Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
BAR
BAR
the
vs.
BENCH
refers
to
the
whole
body
of
attorneys
members
of
the
legal
profession.
BENCH
denotes
the
whole
body
PRACTICING
of
LAWYER
Trial
Lawyer A
lawyer
who
administrative
agencies
or
boards
work
either
for
the
prosecution
Practicing
Lawyer - one engaged
are practicing
lawyers
but
not
and
counselors ,
collectively,
judges
vs.
TRIAL
LAWYER
personally
handles
cases
in
court ,
which
means
engaging
in
actual
trial
or
for
the
defense
of
clients.
in
the practice
of law .
All
trial lawyers
all
practicing
lawyers
are
trial
lawyers.
counsel, appointed or
assigned
by
the
the
Bar
in
good
standing
who ,
by
ability,
may
adequately
defend
the
Attorney of
Record
or
Counsel
de
Parte - one
of
appearance
and
who
hence
is
formally
records
as
the
attorney
of
the
party.
Of
Counsel to
distinguish
attorneys
are referred
to
as
them
from
of counsel
court, from
reason
of
accused.
who
has
filed
a
mentioned
in
attorneys
of
record,
notice
court
associate
PRACTICE
Q:
What is
practice
of
OF
LAW
law?
A: Practice
of
Law
means any activity
the application of law,
legal procedure,
in or out
knowledge,
of
court
which requires
training and experience.
2
**** The
title
attorney
is
reserved
to
those
who,
having
obtained the
necessary
degree in
the
study
of
law
and
successfully
taken
the
Bar
Examinations,
having
been
admitted
to
the
Integrated
Bar
of
the
Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing,
and
it
is
they
only
who
are
authorized
to
practice
law
in
this
jurisdiction .
As
to
the
case
of
Alauya,
the
Supreme
Court
has
declared
that
persons
who
pass
the
Sharia
Bar
are
not
full-fledged
members
of
the
Philippine
Bar, hence
may
only
practice law
before
Sharia
courts.
While
one who has been admitted to the Sharia Bar , and one who has been
admitted to the
Philippine Bar, may both be considered counselors, in the
sense
that
they
give
counsel or
advice
in
professional capacity, only the
latter is an attorney. (Alawi vs. Alauya, 268 SCRA 628, February 24, 1997).
unauthorized
and
Atty.
without
HELD: NO.
Respondent,
although
a
law
graduate
of
the
FEU
Institute
of
Law, never took the bar.
He has no
right
to
use
the
title Atty.
which
others
have
earned
through
rigorous
and
serious
efforts .
Likewise,
he
has
no
right
to
represent
himself
as
a
law
practitioner
with
a
law
firm
under
his
name .
Respondents
defense
that
he
used
the
title
Atty. in good faith
does
not
exonerate
him
from
liability .
Respondent
should
know
that
a
mere
law
graduate
is
not
entitled
to
use
the
title Atty. and
practice
law
unless
and
until
he
passes
the bar and
meets the requirements of the Rules of Court.
Lastly,
his
voluntary
desistance
from
using
the
title
does
not
mitigate his liability
either.
False
claiming
to
be
an
attorney
and
acting
as
such
without
authority
constitutes
contempt
of
court.
Q:
Does
lawyer
have
the
right
to
represent
himself?
A: YES. A party
has
the right
to
represent
himself .
Even
if
the
is
suspended
or
disbarred,
he
can
appear
for
himself .
This
however, is
limited
to
criminal
cases
concerning
grave
or
less
offenses.
UNATHORIZED PRACTICE
ALVIN S. FELICIANO
OF
lawyer
right,
grave
LAW
FACTS:
On
December
13,
court
for
violating
Rules
suspended from the practice
2005 ,
Atty.
15.03
and
of law for
However,
on June
5,
to
defend
the
rights
of
dispute before the
RTC of
2007,
Atty. Lozada
her
husband
who
Valenzuela
City.
The complainant
who is
complaint
against
Atty.
Lozada
while still suspended from the
Lozada
was
found
15.04
of
CPR
a
period of two
was
is
guilty
by
and
she
(2) years.
the
was
forced by circumstance
embroiled
in
a
legal
Atty.
Lozada
claimed
that
she
believed
in
good
faith
that
her
appearance
as
wife
of
Edilberto
Lozada
is
not
within
the
prohibition
to
practice
law,
considering
that
she
is
defending
her
husband
and
not
a
client.
She insisted that
her
husband is a victim of injustice ,
and
his
reputation
and
honor
are
at
stake ,
thus,
she
has
no
choice
but
to
give him legal
assistance.
3
ISSUE:
Whether
Atty . Lozadas
appearing
as
within the prohibition of practice
of
law.
HELD: YES.
Practice
which
requires
the
and experience.
counsel
for
her
of
law
embraces
any
activity
in
application
of
law,
legal
procedure,
husband
is
or
out
of
court,
knowledge,
training
It
is
clear
that
when Atty.
Lozada
appeared
for
and
in
behalf
of
her
husband
and
actively
participated
in
the
proceedings
therein
within
the
two
(2)
year
suspension,
she,
therefore,
engaged
in
the
unauthorized
practice
of
law.
Atty.
Lozadas
very well that at
her two (2) years
defense
of
good
faith
the time she represented
suspension order.
fails
her
to
convince .
husband , she
She
knew
still serving
She
would
have deserved a harsher
penalty but the fact that it
is
part
of
the
Filipino
culture
that
amid
an
adversity ,
families
will
always
look
out
and
extend
a
helping
hand
to
a
family member , more
so, in
this case, to a spouse. Thus, considering that Atty. Lozadas actuation was
prompted by her affection to her husband
and that in essence , she was
not
representing
a
client
but
rather
a
spouse, The
SC
deems
it
proper
to mitigate the severeness of
her penalty.
C. LINGAN
vs.
Atty. Baliga to
of suspension.
perform
his
Atty.
Baliga
argued
that
he
cannot
be
suspended
connected
with
his
function
as
Commission
on
Human
Director
as his
suspension from the practice of law did
suspension from the practice of
law.
for
acts
not
Rights
Regional
not include his
ISSUE:
Whether
his
suspension
of
HELD: YES.
Practice of
requires
the
application
experience.
law
of
Work
is
government
considered practice of law.
The
Supreme
practice of
law.
the
practice
is
any
activity, in or out
of
law ,
legal
procedure,
knowledge,
that
Court
from
has
requires
the
the
use
exclusive
of
legal
jurisdiction
to
law
includes
court, which
training
and
knowledge
regulate
is
the
What
constitutes
Moral
Turpitude?
A: Moral
Turpitude
imports
an
act
of
baseness ,
vileness
or
depravity
in
the
duties
which
one
person
owes
to
another
or
to
society
in
general
which
is
contrary
to
the
usual
accepted
and
customary
rule
of
right
and duty which a person should follow.
Q: What
are
the
A: The
following
moral turpitude:
acts
acts
involving
have
been
moral
turpitude?
declared
by
the
court
as
involving
4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
CONVICTION
FOR
AND
fraternity
neophyte
MELVIN G. GARCIA
TURPITUDE
The
RTC
of
to suffer
the
were
walking
and
just
without
any
provocation
his
rifle,
and
started
five meters ,
more
or
less,
heard
screeching
sound
of
saw
Sesbreos
aiming
his
was hit
which
led
to
his
Cebu
found
Sesbreo
guilty
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
of
murder
and
sentenced
On
appeal,
the
SC
downgraded
the
crime
to
homicide and
sentenced
Sesbreo
to
suffer
the
penalty
of
imprisonment
for
9
years
and
1
day
of
prision
mayor
as
minimum
to
16
years
and
4
months
of
reclusion
temporal
as
maximum.
Sesbreo was
acceptance of the
ISSUE:
Whether
turpitude
which
Atty.
Sesbreos
conviction
warrants his
disbarment.
for
homicide
conviction
of
Sesbreo
circumstances
leading
to
following
constitutes
his
moral
moral turpitude.
a
member of
reason of
his
baseness , vileness,
or depravity in the
to his
fellow
men
or
to society in
modesty or good moral
character.
for
the
the
crime
death
of
of
the
homicide
have
victim
involved
found
moral
Atty.
have
place
Neither victim
Amparado nor Yapchangco was
shown to be
Sesbreo and
neither
the victim Amparado
or
Yapchangco
wronged
Atty.
Sesbreo.
They
simply
happened
to
be
at
and time the early morning June 3, 1993.
a foe of
shown
to
the
wrong
The
to
is
only
practice
of
law is not a
those possessing good moral
right but
character.
privilege .
A
violation
of
the
high
moral
standards
of
the
justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty against a
the penalty of
disbarment.
