CANON 4

RE: NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AID

(A.M. 08-11-7-SC, August 28, 2009)

FACTS:
The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) promulgated Resolution No. 24 series of 2008. This resolution
requested the IBPs National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) to ask for the
exemption from the payment of filing, docket and other fees of clients of the
legal aid offices in the various IBP chapters.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Resolution No. 24 is in line with Canon 4 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Canon 4 provides xxx A lawyer shall participate in the development of
the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the
improvement of the administration of justice. Xxx Applying this in the case, the
Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP has effectively performed its duty to
participate in the development of the legal system by initiating or supporting
efforts in law reform and in the administration of justice in promulgating
Resolution No. 24. In fact, this resolution echoes one of the noteworthy
recommendations during the Forum on Increasing Access to Justice
spearheaded by the Court.
 CANON 4

JUDGE BACULI v. ATTY. BATUNG

(A.C. No. 8920, September 28, 2011)

FACTS:
The complainant filed resolution recommending that the respondent
be reprimanded for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant alleges that while having a hearing on the motion for
reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting while
arguing his motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his voice but
instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that
he would be cited for direct contempt, the respondent shouted, Then cite me!
However, the respondent also alleges that it was the complainant that
disrespected him. When the IBP went and investigated the case, it was found
out that it was the respondent who violated and who did not observe
properly the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the IBP's conjecture is correct.

HELD:
The SC held that the IBP was correct and therefore reciting the
respondent responsible for the violation of Canon 11 and in relation to
Canon 4 of the Code, which specifies that " a LAWYER SHALL
PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY
INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE", which in the
case at bar was poorly seen on the part of the respondent. Furthermore,
according to the SC, it is the duty of a lawyer, as an officer of the court, to
uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. Respect for the courts
guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; without this guarantee, the
institution would be resting on very shaky foundations.

 CANON 4

CORDOVA v. HON. LABAYEN

(A.M. RTJ-93-1033, March 9, 2000)

FACTS:
On March of 1993, the MTC of Batangas city rendered judgement for
petitioners for ejectment of private respondents and ordering them to pay a
monthly rental among other awards.

Thereafter, petitioners moved for the execution of the decision for their
order, this is because private respondents failed, by procedure to file a bond
nor make a monthly deposit for their appeal.

Private respondents opposed motion, claiming that they are the co-
owners of the land they are being ejected from and that granting the
immediate execution of the decision would render the appeal moot.

ISSUE:
Whether there was a late filing of the bond.

HELD:
The court ruled that the petition is without merit. This is because while
the general rule is that a judgment in favor of plaintiff is immediately
executory, the motion of execution was filed 18 days after receiving the
MTCs decision. Therefore, the appeal has already been perfected.

When no supersedes bond has been filed, the writ of execution should
be considered as a right, given that there was one, it does not render the right
to be given to them.
 CANON 4

DULALIA, JR. v. ATTY. CRUZ

(A.C. No. 6854, April 25, 2007)

FACTS:
Susan Soriano Dulalia, spouse of Juan, applied for a permit in the
Municipal Government to assemble structure in Bulacan. The permit was
not discharged because of the resistance of Atty. Cruz who sent a letter to
the Municipal Engineers office, asserting that the building hinders the
airspace of their property which is adjoining the Dulalia's property. Juan
Dulalia filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo for immoral
conduct.

Juan furthermore claimed that Cruz's illicit relationship with a lady

while still wedded is infringing upon the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Cruz, in good faith, claiming to have had the impression that
the applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code, for
while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shall have
retroactive application, there is a qualification.

ISSUE:
Whether Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
The court ruled that Atty. Cruz is suspended from practice of law for
a period of 1 year.

This is because his defense that he was not aware is not tenable, given
that ignorance of the law does not excuse him from being an exception
towards the application of the law.

Moreover, his immoral conduct towards maintaining an illicit

relationship is against the very basic norm of society. Whereas, the court
made an emphases that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of
the land and promote respect of the law and the legal processes.

 CANON 4

RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED RESTORING

INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS
OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME
COURT
(A.M. NO. 10-10-4-SC, October 19, 2010)

FACTS:
Various submissions of the 37 respondent law professors were filed in
the court. Respondents respond to the Resolution dated October 19, 2010,
directing them to show cause why they should not be disciplined as
members of the Bar for violation of specific provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

It is stressed that the Show Cause Resolution clearly dockets this as an

administrative matter, contrary to the dissenting opinion of Associate Justice
Sereno.

The ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo (Justice Del

Castillo) in Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230) was
promulgated. On May 31, 2010, the counsel 3 for Vinuya, et al. (the "Malaya
Lolas"), filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Vinuya decision.

The counsel for the Malaya Lolas, Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. (Atty.
Roque) and Romel Regalado Bagares (Atty. Bagares), filed a Supplemental
Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No. 162230, where they posited for the
first time their charge of plagiarism as one of the grounds for reconsideration
of the Vinuya decision.

They also claimed that "[i]n this controversy, the evidence bears out
the fact not only of extensive plagiarism but of (sic) also of twisting the true
intents of the plagiarized sources by the ponencia to suit the arguments of
the assailed Judgment for denying the Petition."

In Memorandum Order no. 35-2010 issued on July 27, 2010, the Court
formed the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards (the Ethics
Committee) pursuant to section 13, rule 2 of the Internal Rules of the
Supreme Court. In an En Banc Resolution dated the same, the court referred
the July 22, 2010 letter of Del Castillo to the Ethics Committee.

The Ethics Committee directed Atty. Roque to present the signed copy
of the said Statement within three days from the August 26 hearing.

It was upon compliance with this directive that the Ethics Committee
was given a copy of the signed UP Law Faculty Statement that showed on
the signature pages the names of the full roster of the UP Law Faculty, 81
faculty members in all. Hawever, the 37 actual signatories to the Statement
did not include former Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza
as represented in the previous copies of the Statement submitted by Dean
Leonen and Atty. Roque.

The Ethics Committee referred this matter to the Court en banc since
the same Statement, having been formally submitted by Dean Leonen on
August 11, 2010, was already under consideration by the Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents are within their duty to participate in
the development of the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law
reform and in the improvement of the administration of justice.

HELD:
The court pointed out that there is nothing in the Show Cause
Resolution that dictates upon respondents the subject matter they can teach
and the manner of their instruction. A novel issue involved in the present
controversy, for it has not been passed upon in any previous case before this
Court, is the question of whether lawyers who are also law professors can
invoke academic freedom as a defense in an administrative proceeding for
intemperate statements tending to pressure the Court or influence the
outcome of a case or degrade the courts.

Even if the Court was willing to accept respondents proposition in the

compliance that their issuance of the Statement was in keeping with their
duty stated in canon 4, the court did not agree that they fulfilled that same
duty in keeping with the demands of Canon 1, 11, and 13 to give due respect
to legal processes and the courts. With more reason that law professors are
not allowed this indulgence, since they are expected to provide their student
exemplars of the Code.
 CANON 4

PEOPLE VS. GASCON-DABAN

(G.R. No. L-31429, January 31, 1972)

FACTS:
Roscoe Daban appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Iloilo, finding him guilty of murder, sentencing him to death and ordering
him to pay the heirs of Conrado de la Cruz an indemnity of twelve thousand
pesos.

According to the evidence of the Prosecution, Daban and four others

were riding in a 1965 Chevrolet Malibu red car with white top which
stopped beside a jeep parked in front of the Philippine National Bank
Building near Libertad in Iloilo City.

