LEGAL PROFESSION A2010

PROF. JARDELEZA
- Land Title Abstract and Trust Co v Dworken
Homework Help > one who in representative capacity engages in business of advising

https://www.homeworkping.com/ clients as to their rights under law, or while so engaged performs any act
or acts either in court or outside of court
- UP Law Center
> advocacy, counseling, public service
Research Paper help - Alexander SyCip
> appearance of lawyer in litigation is most publicly familiar role of lawyers
https://www.homeworkping.com/ as well as an uncommon role for the average lawyer
> more legal work is transacted in law offices that in the courtrooms
> business counseling than trying cases; as planner, diagnostician, trial
lawyer, surgeon
Online Tutoring - article on Business Star
> emerging trends in corporate law
https://www.homeworkping.com/ SEPARATE OPINION

NARVASA [concur]
click here for freelancing tutoring sites - concur only in the result
CAYETANO V MONSOD
PARAS; September 3, 1991
PADILLA [dissent]
NATURE - Practice refers to actual performance of application of knowledge as
Petition to review decision of Commission on Appointments distinguished from mere possession of knowledge; it connotes active,
habitual, repeated or customary action TF lawyer employed as business
FACTS executive or corporate manager, other than head of Legal Department
- April 25, 1991 – Atty. Christian Monsod was appointed by Pres. Aquino cannot be said to be in the practice of law
as Chairman of COMELEC - People v Villanueva
- Rene Cayetano opposed such appointment as citizen and taxpayer > Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent
because Monsod allegedly does not possess the required qualification of or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years - Commission on Appointments memorandum
- June 18, 1991 – Monsod took his oath of office > practice of law requires habituality, compensation, application of law,
- Monsod’s credentials legal principle, practice or procedure, and attorney-client relationship
> member of Philippine Bar since 1960
> after bar, worked in law office of his father CRUZ [dissent]
> 1963-1970 – in World Bank Group as operations officer in Costa Rica - sweeping definition of practice of law as to render the qualification
and Panama involves getting acquainted with laws of member-countries, practically toothless
negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic and project work - there is hardly any activity that is not affected by some law or
> 1970 – in Meralco Group as CEO of investment bank government regulation the businessman must know about and observe
> since 1986 – rendered service to various companiesas legal and - “performance of any acts… in or out of court, commonly understood to
economic consultant or CEO be the practice of law” which tells us absolutely nothing
> 1986-1987 – secretary-general and national chairman of NAMFREL
(election law)
> co-chairman of Bishop’s Businessmen’s Conference for Human
GUTIERREZ [dissent]
Development - practice is envisioned as active and regular, not isolated, occasional,
> 1990 - Davide Commission – quasi-judicial body accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal or extemporaneous
> 1986-1987 – member of Constitutional Commission as Chairman on - nothing in the bio-data even remotely indicates Monsod has given the
Accountability of Public Officers law enough attention or a certain degree of commitment and participation
- AIX-C Sec1(1) - … Commission on Elections chairman shall be - difficult if not impossible to lay down a formula or definition of what
members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of constitutes the practice of law
law for at least 10 years - Monsod was asked if he ever prepared contracts for parties in real-
- no jurisprudence on what constitutes the practice of law estate transaction; he answered very seldom
- Monsod may have profited from his legal knowledge, the use of such is
ISSUE incidental and consists of isolated activities which do not fall under the
denominations of practice of law
WON Monsod is qualified as Chairman of COMELEC in fulfilling the
requirement engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years
SANTUYO V HIDALGO
HELD CORONA; January 17, 2005
YES. Practice of Law means any activity, in or out of court which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and NATURE
experience. Monsod as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer- Administrative case in SC for Serious Misconduct and Dishonesty
entrepreneur, lawyer-negotiator, and lawyer-negotiator is proof he is
engaged in practice of law for more than 1- years FACTS
- Black’s Law Dictionary - Petitioners Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo accused respondent
> Rendition of service requiring the knowledge and application of legal Atty. Edwin Hidalgo of serious misconduct and dishonesty for breach of
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent his lawyer’s oath and notarial law
> not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct - In Dec 1991, couple purchased parcel of land covered by deed of sale
of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers - It was allegedly notarized by Hidalgo and entered in his notarial register
incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the - Six years later, couple had dispute with Danilo German over ownership
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and giving all legal advice to of said land; German presented an affidavit executed by Hidalgo denying
clients authenticity of his signature on deed of sale
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
Petitioners' Claim - Respondent explained that as early as May 12, 2000, Benitez had
- Hidalgo overlooked the fact that deed of sale contained ALL the legal already signed the SPA. He claimed that due to inadvertence, it was only
formalities of a duly notarized document (including impression of his on January 4, 2001 that he was able to notarize it. Nevertheless, the SPA
notarial dry seal) notarized by him on January 4, 2001 was not at all necessary because
- Santuyos could not have forged the signature, not being learned in Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco sometime before his
technicalities surrounding notarial act death, on May 12, 2000. Therefore, the SPA was cancelled the same day
- They had no access to his notarial seal and notarial register, and they he notarized it.
could not have made any imprint of his seal or signature. - Moreover, the suit should be dismissed for forum shopping since similar
Respondents' Comments charges had been filed with the Civil Service Commission and the Office
- He denied having notarized any deed of sale for disputed property. of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Which complaints were dismissed
- He once worked as junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law because the assailed act referred to violation of the IRR of the
Office; and admitted that he notarized several documents in that office. Commission on Audit.
- As a matter of procedure, documents were scrutinized by senior - The Court, in its resolution dated March 12, 2003, referred the complaint
lawyers, and only with their approval could notarization be done. to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
- In some occasions, secretaries (by themselves) would affix dry seal of recommendation. The IBP recommended that respondent's notarial
junior associates on documents relating to cases handled by the law firm. commission be revoked and that he be suspended from the practice of
- He normally required parties to exhibit community tax certificates and to law for one year.
personally acknowledge documents before him as notary public.
- He knew Editha, but only met Benjamin in Nov 1997 (Meeting was ISSUES
arranged by Editha so as to personally acknowledge another document) WON acts of respondent amounted to a violation of the Code of
- His alleged signature on deed of sale was forged (strokes of a lady) Professional Responsibility.
- At time it was supposedly notarized, he was on vacation.
HELD
ISSUES Ratio The act was a serious breach of the sacred obligation imposed by
1. WON the signature of respondent on the deed of sale was forged the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1,
2. WON respondent is guilty of negligence which prohibits engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct..
HELD Reasoning The undisputed facts show that Benitez died on October 25,
1. Yes. 2000. The notarial acknowledgment of respondent declared that Benitez
Ratio The alleged forged signature was different from Hidalgo’s “appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument was his clear
signatures in other documents submitted during the investigation. and voluntary act.” Clearly respondent lied and intentionally perpetuated
Reasoning Santuyos did not state that they personally appeared before an untruthful statement.
respondent. They were also not sure if he signed the document; only that - Neither will respondent's defense that the SPA in question was
his signature appeared on it. They had no personal knowledge as to who superfluous and unnecessary, and prejudiced no one, exonerate him of
actually affixed the signature. accountability. His assertion of falsehood in a public document
2. Yes. contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and
Ratio He was negligent for having wholly entrusted the preparation and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act.
other mechanics of the document for notarization to the office secretaries, Disposition WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr., is
including safekeeping of dry seal and making entries in notarial register. found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby DISBARRED from the
Reasoning Responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive, and practice of law. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the
respondent should have been more discreet and cautious. Bar Confidant and entered in the records of respondent, and brought to
Disposition Atty. Hidalgo is suspended from his commission as notary the immediate attention of the Ombudsman.
public for two (2) years for negligence in the performance of duties as
notary public. UI V BONIFACIO
DE LEON; June 8, 2000
SICAT V ARIOLA, JR.
PER CURIAM; April 15, 2005 NATURE
Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
NATURE
Administrative case in the Supreme Court. Violation of the Code of FACTS
Professional Responsibility Mrs. Ui filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Bonifacio on the ground of immorality, for allegedly carrying on an illicit
FACTS relationship with her husband Mr. Ui. In the proceeding before the IBP
- In an affidavit-complaint, complainat Arturo Sicat, a Board Member of Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Bonifacio attached a photocopy of a
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal, charged respondent Atty. marriage certificate that said that she and Mr. Ui got married in 1985, but
Gregorio Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, Rizal with violation according to the certificate of marriage obtained from the Hawaii State
of the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing fraud, deceit and Department of Health, they were married in 1987. She claims that she
falsehood in his dealings, particularly the notarization of a Special Power entered the relationship with Mr. Ui in good faith and that her conduct
of Attorney(SPA) purportedly executed by one Juanito C. Benitez cannot be considered as willful, flagrant, or shameless, nor can it suggest
According to complainant, respondent made it appear that Benitez moral indifference. She fell in love with Mr. Ui whom she believed to be
executed the said document on January 4, 2001 when in fact the latter single, and, that upon her discovery of his true civil status, she parted
had already died on October 25, 2000. ways with him.
- He alleged that prior to notarization, the Municipality of Cainta had
entered into a contract with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical ISSUE
Management, represented by Benitez, for the construction of low-cost WON Atty. Bonifacio conducted herself in an immoral manner for which
houses(project worth=11M). For the services of the consultants, the she deserves to be barred from the practice of law
Municipality of Cainta issued a check dated January 10, 2001 in the
amount of 3.7M, payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and Technical HELD
Management and/or Cesar Goco. The check was received and cashed by - No. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the
the the latter by virtue of the SPA notarized by Ariola. right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar
Respondents' Comments examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate
of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
ethics. One of the conditions prior to the admission to the bar is that an - Barranco’s engaging in premarital sexual relations with Figueroa and
applicant must possess good moral character. More importantly, promises to marry suggest a doubtful moral character on his part but it
possession of good character must be continuous as a requirement to the does not constitute grossly immoral conduct.
enjoyment of the privilege of law practice. Otherwise, the loss thereof is a - Barranco and Figueroa were sweethearts whose sexual relations were
ground for the revocation of such privilege. evidently consensual.
- A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, which has been - Respondent, at the time of this decision, is already 62.
defined as the conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which Disposition Petition is dismissed. Simeon Barranco, Jr. is allowed to take
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable his oath as a lawyer upon payment of proper fees.
members of the community. Lawyers, as keepers of the public faith, are
burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus must BARRIOS V MARTINEZ
handle their affairs with great caution. Atty. Bonifacio was imprudent in PER CURIAM; November 12, 2004
managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
relationship with Mr. Ui, clothed as it was with what she believed was a
valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. Immorality connotes FACTS
conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society. Moreover, - Atty. Martinez was convicted of a violation of BP 22
for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly - Complainant submitted Resolution dated March 13, 1996, and the Entry
immoral,” that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal of judgment dated March 20, 1996 in an action for disbarment against
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Martinez
- A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to - July 3, 1996 – the Court required respondent to comment on said
refrain from adulterous relationships but must also behave himself so as petition within 10 days from notice
to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting - February 17, 1997 – a second resolution was issued requiring
those moral standards. Atty. Bonifacio’s act of immediately distancing respondent to show cause why no disciplinary action should be imposed
herself from Mr. Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that on him for failure to comply with the earlier Resolution and to submit
alleged moral indifference and proves that she fad no intention of flaunting Comment
the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. On the matter - July 7, 1997 – the Court imposed a fine of P1000 for respondent’s failure
of the falsified certificate of marriage, it is contrary to human experience to comply with previous resolution within 10 days
and highly improbable that she did not know the year of her marriage or - April 27, 1998 – the Court fined the respondent an additional P2000 and
that she failed to check that the information in the document which she required him to comply with the resolution under pain of imprisonment and
attached to her Answer were correct. Lawyers are called upon to arrest for a period of 5 days or until his compliance
safeguard the integrity of the bar, free from misdeeds and acts of - February 3, 1999 – the Court declared respondent Martinez guilty of
malpractice. Contempt under Rule 71, Sec 3(b) of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
and ordered his imprisonment until he complied with the aforesaid
resolution
FIGUEROA V BARRANCO, JR.
- April 5, 1999 – NBI reported that respondent was arrested in Tacloban
ROMERO; July 31, 1997 City on March 26, 1999 but was subsequently released after having
shown proof of compliance with the resolutions of February 17, 1997 and
FACTS April 27, 1998 by remitting the amount of P2000 and submitting his
- In 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that Simeon Barranco, Jr. be overdue Comment:
denied admission to the legal profession. Barranco passed the 1970 bar 1. He failed to respond to the Resolution dated February 17, 1997 as
exams on the fourth attempt. he was at that time undergoing medical treatment at Camp
- Figueroa avers that she and Barranco had been sweethearts, that a Ruperto Kangleon in Palo, Leyte
child was born to them out of wedlock and that respondent did not fulfill 2. Complainant passed away sometime in June 1997
his repeated promises to marry her. 3. Said administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case which
- Figueroa and Barranco were townmates in Janiuay, Iloilo and were was decided in respondent’s favor. Respondent avers that as a
steadies since 1953. Figueroa first acceded to sexual congress in 1960. A result of his moving for the execution of judgment in his favor and
son, Rafael Barranco, was born on Dec 11, 1964. Barranco promised to the eviction of the family of complainant, the latter filed the present
marry Figueroa after he passes the bar exams. Their relationship administrative case
continued, with more than 20 or 30 promises of marriage. Barranco gave - September 11, 1997 – Robert Visbal of the Provincial Prosecution Office
only P10 for the child on Rafael’s birthdays. In 1971, Figueroa learned of Tacloban City submitted a letter to the First Division Clerk of Court
Barranco married another woman. alleging that respondent Martinez also stood charged in another estafa
- From 1972 to 1988, several motions to dismiss and comments were case before the RTC of Tacloban City, as well as a civil case involving the
filed. victims of the Dona Paz tragedy in 1987 for which the RTC of Basey,
- On Sept 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for failure Samar rendered a decision against him, his appeal thereto having been
of complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of time dismissed by the CA.
and to allow Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyer’s oath. - June 16, 1999 – the Court referred the present case to the IBP for
- Nov 17, 1988, the Court, in response to Figueroa’s opposition, resolved investigation, report, and recommendation
to cancel Barranco’s scheduled oath-taking. - The report of IBP stated:
- June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the IBP. On May 17, 1997, 1. Respondent filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the
IBP recommended the dismissal of the case and that respondent be ground that the complainant died and that dismissal is warranted
allowed to take the lawyer’s oath because the case filed by him does not survive due to his demise
as a matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his death. The IBP
ISSUE disagrees, pursuant to Section 1 Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules
WON the facts constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent of Court, the SC or the IBP may initiate the proceedings when they
exclusion of Barranco from the legal profession perceive acts of lawyers which deserve sanctions or when their
attention is called by any one and a probable cause exists that an
HELD act has been perpetrated by a lawyer which requires disciplinary
No. To justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not sanctions.
only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is 2. Propensity to disregard orders of the SC, as shown by
so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or respondent, is an utter lack of good moral character
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful, flagrant, 3. Respondent’s conviction of a crime of moral turpitude clearly
or shameless acts which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of shows his unfitness to protect the administration of justice and
respectable members of the community. therefore justifies the imposition of sanctions against him
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
4. It is recommended that respondent be disbarred and his name - RESPONDENTS: The errors pointed out by complainant could be
stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys immediately attributed to honest mistake, oversight and /or fatigue.
- September 27, 2003 – the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution - IBP recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
adopting and approving the report and recommendation of its - Pimentel also filed criminal charges against the two before the
Investigating Commissioner COMELEC which dismissed said charges for insufficiency of evidence.
- December 3, 2003 – Atty. Martinez filed a Motion for Reconsideration - The SC, upon Pimentel’s petition for certiorari, directed the COMELEC
and/or Reinvestigation to file appropriate charges against respondents.
- January 14, 2004 – the Court required the complainant to file a comment
within 10 days ISSUE
- February 16, 2004 – complainant’s daughter sent a Manifestation and 1. WON a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Rule
Motion alleging they have not been furnished with a copy of respondent’s 139 –B, section 12 C (within 15 day period) since the petition was filed
Motion late
2. WON the respondents are guilty of misconduct
ISSUE
WON the crime respondent was convicted of is one involving moral HELD
turpitude 1. NO
Reasoning
HELD - In Halimao v. Villanueva: Although Rule 139-B, sec 12(c) makes no
Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, mention of a motion for reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its history
honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, suggests that such motion is prohibited.
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow - It appears that the petition was filed on time because a copy of the
men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary resolution personally served on the Office of the Bar Confidant of the SC
rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to was received. It is the burden of the respondent to show that the
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. complainant filed the petition was filed beyond the 15-day period for filing
- The argument of respondent that to disbar him now is tantamount to a it.
deprivation of property without due process of law is also untenable. The - Even if Pimentel received the IBP resolution in question was filed 2 days
practice of law is a privilege. The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment late, the delay may be overlooked.
is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who - Disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare. The
exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and sole question for determination is whether a member of the bar is fit to be
reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. allowed the privileges as such or not.
- Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no - The complainant or the person who called the attention of the Court to
redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and generally
for the public welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice has no interest, in the outcome except as all citizens may have in the
from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice them. proper administration of justice. For this reason, laws dealing with double
- The court is also disinclined to take respondent’s old age and the fact jeopardy or prescription or with procedure like verification of pleadings
that he served in the judiciary in various capacities in his favor. If at all, and prejudicial questions have no application to disbarment proceedings.
the respondent was held to a higher standard for it, for a judge should be 2. YES
the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence, and his Reasoning
conduct should be above reproach. - In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clearly
- The Court based the determination of the penalty from previously preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability.
decided cases, holding that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for - SC: What is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the
conviction by final judgment for a crime of moral turpitude. tabulation of votes per precinct as reflected in the election returns and the
Disposition Respondent was disbarred and his name stricken from the subsequent entry of erroneous figures in or two statements of votes but a
Roll of Attorneys. systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at
the expense of the petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in
PIMENTEL, HR V LLORENTE the election returns.
MENDOZA; August 29, 2000 - Despite the fact that these discrepancies were apparent on the face of
(edel cruz) these documents and that the variation involves substantial number of
votes, respondents nevertheless certified the SoVs as true and correct.
NATURE This constitutes misconduct.
Administrative Matter. Disbarment - Only the respondents had access to the SoVs and the CoC and thus
had the opportunity to compare them and detect the discrepancies therein
FACTS so it is irrelevant that the canvassing was open to the public and observed
- Senator Aquilino Pimentel filed this disbarment case against Attys. by numerous individuals.
Antonio Llorente (election officer of COMELEC and chairman of the - A lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a
Board) and Ligaya Salayon (ex officio vice- chairman) for gross member of the bar for misconduct in the discharged of his duties as a
misconduct, serious breach of trust and violation of the lawyer’s oath in government official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a
connection with the discharge of their duties as members of the Pasig City violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath
Board of Canvassers in the May 8, 1995 elections. or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows
- Pimentel alleges that respondents: moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a
member of the bar for such misconduct.
• Respondents tampered with the votes he received
- By certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, the respondents
• Statement of votes show that other candidates were credited with committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code, which stipulates that a
votes which were above the number of votes they actually lawyer shall not engage in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
received and his votes were reduced (dagdag-bawas =p) conduct.” By lawyers express provision of Canon 6, this is made
• In 101 precints, Enrile’s votes were in excess of the total number applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition, they likewise
of voters who actually voted therein violated their oath of office as to “do no falsehood.”
• The votes from 22 precints were twice recorded in 18 statements - As lawyers in the government service, respondents were under greater
of votes. obligation to observe the basic tenet of the profession (to behave at all
- PIMENTEL: The respondents committed a serious breach of public trust times in a manner consistent with truth and honor) because a public
and of their lawyers’ oath by signing the statements of votes (SoVs) office is a public trust.
despite their knowledge that some of the entries were false.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
Disposition Respondents’ participation in the irregularities reflects on the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent earn carried out in
legal profession. This merits a suspension but since this is their first public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the
transgression, a fine is sufficient. Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself.
Fine of 10,000 Php for each for misconduct. Ratio
- An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show
CORDOVA V CORDOVA that he possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not
PER CURIAM; November 29, 1989 exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar.
- The lack of moral character that we here refer to as essential is not
(giulia pineda) limited to good moral character relating to the discharge of the duties and
responsibilities of an attorney at law. The moral delinquency that affects
NATURE the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct
Administrative case in the SC for Immorality of a member of the Bar that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community.
Disposition WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent
FACTS from the practice of law indefinitely and until further orders from this Court.
- Savacion Delizo Cordova sent an unsworn letter-complaint to then CJ The Court will consider lifting his suspension when respondent Cordova
Teehankee charging her husband Atty. Laurence Cordova with immorality submits proof satisfactory to the Commission and this Court that he has
and acts unbecoming of a member of the Bar. The complaint was and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and that
forwarded to the IBP, Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation, he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has clung to.
report and investigation.
- The Commission required the complainant to submit a verified complain SORIANO V DIZON
to which she complied and submitted on Sept 27, 1988 a revised and
verified version of her long and detailed complaint against her husband.
PER CURIAM; January 25, 2006
- On Dec 16, she was required to submit before the Commission her (romy ramirez)
evidence ex parte. She requested for the rescheduling several times. The
hearings never took place as she failed to appear. NATURE
- The respondent never moved to set aside the order of default, even Administrative case for disbarment
though notices were sent to him.
- In a telegraphic message dated Apr 6, the complainant informed the FACTS
commission that she and her husband have already reconciled. - Respondent, Atty. Manuel Dizon, was convicted by final judgment by the
- In an order dated Apr 17, 1989, the Commission required the parties to RTC of Baguio City for frustrated murder. He applied and was granted
appear before it for the confirmation and explanation of the telegraphic probation by the said court based on several conditions which included
message and to file formal motion to dismiss the complaint. Neither among others the satisfaction of the civil liabilities imposed in favor of the
responded and nothing was heard from either party since then. offended party, Roberto Soriano, the taxi driver who was rendered
The findings of the IBP Board of Governors: paralyzed on the left side of the body as a result of his being shot by the
- Complainant and respondent Cordova were married on 6 June 1976 and defendant.
out of this marriage, two (2) children were born. - The defendant despite the condition that he pay the civil liabilities
- In 1985, respondent Cordova left his family as well as his job as Branch imposed on him as a condition for the probation, appealed said civil
Clerk of RTC of Cabarroguis, Quirino Province, and went to Mangagoy, liability to the Court of Appeals.
Bislig, Surigao del Sur with one Fely G. Holgado. - From the records of the trial court, it appears that defendant was drunk
- Fely G. Holgado was herself married and left her own husband and at the time of the incident and that the case arose out of the apparent
children to stay with respondent. Respondent Cordova and Fely G. resentment of the defendant from having been overtaken by the victim
Holgado lived together in Bislig as husband and wife, with respondent who was then driving a taxi. From the testimony of a witness, it further
Cordova introducing Fely to the public as his wife, using the name Fely appears that the taxi driver was merely defending himself and that
Cordova. defendant was the aggressor during said incident.
- Respondent Cordova gave Fely Holgado funds with which to establish a - Upon the complaint for the disbarment filed by Soriano against Dizon,
sari-sari store in the public market at Bislig, while failing to support his the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
legitimate family. rendered its report and recommendation which was adopted and
- On 6 April 1986, respondent Cordova and his complainant wife had an approved by the IBP Board of Governors. The Commssion recommended
apparent reconciliation. Respondent promised that he would separate the disbarment of the defendant for having been convicted of a crime
from Fely Holgado and brought his legitimate family to Bislig involving moral turpitude and for exhibiting an obvious lack of good moral
- Respondent would, however, frequently come home from beerhouses or character.
cabarets, drunk, and continued to neglect the support of his legitimate
family. ISSUES
- In February 1987, complainant found, upon returning from a trip to 1. WON Dizon’s crime of frustrated murder involves moral turpitude and
Manila that respondent Cordova was no longer living with her children in that his guilt warrants disbarment
their conjugal home; that respondent Cordova was living with another
mistress, Luisita Magallanes, and had taken his younger daughter along HELD
with him Ratio
- Respondent and his new mistress hid Melanie from the complainants, - The totality of the facts of the case unmistakably bears the earmarks of
compelling complainant to go to court and to take back her daughter by moral turpitude. Given that membership in the legal profession demands a
habeas corpus. The RTC of Bislig, gave her custody of their children. high degree of good moral character not only as a condition to admission
- Notwithstanding respondent's promise to reform, he continued to live but also a continuing requirement for the practice of law, the defendant
with Luisita Magallanes as her husband and continued to fail to give has shown in all his actuations that he lacks the fitness to remain in the
support to his legitimate family. law profession.
Reasoning
ISSUE - Not all cases involving homicide involves moral turpitude. The question
WON the recent reconciliation of the Cordovas and the failure of the as to what may be a crime involving moral turpitude would depend on the
complainant to pursue the case have dismissed the case. individual facts surrounding the case and the surrounding circumstances.
- In the case at bar, it was shown that Dizon was the aggressor as he
HELD pursued and shot complainant when the latter least expected it. The
The most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent, actuations of the victim in this case can be considered as reasonable
assuming the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the actions clearly intended to fend off the attack of Dizon.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- The defendant’s use of an unlicensed firearm and his refusal to satisfy
his civil liability to the victim is a serious transgression of Canon 1 of the HELD
code of Professional Responsibility. YES, respondent is undeniably guilty of deceit and grossly immoral
- Defendant has continuously display his dishonest and duplicitous conduct.
behavior by first seeking to arrive at an out of court settlement with the Ratio The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall
family and when the same failed, making it appear that it was the family be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a
would sought a conference with him. He also lied to the court by claiming condition precedent for admission to the practice of law; its continued
that he incident was the result of the mauling he got at the hands of the possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law
victim and two other persons. This story was belied by the physical Reasoning The respondent made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred
evidence as testified to by no less than three doctors. institution demanding respect and dignity. A former Judge of the Circuit
Disposition Manuel Dizon is disbarred and his name is stricken from the Criminal Court, and, thereafter, a Justice of the Court of Appeals is surely
roll of attorneys. conversant with the legal maxim that a wrong cannot be righted by
another wrong, if granted that he was just helping the complainant in the
CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES V VILLALUZ administrative case filed against her.
REGALADO; June 19, 1997 -The respondent gave his voluntary consent to the marriage, and with all
(cha mendoza) the legal requisites for the marriage present, he should have known that
his marriage with the complainant was valid.
NATURE -the respondent stated under oath that his marriage with Librada Peña
Petition for the disbarment on the grounds of grossly immoral and grave had been annulled by a decree of annulment, when he (respondent) took
misconduct Lydia Geraldez as his wife by third marriage, and therefore, he is
precluded, by the principle of estoppel, from claiming that when he took
FACTS herein complainant as his wife by second marriage, his first marriage with
-Complainant is the presiding judge of Branch 108 of the RTC of Pasay Librada Peña was subsisting and unannulled.
City while respondent is a consultant at the Presidential Anti Crime Disposition WHEREFORE, finding herein respondent, former Justice
Commission, and a retired justice of the Court of Appeals Onofre A. Villaluz, GUILTY of immoral conduct in violation of the Code of
-Complainant was widowed by the presumption of death of her 1 st Professional Responsibility, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
husband, upon a decree of presumption of death after 16-year absence of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon notice hereof, with the
-Complainant and respondent met sometime in 1977when respondent specific WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should
was the presiding judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig for the he commit the same or a similar offense hereafter.
murder case involving the death of the complainant’s son. Since then, the SO ORDERED.
respondent became a close family friend.
-On January 7, 1994, the complainant and the respondent got married in ESTRADA V SANDIGANBAYAN
a civil wedding, with all the essential and formal requisites present. PER CURIAM; November 25, 2003
-On the afternoon of their wedding day, the respondent fetched the (boots tirol)
complainant from her house in QC to stay in the respondent’s condo unit.
There was a phone call and when the complainant answered, a woman NATURE
was on the other end of the line offending the complainant with insulting
RESOLUTION of the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
remarks. The complainant confronted the respondent about the caller and
Court
the confrontation ended up in a heated exchange of words, to the point
where the respondent said to the complainant, “Ayaw ko nang ganyan!
FACTS
Ang gusto ko sa babae, 'yong sumusunod sa bawa't gusto ko'. Get that
-Joseph Estrada, through Atty Alan Paguia, filed a Petition for Certiorari
marriage contract and have it burned." With that, the complainant left the
under the Rules of Court against Sandiganbayan, which prayed – “1. That
respondent and after that, they never contacted each other again.
Chief Justice Davide and the rest of the members of the Honorable Court
-Several months after, in a bible study session, the complainant learned
disqualify themselves from hearing and deciding the petition; 2. That the
from Manila RTC Judge Ramon Makasiar, a member of the bible group,
assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be vacated and set aside; and
that he (Judge Makasiar) solemnized the marriage between the
3.That Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 pending
respondent and a certain Lydia Geraldez. After hearing that, on June 6,
before the Sandiganbayan be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
1995 the complainant filed the instant Complaint for Disbarment against
him (Exh. "A").
-Atty Paguia, speaking for Estrada, asserted that the inhibition of the
-On August 7, 1995, when complainant discovered that the respondent
members of the SC from hearing the petition is called for under Rule 5.10
falsified his marriage contract (Exh C.) dated May 10, 1994 by stating that
of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibiting justices or judges from
he is “single”, the complainant executed against respondent her
participating in any partisan political activity which proscription, according
"Supplemental Complaint Affidavit for Falsification" (Exhs. "D" and "D-1").
to him, the justices have violated by attending the ‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by
The complainant also presented the Marriage Contract between her and
authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to
respondent (Exh. "B"), the Order declaring her first husband, Primitivo
the Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner contended
Mijares, presumptively dead (Exh. "E"); and Affidavit of Judge Myrna Lim
that the justices have thereby prejudged a case that would assail the
Verano, who solemnized the marriage between her (complainant) and
legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. The subsequent decision of
respondent (Exhs. "F" and "F-1").
the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo is, according to petitioner, a patent mockery
Respondent’s claim The respondent claimed that he only voluntarily signed
of justice and due process.
the Marriage Contract bet. Him and the complainant in an effort to help
-The SC dismissed the petition for lack of merit (Sandiganbayan
the complainant in the administrative case for immorality filed against her
committed no grave abuse of discretion) and the SC warned Atty Paguia
by her legal researcher in 1993 and that their marriage was just a “sham
of his conduct -- his attacks on the Court and making public statements on
marriage”
the case (violating Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility).
-Also, he claims that when he got married to the complainant, his first
He was given 10 days SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned
marriage with Librada Peña was still subsisting because the decision
for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
declaring its annulment had not yet become final and executory (required
- On 10 October 2003, Atty. Paguia submitted his compliance with the
publication not yet done), as certified by Mrs. Nelia B. Rosario, Acting
show-cause order. In a three-page pleading, Atty. Paguia, in an obstinate
Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 37 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
display of defiance, repeated his earlier claim of political partisanship
(Exh. "4").
against the members of the Court (for discussion on political partisanship
please see original case), and continued to make public statements about
ISSUE
Estrada’s case.
WON the respondent is guilty of gross immorality and grave misconduct? ISSUES
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
WON Atty Paguia should be suspended from the practice of law
ISSUES
HELD 1. WON the SC should punish Gonzalez for contempt of court and give
YES. administrative sanctions
-Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the 2. WON Gonzales is not liable because he was just using his
lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and constitutional right of freedom of speech.
judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In
liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the HELD
impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty. 1. YES
Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the Ratio Statements which constitute gross disrespect of the Court, and
dispensation of justice. degrade the SC and the entire system of justice are clearly contemptuous.
-The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce The SC should exercise its disciplinary authority over the source.
criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded, can truly Reasoning The SC cited several cases wherein the Court held that the
have constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will not statements were contemptuous and warranting the exercise of the court’s
countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of the people’s faith in authority. These are:
the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to (1). Monteciollo v. Gica – Atty del Mar moved to reconsider a decision of
practice law in the Philippines. the CA with a veiled threat that he should interpose his next appeal to the
-The attention of Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule President. He said the court knowingly rendered an unjust judgment thru
13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of negotiations. He was convicted of contempt of court.
the bar from making such public statements on a case that may tend to (2) Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel – counsel asked CJ
arouse public opinion for or against a party. Regrettably, Atty. Paguia has Concepcion and J Castro to inhibit themselves from judging the case
persisted in ignoring the Court’s well-meant admonition. The Court has since the brother of Castro was the VP of favored party and CJ’s son was
already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to become the Secretary of the Board of Investments. He even threatened that if he
mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the didn’t get a favorable decision, he’d bring the case to the World Court and
Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed. invoke the Hickenlooper Amendment requiring the cutting off of all aid to
Disposition Atty Paguia indefinitely suspended from the practice of law the Philippines.
3. In re Almacen – the SC committed a great unjust to his client; justice
ZALDIVAR V GONZALES administered by the SC wasn’t only blind, but also deaf and dumb; he’ll
PER CURIAM; October 7, 1988 argue the cause of his client in the people’s forum (published in Manilla
(joey capones) Times). Almacen was suspended from the practice of law because he
exceeded the boundaries of fair criticism.