NAZARIA
HERNANDEZ vs.
January
31,
ATTY.
JOSE
It
granted
legal
profession
lawyer , including
C. GO
5
ISSUE: Whether
immoral acts.
respondent
engage
in
deceitful,
dishonest,
unlawful
and
grossly
HELD: YES.
Obviously,
had he sold the lots to other buyers , complainant
could have earned
more.
Records
show
that
she
did
not
receive
any
amount
from
respondent.
Clearly,
respondent
did
not
adhere
faithfully
and
honestly in his duty as complainants counsel.
Respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly to his obligation and
duty
as
counsel
when
he
took
advantage
of
the
trust
and
confidence
reposed
in
him
by
petitioner.
Respondent
is
duty
bound
to
render
a
detailed
report
to
petitioner
on
how
much
he
sold
the
latters
lots
and
the
amounts
paid
to
her creditors.
His
acts
of
acquiring
for himself
petitioners
lots
entrusted
to him are ,
by any
standard,
acts
constituting
gross misconduct,
a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty,
willful in character, and
implies
a
wrongful
intent
and
not
mere
error
in
judgment.
Membership
in
the
legal
profession
is
a
privilege.
And
whenever
it
is
made
to
appear
that
an
attorney
is
no
longer
worthy
of
the
trust
and
confidence
of
his clients
and
the
public ,
it
becomes
not
only
the
right
but
also
the
duty
of
this
Court ,
which
made
him
one
of
its
officers
and
gave
him
the
privilege
of
ministering within
its
Bar ,
to
withdraw
the
privilege.
Respondent,
by
his
conduct,
blemished
not
only
his
integrity
as
a
member
of
the
Bar, but
also
the
legal profession.
He
is
hereby
DISBARRED.
Conviction
of
crime
involving
moral
turpitude
is
ground
for
disbarment
FACTS:
Respondent
Atty.
Martinez
offered
his
legal
services
to
the
victims
of
the
Doa
Paz
tragedy
for
free.
The
plaintiff
in
the
said
civil
case
was
issued
a
check
for
P90,000
by
Sulpicio
Lines
representing
compensation for the deaths of his wife and two daughters . Atty. Martinez
asked
plaintiff
to
endorse
said
check ,
which
was
then
deposited
in
the
account of Dr. Martinez, Atty. Martinezs wife.
When plaintiff asked
for
his
money,
he
was
only
able
to
recover
a
total
of
P30,000 .
Atty.
Martinez claimed
the remaining P60,000
as
his
attorneys
fees .
The
trial
court
held
that
it
was
absurd
and
totally
ridiculous
that
for
a
simple
legal
service,
respondent
would
collect
2/3
of
the
money
claim.
Respondent
Martinez was convicted
by
final
judgment
of
violation of BP
Blg. 22.
ISSUES: 1)
2)
Is violation of
What
is
the
BP 22
a crime involving
appropriate penalty?
moral
turpitude?
CONTEMPT
OF
COURT
FACTS: Castillon
is
the
lawyer
and
one
of
the
defendants
in
a
case
involving
a
parcel
of
land
in
Valderrama ,
Antique.
The
case
was
decided
in
favor
of
the
complainant
and
her
co-plaintiffs ,
with
the
decision
of
the
RTC having been affirmed
by
the CA
and
defendants
petition
for
certiorari
denied
by
the
Supreme Court.
Thereafter,
a
writ
of
execution
was issued, by virtue of which, defendants were ejected from the property.
However, respondent, with his co-defendants, subsequently entered the disputed
property and harvested palay thereon . Plaintiffs were prompted to move out
that
defendants
be
declared
in
contempt
of
court
because
of
their
open
defiance
and
willful
disobedience
to
the
lawful orders
of
the
court,
which
were
abetted by
the
acts
of
Atty.
Egmedio
Castillon, Jr.
who
is
an
officer of
the
court.
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
Castillon
is
guilty
of
the
said
acts.
HELD: YES.
Castillon is guilty of indirect contempt for disobeying
the writ
of execution
and
for
attempting
to
mislead
the
Commission
into
believing
that the contempt charge
is still pending by submitting an Order of the
trial
court
which
pertains
to
a
second
contempt
charge .
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
of
contempt
but
to
disciplinary
sanctions
as
well .
A
lawyer
is
first
and
foremost
an
officer
of
the
court.
Thus,
while
he
owes
his
entire
devotion to the interest and causes of his client , he
must
ensure
that
he
acts
within
the
bounds
of
reason
and
common
sense ,
always
aware
that
he
is
an
instrument
of
truth
and
justice.
More importantly,
as
an
officer
of
the
court
and
its
indispensable
partner
in
the
sacred
task
of
administering
justice,
graver
responsibility
is
imposed
upon
a
lawyer
than
any
other
to
uphold
the
integrity
of
the
courts
and
to
show
respect to
their processes.
**** Contempt of court
is a willful disregard
or disobedience to the courts
authority
and
dignity,
and
includes
the
means
of
delaying
proper
administration
of
justice.
Under
the
Rules
of
Court ,
contempt
is
classified
into
either
direct
or
indirect
contempt.
Direct
contempt
is
committed
in
the
presence
of
or
so
near
a
court
or
judge
as
to
obstruct
or
interrupt
the
proceedings
before
the
same .
Indirect
contempt
is
one
not
committed
in
the
presence
of
a
court .
It
is
an
act
done
at
a
distance
which
tends
to
belittle ,
degrade,
obstruct
or
embarrass the court and
justice .
Atty. Quevedos disobedience and desistance
to
lawful
writ
and
judgment
as
he
prevented
its
execution
constitutes
indirect
contempt
of
court. (Macario Y. Siy vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158971, August 25, 2005, 468
SCRA 154).
Q: When
may
refusal
of
a
counsel
to
act
as
justified
on
grounds
aside
from
reasons
of
health,
or similar reasons of urgency?
A:
Other
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
justified
grounds
for
refusal
to
act
as
counsel
extensive
counsel
de
de oficio be
travel
abroad,
oficio
are:
Q: Should
lawyer
accept
losing
case?
A: It
depends.
If
it
is
a
criminal
case,
he
may
not
decline
to
represent
the
accused
solely
on
his
opinion
regarding
the
guilt
of
said
person (Rule 14.01, CPR). The
Supreme
Court
has
held
that
a
counsel
de
officio has
the duty to defend his client no matter how guilty he
perceives him to be. But if the case is a civil case , he should decline
to
accept
the
same.
In
a
civil
action,
the
rules
and
ethics
of
the
profession
enjoin
a
lawyer
from
taking
a
bad
case .
The
attorneys
signature
in
every
pleading
constitutes
a
certification
that
there
is
good
cause to support it
and that it is not interposed for delay . It is the
attorneys duty to counsel
or
maintain such
actions
or
proceedings only
as
appeared
to
him
to
be
just
and
such
defenses
only
as
he
believes
to
be
honestly
debatable
under
the law.
7
Q:
Atty.
who
is
compelled
A is
offered
professional
engagement
to
As
relative, compadre and former office
to refuse the engagement?
Why?
appear
before
Judge
B
colleague . Is A ethically
FACTS: Rosauro
orally
agreed
to
buy
the
unregistered
piece
of
land
in
Legaspi
City
of
respondent
Judge
Kallos
provided
that
the
respondent
would
take
care
of
its
registration
in
complainants
name,
at
no
additional
cost.
After
making
several
payments
to
the
respondent,
the
latter
obtained
a
loan
from
the
former ,
which was payable
in
2
months.
The
respondent
failed
to
pay
for
the
loan .
Moreover,
the
complainant
learned
that
a
receipt
and
the
Deed
of
Absolute
Sale
which
the
respondent
gave
him ,
that
a
certain Esplana-Guerrero
owned
the
said
property
and
that
Guerrero
had
sought
the
reconstitution
of
her
alleged
title
to
the
same
in
the
RTC
of
Legaspi
City ,
but
her
petition
was
dismissed.
Respondent judge also failed to register
the
property
in complainants name.
As a result,
the
complainant
sought
to
rescind
the
contract
but
the
respondent
replied , using
his
salas
official stationary,
that
he
needs
more
time
as
Guerrero
was
still
raising
the
amount
to
refund
the
complainant.
ISSUE: Should
the
judge
be
held
Judicial
Conduct
and
impropriety?
liable
for
violating
the
Code
of
lawyer
withdraw
from
withdraw
1. There
failure
2.
