Judge Jose L.

Madrid

Facts:

The complainant hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his counsel in collaboration with
Atty. Ronando L. Gerona in a pending case docketed at the Court of Appeals wherein the complainant
was the plaintiff-appellant.

The parties agreed upon PhP 15,000.00 as attorney’s fees with the following breakdown: 50%
payable upon acceptance of the case; and the remaining balance upon termination of the case.
Complainant paid the respondent PhP 7,500.00.

Prior to preparing the appellant’s brief, respondent demanded payment of PhP 4,000.00. The
complainant obliged though it was contrary to the original agreement.

Before filing the appellant's brief, respondent demanded payment of the balance amounting to
PhP 3,500.00. When complainant was unable to do so, respondent withdraw his appearance as
complaint’s counsel without informing the complainant.

Thus, the complainant charged the respondent with misconduct and praying the respondent be
“sternly dealt with administratively.”

Issue:

Whether respondent committed misconduct and violated the provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Held:

The Supreme Court find the respondent violated Canon 22 of the CPR for withdrawing from the
complainant’s case without a good cause. Respondent also violated Rule 20.4, Canon 20 of the CPR
for demanding full payment before submission of the complainant-appellant’s brief even though they
have an agreement that final payment will be given upon termination of the case.

Louisito Chua

Facts:

The administrative complaint herein was brought by Dr. Louisito N. Chua (Dr. Chua) before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)[1] accusing respondent Atty. Oscar A. Pascua of violating
several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Alleging that Atty. Pascua had used foul language and insulting words in his other written submissions
to the RTC.

Ruling:
Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reiterates this duty by commanding
that "[a] lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper."

Words and phrases like duped, to take advantage of the innocence of, his ignorance and abusive
manner, foolishness, and bungling (even if the latter referred to the act of the trial judge) are of
common usage in our daily life. Words and phrases like duped, to take advantage of the innocence of,
his ignorance and abusive manner, foolishness, and bungling (even if the latter referred to the act of
the trial judge) are of common usage in our daily life

Anonymous letter complaint

Facts:

he letter complaint, purportedly sent by a concerned employee stated that the respondents had been
involved in the money-lending activities targeting the low-salaried employees of the Court like the
drivers and employees of the janitorial services; (ATM) cards were surrendered by the borrowers to
the respondents as collateral for the individual borrowings.

Issue: Whether or not the money lending activities of the court employees is prohibited and may be
used to make them administratively liable.

Ruling:

yes. Administrative Circular No. 5 has prohibited all officials and employees of the Judiciary from
engaging directly in any private business, vocation or profession, even outside their office hours. The
prohibition has been at ensuring that full-time officers and employees of the courts render full-time
service, for only thereby could any undue delays in the administration of justice and in the disposition
of court cases be avoided. The nature of the work of court employees and officials demanded their
highest degree of efficiency and responsibility, but they would not ably meet the demand except by
devoting their undivided time to the government service. This explains why court employees have
been enjoined to strictly observe official time and to devote every second or moment of such time to
serving the public.Considering that the official and personal conduct and deportment of all the people
who work for the Judiciary mirrored the image of the Court itself, they should strive to comport
themselves with propriety and decorum at all times, and to be above suspicion of any misdeed and
misconduct.