole!?s direct e6amination had een finished, Att!. ;rotonel, accused@a''ellant?s counsel, did not conduct an!
cross e6amination on the ground that he #as con$inced Ole! #as telling the truth. he 'rosecution formall! offered
its documentar! e$idence and rested its case thereafter.
Accused@a''ellant did counts

a''ellant guilt! of four not 'resent an!
of ra'e e$idence
against in his defense.
his daughters he trial court
and sentencing him torendered udgment
suffer death finding accused@
'enalt!.
Issue: 7hether the accused?s counsel faithfull! com'lied #ith his dut! as a la#!er0
-eld:
9O. he ca$alier attitude of accused@a''ellant?s counsel, Att!. anolo A. ;rotonel of the &ulic Attorne!?s Office,
cannot go unnoticed. It is discernile in (a) his refusal to cross e6amine Ole! 9adera4 () the manner in #hich he
conducted aricris 9adera?s cross e6amination4 and, (c) his failure not onl! to 'resent e$idence for the accused ut
also to inform the accused of his right to do so, if he desires.
he right to counsel must e more than ust the 'resence of a la#!er in the courtroom or the mere 'ro'ounding of
standard /uestions and oections. he right to counsel means that the accused is am'l! accorded legal assistance
e6tended ! a counsel #ho commits himself to the cause for the defense and acts accordingl!. he right assumes an
acti$e in$ol$ement ! the la#!er in the 'roceedings, 'articularl! at the trial of the case, his earing constantl! in mind
of the asic rights of the accused, his eing #ell@$ersed on the case and his no#ing the fundamental 'rocedures,
essential la#s and e6isting uris'rudence. he right of an accused to counsel finds sustance in the 'erformance !
the la#!er of his s#orn dut! of fidelit! to his client. ersel! 'ut, it means an efficient and trul! decisi$e legal assistance
and not a sim'le 'erfunctor! re'resentation.
easured ! this standard, the defense counsel<s conduct in this case falls short of the /ualit! of ad$ocac! demanded
of him, considering the gra$it! of the offense charged and the finalit! of the 'enalt!. A glaring e6am'le of his manifest
lac of enthusiasm for his client?s cause is his decision not to cross e6amine Ole! 9adera, as re$ealed in the
follo#ing 'ortion of the records:
CO"R:
.......An! cross0 A. ;ROO92L:
.......If our -onor 'lease, #e are not conducting an! cross@e6amination, ecause this re'resentation, from the
demeanor of the #itness, I am con$inced that she is telling the truth.
It ma! e so that defense counsel 'ersonall! found Ole!?s testimon! to e elie$ale. 9onetheless, he had the
ounden dut! to scrutiniEe 'ri$ate com'lainant?s testimon! to ensure that the accused?s constitutional right to confront
and e6amine the #itnesses against him #as not rendered for naught.
,.*ose T<4acio (<eno ). asc<al Santos
FAC3
Judge Anacleto DiaE of the Court of First Instance #as made a s'ecial in$estigation of conditions in the cit!
go$ernment of anila. In the course of the in$estigation a com'laint #as filed ! Jose o'acio 9ueno, a memer of
the munici'al oard of the Cit! of anila, against &ascual 3antos, another memer of munici'al oard, it eing alleged
that the latter had interested himself in 'rohiited games. 3antos denied the charges. -earings #ere had on the said
charges and the testimon! of a numer of #itnesses #as taen. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge DiaE made a
re'ort to the -onorale, the 3ecretar! of the Interior, in #hich he recommended the remo$al of the res'ondent from his
office of memer of the munici'al oard, and that all the 'a'ers connected #ith the charge e transmitted to the
3u'reme Court for action, 5it eing e$ident that the res'ondent, as a memer of the ;ar, $iolated his oath of office !
decei$ing the court and consenting a falsehood to e committed.5
On recei't of the re'ort of Judge DiaE against Attorne! 3antos, the court ordered it referred to the Attorne!@Beneral for
in$estigation, re'ort, and recommendation. It #rote res'ondent a letter informing him of the in$estigation and asing
#hether he #ill sumit additional e$idence. he res'ondent e$entuall! filed an ans#er den!ing the charge and
re/uesting that he e gi$en an o''ortunit! to 'resent e$idence in su''ort of his defense.
It a''ears from the facts that res'ondent #as the counsel for INigo -ernandeE #ho #as charged for $iolating an
ordinance for ha$ing #illfull! and unla#full! encouraged, tolerated and 'ermitted to e 'la!ed a game of chance and
haEard commonl! no#n as monte.P Res'ondent entered a 'lea of guilt! for
-ernandeE although he ne# that the latter #as a mere #aiter and did not encourage, tolerate, or 'ermit a game of
5monte5 to e 'la!ed. he re'ort of the 3olicitor@Beneral concludes #ith the recommendation that disci'linar! action
e taen against the res'ondent.
I33"2: 7O9 res'o ndent $iolated his oath of office ! decei$ing the court and conse nting a falsehood to e
committed.
-2LD
es. he court elie$es that there is no esca'ing the conclusion that the res'ondent attorne! consented to the doing of
a falsehood and decei$ed the court #hen he had an accused 'lead guilt! to an offense #hich he had not committed.
he acground of the administrati$e in$estigation sho#ing the res'ondent?s connection #ith 'rohiited games, under
circumstances of the case, can onl! e taen into consideration in so far as it relates to the 'recise charge laid against
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19,
him. here #as a clear $iolation of the la#!er?s oath that he #ould do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of an! in
court.
he court ordered that res'ondent &ascual 3antos e sus'ended from the 'ractice of La# for a 'eriod of three
months.
III. ADISSI%( T% "ACTICE

(J.2ra Li'a)
1. In re: Lan<e)o -- SC"A =8 019/82
FAC3: Administrati$e 'roceeding against 8ictorio Lanue$o for disarment.

Admitted ha$ing rought the fi$e e6amination noteoos of Ramon 2. Balang ac to the res'ecti$e e6aminers for re@
e$alution or re@checing.
he fi$e e6aminers admitted ha$ing re@e$aluated or re@checed the noteoo to him ! the ;ar Confidant, stating that
he has the authorit! to do the same and that the e6aminee concerned failed onl! in his 'articular suect and #as on
the orderline of 'assing.
Ramon galang #as ale to 'ass the 11 ar e6am ecause of Lanue$o<s mo$e ut the e6am results ears that he
failed in  suects namel! in (&olitical, Ci$il, ercantile, Criminal  Remedial).
Balang on the otherhand, denied of ha$ing charged of 3light &h!sical Inuries on 2ufrosino de 8era, a la# student of
LK".
R"LI9B: he court disarred Lanue$ o S has no authorit! to re/uest the e6aminers to re@e$aluate grades of
e6aminees #=o 'rior authorit! from 3u'reme Court.
-e does not 'ossess an! discretion #ith res'ect to the matter of admission of e6aminees to the ar. -e does not a
ha$e an! usiness e$aluating the ans#ers of the e6aminees.
Conse/uentl!, Balang #as also disarred 3ec. * of Rule 1> of the Re$ised Rules of Curt of 1%, candidates for
admission to the ar must e of good moral character. Balang has a 'ending criminal cases of &h!sical Inuries, he
committed 'erur! #hen he declared under oath that he had no 'ending criminal case this resulted him to re$oed his
license.
*. First Le4anto Ceramics Inc. 5S CA +/ SC"A 819 0199=2

Facts:
1. &etitioner assailed the conflict ing 'ro$isions of ;.&. 1*, 2O **% (Art. *) and a circular, 1@1 issued ! the
3u'reme Court #hich deals #ith the urisdiction of courts for a''eal of cases decided ! /uasi@udicial agencies such
as the ;oard of In$estments (;OI).
*. ;OI granted 'etitioner First Le'anto Cerami cs, Inc.?s a''lica tion to amend its ;OI certific ate of registration !
changing the sco'e of its registered 'roduct from 5glaEed floor tiles5 to 5ceramic tiles.5 O''ositor ari#asa filed a
motion for reconsideration of the said ;OI decision #hile o''ositor Fil@-is'ano Ceramics, Inc. did not mo$e to
reconsider the same nor a''eal therefrom. 3oon reuffed in its id for reconsideration, ari#asa filed a 'etition for
re$ie# #ith CA.
. CA tem'oraril! restrained the ;OI from im'lementing its decision. he RO la'sed ! its o#n terms t#ent! (*+)
da!s after its issuance, #ithout res'ondent court issuing an! 'reliminar! inunction.
. &etitioner filed a motion to dismiss and to lift the restraining order contending that CA does not ha$e urisdiction
o$er the ;OI case, since the same is e6clusi$el! $ested #ith the 3u'reme Court 'ursuant to Article * of the Omnius
In$estments Code of 1.
%. &etitioner argued that the Judiciar! Reorg aniEation Act of 1+ or ;.&. 1* and Circular 1@1, 5&rescr iing the
Rules Bo$erning A''eals to the Court of A''eals from a Final Order or Decision of the Court of a6 A''eals and
Kuasi@Judicial Agencies5 cannot e the asis of ari#asa?s a''eal to res'ondent court ecause the 'rocedure for
a''eal laid do#n therein runs contrar! to Article * of 2.O. **%, #hich 'ro$ides that a''eals from decisions or orders
of the ;OI shall e filed directl! #ith the 3u'reme Court.
. 7hile ari#asa maintains that #hate$er inconsistenc! there ma! ha$e een et#een ;.&. 1* and Article * of
2.O. **% on the /uestion

#as 'romulgated of $enue
on Feruar! for a''eal,
*, 11 or fourhas
() alread! een
!ears after resol$ed
2.O. ! enacted.
**% #as Circular 1@1 of the 3u'reme Court, #hich
I33"2: 7hether or not the Court of A''eals has urisdiction o$er the case
23. Circular 1@1 effecti$el! re'ealed or su'erseded Article * of 2.O. **% insofar as the manner and method of
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty191
enforcing the right to a''eal from decisions of the ;OI are concerned. A''eals from decisions of the ;OI, #hich !
statute #as 're$iousl! allo#ed to e filed directl! #ith the 3u'reme Court, should no# e rought to the Court of
A''eals.
+. In "e: C<nanan 9= @IL 8+= 0198=2

FAC3:
1. RA * I3 CO9RAR O &";LIC I92R23 ;2CA"32 I K"ALIFI23 1,+ LA7 BRAD"A23 7-O
CO9F2332DL -AD I9AD2K"A2 &R2&ARAIO9 FOR -2 &RACIC2 OF -2 &ROF233IO9.
1. &ulic interest demands ade/uate 're'aration and efficienc!, es'eciall! that legal 'rolems ecome more difficult.
i. RA * (;AR FL"9G2R<3 AC 1>): in order that a candidate ma! e deemed to ha$e 'assed his e6aminations
successfull!, he must ha$e otained a general a$erage of V in all suects, #ithout falling elo# +V in an! suect.
1.his court 'assed and admitted to the ar, candidate #ho had otained an a$erage onl! of * then raised to V.
*. "nsuccessful candidates of fe# 'ercentage lo#er than those admitted to the ;ar agitated in Congress for and
secured in 11 the 'assage 3enate ;ill 1*, reduced the 'assing grade to +V since 1%.
a. &resident $etoed it. Congress did not o$erride the $eto. Instead, it a''ro$ed the ill #ithout its signature.
i. An! ar candidate #ho otained +V after Jul! 1% to Aug 11, 1V 1*, *V 1>, >V 1,
V 1 #ithout a elo# +V in an! suect shall e allo#ed to tae oath.
ii. An! ar candidate #ho otained V in an! suect after Jul! 1% shall e deemed to ha$e 'assed,
such grades shall e added in com'uting the 'assing the general a$erage that said candidate ma! otain an!
follo#ing e6aminations.
. After a''ro$al, unsuccessful 'ost#ar candidates filed 'etitions for admission to the ar in$oing its 'ro$isions,
others #ho motioned for re$ision of e6am 'a'ers also in$oed the la#.
i. o a$oid inustice, court re$ie#ed motions for reconsideration. Court did not find a reason to re$ise their
grades. If the! are admitted to ar, it must e 'ursuant to RA * #hich, if declared $alid, should e a''lied e/uall! to
all concerned #hether the! filed 'etitions or not.
>. "nsuccessful candidates #ho enefited section 1 totaled 1,1%. * ha$e 'assed the suse/uent e6amination and
onl! % ha$e filed either motions for admission to ar 'ursuant to the Act or mere motions for reconsideration.
a. 1+ candidates are to e enefited, each taen from * to  different e6aminations, ut failed to otain 'assing
a$erage in an! of them. Consolidating, highest grades in different suects #ith their latest mars, the! #ould e
sufficient to reach 'assing a$erage as 'ro$ided in RA *.
. otal numer of candidates to e enefited is 1,+ #ith onl! %+ filed 'etitions.
c. >> #ho failed in 1%@11 filed motions for reconsideration got denied.
d. 1* of 1* and % of 1> #ere 'ending.
e. riunal found no sufficient reasons to reconsider their grades.
I33"2: 7O9 RA * is constitutional. 9O.
-2LD: &ortion of Art. 1 referring to the e6aminations of 1% to 1*, and all of Art. * of said la# are unconstitutional.
herefore, $oid and #ithout force and effect.
&art of Art. 1 referring to the e6aminations follo#ing to the a''ro$al of the la# from 1> to 1 inclusi$e, is $alid and
shall continue to e in force, in conformit! #ith 3ec. 1+, Art.  of the Constitution.
Conse/uentl!:
a. All the ao$e@mentioned 'etitions 1% to 1* are denied
. All candidates in 1> e6aminations, otaining 1.VW, #ithout ha$ing a grade @+V in an! suect, are considered
'assed.
c. &ermitted to tae and suscrie the corres'onding oath of office as memers of the ;ar
1. Article * 'ermits 'artial 'assing of e6aminations at indefinite inter$als.

a. Does not tae into account that the la#s and uris'rudence are not stationar!
. Article not e6'ressed in the title #ill ha$e tem'orar! effect onl! from 1% to 1, the te6t of article * estalishes a
'ermanent s!stem for an indefinite time.
i. Contrar! to Constitution, #hich $itiates and annuls article * com'letel!4 and ecause it is inse'arale from
article 1, it is o$ious that its nullit! affect the entire la#.
*. "9CO93I"IO9ALI:
a. 9ot #ithin the legislati$e 'o#ers of Congress to enact, or Congress has e6ceeded its 'o#ers.
. Create or estalish aritrar! methods or forms that infringe constitutional 'rinci'les.
c. &ur'oses or effects $iolate the Constitution or its asic 'rinci'les.

>. B292RAL R"L2:
a. A classification to e $alid must rest u'on material differences et#een the 'erso n included in it and those
e6cluded.
. ust e ased u'on sustantial distinctions.
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19
c. herefore, an! la# that is made a''lical e to one class of citiEens onl! must e ased on some sustantial
difference et#een the situation of that class and other indi$iduals #ho do not a''l!.
d. ust rest on some reason on #hich it can e defended.
e. here should e a a difference et#een the situation and circumstances of all the memers of the class and the
situation and circumstances of all other memers of the state.
. LA7 9O CO93ID2R2D B292RAL:

a. O'erates on all #ithin a clause unless there is a sustantial reason #h! it is made to o'erate on that class onl!, and
not generall! on all.
i. It #as indicated #h! unsuccessful candidates 'rior 1% #ere not included.
ii. (o recor6 of examinations 4rior to 19=- 6oes not mean they 6onGt ha)e right for e<al consi6eration.
=. ;<ro6a 5S *alan6oni 7+ @IL 1/1 019=92
Facts: Guroda, Lieutenant Beneral of the Ja'anese Im'erial Arm!, #as 'rosecuted for #ar crimes efore the ilitar!
Commission set u' ! 26ecuti$e Order 9o. % of the &resident of the &hili''ines. Guroda challenged the legalit! and
constitutionalit! of the ilitar! Commission and contended that it laced urisdiction to tr! him for $iolation of the -ague
and Bene$a Con$entions on the La#s of 7ar, since the &hili''ines #as not a signator! to these con$entions.
Issue: 7hether or not the estalished ilitar! Commission is legal and constitutional.
-eld: he court ruled that the ilitar! Commission #as legal and constitutional ase on the citation of Article II, 3ection
> of the &hili''ine Constitution declaring that the &hili''ine ado'ts the generall! acce'ted 'rinci'les of international
la# as 'art of the la# of the nationP.
he court ruled that in accordance #ith the generall! acce'ted 'rinci'les of international la# of the 'resent da!,
including the -ague Con$ention, the Bene$a Con$ention, and significant 'recedents of international uris'rudence
estalished ! the "nited 9ations, all those 'ersons, militar! or ci$ilian, #ho had een guilt! of 'lanning, 're'aring or
#aging a #ar of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses conse/uential and incidental thereto, in
$iolation of the la#s and customs of #ar, of humanit! and ci$iliEation, #ere held accountale therefore. Although the
&hili''ines #as not a signator! to the con$entions emod!ing them, our Constitution has een delieratel! general
and e6tensi$e in its sco'e and is not confined to the recognition of rules and 'rinci'les of international la# as
contained in treaties to #hich our go$ernment ma! ha$e een or shall e a signator!. Conse/uentl!, in the
'romulgation and enforcement of 26ecuti$e Order 9o. %, the &resident of the &hili''ines had acted in conformit! #ith
the generall! acce'ted 'rinci'les and 'olicies of international la# #hich are 'art of our Constitution.
8. %mico ining  In6<strial Cor4. 5S 5alle>os -+ SC"A 78 019=82
%. eo4le 5S 5illan<e)a 1= SC"A 1,9 019-82
FAC3: On 3e'temer , 1, the Chief of &olice of Alaminos, Laguna, charged 3im'licio 8illanue$a #ith the crime
of alicious ischief, efore the Justice of the &eace Court of said munici'alit!. 3aid accused #as re'resented !
counsel de oficio, ut later on re'laced ! counsel de 'arte. he com'lainant in the same case #as re'resented !
Cit! Attorne!Ariston Fule of 3an &alo Cit!, ha$ing entered his a''earance as 'ri$ate@'rosecutor, after securing the
'ermission of the 3ecretar! of Justice. he condition of his a''earance as such, #as that e$er! time he #ould a''ear
at the trial of the case, he #ould e considered on official lea$e of asence, and that he #ould not recei$e an!
'a!ment for his ser$ices. he a''earance of Cit! Attorne! Fule as 'ri$ate 'rosecutor #as /uestioned ! the counsel
for the accused.
I33"2: 7hether or not the isolated a''earance of Att!. Fule as 'ri$ate 'rosecutor constitutes 'ractice of la#.
R"LI9B: 9o. Assistant Cit! Attorne! Fule a''eared in the Justice of the &eace Court as a agent or friend of the
offended 'art!. It does not a''ear that he #as eing 'aid for his ser$ices or that his a''earance #as in a 'rofessional
ca'acit!. As Assistant Cit! Attorne! of 3ail &alo he had no control or inter$ention #hatsoe$er in the 'rosecution of
crimes committed in the munici'alit! of Alaminos, Laguna, ecause the 'rosecution of criminal cases coming
from Alaminos are handled ! the Office of the &ro$incial Fiscal and not ! the Cit! Attorne! of 3an &alo. As such,
there could e no 'ossile conflict in the duties of Assistant Cit! Attorne! Fule us Assistant Cit! Attorne! of 3an &alo
and as 'ri$ate 'rosecutor in this criminal case. Furthermore, the isolated a''earance of Cit! Attorne! Fule did not
constitute
a''earance, 'ri$ate
for it 'ractice, #ithin
consists in the meaning
fre/uent and contem'lation
or customar! of the of
action, a succession Rules. &ractice
acts of is more
the same ind. than an isolated
In other #ords, it is
fre/uent haitual e6ercise. &ractice of la# to fall #ithin the 'rohiition of statute has een inter'reted as customaril! or
haituall! holding one?s self out to the 'ulic, as a la#!er and demanding 'a!ment for such ser$ices. hus, the
a''earance as counsel on one occasion is not conclusi$e as determinati$e of engagement in the 'ri$ate 'ractice of
la#. And, it has ne$er een refuted that Cit! Attorne! Fule had een gi$en 'ermission ! his immediate su'er$isor, the
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19+
3ecretar! of Justice, to re'resent the com'laint in the case at ar #ho is a relati$e. Decision affirmed.
/. DiaAnon<e)o 5S *<6ge &ercasio
FAC3: rs. Conce'cion Dia@ANonue$o, claims to e a co@o#ner of an undi$ided interest of a certain'arcel of

irrigated riceland situated in Cailogan, 3to. 9iNo, 3to. Domingo, Ala!. his 'ro'ert! #as theoect of a deed of sale
e6ecuted ! a6imo ;aliado, Justo ;aliado and &etrona ;aliado de ;arriosin fa$or of Alfredo Ong and
acno#ledged efore unici'al Judge ;onifacio ;ercacio, res'ondentherein, as e6@officio notar! 'ulic, on Januar!
*, 1*. com'lainant informed res'ondent udge thatthe $endors o#ned onl! one@third undi$ided 'ortion of the
'ro'ert! and that she and other cousins ofhers o#ned t#o@thirds thereof. Judge ;ercacio ad$ised the com'lainant to
redeem or re'urchase the'ro'ert! from the $endee, Alfredo Ong. Com'lainant then re/uested the udge to intercede
in theirehalf #ith the $endee to allo# them to redeem the 'ro'ert! and for that 'ur'ose she ga$e res'ondentthe
amount of &>,++.++ to e used to 'a! Alfredo Ong. Res'ondent agreed and recei$ed the amount of&>,++.++.
Res'ondent sent the corres'onding letter to Alfredo Ong ut the latter did not ans#er.Forth#ith a com'laint #as filed
on arch , 1* #ith the Court of First Instance of Ala!. During the'endenc! of the ci$il case, com'lainant ased
res'ondent udge to allo# her to #ithdra# &>,++.++ shehad de'osited #ith him as she #as then in need of mone!,
ut no action #as taen ! res'ondent.
Issue: 7O9 res'ondent is engaging in the 'ractice of la# $iolating Judiciar! Act of 1
Ruling: es. Res'ondent $iolated 3ection  of the Judiciar! Act of 1, as amended, #hich 'ro$ides in'art: All
'ro$isions relati$e to the oser$ance of office hours and the holding of sessions a''licale tocourts of first instance
shall lie#ise a''l! to munici'al udges, ut the latter ma!, after office hours and#ith the 'ermission of the district
udge concerned, engage in teaching or other $ocation not in$ol$ingthe 'ractice of la# ...Res'ondent sumits that it
#as Att!. ;erango and not he #ho assisted the com'lainant, rs.ANonue$o, and her co@'laintiffs as counsel in the ci$il
case. Res'ondent?s claim is elied, ho#e$er, !the acti$e interest he too in the case of rs. ANonue$o manifested as
follo#s: (a) -e ga$e rs.ANonue$o legal ad$ice on the remed! a$ailale to her and her co@o#ners #ith regards to the
'ro'ert!sold to Alfredo Ong. () -e acce'ted from rs. ANonue$o the sum of &>,++.++ for 'ur'oses ofredeeming the
'ro'ert! from the $endee, 'lus &1++.++ for incidental e6'enses. (c) -e #rote to AlfredoOng for and in ehalf of rs.
ANonue$o and her co@o#ners offering to redeem the land in /uestion. (d)7hen his attem'ts at an out@of@court
settlement failed, he caused the filing of the com'laint in Ci$ilCase 9o. 1 for #hich he #as issued a recei't for
docet and legal research fees. (e) -e #as 'resenttogether #ith Att!. ;erango at the 're@trial of Jul! , 1*, and
although, as he claims, it #as Att!.;erango #ho made an a''earance for that 're@trial, the trial Judge nonetheless
too note ofres'ondent?s 'resence so that the Order dictated on that occasion reads: 5Att!s. ;erango and ;ercacioare
notified of the date of the trial.he 'ractice of la# is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or 'artici'ation in
court'roceedings ut also includes 're'aration of 'leadings or 'a'ers in antici'ation of a litigation, gi$ing oflegal
ad$ice to clients or 'ersons needing the same, etc.
7. De '<man 5S 5isayan "a4i6 Transit Co. -7 @IL =-9 019+92
. Cayetano 5S onso6 ,1 SC"A 1, 019912 HHH
Facts: Res'ondent Christian onsod #as nominated ! &resident CoraEon C. A/uino to the 'osition of chairman of
the CO2L2C. &etitioner o''osed the nomination ecause allegedl! onsod does not 'osses re/uired /ualification
of ha$ing een engaged in the 'ractice of la# for at least ten !ears. he 1 constitution 'ro$ides in 3ection 1, Article
IX@C: here shall e a Commission on 2lections com'osed of a Chairman and si6 Commissioners #ho shall e
natural@orn citiEens of the &hili''ines and, at the time of their a''ointment, at least thirt!@fi$e !ears of age, holders of
a college degree, and must not ha$e een candidates for an! electi$e 'osition in the immediatel! 'receding elections.
-o#e$er, a maorit! thereof, including the Chairman, shall e memers of the &hili''ine ;ar #ho ha$e een engaged
in the 'ractice of la# for at least ten !ears.
Issue: 7hether the res'ondent does not 'osses the re/uired /ualification of ha$ing engaged in the 'ractice of la# for
at least ten !ears.
-eld: In the case of &hili''ine La#!ers Association $s. Agra$a, stated: he 'ractice of la# is not limited to the conduct
of cases or litigation in court4 it emraces the 're'aration of 'leadings and other 'a'ers incident to actions and s'ecial
'roceeding, the management of such actions and 'roceedings on ehalf of clients efore udges and courts, and in
addition, con$e!ing. In general, all ad$ice to clients, and all action taen for them in matters connected #ith the la#
incor'oration ser$ices,
the foreclosure assessment
of mortgage, and condemnation
enforcement ser$ices,
of a creditor<s claimcontem'lating
in anru'tc!anand
a''earance
insol$enc!efore udicial
'roceedi ngs,od!,
and
conducting 'roceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianshi' ha$e een held to constitute la#
'ractice. &ractice of la# means an! acti$it!, in or out court, #hich re/uires the a''lication of la#, legal 'rocedure,
no#ledge, training and e6'erience.
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19=
he contention that Att!. onsod does not 'osses the re/uired /ualification of ha$ing engaged in the 'ractice of la#
for at least ten !ears is incorrect since Att!. onsod<s 'ast #or e6'erience as a la#!er@economist, a la#!er@manager,
a la#!er@entre'reneur of industr!, a la#!er@negotiator of contracts, and a la#!er@legislator of oth rich and the 'oor S
$eril! more than satisf! the constitutional re/uirement for the 'osition of CO2L2C chairman, he res'ondent has
een engaged in the 'ractice of la# for at least ten !ears does In the $ie# of the foregoing, the 'etition is DI3I332D.
1,. In "e: E6illon 7= SC"A 88= 019/72
FAC3: he res'ondent arcial A. 2dillon is a dul! licensed 'racticing Attorne! in the &hili''ines. he I;& ;oard of
Bo$ernors recommended to the Court the remo$al of the name of the res'ondent from its Roll of Attorne!s for
stuorn refusal to 'a! his memershi' dues assailing the 'ro$isions of the Rule of Court 1>@A and the 'ro$isions of
'ar. *, 3ection *, Article III, of the I;& ;!@La#s 'ertaining to the organiEation of I;&, 'a!ment ofmemershi' fee and
sus'ension for failure to 'a! the same.
2dillon contends that the stated 'ro$isions constitute an in$asion of hisconstitutional rights in the sense that he is
eing com'elled as a 're@condition to maintain his status as a la#!er in good standing, to e a memer of the I;& and
to 'a! the corres'onding dues, and that as a conse/uence of this com'elled financial su''ort of the said organiEation
to #hich he is admitted 'ersonall! antagonistic, he is eing de'ri$ed of the rights to liert! and 'ro'erl! guaranteed to
him ! the Constitution. -ence, the res'ondent concludes the ao$e 'ro$isions of the Court Rule and of the I;& ;!@
La#s are $oid and of no legal force and effect.
I33"2: 7hether or not the court ma! com'el Att!. 2dillion to 'a! his memershi' fee to the I;&.
-2LD: he Integrated ;ar is a 3tate@organiEed ;ar #hich e$er! la#!er must e a memer of as distinguished from ar
associations in #hich memershi'is merel! o'tional and $oluntar!. All la#!ers are suect to com'l! #ith the rules
'rescried for the go$ernance of the ;ar including 'a!ment a reasonale annual fees as one of the re/uirements. he
Rules of Court onl! com'els him to 'a! his annual dues and it is not in $iolation of his constitutional freedom to
associate. ;ar integration does not com'el the la#!er to associate #ith an!one. -e is free to attend or not the meeting
of his Integrated ;ar Cha'ter or $ote or refuse to $ote in its election as he chooses. he onl! com'ulsion to #hich he is
suected is the 'a!ment ofannual dues. he 3u'reme Court in order to further the 3tate<s legitimate interest in
ele$ating the /ualit! of 'rofessional legal ser$ices, ma! re/uire thet the cost of the regulator! 'rogram S the la#!ers.
3uch com'ulsion is ustified as an e6ercise of the 'olice 'o#er of the 3tate. he right to 'ractice la# efore the courts
of this countr! should e and is a matter suect to regulation and in/uir!. And if the 'o#er to im'ose the fee as a
regulator! measure is recogniEe then a 'enalt! designed to enforce its 'a!ment is not $oid as unreasonale as
aritrar!. Furthermore, the Court has urisdiction o$er matters of admission, sus'ension, disarment, and
reinstatement of la#!ers and their regulation as 'art of its inherent udicial functions and res'onsiilities thus the court
ma! com'el all memers of the Integrated ;ar to 'a! their annual dues.
11. Te>an 5S C<si *r. 8/ SC"A 18= 019/=2
1. Alcala 5S 5era 8- SC"A +, 019/=2
Facts: Jose Alcala engaged the ser$ices of Att!. -onesto De 8era to defend him in a ci$il case.
On A'ril 1, 1%>, the court rendered a decision against Alcala.
On A'ril 1, 1%>, Att!. De 8era recei$ed a co'! of the ad$erse decision. Att!. De 8era failed to inform Alcala aout the
ad$erse decision.
On Jul! 1, 1%>, the court sheriff #ent to Alcala to ser$e a #rit of e6ecution. hat #as the onl! time #hen Alcala
learned that he lost. And ecause of Att!. De 8era<s failure to inform him of the ad$erse decision, the 'eriod #ithin
#hich Alcala can a''eal his case had alread! la'sed.
As a result, in 3e'temer 1%>, Alcala filed a ci$il case against Att!. De 8era in order to collect damages as he a$erred
that he sustained damages due to Att!. De 8era<s negligence. he court ho#e$er ruled that Alcala is not entitled to
damages.
"nfettered, Alcala filed a disarment case against Att!. De 8era.
I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. De 8era should e disarred ecause of his failure to u'date his client of the status of the
case.
-2LD:
counsel9o.
for Disarment is not
Alcala ecause he#arranted in this case.
failed to u'date him ofItthe
is true thatofAtt!.
status De 8era
the case, had een
ho#e$er, remiss in
it a''ears hisAlcala
that dutiesdid
as not
sustain an! damage ! reason of such negligence. ;ut this is not to sa! that Att!. De 8era can go scot@free. he lac
of damage to Alcala #ill onl! ser$e as a mitigating circumstance. he 3u'reme Court found Att!. De 8era guilt! of
sim'le negligence and he #as se$erel! censured for his negligence. Att!. De 8era<s failure to notif! his clients of the
decision in /uestion manifests a lac of total dedication or de$otion to the client<s interest e6'ected of Att!. De
8era under the la#!er<s oath.