Client
3. Client
Conduct
of
is
pursues
an
case?
from
to
illegal
case
pay
cause
legal
of
insists
pursuance
to
Professional
Responsibility;
4. Appointment
of
prejudicial
to
the
lawyers
client;
to
with
public
the
consent
of
the
fees;
conduct;
an
act
position
violative
except
of
when
the
it
is
Q:
What
is
A:
The
the
fee
reasonable
meant
Is
compensation
term
quantum
meruit
which
as
much
as
value
of
the
services
Brothers, 15 Phil.
Q:
by
as
the
he
based
on
quantum
meruit?
used
in
attorneys
fees
means
lawyer
deserves
considering
the
has
rendered . (Teerthdass vs. Pohoomul
607).
indefinite
suspension
of
lawyer
cruel
punishment?
A: NO.
Indefinite
suspension
gives
the
lawyer
the
key
to
the
restoration
of
his
right
by
giving
him
a
change
to
purge
himself
in
his
own
good
time
of
his
contempt
of
misconduct
by
acknowledging
his
misconduct,
exhibiting
appropriate
repentance,
and
demonstrating
his
willingness
and
capacity
to
live
up
to
the
exacting
standards
required
of
every
lawyer. (Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, February
1, 1989).
Whether
or
not
Atty.
Sorreda
is
guilty
of
contempt
of
HELD:
YES.
Atty.
Sorredas
conduct
violated
the
CPR ,
specifically
Canon
11,
which
states
that:
A
lawyer
shall
observe
and
maintain
the
respect
due
to
the
courts
and
to
judicial
officers
and
should
insist
on
similar
conduct
by
others .
While
a
lawyer
owes
absolute
fidelity
to
the
cause
of
his
client ,
full
devotion
to
his
clients
genuine
interest
and
warm
zeal
in
the
maintenance
and
defense
of
his
clients
rights,
as
well
as
the
exertion
of
his
utmost
learning
and
ability,
he
must
do
so
only
within
the
bounds
of
the
law.
A
lawyer
is
entitled
to
voice
his
criticism
within
the
context
of
the
constitutional
guarantee
of
freedom
of
speech
which
must
be
exercised
responsibly.
Unfounded
accusations
or
allegations
or
words
tending
to
embarrass
the
court
or
to
bring
it
into
disrepute
have
no
place
in
a
pleading. Their
employment
serves
no
useful
purpose .
On
the
contrary,
they
constitute
direct
contempt
of
court
or
contempt
in
facie
curiae
and
a
violation
of
the
lawyers
oath
and
a
transgression
of
the
CPR.
Atty.
Sorreda,
as
a
citizen
and
as
an
officer
of
the
court ,
is
entitled to
criticize the rulings of the Supreme Court .
But,
certainly,
this
does
not
give
him
unbridled
license
to
insult
and
malign
the
Court
and
bring
it
into
disrepute.
Thus, Atty. Sorreda
is
found
guilty
of
contempt
of
court
and
violation
of
the
CPR
amounting
to
gross
misconduct.
He
is
hereby
suspended
indefinitely.
vs.
JUDGE
FATIMA
GONZALES ASDALA
A: NO.
There
is
no
evidence
to
Defamation
and
there
is
no
evidence
a
misconduct
for
the
posting
of
the
support
the
charge
that
respondent
judge
newspaper
clipping
at
the
of
and
of
of
Oral
committed
the
door
9
of
the
courtroom.
There
is
no
evidence
that
she
posted
clipping
or
that
she
ordered
its
posting.
She
was
not
the
of
the
news
items
nor
is
there
a
showing
that
she
supplied
was
written
thereon.
JOVENCITO
R.
ZUO
vs.
JUDGE
ALEJANDRO
said
writer
what
CABEBE
ATTY.
February
Q:
May
the
respondent
defense
that
he
did
not
the
appellate
court?
3,
lawyer
agree
ROBERTO
2005,
be
to
450
FERRER, JR.
SCRA
406
held
liable
represent
the
considering
complainant
his
in
A:
YES.
If it
is
true
that
respondent
never
agreed
to
handle
the
appeal
upon
receipt of said notice ,
respondent
should
have
immediately
manifested
to
the
Court
of
Appeals
that
he
is
not
handling
the
appeal
on
behalf
of
said
defendant-appellants .
Section
2,
Rule
44
of
the
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure clearly
states
that
the
counsel
and
guardian
ad
litem
of
the
parties
in
the
court
of
origin shall be
respectively considered
as
their
counsel
and
guardians
ad
litem
in
the
Court
of
Appeals.
By
failing
to
do
so,
the
Court
of
Appeals
had
every
reason
to
assume
that
he
was
likewise
representing
defendants-appellants
in
the
appeal.
Accordingly,
his failure to timely
file
the
required
appellants
brief
resulted
in
the
dismissal
of
the
appeal.
ATTY.
ANTONIO
D.
SELUDO
vs.
JUDGE
ANTONIO
J.
FINEZA
SALVADOR
A.C.
G.
No.
VILLANUEVA
5041,
vs.
November
23,
ATTY.
2004,
RAMON
443
SCRA
F.
ISHIWATA
401
Q:
In
the
course
of
the
proceedings
at
the
NLRC ,
the
parties
entered
into
a
compromise
agreement
whereby
for
a
consideration
of
P225,000, complainant
agreed
to
release
J. T.
Transport
from
all
its
obligations
to
him.
J. T. Transport
delivered
four
checks
to
respondent
10
as
full
payment
of
complainants
claims .
However,
respondent
gave
complainant
only
P45,000
as
first
installment, without
advising
him
that
the
settlement
award
had
been
paid
in
full .
Complainant
learned
about
it
and
demanded
the
balance
but
the
respondent
refused .
Is
the
act
of
the
respondent
improper?
A: YES.
Obviously,
respondents
failure
to
return
the
balance
to
complainant
upon
demand
gave
rise
to
the
presumption
that
he
misappropriated
it
in
violation
of
the
trust
reposed
on
him .
His act is
indicative
of
lack
of
integrity
and
propriety . He
was
clinging
to
something
not
his
and
which
he
had
no
right.
The
relationship
between
an
attorney
and
his
client
is
highly
fiduciary
in
nature.
Under
his
oath,
a
lawyer
pledges
himself
not
to
delay
any
man
for
money
and
he
is
bound
to
conduct
himself
with good fidelity
to
his
clients .
A
lawyer
should
thus
refrain
from
any
action
whereby
for
his
personal
benefit
or
gain,
he
abuses
or
takes
advantage
of
the
confidence
reposed
in
him
by
his
client. Accordingly, any
money
collected
for
the
client
or
other
trust
property
coming
into
the
lawyers
possession
should
promptly
be
reported
by
him.
VALERIANA DALISAY
A.C. No.
5655,
vs.
ATTY.
April
22,
MELANIO
2005,
456
MAURICIO,
JR.
SCRA 508
Q:
Dalisay
alleged
that
she
engaged
the
services
of
respondent
Batas
Mauricio
as
her
counsel.
Respondent
asked
her
to
pay
an
acceptance
and
filing
fees
in
the
total
amount
of
P56,000.00 .
Despite
her
payments,
respondent
never
rendered
any
legal
services
to
her.
As
a
result,
she
terminated
their
attorney-client
relationship
and
demanded
the
return
of
her
money
and
documents .
However,
he
refused
to
do
so.
Was
an
attorney-client
relationship
established?
A: YES.
When
respondent
accepted
P56,000.00
from
complainant,
it
was
understood
that
he
agreed
to
take
up
the
latters
case
and
that
an
attorney-client
relationship
between
them
as
established . From
then
on,
it
was
expected
of
him
to
serve
complainant
with
confidence
and
attend
to
her
case
with
fidelity,
care
and
devotion.
A
member
of
the
to
his
genuine
interest
defense
of
his
rights.
efforts
and
ability
to
loyalty
to
his
client
the entrusted
privilege
of
his
corresponding
duties
court,
to
the
bar
and
CARLOS
A.C.
B.
No.
legal
profession
owes
his
client
entire
devotion
and
warm
zeal
in
the
maintenance
and
An
attorney
is
expected
to
exert
his
best
protect
his
clients
case,
for
his
unwavering
likewise
serves
the
ends
of
justice .
Indeed,
every
lawyer
to
practice
law
caries
with
it
not
only
to
his
client,
but
also
to
the
to
the
public.
REYES vs.
5835,
April
ATTY.
15,
JEREMIAS
2005,
456
R.
SCRA
VITAN
87
Q: Reyes
hired
the
services
of
respondent
Atty.
Vitan
for
the
purpose
of
filing
appropriate
complaint .
He
alleged
that
respondent
after
receiving
the
amount
of
P17,000
did
not
take
any
action
on
his
case.
Did
Atty.
