INTRODUCTION TO LAW CASES FOR
LEGAL ETHICS relationship was low profile and known only
____________________________
1) JOSELANO GUEVARRA VS. ATTY.
JOSE EALA
FACTS: Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint
for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar
Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose
Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for
grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated
violation of the lawyers oath. Eala’s alleged
grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the
Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer, has
been swor n to uphold. In pursuing
obsessively his illicit love for Guevarra's wife,
he mocked the institution of marriage,
betrayed his own family, broke up Guevarra’s
marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and
degrades the legal profession.
Guevarra was the fiancee of Irene Moje with
whom Eala had a relationship while married
to Marianne Tantoco with whom the latter
had three children. Moje abandoned the
conjugal house and following one incident,
Moje went to the conjugal house and hauled
off all her personal belongings, pieces of
furniture, and her share of the household
appliances. Guevarra now contends that Eala
and Moje were flaunting their adulterous
relationship as they attended social functions
together.
Eala, on the other hand, claims that their
to the immediate members of their respective
families as he was still known to be married
to Tantoco. He specifically denies the
allegations regarding his adulterous
relationship and that his acts demonstrate
gross moral depravity thereby making him
unfit to keep his membership in the bar, the
reason being that his relationship with Moje
was not under scandalous circumstances as
would be a ground for disbarment pursuant to
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court
and that he maintained a civil, cordial and
peaceful relationship with Tantoco even if the
latter was aware of his special friendship with
Moje. Eala and Moje then had a child whose
birth certificate the former is indicated as the
father then proving their illicit relationship
aside from Eala’s own admission.
After investigation, IBP-CBD Investigating
Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan found
the charge against respondent sufficiently
proven. The Commissioner thus
recommended that Eala be disbarred for
violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility — immoral
conduct — and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the
same Code — conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law. The IBP Board
of Governors, however, moved to dismiss the
case and annulled and set aside the
recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner hence this petition.
RULING: The petition was granted. 2) People vs. Barrozo
Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala FACTS: Jennie Valeriano was a respondent in
was disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, several cases for estafa and violation of Batas
violation of his oath of office, and violation of Pambasa Blg. 22 which were assigned to
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of Barrozo as Assistant Public Prosecutor of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dagupan City, Pangasinan. Valeriano then
claims that Barrozo told her that he would
As Eala insists that disbarment does not lie
resolve the cases in her favor in exchange for
because his relationship with Irene was not,
₱20,000.00 hence, Valeriano went to the
under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised
Office of Regional State Prosecutor to report
Rules of Court, it not being under scandalous
the matter. The Regional State Prosecutor
circumstances, the Court held that said rule
introduced her to agents of the National
which provides the grounds for disbarment or
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and then
suspension uses the phrase grossly immoral
proceeded to carry out an entrapment
conduct, not under scandalous circumstances.
operation. During the operation conducted of
Whether a lawyers sexual congress with a
February 15, 2005, respondent was caught
woman not his wife or without the benefit of
red-handed by the NBI agents receiving the
marriage should be characterized as grossly
amount of ₱20,000.00 from Valeriano.
immoral conduct depends on the surrounding
circumstances. As a result, a case for direct bribery was filed
against Barrozo. The Sandiganbayan found
The case at bar involves a relationship
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt but only
between a married lawyer and a married
sentenced him to an Indeterminate Sentence.
woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial
However, after said incident, the Office of the
whether the affair was carried out discreetly.
Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter from
As a lawyer, Eala should be aware that a man
Wat & Co. of Hong Kong stating that its
and a woman deporting themselves as
client in Hong Kong received a letter from the
husband and wife are presumed, unless
Philippines signed by "Atty. Joselito C.
proven otherwise, to have entered into a
Barrozo," asking for long service payment
lawful contract of marriage. In carrying on an
from the employers of domestic helper Anita
extra-marital affair with Moje prior to the
G. Calub who passed away. His conviction is
judicial declaration that her marriage with
a ground for disbarment from the practice of
complainant was null and void, and despite
law under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
respondent himself being married, he showed
of Court.
disrespect for an institution held sacred by the
law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a Barrozo argues that he did not engage in the
lawyer. practice of law as his act of signing the claim
letter does not constitute such practice. He
averred that he signed it not for any monetary
consideration, but out of his sincere desire to
help the claimants. And since there is no
p ay m e n t i nvo lve d , n o l aw ye r- c l i e n t
relationship was established between him and
the claimants. This therefore negates practice
of the law on his part.
