#11 GUARIN vs. ATTY.

LIMPIN

Nature of the case: ADMINISTRATIVE CASE (Disbarment) in the Supreme Court.

SC Decision: Respondent is GUILTY of violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6)
MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Legal Doctrine:
Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather
than seek exceptions as loopholes. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives
in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.

Disbarment proceedings are sui generis and can proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.
The serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow only where there is a clear
preponderance of evidence against the respondent. The presumption is that the attorney is innocent of
the charges proffered and has performed his duty as an officer of the court in accordance with his
oath.” Grounds for such administrative action against a lawyer may be found in Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court. Among these are (1) the use of any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office and (2) any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice.

FACTS: Guarin was hired by Mr. Celso G. de los Angeles as Chief Operating Officer and thereafter as
President of OneCard Company, Inc., a member of the Legacy Group of Companies. He resigned from
his post. Atty. Limpin, the Corporate Secretary of Legacy Card, Inc. (LCI), another corporation under the
Legacy Group, filed with the SEC a GIS for LCI for “updating purposes”. The GIS identified Guarin as
Chairman of the Board of Directors (BOD) and President. Mired with allegations of anomalous business
transactions and practices, LCI applied for voluntary dissolution with the SEC. Guarin filed this complaint
with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) claiming that Atty.
Limpin violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR by knowingly listing him as a stockholder, Chairman of
the Board and President of LCI when she knew that he had already resigned and had never held any
share nor was he elected as chairperson of the BOD or been President of LCI. Atty. Limpin admits that
she filed the GIS with the SEC listing Guarin as a stockholder, the Chairman of the BOD and President of
LCI. She averred that the GIS was made and submitted in good faith and that her certification served to
attest to the information from the last BOD meeting.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Limpin has violated Canon 1 Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the CPR?

RULING: YES. Atty. Limpin has violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the CPR. Members of the
bar are reminded that their first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather than seek exceptions
as loopholes. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law
commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.

Disbarment proceedings are sui generis and can proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.
As Justice Malcolm stated “[t]he serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow only
where there is a clear preponderance of evidence against the respondent. The presumption is that the
attorney is innocent of the charges proffered and has performed his duty as an officer of the court in
accordance with his oath.”

Grounds for such administrative action against a lawyer may be found in Section 27,22Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court. Among these are (1) the use of any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office and (2) any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice.
We thus find that in filing a GIS that contained false information, Atty. Limpin committed an infraction which
did not conform to her oath as a lawyer in accord with Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
#13 SICAT vs. ARIOLA

Nature of the case: ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

SC Decision: Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and is DISBARRED from the practice of law.

Legal Doctrine:
The act of a lawyer of notarizing a Special Power of Attorney knowing that the person who allegedly
executed it was already dead is a serious breach of the sacred obligation imposed upon him by the Code
of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which prohibited him from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct—as a lawyer and as an officer of the court, it is his duty
to serve the ends of justice, not to corrupt it. Oath-bound, he was expected to act at all times in accordance
with law and ethics, and if he did not, he would not only injure himself and the public but also bring reproach
upon an honorable profession.

Lawyers commissioned as notaries public should not authenticate documents unless the persons
who signed them are the very same persons who executed them and personally appeared before them to
attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The Court added that notaries public must
observe utmost fidelity, the basic requirement in the performance of their duties, otherwise the confidence
of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds and documents will be undermined.

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act—it converts a private document into a
public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its
authenticity and due execution.

A lawyer’s assertion of falsehood in a public document contravenes one of the most cherished
tenets of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act.

FACTS: Municipality of Cainta entered into a contract with Juanito C. Benitez’s company for the
construction of low cost houses (Design cost – P11,000 and Consulting cost for 2 consultants – P3,700).
A check was issued to Benitez’s company and/or Cesar Goco for P3,700. Goco received and encashed
the check using a special power of attorney notarized by Atty. Gregorio Ariola (Municipal Administrator of
Cainta, Province of Rizal). The SPA was executed by Benitez on January 4, 2001 but the former had died
on October 2000.

Province of Rizal Board Member Arturo Sicat charged Respondent Ariola with a violation of the
CPR and the crime of falsification of documents.

However, Ariola’s contended that Benitez executed the SPA before he passed away but was only
notarized in Jan 2001 and there was a similar SPA in favor of Goco executed and notarized before
Benitez’s death. Hence, the January 2001 SPA was cancelled on the day it was notarized.