Vitan
violate
the
rules
of
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
when
he
received
payment
as
counsel
but
had
done
nothing
in
behalf
of
his
client?
A: YES. A
member
of
the
legal
profession
owes
his
client
entire
devotion
to
his
genuine
interest,
warm
zeal
in
the
maintenance
and
defense
of
his
rights .
An
attorney
is
expected
to
exert
his
best
efforts
and
ability
to
preserve
his
clients
cause ,
for
the
unwavering
loyalty
displayed
to
his
client
likewise
serves
the
ends
of
justice.
Verily,
the
entrusted
privilege
to
practice
law
carries
with
it
the
corresponding
duties,
not
only
to
the
client,
but
also
to
the
court,
to
the
bar
and
to
the
public.
No. 5700,
January
DANTE
30,
A.
2006,
CARANDANG
480
SCRA 512
FACTS: Bingo Royale Inc. (Bingo Royale) was represented by respondent Atty.
Carandang
as
its
president.
when
Pagcor
had
granted
an
Bingo
Royale
authority
to
operate
Bingo
Games .
In
the
course
of
its
operations,
Bingo
Royale
incurred
arrears
the
amount
of
P6,064,833.14
with Pagcor. As payment to the said obligation , Bingo
Royale
issued
to
11
Pagcor
twenty
respondent.
four
However,
as
month,
they
were
closed
account.
pay
the
amount
(24)
checks
in
the
of
P7.2M
signed
by
the
the
checks
were
deposited
after
the
end
of
each
all
dishonored
by
the
drawee
bank
by
reason
of
Despite
Pagcors
demand
letters ,
respondent
failed
to
of
the checks.
Respondent
averred
that
he
checks
because
they
were
drawn
doing
so
is
not
related
to
the
ISSUE:
checks
sum
Whether
respondent
in
violation
of
BP
is
not
liable
for
issuing
by
Bingo
Royale
and
his
office
of
a
lawyer.
is
guilty
22.
of
HELD: YES.
Misconduct
has
been
conduct
and gross has
been
held
serious
know
the
A
lawyer
may
be
disciplined
not
connection
with
his
profession
but
also
for
of
his
professional
capacity.
PETITION
TO
by
issuing
defined
as
wrong
or
improper
to
mean flagrant
and
shameful.
Respondent
likewise violated
others, obey
the
laws
and
Responsibility.
misconduct
bouncing
act
of
the
Attorneys
Canon
1
of
the
law,
especially
BP
provision
of
this
law ,
only
for
malpractice
in
gross
misconduct
outside
Oath
the
RESUME PRACTICE
that
Code
he
of
will ,
among
Professional
OF LAW
May
law
a Filipino
in
the
Canadian citizen
resume
the
requirements?
his
practice
A: YES,
if
a
person
intends
to
practice
the
legal
Philippines
may
resume
his
practice
of
law
provided
Filipino
citizenship
pursuant
to
RA
9225.
profession
in
he
reacquires
He
must
conditions:
authority
on
his
IBP
annual
pledge
of
secure
1. updating
dues;
2. payment
3. retaking
Constitution.
from
and
of
the
payment
in
professional
of
lawyers
Violation
SC
the
full
of
the
the
his
following
membership
tax;
oath
and
Rule 1.01
of Lawyers
allegiance
to
the
Oath
MARY JANE VELASCO & ATTYS. CHARLIE DOROIN & HECTOR CENTENO
560
SCRA 1,
A.C. No.
5033,
July
28,
2008
When
Mary
Jane
visited
the
lot
owned by her father
situated
at
Kingspoint
Subdivision
sometime
in
June
1996,
there
was
no
house
constructed
thereon,
but
when
she
visited
it
again
in
January
1999,
there
was
already
a
four-door
townhouse
constructed .
She
was
informed
by
the
caretaker
at
the
site
that
the
owner
is
one
Evangeline .
She
also
learned
later
that
the
said
property
was
one
of
the
properties
12
submitted
to
the
intestate
court
and
was
sold
by
Atty.
Doroin
to
Evangeline
by
forging
the
signature
of
her
father .
Atty.
Centeno,
being
a
Notary
Public,
knowing
well
that
Dr.
Eduardo
Doroin
was
already
dead
as
of
21
January 1996,
made
it
appear
in
the
said
Deed
of
Absolute
Sale
that
Dr.
Doroin
appeared
before
him
on
17
January
1997.
ISSUE: Whether
the
falsification constitute
penalty of suspension
HELD:
Canon
A
YES. Attys.
1 of
the
lawyer
shall
acts
of
Attys.
Doroin
&
violation
of
lawyers oath
and
disbarment.
Centeno
for
forgery
and justifies imposition
&
of
Charlie
Doroin
&
Hector
Centeno
violated
Rule
1.01 ,
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
which
states
that:
not
engage
in
unlawful,
dishonest,
In
the
case
at
bar ,
complainant
claims
forged
the
deed
of
sale
and
forced
her
extra-judicial
settlement
by
explaining
to
her
accordance
with
law.
The
complained
blatant
violation
of
basic
tenets
of
lawyer
shall
engage
immoral
or
deceitful.
that
respondent
lawyers
to
sign
the
deed
of
that
it
was
in
actuations
of
the
respondent
lawyers
constitute
the
lawyers
oath
to
uphold
the
law
and
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
that
in
dishonest
conduct.
a
the
no
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.
A LAWYER
March 11,
FACTS: Atty.
Yap sued the spouses
Amatorio
to
collect the
amount
of
P94,173.44.
The
answer
filed
by
Atty.
Paras
was,
however,
stricken off
the
record
for
the
reason that
he
was
suspended
from
the
practice
of
law at
the time
of
its
filing.
Unable
to
decided to seek
find
a
lawyer
an out of - court
to
replace
settlement.
Atty.
Paras ,
the
Amatorios
On
May
23,
2001,
Aida
Amatorio
went
to
Atty.
Yaps
law
office .
She appealed
for
his reconsideration and asked that they
be
allowed to
pay
their obligations by way
of
installment .
The
parties
agreed on the
terms
of
payment
and
on
the
same
day,
Aida
tendered
the
first
payment of P20,000 which
was
duly received
and
acknowledged
by
Atty.
Yap in
the
written letterhead of
Yap Law
Office.
When
Aida
asked
Atty.
Yap
if
they
should still
attend the
pretrial conference
scheduled on May
28, 2001,
Atty.
Yap assured her
that
they
need
not
attend
anymore
as
he
will
be
moving
for
the
dismissal
of
the
case .
Relying
on
Atty.
Yaps
assurance ,
spouses
Amatario
did not
attend the
scheduled
hearing.
Subsequently,
Spouses
Amatorio
were
surprised
to
receive
copies
of
the
decision
of
the
trial
court
filed
by
Atty.
Yap ,
declaring
them
in
default
for
non-appearance
during
the
pre-trial
conference
and
ordering
them
to
pay
the
amount
of
their
indebtedness
with
damages .
The
decision,
however,
did
not
mention
the
out of - court
settlement
between
the
parties.
Nonetheless,
the
spouses
continued
tendering
installment
Atty.
Yaps
upon
the
latters
assurance
that
he
will
decision
of
the
trial
court.
filed
the
Again,
the
a
motion
trial
court
spouses
were
surprised
for the
issuance of
a
issued that
writ.
to
writ
payments
disregard
learn,
however,
that
of
execution and , in
to
the
Yap
fact,
13
IBP
The
spouses
where
Atty.
The
suspended
that
(3)
filed
Paras
a
disbarment
case
against
served
as their
counsel.
IBP
commissioner
from the
practice
of
Upon
review
by
the
IBP
Atty.
Yap
be
suspended
months.
recommends
law
for
Board
of
from
the
Atty.
Yap
that
Atty.
Yap
six (6)
months.
with
the
should
be
Governors ,
it
was
approved
practice
of
law
for
three
On
August
9,
2007,
the
spouses
terminated
the
services
of
Atty.
Paras
for
reason
that
they
can
no
longer
afford
the
services
of
a
private lawyer.
Suspiciously,
Affidavit
forgiving
on
the
same
and exonerating
day,
Atty.
the
Yap
spouses
for
his
executed
a
malpractice.
Judicial
the
finding
of
culpability
Amatorio have
decided
to
the
case
was
completely
spouses forgiveness
or even withdrawal from the
case does not
obliterate
the
misconduct
committed
by
Atty.
Yap.
To
begin
is
already
too
late
in
the
day
for
the
spouses
to
the
disbarment
case
considering
that
they
had
already
and
supported
their
claims
with
convincing
and
credible
and
the
IBP
has
promulgated
a
resolution
on
the
basis
It
bears
stressing
burdened
with
conditions.
only learned
in law, but
that
membership
It
is
bestowed
also
known
to
in
the
bar
is
a
privilege
upon individuals
who are
not
possess
good
moral
character.
