Legal Ethics Cases

Digests
1. EPIFANIA Q. BANTOLO vs. ATTY. EGMEDIO B. CASTILLON, JR Adm. Case No.
6589, December 19, 2005
Facts:
The lawyer was a defendant in a case involving a parcel of land. The case
was decided in favor of the complainant, thereafter, a writ of execution was
issued, and consequently, defendants were ejected from the property.
However, respondents subsequently entered the disputed property and
harvested the palay planted therein. Plaintiffs were prompted to move for
defendants to be declared in contempt of court because of their open
defiance and wilful disobedience to the lawful orders of the court. In his
answer, respondent denied complainants allegations and claimed that said
complaint was a form of harassment. A hearing for the reception of
complainants evidence was conducted. While notices were subsequently sent
to respondent setting the case for reception of his evidence, no such hearing
pushed through due to respondents failure to inform the IBP of his new office
address.
Issues:
Whether or not the lawyer respondent acted with misconduct so as to
subject him for disciplinary measures.
Decision:
Respondents defiance of the writ of execution is a brazen display of
disrespect of the very system which he has sworn to support. Lawyers are
particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes, and this
deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof may
subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary
sanctions as well. Nevertheless, the supreme penalty of disbarment is not
proper in the instant case. The rule is that 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. While the Court will not hesitate to
remove an erring lawyer from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers when the
evidence calls for it, it will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will
suffice to accomplish the desired end. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty.
Egmedio B. Castillon is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month with a warning that a

repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
2. JOHN SIY LIM vs. ATTY. CARMELITO A. MONTANO A.C. No. 5653
February 27, 2006
Facts:
The complainant John Siy Lim was the defendant in Civil Case involving a
conjugal land of which decision was rendered in favour of him. On motion for
reconsideration, however, the trial court reversed itself and declared that the
sale was in fact an equitable mortgage. The complainant appealed the case
to the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of RTC. The case was
elevated to the SC which upheld the decision of the CA. Herein lawyer
respondent, the counsel of the losing party filed a motion to comply on
courts decision BUT filed a Complaint for nullity of TCT and other documents,
reconveyance, maintenance of physical possession before the RTC of
Caloocan City.
This prompted the complainant to file the instant complaint for
disbarment against respondent. He alleged that respondent filed the latter
out of malice, pointing out that it involves "the same parties, the same
causes of action and relief prayed for as that of the former case. Respondent
denied the allegations against him. While he admitted that he filed the latter
case as counsel for the plaintiff therein, he claimed that it was not filed with
malicious intent and that the case involves different cause of action.
Issue:
Whether or not the lawyer committed forum shopping so as to be
subjected for disciplinary measures
Decision:
It is clear that respondent is guilty of forum shopping. By his own
admission, he was aware that the decision on the first case was already final
and executory when he filed the second case. As a responsible member of the
bar, he should have explained the effect of such final and executory decision on
his clients rights, instead of encouraging them to file another case involving the
same property and asserting the same rights. The filing of multiple petitions
constitutes abuse of the Courts processes and improper conduct that tends to
impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished
as contempt of court. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.0225
and Rule 12.0426 of the Code, as well as a lawyers mandate "to delay no man

for money or malice. WHEREFORE, Atty. Carmelito A. Montano is SUSPENDED

from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.

3. JOSE TEOFILO T. MERCADO VS. MERCADO SECURITY BANK CORPORATION,

G.R. No. 160445, February 16, 2006
Facts:
Petitioners filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing
the Court of Appeals decision, the same denied the petition for failure to show
that there was an error committed in CAs judgment. Petitioners filed a motion
for reconsideration which was dismissed. A second motion for reconsideration
was filed but was dismissed for being prohibited. Petitioner then wrote to Justice
Davide telling him that the ponente and his counsel were very good friends and
that there is a pressure on the former to deny their petitions since the Chief
Justice wanted the judgment to be in favour of herein respondent. Therafter,
Chief Justice Davide required Atty. Jose P. Villanueva, to comment on the letter
and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. He submitted a
comment, strongly denying Mercados allegations in his letter. He denied having
told petitioners that their petition had to be denied again "because there was a
tremendous pressure from the Chief Justice in favor of Security Bank
Corporation.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty Villanueva is guilty of indirect contempt which may
subject him for disciplinary measure
Decision:
It was admitted by Atty. Villanueva that he and Justice Gutierrez have
known each other since 1964 and that Justice Gutierrez was in the wake of his
mother. Rule 15.06 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
that "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body." Further, Rule 15.07 provides that "a lawyer
must impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness." Atty. Villanueva took the forbidden course. In informing Mercado that
he was "a very very good, close and long time friend" of the ponente, Atty.
Villanueva impressed upon the former that he can obtain a favorable disposition
of his case. However, when his petition was dismissed twice, Mercados
expectation crumbled. This prompted him to hurl unfounded, malicious, and