Ariola also prayed that the complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping (CSC and
Ombudsman charges) were also filed.

IBP report showed that the SPA was part of a scheme to defraud the Municipality of Cainta,
Province of Rizal and that respondent Ariola aided the scheming party in its plans. The IBP
recommendation is suspension for 1 year.

ISSUE: WON Ariola violated the CPR?

RULING: YES. He should be DISBARRED. What Ariola did was a serious breach of the obligations
imposed upon him by the CPR (Rules 1.01 and 10.01). He did not dispute notarization on Jan 2001 and
Did not take issue with the fact that Benitez was dead at the time of the notarization.

The Court was emphatic that lawyers commissioned as notaries public should not authenticate
documents unless the persons who signed them are the very same persons who executed them and
personally appeared before them to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The Court
added that notaries public must observe utmost fidelity, the basic requirement in the performance of their
duties, otherwise the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds and documents will be
undermined.
 In this case, Notarial acknowledgement of Ariola declared that Benitez appeared before him and
acknowledged that the instrument was his free and voluntary act which is clearly a lie. Notarization is not
a meaningless act. It converts a private document into a public one, making at admissible as evidence
without the need of preliminary proof of authenticity and execution.

Therefore, the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent Ariola is proper due to his act
violation CPR specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1.
#25 GALICINAO V. CASTRO

Nature of the case: ADMINISTRATIVE CASE (Unprofessional Conduct) in the Supreme Court.

SC Decision: The respondent is FINED in the amount of P10,000.00 with a warning that any similar
infraction with be dealt with more severely.

Legal Doctrine:
Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization from either the parties to represent
them, respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court. Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states: Rule 8.02—A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper
advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. Example of
Unprofessional conduct: By constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784,
respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that case. It does
not matter whether he did so in good faith.

The act of rudeness towards an officer of the court, a woman, and in front of latter’s subordinates
is, not only was it ill-mannered, but also unbecoming public behavior which can only bring down the legal
profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8
and Rule 8.01.

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct themselves with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of
the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and otherwise
conduct themselves without reproach at all times.

The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. This esteem
cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts
and thrives despite conflicting interest. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the
honorable performance of professional duty.

FACTS: Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and Vice-President of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya
Chapter. He (not a counsel of record of either party of Civil Case No. 784) went to complainant’s office to
inquire whether the complete records of Civil Case No. 784, had already been remanded to the court of
origin (MCTC in Nueva Vizcaya).

Complainant informed respondent that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified
true copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should first be presented to serve as basis for the
transmittal of the records to the court of origin.

Respondent then answered, “You mean to say it is not your duty to remand the record of the case?”
Complainant responded, “No, Sir, I mean, it’s not our duty to notify you that you have to submit a copy of
the Court of Appeals’ decision.”

Respondent angrily declared in Ilocano,” Kayat mo nga saw-en, awan pakialam yon? Kasdiay?”
(“You mean to say you don’t care anymore? Is that the way it is?”) He then turned and left the office,
banging the door on his way out to show his anger. The banging of the door was so loud it was heard by
the people at the adjacent RTC, Branch 30 where a hearing was taking place.

After a few minutes, respondent returned to the office, still enraged, and pointed his finger at
complainant and shouted,” Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak ah!”
(“Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill feelings against my client, don’t turn your ire on me!”)

Complainant was shocked at respondent’s words but still managed to reply, “I don’t even know
your client, Sir.”

Respondent left the office and as he passed by complainant’s window, he again shouted,” Ukinnam
nga babai!” (“Vulva of your mother, you woman!”)
 Eventually, complainant filed a Manifestation expressing her desire not to appear on the next
hearing date in view of respondent’s public apology, adding that respondent personally and humbly asked
for forgiveness which she accepted.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Castro violated the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING: Yes. It should be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784.
Had he been counsel of record, it would have been easy for him to present the required certified true copy
of the decision of the Court of Appeals. He need not have gone to Manila to procure a certified true copy
of the decision since the Court of Appeals furnishes the parties and their counsel of record a duplicate
original or certified true copy of its decision.

Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization from either the parties to represent
them, respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.

Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer,
without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel.

Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784,
respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that case. It does
not matter whether he did so in good faith.

Moreover, in the course of his questionable activities relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent
acted rudely towards an officer of the court.