Lawyers
should
act
and
comport
themselves
integrity
in
a
manner
beyond
reproach , in order
to
faith in
the
legal
profession.
of
he
Because of
the misconduct
his
oath
to
keep sacred
must
be
disciplined.
of
Atty.
Yap ,
it
is
the
integrity of the
with
honesty
promote
the
and
public
deemed
a
violation
profession for which
It
is
clearly
established
that
Atty.
Yap
received
P20,000
as
initial
payment
for
their
out of - court
settlement .
He
told
the
Spouses not
to
attend
the
pre-trial
and
he
did
not
inform
the
court
of
the
settlement.
The
trial
court
granted
the
motion
for
execution
of
the
decision
filed
by
Atty.
Yap,
thus,
violating
the
standards
of
honesty
provided
for
in
the
Code
of
Professional Responsibility.
August
1,
2007
The
case
at
bar
involves
a
relationship
between
a
married
lawyer
and a married
woman
who
is
not
his
wife.
It
is
immaterial
whether
the
affair
was
carried
out
discreetly .
Thus,
it
is
considered
grossly
immoral
conduct
which
is
a
ground
for
disbarment
under
Section
27, Rule
138
of
the
Revised
Rules
of
Court.
respect,
however,
to
the
allegation
of
immorality ,
that
to
justify
suspension
or
disbarment,
the
act
not
only
be
immoral
but
grossly
immoral
and
established
by
clear
and
convincing
proof.
this
Court
complained
the
same
a
complaint
for
of
psychological
the
validity
of
annulment
of
marriage
incapacity .
The
RTC
marriage.
against
Justo
rendered
a
14
In
the
meantime,
Rosa
filed
a
disbarment
case
against
Justo
premised
on
the
same
charges
alleged
in
her
complaint
for
declaration
of
nullity
of
marriage.
The
Court
suspended
Justo
from
the
practice
of
law
after
finding
him
guilty
of
falsifying
Rosas
signature
in
bank documents,
immorality
and
abandonment
of
his
family.
ISSUE:
Whether
conclusive in the
the
factual
findings
case
of
annulment
in
of
the
marriage.
disbarment
case
are
CANON 7
and
purposes ,
Atty.
acts
in
Pasig City
deliberate
falsehood.
Gonzales,
where
he
by
is
performing
not
so
August
23,
2007
Lawyers
in
government
service
cannot
handle
private
cases
for
they
are
expected
to
devote
themselves
full-time
to
the
work
of
their
respective
offices.
As
a
PAO
lawyer,
respondent
should
not
have
accepted
attorneys
fees
from
the
complainant
as
this
was
inconsistent
with
the
offices
mission.
Respondent
violated
against
accepting
legal
fees
other
than
his
salary.
Rule 20.04
INVOLVING
Throughout
the
proceedings,
respondent
counsels
were
well-compensated.
They, including
their
relatives
and
friends,
even
availed
of
free
products
and
treatments
from
Dr.
Vinsons
dermatology
clinic.
This
notwithstanding, they
billed
Dr.
Vinson
additional
legal
fees
amounting
to
P16.5M
which
the
latter ,
however,
refused
to
pay. Instead,
Dr. Vinson
issued
them several checks totaling P1.12M
as full payment for settlement.
15
Still not satisfied, respondents filed in the same trial
for
payment
of
lawyers
fees
for
P50M ,
representing
value
of
the
properties
granted
to
petitioner
in
declaration
of
nullity
of
marriage.
ISSUE:
Whether
respondent
counsels
are
entitled
to
court
10%
the
additional
motion
of
the
case
for
legal
fees.
NOTABLE
CASES
ON
LEGAL
ETHICS
Rule
3.04
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
mandates
that
a
judge
should
be
courteous and
civil ,
for it is unbecoming of a judge
to
utter
intemperate
language
during
the
hearing
of
a
case .
A
judge
must
address
the
merits
of
the
case
and
not
on
the
person
of
the
counsel. (Atty. Melvin Mane vs. Judge
Arnaldo Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119,
June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 555).
Judges
are
prohibited
from
engaging
in
the
private
practice
of
law
while
holding
judicial
office.
Those
who
have
been
merely
suspended
and
not
dismissed
from
the
service
are
still
bound
under
the
prohibition. (Atty. Florencio Binalay vs. Judge Elias Lelina, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-092132, July 31, 2009, 594 SCRA 547).
Fighting
between
court
employees
during
office
hours
is
disgraceful
behavior
reflecting
adversely
on
the
good
image
of
the
judiciary . It
displays
a
cavalier
attitude
towards
the
seriousness
and
dignity
with
which
court
business
should
be
treated .
Shouting
at
one
another
in
the
workplace
and
during
office
hours
is
arrant
discourtesy
and
disrespect
not
only
towards
co-workers ,
but
to
the
court
as
well
the
behavior
of
the
parties
was
totally
unbecoming
members
of the
judicial
service. (Judge Rizalina Umali vs. Judge Paulita Villarante, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2124,
August 27, 2009, 597 SCRA 240)
A
lawyer
who
contracted
a
second
marriage
while
the
first
marriage
is still
subsisting
is
liable
for
violation
of
Rule 1.01
of the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
(CPR).
Immoral
conduct
which
is
proscribed
under
Rule
1.01
of
the
CPR
as
opposed
to
grossly
immoral
conduct,
connotes
conduct
that
shows indifference
to
the
moral
norms
of
society
and
the
opinion
of
good
and
respectable
members
of
the community .
Gross
immoral
conduct
on
the
other
hand
must
be
so
corrupt
and
false
as
to
constitute
act
or
so
unprincipled
as
to
be
reprehensible
to
a
high
degree . (Juan Dulalia vs. Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, Jr.,
A.C. No. 6854, April 25, 2007, 522 SCRA 244).
CANON 1 - DUTY TO
UPHOLD
THE
ISSUE: Whether
the
lifting
of
the
expiration of
the period.
the
suspension
order
was
automatic
after
16
indeed
desisted
suspension.
from
the
practice
IMMORAL
of
law
during
the
period
of
CONDUCT
E.
GARRIDO
with
Maelotisea
Constancia . Their
his
first
wife,
ISSUE:
Whether
immorality
that
committed
both
would
Attys.
warrant
Garrido
&
Valencia
their
disbarment.
gross
HELD: YES.
Immoral
conduct
involves
acts
that
are
willful ,
flagrant
or
shameless,
and
that
show
a
moral
indifference
to
the
opinion
of
the
upright and respectable members
of the
community . They
failed
to adhere
to highest standards of morality when Atty. Garrido engaged
in
an
extramarital
affairs
with Atty. Valencia
while his two marriages
were
in place
and
without
taking
into
consideration
the
moral
and
emotional
implication
of
his
action on the two women he took
as wives
and
on his six
(6) children by his second marriage.
Atty.
Palma secretly
contracted
a
second
marriage
with
the
daughter
of
his client
in
Hongkong.
The
Court
found
that
Atty. Palma
exhibited
a
deplorable
lack of
degree
of
morality
required
of
members
of
the
Bar. In particular, he
made
a
mockery
of
marriage,
a
sacred
institution
that
demands
respect and dignity . The Court
also
declared
his
act
of
contracting
a
second
marriage
contrary to
honesty,
justice,
decency
and
immorality.
FLORENCE MACARRUBO
vs.
2004,
424 SCRA 42
Atty.
Macarrubo
entered
into
multiple marriages
and
subsequently
used
legal
remedies to
sever
them.
The
Court
ruled
Atty. Macarrubos
pattern
of
misconduct
undermined
the
institution
of
marriage
and
family
institutions that
this
society
looks up
for
the
rearing
of
our
children
and for the development of values essential to the survival and well-being of
our
communities
and
for
the
strengthening
of
our
nation as
a
whole .
In this light, Atty. Macarrubo was disbarred.
LILIAN
VILLASANTA vs.
G.R. No. L-9513,
ATTY.
April
HILARION M. PERALTA
30, 1957,
Atty.
Peralta
married
Lilian
while
his
marriage
with
his
first
wife
was
subsisting.
The
Court
ruled
that
the
act
of
Atty.
Peralta
of
contracting
a
second marriage
was
contrary
to
honesty ,
justice,
decency
and
morality.
The
lack of good
moral
character
required
by
the
Rules
of
Court
disqualified
Atty.
Peralta from
admission
to
the
Bar.
ELPIDIO
P.
TIONG
vs.
ATTY.