In this case, it can also e gleaned that not all negligence ! counsel entitles the client to collect damages from the
negligent la#!er.
1>. Catim?<han 5S Cr< 1- SC"A 19, 0197+2
1=. @y6ro "eso<rces Contractors Cor4. 5S agalila<an 1/ SC"A +99
FAC3: &etitioner cor'oration hired the 'ri$ate res'ondent Aan as its 5Legal AssistantP and recei$ed asic monthl!
salar! of &l,++.++ 'lus an initial li$ing allo#ance of &+.++ #hich graduall! increased to &>*+.++. 3e'temer , 1+,
Aan recei$ed a letter from the cor'oration informing him that he #ould e considered terminated effecti$e Octoer ,
1+, ecause of his alleged failure to 'erform his duties #ell. Aan filed a com'laint against the 'etitioner for illegal
dismissal. (he laor ariter ruled that Aan #as illegall! dismissed. (his ruling #as affirmed ! the)9LRC on a''eal.
-ence, this 'resent 'etition.
I33"2: 7hether or not there #as an em'lo!er@em'lo!ee relationshi' et#een the 'etitioner cor'oration and Aan.
-2LD: he 3u'reme Court dismissed the 'etition for lac of merit, and reinstate Aan to his former or a similar
'osition #ithout loss of seniorit! rights and to 'a! three !ears ac#ages #ithout /ualification or deduction and
&,+++.++ in attorne!?s fees. 3hould reinstatement not e feasile, the 'etitioner shall 'a! the 'ri$ate res'ondent
termination enefits in addition to the ao$e stated three !ears ac'a! and &,+++.++attorne!?s fees. A la#!er, li=e
an! other 'rofessional, ma! $er! #ell ean em'lo!ee of a 'ri$ate cor'oration or e$en of the go$ernment. (his
court has consistentl! ruled that the determination of #hether or not there is an em'lo!er@em'lo!ee relation de'ends
u'on four standards the manner of selection and engagement of the 'untati$e em'lo!ee the mode of 'a!ment of
#ages the 'resence or asence of a 'o#er of dismissal and the 'resence or asence of a 'o#er to control the
'utati$e em'lo!ee>s conduct. Of the four, the right of control test has een held to e the decisi$e factor.%n this case,
Aan recei$ed asic salar! 'lus li$ing allo#ance, #ored solel! for the 'etitioner, dealt onl! #ith legal matters in$ol$ing
the said cor'oration andits em'lo!ees and also assisted the &ersonnel officer 'rocessing a''ointment 'a'ers of
em'lo!ees #hich is not act of a la#!er in the eercise of his 'rofession. (these facts sho#ed that 'etitioner has the
'o#er to hire and fire the res'ondent em'lo!ee and more im'ortant, e6ercised control o$er Aan ! defining the duties
and functions of his #or= #hich met the four standards in determining #hether or not there is an em'lo!ee@em'lo!er
relationshi'.
1. "amos 5S "a6a -8 SC"A 1/9 019/82
Facts: oises R. Rada is a messenger in the Court of First Instance of Camarines, 9orte
-e #as charged #ith $iolation of 3ection 1* of Ci$il 3er$ice Rule X8III, #hich 'ro$ides as follo#s:
3ec.1*. 9o officer or em'lo!ee shall engage directl! in an! 'ri$ate usiness, $ocation, or 'rofession or e connected
#ith an! commercial, credit, agricult ural or industrial undertaing #ithout a #ritten 'ermission from the head of
De'artment: &ro$ided, that this 'rohiition #ill e asolute in the case of those officers and em'lo!ees #hose duties
and res'onsiilities re/uire that their entire time e at the dis'osal of the go$ernmentU
Res'ondent Rada #as e6tended a''ointment ! the A$esco areting Cor'oration on Decemer 1, 1* as
re'resentati$e to manage and su'er$ise real 'ro'erties situated in Camarines 9orte #hich #ere foreclosed ! the
cor'oration.
-is acce'tance of such a''ointment #as the asis of the administrati$e com'laint against Rada #hich #as filed #ith
the De'artment of Justice on Octoer >, 1>.
Later, on Octoer *, 1>, Rada re/uested 'ermission to acce't a''ointment.
It #as not indicated that his acce'tance and discharge of the duties as administrator has at all im'aired his efficienc!
as messenger, nor has it een sho#n that he did not oser$e regular office hours.
Issue: 7hether res'ondent Rada is guilt! of $iolation of sec.1* of Ci$il 3er$ice Rule X8III
-eld: Radaa#as
and meted adudged
'enalt! guilt! of technical $iolation (lac of 'rior 'ermission) of 3ec 1* of Ci$il 3er$ice Rule X8III
of re'rimand.
he duties of messenger Rada are generall! ministerial #hich do not re/uire that his entire da! of * hours e at the
dis'osal of the go$ernment. 3uch eing his situation, it #ould e to stifle his #illingness to a''l! himself to a
'roducti$e endea$or to augment his income, and to a#ard 'remium for slothfulness if he #ere to e anned from
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19-
engaging in or eing connected #ith a 'ri$ate undertaing outside of office hours and #ithout forseeale detriment to
the Bo$ernment ser$ice.
-is connection #ith A$esco areting Cor'oration need not e terminated, ut he must secure a #ritten 'ermission
from 'ro'er go$ernment authorit!.
1-. &eltran 5S Elaio A?a6 1+ SC"A =8+ 0197=2
FAC3: Court held res'ondent 2lmo 3. Aad a successful ar e6aminee ut has not een admitted to the &hili''ine
;ar in contem't of Court for unauthoriEed 'ractice of la# and he #as fined &++.++ #ith susidiar! im'risonment in
case he failed to 'a! the fine. (1*1 3CRA *1). -e 'aid the fine. Att!. &roco'io 3. ;eltran, Jr., the com'lainant, filed a
OIO9 O CIRC"LARIT2 O ALL 2RO A9ILA CO"R3 -2 FAC -A 2LO 3. A;AD I3 9O
A"-ORIT2D O &RACIC2 LA7. he Re'ort has found as a fact, o$er the denials of the res'ondent under oath,
that he signed 26hiits ;, C, and D, and that he made a''earances in etro anila courts. his as'ect o'ens the
res'ondent to a charge for 'erur!. he Re'ort also re$eals that Att !. Ruen A. Jacoe collaorated #ith the
res'ondent as counsels forAntonio 3. ara$illa one of the accused in Criminal Case 9os. *%+, *%+ and *%+% of
the Regional rial Court of KueEon Cit!. (26hiit D.) Att!. Jacoe should e called to account for his association #ith
the res'ondent.
Res'ondent, #hen ased aout the aforesaid motions, 26hiits 5;5 and 5D5, and the signatures therein, denied that he
filed the same and that the signatures therein are his. -e also denied that he a''eared in the hearing in the afternoon
of Decemer , 1> in the said trial court. According to him, he #as in ;atangas at the time. -e also testified that the
onl! e6'lanation he could gi$e regarding the signatures in the aforesaid e6hiits is that the same could ha$e een
effected ! Att!. ;eltran to sho# the 3u'reme Court that he (res'ondent) #as still illegall! 'racticing la#. As to the
motion for e6amination and anal!sis of res'ondent?s signature, the In$estigator, to afford res'ondent full o''ortunit! to
'ro$e his defense, sought the assistance of the 9ational ;ureau of In$estigation to com'are res'ondent?s signature in
the aforesaid e6hiits #ith the signatures a''earing in the 'leadings that he filed in the 3u'reme Court, #hich latter
signature he admits as genuine and as his o#n. he aforesaid documentar! and testimonial e$idence, as #ell as the
ao$e re'ort of the 9;I, ha$e clearl! 'ro$ed that res'ondent Aad is still 'ractici ng la# des'ite the decision of this
Court of arch *, 1>.
I33"23: 7hether or not Aad can engage in 'ractice of la#.

7hether or not Att!. Jacoe liale in his collaoration #ith the res'ondent.
-2LD: 9o. Onl! those licensed ! the 3u'reme Court ma! 'ractice la# in this countr!. he right to 'ractice la# is not
a natural or constitutional rightut is a 'ri$ilege. It is limited to 'ersons of good moral character #ith
s'ecial /ualifications dul! ascertained and certified. he e6ercise of this 'ri$ilege 'resu''oses 'ossession of integrit!,
legal no#ledge, educational attainment and e$en 'ulic trust, since a la#!er is an officer of the court. A
ar candidate does not ac/uire the right to 'ractice la# sim'l! ! 'assing the ar e6aminations. he 'ractice of la# is
a 'ri$ilege that can e #ithheld e$en from one #ho has 'assed the ar e6aminations, if the 'erson
seeingadmission had 'racticed la# #ithout license. Res'ondent Aad should no# that the circumstances #hich he
has narrated do not constitute his admissionto the &hili''ine ;ar and the right to 'ractice la# thereafter. -e should
no# that t#o essential re/uisites for ecoming a la#!er still had to e 'erformed, namel!: his la#!er?s oath to e
administered ! this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorne!s. (Rule 1>, 3ecs. 1 and 1, Rules of Court.) he
regulation of the 'ractice of la# is un/uestional! strict. "nder 3ection > (e) of Rule 1 of the Rules of Court, a 'erson
#ho engage s in the unaut horiEed 'ractice of la# is liale for indir ect contem 't of court. r. 2lmo 3. Aad is
here! fined Fi$e -undred (&++.++) 'esos 'a!ale to this Court #ithin ten (1+) da!s from notice failing #hich he shall
ser$e t#ent!@fi$e (*) da!s im'risonment.
es. -e $iolated Canon  Rule .+1 S A la#!er shall not delegate to an! un/ualified 'erson the 'erformance of an!
tas #hich ! la# ma! onl! e 'erformed ! a memer of the ;ar. in good standing. A la#!er shall not assist an!one
#ho is not a memer of the ;ar to 'ractice la# in this countr!. hus, he must not tae as 'artner or associate in his la#
firm a 'erson #ho is not a la#!er, a la#!er #ho has een disarred and a la#!er #ho has een sus'ended from
'ractice of la#. he la#!er #ho assists in an unauthoriEed 'ractice of la# #hether directl! or indirectl! is suect to
disci'linar! action. Finall!, Att!. Ruen A. Jacoe is re/uired to e6'lain #ithin ten (1+) da!s from notice #h! he should
not e disci'lined for collaorating and associating in the 'ractice of the la# #ith the res'ondent #ho is not a memer
of the ar.
1/. &araco 5S inatacan 1/ SC"A 17 0197=2

Facts: his is an administrati$e case filed against res'ondent #ith moral tur'itude and immoralit!. Com'lainant ga$e
irth to a a! girl named aria Rochie ;acarro &inatacan4 that ecause of res'ondent?s etra!al, her famil! suffered
shame, disre'ute, moral distress and an6iet!4 and, that these acts of res'ondent render him unfit to ecome a memer
of the ;ar. On the other hand, res'ondent maintains that e$en admitting the truth of com'lainant?s allegations, the
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19/
circumstances of their relationshi' #ith each other, does not ustif! him for dis/ualification to the 'ractice of la#.
Issue: 7O9 res'ondent is entitled to tae the la#!ers oath des'ite ha$ing a case in$ol$ing his good moral character
-eld: es, the court allo#ed Ruen to tae the la#!ers oath. considering that res'ondent has legall! recogniEed and
acno#ledged com'lainant?s child aria Rochie ;acarro &inatacan as his o#n, and has undertaen to gi$e financial
su''ort to the said child, 7e hold that he has realiEed the #rongfulness of his 'ast conduct and is no# 're'ared to
turn o$er a ne# leaf. ;ut he must e admonished that his admission to and continued memershi' in the ;ar are
de'endent, among others, on his com'liance #ith his moral and legal oligations as the father of aria Rochie
;acarro &inatacan.
Ratio: One of the indis'ensale re/uisites for admission to the &hili''ine ;ar is that the a''licant must e of good
moral character. his re/uirement aims to maintain and u'hold the high moral standards and the dignit! of the legal
'rofession, and one of the #a!s of achie$ing this end is to admit to the 'ractice of this nole 'rofession onl! those
'ersons #ho are no#n to e honest and to 'ossess good moral character. 5As a man of la#, (a la#!er) is necessar!
a leader of the communit!, looed u' to as a model citiEen5 -e sets an e6am'le to his fello# citiEens not onl! for his
res'ect for the la#, ut also for his clean li$ing. hus, ecoming a la#!er is more than ust going through a la# course
and 'assing the ;ar e6aminations.
17. Diao 5S artine / SC"A =/8 019-+2
19. In "e: Argosino /, SC"A - 0199/2
,. Collantes 5S "enomeron ,, SC"A 87= 019912
LA!E"GS D$TIES T% S%CIET!
1. ontecillo 5S 'ica -, SC"A += 019/=2
. In "e: '<tierre 8 SC"A --1 019-2
FAC3: Jorge ontecillo #as accused ! Francisco Bica of slander. Att!. Kuirico del ar re'resented ontecillo and
he successfull! defended onteceillo in the lo#er court. Del ar #as e$en ale to #in their counterclaim thus the
lo#er court ordered Bica to 'a! ontecillo the adudged moral damages.
Bica a''ealed the a#ard of damages to the Court of A''eals #here the latter court re$ersed the same. Att!. Del ar
then filed a motion for reconsideration #here he made a $eiled threat against the Court of A''eals udges intimating
that he thins the CA ustices no#ingl! rendered an unust decisionP and udgment has een rendered through
negligenceP and that the CA allo#ed itself to e decei$ed.
he CA denied the FR and it admonished Att!. Del ar from using such tone #ith the court. Del ar then filed a
second FR #here he again made threats. he CA then ordered del ar to sho# cause as to #h! he should not e
'unished for contem't.
hereafter, del ar sent the three CA ustices a co'! of a letter #hich he sent to the &resident of the &hili''ines asing
the said ustices to consider the CA udgment. ;ut the CA did not re$erse its udgment. Del ar then filed a ci$il case
against the three ustices of the CA efore a Ceu lo#er court ut the ci$il case #as e$entuall! dismissed ! reason of
a com'romise agreement #here del ar agreed to 'a! damages to the ustices. 2$entuall!, the CA sus'ended Att!.
Del ar from 'ractice.
he issue reached the 3u'reme Court. Del ar ased the 3C to re$erse his sus'ension as #ell as the CA decision as
to the ontecillo case. he 3C denied oth and this earned the ire of del ar as he demanded from the Cler of the
3u'reme Court as to #ho #ere the udges #ho $oted against him.
he 3u'reme Court then directed del ar to sumit an e6'lanation as to #h! he should not e disci'lined. Del ar in
his e6'lanation instead tried to ustif! his actions e$en stating that had he not een con$inced that human efforts in
Q'ursuing the case #ill e fruitlessP he #ould ha$e continued #ith the ci$il case against the CA ustices. In his
e6'lanation, del ar also intimated that e$en the 3u'reme Court is 'art among the corru't, the grafters and those
allegedl! committing inusticeP.
Del ar e$en filed a ci$il case against some 3u'reme Court ustices ut the udge #ho handled the case dismissed
the same.
I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. Del ar should e sus'ended.
-2LD:
it is his es.
s#ornAtt!.
andDel ar,dut!
moral ! his contem'tuous
to hel' actsdestro!
uild and not is in $iolation of his duties
unnecessaril!the to esteem
high the courts.
andAs an officer
regard of the
to#ards thecourt,
court
so essential to the 'ro'er administration of ustice.
It is manifest that del ar has scant res'ect for the t#o highest Courts of the land #hen on the flims! ground of alleged
error in deciding a case, he 'roceeded to challenge the integrit! of oth Courts ! claiming that the! no#ingl!
rendered unust udgment. In short, his allegation is that the! acted #ith intent and malice, if not #ith gross ignorance
of the la#, in dis'osing of the case of his client. Del ar #as then sus'ended indefinitel!.
+. %ronce 5S CA 97 SC"A 1++ 019772
Facts: During a dis'ute o$er land, Flaminiano illegall! too 'ossession of the 'ro'ert! in litigati on using ausi$e
methods. 3he #as aided ! her husand, a la#!er. he illegal entr! too 'lace #hile the case #as 'ending in the CA
 #hile a #rit of 'reliminar! inunction #as in force.
-eld: Att!. Flaminiano<s acts of entering the 'ro'ert! #ithout the consent of its occu'ants  in contra$ention of the
e6isting #rit or 'reliminar! inunction  maing utterances sho#ing disres'ect for the la#  this Court, are unecoming
of a memer of the ;ar. Although he sa!s that the! 'eacefull!P too o$er the 'ro'ert!, such 'eacefulP tae@o$er
cannot ustif! defiance of the #rit of 'reliminar! inunction that he ne# #as still in force. hrough his acts, he has
flouted his duties as a memer of the legal 'rofession. "nder the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!, he is 'rohiited
from counseling or aetting acti$ities aimed at defiance of the la# or at lessening confidence in the legal s!stem.P
=. De !sasi 5S (L"C +1 SC"A 1/+ 0199=2
FAC3: Jon De sasi and Jon De sasi III are father and sons res'ecti$el!. he elder sasi o#ns a hacienda in
9egros Occidental. De sasi III is em'lo!ed in the hacienda as the farm administrator. In 9o$emer 1*, De sasi III
under#ent surger! and so he missed #or. -e #as confined and #hile he<s nursing from his infections he #as
terminated, #ithout due 'rocess, ! his father. De sasi III filed against his father for illegal dismissal efore the
9ational Laor Relations Commission. -is father in$oed that his son actuall! aandoned his #or.
I33"2: 7hether or not De sasi III aandoned his #or.
-2LD: 9o. -is asence from #or does not constitute aandonment. o constitute aandonment, there must e a.)
failure to re'ort for #or or asence #ithout $alid or ustifiale reason, and .) a clear intention to se$er the em'lo!er@
em'lo!ee relationshi', #ith the second element as the more determinati$e factor and eing manifested ! some o$ert
acts. 9o such intent #as 'ro$en in this case.
he 3u'reme Court, in maing its decision, noted that the la#!ers for oth cam's failed to e6ert all reasonale efforts
to smooth o$er legal conflicts, 'referal! out of court and es'eciall! in consideration of the direct and immediate
consanguineous ties et#een their clients es'eciall! considering that the 'arties in$ol$ed are father and son. his
case ma! ha$e ne$er reached the courts had there een an earnest effort ! the la#!ers to ha$e oth 'arties find an
off court settlement ut records sho# that no such effort #as made. he useful function of a la#!er is not onl! to
conduct litigation ut to a$oid it #hene$er 'ossile ! ad$ising settlement or #ithholding suit. -e is often called u'on
less for dramatic forensic e6'loits than for #ise counsel in e$er! 'hase of life. -e should e a mediator for concord
and a conciliator for com'romise, rather than a $irtuoso of technicalit! in the conduct of litigation.
Rule 1.+ of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! e6'licitl! 'ro$ides that (a) la#!er shall encourage his client to
a$oid, end or settle the contro$ers! if it #ill admit of a fair settlement.P ;oth counsel fell short of #hat #as e6'ected of
them, des'ite their a$o#ed duties as officers of the court. In the same manner, the laor ariter #ho handled this
regrettale case has een less than faithful to the letter and s'irit of the Laor Code mandating that a laor ariter
shall e6ert all efforts to#ards the amicale settlement of a laor dis'ute #ithin his urisdiction.P If he e$er did so, or at
least entertained the thought, the co'ious records of the 'roceedings in this contro$ers! are arren of an! reflection of
the same.
8. a>ares 5S A?a6 Santos +, SC"A /=7 019-92
-. eo4le 5S "os<eta 88 SC"A =7- 019/=2
FAC3: Ros/ueta Jr and t#o others #ere con$icted of a crime. he! a''eal their con$iction until it reached the
3u'reme Court. heir la#!er (counsel de 'arte), Att!. Bregorio 2stacio, failed to file their ;rief. And so the 3u'reme
Court ordered Att!. 2stacio to sho# cause #h! he should not e disci'lined for failure to file said ;rief. Att!. 2stacio
failed !et again to sumit his e6'lanation. he 3u'reme Court then sus'ended him from the 'ractice of la# e6ce't for
the 'ur'ose of filing the ;rief in this 'articular case. Att!. 2stacio then filed a otion for Reconsideration #here he
e6'lained that he did actuall! 're'are an e6'lanation the same eing left #ith Ros/ueta 3r (father of accused) for the
latter to mail it. ;ut then Ros/ueta 3r.<s house urned do#n together #ith the e6'lanation. -e onl! came to no# of
this fact #hen he #as 're'aring for the otion for Reconsideration.
Att!. 2stacio also e6'lained that his clients are #ithdra#ing their a''eal ! reason of their failure to raise the needed
fund for the a''eal.

I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. 2stacio<s sus'ension should continue.
-2LD: 9o. -is liailit! is mitigated. ;ut the 3u'reme Court noted that Att!. 2stacio has een irres'onsile, has een
negligent and inattenti$e to his dut! to his clients. Att!. 2stacio should e a#are that e$en in those cases #here
counsel de 'arte is unale to secure from his clients or from their near relati$es the amount necessar! to 'ursue the
a''eal, that does not necessaril! conclude his connection #ith the case. -e should e a#are that in the 'ursuance of
the dut! o#ed this Court as #ell as to a client, he cannot e too casual and unconcerned aout the filing of 'leadings.
It is not enough that he 're'ares them4 he must see to it that the! are dul! mailed. 3uch inattention as sho#n in this
case is ine6cusale.
/. De "oy 5S CA 18/ SC"A /8/ 019772
FAC3: he fire#all of a urned out uilding o#ned ! Felisa De Ro! colla'sed and destro!ed the tailoring sho'
occu'ied ! the famil! of Luis ;ernal resulting in inuries and e$en to the death of ;ernal<s daughter. De Ro! claimed
that ;ernal had een #arned 'rior hand ut that she #as ignored.
In the RC, De Ro! #as found guilt! of gross negligence. 3he a''ealed ut the Court of A''eals affirmed the RC.
On the last da! of filing a motion for reconsideration, De Ro!<s counsel filed a motion for e6tension. It #as denied !
the CA. he CA ruled that 'ursuant to the case of -aalu!as 2nter'rises $s Ja'Eon (August 1), the fifteen@da!
'eriod for a''ealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot e e6tended.
De Ro!<s counsel ho#e$er argued that the -aalu!as case should not e a''licale ecause said ruling #as ne$er
'ulished in the Official BaEette.
I33"2: 7hether or not 3u'reme Court decisions must e 'ulished in the Official BaEette efore the! can e inding.
-2LD: 9o. here is no la# re/uiring the 'ulication of 3u'reme Court decision in the Official BaEette efore the! can
e inding and as a condition to their ecoming effecti$e. It is ounden dut! of counsel as la#!er in acti$e la# 'ractice
to ee' areast of decisions of the 3u'reme Court 'articularl! #here issues ha$e een clarified, consistentl! reiterated
and 'ulished in the ad$ance re'orts of 3u'reme Court decisions and in such 'ulications as the 3CRA and la#
ournals.
7. Far Eastern Shi44ing Co. 5S CA
I(T"%D$CTI%(  ADISSI%( T% "ACTICE
(1@ ! illicent &angilinan)
1. Director of "eligio<s Affairs )s. &ayot
Facts: Res'ondent is charged #ith mal'ractice for ha$ing 'ulished an ad$ertisement in 3unda! riunal on June 1>,
1> #hich reads as follo#s S
arriage license 'rom'tl! secured thru our assistance and the anno!ance of dela! or 'ulicit! a$oided if desired and
marriage arranged to #ishes of 'arties. Consultation on an! matter free for the 'oor. 2$er!thing confidential.
Legal assistance ser$ice