4. Paragas v. Cruz – counsel alleged that the SC violated the
NATURE Constitution, which was a ground for impeachment; hoped that an incident
Petition to review the decision of the Sandiganbayan wherein 2 SC employees were killed wouldn’t happen again (covert threat
upon the members of the Court)
FACTS 5. In re Sotto – a newspaper reporter refused to divulge his source and
Enrique A. Zaldivar had a pending case for graft and corruption in the was sent to jail. Atty. Sotto published in a newspaper that the SC
Sandiganbayan initiated by Tanodbayan Gonzalez. Zaldivar filed a erroneously interpreted the law, they’re narrow-minded, and that the
petition in the SC alleging that Gonzalez, as Tanodbayan and under the members of the SC should be changed. He was held in contempt of
provisions of the 1987 Constitution, was no longer vested with power and Court.
authority independently to investigate and to institute criminal cases for 6. Salcedo v. Hernandez – Atty Francisco: the Court’s resolution is
graft and corruption against public officials and employees, and hence erroneous and is a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls.
the information filed in his criminal cases were all null and void. The SC 2. NO
issued a temporary restraining order. Petitioner later filed another petition Ratio A lawyer’s right of free expression may have to be more limited than
because Gonzalez filed additional criminal charges against petitioner and that of a layman.
five other individuals. Gonzalez instituted another criminal case in the Reasoning The freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional
Sandiganbayan. Four days later, the SC issued another TRO. Zaldivar
freedoms, is not absolute and that the freedom of expression needs on
then filed a petition to cite in contempt Special Prosecutor Gonzalez for
occasion to be adjusted and accommodated with the requirements of
filing new information before the Sandiganbayan and for making
equally important public interests. One of the fundamental public interests
contemptuous statements to the media. In a news art in the Phil Daily
is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the
Globe, Gonzalez made the ff. statements: (1) while the rich and influential
administration of justice. The lawyer’s duty to render respectful
persons get favorable actions from the SC, it’s difficult for an ordinary
subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of
litigant to get his petition to be given due course, (2) while Pres. Aquino
justice.
had been prodding him to prosecute graft cases even if they involve the
[Discussion on the SC’s power to discipline its lawyers]
high and mighty, the SC had been restraining him, (3) while he doesn’t
The SC, as the regulator and guardian of the legal profession, has plenary
wish to discuss the merits of the Zaldivar petition before the SC, He was
disciplinary auth over attorneys. This stems from the Court’s
disturbed that the order can aggravate the thinking of some people that
Constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which
affluent persons can prevent the progress of a trial. The SC ordered the
includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself. This is an
nullification of the criminal cases and for Gonzalez to cease and desist
inherent power incidental to the proper administration of justice and
from further acting on Zaldivar’s case In the motion for reconsideration,
essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. It also has inherent
Gonzales claimed that 3 handwritten notes, sent by some members of the
power to punish for contempt, to control in the furtherance of justice the
SC interceding for cases pending before his office, were in his
conduct of ministerial officers of the court including lawyers and all other
possession. He said that he doubts whether the judges will remain
persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court. This is
impartial to him, there being at least 4 members who definitely won’t, and
necessary for its own protection against improper interference with the
prayed that these 4 inhibit themselves in the deliberation. When this was
due administration of justice and not dependent upon the complaint of the
denied, he filed a motion to transfer administrative proceedings to the IBP.
litigant. There are two related powers here: (1) Court’s inherent power to
He also released statements to the press saying, in effect, that the SC
discipline attorneys – broader than contempt power; lawyer doesn’t need
deliberately rendered an erroneous decision, that members of the SC
to be in contempt of court to be punished under this; (2) contempt power
have improperly pressured him to render decisions favorable to their
- may be committed by both lawyers and non-lawyers, in and out of court;
friends and colleagues, and that the Sc dismisses judges without rhyme
if this is done by a lawyer, it’s usually accompanied with professional
or reason and disbars lawyers without due process. Gonzalez didn’t deny
misconduct.
he said/wrote those statements. His defense is that he was just
exercising his freedom of speech.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
A lawyer is not just a professional but also an officer of the court and as LEDESMA V CLIMACO
such, is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing FERNANDO; June 28, 1974
justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act which tends to obstruct
the administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct
(mini bernardo)
calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him and conduct
warranting application of the contempt power. NATURE
Disposition Atty. Raul M. Gonzales was found guilty of contempt of court Original action in the SC, Certiorari
in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and
member of the Bar. He was suspended from the practice of law FACTS
indefinitely. Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a
case pending in the sala of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964,
CASTANEDA V AGO Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz,
Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties, and filed a
CASTRO; July 30, 1975 motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The respondent
(glaisa po) Judge denied him and also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two
defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to
NATURE withdraw as counsel de oficio, because the Comelec requires full time
- Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals service which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari
FACTS proceeding.
- 1955 – Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the
CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries. ISSUE
-1957 – judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson WON a member of the bar may withdraw as counsel de oficio due to
- 1961 – SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution; appointment as Election Registrar
Ago’s motion denied, levy was made on Ago’s house and lots; sheriff
advertised the sale, Ago moved to stop the auction; CA dismissed the HELD
petition; SC affirmed dismissal No.
- Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain 1. The ends of justice would be served by requiring Ledesma to continue
sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied as counsel de oficio because: the case has been postponed at least 8
- 1963 – sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago times at the defense's instance; there was no incompatibility between duty
failed to redeem of petitioner to defend the accused, and his task as an election registrar.
- 1964 – sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ of possession 2. Ledesma's withdrawal would be an an act showing his lack of fidelity to
to the properties the duty rqeuired of the legal profession. He ought to have known that
- 1964 – Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. The legal profession
the replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife ½ is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A lawyer may
share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the
made; CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining administration of justice. The fact that such services are rendered without
Castaneda the Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the final pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal.
deed of sale; the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the restraining 3. The Constitution provides that the accused shall enjoy the right to be
order continued heard by himself and counsel. "Any person under investigation for the
- 1966 – Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to
from enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed it; Agos filed a similar counsel..." ---manifest the indispensable role of a member of the Bar in
petition with the CA which also dismissed the petition; Agos appealed to the defense of an accused. The right to be assisted by counsel is so
SC which dismissed the petition important that it is not enough for the Court to apprise the accused of his
- Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA right to an atty, but is essential that the court assign on de oficio for him if
which gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction. he desires/ is poor.
Thus, Ledesma should exert himself sufficiently, if not with zeal, if only to
ISSUE erase doubts as to his fitness to remain a member of the profession in
WON the Agos’ lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy good standing.
Disposition Petition for certiorari dismissed.
HELD
- No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the
annulment of the sheriff’s sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long
denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them,
for, the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have
misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the
satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners.
- Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted
position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to
become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a IN RE: TAGORDA
mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of MALCOLM; March 23, 1929
technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the
(boots tirol)
primacy of truth and moral justice.
- A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his
client’s cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what the SC FACTS
does not and cannot countenance is a lawyer’s insistence despite the Luis Tagorda, a practicing lawyer and a member of the Provincial Board
patent futility of his client’s position. of Isabela admits that the previous election he used a card which states
It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his what he can do for the people as a lawyer and a notary public (he can
case. If he finds his client’s cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to execute deed of sales, etc). He also admits that he wrote a letter to a
advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the lieutenant of his barrio asking him to inform the people in any town
incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his meetings that despite his election as member of the Board, he will still
client, and temper his client’s propensity to litigate. exercise his profession as a lawyer and notary public, even adding that he
will only charge three pesos for registration of their land titles.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
Petitioner’s Claim:
ISSUES -Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive
1. WON Tagorda is guilty of malpractice for soliciting employment of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the
2. WON Tagorda should be disbarred bar.
-As a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the
HELD ads
1. YES. Respondent’s Comment:
Sec 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by Act 2828) states -They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg
that "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either support services thru paralegals with the use of modern computers and
personally, or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." electronic machines
Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics provide: - Even if they are leg services, the act of advertising them should be
27- The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards, being allowed under Bates v. State bar of Arizona
a matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of
convenience, is not per se improper. But solicitation of business by ISSUES
circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews 1. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of
not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional... Indirect law?
advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper 2. WON their services can be advertised?
comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the
interests involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other HELD
like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high 1. Yes. The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of the court,
calling, and are intolerable. which requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge,
28 -It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, training and expertise
except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his - To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are
duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional, but characteristic of the profession; to give advice or render any kind of
it is indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in titles service that involves legal knowledge/skill
or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to be employed to - Not limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice and
bring suit, or to breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for counsel and preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal
personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to rights are secured regardless of WON they’re pending in court
secure them as clients… A duty to the public and to the profession 3 types of legal profession activity:
devolves upon every member of the bar having knowledge of such 1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and
practices upon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform thereof to obligations
the end that the offender may be disbarred. 2. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal
- The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or principles not possessed by ordinary layman
obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be 3. appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and
unprofessional. authority to determine rights of life, liberty and property according to law,
- With the admitted facts, the respondent stands convicted of having in order to assist in proper inter and enforcement of law
solicited cases in defiance of the law and those canons.
2. NO. The commission of offenses of this nature would amply justify Respondent’s description of its services shows it falls within the practice
permanent elimination from the bar. But as mitigating circumstances of law:
working in favor of the respondent there are: first, his intimation that he Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the use of comps
was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and and modern info tech
inexperience at the bar, and third, his promise not to commit a similar - computerized legal research, document search, evidence gathering,
mistake in the future. locating parties/witnesses to a case, fact finding investigations, assistance
to laymen in need of services from agencies like birth, marriage, prop, bus
ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC registrations, etc.
REGALADO; June 17, 1993 *even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical and
technical know how like installing computer system for law offices, this
(dahls salamat) doesn’t make it an exception to the general rule
- gives out leg info to laymen and lawyersnot non-advisory and non-
FACTS diagnostic
- Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads ex. foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption – have to explain to
similar to annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making ads client the intricacies of the law and advise him on the proper course of
pertaining to the exercise of the law professions other than those allowed action
by law - what its ads represent and what it will be paid for
- Annex A - It doesn’t matter that they don’t represent clients in court since practice
SECRET MARRIAGE? of law isn’t limited to ct appearances but also leg research, leg advice and
P560 for a valid marriage drafting contracts
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. Phil Star Art – Rx for Leg Probs, int by proprietor Atty Nogales:
Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 - Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic
8:30am-6pm sit
7F Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, Mla - lawyers, who like drs, are specialists in various fields and can take care
- Annex B of it (taxation, crim law, medico-leg probs, labor, litigation, fam law)
GUAM DIVORCE - backed up by paralegals, counselors and attys
DON PARKINSON - caters to clients who can’t afford big firms
An Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BKS on Guam Divorce thru the Leg - can prepare a simple deed of sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/
Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours more extensive treatment
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Probs, Visa ext.
Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of -The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services doesn’t
Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the matter; what’s important is that it’s engaged in the practice of law ‘cause
Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Sp/Shil. Call Marivic of the nature of the services it renders, which brings it within the statutory
THE LEGAL CLINIC, etc prohibitions against ads
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who’s in good Atty Nograles (prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of the
and regular standing is entitled to the practice of law Leg Clinic) is REPRIMANDED w/ a warning that a repetition will be dealt
- public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those w/ more severely for misbehavior in advertising his servIces and aid a
individuals found duly qualified in education and character to protect the layman in the unauthorized practice of law
public, court, client and bar from incompetence/dishonesty of those
unlicensed to the practice and not subject to the discipline of court KHAN, JR. V SIMBILLO
YNARES-SANTIAGO; August 19, 2003
2.No. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in
making known his legal services, shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
(apple maramba)
and objective info/statement of facts
- not supposed to use any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, NATURE
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement re his qualifications/legal ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court and SPECIAL CIVIL
services ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
- not supposed to pay representatives of the mass media in return for
publicity to attract legal business FACTS
- Atty. Rizalino Simbillo publicized his legal services in the July 5, 2000
Canons of professional Ethics (before CPR) provides that lawyers issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer via a paid advertisement which read:
shouldn’t resort to indirect ads for professional employment like furnishing “Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.”
newspaper comments, publishing his pictures with causes the lawyer’s - A staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court
been engaged in, importance of his position and other self-laudation took notice and called the number posing as an interested party. She
Stands of legal profession condemn lawyer’s advertisement of his talents spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who said that her husband was an expert in
like a merchant does of his goods because of the fact that law is a handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four
profession. to six months, and that the fee was P48,000.
The canons of profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a - Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public
lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to Information Office revealed that similar ads were published in the August
trust which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of
Good and efficient service to a client and the community has a way of the Philippine Star.
publicizing itself and catching public attention; this shouldn’t be done thru - Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator
propaganda and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in violation
EXCEPTIONS: of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
1. expressly allowed – publication in reputable law lists of informative data Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
that’s not misleading and may include only: name, professional assoc, - The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
adds, nos, branches of law practiced, date and place of birth and recommendation.
admission to the bar, schools attended w/ dates of grad, degrees , public - IBP found respondent guilty
offices, posts of honor, legal authorships, legal teaching positions, - Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was
membership and offices in bar association, legal and scientific societies denied
and legal fraternities, listings in other reputable law lists, names and adds - Hence, this petition for certiorari
of references with written consent and clients regularly represented
- can’t be mere supplemental feature of paper, magazine, trade journal or ISSUE
periodical that’s published for other purposes WON Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01
- never in a law list that are calculated or likely to deceive/injure the of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
public/the bar or lower the dignity/standing of the profession Rules of Court
- ordinary simple professional card allowed – name, law firm, add, no and
special branch of law practiced HELD
- publication of simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or Yes. Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for one year and
change in partnership, assoc, firm name or office add, for the was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be
convenience of the profession dealt with more severely.
- have name listed in phone directory but not under designation of special Ratio The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty
branch of law to public service, not money is the primary consideration.
2. necessarily implied from the restrictions Reasoning
- Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona: allowed lawyer to publish a statement of leg primarily to solicit legal business.
fees for an initial consultation or give, upon request, a written schedule of - Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fees or estimate for spec servicess as an exception to the prohibition fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
against advertisements by lawyers statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
- none expressly/impliedly provided for in the Canons of Professional - Rule 138, Sec 27 of the Rules of Court states: Disbarment and
Ethics or Code of Professional Responsibility suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore.—A
*survey conducted by the American Bar Assoc on the attitude of the member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
public about lawyers after viewing TC commercials – pub opinion dropped attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
significantly: misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his
Trustworthy – 71-14% conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
Professional – 71-14% oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
Honest – 65-14% willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to
Dignified – 45-14% do so.
- The following elements distinguish legal profession from business:
With the present situation of our legal and judicial system, to allow the 1. A duty of public service
publication of like advertisements would aggravate what’s already a 2. A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice
deteriorating pub of the legal profession whose integrity’s been under involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability
attack by media and the community in general 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary
- all efforts should be made to regain the high esteem formerly accorded 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
to the leg profession fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing and Employees) which declares it unlawful for a public official or
directly with their clients. employees to, among others:
- Respondent advertised himself as an “Annulment Specialist,” and by this “(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless
he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage—encouraging people authorized by the Constituion or law, provided that such practice will not
who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained form conflict with official functions.”
dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so. Disposition Respondent is reprimanded for engaging in the private
- Solicitation of legal business sis not altogether proscribed, however, for practice of law. He is further ordered to cause the exclusion of his name
solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal in the firm name of any office engaged in the private practice of law.
profession.
CRUZ V SALVA
DACANAY V BAKER & MCKENZIE MONTEMAYOR; July 25, 1959
AQUINO; May 10, 1985 (chris capul)
(ice baguilat)
NATURE
NATURE Original action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition with
Administrative Case Preliminary Injunction.

FACTS FACTS
Dacanay seeks to enjoin Torres and 9 other lawyers from practicing law - A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found Castelo, de
under Baker & McKenzie (a law firm organized in Illinois, USA). Torres Jesus, Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo et al. guilty of murder. They all
used the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie on a letter to Rosie Clurman appealed and Castelo sought new trial. Castelo was again found guilty.
that asks her to release 87 shares of Cathay Products Int’l. Inc. to HE - Pres Magsaysay ordered reinvestigation. Philippine Constabulary
Gabriel (a client). Dacanay denied any liability of Clurman and asked questioned people and got confessions pointing to persons other than
whether she is being represented by Baker & McKenzie as counsel as those convicted.
well as the purpose of the letterhead. No reply coming from Clurman thus - Castelo et al wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct reinvestigation on basis of
this Administrative Case. new confessions. Fiscal conferred w/ SolGen and the Justice Sec
decided to have the results of investigation made available to counsel for
ISSUE appellants.
WON the lawyers should be enjoined from practicing law under Baker & - Chief of Phil Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the affidavits
McKenzie and confessions. Salva organized a committee for reinvestigation and
subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was implicated as instigator and
HELD mastermind in the new affidavits and confessions. Cruz’ counsel
Yes, they should be enjoined. Baker & McKenzie is an alien law firm and questioned jurisdiction of the committee and of Salva to conduct
cannot practice law in the country. Using the name constitutes preliminary investigation bec the case was pending appeal in the SC.
representation of being associated with the firm which is deemed to be Counsel filed this present petition.
unethical. Respondents are enjoined from practicing law under the firm - Salva said he subpoenaed Cruz bec of Cruz’ oral and personal request
name Baker & McKenzie. to allow him to appear at the investigation.
- SC issued writ of preliminary injunction stopping the prelim
SAMONTE V GATDULA investigation.
GONZAGA-REYES; February 26, 1999
ISSUES
(athe odi) 1. WON Salva and his committee can push through with the investigation
2. WON Cruz can be compelled to appear and testify before Salva
NATURE 3. WON Salva conducted the investigation property
Administrative matter. Grave Misconduct.
HELD
FACTS 1. Yes.
- The complainant, Julieta Borromeo Samonte charged Rolando R. - SC believed Salva that it was Cruz who personally reqested to allow
Gatdula with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in the him to appear at the investigation.
private practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as - Normally, when a criminal case handled by fiscal is tried and decided
Branch Clerk of Court. and appealed to a higher court, functions of fiscal have terminated.
- The complainant represents her sister as plaintiff in a civil case for However, Salva has justified his reinvestigation bec in the orig case, one
ejectment. Contrary to their expectation that execution will proceed, they of the defendants (Salvador Realista y de Guzman) was not included in
instead received a temporary restraining order. Santos contends that the the trial.
order was hasty and irregular as she was never notified of the application - The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not only to prosecute and secure
for preliminary injunction. conviction of the guilty but also to protect the innocent.
- Gatdula, when asked by the complainant of the reason of the decision, - Writ of preliminary injunction dissolved. Investigation may continue.
blamed Santos’ lawyer for writing the address in the complaint for - Petition for certiorari and prohibition granted in part, denied in part.
ejectment and told her that if she wanted the execution to proceed, she 2. No
should change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent, at the - Under the law, Cruz had right to be present at the investigation but he
same time giving his calling card with the name “Baligod, Gatdula, need not be present. His presence is more of a right than a legal
Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera.” obligation.
- The decision of the Court continued not to be favorable to Samonte, 3. No
which cause her to file administrative complaint against Gatdula. - Salva shld have done investigation privately in his office and not publicly
in the session hall of Municipal Court of Pasay where microphones were
ISSUE installed and media people were present. He should also not have made
WON Gatdula is guilty of infraction the media people ask questions. SC was disturbed and annoyed by such
publicity.
HELD - Salva is publicly reprehended and censured.
Yes. The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card
constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7, sub-par. (b)(2)
of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
to file one single information and drop the other four cases. The City
Fiscal sought reconsideration thereof. The respondent Judge denied the
COLLANTES V RENOMERON motion to reconsider. He took the position that the acts complained of
PER CURIAM; August 16, 1991 stemmed out of a series of continuing acts on the part of the accused, not
by different and separate sets of shots, moved by one impulse and should
(aida villanueva) therefore be treated as one crime though the series of shots killed more
than one victim; and that only one information for multiple murder should
FACTS be filed, to obviate the necessity of trying five cases instead of one.
- A complaint of disbarment is filed with a related administrative case Hence, this appeal to the Court on certiorari with a prayer for a writ of
against Renomeron of the Registrar of Deeds in Tacloban. preliminary injunction, and for other reliefs.
- Collantes was the house counsel for V & G Better Homes Subdivision
and filed the case with regard to the application of V & G for registration of ISSUE
163 pro forma Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its WON the City Fiscal shall file only one information
subdivision in Jan 1987.
- Feb 16, 1987 – no action was made by Renomeron despite follow-ups HELD
made by Collantes. Renomeron requested Collantes to submit additional - YES, ruling Article 48 provides for two classes of crimes where a single
requirements which Collantes complied with. penalty is to be imposed: first, where a single act constitutes two or more
- Renomeron suspended the registration of the documents pending grave or less grave felonies (delito compuesto); and, second, when an
compliance of V&G with certain special agreement between then that offense is a necessary means for committing the other (delito complejo). It
V&G would provide Renomeron with a weekly Tacloban-Manil round trip is to be borne in mind, at this point, that apply the first half of Article 48,
ticket with P2,000 pocket money. He said he would act favorably on their there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is
application if that agreement would be fulfilled. not written into the law.
- Collantes sent plane fare (P800) to Renomeron through his niece. But The respondent Judge reasons out that consolidation of the five cases
pocket money was not given. into one would have the salutary effect of obviating the necessity of trying
- Renomeron then imposed additional requirements which angered five cases instead of one. To save time, indeed, is laudable. Nonetheless,
Collantes, leading the latter to challenge Renomeron to act on the 163 the statute confers upon the trial judge the power to try these cases
pending applications by V&G within 24 hours. jointly, such that the fear entertained by respondent Judge could easily be
- May 22, 1987 – Renomeron denied the application for ambiguity of the remedied.
subject matter. Upon the facts and the law, we hold that the City Fiscal of Iligan City
- Collantes appealed for a reconsideration and elevated the matter to the correctly presented the five separate informations — four for murder and
Administrator of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration one for frustrated murder. A rule of presumption long familiar is that
Administration. official duty has been regularly performed. A prosecuting attorney, by the
- The NLTDRA ruled that the documents were registrable. nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal
- The NLTDRA recommended Renomeron’s case to the DOJ and the information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the
Secretary of Justice found him guilty. The president then dismissed averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different
Renomeron from public service. conclusion. This is not to discount the possibility of the commission of
- A disbarment case was then filed by Collantes against Renomeron. abuses on the part of the prosecutor. But we must have to recognize that
a prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled to work against his
ISSUE conviction. In case of doubt, we should give him the benefit thereof. A
WON the disbarment case against Renomeron would prosper given the contrary rule may result in our courts being unnecessarily swamped with
administrative case unmeritorious cases. Worse still, a criminal suspect's right to due process
— the sporting idea of fair play — may be transgressed. So it is, that in
HELD People vs. Sope, the Court made the pronouncement that "it is very
- Yes, the administrative complaint has to do with his position in public logical that the prosecuting attorney, being the one charged with the
service. The disbarment case has to do with his status as member of the prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to be filed and
Integrated Bar. cannot be controlled by the off ended party."
- Renomeron violated the lawyer’s oath. - The impact of respondent Judge's orders is that his judgment is to be
- The Code of Professional Responsibility 1.01 forbids a lawyer from substituted for that of the prosecutor's on the matter of what crime is to be
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. filed in court. The question of instituting a criminal charge is one
addressed to the sound discretion of the investigating Fiscal. The
PEOPLE V PINEDA information he lodges in court must have to be supported by facts brought
SANCHEZ; July 21, 1967 about by an inquiry made by him. It stands to reason then to say that in a
(jojo mendoza) clash of views between the judge who did not investigate and the fiscal
who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant,
those of the Fiscal's should normally prevail. In this regard, he cannot
FACTS
ordinarily be subject to dictation. We are not to be understood as saying
- On the night of July 29, 1965, the occupants of the home of the spouses
that criminal prosecution may not be blocked in exceptional cases. A relief
Teofilo Mendoza and Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza in Pugaan City of
in equity "may be availed of to stop it purported enforcement of a criminal
Iligan, were asleep. It was then that guns (rifle, caliber 22) and paliuntod
law where it is necessary (a) for the orderly administration of justice; (b) to
(homemade gun) were fired in rapid succession from outside the house.
prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and
Teofilo Mendoza fell dead. Thereafter, defendants below destroyed the
vindictive manner; (c) to avoid multiplicity of actions; (d) to afford
door of the house, entered therein, and let loose several shots killing
adequate protection to constitutional rights; and (e) in proper cases,
Neceforo Mendoza, — all minor children of the couple — and wounding
because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or was held invalid."
Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza.
Nothing in the record would as much as intimate that the present case fits
- Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo and Rufino Borres were indicted before
into any of the situations just recited.
the CFI of Lanao del Norte, as principals, in five (5) separate cases for
Disposition The writ of certiorari is granted.
murder. The five informations were based on facts gathered by the
prosecuting attorney from his investigation.
- Two of the three defendants in the five criminal cases (Tomas Narbasa MISAMIN V SAN JUAN
and Tambak Alindo) moved for a consolidation thereof into one (1) FERNANDO; August 31, 1976
criminal case. Their plea is that said cases arose out of the same incident (bry san juan)
and motivated by one impulse. The respondent Judge approved the
motion and directed the City Fiscal to unify all the five criminal cases, and FACTS
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- It certainly fails to reflect credit on a captain. in the Metro Manila Police honorable profession who does not even take care that his honor remains
force and a member of the bar, respondent Miguel A. San Juan, to be unsullied
charged with being the legal representative of certain establishments
allegedly owned by Filipinos of Chinese descent and, what is worse, with VITRIOLO V DASIG
coercing an employee, complainant Jose Misamin to agree to drop the PER CURIAM; April 1, 2003
charges filed by him against his employer Tan Hua, owner of New Cesar's
Bakery, for the violation of the Minimum Wage Law. There was a denial (lora alamin)
on the part of respondent. The matter was referred to the Office of the
Solicitor-General for investigation, report and recommendation. NATURE
Thereafter, it would seem there was a change of heart on the part of Administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an
complainant. That could very well be the explanation for the non- official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).
appearance of the lawyer employed by him at the scheduled hearings.
The efforts of the Solicitor General to get at the bottom of things were thus FACTS
set at naught. - Almost all complainants are high-ranking officers of the CHED. They
- Under the circumstances, the outcome of such referral was to be allege that while respondent was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED,
expected. For the law is rather exacting in its requirement that there be committed acts that are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule
competent and adequate proof to make out a case for malpractice. 138 of the Rules of Court
Necessarily, the recommendation was one of the complaints being - During her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, attempted to extort
dismissed. This is one of those instances then where this Court is left with from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, and
hardly any choice. Respondent cannot be found guilty of malpractice. Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as consideration for her favorable action
Respondent, as noted in the Report of the Solicitor-General, "admits on their pending applications or requests before her office
having appeared as counsel for the New Cesar's Bakery in the - Complainants likewise aver that respondent violated her oath as
proceeding before the NLRC while he held office as captain in the Manila attorney-at-law by filing eleven (11) baseless, groundless, and
Metropolitan Police. However, he contends that the law did not prohibit unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon
him from such isolated exercise of his profession. He contends that his City, which were subsequently dismissed.
appearance as counsel, while holding a government position, is not - Complainants charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b (22),
among the grounds provided by the Rules of Court for the suspension or Section 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to pay just
removal of attorneys. The respondent also denies having conspired with debts owing to “Borela Tire Supply” and “Nova’s Lining Brake & Clutch” as
the complainant Misamin's attorney in the NLRC proceeding in order to evidenced by the dishonored checks she issued, the complaint sheet, and
trick the complainant into signing an admission that he had been paid his the subpoena issued to respondent.
separation pay. Likewise, the respondent denies giving illegal protection - Complainants also allege that respondent instigated the commission of a
to members of the Chinese community in Sta. Cruz, Manila." crime against complainant Celedonia R. Coronacion and Rodrigo
Coronacion, Jr., when she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan
ISSUE Dasig, a guard of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, to draw
WON a lawyer-public officer may represent a private client during his his gun and shoot the Coronacions on the evening of May 14, 1997. As a
tenure result of this incident, a complaint for grave threats against the respondent
and her son, was lodged
HELD - Complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then
NO, but since evidence is lacking to discipline Atty. Miguel San Juan, the President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which maligned the
case is dismissed. The Court noted that the Report of the Solicitor- good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors
General did not take into account respondent's practice of his profession calculated to justify her ill motive of preventing their re-appointment and
notwithstanding his being a police official, as "this is not embraced in with the end view of securing an appointment for herself.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides the - The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline concluded that respondent
grounds for the suspension or removal of an attorney. unlawfully used her public office in order to secure financial spoils to
- The conclusion arrived at by the Solicitor-General that the complaint the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the Commission on
cannot prosper is in accordance with the settled law. As far back as in re Higher Education. It was recommended that respondent be
Tionko, decided in 1922, the authoritative doctrine was set forth by Justice suspended from the practice of law for the maximum period
Malcolm in this wise: "The serious consequences of disbarment or allowable of three (3) years with a further warning that similar action
suspension should follow only where there is a clear preponderance of in the future will be a ground for disbarment of respondent.
evidence against the respondent. The presumption is that the attorney is - The IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-2002-393,
innocent of the charges preferred and has performed his duty as an adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of the
officer of the court in accordance with his oath." The Tionko doctrine has Investigating Commissioner and Respondent was SUSPENDED
been subsequently adhered to. from the practice of law for three (3) years.
- This resolution does not in any wise take into consideration whatever
violations there might have been of the Civil Service Law in view of ISSUE
respondent practicing his profession while holding his position of Captain WON respondent attorney-at-law, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Legal
in the Metro Manila police force. That is a matter to be decided in the Services, CHED, may be disciplined by this Court for her malfeasance,
administrative proceeding as noted in the recommendation of the considering that her position, at the time of filing of the complaint, was
Solicitor-General. Nonetheless, while the charges have to be dismissed, “Chief Education Program Specialist, Standards Development Division,
still it would not be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar to Office of Programs and Standards, CHED.”
avoid all appearances of impropriety. Certainly, the fact that the suspicion
could be entertained that far from living true to the concept of a public HELD
office being a public trust, he did make use, not so much of whatever legal YES.
knowledge he possessed, but the influence that laymen could assume Ratio Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may
was inherent in the office held not only to frustrate the beneficent statutory not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge
scheme that labor be justly compensated but also to be at the beck and of his duties as a government official. However, if said misconduct as a
call of what the complainant called alien interest, is a matter that should government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer,
not pass unnoticed. Respondent, in his future actuations as a member of then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar.
the bar. should refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and The Attorney’s Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every
misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for disbarment, suspension,
also for membership in the bar. He is not worthy of membership in an or other disciplinary action. The Attorney’s Oath imposes upon every
member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. Said
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional appeared as counsel for the central Bank in connection with its petition for
Responsibility. assistance in the liquidation.
Reasoning Respondent’s misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a -22 April 1991: SB denied the motion to disqualify Atty. Mendoza in Civil
character as to affect her qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a Case No. 0005 for PCGG’s failure to prove the existence of an
lawyer, she ought to have known that it was patently unethical and illegal inconsistency between Mendoza’s former function as SolGen and his
for her to demand sums of money as consideration for the approval of present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group; it also ruled that
applications and requests awaiting action by her office. Mendoza’s appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was
- Respondent’s demands for sums of money to facilitate the processing of beyond the one-year prohibited period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act
pending applications or requests before her office violates such duty, and No. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986. PCGG
runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the Bar. Such actions did not file a MFR.
likewise run contrary to Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional -When Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099 were transferred from the SB’s 2nd
Responsibility. Division to the 5th Division, the latter also denied the motion to disqualify.
- A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his PCGG’s MFR was denied. Hence this petition.
professional obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional Responsibility,
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. KEY ISSUE
- Respondent’s attempts to extort money from persons with applications WON Rule 6.03 of the CPR applies to Atty. Mendoza.
or requests pending before her office are violative of Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar Rule 6.03: A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he
Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which had intervened while in the said service.
bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests.
Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of Obiter
monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or The History of Rule 6.03
which may be affected by the functions of his office. Respondent’s -17th and 18th centuries: ethical standards for lawyers were pervasive in
conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good moral character England and other parts of Europe; the principal thrust of the standards
required from all lawyers, specially from one occupying a high public was directed towards the litigation conduct of lawyers. It underscored the
office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any central duty of truth and fairness in litigation as superior to any obligation
act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the to the client.
citizenry in government, she must also uphold the dignity of the legal -colonial and early post-revolutionary America: The forms of lawyer
profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair regulation did not differ markedly from those in England. Only three of the
dealing. traditional core duties can be fairly characterized as pervasive in the
Disposition Respondent was found liable for gross misconduct and formal, positive law of the colonial and post-revolutionary period: the
dishonesty in violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as the Code of duties of litigation fairness, competency and reasonable fees.
Professional Responsibility, and was ordered DISBARRED. -19th century: the “dark ages” of legal ethics in the United States.
-mid 19th century: American legal reformers were filling the void in two
PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN ways: (1) David Dudley Field, the drafter of the highly influential New York
PUNO; April 12, 2005 “Field Code,” introduced a new set of uniform standards of conduct for
lawyers; (2) legal educators, such as David Hoffman and George
(marge alias) Sharswood, and many other lawyers were working to flesh out the broad
outline of a lawyer's duties.
NATURE -As in the colonial and early post-revolutionary periods, these standards
Special civil action in the SC. Certiorari and prohibition. were isolated and did not provide a comprehensive statement of a
lawyer's duties.
FACTS -end of 19th century, a new form of ethical standards began to guide
-1976: General Bank and Trust Co. (Genbank) encountered financial lawyers in their practice — the bar association code of legal ethics. The
difficulties, prompting the Central Bank to extend to it emergency loans bar codes were detailed ethical standards formulated by lawyers for
reaching a total of P310 million. Despite this, Genbank failed to recover lawyers. 2 primary sources of ethical guidance: academic discourses &
and the following year Central Bank had to issue a resolution declaring the bar association codes
Genbank insolvent and ordering its liquidation. A public bidding of -1887: Alabama - the 1st state with a comprehensive bar association code
Genbank’s assets was held; Lucio Tan Group submitted the winning bid. of ethics. 1887 Alabama Code of Ethics was the model for several states’
-Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza field a petition with CFI codes, and it was the foundation for the American Bar Association's (ABA)
praying for the court’s assistance and supervision in the liquidation as 1908 Canons of Ethics.
mandated by RA 265, section 29. -1917: Philippine Bar Association adopted as its own, Canons 1 to 32 of
-After EDSA I, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics.
ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his family and his cronies. Pursuant to this -1924: some ABA members start to question the form and function of the
mandate, PCGG filed a complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, canons. Among their concerns was the “revolving door” or “the process by
accounting, and damages against respondents Lucio Tan Group and the which lawyers and others temporarily enter government service from
Marcos family. This was docketed as Civil Case No. 0005 of the 2 nd private life and then leave it for large fees in private practice, where they
division of the Sandiganbayan (SB). In connection with this, PCGG issued can exploit information, contacts, and influence garnered in government
several writs of sequestration on the properties of the Lucio Tan Group. service.”
-Lucio Tan Group questioned the writs through petitions for certiorari, (a) Adverse-interest conflicts - exist where the matter in which the former
prohibition, and injunction with the SC. The latter referred the cases to the government lawyer represents a client in private practice is
SB for proper disposition. In these cases docketed as Civil Case Nos. substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while
0096-0099 Lucio Tan Group was represented by their counsel, former employed by the government and the interests of the current and
SolGen Estelito Mendoza who has then resumed private practice. former are adverse.
-05 Feb 1991: PCGG, invoking Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional (b) Congruent-interest representation conflicts are unique to government
Responsibility (CPR), filed motions to disqualify Atty. Mendoza as counsel lawyers and apply primarily to former government lawyers.
for respondents in Civil Case Nos. 0005 & 0096-0099. The motions allege -ABA attempted to correct and update the canons through new canons,
that Atty. Mendoza “intervened” in the acquisition of Genbank by the Lucio individual amendments and interpretative opinions. To deal with problems
Tan Group when, in his capacity as then SolGen, he advised the Central peculiar to former government lawyers, Canon 36 was minted to disqualify
Bank’s officials on the procedure to bring about Genbank’s liquidation&
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
such lawyers both for “adverse-interest conflicts” and “congruent-interest Reasoning 2 interpretations of the “intervene” (basis: Webster):
representation conflicts.” (a) “intervene” includes participation in a proceeding even if the
Canon 36. Retirement from judicial position or public employment intervention is irrelevant or has no effect or little influence.
A lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate in any matter (b) “intervene” only includes an act of a person who has the power to
upon the merits of which he has previously acted in a judicial capacity. influence the subject proceedings.
A lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public -The petition in the special proceedings is an initiatory pleading, hence, it
employ should not, after his retirement, accept employment in has to be signed by Atty. Mendoza as the then sitting Solicitor General.
connection with any matter he has investigated or passed upon while in The record is arid as to the actual participation of respondent Mendoza in
such office or employ. the subsequent proceedings.
-1946: the Philippine Bar Association again adopted as its own Canons 33 -The principal role of the court in this proceeding for dissolution is to assist
to 47 of the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. the Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against the Genbank.