Daban, who was in the front seat of the car, pulled his pistol and fired
three or four times at Conrado de la Cruz who was leaning against the jeep.
After the shooting, the driver drove the car in the direction of the Colegio
del Sagrado Corazon de Jesus. On reaching the corner of P. Burgos and J.
Rizal Streets, it abruptly turned to the right, causing its tires to screech, and
then it disappeared from view. De la Cruz, on being shot, staggered and fell
face down on the pavement.

The following morning, Lieutenant Colonel Margate received two

telephone calls from Congressman Espinosa apprising him that the car used
by Daban was being repainted in Mendozas Auto Painting Shop located
near Senator Ganzons residence on Timawa Avenue, Molo.

The peace officers were informed by Mendoza that it was brought to

the shop the same morning. Edwin Daban requested that the car be painted
black right away. On the glove compartment, it was confirmed that the car
belongs to Roscoe Daban.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the prosecution followed the Canon 4 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The killing was correctly characterized by the fiscal and the trial court
as murder perpetrated in a public place in daytime in the view of several
witnesses. The manner of its perpetration reveals the high degree of
perversity and dangerousness of the culprit.

The killing is qualified by treachery and aggravated by the use of a

motor vehicle. The means employed by the accused were intended to
surprise the victim and prevent him from making any retaliation and at the
same time to facilitate the malefactor's escape from the scene of the crime.
Evident premeditation cannot be considered aggravating.

 CANON 4

SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD VS. HON.

GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL
IN RE: CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ATTORNEYS
SANTIAGO, SOTTO, REGALA, UY, CALING AND MEADS
(G.R. No. L-27072, January 9, 1970)

FACTS:
In July 1968, the Supreme Court rendered their judgment adverse to
respondent MacArthur International Co. The first contempt proceeding
happened when the third motion of reconsideration signed by Atty. Vicente
L. Santiago, on his behalf for Attys. Uy, Regala and Sotto, the Solicitor
General pointed out that the it contained statements implying that the A)
petitioners made false and wild statements in desperate attempt to prejudice
the courts against MacArthur International and changed their claims
opportunistically not only from case to case but from pleading to pleading
and that B) the Supreme Court overlooked the applicable law due to
misrepresentation and obfuscation of the petitioner's counsel and in effect
the Court ruled that such a gimmick (right to reject any and all bids) can be
used by vulturous executives to cover up and excuse losses to the public.

The said motion of reconsideration even asked for Mr. Chief Justice
Roberto Concepcion and Mr. Justice Fred Ruiz Castro to inhibit themselves
from considering, judging and resolving the case due to the enumerated
incidents which brought about respondent MacArthur's belief of "unjudicial
favoritism". A deleted paragraph even contained statements referring to the
judicial authorities believing they were the chosen messengers of God in all
matters.

On December 2, 1968 Atty. Santiago stated that the motion to inhibit

and third motion for reconsideration were of his exclusive making and he
alone shall be held responsible for it.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Vicente Santiago is guilty of contempt on the
third motion for reconsideration.
HELD:
Yes, Atty. Vicente Santiago is guilty of contempt. The Supreme Court
finds the language used in the motion for reconsideration as something not
to be expected from an officer of the courts. Furthermore, Atty. Santiago
pictures the petitioners as "vulturous executives" and the Court as a
"civilized, democratic tribunal", but by innuendo would suggest not. He
then accuses in a reckless manner two justices of this court for being
interested in the decision of the said case and implied that the Chief Justice
and Justice Castro were insensible to delicadeza and that their relationship
affects their judgement.

Applying Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility stating

that a lawyer shall participate in the development of the legal system by
initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the improvement of the
administration of justice, a lawyer should always be considered as an officer
of the courts and administrators of justice. His primarily duty is to uphold
the dignity and authority of the courts and to promote the administration of
justice. Hence he must always keep in perspective that his first duty is not to
their clients but to the courts. To which, the Supreme Court finds Atty.
Santiago guilty and fines him the sum of P1,000 pesos.
 CANON 4

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ROSCOE DABAN Y GANZON,

SIXTO P. DEMAISIP
(G.R. No. L-31429, January 31, 1972)

FACTS:
Respondent, Attorney Sixto P. Demaisip, started as counsel de parte of
appellant. On October 24, 1970, he filed a motion for extension of time of
30days within which to file appellant's brief. It was granted. So were
subsequent motions for extension. On May 25, 1971, after having obtained
13 extensions in all, he filed a motion asking that in view of the father of
appellant being unable to raise money for printing expenses, he be
allowed to retire as counsel departe and be appointed as counsel de oficio
instead to enable him to file a typewritten brief, a draft of which, according
to him, he had by then finished. This Court, in a resolution of June 2, 1971,
granted his prayer to be appointed counsel de oficio, but required him to file
a mimeographed rather than a typewritten brief. In the light of his own
representation, there was reason to expect that such a brief would be duly
forthcoming. It did not turn out to be the case at all, for respondent
Demaisip, this time as counsel de oficio, kept on filing motions for
postponement, four in number, likewise granted by this Tribunal in a spirit
of generosity. All in all, he had seventeen extensions. Still there was no
appellant's brief. It was only then that on October 11, 1971 this Court issued
a resolution requiring Atty. Sixto P. Demaisip to explain, within ten (10) days
why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. What passed for
an explanation for appellant's persistent failure to file appellant's brief
was submitted on November25, 1971, worded thus: "[Comes now] the
accused-appellant, by and thru the undersigned counsel de oficio, unto this
Honorable Supreme Court most respectfully manifests and explains that,
in the opinion of the undersigned lawyer, grounded on
settled jurisprudence, the escape of the prisoner automatically makes the
appeal useless and unnecessary because it is considered abandoned." It is his
prayer, therefore, that the above be considered a satisfactory explanation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the there was a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility Canon 4?
HELD:
Doctrine: There is need anew in this disciplinary proceeding to lay
stress on the fundamental postulate that membership in the bar carries with
it aresponsibility to live up to its exacting standard. The law is a profession,
not a trade or a craft. Those enrolled in its ranks are called upon to aid in
theperformance of one of the basic purposes of the State, the administration
of justice. To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of
an indigentdefendant, a lawyer may be required to act as counsel de
oficio. The fact that his services are rendered without remuneration should
not occasion adiminution in his zeal. Rather the contrary. This is not, of
course, to ignore that other pressing matters do compete for his attention.
After all, he has hispractice to attend to. That circumstance possesses a high
degree of relevance since a lawyer has to live; certainly he cannot afford
either to neglect hispaying cases. Nonetheless, what is incumbent upon him
as counsel de oficio must be fulfilledNothing can be clearer, therefore, than
that respondent Demaisip, by such gross neglect of duty, notwithstanding
the many extensions granted him, wasrecreant to the trust reposed in him as
counsel de oficio.Respondent Demaisip ought to have known better. His
explanation disregards the facts and betrays ignorance of the law. It is true
there was a notice on June23, 1971 from the then Acting Director Vicente
R. Raval of the Bureau of Prisons that on June 15 of that year appellant
Roscoe Daban y Ganzon did escape. Asfar back as May 13, 1971, however,
respondent Demaisip, according to his motion of that date filed on May
25, 1971, wherein he prayed that he be appointedcounsel de oficio and
permitted to submit a mimeographed brief, had assured this Court that he
had already prepared a draft. If he were not careless of thetruth, then there
was no excuse why prior to June 15, 1971 he was unable to submit such a
brief to this Court. It is not to be ignored either that as of that datehe had
already secured thirteen extensions, ordinarily many more than any counsel
is entitled to but nonetheless granted him, because the sentenceimposed was
one of death. The liability incurred by respondent Demaisip is thus
unavoidable. He had failed to fulfill his responsibility as defense counsel.
Whether as counsel de parte ora counsel de oficio, he was indeed truly
remiss in the discharge of a responsibility which, as a member of the Bar, he
cannot evade. It is by such notoriousconduct of neglect and indifference
on the part of counsel that a court's docket becomes unnecessarily clogged.
His transgression is indisputable; whatremains is the imposition of an
appropriate penalty.WHEREFORE, until further orders of this Court,
respondent Sixto P. Demaisip is hereby suspended from the practice of the
law in all courts of the Philippines,except for the sole purpose of filing the
brief for appellant Roscoe Daban y Ganzon with this Court within a period
of twenty days from receipt of thisresolution. Let a copy of this resolution be
spread upon his record.