December
GEORGE M. FLORENDO
12, 2010,
662
SCRA
FACTS:
Atty.
George
served
as
legal
counsel
and
Elpidios business.
He
had
illicit
affair
with his
clients
both
admitted
their
relationship.
Seeking
forgiveness,
Atty.
clients
wife,
executed
an
affidavit
attesting
their
illicit
seeking their respective spouses forgiveness.
ISSUE:
Whether
Atty.
HELD: YES.
Possession
for
admission
to
the
ones
good
standing
having
an
affair
with
laws
on
the
sanctity
George
is
liable
for
gross
immoral
1
administrator
wife
and
George and
relationship
of
later
his
and
conduct.
of
good
moral
character
is not only
a
condition
Bar
but
is
a
continuing
requirement to
maintain
in
the
legal
profession.
Atty.
Georges
act
of
his clients
wife
manifested his
disrespect
for
the
of
marriage
and his own
marital vow
of
fidelity.
17
A.C. No. 9000, October
5, 2011,
658
SCRA 327
FACTS: Atty.
Haide
obtained
a
loan
of
P350,000
from
Tomas
and
by
way
of
security,
she
offered
a
parcel
of
land
covered
by
a
TCT
registered
in
her
fathers
name .
She
executed
an
open
Deed
of
Absolute
Sale
over
the
said
parcel of
land in
favor of
Tan attaching
thereto the SPA
in
the
event
she
failed to pay the full
amount
of
loan
on
due
date .
Respondent
lawyer
defaulted
on
her
loan
obligation
and
failed
to pay the
same
despite
complainants
repeated demands . Left
with
no
recourse,
Tomas
went
to
the
Register
of
Deeds
to
register
the
sale,
only
to
find
out
that
Atty.
Haide
deceived
him
since
the
SPA did not give Atty. Haide the power to sell the property but only empowered
him to
mortgage
the
property solely
to
banks.
ISSUE:
Whether
profession.
Atty.
Haide
exhibited
conduct
unworthy
of
the
legal
RODOLFO A.
ESPINOSA
vs.
ATTY. JULIETA
A. OMAA
act
of
preparing
against
her.
and
notarizing
HELD: YES. A
notary
public
should
not
facilitate
marriage and
family
by
encouraging
the
separation
extrajudicially
dissolving
the
conjugal
partnership.
void
document
the
disintegration
of
of
the
spouses
and
CANON 9
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
RULE 9.01
RODRIGO TAPAY vs. ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO
A.C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013, 674 SCRA 1
FACTS:
A
complaint
for
usurpation
of
authority,
falsification
of
public
document
and
graft
and
corrupt
practices
was
filed
against
Tapay
before
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
by
a
certain
Divinagracia .
Atty.
Bancolo
denied that he represented Divinagracia since he had to meet him yet
in
person
and
his
signature
appearing
in
the
complaint
against
Tapay
was
signed by his secretary
in
his
law office.
ISSUE: Whether
Atty.
Code of Professional
Bancolo
violated
responsibility.
Canon
and
Rule
9.01
of
the
HELD: YES.
With
Atty.
Bancolos
admission
that
the
complaint
he
filed
against
Tapay
before
the Office of
the
Ombudsman was
signed in
his
name by
a
secretary
of
his
law office is clearly a
violation of Rule
9.01
of
the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides
in
Canon
9
that
A
Lawyer
Shall
Not,
Directly
or
Indirectly,
Assist
in
the
Unauthorized Practice
of
Law and Rule 9.01 which states
that
a lawyer
shall
not
delegate
to
any
unqualified
person
the
performance
of
any
task which by law
may be
performed
by
a
member
of the
Bar
in
good
standing.
The
lawyers
duty
to prevent
or
at
the very
least
not
to assist
in the unauthorized
practice
of
law
is
founded
on
public
interest
and
policy. Public
policy
requires
that
the
practice
of
law
be
limited
to
those
individual
found
only
qualified
in
education
and
character .
The
permissive
right
conferred
in
the
law
is
an
individual
and
limited
privilege
subject
to
withdrawal
if
he
fails
to
maintain
proper
standards
of
moral
and
professional
conduct.
The
purpose
is
to
protect
the
public,
the
court,
the
client
and
the
bar
from
the
incompetence
or
dishonesty
of those
unlicensed
to
practice
of
law
and
not
subject to
the
disciplinary
control
of
the
Court.
18
Undoubtedly,
Responsibility
by
pleading.
Atty.
allowing
Bancolo
violated
the
a
non-lawyer
to
affix
Code
his
of
Professional
signature
to
a
RULE 9.02
MIGUEL VILLATUYA
of
legal
fees
is
violative
of
the
Code
of
HELD:
YES.
The
agreement
is
violative
of
Rule
9.02
of
the
Code
of
Professional Responsibility.
A
lawyer
is
prohibited by the
Code to divide
or agree
to divide the
fees
for legal services
rendered
with
a
person
not
licensed
to
practice
law.
fees
void
An
agreement
between
collected
from
clients
and
that
the
lawyer
a
lawyer
and
a
layperson
to
share
the
secured
by
the
layperson
is
null
and
may
be
disciplined
for
unethical
conduct.
CANON 21
RULE 21.01
DR. TERESITA LEE vs.
A.C.
No.
9537,
ATTY.
June
10,
AMADOR
L. SIMANDO
FACTS: Atty.
Simando
was
the
retained
counsel
of
Dr.
Lee . One
day,
Atty.
Simando
went
to
see
Dr.
Lee
and
asked
her
to
extend
a
loan
of
P1.4M
to
a
certain
Mejorado
who
was
then
awaiting
his
claim
for
informers
reward
from
the
Bureau
of
Customs .
Upon
persistence
of
Atty.
Simando
to
act
as
co-maker ,
Dr.
Lee
finally
gave
in
her
lawyers
demand.
When
the
said
obligation
became
due,
despite
Dr.
Lees
repeated
demands, Mejorado
failed
and referred
to
comply
with
his obligation . Dr.
Lee
instructed
Atty.
Simando
to
initiate
legal
actions
against
Mejorado
but
her
lawyer
ignored
and failed
to bring legal actions.
A
demand
letter
the co-maker
of the
co-maker
and
claimed
given
additional
loans
was
sent
to
Atty.
Simando
in
his
capacity
loans
of
Mejorado
but he denied his
liability
that
novation
had
occurred
because
Dr. Lee
to
Mejorado
without
his
knowledge.
as
as
had
Dr. Lee
accused
Atty. Simando of
violating
the
trust
and
confidence
which she gave
upon
him
as
a
lawyer
and even took advantage
of
their
professional
relationship
in
order
to
get
a
loan
for
his
client .
Worse, when the
said
obligation became due , Atty. Simando was
unwilling
to
help
her
to
favor
Mejorado .
She
lamented
that
Atty. Simando
even
divulged
confidential
information
he
had
acquired
while
he was still
her
lawyer
and even
used
it
against
her.
ISSUES:
(1)
Whether
Simando
is
guilty
(2)
Whether
Simando
is
guilty
of
of
representing
violating
conflicting
Rule
21.01
interest.
of
the
CPR.
HELD: (1)
YES.
His
representation
of
opposing
clients
in
both
cases
though
unrelated
obviously
constitutes
conflict
of
interest
or
at
least,
invites
suspicion
of
double
dealing .
Moreover,
with
the
subject
loan
agreement
entered
into
by
Dr.
Lee
and
Mejorado,
who
are
both
his
clients, readily
shows
an
apparent
conflict
of
interest ,
more
so
when
he
signed
as
co-maker.
19
(2) YES.
In
his
last-ditch
effort
to
impeach
the
credibility
of
Dr.
Lee,
Atty.
Simando
violated
Rule
21.01
of
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
when
he
divulged
informations
which
he
acquired
in
confidence
during
the
existence
of
their
lawyer-client
relationship.
PRACTICE OF LAW
PETITION TO SIGN ROLL OF ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL A. MEDADO, Petitioner,
B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013, 706 SCRA 264
FACTS:
In
1979,
Medado
graduated
from
the bar
examinations in the same year.
UP
College
of
Law
and
passed
In
1980,
he
took
the
Attorneys
Oath
at
the
PICC,
but
failed
to
sign
the
Roll
of
Attorneys
on
his
scheduled
date
as
he
misplaced
the
Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys
given by the OBC when he went
to his province for a vacation.
Several
years
later,
when
he
was
already
involved
in
corporate
and
taxation work, he came across the aforementioned Notice and realized what
he
signed
at
the
entrance
of
PICC
was
just
an
attendance
record
and
not
the
Roll
of
Attorneys. Thus, he
was
operating
under
the
mistaken
belief
that
since
he
already
took
the
oath ,
the
signing
of
the
Roll
of
Attorneys was not as urgent, nor
as
crucial to his status as a lawyer.