disrespectful accusations against Chief Justice Davide and the ponente.

Wherefore, Mercado and Atty Villanueva is declared GUILTY of indirect contempt
of court. They are FINED P50,000.00 each and WARNED that a repetition of
similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty

4. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., and BEN A. NICOLAS, vs. Atty.

MACARIO D. ARQUILLO, A.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005
Facts:
Herein lawyer acted as counsel in a consolidated case both for the
complainants and one of the respondents. Respondent then filed a disbarment
case against Atty. Macario D. Arquillo, charging him with deceit, malpractice,
gross misconduct and/or violation of his oath as attorney by representing
conflicting interests. Even after receiving five notices, he failed to appear in any
of the scheduled hearings and consequently was deemed to have waived his
right to participate in the proceedings. The Board of Governors of the IBP
recommended his suspension for two (2) years.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Arquillo represented conflicting interests which may
subject him for disciplinary measures
Decision:
The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their
clients. Corollary to this duty, lawyers shall not represent conflicting interests,
except with all the concerned clients written consent, given after a full
disclosure of the facts.When a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties,
there is a conflict of interests, the existence of which is determined by three
separate tests: (1) when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to
fight for an issue or claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client;
(2) when the acceptance of the new retainer will require an attorney to perform
an act that may injuriously affect the first client or, when called upon in a new
relation, to use against the first one any knowledge acquired through their
professional connection; or (3) when the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of an attorneys duty to give undivided fidelity and
loyalty to the client or would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing
in the performance of that duty. Atty. Macario D. Arquillo is found GUILTY of

misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year.

5. ANTONIO REYES vs. THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, G.R. No. 152104

Facts:
Atty. Romeo G. Roxas, in a letter, intimated that Justice Nazario decided G.R.
No. 152072 and No. 152104 on considerations other than the pure merits of the
case, and called the Supreme Court a "dispenser of injustice." The Court En Banc
ordered him to explain in writing why he should not be held in contempt of court
and subjected to disciplinary action. Thereafter the Office of then Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban received from Roxas a letter imploring the former to hear
the case with impartiality and to investigate on the alleged miscarriage of justice
done in his case and to allow him to defend orally his stance. In another letter,
Atty Roxas explained that his previous letters were only expression of his honest
grievance against the ruling of the court.
Issue:
Whether or not the letters sent by Atty Roxas constitute contempt which may
subject him for disciplinary measures
Decision:
The attack on the person of Justice Nazario has caused her pain and
embarrassment. His letter is full of contemptuous remarks tending to degrade
the dignity of the Court and erode public confidence that should be accorded it.
His letter contained defamatory statements that impaired public confidence in
the integrity of the judiciary. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Romeo G.
Roxas is found GUILTY of indirect contempt of court. He is hereby FINED the
amount of P30,000.00

6. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, G.R. No.