 CANON 4

IN THE MATTER OF ATTORNEY LOPE E. ADRIANO VS. ESTEBIA

(G.R. No. L-26868, February 27, 1969)

FACTS:
Lope E. Adriano, a member of the Bar, was appointed by this Court as
Estebia's counsel de oficio. In the notice of his appointment, Adriano was
required to prepare and file his brief within thirty days from notice which
he wasnt able to file on time. He sought for a 30-day extension, another a
20-day extension, another 15-day extension, and another 15-day extension.
He moved for a "last" extension of ten days. He even sought a special
extension of five days. All these motions for extension were granted. The
brief was due on April 26, 1967. But no brief was filed.

Adriano was ordered to show cause within ten days from notice.
However, Adriano did not bother to give any explanation.

For failing to comply, the Court, imposed upon him a fine of P500 with
a warning that upon further non-compliance, "more drastic disciplinary
action will be taken against him." Still, counsel paid no heed.

The Court ordered Adriano to show why he should not be suspended

from the practice of law "for gross misconduct and violation of his oath of
office as attorney." Again, he ignored the resolution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Adriano violated Canon 4 of Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, atty. Adriano violated Canon 4. According to Canon 4, a lawyer
shall participate in the development of the legal system by initiating or
supporting efforts in law reform and in the improvement of the
administration of justice.

By specific authority, the Court may assign an attorney to render

professional aid to a destitute appellant in a criminal case who is unable to
employ an attorney. Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so
assigned "to render the required service." A lawyer so appointed "as counsel
for an indigent prisoner", our Canons of Professional Ethics demand,
"should always exert his best efforts" in the indigent's behalf.

It is true that he is a court-appointed counsel. But we do say that as

such counsel de oficio, he has as high a duty to the accused as one employed
and paid by defendant himself. Because, as in the case of the latter, he must
exercise his best efforts and professional ability in behalf of the person
assigned to his care. His is to render effective assistance. The accused
defendant expects of him due diligence, not mere perfunctory
representation. The Court does not accept the paradox that responsibility is
less where the defended party is poor. It has been said that courts should
"have no hesitancy in demanding high standards of duty of attorneys
appointed to defend indigent persons charged with crime." For, indeed, a
lawyer who is a vanguard in the bastion of justice is expected to have a
bigger dose of social conscience and a little less of self-interest. Because of
this, a lawyer should remain ever conscious of his duties to the indigent he
defends.
 CANON 4

JASON VS. JUDGE YGAA

(A.M. No. RTJ-00-1543, August 4, 2000)

FACTS:
Complainant Jason was a defendant in an ejectment case in
Metropolitan Trial Court where judgment was rendered against him. When
he appealed the decision to the RTC, respondent judge Ygaa affirmed the
decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Complainant did not appeal from the decision. However, on 13 March

1998, she filed with the RTC of Pasig City a complaint for "Annulment of
Deed of Conditional Sale of House and Lot, Re-Awarding of Subject House
and Lot, with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction" against the Social Security
System and others including Alberto Huang, the plaintiff in the ejectment
case. Plaintiff Alberto Huang filed a Motion for Immediate Execution in SCA
No. 1480 which respondent Judge Ygaa granted. The complainant filed with
the Office of the Court Administrator the complaint in this case charging
respondents with ignorance, negligence, incompetence, grave abuse of duty,
improvident issuance and implementation of a writ of execution, drastic
execution of said writ in a manner most prejudicial to the best interest of
service and property rights of complainant and her family. Complainant
alleges in her complaint that the writ of execution was improvidently issued
because of the pendency before Branch 54 of the RTC of Pasig City of Civil
Case No. 66714. Besides, the implementation or execution of the final
decision must come from the court of origin and not the appellate court.

The court held that the rule is that if the judgment of the metropolitan
trial court is appealed, the regional trial court and the decision of the latter
is itself elevated to the Court of Appeals, whose decision thereafter become
final, the case should be remanded through the regional trial court to the
metropolitan trial court for execution. Nothing authorizes the appellate
court which has resolved the appeal to order the execution of its own
judgment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Ygaa violates Canon 4 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, respondent judge Ygaa violates Canon 4 and is liable for gross
ignorance of the law.

Canon 4 states that a lawyer shall participate in the development of

the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the
improvement of the administration of justice.

In this case, respondent judge Ygaa either deliberately disregarded our

ruling in City of Manila v. Court of Appeals (supra), and Sy v. Romero (supra), or
was totally unaware thereof. The Court Administrator is of the opinion that
it was more of the latter and considers it "gross ignorance of the law." The
court agrees for we cannot expect a judge to deliberately disregard an
unequivocal rule on execution of judgment and a doctrine laid down by this
Court. Time and again the court have stressed that a judge is called upon to
exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural
rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles.
Canon 4 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics requires that the judge should be
studious of the principles of law.

 CANON 5

ENRIQUEZ VS. ENRIQUEZ

(G.R. No. 139303, August 25, 2005)

FACTS:
Maximo Enriquez, later substituted by his heirs (now respondents),
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for partition against
petitioners.

RTC rendered a Decision ordering the petitioners to vacate the

property and to surrender possession thereof to respondents.

A copy of the Decision was received by counsel for petitioners.

Subsequently, they filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of petitioners for their

failure to pay the appellate court docket fee.

In dismissing petitioners appeal, the Court of Appeals cited Section

1(c), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Prior to the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as

amended, payment of appellate court docket fee is not a prerequisite for the
perfection of an appeal. However, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, which took effect on July 1, 1997, now require that appellate
docket and other lawful fees must be paid within the same period for taking
an appeal. Therefore, the payment of docket fee within this period is
mandatory for the perfection of appeal. Otherwise, the appellate court
would not be able to act on the subject matter of the action, and the decision
sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility was
not observed by the counsel of this case.

HELD:
No, Canon 5 was not observed by the counsel of this case.
 Canon 5 states that a lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments,
participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to
achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of
law students and assist in disseminating the law and jurisprudence.

In the present case, petitioners failed to establish any sufficient and

satisfactory reason to warrant a relaxation of the mandatory rule on the
payment of appellate court docket fee. Actually, the payment of the required
docket fee was late because of the erroneous interpretation of the Rule by
petitioners counsel. Verily, to grant their petition would be putting a
premium on his ignorance or lack of knowledge of existing Rules. He should
be reminded that it is his duty to keep abreast of legal developments and
prevailing laws, rules and legal principles. Otherwise, his clients will be
prejudiced, as in this case.
 CANON 5

DELA CRUZ VS. GOLAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC.