RULING: The Court adopts the OBC’s
recommendation of disbarment of Barrozo.
His act therefore of extorting money from a
party to a case handled by him does not only
violate the requirement that cases must be
decided based on the merits of the parties
respective evidence but also lessens the
people’s confidence in the rule of law.
Lawyers in public office are expected not only
to refrain from any act or omission which
tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the
citizenry in government but also uphold the
dignity of the legal profession at all times and
observe a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing. A government lawyer is keeper of
public faith and is burdened with a high
degree of social responsibility, higher than his
brethren in private practice.
The fact that the offender agrees to accept a
promise or gift and deliberately commits an
unjust act or refrains from performing an
official duty in exchange for some favors,
denotes a malicious intent on the part of the
offender to renege on the duties which he
owes his fellowmen and society in general.
Also the fact that the offender takes advantage
of his office and position is a betrayal of the
trust reposed on him by the public. It is a
conduct clearly contrary o the accepted rule
of right and duty, justice, honesty, and good
morals. In all respects, direct bribery is a
crime involving moral turpitude.
The Court is mindful that a lawyer’s
conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude does not automatically call for the
imposition of the supreme penalty of
disbarment since it may, in its discretion,
choose to impose the less severe penalty of
suspension. Here, however, the circumstances
surrounding the case constrain the Court to
impose the penalty of disbarment as
recommended by the OBC.
3) Pedro Linsangan vs. Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino
FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment
filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan
Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against
Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of
clients and encroachment of professional
services.
Linsangan alleges that Tolentino, with the
help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano,
convinced his clients to transfer legal
representation. To induce them to hire his
services, he persistently called them and sent
them text messages. To suppor t his
allegations, he presented the swor n
affidavit  of James Gregorio attesting that
Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his
lawyer-client relations with Linsangan and
utilize Tolentino’s services instead, in
exchange for a loan of P50,000. Tolentino, in necessary expenses (such as filing fees,
his defense, denied knowing Labiano and stenographer’s fees for transcript of
authorizing the printing and circulation of the stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for
said calling card. surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is
handling for the client. If the lawyer lends
RULING: Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino was
money to the client in connection with the
suspended from the practice of law for a
client’s case, the lawyer in effect acquires an
period of one year effective immediately from
interest in the subject matter of the case or an
receipt of this resolution. He was likewise
additional stake in its outcome. Any act of
sternly warned that a repetition of the same or
solicitation constitutes malpractice; however,
similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
in the absence of substantial evidence to
more severely. Tolentino had encroached on
prove his culpability, the Court is not
the professional practice of complainant,
prepared to rule that respondent was
violating Rule 8.02 on his alleged intrusion
personally and directly responsible for the
into Linsangan’s professional practice. A
printing and distribution of Labiano’s calling
lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client
cards.
nor induce the latter to retain him by a
promise of better service, good result or 4) Evangeline Leda vs. Trebonian Tabang
reduced fees for his services. FACTS: Leda and Tabang contracted
marriage at Tigbauan, Iloilo. The marriage,
Lawyers are reminded that the practice of law
solemnized by Judge Jose T. Tavarro of
is a profession and not a business; lawyers
Tigbauan, was performed under Article 76 of
should not advertise their talents as merchants
the Civil Code as one of exceptional character.
advertise their wares. To allow a lawyer to
The parties agreed to keep the fact of
a d ve r t i s e h i s t a l e n t o r s k i l l i s t o
marriage a secret until after Tabang had
commercialize the practice of law, degrade
finished his law studies and taken the Bar. He
the profession in the public’s estimation and
finished his law studies in 1981 and thereafter
impair its ability to efficiently render that high
applied to take the Bar. In his application, he
character of service to which every member
declared that he was “single." He then passed
of the bar is called.
the examinations but Leda blocked him from
taking his Oath by instituting Bar Matter No.
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending
78, claiming that Tabang had acted
venture with his clients as borrowers,
fraudulently in filling out his application and,
respondent violated Rule 16.04. The rule is
thus, was unworthy to take the lawyer's Oath
that a lawyer shall not lend money to his
for lack of good moral character. Tabang
client. The only exception is, when in the
claims that he had acted in good faith in
interest of justice, he has to advance
declaring his status as "single" not only 5) Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao vs. Atty.
because of his pact with Leda to keep the Virgil Castro
marriage under wraps but also because that FACTS: This administrative case concerns a
marriage to the Complainant was void from lawyer who hurled invectives at a Clerk of
the beginning. Court. Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court
RULING: Tabang was suspended from the
(RTC) of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. she filed
practice of law until further Orders, the
with the Commission on Bar Discipline
suspension to take effect immediately.
(CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Respondent's lack of good moral character is
Philippines (IBP) a Complaint-Affidavit with
only too evident. He has resorted to
supporting documents against respondent
conflicting submissions before this Court to
Atty. Virgil R. Castro for Unprofessional
suit himself. He has also engaged in devious
Conduct, specifically violation of Canon 7,
tactics with Complainant in order to serve his
Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 of the Code
purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon
of Professional Responsibility. Castro went to
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
complainants office to inquire whether the
which provides that "a lawyer owes candor,
complete records of Civil Case entitled Sps.
fairness and good faith to the court" as well as
Crispino Castillano v. Sps. Federico S.
Rule 10.01 thereof which states that "a lawyer
Castillano and Felicidad Aberin. Dallong-
should do no falsehood nor consent to the
Galicinao informed Castro that the record had
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
not yet been transmitted since a certified true
allow the court to be misled by any artifice."
copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals
Courts are entitled to expect only complete
should first be presented to serve as basis for
candor and honesty from the lawyers
the transmittal of the records to the court of
appearing and pleading before them (Chavez
origin. To this respondent retorted scornfully.
v. Viola). Tabang through his actuations, has
After a few minutes, respondent returned to
been lacking in the candor required of him not
the office, still enraged, and pointed his finger
only as a member of the Bar but also as an
at complainant and shouted a curse, plus, “if
officer of the Court.
you are harboring ill feelings against my
It cannot be overemphasized that the client, dont turn your ire on me.” and then
requirement of good moral character is not cursed at her again. Castro admits having
only a condition precedent to admission to the inquired about the status of the transmittal of
practice of law; its continued possession is the records, however, he has no explanation as
also essential for remaining in the practice of to what transpired on that day.
law (People v. Tuanda).
During the hearings, Castro kept failing to Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct
appear. The Investigating Commissioner themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor
recommended that respondent be toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty
reprimanded and warned that any other bound to uphold the dignity of the legal
complaint for breach of his professional duties profession. They must act honorably, fairly
shall be dealt with more severely. and candidly towards each other and
otherwise conduct themselves without
RULING: Castro was fined in the amount of
reproach at all times.
10, 000 pesos with a warning that any similar
infraction with be dealt with more severely. 6) Edita Noe-Lacsamana vs. Yolando
Busmente
His explanation that he will enter his
FACTS: Noe-Lacsamana alleged in her
appearance in the case when its records were
complaint that she was the counsel for Irene
already transmitted to the MCTC is
Bides, the plaintiff in a Civil Case while
unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record
Busmente was the counsel for the defendant
and there being no authorization from either
Imelda B. Ulaso. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that
the parties to represent them, respondent had
one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza
no right to impose his will on the clerk of
Dela Rosa would accompany Ulaso in court,
court. Through his acts of constantly checking
projecting herself as Busmentes collaborating
the transmittal of the records of Civil Case
counsel. Dela Rosa signed the minutes of the
No. 784, respondent deliberately encroached
court proceedings in Civil Case No. 9284
upon the legal functions of the counsel of
nine times but upon verification with the
record of that case. It does not matter whether
Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the
he did so in good faith.
Philippines, she discovered that Dela Rosa
Moreover, in the course of his questionable was not a lawyer.
activities relating to Civil Case No. 784,
The IBP-CBD recommended Busmente’s
Castro acted rudely towards an officer of the
suspension from the practice of law for not
court. He raised his voice at the clerk of court
less than five years. Dela Rosa continued to
and uttered at her the most vulgar of
represent Ulaso until 2005, which belied
invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered but
Busmentes allegation that Dela Rosa was able
also unbecoming considering that he did all
to illegally practice law using his office
these to a woman and in front of her
address without his knowledge and only due
subordinates.  Castro ought to have realized
to Dela Rosas connivance with his former
that this sort of public behavior can only
secretary Macasieb. The issue, therefore, is
bring down the legal profession in the public
whether Busmente is guilty of directly or
estimation and erode public respect for it.
indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
practice of law that warrants his suspension
from the practice of law.