131966. August 31, 2005
Facts:
The SC granted the petition for certiorari filed by the Republic of the
Philippines. The resolution of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-90-2811 dismissing the
Republics complaint was set aside, and the Ombudsman was ordered to proceed
with the preliminary investigation in said case to exclude respondents Teodoro D.
Regala and Jose C. Concepcion as defendants. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration on the aforesaid decision assailing that Regala and Concepcion
cannot be excluded as respondents because they are being charged for illegal
acts committed in their official capacity as members of the Board of Directors of
UNICOM and UCPB, in conspiracy with the other private respondents.
Issue:
Whether or not Regala and Concepcion must be excluded as respondents on
the cases under the privilege of communication existing between lawyer and
client relationship
Decision:
In Regala and Castillo cases the Court ordered the exclusion of petitioners
therein from the acts complained of in connection with the legal services they
rendered to the other respondents. In this case, respondents Regala and
Concepcion were constituted as Members of the Board Directors of UNICOM and
UCPB in the course of their duties as counsel, and following the ruling in the
Regala and Castillo cases, they should be excluded as defendants to the case.
They have made their position clear from the very beginning that they are not
willing to testify and they cannot be compelled to testify in view of their
constitutional right against self-incrimination and of their fundamental legal right
to maintain inviolate the privilege of attorney-client confidentiality.

7. NORMA SORIANO vs. ATTY. REYNALDO P. REYES, A.C. No. 4676, May 4, 2006
Facts:
Petitioners engaged the services of the respondent as counsel for two civil
cases. Both cases were dismissed for failure to file to file a pre-trial brief and failure
to prosecute. Claiming that the acts of respondent greatly prejudiced and damaged
them, complainants filed a Complaint for disbarment against respondent before this
Court. The IBP found respondent negligent in handling the cases of complainant and
recommended for his disbarment. Thereafter, Mrs. Soriano withdrew the disbarment
case at the demise of her husband on the ground that the lawyer did his best to
make up with them in the past years.
Issue:
Whether or not the disbarment case can terminate at the motion of the
petitioner to withdraw
Decision:
As we have previously ruled, the affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case
executed by a complainant does not automatically exonerate the respondent. A
case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of
interest of the complainant.16What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts
borne out by the record, the charge of negligence has been duly proved. This rule is
premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or
disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and
the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and
prosecuted solely for the public welfare. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants,
the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of
complainant or his withdrawal of the charges.
An attorney is bound to protect his clients interest to the best of his ability and with
utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable
negligence on his part. The respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the
duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to
aid in the speedy administration of justice. Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
In this case, by reason of Atty. Reyess negligence, complainant suffered actual loss.
He should have given adequate attention, care and time to his cases. Wherefore,
Atty. Reynaldo Reyes is found GUILTY of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
year.

8. ATTY. MARTIN T. SUELTO vs. NELSON A. SISON, EMIL A. SISON, FRANKLIN A.

SISON and SANTOS LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 158130,
July 29, 2005
Facts:
Respondents Sison brothers started negotiating for the sale of their three (3)
parcels of land to their herein co-respondent Santos Land Development Corporation.
The corporation asked herein petitioner to give the MOA prepared by Atty Basa a
final look. A part of the MOA talks about 10% of the total purchase of land to be
allocated for notarial and attorneys fees. There was, however, no agreement on the
amount of notarial fees to be paid or taken from the 10% retained amount. The
Sisons and the corporation affixed their signatures on the MOA, as finalized by
petitioner who notarized it on even date. After the execution of deed of Sale, they
receive a bill from petitioner asking his fees and charges in connection with the
preparation of documents on the sale. The Sisons wrote to him that he was not their
chosen lawyer; they did not employ him and thus have no right to charge them for
legal fees. As petitioner failed to collect his fees in connection with his finalization
and notarization of the MOA and preparation and notarization of the Joint Affidavit of
Clarification and Confirmation, he filed a complaint before the RTC for Collection of
Sum of Money and Attorneys Fees against the Sisons. The RTC ruled that while the
petitioner is not employed by the Sisons, the latter was benefited on the service of
the former and therefore must compensate the same with 100,000.00. The case
was elevated the to the CA who reversed the decision of the RTC on the ground that
the Sison had no obligation with the petitioner since he was not employed, and that
his service must be paid off by the corporation. Petitioner moved for reconsideration
but was denied, hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not plaintiff has been retained by, and/or rendered legal services
to, either of the other parties and is therefore entitled to notarial and attorneys fees
Decision:

The Sisons, having agreed in the MOA, which is the law between them and
the corporation, to charge notarial fees from the retained 10% of the purchase
price, but the balance thereof having been returned to them without petitioners
notarial fees being settled, they are under obligation to settle the same.. Therefore,
the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
and the decision of Branch 33 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City is ,
REINSTATED

