Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
FACTS:
ISSUES:
Whether or not Atty. Renomeron, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by
the Court for his malfeasance as a public official. YES
Whether or not the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
government service in the discharge of official tasks. YES
HELD:
1.
2.
COLLANTES VS RENOMERON
FACTS:
RAMOS VS IMBANG
FACTS:
IMBANGs CONTENTIONS:
Ramos knew that he was in the government service from the very
start. Infact, he first met the complainant when he was still a
district attorney in the Citizen's Legal Assistance Office
(predecessor of PAO) of Bian, Laguna and was assigned as
counsel for Ramos' daughter.
In 1992, Ramos requested him to help her file an action for
damages against the Jovellanoses. Because he was with the PAO
and aware thatRamos was not an indigent, he declined. (*Alibi)
Nevertheless, he advised Ramos to consult Atty. Tim Ungson, a
relative who was a private practitioner. Atty. Ungson, however, did
not accept the case as she was unable to come up with the
acceptance fee agreed upon.
Notwithstanding Atty. Ungson's refusal, Ramos allegedly remained
adamant. She insisted on suing the Jovellanoses. Afraid that she
mightspend the cash on hand,
Ramos asked Imbang to keep the P5,000 whileshe raised the
balance of Atty. Ungson's acceptance fee.
On April 15, 1994, Imbang resigned from the PAO.
A few months later in September 1994, Ramos again asked
Imbang to assist her in suing the Jovellanoses. Inasmuch as he was
now a private practitioner, Imbang agreed to prepare the
complaint. However, he was unable to finalize it as he lost contact
with Ramos.
CBD Recommendations:
Suspension from the practice of law for threeyears and ordered him to
immediately return to the complainant theamount of P5,000 which was
substantiated by the receipt.
Board of Governors:
adopted and approved the findings of the CBD,however, modified the CBD's
recommendation with regard to therestitution ofP5,000 by imposing
interest at the legal rate, reckoned from1995 or, in case of Imbangs failure
to return the total amount, anadditional suspension of six months.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Imbang should be disbarred.
HELD: YES
ALI VS BUBONG
Facts:
They also bear the heavy burden of having to put aside their
private interest in favor of the interest of the public; their private
The circumstances do not show that the respondent did in any way
promote, advance or use his private interests in the discharge of
his official duties.
To repeat, since the sales application was not brought before the
Committee on Awards when the respondent was still a member, no
sufficient basis exists to conclude that he used his position to
obtain personal benefits. We note in this regard that the denial of
the complainants sales application over the subject land was
made by the DENR, not by the Committee on Awards.
Where no case has in the first place been proven, nothing has to
be rebutted in defense.
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered,
we DISMISS the
administrative case for violation of Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, filed against retired
Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.
PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS
When Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099 were transferred from the SBs
2nd Division to the 5th Division, the latter also denied the motion
to disqualify. PCGGs MFR was denied.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE
1. WON this case involves the adverse interest aspect of Rule 6.03
2. WON there exists a congruent-interest conflict sufficient to disqualify
respondent Mendoza from representing the Lucio Tan Group.
2a. WON Atty. Mendozas act of advising the Central Bank on the legal
procedure to liquidate Genbank is included within the concept of matter
under Rule 6.03. NO
2b. WON the intervention of Atty. Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is
significant and substantial. NO
HELD
2a.
In interpreting Rule 6.03, the Court also cast a harsh eye on its use
as a litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel as well as deprive
his client of competent legal representation. The danger that the
rule will be misused to bludgeon an opposing counsel is not a
mere guesswork.
Also the switching sides concern does not cast a shadow in the
case at bar. The danger that confidential official information might
be divulged is nil, if not inexistent. There are no inconsistent
sides to be bothered about in the case at bar. In lawyering for
the Lucio Tan Group, Atty. Mendoza is indirectly defending the
validity of the action of Central Bank in liquidating Genbank and
selling it later to Allied Bank. Their interests coincide instead of
colliding.
Huyssen vs. Guttierez
Facts:
In 1995, the complainant and her three sons, all American citizens,
applied for Philippine Visas.