Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

A. Requisites for Admissions to the Bar Sec. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. - Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.(Rule 138, RRC) B. Lawyers Oath Importance of the Lawyers Oath I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God. 1. In Re: Al C. Argosino Facts: Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993. The Court however deferred his oathtaking due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide. The criminal case which resulted in petitioners conviction arose from the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime in September 1991. After applying for probation, having it approved, and being discharged from it upon the Probation Officer's recommendation, petitioner filed before the Supreme Court a petition to be allowed to take the lawyers oath. The Court through then Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano issued a resolution requiring petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the Court evidence that he may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar. In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15) certifications/letters executed by among others two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a scholarship foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, through joint efforts of the latters family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case. The Court also required Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul, to comment on petitioners prayer to be allowed to take the lawyers oath. In his comment, he stated that he has forgiven petitioner but left the Court to decide on whether petitioner is now morally fit for admission to the bar. Issue: Whether Al Argosino should be allowed to take the lawyer's oath and practice law. Held: YES. The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. The Court stresses to Mr. Argosino that the lawyers oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyers oath. The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual and moral qualifications required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient administration of justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not only to weed out lawyers who have become a disgrace to the noble profession of the law but, also of equal importance, to prevent misfits from taking the lawyers oath, thereby further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent years has undoubtedly become less than irreproachable.

2. Orbes v. Deciembre
AC-5365. April 27, 2005 Facts: Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes for security of a loan. After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up four of the five checks for P50, 000 with different maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case for estafa against the spouses Olbes. This prompted the

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

spouses Olbes to file a disbarment case against Atty. Deciembre with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. In the report, Commissioner Dulay recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Issue: Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in accord with his fault. Held: Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral character. A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader. By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice. Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the publics faith in the legal profession. It is also glaringly clear that the Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and despite respondents full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain. Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. Considering the depravity of the offense committed by respondent, we find the penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years from the practice of law to be too mild. His propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention of one petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced suspended indefinitely from the practice of law effective immediately. 3. De Guzman v. De Dios Adm. Case No. 4943. January 26, 2001 PARDO, J.: Facts: On 1995 she hired by De Guzman as counsel to form a Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc.(SBHI) in Olongapo. It was registered with SEC and paid De Dios a monthly retainer fee of P5,000 On December 15,1997, the corporation required De Guzman to pay unpaid subscribed share of stock of P2,235,000.00 on or before Dec. 30, 1997. Later on January 29, 1998, De Guzman received a notice of auction sale of her delinquent shares and a copy of board resolution authorizing the sale. She later learned that Del Rosario, one of the incorporators of SBHI will acquire her shares. Such sale ousted her from the corporation while De Dios rose to be the president and De Guzman lost all her life savings Complainant alleged she relied on the advice of De Dios and believed that he would help her with management of the corporation. Respondent appeared as her counsel and signed pleadings. While respondent contend that she only appeared because the property belonged to SBHI and further said that complainant misunderstood the role of respondent as legal counsel of SBHI. That only her appearance was to protect the right of SBHI The said land of SBHI was owned by Japanese incorporators and not the complainant and her relationship towards the investors turned sour because she misappropriated the funds and property of the corporation. To save from bankruptcy, respondent advised all concerned stockholders to call for payment of unpaid subscriptions and sale of delinquent shares. Del Rosario transferred 100 shares to respondent in payment of legal services evidence by Deed of Waiver and transfer of corporate shares of stock On Oct. 22, 1999, IBP issued a resolution that the acts of respondent were not motivated by ill will as she acted in the best interest of her client.

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

Issue: W/N there is conflict of interest? Held: Yes. There is attorney-client relationship between the complainant and respondent since she was retained to form a corporation and appeared as counsel in behalf of complainant. There was evidence of collusion between the board and respondent. The respondent was now president of the SBHI which shows a clear case of conflict of interest. Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealing with their clients and the public with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. Respondent violated the prohibition against conflicting of interests and engaging in unlawful, dishonest and immoral deceitful conduct. The lawyers oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action. The acts of respondent Atty. de Dios are clearly in violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this Court will not tolerate. Decision: Suspension of 6 months with warning. C. Code of Professional Responsibility (Promulgated June 21, 1988) CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause. Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. 1. Donton vs Tansingco FACTS: This is a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco (respondent) for serious misconduct. In his Complaint dated 20 May 2003, Peter T. Donton (complainant) stated that he filed a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public document against Duane O. Stier, Emelyn A. Maggay and respondent, as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy Agreement. Sometime in September 1995, Mr. Stiera U.S. citizen and thereby disqualified to own real property in his name agreed that the property be transferred in the name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino. Mr. Stier, in the presence of Mr. Donton, requested Atty. Tansingco to prepare several documents that would guarantee recognition of him being the actual owner of the property despite the transfer of title in the name of Mr. Donton. Atty. Tansingco executed the OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT, recognizing Mr. Stiers free and undisturbed use of the property for his residence and business operations. The OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT was tied up with a loan which Mr. Stier had extended to Mr. Donton. Complainant averred that respondents act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier, being a foreign national, is disqualified to own real property in his name, constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code. Complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred for advising Stier to do something in violation of law and assisting Stier in carrying out a dishonest scheme. The IBP Board of Governors recommended respondents suspension from the practice of law for six months.