1* 2scolta, anila
Room 1+, el. *@1@%+P
Issue: 7hether or not the ad$ertisement is ethical.
-eld: It is undeniale that the ad$ertisement in /uestion #as aflagrant $iolation ! the res'ondent of the ethics of his
'rofession, it eing a raEen solicitation of usiness from the 'ulic. 3ection * of Rule 1* e6'ressl! 'ro$ides among
other things that the 'ractice of soliciting cases at la# for the 'ur'ose of gain, either 'ersonall! or through 'aid agents
or roers, constitutes mal'ractice.P It is highl! unethical for an attorne! to ad$ertise his talents or sill as a
merchant ad$ertises his #ares. La# is a 'rofession and a trade. he la#!er degrades himself and his 'rofession #ho
stoo's to and ado'ts the 'ractice of merchantilism ! ad$ertising his ser$ices or offering them to the 'ulic. As a
memer of the ar, he defiles the tem'le of ustice #ith mercenar! acti$ities as the mone!@changers of old defiled the
tem'le of Jeho$ah. he most #orth! and effecti$e ad$ertisement 'ossile, e$en for a !oung la#!er is the
estalishment of a #ell@merited re'utation for 'rofessional ca'acit! and fidelit! to trust. his cannot e forced ut must
e the outcome of character and conduct.P (Canon *, Code of 2thics.)
*. Le6esma ). Climaco '" (o. 1718 *<ne 7 19/=
Facts: &etitioner Ledesma #as assigned as counsel de 'arte for an accused in a case 'ending in the sala of the
res'ondent udge.
On Octoer 1>, 1%, Ledesma #as a''ointed 2lection Registrar for the unici'alit! of CadiE, 9egros Occidental. -e
commenced discharging his duties, and filed a motion to #ithdra# from his 'osition as counsel de 'arte.
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19+,
he res'ondent Judge not onl! denied the motion ut also a''ointed him as counsel de oficio for the t#o defendants.
On 9o$emer >, 1%, 'etitioner filed an urgent motion to e allo#ed to #ithdra# as counsel de oficio, 'remised on
the 'olic! of the Commission on 2lections to re/uire full time ser$ice as #ell as on the $olume or 'ressure of #or of
'etitioner, #hich could 're$ent him from handling ade/uatel! the defense.
On 9o$emer %, Judge denied the motion. -ence, Ledesma instituted this certiorari 'roceeding.
Issue: 7hether or not a memer of the ar ma! #ithdra# as counsel de oficio due to a''ointment as 2lection
Registrar.
-eld: he ends of ustice #ould e ser$ed ! re/uiring Ledesma to continue as counsel de oficio ecause: the case
has een 'ost'oned at least  times at the defense?s instance4 there #as no incom'atiilit! et#een dut! of 'etitioner
to defend the accused, and his tas as an election registrar. here is not liel! at 'resent, and in the immediate future,
an e6oritant demand on his time.
Ledesma?s #ithdra#al #ould e an act sho#ing his lac of fidelit! to the dut! re/uired of the legal 'rofession. -e ought
to ha$e no#n that memershi' in the ar is urdened #ith conditions. he legal 'rofession is dedicated to the ideal of
ser$ice, and is not a mere trade. A la#!er ma! e re/uired to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the 'erformance of the
administration of ustice. he fact that such ser$ices are rendered #ithout 'a! should not diminish the la#!er?s Eeal.
In &eo'le $. -olgado: In criminal cases there can e no fair hearing unless the accused e gi$en an o''ortunit! to e
heard ! counsel. he right to e heard #ould e of little a$ail if it does not include the right to e heard ! counsel.
2$en the most intelligent or educatedman ma! ha$e no sill in the science of la#, 'articularl! in the rules of 'rocedure,
and4 #ithout counsel, he ma! e con$icted not ecause he is guilt! ut ecause he does not no# ho# to estalish his
innocence. And this can ha''en more easil! to 'ersons #ho are ignorant or uneducated. It is for this reason that the
right to e assisted ! counsel is deemed so im'ortant that it has ecome a constitutional right and it is so
im'lemented that under rules of 'rocedure it is not enough for the Court to a''rise an accused of his right to ha$e an
attorne!, it is not enough to as him #hether he desires the aid of an attorne!, ut it is essential that the court should
assign one de oficio for him if he so desires and he is 'oor or grant him a reasonale time to 'rocure an attorne! of his
o#n.P
he 'resent Constitution 'ro$ides not onl! that the accused shall eno! the right to e heard ! himself and counselP
ut further 'ro$ides that An! 'erson under in$estigation for the commission of an offense shall ha$e the right to
remain silent and to counsel, and to e informed of such right. 9o force, $iolence, threat, intimidation, or an! other
means #hich $itiates the free #ill shall e used against him. An! confession otained in $iolation of this section shall
e inadmissile in e$idence.P his made manifest the indis'ensale role of a memer of the ;ar in the defense of the
accused.
hus, Ledesma should e6ert himself sufficientl!, if not #ith Eeal, if onl! to erase douts as to his fitness to remain a
memer of the 'rofession in good standing. he admonition is e$er timel! for those enrolled in the rans of legal
'ractitioners that there are times, and this is one of them, #hen dut! to court and to client taes 'recedence o$er the
'rom'tings of self@interest.
>. C<si ). 11 Scra /88 019-=2
FAC3:
@-os'icio is a charitale institution esta lished ! the s'ouses Don &edro Cui and Dona ;enig na Cui, no#
deceased, 5for the care and su''ort, free of charge, of indigent in$alids, and inca'acitated and hel'less
'ersons.5 It ac/uired cor'orate e6istence ! legislation and endo#ed #ith e6tensi$e 'ro'erties ! the said s'ouses
through a series of donations, 'rinci'all! the deed of donation.@3ection * of Act 9o. >*> ga$e the initial
management to the founders ointl! and, incase of their inca'acit! or death, to 5such 'ersons as the! ma!
nominate or designate, in the order 'rescried to them.5@Don &edro Cui died in 1*%, and his #ido# continued
to administer the -os'icio until her death in 1*. hereu'on the administration 'assed to auricio Cui and Dionisio
Jaosalem #ho oth died. Dr. eodoro Cui, onl! son of auricio Cui, ecame the administrator.@&laintiff Jesus
a. Cui and defendant Antonio a. Cui are rothers, eing the sons of ariano Cui, one of the ne'he#s of the
s'ouses Don &edro Cui and DoNa ;enigna Cui.On * Feruar! 1%+ the then incument administrator, Dr. eodoro
Cui, resigned
a notarial infa$or of
document. heAntonio a. *
ne6t da!, CuiFeruar!,
'ursuantAntonio
to a 5con$enio5
a. Cui tooentered
his oathinto et#een
of office. them
Jesus and ho#e$er,
a. Cui, emodiedhad
in
no 'rior notice of either the 5con$enio5 or of his rother?s assum'tion of the 'osition.@Dr. eodoro Cui died on August
*, 1%+4 on 3e't  1%+ the 'laintiff #rote a letter to the defendant demanding that the office e turned o$er to him4
and the demand not ha$ing een com'lied #ith the 'laintiff filed the com'laint in this case. Romulo Cui later on
inter$ened, claiming a right to the same office, eing a grandson of 8icente Cui,another one of the ne'he#s mentioned
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19+1
! the founders of the -os'icio in their deed of donation.@As et#een Jesus and Antonio the main issue turns u'on
their res'ecti$e /ualifications tothe 'osition of administrator. Jesus is the older of the t#o and therefore under
e/ual circumstances #ould e 'referred 'ursuant to section * of the deed of donation. -o#e$er,efore the test of age
ma! e, a''lied the deed gi$es 'reference to the one, among the legitimate descendants of the
ne'he#s therein named, 5/ue 'osea titulo de aogado, omedico, o ingeniero ci$il, o farmaceutico, o a falta de estos
titulos el /ue 'ague al estadoma!or im'uesto o contriucion.5@he s'ecific 'oint in dis'ute is the meaning of the term
5titulo de aogado.5 Jesus a.Cui holds the degree of ;achelor of La#s from the "ni$ersit! of 3anto omas
(Class1*%) ut is not a memer of the ;ar, not ha$ing 'assed the e6aminations to /ualif! himas one. Antonio a.
Cui, on the other hand, is a memer of the ;ar and althoughdisarred ! this Court, he #as reinstated ! resolution
'romulgated on 1+ Feruar!1%+, aout t#o #ees efore he assumed the 'osition of administrator of the -os'iciode
;arili
.@Court a /uo
@ decided in fa$or of the 'laintiff, said that the 'hrase 5titulo de aogado,5taen alone, means that of a full@fledged
la#!er, ut that has used in the deed of donation and considering the function or 'ur'ose of the administrator, it should
not e gi$en a strict inter'retation ut a lieral one,5 and therefore means a la# degree or di'loma of ;achelor of
La#s. his ruling is assailed as erroneous oth ! the defendant and ! he inter$enor
I33"2: 7O9 the 'laintiff is not entitled, as against the defendant, to the office of administrator.
(23)
RAIO: 7hether taen alone or in conte6t the term 5titulo de aogado5 means not mere 'ossession of the academic
degree of ;achelor of La#s ut memershi' in the ;ar after due admission thereto, /ualif!ing one for the 'ractice of
la#. A ;achelor?s degree alone, conferred ! a la# school u'on com'letion of certain academic
re/uirements, does not entitle its holder to e6ercise the legal 'rofession. he 2nglish e/ui$alent of 5aogado5 is la#!er
or attorne!@at@la#. his term has a fi6ed and general signification, and has reference to that class of 'ersons #ho are
! license officers of the courts, em'o#ered to a''ear, 'rosecute and defend, and u'on #hom 'eculiar duties,
res'onsiilities and liailities are de$ol$ed ! la# as a conse/uence. In this urisdiction admission to the ;ar and to the
com'letion of the 'rescried courses ma! e sho#n in some other #a!. Indeed there are instances,
'articularl! under the former Code of Ci$il &rocedure, #here 'ersons #ho had not gone through an! formal legal
education in college #ere allo#ed to tae the ;ar e6aminations and to /ualif! as la#!ers. (3ection 1 of that code
re/uired 'ossession of 5the necessar! /ualifications of learning ailit!.5) et certainl! it #ould e incorrect to sa! that
such 'ersons do not 'ossess the 5titulo de aogado5 ecause the! lac the academic degree of ;achelorof La#s
from some la# school or uni$ersit!. he founders of the -os'icio de 3an Jose de ;arili must ha$e estalished the
foregoing test ad$isel!, and 'ro$ided in the deed of donation that if not a la#!er, the administrator should e a doctor
or a ci$il engineer or a 'harmacist, in that order4 or failing all these, should e theone#ho 'a!s the highest ta6es
among those other#ise /ualified. A la#!er, first of all, ecause under Act 9o. >*> the managers or trustees of the
-os'icio shall 5mae regulations for the go$ernment of said institution4 shall 5'rescrie the conditions suect
to #hich in$alids and inca'acitated and destitute 'ersons ma! e admitted to the institute54 shall see to it that the
rules and conditions 'romulgated for admission are not in conflict #ith the 'ro$isions of the Act4 and shall administer
'ro'erties of considerale $alue M for all of #hich #or, it is to e 'resumed, a #oring no#ledge of the la# and a
license to 'ractice the 'rofession #ould eadistinct asset."nder this 'articular criterion #e hold that the 'laintiff is not
entitled, as against thedefendant, to the office of administrator.
As far as moral character is concerned, the standard re/uired of one seeing reinstatement to the office
of attorne! cannot e less e6acting than that im'lied in 'aragra'h > of the deed of donation as a re/uisite for the office
#hich is dis'uted in this case. 7hen the defendant #as restored to the roll of la#!ers the restrictions and
disailities resulting from his 're$ious disarment #ere #i'ed out.For the claim of inter$ener and a''ellant Romulo
Cui. his 'art! is also a la#!er, grandsonof 8icente Cui, one of the ne'he#s of the founders of the -os'icio mentioned
! them in thedeed of donation. -e is further, in the line of succession, than defendant Antonio a. Cui,#ho is a son of
ariano Cui, another one of the said ne'he#s.;esides eing a nearer descendant than Romulo Cui, Antonio a. Cui
is older than he andtherefore is 'referred #hen the circumstances are other#ise e/ual. he inter$enor contends that
the intention of the founders #as to confer the administration ! line and successi$el! tot he descendants of
the ne'he#s named in the deed, in the order the! are named. hus, hear guess, since the last administrator #as Dr.
eodoro Cui, #ho elonged to the auricio Cuiline, the ne6t administrator must come from the line of 8icente
Cui, to #hom the inter$en or elongs. his inter'retation, ho#e$er, is not ustified ! the terms of the deed of
donation.
. 5illegas ). Legas4i 11+ scra +9 01972
11>
his3CRA
case is>a Sconsolidation
&olitical La#of
S t#o
he cases
Legislati$e De'artment
in$ol$ing S of
the issue A''earance
#hether orinnot
Court ! a Congressman
a memer of Congress ma! a''ear
efore the regular courts as counsel for ordinar! litigants.
Case 1
In 3e'temer 1, Raul 8illegas filed a ci$il case against s'ouses 8era CruE et al efore the Court of First Instance
(CFI) Ceu. he 8era CruE s'ouses filed their ans#er to the com'laint and the! #ere re'resented ! 8alentino
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19+
Legas'i, then a memer of the ;atasang &amansa. 8illegas then challenged the re'resentation made ! Legas'i as
counsel for the s'ouses on the ground that it is unconstitutional4 as 'ointed out ! 8illegas no memer of the
;atasang &amansa shall a''ear as counsel efore an! court #ithout a''ellate urisdictionP. he 'residing udge
ho#e$er o$erruled 8illegas< challenged and 'roceeded #ith the trial. he udge said that CFIs ha$e a''ellate
urisdiction.
Case *
In Jul! 1, 2dgardo Re!es filed a ci$il case against 9. 8. 8erenigde ;uinEenfarieen 26celsior@De aas, a
cor'oration, efore CFI RiEal. 2stanisalo FernandeE a''eared as counsel for the cor'oration. Re!es /uestions the
a''earance of FernandeE as counsel for the cor'oration on the same ground in$oed in Case 1 ecause FernandeE is
also a memer of the ;atasang &amansa.
I33"2: 7hether or not the said memers, 2stanislao FernandeE and 8alentino Legas'i, of the ;atasang &amansa
ma! a''ear as counsels efore the said CFIs.
-2LD: 9o. emers of Congress are 'rohiited to a''ear as counsel erfore CFI<s acting in their original
urisdiction. CFI<s ha$e dual 'ersonalities. he! can e courts of general srcinal urisdiction (courts of srcin) or
a''ellate courts de'ending on the case that the! too cogniEance of. In the cases at ar, CFI Ceu and CFI RiEal
acted as a courts of general srcinal urisdiction. ;oth cases #ere not ele$ated to the said CFIs from an! lo#er courts.
hus, the CFIs in the case at ar are courts #ithout a''ellate urisdictionP.
9O2: "nder 3ection 1, Article 8I of the 1 Constitution:
9o 3enator or memer of the -ouse of Re'resentati$es ma! 'ersonall! a''ear as counsel efore an! court of ustice
or efore the 2lectoral riunals, or /uasi@udicial and other administrati$e odies. 9either shall he, directl! or
indirectl!, e interested financiall! in an! contract #ith, or in an! franchise or s'ecial 'ri$ilege granted ! the
Bo$ernment, or an! sudi$ision, agenc!, or instrumentalit! thereof, including an! go$ernment@o#ned or controlled
cor'oration, or its susidiar!, during his term of office. -e shall not inter$ene in an! matter efore an! office of the
Bo$ernment for his 'ecuniar! enefit or #here he ma! e called u'on to act on account of his office.
A''earance of the legislator is no# arred efore all courts of ustice, regardless of ran, com'osition, or urisdiction.
he dis/ualification also a''lies to the re$i$ed 2lectoral riunal and to all administrati$e odies, lie the 3ecurities
and 26change Commission and the 9ational Laor Relations Commission. Courts martial and militar! triunals, eing
administrati$e agencies, are included.
. Enri<e ). 'imene /,1 hil 9+
Facts: R.A. 9o. 1>> #as 'assed creating the 9ational 7ater#ors and 3e#erage Authorit! (9A7A3A) as a 'ulic
cor'oration and $esting in it the o#nershi' and control o$er all e6isting go$ernment@o#ned #ater#ors s!stems.
-o#e$er, ;auan ;atangas 'assed Res. 9o. 1* stating that it does not desire to sumit their local #ater#ors to the
'ro$isions of said R.A. 9o. 1>>.
&ro$incial Fiscal rendered an o'inion holding that R.A. 9o. 1>> is $alid and constitutional and declined to re'resent
the munici'alit! of ;auan in an action to e rought against the 9A7A3A to test the $alidit! and constitutionalit! of the
Act. Bi$en this, the munici'alit! engaged the ser$ices of a s'ecial counsel to commence an action challenging
the constitutionalit! of R.A. 9o. 1>>.
he &etitioners are the s'ecial counsel seeing reimursement for initial attorne!<s fees, #hich the Auditor Beneral
disallo#ed citing that the unici'alit! of ;auan had no authorit! to engage the ser$ices of a s'ecial counsel
Issue: 7hether munici'alit! of ;auan had authorit! to engage the ser$ices of a s'ecial counsel
-eld: 9o. he &ro$incial Fiscal is the legal ad$iser of the ma!or and counsel of the $arious munici'alities of a 'ro$ince
and it is his dut! to re'resent the munici'alit! in an! court e6ce't #hen he isdis/ualified ! la#, #hich in this case he is
not. A fiscal cannot refuse the 'erformance of his functions on grounds not 'ro$ided for ! la# #ithout $iolating his
oath of office. Instead of engaging the ser$ices of a s'ecial attorne!, the munici'al council should ha$e re/uested the
3ecretar! of Justice to a''oint an acting 'ro$incial fiscal in 'lace of the 'ro$incial fiscal #ho had declined to handle
and 'rosecute its case in court.
he ser$ices of the 'etitioner ha$ing een engaged ! the munici'al council and ma!or #ithout authorit! of la#, the
Auditor Beneral #as correct in disallo#ing in audit the 'etitioner?s claim for 'a!ment ofattorne!?s fees.
(%@1+ ! Fr. Ramil 2s'lana)

%. Salce6o ). @ernan6e -1 hil /= 019+82
%1 &hil. * S Legal 2thics S Res'ect to the Courts S "se of em'erate Language
In 1>, Att!. 8icente Francisco #as the counsel for Feli'e 3alcedo in a case entitled Feli'e 3alcedo $s Francisco
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19++
-ernandeE. 3alcedo lost in that case and Att!. Francisco filed a otion for Reconsideration.
he trial court ho#e$er ordered Att!. Francisco to e6'lain #h! he should not e disci'lined. It a''ears that in the
otion filed ! Att!. Francisco, he e6'ressed his disagreement #ith the udgment ! stating that the udgment is
asolutel! erroneous and constitutes an outrage to the right of Q3alcedoP and a mocer! of the 'o'ular #ill
e6'ressed at the 'olls in the unici'alit! of iaong, a!aasP S (so this could e an election case)4 that the court
should rectif! itself or else the $oters in iaong might resort to the 'ress 'ulicl! to denounceU the udicial outrageP
and that if uncorrected, the udgment #ill lead to the increase Qof the 'rosel!tes (ne# con$erts) of sadalismP and
mae the 'ulic lose confidence in the administration of ustice.P
I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. Francisco should e disci'lined.
-2LD: es. -e is guilt! of contem't. A la#!er o#es res'ect to the courts. A la#!er is dut! ound to u'hold the court<s
dignit! and authorit! and to defend its integrit!. he language used ! Att!. Francisco is uncalled for and unustified. In
order to a''eal to reason and ustice, it is highl! im'ro'er and amiss to mae troule and resort to threats. 2$en if
assuming that the trial court did err in its udgment, Att!. Francisco should still use tem'erate and res'ectful language
in ad$ancing the cause of his client.
-is insinuations that the $oters in iaong, a!aas might resort to sadalism (a seditious mo$ement) is a suggestion to
the 'eo'le there of #hat the! should do should his client not get a fa$orale udgment. his is a $eiled threat to the
courts. It 'romotes distrust to the courts.
It is laudale for Att!. Francisco to defend his client #ith all fer$or and energ! ut he must do so #ith res'ect to the
dignit! of the courts. he la#!er #as fined and re'rimanded.
9ote: Justice alcolm dissented4 Att!. Francisco is 'rotected ! Freedom of 3'eech.
/. Alawi ). Ala<ya -7 Scra -7 0199/2
Facts:
3o'hia Ala#i #as a sales re'resentati$e of 2.;. 8illarosa  &artners Co., Ltd. of Da$ao Cit!, a real estate and housing
com'an!. Ashari . Alau!a is the incument e6ecuti$e cler of court of the th Judicial 3hari?a District in ara#i Cit!,
he! #ere classmates, and used to e friends.
hrough Ala#i?s agenc!, a contract #as e6ecuted for the 'urchase on installments ! Alau!a of one of the housing
units of 8illarosa. In connection, a housing loan #as also granted to Alau!a ! the 9ational -ome ortgage Finance
Cor'oration (9-FC).
9ot long after#ards, Alau!a addressed a letter to the &resident of 8illarosa  Co. ad$ising of the termination of his
contract #ith the com'an!. -e claimed that his consent #as $itiated ecause Ala#i had resorted to gross
misre'resentation, deceit, fraud, dishonest! and ause of confidence. -e laso #rote similar letters to the 8ice
&resident of 8illarosa and the 8ice &resident of 9-FC.
On learning of Alau!a?s letters, Ala#i filed an administrati$e com'laint against him. One of her grounds #as Alau!a<s
usur'ation of the title of 5attorne!,5 #hich onl! regular memers of the &hili''ine ;ar ma! 'ro'erl! use.
Alau!a ustified his use of the title, 5attorne!,5 ! the assertion that it is 5le6icall! s!non!mous5 #ith 5Counsellors@at@
la#.5 a title to #hich 3hari?a la#!ers ha$e a rightful claim, adding that he 'refers the title of 5attorne!5 ecause
5counsellor5 is often mistaen for 5councilor,5 5onsehal5 or the aranao term 5consial,5 connoting a local legislator
eholden to the ma!or. 7ithal, he does not consider himself a la#!er.
Issue:
7hether or not Alau!a, a memer of the 3hari<a ar, can use the title of Attorne!
-eld:
-e can<t. he title is onl! reser$ed to those #ho 'ass the regular &hili''ine ar.
As regards Alau!a?s use of the title of 5Attorne!,5 this Court has alread! had occasion to declare that 'ersons #ho 'ass
the 3hari?a ;ar are not full@fledged memers of the &hili''ine ;ar, hence ma! onl! 'ractice la# efore 3hari?a courts.
7hile one #ho has een admitted to the 3hari?a ;ar, and one #ho has een admitted to the &hili''ine ;ar, ma! oth
e considered 5counsellors,5 in the sense that the! gi$e counsel or ad$ice in a 'rofessional ca'acit!, onl! the latter is
an 5attorne!.5 he title of 5attorne!5 is reser$ed to those #ho, ha$ing otained the necessar! degree in the stud! of la#
and successfull! taen the ;ar 26aminations, ha$e een admitted to the Integrated ;ar of the &hili''ines and remain
memers thereof in good standing4 and it is the! onl! #ho are authoriEed to 'ractice la# in this urisdiction.
. angan ). "amos 9+ Scra 7/ 019/92
> 3CRAa
In 1, S Legal
'ending 2thics S Laccase
administrati$e of Candor
filed !!3anta
a La#!er S &ro'er
&angan name
against Att!.toDionisio
e usedRamos
! a la#!er
#as dela!ed ecause Att!.
Ramos allegedl! a''eared efore a court in anila. 7hen the records of the said case #as checed (one #hich Att!.
Ramos a''eared in), it #as found that he used the name Att!. &edro D.D. RamosP. In his defense, Att!. Ramos said
he has the right to use such name ecause in his irth certificate, his name listed #as &edro Dionisio Ramos. D.D.P
stands for Dionisio Da!a# #ith Da!a# eing his mother<s surname. -o#e$er, in the roll of attorne!s, his name listed
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19+=
#as Dionisio D. Ramos.
I33"2: 7hether or not #hat Att!. Ramos did #as correct.
-2LD: 9o. he attorne!<s roll or register is the official record containing the names and signatures of those #ho are
authoriEed to 'ractice la#. A la#!er is not authoriEed to use a name other than the one inscried in the Roll of
Attorne!s in his 'ractice of la#. he official oath oliges the attorne! solemnl! to s#ear that he #ill do no falsehood. As
an officer in the tem'le of ustice, an attorne! has irrefragale oligations of truthfulness, candor and franness. In
re'resenting himself to the court as &edro D.D. RamosP instead of Dionisio D. RamosP, res'ondent has $iolated his
solemn oath and has resorted to dece'tion. he 3u'reme Court hence se$erel! re'rimanded Att!. Ramos and #arned
that a similar infraction #ill #arrant sus'ension or disarment.
. hili44ines Lawyer#s Association ). Agra)a 1,8 hil 1/+ 019892
&-ILI&&I92 LA72R<3 A33OCIAIO9 83. C2L2DO9IO ABRA8A,in his ca'acit! as Director of the &hili''ines
&atent OfficeFAC3:
A 'etition #as filed ! the 'etitioner for 'rohiition and inunction against Celedonio Agra$a, in his ca'acit! as Director
of the &hili''ines &atent Office. On a! *, 1, res'ondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had
scheduled for June *, 1 an e6amination forthe 'ur'ose of determining #ho are /ualified to 'ractice as 'atent
attorne!s efore the &hili''ines &atent Office. he 'etitioner contends that one #ho has 'assed the ar e6aminations
and is licensed ! the 3u'reme Court to 'ractice la# in the &hili''ines and #ho is in good standing, is dul! /ualified to
'ractice efore the &hili''ines &atent Office and that the res'ondent Director<s holding an e6amination for the 'ur'ose
is in e6cess of his urisdiction and is in $iolation of the la#. he res'ondent, in re'l!, maintains the 'rosecution of
'atent cases  does not in$ol$e entirel! or 'urel! the 'ractice of la# ut includes the a''lication of scientific and
technical no#ledge and training as a matter of actual 'ractice so as to include engineers and other indi$iduals #ho
'assed the e6amination can 'ractice efore the &atent office. Furthermore, he stressed that for the long time he is
holding tests, this is the first time that his right has een /uestioned formall!.
I33"2:
7hether or not the a''earance efore the 'atent Office and the 're'aration and the 'rosecution of 'atent a''lication,
etc., constitutes or is included in the 'ractice of la#.
-2LD:
he 3u'reme Court held that the 'ractice of la# includes such a''earance efore the &atent Office, the
re'resentation of a''licants, o''ositors, and other 'ersons, and the 'rosecution of their a''lications for 'atent, their
o''osition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in 'atent cases. oreo$er, the 'ractice efore the 'atent Office
in$ol$es the inter'retation and a''lication of other la#s and legal 'rinci'les, as #ell as the e6istence of facts to e
estalished in accordance #ith the la# of e$idence and 'rocedure. he 'ractice of la# is not limited to the conduct
of cases or litigation in court ut also emraces all other matters connected #ith the la# and an! #or in$ol$ing the
determination ! the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the la# 'ro$ides that an!
'art! ma! a''eal to the 3u'reme Court from an! final order or decision of the director. hus, if the transactions of
usiness in the &atent Office in$ol$ed e6clusi$el! or mostl! technical and scientific no#ledge and training, then
logicall!, the a''eal should e taen not to a court or udicial od!, ut rather to a oard of scientists, engineers or
technical men, #hich is not the case.
1+. Li ). &onifacio +++ Scra +7 0,,,2
Facts:
Com'lainant Lesli "i found out that her husand, Carlos "i, #as carr!ing out an illicit relationshi' #ith res'ondent Att!.
Iris ;onifacio #ith #hom he egot t#o children. -ence, a com'laint for disarment #as filed ! com'lainant against
res'ondent efore the Commission on ;ar Disci'line of the Integrated ;ar of the &hili''ines on the ground of
immoralit!, more 'articularl!, for carr!ing on an illicit relationshi' #ith the com'lainant<s husand. It is res'ondent<s
contention that her relationshi' #ith Carlos "i is not illicit ecause the! #ere married aroad and that after June 1,
#hen res'ondent disco$ered Carlos "i<s true ci$il status, she cut off all her ties #ith him. Res'ondent a$erred that
Carlos "i ne$er li$ed #ith her.
Issue:
7hether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for #hich she deser$es to e arred from the 'ractice
of la#.
-eld:
he com'laint for disarment against res'ondent Att!. Iris L. ;onifacio, for alleged immoralit!, #as dismissed.
(11@1% ! Ja!rom Caraido)