In
2005,
when
he
attended
MCLE
seminars ,
he
was
required
to
provide
his
Roll
Number
in
order
for
his
MCLE
compliances
to
be
credited, but
was unable to do since he had not
yet signed the Roll
of Attorneys.
ISSUE:
Whether
Medado
commits
an
unauthorized
practice
of
law.
HELD: YES.
He
committed
unauthorized
practice
of
law .
Canon
9
of
Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) provides that
a
lawyer shall
directly or indirectly assist in
the
unauthorized practice of
law.
Medado
has
been
engaged
in
the
practice
of
period
spanning
more
than
30
years
without
having
of
Attorneys.
law
since
signed
in
the
not
1980 ,
a
the
Roll
As
Medado is not yet a full-fledged
lawyer , he cannot be suspended
from the practice
of
law ,
it
is
best
to impose upon him a penalty
akin
to
suspension
by
allowing
him
to
sign
in
the
Roll
of
Attorneys
one (1) year after the
receipt of
SC resolution.
A. MALANYAON
Whether
judge.
Judge
Malanyaon
is
the
in
guilty
propriety
of
that hearing,
of
exhibiting
Judge
being
Malanyaons
a
member
conduct
unbecoming
HELD:
YES.
First,
by
occupying
a
seat
beside
his
daughter
that
reserved
for
lawyers
during
the
hearing,
Judge
Malanyaon
displayed
presumptuousness
and
perhaps
even
his
clear
intention
to
exert
influence
as
an
RTC
Judge
on
the
hearing
officer
in
order
for
latter
to favor his wifes
cause.
was
his
his
the
Second,
by
Judge
Malanyaons
admission
that
his
presence
in
hearing
was to
advise
daughter
on
what
to do
and
say during
hearing
to
the
point
of
coaching
her ,
and
claiming
that
it
was
filial
duty
towards
his
wife
and
daughter
that
brought
him
there.
the
the
his
20
But
the
situation of
Judge Malanyaon was
different ,
for
he was
a
judicial
officer
who came
under
the
structure
that
uniformity
applied
to
all
judges
of
all level
of
the
judicial
hierarchy,
forbidding
him
from
engaging
in
the
private
practice
of
law
during
his
incumbency ,
regardless
of
whether
the
beneficiary
was
his
wife
or
daughter
or
other
members of
his
own family.
UNLAWFUL,
DISHONEST
SIMULATING
LILIA
&
DECEITHFUL
CONDUCT
TABANG
vs.
ATTY.
GLENN
C.
GACOTT
parcels
obtained
of
the
agricultural
land
with
a
corresponding
TCT
under
total
the
buyers ,
Atty.
Atty.
Gacott
executed
several
documents
that
included
revocations
of
SPAs
and various affidavits of
recovery purportedly signed by the fictitious
owners.
Also
he
caused
the
publication
of
notices
where
he
represented
himself as the owner of the parcels and announced that these were for
sale.
Subsequently,
received
a
sum
sales.
Atty.
Gacott
succeeded
in
selling
of
money of more than P3M from
ISSUE: Whether
Atty.
Gacott
deceit
in violation of Rule
(CPR).
HELD:
YES.
in
violation
The
dishonest,
Atty.
Gacott
of
Rule 1.01
Rule
immoral
is
guilty
of
1.01
of the
is
of
guilty
the
the
the
seven
parcels .
He
proceeds
of
the
gross
misconduct,
dishonesty
and
Code of Professional Responsibility
of
misconduct ,
CPR.
provides
that
a
lawyer
or
deceitful conduct.
shall
dishonesty
not
engage
and
in
deceit
unlawful ,
While
it
may
be
true
that
Lilia
herself
engaged
in
illicit
activities ,
her
own complicity
does not negate
or even mitigate
the repugnancy of
Atty.
Gacotts
offense.
He
is
a
lawyer
who
is
held
to
the
highest
standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
Perverting what is expected of him , he deliberately and cunningly took
advantage
of
his
knowledge
and
skill
of
the
law
to
prejudice
and
torment
other
individuals. Not
only did
he
countenance
illicit
action ,
he
instigated it. Not only did he acquiesce to injustice, he orchestrated it.
BAR
DISCIPLINE
al.
Atty.
Fortun
is
the
counsel
in the Maguindanao Massacre.
for
the
Ampatuans ,
the
principal
Atty.
Quinsayas
filed
a
disbarment
complaint
against
Atty.
Fortun
misleading the prosecution and
trial court under the rules and muddled
issues
and
diverted
the
attention away from the
main
subject
matter
the case.
for
the
of
and the
disbarment
of Court
posting and
publication
of
the
articles
would
appear
that
only Atty. Quinsayas
of
copies of
the
disbarment
complaint
contempt
in
violation
of
21
HELD: YES.
Atty. Quinsayas
is
bound by Section
Rules
of
Court
both
as
a
complainant
and
disbarment case against Atty. Fortun.
18,
as
Rule 139-B of
a
lawyer
in
As
a
lawyer and an officer of the Court, Atty. Quinsayas
with
the
confidential
nature
of
disbarment
proceedings .
However,
preserving
its
confidentiality,
she
disseminated
copies
of
the
complaint
against
Atty.
Fortun
to
members
of
the
media
constitutes contempt
of court.
the
the
is familiar
instead
of
disbarment
which act
vs.
case
against
Tizon
but
the
Villena
without
conducting
However,
when
Tizon
filed
a
complaint
for
libel
Prosecutor Villena immediately acted and has
shown interest
to
the
issuance
of
the
warrant
of
arrest
on
the
same
was filed before the MeTC.
said
case
preliminary
against
from its
day
the
Boto ,
filing
case
Boto
posted
bail and
on
the scheduled
arraignment ,
she
filed
the
Motion to Quash the information on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as
the crime of libel falls
within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC , and
not with the MeTC.
trial
the
The
MeTC,
instead of dismissing the
prosecutor Villena to file his comment
arraignment.
and
Prosecutor
Villena
failed
to
extended to five (5)
months.
Finally, Prosecutor
that the court
had
warrant of
arrest.
ISSUE:
Whether
Villena
already
Prosecutor
file
case,
issued
an Order requiring
within ten
(10) days and reset
his
comment
within
opposed
the motion
to quash
determined probable cause when
Villena
is
guilty
HELD: YES.
When
the
motion
to
quash
jurisdiction, Prosecutor
Villena
should have
opposing
the
dismissal
of
the
case.
of
gross
was
filed
immediately
ten
(10)
days
and contended
it issued
the
ignorance
of
by
Boto for
acted on it
the
law.
lack
of
by not
Patently,
the responsive
pleading of Prosecutor Villena
demonstrates that
he did not know
the elementary rules on jurisdiction .
Fundamental is the
rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law and it is no within the courts ,
let alone the parties themselves. As a responsible public servant, Rule 6.01
of
the
CPR
provides
that
the
prosecutors
primary
duty
is
not
simply
convict
but to see that
justice is done.
and
During
was
Flores
was
the
sala
of
the
preliminary
given
time
to
Later,
Atty.
MCLE
compliance
prejudice
to
the
MCLE
compliance,
submit proof.
the
counsel
for
Judge
Manahan.
conference,
file
a
the
defendant
Atty.
Flores
entered
Pre-Trial
Brief.
in
his
civil
appearance
Flores
filed
his
Pre-Trial
Brief
but
without
proof
of
hence
it
was
expunged
from
the
records
without
filing
of
another
Pre-Trial
Brief
containing
the
required
however,
Atty.
Flores
asked
for
ten
(10)
days
to
22
On
the
final
instance,
instead
of
submitting
the
of
MCLE
compliance,
Atty.
Flores
filed
a
letter
stating
no
longer
representing
the
defendant.
Such
was
stated
deemed
as
intemperate
language.
ISSUE:
Whether
Atty.
Flores
is
guilty
of
disrespect
to
promised
that
he
in
what
court
proof
was
was
orders.
HELD: YES. Court orders are to be respected not because the judges
issue
them
should
be
respected ,
but
because
of
the
respect
consideration
that
should
be
extended
to
the
judicial
branch
of
Government.
who
and
the
Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial courts order to submit proof of
his
MCLE
compliance
notwithstanding
the
several
opportunities
given
him .
Furthermore, he used intemperate language in his pleadings and dealing with
the court.
As
language
menacing
an
officer
and
should
language or
SAMUEL
of
the
have
behavior
B. ARNADO
court ,
he
must
be
circumspect
in
abstained
from
scandalous ,
offensive
before
the
court.
vs.