9. QUIRINO TOMLIN II vs. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II, A.C. No. 6971
February 23, 2006
Facts:
Respondent borrowed from petitonerP600, 000.00 partially covered by seven
postdated checks. However, when complainant tried to encash them on their
respective due dates, the checks were all dishonored by the drawee bank.
Complainant made several demands, however, respondent still failed and refused to
pay his debt without justifiable reason. Consequently, complainant instituted a case
for seven counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the respondent before the
Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan. In addition, he filed the instant case for
respondents disbarment. Respondent alleged that the case should be dismissed
outright for violation of the rule on non-forum shopping. He argued that complainant
did not inform the IBP about the cases he filed for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 against
respondent pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan.
Respondent argued that the filing of the administrative case despite the pendency
of the criminal cases is a form of harassment which should not be allowed. This was
not recognized by the IBP who denied his motions and recommended his suspension
in the practice of law for 1 to two years.
Issue:
Whether or not the lawyers disbarment case may proceed even in the
existence of a criminal action against him
Decision:
The contention that complainant violated the rule against forum shopping
with the filing of this administrative complaint is bereft of merit. Forum shopping
applies only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings.
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are
distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. Respondent
should be reminded that the IBP has disciplinary authority over him by virtue of his
membership therein. WHEREFORE, Atty. Salvador N. Moya II is found GUILTY of gross

misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years

10. CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE, vs. ATTY. ALFREDO CASTILLO, August 3, 2005

Facts:
Respondent, who was already married with three children, had an affair with
complainant between 1996 to 1997, while he was reviewing for the bar until before
the release of the results thereof. Complainant got pregnant and respondent, who
was then already a lawyer, executed a notarized affidavit acknowledging the child
as his with a promise to support said child. Upon the birth of the child, however,
respondent started to refuse recognizing the child and from giving her any form of
support. Hence, he was suspended, indefinitely from the practice of law.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration seeking compassion and forgiveness
from this Court. He submitted certificates from government and civic organizations
appreciating his services as a lawyer, certificates of attendance from religious
groups, and certificates of good moral character from judges and lawyers in
Occidental Mindoro. IBP Occidental Mindoro Chapter also issued a Resolution (No.
01-2003) recommending the exoneration of respondent from administrative liability
Petitoner however claims that he has not shown repentance yet since he fails to
give support to the child.
Issue:
Whether or not the motion for reconsideration of a lawyer who was
suspended indefinitely may be considered with the recommendation of an IBP
chapter
Decision:
In view of respondents show of repentance and active service to the
community, the Court deems it just and reasonable to convert the penalty of
indefinite suspension to a definite period of two years suspension. WHEREFORE,
respondents motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The indefinite suspension

imposed on him by the Court in its Decision dated March 6, 2003 is REDUCED to
TWO YEARS suspension

11.In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A.
EDILION, A.M. No. 1928, August 3, 1978
Facts:
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors unanimously
recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll
of Attorneys for "stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues" to the IBP since the
latter's constitution notwithstanding due notice. HE argued that the annual dues
required constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is
being compelled, as a pre-condition to maintaining his status as a lawyer in good
standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as
a consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which
he is admittedly personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty
and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent
concludes, the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void
and of no legal force and effect.
Issue:
Whether or not the non payment of membership dues to the IBP constitutes a
valid ground to discipline a member of the BAR
Decision:
The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest in
elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require that the cost of
improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries
of the regulatory program the lawyers. Under the police power of the State, and
under the necessary powers granted to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the

respondent's right to practise law before the courts of this country should be and is
a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a
regulatory measure is recognize, then a penalty designed to enforce its payment,
which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable
or arbitrary. The Court's jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by our 1973 Constitution
when it explicitly granted to the Court the power to "Promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice ... and the admission to the practice of law and the integration of
the Bar ... (Article X, Sec. 5(5) the power to pass upon the fitness of the respondent
to remain a member of the legal profession is indeed undoubtedly vested in the
Court. WHEREFORE, Marcial A., is hereby disbarred, and his name is hereby ordered
stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.