(G.R. No. 141277, December 16, 2005)

FACTS:
Petitioner employees Reynaldo Dela Cruz and Elur Nono
were hired and deployed by respondent Golar Maritime Services,
Inc. Before the expiration of petitioner employees respective
contracts, they were repatriated back to the country on charges of
disobedience and insubordination. Because of this, petitioner
employees filed a complaint alleging that they were illegally
dismissed.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner

employees. The respondent companies appealed to the NLRC
which vacated the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the
complaint of the petitioners for lack of merit
The petitioners went to the Court via a Petition seeking the
annulment of said decision. However, the Court of Appeals
dismissed the petitioner employees petition for being filed
beyond the reglementary period provided for under Section 4,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by Supreme
Court Circular No. 38-9.

Petitioner employees are of the view that since the

amendment to Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, i.e., Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98, was fairly new
and majority of the members of the legal profession have not
adopted it in their practice, it was in the best interest of justice if
the petition was not dismissed. They rationalized further that the
petition, after all, was only ten (10) days late when it was filed.
Had they been aware of the amendment made by the Supreme
Court Circular No. 38-98, the petition would have been prepared
on or before November 28, 1998 or a timely motion for extension of
time to file petition would have been filed. Hence, it was simply
a case of an excusable neglect on the part of the undersigned law
firm, for which the petitioners should not have been prejudiced.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the counsel of petitioner employees failed to
observe Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
Yes. Canon 5 states that a lawyer shall keep abreast of legal
developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support
efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical
training of law students and assist in disseminating the law and
jurisprudence.

The delay incurred by counsel for petitioner employees in

filing the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was
inexcusable. Their counsels claim of ignorance exacerbates more
than relieves him of accountability for his negligence. It cannot be
over-emphasized that lawyers are duty-bound, nay, mandated, by
the oath they took, to keep abreast of legal developments and to
participate in continuing legal education programs. To reiterate,
the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period
permitted by law is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional.
The rules on periods for filing appeals are to be observed
religiously, and parties who seek to avail themselves of the
privilege must comply with the rules.

 CANON 5

SANTIAGO v. ATTY. RAFANAN

(A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004)

FACTS:
A complaint was filed by Jonar Santiago with the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the
disbarment of Atty. Edison Rafanan. Complainant alleged that respondent
in notarizing several documents on failed and/or refused to: a) make the
proper notation regarding the cedula or community tax certificate of the
affiants; b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial
register; and c) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP
numbers in the documents he had notarized, all in violation of the notarial
provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.

In respondents verified answer, the admitted having administered

the oath to the affiants whose Affidavits were attached to the verified
complaint. He believed that the non-notation of their Residence Certificates
in the Affidavits and the Counter-affidavits was allowed. He opined that the
notation of residence certificates applied only to documents acknowledged
by a notary public and was not mandatory for affidavits related to cases
pending before courts and other government offices.

The IBP found that respondent violated specific requirements of the

Notarial Law on the execution of a certification, the entry of such
certification in the notarial register and the indication of the affiants resident
certificate.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. The respondent is found guilty of violating Canon 5 of the Code
of Professional responsibility which provides xxx A lawyer shall keep abreast
of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support
efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of
law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and
jurisprudence. xxx In the case at bar, respondent had violated specific
requirements of the Notarial Law on the execution on the execution of a
certification, the entry of such certification in the notarial register and the
indication of the affiants resident certificate.

In relation to Canon 5, Notaries public entering into their commissions

are presumed to be aware of these elementary requirements. Lawyers are
expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule
of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the
existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent
enactments and jurisprudence. Thus, Atty. Rafanan violated Canon 5 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
 CANON 5

BENITO v. BALINDONG
(A.M. RTJ-08-2103, February 23, 2009)

FACTS:
The complainant, then acting mayor of the Municipality of Balabagan,
Lanao del Sur, charged respondent with gross ignorance of the law. The
Ombudsman rendered a decision in that case finding respondent Mamarinta
G. Macabato guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
of refusal to pay her salary as vice-mayor despite repeated demands.
Meanwhile, respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition which
was raffled to sala of the respondent and docketed as Special Civil Action
(SCA) No. 12-181.

Complainant asserted that despite the clear provisions of the law and
procedure, respondent took cognizance of SCA No. 12-181 and issued a TRO
and writ of preliminary injunction. She submitted that respondent should be
administratively disciplined because of his gross ignorance of the law which
prejudiced the rights of her constituents. Respondent countered that he
issued the orders in good faith because he was not moved by corrupted
motives or improper considerations. Considering that complainant failed to
establish bad faith or malevolence on his part, the complainant against him
should be dismissed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Respondents gross ignorance of the law runs counter to Canon 5
of the Code of Professional responsibility which provides xxx A lawyer shall
keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education
programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding
the law and jurisprudence. xxx In the case ate bar, the respondent acted
contrary to law, rules and jurisprudence when he entertained SCA No. 12-
181, issued a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction and subsequently
granted the petition. In doing so, he consented to the filing of an unlawful
suit, in violation of the Lawyer's Oath. Judges should be well-informed of
existing laws, recent amendments and current jurisprudence, in keeping
with their sworn duty as members of the bar to keep abreast of legal
developments. I

 CANON 5

CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE RTC DAGUPAN CITY v.

JUDGE ALIPOSA
(A.M. RTJ-99-1446, March 9, 2000)

FACTS:
On March 1999, a letter was sent to the Chief Justice by the court
employees of Daupan City for corruption of the Judge Castillo and Aliposa.
The employees gave their sworn statements concerning the corrupt practices
that the two judges were receiving cash vouchers and ordering the payment
of percentages to the judged. Such details were to the extent that most cases
were not adjudicated based on merits but based on the litigants ability to
pay.

Respondents, in their defense, alleged the denial of all the accusations

against them by the court employees.

There was a separate investigation conducted by the court together

with Justice Buzon in her report.

ISSUE:
Whether the judges should be held liable for violating the Code of
Professional Ethics.

HELD:
The court, adopting the recommendations of Justice Buzon held that
This Court had repeatedly stressed that a judge is the visible representation
of the law and the embodiment of the people's sense of justice and that,
accordingly, he should constantly keep away from any act of impropriety, t
only in the performance of his official duties but also his everyday
actuations.] No other position exacts a greater demand on moral
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than perhaps a seat in the
judiciary.] A judge must be the first to abide by the law and to weave an
example for the others to follow." A judge should always be a symbol of
rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in a manner that will raise no
doubt whatsoever about his honesty.
 CANON 5

PITCHER v. GAGATE
(A.C. No. 9532, October 8, 2013)

FACTS:
Complainant claimed to be the legal wife of David B. Pitcher (David),
a British national who passed away on June 18, 2004. Prior to his death,
David was engaged in business in the Philippines and owned, among others,
40% of the shareholdings in Consulting Edge, Inc. (Consulting Edge), a
domestic corporation. In order to settle the affairs of her deceased husband,
complainant engaged the services of respondent.