ATTY.
a
on
HOMOBONO
August
A.
his
or
ADAZA
26, 2015
request
for
the
grounds
exemption
for
the
First
of
expertise
of
law.
and
While
awaiting
for
his
request
of
for
exemption ,
he
used
to
indicate
in
his
pleadings
MCLE application for
exemption under
process
filed
in
2009,
2010,
2011
and
MCLE
Application
for
Exemption
for
Reconsideration in the
pleadings
filed
in 2012.
On
January
14,
request
for
exemption
and
convincing
proof
law.
ISSUE:
comply
2009,
the
MCLE
Governing
for
his
failure
to
submit
to establish his
expertise
in
Whether
Atty.
Adaza
is
administratively
with the
MCLE
requirements.
liable
HELD:
YES.
Atty. Adazas
failure
to comply
with
and
disregards
of
the
directives
of
MCLE office
as
a
delinquent
member
of
the
IBP.
Board
denied
his
sufficient ,
satisfactory
a
certain area
of
for
his
failure
to
the
MCLE requirements
warrant
his
declaration
While
the
MCLE Implementing
Regulations
state
that
the
MCLE
Committee
should
recommend
to
the
IBP
Board
of
Governors
the
listing
of
a
lawyer
as
a
delinquent
member ,
there
is
nothing
to
prevent
the
SC
from using
its administrative
power
and
supervision
to
discipline erring lawyers
and
from
directing the
IBP
Board
of
Governors
to
declare such lawyer as a delinquent member of
the IBP.
Having
declared
Atty.
Adaza
as
a
delinquent
member
of
the
IBP ,
he is suspended from the practice of law
for SIX MONTHS , or
until he
has
complied
with
the
MCLE
requirements
for
the
1 st
to
the
Fifth
periods
of
compliance.
IMPROPRIETY
POSTING
IMPROPER
ANTONIO M. LORENZANA
vs.
OF
PHOTOS
JUDGE
April 2,
JUDGE
IN
FRIENDSTER
MA. CECILIA
2014,
720
SCRA
I.
AUSTRIA
319
FACTS:
On
April
14,
2008,
a
complaint
was
filed
against
Judge
Austria
for
committing
an
act
of
impropriety
when
she
displayed
her
photographs
in a
social networking website
called
Friendster
and
posted
her
personal
details
as
a
RTC
Judge ,
allegedly
for
the
purpose
of
finding a compatible partner.
She
also
posed
with
her
upper
allegedly
suggesting
that
nothing
was
brassiere.
body
worn
barely
covered
by
a
shawl
underneath
except
probably a
23
ISSUE:
Whether the posting of Friendster
photos of
herself
wearing
off-shouldered
suggested dress
constitutes an act of impropriety.
HELD:
YES.
personification
Judge
Austria
is
guilty
of
law and justice.
Judges
are
accordingly comport
held
to
higher
themselves.
of
impropriety,
standards
of
as
she
conduct
is
and
an
visible
thus
must
The
very
nature
of
their
functions
requires
under
exacting
standards
of morality, decency and propriety;
both in the performance of their duties
and their daily personal lives, they should be beyond reproach.
PROHIBITION OF
JUDGES TO
that
AS
FIDUCIARY
SERVE
he
inherited
lot
from
his
adopted
father ,
Sometime
in
October
2004,
Conrado
and
Judge
Lucmayon
met
in
a
waiting shed and at
that
meeting, Judge Lucmayon allegedly
deceived him
into
signing
a
Special
Power
of
Attorney (SPA)
to
process
the
sale
of
Lot 1696 to the prospective buyer, Aboitiz Group of
Company.
Unknown to Conrado, the said SPA
contained at the bottom portion , a
so-called
Waiver
of
Rights
that
Judge
Lucmayon
had
deceptively
inserted
in order to strip him of his ownership of Lot 1696.
Atty.
that
After
signing
the
document
which
was
already
Mata
without
his
presence ,
Judge
Lucmayon
he no longer any right over the property.
In March
cultivating
the
signed.
2005,
land
Judge Lucmayons
because
of
the
father,
Waiver
notarized
allegedly
by a
certain
told
Conrado
Pedro, ordered
of
Rights
in
him
the
to cease
SPA
he
Conrado also asserted that Judge Lucmayon had caused Pedro and his
siblings to
execute
a
document
entitled Supplemental
Extrajudicial
Settlement
wherein his name and the name of his adopting
mother
were
excluded.
ISSUE:
Whether
fiduciary.
Judge
Lucmayon
is
administratively
liable
HELD: YES.
First, Judge Lucmayon violated Rule 5.06
general
rule,
a judge
is prohibited from serving as
trustee, guardian or other fiduciary.
for
serving
as
of the code . As a
executor, administrator,
The
intent
of
the
rule
is
to
limit
a
judges
involvement
in
the
affairs and interests of private individuals
to minimize the risk of conflict
with
his
judicial
duties
and
to
allow
him
to
devote
his
undivided
attention to
the
performance
of his official functions.
When
a
member
of
the
bench
serves
as
administrator of
the
properties
of private individuals,
he runs
the
risk of losing his neutrality
and impartiality, especially when the interests of
his principal conflicts
with
those of the litigant who comes before his court.
The
only exception to
this rule as set forth in Rule 5.06 is when
the
estate
or
trust
belongs
to, or
the
ward
is
a
member
of
his
immediate family, and only
if his service as executor , administrator, trustee,
guardian or fiduciary will
not
interfere with the proper performance of his
judicial duties.
and
The
Code
defines
relatives within the
immediate
family
second degree of
as
being
limited
consanguinity.
In
this
case,
since
Conrado
clearly
does
not
Lucmayons
immediate
family
as
herein
defined,
the
as the formers attorney-in-fact
is not a valid exception
to
the
spouse
fall
under
Judge
latters
appointment
to the rule.
24
DISPLAY
GASPAR
BANDOY
November
19,
Jesus
was
rumored
candidate, Villarosa.
Jesus
was
on video by
to
caught
in
a member
be
was an
teacher,
closely
the
act
of
of media.
associated
ballot
As
a
result
of
this
incident,
De
Jesus
offense of ballot switching. Accordingly, on
arrest was issued against De Jesus.
On
March
7,
2008,
De
Judge Raul Villanueva.
Jesus
was
with
switching
the
rival
which
was
was
criminally
charged with
August 17, 2007, a
warrant
On
August
20,
2007,
while
there
was
a
standing
against him, De Jesus filed a criminal case before the
for Serious Illegal Detention against Bandoy.
Pias
election watcher of
was
one
of
the
able
to
Because
Bandoy
was
charged
with
Serious
provincial prosecutor recommended no bail leaving him
than two
years.
post
warrant
of
prosecutors
bail
arrest
office
before
Las
Illegal
Detention ,
the
incarcerated
for more
Bandoy
charged
Judge
Jacinto
of
grave
abuse
of
authority when
he
granted
several
postponements
of
De
Jesus
arraignment,
originally
scheduled
on April 23, 2008 but was reset for seven times
until
De Jesus entered
a plea of not
guilty supposedly inside
Judge
Jacintos chamber on July
6, 2011.
ISSUE: Whether Judge
Jacinto
was
and displayed
bias
and
partiality.
guilty
of
gross
ignorance
HELD: YES.
Judge
Jacinto
was
directly
confronted
with
an
he arraigned De Jesus inside his chambers. He
was given
to answer,
but he
chose not
to delve into it.
of
the
law
allegation
that
the opportunity
Ultimately,
Judge
Jacinto
did
not
squarely
face
the
issues
being
imputed against him, which was quite irregular since it was his name and
his capacity as a member of the bench that was being challenged.
not
His silence
acceptable.
introduces
doubts
in
the
minds
of
the
public ,
which
is
Hence,
the
Court
cannot
fathom
why
the
arraignment
of
De
Jesus
was
postponed
from
2007
to
2011
without
appropriate
action
coming
from
the court.
Judge Jacinto should have availed of known legal remedies to
compel De Jesus to personally appear for his arraignment but he did not .
The appearance of leniency
seemingly exhibited in favor of De Jesus gives
an
impression
of
bias
and
partiality
that
should
be
addressed
and
corrected.
The
Code
of
Judicial
Ethics
emphasizes
that
Judges ,
as
officers
of
the
court
have
the
duties
to
see
to
it
that
justice
is
dispensed with
evenly and fairly. Not only must they be honest
and impartial ,
but they
must
also appear
to be
honest
and
impartial
in
the
dispensation
of
justice.
Judges should make sure that their acts are circumspect
and do
not arouse suspicion in the minds of the public.
25
GODSPEED