12.PRECIOSA R. OBUSAN vs. GENEROSO B. OBUSAN, JR., Adm. Case No. 1392
April 2, 1984
Facts:
Respondent is a member of the BAR. He was working in the Peoples Homesite
and Housing Corporation, when he became acquainted with Natividad Estabillo who
represented to him that she was a widow. They had carnal relations. He begot with
her a son. He later came to know that Natividad's marriage to Tony Garcia was
subsisting or undissolved. Four days after the birth of the child he married herein
petitioner. Thereafter, when petitioner is out of the house, lawyer Obusan asked
permission from his mother-in-law to leave the house and take a vacation in his
hometown. Petitioner later learned that the respondent was cohabitating with
Natividad, something that the people around the place confirmed. She filed a
disbarment case against him on the ground of gross immorality. In defense,
respondent claimed that he no longer has any relationship with Natividad and the
reason he visits her place is to give support to his child with her. He claimed that he
was constrained to leave the conjugal home because he could not endure the
nagging of his wife, their violent quarrels, her absences from the conjugal home and
her interference with his professional obligations.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of immorality which may subject him
to disciplinary measures
Decision:

Respondent was not able to overcome the evidence of his wife that he was
guilty of grossly immoral conduct. Abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal
relations with a former paramour, a married woman, fails within "that conduct which
is wilful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion
of the good and respectable members of the community. Thus, a lawyer was
disbarred when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman
who had borne him a child. He failed to maintain the highest degree of morality
expected and required of a member of the bar. WHEREFORE, respondent is
disbarred. His name is stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

13.RENATO CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, G.R. No. 100113, September 3,

1991
Facts:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino
to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination
because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The Commission on
Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC
and assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC. Challenging the validity of the
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's nomination,
petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and
Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of
Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
Monsod passed the BAR, worked as an operations officer, chief executive officer of
an investment bank, legal and economic consultant or chief executive officer,
former Secretary-General and National Chairman of NAMFREL, and other works
other than litigation.
Issue:
Whether or not the legal act of a lawyer other than litigation constitutes
practice of law
Decision:

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage
in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the
profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service,
which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public hearings on
Monsod's confirmation, implicitly determined that he possessed the necessary
qualifications as required by law. The judgment rendered by the Commission in the
exercise of such an acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only
upon a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. this petition is hereby DISMISSED

14.RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE EDMUNDO T. ACUA, REGIONAL

TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 123, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891. July 28,
2005.
Facts:
AN anonymous complaint was filed against the respondent judge. According
to the letter, the respondent Judge conducted trials, signed orders and even
sentenced accused while on official leave. It is also alleged that the respondent
always use words like putris, Anak ng Pating, Putang ina and loves to glorify himself.
The respondent averred that the writers of the letter were actuated by improper
motive, and sent the letter with no other purpose than to harass him. Furthermore,
the allegations in the letter were fabricated, exaggerated, or misquoted.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge acted with grave misconduct so as to
subject him for disciplinary measures
Decision:
The act of respondent does not constitute such a gross ignorance of the rules
that will warrant an administrative liability. In view of the lack of malice and

improper motive in reporting for work and discharging his functions and taking into
account his desire to dispense justice promptly, respondent cannot be said to have
been grossly ignorant of the rules as to be deemed administratively liable. In the
use of foul words, the respondents use of such expletives is improper for the
extolled office of a magistrate of the law. By virtue of the very office he holds, the
public expects more of the respondent as he undeniably occupies an exalted yet
delicate niche in the administration of justice. WHEREFORE, respondent Judge
Edmundo T. Acua is found GUILTY of impropriety and is REPRIMANDED therefor

15.SPOUSES WILLIAM ADECER and TERESITA P. ADECER vs. Atty Emmanuel Akut,
ADM. CASE No. 4809
Facts:
Respondent was the legal counsel in a criminal case whose clients were
sentenced to the penalty of arresto mayor. He filed a Petition for Probation which
was denied on the ground that the law does not permit the grant of probation after
the lapse of the period for filing an appeal. Thereafter, his clients filed an
administrative case for his disbarment. In his defense, respondent claimed that the
complainants only had themselves to blame for failing to file a timely petition for
probation. Allegedly, the complainants failed to comply with an agreement with
respondent that they would immediately go to respondents office to discuss the
steps to be taken should they receive an adverse decision. Respondent claimed that
during the time complainants desisted from approaching him, he could not make a
choice in behalf of the complainants between the remedy of appeal and the benefits
of probation. The IBP Board of Governors recommended him to be suspended for six
(6) months.
Issue:
Whether or not the lawyer acted with negligence in his representation as a
counsel and is therefore may be subject for disciplinary measures.