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

On 28 July 2004, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration before the IBP. Respondent stated that he was already 76 years old and would already retire by 2005 after the termination of his pending cases. He also said that his practice of law is his only means of support for his family and his six minor children.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Tansingco should be suspended or disbarred. RULING: The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. He is suspended from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision. A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer. Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended.

2. Dayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association, Inc. vs. Espiritu

FACTS: Officers and members of the Dayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association Inc. sought the services of respondent regarding a consolidated ejectment case where they were being sued as officers and members of the association. Complainants lost, however, and respondent advised them to file a supersedeas bond to stay their eviction and so they entrusted payment therfore to respondent. He receipted erroneously in the amount of P86,666.72 instead of the more than P200,000 but was corrected afterwards. Association President Minerva Genato then made a verbal demand for respondent to return the remaining balance, upon which respondent delivered a personal check for P141,904.00 in the name of Atty. Leonardo Ocampo. Check bounced for insufficency of funds so Ocampo sent a demand letter to Genato to make good the payment of the check. A number of demand letters were again sent to respondent. An Information charging respondent with estafa was liikewise filed. For his part, respondent argued that the amount if P141, 904.00 and not P206, 497.00 was meant as paymen of the subject porperty, he insisted that the instant administrative complaint must be dismissed. Issue: Did respondent violate the Code of Professional Responsiibility? Held: Yes. It is clear that respondent misappropriated the money which his clients, herein complainants, had entrusted to him for a specific purpose, and such act cannot be countenanced. Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from his client. A lawyer should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional capacity, because a high degree of fidelity and good faith on his part is exacted. In Parias v. Paguinto, the Court had the occasion to state that money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing fee, but not used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the client on demand. Indeed, a lawyer has no right to unilaterally appropriate his or her clients money. 3. Roberto Soriano vs Atty. Manuel Dizon A.C No. 6792January 25, 2006

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

Facts: A c o m p l a i n t - a f f i d a v i t f o r t h e d i s b a r m e n t o f A t t y . M a n u e l D i z o n , f i l e d b y Roberto Soriano with the Commission on BarDiscipline (CBD) of the Intergrated Bar of thePhilippines. Complainant Soriano alleged thatrespondent had violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01o f t h e C o d e o f P r o f e s s i o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d t h a t t h e c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e l a t t e r f o r frustrated homicide, which involved moralturpitude, should result in his disbarment.A c c o r d i n g t o t h e u n r e f u t e d s t a t e m e n t s o f c o m p l a i n a n t , A t t y . D i z o n , w h o h a s y e t t o comply with this particular undertaking, evena p p e a l e d t h e c i v i l l i a b i l i t y t o t h e C o u r t o f Appeals Issue: Whether or not the atty. Dizon violatesCanon 1 of rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibilities Held: Yes. It is also glaringly clear thatrespondent seriously transgressed Canon 1o f t h e C o d e o f P r o f e s s i o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y through his illegal possession of anunlicensed firearm his unjust refusal tosatisfy his civil liabilities. He has thusbrazenly violated the law and disobeyed thelawful orders of the courts. We remind himthat, both in his attorneys oath and in theCode of Professional Responsibility, he boundhimself to obey the laws of the land.All told, Atty. Dizon has shown through thisi n c i d e n t t h a t h e i s w a n t i n g i n e v e n a b a s i c sense of justice. He obtained thebenevolence of the trial court when its u s p e n d e d h i s s e n t e n c e a n d g r a n t e d h i m probation. And yet, it has been four yearssince he was ordered to settle his civill i a b i l i t i e s t o c o m p l a i n a n t . T o d a t e , respondent remains adamant in refusing tofulfill that obligation. By his extremeimpetuosity and intolerance, as shown by hisviolent reaction to a simple trafficaltercation, he has taken away the earningcapacity, good health, and youthful vigor of his victim. Still, Atty. Dizon begrudgescomplainant the measly amount that could never even fully restore what the latter haslost. 4. Baustista vs.Bernabe A.C. No. 6963. February 9, 2006 Facts: Atty. Sergio Bernabe prepared and notarized a Magkasanib na Salaysay purportedly executed by Donato Salonga and complainants mother, Basilia de la Cruz. Herein complainant, Victorina Baustista filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on November 16, 2004, praying for the suspension or disbarment of respondent for malpractice and unethical conduct in the performance of his duties as a notary public and a lawyer. The complainant claimed that her mother could not have executed the joint affidavit on January 3, 1998 because she has been dead since January 28, 1961. In his answer, defendant, alleged that the document was not falsified as he disclaimed any knowledge about Basilias death. That he requested for Basilias presence and in her absence, he allowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly a son-in-law of Basilia, to sign above the name of the latter as shown by the word by on top of the name of Basilia. Respondent maintained that there was no forgery since the signature appearing on top of Basilias name was the signature of Pronebo. On April, 2005, complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance against the lawyer. Issue: WON the respondent lawyer committed a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law to warrant suspension or disbarment. WON the Affidavit of Desistance of the petitioner exonerates him from disciplinary proceedings already initiated against him. Held:

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

Respondents act of notarizing the Magkasanib na Salaysay in the absence of one of the affiants is in violation of Rule 1.01 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law. Respondent was also remiss in his duty when he allowed Pronebo to sign in behalf of Basilia. The acts of the affiants cannot be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts of which they have personal knowledge. They should swear to the document personally and not through any representative. Otherwise, their representatives name should appear in the said documents as the one who executed the same. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Heretofore, defendants notarial commission was revoked and he was disqualified from reappointment for a period of two years.

5. Villanueva v. Beradio 6. Samala v. Valencia A.C. No. 5439. January 22, 2007. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
FACTS: Before us is a complaint dated May 2, 2001 filed by Clarita J. Samala (complainant) against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia (respondent) for Disbarment It was shown on record that Records show that during the trial for non-payment of rentals, herein respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel for the tenants Lagmay, Valencia, Bustamante and Bayuga by filing an Explanation and Compliance before the RTC. Respondent also represented Valdez in a civil case for ejectment Upon the promulgation of the decision, Presiding Judge Reuben P. dela Cruz warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of being counsel of record of both parties in a civil case. However, in another Civil Case respondent, as counsel for Valdez, filed a Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title against Alba, who is the respondents former client in previous cases. In the Civil Case No. 00-7137 for ejectment, respondent submitted TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdezs ownership despite the fact that a new TCT No. 275500 was already issued in the name of Alba on February 2, 1995. Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK for rescission of contract and cancellation of TCT No. 275500 was also filed on November 27, 2000, before RTC, Branch 273, Marikina City. It was revealed during the hearing that Civil Case Nos. 00-7137 and 2000-657-MK were filed on the same date, although in different courts and at different times. Culled from the records, Valdez entered into a retainer agreement with respondent. As payment for his services, he was allowed to occupy the property for free and utilize the same as his office pursuant to their retainer agreement. Respondent filed I.S. Nos. 00-443943 and 01-03616244 both entitled Valencia v. Samala for estafa and grave coercion, respectively, to protect his clients rights against complainant who filed I.S. No. 00-430645 for estafa against Lagmay, and I.S. No. 00-431846 against Alvin Valencia47 for trespass to dwelling. During the hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who are all over 20 years of age, 48 while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has eight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his wife died in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998.49 Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was staying in one of the apartments being claimed by complainant. However, he does not consider his affair with Lagmay as a relationship50 and does not consider the latter as his second family. He reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in Muntinlupa and another in Marikina.

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

ISSUE: W/N Atty. Valencia committed grave professional misconduct on the following: 1.) By serving as counsel for contending parties. 2.) By knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence. 3.) By initiating numerous cases in exchange for non-payment of rental fees. 4.) for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

HELD: Yes, he committed grave misconduct. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. He may not also undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client has terminated. The bare attorney-client relationship with a client precludes an attorney from accepting professional employment from the clients adversary either in the same case or in a different but related action. A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client.23 In the case of Nombrado v. Hernandez, that the termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The reason for the rule is that the clients confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the expiration of the professional employment.25 Consequently, a lawyer should not, even after the severance of the relation with his client, do anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he previously represented him nor should he disclose or use any of the clients confidences acquired in the previous relation.26 In this case, respondents averment that his relationship with Alba has long been severed by the act of the latter of not turning over the proceeds collected in connivance with the complainant, is unavailing. Alba may not be his original client but the fact that he filed a case entitled Valdez and Alba v. Bustamante and her husband, is a clear indication that respondent is protecting the interests of both Valdez and Alba in the said case. Respondent cannot just claim that the lawyer-client relationship between him and Alba has long been severed without observing Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court wherein the written consent of his client is required. In another case, Gonzales v. Cabucana, Jr., citing the case of Quiambao v. Bamba, it was held that: The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyers respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