RULING: The Court agrees with the IBP but
modified the period of his suspension to six
months in reference to Canon 9 which states
that a lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
assist in the unauthorized practice of law. The
Court ruled that the term practice of law
implies customarily or habitually holding
oneself out to the public as a lawyer for
compensation as a source of livelihood or in
consideration of his services. It further ruled
that holding ones self out as a lawyer may be
shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such
as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing
in court in representation of a client, or
associating oneself as a partner of a law office
for the general practice of law. In this case, it
has been established that Dela Rosa, who is
not a member of the Bar, misrepresented
herself as Busmentes collaborating counsel in
Civil Case No. 9284. The only question is
whether Busmente indirectly or directly
assisted Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of
law. Pleadings and court notices were still
sent to Busmentes office until 2005. The IBP-
CBD noted that Dela Rosas practice should
have ended in 2003 when Macasieb left. Also,
his counter-affidavit clearly showed that
Busmente was the legal counsel in Civil Case
No. 9284 and that he allowed Dela Rosa to
give legal assistance to Ulaso.
7) Eduardo Berenguer vs. Pedro Carranza
FACTS: A complaint against respondent
Pedro B. Carranza was filed for deception
practiced on the Court of First Instance of
Sorsogon, in that aware of the falsity of an
Affidavit of Adjudication and Transfer
executed by the mother of his client to the
effect that her own mother left no legitimate
ascendants or descendants or any other heirs
except herself, when, as a matter of fact, the
deceased was survived by four other
daughters and one son, father of the
complainant, he introduced the same in
evidence. Carranza’s failure to read the
affidavit proves that he did not properly
inform himself of the evidence he was going
to present in court, thereby exhibiting an
indifference to proof inconsistent with facts
he definitely knows. Thus, respondent has
contributed to confusion and the prolongation
of the cadastral suit.
RU L I NG : Pe d ro B . C a r r a n z a wa s
reprimanded and warned that a repetition of
an offense of such character would be much
more severely dealt with. The Court of First
Instance of Sorsogon, through any of the
district judges, was likewise directed to
administer in public the reprimand thus
imposed on respondent Pedro B. Carranza.
Every member of the bar must be on his
guard, lest through oversight or inadvertence,
the way he conducts his case or the evidence
he presents could conceivably result in a
failure of justice. Even if there be no intent to
deceive, therefore, a lawyer whose conduct, as
in t his case, betrays inattention or
carelessness should not be allowed to free
himself from a charge thereafter instituted
against him by the mere plea that his conduct
was not willful and that he has not consented
to the doing of the falsity. There would be a
failure of justice if courts cannot rely on the
submission as well as the representations
made by lawyers, insofar as the presentation
of evidence, whether oral or documentary, is
concerned. If, as unfortunately happened in
this case, even without any intent on the part
of a member of the bar to mislead the court,
such deplorable event did occur, he must not
be allowed to escape the responsibility that
justly attaches to a conduct far from
impeccable.
8) The Officers and Members of the IBP
Baguio-Benguet Chapter vs. Judge
Fernando Pamintuan
FACTS: This is an Administrative Complaint
filed by the officers and members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
Baguio-Benguet Chapter against Judge
Fernando Vil Pamintuan of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 3 of Baguio City, for
gross ignorance of the law, gross violation of
constitutional rights of the accused,
arrogance, violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, oppression and graft and corruption.
RULING: Respondent Judge Fernando Vil
Pamintuan of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 3 of Baguio City, was suspended for a
period of one (1) year effective immediately.
He is sternly WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely.
a) On gross ignorance of the law — The
application of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law in the imposition of penalties in
crimes punishable by the Revised Penal
Code is a basic precept. The respondent
judges repeated misapplication thereof in
quite a number of criminal cases he had
rendered constitutes gross ignorance of
the law. A judge is presumed to know the
law and when the law is so elementary,
not to be aware of it constitutes gross
ignorance of the law. Failure to follow
basic legal commands constitutes gross
ignorance of the law from which no one
may be excused, not even a judge.
b) On gross violation of the constitutional
rights of the accused — The unreasonable
delay of the respondent judge in resolving
the motions submitted for his resolution
clearly constituted a violation of the
parties constitutional right to a speedy
disposition of their cases.
c) On arrogant, oppressive and improper
conduct and violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct — This conduct of the
respondent judge was utterly unbecoming
a magistrate and violated canons of the
Code of Judicial Conduct.
d) On graft and corruption — In Gacayan
vs. Pamintuan, the Court found him guilty
of violating Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Ethics which amount to
 grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming
an officer of the judiciary and conduct
prejudicial to the best interests of the
service.