11. Deles ). Aragona / SC"A 1 019-92
Facts:
Aurora 3oriano Deles, com'lainant , filed a $erified letter@com'laint against Att!. 8icente 2. Aragona, Jr. , res'ondent,
for ha$ing made, under oath, false and unfounded allegations against Deles in a motion filed in Court of Agrarian
Relations, Iloilo, cases 1* and 1*, #hich allegedl! caused hergreat mentaltorture and moral suffering.
he CAR Case @@ an intestate court issued an order den!ing a 'ro'osed lease of 1+ hectares of the estate ! Deles to
one Carlos Fuentes and sustaining the 'ossession of 2nri/ue 3oriano (rothe r of Deles) as lessee of said land. In
effect, the order lie#ise sustained the 'ossession ! the rothers Federico and Carlos Aglinao of a 'ortion of the said
land eing tenanted ! them u'on authorit! of the lessee, 2nri/ue.
I9 DI3R2BARD OF -2 ORD2R, Deles attem'ted to tae 'ossession of the landholdings ! 'lacing thereon her o#n
tenants. he Aglinaos countered ! filing against Deles t#o 'etitions #ith the Court of Agrarian Relations, Iloilo. After a
hearing, the men of Deles entered the land in /uestion and 'lanted rice thereon, this unauthoriEed entr! 'rom'ted Att!.
Aragona to file an 5"rgent otion for Issuance of Interlocutor! Order5 'ra!ing that Deles, her agent, or an! 'erson
acting for and in her ehalf from interfering #ith the #or of the Aglinaos in their res'ecti$e landholdings. rs. 3oriano
(#ife of 2nri/ue) #ent to see Att!. Aragano @ she told him that she #as 'ersonall! 'resent #hen one Alert, a tenant of
Deles, accom'anied ! armed men, #ent to the land in /uestion and har$ested the 'ala! thereon o$er the 'rotests f
the Aglinaos4 and that she #as told that the! #ere acting u'on orders of the Deles. &O332332D OF -2 A;O82
I9FORAIO9, Att!. Aragona 'rom'tl! 're'ared and filed #ith the CAR an 5"rgent otion to Declare QDeles in
Contem't of Court.5
Issue=s:
7hether Att!. Aragona should e disci'lined or disarred for ha$ing 're'ared and filed under oath the said motion.
-eld: 9o. Y1 @@ In &eo'le $s. A/uino, this Court laid do#n the decisional authorit! that statement made in the course of
udicial 'roceedings are asolutel! 'ri$ileged M that is, 'ri$ileged regardless of defamator! tenor and of the 'resence
of malice M if the same are rele$ant, 'ertinent or material to the cause in hand or suect of the in/uir!. And that, in
$ie# of this, the 'erson #ho maes themM such as a udge, la#!er, or #itness M does not there! incur the ris of
eing found liale thereon in a criminal 'rosecution or an action for the reco$er! of damages.
3ince there is no dout that the allegations made ! the res'ondent in the /uestioned motion for contem't are
statements made in the course of a udicial 'roceeding M i.e., in C.A.R. cases 1* and 1* M esides eing
rele$ant, 'ertinent or material to the suect@matter of the said cases, the! are asolutel! 'ri$ileged, there! 'recluding
an! liailit! on the 'art of the res'ondent.
Y* @@ 2$en #hen the statements are found to e false, if there is 'roale cause for elief in their truthfulness and the
charge is made in good faith, the mantle of 'ri$ilege ma! still co$er the mistae of the indi$idual. X66. he ultimate test
is that of ona fides.
Indeed, the actuations of Att!. Aragano #ere moti$ated ! the legitimate desire to ser$e the interests of his clients @@
rs. 3oriano informed Att!. Aragano of the incident cou'led #ith Deles? admissions.
1. &lana ). Arcangel 1 SC"A 1 019-92
Facts: On A'ril, 1, Att!. Arcangel $olunteered to hel' them in their res'ecti$e 'ension claims in connection #ith the
death of their husands, oth &.C. soldiers. he! handed Arcangel 'ertinent documents and also affi 6ed their
signatures on lan 'a'ers. After #hich, the! noticed that res'ondent lost interest and no 'rogress #as made. After %
!ears the! finall! ased res'ondent to return the said documents ut the latter refused. "'on /uestioning ! Fiscal
Rana to #hom the case #as referred ! the 3olicitor Beneral res'ondent admitted ha$ing recei$ed the documents ut
e6'lained that it #as for 'hoto stating 'ur'oses onl!. -is failure to immediatel! return them #as due to com'lainants<
refusal to hand him mone! to 'a! for the 'hoto stating costs #hich 're$ented him from #ithdra#ing the documents.
n!#a!, he had alread! ad$anced the e6'enses himself and turned o$er the documents to the fiscal. Fiscal found
res'ondents e6'lanation satisfactor! and recommended the res'ondents e6oneration. -o#e$er, 3ol Ben feels that
res'ondent deser$es at least a se$ere re'rimand considering his failure to attend to com'lainants 'ension claims
for % !ears4 his failure to immediatel! return the documents des'ite re'eated demands.
Issue: 7O9 Att!. Arcangel is guilt! of 'rofessional non@feasance
-eld: 9o. Res'ondent<s

contro$erted e6'lanation
! com'lainants. for the dela!
On the contrar!, in filing that
the! admitted the res'ondent
claims in returning the todocuments
ased them has'hotostating
shoulder the not een
e6'enses ut the! did not gi$e him an! mone!. -ence, com'lainants are 'artl! to lame. oreo$er, the
documents and their 'hotostats #ere actuall! returned ! res'ondent during the fiscal<s in$estigation #ith him 'a!ing
for the 'hotostating costs himself. As for the alleged failure of the res'ondent to all her documents to om'lainant
&asion, the former denies this. the affida$it of rs. ;lanEa 'ardoning res'ondent cannot 'reudice com'lainant
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19+-
&asion ecause res inter alios acta alteri nocere non deet.
1+. arote ). Simoliciano ==+ SC"A 1 0,,=2
FAC3:
his is a com'laint for disarment filed against Att!. -eherson Alnor B. 3im'liciano for allegedl! notariEing se$eral
documents during the !ear *++* after his commission as notar! 'ulic had e6'ired.
It is e$ident from the foregoing that #hen res'ondent notariEed the aforementioned documents, he #as not
commissioned as notar! 'ulic, #hich #as in $iolation of the 9otarial La#4 for ha$ing notariEed the + documents
after the e6'iration of his commission as notar! 'ulic #ithout ha$ing rene#ed said commission amounting to gross
misconduct as a memer of the legal 'rofession.
Against the e$idence 'resented ! com'lainant, res'ondent did not e$en attem't to 'resent an! e$idence. -is
counsel filed an e6@'arte motion for e6tension to file ans#er, #hich #as granted, ut no ans#er #as forthcoming. 3till,
-earing Commissioner L!dia A. 9a$arro ga$e res'ondent a last chance to file his ans#er4 #hich #as again unheeded.
hus, res'ondent #as unale to reut com'lainant<s e$idence that he #as not so commissioned for the !ear in
/uestion. -is lac of interest and indifference in 'resenting his defense to the charge and the e$idence against him
can onl! mean he has no strong and $alid defense to offer. Conclusi$el!, res'ondent Att!. 3im'liciano is not a dul!
commissioned 9otar! &ulic for and in KueEon Cit! for the !ear *++*.
I33"2: 7hat is the significance of the commission0
R"LI9B:
he re/uirements for the issuance of a commission as notar! 'ulic must not e treated as a mere casual
formalit!. he Court has characteriEed a la#!er<s act of notariEing documents #ithout the re/uisit e commission
therefore as re'rehensile, constituting as it does not onl! mal'ractice ut also 6 6 6 the crime of falsification of 'ulic
documents.P
For such re'rehensile conduct, the Court has sanctioned erring la#!ers ! sus'ension from the 'ractice of la#,
re$ocation of the notarial commi ssion and dis/ualification from acting as such, and e$en disarment. In the case of
9unga $. 8ira!, the Court had occasion to state that #here the notariEation of a document is done ! a memer of the
&hili''ine ;ar at a time #hen he has no authoriEation or commission to do so, the offender ma! e suected to
disci'linar! action. For one, 'erforming a notarial #ithout such commission is a $iolation of the la#!er<s oath to oe!
the la#s, more s'ecificall!, the 9otarial La#. hen, too, ! maing it a''ear that he is dul! commissioned #hen he is
not, he is, for all legal intents and 'ur'oses, indulging in delierate falsehood, #hich the la#!er<s oath similarl!
'roscries. hese $iolations fall s/uarel! #ithin the 'rohiition of Rule 1.+1 of Canon 1 of the Code of &rofessional
Res'onsiilit!, #hich 'ro$ides: A la#!er shall not engage in unla#ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
1. A1 Financial Ser)ices Inc. ). 5alerio -- SC"A -1-
Facts: Att!. 8alerio otained a loan from com'lainant and secured the 'a!ment of the loan oligation ! issuing a
'ostdated chec. -o#e$er, u'on its maturit! date, the chec #as dishonored due to insufficient funds. As of the filing
of the instant case, des'ite re'eated demands to 'a! her oligation, Att!. 8alerio failed to 'a! the #hole amount of her
oligation. After re'eated demands ! the trial court Att!. 8alerio failed to gi$e an! res'onse. After an administrati$e
case had een filed ! com'lainant against Att!. 8alerio #ith the I;& Commission on ;ar Disci'line (I;&@C;D), the
latter<s mother e6'lained that her daughter had een diagnosed #ith schiEo'hrenia4 thus, could not 'ro'erl! res'ond
to the com'laint against her. I;&@C;D recommended Att!. 8alerio e sus'ended from the 'ractice of la# for a 'eriod
of t#o (*) !ears, ha$ing found her guilt! of gross misconduct. I;& ;oard of Bo$ernors ado'ted and a''ro$ed #ith
modification of the 'eriod of sus'ension to 1 !ear.
Issue: #hether res'ondent is guilt! of gross misconduct and $iolation of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!
-eld: 7-2R2FOR2, Resolution 9o. X8III@*++@% dated Decemer 11, *++ of the I;&, #hich found res'ondent
Att!. Laarni 9. 8alerio guilt! of gross misconduct and $iolation of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!, is
AFFIR2D #ith ODIFICAIO9. 3he is here! 3"3&29D2D for t#o (*) !ears from the 'ractice of la#, effecti$e
u'on the recei't of this Decision. 3he is #arned that a re'etition of the same or a similar act #ill e dealt #ith more
se$erel!.
Ruling: 3C sustains the findings and recommendations of the I;&@C;D.
he! must at all times faithfull! 'erform their duties to societ!, to the ar, the courts and to their clients, #hich include
'rom't 'a!ment of financial oligations. he! must conduct themsel$es in a manner that reflects the $alues and norms
of the legal 'rofession as emodied in the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!. 
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19+/
he Court, finds unmeritorious rs. 8alerio<s ustification that her daughter, Att!. 8alerio, is suffering from a health
condition, i.e. schiEo'hrenia, #hich has 're$ented her from 'ro'erl! ans#ering the com'laint against her. Indeed, #e
cannot tae the medical certificateP on its face, considering rs. 8alerio<s failure to 'ro$e the contents of the certificate
or 'resent the 'h!sician #ho issued it.
Att!. 8alerio<s conduct in the course of the I;& and court 'roceedings is also a matter of serious concern. 3he failed to
ans#er the com'laint against her. Des'ite due notice, she failed to attend the disci'linar! hearings set ! the I;&. 3he
also ignored the 'roceedings efore the court as she lie#ise failed to oth ans#er the com'laint against her and
a''ear during her arraignment, des'ite orders and notices from the court. Clearl!, this conduct runs counter to the
'rece'ts of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! and $iolates the la#!er<s oath #hich im'oses u'on e$er! memer
of the ;ar the dut! to dela! no man for mone! or malice. Att!. 8alerio has failed to li$e u' to the $alues and norms of
the legal 'rofession as emodied in the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!.
3C deems it reasonale to affirm the sanction im'osed ! the I;&@C;D, i.e., Att!. 8alerio #as ordered sus'ended from
the 'ractice of la# for t#o (*) !ears, ecause, aside from issuing #orthless checs and failing to 'a! her dets, she
has also sho#n #anton disregard of the I;&<s and Court Orders in the course of the 'roceedings.
1. "E: ,,+ &A" EAI(ATI%(S &.. (o. 1
Facts: On ** 3e'temer *++>, the da! follo#ing the ar e6amination in ercantile La#, Justice Jose C. 8itug,
Chairman of the *++> ;ar 26aminations Committee, #as a''rised of a rumored leaage in the e6amination on the
suect. After maing his o#n in/uiries, Justice 8itug re'orted the matter to Chief Justice -ilario B. Da$ide, Jr., and to
the other memers of the Court, recommending that the ar e6amination on the suect e nullified and that an
in$estigation e conducted forth#ith. On *> 3e'temer *++>, the Court ado'ted the recommendation of Justice 8itug,
and resol$ed to nullif! the e6amination in ercantile La# and to hold another e6amination on + Octoer *++> at eight
ocloc in the e$ening (eing the earliest a$ailale time and date) at the De La 3alle "ni$ersit!, aft A$enue, anila.
he resolution #as issued #ithout 'reudice to an! action that the Court #ould further tae on the matter. Follo#ing the
issuance of the resolution, the Court recei$ed numerous 'etitions and motions from the &hili''ine Association of La#
3chools and $arious other grou's and 'ersons, e6'ressing agreement to the nullification of the ar e6aminations in
ercantile La# ut $oicing strong reser$ations against the holding of another e6amination on the suect.
"'on learning from Justice 8itug of the leaage of the ar /uestions 're'ared ! him in mercantile la#, Att!.
;algos immediatel! called together and /uestioned his office staff. -e interrogated all of them e6ce't Att!. Danilo De
BuEman #ho #as asent then. All of them 'rofessed to no# nothing aout the ar leaage. DA9ILO D2 B"TA9
testified that he oined ;algos  &ereE in A'ril *+++. As a memer of the fraternit!, he #as acti$e during ar
e6aminations and 'artici'ated in the fraternit!<s ar o's.
Issue: #hether or not the conduct of de BuEman constitute grounds for disarment
-eld: 9O. he &etition for Judicial Clemenc! and Com'assion is here! BRA92D I9 &AR. he disarment of
DA9ILO B. D2 B"TA9 from the 'ractice of la# is here! CO"2D to 32829 () 2AR3 3"3&293IO9 FRO
-2 &RACIC2 OF LA7, reconed from Feruar! , *++. -e transgressed the $er! first canon of the la#!ers Code
of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! #hich 'ro$ides that Qa la#!er shall u'hold the Constitution, oe! the la#s of the land,
and 'romote res'ect for la# and legal 'rocesses.
;! transmitting and distriuting the stolen test /uestions to some memers of the ;eta 3igma Lamda Fraternit!,
'ossil! for 'ecuniar! 'rofit and to gi$en them undue ad$antage o$er the other e6aminers in the mercantile la#
e6amination, De BuEman aetted cheating or dishonest! ! his fraternit! rothers in the e6amination, #hich is
$iolati$e of Rule 1.+1 of Canon 1, as #ell as Canon  of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! for memers of the
;ar, #hich 'ro$ide:
Rule 1.+1 @ A la#!er shall not engage in unla#ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
Canon  @ A LA72R 3-ALL A ALL I23 "&-OLD -2 I92BRI A9D DIB9I OF -2 L2BAL
&ROF233IO9 A9D 3"&&OR -2 ACI8II23 OF -2 I92BRA2D ;AR.
De BuEman #as guilt! of gra$e misconduct unecoming a memer of the ;ar. -e $iolated the la# instead of
'romoting res'ect for it and degraded the nole 'rofession of la# instead of u'holding its dignit! and integrit!. -is
actuations im'aired 'ulic res'ect for the Court, and damaged the integrit! of the ar e6aminations as the final
measure of a la# graduates academic 're'aredness to emar u'on the 'ractice of la#.
(1%@*+ Rand! ;acona#a)

1%. In re: etitioner to sign in the "oll of Attorneys e6a6o Se4tem?er = ,1 +
I. erms
Canon @ A la#!er shall not, directl! or indirectl!, assist in the unauthoriEed 'ractice of la#
II. Reliefs 3ought

Att!. ichael edado filed a 'etition to e ale to sign the roll of attorne!s.
III. Facts
edado graduated from the "ni$ersit! of the &hili''ines College of La# in 1, 'assing the ;ar #ith an a$erage of
*.V
a! , 1+: -e too the la#!er<s oath.
-e #as scheduled to sign the roll of attorne!s on a! 1>, 1+, ut failed to do so, as he had mis'laced the 9otice to
3ign the Roll of Attorne!s gi$en ! the ;ar Office, #hich he had left in his 'ro$ince.
ears later, he found the notice, realiEing he had not signed the roll. At that time, he #as alread! #oring in the field of
cor'oration and ta6, #hich did not include much litigation.
In *++, he attended the andator! Continuing Legal 2ducation seminar, #hich re/uired him to 'ro$ide his roll
numer to e credited, ut he could not 'roduce it.
Fe %, *+1*: -e filed a 'etition to e allo#ed to sign the roll.
he Office of the ;ar confidant had recommended that the 'etition e denied for gross negligence, misconduct, and
lac of merit, as he did not ha$e a $alid ustification for his actions.
I8. Issue=s and -eld

1. 7hether or not Att!. edado acted in gross negligence and misconduct.
-eld: es, ut the court granted his 'etition, #ith an additional fine of &>*,+++, and 'enalt! of not allo#ing him to sign
for 1 !ear (ecause he cannot e sus'ended !et, as he is not a full@fledged la#!er), #herein he is not allo#ed to
'ractice.
o not allo# edado to sign the roll of attorne!s #ould e lie the 'enalt! of disarment, #hich is reser$ed for the
most serious of ethical transgressions.
he 'etitioner acted in good faith, as he had filed the 'etition himself, acno#ledging his o#n la'ses. -e had also
sho#ed his good moral chara cter in that he had not een a suect of dis/ualification, sho#i ng that he had
continuousl! adhered to the strict re/uirements of the legal 'rofession. -e has also 'ro$ed his com'etence and ailit!,
as sho#n through his #or in the Laurel La# Office, &etron, &etro'hil Cor'., &9OC, and 2DC
he 'ractice of la# is a 'ri$ilege to those #ho can sho# mental and moral fitness.
he 'etitioner<s failure to sign for >+ !ears cannot e deemed as a mistaen elief.
Ignorantia facti e6cusat4 Ignorantia legis nemimem e6cusat
It #as an honest mistae #hen he had thought that he had alread! signed the roll during his oath@taing (attendance
'ala), ut after disco$ering the notice, he #illfull! engaged in the unauthoriEed 'ractice, #hich is an indirect contem't
of court
Canon  a''lies to him, as signing in the roll is a re/uirement to ecome a full@fledged la#!er.
1. In re: Da)i6 9+ hil =-1
Facts: Res'ondent #as sus'ended for ad 'ractices in the e6ercise of his 'rofession as a la#!er for a 'eriod of fi$e
!ears from the 9o$emer , 1. he defendant admits this sus'ension in Zhis #ritten re'ort filed on arch 1, 11,
!et he continued to e6ercise the 'rofession #ithin the 'eriod of sus'ension, 9o$emer , 1 to 9o$emer , 1.
On Fe * 1+ the res'ondent file a claim in the case of an e $s 3! not as a la#!er ut as an agent. (For and in
ehalf of an e 3!) CFI decided in fa$or of an e, suse/uentl! Att! Feli6 Da$id filed a motion for e6ecution. In
another ci$il case of the CFI called ala!an 3a# ill, Inc $s olentino, defendant filed a rief for an order to demolish
homes.
In order @ sa!s the a''eal @ to sho# hat I did not -a$e the intention to disregard the sus'ension of the 3u'reme
Court, I did not 7ith he Gno#ledge of an e Identified 3! 2$en m!self as the attorne! for the A''elles ;ut In Bood
Faith, I signed for and in ;ehalf of the a''ellee 7ithout Designating hat I am &racticing as attorne!@at@la#.P
I33"2: 7hether the acts of Att! Feli6 Da$id is tantamount to 'ractice of la#.
-2LD: es. 9either can he allo# his name to a''ear in such 'leading ! itself or as 'art of firm name under the
signature of another /ualified la#!er ecause the signature of an agent amounts to signing of a non@/ualified senator
or congressman, the office of an attorne! eing srcinall! an agenc!, and ecause he #ill, ! such act, e a''earing in
court or /uasi@udicial or administrati$e od! in $iolation of the constitutional restriction. -e cannot do indirectl! #hat
the Constitution 'rohiits directl!.P
1. LA ). Agra)a 1,8 hil 1/+
FAC3:
in his is a 'etition
his ca'acit! filed !ofthe
s Director the&hili''ine La#!ers
&hili''ines &atent Association for 'rohiition
Office. On a! *>, 1, and inunction
res'ondent against
Director Celedonio
issued Agra$a,
a circular
announcing that he had scheduled for June *, 1 an e6amination for the 'ur'ose of determining #ho are /ualified
to 'ractice as 'atent attorne!s efor e the said office. &etitioner conte nds that one #ho has 'assed the ar
e6aminations, and is in good standing, is dul! /ualified to 'ractice efore the &hili''ines &atent Office and that the
res'ondent Director?s holding an e6amination for the 'ur'ose is in e6cess of his urisdiction and is in $iolation of the
la#. he res'ondent, in re'l!, maintains that the 'rosecution of 'atent cases 5does not in$ol$e entirel! or 'urel! the
'ractice of la# ut include the a''lication of scientific and technical no#ledge and training as a matter of actual
'ur'ose so as to include engineers and other indi$iduals #ho 'assed the e6amination can 'ractice efore the &atent
Office. Furthermore, res'ondent contends that he has 're$iousl! conducted such e6aminations and that this is the first
time that he is /uestioned formall!.
I33"23:
1. 7hether or not memers of the ar should first tae and 'ass an e6amination conducted ! the &atent Office efore
he #ould e allo#ed to 'ractice la# in said office4
*. 7hether or not a''earance efore the &atent Office and the 're'aration of a''lications or 'atents, etc. constitutes
'ractice of la# or is included in the 'ractice of la#4 and,
>. 7hether or not the Director of the &atent Office is authoriEed to conduct e6aminations for 'atent attorne!s.
R"LI9B:
he 3u'reme Court has the e6clusi$e and constitutional 'o#er #ith res'ect to admission to the 'ractice of la# in the
&hili''ines and an! memer of the &hili''ine ;ar in good standing ma! 'ractice la# an!#here and efore an! entit!,
#hether udicial or /uasi@udicial or administrati$e, in the &hili''ines. oreo$er, 5he 'ractice of la# is not limited to
the conduct of cases or litigation m court4 it emraces the 're'aration of 'leadings and other 'a'ers incident to
actions and s'ecial 'roceedings, the management of such actions and 'roceedings on ehalf of clients efore udges
and courts, and in addition, con$e!ing. In general, all ad$ice to clients, and all action taen for them in matters
connected #ith the la# incor'oration sendees, assessment and condemnation ser$ices contem'lating an a''earance
efore a udicial od!, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor?s claim in anru'tc! and
insol$enc! 'roceedings, and conducting 'roceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianshi' ha$e
een held to constitute la# 'ractice, as do the 're'aration and drafting of legal instruments, #here the #or done
in$ol$es the determination ! the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. As such, , the 'ractice of
la# includes such a''ear ance efore the &atent Offi ce, the re'resentation of a''licant s, o''ositors, and other
'ersons, and the 'rosecution of their a''lications for 'atent, their o''ositions thereto, or the enforcement of their
rights in 'atent cases. hus, under the 'resent la# , memers of the &hili''ine ;ar authoriEed ! this riunal to
'ractice la#, and in good standing, ma! 'ractice their 'rofession efore the &atent Office, for the reason that much of
the usiness in said office in$ol$es the inter'retation and determination of the sco'e and a''lication of the &atent
La# and other la#s a''licale, as #ell as the 'resentation of e$idence to estalish facts in$ol$ed4 that 'art of the
functions of the &atent Director are udicial or /uasi@udicial, so much so that a''eals from his orders and decisions
are, under the la#, taen to the 3u'reme Court. In sum, the 'ractice of la# co$ers an! acti$it! in or out of court, #hich
re/uires the a''lication of la#, legal 'rocedures, 'rinci'les or 'ractice and calls for legal no#ledge, training and
e6'erience. And, onl! the 3u'reme Court has the e6clusi$e and constitutional 'o#er #ith res'ect to admission to the
'ractice of la#.
1. Cayetano ). onso6 ,1 SC"A 1,
Facts: Res'ondent Christian onsod #as nominated ! &resident CoraEon C. A/uino to the 'osition of chairman of
the CO2L2C. &etitioner o''osed the nomination ecause allegedl! onsod does not 'osses re/uired /ualification
of ha$ing een engaged in the 'ractice of la# for at least ten !ears. he 1 constitution 'ro$ides in 3ection 1, Article
IX@C: here shall e a Commission on 2lections com'osed of a Chairman and si6 Commissioners #ho shall e
natural@orn citiEens of the &hili''ines and, at the time of their a''ointment, at least thirt!@fi$e !ears of age, holders of
a college degree, and must not ha$e een candidates for an! electi$e 'osition in the immediatel! 'receding elections.
-o#e$er, a maorit! thereof, including the Chairman, shall e memers of the &hili''ine ;ar #ho ha$e een engaged
in the 'ractice of la# for at least ten !ears.
Issue: 7hether the res'ondent does not 'osses the re/uired /ualification of ha$ing engaged in the 'ractice of la# for
at least ten !ears.
-eld: In the case of &hili''ine La#!ers Association $s. Agra$a, stated: he 'ractice of la# is not limited to the conduct
of cases or litigation in court4 it emraces the 're'aration of 'leadings and other 'a'ers incident to actions and s'ecial
'roceeding, the management of such actions and 'roceedings on ehalf of clients efore udges and courts, and in
addition, con$e!ing.
incor'oration In general,
ser$ices, all ad$ice
assessment to clients, andser$ices,
and condemnation all actioncontem'lating
taen for them
anina''earance
matters connected #ith theod!,
efore udicial la#
the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor<s claim in anru'tc! and insol$enc! 'roceedi ngs, and
conducting 'roceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianshi' ha$e een held to constitute la#
'ractice. &ractice of la# means an! acti$it!, in or out court, #hich re/uires the a''lication of la#, legal 'rocedure,
no#ledge, training and e6'erience.
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19=,
he contention that Att!. onsod does not 'osses the re/uired /ualification of ha$ing engaged in the 'ractice of la#
for at least ten !ears is incorrect since Att!. onsod<s 'ast #or e6'erience as a la#!er@economist, a la#!er@manager,
a la#!er@entre'reneur of industr!, a la#!er@negotiator of contracts, and a la#!er@legislator of oth rich and the 'oor S
$eril! more than satisf! the constitutional re/uirement for the 'osition of CO2L2C chairman, he res'ondent has
een engaged in the 'ractice of la# for at least ten !ears does In the $ie# of the foregoing, the 'etition is DI3I332D.
*+. De leon )s. CA +7+ SC"A 1-
(*1@* ro! analo)
1. "o?erto Soriano )s. Atty. an<el Dion
Facts: his is a case of disarment filed against the accused due to his con$iction of frustrated homicide.the case
stemmed from a traffic altercation ! the res'ondent #ith the com'lainant. In the course of their troule,res'ondent
#as ale to hit the nec of the com'lainant ! his re$ol$er maing the com'lainant 'h!sicall! 'aral!Eed.the manner
#hich the res'ondent attaced the com'lainant and a credile corrooration of #itnesses as to the crime lead the
con$iction of the res'ondent of the said crime ut later the rtc sus'ended the sentence ! granting the res'ondent a
'roation.res'ondent aning his defense on a concocted stor! and alii #hich later disregarded ! the court due to
e6istence of credile documentar! and testimonial e$idence.
Issue: #hether his crime of frustrated homicide in$ol$es moral tur'itude0 7hether his con$iction #arrants disarment0
Ruling: the court resol$ed the matter ! declaring the actuation of the res'ondent in the crime of frustrated homicide
in$ol$ed moral tur'itude.the court also consider the rtc<s findings of treacher! as a further indications of se#ed morals
of res'ondent.it is also glaringl! clear that res'ondent seriousl! transgressed canon 1 of the code of 'rofessional
res'onsiilit! thru his 'ossession of an unlicensed fire arm and his unust refusal to satisf! ci$il liailities.the court
remind him oth the attorne!<s oath and code of 'rofessional res'onsiilit!.the a''alling $indicti$eness and,treacher!,
and raEen dishonest! of res'ondent clearl! sho# his un#orthiness to continue as memer of the ar.thus the
court,disarred the res'ondent and odered the name of the latter e stricen from the roll of attorne!s.
**. etro4olitan &an3  Tr<st Com4any )s. Co<rt of A44eals
Facts:
2duardo BomeE o'ened an account #ith Bolden 3a$ings and de'osited > treasur! #arrants. All #arrants
#ere suse/uentl! indorsed ! Bloria Castillo as Cashier of Bolden 3a$ings and de'osited to its 3a$ings account in
etroan ranch in Cala'an, indoro. he! #ere sent for clearance. ean#hile, BomeE is not allo#ed to #ithdra#
from his account, later, ho#e$er, e6as'eratedP o$er Floria re'eated in/uiries and also as an accommodation for a
$aluedP client etroan decided to allo# Bolden 3a$ings to #ithdra# from 'roceeds of the #arrants. In turn, Bolden
3a$ings suse/uentl! allo#ed BomeE to mae #ithdra#als from his o#n account. etroan informed Bolden
3a$ings that >* of the #arrants had een dishonored ! the ;ureau of reasur! and demanded the refund ! Bolden
3a$ings of the amount it had 're$iousl! #ithdra#n, to mae u' the deficit in its account. he demand #as reected.
etroan then sued Bolden 3a$ings.
Issue:
1. 7hether or not etroan can demand refund agaist Bolden 3a$ings #ith regard to the amount #ithdra#s to mae
u' #ith the deficit as a result of the dishonored treasur! #arrants.
*. 7hether or not treasur! #arrants are negotiale instruments
-eld:
9o. etroan is negligent in gi$ing Bolden 3a$ings the im'ression that the treasur! #arrants had een
cleared and that, conse/uentl!, it #as safe to allo# BomeE to #ithdra#. 7ithout such assurance, Bolden 3a$ings
#ould not ha$e allo#ed the #ithdra#als. Indeed, Bolden 3a$ings might e$en ha$e incurred liailit! for its refusal to
return the mone! that all a''earances elonged to the de'ositor, #ho could therefore #ithdra# it an!time and for an!
reason he sa# fit.
It #as, in fact, to secure the clearance of the treasur! #arrants that Bolden 3a$ings de'osited them to its account #ith
etroan. Bolden 3a$ings had no clearing facilities of its o#n. It relied on etroan to determine the $alidit! of the
#arrants through its o#n ser$ices. he 'roceeds of the #arrants #ere #ithheld from BomeE until etroan allo#ed
Bolden 3a$ings
etroan itself
cannot to #ithdra#
contend that !them from the
indorsing its o#n de'osit.
#arrants in general, Bolden 3a$ings assumed that the! #ere genuine
and in all res'ects #hat the! 'ur'ort to e,P in accordance #ith 3ec. %% of 9IL. he sim'le reason that 9IL is not
a''licale to non negotiale instruments, treasur! #arrants.
9o. he treasur! #arrants are not negotiale instruments. Clearl! stam'ed on their face is the #ord: non
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19=1
negotiale.P oreo$er, and this is e/ual significance, it is indicated that the! are 'a!ale from a 'articular fund, to #it,
Fund +1. An instrument to e negotiale instrument must contain an unconditional 'romise or orders to 'a! a sum
certain in mone!. As 'ro$ided ! 3ec > of 9IL an un/ualified order or 'romise to 'a! is unconditional though cou'led
#ith: 1st, an indication of a 'articular fund out of #hich reimursement is to e made or a 'articular account to e
deited #ith the amount4 or *nd, a statement of the transaction #hich gi$e rise to the instrument. ;ut an order to
'romise to 'a! out of 'articular fund is not unconditional. he indication of Fund +1 as the source of the 'a!ment to
e made on the treasur! #arrants maes the order or 'romise to 'a! not conditionalP and the #arrants themsel$es
non@negotiale. here should e no /uestion that the e6ce'tion on 3ection > of 9IL is a''licale in the case at ar.
*>. ELLI('T%( "E!ES )s. ATT!. SAL5AD%" . 'AA
FAC3
7ellington Re!es, a com'lainant, re'orted to the 9ational ;ureau of In$estigation (9;I) that he had een the
$ictim of e6tortion ! Att!. Baa, a res'ondent la#!er and a former Assistant Cit! Fiscal of anila, #ho #as
in$estigating a com'laint for estafa filed ! com'lainant<s usiness ri$al. According to com'lainant, he had gi$en
res'ondent &++.++ on arch 1, 11 and a total of &1, ++.++ on three other occasions. -e said that another
'a!offP #as scheduled at 11:++ A.. on the same da! in res'ondent<s office at the Cit! -all. An entra'ment #as set
u' ! the 9;I after com'lainant furnished the 9;I agents se$eral 'eso ills totaling &1+.++ for maring. he 'a'er
ills #ere sent to the Forensic and Chemistr! Di$ision of the 9;I and suse/uentl! returned to com'lainant for use in
the entra'ment. 7hen com'lainant #ent to res'ondent<s office, he #as told that the latter #ould not return until
around *:>+ &.. As there #ere other 'ersons doing usiness #ith res'ondent. 7hen finall! com'lainant #as ale to
see the res'ondent after thirt! minutes of #aiting, the com'lainant then handed to res'ondent the mared mone!
#hich he 'laced inside his right 'ocet. he 9;I agents then a''rehended res'ondent and rought him to the 9;I
Forensic and Chemistr! Di$ision for e6amination. Res'ondent<s hands #ere found 'ositi$e of the !ello# florescent
'o#der a''lied earlier to the mared mone!. Res'ondent #as thereafter taen to the Office of the Anti@OrganiEed
Crime Di$ision of the 9;I #here he #as 'hotogra'hed, finger'rinted and record checed. Res'ondent declined to gi$e
a s#orn statement to e6'lain his side of the case, in$oing his right against self@incrimination. hereafter, the 9;I
recommended the 'rosecution of res'ondent for $iolation of 3ection >() of R.A. 9o. >+1. he 9;I recommended to
the 3ecretar! of Justice the filing of administrati$e charges and the institution of disarment 'roceedings against him.
An administrati$e com'laint for disarment charges res'ondent #ith mal'ractice and #illful $iolation of his oath as an
attorne!. In an ans#er to such com'laint, res'ondent asserted that com'lainant surre'titiousl! 'lanted the mared
mone! in his 'ocet #ithout his no#ledge and consent. -e further said that the criminal case (I3 9o. 1@%) filed
against him ! the 9;I #as still 'ending 'reliminar! in$estigation ! the Cit! Fiscal of anila. In connection #ith the
incident of arch >+, 11, he said that he had filed a criminal com'laint for incriminator! machination, 'erur! and
attem'ted corru'tion of a 'ulic official against com'lainant #ith the Cit! Fiscal of anila. In re'l! to the ans#er,
com'lainant denied that the se$eral cases against res'ondent #ere moti$ated ! re$enge, malice or 'ersonal ill #ill.
-e said that the in$estigating fiscal had recommended the dismissal of the charges filed ! his usiness ri$al. In a
resolution dated Decemer *>, 11, this Court resol$ed to refer the disarment case to the 3olicitor Beneral for
in$estigation, re'ort and recommendation. -o#e$er, u'on the ado'tion of Rule 1>@; of the Re$ised Rules of Court,
the case #as transferred to the I;& ;oard of Bo$ernors for in$estigation and dis'osition. On arch 1, 1>,
Commissioner 8icente K. Ro6as of the Commission on ;ar Disci'line of the Integrated ;ar of the &hili''ines (I;&)
recommended that res'ondent e disarred.
I33"2
7hether or not the e6tor tion committed ! Att!. 3ala$ador Baa shall e considered as a ground for
disarment0
-2LD
23. he e6tortion committed ! res'ondent constitutes misconduct as a 'ulic official, #hich also constitutes
a $iolation of his oath as a la#!er. he la#!er<s oath (Re$ised Rules of Court, Rule 1>, 3ection 14 &eo'le $. De
Luna, 1+* &hil. % Q1) im'oses u'on e$er! la#!er the dut! to dela! no man for mone! or malice. he la#!er<s
oath is a source of his oligations and its $iolation is a ground for his sus'ension, disarment or other disci'linar!
action. 7here the misconduct of a la#!er as a go$ernment official is of such a character as to affect his /ualification as
a la#!er or to sho# moral delin/uenc!, then he ma! e disci'lined as a memer of the ar on such grounds
(BonEales@Austria $. Aa!a, 1% 3CRA %> Q1). he res'ondent is DI3;ARR2D and his name is ordered
3RICG29 OFF from the Roll of Attorne!s.
*. TingD<mali ). Torres
he 'arents of Isidra ing@Dumali died intestate and the! left se$eral 'ro'erties including t#o 'arcels of land Lot 1%
and Lot 1%+> oth in alaon. Isidra has  other silings.
In 1% ho#e$er, t#o of her silings, Felicisima ing@orres and iriam ing@3aria, e6ecuted t#o Deeds of
26traudicial 3ettlement. he! #ere assisted ! Felicisima<s husand, Att!. Rolando orres S #ho #as also the
administrator of the ing 2state. In the Deed of 26traudicial 3ettlement co$ering Lot 1%, the! made it a''ear that
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19=
Felicisima and iriam #ere the onl! heirs of the ings. Att!. In the Deed of 26traudicial 3ettlement co$ering Lot 1%+>,
the signature of Isidra #as forged to mae it a''ear that she #as a 'art! to the Deed. orres then 'resented the
Deeds to the Registr! of Deeds of Ca$ite for the 'ur'ose of transferring the titles into the name of iriam and
Felicisima. hereafter, Felicisima and iriam sold the lands to a cor'oration.
Conse/uentl!, Isidra filed se$eral com'laints. One of the com'laints is this disarment case against Att!. orres.
orres, in his defense, a$erred that he acted in good faith in allo#ing his #ife and iriam to e6ecute the Deeds4 that he
thought that the Deeds #ere agreed to ! the other silings 'ursuant to a toa or $eral #ill left ! Isidra<s mother and
as im'lemented ! their eldest rother, 2liseo ing4 that the e6clusion of the other heirs #as merel! an o$ersight.
Isidra denied the e6istence of the toa. 2liseo also said there #as no such toa.
I33"2: 7hether or not orres should e disarred for allo#ing the e6clusion of the other heirs from the Deeds of
26traudicial 3ettlement des'ite his no#ledge of their 'resence.
-2LD: es. -e $iolated his oath as he engaged in deceitful conduct. -e has committed falsehood. ;! letting his #ife
and iriam declare in a 'ulic document that the! are the onl! heirs to the estate #hen in fact there are other
com'ulsor! heirs and then later 'resenting these Deeds to the Registr! of Deeds, Att!. orres failed to ad$ise that the
t#o #ere doing acts contrar! to la#. -e 'artici'ated in the maing of these Deeds as #ell as to the suse/uent
transactions in$ol$ing the sale of the 'ro'erties co$ered ! the Deeds. -is acts facilitated a #rong against the other
heirs.
*. E%LE %F T@E @ILII(ES com4lainant )s.ATT!. FE T. T$A(DA res4on6ent.
Facts4
Res'ondent #as sus'ended for 'racticing his 'rofession until further notice from the 3u'reme Court finding her guilt!
of $iolating ;& **.
Att!. uanda is no# a''ealing to the 3u'reme Court for her sus'ension to e lifted arguing that her sus'ension #as a
'enalt! so harsh on to' of the fines im'osed to her in $iolation of the aforementioned la#. Arguing further that she
intends no damage to the 'laintiff@a''ellee (-erminia A. ar/ueE)and she is not guilt! of the offense charged.
Issue4
7O9 the sus'ension of Att!. Fe uanda e lifted.
Ruling4
he 3u'reme Court ruled to D29 the res'ondent of his otion to Lift Order of 3us'ension and affirmed the ruling of
the Court of A''eals regarding the sus'ension. he court found Att!. Fe uanda guilt! of an offense in$ol$ing moral
tur'itude citing 3ecs * and * of the Rules of Court and the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!.
*%. In re: Elmo S A?a6
FAC3: Court held res'ondent 2lmo 3. Aad a successful ar e6aminee ut has not een admitted to the &hili''ine
;ar in contem't of Court for unauthoriEed 'ractice of la# and he #as fined &++.++ #ith susidiar! im'risonment in
case he failed to 'a! the fine. (1*1 3CRA *1). -e 'aid the fine. Att!. &roco'io 3. ;eltran, Jr., the com'lainant, filed a
OIO9 O CIRC"LARIT2 O ALL 2RO A9ILA CO"R3 -2 FAC -A 2LO 3. A;AD I3 9O
A"-ORIT2D O &RACIC2 LA7. he Re'ort has found as a fact, o$er the denials of the res'ondent under oath,
that he signed 26hiits ;, C, and D, and that he made a''earances in etro anila courts. his as'ect o'ens the
res'ondent to a charge for 'erur!. he Re'ort also re$eals that Att!. Ruen A. Jacoe collaorated #ith the
res'ondent as counsels for Antonio 3. ara$illa one of the accused in Criminal Case 9os. *%+, *%+ and *%+% of
the Regional rial Court of KueEon Cit!. (26hiit D.) Att!. Jacoe should e called to account for his association #ith
the res'ondent.
Res'ondent, #hen ased aout the aforesaid motions, 26hiits 5;5 and 5D5, and the signatures therein, denied that he
filed the same and that the signatures therein are his. -e also denied that he a''eared in the hearing in the afternoon
of Decemer , 1> in the said trial court. According to him, he #as in ;atangas at the time. -e also testified that the
onl! e6'lanation he could gi$e regarding the signatures in the aforesaid e6hiits is that the same could ha$e een
effected ! Att!. ;eltran to sho# the 3u'reme Court that he (res'ondent) #as still illegall! 'racticing la#. As to the
motion for e6amination and anal!sis of res'ondent?s signature, the In$estigator, to afford res'ondent full o''ortunit! to
'ro$e his defense, sought the assistance of the 9ational ;ureau of In$estigation to com'are res'ondent?s signature in
the aforesaid
signature e6hiitsas#ith
he admits the signatures
genuine and as hisa''earing
o#n. he in the 'leadings
aforesaid that he and
documentar! filedtestimonial
in the 3u'reme Court,
e$idence, as#hich latter
#ell as the
ao$e re'ort of the 9;I, ha$e clearl! 'ro$ed that res'ondent Aad is still 'ractici ng la# des'ite the decision of this
Court of arch *, 1>.
I33"23: 7hether or not Aad can engage in 'ractice of la#.

ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19=+
7hether or not Att!. Jacoe liale in his collaoration #ith the res'ondent.
-2LD: 9o. Onl! those licensed ! the 3u'reme Court ma! 'ractice la# in this countr!. he right to 'ractice la# is not
a natural or constitutional right ut is a 'ri$ilege. It is limited to 'ersons of good moral character #ith s'ecial
/ualifications dul! ascertained and certified. he e6ercise of this 'ri$ilege 'resu''oses 'ossession of integrit!, legal
no#ledge, educationalattainment and e$en 'ulic trust, since a la#!er is an officer of the court. A ar candidate does
not ac/uire the right to 'ractice la# sim'l! ! 'assing the ar e6aminations. he 'ractice of la# is a 'ri$ilege that can
e #ithheld e$en from one #ho has 'assed the ar e6aminations, if the 'erson seeingadmission had 'racticed la#
#ithout license. Res'ondent Aad should no# that the circumstances #hich he has narrated do not constitute
his admissionto the &hili''ine ;ar and the right to 'ractice la# thereafter. -e should no# that t#o essential re/uisites
for ecoming a la#!er still had to e 'erformed, namel!: his la#!er?s oath to e administered ! this Court and his
signature in the Roll of Attorne!s. (Rule 1>, 3ecs. 1 and 1, Rules of Court.) he regulation of the 'ractice of la# is
un/uestional! strict. "nder 3ection > (e) of Rule 1 of the Rules of Court, a 'erson #ho engages in the unauthoriEed
'ractice of la# is liale for indirect contem't of court. r. 2lmo 3. Aad is here! fined Fi$e -undred (&++.++) 'esos
'a!ale to this Court #ithin ten (1+) da!s from notice failing #hich he shall ser$e t#ent!@fi$e (*) da!s im'risonment.
es. -e $iolated Canon  Rule .+1 S A la#!er shall not delegate to an! un/ualified 'erson the 'erformance of an!
tas #hich ! la# ma! onl! e 'erformed ! a memer of the ;ar. in good standing. A la#!er shall not assist an!one
#ho is not a memer of the ;ar to 'ractice la# in this countr!. hus, he must not tae as 'artner or associate in his la#
firm a 'erson #ho is not a la#!er, a la#!er #ho has een disarred and a la#!er #ho has een sus'ended from
'ractice of la#. he la#!er #ho assists in an unauthoriEed 'ractice of la# #hether directl! or indirectl! is suect to
disci'linar! action. Finall!, Att!. Ruen A. Jacoe is re/uired to e6'lain #ithin ten (1+) da!s from notice #h! he should
not e disci'lined for collaorating and associating in the 'ractice of the la# #ith the res'ondent #ho is not a memer
of the ar.
*. A'$I""E )s. "A(A
FAC3: Res'ondent 2d#in L. Rana #as among those #ho 'assed the *+++ ;ar 26aminations. Res'ondent, #hile not
!et a la#!er, a''eared as counsel for a candidate in the a! *++1 elections efore the unici'al ;oard of 2lection
Can$assers of andaon, asate and filed #ith the ;2C a 'leading dated 1 a! *++1 entitled Formal Oection to
the Inclusion in the Can$assing of 8otes in some &recincts for the Office of 8ice@a!or. In this 'leading, res'ondent
re'resented himself as 5counsel for and in ehalf of 8ice a!oralt! Candidate, Beorge ;unan,5 and signed the
'leading as counsel for Beorge ;unan. Furthermore, res'ondent also signed as counsel for 2mil! 2sti'ona@-ao on 1
a! *++1 in the 'etition filed efore the ;2C 'ra!ing for the 'roclamation of 2sti'ona@-ao as the #inning candidate
for ma!or of andaon, asate. On *1 a! *++1, one da! efore the scheduled mass oath@taing of successful ar
e6aminees as memers of the &hili''ine ;ar, com'lainant Donna arie Aguirre filed against res'ondent a &etition for
Denial of Admission to the ;ar. On ** a! *++1, res'ondent #as allo#ed to tae the la#!er<s oath ut #as disallo#ed
from signing the Roll of Attorne!s until he is cleared of the charges against him.
I33"2: 7hether or not res'ondent shall e denied Admission to the ;ar.
R"LI9B: Res'ondent #as engaged in the 'ractice of la# #hen he a''eared in the 'roceedings efore the ;2C and
filed $arious 'leadings, #ithout license to do so. 2$idence clearl! su''orts the charge of unauthoriEed 'ractice of la#.
Res'ondent called himself 5counsel5 no#ing full! #ell that he #as not a memer of the ;ar. -a$ing held himself out
as 5counsel5 no#ing that he had no authorit! to 'ractice la#, res'ondent has sho#n moral unfitness to e a memer
of the &hili''ine ;ar.
he right to 'ractice la# is not a natural or constitutional right ut is a 'ri$ilege. It is limited to 'ersons of good moral
character #ith s'ecial /ualifications dul! ascertained and certified. he e6ercise of this 'ri$ilege 'resu''oses
'ossession of integrit!, legal no#ledge, educational attainment, and e$en 'ulic trust since a la#!er is an officer of
the court. A ar candidate does not ac/uire the right to 'ractice la# sim'l! ! 'assing the ar e6aminations. he
'ractice of la# is a 'ri$ilege that can e #ithheld e$en from one #ho has 'assed the ar e6aminations, if the 'erson
seeing admission had 'racticed la# #ithout a license. rue, res'ondent here 'assed the *+++ ;ar 26aminations and
too the la#!er<s oath. -o#e$er, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorne!s that finall! maes one a full@fledged la#!er.
he fact that res'ondent 'assed the ar e6aminations is immaterial. &assing the ar is not the onl! /ualification to
ecome an attorne!@at@la#. Res'ondent should no# that t#o essential re/uisites for ecoming a la#!er still had to e
'erformed, namel!: his la#!er<s oath to e administered ! this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorne!s. 
*. In re: Atty. arcial E6illion(see case Y1+ of Admission to &ractice)
LA!E"#S D$TIES T% C%$"T
(1@ Com'iled ! -aEel Aumentado)

ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19==
1. City Sheriff Iligan City ). Fort<nato 77 Scra 19, 019972
Facts: Res'ondents Fortunado are the o#ners of a registered 'arcel of land. It #as mortgaged to raders Commercial
;an ! Arsenio Lo'eE, r to secure a loan. Conse/uentl!, res'ondents sought the annulment of the real estate
mortgage efore the Court of First Instance, #hich granted the same. -o#e$er, on a''eal, it #as re$ersed ! the
Court of A''eals #hich held the said mortgage $alid. raders Commercial ;an assigned its rights to 'etitioner Angel
;autista, #ho re/uested the Cit! 3heriff for the foreclosure of the mortgage. hereafter, res'ondent filed a com'laint
for 'reliminar! inunction of the foreclosure ecause the mortgage #as alread! e6tinguished ! the 'a!ment of the
loan. It #as granted after motion for reconsideration. &etitioner filed a 'etition for re$ie# efore the 3u'reme Court.
7e ga$e due course to the 'etition and re/uired the contending 'arties to sumit their res'ecti$e emoranda on
August >1, 1. On Januar! >+, 1, res'ondents, through counsel Ramon A. BonEales, filed a $erified
anifestation informing the Court that the suect real estate mortgage has alread! een released ! the raders
Ro!al ;an on Decemer *>, 1> as sho#n in the certified true co'! of the Release of Real 2state ortgage,  and
that the 'etitioner #as illed in a roer! in his house.  Res'ondents therefore 'ra! for the dismissal of the 'etition.
On Feruar! *+, 1, this Court re/uired 'etitioner?s counsel Att!. 2milio Arogena to comment on the said
anifestation. -o#e$er, the co'! of the resolution of the Court addressed to Att!. Arogena #as returned unclaimed
after three notices,  #ith the 'ostmaster?s remar 5mo$ed.5 In $ie# of this de$elo'ment, the Court considered the
resolution as ser$ed.
Issue: 7hether or not 'etitioner?s counsel $iolates his duties to the court0
Ruling: es. -o#e$er, #e tae notice of the failure of 'etitioner?s la#!er, Att!. 2milio Arogena, to inform the trial court
of the death of 'etitioner, a dut! mandated ! 3ection 1%, Rule > of the Re$ised Rules of Court, #hich 'ro$ides in 'art,
to #it: 3ec. 1%. Death of 'art!4 dut! of counsel. [  7hene$er a 'art! to a 'ending action dies, and the claim is not
there! e6tinguished, it shall e the dut! of his counsel to inform the court #ithin thirt! (>+) da!s after such death of the
fact thereof, and to gi$e the name and address of his legal re'resentati$e or re'resentati$es. Failure of the counsel to
com'l! #ith this dut! shall e a ground for disci'linar! action. 666 666 666 -ence, the 'ro'er sustitution of the
deceased in accordance #ith the afore/uoted 'ro$isions of Rule > could not e effected. 7e lie#ise note Att!.
Arogena?s failure to inform this Court of his change of address #hich accounts for his failure to comment on the
manifestation of res'ondents relati$e to the death of 'etitioner and the release of the suect real estate mortgage.
Att!. Arogena should ear in mind that a la#!er is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. -is duties to the court
are more significant than those #hich he o#es to his client. -is first dut! is not to his client ut to the administration of
ustice4 to that end, his client?s success is #holl! suordinate4 and his conduct ought to and must al#a!s e
scru'ulousl! oser$ant of the la# and ethics of the 'rofession. 1* 7-2R2FOR2, the 'etition is here! DI3I332D
for eing moot and academic. Att!. 2milio Arogena, counsel for 'etitioner, is here! R2&RIA9D2D for his failure to
inform this Court of the death of 'etitioner and to 'erform his dut! under 3ection 1%, Rule > of the Re$ised Rules of
Court. -e is further #arned that a re'etition of such omission in the future #ill e dealt #ith se$erel!. 3O ORD2R2D.
*. %ccena ). ar<e -, Scra +7 019/=2
Facts: he gross $alue of the estate of the late 7illiam C. Ogan suect matter of the 'roate 'roceeding in 3'. &roc.
9o. *> is more than &* million. &etitioners, Att!. Jesus 8. Occena and Att!. 3amuel C. Occena, are the la#!ers for
the estate e6ecutri6, rs. 9ecitas Ogan Occena, and the! had een re'resenting the said e6ecutri6 since 1%>,
defending the estate against claims and 'rotecting the interests of the estate. In order to e6'edite the settlement of
their deceased father?s estate , the se$en instituted heirs decided to enter into com'rom ise #ith the claimants, as a
result of #hich the total amount of &**+,+++.++ in cash #as a#arded to the claimants, including co@e6ecutor Att!.
Isaelo 8. ;inamira, his la#!ers and his #ife. &etitioners filed a otion for &artial &a!ment of Attorne!s Fees in the
amount of >+,+++ 'esos. -o#e$er, the trial court granted as total 'a!ment of attorne!?s fee the amount of *+,+++
'esos. hus, 'etitioners filed a 'etition for certiorari #ith mandamus arguing that res'ondent Judge committed gra$e
ause of discretion in maing the said decision. On the arguments that he had o''osed in the lo#er court 'etitioners?
motion for 'a!ment of 'artial attorne!?s fees in the amount of &>+,+++.++, and that since 'etitioners 3amuel C.
Occena and Jesus 8. Occena are the husand and father@in@la#, res'ecti$el!, of e6ecutri6 9ecitas Ogan Occena, the
latter cannot e e6'ected to o''ose 'etitioners? claims for attorne!?s fees, thus lea$ing the co@e6ecutor as the lone
'art! to re'resent and defend the interests of the estate, Att!. I. 8. ;inamira, #ho claims to e co@e6ecutor of the Ogan
estate, filed #ith this Court on Jul!, 1%, a otion for Lea$e to Inter$ene, #hich #as granted in a resolution of August
, 1%. hereafter, &etitioners ha$e filed 'etitions for indirect contem't of court against inter$enor I. 8. ;inamira
charging the latter of ha$ing made false a$erments in this Court.
Issue: 7hether or not inter$enor ;inamira is liale for contem't for maing false a$erments0
Ruling: [ 7e conclude that inter$enor I. 8. ;inamira has delieratel! made false allegations efore this Court #hich
tend to im'ede or ostruct the administration of ustice 6 6 6[  (3ee case for false a$erments) he foregoing are
onl! some of the t#ent!@one instances cited ! 'etitioners #hich clearl! sho# that inter$enor had delieratel! made
false allegations in his 'leadings. 7e find no rule of la# or of ethics #hich #ould ustif! the conduct of a la#!er in an!
case, #hether ci$il or criminal, in endea$oring ! dishonest means to mislead the court, e$en if to do so might #or to
the ad$antage of his client. he conduct of the la#!er efore the court and #ith other la#!ers should e characteriEed
! candor and fairness. It is neither candid nor fair for a la#!er to no#ingl! mae false allegations in a udicial
'leading or to mis/uote the contents of a document, the testimon! of a #itness, the argument of o''osing counsel or
the contents of a decision. ;efore his admission to the 'ractice of la#, he too the solemn oath that he #ill do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of an! in court, nor #ittingl! or #illingl! 'romote or sue an! false, groundless or
unla#ful suit, and conduct himself as a la#!er #ith all good fidelit! to courts as #ell as to his clients. 7e find that Att!.
;inamira, in ha$ing delieratel! made these false allegations in his 'leadings, has een recreant to his oath. he
charges contained in the counter@'etition for indirect contem't of inter$enor I. 8. ;inamira against 'etitioners ha$e not
een sustantiated ! e$idence, and the! must, therefore, e dismissed. 7e note that no further action #as taen on
the 'etition for contem't filed ! 'etitioners against Beneroso L. &ac/uiao, #ho e6ecuted the affida$it attached to
inter$enor?s Ans#er to 3u''lemental &etition, the contents of #hich 'etitioners claim to e delierate falsehoods. he
said res'ondent &ac/uiao not ha$ing een afforded an o''ortunit! to defend himself against the contem't charge, the
charge must e dismissed. 7-2R2FOR2, (1) the 'etition for certiorari is granted, and the court a /uo is directed to
hold a hearing to determine ho# much the total attorne!?s fees 'etitioners are entitled to, and (*) Att!. Isaelo 8.
;inamira, #ho a''eared as inter$enor in this case, is here! declared guilt! of contem't and sentenced to 'a! to this
Court #ithin ten (1+) da!s from notice hereof a fine in the sum of Fi$e -undred &esos (&++.++). Costs against
inter$enor.
>. Cha)e ). 5iola 19- Scra 1, 019912
1% 3CRA 1+ S Legal 2thics S A la#!er shall do no falsehood
In 1%%, Att!. 8iola assisted Felicidad Al$endia et al in filing a 'etition against eodoro Cha$eE #here he sought to
ha$e the Al$endias e declared as ona fide lessees in a land contro$ers!. 3aid 'etition #as dismissed ecause of
nona''earance ! the Al$endias.
In 1, Att!. 8iola assisted same clients in a''l!ing for an original registration of title o$er the same land in
contro$ers! in 1%%. In said a''lication, Att!. 8iola insisted that his clients #ere the true o#ners of said land ecause
the! ac/uired it ! sale from eresita 8istan #a! ac in 1*.
Cha$eE then filed a disarment case against Att!. 8iola. Cha$eE said that ecause of the conflicting claims that 8iola
're'ared in ehalf of his clients, he had #illingl! aided in and consented to the 'ursuit, 'romotion and 'rosecution of a
false and unla#ful a''lication for land registration, in $iolation of his oath of office as a memer of the ;ar.
I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. 8iola is in $iolation of the La#!er<s Oath.
-2LD: es. 8iola alleged in an earlier 'leading that his clients #ere merel! lessees of the 'ro'ert! in$ol$ed. In his later
'leading, he stated that the $er! same clients #ere o#ners of the same 'ro'ert!. One of these 'leadings must ha$e
een false4 it matters not #hich one. 7orse, he offered no e6'lanation as regards the discre'anc!.
A la#!er o#es honest! and candor to the courts. It cannot e gainsaid that candidness, es'eciall! to#ards the courts,
is essential for the e6'editious administration of ustice. Courts are entitled to e6'ect onl! com'lete candor and
honest! from the la#!ers a''earing and 'leading efore them. Att!. 8iola #as sus'ended for  months.
. Chan ;ian ). Angsin 8+ Scra 98 019/2
Facts: &laintiff Gian filed a ci$il com'laint against defendant. On the other hand, defendant filed a criminal com'laint
against 'laintiff. As a result thereof, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the ci$il case. hereafter, the trial court
dismissed the ci$il case on the ground that, under the rules, after a criminal action has een commenced, no ci$il
action arising from the same offense can e 'rosecuted. It #as a''ealed ! the 'laintiff to the Court of A''eals #hich
transmitted the same to the 3u'reme Court ecause onl! /uestion of la# #as raised. he Court?s e6amination, motu
'ro'rio, of the record of said Criminal Case 9o. %* entitled 5&eo'le $s. Chan Gian5 has sho#n that the 'rinci'al
issue raised on a''eal ! herein 'laintiff@a''ellant that the lo#er court erred in issuing the order dismissing his ci$il
com'laint against the com'lainant in the criminal case on its ruling that the trial of the criminal case should tae
'recedence o$er the ci$il case, has ecome moot and academic. his is so ecause in the meantime long efore this
case #as certified to this Court ! the a''ellate court on 3e'temer 1, 1%, the trial of the criminal case had
'roceeded and terminated #ith a udgment of con$iction rendered on Jul! , 1% ! Judge Ga'unan of ;ranch X8III,
#hich in turn #as re$ersed on a''eal ! the Court of A''eals as 'er its decision of June 1, 1%.
Issue: 7hether or not the la#!ers $iolated their duties to the court #hen the! failed to notif! the court aout the finalit!
of the criminal case0
Ruling: he Court notes #ith regret that had the counsels, 1+ as officers of the courts, ut faithfull! com'lied #ith their
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19=-
dut! to deal #ith the court s in truth and candor, and 'rom' tl! manif ested to the a''el late court the ao$e
de$elo'ments, all ! June, 1%, #hich ha$e made the 'rinci'al issue at ar moot and academic, 11 this case #ould
then ha$e een dis'osed of and need not ha$e een certified to this Court, and the time needed ! it to de$ote to the
'rom't dis'osition of meritorious cases need not ha$e een thus dissi'ated. 1* At an! rate, it is clear that the ci$il
case filed ! 'laintiff@a''ellant should merel! ha$e een sus'ended, not dismissed although #ithout 'reudice, ! the
lo#er court under the Rule in$oed ! it. 1> A''ellee concedes as much, stating that the dismissal #ithout 'reudice is
in effect a sus'ension 'ending the outcome of the criminal case. 9o# that the criminal case has alread! een
resol$ed, the lo#er court?s dismissal of the ci$il case should e set aside and the case accordingl! remanded to it. On
arch 1*, 1%, the Court, u'on motion of 'laintiff@a''ellant, issued its Resolution authoriEing 'laintiff 5to sell at the
est 'rice otainale, under the su'er$ision of the Cler of this Court or his re'resentati$e, the ++ drums of
monosodium glutamate suect of this case, no# stored in the odega of the Beneral &acing Cor'oration, and to
de'osit #ith this Court the 'roceeds of such sale, after deducting the storage fees and other necessar! e6'enses.5 As
'er re'ort of the Cler of Court, this Resolution has not een im'lemented to date, due according to 'laintiff?s
e6'lanation of Decemer , 11, to the $er! lo# 'rice eing offered for the article. 7ith the 'resent dis'osition of this
case, this matter has ecome moot, #ithout 'reudice to 'laintiff?s refiling his motion ane# #ith the lo#er court.
ACCORDI9BL, for the reasons stated hereinao$e, the a''ealed order of dismissal is here! set aside and the case
is remanded to the lo#er court for 'ro'er trial and dis'osition on the merits. 7ith costs against defendant@a''ellee.
. Casals ). C<si 8 Scra 98 019/2
Facts: "'on the filing on 9o$emer *, 1* of the 'etition at ar for certiorari and 'rohiition #ith 'ra!er for #rit of
'reliminar! inunction, the Court as 'er its resolution of 9o$emer , 1* resol$ed, #ithout gi$ing due course to the
'etition, to re/uire res'ondents to comment thereon #ithin ten da!s from notice and to issue a tem'orar! restraining
order restraining res'ondent court inter alia from 'roceeding #ith the hearing of the case 1 'ending efore it elo#.
Des'ite notice and order of the court, Att!. Delante, as counsel for res'ondents, had re'eatedl! failed to file the
re/uired comment, s'ecificall!, he failed three (>) times to file it.
Issue: 7hether or not Att!. Delante $iolated his duties to the court0
Ruling: he Court thus finds unsatisfactor! Att!. Delante?s e6'lanation for his ha$ing allo#ed his e6tended 'eriod to
la'se #ithout sumitting the re/uired comment nor e6tending to the Court the courtes! of an! e6'lanation or
manifestation for his failure to do so. -is inaction undul! 're$ented and dela!ed for a considerale 'eriod the Court?s
'rom't dis'osition of the 'etition. 7orse, #hen this #as noted and the Court re/uired his e6'lanation, he ga$e an
e6'lanation that is de$ious and un#orth! of elief since it is contradicted ! his o#n 're$ious re'resentations of record
as #ell as ! the 5su''orting5 documents sumitted ! him there#ith, as sho#n hereinao$e. Furthermore,
not#ithstanding the la'se of o$er si6 months #hich he let 'ass #ithout sumitting the re/uired comment #hich
according to his motion of Decemer *, 1* #as 5alread! 're'ared5 ! him and #as onl! to e t!'ed in clean, Att!.
Delante in his e6'lanation still raEenl! ased the Court for a further 'eriod to sumit res'ondents? comment #hich
su''osedl! had een readied ! him for sumittal si6 months ago. -is ca$alier actions and attitude manifest gross
disres'ect for the Court?s 'rocesses and tend to emarrass gra$el! the administration of ustice. In &aares $s. Aad
3antos * the Court reminded attorne!s that 5here must e more faithful adherence to Rule , section  of the Rules of
Court #hich 'ro$ides that 5the signature of an attorne! constitutes a certificate ! him that he has read the 'leading
and that to the est of his no#ledge, information and elief, there is good ground to su''ort it4 and that it is not
inter'osed for dela!5 and e6'ressl! admonishes that 5for a #illful $iolation of this rule an attorne! ma! e suected to
disci'linar! action.5 It should also not e necessar! to remind attorne!s of their solemn oath u'on their admission to
the &hili''ine ;ar, that the! #ill do no falsehood and conduct themsel$es as la#!ers according to the est of their
no#ledge and discretion good fidelit! to the courts and their clients. he unsatisfactor! e6'lanation gi$en ! Att!.
Delante as against the 'leadings of record in the case at ar e$inces a #illful disregard of his solemn dut! as an
attorne! to em'lo! in the conduct of a case 5such means onl! as are consistent #ith truth and honor, and ne$er see
to mislead5 the courts 5! an artifice or false statement of false statement of fact or la#.5 > he Court has e$er stressed
that a la#!er must do his est to honor his oath, as there #ould e a great detriment to, if not a failure of the
administration of ustice if courts could not rel! on the sumissions and re'resentations made ! la#!ers in the
conduct of a case. As stated ! the Court in one case, 5ime and time again, la#!ers ha$e een admonished to
rememer that the! are officers of the court, and that #hile the! o#e their clients the dut! of com'lete fidelit! and the
utmost diligence, the! are lie#ise held to strict accountailit! insofar as candor and honest! to#ards the court is
concerned.5  -ence, the Court has in se$eral instances sus'ended la#!ers from the 'ractice of la# for failure to file
a''ellants? riefs in criminal cases des'ite re'eated e6tensions of time otained ! them, (e6ce't to file the missing
riefs), #ith the reminder that 5the trust im'osed on counsel in accordance not onl! #ith the canons of legal ethics ut
#ith thesho#s
record soundest traditions
no 're$ious of the 'rofession
infractions #ould
on his 'art re/uire
since fidelit! ontotheir
his admission 'art.5 Considering,
the &hili''ine ho#e$er,
;ar in 1, thatiscounsel?s
the Court inclined
to act in a s'irit of lenienc!. ACCORDI9BL, the Court here! sus'ends Att!. Leonido C. Delante from the 'ractice of
la# for a 'eriod of three (>) months effecti$e from his recei't of notice hereof, #ith the #arning that re'etition of the
same or similar acts shall e dealt #ith more se$erel!. he cler of court is directed to circulariEe notice of such
sus'ension to the Court of A''eals and all courts of first instance and other courts of similar ran.
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19=/
(%@11 Com'iled ! RJ Roldan)
%. C%ELEC ). (oynoy 9 Scra 8= 01992
FAC3: In 1%, the Commission on 2lections filed criminal cases against certain indi$iduals for $iolations of the
Omnius 2lection Code. he cases #ere filed #ith a Regional rial Court in 3amar 'resided o$er ! Judge omas
9o!na!. Judge 9o!na! ho#e$er dismissed the said cases as he ruled that the RC has no urisdiction o$er the said
cases ecause said criminal offenses #ere 'unishale #ith less than si6 !ears im'risonment. -e said that said cases
should e filed #ith the C.
Att!. Jose ;aluena, memer of CO2L2C<s legal de'artment, filed a motion for reconsideration. -e cited a case
entitled: Alerto 9aldeEa $s Judge Juan La$illes, Jr., A. 9o. J@@1++, arch , 1% (* 3CRA *%)P.
According to Att!. ;aluena, in the said case he cited, the 3u'reme Court has alread! settled the issue and Att!.
;aluena e$en co'ied in toto the said ruling ! the 3u'reme Court in his motion.
I33"2: 7hether or not Judge omas 9o!na! is correct in dismissing the case.
-2LD: 9o. he 3u'reme Court admonished Judge 9o!na! for dismissing the case as the same #as contrar! to
3ection >* of ;.&. 1* as #ell as 3ection *% of the Omnius 2lection Code.
3ection *% of the Omnius 2lection Code 'ro$ides that election cases are #ithin the urisdiction of the regional trial
courts e6ce't certain cases (#hich #ere not the cases filed ! CO2L2C in this case).
3ection >* of ;.&. 1*, on the other hand, 'ro$ides that as a rule, etro'olitan rial Courts, unici'al rial Courts, and
unici'al Circuit rial Courts shall e6ercise e6clusi$e urisdiction o$er offenses 'unishale #ith im'risonment not
e6ceeding si6 (%) !ears irres'ecti$e of the amount of fine 2XC2& other#ise 'ro$ided ! s'ecial la#. he Omnius
2lection Code is a s'ecial la# #hich 'ro$ides that election offenses, regardless of 'enalties, are under the urisdiction
of the regional trial courts.
Judge 9o!na! #as not ale to follo# these rules. It is a udge<s dut! to e studious of the 'rinci'les of la#, to
administer his office #ith due regard to the integrit! of the s!stem of the la# itself, to e faithful to the la#, and to
maintain 'rofessional com'etence.
On the other hand, Att!. ;aluena is also admonished for eing recless in citing cases. he 3u'reme Court said that
the 'assage cited ! ;aluena in his otion #as not the actual decision of the 3u'reme Court in the said case cited
ut rather the memorandum of the court administrator #hich #as /uoted in the said case. Further, his citation of
9aldeEa $s La$illes, Jr.P #as #rong. 9ot onl! did he s'ell 9aldeEa #rong (as the correct s'elling #as 9ALDOTA), he
also cited the #rong 3CRA. It should ha$e een * 3CRA *% and not * 3CRA *%.
;aluena is reminded of Rule 1+.+*, Canon 1+ of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! #hich re/uires that a la#!er
shall not no#ingl! mis/uote or misre'resent the te6t of a decision or authorit!.
. %(TECILL% A(D DEL A" 5S. F"A(CISC% 'ICA et al
FAC3: Jorge ontecillo #as accused ! Francisco Bica of slander. Att!. Kuirico del ar re'resented ontecillo and
he successfull! defended onteceillo in the lo#er court. Del ar #as e$en ale to #in their counterclaim thus the
lo#er court ordered Bica to 'a! ontecillo the adudged moral damages.
Bica a''ealed the a#ard of damages to the Court of A''eals #here the latter court re$ersed the same. Att!. Del ar
then filed a motion for reconsideration #here he made a $eiled threat against the Court of A''eals udges intimating
that he thins the CA ustices no#ingl! rendered an unust decisionP and udgment has een rendered through
negligenceP and that the CA allo#ed itself to e decei$ed.
he CA denied the FR and it admonished Att!. Del ar from using such tone #ith the court. Del ar then filed a
second FR #here he again made threats. he CA then ordered del ar to sho# cause as to #h! he should not e
'unished for contem't.
hereafter, del ar sent the three CA ustices a co'! of a letter #hich he sent to the &resident of the &hili''ines asing
the said ustices to consider the CA udgment. ;ut the CA did not re$erse its udgment. Del ar then filed a ci$il case
against the three ustices of the CA efore a Ceu lo#er court ut the ci$il case #as e$entuall! dismissed ! reason of
a com'romise agreement #here del ar agreed to 'a! damages to the ustices. 2$entuall!, the CA sus'ended Att!.
Del ar from 'ractice.
he issue reached the 3u'reme Court. Del ar ased the 3C to re$erse his sus'ension as #ell as the CA decision as
to the ontecillo case. he 3C denied oth and this earned the ire of del ar as he demanded from the Cler of the
3u'reme Court as to #ho #ere the udges #ho $oted against him.
he 3u'reme Court then directed del ar to sumit an e6'lanation as to #h! he should not e disci'lined. Del ar in
his e6'lanation instead tried to ustif! his actions e$en stating that had he not een con$inced that human efforts in
Q'ursuing thedel
e6'lanation, case
ar#ill
alsoeintimated
fruitlessP that
he #ould ha$e
e$en the continued
3u'reme #ithisthe
Court 'artci$il casethe
among against the CA
corru't, the ustices. In his
grafters and those
allegedl! committing inusticeP.
Del ar e$en filed a ci$il case against some 3u'reme Court ustices ut the udge #ho handled the case dismissed
the same.
I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. Del ar should e sus'ended.
-2LD: es. Att!. Del ar, ! his contem'tuous acts is in $iolation of his duties to the courts. As an officer of the court,
it is his s#orn and moral dut! to hel' uild and not destro! unnecessaril! the high esteem and regard to#ards the
court so essential to the 'ro'er administration of ustice.
It is manifest that del ar has scant res'ect for the t#o highest Courts of the land #hen on the flims! ground of alleged
error in deciding a case, he 'roceeded to challenge the integrit! of oth Courts ! claiming that the! no#ingl!
rendered unust udgment. In short, his allegation is that the! acted #ith intent and malice, if not #ith gross ignorance
of the la#, in dis'osing of the case of his client.
Del ar #as then sus'ended indefinitel!.
. S<rigao ineral "eser)ation &oar6 )s 'a<6encio Clori?el 019/,2
FAC3: In 1%, the 3u'reme Court 'romulgated a unanimous decision (* 3CRA 14 B.R. 9o. L@*+*) #hich #as
not fa$orale to acArthur International inerals Co. he latter<s la#!er, Att!. 8icente 3antiago then filed a motion for
reconsideration. 2$entuall!, a third motion for reconsideration #as sumitted ! him #here the follo#ing 'aragra'h
#as stated:
%. "nfortunatel! for our 'eo'le, it seems that man! of our udicial authorities elie$e that the! are the chosen
messengers of Bod in all matters that come efore them, and that no matter #hat the circumstances are, their
udgment is trul! ordained ! the Almight! unto eternit!. 3ome seem to e constitutionall! inca'ale of considering that
an! emanation from their mind or 'en could e the 'roduct of unudicial 'reudice or unudicial s!m'ath! or fa$oritism
for a 'art! or an issue. 7itness the recent asurdit! of Judge Ali'ala daring to 'roceed to udge a motion to hold
himself in contem't of court M seemingl! totall! oli$ious or uncom'rehending of the $iolation of moral 'rinci'le
in$ol$ed M and also of Judge BeraldeE #ho refuses to inhiit himself in udging a criminal case against an accused
#ho is also his corres'ondent in t#o other cases. 7hat is the e6'lanation for such mentalit!0 Is it outright dishonest!0
Lac of intelligence0 3erious deficienc! in moral com'rehension0 Or is it that man! of our go$ernment officials are ust
amoral0
3cattered in his motion #ere other statements #here he attaced the 1% decision of the 3u'reme Court as false,
erroneous, and illegal.
In another motion, Att!. 3antiago sought the inhiition of t#o Justices: Justice Fred Castro, ecause allegedl!, he is the
rother of the $ice 'resident of the o''osing 'art!. And Chief Justice Roerto Conce'cion ecause immediatel! after
the 1% decision, his son #as a''ointed to a significant 'osition in the go$ernment. (-ere Att!. 3antiago im'lied that
the ustices #ere not fair and that their decision #as influenced).
In his defense, Att!. 3antiago said that he srcinall! deleted the ao$e 'aragra'h and #as onl! included due to
inad$ertence. ;ut that an! rate, he a$erred that the language he used #as necessar! to defend his client.
I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. 8icente 3antiago is guilt! of contem't.
-2LD: es. La#!ers are administrators of ustice, oath@ound ser$ants of societ!, their first dut! is not to their clients,
as man! su''ose, ut to the administration of ustice4 to this, their client s< success is #holl! suordinate4 and their
conduct ought to and must e scru'ulousl! oser$ant of la# and ethics. hus, 3antiago<s defense is not tenale.
A la#!er must a$oid language that tend to create an atmos'here of distrust, of diselief in the udicial s!stem.
A la#!er<s duties to the Court ha$e ecome common 'lace. Reall!, there could hardl! e an! $alid e6cuse for la'ses
in the oser$ance thereof.
3ection *+(), Rule 1> of the Rules of Court, in categorical terms, s'ells out one such dut!: \o oser$e and maintain
the res'ect due to the courts of ustice and udicial officers.<
It is the dut! of the la#!er to maintain to#ards the Courts a res'ectful attitude, not for the sae of the tem'orar!
incument of the udicial office, ut for the maintenance of its su'reme im'ortance.
Att!. 3antiago #as fined for his infractions.
. DE '"ACIA 5S. A"DE( %F A;ATI
FAC3: It is settled la#@that haeas cor'us is the a''ro'riate remed! for release from confinement of a 'erson #ho
has ser$ed his sentence. It is on such a doctrine that reliance is 'laced ! 'etitioner anuel de Bracia in this
a''lication for the issuance of such a #rit. It is undis'uted that #hile the information against 'etitioner charged him
#ith the commission of frustrated homicide to #hich he 'leaded not guilt!, it #as later amended to one of serious
'h!sical inuries. It is to such lesser offense that on 3e'temer 1+, 11, he entered a 'lea of guilt!. On the $er! same
da!, res'ondent Judge Re!naldo &. -onrado im'osed u'on him the 'enalt! of four months and one da! of arrests
ma!or
9o$emer#ithout
1+, susidiar! im'risonment
1, considering that heinhad
case of insol$enc!.
een hat 'eriod
under detention of confinement
since Jul! 1, 1. *he had
his dul! ser$ed ! the
not#ithstanding,
'etition alleged that he #as not set free, the reason eing that on 9o$emer 1, 1, the last da! of the 'rison term
im'osed u'on him, 5res'ondent Assistant &ro$incial Fiscal arciano &. 3ta. Ana filed #ith the res'ondent Judge, in the
$er! same case #here !our 'etitioner #as con$icted and for #hich he ser$ed sentence, Criminal Case 9o. 1*, a
?otion to Order the 7arden to -old the Release of anuel de Bracia alleging as a ground that the ?father of the
$ictim, Bilerts 8alenEuela, informed the mo$ant that the $ictim in the ao$e@entitled case died and for this reason the
undersigned #ill file an amended information. hen came this 'aragra'h in the 'etition: 5hat on the follo#ing da!,
9o$emer *+, 1, the res'ondent Judge, des'ite the clear and incontro$ertile fact that he had no urisdiction to act
on said motion ecause the case had long een terminated and his decision therein had alread! een e6ecuted, and,
further, e$en assuming that the res'ondent Judge could still act in the case, he could not and should not act on the
Fiscal?s motion ecause the same #as not set for hearing and no co'! thereof #as furnished to !our 'etitioner #hose
$er! liert! #as eing sought to e de'ri$ed, still he 'ersisted in acting u'on the Fiscal?s motion and granted the same
?in the interest of ustice,? not at all minding that !our 'etitioner, #hile ma!e a con$ict in the e!es of the res'ondent
Judge, is still entitled to due 'rocess of la# and to some ustice.
On the morning Decemer 1, 1, res'ondent Assistant &ro$incial Fiscal arciano &. 3ta. Ana, Jr. and the t#o
aforesaid #ardens a''eared. 9either 'etitioner nor his counsel, 3al$ador 9. ;eltran, #as 'resent. here #as this
manifestation though: ?Q&etitioner thru counsel, res'ectf ull! manifests that he has alread! een released from
confinement, for #hich reason the 'resent 'etition has een rendered moot and academic. It #ould a''ear, therefore,
that #ith the release of 'etitioner, the matter had indeed ecome moot and academic. hat dis'oses of this 'etition,
e6ce't for one final note. here #as a la'se in udicial 'ro'riet! ! counsel 3al$ador 9. ;eltran #ho did not e$en tae
the troule of a''earing in Court on the $er! da! his o#n 'etition #as reset for hearing, a la'se e6'licale, it ma! e
assumed, ! his com'arati$e ine6'erience and 'aucit! of 'ractice efore this riunal. It suffices to call his attention to
such failing ! #a! of guidance for his future actuations as a memer of the ar.
I33"2: 7hether the amending of the information ! arciano &. 3ta. Ana, Jr is the 'ro'er remed! to address the
order of release of the 'etitioner.
-2LD: After eing ale to stud! the a''licale rule and uris'rudence, the undersigned concluded that the 'ro'er
remed! is not amendment of the information ecause udgment had alread! een rendered on the first information, ut
the filing of a ne# information for homicide u'on the authorit! of this -onorale Court?s ruling in &eo'le $. anolong,
and It is similar cases. 
1+. &rigi6a &<enase6a et al )s *<an Fla)ier et al

FAC3: In 1*, the 9C- 9urses Association (9C-) filed a case of graft and corru'tion against Dr. ;rigida
;uenaseda and se$eral other go$ernment officials of the De'artment of -ealth (DO-). he Omudsman (then
Conrado 8as/ueE), ordered the sus'ension of ;uenaseda et al. he sus'ensi on #as carried on ! then DO-
3ecretar! Juan Fla$ier, eing the officer in charge o$er ;uenaseda et al. ;uenaseda et al then filed #ith the 3u'reme
Court a 'etition for certiorari, 'rohiition, and mandamus, /uestioning the sus'ension order. 9C- sumitted its
Comment on the &etition #here the! attached a otion for Disarment against the la#!ers of ;uenaseda et al.
Allegedl!, the la#!ers of ;uenaseda et al ad$ised them not to oe! the sus'ension order, #hich is a la#ful order from
a dul! constituted authorit!. 9C- maintains that such ad$ice from the la#!ers constitute a $iolation against the Code
of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!.
he 3olicitor Beneral, commenting on the case, agreed #ith ;uenaseda<s la#!ers as he maintained that all the
Omudsman can do is to recommend sus'ensions not im'ose them. he 3ol@Ben ased his argument on 3ection 1>
(>) of the 1 Constitution #hich 'ro$ides that the Office of the Omudsman shall ha$e inter alia the 'o#er, function,
and dut! to:
Direct the officer concerned to tae a''ro'riate action against a 'ulic official or em'lo!ee at fault, and recommend his
remo$al, sus'ension, demotion, fine, censure or 'rosecution, and ensure com'liance there#ith.
I33"23: 7hether or not the Omudsman has the 'o#er to sus'end go$ernment officials. 7hether or not a otion for
Disarment ma! e filed in a s'ecial ci$il action.
-2LD: es, the Omudsman ma! im'ose sus'ension orders. he 3u'reme Court clarifies that #hat the Omudsman
issued is an order of 're$enti$e sus'ension 'ending the resolution of the case or in$estigation thereof. It is not
im'osing sus'ension as a 'enalt! (not 'uniti$e sus'ension). 7hat the Constitution contem'lates that the Omudsman
ma! recommend are 'uniti$e sus'ensions.
Anent the issue of the otion for Disarment filed #ith the Omudsman, the same is not 'ro'er. It cannot e filed in
this s'ecial ci$il action #hich is confined to /uestions of urisdiction or ause of discretion for the 'ur'ose of relie$ing
'ersons from the aritrar! acts of udges and /uasi@udicial officers. here is a set of 'rocedure for the disci'line of
memers of the ar se'arate and a'art from the 'resent s'ecial ci$il action. -o#e$er, the la#!ers of ;uenaseda #ere
reminded not e carried a#a! in es'ousing their client<s cause. he language of a la#!er, oth oral or #ritten, must e
res'ectful and restrained in ee'ing #ith the dignit! of the legal 'rofession and #ith his eha$ioral attitude to#ard his
rethren in the 'rofession.

11. "IITI5% SA(T%S ET AL 5S. $(ICIAL *$D'E A"T$"% E. C"$
FAC3: In a s#orn@letter com'laint dated 9o$emer 1%, 1*, addressed to the then 3ecretar! of Justice, the
com'lainant, &rimiti$o 3antos charged unici'al Judge Arturo 2. CruE of the unici'al Court of ;ulacan #ith 'artialit!
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty198,
and conduct unecoming a udge for ha$ing inter$ened #ith and=or 're$ented the com'lainant in filing cases in the
unici'al Court of ;ulacan. he com'laint of &rimiti$o 3antos, therefore, #as the onl! one that stood for hearing.
On the letter it #as adduced ! the testimon! of Roerto B. Barcia, a 'olice cor'oral of ;ulacan, ;ulacan, #ho
rought the 'olice lotter su'oenaed. And that as a standard o'erating 'rocedure, he ga$e the statement to his Chief
and no other entr! sho#s that the com'lainant returned to the &olice -ead/uarters. Judge CruE is here #rongfull!
lamed for the failure of its filing, as the 'ortion #here a com'lainant?s urat should e, #as not signed ! Judge CruE,
ut com'lainant &rimiti$o 3antos could not state that his #ife e$er a''eared efore Judge CruE to e6ecute the oath
nor #as an! e$idence 'resented that the same #as e$er for#arded to Judge CruE.
On the si6th 'aragra'h of the letter@com'laint, the onl! testimon! of &rimiti$o 3antos on #hich his sus'icion that Judge
CruE #as interfering #ith a criminal case filed ! eresita CruE #as he sa# Judge CruE enter the room #here an
in$estigation #as eing conducted ]
he letter@com'laint ass that Judge CruE $oluntaril! inhiit himself from tr!ing and allo# another udge to hear it, and
Judge CruE sus'ended the 'roceedings.
A careful re$ie# of the records of this case sho#s that the in$estigating Judge correctl! found that the com'lainant #as
not ale to 'ro$e the charges of 'artialit! and conduct unecoming a udge.
-o#e$er, the transcri't of the stenogra'hic notes sho#s that during the formal in$estigation conducted on Feruar! ,
1> % the res'ondent udge, #hile cross@e6amining the #itness, Alerto . Cano, lost his tem'er and said: 5ou can
go to hell I don?t care or #here do !ou #ant to go r. Cano5. his language of the Judge is unecoming of a munici'al
udge and deser$es administrati$e 'enalt!.
I33"2: 7hether Judge CruE committed a conduct of unecoming a munici'al udge.
-2LD: he res'ondent Judge is here! 2XO92RA2D of the charge of 'artialit! ut is found guilt! of conduct
unecoming a udge ! uttering intem'erate language during the trial of the case. he res'ondent udge is here!
im'osed a 'enalt! of a fine e/ui$alent to one (1) month salar! and #arned that a re'etition of the same or similar
offense shall e dealt #ith more se$erel!
(1*@1% ! &atric Bo)

1*. eo4le ). Taneo 7= Scra 81 019972
1+. $"&I(A 5S. ACE"A( 08/ SC"A =,+ J19/=K2
 3CRA +> S Legal 2thics S La#!er o#es fidelit! to the courts

Att!. "rina and one Att!. 8edasto Besmundo lost a case filed in the sala of Judge aceren. he t#o la#!ers then
filed a criminal case against aceren for no#ingl! rendering an unust udgment. he fiscal dismissed the case as he
deemed the action to e ina''ro'riate considering that the udgment issued ! aceren at that time #as 'ending
a''eal. Allegedl! ho#e$er, 'rior to dismissal ! the fiscal, "rina recei$ed a 'hone call from another la#!er (one Att!.
2sguerra) #ho threatened him that if he shall not #ithdra# the criminal case he filed against aceren, he #ill e illed4
that said threat #as made ! Judge aceren through Att!. 2sguerra.
In his comment, Judge aceren stated that he issued the udgment eing com'lained of in good faith and he ne#
that his udgment is not unust and that he made no threats against "rina for it #ould e useless to threaten him
considering that if "rina did #ithdra#, there is still Att!. Besmundo #ho can continue the com'laint.
I33"2: 7hether or not "rina<s suit should 'ros'er.
-2LD: 9o. hs 3u'reme Court ga$e credence to aceren<s statement as o''osed to "rina<s are allegations #hich
#ere not su''orted ! e$idence. he 3u'reme Court also condemned "rina<s use of disres'ectful language. A
la#!er o#es fidelit! to the courts as #ell as to his clients and that the filing on ehalf of disgruntled litigants of
unfounded or fri$olous charges against inferior court udges and the use of offensi$e and intem'erate language as a
means of harassing udges #hose decisions ha$e not een to their liing (irres'ecti$e of the la# and uris'rudence on
the matter) #ill suect said la#!er to a''ro'riate disci'linar! action as an officer of the Court. his onl! undul!
urdens the courts.
On the matter of aceren<s udgment, the 3u'reme Court stated that udges #ill not e held administrati$el! liale for
mere errors of udgment in their rulings or decisions asent a sho#ing of malice or gross ignorance on their 'art
ecause to hold a udge administrati$el! accountale for e$er! erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that
he has erred, #ould e nothing short of harassment and #ould mae his 'osition unearale.
1. CASTA(EDA 5S. A'% 0-8 SC"A 8,8 J19/8K2