Decision:
We have held that the failure of an attorney to file a timely motion for
reconsideration or an appeal renders him liable for negligence under the Code of
Professional Responsibility.31 In the instant case, the negligence exhibited by the
respondent is made more grievous by the fact that the Decision to be acted upon is
one that subjects his clients to incarceration. The lawyer should serve his client in a
conscientious, diligent and efficient manner and he should provide a quality of
services at least equal to that which lawyers generally would expect of a competent
lawyer in the like situation.35 By agreeing to be his clients counsel, he represents
that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill
having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect
the clients interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor, and his
client may reasonably expect him to discharge his obligations diligently.36
Respondent has failed to measure up to his oath. WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED. Atty. Emmanuel A. Akut is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for six (6) months and ADMONISHED henceforth to be more circumspect in the
performance of his duties to his clients.

16.ROMINA M. SUAREZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 91133.
March 22, 1993.
Facts:
Petitioner was charged in two Criminal Cases before the Regional Trial Court
with violation of the Bouncing Check Law. At the trial of the cases, petitioner did not
appear in court despite notices sent to her residence as appearing on the record
and to her bondsmen. The notice of the promulgation of the decision on said cases
were sent to her counsel while petitioner was still out of the country. On June 29,
1988, promulgation of the joint judgment of conviction of petitioner in the
aforementioned was made by the Branch Clerk of Court who read the decision.
Petitioner was represented by Atty. Buen Zamar at the reading of sentence. On
December 31, 1988, petitioner was arrested and detained in the local jail of Angeles
City. Petitioner later filed a motion for temporary release due to her pregnancy, it
was approved by the court. Later on, she filed a mandamus, which the SC directed
to the CA who later dismissed her petition. Hence, this petition for certiorari
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is bound by the negligence of her counsel
Decision:

The legal difficulty petitioner finds herself in is imputable to the negligence of her
de parte counsel, Atty. Vicente San Luis, in abandoning the conduct of the case
without formally withdrawing or at least informing petitioner that he would be
permanently staying in the U.S.A. so that petitioner could appoint another counsel.
A lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client. He owes his client full
devotion to his genuine interests, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. As a general rule, a client
is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence, and mistakes in handling the case
during the trial. However the rule admits exceptions. A new trial may be granted
where the incompetency of counsel is so great that the defendant is prejudiced and
prevented from fairly presenting his defense We rule, therefore, that under the facts
of the case, petitioner was deprived of due process of law. It is the better part of
judicial wisdom and prudence to accord the petitioner the opportunity to prove her
defense. It is abhorrent to the judicial conscience to consign petitioner to the
ordeals of imprisonment without affording her full opportunity to present her
evidence including, of course, the assistance of competent counselling.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 17488, the
decision of the trial court in the subject criminal cases, and the order of the trial
court denying petitioner's motion to set aside the promulgation of judgment and to
reopen the cases are hereby SET ASIDE. The trial court is hereby DIRECTED to
reopen Criminal Cases No. 7284-7296, 7302-7303, and 7650 for the reception of
evidence for the defense.
17.VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, AC. No. 6963
February 9, 2006
Facts:
Respondent prepared and notarized a Magkasanib na Salaysay3purportedly
executed by Donato Salonga and complainants mother, Basilia de la Cruz.
Complainant claimed that her mother could not have executed the joint affidavit
because she has long been dead. He disclaimed any knowledge about Basilias
death. He alleged that before he notarized the document, 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. A suspension or disbarment case was filed
against him which was later withdrawn by the petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the disbarment case may proceed even after the withdrawal
of the complainant of the complaint therefor
Decision:

Complainants desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not exonerate

respondent or put an end to the administrative proceedings. 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. Such is
in this case. Respondent made the public to believe that a person long dead has
executed an affidavit. Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of one year