-mid 20th century: growing consensus that the ABA Canons needed more The role of the court is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to
meaningful revision. 1964: ABA President-elect Lewis Powell asked for assist the Central Bank in determining the claims of creditors. In such a
the creation of a committee to study the “adequacy and effectiveness” of proceeding, the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General is not
the ABA Canons. The unfairness of Canon 36 compelled ABA to replace that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest of government.
it with Canon 9 in the 1969 ABA Model Code of Professional
Responsibility. Canon 9 states: “A lawyer should avoid even the Obiter
appearance of professional impropriety.” Balancing Policy Considerations
-The drafting committee reformulated the canons into the Model Code of -CPR Rule 6.03 represents a commendable effort on the part of the IBP to
Professional Responsibility which was approved by the ABA House of upgrade the ethics of lawyers in the government service. It should not be
Delegates in August 1969. Canon 9 was supplemented by Disciplinary interpreted to cause a chilling effect on government recruitment of able
Rule 9-101(b): “A lawyer shall not accept private employment in a matter legal talent.
in which he had substantial responsibility while he was a public employee. -At present, it is already difficult for government to match compensation
-Despite these amendments, legal practitioners remained unsatisfied with offered by the private sector and it is unlikely that government will be able
the results and indefinite standards. to reverse that situation. It is true that the only card that the government
-August 1983: ABA adopted new Model Rules of Professional may play to recruit lawyers is have them defer present income in return
Responsibility, doing away with Canon 9, citing the hopeless dependence for the experience and contacts that can later be exchanged for higher
of the concept of impropriety on the subjective views of anxious clients as income in private practice. “To make government service more difficult to
well as the norm’s indefinite nature. exit can only make it less appealing to enter.”
-1980: Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) adopted a proposed Code -In interpreting Rule 6.03, the Court also cast a harsh eye on its use as a
of Professional Responsibility which it submitted to SC for approval. The litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel as well as deprive his client of
Code was drafted to reflect the local customs, traditions, and practices of competent legal representation. The danger that the rule will be misused
the bar and to conform with new realities. to bludgeon an opposing counsel is not a mere guesswork.
-21 June 1988: SC promulgated the Code of Professional Responsibility. -Similarly, the Court in interpreting Rule 6.03 was not unconcerned with
CPR Rule 6.03 which deals particularly with former government lawyers the prejudice to the client which will be caused by its misapplication. It
retained the general structure of paragraph 2, Canon 36 of the Canons of cannot be doubted that granting a disqualification motion causes the client
Professional Ethics but replaced the expansive phrase “investigated and to lose not only the law firm of choice, but probably an individual lawyer in
passed upon” with the word “intervened.” It is, therefore, properly whom the client has confidence.
applicable to both “adverse-interest conflicts” and “congruent-interest -The Court has to consider also the possible adverse effect of a truncated
conflicts.” reading of the rule on the official independence of lawyers in the
government service.
SUB-ISSUES -No less significant a consideration is the deprivation of the former
1. WON this case involves the “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6.03 government lawyer of the freedom to exercise his profession. Given the
2. WON there exists a “congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify current state of our law, the disqualification of a former government lawyer
respondent Mendoza from representing the Lucio Tan Group. may extend to all members of his law firm.
2a. WON Atty. Mendoza’s act of advising the Central Bank on the legal -As well observed, the accuracy of gauging public perceptions is a highly
procedure to liquidate Genbank is included within the concept of “matter” speculative exercise at best which can lead to untoward results. Notably,
under Rule 6.03 the appearance of impropriety theory has been rejected in the 1983 ABA
2b. WON the intervention of Atty. Mendoza in the liquidation of Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
Genbank is significant and substantial -Also the “switching sides” concern does not cast a shadow in the case at
bar. The danger that confidential official information might be divulged is
HELD nil, if not inexistent. There are no inconsistent “sides” to be bothered
2a. NO. Ratio American Bar Association Formal Opinion 342’s definition about in the case at bar. In lawyering for the Lucio Tan Group, Atty.
of “matter” : any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction Mendoza is indirectly defending the validity of the action of Central Bank
or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and not in liquidating Genbank and selling it later to Allied Bank. Their interests
merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency coincide instead of colliding.
procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law. Disposition Petition denied. No costs.
Reasoning Based on PCGG’s case for disqualification, the “matter” or the
act of Atty. Mendoza as Solicitor General involved here is “advising the SEPARATE OPINION
Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank’s liquidation and even
filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila.”
-The procedure of liquidation is given in black and white in Republic Act
PANGANIBAN [dismiss]
No. 265, sec. 29. Said legal provision provides for the role of the SolGen -The petition should be dismissed on two grounds: (1) res judicata,
in proceedings upon insolvency. specifically, conclusiveness of judgment; and (2) prescription.
-Also, CPR Rule 6.03 cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his -The material issue in the present controversy is whether Atty. Mendoza
alleged intervention while a SolGen in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 (liquidation of may still be barred from representing these respondents despite (1) a final
Genbank) is an intervention on a matter different from the matter involved Order in another case resolving the very same ground for disqualification
in Civil Case No. 0096 (sequestration of the stocks in Allied Bank, the involving the same parties and the same subject matter as the present
successor of Genbank, on the ground that they are ill-gotten). case; and (2) the passage of a sufficient period of time from the date he
2b. NO. Ratio in light of the history of CPR Rule 6.03, the 2nd meaning is ceased to be solicitor general to the date when the supposed
more appropriate to give to the word “intervention.” The intervention disqualification (for violation of the CPR) was raised.
cannot be insubstantial and insignificant. -There is no need to delve into the question of whether Rule 6.03 has
been transgressed; there is no need to discuss the merits of the
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
questioned Sandiganbayan Resolutions allowing Atty. Mendoza to cut, how close to the line he may play, without running into trouble with
represent private respondents in Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099. After all, a the law. Rather, it is drawn for the “good man” as a beacon to assist him
Resolution issued by the same court resolving the very same issue on the in navigating an ethical course through the sometimes murky waters of
“disqualification” of Atty. Mendoza in a case involving the same parties professional conduct. (General Motors Corp. v City of New York)
and the same subject matter has already become final and immutable. It -CPR establishes the norms of conduct and ethical standards in the legal
can no longer be altered or changed. profession and the Court must not shirk from its duty to ensure that all
-CPR Rule 6.03 does not expressly specify the period of its applicability or lawyers live up to its provisions. The Court must not tolerate any
enforceability. But it cannot be inferred that the prohibition is absolute, departure from the “straight and narrow” path demanded by the ethics of
perpetual and permanent. All civil actions have a prescriptive the legal profession.
period. Unless a law makes an action imprescriptible or lays down no -The Resolution denying PCGG’s similar motion to disqualify Mendoza
other period, the action is subject to a bar by prescription five years after was an interlocutory order as it did not terminate or finally dispose of the
the right of action accrued. (Arts. 1140-1149, Civil Code; Tolentino v CA) said case. It merely settled an incidental or collateral matter arising
therein. As such, it cannot operate to bar the filing of another motion to
SANDOVAL-GUTTIERREZ [dismiss] disqualify Atty. Mendoza in the other cases.
-In evaluating motions to disqualify a lawyer, our minds are not bound by -Atty. Mendoza’s present engagement as counsel for Lucio Tan Group in
stringent rules. There is room for consideration of the combined effect of Civil Case No. 0096 violates the ethical precept embodied in Rule 6.03.
a party’s right to counsel of his own choice, an attorney’s interest in -The subject matter in Civil Case No. 0096 is connected with or related to
representing a client, the financial burden on a client of replacing a “matter,” i.e. the liquidation of Genbank, in which Atty. Mendoza had
disqualified counsel, and any tactical abuse underlying a disqualification intervened as the Solicitor General
proceeding. -Rule 6.03 applies even if Atty. Mendoza did not “switch sides” or did not
-An order denying a motion to disqualify counsel is final and, therefore, take inconsistent sides. Rule 6.03 applies even if no conflict of interest
appealable. The issue of whether or not Atty. Mendoza should be exists between Atty. Mendoza’s former government client (Central Bank)
disqualified from representing Tan et al. is separable from, independent of and his present private practice clients (respondents Tan, et al.)
and collateral to the main issues in Civil Cases Nos. 0096-0099. In short, -Rule 6.03 purposely does not contain an explicit temporal limitation since
it is separable from the merits. Clearly, the present petition for certiorari is cases have to be resolved based on their peculiar circumstances. The
dismissible. peculiar circumstances of this case justify the strict application of said
-The Resolution dated April 22, 1991 in Civil Case No. 0005 constitutes a rule.
bar to similar motions to disqualify Atty. Mendoza under the doctrine of
res judicata. The PCGG may not relitigate such issue of disqualification as TINGA [partially grant]
it was actually litigated and finally decided in G.R. Nos. 112707-09. -Section 6.03 cannot be made applicable in the present case to Atty.
-Atty. Mendoza’s participation in the liquidation of GENBANK does not Mendoza, as to do so would be violative of his right to due process.
constitute intervention. CPR Rule 6.03 cannot apply to Atty. Mendoza Whether it be at the time then Solicitor General Mendoza participated in
because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Special the process of the dissolution of General Bank in 1977, or at sometime in
Proceedings No. 107812 is an intervention in a matter different from the 1987 when he agreed to represent the respondents, the Code of
matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096. Professional Responsibility had not yet been promulgated.
-The Code of Professional Responsibility was promulgated by the
CARPIO-MORALES [grant] Supreme Court on 21 June 1988. Prior to its official adoption, there was
-The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment does not apply since in the no similar official body of rules or guidelines enacted by the Supreme
case at bar, the question of whether the motion to disqualify Atty. Court other than the provisions on Legal Ethics in the Rules of Court.
Mendoza should be granted is undoubtedly a legal question. Also, this is -Atty. Mendoza may have violated Canon 36 of the Canons of
the first time that the issue to disqualify Atty. Mendoza has been elevated Professional Ethics, which some authorities deemed as a source of legal
before the SC. ethics prior to the Code of Professional Responsibility. But the prohibition
-We cannot characterize the denial of PCGG’s motion to disqualify Atty. under Canon 36 was not prescribed by this Court or by statute as a norm
Mendoza as a final order. It is only interlocutory since it does not finally until the enactment of the Code of Professional Responsibility in 21 June
dispose of the case. 1988. Accordingly, when Atty. Mendoza agreed to represent the
-the prohibition in Rule 6.03 is perpetual. It does not prescribe in 5 yrs. respondents, there was no definitive binding rule proscribing him from
-Atty. Mendoza’s lack of participation in the decision of the Central Bank such engagement or penalizing him for such representation.
to liquidate GENBANK is immaterial. What is material is his role in
facilitating the liquidation of GENBANK through his legal expertise. In LIM-SANTIAGO V SAGUCIO
advising the Central Bank, Atty. Mendoza did not just mechanically point CARPIO; March 31, 2006
to section 29 of Republic 265. As then Solicitor General, and as a lawyer
known for his keen legal acumen, Atty. Mendoza synthesized facts, which (maia reiza)
by reason of his position he was privy to, and law with a view to
successfully liquidate the bank. NATURE
-While it is desirable to recruit competent lawyers into government Disbarment case
service, this does not justify the disturbance of our mores. The canons
and rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility must be strictly FACTS
construed. - Ruthie Lim-Santiago is the daughter and administratrix of the property of
-While financial considerations are important, they are not the sole factor Alfonso Lim, the former president of Taggat Industries. After his death,
affecting recruitment of lawyers to the government sector. I would like to Lim-Santiago took over the management of the company. Respondent
think that serving in government is its own reward. One needs only to look Carlos Sagucio was the former Personnel Manager and Retained
at all of us members of this Court to know that money is not everything. Counsel of Taggat Industries, until he was appointed Assistant Provincial
All of us have, at one point in our legal careers, been tempted by the Prosecutor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan in 1992.
promise of financial success that private practice usually brings. But in the - Some employees of Taggat filed a criminal complaint against Lim-
end, we decided to take the road less traveled and serve in government. Santiago for withholding payment of their salaries and wages without valid
And I would like to believe that each and everyone of us has made a cause for 1 year and 3 months (1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997). Sagucio, as
difference. There is more to this mortal coil than the pursuit of material the asst. Prov. Prosecutor, was assigned to conduct the preliminary
wealth. investigation. He recommended the filing of 651 Informations for violation
of Art288 of the labor code of the Philippines.
CALLEJO, SR. [partially grant] - Lim-Santiago alleges that Sagucio is guilty of representing conflicting
interests, a violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
-The Code of Professional Responsibility is not designed for Holmes’
Responsibility (CPR), and of engaging in the private practice of law while
proverbial “bad man” who wants to know just how many corners he may
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
working as a government prosecutor, which is expressly prohibited in - In a resolution calling for investigations, the Court “called to mind that a
RA6713. basic postulate of the IBP xxx is that the IBP shall be non-political in
Sagucio defends himself by saying that he accepted payment from character and that there shall be no lobbying nor campaigning in the
Taggat even after his appointment as government prosecutor but said that choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of
such payments were not for representation but for consultancy services. Delegates and of the IBP officers.
Also, he contends that 5 years have passed since he was connected with - Article I, Section 4 of IBP By-Laws emphasizes the “strictly non-political”
the company, thus there was no conflict of interest. character of the IBP:
SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. – the IBP is strictly non-political, and every
ISSUES activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall
1. WON there are conflicting interests in this case be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-
2. WON the “private practice of law” includes consultancy services judicial, or prosecutory office in the government xxx shall be eligible for
3. WON disbarment is the appropriate penalty election or appointment to any position in the IBP or any chapter thereof.
- Section 14 of By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative to
HELD IBP elections:
- There are no conflicting interests. Sagucio is not guilty of representing o Distribution of election campaign material;
conflicting interests as prohibited in Rule 15.03 of CPR. He left Taggat in o Distribution of campaign material other that a statement of the
1992, and the non-payment of wages occurred in 1996-1997, years after biodata of candidate not more than one page of legal paper;
the relation to Taggat has been terminated. In a charge for representing o Campaigning for or against any candidate, whle holding an
conflicting interests, evidence must be presented to prove that respondent elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, prosecutory office in Gov’t;
used against the former client any CONFIDENTIAL information acquired o Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of
through his previous employment. Although a lawyer owes a former client candidates, as well as the advertisement thereof;
to maintain inviolate of the client’s confidence, this responsibility does not o For purpose of influencing a member, by payment of dues or
cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer’s employment with the other indebtedness of the member; giving of food, drink,
client. That he was a former personnel manager and the case is labor- entertainment, transpo, any article of value; making a promise
related is not sufficient basis to charge Sagucio of representing conflicting or causing an expenditure to be made.
interests. - Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes the sanctions:
- The payment for consultancy services conducted by Sagucio falls under o “Violation of the by-laws of the IBP shall be a ground for the
the “private practice of law” which is specifically prohibited by RA6713 disqualification of a candidate or his removal from office if
(the court applies the liberal definition of the practice of law as given in elected, without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions upon
Cayetano v Monson). However, Sagucio cannot be punished for this any erring member xxx”
violation under the CPR, for such violations are not subject to disciplinary - Atty. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250K during his three
action under the CPR. On the other hand, this violation is also a violation weeks of campaigning; Atty. Nisce’s hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to
of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 (a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful … P216K ++, not including previous expenses for his campaign; Atty .
conduct), thus he can be punished for violating canon 1. Drilon’s campaign rang up over P600K in hotel bills (Westin).
The penalty is a suspension of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year (basis is the
Civil Service Law and Rules). ISSUE
WON the candidates are guilty of massive electioneering, inappropriate
RE: 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF use of government resources, and vote-buying during the IBP national
THE PHILIPPINES elections.
PER CURIAM; October 6, 1989
(anton arcilla) HELD
Ratio
- IBP elections should be as they are annulled.
NATURE
- The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for direct election by the House
An inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the integrated bar of the Philippines.
Delegates of officers, IBP President, and exec. VP be repealed.
The Supreme Court, en banc, exercising its power of supervision over the
- Former sstem of IBP President and Exec. VP elected by Board of
Integrated Bar, resolvd to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP
Governors from among themselves should be restored.
officers=elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports.
- At the end of President’s 2-year term, the EVP shall automatically
succeed to the office of the president. The incoming board of governors
FACTS
shall elect an EVP from among themselves.
- June 3, 1989, the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of
Reasoning
the Philippines (IBP) was held at the Philippine International Convention
- It is evident that the manner in which the principal candidates for the
Center (PICC).The newly elected officers were set to take their oath of
national positions in the Integrated Bar conducted their campaign
office on July 4, 1989, before the Supreme Court. However, because of
preparatory to the elections violated Sec. 14 of the IBP By-laws and made
widespread reports about the intensive electioneering and overspending
a travesty of the idea of a “strictly non-political” IBP shrined in Sec. 4.
by the candidates, the Supreme Court resolved to suspend the oath-
- The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only
taking of the IBP officers-elect to investigate.
violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession
- the elections were led by the main candidates for the office of IBP
which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to:
President, namely Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C.
- Obey and uphold the constitutionand the laws;
Drilon.
- Duty to promote respect for law and legal processes;
- Among the allegations were the use of government planes, and the
- Abstain from activities aimed at defiance of law or at lessening
officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting, all of
confidence in the legal system.
which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws. (“poured heart, soul,
- It is speculated that the IBP ticket to the Judicial and Bar Council as
money and influence to win over the 120 IBP delegates.”)
provided in Art. VIII Sec. 8 may be the reason why the position of IBP
- Emil Jurado (Manila Standard) reported that there was rampant vote-
president has attracted so much interest among the lawyers.
buying by some members of the U.P. Sigma Rho Fraternity as well as by
- The decision is meant to impress upon participant the seriousness of
some lawyers of ACCRA, and that government positions were promised
their misconduct, and to restore the non-political character of the IBP.
to others by the office of the Labor Secretary.
- There was also the billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush hotels
where they were reportedly “wined and dined continuously, womened, SANTOS V LLAMAS
and subjected to endless haggling over the price of their votes xxx which MENDOZA; January 20, 2000
ranged from P15K to P20K, and on election day, to as much as P50K. (dahls salamat)
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- On September 2003, the Court adopted the recommendation of Justice
FACTS Vitug and resolved to nullify the examination in Mercantile Law and to
Petitioner’s Claim: hold another exam on the said subject against which petitions were filed.
-Llamas has not indicated proper PTR and IBP OR No and data in his The petitions voiced out the support to nullifying the exam on the said
pleadings, he merely indicates IBP Rizal 259060 as his PTS and IBP OR subject and not to take another exam due to the emotional, physical and
No for 3 years as shown in various court pleadings. financial burdens it will cause the barristers. Alternative proposals were
-Llamas’ last payment of IBP dues, as certified by IBP pres, was in 1991 submitted to the Court. The Court moved to nullify and to spread out the
--in the context of Rule 138 section 1 that only a duly admitted member of weight of the Mercantile Law among the remaining seven bar subjects.
the bar “who is in good and regular stnding is entitled to practice law” and - The Court resolved also to create a Committee composed of three
Rule 139-A,Section 10 which provides that “default in the payment of retired members of the Court that would conduct a thorough investigation
annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in of the incident subject of the September 23, 2003 resolution. The
the integrated bar,and default in such payment for one year shall be a Investigating Committee found that the leaked test questions in Mercantile
ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Law were the questions which the examinee, Atty. Balgos had prepared
Roll of Attorneys and submitted to Justice Jose Vitug. His questions constituted 82% of the
-respondent’s track record shows that he was once dismissed as Pasay questions asked in the examination in Mercantile Law in the morning of
City Judge, and was convicted of estafa. September 21, 2003, Sunday, in some cases with slight changes which
Respondent’s Comment: were not substantial and in other cases exactly as Atty. Balgos, 71 years
-SC has already dismissed the case for his dismissal as well as the old, proposed.
criminal case, and he was in fact promoted as RTC Judge, - The circumstances that the leaked test questions consisted entirely of
-Respondent is engaged only in a limited practice of law,his principal test questions prepared by Atty. Balgos proves conclusively that the
occupation being a farmer leakage originated from his office, not from the Office of Justice Vitug.
-Being a senior citizen he is exempt from payment of taxes,and he Atty. Balgos claimed that the leaked test questions were prepared by him
honestly believes that his dues with the IBP is covered by such exemption on his computer. Without any doubt, the source of the leaked test
-in fact he does not exercise his rights to vote as an IBP member questions was Atty. Balgos’ computer. The culprit who stole or
-he is willing to pay his dues should he be in fact not exempt from downloaded them from Atty. Balgos’ computer without the latter’s
payment thereof knowledge and consent, and who faxed them to other persons, was Atty.
Balgos’ legal assistant, Atty. Danilo De Guzman, who voluntarily
ISSUES confessed the deed to the Investigating Committee. De Guzman revealed
1.WON RA 7432 (Senior Citizen) exempts respondent from payment of that he faxed the test questions, with the help of his secretary Villasis to
his dues with the IBP his frat brods in Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity, namely, Garvida, Arlan,
2.WON respondent is guilty of misleading the court of his standing with and Erwin Tan. In turn, Garvida faxed the test questions to Iñigo and
the IBP for using the same IBP OR number for at least six years Bugain. Iñigo passed a copy or copies to other Betan Guiapal who gave a
copy to the MLQU-Beta Sigma’s Most Illustrious Brother, Ronald Collado
HELD who ordered the printing and distribution of 30 copies to the MLQU’s 30
1.RA 7432 exempts him only from payment of taxes but not from payment bar candidates.
of his association dues such as IBP dues. Since he openly admitted that - Atty De Guzman’s act of downloading Balgos’ test questions in
he was still engaged in the practice of law eventhough his practice is mercantile law from the latter’s computer, without his knowledge and
already limited he is still subject to the payment of IBP dues and failure to permission, was a criminal act of larceny. It was theft of intellectual
do so would warrant his suspension under Sec 10 of Rule 139-A. He can property.
only engage in the practice of law by paying his dues and it doesn’t matter - Besides theft, De Guzman also committed an unlawful infraction of
if his practice is limited. Balgos’ right to privacy of communication and to security of his papers
2.By Indicationg IBP Rizal 259060 in his pleadings, he is guilty of and effects against unauthorized search and seizure—rights zealously
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he has paid his dues to protected by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. He transgressed the
IBP Rizal Chapter and of violating Code of Professional Responsibility very first canon of the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility which
which provides: provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
Rule 1.01-A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,dishonest,immoral or land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.
deceitful conduct. - De Guzman also violated rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the Code of Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar, which
the legal profession,and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. provide:
CANON 10 – A Lawyer owes candor,fairness nd goodfaith to the court. Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
Rule 10.01- A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,nor consent to the doing deceitful conduct.
of an court;nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any Canon 7—A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
artifice. legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Disposition Because of his old age, respondent was only suspended from - He is guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. Also,
practice of law for one year or until he pays his dues. the Investigating committee does not believe that he acted alone. Palma,
secretary of Atty. Balgos and Atienza knew of the password. Certain
brods should also be investigated. The committee does not believe De
RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS Guzman did this out of love for the fraternity. There must have been an
PER CURIAM; February 4, 2004 ulterior material consideration for his breaking the law and tearing the
(chris lao) shroud of secrecy that, he very well knows, covers the bar examinations.
- Atty. Balgos is also negligent.He could have just used the typewriter
NATURE considering his lack of adeptness with the computer.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Bar Scandal.
ISSUE
FACTS WON Danilo De Guzman should be disbarred
- On September 22, 2003, the day following the bar examination in
Mercantile Law, Justice Jose C. Vitug, Chairman of the 2003 Bar HELD
Examinations Committee, was apprised of a rumored leakage in the YES. He should be disbarred plus he ought to make a public apology and
examination on the subject. He then reported to Chief Justice Hilario pay damages to the Supreme Court
Davide, Jr. and to the other members of the Court, recommending that the - Atty. Balgos should be reprimanded by the Court and make a written
examination on the subject be nullified and that an investigation be apology as a result of his negligence. He is not entitled to receive any
conducted forthwith. honorarium as examiner for that subject.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- Further examination of the others should be held to show accountability represented himself as single since it was known in the NBI that he was
and also to find out how De Guzman was able to secure a copy of the already married and with children.; complainant is almost 10 years older
Supreme Court’s CALR database without the court’s permission. than him and knew beforehand that he is already married; the child borne
by complainant is not his, because the complainant was seeing other men
LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR., at the time they were having an affair. He admits that he signed the
REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF IBP affidavit dated September 10, 1997 but explains that he only did so to
save complainant from embarrassment. Also, he did not know at the time
DUES that complainant was seeing other men.
CHICO-NAZARIO; May 9, 2005 - The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Castillo guilty of
(keefe dela cruz) gross immoral conduct and recommends that he be meted the penalty of
indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
NATURE
Bar Matter in the Supreme Court. Request for Exemption from Payment of ISSUES
IBP Dues. 1. WON respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct
2. WON it is relevant to this case if the complainant knew he was married
FACTS 3. WON the respondent should be disbarred
- Petitioner, Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr., is being assessed P12,035 in IBP
dues for the years 1977-2005 HELD
- After admittance to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the 1. YES
Phil Civil Service from 1962 to 1986, then migrated to, and worked in, the - The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
US from 1986 to his retirement in 2003. The Code of Professional Responsibility:
“Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
ISSUES immoral or deceitful conduct.
WON Petitioner’s inactivity in the practice of law that is, when he was in “CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
the Civil Service and when working abroad, entitles him to exemption from dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the
payment of IBP dues. Integrated Bar.”
“Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
HELD adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should
Ratio No. he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
Reasoning manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”
- The integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the Immoral conduct has been defined as:
entire law population. This requires membership and financial support of “xxx that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as
every attorney as condition sine qua non to the practice of law and the to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable
retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the SC. This is toward members of the community. Furthermore, such conduct must
defraying the expenses of regulation of the profession to which they not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be
themselves belong. so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as
- Membership in the bar is a privilege (as opposed to a property right) to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such
burdened with conditions, one of which is the payment of membership scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
dues. Failure to abide by any of them entails the loss of such privilege if common sense of decency.”
the gravity thereof warrants. *Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below
Disposition Wherefore, petitioner’s request for exemption from payment the standards of morality required of every lawyer. Moreover, the attempt
of IBP dues for the years 1977-2005 is Denied within 10 days from receipt of respondent to renege on his notarized statement recognizing and
of this decision, failure to do so will merit suspension from the practice of undertaking to support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain
law. unscrupulousness on his part which is highly censurable, unbecoming a
member of a noble profession, tantamount to self-stultification.
- This Court has repeatedly held: “as officers of the court, lawyers must
ZAGUIRRE V CASTILLO
not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of
PER CURIAM; MARCH 6, 2003 good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest
(sarah Cabrera) moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar
and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
NATURE relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave
Petition for Disbarment on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
(Adulterous Relationship). flouting those moral standards.”
*Complainant he seeks understanding from the Court, pointing out that
FACTS “men by nature are polygamous, and that what happened between them
- Complainant and respondent met while working in the NBI. Respondent was “nothing but mutual lust and desire.” The Court is not convinced. In
courted complainant and promised to marry her while representing fact, it is appalled at the reprehensible, amoral attitude of the respondent.
himself to be single. Soon they had an intimate relationship that started 2. NO
sometime in 1996 and lasted until 1997. During their affair, respondent *That complainant entered into a relationship with him knowing full well
was preparing for the bar examinations which he passed. On May 10, 1997, his marital status does not absolve him of gross immorality for what is in
he was admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar. question in a case like this is respondent’s fitness to be a member of the
- It was only around the first week of May 1997 that complainant first legal profession. It is not dependent whether or not the other party
learned that respondent was already married when his wife went to her knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship with him. In Mortel vs.
office and confronted her about her relationship with respondent. Aspiras: “In a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the complainant
- On September 10, 1997, executed an affidavit, admitting his relationship is in pari delicto because this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the
with the complainant and recognizing the unborn child she was carrying complainant, but one to purge the law profession of unworthy members, to
as his. protect the public and the courts.”
- On December 09, 1997, complainant gave birth to a baby girl, Aletha *The illicit relationship with Carmelita took place while respondent
Jessa. By this time however, respondent had started to refuse recognizing was preparing to take the bar examinations. Thus, it cannot be said
the child and giving her any form of support. that it is unknown to him that an applicant for admission to
- Respondent claims that: he never courted the complainant; what membership in the bar must show that he is possessed of good
transpired between them was nothing but mutual lust and desire; he never moral character, a requirement which is not dispensed with upon
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
admission to membership of the bar. This qualification is not only a - The Court then deferred setting the date of the oath-taking of respondent
condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its Sabandal and required Judge Lachica to inform the Court of the outcome
continued possession is essential to maintain one’s good standing in of the case Republic v. Sabandal. Judge Pacifico Garcia, who succeeded
the profession. Judge Lachica, informed the Court on Dec. 12, 1990, that Sabandal’s
3. NO case was already considered closed and terminated, and that the
Clearly therefore, respondent violated the standards of morality required principal parties have reached an amicable settlement approved by the
of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly. trial court. Judge Garcia’s letter was noted in the Resolution of Jan. 29,
*As consistently held by this Court, disbarment shall not be meted out if a 1991, where complainants Tan, Boquia and Dagpin were required to
lesser punishment could be given. Records show that from the time he comment on said Judge’s letter.
took his oath in 1997, he has severed his ties with complainant and now - On Dec. 20, 1990, a certification was sent by Exec. Judge Jesus
lives with his wife and children in Mindoro. As of now, the Court does not Angeles of RTC of ZDN upon request of Sabandal, certifying that he has
perceive this fact as an indication of respondent’s effort to mend his ways no pending case with his Court and that he has no cause to object to his
or that he recognizes the impact of his offense on the noble profession of admission to the Bar.
law. Nevertheless, the Court deems it more appropriate under the - Meanwhile, Sabandal reiterated his prayer to be allowed to take the
circumstances that indefinite suspension should be meted out than lawyer’s oath in a motion dated June 8, 1991. The Court again deferred
disbarment. The suspension shall last until such time that respondent is action on the motion pending the complainants’ compliance with the Jan.
able to show, to the full satisfaction of the Court, that he had instilled in 29, 1991 resolution.
himself a firm conviction of maintaining moral integrity and uprightness - Only complainant Tan complied, and stated in a comment dated Aug.
required of every member of the profession. 29, 1991, that the termination of Sabandal’s civil case is proof of his
The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for sincere reformation, and repentance.
any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it - Finally, in a Manifestation, dated Dec. 6, 1991, Sabandal reiterated his
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good plea to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.
demeanor.
Disposition Court finds respondent GUILTY of Gross Immoral Conduct ISSUE
and ordered to suffer INDEFINITE SUSPENSION from the practice of WON Respondent Sabandal should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath
law.
HELD
TAN V SABANDAL Ratio The practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed
upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also
MELENCIO-HERRERA; February 24, 1992 known to possess good moral character. Although the term “good moral
(jat tabamo) character” admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as “including
at least common honesty.” It has also been held that no moral
FACTS qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or
- Nov. 29, 1983 - Court sustained charge of unauthorized practice of law candor.
filed against respondent Sabandal and denied the latter’s petition to be No. The Resolution of Feb. 10, 1989, allowing Sabandal to take the oath
allowed to take oath as member of the Phil. Bar and to sign the roll of 10 years after passing the Bar, was prior to the Court receiving the
attorneys. objections by complainants, and before it had become aware of the
- From 1984-1988 - Sabandal filed motions for reconsideration all of which gravity of the civil case against him.
either denied or noted without action. - As it turned out, the case of Republic v. Sabandal was brought about
- Feb. 10, 1989 – Court finally allowed Sabandal to take the lawyer’s oath when Sabandal, by way of his employment as Land Investigator at the
after consideration of his plea for mercy and forgiveness, willingness to Bureau of Lands procured a certificate of free patent over a parcel of land
reform and several testimonies attesting to his good moral character and belonging to public domain (which he could not but have known to be
civic consciousness. However, before a date could be set for Sabandal’s public land), which he used as security for mortgage in order to obtain a
oath taking, complainants Dagpin, Tan and Boquia each filed motions for loan. The Case was eventually settled when respondent surrendered the
reconsideration of the Resolution of Feb, 10, 1989. bogus certificate of title to the government and paid-off the mortgagor.
- Complainant Tan contests the testimonial of IBP Zamboanga Del Norte The Solicitor General did not object to the approval of the settlement and
Chapter (ZDN) certifying that respondent was acting with morality and has even stated that, “the amicable settlement may amount to a confession by
been careful in his actuations in the community. Tan claims that said the defendant.” The Court found it manipulative on his part to take
testimonial was signed only by the then President of that IBP chapter, advantage of his employment to facilitate such an act and a manifestation
without authorization from its Board of Officers. Attached to her motion of gross dishonesty while in the public service, which cannot be cannot be
was a certification signed by the current IBP ZDN Chapter President Atty. erased by termination of his case where no determination of his guilt or
Nuevas, stating that the present Board of Officers had not issued any innocence was made because the suit had been compromised.
testimonial attesting to the good moral character and civic consciousness - The Court also noted that at the time the case was instituted, Sabandal
of Sabandal. Tan later on desisted and informed the Court that her had already been filing motions for reconsideration alleging his good
relationship with Sabandal “has already been restored,” as he had asked moral character without mentioning the pendency of the civil case against
her forgiveness and that she finds no necessity in pursuing her case him. His failure to reveal to this Court the pendency of the civil case for
against him, even recommending his admission to the legal profession. Reversion filed against him during the period that he was submitting
- Complainants Boquia and Dagpin submitted their own comments several motions for reconsideration reveals his lack of candor and
vehemently contesting the Court’s Resolution setting the date for truthfulness.
respondent’s oath-taking and filed a separate comment as regards - As to the testimonials attesting to his good moral character, they were
complainant Tan’s personal disposition, questioning whether personal confined to lack of knowledge of the pendency of any criminal case
forgiveness is enough basis to exculpate and obliterate their cases against him and were obviously made without awareness of the facts and
- The Executive Judge of ZBN RTC, Judge Pelagio Lachica, in a separate circumstances surrounding the case instituted by the Government against
comment stated that he is not well acquainted personally with the him. Those testimonials can not, therefore, outweigh nor smother his acts
respondent and unaware of any acts committed by him so as to disqualify of dishonesty and lack of good moral character.
him from admission to the Bar. Said Judge also mentioned that there is a - That complainants, namely, Boquia and Dagpin have not submitted any
Civil Case, Rep. of the Phil. v. Sabandal which was pending in the opposition to his motion to take the oath, is of no moment. They have
Supreme Court. The IBP ZBN chapter also submitted a certification that already expressed their objections in their earlier comments. That
Sabandal has not been convicted of any crime and that there is no complainant Tan has withdrawn her objection to his taking the oath can
pending criminal case against him, therefore finding no reason to neither tilt the balance in his favor, the basis of her complaint treating as it
disqualify him from admission to the Bar. does of another subject matter.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
Disposition Respondent Sabandal found to be unfit to become a member Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite could comply with said order,
of the BAR, Court’s Resolution of Feb. 10, 1989 is recalled and his prayer the defendant Spouses Alvaran on April 15, 1996, filed a motion to cancel
to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath is denied. lis pendens. On July 19, 1996, petitioner, the newly appointed counsel of
Royal Bechtel Builders, Inc., filed an opposition to the motion to cancel lis
TAPUCAR V TAPUCAR pendens. On August 16, 1996, the motion to cancel lis pendens was
PER CURIAM; July 30, 1998 granted by the court. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which
was opposed by the defendants. On November 5, 1996, petitioner filed
(terry ridon) an Urgent Motion to Resolve, and on November 6, 1996, filed a Rejoinder
to Opposition and a Motion for Contempt of Court.