FAC3
@ 1 S Castaneda and -enson filed a re'le$in suit againstAgo in the CFI of anila to reco$er certain machineries.@
1 S udgment in fa$or of Castaneda and -enson@ 1%1 S 3C affirmed the udgment4 trial court issued #ritof
e6ecution4 Ago<s motion denied, le$! #as made on Ago<shouse and lots4 sheriff ad$ertised the sale, Ago mo$ed tosto'
the auction4 CA dismissed the 'etition4 3C ffirmeddismissal@ Ago thrice attem'ted to otain #rit of 'reliminar!inunction
to restrain sheriff from enforcing the #rit ofe6ecution4 his motions #ere denied@ 1%> S sheriff sold the house and lots
to Castaneda and-enson4 Ago failed to redeem@ 1% S sheriff e6ecuted final deed of sale4 CFI issued#rit of
'ossession to the 'ro'erties@ 1% S Ago filed a com'laint u'on the udgment renderedagainst him in the re'le$in suit
sa!ing it #as his 'ersonaloligation and that his #ife ^ share in their conugal housecould not legall! e reached !
the le$! made4 CFI of KCissued #rit of 'reliminar! inunction restraining Castanedathe Registed of Deeds and the
sheriff from registering thefinal deed of sale4 the attle on the matter of lifting andrestoring the restraining order
continued@ 1%% S Agos filed a 'etition for certiorari and 'rohiitionto enoin sheriff from enforcing #rit of 'ossession4
3Cdismissed it4 Agos filed a similar 'etition #ith the CA #hichalso dismissed the'etition4 Agos a''ealed to 3C #hich
dismissed the 'etition@ Agos filed another 'etition for certiorari and 'rohiition#ith the CA #hich ga$e due course to the
'etition andgranted 'reliminar! inunction.
I33"2
7O9 the Agos< la#!er, encourage his clients to a$oidcontro$ers!
-2LD
@ 9o. Des'ite the 'endenc! in the trial court of thecom'laint for the annulment of the sheriff<s sale, usticedemands that
the 'etitioners, long denied the fruits oftheir $ictor! in the re'le$in suit, must no# eno! them, for,the res'ondents Agos
aetted ! their la#!er Att!. Luison,ha$e misused legal remedies and 'rostituted the udicial'rocess to th#art the
satisfaction of the udgment, to thee6tended 'reudice of the 'etitioners.@ Forgetting his sacred mission as a s#orn
'ulic ser$antand his e6alted 'osition as an officer of the court, Att!.Luison has allo#ed himself to ecome an
instigator ofcontro$ers! and a 'redator of conflict instead of amediator for concord and a conciliator for com'romise,
a$irtuoso of technicalit! in the conduct of litigation insteadof a true e6'onent of the 'rimac! of truth and moral ustice.@
A counsel<s asserti$eness in es'ousing #ith candor andhonest! his client<s cause must e encouraged and is to
ecommended4 #hat the 3C does not and cannot countenanceis a la#!er<s insistence des'ite the 'atent futilit! of
hisclient<s 'osition.It is the dut! of the counsel to ad$ice his client on themerit or lac of his case. If he finds his client<s
cause asdefenseless, then he is his dut! to ad$ice the latte r toac/uiesce and sumit rathe r than tra$erse
theincontro$ertile. A la#!er must resist the #hims andca'rices of his client, and tem'er his client<s 'ro'ensit!
tolitigate.
18. A<stria ). asan<el , Scra 1=/ 019-/2
FAC3 Asturia #as the 'laintiff in a ci$il case in$ol$ing > 'arcels of land in &angasinan in #hich Judge asa/uel ruled
in his fa$or. 3ometime later the defendant in the ci$il case hired a ne# la#!er in the 'erson of Att!. 3icat, a former
associate of Judge asa/uel #hen he #as still in the 'ractice of la#. Att!. 3icat then filed a su'erdeas ond to sta!
the e6ecution of the sheriff and a motion for ne# trial, all of #hich #as granted ! Judge asa/uel. ;efore the o'ening
of one of the court sessions, Att! acaraeg, la#!er of Asturia sa# Judge asa/uel to his chamer and $erall!
transmitted to him the re/uest that he inhiit himself on the ground that Att!. 3icat #as his associate. he Judge
denied the re/uest 'ointing out that it #as not one of the grounds for dis/ualification of a udge as 'ro$ided in the rules
of court. During the court session, he ased Asturia if he had authoriEed Att!. acaraeg to a''roach him in his
chamers and #hether he douts the integrit! of the udge to decide fairl! and im'artiall! ecause the la#!er of the
defending 'art! #as his associate, Asturia ans#ered them all in the 'ositi$e stating that he heard rumors that the
defendant #as oasting that he #ould definitel! #in ecause of his la#!er. he Judge then declared Asturia in
contem't. he Judge considered his actuations offensi$e, insulting and lac of res'ect to the court. -e #as ordered to
'a! + 'esos. -ence this a''eal.
I33"2 7hether or not it #as 'ro'er for the udge to declare Asturia to e in contem't of court.
-2LD 9O. 7hile the court consider it im'ro'er for a litigant or counsel to see a udge in chamers and tal to him
aout a matter relat ed to the case 'ending in the court of said udge, it is not an act of contem't of court to see the
udge in his chamer and re/uested him to dis/ualif! himself on the ground #hich the res'ondent udge might consider
ust and $alid. he circumstances that led the res'ondent udge to declare the 'etitioner in direct contem't of court do
not indicate an! delierate design on the 'art of the 'etitioner to disres'ect res'ondent udge. he 'etitioner has not
miseha$ed in court or in the 'resence of the res'ondent udge so as to ostruct or interru't the 'roceedings. -e
sim'l! e6'ressed his sincere feeling under the circumstances. Certainl!, an! 'erson is entitled to his o'inion aout a
udge, #hether that o'inion is flattering or not. A udge as a 'ulic ser$ant should not e so thinsinned or sensiti$e as
to feel hurt or offended if a citiEen e6'resses an honest o'inion aout him.
1-. A"TELI(% 5S. ALE*A(D"% 0+ SC"A 1,- J19/,K2

(AT$"E A(D C"EATI%( %F ATT%"(E!CLIE(T "ELATI%(S@I
(1@ ;! -anna Desemrana)

1. "egala )s San6igan?ayan '" (%. 1,79+9  Se4tem?er , 199-
Raul Roco and his colleagues from the ACCRA La# Office #ere charged together #ith 2duardoConuangco for
ac/uiring ill@gotten #ealth. he &CBB ased its charge from the refusal of thela# firm to di$ulge information as to #ho
had een in$ol$ed in &CBB Case 9o. ++>>, des'itethe nature of the ser$ices 'erformed ! ACCRA (e.g. the la# firm
no#s the assets, 'ersonaltransactions, and usiness dealings of their clients).Later, the &CBB amended the
com'laint, resulting in the e6clusion of Roco from the list of defendants. 3uch e6clusion #as ased from the
manifestation of Roco that he #ould identif!the 'ersons and stocholders in$ol$ed in the said &CBB case. he la#
firm 'etitioned for the &CBB to grant them the same treatment as #hat had eenaccorded to Roco. It #as onl! at this
'oint that the &CBB ans#ered #ith a set of re/uirementsand conditions for e6clusionP #hich #ere:1)disclosure of the
identit! of the clients*)sumission of documents 'ur'orting to the sustantiation of the la#!er@client
relationshi'>)'resentation of the deeds of assignments #hich the la#!ers e6ecuted in fa$or of its clients,co$ering the
shareholdings of the latter o olster this set@u', the &CBB 'resented su''osed 'roof to the effect that Roco
hadcom'lied #ith such conditions he 1st Di$ision of the 3andigana!an denied the 'etition of ACCRA.
Issue: Can the &CBB com'el 'etitioners to di$ulge its client<s name0
-eld: 9O.
As a matter of 'ulic 'olic!, a client<s identit! should not e shrouded in m!ster!. he general is that a la#!er ma! not
in$oe the 'ri$ilege and refuse to di$ulge the name or identit! of his client.
1) the court has a right to no# that the client #hose 'ri$ileged information is sought to e 'rotected is flesh and lood.
*) the 'ri$ilege egins to e6ist onl! after the attorne!@client relationshi' has een estalished. he attorne!@client
'ri$ilege does not attach until there is a client.
>) the 'ri$ilege generall! 'ertains to the suect matter of the relationshi'.
Finall!, due 'rocess considerations re/uire that the o''osing 'art! should, as a general rule, no# his ad$ersar!. A
'art! suing or sued is entitled to no# #ho his o''onent is.P -e cannot e oliged to gro'e in the dar against
unno#n forces.
26ce't:
1) Client identit! is 'ri$ileged #here a strong 'roailit! e6ists that re$ealing the client<s name #ould im'licate that
client in the $er! acti$it! for #hich he sought the la#!er<s ad$ice.
*) 7here disclosure #ould o'en the client to ci$il liailit!, his identit! is 'ri$ileged.
>) 7here the go$ernment<s la#!ers ha$e no case against an attorne!<s client unless, ! re$ealing the client<s name,
the said name #ould furnish the onl! lin that #ould form the chain of testimon! necessar! to con$ict an indi$idual of a
crime, the client<s name is 'ri$ileged.
hat client identit! is 'ri$ileged in those instances #here a strong 'roailit! e6ists that the disclosure of the client?s
identit! #ould im'licate the client in the $er! criminal acti$it! for #hich the la#!er<s legal ad$ice #as otained.
. I( "E: S!CI 9 SC"A 1 019/92
Facts:
#o se'arate &etitions #ere filed efore this Court 1) ! the sur$i$ing 'artners of Att!. Ale6ander 3!ci', #ho died on
a! , 1, and *) ! the sur$i$ing 'artners of Att!. -erminio OEaeta, #ho died on Feruar! 1, 1%, 'ra!ing that
the! e allo#ed to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of 'artners #ho had 'assed a#a!. In the
Court?s Resolution of 3e'temer *, 1%, oth &etitions #ere ordered consolidated.
Issue=s:
7hether the names of the deceased 'artners should e dro''ed.
-eld:
es, the names should e dro''ed, ut the! ma! e included in the listings of indi$iduals #ho ha$e een 'artners in
their firms indicating the !ears #hich the! ser$ed as such. he reason for this is, the names are eing retained to
im'ro'erl! e6'loit their ad$ertisement $alue.
9O2: I thin the ruling in this case is no longer a''licale ecause of Rule >.+* #hich states, the deceased 'artner<s
name ma!
to retain still e used 'ro$ided it is clearl! communicated Qto the clients='ulic.P he 'ur'ose of #hich is for la# firms
good#ill.
>. DA"%! 5S LA'ASI -8 SC"A +,= 019/82

=. @ILAD% 5S DA5ID 7= @IL 8-9 019/82
In A'ril 1, ;landina -ilado filed a com'laint to ha$e some deeds of sale annulled against 3elim Assad. Attorne!
Delgado DiEon re'resented -ilado. Assad #as re'resented ! a certain Att!. Ohnic.
In Januar! 1%, Att!. 8icente Francisco re'laced Att!. Ohnic as counsel for Assad and he thenafter entered his
a''earance in court.
In a! 1% or four months later, Att!. DiEon filed a motion to ha$e Att!. Francisco e dis/ualified ecause Att!. DiEon
found out that in June 1, -ilado a''roached Att!. Francisco to as for additional legal o'inion regarding her case
and for #hich Att!. Francisco sent -ilado a legal o'inion letter.
Att!. Francisco o''osed the motion for his dis/ualification. In his o''osition, he said that no material information #as
rela!ed to him ! -ilado4 that in fact, u'on hearing -ilado<s stor!, Att!. Francisco ad$ised her that her case #ill not #in
in court4 ut that later, -ilado returned #ith a co'! of the Com'laint 're'ared ! Att!. DiEon4 that ho#e$er, #hen -ilado
returned, Att!. Francisco #as not around ut an associate in his firm #as there (a certain Att!. Federico Agra$a)4 that
Att!. Agra$a attended to -ilado4 that after -ilado left, lea$ing ehind the legal documents, Att!. Agra$a then 're'ared a
legal o'inion letter #here it #as stated that -ilado has no cause of action to file suit4 that Att!. Agra$a had Att!.
Francisco sign the letter4 that Att!. Francisco did not read the letter as Att!. Agra$a said that it #as merel! a letter
e6'laining #h! the firm cannot tae on -ilado<s case.
Att!. Francisco also 'ointed out that he #as not 'aid for his ad$ice4 that no confidential information #as rela!ed
ecause all -ilado rought #as a co'! of the Com'laint #hich #as alread! filed in court4 and that, if an!, -ilado
alread! #ai$ed her right to dis/ualif! Att!. Francisco ecause he #as alread! re'resenting Assad in court for four
months in the said case.
Judge Jose ButierreE Da$id ruled in fa$or of Att!. Francisco.
I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. Francisco should e dis/ualified in the said ci$il case.
-2LD: es. here alread! e6isted an attorne!@client relationshi' et#een -ilado and Att!. Francisco. -ence, Att!.
Francisco cannot act as counsel against -ilado #ithout the latter<s consent.
As ruled ! the 3u'reme Court, to constitute an attorne!@client relationshi', it is not necessar! that an! retainer should
ha$e een 'aid, 'romised, or charged for4 neither is it material that the attorne! consulted did not after#ard undertae
the case aout #hich the consultation #as had. If a 'erson, in res'ect to his usiness affairs or troules of an! ind,
consults #ith his attorne! in his 'rofessional ca'acit! #ith the $ie# to otaining 'rofessional ad$ice or assistance, and
the attorne! $oluntaril! 'ermits or ac/uiesces in such consultation, then the 'rofessional em'lo!ment must e
regarded as estalished.
8. ST%(E 5S &A(; %F C%E"CE 1/= $S =1 017992
-. '$E""E"% 5S @E"(A(D% -7 Scra /- 019/82
/. $! 5S '%(ALES A.C (%. 8,7
FAC3:
Com'lainant engaged the ser$ices of res'ondent la#!er to 're'are and file a 'etition for the issuance of a ne#
certificate of title. After confiding #ith res'ondent the circumstances surrounding the lost title and discussing the fees
and costs, res'ondent 're'ared, finaliEed and sumitted to him a 'etition to e filed efore the Regional rial Court.
7hen the 'etition #as aout to e filed, res'ondent #ent to com'lainant<s office demanding a certain amount other
than #hat #as 're$iousl! agreed u'on. Res'ondent left his office after reasoning #ith him. 26'ecting that said 'etition
#ould e filed, he #as shoced to find out later that instead of filing the 'etition for the issuance of a ne# certificate of
title, res'ondent filed a letter@com'laint against him #ith the Office of the &ro$incial &rosecutor for Falsification of
&ulic Documents. he letter@com'laint contained facts and circumstances 'ertaining to the transfer certificate of title
that #as the suect matter of the 'etition #hich res'ondent #as su''osed to ha$e filed.
Res'ondent claims that he ga$e com'lainant a hand#ritten letter telling com'lainant that he is #ithdra#ing the 'etition
he 're'ared and that com'lainant should get another la#!er to file the 'etition there! terminating the la#!er@client
relationshi' et#een him and com'lainant4 that there #as no longer an! 'rofessional relationshi' et#een the t#o of
them #hen he filed the letter@com'laint for falsification of 'ulic document4 that the facts and allegations contained in
the letter@com'laint for falsification #ere culled from 'ulic documents 'rocured from the Office of the Register of
Deeds.
he I;& found him guilt! of $iolating Rule *1.+*, Canon *1 of the Canons of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! and
recommended for his sus'ension for % months.
I33"2: 7hether or not res'ondent $iolated Canon *1 of the C&R0
-2LD:
9o. 2$identl!, the facts alleged in the com'laint for 2stafa hrough Falsif ication of &ulic Documents filed !
res'ondent against com'lainant #ere otained ! res'ondent due to his 'ersonal dealings #ith com'lainant.
Res'ondent $olunteered his ser$ice to hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the land he has redeemed from
com'lainant. Clearl!, there #as no attorne!@client relationshi' et#een res'ondent and com'lainant. he 're'aration
and the 'ro'osed filing of the 'etition #as onl! incidental to their 'ersonal transaction.
7hate$er facts alleged ! res'ondent against com'lainant #ere not otained ! res'ondent in his 'rofessional
ca'acit! ut as a redem'tioner of a 'ro'ert! srcinall! o#ned ! his deceased son and therefore, #hen res'ondent
filed the com'laint for estafa against herein com'lainant, #hich necessaril! in$ol$ed alleging facts that #ould
constitute estafa, res'ondent #as not, in an! #a!, $iolating Canon *1. here is no #a! #e can e/uate the filing of the
affida$it@com'laint against herein com'lainant to a misconduct that is #anting in moral character, in honest!, 'roit!
and good demeanor or that renders him un#orth! to continue as an officer of the court. o hold other#ise #ould e
'recluding an! la#!er from instituting a case against an!one to 'rotect his 'ersonal or 'ro'rietar! interests.
&2IIO9 DI3I332D for lac of merit.
7. "ILL%"AAET AL 5S EASTE"( TELEC%$(ICATI%( @IL.I(C. +,9 SC"A
FAC3: 2astern elecommunications, &hils., Inc. (2&I) re'resented ! the la# firm 3ABA, filed #ith the Regional
rial court a com'laint for the reco$er! or re$enue shares against &LD. Att!. RilloraEa, a 'artner of the firm, a''eared
for 2&I.
After 2&I rested its case, it 'aid 3ABA the illed amount. he latter #as dissol$ed and the unior 'artners formed
RADA, #hich too o$er as counsel in the case for 2&I. 2&I signed a retainer agreement #ith counsel #herein it #as
stated that in cases of collection or udicial action, our attorne!<s fees shall e 1V of the amounts collected or the
$alue of the 'ro'ert! ac/uired or liailit! sa$ed.P he retainer agreement #as terminated in 1. the ne6t da!, RADA
filed a notice of attorne!<s lien. In its notice, RADA informed the court that there #ere negotiations to#ard a
com'romise et#een 2&I and &LD. In 1+, the 'arties arri$ed at an amicale settlement and the same #as
entered as a udgment. he 'etitioner (RADA) filed a motion for the enforcement of attorne!<s lien.
I33"2: Is RADA entitled to the a#ards of attorne!<s fees the! are claiming0
-2LD: RADA is entitled to attorne!<s fees ut the 3u'reme Court remanded the case to the court of srcin for the
determination of the amount of attorne!<s fees to #hich the 'etitioner is entitled. Att!. RilloraEa handled the case from
its ince'tion until 2&I terminated the la# firm<s ser$ices in 1. &etitioner<s claim for attorne!<s fees hinges on t#o
grounds: first, the fact that Att!. RilloraEa 'ersonall! handled the case #hen he #as #oring for 3ABA, and second,
the retainer agreement. 7hether there is an agreement or not, the courts shall fi6 a reasonale com'ensation #hich
la#!ers ma! recei$e for their 'rofessional ser$ices.P A la#!er has the right to e 'aid for the legal ser$ices he has
e6tended to his client, #hich com'ensation must e reasonale.P A la#!er #ould e entitled to recei$e #hat he merits
for his ser$ices. Other#ise stated, the amount must e determined on a /uantum meruit asis
9. '%5GT 5S A'(E" 8= @IL 1+ 01992
T@E LA!E"GS D$TIES T% T@E LE'AL "%FESSI%(
(1@ Com'iled ! -anna Desemrana)
1. "I5E"A 5S A('ELES ++9 SC"A 1=9 0,,,2
Facts: Att!. 3ergio Angeles #as the legal counsel of eodoro Ri$era and * others in a ci$il case. Ri$era and his * co@
'laintiffs recei$ed a fa$orale decision. Att!. Angeles recei$ed almost &h& +,+++ from one of the defendants in the
case as 'artial fulfillment of the udgement against the latter. Att!. Angeles, ho#e$er, ne$er told his clients of the
amount he had recei$ed and ne$er remitted the same to him, lea$ing them to disco$er such fact on their o#n. Ri$era
and his co@'laintiffs filed an administrati$e com'laint for disarment against Att!. Angeles.
-eld: B"IL. Att!. Angeles #as not disarred ut the Court ruled that his act amounted to serious misconduct. he
Court has re'eatedl! stressed the im'ortance of integrit! and good moral character as 'art of a la#!er<s e/ui'ment in
the 'ractice of his 'rofession. For it cannot e denied that the res'ect of litigants for the 'rofession is ine6oral!
diminished #hene$er a memer of the ;ar etra!s their trust and confidence. he Court is not oli$ious of the right of
a la#!er to e 'aid for the legal ser$ices he has e6tended to his client ut such right should not e e6ercised
#himsicall! ! a''ro'riating to himself the mone! intended for his clients. here should ne$er e an instance #here
the $ictor in litigation loses e$er!thing he #on to the fees of his o#n la#!er. For deceit in dealing #ith his client, Att!.
Angeles #as sus'ended from the 'ractice of la# for 1 !ear.
. D$CAT*". 5S 5ILLAL%(*". ++/ SC"A - 0,,,2

+. TA( 5S SA&A(DAL 1- SC"A -, 0199+2
DOCRI923:
he 'ractice of la# is not a matter of right.
9o moral /ualification for ar memershi' is more im'ortant than truthfulness or candor.
FAC3:
Res'ondent 3aandal 'assed the 1 ;ar 26aminations ut #as denied to tae his oath in $ie# of the finding of the
Court that he #as guilt! of unauthoriEed 'ractice of la#. 3ince then, he had filed numerous 'etitions for him to e
allo#ed to tae his la#!er?s oath.
Acting to his 1 'etition, the Court directed the e6ecuti$e udge of the 'ro$ince #here 3aandal is domiciled to
sumit a comment on res'ondent?s moral fitness to e a memer of the ;ar. In com'liance there#ith, the e6ecuti$e
udge stated in his comment that he is not a#are of an! acts committed ! the res'ondent as #ould dis/ualif! him to
from admission to the ;ar. -o#e$er, he added that res'ondent has a 'ending ci$il case efore his court for
cancellation=re$ersion 'roceedings, in #hich res'ondent, then #oring as Land In$estigator of the ;ureau of Lands, is
alleged to ha$e secured a free 'atent and later a certificate of title to a 'arcel of land #hich, u'on in$estigation, turned
out to e a s#am'land and not susce'tile of ac/uisition under a free 'atent, and #hich he later mortgaged to the
an. he mortgage #as later foreclosed and the land suse/uentl! sold at 'ulic auction and res'ondent has not
redeemed the land since then.
he case #as ho#e$er een settled through amicale settlement. he said amicale settlement canceled the OC
under Free &atent in the name of 3aandal and his mortgage in the an4 'ro$ided for the surrender of the certificate
of title to the RD for 'ro'er annotation4 re$erted to the mass of 'ulic domain the land co$ered ! the aforesaid
certificate of title #ith res'ondent refraining from e6ercising acts of 'ossession or o#nershi' o$er the said land.
Res'ondent also 'aid the an a certain sum for the loan and interest.
I33"2: 7hether the res'ondent ma! e admitted to the 'ractice of la# considering that he alread! sumitted three (>)
testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his 'ending ci$il case has een terminated.
-2LD:
-is 'etition must e denied.
ime and again, it has een held that 'ractice of la# is not a matter of right. It is a 'ri$ilege esto#ed u'on indi$iduals
#ho are not onl! learned in the la# ut #ho are also no#n to 'ossess good moral character.
It should e recalled that res'ondent #ored as Land In$estigator at the ;ureau of Lands. 3aid em'lo!ment facilitated
his 'rocurement of the free 'atent title o$er the 'ro'ert! #hich he could not ut ha$e no#n #as a 'ulic land. his
#as mani'ulati$e on his 'art and does not s'ea #ell of his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonest!
#hile in the 'ulic ser$ice, #hich cannot e erased ! the termination of the case and #here no determination of guilt
or innocence #as made ecause the suit has een com'romised. his is a sad reflection of his sense of honor and fair
dealings.
oreo$er, his failure to re$eal to the Court the 'endenc! of the ci$il case for Re$ersion filed against him during the
'eriod that he #as sumitting se$eral 'etitions and motions for reconsiderations re$eal his lac of candor and
truthfulness.
Although, the term 5good moral character5 admits of road dimensions, it has een defined as 5including at least
common dishonest!.5 It has also een held that no moral /ualification for memershi' is more im'ortant than
truthfulness or candor.
=. I( "E:A"A% 7 @IL +,
Facts:In$estigation of A9B2L J. &ARATO for alleged leaage of /uestions in some suects in the 1
;ar26aminations
Issue:7O9 the ar taers $iolated the C&R.
-eld:es. 3u'reme Court as re'resentati$e of the Judicial De'artment, to ado't 'ro'er and ade/uate measures to
'reser$e
case, thetheir integrit!, and
in$estigation render 'ossile
of charges of error,and facilitate
ause the e6erciseofof their
or misconduct their functions, including,
officials and as in theincluding
suordinates, 'resent
la#!ers,#ho are officers of the Court.he Court and the licensed la#!ers themsel$es are $itall! interested in ee'ing
this high standard4 and one of the #a!s of achie$ing this end is to admit to the 'ractice of this nole 'rofession onl!
those 'ersons #ho are no#n to e honest, 'ossess good moral character, and sho# 'roficienc! in and no#ledge of
the la# ! the standard set !.
8. A('A( 5S "A%S
In 1, a 'ending administrati$e case filed ! 3anta &angan against Att!. Dionisio Ramos #as dela!ed ecause Att!.
Ramos allegedl! a''eared efore a court in anila. 7hen the records of the said case #as checed (one #hich Att!.
Ramos a''eared in), it #as found that he used the name Att!. &edro D.D. RamosP. In his defense, Att!. Ramos said
he has the right to use such name ecause in his irth certificate, his name listed #as &edro Dionisio Ramos. D.D.P
stands for Dionisio Da!a# #ith Da!a# eing his mother<s surname. -o#e$er, in the roll of attorne!s, his name listed
#as Dionisio D. Ramos.
I33"2: 7hether or not #hat Att!. Ramos did #as correct.
-2LD: 9o. he attorne!<s roll or register is the official record containing the names and signatures of those #ho are
authoriEed to 'ractice la#. A la#!er is not authoriEed to use a name other than the one inscried in the Roll of
Attorne!s in his 'ractice of la#. he official oath oliges the attorne! solemnl! to s#ear that he #ill do no falsehood. As
an officer in the tem'le of ustice, an attorne! has irrefragale oligations of truthfulness, candor and franness. In
re'resenting himself to the court as &edro D.D. RamosP instead of Dionisio D. RamosP, res'ondent has $iolated his
solemn oath and has resorted to dece'tion. he 3u'reme Court hence se$erel! re'rimanded Att!. Ramos and #arned
that a similar infraction #ill #arrant sus'ension or disarment.
(%@1 ! Ghristine Arellano)
-. In re: '<tierre 8 Scra --1 019-2
Facts: Attorne! Diosdado ButierreE #as con$icted for the murder of one Filemon 3amaco in 1%. -e #as sentenced
to the 'enalt! of reclusion 'er'etua. In 1, after ser$ing a 'ortion of the 'enalt!, he #as granted a conditional
'ardon ! the &resident. -e #as released on the condition that he shall not commit an! crime. 3use/uentl!, the
#ido# of 3amaco filed a disarment case against ButierreE ! reason of the latter<s con$iction of a crime in$ol$ing
moral tur'itude. urder, is #ithout a dout, such a crime.
I33"2: 7hether or not ButierreE ma! e disarred considering the fact that he #as granted 'ardon.
-2LD: es. he 'ardon granted to ButierreE is not asolute ut conditional. It merel! remitted his sentence. It does not
reach the offense itself. ButierreE must e udged u'on the fact of his con$iction for murder #ithout regard to the
'ardon (#hich he in$oed in defense). he crime #as actuall! /ualified ! treacher! and aggra$ated ! its ha$ing
een committed in hand, ! taing ad$antage of his official 'osition (ButierreE eing munici'al ma!or at the time) and
#ith the use of motor $ehicle. he degree of moral tur'itude in$ol$ed is such as to ustif! his eing 'urged from the
'rofession.
/. (ari6o )s. Linsangan 87 SC"A 78 019/=2