On June 22, 2004, complainant and respondent met with Katherine

Moscoso Bantegui Bantegui), a major stockholder of Consulting Edge,in
order to discuss the settlement of Davids interest in the company. They
agreed to another meeting which was, however, postponed by Bantegui.
Eventually, the parties agreed to meet at the company premises on June 28,
2004. However, prior to the scheduled meeting, complainant was prevailed
upon by respondent to put a paper seal on the door of the said premises,
assuring her that the same was legal.

On the scheduled meeting, Bantegui expressed disappointment over

the actions of complainant and respondent, which impelled her to just leave
the matter for the court to settle. She then asked them to leave, locked the
office and refused to give them a duplicate key.Subsequently, however,
respondent, without the consent of Bantegui, caused the change in the lock
of the Consulting Edge office door, which prevented the employees thereof
from entering and carrying on the operations of the company. This
prompted Bantegui to file before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati
(Prosecutors Office) a complaint for grave coercion against complainant and
respondent. In turn, respondent advised complainant that criminal and civil
cases should be initiated against Bantegui for the recovery of David's
personal records/business interests in Consulting Edge. Thus, on January
17, 2005, the two entered in Memorandum of Agreement, whereby
respondent undertook the filing of the cases against Bantegui, for which
complainant paid the amount of P150,000.00 as acceptance fee and
committed herself to pay respondent P1,000.00 for every court hearing.
 On November 18, 2004, the Prosecutors Office issued a Resolution
dated October 13, 2004, finding probable cause to charge complainant and
respondent for grave coercion. The corresponding Information was filed
before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 63, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 337985 (grave coercion case), and, as a matter of course,
warrants of arrest were issued against them.Due to the foregoing,
respondent advised complainant to go into hiding until he had filed the
necessary motions in court. Eventually, however, respondent abandoned the
grave coercion case and stopped communicating with complainant. Failing
to reach respondent despite diligent efforts, complainant filed the instant
administrative case before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) -
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), docketed as CBD Case No. 06-1689.

The IBPs Report and Recommendation- On March 18, 2009, Investigating

Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. (Commissioner Magpayo) issued a
Report and Recommendation, observing that respondent failed to safeguard
complainant's legitimate interest and abandoned her in the grave coercion
case. Commissioner Magpayo pointed out that Bantegui is not legally
obliged to honor complainant as subrogee of David because complainant has
yet to establish her kinship with David and, consequently, her interest in
Consulting Edge. Hence, the actions taken by respondent, such as the
placing of paper seal on the door of the company premises and the changing
of its lock, were all uncalled for. Worse, when faced with the counter legal
measures to his actions, he abandoned his client's cause.Commissioner
Magpayo found that respondents acts evinced a lack of adequate
preparation and mastery of the applicable laws on his part, in violation of
Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibity (Code), warranting his
suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months.

ISSUE:
Did the respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
After a careful perusal of the records, the Court concurs with and adopts
the findings and conclusions of the OBC which recommended that the six-
month suspension from the practice of law as suggested by the IBP was an
insufficient penalty and, in lieu thereof, recommended that respondent be
suspended for three years. Likewise, it ordered respondent to return the
P150,000.00 he received from complainant as acceptance fee.
 CANON 5

QUIAMBAO VS. BAMBA

(A.C. No. 6708, August 25, 2005)

FACTS:
Felicitas S. Quiambao filed a complaint for disbarment against the
respondent Atty. Nestor A. Bamba. The petitioner alleged that the
respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, it
provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The
respondent represented the petitioner in a pending case of ejectment while
the latter was the president and managing director of Allied Investigation
Bureau, Inc. according to the petitioner, the respondent provides legal
services not only for the corporate affairs of AIB but also for her personal
case. After six months she resigned from AIB, the respondent filed on behalf
of AIB a complaint for replevin and damages against her for the purpose of
recovering from her the car of AIB assigned to her as a service vehicle. For
the petitioner, this is a clear violation of Canon5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The respondent admits that he represented the petitioner in
the ejectment case and later represented AIB in the replevin case against her,
however, he denies that he was the personal lawyer of the petitioner.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating Canon 5 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, the respondent violated the Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The respondent was still the lawyer of the petitioner in the
ejectment case since it is still pending, then the respondent, as a legal counsel
of AIB, filed a case against her. This is a clear violation of the Canon and
shows a conflict of interest among the party.
 CANON 5

PEOPLE VS. GACOTT

(G.R. No. 116049, March 20, 1995)

FACTS:
This is a special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul the order of
the respondent judge, Hon. Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr., granting the Motion to
Quash filed by the violator of the Anti-Dummy Law. in the said case,
Assistant City Prosecutor Pe filed a case against Strom and Reyes for the
violation of the Anti-Dummy Law, the respondents on the said case filed a
motion to quash the criminal case on the grounds that it is not within the
authority of the prosecutor to file such case. As a result, the respondent judge
quashed the criminal case. The petitioner believes that the judge committed
an error in dismissing the case for the courts are duty bound to take judicial
notice of all the laws of the land. The judge failed to read the text of the cited
LOI, which will provide the reason for the case not to be dismisses.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion
granting the Motion to Quash.

HELD:
Yes, the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion. Judges are
presumed to be well- informed of the existing laws, recent enactment and
jurisprudence, in keeping their sworn duty as members of the bar. Canon 5
of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall keep
abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education
programs. The error could have been avoided were it not for the
respondents irresponsibility in the performance of his duty.

 CANON 5

JOSEPH DORMAN TAMAYO, LAUREANA TAMAYO AND

LINAFLOR TAMAYO VS. JOSE TAMAYO, JR., FLORITS TAMAYO-
MAGNO, LUZMINDA TAMAYO-ANTHONY AND FORTUNA
TAMAYO-ENRIQUEZ
(G.R. No. 148482, August 12, 2005)

FACTS:
Petitioners and respondents are half-blood siblings, their mother is
Dorothela Dayanghiran-Tamayo. Respondents are the legitimate children
of Dorothela with Dr. Jose Tamayo, Sr while petitioners are her illegitimate
children with Jose Matuco. When Dorothela's relationship with Matuco
ended, thereafter respondents took care of her and the petitioners.
Respondents even sent the petitioners to school and allowing them to use
the surname Tamayo in their birth certificates.

On November 15, 1977, spouses Tamayo executed, in favor of

respondents, a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos of their two parcels of land
covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 830 and 5868. These, however
were cancelled and became Transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. T-61159 and
T-61160. On October 7, 1990, Dr. Tamayo, Sr. died. On June 13, 1996,
petitioners filed a complaint for revocation of the said donation, alleging
they were preterited from the estate of Dr. Tamayo and that the respondents
fraudulently caused the execution of the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos. The
trial court dismissed the complaint.

Petitioners then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, but failed to

pay the corresponding docket fees. Hence their appeal was dismissed.
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration and gave two manager's
checks amounting to P 525.00. They explained that they failed to pay the
docket fees because they were not advised by the trial court and the Court
of Appeals when to pay the docket fees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the justification provided by the petitioners is valid.
HELD:
No, petitioner's justification is invalid. The Supreme Court ruled that
their failure to pay the docket fees due to the lower court's failure to advise
them when the fees shall be paid and obviously blaming the courts for their
counsel's negligence is something the court cannot tolerate.

Furthermore, the SC explained the if they grant the said petition, such
act would be in tolerance of their counsel's ignorance or lack of knowledge
of existing Rules. This is in clear violation of Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional responsibility wherein it states that A lawyer shall keep abreast
of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs,
support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information
regarding the law and jurisprudence.