Respondent is bound to comply with Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. Reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his clients case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. It was clear at the case at hand that respondents representation of Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and her husband, in one case, and Valdez against Alba, in another case, is a case of conflict of interests which merits a corresponding sanction from this Court. Respondent may have withdrawn his representation in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK upon being warned by the court, but the same will not exculpate him from the charge of representing conflicting interests in his representation in other related cases. Yes, he is guilty of knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence. Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice. Upon examination of the record, it was noted that Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK for rescission of contract and cancellation of TCT No. 275500 was also filed on November 27, 2000,35 before RTC, Branch 273, Marikina City, thus belying the averment of respondent that he came to know of Albas title only in 2002 when the case for rescission was filed. It was revealed during the hearing that Civil Case Nos. 00-7137 and 2000-657-MK were filed on the same date, although in different courts and at different times. Hence, respondent cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the title he submitted was already cancelled in lieu of a new title issued in the name of Alba in 1995 yet, as proof of the latters ownership. It matters not that the trial court was not misled by respondents submission of TCT No. 273020 in the name of Valdez, dismissing the complaint for ejectment. What is decisive in this case is respondents intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of Alba. In the case of Young v. Batuegas, SC held that a lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his clients rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his clients cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth. On initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees. No. We find the charge to be without sufficient basis. The act of respondent of filing the aforecited cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and his own interest, on the other, cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown that the same was being done to abuse judicial processes to commit injustice. The filing of an administrative case against respondent for protecting the interest of his client and his own right would be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is obligated to defend and prosecute the right of his client. Yes, SC find respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children. Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community. In several cases, the Court did not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for keeping a mistress in defiance of the mores and sense of morality of the community. That respondent subsequently married Lagmay in 1998 after the death of his wife and that this is his first infraction as regards immorality serve to mitigate his liability.

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

In this case, the admissions made by respondent are more than enough to hold him liable on the charge of immorality. During the hearing, respondent did not show any remorse. It is noted that during the hearing, respondent boasts in telling the commissioner that he has two housesin Muntinlupa, where his first wife lived, and in Marikina, where Lagmay lives. It is of no moment that respondent eventually married Lagmay after the death of his first wife. The fact still remains that respondent did not live up to the exacting standard of morality and decorum required of the legal profession. ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct and violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt of herein Resolution.

7. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL (SLU-LHS) FACULTY and STAFF
vs. ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ COMPLAINT: This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint Louis University-Laboratory High School (SLULHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS, for: (a) pending criminal case for child abuse and a labor case against him in the NLRC (b) contracting a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage (c) notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission. FACTS: Respondent was legally married to Teresita Rivera in 1982 at Tuba, Benguet. He thereafter contracted a subsequent marriage with Mary Jane Pascua in 1994, said second marriage was subsequently annulled for being bigamous. On the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that respondent deliberately subscribed and notarized certain legal documents on different dates from 1988 to 1997, despite expiration of respondents notarial commission on 31 December 1987. Respondent, in his comment, denied the charges of child abuse, illegal deduction of salary and others which are still pending before the St. Louis University (SLU), National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Prosecutors Office. He expressly admitted his second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage, and the subsequent nullification of the former. He also admitted having notarized certain documents during the period when his notarial commission had already expired. However, he offered some extenuating defenses such as good faith, lack of malice and noble intentions in doing the complained acts. ISSUE: WON Atty. Dela Cruz must be disbarred? HELD: The Court has laid down with a common definition of what constitutes immoral conduct, vis--vis, grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct is "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community" and what is "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree." Undoubtedly, respondents act constitutes immoral conduct. But it is NOT so gross as to warrant his disbarment. However, measured against the definition, the court is not prepared to consider respondents act as grossly immoral. As to the charge of misconduct for having notarized several documents during the years 1988-1997 after his commission as notary public had expired, respondent humbly admitted having notarized certain documents despite his knowledge that he no longer had authority to do so. He, however, alleged that he received no payment in notarizing said documents, but the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. Other charges constituting respondents misconduct filed before the Prosecutors Office of Baguio City, the Investigating Board created by SLU and the pending labor case before the NLRC, need not be discussed, as they are still pending before the proper forums. At such stages, the presumption of innocence still prevails in favor of the respondent. Atty. Rolando Dela Cruz IS guilty of immoral conduct, in disregard of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, and another two (2) years for notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission or a total of four (4) years of suspension. VIOLATED RULE 1.1 PROVISION A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, HOW IT WAS VIOLATED BY ATTY. DELA CRUZ His act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still in place, is contrary to honesty,

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

justice, decency and morality. By making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes. By acting as a notary public without the proper commission to do so.

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.