FACTS - During the hearing of the motion for contempt of court held on
- Complainant Remedios Tapucar seeks the disbarment of husband, Atty. December 5, 1996, the following incident transpired (pls see case for full
Lauro Tapucar, on the ground of continuing grossly immoral conduct for stenographic record of incident):
cohabiting with Elena Pena under scandalous circumstances. [discussing Deputy Reg of Deed’s manifestation that the receiving clerk
- Prior to complaint, he has already been charged four times for conduct did not inform him of the court order]
unbecoming of an officer, and has already been suspended, and ATTY. BUGARING: Yes your Honor please, we know that but we
dismissed from being a CFI judge want to be specific because we will be [filing] a case against this
- The suspension and dismissal on immorality did not stop him from receiving clerk who did not [inform] him your Honor please, with this
continue living with Elena and leaving Remedios and her 11 children. He manifestation of the Deputy of the Register of Deeds that is
and Elena even moved back to Antipolo from GenSan, where they got irregularity in the performance of the official duty of the clerk not to
married despite the subsistence of a previous marriage inform the parties concerned.
- His lawyer-daughter filed the disbarment proceedings, represented her COURT: Counsel, the Court would like to find out who this fellow who is
mother, from which the IBP recommended his disbarment taking the video recording at this proceedings. There is no
permission from this Court that such proceedings should be taken.
ISSUE ATTY. BUGARING: Your Honor, my Assistant. I did not advise him to
WON the recommendation for disbarment is justified take a video he just accompanied me this morning.
COURT: Right, but the video recording is prepared process and you
HELD should secure the permission of this Court.
- The recommendation by the IBP is sufficient to justify his disbarment as ATTY. BUGARING: Actually, I did not instruct him to take some video
a good moral character is not only a condition precedent for admission to tape.
the legal profession but must remain intact in order to maintain good COURT: Why would he be bringing camera if you did not give him the go
standing in the profession. It is essential that we have a high-toned sense signal that shots should be done.
of morality ATTY. BUGARING: This Court should not presume that, your Honor
- CPR Rule 7.03 is clear – that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that please, we just came from an occasion last night and I am not yet
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in come home, your Honor please. I could prove your Honor please,
public of private life behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the that the contents of that tape is other matters your Honor please. I
legal profession was just surprised why he took video tape your Honor please, that
- Lawyers must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, we ask the apology of this Court if that offend this Court your Honor
especially Tapucar as he was once a member of the bench who must be please.
free from impropriety; like judges, lawyers are invested with public trust, COURT: It is not offending because this is a public proceedings but the
that faith and confidence by the public to the law is ensured necessary authority or permission should be secured.
- As such, the court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct ATTY. BUGARING: In fact I instructed him to go out, your Honor.
whether in his professional or personal capacity, but this is only exercised COURT: After the court have noticed that he is taking a video tape.
if there is a clear case of misconduct ATTY. BUGARING: Yes, your Honor, in fact that is not my personal
- In case at bar, despite the previous sanctions, he still persisted in his problem your Honor please, that is personal to that guy your Honor
illicit relations and arrogant even, in the face of charges against him. All of please if this representation is being ….
these are violative of the lawyer’s oath and in great disregard of the law COURT: That is very shallow, don’t give that alibi.
ATTY. BUGARING: At any rate, your Honor please, we are going to mark
our documentary evidence as part of our motion for contempt, your
Honor please.
COURT: What has the Register of Deeds got to say with this matter?
ATTY. CONCEPCION (Deputy Reg of Deeds): Well as I have said before,
BUGARING V ESPANOL I have not received any motion regarding this contempt you are
DE LEON; January 19, 2001 talking. I am willing now to testify.
ATTY. BUGARING: Your Honor I am still of the prosecution stage, it is
(ricky cantre) not yet the defense. This is a criminal proceedings, contempt
proceedings is a criminal.
NATURE ATTY. CONCEPCION: Your Honor please, may I ask for the assistance
Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision dated March 6, 1998 of the from the Fiscal.
Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of COURT: If this is going to proceed, we need the presence of a Fiscal or a
Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite, declaring petitioner Rexie Efren A. counsel for the Register of Deeds.
Bugaring guilty in direct contempt of court. ....................
ATTY. CONCEPCION: As a matter of fact I have a lawyer here, Atty.
FACTS Barzaga if he is willing
- The incident subject of the petition occurred during a hearing held on ATTY. BARZAGA: Yes, your Honor, I will just review the records.
December 5, 1996 of Royal Becthel Builders, Inc. vs. Spouses Luis ATTY. BUGARING: Anyway your Honor please, I will not yet present my
Alvaran and Beatriz Alvaran, et al., for Annulment of Sale and Certificates witness but I will just mark our documentary exhibits which are part
of Title, Specific Performance and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary of the record of the case and thereafter your Honor please….
Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order in the sala of respondent COURT: You wait for a minute counsel because there is a preparation
judge Dolores S. Español of the RTC of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite. being done by newly appointed counsel of the respondent, Atty.
- Pursuant to a motion filed by the previous counsel of Royal Bechtel Barzaga is considered as the privately hired counsel of the register
Builders, Inc., the trial court issued an order on February 27, 1996 of deeds and the respondent of this contempt proceedings. How
directing the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite to annotate at much time do you need to go over the record of this case so that we
the back of certain certificates of title a notice of lis pendens. Before the can call the other case in the meanwhile.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
ATTY. BARZAGA: Second call, your Honor. please, I’ve been winning in many certiorari cases, your Honor.
------------------ COURT: Okay, okay, do that, do that. I am going to cite you for contempt
COURT: Are you ready Atty. Barzaga? of Court. (Banging the gavel) You call the police and I am going to
ATTY. BARZAGA: Yes, your Honor. Well actually your Honor, after send this lawyer in jail. (Turning to the Sheriff)
reviewing the record of the case your Honor, I noticed… [quite a ATTY. BUGARING: I am just manifesting and arguing in favor of my
long manifestation followed but irrelevant to this case] client your Honor please.
ATTY. BUGARING: Your Honor please, may we proceed your Honor, will COURT: You have been given enough time and you have been abusing
first mark our documentary evidence. the discretion of this Court.
COURT: You wait until the Court allows you to do what you want to do, ATTY. BUGARING: I am very sorry your Honor, if that is the appreciation
okay. The counsel has just made manifestation, he has not prayed of the Court but this is one way I am protecting my client, your
for anything. So let us wait until he is finished and then wait for the Honor.
direction of this Court what to do to have an orderly proceedings in COURT: That is not the way to protect your client that is an abuse of the
this case. discretion of this Court. (Turning to the Sheriff) “Will you see to it
ATTY. BARZAGA: Considering your Honor, that the issues appear to be a that this guy is put in jail.”
little bit complicated… [continued manifestation… Judge Español - Pursuant to said Order, the petitioner served his three (3) day sentence
making intermittent comments] and paid the fine of P3,000. The CA found that it was obvious that the
ATTY. BUGARING: Your Honor please, it is the position of this petitioner was indeed arrogant, at times impertinent too argumentative to
representation your Honor please, that we will be marking first our the extent of being disrespectful, annoying and sarcastic towards the
documentary evidence because this is set for hearing for today, your court. It affirmed the order of the respondent judge, but found that the fine
Honor please. of P3,000 exceeded the limit of P2,000 prescribed by the ROC and
COURT: If you are going to mark your evidence and they do not have ordered the excess of P1,000 returned to petitioner.
their comment yet what are we going to receive as evidence.
ATTY. BUGARING: If your Honor please… ISSUE
COURT: Will you listen to the Court and just do whatever you have to do WON the contempt order by Judge Español had factual basis
after the submission of the comment.
ATTY. BUGARING: I am listening, your Honor please, but the record will HELD
show that the motion for contempt was copy furnished with the Yes
Register of Deeds and Diosdado Concepcion. Ratio The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is
COURT: Precisely, if you are listening then you will get what the Court essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the
would want to do. This should be an orderly proceedings and enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and
considering that this is a Court of record the comment has to be in consequently, to the due administration of justice. Direct contempt is
first then in your reply you can submit your evidence to rebut the committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge and can be
argument that is going to be put up by the respondent and so we will punished summarily without hearing.
be able to hear the case smoothly. Reasoning Petitioner cannot claim that there was irregularity in the
ATTY. BUGARING: My point here your Honor please, is that the actuation of respondent judge in issuing the contempt order inside her
respondent had been long time furnished of this contempt chamber without giving the petitioner the opportunity to defend himself or
proceedings. With a copy of the motion they should have filed it in make an immediate reconsideration. The records show that petitioner was
due time in accordance with the rules and because it is scheduled for cited in contempt of court during the hearing in the sala of respondent
trial, we are ready to mark our evidence and present to this Court, judge, and he even filed a motion for reconsideration of the contempt
your Honor. order on the same day. Petitioner’s alleged deference to the trial court in
COURT: (Banging the gavel) Will you listen! consistently addressing the respondent judge as “your Honor please”
ATTY. BUGARING: I am listening, your Honor. throughout the proceedings is belied by his behavior therein:
COURT: And this Court declares that you are out of order. 1. The veiled threat to file a petition for certiorari against the trial court is
ATTY. BUGARING: Well, if that is the contention of the Court your Honor contrary to Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
please, we are all officers of the Court, your Honor, please, we have Responsibility which mandates that “a lawyer shall abstain from
also ---- and we know also our procedure, your Honor. scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
COURT: If you know your procedure then you follow the procedure of the Courts”.
Court first and then do whatever you want. 2. The hurled uncalled for accusation that the respondent judge was
ATTY. BUGARING: Yes, your Honor please, because we could feel the partial in favor of the other party is against Rule 11.04, Canon 11 of the
antagonistic approach of the Court to this representation ever since I Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers from attributing
appeared your Honor please and I put on record that I will be filing to a judge “motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to
an inhibition to this Hon. Court. the case”.
COURT: Do that right away. (Banging the gavel) 3. Behaving without due regard to the trial court’s order to maintain order
ATTY. BUGARING: Because we could not find any sort of justice in town. in the proceedings is in utter disregard to Canon 1 of the Canons of
COURT: Do that right away. Professional Ethics which makes it a lawyer’s duty to “maintain towards
ATTY. BUGARING: We are ready to present our witness and we are the courts (1) respectful attitude” in order to maintain its importance in the
deprive to present our witness. administration of justice, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
COURT: You have presented a witness and it was an adverse witness Responsibility which mandates lawyers to “observe and maintain the
that was presented. respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on
ATTY. BUGARING: I did not. similar conduct by others”.
COURT: With respect to this, the procedure of the Court is for the 4. Behaving without due regard or deference to his fellow counsel who at
respondent to file his comment. the time he was making representations in behalf of the other party, was
ATTY. BUGARING: Well your Honor please, at this point in time I don’t rudely interrupted by the petitioner and was not allowed to further put a
want to comment on anything but I reserve my right to inhibit this word in edgewise is violative of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Honorable Court before trying this case. Responsibility and Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which
COURT: You can do whatever you want. obliges a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
ATTY. BUGARING: Yes, your Honor, that is our prerogative your Honor. toward his professional colleagues, and
COURT: As far as this Court is concerned it is going to follow the rules. 5. The refusal of the petitioner to allow the Registrar of Deeds of the
ATTY. BUGARING: Yes, your Honor, we know all the rules. Province of Cavite, through counsel, to exercise his right to be heard is
COURT: Yes, you know your rules that’s why you are putting the cart against Section 1 of Article III, 1997 Constitution on the right to due
ahead of the horse. process of law, Canon 18 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which
ATTY. BUGARING: No your Honor, I’ve been challenged by this Court mandates a lawyer to always treat an adverse witness “with fairness and
that I know better than this Court. Modestly (sic) aside your Honor
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
due consideration,” and Canon 12 of Code of Professional Responsibility - the court concurred with IBP’s findings but reduced the suspension to 3
which insists on a lawyer to “exert every effort and consider it his duty to months
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.”
The Court cannot therefore help but notice the sarcasm in the petitioner’s SUAREZ V SALAZAR
use of the phrase “your honor please.” For, after using said phrase he RESOLUTION; September 29, 1999
manifested utter disrespect to the court in his subsequent utterances.
Surely this behavior from an officer of the Court cannot and should not be
(rean balisi)
countenanced, if proper decorum is to be observed and maintained during
court proceedings. NATURE
A lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his client’s cause. He Motion to Expunge All Pleading Filed by Atty. Filemon A. Manangan with
should not forget that he is an officer of the court, bound to exert every Motion to Hold Him in Contempt of Court or to Dismiss Petion
effort and placed under duty, to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice pursuant to Canon 12, Canons of Professional FACTS
Responsibility. He should not, therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to At the hearing on the same date, Atty. Filemon A. Manangan admitted
defeat the ends of justice per Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Canons of that he is not a lawyer entitled to practice law in the Philippines. He is also
Professional Responsibility, or unduly delay a case, impede the execution the same “Filemon A. Manangan” who was found by the Court in Filemon
of a judgment or misuse court processes, in accordance with Rule 12.04, Manangan v. CFI Nueva Vizcaya, Br.28, decided on August 30, 1999, to
Canon 12 of the same Canons. Lawyers should be reminded that their be in reality Andres Culanag who is not a member of the Philippine Bar.
primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any
conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of ISSUE
justice contravenes such lawyer’s duty. WON Filemon Manangan / Andres Culanag should be held in indirect
Disposition Decision of the CA affirmed. RTC ordered to return to the contempt of the Court
petitioner, Rexie Efren A. Bugaring, the sum of P1,000 out of the original
fine of P3,000. HELD
Yes. Despite the facts as found by the Court, he has continued to
CAMACHO V PANGULAYAN misrepresent himself to be an attorney-at-law and has appeared as
VITUG; March 22, 2000 counsel for petitioners in this case. Atty. Filemon A. Manangan, who is in
reality Andres Culanag, is hereby declared in indirect contempt of this
(kiyo miura) Court. Wherefore, he is hereby sentenced to 3 months imprisonment to
be served at the Headquarters of the National Bureau of Investigation,
NATURE Taft Ave., Manila, until further orders of this Court.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Violation of the Code
of Professional Ethics AGUIRRE V RANA
FACTS
CARPIO; June 10, 2003
- 9 students from the AMA Computer College (AMACC), all members of (monch bacani)
the Editorial Board of DATALINE, allegedly published certain
objectionable features NATURE
- the Student Disciplinary Tribunal found them guilty and the students Administrative matter on unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct,
were expelled violation of law and grave misrepresentation
- the 9 students appealed but were denied by the AMACC President
giving rise to a civil case calling for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary FACTS
Mandatory Injunction with Camacho as their counsel and Pangulayan and - On May 21, 2001, one day before respondent Edwin Rana participated
associates representing the defendant, AMACC the oath-taking of successful bar examinees as member of the Philippine
- while the case was pending, letters of apology and re-admission bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition
agreements were separately executed by and/or in behalf of the students for Denial of Admission to the Bar on the ground of unauthorized practice
by their parents of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.
- following this, the Pangulayan Law Offices filed a Manifestation stating, - The Court allowed respondent to take the oath, but did not allow him to
among other things, that 4 of the students had acknowledged their guilt sign the Roll of Attorneys.
and agreed to terminate all proceedings - The complainant charges him with unauthorized practice of law and
- apparently, Pangulayan procured and effected the re-admission grave misconduct since she claims that he already appeared as counsel
agreements through negotiations with said students and their parents for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate of Mandaon, Masbate,
without communicating with Camacho George Bunan before the Municipal Board of Canvassers. She also
claims that he signed the pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal
ISSUE Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts
WON Pangulayan is guilty of disregarding professional ethics for the Office of Vice-Mayor as counsel for the said candidate.
- On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that the
HELD respondent is a municipal government employee and as such, he is not
YES, this action violates Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative
which states: body.
“A lawyer should not in anyway communicate upon the subject of - On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant
controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he accuses respondent of acting as counsel George Bunan without the latter
undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should engaging respondent’s services. Complainant claims that respondent
only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice
particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not mayoralty candidate.
represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to - Respondent claims though George Bunan sought his specific
law.” assistance, “he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not as a lawyer but
- respondent violated professional ethics and disregarded a duty owing to as a person who knows the law.” He also admitted signing the pleading,
his colleague but not as a lawyer.
- the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a resolution suspending - In reply to the charge of violation of law, he claims that he already
Pangulayan for 6 months and dismissed the case against the other resigned from the said government post May 11, 2001. He further claims
respondents since they took no part in it that the complaint is politically charged since the complainant is the
daughter of the losing candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- In the complainant’s reply to the respondent’s comments, she further he had performed his duties with honesty and integrity and it was only in
alleges that on May 19, Emily Estipona-Hao filed a petition for this particular case that he had been administratively charged for helping
proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor wherein the respondent a close relative by giving free legal assistance for a “humanitarian
signed as counsel for her. purpose”. He never took advantage of his position as branch clerk of court
- On July 17, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confident since the questioned appearances were made in the MTC of Quezon City
(OBC). The OBC found that the respondent indeed appeared before the and not in Makati where he is holding office. Respondent also stressed
MBEC as counsel for Bunan, as seen in the minutes of the MBEC that during his court appearances, he was on leave as shown by his
proceedings. The OBC also believes that respondent’s unauthorized approved leave applications.
practice of law is a ground to deny his admission to the practice of law.
ISSUES
ISSUE 1. WON respondent violated the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
WON the respondent should be denied admission to the Philippine Bar for Public Officials and Employees by appearing as counsel
2. WON respondent obtained written permission from the head of the
HELD department as required by Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil
Yes. Records show that he indeed appeared as lawyer for Bunan. He also Service Rules
signed the pleading as his lawyer. In the first paragraph of the same
pleading respondent stated that he was the “(U)ndersigned Counsel for, HELD
and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, GEORGE T. BUNAN.” Bunan 1. No. “Private practice” of a profession, specifically the law profession,
himself also wrote to the MBEC that he had “authorized Atty. Edwin L. does not refer to an isolated court appearance. It contemplates a
Rana as his counsel to represent him” before the MBEC and similar succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding
bodies. one’s self to the public as a lawyer. The isolated instances when
- Emily Estipona-Hao also wrote to the MBEC that the respondent will be respondent appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin does not
the legal counsel for her party. The respondent also signed the pleading constitute the “private practice” of the law profession as contemplated by
as their lawyer. law.
- All these happened before he took his lawyer’s oath. It is clear that he 2. No. It is true that respondent filed leave applications corresponding to
engaged in the practice of law. the dates he appeared in court, which were approved. However, the
- It is also irrelevant the respondent has already passed the bar and taken presiding judge of the court to which respondent is assigned is not the
his oath, for it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys which makes one a head of the Department contemplated by law.
full-fledged lawyer. Disposition Respondent is REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that any
- As for the charge of violation of law, it is clear that the respondent has repetition of such act would be dealt with more severely.
already resigned from the said position before appearing as counsel.
- On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, evidence HALILI V COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
shows that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to represent him as his MAKASIAR; April 30, 1985
counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies. While there was no
misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had no authority to practice
(eva sison)
law.
Disposition Respondent is denied admission to the Philippine Bar FACTS
- initial cases involve disputes regarding claims for overtime of more than
500 bus drivers and conductors of Halili Transit; litigation initially
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V LADAGA commenced with the filing of a complaint for the overtime with the defunct
KAPUNAN; January 26, 2001 CIR on August 1958; disputes were eventually settled when the
(jonas azura) contending parties reached an agreement on Dec. 1974
- under the agreement: the Administratrix would transfer to the employees
NATURE title to the tract of land containing an area of 33,952 sq.m. in San
This is an administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Respondent is Bartolome, Caloocan and pay in addition the cash amount of P25,000 in
charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards full and final satisfaction of all the claims and causes of action of all of the
for Public Officials and Employees which prohibits civil servants from employees against the estate of Fortunato Halili; the union shall withdraw
engaging in the practice of their profession. and dismiss the case; the transfer of title and the cash release and
quitclaim Halili Enterprises, Halili Transit, Fortunato Halili, his estate, his
FACTS heirs and successors
Respondent Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC of - a Deed of Conveyance of Real Property was executed
Makati, represented his cousin Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga as pro bono - on Aug. 1982, the Union, through Atty. Pineda, filed an urgent motion
counsel in a criminal case for falsification of public document. The Court with the Ministry of Labor and Employment requesting for authority to sell
denied respondent’s request for authorization to appear as counsel and and dispose of the property—motion was granted
directed the Office of the Court Administrator to file formal charges - prospective buyer, Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, however, had
against him for appearing in court without the required authorization. In apprehensions regarding the authority of the Union to sell. So, Atty.
his Comment, respondent explained that he and Ms. Ladaga are “close Pineda filed a motion with the SC on Dec. 1982
blood cousins” who belong to a “powerless family” from an impoverished - but, in an order dated Feb. 1983 Labor Arbiter Raymundo Valenzuela
town in Surigao del Norte. Ms. Ladaga had supported and guided granted the motion; so the sale was consummated on June 1983 and the
respondent from childhood until he finished his law degree. Because of purchase price was deposited with the Manila Bank-Cubao
their close relationship, Ms. Ladaga sought respondent’s help and advice - When Atty. Jose Espinas, the principal counsel, learned of the sale and
when she was charged in a criminal case by Lisa Payoyo Andres. apportionment of the proceeds, he requested Labor Arbiter Valenzuela to
Respondent claims that Ms. Andres’ only purpose in filing the case was to allow him to look into the records. He was told, however, that the records
“seek vengeance” on Ms. Ladaga. He explains that the discord between were missing; it was located for him by Director Pascual Reyes of the
his cousin and Ms. Andres started when the latter’s husband, SPO4 NLRC
Pedro Andres, left the conjugal home to cohabit with Ms. Ladaga. During - Atty. Espinas filed the urgent motion with prayer for a temporary
the course of their illicit affair, SPO4 Andres and Ms. Ladaga begot 3 mandatory restraining order on August 1983—questions the legality of the
children. The birth certificate of their eldest child is the subject of the orders dated Sept. 1982 and Feb. 1983 issued by Labor Arbiter
falsification charge against Ms. Ladaga. Respondent stated that he felt it Valenzuela which authorized the sale of the awarded property and the
was his duty to accept Ms. Ladaga’s plea to be her counsel as she could distribution of the proceeds
not pay for the services of a lawyer and he was the only lawyer in the - Movants Union and Espinas prayed for the court to: require Atty. Pineda
family. Respondent also pointed out that in 7 years of government service to deposit with NLRC the amount paid to him representing 35% attorney’s
fees; require the Halili Drivers and Conductors Union through Domingo
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
Cabading or any of his reps to deposit with the NLRC the 6% union b. Manila Banking Corporation: Manila Banking Corporation is not liable
expenses paid to them; implead the Manila Bank-Cubao to require it to for contempt. When there is a sufficient compliance with the court’s order,
prevent further withdrawals of amount deposited in the name of Pineda a party can no longer be liable for contempt of court.
and the Union; that the order of Valenzuela be nullified insofar as it allows c. The Union and its officers are dropped from the within contempt
Pineda 35% attorney’s fees; NLRC to equitably dispose 20% as fees to all charge.
lawyers who participated and any excess amounts to be distributed to the Reasoning
workers a. –the court already nullified the orders of the labor arbiter as violative of
- Aug. 1983 Espinas filed a supplement to urgent motion praying for the the due process clause
nullification of Valenzuela’s order - the act of Pineda of filing a motion in the SC for authority to sell property
- the court issued a temporary mandatory restraining order: enjoined in question was by itself an admission on his part that he did not possess
Pineda to deposit with NLRC the amount representing 35% attorney’s the authority to sell the property and that the SC was the proper body
fees (P712,992); directed the Union to deposit with the NLRC 6% union which had the power to grant such authority
expenses; ordered NLRC and Manila Bank not to allow withdrawals - he did not wait for such valid authority but instead previously obtained
-Union, through Pineda said that the subject matter sought to be enjoined the same from the labor arbiter whom he knew was not empowered to so
or mandated by the restraining order is moot and academic authorize
- Espinas filed a manifestation and motion to require Atty. Pineda and the - the 45% attorney’s lien on award of those union members who were no
union to comply with the temporary mandatory restraining order longer working and the 30% lien on the benefits of those who were still
- Solicitor General filed his comment with the recommendations that the working as provided for in the retainer’s contract are very exorbitant and
orders of Valenzuela be nullified, that the case must be remanded to the unconscionable (under sec.11 rule VIII of Book III, attorney’s fees should
NLRC, and that the TRO issued by the court on Sept.1983 be maintained not exceed 10% of the amount awarded)
pending final resolution by NLRC - the pleadings show a deceitful pattern on the part of Pineda
- on the mandatory restraining order, Pineda claims that as of Oct. 1983 - contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the
he had a balance of P2,000 in his account with Manila Bank court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and admin of the law
- resolution of court dated Oct. 1983, the court set aside as null and void into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their
the orders of Valenzuela, directed the Manila Bank, Pineda and the Union witnesses during litigation
to comply with the temporary mandatory restraining order issued on Sept. - the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts
1983, and remanded cases to NLRC - exercise of this power has a twofold aspect: the proper punishment of
- Oct. 1983 motion was filed to cite Pineda, Union and Bank in contempt the guilty party for his disrespect to the court or its order, and to compel
- Dec. 1983- rejoinder reiterating plea to declare Pineda and Capuno of his performance of some act or duty required of him by the court which he
the union in contempt of court and to mere out the proper penalty refuses to perform---> due to this twofold aspect, contempts are classified
- crucial facts which have surfaced: as civil or criminal
> then Union President Amado Lopez informed JC Espinas and - civil: failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or a judge for
Associates that the general membership of the said Union had authorized the benefit of the opposing party
a 20% contingent fee for the law firm -criminal: conduct directed against the authority and dignity of a court or of
> Espinas, the original counsel, established the award of 897 workers’ a judge, as in lawfully assailing or discrediting the authority or dignity of a
claim—notice of judgment in 1968 was served on JC Espinas & court or of a judge, or in doing a duly forbidden act
Associates; and a notice of judgment in 1970 was sent to Atty. BC Pineda - where the punishment imposed is wholly or primarily to protect or
and Associates under the same address as the Espinas firm vindicate the dignity and power of the court, either by fine or by
> when Pineda appeared for the Union, still an associate of the law firm, imprisonment or both, it is deemed a judgment in a criminal case
his appearance carried the firm name “BC Pineda and Associates”, giving - if made before final decree, contempt judgment will be treated as in the
the impression that he was the principal lawyer in the cases nature of an interlocutory order; if made after the final decree, as remedial
> Pineda did not reveal to his partners that he had a retainer’s contract in nature, and may be reviewed only on appeal from the final decree
entered into on Jan. 1967; he did not divulge, only the Union officers knew - whether civil or criminal does not affect the power of a court to punish it
of the contract - On Disbarment
> the retainer’s contract between Pineda and the Union appears sec.27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court: attorneys may be
anomalous and even illegal: only 14% of the total membership was removed or suspended for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
represented which is a violation of Art.242 of the Labor Code; contingent misconduct in such office, for any violation of the lawyer’s oath, for a
fees worked to the prejudice of those who were no longer working (Pineda willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court...
knew that all the workers would be out of work because Halili Transit had - a lawyer may be criminally liable for breach of professional duty, and
already stopped operations in Metro Manila); contract was not notarized under the Anti-Graft Act for knowingly inducing a public official to commit
> the decision of Manila Memorial Park cemetery to stop questioning the an offense
Union’s authority to sell and the expeditious manner by which Valenzuela b. – the bank had transmitted to the NLRC the remaining balance which
granted motion for such authority make the entire transaction dubious and was a sufficient compliance
irregular c. Mr. Capuno clarified that with regard to attorney’s fees, Pineda made
the Union officers believe that he would be the one to pay the fees of
ISSUE Espinas and Lopez for which reason the 35% increased fees was
WON Atty. Benjamin Pineda, Ricardo Capuno and Manila Bank-Cubao approved by the Union’s board in good faith
should be cited in contempt for the alleged failure to comply with the - Union was aware that Espinas was the principal counsel
temporary mandatory order and the resolution issued by the SC - they knew of the original contract for 20% attorney’s fees
Disposition Atty. Pineda is found guilty of INDIRECT CONTEMPT of
HELD court. He is sentenced to imprisonment until the orders of the court are
Ratio complied with. He is also directed to show cause why he should not be
a. Atty. Pineda: Atty. Pineda should be cited for indirect contempt. disbarred.
Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court, any abuse of or
any interference with the proceedings of a court, and any improper TING-DUMALI V TORRES
conduct tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of PER CURIAM; April 14, 2004
justice shall be punished as indirect contempts in order to preserve order (eva sison)
in judicial proceedings and to enforce judgments, orders and mandates of
the court.
NATURE
Atty. Pineda should likewise be subject to disbarment proceedings. The
Court may suspend or debar a lawyer whose acts show his unfitness to Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Presentation of false
continue as a member of the Bar. testimony, participation in, consent to, and failure to adduce against, the
forgery of complainant’s signature, and gross misrepresentation.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA

FACTS
- complainant-affidavit filed on Oct. 22, 1999 where complainant Isidra
Ting-Dumali charges respondent Atty. Rolando Torres with presentation HELD
of false testimony, participation in, consent to, and failure to advise 1. Yes, respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and
against, the forgery of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal
Extrajudicial Settlement, and gross misrepresentation in court for the profession. A lawyer is a servant of the law and belongs to a profession to
purpose of profiting from it, thereby violating his oath as a lawyer and the which society has entrusted the administration of law and the
canons of legal and judicial ethics. dispensation of justice. Thus, he should make himself more an exemplar
- complainant is one of six children of late spouses Julita Reynante and for others to emulate and he should not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
Vicente Ting. immoral or deceitful conduct.
- siblings involved are Miriam Saria, Marcelina Rivera and Felicisima Reasoning
Torres who is married to respondent – the lawyers’ oath is a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep
- parents died intestate, leaving 3 parcels of land inviolable at all times
Complainant’s Claim - the oath is reflected in CPR (Canon 1, 7, 10); they underscore the role of
- respondent took advantage of his relationship with her and her brothers a lawyer as a vanguard of our legal system—in this covenant, respondent
and used his profession to deprive them of what was lawfully due them miserably failed
- Felicisima and Miriam executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of - respondent knew of his wife’s siblings, yet he presented the document
Estate where they made it appear that they were the sole heirs; stating that his wife and Miriam are the only children to the Register of
respondent participated in, consented to and failed to advise against this Deeds
act; he presented said document to the Register of Deeds for the transfer - the falsification of complainant’s signature in the document which
of the title in the names of his wife and Miriam (involving lot 1586) contains a waiver by the complainant of her right over the property, a
- complainant’s signature was forged in another Deed of Extrajudicial matter consulted to respondent, is tantamount to falsification of a public
Settlement involving a different lot to enable Felicisima and Miriam to document; he presented such document, therefore, he himself may also
transfer the title in their names, thus enabling them to sell the land (which be held liable for knowingly using a falsified document to the damage of
they did, to Antel Holdings, Inc); respondent, again, consented to and the complainant
participated in this act (involving lot 1603) - respondent did not advise his wife from doing acts which are contrary to
- respondent made gross misrepresentation and offered false testimony to law; he must have kept in mind that it is his duty to uphold the Consti and
the effect that Marcelina and Felicisima are the only children and legal obey the laws of the land
heirs of deceased spouses in the petition for Judicial Reconstitution of the - regarding respondent’s argument that the non-declaration of other
Original Copy of a title covering the last parcel of land (lot 1605) siblings was an oversight does not deserve credence because the petition
- made gross and false misrepresentations for the purpose of profiting clearly names only Felicisima and Marcelina as the petitioners and
therefrom when he requested the buyer of the last parcel of land to because during the hearing when respondent asked Marcelina WON she
release the full payment under the pretense that the order of has bros and sis, latter said none
reconstitution would be released within a month when he knew that it - he allowed Marcelina to commit a crime by giving false testimony in
would be impossible because he presented evidence in the reconstitution court and he himself may be punished as guilty of false testimony
case only on August 1997 (he said this to buyer on Nov. 1996) - under canon 10, lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
Respondent’s Comment court; this was openly violated by respondent
- denies the allegations - respondent’s acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless
- lot 1586: his wife and Miriam were not motivated by any desire to solely bring intolerable dishonor to the legal profession
profit the sale; he had no part in the execution of the document; he 2. The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of
believed in good faith that the Ting sisters had already agreed on how to misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer
dispose of the lot; if ever complainant’s signature was affixed on that as an officer of the court and member of the bar.
document, it was done in good faith
- admits he was counsel in the reconstitution case; the false testimony of
Marcelina could not be faulted on him because it was a clear oversight Reasoning
- regarding gross and false misrepresentation that the reconstitution order - In the determination of the imposable disciplinary sanction against an
would be released within a month, assurance was made by the Clerk of erring lawyer, we take into account the primary purpose of disciplinary
Court proceedings, which is to protect the administration of justice by requiring
-believes the complainant intends to harass him that those who exercise this important function shall be competent,
Complainant’s Reply honorable, and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose
-denies the presence of toka or verbal will allegedly made by her mother confidence.
because her mom met a sudden death, when she died four siblings were - given the peculiar factual circumstances prevailing in this case, it is
still minors, and on Feb 2000 Eliseo wrote his siblings, denying the found that respondent’s gross misconduct calls for the severance of his
existence of a toka privilege to practice law for life
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP Disposition We find respondent guilty of gross misconduct and violation of
- on june 2000, SC referred the case to IBP for investigation, report, and the lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the CPR, thereby
recommendation or decision rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession.
- on Jan 2003, Investigating Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the He is ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law.
Commission on Bar Discipline found the actuations of the respondent to
be violative of Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.1 of Canon 10 MASINSIN V ALBANO
of the Code of Professional Responsibility VITUG; May 31, 1994
- recommended the disbarment of respondent
- in its resolution, the Board of Governors of the IBP approved and (javi bautista)
adopted San Juan’s report, but reduced the penalty to a 6-year
suspension NATURE
Petition for certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUES
1. WON respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and FACTS
legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal This case emerged from an ejectment suit filed by Vicente Caneda
profession against Miguel and Thelma Masinsin. As a result of the case, the trial
2. WON disbarment is the imposable disciplinary sanction court ordered the spouses to vacate the premises and to remove their
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
house/apartment an surrender possession of the subject land; to pay the Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino for allegedly
sum of P100 a month from January 1987 as compensation for the use of committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating the lawyer’s oath.
the premises until the land is actually vacated. No appeal having been - On December 13, 2000, Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for accused,
taken therefrom, the judgment became final and executory. On August 22 filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail, alleging that the “accused has
1985, the Masinsins filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC of Manila voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority. As such, he is now under
seeking the annulment of the decision of the ejectment case and to set detention.” Upon personal verification with the National Bureau of
aside the order of its execution. Petition was dismissed. On October 7 Investigation (NBI) where accused Arana allegedly surrendered, Young
1985, petitioners filed a complaint for “Annulment of the judgment, Lease learned that he surrendered only on December 14, 2000, as shown by the
Contract and Damages” was filed by the Masinsins asking for the Certificate of Detention
nullification of the judgment in the ejectment case. The complaint was - Susa, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila, calendared the
dismissed due to res judicata. Petitioners appealed to the CA but the CA motion on December 15, 2000 despite the foregoing irregularity and other
affirmed the decision of the trial court. When petitioners refused to remove formal defects, namely
their house, a demolition order was issued. But before the completion of > lack of notice of hearing to the private complainant
the demolition, a restraining order was issued by the RTC following a > violation of the three-day notice rule
petition for certiorari, with preliminary injunction and for declaratory relief. > failure to attach the Certificate of Detention
Petition again was denied. Petitioners again filed the same suit before a - According to respondents on December 13, 2000, upon learning that a
different branch of the Manila RTC. Petition was ultimately dismissed on warrant of arrest was issued against their client, they immediately fetched
August 23 1990. the accused in Cavite and brought him to the NBI to voluntarily surrender
In this present petition, petitioners contend that the MTC of Manila has but due to heavy traffic, they arrived at the NBI at 2:00 a.m. the next day;
lost jurisdiction to enforce its decision in the ejectment suit, when the hence, the certificate of detention indicated that the accused surrendered
property in question was proclaimed an area for priority development by on December 14, 2000 TF there was neither unethical conduct nor
the National Housing Authority on December 1 1987 by authority of PD falsehood in the subject pleading as their client has voluntarily
2016. surrendered and was detained at the NBI.