The Court further reiterates that a lawyer's negligence binds his

clients. Therefore, the court cannot grant the plea considering that the loss of
their remedy was due to their own negligence.
 CANON 5

LEA P. PAYOD V. ATTY. ROMEO P. METILA

(A.C. No. 3944, July 27, 2007)

FACTS:
The petitioner, Lea P. Payod charges the respondent, Atty. Romeo P.
Metila with "wilful neglect and gross misconduct" in connection with this
court's dismissal of her petition in G.R. No. 102764, "Lea P. Payod V. Court
of Appeals,".

Petitioner submits that, It is difficult to believe that practicing

lawyers cannot submit very important documents considered regular pieces
of information in their practice of law leading to default with serious
consequences prejudicial to the client if the said counsel is not ill motivated
or not due to gross misconduct and wilful negligence inimical to the best
interest of the client.

Together with her mother and sister, the petitioner found difficulty
making follow-up with respondent for him to comply with the submission
of required documents to the Supreme Court because of his unreasonable
excuses for non-performance despite their persistent follow-ups, payments
of expenses and attorney's fees, and willingness to supply him with
materials and needed facts. More often, they got lame excuses and had his
no-show in appointed meetings at the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
In failing to comply with the requirements in initiating complainant's
appeal before this Court in G.R. No. 102764 even after his attention to it was
called by this Court, respondent fell short of the standards required in Canon
5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for a lawyer to "keep abreast of
legal developments" and "serve his client with competence and diligence."
 Thus, respondent is seriously admonished with warning that similar
charges will be severely dealt with.

 CANON 5

ENRIQUEZ VS. ENRIQUEZ

(G.R. No. 139303, August 25, 2005)

FACTS:
Maximo Enriquez, later substituted by his heirs (now respondents),
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for partition against
petitioners.

RTC rendered a Decision ordering the petitioners to vacate the

property and to surrender possession thereof to respondents.

A copy of the Decision was received by counsel for petitioners.

Subsequently, they filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of petitioners for their

failure to pay the appellate court docket fee.

In dismissing petitioners appeal, the Court of Appeals cited Section

1(c), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Prior to the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as

amended, payment of appellate court docket fee is not a prerequisite for the
perfection of an appeal. However, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, which took effect on July 1, 1997, now require that appellate
docket and other lawful fees must be paid within the same period for taking
an appeal. Therefore, the payment of docket fee within this period is
mandatory for the perfection of appeal. Otherwise, the appellate court
would not be able to act on the subject matter of the action, and the decision
sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility was
not observed by the counsel of this case.

HELD:
No, Canon 5 was not observed by the counsel of this case.
 Canon 5 states that a lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments,
participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to
achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of
law students and assist in disseminating the law and jurisprudence.

In the present case, petitioners failed to establish any sufficient and

satisfactory reason to warrant a relaxation of the mandatory rule on the
payment of appellate court docket fee. Actually, the payment of the required
docket fee was late because of the erroneous interpretation of the Rule by
petitioners counsel. Verily, to grant their petition would be putting a
premium on his ignorance or lack of knowledge of existing Rules. He should
be reminded that it is his duty to keep abreast of legal developments and
prevailing laws, rules and legal principles. Otherwise, his clients will be
prejudiced, as in this case.
 CANON 5

DELA CRUZ VS. GOLAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC.

(G.R. No. 141277, December 16, 2005)

FACTS:
Petitioner employees Reynaldo Dela Cruz and Elur Nono
were hired and deployed by respondent Golar Maritime Services,
Inc. Before the expiration of petitioner employees respective
contracts, they were repatriated back to the country on charges of
disobedience and insubordination. Because of this, petitioner
employees filed a complaint alleging that they were illegally
dismissed.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner

employees. The respondent companies appealed to the NLRC
which vacated the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the
complaint of the petitioners for lack of merit
The petitioners went to the Court via a Petition seeking the
annulment of said decision. However, the Court of Appeals
dismissed the petitioner employees petition for being filed
beyond the reglementary period provided for under Section 4,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by Supreme
Court Circular No. 38-9.

Petitioner employees are of the view that since the

amendment to Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, i.e., Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98, was fairly new
and majority of the members of the legal profession have not
adopted it in their practice, it was in the best interest of justice if
the petition was not dismissed. They rationalized further that the
petition, after all, was only ten (10) days late when it was filed.
Had they been aware of the amendment made by the Supreme
Court Circular No. 38-98, the petition would have been prepared
on or before November 28, 1998 or a timely motion for extension of
time to file petition would have been filed. Hence, it was simply
a case of an excusable neglect on the part of the undersigned law
firm, for which the petitioners should not have been prejudiced.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the counsel of petitioner employees failed to
observe Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
Yes. Canon 5 states that a lawyer shall keep abreast of legal
developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support
efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical
training of law students and assist in disseminating the law and
jurisprudence.

The delay incurred by counsel for petitioner employees in

filing the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was
inexcusable. Their counsels claim of ignorance exacerbates more
than relieves him of accountability for his negligence. It cannot be
over-emphasized that lawyers are duty-bound, nay, mandated, by
the oath they took, to keep abreast of legal developments and to
participate in continuing legal education programs. To reiterate,
the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period
permitted by law is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional.
The rules on periods for filing appeals are to be observed
religiously, and parties who seek to avail themselves of the
privilege must comply with the rules.

 CANON 6

HUYSSEN v. GUTIERREZ
(A.C. No. 6707, March 24, 2006)

FACTS:
In 1995, the respondent was still connected with the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation (BID). When she and her three sons, who are
all American citizens applied for Philippine Visas, respondent told the
complainant that they need to deposit a certain sum of money for a period
of one year, which could be withdrawn after one year, in order that their visa
applications be favorably acted upon by the BID.

The complainant deposited with respondent six times from April 1995
to April 1996 with the total amount of US$20,000. Receipts/vouchers were
prepared by the respondent as proofs that he received the amount deposited,
but refused to give copies of official receipts to the complainant despite the
latters demands.

A year after, the complainant demanded from the respondent the

amount of US$20,000 which was promised to be returned. Two demand
letters were sent by the World Mission of Jesus, of which the complainant
was a member, when respondent failed to return the sum deposited. In
response, the respondent sent a complaint explaining the reasons for the
delay of the return of the payment. He also enclosed two blank postdated
checks, but was dishonored when the complainant presented the checks for
payment. Thereafter, the respondent explained the reasons for stopping
payment and gave the complainant five post-dated checks, but all were
dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds, or payment
was ordered stopped by the respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and must severely penalized

HELD:
Yes. The respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which reads: xxx A lawyer in the government
service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests,
nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. xxx considering that the
respondent was able to perpetrate the fraud by taking advantage of his
position with the Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID) and caused damage to the reputation and integrity of the
said office. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a
lawyer who holds a responsible public office.

The respondents act of asking money from complainant in

consideration of the latters pending application for visas is violated of Rule
6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Promotion of private interest
includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction
requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions
of his office. Respondents conduct in office betrays the integrity and good
moral character required from all lawyers, especially from one occupying a
high public office. A lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public
faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps
higher that his brethren in private practice.