8. Advincula v.Macabata
Facts: Complainant Cynthia Advincula sought the legal services of Atty. Macabata, respondent herein regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours. They met to discuss the possibility of filing a complaint because accounts remained unsettled. After their dinner, respondent sent complainant home and while she was about to step out of the car, respondent held her arm and kissed her on the cheek and embraced her very tightly. They met again to finalize the draft of the complaint to be filed. After their meeting, respondent offered again a ride. Along the way, complainant felt so sleepy and when she was almost restless, respondent stopped the car and forcefully held her face and kissed her lips while the other hand held her breast. Complainant even in a state of shock, succeeded in resisting his criminal attempt and immediately managed to get out of the car. She filed a disbarment case against respondent for gross immorality. Issue: Whether respondent is guilty of gross immorality? Held: No. In Zaguirre v. Castillo, we reiterated the definition of immoral conduct, as such conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Furthermore, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must not simply be immoral, but grossly immoral. It must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. Complainants bare allegation that respondent made use and took advantage of his position as a lawyer to lure her to agree to have sexual relations with him, deserves no credit. The burden of proof rests on the complainant which in the case at bar, she miserably failed to comply with. Moreover, while respondent admitted having kissed complainant on the lips, the same was not motivated by malice. Be it noted also that the incident happened in a place where there were several people in the vicinity

9. Ronquilio, et. al v. Chavez FACTS: Complainants seek the disbarment or suspension of respondent from the practice of law for unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. They allege that respondent sold them a piece of property over which he has no right nor interest, and that he refuses to return to them the amount they have paid him for it.
Complainant Marili C. Ronquillo is a Filipino citizen currently residing in Cannes, France, together with her minor children, Alexander and Jon Alexander. In May 1999, complainant Marili Ronquillo and respondent entered into a Deed of Assignment for the price of P1.5M. Respondent transferred, in favor of the complainants, his rights and interests over a townhouse unit and lot, located at 75

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

Granwood Villas Subd., BF Homes, Quezon City. Respondent also obligated himself to deliver to complainants a copy of the Contract to Sell he executed with Crown Asia, the townhouse developer, dated April 19, 1996. Upon full payment of the purchase price, respondent further undertook to have Crown Asia execute a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of the complainants. Respondent received from complainants P750,000.00 upon execution of the Deed of Assignment. The balance was to be paid by complainants in four equal quarterly installments of P187,500.00 each. Thus, complainants issued in favor of respondent four postdated checks in the amount of P187,500.00 each. Complainants subsequently received information from Crown Asia that respondent has not paid in full the price of the townhouse at the time he executed the Deed of Assignment. Respondent also failed to deliver to complainants a copy of the Contract to Sell he allegedly executed with Crown Asia. For these reasons, complainant Marili Ronquillo ordered the bank to stop payment on the second check she issued to respondent in the amount of P187,500.00. On March 6, 2000, complainants, through their counsel, wrote respondent, informing him that they were still willing to pay the balance of the purchase price of the townhouse on the condition that respondent work on Crown Asias execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor. In the alternative, complainants demanded the return of the amount of P937,500.00, plus legal interest, within ten days. The amount of P937,500.00 represents the P750,000.00 down payment and the first quarterly installment of P187,500.00 which complainants paid respondent. In a letter dated May 2, 2000, addressed to complainants, respondent requested for an extension of 20 days from May 15, 2000 within which to either completely pay Crown Asia or return the money at your (complainants) option. The period lapsed but respondent did not make good his promise to pay Crown Asia in full, or return the amount paid by complainants. On February 21, 2002, complainants counsel sent respondent a second letter demanding the return of the amount of P937,500.00, including legal interest, for failing to comply with his promise. The demand was unheeded. Hence, this administrative complaint. ISSUE: W/N respondent is guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct. HELD: Yes, respondent is guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct. SC agreed with the findings of Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, to whom the instant disciplinary case was assigned for investigation, report and recommendation, found respondent guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct proscribed under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years. As provided by Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Conduct, as used in this rule, does not refer exclusively to the performance of a lawyers professional duties. This Court has made clear in a long line of cases7 that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. Furthermore, Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyers oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. In the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private capacity when he entered into a contract with complainant Marili representing to have the rights to transfer title over the townhouse unit and lot in question. When he failed in his undertaking, respondent fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It cannot be gainsaid that it was unlawful for respondent to transfer property over which one has no legal right of ownership. Respondent was likewise guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he concealed this lack of right from complainants. He did not inform