- WRT the lack of notice of hearing, they contend that Young was not
ISSUE entitled to any notice. Nevertheless, they furnished the State and City
WON MTC of Manila lost its jurisdiction to enforce its decision in the prosecutors copies of the motion with notice of hearing thereof.
ejectment suit due to PD 2016 Moreover, the hearing of a motion on shorter notice is allowed under Rule
15, Sec. 4(2) of the Rules of Court.
HELD - In August 13, 2001, referred to IBP for investigation, report and
No. according to a report by manager of the Metro Manila Project recommendation or decision.
Department of the National Housing Authority, pursuant to PD No. 1967 - On December 7, 2001, the Investigating Commissioner Villanueva-
(which after amendments became PD No. 2016), the disputed lot is not Maala submitted a report and recommended Atty. Ceasar G. Batuegas
for acquisition by the NHA. It is located outside of the NHA projects under and Atty. Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino be suspended from the practice
the Zonal Improvement Project. The NHA is definitely not acquiring the of their profession as a lawyer/member of the Bar for a period of six (6)
said land and therefore is not part of PD 2016. Thus the MTC of Manila months
has jurisdiction to enforce its decision in the ejectment case.
- What immediately catches one’s attention to this case is the evident ISSUE
predilection of petitioners, through different counsel, to file pleadings, one WON Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of deliberate falsehood
after another, from which not even this court has been spared. The utter
lack of merit of the complainants and petitions simply evinces the HELD
deliberate intent of petitioners to prolong and delay the inevitable YES.
execution of a decision that has long become final and executory. The Ratio To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a
petitioners through different counsels tried to nullify the same MTC contemptuous conduct that we strongly condemn. They violated their
decision before different branches of the court. The lawyer’s oath is a oath when they resorted to deception.
sacred trust that must be upheld and kept inviolable. The pertinent part of Reasoning
the lawyer’s oath involved in this case: - Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the court if it found
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, they craftily
unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will not delay any concealed the truth by alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered
man’s cause for money or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer to a person in authority and was under detention. Obviously, such artifice
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity was a deliberate ruse to mislead the court and thereby contribute to
as well to the courts as to my clients and I impose upon myself this injustice.
obligation voluntary, without any mental reservation or purpose of - A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the
evasion. Bar that he will “do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court”
In no uncertain terms that any act on the part of a lawyer, an officer of the and he shall “conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his
court, which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, impede and degrade the knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
administration of justice is contumacious calling for both an exercise of his clients.”
disciplinary action and warranting application of the contempt power. - a lawyer should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high
Disposition Petition is dismissed. Petitioner’s counsel of record is strongly vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the
CENSURED and WARNED that a similar infraction of the lawyer’s oath in case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion
the future will be dealt with mot severely. - courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty
from lawyers appearing and pleading before them
YOUNG V BATUEGAS - while a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his client’s rights and is
YNARES-SANTIAGO; May 9, 2003 expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client’s cause, his
conduct must never be at the expense of truth.
(owen ricalde) - Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
NATURE character, in honesty, probity, and good demeanor, thus proving unworthy
Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Disbarment. to continue as an officer of the court.
- In Comia vs. Antona, we held:
FACTS It is of no moment that the accused eventually surrendered to the police
- On December 29, 2000, Atty. Walter T. Young, private prosecutor in authorities on the same date “tentatively” scheduled for the hearing of the
“People of the Philippines versus Crisanto Arana, Jr.”, pending in RTC application for bail. To our mind, such supervening event is of no bearing
Manila, filed a Verified Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment against Attys.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
and immaterial; it does not absolve respondent judge from administrative - All of the more than 120 crim charges, except for 3, were dismissed. But
liability considering that he should not have accorded recognition to the employees decided to call of the strike and to report back to work on June
application for bail filed on behalf of persons who, at that point, were 2.
devoid of personality to ask such specific affirmative relief from the court. - Before readmitting, Companies required them to secure clearances from
- In the case at bar, the prosecution was served with notice of hearing of the City Fiscal’s Office and to be screened by a management committee
the motion for bail two days prior to the scheduled date. Although a - July 29, 1958 – CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice
motion may be heard on short notice, respondents failed to show any - Aug 17, 1965 – CIR dismissed the complaint
good cause to justify the non-observance of the three-day notice rule. Relevant to the assigned topic (read pages 277-280!)
Verily, as lawyers, they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and - Martinez, the Presiding Judge of the CIR, misquoted a SC decision in
not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. the case of Lopez Sr v. Chronicle Publication Employees Ass’n:
Disposition Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino (1) 60 words of the paragraph quoted by Martinez do NOT appear in the
are found guilty of committing deliberate falsehood. Accordingly, they are original;
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months with a (2) Martinez used “For it is settled that...”; the original reads, “For it must
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more be remembered...”
severely. (3) Last sentence in the quoted paragraph of Martinez is actually part of
the immediately succeeding paragraph in the SC decision.
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., - In the respondents’ brief, counsels for respondents quoted the CIR’s
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU V THE INSULAR decision
LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ISSUES
CASTRO; January 30, 1971 1. WON the Companies are guilty of unfair labor practice -
(rach mayuga) a) In sending out letters individually directed to the strikers
b) For discriminating against the striking members of the Unions in
NATURE the matter of readmitting employees after the strike
Appeal by certiorari to review a decision and resolution of the Court of c) For dismissing officials and members of the Unions without
Industrial Relations dismissing the Unions’ complaint giving them the benefit of investigation and the opportunity to
present their side
FACTS 2. WON the officials and members of the Unions are to be reinstated with
- The following UNIONS (Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd, Employees full back wages, from June 2, 1958 to date of actual reinstatement
Ass’n-NATU; FGU Insurance Group Workers and Employees Ass’n- 3. WON Presiding Judge Martinez and counsels of respondents are to be
NATU; Insular Life Bldg Employees Ass’n-NATU) while still members of cited for contempt for misquoting a Supreme Court decision
the Federation of Free Workers, entered into separate collective
bargaining agreements with these COMPANIES (Insular Life Assurance HELD
Co. Ltd; FGU Insurance Group) 1.a) YES.
- Lawyers of the Unions include Enaje and Garcia (Sec-treasurer of FFW). Ratio It is an unfair labor practice for an employer operating under a
When they left FFW, the Companies then hired them and Garcia became collective bargaining agreement to negotiate with his employees
Asst. Corporate Sec and Legal Asst in the Legal Dept, and Enaje became individually, in connection with the changes in the agreement. Although
personnel manager of the Companies. He was also made chairman of the the union is on strike, the employer is still under the obligation to bargain
negotiating panel for the Co. in the CBA with the Unions. with the union as the employees’ bargaining representative.
- Sept 16, 1957 – Unions jointly submitted proposals for a modified Reasoning It is an act of interference for the employer to send a letter to
renewal of their respective CBA contracts w/c were due to expire on 9/30 all employees notifying them to return to work at a specific time, otherwise
- Sept/Oct 1957 - negotiations were conducted but snagged by deadlock new employees would be engaged to perform their jobs. The first letter
on issue of union shop; Unions then filed on 01/27/1958 notice of strike contains promises of benefits to employees; the second letter contains
for ”deadlock on collective bargaining” threats to obtain replacements. Free speech protection under the
- April 15, 1958 – Unions dropped their demands regarding security but Constitution is inapplicable where the expression of opinion by the
the Companies still refused to negotiate employer or his agent contains a promise of benefit, or threats or reprisal.
- Apr 25 to May 6 – They tried negotiating but with no satisfactory results - The circumstance that strikers later decided to return to work on account
- May 15, 1958 – Unions voted to declare a strike in protest against what of injunction cannot alter the intrinsic quality of the letters which tended to
they considered as unfair labor practices interfere with the employees’ right to engage in lawful concerted activity in
- May 20, 1958 – Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of Insular the form of strike.
Life Bldg - Totality of Conduct Doctrine: Expressions of opinion by an employer,
- May 21, 1958 – Companies through the Acting Manager Olbes sent to though innocent in themselves, were held to be culpable because of the
each of the strikers a letter specifying incentives should they decide to go circumstances under which they were uttered. (1) Before Unions’
back to work submission of proposals for renewal of CBAs, respondents hired former
- Garcia and Abella (Chief of Personnel Records Section) tried to legal counsels of petitioners; (2) After notice to strike was served on the
penetrate the picket lines. When Garcia approached the picket line, he Companies, they reclassified 87 employees as supervisors, compelling
engaged into a fight with one of the strikers and both of them suffered them to resign from unions; (3) During negotiations in Dept of Labor, they
injuries. refused to answer the Unions’ demands en toto; (4) Strikers were
- Companies organized 3 bus-loads of employees, including a individually sent letters inducing them to return to work with promises of
photographer who succeeded in penetrating the picket lines causing special privileges; (5) Three truckloads of non-strikers crashed through
injuries to picketers. the picket line, which resulted in injuries on the part of picketers; (6)
- Alleging that some non-strikers were injured, the Companies filed Criminal charges were brought upon picketers; (7) An injunction was
criminal charges against strikers and they also filed a petition for obtained from CFI; (8) Another letter was sent individually and by
injunction. registered special delivery mail threatening them with dismissal if they
- May 31, 1958 – CFI Mla granted injunction. Companies sent individually didn’t report for work on June 2; (9) When they did report for work, a
to the strikers another letter which states “If you are still interested in screening committee refused to admit 63 members of the Unions on
continuing in the employ of the Group Companies, and if there are no ground of pending criminal charges; (10) When almost all were cleared by
criminal charges against you, we are giving you until June 2 to report for fiscal’s office, they were still refused admission; but all non-strikers were
work at the home office. Otherwise, we may be forced to obtain your readmitted immediately. It is clear that the main reason for the strike was
replacement.” “when it became clear that management will not negotiate in good faith.”
1.b) YES.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
Ratio The companies are guilty of discrimination in their process of majority of its members. In the wake of so many blunders and injustices
rehiring. They refused to readmit strikers with pending criminal charges, deliberately committed during these last years, I believe that the only
even after these employees have secured the required clearances. At the remedy to put an end to so much evil, is to change the members of the
same time, the Companies readily readmitted non-strikers who also had Supreme Court. To this effect, I announce that one of the first measures,
criminal charges, without requiring clearances. They even separated which I will introduce in the coming congressional sessions, will have as
active from the less active unionists on the basis of their militancy, or lack its object the complete reorganization of the Supreme Court. As it is now
of it, on the picket lines. constituted, the Supreme Court of today constituted a constant peril to
Reasoning There are 3 conditions for readmission of the strikers: (1) he liberty and democracy. It need be said loudly, very loudly, so that even
must be interested in continuing his work with the companies; (2) no the deaf may hear: the Supreme Court of today is a far cry from the
criminal charges against him; (3) report for work on June 2, 1958, impregnable bulwark of Justice of those memorable times of Cayetano
otherwise he would be replaced. All employees are considered to have Arellano, Victorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who
complied with first and third condition. were the honor and glory of the Philippine Judiciary.”
- In an anticipatory effort to exculpate themselves from charges of - Respondent does not deny having published the above quoted threat
discrimination in rehiring, they even delegated the power to readmit to a and intimidation as well as false and calumnious charges against this
committee composed of Abella and Garcia. Both were involved in Supreme Court. But he contends that under section 13, Article VIII of the
unpleasant incidents with the picketers during the strike, and the mere act Constitution, which confers upon this Supreme Court the power to
of placing the power of reinstatement in their hands is a form of promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, “this Court
discrimination. has no power to impose correctional penalties upon the citizens, and that
1.c) YES. the Supreme Court can only impose fines and imprisonment by virtue of a
Ratio The Companies refused to take the employees back on account of law, and a law has to be promulgated by Congress with the approval of
their “acts of misconduct” even if all, except three, were able to secure the the Chief Executive.”
required clearances. Record shows that not a single dismissed striker was - He also alleges in his answer that “in the exercise of the freedom of
given the opportunity to defend himself against the supposed charges. speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the respondent made his
2. YES. statement in the press with the utmost good faith and with no intention of
Ratio The members and officials of the Unions went on strike because of offending any of the majority of the members of this high Tribunal, who, in
the unfair labor practices committed by the Companies. They are now his opinion, erroneously decided the Parazo case; but he has not
entitled to reinstatement with back pay because when they reported back attacked, nor intended to attack the honesty or integrity of anyone.”
for work, upon the invitation of their employers, they were discriminatorily
dismissed. ISSUES
3. NO. WON the Supreme Court may hold respondent guilty for contempt of
Ratio The misquotation is more a result of clerical ineptitude than a court.
deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent Judge to mislead.
Counsels of respondents have the prima facie right to rely on the HELD
quotation as it appears in the Judge’s decision, to copy it verbatim and to Ratio Any publication; pending a suit, reflecting upon the court, the
incorporate it in their brief. Import of sentences in the quotation is parties, the officers of the court, the counsel, etc., with reference to the
substantially the same as the cited decision. suit, or tending to influence the decision of the controversy, is contempt of
Impt: In citing SC’s decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, court and is punishable. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in
judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and all courts. The summary power to commit and punish for contempt
punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. This is because “only the tending to obstruct or degrade the administration of justice, as inherent in
decisions of this Honorable Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in courts as essential to the execution of their powers and to the
this jurisdiction.” (Miiranda v. Imperial) maintenance of their authority is a part of the law of the land. (In re Kelly)
- Ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the Reasoning In re Kelly lays down the doctrine of the power of courts to
decisions and rulings of SC may lose their proper and correct meaning, to hold contempt proceedings.
the detriment of other courts, lawyers and the public who may thereby be - Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness
misled. Also, appellate courts will be precluded from acting on or unsoundness of the decision of the court in a pending case made in
misinformation, and be saved precious time in finding out whether good faith may be tolerated; because if well founded it may enlighten the
citations are correct. court. But in his above-quoted statement, he not only intends to intimidate
Disposition Decision of the CIR is reversed and set aside. Respondents the members of this Court with a presentation of a bill in the next
are ordered to reinstate the dismissed members of the petitioning Unions congressional session, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the
to their former or comparatively similar positions with back wages. number of Justices from eleven to seven, so as to change the members of
this Court which decided the Parazo case, who according to his
IN RE SOTTO statement, are incompetent and narrow-minded, in order to influence the
FERIA; January 21, 1949 final decision of said case by this Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct
the administration of justice. But the respondent also attacks the honesty
(bri bauza) and integrity of this Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the
Justices of this Court into the disrepute and degrading the administration
NATURE of justice.
Original action in Supreme Court. Contempt - The Supreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last
bulwark to which the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief for their
FACTS grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon, and
- On December 7, 1948, Respondent Atty. Vicente Sotto was required by if the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the
this Court to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of members of this Court and believe that they cannot expect justice
court for having issued a written statement in connection with the decision therefrom, they might be driven to take the law in their own hands, and
of this Court in In re Angel Parazo for contempt of court, which statement, disorder and perhaps chaos may be the result.
as published in the Manila Times and other daily newspapers of the - As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty. Vicente Sotto,
locality, reads as follows: like any other, is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this
“As author of the Press Freedom Law (RA 53), interpreted by the Court, to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as
Supreme Court in the case of Angel Parazo, reporter of a local daily, who such attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice.
has now to suffer 30 days imprisonment, for his refusal to divulge the - As Justice Holmes very appropriately said in U.S. v Sullens: “The
souce of a news published in his paper, I regret to say that our High administration of justice and freedom of the press, though separate and
Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law, but that it is once distinct, are equally sacred, and neither should be violated by the other.
more putting in evidence the incompetency or narrow mindedness of the The press and courts have correlative rights and duties and should
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
cooperate to uphold the constitution and laws, form which the former while it is at work on a case before it. Furthermore, petitioners contend
receives its prerogative and the latter its jurisdiction… This Court must be that the words used in the subject complaint were
permitted to proceed with the disposition of its business in an orderly
manner free from outside interference obstructive of its constitutional ISSUE
functions. This right will be insisted upon as vital to an impartial court, WON petitioners committed direct contempt of court through the use of
and, as a last resort, as an individual exercises the right of self-defense, it derogatory and contemptuous language before the court justifying the
will act to preserve its existence as an unprejudiced tribunal.” award of damages being sought
Disposition In view of all the foregoing, we find the respondent Atty.
Vicente Sotto guilty of contempt of this Court by virtue of the above- HELD
quoted publication, and he is hereby sentenced to pay, within the period 1. No. Direct contempt could not have been committed against
of fifteen days from the promulgation of this judgment, a fine P1000, with respondent Judge in the complaint for damages because whatever was
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. mentioned therein was not made before respondent judge while in
The respondent is also hereby required to appear, within the same period, session or in recess from judicial proceedings or in any matter involving
and show cause to this Court why he should not be disbarred from the exercise of judicial function of the court while it is at work on a case
practicing as an attorney-at-law in any of the courts of this Republic, for before it. Furthermore, the words they used In the subject complaint were
said publication and the following statements made by him during the merely words descriptive of the plaintiff’s cause of action based on his
pendency of the case against Angel Parazo for contempt of Court. reaction and remorse and the willful infliction of injury on him and that the
The respondent misrepresents to the public the cause of the charge same are all privileged communications made in the course of judicial
against him for contempt of court. He says that the cause for criticizing the proceedings because they are relevant to the issue and therefore cannot
decision of this Court in said Parazo case in defense of the freedom of the be contemptuous. Strong words were used to lay stress on the gravity
press, when in truth and in fact he is charged with intending to interfere and degree of moral anguish suffered by petitioner as a result of the
and influence the final disposition of said case through intimidation and dismissal of the subject criminal merely words descriptive of plaintiffs
false accusations against this Supreme Court. cause of action based on his reaction and remorse and the wilfull infliction
of the injury on him and that the same are all privileged communications
GUERRERO V VILLAMOR made in the course of judicial proceedings because they are relevant to
FERNAN; NOVEMBER 13, 1989 the issue and therefore cannot be contemptuous.
- In his Comment, respondent Judge maintains that petitioners harp too
(jaja estoy) much on the fact that the five criminal cases are closed cases and
therefore the language or words employed to describe, opine, criticize or
NATURE condemn the dismissal of said criminal cases in no way obstruct or
Petition for certiorari to review the order of the Regional Trial Court of hamper, ruin or disturb the dignity and authority of the court presided over
Subprovince of Biliran, Leyte, Br. 16. by respondent judge, as said court was no longer functioning as such in
the dispensation of justice. This, according to respondent Judge, is a very
FACTS dangerous perception for then the court becomes vulnerable to all forms
- Consequent to the dismissal of five criminal cases for qualified theft of verbal assaults, which would shake the foundation of judicial authority
against Naval by respondent Judge Villamor, the offended party, and even of democratic stability, so that the absence of such proceedings
petitioner Carlos, through his lawyer and co-petitioner Guerrero filed should not be made a shield to sully the court's prestige.
before the RTC Br. 21 of Cebu City an action for damages against - The Court sustains petitioner’s contention that the alleged derogatory
respondent Judge for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in the language employed in the complaint in the civil case did not constitute
aforesaid consolidated criminal cases. Consequently, respondent Judge direct contempt but may only, if at all, constitute indirect contempt subject
issued in Criminal Cases Nos. N-0989-0993 an Order of Direct Contempt to defenses that may be raised by said petitioners in the proper
of Court against petitioners, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt proceedings. Stress must be placed on the fact that the subject pleading
of direct contempt and sentencing them both to imprisonment of five days was not submitted to respondent Judge nor in the criminal cases from
and a fine of P500 for degrading the respect and dignity of the court which the contempt order was issued but was filed in another court
through the use of derogatory and contemptuous language before the presided by another judge and involving a separate action: the civil case
court. for damages against respondent Judge. Although the allegations in the
- The derogatory and contemptuous language adverted to by respondent complaint for damages criticized the wisdom of respondent Judge’s act of
judge are the allegations in the complaint in Civil Case No. CEB-6478 dismissing the criminal cases, such criticism was directed to him when he
reading: was no longer in the process of performing judicial functions in connection
"12. That the dismissal of criminal cases Nos. 0989, 0990, 0991, with the subject criminal cases so as to constitute such criticisms as direct
0992 and 0993 for qualified theft was arrived at certainly without contempt of court.
circumspection-without any moral or legal basis-a case of knowingly - The power to punish for contempt should be used sparingly, so much so
rendering unjust judgment since the dismissal was tantamount to acquittal that judges should always bear in mind that the power of the court to
of the accused Gloria P. Naval who is now beyond the reach of criminal punish for contempt should be exercised for purposes that are
and civil liability-all because the defendant Hon. Adriano R. Villamor was impersonal, the power being intended as a safeguard not for the judges
bent backwards with his eyes and mind wilfully closed under these as persons but for the functions that they exercise. Any abuse of the
circumstances which demanded the scrutiny of the judicial mind and contempt citation powers will therefore be curtailed and corrected.
discretion free from bias x x x;" - Be that as it may, lawyers, on the other hand, should bear in mind their
"xxx xxx xxx basic duty "to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of
"14. By the standard of a public official and a private person the conduct justice and judicial officers and x x x (to) insist on similar conduct by
of defendant Honorable Judge-not only shocking, but appalling-in giving others." This respectful attitude towards the court is to be observed, "not
the plaintiff before his court the run-around is at the very least distasteful, for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the
distressing and mortifying and moral damages therefore would warrant on maintenance of its supreme importance." And it is "through a scrupulous
this kind of reprehensible behaviour x x x preference for respectful language that a lawyer best demonstrates his
"15. That the aforecited manifestly malicious actuations, defendant judge observance of the respect due to the courts and judicial officers x x x."
should also visit upon him x x x for reducing plaintiff his agonizing victim
of his disdain and contempt for the former who not only torn asunder and IN RE ALMACEN
spurned but also humiliated and spitefully scorned.”
- Petitioners assert that no direct contempt could have been committed RUIZ CASTRO; Feb 18, 1970
against respondent Judge in the complaint for damages in Civil Case No. (kooky talon)
6478 because whatever was mentioned therein was not made "before"
respondent Judge while in session or in recess from judicial proceedings NATURE
or in any matter involving the exercise of judicial function of the Court Proceedings For Disciplinary Action Against Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- Nov 17, 1967 SC resolved to require Atty. Almacen to show cause "why
FACTS no disciplinary action should be taken against him." Denying the charges
- Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant in the civil case entitled contained in the Nov 17 resolution, Atty. Almacen asked for permission to
Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero. The trial court tendered give reasons and cause in an open and public hearing. The Court
judgment against his client. On June 15, 1966 Atty. Almacen received a required Atty. Almacen to state his reasons for such request, to which he
copy of the decision, and on July 5, 1966, he moved for its manifested that since the Court is "the complainant, prosecutor and
reconsideration. He served on the adverse counsel a copy of the motion, Judge," he preferred to be heard and to answer questions "in person and
but did not notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on said in an open and public hearing" so that the Court could observe his
motion. Meanwhile, on July 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for execution of sincerity and candor. He also asked for leave to file a written explanation
the judgment. For "lack of proof of service," the trial court denied both "in the event this Court has no, time to hear him in person." He was
motions. To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a copy of his allowed to file a written explanation and thereafter was heard in oral
first motion for reconsideration, Atty. Almacen filed on August 17, 1966 a argument.
second motion for reconsideration to which he attached the required - Atty. Almacen’s written answer offered no apology. Far from being
registry return card. This second motion for reconsideration, however, contrite, Atty. Almacen unremittingly repeated his jeremiad of
was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966, upon verbal lamentations, abundant with sarcasm and innuendo1.
motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who, on August 22, 1966, had already
perfected the appeal. Because the plaintiff interposed no objection to the ISSUE
record on appeal and appeal bond, the trial court elevated the case to the WON the utterances and actuations of Atty. Almacen here in question are
Court of Appeals. properly the object of disciplinary sanctions
- CA, citing Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu Construction &
Co. dismissed the appeal, “for the reason that the motion for HELD
reconsideration dated July 5, 1966 does not contain a notice of time and - Post-litigation utterances or publications, made by lawyers, critical of the
place of hearing thereof and is, therefore, a useless piece of paper courts and their judicial actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not,
(Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. Inc. vs. Bain Construction At Co.), which did which transcend the permissible bounds of fair comment and legitimate
not interrupt the running of the period to appeal, and, consequently, the criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute or to subvert public
appeal was perfected out of time." confidence in their integrity and in the orderly administration of justice,
- Atty. Almacen moved to reconsider this resolution, urging that Manila constitute grave professional misconduct which may be visited with
Surety & Fidelity Co. is not decisive. At the same time he filed a pleading disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary sanctions by the
entitled "Latest decision of the Supreme Court in Support of Motion for Supreme Court in the exercise of the prerogatives inherent in it as the
Reconsideration," citing Republic of the Philippines vs. Gregorio A. duly constituted guardian of the morals and ethics of the legal fraternity.
Venturanza, as the applicable case. Again, the Court of Appeals denied - CA had fully and correctly considered the dismissal of Atty. Almacen’s
the motion for reconsideration. appeal in light of the law and applicable decisions of the SC. As a law
- Atty. Almacen then appealed to the SC by certiorari. SC refused to take practitioner who was admitted to the Bar as far back as 1941, Atty.
the case, and by minute resolution denied the appeal. Denied shortly Almacen knew - or ought to have known - that for a motion for
thereafter was his motion for reconsideration as well as his petition for reconsideration to stay the running of the period of appeal, the movant
leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and for extension of time. must not only serve a copy of the motion upon the adverse party (which
Entry of judgment was made on September 8, 1967. Hence, the second he did), but also notify the adverse party of the time and place of hearing
motion for reconsideration filed by him after the said date was ordered (which admittedly he did not). Atty. Almacen’s own negligence caused the
expunged from the records. forfeiture of the remedy of appeal, which, incidentally, is not a matter of
- Atty. Almacen then filed his "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of right. There is no justification for his scurrilous and scandalous outbursts.
Title," a pleading that is interspersed from beginning to end with insolent, - Every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the actuations
contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory remarks, against the of public officers. This right is not diminished by the fact that the criticism
Court as well as its individual members, a behavior that is as is aimed at a judicial authority, or that it is articulated by a lawyer. Such
unprecedented as it is unprofessional. The petition was filed on right is especially recognized where the criticism concerns a concluded
September 25, 1967, in protest against what he asserts is "a great litigation, because then the court's actuations are thrown open to public
injustice committed against his client by this Supreme Court." He indicts consumption.
the Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal "people by men who are - As citizen and officer of the court, every lawyer is expected not only to
calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to expose the
applicable decisions and commit culpable violation of the Constitution with shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and judges. It is his right to
impunity." His client, he continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the
Court's "unjust judgment," has become "one of the sacrificial victims acts of courts and judges.
before the' altar of hypocrisy.'' In the same breath that he alludes to the - By constitutional mandate, it is the SC’s solemn duty, amongst others, to
classic symbol of justice, he ridicules the members of the Court, saying determine the rules for admission to the practice of law. Inherent in this
"that justice as administered by the present members, of the Supreme prerogative is the corresponding authority to discipline and exclude from
Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb." He then vows to argue the practice of law those who have proved themselves unworthy of
the cause of his client "in the people's forum," so that "the people may continued membership in the Bar.
know of the silent injustices committed by this Court," and that "whatever - A critique of the Court must be intelligent and discriminating, fitting to its
mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be high function as the court of last resort. And more than this, valid and
repeated." He ends his petition with a prayer that ". . . . a resolution issue healthy criticism is by no means synonymous to obloquy, and requires
ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned detachment and disinterestedness, real qualities approached only through
attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with reservation that at any time constant striving to attain them. The virulence so blatantly evident in Atty.
in the future and in the event we regain our faith and confidence, we may Almacen's petition, answer and oral argumentation far transcend the
retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession." permissible bounds of legitimate criticism.
- Sept 28, 1967, SC resolved to withhold action on his petition until he - NOTE: disciplinary proceedings like the present are Sui generis. Neither
shall have actually surrendered his certificate. When nothing came from purely civil nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not - and does not
him, Atty. Almacen was reminded to turn over his certificate so that the involve - a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the
Court could act on his petition. Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict
- To said reminder Atty. Almacen manifested "that he has no pending
petition in connection with Calero vs. Yaptinchay, said case is now final
1
and executory"; that this Court's September 28, 1967 resolution did not Refer to the case for Atty. Almacen’s written answer. The way he addressed the Court and how he laid down his
require him to do either a positive or negative act; and that since his offer points should be a matter of interest. As the court said, this is a matter “unprecedented and unprofessional”. One
paragraph reads: “Now that your respondent has the guts to tell the members of the Court that notwithstanding the
was not accepted, he "chose to 'pursue the negative act’." violation of the Constitution, you remained unpunished, this Court in the reverse order of natural things, is now in the
attempt to inflict punishment on your respondent for acts he said in good faith.”
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. It may be initiated by - Deogracias and Rosalina complied with the order and paid additional
the Court motu proptio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real filing fees
question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person - TC granted Socorro’s motion for an extension
to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its - Socorro again moved for another extension and resetting of the pre-trial
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to - The TC granted the second motion
account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of - Socorro again moved for another extension on which the TC did not act
preserving the purity of the legal profession and proper and honest upon
administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by - Socorro’s counsel Atty. Padilla filed an omnibus motion for
their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be reconsideration of various orders of the respondent court
entrusted with duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an - Deogracias and Rosalina filed an opposition
attorney. - The TC denied Socorro’s motion
Disposition Accordingly, it is the sense of the Court that Atty. Vicente Raul - The TC directed Atty. Padilla to show cause whey he should not be
Almacen be, as he is hereby, suspended from the practice of law until cited for contempt of court. He consequently failed to do so and the court
further orders, the suspension to take effect immediately. declared Socorro in default and Atty. Padilla was sentenced to 5 days
imprisonment with a P100 fine for direct contempt of court.
SORIANO V COURT OF APPEALS - Socorro and Atty. Padilla filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and
PARDO; August 28, 2001 mandamus with temporary restraining order assailing the orders of Judge
Naval.
(yella bautista)
ISSUES
FACTS 1. WON the TC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to restrain or to
- Deogracias and Rosalina Reyes pleaded that they were employed by remedy the forcible seizure by the plaintiffs of the property subject of the
Socorro as manager and administrative assistant of her property and real litigation
estate in 1968. 2. WON the TC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to order the
- As payment for their services, in 1973, Socorro gave them one payment of the correct fling fee upon failure to pay the same, to dismiss
apartment unit to use as their dwelling for the duration of their lifetime and the case
a token monthly rental on P150 was imposed. 3. WON the TC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to inhibit
- In the same building, another unit was occupied by the spouses which 4. WON the TC gravely abused its discretion in admitting the
was improved and converted by them into a pub and restaurant. For the supplemental complaint with a theory directly contrary to the original
use of the premises, the token amount of P1500 monthly was imposed. complaint and in not dismissing it upon motion of defendant.
- On October 17, 1988, Socorro gave Deogracias and Rosalina notice to 5. WON the TC gravely abused its discretion and acted in excess of
vacate the said two units jurisdiction in finding Atty. Padilla, Jr. guilty of direct contempt
- Deogracias and Rosalina owned two commercial lots with 6. WON the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in sanctioning the
improvements. On May 28, 1968, they became indebted to Socorro in the orders of the TC except the Order admitting the supplemental complaint
amount of P638,635.36. The parties agreed to pay for the debt by selling
the two lots for P2.5M. While looking for a buyer, Deogracias and HELD
Rosalina conveyed the property to Socorro by way of first mortgage. A 1. No. The issue has already become moot and academic since the
deed of absolute sale was executed in place of a real estate mortgage. parties had already entered the premises in question.
- Action was initiated by the spouses but the court released the two lots 2. No. There was no intention on the part of Deogracias and Rosalina to
in favor of Socorro having presented the deed of absolute sale in her degraud the government. They were in good faith and relied on the
name. assessment of the Clerk of Court.
- On October 28, 1988, the spouses paid the filing fee and legal 3. No. Rule 137, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court provides only
research. the following grounds for the disqualification of judges- No judge or
- On November 29, 1988, Socorro filed a motion to dismiss the complaint judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is
on two grounds: pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which
1. the first cause of action was barred by the pendency of an ejectment he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or
case between the same parties over the same parties affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the
2. the second cause of action was premature rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator,
- On December 8, 1988, the Carmelite Sisters on behalf of their guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior
benefactress filed with the trial court an urgent ex-parte motion for court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the
restraining order. They talked to respondent judge Naval in his chambers written consent of all parties in interest signed by them and entered upon
and requested him to immediately act on Socorro’s urgent ex-parte the record. A judge may, in his exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify
motion for a restraining order. On December 16, 1988, the TC denied the himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those
motion. mentioned above.
- On January 16, 1989, Socorro through counsel Atty. Padilla filed a 4. Yes. The supplemental complaint contains matters directly different
motion to inhibit Judge Naval from and even contrary to the cause of action stated in the original
1. while still a law practitioner and politician, he was a frequent customer complaint. The rule allowing amendments to a pleading is subject to the
of the restaurant of the spouses and was a good friend of his general limitation that the cause of action shall not be substantially
2. he was also a good friend of the attorney of the spouses changed or that the theory of the case shall not be altered.
- TC denied motion to inhibit 5. The CA erred when it stated that a certiorari proceeding assailing the
- On April 17, 1989, Deogracias and Rosalina filed a motion to admit judgment of direct contempt was not proper as Atty. Padilla may have
attached supplemental complaint which pleaded that they have already appealed therefrom. Rule 71, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court
paid their debt to Socorro but the latter refused to accept said payment provides: A person adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not
without just cause thus was a clear move on her part to let the 3 year appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or
period provided in their MOA elapse prohibition. The court also erred when it affirmed the trial court’s finding
- TC admitted the supplemental complaint of direct contempt of court against Atty. Padilla (see comments made by
- Socorro moved to dismiss supplemental complaint Atty. Padilla in the original text of the case) Atty. Padilla’s innuendoes are
- TC denied motion to dismiss supplemental complaint not necessarily disrespectful to the court. The salutary rule is that the
- TC ordered Deogracias and Rosalina to pay a deficiency in the docket power to punish for contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not
fees vindictive principle and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of
- Socorro moved for an extension to file a responsive pleading to the punishment.
supplemental complaint and to reset pre-trial
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
MACEDA V VASQUEZ organization of lot owners affected by the expropriation proceedings.
NOCON; April 22, 1993 Complainant is a member of this organization.
- November 27, 1997, complainant executed a “Kasulatan ng Pagbibigay
(edel cruz) Kapangyarihan” in favor of Danilo Elfa appointing the latter as the
attorney-in-fact of the complainant on the matter of negotiation with the
NATURE NPC.