 CANON 6

VITRIOLO v. DASIG
(A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003)

FACTS:
Complainants filed a disbarment case against Atty. Felina S. Dasig for
gross misconduct in violation of the Attorney's Oath. They claimed, among
others, that during her term as Officer-In-Charge of the Legal Affairs
Services of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Atty. Dasig made
unlawful demands or attempted to extort money from certain individuals
who had pending applications/requests before her office in exchange for her
promise to act favorably on said requests/applications. Despite due notice,
Atty. Dasig failed to file her comment or answer. Accordingly, the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that she be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of three years.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent commit a violation of Canon 6 of Code
of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his
professional obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional Responsibility,
promulgated on June 21, 1988, was not meant to govern the conduct of
private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in government
service. This is clear from Canon 6 of said Code. Lawyers in government are
public servants who owe utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus, they
should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional
obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the
public.

Respondent's attempts to extort money from persons with applications

or requests pending before her office are violative of Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from
engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts.
Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars
lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests.
Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of
monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or
which may be affected by the functions of his office.

For her violation of the Attorney's Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and Rule
1.03 of Canon 1 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly for acts of dishonesty as well as gross
misconduct as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, we find that respondent deserves
not just the penalty of three years suspension from membership in the Bar
as well as the practice of law, as recommended by the IBP Board of
Governors, but outright disbarment. Her name shall be stricken off the list
of attorneys upon finality of this decision.
 CANON 6

QUERY OF ATTY. SILVERIO-BUFFE

(A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC, August 19, 2009)

FACTS:
Atty. Buffe previously worked as Clerk of Court VI of the RTC, Branch
81 of Romblon, she resigned from her position effective February 1, 2008.
Thereafter, she engaged in the private practice of law by appearing as private
counsel in several cases before RTC Branch 81 of Romblon within 1 year after
the effectivity of her resignation.

RA 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials

and Employees, Section 7(b)(2) places a limitation on public officials and
employees during their incumbency and those already separated from
government employment for a period of one (1) year after separation, in
engaging in the private practice of their profession.

SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions.

In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees

now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall
constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and
employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Buffe committed a violation of Canon 6 of Code
of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. In respect to lawyers in the judiciary, the OCAT pointed to Section
5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel the rule that deals
with outside employment by an incumbent judicial employee and which
limits such outside employment to one that "does not require the practice of
law". The prohibition to practice law with respect to any matter where they
have intervened while in the government service is reiterated in Rule 6.03,
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which governs the
conduct of lawyers in the government service.
 CANON 6

PNB VS. CEDO

(A.C. No. 3701 March 28, 1995)

FACTS:
The respondent, Atty. Cedo was accused by the petitioner, PNB, for
violating Code rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The code
provides that a lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service. The respondent was formerly employed as
the Assistant Vice President of the Asset Management Group of the
petitioner bank. When Cedo was still employed in PNB, he participated in
arranging a transaction in favor of Milagros Ong Siy, later on after leaving
the bank, he appeared as a counsel of Siy in a civil action arouse from the
said transaction. Furthermore, while respondent was still employed in PNB,
he also intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses
Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda. When a civil action aroused between the
bank and the spouses, the latter was represented by the law firm on which
the respondent is one of the Senior Partners. The respondent admitted that
he appeared as counsel for Siy but he did not participated in the litigation of
the case. With respect to the case of Almeda spouses, he assailed that he
never appeared as counsel for them, the spouses were represented by Atty.
Ferrer, one of the Senior Partners of the firm. He added that he did not enter
into a general partnership with Atty. Ferrer nor with any other lawyers. The
said firm maintained by lawyers, are not partners, they maintain one office
as well as one clerical supporting staff, they represent cases independently
and do not share profit.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent, Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, violated
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional of Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, the respondent violated Canon 6 of the Code of Professional of
Responsibility. During the investigation, it was discovered that the
respondent was fined in connection with the case of Siy, where the
respondent appeared as counsel through the law firm same as who
represents as a counsel of Almeda spouses. It was also discovered that
although Atty. Ferrer appeared as the counsel, the respondent dictates to
Atty. Ferrer what to say and argue before the court. Hence, the court suspend
respondent Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo from the practice of law for three years,
effective immediately.
 CANON 6

RE: RESOLUTION OF THE COURT DATED JUNE 1, 2004 IN G.R. NO.

72954 AGAINST ATTY. VICTOR C. AVECILLA
(A.C. No. 6683, June 21, 2011)

FACTS:
This is an administrative case against the respondent, Atty. Victor C.
Avecilla. On July 14, 2003, the respondent and Mr. Biraogo sent a letter to
Chief Justice Davide requesting the document relative to the expenditure of
the Judiciary development Fund. For them to show the interest in the JDF
enough to be informed of how it was being spent, they claimed that they
made a contribution to the said fund by way of the docket and legal fees they
paid as petitioners in G.R. No. 72954. The said petition was filed sometime
in 1985 impugning the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 883, the law
that called for the holding of a presidential snap election on February 7, 1986,
it was docketed as G.R. No. 72954. The petition was denied, hence upholding
the validity of Batas Pambansa Blg. 883. Chief Justice Davide instructed to
forward the rollo of the said petition for the purpose of verifying the claim
of the respondent and Mr. Biraogo. It was found out that the rollo was
missing and was borrowed by the respondent 12 years ago and never
returned it. At the time the rollo was borrowed, the respondent was
employed with the Supreme Court as a member of the legal staff of retired
Justice Emilio, this made possible for the respondent to gain access to the
rollo. He respondent cannot give sufficient explanation how he got the rollo,
he insisted that he had no idea how it mixed up with his box before he
resigned. There is no official business for the respondent to borrow the rollo.
Hence, it is believed that he violated Canon 6 Rule 6.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It provides that a lawyer in the government
service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. As a result,
it is recommended that he shall be suspended from practicing law for one
year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Avecila violated Canon 6 Rule 6.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes, he violated Canon 6 Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Since he is still employed in the Supreme Court when he
borrowed the rollo and cannot provide a sufficient explanation why he
borrowed and failed to return it for 12 years, it is a clear abuse of position on
the part of the respondent because the lending of rollos are, as a matter of
policy, only limited to official purposes. However, the suspension was
reduced to six months.

 CANON 6

EDILBERTO CUENCA VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES
(G.R. No. 109870, December 1, 1995)

FACTS:
Edilberto Cuenca petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals'
judgment affirming his conviction for violation of the "Trust Receipts Law"
was denied by the Supreme Court in a Resolution dated February 9, 1994,
he then filed a pleading entitled "Substitution of Counsel with Motion for
Leave to File Motion for New Trial". The Motion for New Trial was
grounded on newly discovered evidence and excusable negligence
supported by affidavits of an officer of private complainant corporation, an
admission against interest by a former officer of the owner of the corporation
(Ultra Corporation) and the petitioner who will assert his innocence for the
first time.

The Supreme Court granted in a Resolution granted the subsitution

but denied the motion for leave to file motion for a new trial. The Court then
required the Solicitor General to comment on the said motion. The Solicitor
General replied with a recommendation that petitioner be entitled to a new
trial based on Rodolfo Cuenca's (petitioner's brother) sworn statement may
exonerate petitioner from criminal liability.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Edilberto Cuenca is entitled to a new trial.