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

the complainants that he has not yet paid in full the price of the subject townhouse unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no right to sell, transfer or assign said property at the time of the execution of the Deed of Assignment. His acceptance of the bulk of the purchase price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not entitled to it, made matters worse for him. With the Respondents adamant refusal to return to complainant Marili Ronquillo the money she paid him respondent failed to live up to the strict standard of morality required by the Code of Professional Responsibility and violated the trust and respect reposed in him as a member of the Bar, and an officer of the court. Respondents culpability is therefore clear. He received a letter from complainants counsel demanding the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the complainants, or, in the alternative, the return of the money paid by complainants. In reply to said letter, respondent acknowledged his obligation, and promised to settle the same if given sufficient time. In no uncertain terms, respondent admitted not having full ownership over the subject townhouse unit and lot, as he has yet to completely pay Crown Asia. To be sure, complainants gave respondent sufficient time to fulfill his obligation. However, it was only after almost two years had passed, after respondent promised to pay Crown Asia or return to complainants the amount they paid him, that complainants sent respondent a second letter8 demanding solely the return of the amount of P937,500.00, including legal interest. By this time, it was indubitable that respondent would not be able to perform his end of their agreement. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege. It is granted only to those of good moral character. The Bar must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment. Respondent Atty. Homobono T. Cezar is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) YEARS, effective immediately. 10. Ting-Dumali vs Torres FACTS: In a Complaint filed on 22 October 1999, complainant Isidra Ting-Dumali charges respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres (her Brother-in-law) with presentation of false testimony; participation in, consent to, and failure to advise against, the forgery of complainants signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery, thereby violating his oath as a lawyer and the canons of legal and judicial ethics. Isidras parents died intestate, leaving several properties. Atty. Torres participated in the perjury done by his wife Felicisima and his sister-in-law Miriam when they made it appear in the extra-judicial settlement that they are the sole heirs. He presented that document to the Register of Deeds of Cavite so that the property would be transferred to Felicisima and Miriam. The lot was sold to Antel Holdings Inc. for P1,195,400 and Felicisima and Miriam accepted the payment. Atty. Torres defense: All the while he believed in good faith that the Ting sisters had already agreed on how to dispose of the said lot. If ever complainants signature was affixed on that document, it was done in good faith. On 14 June 2000, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation or decision. On 9 January 2003, after due hearing and consideration of the issues presented by both parties, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP found the actuations of the respondent to be violative of Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus she recommended that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. In its Resolution, of 21 June 2003, the Board of Governors of the IBP approved and adopted Commissioner San Juans report, but reduced the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for six years.

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Torres should be disbarred. RULING: Yes, he is guilty of gross misconduct. The respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession. In his long years as a lawyer, he must have forgotten his sworn pledge as a lawyer. LAWYERS OATH I, .......................... , do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. SO HELP ME GOD. This oath to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. By swearing the lawyers oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law, as well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of justice. The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar.

11. Vista Univesity v. Jones

12. Dizon vs. Lambino A.C. No. 6968. August 9, 2006. Facts: Two students of UP were suspects for the killing of Dennis Venturina. The UP Chancellor seek the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Atty. Dizon requested to take the suspects into his custody. Atty. Marichu Lambino, Legal Counsel of UP Diliman, advised against Atty. Dizons move as the latter was without a warrant. Later, the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor also joined in opposing the turn-over of the students. Atty. Dizon is claiming that under its Charter the NBI was authorized to make warrantless arrests. The two student-suspects were eventually indicted in court. Atty. Dizon filed a complaint against Atty. Lambino before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 to 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Dizon had earlier filed a criminal complaint also against Atty. Lambino, together with UP Chancellor and Vice Chancellor before the Ombudsman, for violation of P.D. 1829 which makes it unlawful for anyone to obstruct the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenses. Atty. Lambino in turn charged Atty. Dizon before the IBP with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03; Canon 6, Rules 6.01 and 6.02; and Canon 8, Rule 8.01 By Report and Recommendation submitted to the Board of Governors of the IBP, the investigating commissioner dismissed the case against Atty. Lambino and recommended reprimand to Atty. Dizon. Issues: WON the attempted arrest of the student suspects by the NBI could be validly made without a warrant. WON there was probable cause for prosecuting petitioner for violation of P.D. No. 1829. Held: The NBI Charter clearly qualifies the power to make arrests to be in accordance with existing laws and rules. By persisting in his attempt to arrest the suspected students without a warrant, Atty. Dizon violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.02A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

The objection of the UP officials to the arrest of the students cannot be construed as a violation of P.D. No. 1829, Sec. 1 (c) without rendering it unconstitutional, they having a right to prevent the arrest at the time because their attempted arrest was illegal. Indeed, Atty. Lambino was legally justified in advising against the turn over of the suspects to Atty. Dizon, there being no basis for him to effect a warrantless arrest Atty. Dizon was reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.