Petition for Certiorari of the order of the ombudsman - December 21, 1999, NPC’s Board of Directors approved the amicable
settlement of the expropriation cases by paying all the lot owners the total
FACTS of One Hundred Three Million Four Hundred Thirteen Thousand Two
- This is a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining Hundred Pesos (P103,413,200.00).
order for the Office of the Ombudsman to stop it from entertaining a - More that two (2) years after the expropriation cases were instituted and
criminal complaint regarding the alleged falsification of a judge’s while complainant was represented therein by Atty. Benjamin Mendoza,
certification submitted to the SC. or on January 18, 2000, respondent filed an “Ex-Parte Motion to Separate
- Petitioner Judge Maceda was accused of falsification of Certificate of Legal Fees From Selling Price Between Plaintiffs and Defendants.”
Service, and now seeks to review orders of the Ombudsman - About ten days after respondent filed his motion to separate legal fees,
- Napoleon Abiera of PAO alleged that the petitioner had falsified his respondent filed his “Notice of Entry of Appearance” (dated January 28,
Certificate of Service by certifying that all civil and criminal cases which 2000) claiming that respondent is the legal counsel of the complainant, a
have been submitted for decisions have been determined and decided on defendant in said case.
or before Jan 31 1989 when in truth 15 cases were still to be determined. - February 12, 2000, (69) lot owners including the complainant wrote a
(Abiera alleges Maceda lied that he finished the cases but he hasn’t yet.) letter to NPC informing the latter that they have never authorized Mr.
Danilo Elfa to hire the services of the respondent’s law firm to represent
ISSUES them in the expropriation cases.
1. WON Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case despite the Court’s - February 17, 2000, complainant filed an “Opposition” to respondent’s
ruling in Orap v. Sandiganbayan entry of appearance and motion to separate legal fees.
2. WON the investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an - March 7, 2000, respondent filed a “Notice of Attorney’s Lien” claiming
encroachment into the SC’s constitutional duty of supervision over all the 40% of the selling price of the properties being expropriated by NPC.
inferior courts - April 10, 2000, respondent filed a “Notice of Adverse Claim” before the
Register of Deeds of Bulacan claiming 40% of the rights, title and interest
HELD of the lot owners over their lots being expropriated including that of
1. NO. There is nothing in Orap that would restrict it only to offenses complainant.
committed by a judge unrelated to his official duties. A judge who falsifies - November 20, 2000, respondent herein filed a Motion for Leave to
his certificate of Service is administratively liable to the SC for serious Intervene in the expropriation case claiming to be a co-owner of the
misconduct and inefficiency. And criminally liable to the state under the property being expropriated.
RPC for his felonious act. - February 26, 2001, respondent filed an Opposition to the Compromise
2. YES. In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by Agreement submitted by the lot owners and NPC for court approval.
this Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation of the Because of the actions taken by the respondent, the execution of the
Ombudsman encroaches into the Court’s power of administrative decision approving the compromise agreement between the lot owners
supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of and the NPC was delayed
separation of powers. - June 6, 2001 - a complaint for disbarment was filed before the IBP.
- ART VIII, sec 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests on the SC Julian Malonso claimed that Atty Principe, without authority entered his
administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel. The appearance as Malonso’s counsel in the expropriation proceedings
Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers initiated by Napocor. After illegally representing him, Pincipe claimed 40%
granted to it by the Constitution for such a justification not only runs of the selling price of his land by way of attorney’s fees and in a Motion to
counter to the specific mandate of the Constitution granting supervisory Intervene, claimed to be a co-owner of Malonso’s property.
powers to the SC. - In the respondet’s anawer, he claims that the services of his law office
- The Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner’s certificates was engaged by Samahan ng mga Dadaanan at Maapektuhan ng
of service to the SC for determination of whether said certificates reflected NAPOCOR (SANDAMA) through its president, Danilo Elfa, as embodied
the true status of his pending case load. (SO admin case first before in the Contract of Legal Services executed on April 1, 1997 3. Respondent
criminal.) claims that Malonso is a member of SANDAMA and that the said member
Disposition Petition granted. Ombudsman is directed to dismiss the executed an SPA in favor of Elfa which served as Elfa’s authority to act in
complaint filed by the public respondent.2 behalf of Malonso
- In Malonso’s reply, he claimed that he did not authorize Elfa as the SPA
MALONSO V PRINCIPE was executed after the Contract of Legal Services. He also claims that he
TINGA; December 16, 2004 also had his own lawyer, Atty. Benjamin Mendoza.
- Principe counters this argument saying that the agreement is a
(giulia pineda) continuing one, hence Malonso was within the coverage of the contract.
- According to the findings of the IBP investigator, the Contract of Legal
NATURE Services is between SANDAMA as a corporate being and the
Administrative case in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
3
FACTS The Contract states in part:
In the early part of 1997, Napocor instituted expropriation proceedings The parties mutually agree one with the other as follows:
I. SECOND PARTY engages the services of the FIRST PARTY as their lawyer of the collection,
against several lot owners in Bulacan including the complainant in this claim, and/ or payment of just compensation of its members with the NAPOCOR;
case. II. FIRST PARTY accepts the engagement; both parties further agree on the following conditions:
- April 1, 1997, a “Contract of Legal Services” was entered into between A. Scope of Work - negotiation, legal documentation, attendance to court proceedings and other related
activities;
the law firm “Principe Villano and Clemente Law Offices” and SANDAMA, B. Payment of Fees is on contingent basis. No acceptance fees, appearance and liaison fees;
Inc. represented by its President Danilo V. Elfa. SANDAMA is the C. The legal fees or payment to FIRST PARTY:
1. Forty (40%) Percent of the selling price between NAPOCOR and the
SANDAMA members; this forty (40%) [percent] is the maximum rate and may be
negotiated depending on the volume of work involved;
2 2. Legal Fees as stated above shall cover:
NOTE: Lawyer has a duty to defend a judge from unfounded criticism or groundless personal attack, irrespective of i.) Attorney’s Fees of FIRST PARTY;
whether he loses or wins a case in a judge’s sala. But a lawyer can file admin complaints against erring judges. ii.) His representation expenses and commitment expenses;
SC- ADMIN CASES (THROUGH COURT ADMINISTRATOR) iii.) Miscellaneous Expenses, etc.
OMBUDSMAN – CRIMINAL CASE D. Both parties agree to exert their best efforts to increase or secure the best price from NAPOCOR.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
respondent’s law firm. SANDAMA is not a party in all of the expropriation - There are two stages in every action for expropriation. The first is
proceedings instituted by Napocor, neither does it claim co-ownership of concerned with the determination by the courts of the authority of the
the properties being expropriated. It was also found that the SPA was plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its
executed by Malonso in favor of Elfa after the Contract of Legal Services, exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit. The second phase
and the right of co-ownership cannot be derived from the said documents. is concerned with the determination by the court of the just compensation
A contract of legal services between a lawyer and his client is personal for the property sought to be taken which relates to the valuation thereof.
and cannot be performed through intermediaries. From the evidence But as it frequently happens, the public purpose dimension is not as
presented by both parties, the Investigating Commissioner found Principe fiercely contested. Moreover, in their quest to secure what they believe to
guilty of misrepresentation. He was found to have violated Canon3, Rule be the fair compensation of their property, the owners seek inroads to the
10, Rule 10.01 and Rule 12.04. the report recommended the penalty of a leverages of executive power where compensation compromises are
2 year suspension. commenced and given imprimatur. In this dimension, the services of
- October 25, 2003 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors suspended lawyers different from the ordinary litigator may prove to be handy or even
him for 1 year necessary. Negotiations are mostly out of court and reliant on the
- In his Appeal Memorandum, respondent claims that the Resolution has sagacity, persuasion, patience, persistence and resourcefulness of the
no factual and legal basis, the complaint having been motivated by pure negotiator.
selfishness and greed, and the Resolution itself invalid for having failed to - In the instant case, the trial court had already ruled on the valuation of
comply with Rule 139-B of the RoC. According to the respondent, the the properties subject of the expropriation, the same order which is
Investigating Commissioner continued to investigate the instant case subject of the appeal filed by the NAPOCOR. Aware that it might take a
despite the lapse of three months provided under Section 8 of Rule 139- long time before the said appeal is finally resolved, and in view of the
B, without any extension granted by the SC. Moreover, in the subsequent delay in the adjudication of the case, the landowners and NAPOCOR
review made by the IBP Board of Governors, no actual voting took place negotiated for a compromise agreement. To assist them, the landowners,
but a mere consensus, and the required number of votes provided by the through SANDAMA and its president, Danilo Elfa, engaged the services of
Rules was not secured considering that there were only five (5) governors a lawyer in the person of respondent. It is clear that respondent was hired
present. Respondent opines that the actions of the IBP Board were aimed precisely for the negotiation phase of the case.
at preventing him from pursuing his known intention to run for IBP - As a legal entity, a corporation has a personality distinct and separate
National President. from its individual stockholders or members and from that of its officers
who manage and run its affairs. The rule is that obligations incurred by the
ISSUES corporation, acting through its directors, officers and employees, are its
1. WON Atty. Principe’s suspension in the practice of law properly arrived sole liabilities. Thus, property belonging to a corporation cannot be
at attached to satisfy the debt of a stockholder and vice versa, the latter
2. WON Principe illegally represented the petitioners having only an indirect interest in the assets and business of the former.
Thus, as summed by the IBP investigator, respondent is the lawyer of
HELD SANDAMA, but SANDAMA is not a party litigant in all of the expropriation
1. Ratio cases; thus respondent had no basis to interfere in the court proceedings
Before a lawyer may be suspended from the practice of law by the IBP, involving the members. But things are not as simple as that.
there should be (1) a review of the investigator’s report; (2) a formal - A review of the records reveals that respondent had grounds to believe
voting; and (3) a vote of at least five (5) members of the Board. The that he can intervene and claim from the individual landowners. For one,
rationale for this rule is simple: a decision reached by the Board in the incorporation of the landowners into SANDAMA was made and
compliance with the procedure is the official decision of the Board as a initiated by respondent’s firm so as to make negotiations with NAPOCOR
body and not merely as the collective view of the individual members easier and more organized. SANDAMA was a non-stock, non-profit
thereof. Without a vote having been taken, the Resolution is void and has corporation aimed towards the promotion of the landowners’ common
no effect. interest. It presented a unified front which was far easier to manage and
- Normally, non-compliance with the procedural rules would result in the represent than the individual owners. In effect, respondent still dealt with
remand of the case. However, the Court, in the public interest and the the members, albeit in a collective manner.
expeditious administration of justice, has resolved actions on the merits - Second, respondent relied on the representation of Danilo Elfa, former
instead of remanding them for further proceedings, such as where the SANDAMA president and attorney-in-fact of the members, with whom he
ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand of the case, or entered into a contract for legal services. Respondent could not have
when public interest demands an early disposition of the case, or where doubted the authority of Elfa to contract his firm’s services. After all, Elfa
the trial court had already received all the evidence of the parties. In view was armed with a Board Resolution from SANDAMA, and more
of the delay in resolving the instant complaint against the respondent, the importantly, individual grants of authority from the SANDAMA members,
Court opts to resolve the same based on the records before it. including Malonso.
2. Ratio - Third, the contract for legal services clearly indicated a contingent fee of
- The duty of the courts is not alone to see that lawyers act in a proper forty percent (40%) of the selling price of the lands to be expropriated, the
and lawful manner; it is also their duty to see that lawyers are paid their same amount which was reflected in the deed of assignment made by the
just and lawful fees. individual members of SANDAMA. Respondent could have easily and
- It is the duty of the Supreme Court to see to it that a lawyer accounts for naturally assumed that the same figure assigned to SANDAMA was the
his behavior towards the court, his client, his peers in the profession and same amount earmarked for its legal services as indicated in their service
the public. However, the duty of the Court is not limited to disciplining contract. Being a non-stock, non-profit corporation, where else would
those guilty of misconduct, but also to protecting the reputation of those SANDAMA get the funds to pay for the legal fees due to respondent and
wrongfully charged, much more, those wrongfully found guilty. his firm but from the contribution of its members.
- On the other hand, the IBP is aimed towards the elevation of the - Lastly, respondent’s legal services were disengaged by SANDAMA’s
standards of the law profession, the improvement of the administration of new President Yolanda Bautista around the same time when the
justice, and the enabling of the Bar to discharge its public responsibility SANDAMA members abandoned and disauthorized former SANDAMA
more effectively. Despite its duty to police the ranks, the IBP is not president Elfa, just when the negotiations bore fruit. With all these
exempt from the duty to “promote respect for the law and legal processes” circumstances, respondent, rightly or wrongly, perceived that he was also
and “to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening about to be deprived of his lawful compensation for the services he and
confidence in the legal system. Respect for law is gravely eroded when his firm rendered to SANDAMA and its members. With the prevailing
lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be minions of the law, engage attitude of the SANDAMA officers and members, respondent saw the
in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules formulated immediate need to protect his interests in the individual properties of the
for their observance. landowners.
Reasoning - The Court cannot hold respondent guilty of censurable conduct or
practice justifying the penalty recommended. While filing the claim for
attorney’s fees against the individual members may not be the proper
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
remedy for respondent, the Court believes that he instituted the same out - The other property, TCT No. 7264 was likewise resold and the proceeds
of his honest belief that it was the best way to protect his interests. After was credited to the account of Uy. The total amount generated with the
all, SANDAMA procured his firm’s services and was led to believe that he resale of the lots amonted to P 11, 300.
would be paid for the same. There is evidence which tend to show that - On August 1, 1930, PNB instituted another court action for the recover of
respondent and his firm rendered legal and even extra-legal services in the balance of the judgment amounting to P11,574.38 with interest at
order to assist the landowners get a favorable valuation of their seven percent per annum.
properties. They facilitated the incorporation of the landowners to - The defendant claimed that in exchange for his waiver of his right to
expedite the negotiations between the owners, the appraisers, and redeem the first property resold by PNB, the bank would not collect from
NAPOCOR. They sought the assistance of several political personalities him the balance of the judgment.
to get some leverage in their bargaining with NAPOCOR. Suddenly, just - The CFI ruled that there was in fact a condonation made by the bank
after concluding the compromise price with NAPOCOR and before the through one of its officer, a certain Mr. Pecson.
presentation of the compromise agreement for the court’s approval, - Hence this appeal
SANDAMA disengaged the services of respondent’s law firm.
- With the validity of its contract for services and its authority disputed, ISSUES
and having rendered legal service for years without having received 1. WON PNB condoned the balance of the judgment
anything in return, and with the prospect of not getting any compensation 2. WON a lawyer can appear as both counsel and witness in the same
for all the services it has rendered to SANDAMA and its members, case
respondent and his law firm auspiciously moved to protect their interests.
They may have been mistaken in the remedy they sought, but the mistake HELD
was made in good faith. Indeed, while the practice of law is not a business 1. No. There was no evidence presented except the uncertain testimony
venture, a lawyer nevertheless is entitled to be duly compensated for of the defendant, that the bank did in fact agree to the condonation. Even
professional services rendered. It is but natural that he protects his if the SC grants that Mr. Pecson did agree to the condonation, there is not
interest, most especially when his fee is on a contingent basis. evidence presented that Mr. Pecson was authorized by the bank through
- Respondent was disengaged by SANDAMA after a compromise its board of directors or persons authorized by the said board to bind the
agreement was entered into by the lot owners and NAPOCOR. Its bank to the agreement.
motions for separate legal fees as well as for intervention were dismissed 2. Yes (No). The SC held that the appearance of a lawyer as both counsel
by the trial court. Presiding from the ultimate outcome of an independent and witness in a trial is not strictly prohibited. The SC however stated that
action to recover attorney’s fees, the Court does not see any obstacle to it would be preferable if the lawyer in this case can appear only as one or
respondent filing such action against SANDAMA or any of its members. the other. In other words, if they are to testify as required by the case,
- The fact that the contract stipulates a maximum of forty percent (40%) they should withdraw from the active management of the case. This is
contingent fees does not make the contract illegal or unacceptable. embodied in Canon 19 of the Code of Legal Ethics.
Contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law. Its validity depends, in Disposition The decision of the CFI is reversed and the defendant is
large measure, upon the reasonableness of the amount fixed as ordered to pay PNB the sum of P11,574.38 with interest thereon at the
contingent fee under the circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, when it rate of seven percent per annum to be reckoned from August 1, 1930.
is shown that a contract for a contingent fee was obtained by undue Costs for the defendant.
influence exercised by the attorney upon his client or by any fraud or
imposition, or that the compensation is clearly excessive, the Court must, NESTLE PHILIPPINES INC. VS. SANCHEZ
and will protect the aggrieved party.
Disposition WHEREFORE, this case is DISMISSED and considered
PER CURIAM; SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
CLOSED. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is enjoined to comply with (cha mendoza)
the procedure outlined in Rule 139-B in all cases involving the disbarment
and discipline of attorneys. NATURE
Resolution

FACTS
- During the period July 8-10, 1987, members of the respondent labor
unions (Union of Filipino Employees and Kimberly Independent Labor
Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia) intensified the
PNB V UY TENG PIAO intermittent pickets they had been conducting since June 17, 1987 in front
VICKERS; 1932 of the Padre Faura gate of the Supreme Court building. They set up
pickets' quarters on the pavement in front of the Supreme Court building,
(romy ramirez) at times obstructing access to and egress from the Court's premises and
offices of justices, officials and employees. They constructed provisional
NATURE shelters along the sidewalks, set up a kitchen and littered the place with
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila food containers and trash in utter disregard of proper hygiene and
sanitation. They waved their red streamers and placards with slogans,
FACTS and took turns haranguing the court all day long with the use of
- Defendant-appellant, Uy Teng Piao, was sued by PNB for non payment loudspeakers.
of obligations at the CFI of Manila and said court rendered judgment in - These acts were done even after their leaders had been received by
favor of PNB on September 9, 1934 for the sum of P17,232.42 with Justices Pedro L. Yap and Marcelo B. Fenian as Chairmen of the
interest of seven percent per annum from June 1, 1924. The court Divisions where their cases are pending, and Atty. Jose C. Espinas,
ordered the defendant appellant to deposit the money due with the clerk counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees, had been called in order that
of the court within three months from the date of judgment. In case of the pickets might be informed that the demonstration must cease
failure to pay, the mortgage properties should be sold at auction in immediately for the same constitutes direct contempt of court and that the
accordance with law and the proceeds to be applied to the payment of the Court would not entertain their petitions for as long as the pickets were
judgment. maintained. Thus, on July 10, 1987, the Court en banc issued a resolution
- The defendant failed to comply with the payment order and the giving the said unions the opportunity to withdraw graciously and requiring
properties were auctioned by the sheriff of Manila for a total of P1,300 the leaders of the respondent union leaders to appear before the Court on
with PNB as the buyer. July 14, 1987 at 10:30 A.M. and then and there to SHOW CAUSE why
- On February 11, 1925, PNB secured from defendant a waiver of the they should not be held in contempt of court. Atty. Jose C. Espinas was
latter’s right to redeem one of the properties described as TCT no. 8274 further required to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be administratively
and thereafter sold the same to one Mariano Santos for P8,600. dealt with.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- On the appointed date and time, the above-named individuals appeared The election for the 16th IBP Board of Governors was set on April 26,
before the Court, represented by Atty. Jose C. Espinas, apologizing for 2003, a month prior to the IBP National Convention scheduled on May 22-
their actions described and assuring that the acts would not be repeated. 24, 2003 in compliance with IBP by laws. Later on, the outgoing IBP
Atty. Espinas likewise manifested to the Court that he had explained to Board reset the elections to May 31, 2003, or after the IBP National
the picketers why their actions were wrong and that the cited persons Convention. Respondent De Vera, a member of the Board of Directors of
were willing to suffer such penalty as may be warranted under the the Agusan del Sur IBP Chapter in Eastern Mindanao, along with Atty. P.
circumstances. He, however, prayed for the Court's leniency considering Angelica Y. Santiago, President of the IBP Rizal Chapter, sent a
that the picket was actually spearheaded by the leaders of the letterrequesting the IBP Board to reconsider its Resolution. Their Motion
"Pagkakaisa ng Mang. gagawa as Timog Katagalogan" (PAMANTIK), an was anchored on two grounds viz. (1) IBP By Laws require the holding of
unregistered loose alliance of about seventy-five (75) unions in the the election of Regional Governors at least one month prior to the national
Southern Tagalog area, and not by either the Union of Filipro Employees convention of the IBP to prevent it from being politicized since post-
or the Kimberly Independent Labor union. convention elections may otherwise lure the candidates into engaging in
- Atty. Espinas further stated that he had explained to the picketers that unacceptable political practices, and; (2) holding the election on May 31,
any delay in the resolution of their cam is usually for causes beyond the 2003 will render it impossible for the outgoing IBP Board from resolving
control of the Court and that the Supreme Court has always remained protests in the election for governors not later than May 31, 2003, as
steadfast in its role as the guardian of the Constitution. expressed in the IBP By Laws. Motion was denied. After the IBP national
- To confirm for the record that the person cited for contempt fully convention had been adjourned, Attys. Oliver Owen L. Garcia, Emmanuel
understood the reason for the citation and that they win abide by their Ravanera and Tony Velez filed a Petition before the IBP Board seeking
promise that said incident will not be repeated, the Court required the (1) the postponement of the election for Regional Governors to the
respondents to submit a written manifestation to this effect, which second or third week of June 2003; and (2) the disqualification of
respondents complied with on July 17, 1987 respondent De Vera “from being elected Regional Governor for Eastern
Mindanao Region.” IBP denied petition stating that there was no
ISSUE compelling justification for the postponement of the elections and that the
WON the respondents and Atty. Espinas should be held in direct petition for disqualification was premature. Petitioners filed the present
contempt of Court Petition before this Court, seeking the same reliefs as those sought in
their Petition before the IBP. The SC issued a TRO, directing the IBP
HELD Board, its agents, representatives or persons acting in their place and
NO. Contempt charges dismissed. stead to cease and desist from proceeding with the election for the IBP
Ratio The respondents who are nonlawyers are not knowledgeable in her Regional Governor in Eastern Mindanao.
intricacies of substantive and adjective laws. They are not aware that Petitioner’s Claim
even as the rights of free speech and of assembly are protected by the  De Vera had transferred his IBP membership from the Pasay,
Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice through Paranaque, Las Pinas and Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter to Agusan
the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof, is no longer del Sur Chapter because he coveted the IBP presidency. [Following
within the ambit of constitutional protection, nor did they realize that any the rotation rule, whoever will be elected Regional Governor for
such efforts to influence the course of justice constitutes contempt of Eastern Mindanao Region in the 16th Regional Governors elections
court. The duty and responsibility of advising them, therefore, rest will automatically become the EVP. The EVP will automatically
primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their counsel of record. Atty. succeed the President in the next term]
Jose C. Espinas, when his attention was called by this Court, did his best  De Vera lacks the requisite moral aptitude. He was sanctioned by the
to demonstrate to the pickets the untenability of their acts and posture. It Supreme Court for irresponsibly attacking the integrity of the SC
is their duty as officers of the court to properly apprise their clients on Justices during the deliberations on the aconstitutionality of the
matters of decorum and proper attitude toward courts of justice, and to plunder law. He also could have been disbarred in the United States
labor leaders of the importance of a continuing educational program for for misappropriating his client’s funds had he not surrendered his
their members. California license to practice law.
Reasoning The Court will not hesitate in future similar situations to apply  De Vera actively campaigned for the position of Eastern
the full force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to Mindanao Governor during the IBP National Convention, a prohibited
pressure the Court into acting one way or the other in any case pending act under the IBP By-Laws
before it. Grievances, if any, must be ventilated through the proper Respondent’s Comments
channels, i.e., through appropriate petitions, motions or other pleadings in  Court has no jurisdiction over the present controversy: the election of
keeping with the respect due to the Courts as impartial administrators of the Officers of the IBP, including the determination of the qualification
justice entitled to "proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly of those who want to serve the organization, is purely an internal
manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and matter
tending to embarrass the administration of justice.  Petitioners have no legal standing because there is no
- courts and juries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be disqualification in the by laws. Only election protests are provided for
immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided but only qualified nominees can file protest. Petitioners are not
upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts among qualified nominees.
should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.  An IBP member is entitled to select, change or transfer his chapter
Disposition WHEREFORE, the contempt charges against herein membership. It was upon the invitation of the officers and members
respondents are DISMISSED. Henceforth, no demonstrations or pickets of the Agusan del Sur IBP Chapter that he transferred his IBP
intended to pressure or influence courts of justice into acting one way or membership. It is unfair and unkind for the petitioners to state that
the other on pending cases shall be allowed in the vicinity and/or within his membership transfer was done for convenience and as a mere
the premises of any and all courts. subterfuge to qualify him for the Eastern Mindanao governorship
SO ORDERED.  He denies exhibiting disrespect to the Court or to any of its members
during its deliberations on the constitutionality of the plunder law
IN RE DE VERA  As for the administrative complaint filed against him by one of his
TINGA; December 11, 2003 clients when he was practicing law in California, which in turn
(joey capones) compelled him to surrender his California license to practice law, he
maintains that it cannot serve as basis for determining his moral
NATURE qualification to run for the position as there is no final judgment
Administrative case for disqualification finding him guilty of the administrative charge
 On the alleged politicking he committed during the IBP National
FACTS Convention, he states that it is baseless to assume that he was
campaigning simply because he declared that he had 10 votes to
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
support his candidacy for governorship in the Eastern Mindanao law by this Court, or conviction by final judgment of an offense which
Region and that the petitioners did not present any evidence to involves moral turpitude. The contempt ruling cannot serve as a basis to
substantiate their claim that he or his handlers had billeted the consider respondent De Vera immoral. The act for which he was found
delegates from his region at the Century Park Hotel guilty of indirect contempt does not involve moral turpitude (“an act of
baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a
ISSUES man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the
1. WON this Court has jurisdiction over the present controversy accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man, or
2. WON petitioners have a cause of action against respondent De Vera, conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.”) On the
the determination of which in turn requires the resolution of two sub- administrative complaint in California, no final judgment was rendered by
issues, namely: the California Supreme Court finding him guilty of the charge. On the
a. WON the petition to disqualify respondent De Vera is the proper allegation that respondent de Vera or his handlers had housed the
remedy under the IBP By-Laws delegates from Eastern Mindanao in the Century Park Hotel to get their
b. WON the petitioners are the proper parties to bring this suit; support for his candidacy, again petitioners did not present any proof to
3. WON the present Petition is premature substantiate the same. It must be emphasized that bare allegations,
4. Assuming that petitioners have a cause of action and that the present unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under our Rules
petition is not premature, WON respondent De Vera is qualified to run for of Court
Governor of the IBP Eastern Mindanao Region Disposition Petition to disqualify respondent Atty. Leonard De Vera to run
for the position of IBP Governor for Eastern Mindanao in the 16th election
HELD of the IBP Board of Governors is hereby DISMISSED. The Temporary
1. Ratio As there exists a clear constitutional grant of power to the SC to Restraining Order issued by this Court on 30 May 2003 which enjoined
promulgate rules affecting the IBP, the SC has jurisdiction over the the conduct of the election for the IBP Regional Governor in Eastern
present controversy. Mindanao is hereby LIFTED.
Reasoning Sec. 5, Art. 8 of the 1987 Constitution confers power to SC to
supervise all activities of the IBP. The IBP by-laws also recognize the full PEREZ V ESTRADA
range of the power of supervision of the SC over the IBP. VITUG; June 29, 2001
2A. Ratio Since the IBP By-laws do not provide for disqualification of
(glaisa po)
candidates for IBP governor, petition to disqualify is not the proper
remedy.
FACTS
Reasoning Petition has no firm ground to stand on. Changes previously
- KBP, an association representing duly franchised and authorized
adopted by the Court simplified the election process and made it less
television and radio networks throughout the country, sent a letter
controversial. The grounds for disqualification were thus removed in the
requesting this Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial
present by-laws.
of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President
2B. Ratio With the applicability of Section 40 of the IBP By-Laws to the
Joseph E. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure the
present petition, petitioners are not the proper parties to bring the suit. public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in
Reasoning As provided in the aforesaid section, only nominees can file our history."
with the President of the IBP a written protest setting forth the grounds - The request was seconded by Mr. Cesar N. Sarino in his letter to the
therefore. only IBP members from Agusan del Sur and Surigao del Norte Chief Justice and, still later, by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney
are qualified to be nominated and elected at the election for the 16th Ricardo Romulo.
Regional Governor of Eastern Mindanao. This is pursuant to the rotation - The Honorable Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez formally filed the
rule enunciated in the aforequoted Sections 37 and 38 of the IBP By- instant petition; public interest, the petition further averred, should be
Laws. Petitioner Garcia is from Bukidnon IBP Chapter while the other evident bearing in mind the right of the public to vital information affecting
petitioners, Ravanera and Velez, are from the Misamis Oriental IBP the nation.
Chapter. Consequently, the petitioners are not even qualified to be - In effect, the petition seeks a re-examination of the 23rd October 1991
nominated at the forthcoming election. resolution of this Court in a case for libel filed by then President Corazon
3. Ratio Petition to seek disqualification of a person is premature when the C. Aquino: “Accordingly, in order to protect the parties' right to due
person has not yet even been nominated. process, to prevent the distraction of the participants in the proceedings
Reasoning Before a member is elected governor, he has to be nominated and in the last analysis, to avoid miscarriage of justice, the Court resolved
first for the post. In this case, respondent De Vera has not been to PROHlBIT live radio and television coverage of court proceedings.
nominated for the post. In fact, no nomination of candidates has been Video footage of court hearings for news purposes shall be limited and
made yet by the members of the House of Delegates from Eastern restricted as above indicated."
Mindanao. Conceivably too, assuming that respondent De Vera gets
nominated, he can always opt to decline the nomination. ISSUE
4. Ratio As long as an aspiring member meets the basic requirements WON live radio and television coverage of the trial of the plunder and
provided in the IBP By-Laws, he cannot be barred. other criminal cases filed against Pres. Estrada should be allowed
Reasoning The basic qualifications for one who wishes to be elected
governor for a particular region are: (1) he is a member in good standing HELD
of the IBP, 2) he is included in the voter’s list of his chapter or he is not - NO. The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition involve the
disqualified by the Integration Rule, by the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar, weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and
or by the By-Laws of the Chapter to which he belongs, (3) he does not the right to public information, on the one hand, and the fundamental
belong to a chapter from which a regional governor has already been rights of the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional
elected, unless the election is the start of a new season or cycle, and (4) power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial
he is not in the government service. With regards to his transfer of trial.
membership the same is valid having been made 17 months prior - Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until
election, The only condition required under the rules is that the transfer the contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted above its individual
must be made not less than three months prior to the election of officers settings nor made an object of public's attention and where the
in the chapter to which the lawyer wishes to transfer. There is nothing in conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence 10
the By-Laws which explicitly provides that one must be morally fit before but only by evidence and argument given in open court, where fitting
he can run for IBP governorship. For one, this is so because the dignity and calm ambiance is demanded.
determination of moral fitness of a candidate lies in the individual - An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to
judgment of the members of the House of Delegates. For another, him, more than anyone else, where his life or liberty can be held critically
basically the disqualification of a candidate involving lack of moral fitness in balance. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and
should emanate from his disbarment or suspension from the practice of
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised by reason of the strong and intemperate language of the complaint and its
in secrete conclaves of long ago. improper filing with the Office of the President, which has no jurisdiction to
- A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial; it only implies that discipline, much more, remove, Justices of the Supreme Court.
the court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in the -On March 21, 1990, Atty. Castellano filed his "Opposition." In his
available seats, conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial "Opposition", Atty. Castellano claimed that the complaint "was a
process. constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and
- The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press very strict practices of the Justices concerned. Atty. Castellano further
and the right to public information. It also approves of media's exalted disputed the authority and jurisdiction of the Court in issuing the
power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of Resolution requiring him to show cause inasmuch as "they are
conveying the proceedings to the public and in acquainting the public with Respondents in this particular case and no longer as Justices and as
the judicial process in action; nevertheless, within the courthouse, the such they have no more jurisdiction to give such order." Thus, according
overriding consideration is still the paramount right of the accused to due to him, "the most they (Justices) can do by the mandate of the law and
process17 which must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its procedure (sic) is to answer the complaint satisfactorily so that they will
constitutional proportions. not be punished in accordance with the law just like a common tao."
- The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, in its Resolution of 16 Apri1 2001,
expressed its own concern on the live television and radio coverage of the ISSUE
criminal trials of Mr. Estrada; to paraphrase: Live television and radio WON Atty Castellano is guilty of improper conduct and be punished for
coverage can negate the rule on exclusion of witnesses during the contempt
hearings intended to assure a fair trial; at stake in the criminal trial is not
only the life and liberty of the accused but the very credibility of the HELD
Philippine criminal justice system, and live television and radio coverage YES.
of the trial could allow the "hooting throng" to arrogate unto themselves In filing the "complaint" against the justices of the Court's Second Division
the task of judging the guilt of the accused, such that the verdict of the with the Office of the President, even the most basic tenet of our
court will be acceptable only if popular; and live television and radio government system-the separation of powers between the judiciary, the
coverage of the trial will not subserve the ends of justice but will only executive, and the legislative branches-has been lost on Atty. Castellano.
pander to the desire for publicity of a few grandstanding lawyers. The Supreme Court is supreme-the third great department of government
- Parenthetically, the United States Supreme Court and other federal entrusted exclusively with the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all
courts do not allow live television and radio coverage of their proceedings. justiciable disputes, public and private. No other department or agency
- The sad reality is that the criminal cases presently involved are of great may pass upon its judgments or declare them 'unjust.' Not even the
dimensions so involving as they do a former President of the Republic. It President of the Philippines as Chief Executive may pass judgment on
is undeniable that these cases have twice become the nation's focal any of the Court's acts.
points in the two conflicting phenomena of EDSA II and EDSA III where -Atty. Castellano's assertion that the complaint "was a constructive
the magnitude of the events has left a still divided nation. criticism intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and very strict
- The transcendental events in our midst do not allow us to turn a blind practices of the Justices" is but an effort to sanitize his clearly unfounded
eye to yet another possible extraordinary case of mass action being and irresponsible accusation. The arrogance displayed by counsel in
allowed to now creep into even the business of the courts in the insisting that the Court has no jurisdiction to question his act of having
dispensation of justice under a rule of law. At the very least, a change in complained before the Office of the President, and in claiming that a
the standing rule of the court contained in its resolution of 23 October contempt order is used as a weapon by judges and justices against
1991 may not appear to be propitious. practicing lawyers, however, reveals all too plainly that he was not
honestly motivated in his criticism. Atty. Castellano's complaint is a
MAGLASANG V PEOPLE vilification of the honor and integrity of the Justices of the Second Division
PER CURIAM; November 4, 1990 of the Court and an impeachment of their capacity to render justice
according to law.