utual ;icering ;et#een O''osing Counsels
his case arose from a laor dis'ute #here Att!. Rufino Risma re'resented Flora 9arido, an indigent client against her
em'lo!er 8ergel De Dios, the client of Att!. Jaime Linsangan. During the 'roceedings in the trial court, Att!. Risma
$ehementl! o''osed the sumission of a certain affida$it e6ecuted ! De Dios ecause, in the elief of Risma, said
affida$it is 'erured. -e threatened Att!. Linsangan that if said affida$it is sumitted in court, the! shall file a disarment
case against him. he affida$it #as filed and so Risma and 9arido filed an administrati$e case against Linsangan.
Linsangan on the other hand filed a se'arate administrati$e case against Risma #here he accused Risma of
instigating his client to file an administrati$e case against him4 that said administrati$e case is groundless4 that it #as
onl! filed to s'ite him and is ust a mere scheme to threat en him and to ensure that Risma and 9arido has an edge
o$er the laor case.
I33"2: 7hether or not oth administrati$e cases should 'ros'er.
-2LD: 9o. he 3u'reme Court ado'ted the findings of the 3olicitor Beneral #here it #as recommended that oth
administrati$e cases are not #ell merited.
In the administrati$e case against Linsangan, it #as found out that there is no sufficient e$idence to 'ro$e that De
Dios< affida$it is 'erured. Or if e$en so, there is no sho#ing that Linsangan #as in ad faith for it #as not 'ro$en that
he has the intention of misleading the court.
In the administrati$e case against Risma, it #as not 'ro$en that he instigated 9arido. It #as Risma<s Eeal in 'rotecting
his
adclient<s
faith oninterest
the 'artthat made him
of Risma. to con$ince
-e e$en 9arido
ad$anced to file an administrati$e
the e6'enses ecause 9arido case against Linsangan. here #as no
is indigent.
-O7282R, it #as found that Risma made an arrangement #ith 9arido that he shall collect 1V from #hate$er
amount the! shall collect from De Dios as a result of the laor case. Risma #as admonished for this4 that under the
7ormen<s Com'ensation Act, he<s onl! allo#ed to collect a ma6imum of 1+V. -e<s ad$ised to ee' areast of said
la#.
7. La4<t )s. "emotig<e 17 hil 11 019112
FAC3:
A. CA3IA9O ". LA&" charge res'ondents A. FRA9CI3CO 2.F.R2OIB"2 and A. FOR"9AO &.
&AALI9B-"B #ith un'rofessional and unethicalconduct in soliciting cases and intriguing against a rother la#!er. In
a! 1*, 9ie$es Rillas8da. de ;arrera retained 'etitioner Att!. La'ut to handle her 5estate 2state of
acario;arrera5 case in CFI@Ceu. ;! Jan. 1, 'etitioner had 're'ared t#o 'leadings: (1) closing of administration
'roceedings, and (*) rendering of final accounting and 'artition of said estate.rs. ;arrera did not countersign oth
'leadings. &etitioner found out later that res'ondentAtt!. &atalinghug had filed on 11 Jan. 1 a #ritten a''earance
as the ne# counsel for rs.;arrera. On  Fe. 1, 'etitioner $oluntaril! ased the court to e relie$ed as rs.
;arrera<scounsel.&etitioner alleged that: (1) res'ondents< a''earances #ere unethical and im'ro'er4 (*) the!made
rs. ;arrera sign documents re$oing the 'etitioner<s &o#er of Attorne!5 'ur'ortedl! todisauthoriEe him from further
collecting and recei$ing di$idends of the estate from r. acario;arrera<s cor'orations, and mae him a''ear as a
dishonest la#!er and no longer trusted !his client4 and (>) Att!. &atalinghug entered his a''earance #ithout notice to
'etitioner.Res'ondent Att!. &atalinghug ans#ered that #hen he entered his a''earance on 11 Jan. 1rs. ;arrera
had alread! lost confidence in her la#!er, and had alread! filed a 'leadingdischarging his ser$ices. he other
res'ondent Att!. Remotigue ans#ered that #hen he filedhis a''earance on  Fe. 1, the 'etitioner had alread!
#ithdra#n as counsel.he 3C referred the case to the 3olBen for in$estigation, re'ort and recommendation. helatter
recommended the com'lete e6oneration of res'ondents.
I33"2:
7hether or not Att!. Remotigue and Att! &atalinghug are guilt! of un'rofessional andunethical conduct in soliciting
cases.
-2LD:
9o. he 3C found no irregularit! in the a''earance of Att!. &atalinghug as counselfor rs. ;arrera4 and there #as no
actual graing of a case from 'etitioner ecause Att!.&atalinghug?s 'rofessional ser$ices #ere contracted ! the
#ido#. ;esides, the 'etitioner?s$oluntar! #ithdra#al on  Fe. 1, and his filing almost simultaneousl! of a motion
for the'a!ment of his attorne!?s fees, amounted to consent to the a''earance of Att!. &atalinghug ascounsel for the
#ido#.he 3C also held that res'ondent Att!. Remotigue #as also not guilt! of un'rofessionalconduct inasmuch as he
entered his a''ear ance, dated  Fe. 1, onl! on  Feruar! 1,after rs. ;arrera had dis'ensed #ith
'etitioner?s 'rofessional ser$ices, and after 'etitionerhad $oluntaril! #ithdra#n his a''earance.As to Att!.
&atalinghug<s 're'aration of documents re$oing the 'etitioner<s 'o#er of attorne!,the 3olBen found that the same
does not a''ear to e 'rom'ted ! malice or intended to hurt'etitioner?s feelings, ut 'urel! to safeguard the interest
of the administratri6.Case dismissed and closed for no sufficient e$idence sumitted to sustain the charges.
his case has a se/uel under A.. 9o. >, * 3e't. 1%* #herein com'lainant@'etitioner Att!. LA&" charged
res'ondent Att!. R2OIB"2 #ith malice, ad faith, and misre'resentation #hen the latter allegedl! committed unfair
and unethical 'ractices ordering on dishonest!. he 3C a''ro$ed the 3olicitor Beneral<s recommendation for
res'ondent?s com'lete e6oneration.
9. Camacho )s. ang<layan +7 SC"A -+1 0,,,2
9A"R2
ADI9I3RAI82 A2R in the 3u'reme Court. 8iolation of the Code of &rofessional 2thics
FAC3
@  students from the AA Com'uter College (AACC), all memers of the 2ditorial ;oard of DAALI92, allegedl!
'ulished certainoectionale features@ the 3tudent Disci'linar! riunal found them guilt! and the students #ere
e6'elled@ the  students a''ealed ut #ere denied ! the AACC &resident gi$ing rise to a ci$il case calling for the
Issuance of a 7rit of &reliminar! andator! Inunction #ith Camacho as their counsel and &angula!an and associates
re'resenting the defendant,AACC@ #hile the case #as 'ending, letters of a'olog! and re@admission agreements
#ere se'aratel! e6ecuted ! and=or in ehalf of thestudents ! their 'arents@ follo#ing this, the &angula!an La#
Offices filed a anifestation stating, among other things, that  of the students hadacno#ledged their guilt and agreed
to terminate all 'roceedings@ a''arentl!, &angula!an 'rocured and effected the re@admission agreements through
negotiations #ith said students and their'arents #ithout communicating #ith Camacho
I33"2
7O9 &angula!an is guilt! of disregarding 'rofessional ethics
-2LD
23, this action

A la#!er should$iolates Canon communicate
not in an!#a!  of the Code u'on
of &rofessional
the suect2thics #hich states:
of contro$ers! #ith a 'art! re'resented ! counsel,
much
less should he undertae to negotiate or com'romise the matter #ith him, ut should onl! deal #ith his counsel. It is
incument u'on the la#!er most 'articularl! to a$oid e$er!thing that ma! tend to mislead a 'art! not re'resented !
counsel and he should not undertae to
ad$ise him as to la#.P
@ res'ondent $iolated 'rofessional ethics and disregarded a dut! o#ing to his colleague@ the ;oard of Bo$ernors of the
I;& 'assed a resolution sus'ending &angula!an for % months and dismissed the case against theother res'ondents
since the! too no 'art in it@
the court concurred #ith I;&<s findings ut reduced the sus'ension to > months
1,. "o?inson )s. 5illaf<erte 17 hil 11 019112
FAC3:
A'ril >+, 1+, 7. 7. Roinson entered suit in CFI a!aas against arcelino 8illafuerte ! RaNola, alleging: hat the
'laintiff #as engaged, in anila and at the time s'ecified further on, in the im'ortation and sale of flour and other
'roducts from aroad, #ith an office in anila, a usiness #hich he still continued, through the agenc! of Castle
;rothers, 7olf  3ons, estalished therein4 that the defendant, a resident of Lucena, a!aas, ! an instrument dul!
e6ecuted (Octoer 1, 1+%), ! his attorne! in fact and legal re'resentati$e, 8icente arcelo Conce'cion, #ho #as
full! em'o#ered and authoriEed for the 'ur'ose, and ratified on the same date efore the notar! 'ulic of anila, D.R.
7illiams, acno#ledged and confessed that he o#ed the 'laintiff the net sum of &>,*.+4 that ! the said instrument
dul! e6ecuted the defendant ound and 'ledged himself to 'a! to the 'laintiff the said sum in four monthl! installments
from that date, at the rate of &1,+++ for each of the first three installments and &*.+ for the last one, and lie#ise
the interest thereon at the rate of V 'er annum, to e adusted and 'aid at the time of 'a!ing each of the installments
fi6ed4 that in the said instrument the defendant moreo$er ound himself to 'a! to the 'laintiff the sum of &++ for costs
and e6'enses, in case the latter should recur to udicial 'rocess for the collection of the aforementioned det4 and that,
as securit! for the 'a!ment of the said det, of the interest thereon and of the amount for costs and e6'enses, the
defendant $oluntaril! e6ecuted, ! means of the said instrument and in fa$or of the 'laintiff, a s'ecial mortgage u'on
the 'ro'erties of his asolute o#nershi' and control (11 Rural estates in Lucena). It #as stated in the instrument, as an
e6'ress condition, that default of 'a!ment of an! of the installments s'ecified in the fourth 'receding 'aragra'h #ould
cause the entire oligation to mature and #ould entitle the 'laintiff (it sa!s 5defendant5) to re/uire the 'a!ment of the
same in its totalit! and forth#ith to institute foreclosure 'roceedings against an! and all of the mortgage 'ro'erties.
he com'laint further alleged, that, not#ithstanding the re'eated demands made u'on the defendant, the latter had
not 'aid his det nor the interest thereon, e6ce'ting the sum of &+.
As a second cause of action, the com'laint alleged, among other things: hat the defendant, ! means of an
instrument dul! e6ecuted on Decemer *1, 1+%, ! his attorne! in fact and legal re'resentati$e, 8icente arcelo
Conce'cion, #ho #as full! em'o#ered and authoriEed M an instrument ratified on the same date efore the notar!
Daniel R. 7illiams M and in consideration of the credit #hich the 'laintiff agreed to allo# the said defendant u' to the
sum of &>,%+, e6ecuted a s'ecial $oluntar! mortgage of the 'ro'erties of his asolute o#nershi' and control. he
mortgage #as e6ecuted as securit! for the 'a!ment to the 'laintiff of the sum or sums #hich the defendant might o#e
him ! reason of the said credit, #hich #as granted.
he defendant, in his ans#er, alleged: hat the defendant did not e6ecute, consent to, nor authoriEe the e6ecution of a
'o#er of attorne! of an! ind #hatsoe$er in fa$or of 8icente arcelo Conce'cion4 that the defendant recei$ed no sum
#hate$er from the 'laintiff nor #as he in the latter?s det for the amount claimed in the com'laint, nor for an! other sum
of mone!4 that he did not gi$e his consent to all of to an! one of the mortgages alleged in the com'laint, and that all
the said mortgages on the 'ro'erties #ere founded on a su''osed 'o#er of attorne! said to ha$e een e6ecuted !
the defendant in fa$or of 8icente arcelo Conce'cion, #hich 'o#er of attorne! #as fictitious, false, fraudulent, null
and $oid, that it #as not e6ecuted ! the defendant, nor did the latter inter$ene therein and that the said 'o#er of
attorne! had no true reason for e6istence4 #herefore the defendant ased that udgment e rendered asol$ing him
from the com'laint #ith the costs against the 'laintiff, ! annulling each and all of the mortgages alleged in the
com'laint and the inscri'tion of each of them in the office of the register of 'ro'ert! of a!aas, and ! ordering the
cancellation of all the inscri'tions of the said mortgages and encumrances of the aforementioned 'ro'erties.
he 'ur'ose of the suit filed ! the 'laintiff, 7. 7. Roinson, is the collection of $arious sums o#ed ! the defendant,
arcelino 8illafuerte ! RaNola, the 'a!ment of #hich is secured ! a mortgage on the real 'ro'erties set out in the t#o
notarial documents e$idencing the det, e6hiited under letter A and ;, and inscried in the 'ro'ert! registr! of the
&ro$ince of a!aas.
I33"2: 7hether a La# Cler, Jose oreno Lacalle, should e 'ermitted to e6amine #itnesses during the hearing of
the case
R"LI9B: 7ith regard to the first t#o alleged errors, relati$e to Jose oreno Lacalle eing 'ermitted to address
/uestions to some of the #itnesses during the hearing of the case, not#ithstanding the 'resence of Attorne! Agustin
Al$areE, #ho re'resented

essrs. -aussermann, the 'laintiff,
Cohn  7illiams,it is the
un/uestionale that theininter$ention
'laintiff?s attorne!s of the
this suit, #as said la#admitted4
im'ro'erl! cler anditem'lo!ee
#as not of
authoriEed ! an! la#, for the reason that the said Lacalle did not ha$e the ca'acit! and /ualifications of a la#!er
admitted under oath to 'ractice his 'rofession efore the courts of these Islands, and therefore, on oection eing
made to his 'resent at the hearing of the case, the udge should ha$e sustained such oection and should ha$e
e6cluded Lacalle and not 'ermitted him to address /uestions to the 'laintiff?s #itnesses, not#ithstanding the fact that
Attorne! Agustin Al$ares, designated in sustitution of the said -aussermann, Cohn  7illiams as the 'laintiff?s
re'resentati$e in CFI a!aas, #as 'resent. 9ot#ithstanding this, the acts 'erformed in the course of some of the
'roceedings under the direction of Jose oreno Lacalle are not suect to annulment, as no 'ositi$e detriment #as
caused to the defendant, although such inter$ention is in no manner 'ermitted ! the la# of 'rocedure.
-o#e$er, e$en though the /uestions addresse d ! Lacalle to the 'laintiff?s #itnesses and the 'resentation of
documents of $arious inds e6hiited at the trial e stricen out for the reason that the! #ere made ! a 'erson #ho
#as neither a 'art! to the suit nor counsel for the 'laintiff, !et #e do not find an! reason, ased u'on an! 'ositi$e
'rohiition of the la#, to authoriEe the striing out to the ans#ers gi$en ! the #itnesses interrogated ! Lacalle, e$en
though the said ans#ers ma! ha$e een e$oed ! /uestions addressed ! a 'erson not authoriEed ! la#, and there
is much less reason for reecting the cross@/uestions addressed to the same #itnesses ! the defendant?s attorne!,
and the ans#ers thereto. Although the 'resentation of the documents #hich su''ort the claims of the 'laintiff 'art! e
deemed to e im'ro'er, on account of their ha$ing een made ! a 'erson #ho had not the /ualifications of a
'racticing attorne! it is ne$ertheless true that their 'resentation #as authoriEed ! the attorne! Al$areE and the
documents e6hiited continued to e united to the record and #ere not stricen out therefrom on motion ! the other
side, ut, on the contrar!, the attorne! for the defendant or his counsel discussed the authenticit! and $alidit! of the
said documents, made allegations against the same and concluded ! asing that these documents, and also the
inscri'tion of those designated under letters A and ;, e declared null and $oid.
From the 'receding statements it is concluded that the inter$ention of Jose oreno Lacalle in the 'resent suit has in
no manner 'reudiced the rights and interests of the defendant and that, if udgment #as rendered against him and in
fa$or of the 'laintiff, it #as in conse/uence of the merits of the e$idence adduced ! the 'laintiff and of the inefficac!
and #orthlessness of the testimon! gi$en ! the defendant. If the defendant arcelino 8illafuerte had 'resented
sustantial, strong and con$incing e$idence of the falsit! of the t#o 'o#ers of attorne! e6ecuted in fa$or of 8icente
arcelo Conce'cion, the 'laintiff?s documentar! e$idence #ould ha$e een totall! in$alidated and annulled, and this
suit #ould ha$e had a different ending.
11. Tan Te3 &eng )s. Da)i6 1- SC"A +79
Case: Administrati$e case filed in the 3u'reme Court

1*% 3CRA > S Legal 2thics S al'ractice S 3olicitation of Cases
In 1+, Att!. Da$id and an e ;eng, a non@la#!er, entered into an agreement #here! an e ;eng #ill su''l!
clients to Att!. Da$id and in e6change thereof, Att!. Da$id shall gi$e an e ;eng +V of the attorne!<s fees collected
as the latter<s commission. Att!. Da$id also agreed not to deal #ith clients su''lied ! an e ;eng directl! #ithout
the latter<s consent. he agreement #ent sour due to allegations of doule@cross from oth sides. an e ;eng
denounced Att!. Da$id efore the 3u'reme Court ut did not see the enforcement of their agreement.
I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. Da$id is guilt! of al'ractice.
-2LD: es. he agreement et#een Att!. Da$id and an e ;eng is $oid ecause it #as tantamount to mal'ractice
#hich is the 'ractice of soliciting cases at la# for the 'ur'ose of gain, either 'ersonall! or through 'aid agents or
roersP 3ec. *, Rule 1>, Rules of Court). al'ractice ordinaril! refers to an! malfeasance or dereliction of dut!
committed ! a la#!er. 3ection * gi$es a s'ecial and technical meaning to the term mal'racticeP.
hat meaning is in consonance #ith the elementar! notion that the 'ractice of la# is a 'rofession, not a usiness. he
la#!er ma! not see or otain em'lo!ment ! himself or through others for to do so #ould e un'rofessionalP.
On the agreement to di$ide the attorne!<s fees, the 3u'reme Court noted: 9o di$ision of fees for legal ser$ices is
'ro'er, e6ce't #ith another la#!er, ased u'on a di$ision of ser$ice or res'onsiilit!.
On the agreement that Att!. Da$id shall not deal #ith clients su''lied ! ;eng directl!: he 'rofessional ser$ices of a
la#!er should not e controlled or e6'loited ! an! la# agenc!, 'ersonal or cor'orate, #hich inter$enes et#een client
and la#!er. A la#!er<s res'onsiilities and /ualifications are indi$idual. -e should a$oid all relations #hich direct the
'erformance of his duties ! or in the interest of such intermediar!. A la#!er<s relation to his client should e 'ersonal,
and the res'onsiilit! should e direct to the client. . . .P
1. T@E DI"ECT%" %F "ELI'I%$S AFFAI"S )s &ayot
 &hil  S Legal 2thics S al'ractice

In June 1>, ;a!ot ad$ertised in a ne#s'a'er that he hel's 'eo'le in securing marriage licenses4 that he does so
a$oiding dela!s and 'ulicit!4 that he also maes marriage arrangements4 that legal consultations are free for the 'oor4
and that e$er!thing is confidential. he Director of Religious Affairs too notice of the ad and so he sued ;a!ot for
al'ractice.
;a!ot
merc! initiall! denied ha$ing
as he 'romised 'ulished
to ne$er theact
re'eat the ad$ertisement.
again. ;ut later, he admitted the same and ased for the court<s
I33"2: 7hether or not ;a!ot is guilt! of al'ractice.
-2LD: es. 3ection * of Rule 1* e6'ressl! 'ro$ides among other things that the 'ractice of soliciting cases at la#
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19-,
for the 'ur'ose of gain, either 'ersonall! or thru 'aid agents or roers, constitutes mal'ractice.P he ad$ertisement
he caused to e 'ulished is a raEen solicitation of usiness from the 'ulic. .P It is highl! unethical for an attorne! to
ad$ertise his talents or sill as a merchant ad$ertises his #ares. he 3u'reme Court again em'hasiEed that est
ad$ertisement for a la#!er is the estalishment of a #ell@merited re'utation for 'rofessional ca'acit! and fidelit! to
trust. ;ut ecause of ;a!ot<s 'lea for lenienc! and his 'romise and the fact that he did not earn an! case ! reason of
the ad, the 3u'reme Court merel! re'rimanded him.
1+. $le4 )s Legal clinic Inc. + SC"A +/7 0199+2
FAC3: he 'etitioner contends that the ad$ertisements re'roduced ! the res'ondents are cham'ertous, unethical,
demeaning of the la# 'rofession, and destructi$e of the confidence of the communit! in the integrit! of the memers of
the ar and that, to #hich as a memer of the legal 'rofession, he is ashamed and offended ! the follo#ing
ad$ertisements:
Anne6 A
32CR2 ARRIAB20
&%+.++ for a $alid marriage.
Info on DI8ORC2. A;329C2.
A99"L29. 8I3A.
-2 &lease call:*1@+%,
L2BAL *1*>*,***+1
CLI9IC, I9C. :>+ am@%:++ 'm
@Flr. 8ictoria ;ldg., "9 A$e., la.
Anne6 ;
B"A DI8ORC2
DO9 &ARGI93O9
an Attorne! in Buam, is gi$ing FR22 ;OOG3 on Buam Di$orce through he Legal Clinic eginning onda! to Frida!
during office hours.
Buam di$orce. Annulment of arriage. Immigration &rolems, 8isa 26t. Kuota=9on@/uota Res.  3'ecial Retiree?s
8isa. Declaration of Asence Remarriage to Fili'ina Fiancees. Ado'tion. In$estment in the &hil. "3=Force 8isa for
Fili'ina 3'ouse=Children. Call ari$ic.
-2 F 8ictoria ;ldg. * "9 A$e.,

L2BAL 2rmita, anila nr. "3 2mass!
CLI9IC, I9C. el. *1@*>*4 *1@*14
**@*+14 *1@+%
In its ans#er to the 'etition, res'ondent admits the fact of 'ulication of said ad$ertisements at its instance, ut claims
that it is not engaged in the 'ractice of la# ut in the rendering of 5legal su''ort ser$ices5 through 'aralegals #ith the
use of modern com'uters and electronic machines. Res'ondent further argues that assuming that the ser$ices
ad$ertised are legal ser$ices, the act of ad$ertising these ser$ices should e allo#ed su''osedl! in the light of the
case of John R. ;ates and 8an O?3teen $s. 3tate ;ar of AriEona, re'ortedl! decided ! the "nited 3tates 3u'reme
Court on June , 1.
I33"2: 7hether or not, the ad$ertised ser$ices offered ! the Legal Clinic, Inc., constitutes 'ractice of la# and
#hether the same are in $iolation of the Code of &rofessional res'onsiilit!
R"LI9B: he ad$ertisement of the res'ondent is co$ered in the term 'ractice of la# as defined in the case of
Ca!etano $s. onsod. here is a restricted conce't and limited acce'tance of 'aralegal ser$ices in the &hili''ines. It
is allo#ed that some 'ersons not dul! licensed to 'ractice la# are or ha$e een 'ermitted #ith a limited re'resentation
in ehalf of another or to render legal ser$ices, ut such allo#ale ser$ices are limited in sco'e and e6tent ! the la#,
rules or regulations granting 'ermission therefore. Canon > of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! 'ro$ides that a
la#!er in maing no#n his legal ser$ices shall use onl! true, honest, fair, dignified and oecti$e information or
statement of facts. Canon >.+1 adds that he is not su''osed to use or 'ermit the use of an! false, fraudulent,
misleading, dece'ti$e, undignified, self@laudator! or unfair statement or claim regarding his /ualifications or legal
ser$ices. 9or shall he 'a! or gi$e something of $alue to re'resentati$es of the mass media in antici'ation of, or in
return for, 'ulicit! to attract legal usiness (Canon >.+). he Canons of &rofessional 2thics, efore the ado'tion of
the C&R, hador

as furnishing also #arned
ins'iring that la#!ers
ne#s'a'er should not
comments, or resort to indirect
'rocuring ad$ertisements
his 'hotogra'h for 'rofessional
to e 'ulished em'lo!ment,
in connection such
#ith causes
in #hich the la#!er ha$e een engaged of concerning the manner of the conduct, the magnitude of the interest
in$ol$ed, the im'ortance the la#!er?s 'osition, and all other lie self@laudation. here are e6isting e6ce'tions under the
la# on the rule 'rohiiting the ad$ertisement of a la#!er<s ser$ices. -o#e$er, taing into consideration the nature and
contents of the ad$ertisements for #hich res'ondent is eing taen to tas, #hich e$en includes a /uotation of the fees
ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty19-1
charged ! said res'ondent cor'oration for ser$ices rendered, the court found and held that the same definitel! do not
and conclusi$el! cannot fall under an! of the e6ce'tions. he res'ondent<s defense #ith the case of ;ates $s. 3tate
;ar a''lies onl! #hen there is an e6ce'tion to the 'rohiition against ad$ertisements ! la#!ers, to 'ulish a
statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the a$ailailit! u'on re/uest of a #ritten schedule of fees or an
estimate of the fee to e charged for the s'ecific ser$ices. 9o such e6ce'tion is 'ro$ided for, e6'ressl! or im'liedl!
#hether in our former Canons of &rofessional 2thics or the 'resent Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!. ;esides, e$en
the disci'linar! rule in the ;ates case contains a 'ro$iso that the e6ce'tions stand therein are 5not a''licale in an!
state unless and until it is im'lemented ! such authorit! in that state.P he Court Resol$ed to R23RAI9 and
29JOI9 he Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the 'ulication or dissemination of an! ad$ertisement in an!
form #hich is of the same or similar tenor and 'ur'ose as Anne6es 5A5 and 5;5 of this 'etition, and from conducting,
directl! or indirectl!, an! acti$it!, o'eration or transaction 'roscried ! la# or the Code of &rofessional 2thics as
indicated herein.
1=. In re: Syci4 9 Scra 1 019/92 0see case M of (at<re an6 Creation of AttyClient "elationshi42

Legal Ethics Digests Print

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Ethics Digests Print

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELS:LegalEthics CaseDigestsforFinalExams Twenty191

I. LA!E"#S FID$CIA"! %&LI'ATI%(S

1. Angeles )s. $y *r. ++, SC"A - 1/ 0,,,2

Issue: Is the res'ondent guilt! of 'rofessional misconduct0

*. (a34il )s. 5al6es 17- SC"A /87 019972

>. Liwag )s. (eri 1,/ hil. 78 019-,2

. Dia )s. ;a4<nan =8 hil. 7=7 019+2

Issue: 7O9 Ga'unan is guilt! of such $iolations.

%. Ca4<long )s. Alino  SC"A =91 019-72

the docet fees and other re/uired fees.

I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. AliNo should e suected to disci'linar! action.

. enticostes )s. I?ane +,= SC"A 71 019992

II. LA!E"#S D$TIES I( @A(DLI(' CLIE(T#S CASES

1 Santiago )s. Fo>as * 3CRA % (3e'temer , 1)

he Antecedent Facts:

*.) Cantiller )s. otenciano 17, SC"A =- 019792

Issue: 7hether or not &otenciano reached his duties as counsel of Cantiller.

>.) "%D%LF% ILLA"E 4etitioner )s. ATT!. E$STAB$I% . %(TE"% res4on6ent.

Case 9o. , to #it:

*. 7hether or not res'ondent is guilt! of forum sho''ing. 23

7-2R2FOR2, res'ondent is 3"3&29D2D for one !ear.

. Choa )s. Chiongson(A.. 9o. J@@1+%>. Feruar! , 1%)

filed together #ith the administrati$e com'laint.

.) C%S%S F%$(D"! S@% %";E"S $(I%( 5 L% &$

Issue: 7O9 the acts of att!. Lim #ere correct.

.) *. . *$A(  S%(S I(C. 5S. LIA('A I(D$ST"IES I(C.

&AL2 related 'hrase=s:

e suected to disci'linar! action.

Issue: 7hether the a''eal should e dismissed0

. *$A( A%" com4lainant )s. ATT%"(E! E$STAB$I% &ELT"A( res4on6ent.

necessitating a com'laint for forcile entr!.

case #as heard,

he CA certified the case to the 3C.

should not e a''lied non@'ulication in the Official BaEette.

11. C<aresma )s. Da<is '.". L+811+ arch 8 19/8

I33"2: 7hether or not Directo should e suect to disci'linar! actions

ao$ementioned t#o lots.5

1>. Del<ao )s. Casteel

1. @eirs of Elias Lorilla )s. CA

conduct, negligence and mistae of his counsel.

1.) A)elino )s. ALA(A

Issue: 7O9 &alana is guilt! of mal'ractice.

1%. Diman )s Al<m?res : 1+1=-- : (o)em?er / 1997 :

I33"2: 7hether or not the comment should e admitted ! the court

7-2R2FOR2, res'ondent anuel 9. 3angla! is re'rimanded.

1. eo4le )s. ELE'I% (ADE"A *". ! SADSAD

Dais! left for a o in ;ahrain.

Accused@a''ellant did counts

.......An! cross0 A. ;ROO92L:

,.*ose T<4acio (<eno ). asc<al Santos

III. ADISSI%( T% "ACTICE

1. In re: Lan<e)o -- SC"A =8 019/82

FAC3: Administrati$e 'roceeding against 8ictorio Lanue$o for disarment.

*. First Le4anto Ceramics Inc. 5S CA +/ SC"A 819 0199=2

2.O. **% on the /uestion

+. In "e: C<nanan 9= @IL 8+= 0198=2

I33"2: 7O9 RA * is constitutional. 9O.

1. Article * 'ermits 'artial 'assing of e6aminations at indefinite inter$als.

c. &ur'oses or effects $iolate the Constitution or its asic 'rinci'les.

. LA7 9O CO93ID2R2D B292RAL:

=. ;<ro6a 5S *alan6oni 7+ @IL 1/1 019=92

8. %mico ining  In6<strial Cor4. 5S 5alle>os -+ SC"A 78 019=82

%. eo4le 5S 5illan<e)a 1= SC"A 1,9 019-82

.) . . $A(  S%(S I(C. 5S. LIA('A I(D$ST"IES I(C.

. Le6esma ). Climaco '" (o. 1718 <ne 7 19/=

(1@ ro! analo)