13. Lijauco v. Terrado A.C. No. 6317 August 31, 2006 Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
COMPLAINT: Gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of payment representing attorneys fees. FACTS: Lijauco engaged the services of Atty Terrado in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist in recovering her deposit with Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba, Laguna. The property identified as Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said bank is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ of Possession and did not protect her interests in the Compromise Agreement which she subsequently entered into to end it. Respondent averred that the P70,000.00 he received from complainant was payment for legal services for the recovery of the deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not include the case pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bian, Laguna. He admitted that he divided the legal fees with two other people as a referral fee. ISSUE: WON Atty. Terrado guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice, and STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered toRETURN, within thirty (30) days from notice, the sum of P70,000.00 to complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco. RULE 1.01 PROVISION A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases. A lawyer shall handle any legal matter without adequate prepartion REASON FOR BEING GUILTY By luring complainant to participate in a compromise agreement with a false and misleading assurance that complainant can still recover after Three (3) years her foreclosed property. By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other individuals as commission/referral fees. Respondents disregard for his clients interests is evident in the iniquitous stipulations in the compromise agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her property; that the redemption period has already expired thus consolidating ownership in the bank, and that she releases her claims against it. The Investigating Commissioner (IBP) observed that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the recovery of the deposit amounting to P180,000.00 is unreasonable.

9.02

18.02

20.01

A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. 20.1 states the determining factors.

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

14. PAGCOR vs. CARANDANG Facts: PAGCOR and Bingo Royale executed a Grant of Authority to Operate Bingo Games. In the course of its operations, Bingo Royale incurred arrears amounting to P6,064,833.14 as of November 15, 2001. Instead of demanding the payment therefor, PAGCOR allowed Bingo Royale and respondent Atty. Carandang to pay the said amount in monthly installment of P300,000.00 from July 2001 to June 2003. Bingo Royale then issued to PAGCOR 24 Bank of Commerce checks in the sum of P7,200,000.00 signed by respondent. However, they were all dishonored by reason of Bingo Royales Closed Account.Despite demands, respondent failed to pay the amount of the checks. This prompted PAGCOR to file a case against respondent for violation of B.P. 22. PAGCOR contends that in issuing those bouncing checks, respondent is liable for serious misconduct, violation of the Attorneys Oath and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and prays that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. In his Opposition to the complaint, respondent averred that he is not liable for issuing bouncing checks because they were drawn by Bingo Royale. His act of doing so is not related to the office of a lawyer. On November 20, 2001, PAGCOR closed the operations of Bingo Royale. Respondent filed a claim for damages. Subsequently, Bingo Royale became bankrupt. Respondent now maintains that the dishonor of the checks was caused by circumstances beyond his control and pleads that our power to disbar him must be exercised with great caution. Issue: Whether Atty. Carandang is guilty of serious misconduct; hence he should be disbarred. Held: YES, he was guilty of serious misconduct, but he was only suspended from the practice of law for 6 months. As a lawyer, respondent is deemed to know the law, especially B.P. Blg. 22. By issuing checks in violation of the provisions of this law, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct. Misconduct has been defined as wrong or improper conduct; and gross has been held to mean flagrant; shameful (Webster). This Court once held that the word misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. Respondent likewise violated the Attorneys Oath that he will, among others, obey the laws; and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically the following provisions: Canon 1A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Rule 1.01A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Canon 7A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7.03A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

15. RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO, CLERK OF COURT IV, RTC, ORAS, EASTERN SAMAR Facts: In a resolution dated June 27, 2006, the Supreme Court found Atty. Raquel G. Kho, former clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar, guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody as required by OCA Circular No. 8A93. He was ordered to pay a fine of P10,000 for his transgression. The matter did not end there, however. Because his malfeasance prima facie contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.012 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court ordered him to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and as an officer of the court. In his explanation, Atty. Kho admitted that his failure to make a timely remittance of the cash deposited with him was inexcusable. He maintained, however, that he kept the money in the courts safety vault and never once used it for his own benefit. Atty. Khos apparent good faith and his ready admission of the infraction, although certainly mitigating, cannot negate the fact that his failure to remit P65,000 in judiciary funds for over a year was contrary to the mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93. That omission was a breach of his oath to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities3 and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