(boots tirol) Disposition Atty. Castellano found guilty of improper conduct and
contempt of court and fined P1,000.00 and suspended from the practice
NATURE of law for a period of six (6) months
Resolution of the Petition for Certiorari to review the decision of the San
Carlos City Court
HORNILLA V SALUNAT
FACTS SANTIAGO; July 1, 2003
- a petition for certiorari entitled "Khalyxto Perez Maglasang vs. People of (dahls salamat)
the Philippines, Presiding Judge, Ernesto B. Templado (San Carlos City
Court) Negros Occidental," was filed by registered mail with the SC. Due FACTS
to noncompliance with the requirements, specifically the nonpayment of -Complainant : Benedicto Hornilla, Atty. FedericoRicafort (members of
the legal fees and the non-attachment of the duplicate originals or duly PPSTA)
certified true copies of the questioned decision and orders of the -Respondent : Atty. Erneto Salunat (member of ASSA Law Firm->
respondent judge, the SC dismissed the petition. Retained counsel of Philippine Public School Teachers Association)
-On September 9, 1989, Atty. Marceliano L. Castellano, as counsel of the -Complainants filed an intracorpoate case against members of the Board
petitioner, moved for a reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the of Directors for terms 1992-1995 and 1995-1997 for unlawful spending
petition. This time, the amount of P316.50 was remitted and the Court and undervalued sale of real property of the PPSTA.
was furnished with a duplicate copy of the respondent judge's decision, -Respondent appeared as counsel for PPSTA Board Members in the said
and also the IBP O.R. No. and the date of the payment of his membership case.
dues. The motion for reconsideration did not contain the duplicate original -Respondent in PPSTS v 1992-1995 Board of Directors of PPSTA,
or certified true copies of the assailed orders. Thus, in a Resolution dated appeared as counsel for respondent despite being part of ASSA Law Firm
October 18, 1989, the motion for reconsideration was denied with finality. the retained counsel of PPSTA
- On January 22, 1990 the Court received from Atty. Castellano a copy of
a strongly-worded complaint filed with the Office of the President of the
Philippines whereby Khalyxto Perez Maglasang, through his lawyer, Atty. Petitioner’s Claim
Castellano, as complainant, accused all the five Justices of the Court's -respondent is guilty of conflict of interest because he was engaged by
Second Division with "biases and/or ignorance of the law or knowingly PPSTA and was being paid out of its corporate funds to which they have
rendering unjust judgments or resolution." contributed.
- Atty. Castellano was required to show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt or administratively dealt with for improper conduct
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
-respondent violated rule 15.06 of the code of professional responsibility was settled that the Republic was to get 4,727 POTC shares while Ilusorio
when he assured PPSTA Board Members in a meeting that he will win the was to get 673 POTC shares.
PPSTA case -During the special stockholders’ meeting of PHILCOMSAT held on
Respondent’s Comment August 27, 1998, which was supposed to be a mere informal gathering to
-He entered his appearance as counsel or the PPSTA Board members for introduce the newly appointed government nominees for
and in behalf of ASSA Law and Associates. PHILCOMSAT to the private stockholders of POTC, the gathering,
-His relationship with Aurelio Salunat is immaterial through the “high-handed and deceitful maneuvers” of respondent, was
-He denies assuring victory of the PPSTA Board in the case but merely suddenly and without notice transformed into a Special Stockholders
assured them the truth will come out. Meeting at which directors and officers of PHILCOMSAT were elected.
-Averred by way of Special and Affirmative Defenses, respondent averred -Ilusorio then contested the validity of the meeting by filing before the
that Atty. Ricafort himself was guilty of gross violation of his oath Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a complaint, against Manuel
amounting to gross misconduct ,malpractice and unethical conduct for Nieto, et al. who were purportedly elected directors and officers of
filing trumped up charges against him, and prayed that the complaint PHILCOMSAT, in which SEC case respondent Lokin, Jr. appeared as the
against him be dismissed and complainant be disciplined or disbarred. counsel of Nieto, et al., contrary to his oath not to represent conflicting
IBP Commission on Bar and Discipline recommended that respondent be interests.
suspended from the practice of law for six months. Board of Governors -However, on account of the death of Ilusorio and the failure of his
approved the report and recommendation. children, namely, Maximo Ilusorio, Sylvia Ilusorio, and Erlinda K. Ilusorio-
Bildner (herein petitioner), to establish their qualification to substitute for
ISSUE him, his complaint was dismissed
WON a lawyer engaged by a corporation can defend members of the -Petitioner filed a new complaint against respondent
board of the same corporation in a derivative suit -After hearing both parties, IBP Investigating Commissioner San Juan
found merit in petitioner’s complaint and recommended that respondent
HELD be suspended for three months.
No. A Lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent -The IBP Board of Governors set aside the recommendation of
members of the same corporation’s board of directors in a derivative suit Commissioner San Juan and dismissed the complaint
brought against them. To do so would be tantamount to representing -No copy of the notice of resolution was served upon petitioner.
conflicting interests which is prohibited by the Code of Professional Petitioner, nonetheless, learned about the recommendation of
Responsibility. Commissioner San Juan and the setting aside thereof by the Board of
-Pertinent rule of the CPR: Rule 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent Governors
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after - On March 10, 2004 petitioner wrote a letter to the Board in her own
a full disclosure of the facts. name requesting “that the Board take up the matter once more” and
-There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent asking for “the remanding of the case against Atty. Luis Lokin to the Board
interests of two or more opposing parties. of Governors.”
-TESTS FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST: - By letter of April 16, 2004, the Board of Governors said that it
1. WON in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for a “constrained to deny [petitioner’s] request for a remanding or a
issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for another client. reconsideration of the case” as there was no provision for a
2. Whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an reconsideration of any such case either in Rule 139-B of the Rules of
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity Court or in the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline.
and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or -Counsel for petitioner, Atty. Samuel Divina, then wrote a letter of July 19,
double dealing in the performance thereof. 2004 to Atty. Jose Anselmo Cadiz, Chairman of the IBP Board of
Derivative suit: Where corporate directors have committed a breach of Governors and concurrently National President of the IBP, informing him
trust either by their frauds, ultra vires acts, or negligence, and the that petitioner had not been notified of any final action on her complaint
corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong, a - Replying, the Board Chairman, by letter dated August 11, 2004, stated
stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for that the Board could no longer act on petitioner’s July 19, 2004 letter,
the benefit of the corporation and indirectly to the stockholders. otherwise it would, in effect, be considering the letter as a motion for
-Respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting interests and reconsideration which is not provided for by the rules of procedure for
was ADMONISHED to observe higher degree of fidelity in the practice of cases of the kind.
his profession. - Petitioner thus filed the present petition on September 2, 2004

ILUSORIO V LOKIN,JR. ISSUES

CARPIO MORALES; December 14, 2005 Procedural
1. WON the petition was filed within the 15-day reglamentary period
(apple maramba) 2. WON the case should be dismissed for being inappropriate and
improper, it being based not on a resolution of the IBP Board
NATURE 3. WON personal knowledge of the petitioner of the facts alleged in the
Petition for review on certiorari of a resolution of the Integrated Bar of the complaint is required to pursue the complaint
Philippines Board of Governors Substantive
WON the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of
FACTS Professional Responsibility
On July 15, 1991, Potenciano Ilusorio, engaged the services of the law
office of Liwanag Raval Pilando Suplico and Lokin to represent him in the HELD
Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0009, of which Ilusorio was one of the Procedural
defendants Reasoning
-In that civil case, the Republic was claiming shareholdings in Philippine 1. Respondent contends that the petition was filed beyond the 15-day
Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) and Philippine reglementary period, as petitioner should be deemed to have received
Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) 99% of the shares notice of the challenged IBP resolution, not on August 17, 2004 when her
of which appeared to be owned by POTC. Atty Luis Lokin, Jr., together counsel received the August 11, 2004 letter of the IBP Board Chairman,
with Attorneys Demaree Raval and Salvador Hizon, actively handled the but on March 10, 2004 when she wrote the Board admitting having
case for Ilusorio acquired knowledge of the reversal of Commissioner San Juan’s
-While the case was pending, Ilusorio, with the assistance of the law firm recommendation. Hence, respondent claims, petitioner had only until
of Raval and Lokin (successor to Liwanag Raval Pilando Suplico and March 25, 2004 to file a petition for review.
Lokin), entered into a Compromise Agreement with the Republic, where it - Section 12 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which states:
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
(c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary Administrative Case
sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as
admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating FACTS
respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed Gonzales being counseled by the law firm Cabucana, Cabucana, De
terminated unless upon petition of the complaint or other interested party Guzman and Cabucana Law Office, filed a civil case that was awarded to
filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the them in a judicial ruling and asked Gatcheco to execute such however
Board’s resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise. Gatcheco failed to do so and Gonzales filed a complaint. Gatcheco
- The notice of resolution referred to in said paragraph (c) refers not to an harassed Gonzales and subsequently Gonzales filed a criminal case.
unofficial information that may be gathered by the parties, nor to any letter Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr., represented Gatcheco. Gonzales filed an
from the IBP Board Chairman or even of the Board, but to the official administrative case saying that Cabucana violated the lawyer-client
notice of resolution that is supposed to be issued by the Board, copy of relationship due to conflict of interest.
which is given to all parties and transmitted to this Court.
- Respondent IBP admits that no such notice has been sent to petitioner ISSUE
- Since no notice has been sent to petitioner, at least at the time this WON there is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
petition was filed, as the August 11, 2004 letter from the IBP Board conflict of interest
Chairman cannot be deemed a notice of resolution, the present petition
has been timely filed. HELD
2. While, generally, a party who desires to appeal from the IBP’s dismissal Yes, the rule is that the lawyer is barred from representing conflicting
of a disciplinary case should await the notice of resolution, it bears noting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
in this instance that the Board, despite issuing a resolution on the subject disclosure of the facts. Even the fact of appearing to be treacherous and
complaint on February 27, 2004, failed to send a notice of resolution to double-dealing is discouraged because people are expected to entrust
petitioner. their secrets to their lawyers. Acceptance of a new relation would prevent
-The IBP has given no reason for the delay other than the nebulous the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to
explanation that records were still being completed. the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
-In view thereof, petitioner, who had already confirmed that her complaint performance of that duty.
was dismissed through a letter coming from the IBP Board Chairman, Although the firm was the one who represented the civil case the person
cannot be faulted for appealing to this Court notwithstanding the absence is still in representation of the firm. It at the least invite suspicion of
of an official notice of resolution double-dealing.
3. Section 1, Rule 139-B states: It is however mitigated by the fact that the case was done in good faith
SECTION 1. How instituted. – Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or and with no malice as supported by the findings of IBP Commissioner
discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, Reyes and Gonzales move of withdrawing the case.
or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified Disposition Respondent fined and given a stern warning
complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely
the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons DE GUZMAN V DE DIOS
having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such
PARDO; January 26, 2001
documents as may substantiate said facts.
-Personal knowledge is not a requisite for filing a disbarment complaint. (athe odi)
Clearly, personal knowledge is required, not of the complainant, but of her
witnesses, if there are any. NATURE
Substantive Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. De Dios on the ground of violation
Reasoning of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
Respondent denies representing conflicting interests on the ground that representing conflicting interests.
SB Case No. 009 and SEC Case No. 09-98-6086 are totally distinct from
each other FACTS
-Nowhere is the conflict of interest clearer than in respondent’s - De Guzman sought the assistance of Atty De Dios in forming a
Memorandum dated September 28, 1998 filed with the SEC wherein he corporation engaged in hotel and restaurant business. They were able to
argued in behalf of Nieto, et al. as follows: have Suzuki Beach Hotel Incorporated (SBHI) registered with the
“A continued exercise of jurisdiction and a subsequent disposition of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Atty. De Dios was retained by De
instant Petition by this Honorable Commission would pre-empt the Guzman.
resolution by the Sandiganbayan of the disputed shares. It would in fact - De Guzman was the majority stockholder. She subscribed to 29,800
affirm the ownership by the Petitioners of the said shares subject of the shares, she paid up P745,000.00 during the stage of incorporation.
Sandiganbayan case. This Petition is a premature action to enforce the However, the remaining 22,250 shares amounting to P2,235,000.00 was
Compromise Agreement entered into by Mr. Ilusorio. Clearly, this is left unpaid.
beyond the jurisdiction of this Honorable Commission. Any right to be - The corporation, upon the advice of Atty. De Dios required De Guzman
derived from the Compromise Agreement is clearly inchoate at this point to pay the unliquidated shares. Later, they were auctioned and acquired
in time.” by Ramon del Rosario, one of the incorporators of SBHI. Because of this,
-Plainly, when respondent represented Nieto, et al. in the SEC, he was De Guzman was ousted from the corporation completely. While Atty. De
advocating an interest hostile to the implementation of the same Dios rose to be the president of the corporation.
Compromise Agreement that he had priorly negotiated for Ilusorio - In defense, Atty. De Dios argued that she represents the corporation, not
Disposition The Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors dated February De Guzman in her personal capacity. Moreover, what she did was for the
27, 2004 is SET ASIDE. Respondent Luis K. Lokin, Jr. is found guilty of best interest of the corporation, which was on the verge of bankruptcy
violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is then.
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Three (3)
Months, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense ISSUE
shall be dealt with more severely. WON Atty. De Dios is guilty of representing conflicting interest.

GONZALES V CABUCANA, JR. HELD

Yes.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; 2006 Reasoning
(ice baguilat) 1. Granting that the sale of her delinquent shares was valid, De Guzman
still has original shares of P745,00.00, enough for her not to be ousted
NATURE from the corporation.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
2. There was an atty-client relationship between De Dios and De revealed then he might be compelled to stay away fr judicial system or
Guzman. The latter was the one who retained her as counsel not the lose right to counsel.
corporation. - GENERAL RULE:
3. There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and - Court has right to know that client whose privileged info is sought
respondent. De Dios became the president – a clear case of conflict of to be protected is flesh and blood.
interest of the respondent. - Privilege exists only after atty-client relationship has been
Disposition Atty. De Dios was SUSPENDED for 6 months. established. It does not attach until there is a client.
- Privilege generally pertains to subject matter of the relationship.
REGALA V SANDIGANBAYAN - Due process requires that the opposing party should, as a general
KAPUNAN; September 20, 1996 rule, know his adversary.
(chris capul) - EXCEPTIONS
- Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
NATURE revealing client’s name would implicate that client in the very activity
Petition for certiorari for w/c he sought the lawyer’s advice.
- It is also privileged where disclosure would open the client to civil
FACTS liability.
- This is an offshoot of the complaint before the Sandiganbayan through - It is also privileged when govt’s lawyers have no case against an
the PCGG against Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. for recovery of alleged ill- atty’s client unless, by revealing the client’s name, the said name
gotten wealth including shares of stocks in certain corporations. would furnish the only link that would be necessary to convict an
- ACCRA Law Firm performs legal svcs incl. organization and acquisition individual of a crime.
of business associations/orgs. Sometimes, members of the firm act as - Apart fr the exceptions above, other situations could qualify as
incorporators or stockholders. They acquire info relative to assets of exceptions. Info relating to the identity of client may fall w/in privilege
clients and their personal/biz circumstances. In this case, ACCRA when client’s name itself has independent significance such that
lawyers acted as nominees-stockholders of said corps involved in disclosure would reveal client confidence.
sequestration proceedings. - The instant case FALLS UNDER AT LEAST 2 EXCEPTIONS. First,
- PCGG filed Third Amended Complaint w/c excluded pvt respondent disclosure would lead to establish the client’s connection w/ the very fact
Raul Roco bec he promised to reveal identity of principal/s for whom he in issue. Also, the link bet the offense and the legal advice/svc was duly
acted as nominee-stockholder established by no less than the PCGG itself. Petitioners have a legitimate
- ACCRA lawyers said it was in furtherance of legit lawyering and they fear that identifying their clients would implicate them. Revelation of the
became holders of shares of stock only as incorporating or acquiring name would provide the link for prosecution to build its case, where none
stockholders, and as such, they do not claim any proprietary interest in otherwise exists.
said shares. - It is diff when the client consults atty for illicit purposes, seeking advice
- Petitioner Paraja Hayudini, who separated fr ACCRA, filed a separate on how to around the law. In this case, a client thinks he might have
answer. previously committed something illegal and consults atty abt it.
- ACCRA lawyers filed a counter-motion that PCGG also exclude them as - Court is trying to avoid fishing expedition by the prosecution. After all,
parties-defendant as it did to Roco. PCGG set conditions for exclusion of there are alternative sources of info available to prosecutor w/c does not
the petitioners: depend on utilizing a defendant’s counsel as convenient and readily
- disclosure of identity of clients available source of info.
- submission of docs substantiating lawyer-client relationship - Lawyer-client confidentiality and loyalty exists not only during
- submission of deeds of assignments petitioners executed in favor relationship but even after termination of the relationship.
of its clients covering their respective shareholdings. 2. Yes
- PCGG presented supposed proof to substantiate compliance by Roco - Respondents failed to show that Roco actually revealed the identity of
of the said conditions. his clients. PCGG shld show that Roco was treated as a species apart fr
- Sandiganbayan denied exclusion of petitioners fr the PCGG case. That the ACCRA lawyers on basis of classification w/c made substantial
denial is now being questioned. distinctions based on real differences. No such substantial distinctions
exist.
ISSUES RESOLUTIONS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN ARE ANNULLED AND SET
1. WON lawyer-client confidentiality applies in this case ASIDE.
2. WON Roco and the ACCRA lawyers are similarly situated, thus,
making the denial of the ACCRA lawyers’ exclusion from the PCGG case SEPARATE OPINION
a violation of equal protection clause.

HELD VITUG
1. Yes - I find it unreasonable for Sandiganbayan to compel petitioners to breach
- PCGG is not really after the petitioners but the “bigger fish”. This is the trust reposed on them and succumb to a thinly disguised threat of
clear fr the PCGG’s willingness to cut a deal w/ petitioners – the names of incrimination.
clients in exchange for exclusion fr complaint.
- Lawyer-client relationship is based on contract of lease of svcs and DAVIDE [dissent]
contract of agency. But it is more than relationship of principal-agent and - The prerogative to determine who shall be made defendants in a civil
lessor-lessee. An atty possesses special powers of trust given by client. case is initially vested in plaintiff (PCGG in this case). There has been an
He also occupies quasi-judicial ofc since he is an officer of the court. agreement/compromise settlement bet PCGG and Roco. If Roco’s
- Old Code of Civil Procedure forbids counsel w/o authority of client to revelation violated confidentiality of lawyer-client, he would be solely
reveal communication or advise given in course of professional answerable to his principals/clients and probably to the Court.
employment. This was passed on into the Rules of Court. - For ACCRA lawyers to be excluded, they must perform certain
- Canon 17 of Code of Professional Responsibility says that a lawyer obligations as Roco did.
owes fidelity to cause of his client. Canon 15 of the Canons of - Confidentiality is not a cause to exclude a party. It is merely a ground
Professional Ethics also speaks of the devotion of a lawyer to the interest for disqualification of a witness and may be invoked at an appropriate
of the client. time. None of the lawyers in this case is being required to testify.
- The right to counsel of an accused is also involved in this issue. If client - State has right to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public
were made to choose bet legal representation w/o effective officials/employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees.
communication and disclosure and legal representation w/ all his secrets
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- Rules of Court requires that complaint be against all persons who falsifying, the documents which were later filed in the Tanodbayan by
appear to be responsible. Sansaet and culminated in the criminal charges now pending in
- Privilege does not extend to further criminal conduct. respondent Sandiganbayan
- Disclosure of client’s identity is necessary proof of existence of lawyer- - Sansaet himself was a conspirator and it is settled that for the atty-client
client relationship and is not privileged info. privilege to apply in communication, it must be for a lawful purpose. The
existence of an unlawful purpose prevents the attachment of the privilege.
PUNO [dissent] 2. YES
- Person claiming atty-client privilege must present underlying facts. Ratio Despite his involvement in the crime, Sansaet fulfills all the
Without proofs, Court has no factual basis to determine whether requirements needed for his discharge as state witness.
petitioners fall w/in exception to the general rule. Reasoning Sansaet was a conspirator in the crime of falsification and in a
conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. One of the requirements for
state witness is that he does not appear to be the most guilty (not that he
is the least guilty as to what has been erroneously interpreted in some
instances).
- It is the identity of the mens rea which is considered the predominant
PEOPLE V SANDIGANBAYAN consideration and warrants an imposition of the same penalty.
- In the case of People v Ocemar: “And by ‘most guilty’ we mean the
REGALADO; July 16, 1997 highest degree of culpability in terms of participation in the commission of
(aida villanueva) the offense and not necessarily the severity of the penalty imposed. While
all the accused may be given the same penalty by reason of conspiracy,
NATURE yet one may be considered least guilty if We take into account his degree
Special civil action in the SC of participation in the perpetration of the offense.
- The other requisites for the discharge of Sansaet as state witness are
FACTS present.
- The annulment of a resolution of the Sandiganbayan is being sought, - Sansaet is the only cooperative witness to the actual commission of
with the Sandiganbayan denying the motion to utilize Atty. Sansaet as the crime of falsification.
state witness. - There is absolute necessity for Sansaet’s testimony because the
- Honrada was a clerk of court in a municipality in Agusan del Sur. prosecution has no direct evidence available.
Paredes was the provincial attorney of Agusan del Sur who later became - He does not appear to be the most guilty.
governor and congressman. - His testimony can be corroborated by reputable witnesses.
- Sansaet was a lawyer who served as counsel for Parades in several - Sansaet has not been convicted of any crime involving moral
instances petinent to the criminal charges involved in the present turpitude.
recourse.
- 1976 – Paredes applied for a free patent over a piece of land. His CASTILLO V SANDIGANBAYAN
application was approved and a title was issued to him. BUENA; February 21, 2002
- 1985 – Director of Lands cancelled the patent of Paredes, saying that
the land had already been designated and reserved as a school site. (jojo mendoza)
- It was also discovered that Paredes got the lot through fraudulent
means. NATURE
- An information for perjury was filed against Paredes. Another allegation Petition for certiorari, seeking to annul the resolutions of the
was that he had used his position to get what he wanted. Sansaet was Sandiganbayan.
still Paredes’ counsel.
- Gelacio, a taxpayer, wrote the Ombudsman and asked for the FACTS
investigation of Sansaet, Honrada and Paredes. According to him, he On July 23, 1987, the Republic of the Philipines Filed with the
conspired with the other two. Sandiganbayan a complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
restitution and damages against several persons, one of which is
ISSUES petitioner. The complaint alleges that- defendant Gregorio Castilo acted
1. WON projected testimony of Sansaet is barred by the atty-client as dummy, nominee and/or agent of defendants Ferdinand Marcos,
relationship Imelda Marcos, et al in establishing Hotel Properties, Inc. in order to
2. WON Sansaet qualified as particeps criminis (accomplice to the crime) acquire beneficial interest and control, and conceal ownership, of Silahis
for discharge from the criminal prosecution in order to testify for the State Hotel; defendant Gregorio Castillo signed all pertinent documents as
attorney-in-fact of the defendants Enriquezes and Panlilio.
HELD - On October 1992, petitioner died.
1. NO - On October 15, 1996, petitioner, represented by his heirs, filed a Motion
Ratio If a client seeks his lawyers’ advice with respect to a crime he to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint against him is violative of the
committed, it is given the virtual confessional seal. This does not apply to lawyer-client confidentiality privilege and must be dismissed pursuant to
a crime which a client intends to commit. the Supreme Court’s decision in Regala v Sandiganbayan.
Reasoning A distinction must be made between confidential - On November 26, 1998, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to
communications relating to past crimes already crimes and future crimes dismiss. Respondent contends that the ruling in Regala does not apply to
intended to be committed. the present case, because in said case, there was a clear finding that the
- The period is the date when the privileged communication was made by ACCRA lawyers were impleaded by the PCGG as co-defendants to force
the client to the attorney. them to disclose the identity of their clients as shown by PCGG’s
- Paredes was planning to commit the crime of falsification. willingness to cut a deal with the ACCRA lawyers – the names of their
- But for the application of the attorney-client privilege, however, the clients in exchange for exclusion from the complaint. In this case, the
period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication petitioner is being sued as a principal defendant for being in conspiracy
was made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime with other defendants in the commission of the acts complained of and he
committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed is not being required to name his clients.
in the future.
- The testimony sought to be elicited from Sansaet as state witness are ISSUE
the communications made to him by physical acts and/or accompanying WON petitioner’s inclusion in the complaint violates the lawyer-client
words of Parades at the time he and Honrada, either with the active or confidentiality privilege
passive participation of Sansaet, were about to falsify, or in the process of
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
HELD tampered evidence in Civil Case No. 00-004, prompting him to file
YES. While it is true that unlike in Regala, petitioner in not being required falsification cases against her.
to name his clients, the case of Regala is still applicable in the present - In her opposition to the motion, complainant contends that:: (1)
case because the two cases are the same in more important aspects. respondent violated the principle of confidentiality between a lawyer and
- The fact of the lawyer-client relationship between petitioner and his client when he filed falsification charges against her; (2) respondent
defendants Enriquezes and Panlilios was immediately raised by petitioner should have returned her money; (3) respondent should have verified the
as one of his affirmative defenses. In the same vein, in Regala, the authenticity of her documents earlier if he really believed that they are
professional relationship was raised merely as a defense by defendant falsified; and (4) his refusal to return her money despite this Court’s
lawyers and was not yet proven during the trial. This not withstanding, the directive constitutes contempt.
court struck out the complaint against the lawyers.
- Similar to the petitioners in Regala, petitioner is not a mere witness. He ISSUE
is a co-principal in the case for recovery of ill-gotten wealth. He has made WON respondent lawyer should be disciplined for failing to render
his position clear from the very beginning that he is not willing to testify services despite payment of his client
and he cannot be compelled to testify in view of his constitutional right
against self-incrimination and of his fundamental legal right to maintain HELD
inviolate the privilege of attorney-client confidentiality. YES. It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser
- Since the doctrine of adherence to judicial precedents or stare decisis is or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. He has
provided in Art. 8 of the Civil Code, Sandiganbayan is ordered to exclude the right to decline employment. But once he accepts money from a
petitioner Gregorio Castillo as party defendant in the case RP v Enriquez. client, an attorney-client relationship is established, giving rise to the duty
of fidelity to the client’s cause. From then on, he is expected to be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
DALISAY V MAURICIO competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; January 23, 2006 wholehearted devotion.
(bry san juan) - Respondent assumed such obligations when he received the amount of
P56,000.00 from complainant and agreed to handle Civil Case No. 00-
044. Unfortunately, he had been remiss in the performance of his
NATURE
duties. As we have ruled earlier, “there is nothing in the records
Motion for reconsideration of our Decision dated April 22, 2005 finding
to show that he (respondent) entered his appearance as counsel of record
Atty. Melanio “Batas” Mauricio, Jr., respondent, guilty of malpractice and
gross misconduct and imposing upon him the penalty of suspension from for complainant in Civil Case No. 00-044.” Neither is there any
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. evidence nor pleading submitted to show that he initiated new
petitions.
FACTS - Undoubtedly, respondent’s present version is a flagrant departure from
his previous pleadings. This cannot be countenanced. A party should
- On October 13, 2001, Valeriana U. Dalisay, complainant, engaged
decide early what version he is going to advance. A change of theory in
respondent’s services as counsel in Civil Case No. 00-044, entitled “Lucio
the latter stage of the proceedings is objectionable, not due to the strict
De Guzman, etc., complainants, v. Dalisay U. Valeriana, respondent,”
application of procedural rules, but because it is contrary to the rules of
pending before the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, Binangonan,
fair play, justice and due process. The present administrative case was
Rizal. Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorney’s fees in the
resolved by the IBP on the basis of respondent’s previous admission that
total amount of P56,000.00 from complainant, respondent never
complainant engaged his legal services in Civil Case No. 00-044. He
rendered legal services for her. As a result, she terminated the attorney-
cannot now unbind himself from such admission and its consequences.
client relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents,
In fact, if anything at all has been achieved by respondent’s inconsistent
but respondent refused.
assertions, it is his dishonesty to this Court.
- On January 13, 2004, Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of
- At any rate, assuming arguendo that complainant indeed engaged
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline,
respondent’s services in filing the two (2) new petitions, instead of Civil
found that “for the amount of P56,000.00 paid by the complainant x
Case No. 00-044, still, his liability is unmistakable. There is nothing in
x x, no action had been taken nor any pleadings prepared by the
the records to show that he filed any petition. The ethics of the
respondent.” She recommended that respondent be required to refund
profession demands that, in such a case, he should immediately return
the amount of P56,000.00 to the complainant, and surprisingly, that the
the filing fees to complainant. In Pariñas v. Paguinto,[10] we held that “a
complaint be dismissed. On February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of
Governors passed Resolution No. XVI-2004-121, adopting and approving lawyer shall account for all money or property collected from the client.
in toto Commissioner Navarro’s Report and Recommendation. On April Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing fee,
22, 2005, we rendered the assailed Decision. Incidentally, upon learning but not used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to
of our Decision, respondent went to the MTC, Branch I, Binangonan, Rizal the client on demand.” Per records, complainant made repeated
to verify the status of Civil Case No. 00-044. There, he learned of the demands, but respondent is yet to return the money.
trial court’s Decision dated December 6, 2001 holding that “the tax - Neither do we find merit in respondent’s second argument. The fact
declarations and title” submitted by complainant “are not official records of that Civil Case No. 00-044 was already “submitted for decision” does not
the Municipal Assessor and the Registry of Deed.” Thereupon, justify his inaction. After agreeing to handle Civil Case No. 00-044, his
respondent filed a Sworn Affidavit Complaint against complainant duty is, first and foremost, to enter his appearance. Sadly, he failed to
charging her with violations of Article 171 and 172 and/or Article 182 of do this simple task. He should have returned complainant’s money.
the Revised Penal Code. He alleged that complainant offered tampered Surely, he cannot expect to be paid for doing nothing.
evidence. - In his third argument, respondent attempts to evade responsibility by
- In this motion for reconsideration, respondent raises the following shifting the blame to complainant. He claims that she refused to provide
arguments. First, complainant did not engage his services as counsel in him with documents vital to the case. This is preposterous. When a
Civil Case No. 00-044. She hired him for the purpose of filing two new lawyer accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied representation that
petitions, a petition for declaration of nullity of title and a petition for he possesses the requisite academic learning, skill and ability to handle
review of a decree. Second, Civil Case No. 00-044 was “considered the case. As a lawyer, respondent knew where to obtain copies of the
submitted for decision” as early as August 6, 2001, or more than two certificates of title. As a matter of fact, he admitted that his Law Office, on
months prior to October 13, 2001, the date he was engaged as counsel, its own, managed to verify the authenticity of complainant’s title. It bears
hence, “he could not have done anything anymore” about it. Third, reiterating that respondent did not take any action on the case despite
complainant refused to provide him with documents related to the case, having been paid for his services. This is tantamount to abandonment of
preventing him from doing his job. And fourth, complainant offered his duties as a lawyer and taking undue advantage of his client.
- Finally, in an ironic twist of fate, respondent became the accuser of
complainant. In his fourth argument, respondent accuses her of offering
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
falsified documentary evidence in Civil Case No. 00-004, prompting him to the account of Dewey Dee was cleared and the casino never bothered
file falsification cases against her. He thus justifies his inability to render him.
legal services to complainant. Assuming that complainant indeed offered - Having thus settled the account of petitioner's brother, private
falsified documentary evidence in Civil Case No. 00-044, will it be respondent sent several demand letters to petitioner demanding the
sufficient to exonerate respondent? We believe not. First, Canon 19 balance of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. Petitioner, however, ignored
outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the said letters. Private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for the
course of a legal proceeding. Consistent with its mandate that a lawyer collection of attorney's fees and refund of transport fare and other
shall represent his client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law, expenses.
Rule 19.02 of the same Canon specifically provides: - Private respondent claimed that petitioner formally engaged his
Rule 19.02 – A lawyer who has received information services for a fee of P100,000.00 and that the services he rendered were
that his clients has, in the course of the professional services which a lawyer renders to a client.
representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or - Petitioner, however, denied the existence of any professional
tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify relationship of attorney and client between him and private respondent.
the same, and failing which he shall terminate the He admits that he and his father visited private respondent for advice on
relationship with such client in accordance with the the matter of Dewey Dee's gambling account. However, he insists that
Rules of Court. such visit was merely an informal one and that private respondent had not
- As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead of been specifically contracted to handle the problem. On the contrary,
inaction, he should have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her respondent Mutuc had allegedly volunteered his services "as a friend of
fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then he should defendant's family" to see what he could do about the situation. As for the
terminate his relationship with her. P50,000.00 inceptively given to private respondent, petitioner claims that
Understandably, respondent failed to follow the above-cited Rule. This is it was not in the nature of attorney's fees but merely "pocket money"
because there is no truth to his claim that he did not render legal service solicited by the former for his trips to Las Vegas and the said amount of
to complainant because she falsified the documentary evidence in Civil P50,000.00 was already sufficient remuneraion for his strictly voluntary
Case No.00-044. This brings us to the second reason why we cannot services.
sustain his fourth argument. The pleadings show that he learned of the - After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment ordering herein petitioner
alleged falsification long after complainant had terminated their attorney- to pay private respondent the sum of P50,000.00 with interest thereon.
client relationship. It was a result of his active search for a justification of - On appeal, said judgment was affirmed by the then Intermediate
his negligence in Civil Case No. 00-044. Appellate Court on May 9, 1986.
In fine, let it be stressed that the authority of an attorney begins with his or - Petitioner, filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the
her retainer. It gives rise to a relationship between an attorney and a Appellate Court overlooked two important and decisive factors, to wit: (1)
client that is highly fiduciary in nature and of a very delicate, exacting, and At the time private respondent was ostensibly rendering services to
confidential character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith. petitioner and his father, he was actually working "in the interest" and "to
If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted the advantage" of Caesar's Palace of which he was an agent and a
privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the consultant, hence the interests of the casino and private respondent were
client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. united in their objective to collect from the debtor; and (2) Private
respondent is not justified in claiming that he rendered legal services to
DEE V COURT OF APPEALS petitioner and his father in view of the conflicting interests involved.
- In its resolution of July 31, 1986, respondent court reconsidered its
REGALADO; August 24, 1983 decision and held that the sum of P50,000.00 already paid by petitioner to
(lora alamin) private respondent was commensurate to the services he rendered,
considering that at the time he was acting as counsel for petitioner he was
NATURE also acting as the collecting agent and consultant of, and receiving
Petition for a writ of certiorari to overturn Court of Appeals’ resolution, compensation from, Caesar's Palace.
dated February 12, 1987, reinstating the decision of May 9, 1986. - However, upon a motion for reconsideration thereafter filed by private
respondent, the present respondent Court of Appeals issued another
FACTS resolution, dated February 12, 1987, reinstating the aforesaid decision of
- Petitioner and his father went to the residence of private respondent, May 9, 1986.
accompanied by the latter's cousin, to seek his advice regarding the
problem of the alleged indebtedness of petitioner's brother, Dewey Dee, ISSUE
to Caesar's Palace, a well-known gambling casino at Las Vegas, Nevada, WON there was a lawyer-client relationship between petitioner and private
U.S.A. Petitioner's father was apprehensive over the safety of his son, respondent
Dewey, having heard of a link between the mafia and Caesar's Palace
and the possibility that his son may be harmed at the instance of the HELD
latter. YES. Both the lower court and the appellate court concur in their findings
- Private respondent assured petitioner and his father that he would that there was a lawyer-client relationship between petitioner and private
inquire into the matter, after which his services were reportedly contracted respondent Mutuc. The Court found no reason to interfere with the factual
for P100,000.00. From his residence, private respondent called up finding. There may be instances when there is doubt as to whether an
Caesar's Palace and, thereafter, several long distance telephone calls attorney-client relationship has been created. The issue may be raised in
and two trips to Las Vegas by him elicited the information that Dewey the trial court, but once the trial court and the Court of Appeals have found
Dee's outstanding account was around $1,000,000.00. Further that there was such a relationship the Supreme Court cannot disturb such
investigations, however, revealed that said account had actually been finding of fact, absent cogent reasons therefor.
incurred by Ramon Sy, with Dewey Dee merely signing for the chits. Ratio The absence of a written contract will not preclude the finding that
- In June, 1981, private respondent personally talked with the president there was a professional relationship which merits attorney's fees for
of Caesar's Palace at Las Vegas, Nevada. He advised the president that professional services rendered. Documentary formalism is not an
for the sake and in the interest of the casino it would be better to make essential element in the employment of an attorney; the contract may be
Ramon Sy answer for the indebtedness. The president told him that if he express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice
could convince Ramon Sy to acknowledge the obligation, Dewey Dee and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter
would be exculpated from liability for the account. Upon private pertinent to his profession. An acceptance of the relation is implied on the
respondent's return to Manila, he conferred with Ramon Sy and the latter part of the attorney from his acting on behalf of his client in pursuance of a
was convinced to acknowledge the indebtedness. request from the latter.