Respondent ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal
profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8
and Rule 8.01, to wit:

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice
law, now shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.

Canon 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.

Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be tempered owing to the fact that respondent had
apologized to the complainant and the latter had accepted it. This is not to say, however, that respondent
should be absolved from his actuations. People are accountable for the consequences of the things they
say and do even if they repent afterwards. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and words
uttered cannot be taken back. Hence, he should bear the consequences of his actions.

The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. This esteem
cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts
and thrives despite conflicting interest. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the
honorable performance of professional duty.

Therefore, a fine and a strict warning are proper for this unprofessional misconduct.
#41 FUDOT V. CATTLEYA LAND

Nature of the case: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.

SC Decision: Atty. Victor De La Serna is found GUILTY of indirect contempt of court and is FINED in the
amount of P30,000.00 and is WARNED that a repetition of a similar act will warrant a more severe penalty.

Legal Doctrine:
A lawyers is, first and foremost, an officer of the court—as part of the machinery for the
administration of justice, a lawyer is expected to bring to the fore irregular and questionable practices of
those sitting in court which tend to corrode the judicial machinery. Corollary to his duty to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers is to support the courts against “unjust criticism
and clamor.” His duty is to uphold the dignity and the authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, “not
to promote distrust in the administration of justice, as it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not
destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper
administration of justice.”

Lawyers should and expect critical evaluation of their performance. For like the executive and the
legislative branches, the judiciary is rooted in the soil of democratic society, nourished by the periodic
appraisal of the citizen whom it is expected to serve. Well-recognized therefore is the right of a lawyer,
both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate
channels the acts of courts and judges.

FACTS: De La Serna requested for the inhibition of Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga claiming that Justice
Tinga, who was the ponente of the decision, received P10 Million from Mr. Johnny Chan (representative
of Cattleya land) in exchange for a favorable decision.

De La Serna alleges Johnny Chan curtly told him that Chan already given out 10M To Justice
Dante O. Tinga in exchange for a favorable Decision in the case between Fudot and Cattleya land. De La
Serna said that Justice Tinga abandoned the doctrine in the case Lim v, Jorge to accommodate Mr. Chan.
He also said that the case was prioritized for resolution and that Mr. Chan had prior knowledge of the
outcome of the case before the decision was promulgated.

However, Mr. Chan related that he approached De La Serna for the purpose of amicably settling
their case with Cattleya Land, and offered him to be their retainer in Bohol. However, he denied having
said to De La Serna that he had already spent so much money for the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: WON Atty. De La Serna is guilty of indirect contempt?

RULING: Yes, De La Serna is guilty of indirect contempt.

Contempt is defined as a disobedience to the Court by setting up an opposition to its authority,

justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's orders but such
conduct that tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some
manner to impede the due administration of justice. Indirect contempt is one committed out of or not in the
presence of the court that tends to belittle, degrade, obstruct or embarrass the court and justice. Any
improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice
has also been considered to constitute indirect contempt.

A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. Corollary to his duty to observe and maintain
the respect due to the courts and judicial officers is to support the courts against "unjust criticism and
clamor." His duty is to uphold the dignity and the authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, "not to
promote distrust in the administration of justice, as it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not
destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper
administration of justice”

As part of the machinery for the administration of justice, a lawyer is expected to bring to the fore
irregular and questionable practices of those sitting in court which tend to corrode the judicial machinery.
Thus, if he acquired reliable information that anomalies are perpetrated by judicial officers, it is incumbent
upon him to report the matter to the Court so that it may be properly acted upon. An omission or even a
delay in reporting may tend to erode the dignity of, and the public's trust in, the judicial system.
 This is not to say, however, that as an officer of the court, he cannot criticize the court. It is a long
recognized and respected right of a lawyer, or any person, for that matter, to be critical of courts and
magistrates as long as they are made in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels. But it
is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect
to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.

In this case, Atty. De La Serna's statements bear the badges of falsehood while the common
version of the witnesses who disputed his statements is imbued with the hallmarks of truth. De La Serna's
declarations were maliciously and irresponsibly made. They exceeded the boundaries of decency and
propriety. The libelous attack on the integrity and credibility of Justice Tinga tend to degrade the dignity of
the Court and erode public confidence that should be accorded to judiciary.

Therefore, the court’s decision in denying the petition and affirming the Court of Appeals’ Decision
is proper.