CANON 1A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes. RULE 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Issue: Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of unlawful conduct in violation of the Attorney's Oath. Held: YES. It is no accident that these are the first edicts laid down in the Code of Professional Responsibility for these are a lawyers foremost duties. Lawyers should always keep in mind that, although upholding the Constitution and obeying the law is an obligation imposed on every citizen, a lawyers responsibilities under Canon 1 mean more than just staying out of trouble with the law. The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary to law is unlawful. It does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although it is broad enough to include it. Thus, the presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 which specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful conduct. Atty. Khos conduct was not only far from exemplary, it was unlawful as well. However, his candid and repentant admission of his error, his lack of intent to gain and the fact that this is his first offense should temper his culpability considerably. Under the circumstances, a fine of P5,000 should suffice. 16. Guevarra v. Eala D. Canon 2 CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION. Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed. Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights. Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant. E. Canon 5 CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE. 1. Sps. Williams v. Enriquez A.C. No. 6353 February 27, 2006 Facts: Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez stands charged with "unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful acts in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, and with conduct unbecoming an attorney." The charges are contained in the Joint Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment1 filed by the spouses David W. Williams and Marisa B. Williams. It appears that respondent is the counsel of record of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 134432 pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Dumaguete City where complainants are the defendants. According to the complainant-spouses, Marisa Williams bought the lot subject of the controversy. A Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was then issued in her favor, stating that she is "Filipino, married to David W. Williams, an American citizen."3 On January 8, 2004, respondent charged her with falsification of public documents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dumaguete City.

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

Attorney Enriquez, quotes more outdated law, declaring that her "act of marrying" her husband was equivalent to renouncing her citizenship. He also doggedly attempts to show that the 1987 Constitution supports his position, not Marisas In their Position Paper, complainants claimed that respondent had maliciously and knowingly filed fabricated cases against them and that his acts were forms of attempted extortion. They also adopted their joint complaintaffidavit by way of incorporation, along with their other pleadings. For his part, respondent maintained that complainant Marisa Williams was no longer a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines as a result of her marriage to David Williams. There is no evidence shown by respondent that complainant Marisa Bacatan-Williams has renounced her Filipino citizenship except her Certificate of Marriage, which does not show that she has automatically acquired her husbands citizenship upon her marriage to him. The cases cited by respondent are not applicable in this case as it is clear that they refer to aliens acquiring lands in the Philippines. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Enriquezs insufficient knowledge of the law shall be a ground for his disbarment. Ruling: As pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence.10 Indeed, when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.11 As a retired judge, respondent should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a client.12 In this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the Constitution,13 the most basic law of the land.14 Implicit in a lawyers mandate to protect a clients interest to the best of his/her ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments, and participate in continuing legal education programs.15 Thus, in championing the interest of clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyers oath, but should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the latters cause be dismissed on a technical ground.16 Ignorance encompasses both substantive and procedural laws.17lavvph!1.net We find too harsh the recommended penalty of the Investigating Commissioner. It must be stressed that the power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of a lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty.18 Pursuant to the IBP Commission on Bar Disciplines Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,19 and considering further that this is respondents first infraction, we find that the penalty of reprimand as recommended by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, will suffice.

2. Dulalia v. Cruz Juan Dulalia, Jr., vs Atty. Pablo C. Cruz (A.C. No, 6854, April 25, 2007 [Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1380]) Facts: Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, Bulacan (respondent), is charged by Juan Dulalia, Jr. (complainant) of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainants wife Susan Soriano Dulalia filed an application for building permit for the construction of a warehouse. Despite compliance with all the requirements for the purpose, she failed to secure a permit, she attributing the same to the opposition of respondents who wrote a September 13, 2004 letter to Carlos J. Abacan, Municipal Engineer and concurrent Building Official of Meycauayan saying that unbearable nuisances that the construction creates and its adverse effects particularly the imminent danger and damage to their properties, health and safety of the neighbors adjoining the site. By complainants claim, respondent opposed the application for building permit because of a personal grudge against his wife Susan who objected to respondents marrying her first cousin Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 while respondents marriage with Carolina Agaton which was solemnized on December 17, 1967, is still subsisting. Respondent married Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 at the Clark County, Nevada, USA,21 when the Family Code of the Philippines had already taken effect.22 He invokes good faith, however, he claiming to have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code.23 For while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shallhave

Problem Area in Legal Ethics Dean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

retroactive application, there is a qualification there under that it should not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. In respondents case, he being out of the country since 1986, he can be given the benefit of the doubt on his claim that Article 83 of the Civil Code was the applicable provision when he contractedthe second marriage abroad. From 1985 when allegedly his first wife abandoned him, an allegation which was not refuted, until his marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano, there is no showing that the was romantically involved with any woman. And, it is undisputed that his first wife has remained an absentee even during the pendency of this case.Respondents misimpression that it was the Civil Code provisions which applied at the time he contracted his second marriage and the seemingly unmindful attitude of his residential community towards his second marriage notwithstanding, respondent may not go suit free. Held: Respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: CANON 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practicaltraining of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.Respondents claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to thePhilippines together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith."It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are expected to be in the forefront in theobservance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently theirobligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes.WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty of violating Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year. He is WARNED that asimilar infraction will be dealt with more severely