HELD:
Yes, the Supreme court granted petitioner's Motion for New Trial.
The decision was supported by the Solicitor General's statement and
emphasis of Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
where it is stated that the primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public
prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression
of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence
of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action."
 Herein, the Court brushed aside technicalities and despite the
opposition of the Solicitor General, granted new trial to the convicted
accused concerned on the basis of proposed testimonies or affidavits which
may be sufficient evidence to reverse judgement of conviction.
 CANON 6

DRILON V. COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. No. 106922, April 20, 2001)

FACTS:
After the unsuccessful December 1989 coup d' etat, the Department of
Justice, then headed by petitioner Franklin Drilon, referred to the Special
Composite Team of Prosecutors (Team of Prosecutors, for brevity),
composed of co-petitioners Aurelio C. Trampe, Ferdinand R. Abesamis and
Eulogio Mananquil, a letter-complaint from the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI, for brevity) requesting for the investigation of private
respondent Juan Ponce Enrile for his alleged participation in the said coup
attempt.

On June 5, 1990, in the same case of Enrile v. Salazar, we ordered the

modification of the Information before the RTC of Quezon City to simple
rebellion only in consonance with our ruling in People v. Hernandez 6 . On
September 13, 1990, in Enrile v. Amin, 7 this Court ruled that the filing of a
separate information for obstruction of justice also violated the Hernandez
doctrine and accordingly ordered the quashal of the said information.

As a consequence of our said Order dated September 13, 1990, private

respondent on August 20, 1990 filed a Complaint for damages, docketed as
Civil Case No. 90-2327, before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City while
the rebellion case was still pending litigation. Private respondent's
complaint impleaded as defendants herein petitioners, then Solicitor
General Francisco Chavez and Judge Jaime Salazar. The complaint basically
accuses the petitioners of bad faith in filing the information for rebellion
complexed with murder and frustrated murder. Thus, the complaint alleges:
|||
3.3. Defendants Drilon, Trampe, Abesamis and Mananquil filed
or caused the filing of the information for rebellion "complexed" with
manifest bad faith, deception and duplicity, all in violation of the
tenets of good faith and justice in human relations and in gross abuse
of their duties and authority as public prosecutors "to see that justice
is done." (Canon 6, Rule 6.01, Lawyers' Code of Professional
Responsibility).
 More particularly, these defendants originally filed or caused the
filing of the information . . . on 21 February 1990 but, for some
mysterious reason, the information was subsequently withdrawn. The
initial filing and withdrawal of the information defendant Chavez
admitted these facts during the Supreme Court hearing on 6 March
1990 were done in total secrecy and without the knowledge of
plaintiff who learned of this incident only after his arrest on 27
February 1990.

Likewise, on or about 27 February 1990, these defendants

deliberately misled plaintiff and his lawyers and induced them to
believe that the charge of rebellion "complexed" was set to be filed
against the plaintiff in the Regional Trial Court of Makati. While
plaintiff's attention was diverted to the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
these defendants surreptitiously filed or caused the filing of main
information for rebellion "complexed" in the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City.

All of the above-named defendants' actuation were meant to

conceal from the public in general and the plaintiff and his counsel in
particular, the filing of the information and to prevent plaintiff and his
lawyers from witnessing the raffle and from questioning the
irregularity of the assignment, the validity of the information, the
authority of the court to issue the warrant of arrest, the obvious lack of
probable cause, and, finally, to prevent plaintiff from posting bail.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendants violated Canon 6 of Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
No. the case at bar, we fail to see any right of the private
respondent supposedly violated by the petitioners. Nowhere in the
statute books is a prospective accused given the right to be notified
beforehand of the filing of an information against him. Likewise, the
withdrawal of the information and the subsequent re-filing of the same
do not constitute an actionable wrong inasmuch as the filing or re-
filing of an information lies within the discretion of the prosecutor who
must act independently of the affected parties.

 CANON 6

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT V.

SANDIGANBAYAN
(GR no. 151809-12)

FACTS:
President Corazon Aquino established the Presidential Commission
on Good Governance to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos. Pursuant to
this mandate, the PCGG, on July 17, 1987, filed with the Sandiganbayan a
complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages
against Lucio Tan and others wherein they were represented by Former
Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza, who has resumed practice of law. The
PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Atty. Mendoza as counsel of Tan alleging
that he actively intervened as Solicitor General in the liquidation of
GENBANK which were acquired by the respondents Tan, et al. The motion
to disqualify invoked Canon 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which prohibits former government lawyers from accepting engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in said service. The Court denied to motion to disqualify on the
grounds that the PCGG failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency
between respondent Mendozas former function as Solicitor General and his
present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group and further ruled
that respondent Mendozas appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et
al. was beyond the one-year prohibited period under Section 7(b) of
Republic Act No. 6713 which prohibits a former public official or employee
from practicing his profession in connection with any matter before the
office he used to be with within one year from his resignation, retirement or
separation from public office.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Canon 6.03 of the CPR is applicable to Atty. Mendoza.

HELD:
No. It has been ruled by the Court that the advice given by Atty.
Mendoza in the procedure of liquidating GENBANK is not the matter
contemplated under Canon 6.03. Even if so, Atty. Mendoza has nothing to
do with the decision to liquidate GENBANK nor did he participated on the
sale. Justices Panganiban and Carpio also added that there should be a
prescriptive period in the Canon 6.03 and Justice Tinga said that Canon 6.03
cannot apply retroactively to Atty. Mendoza because when he was Solicitor
General, Canon 6.03 has not yet adopted by the IBP and approved, and (2)
the bid to disqualify Atty. Mendoza was made after the lapse of time whose
length cannot qualify as reasonable. At bottom, the point they make relates
to the unfairness of the rule if applied without any prescriptive period and
retroactively.
 CANON 6

ARTEZUELA V. MADERAZO
(AC no. 4354, April 2002)

FACTS:
After her small carinderia was rammed by Allan Echavia while driving
a Ford Telstar in December 24, 1992, Lolita Artezuela, the Complainant,
engaged the services of Atty. Ricarte Maderazo, the respondent, in filing a
damage suit against Echavia. However, the case was dismissed at the alleged
instance of the Complainant and her husband. On November 24, 1994,
Artezuela filed a verified complaint for disbarment against Atty. Maderazo
on the ground that the respondent grossly neglected his duties as a lawyer
and failed to represent her interests with zeal and enthusiasm. Complainant
alleged that the respondent asked for the postponement of the pre-trial
conference even though all the parties were present and even after constant
follow ups by the complainant, the respondent did nothing to have the case
moving and he withdrew as her counsel without consent. Complainant also
added that the respondent engaged in activities inimical to her interests by
preparing Echavias Answer to the Amended Complaint and having it
printed in his office. Artezuela also said that it was respondent who sought
the dismissal of the case, misleading the trial court into thinking that the
dismissal was with her consent. Respondent denied the allegations made by
the Complainant. The court referred to the Integrated bar of the Philippines-
Visayas Committee on Bar Discipline formed an Investigating Committee to
hear the disbarment complaint. Commissioner Gabriel T. Ingles found
respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests, in violation of Canon
15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as, of
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics and recommended that the
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year. Respondent filed for Reconsideration on the ground that the
Investigating Committee did not conduct a trial

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent had a direct hand in preparing of
Echavias Answer to the Amended Complaint.
HELD:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that it is enough that the counsel of one
party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of the other party,
claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of his original client. To
require that he also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party would punish
only the most obvious form of deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest
form of disloyalty.

Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics states: It is the duty of a

lawyer at the time of the retainer to disclose to the client the circumstances of his
relations to the parties and any interest in or in connection with the controversy,
which might influence the client in the selection of the counsel.

It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express

consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the
meaning of this Canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when in
behalf of one of the clients, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to
another client requires him to oppose.