9) Nicasio Alcantara vs. Vicente Ponce and
the People of the Philippines
FACTS: This case was preceded by
respondent Vicente C. Ponce’s filing a string
of criminal complaints against petitioner
Nicasio I. Alcantara and his family including
one for estafa against petitioner in the Makati
Prosecutors Office. In essence, respondent
Ponce alleged that petitioner had swindled
him out of 3,000,000 shares of Floro Cement
Corporation.
Alcantara then filed a complaint for libel
against respondent Ponce in connection with a
newsletter submitted by Ponce to the
Investigating Prosecutor prefaced with the
quotation “For every extraordinary fortune
there is a great crime” and the text: “An
example is Marcos. We need not discuss this.
Second example is the Alcantaras. a)
Overshipment of log; b) Land grabbing; c)
Corruption of public office; d) Corporate
grabbing. He claims that: (1) the statements
therein were defamatory; (2) respondent had
circulated it in the Makati Prosecutors Office
and (3) the newsletter could not be considered
an annex to the sur-rejoinder because
respondent had not attached it to the said
affidavit but had given it thereafter.
While City Prosecutor Imelda P. Saulog found
probable cause for libel and recommending
the filing of an information in court hence a
case filed, the Secretary of Justice reversed
the petition based on the finding that the
newsletter was a privileged communication,
having been submitted to the investigating
prosecutor Benjamin R. Bautista as an
intended annex to respondents sur-rejoinder.
The Secretary of Justice thus directed the
withdrawal of the information. The trial court
likewise ruled that the absence of the
essential element of publicity precluded the
commission of the crime of libel.
The CA, however, assailed the decision of the
trial court rendered by Judge Salvador, saying
he committed grave abuse of discretion for
granting the withdrawal of the information for
libel against respondent Ponce.
RULING: The petition was denied. Since the
newsletter was presented during the
preliminary investigation, it was vested with a
privileged character. Liberally applying the
privileged communication doctrine, these
statements were still relevant to the complaint
under investigation because, like the
averments therein, they also involved
petitioners alleged rapacity and deceitfulness.
10) Elisa Venterez vs. Atty. Rodrigo Cosme
FACTS: This is a Complaint filed by
complainants Eliza V. Venterez, Genaro de
Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills,
Antonina V. Palma and Ramon de Vera
against respondent Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme,
charging the latter with Abandonment, Gross
Negligence and Dereliction of Duty.
Complainants contracted the legal services of
respondent in Civil Case No. 981 entitled,
Sps. Daniel and Lolita Oviedo, et al. v. Eliza
de Vera, et al., for Declaration of Ownership
with Damages filed before the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) of Calasiao, Pangasinan.
Cosme represented the complainants, who
were defendants in said case, until a Decision
thereon was rendered by the MTC.
Complainants alleged that they directed
C o s m e t o e i t h e r fi l e a M o t i o n fo r
Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but
respondent failed or refused to do so. The 15-
day period within which to file an appeal or a
motion for reconsideration of the MTC
Decision then expired. Elisa V. Venterez was
likewise constrained to contract another
l aw y e r t o p r e p a r e t h e M o t i o n fo r
Reconsideration.
The core issue is whether the respondent
committed culpable negligence in handling
complainants case, as would warrant
disciplinary action.
RULING: Atty. Rodr igo Cosme was
suspended from the practice of law for a
period of three months, with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same or similar
wrongdoing will be dealt with more severely.
What constitute good cause for the
withdrawal of services by the counsel are
identified under Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer
may retire at any time from any action or
special proceeding with the written consent of
his client filed in court and with a copy
thereof served upon the adverse party.
Although the instant case does not fall under
any of the grounds of the aforementioned
rule, he cannot just do so and leave
complainants in the cold, unprotected. The
lawyer has no right to presume that his
petition for withdrawal will be granted by the
court. Until his withdrawal shall have been
approved, the lawyer remains counsel of
record who is expected by his clients, as well
as by the court, to do what the interests of his
clients require. He must still appear before the
court to protect the interest of his clients by
availing himself of the proper remedy, for the
attorney-client relations are not terminated
formally until there is a withdrawal of record.
All told, the Court rules and so hold that on
account of Cosme’s failure to protect the
interest of complainants, he indeed violated
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which states that
a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Cosme was reminded that the practice of law
is a special privilege bestowed only upon
those who are competent intellectually,
academically and morally. The Court has
been exacting in its expectations for the
members of the Bar to always uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession
and refrain from any act or omission which
might lessen the trust and confidence of the
public.