- In August, 1981, private respondent brought to Caesar's Palace the Reasoning There is no question that professional services were actually
letter of Ramon Sy owning the debt and asking for a discount. Thereafter, rendered by private respondent to petitioner and his family. Through his
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
efforts, the account of petitioner's brother, Dewey Dee, with Caesars -When Jose Nakpil died, Atty. Valdes acted as the legal counsel and
Palace was assumed by Ramon Sy and petitioner and his family were accountant of his widow Imelda Nakpil whom the Court appointed as the
further freed from the apprehension that Dewey might be harmed or even estate administratix. Respondent’s law firm, Carlos J. Valdes &
killed by the so-called mafia. For such services, respondent Mutuc is Associates, handled the proceeding for the settlement of Jose’s estate.
indubitably entitled to receive a reasonable compensation and this right -The ownership of the Moran property became an issue in the intestate
cannot be occluded by petitioner's pretension that at the time private proceedings when Atty. Valdes excluded the Moran property from the
respondent rendered such services to petitioner and his family, the former inventory. He even transferred his title to the Moran property to his
was also the Philippine consultant of Caesar's Palace. company, the Caval Realty Corporation.
- On the first aspect, the evidence of record shows that the services of -March 29, 1979: Imelda sought to recover the Moran property by filing
respondent Mutuc were engaged by the petitioner for the purposes with the Baguio City CFI an action for reconveyance with damages
hereinbefore discussed. The previous partial payments totaling against Atty. Valdes (&his corporation) who claimed absolute ownership
P50,000.00 made by petitioner to respondent Mutuc and the tenor of the over the property and denied that a trust was created over it.
demand letters sent by said private respondent to petitioner, the receipt -During the pendency of the action for reconveyance, Imelda filed this
thereof being acknowledged by petitioner, ineluctably prove three facts, administrative case to disbar the respondent.
viz: that petitioner hired the services of private respondent Mutuc; that Petitioner’s Claim
there was a prior agreement as to the amount of attorney's fees to be Atty. Valdes violated professional ethics when he:
given to the latter; and there was still a balance due and payable on said 1. assigned to his family corporation the Moran property which belonged
fees. to the estate he was settling as its lawyer and auditor.
- On the second objection, aside from the facts stated in the resolution of 2. excluded the Moran property from the inventory of real estate
respondent Court of Appeals, it is also not completely accurate to judge properties he prepared for a client-estate and, at the same time, charged
private respondent's position by petitioner's assumption that the interests the loan secured to purchase the said excluded property as a liability of
of Caesar's Palace were adverse to those of Dewey Dee. True, the casino the estate, all for the purpose of transferring the title to the said property
was a creditor but that fact was not contested or opposed by Dewey Dee, to his family corporation.
since the latter, as verifications revealed, was not the debtor. Hence, 3. prepared & defended monetary claims against the estate that retained
private respondent's representations in behalf of petitioner were not in him as its counsel and auditor.
resistance to the casino's claim but were actually geared toward proving Preliminaries
that fact by establishing the liability of the true debtor, Ramon Sy, from - CFI dismissed the action for reconveyance. CA reversed.
whom payment was ultimately and correctly exacted. - OSG relying on CA decision recommended dismissal of admin charge.
- Even assuming that the imputed conflict of interests obtained, private - CA decision in reconveyance case has been reversed by SC.
respondent's role therein was not ethically or legally indefensible. Factual Issues (as settled in the reconveyance case)
Generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with 1. Ownership of the Moran property: Atty. Valdes and the late Jose Nakpil
contending positions. However, at a certain stage of the controversy agreed that the former would purchase the Moran property and keep it in
before it reaches the court, a lawyer may represent conflicting interests trust for the latter. In violation of the trust agreement, respondent claimed
with the consent of the parties. A common representation may work to absolute ownership over the property and refused to sell the property to
the advantage of said parties since a mutual lawyer, with honest complainant after the death of Jose Nakpil. To place the property beyond
motivations and impartially cognizant of the parties' disparate positions, the reach of Imelda and the intestate court, Atty. Valdes later transferred it
may well be better situated to work out an acceptable settlement of their to his corporation.
differences, being free of partisan inclinations and acting with the 2. Loan of P140k: Atty. Valdes, through his accounting firm, charged the
cooperation and confidence of said parties. two loans as liability of the estate, after obtaining said loans for the
- Even indulging petitioner in his theory that private respondent was purchase and renovation of the property he claimed for himself. It is clear
during the period in question an agent of Caesar's Palace, petitioner was that the information available to the accounting firm as to how these two
not unaware thereof, hence he actually consented to and cannot now loans should be treated could have only come from Atty. Valdes himself
decry the dual representation that he postulates. A lawyer is entitled to as the said loans were in his name.
have and receive the just and reasonable compensation for services 3. Resignation from law firm not supported by any documentary proof
rendered at the special instance and request of his client and as long as 4. Resignation from accounting firm in 1972 and 1974 is proven. But when
he is honestly and in good faith trying to serve and represent the interests Atty. Valdes transferred the Moran property to his corporation, the
of his client, the latter is bound to pay his just feeds. intestate proceedings was still pending in court. He could not have been
Disposition The resolution of respondent Court of Appeals, dated totally ignorant of the proceedings in the intestate case.
February 12, 1987, reinstating its original decision of May 9, 1986 was
AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioner. ISSUES
1. WON Atty, Valdes violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
NAKPIL V VALDES 2. WON Atty. Valdes is guilty of representing conflicting interests
3. WON Atty. Valdes can be administratively charged before SC given
PUNO; March 4, 1998 that his alleged “misconduct” pertains to his accounting practice
(marge alias)
HELD
NATURE 1. YES. When he subordinated the interest of his client to his own
-Administrative case in the SC. Misconduct. pecuniary gain, he clearly violated CPR Canon 17 which provides that a
-This case involves the disbarment of a CPA-lawyer for his demeanor in lawyer owes fidelity to his client’s cause and enjoins him to be mindful of
his accounting profession and law practice in connection with the property the trust and confidence reposed on him.
of his client. -A lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business
transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. No
FACTS presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in
-1965: Jose Nakpil became interested in purchasing a summer residence an attorney’s favor. Atty. Valdes’ misuse of his legal expertise to deprive
in Moran Street, Baguio City. For lack of funds, he requested long time his client of the Moran property is clearly unethical.
friend (family business consultant, lawyer and accountant) Atty. Carlos J. 2. YES. There is clearly a conflict between the interest of the estate which
Valdes to purchase the Moran property for him. They agreed that Atty. stands as the debtor, and that of the two claimants (Angel Nakpil and
Valdes would keep the property in trust for the Nakpils until the latter ENORN, Inc) who are creditors of the estate.
could buy it back. Pursuant to their agreement, respondent obtained 2 -The proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds
loans from a bank amounting to P140k which he used to purchase and application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same
renovate the property. Title was issued in Atty. Valdes’ name but it was general matter and is applicable however slight such adverse interest may
the Nakpils who occupied the Moran summer house. be. Representation of conflicting interests may be allowed only after full
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
disclosure of facts and informed consent of the clients. There is nothing in another client requires them to oppose. There are various tests in
the records to show that Atty. Valdes or his law firm explained the legal determining conflicting interests, few of which are:
situation and its consequences to Imelda.  whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of
-When a creditor files a claim against an estate, his interest is per se one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client
adverse to the estate. The relationship of the claimants to the late Nakpil  whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
does not negate the conflict of interest. discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client
-The test to determine whether there is a conflict of interest in the or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance
representation is probability, not certainty of conflict. It was respondent’s of that duty
duty to inhibit either of his firms from said proceedings to avoid the  whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use
probability of conflict of interest. against a former client any confidential information acquired through their
3. YES. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for ANY misconduct, connection or previous employment
even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be - While the respondent may assert that the complainant expressly
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. consented to his continued representation in the ejectment case, the
-Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to respondent failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts to both his
admission to the bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of clients and he failed to present any written consent of the complainant
law. Respondent exhibited less than full fidelity to his duty to observe and AIB as required under Rule 15.03, Canon 15.
candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings/transactions with his clients. - That the representation of conflicting interest is in good faith and with
Disposition Atty. Carlos J. Valdes found guilty of misconduct and honest intention on the part of the lawyer does not make the prohibition
suspended from the practice of law for one year with a warning that a inoperative. Moreover, lawyers are not obliged to act either as an adviser
similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely in the future. or advocate for every person who may wish to become their client. They
have the right to decline such employment.
QUIAMBAO V BAMBA - That he served in different capacities in two competing agencies does
DAVIDE; August 25, 2005 not justify the involvement in conflicting interests. In the process of
determining whether there is a conflict of interest, an important criterion is
(maia rieza) probability, not certainty, of conflict. Loyalty to AIB becomes dubious with
his interest as the president in another security agency.
NATURE
- The nature of a lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence
RESOLUTION on administrative case for disbarment of the highest degree. It requires lawyers to remain inviolate of the client’s
confidence and to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing.
FACTS - Rule 15.03, Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Felicitas Quiambao used to be the president of Allied Investigation provides: “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
Bureau, Inc. (AIB), a family-owned security and investigation agency. She written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.”
procured the services of respondent Atty. Nestor Bamba for the corporate Disposition Guilty for violation of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15. Suspended for
affairs of AIB, but also used his services for a personal case (an 1 year.
ejectment case wherein respondent is the counsel of record). After,
Quiambao resigned as president. Six months later, AIB, through Bamba,
filed a complaint for replevin and damages against Quiambao to recover a
car assigned to Quiambao as a service vehicle by AIB. Bamba filed this
latter complaint without withdrawing as counsel in the ejectment case,
which was still pending. Quiambao then filed for disbarment and charged
Bamba with acts of disloyalty and double-dealing.
Complainant’s arguments
-that she resigned as president because Bamba proposed that she BERBANO V BARCELONA
organize her own security agency, and that he will assist in its
organization.
PER CURIAM; September 23, 2003
-that such security agency was organized and Bamba was a “silent (anton arcilla)
partner”
-that while serving as a silent partner, Bamba convinced Quiambao’s NATURE
brother to organize another security agency (yes, hobby nilang gumawa Administrative matter in the Supreme Court re: Disbarment.
ng security agencies) where respondent served as incorporator,
stockholder, and president. FACTS
Respondent’s arguments - A case was pending regarding a 244-hectare lot situated at Alabang,
-although he admits representing Quiambao in the ejectment case, he Muntinlupa, owned by Rufino Estaban Hilapo. Petitioner Felicitas Berbano
claims that he was made to believe that it was part of his function as is one of the heirs of REH, and the heirs chose Atty. Porfiro Daen as their
counsel for AIB to handle even the “personal cases” of its officers attorney-in-fact.
-that the ejectment case and replevin case were unrelated cases, thus - January 26, 1999: Mr. Daen was arrested by Muntinlupa police, and
privileged information that may have been gathered from one case would subsequently detained at Muntinlupa City Jail until his release on
have no use in the other February 18, 1999.
-that he was never a silent partner in the security agency organized by - Mr. Daen needed the assistance of a lawyer for his release. The heirs
Quiambao (including petitioner) approached Atty. Wenceslao Barcelona to assist
-that he serves AIB and the agency organized with Quiambao’s brother in them. Mr. Daen has engaged the services of Atty. Barcelona to facilitate
different capacities: in AIB, as legal counsel, while in the latter, as Daen’s release.
president - Barcelona asked for P50K to cause the release of Daen from prison the
following day. Barcelona declared that he was going to see a justice from
ISSUE the Supreme Court who could help the release of Daen.
WON respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting - At a meeting in Max’s restaurant, Barcelona reported that he just came
interests (WON there was representation of conflicting interests) from the Supreme Court where he “fixed” the case of Daen, but did not
show any documents supporting the claim.
HELD - Barcelona continued to asked for money on several occasions.
Yes, respondent is guilty Petitioner gave him P10K and P15K on different times. Petitioner also
Ratio Lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in gave Barcelona P1000 for gasoline.
behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for something which duty to
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- February 18, 1999 petitioner and Barcelona met at Putatan, Muntinlupa. -During the entire twelve-month period that respondent had been
There Barcelona promised that he will return entire amount of P64 on receiving the said rental payments of Pineda, he did not bother to inform
February 18, 1999. Petitioner never saw Barcelona since then. or report to complainant about the said payments and instead
- Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP required respondent to submit unnecessarily retained the money
his answer to the complaint, but despite due notice respondent fail to file -On April 27, 1981, complainant, not knowing that respondent had been
his answer. Upon a motion to declare respondent in default, Investigating receiving the rental payments of Pineda, instituted an administrative case
Commissioner again required respondent to answer. Barcelona failed to against her (Aida Pineda) before the Chief of the Philippine Tuberculosis
appear despite due receipt of notice. Society accusing her of "moral turpitude" arising from her alleged failure to
- IBP Board of Governors found Barcelona guilty of malpractice and pay the rent of her apartment as ordered by the City Court of Manila in
serious breach of the Code of Professional responsibility, but reduced the Civil Case No. 037276 and claiming that she has ignored and refused to
penalty to suspension from practice of law for 6 years. pay her just obligation
-Pineda brought an action against Licuanan for damages before the then
ISSUE Court of First Instance of Manila, for she allegedly suffered mental
WON Barcelona should be disbarred or merely suspended anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation
arising from the unfounded administrative case filed against her since as
HELD borne out by the records, she had been paying her obligation religiously to
Ratio Wenceslao C. Barcelona is barred from the practice of law for gross the lawyer of Licuanan
misconduct. - It was only when Atty. Ponciano B. Jacinto, the new counsel retained by
Reasoning The object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to complainant, wrote respondent a letter on May 4, 1981, advising him to
punish the individual attorney himself, as to safeguard the administration surrender the money to complainant, that he accounted for it
of justice by protecting the court and the public from the misconduct of -Respondent admitted having received the payment of rentals from
officers of the court, and to remove from the profession persons unfit to complainant's tenant, but explained that he kept this matter from the
continue discharging the trust reposed in them. complainant for the purpose of surprising her with his success in
- Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are neither purely civil nor collecting the rentals
purely criminal.
- Respondent is guilty of culpable violations of the following Canons: ISSUE
• CANON 1—a lawyer shall xxx promote respect for law and for WON the respondent is guilty of violating paragraph 11 of the Canons of
legal processes. Professional Ethics and breaching the Lawyer’s Oath
• CANON 7—a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. HELD
• CANON 11—a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect Reasoning
due to the courts and to judicial officers xxx. The actuations of respondent in retaining for his personal benefit over a
• CANON 16—a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and one-year period, the amount of P5,220.00 received by him on behalf of
his client, the complainant herein, depriving her of its use, and withholding
properties of his client that ma come into his possession.
information on the same despite inquiries made by her, is glaringly a
• Rule 16.01—a lawyer shall account for all money or property
breach of the Lawyer's Oath to which he swore observance, and an
collected or received fro or from the client. evident transgression of the Canons of Professional Ethics particularly:
- Barcelona was previously charged with and found guilty of conduct “11. DEALING WITH TRUST PROPERTY
unbecoming a lawyer, when he misrepresented to the complainant that eh The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit
could secure the restructuring of the complainant’s loan with PNB through or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by
his connection with a certain Mericullo (who did not really exist). his client
- In addition, the Judiciary has been besieged enough with accusations of Money the client or collected for the client of other trust property coming
corruption and malpractice. A member of the legal profession who invites into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for
mistrust on the judicial system with irresponsible representations is promptly, and should not under any circumstance be commingled with his
reprehensible and cannot be tolerated. own or be used by him. “
- By his professional misconduct, respondent has breached the trust
reposed in him by his client. He has shown himself unfit for the confidence
LICUANAN V MELO and trust which should characterize an attorney-client relationship and the
PER CURIAM; February 9, 1989 practice of law. By reason thereof complainant was compelled to file a
(apple maramba) groundless suit against her tenant for non-payment of rentals thereby
exposing her to jeopardy by becoming a defendant in a damage suit filed
NATURE by said tenant against her by force of circumstances, complainant was
Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Disbarment. further compelled to engage the services of another counsel in order to
recover the amount rightfully due her but which respondent withheld from
FACTS her.
- The court is constrained to find him guilty of deceit, malpractice and
Melo (respondent) was hired as counsel by Licuanan (petitioner) in an
gross misconduct in office. He has displayed lack of honesty and good
ejectment case filed against her tenant, Aida Pineda
moral character. He has violated his oath not to delay any man for money
-On August 8, 1979, respondent, as Licuanan's attorney, obtained
or malice, besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has
judgment in Licuanan's favor against Pineda whereby the latter was
proven himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of
directed by the City Court of Manila to pay Licuanan all her monthly
the Court. He deserves the severest punishment.
rentals from October, 1978 and succeeding months thereafter.
Disposition Consistent with the crying need to maintain the high traditions
- When several months had elapsed without them hearing a word from
Pineda, respondent decided to send her a letter demanding that she pay and standards of the legal profession and to preserve undiminished public
the monthly rental of her apartment otherwise he will be constrained to faith in attorneys-at-law, the Court Resolved to DISBAR respondent, Atty.
take the necessary legal action against her to protect the interest of his Manuel L. Melo, from the practice of law. His name is hereby ordered
client stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
- Pineda yielded to the demand of Melo. She went to respondent's office (Paragraph 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics referred to is
and paid him P3,060.00 for rental payments for October, 1978 to reiterated in Rules 16.01. 16.02 and 16.03 of the Code of Professional
February, 1980 at the rate of P180.00 per month. Responsibility promulgated by the Supreme Court on 21 June 1988).
-Pineda continued paying her obligations religiously to Melo, covering the
period between March 1980-January 1981. HERNANDEZ V GO
PER CURIAM; January 31, 2005
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
(chris lao) 1141-A; deed of absolute sale executed by Francisco Esperat over the
Curuan properties on November 9, 1971 and the cancellation of the
NATURE mortgage executed by Alfonso Enriquez on July 18, 1964 over the Tomas
Resolution of the verified letter-complaint for disbarment against Atty. Claudio properties.
Jose C. Go dated June 23, 1975 filed by Nazaria S. Hernandez (now - The foregoing legal activities and operations of the respondent in
deceased) addition to his having discussed, advised and gave solutions to
complainant’s legal problems and liabilities to her creditors and even
FACTS requested her creditors for extension of time to pay complainant’s
- Both parties are from Zamboanga City. accounts constitute practice of law as legal counsel for consultation aside
- The allegations in the letter-complaint are: from representing complainant in other cases; a mute proof of a lawyer-
Sometime in 1961, complainant’s husband abandoned her and her son, client relations between them, a fact also admitted by the respondent.
Luciano S. Hernandez, Jr. Shortly thereafter, her husband’s numerous - It is incumbent upon the respondent to have rendered a detailed report
creditors demanded payments of his loans. Fearful that the various to the complainant on how he paid complainant’s creditors without selling
mortgage contracts involving her properties will be foreclosed and aware her properties. Instead of selling to buyers at higher price, he paid them
of impending suits for sums of money against her, complainant engaged out of his own funds; then later on admitted that he was one of the
the legal services of Atty. Jose C. Go, herein respondent. purchasers of complainant’s properties in utter disregard of their
- Respondent instilled in complainant a feeling of helplessness, fear, agreement and no evidence was submitted by the respondent concerning
embarrassment, and social humiliation. He advised her to give him her the value of the said sale of complainant’s properties.
land titles covering Lots 848-A, 849-Q, and 849-P at Zamboanga City so - As such, respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his
he could sell them to enable her to pay her creditors. He then persuaded obligation and duty as complainant’s legal adviser and counsel when he
her to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any monetary or valuable took advantage of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the
consideration. Complainant agreed on condition that he would sell the lots complainant in ultimately putting complainant’s properties in his name and
and from the proceeds pay her creditors. possession in violation of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
- Complainant also owned Lots 2118, 2139, and 1141-A, likewise located Responsibility.
in Zamboanga City, which were mortgaged to her creditors. When the WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully
mortgages fell due, respondent redeemed the lots. Again, he convinced recommends that respondent Atty. Jose C. Go be suspended from the
her to execute deeds of sale involving those lots in his favor. As a result, practice of law for a period of six (6) months from receipt hereof and the
respondent became the registered owner of all the lots belonging to IBP Chapter where he is a registered member be furnished a copy of the
complainant. same for implementation hereof, subject to the approval of the Honorable
- Sometime in 1974, complainant came to know that respondent did not Members of the Board of Governors.”
sell her lots as agreed upon. Instead, he paid her creditors with his own - On July 30, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No.
funds and had her land titles registered in his name, depriving her of her XVI-2004-39 adopting and approving the Report of Commissioner
real properties worth millions. Navarro with modification in the sense that the recommended penalty of
- In our Resolution dated September 24, 1975, respondent was required suspension from the practice of law was increased from six (6) months to
to file his comment on the complaint. three (3) years.
- Instead of filing his comment, respondent submitted a motion to dismiss
on the ground that the complaint is premature since there is pending ISSUE
before the then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City Civil Case No. WON the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding that
1781 for recovery of ownership and declaration of nullity of deeds of sale respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility be sustained
filed by complainant against him involving the subject lots.
- On November 14, 1975, we issued a Resolution denying respondent’s HELD
motion and requiring him to submit his answer. Yes. However, we have to modify its recommended penalty.
- In his answer dated December 19, 1975, respondent denied the - Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the principal
allegations in the instant complaint. He averred that he sold, in good faith, source of ethical rules for lawyers in this jurisdiction, provides:
complainant’s lots to various buyers, including himself, for valuable “A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
consideration. On several occasions, he extended financial assistance to may come into his possession.”
complainant and even invited her to live with his family. His children used - Respondent breached this Canon. His acts of acquiring for himself
to call her “Lola” due to her frequent visits to his residence. He prayed complainant’s lots entrusted to him are, by any standard, acts constituting
that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty,
- On January 17, 1977, we referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in
General (OSG) for investigation, report, and recommendation. judgment. Such conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only
- It was only on March 13, 1990 or after 13 years, 1 month and 26 days himself but also the name and honor of the legal profession. He violated
that the OSG filed a motion to refer the instant case to the IBP for the this Court’s mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct themselves,
retaking of the testimonies of complainant’s witnesses and the submission especially in their dealing with their clients and the public at large, with
of its report and recommendation. honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
- On April 4, 1990, we issued a Resolution referring the case to the IBP - Canon 17 of the same Code states:
for investigation, report, and recommendation. “A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful
- The Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2004 of Atty. Lydia A. of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”
Navarro, Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, is - The records show that complainant reposed such high degree of trust
quoted as follows: and confidence in herein respondent, that when she engaged his
“A careful examination and evaluation of the evidence submitted by the services, she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell her
parties showed that all the properties of the complainant are presently lots, believing that the proceeds thereof would be used to pay her
owned by the respondent by virtue of several deeds of sale executed by creditors. Respondent, however, abused her trust and confidence when
the complainant in favor of the respondent without monetary consideration he did not sell her properties to others but to himself and spent his own
except Lot 849-D situated in Tomas Claudio which was returned by the money to pay her obligations. As correctly observed by Investigating IBP
respondent to the complainant on September 5, 1974. Commissioner Lydia Navarro, respondent is duty-bound to render a
- It is evident from the records that respondent was the one who notarized detailed report to the complainant on how much he sold the latter’s lots
the documents involving the said properties redeemed or repurchased by and the amounts paid to her creditors. Obviously, had he sold the lots to
the complainant from her creditors which ended up in respondent’s name other buyers, complainant could have earned more. Records show that
like in the deed of sale executed by Victoriano Dejerano in favor of she did not receive any amount from respondent. Clearly, respondent did
Nazaria Hernandez over Lots 1141-A-3-A and 1141-A-3-B; deed of sale not adhere faithfully and honestly in his duty as complainant’s counsel.
executed by Antonio Masrahon on September 3, 1961regarding Lot No.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a democracy a failure of which is disastrous to society. Any departure from
lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his
following acts: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; profession shall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority.
(4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral Reasoning Respondent's transgressions caused dishonor, not merely to
turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience of any respondent, but to the noble profession to which he belongs, for it cannot
lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an attorney be denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably
for a party without authority to do so. diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and
- In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos, we ordered the disbarment of lawyer when confidence.
he deceived his 85-year old aunt into entrusting him with all her money Disposition Consistent with the urgent need to maintain the esteemed
and later refused to return the same despite demand. In Navarro vs. traditions and high standards of the legal profession and to preserve
Meneses III, we disbarred a member of the Bar for his refusal or failure to undiminished public faith in the members of the Philippine Bar, the Court
account for the P50,000.00 he received from a client to settle a case. In resolves to DISBAR respondent ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT from the
Docena vs. Limson, we expelled from the brotherhood of lawyers, an practice of law. His name is hereby stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
attorney who extorted money from his client through deceit and
misrepresentation. In Busiños vs. Ricafort, an attorney was stripped of QUILBAN V ROBINOL
his license to practice law for misappropriating his client’s money. PER CURIAM; April 10, 1989
- Considering the depravity of respondent’s offense, we find the penalty
recommended by the IBP too light. It bears reiterating that a lawyer who (sarah cabrera)
takes advantage of his client’s financial plight to acquire the latter’s
properties for his own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public NATURE
in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Thus, for ADMINISTRATIVE CASES in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
violation of Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which constitutes gross misconduct, and consistent with FACTS
the need to maintain the high standards of the Bar and thus preserve the - The Colegio de San Jose, through its administrator, Father Federico
faith of the public in the legal profession, respondent deserves the Escaler, sold a land to the Quezon City Government as the site for the
ultimate penalty, that of expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of Quezon City General Hospital but reserved an area of 2,743 square
lawyers. meters as a possible development site. Squatters, however, settled in the
Disposition Respondent JOSE S. GO is found guilty of gross misconduct area since 1965 or 1966. In 1970, the Colegio, through Father Escaler
and is DISBARRED from the practice of law. His name is ordered gave permission to Congressman Luis R. Taruc to build on the reserved
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. site a house for his residence and a training center for the Christian Social
Movement. Seeing the crowded shanties of squatters, Congressman
BUSINOS V RICAFORT Taruc suggested to Father Escaler the idea of donating or selling the land
cheap to the squatters. Congressman Taruc then advised the squatters to
PER CURIAM; December 22, 1997 form an organization and choose a leader authorized to negotiate with
(keefe dela cruz) Father Escaler. Following that advice, the squatters formed the
"Samahang Pagkakaisa ng Barrio Bathala", with Bernabe Martin as
NATURE President.
Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Francisco Ricafort - But instead of working for the welfare of the Samahan, Martin went to
one Maximo Rivera, a realtor, with whom he connived to obtain the sale to
FACTS the exclusion of the other Samaban members. The land was ultimately
- Respondent Atty. Ricafort was entrusted P30,000 by complainant sold to Rivera at a cheap price of PI5 per square meter or a total
Businos to deposit in the bank account of complainant’s husband, which consideration of P41,961.65. The prevailing price of the land in the vicinity
amount respondent used for himself and delayed in payment. then was P1 00 to P1 20 per square meter. Father Escaler had been
- Respondent required a bond of P2,000 from Businos supposedly for one made to believe that Rivera represented the squatters on the property.
of her Civil Cases when no such bond was required. - In 1972, thirty-two heads of families of the Samahan filed the case
- Hence, Businos filed a complaint for disbarment against Ricafort against Rivera, et. al. The CFI, however, dismissed the case.
- The court required respondent to comment on the complaint time and - To prosecute the appea in the CAl, the Samahan members hired as their
again. But respondent failed to comply. As such, the court considered counsel Atty. Santiago R. Robinol for which the latter was paid P2,000.00
his right waived, and referred the complaint to the Office of the Bar as attorney's fees on. Atty. Robinol was also to be given by the members
Confidant. a part of the land, subject matter of the case, equal to the portion that
- The Office ordered respondent suspended for 1 year. would pertain to each of them. What was initially a verbal commitment on
the land sharing was confirmed in writing.
ISSUE - On 14 November 1978, the Court of Appeals reversed the CFI Decision
WON the 1-year suspension is commensurate sanction for the offenses and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
committed by respondent Atty. Ricafort - To raise the amount of P41,961.65 ordered paid by the Court of
Appeals, plus expenses for ejectment of the non-plaintiffs occupying the
HELD property, conveyance, documentation, transfer of title etc., the five officers
NO. of the Samahan collected, little by little, P2,500.00 from each head of
Ratio family. The Treasurer, Luis Agawan, issued the proper receipts prepared
With dishonesty, grave misconduct, grossly unethical behavior, and by Atty. Robinol.
palpable disregard of: - On 18 May 1979, the sum of P68,970.00 was turned over to Atty.
- Section 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court - unlawful retention of Robinol by the officers; on 31 May 1979 the amounts of P1,030.00 and
client’s funds P2,500.00 respectively; and on 2 June 1979, the sum of P2,500.00, or a
- Code of Professional Responsibility total of P75,000.00.
- Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, - After almost a year, the five officers discovered that no payment had
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. been made to Rivers. When queried, Atty. Robinol replied that there was
- Canon 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and an intervention filed in the civil case and that a Writ of Execution bad not
properties of his client that may come into his possession yet been issued by the CFI of Quezon City. However, it turned out that the
- Canon 11 - Respect due to courts motion for intervention had already been dismissed. After confronting Atty.
respondent chose to forget that by swearing the lawyer's oath, he became Robinol with that fact, the latter gave other excuses, which the officers
a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in discovered to have no basis at all.
the fair an impartial administration of justice — a vital function of - On 6 March 1980, 21 out of 32 plaintiffs arrived at a "first consensus" to
change their counsel, Atty. Robinol. The officers of the Samahan
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
thereafter approached Atty. AnacIeto R. Montemayor, who agreed to be - The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that complainants' evidence
their counsel, after he was shown the document containing the consensus on this is the more credible. And that he had, in fact, received the total
of the Samahan members to change Atty. Robinol as their lawyer. Upon sum of P75,000-00. Inevitable, therefore, is the conclusion that Atty.
Atty. Montemayor's advice, the officers sent Atty. Robinol a letter Robinol has rendered himself unfit to continue in the practice of law. He
informing the latter of their decision to terminate his services and has not only violated his oath not to delay any man for money and to
demanding the return of the P75,000.00 deposited with him. Atty. Robinol conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He has also brought the
turned deaf ears to the demand. A subsequent letter of the same tenor profession into disrepute with people who had reposed in it full faith and
was similarly disregarded by Atty. Robinol. reliance for the fulfillment of a life-time ambition to acquire a homelot they
- On 20 March 1980, Atty. Montemayor formally entered his appearance could call their own.
in a civil case as counsel for the plaintiffs, vice Atty. Robinol, on the 2. NO
strength of the authority given him by plaintiffs in said civil case through Reasoning In so far as Atty. Montemayor is concerned, we agree with the
the five officers. Atty. Montemayor then filed on 20 March 1980 a Motion findings of the Solicitor General that he has not exposed himself to any
for Execution praying that the defendants and/or the Clerk of Court be plausible charge of unethical conduct in the exercise of his profession
directed to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of the plaintiffs. At the when he agreed to serve as counsel for the plaintiffs.There is no doubt
hearing of the Motion for Execution, Atty. Robinol manifested that he had that clients are free to change their counsel in a pending case at any time
no objection to the appearance of and his substitution by Atty. (Section 26, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and thereafter employ another
Montemayor. lawyer who may then enter his appearance. In this case, the plaintiffs in
- Because Atty. Robinol, however, still questioned the first consensus, the civil suit below decided to change their lawyer, Atty. Robinol, for loss
another document labelled the a second consensus" was signed by 21 of trust and confidence. That act was well within their prerogative. In so
plaintiffs during a meeting held for the purpose on 24 November 1980 to far as the complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Robinol against Atty.
the effect that they had decided to change Atty. Robinol as their counsel Montemayor is concerned, therefore, the same is absolutely without merit.
because he had delayed paying for their land notwithstanding the Disposition
Decision of the Court of Appeals in their favor. - Atty. Santiago R. Robinol is hereby DISBARRED for having violated his
- Administrative Case No. 2144: On 15 April 1980 the Samahan officers lawyer's oath to delay no man for money, broken the fiduciary relation
filed this Administrative Complaint before this Court requesting the between lawyer and client, and proven himself unworthy to continue in the
investigation of Atty. Robinol for refusal to return the P75,000.00 and practice of law. By reason of his unethical actuations, he is hereby
praying that the Court exercise its power of discipline over members of declared to have forfeited his rights to attorney's fees and is ordered to
the Bar unworthy to practice law. return the amount of P75,000.00 to the plaintiffs.
- Administrative Case No. 2180: Atty. Robinol filed a complaint for - Administrative Case No. 2180 against Atty. Anacleto R. Montemayor for
Disbarment against Atty. Anacleto R. Montemayor for alleged gross disbarment is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
unethical conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in that Atty. Montemayor
readily accepted the case without his (Robinol's) formal withdrawal and BARNACHEA V QUIOCHO
conformity and knowing fully well that there was no consensus of all the CALLEJO; March 11, 2003
plaintiffs to discharge him as their counsel.
- Court referred administrative cases to the Sol. Gen. who recommended: (jat tabamo)
1. That Atty. Santiago R. Robinol be suspended for three months for
refusing to deliver the funds of the plaintiffs in his possession, with the NATURE
warning that a more severe penalty will be imposed for a repetition of the Administrative matter. Breach of Lawyer-Client Relations
same or similar act, and that he be ordered to return to the plaintiffs, the
sum of P75,000.00. 2. That the case against Atty. Anacleto R. FACTS
Montemayor, be dismissed, since he has not committed any misconduct - Complainant Ruby Barnachea sought the services of respondent Atty.
imputed to him by Atty. Robinol. Edwin Quiocho, a lawyer who has stopped practicing for some time and
was only in the second month of resuming practice, to cause the transfer
ISSUES under her name the title over a property previously owned by her sister.
1. WON Atty. Robinol should be suspended She paid P 41, 280 for the expenses for said transfer and for
2. WON Atty. Montemayor should be disbarred respondent’s legal services.
- Respondent failed to cause the transfer and consequently, complainant
HELD demanded that she be refunded and that the documents she entrusted to
1. YES respondent to cause the transfer be returned to her. Respondent failed to
Reasoning Atty. Robinol has, in fact, been guilty of ethical infractions and comply with the demands.
grave misconduct that make him unworthy to continue in the practice of - On Nov. 1, 2001, Respondent wrote complainant a letter saying he
the profession. After the CA had rendered a Decision favorable to his failed and that he would return the documents and the title entrusted to
clients and he had received the latter's funds, suddenly, he had a change him as well as refund the P 41, 280 through a personal check. He
of mind and decided to convert the payment of his fees from a portion of however failed to fund the check despite the demands of complainant.
land equivalent to that of each of the plaintiffs to P50,000.00, which he - In his answer to the complaint, respondent:
alleges to be the monetary value of that area. Certainly, Atty. Robinol had 1. Denied that complainant contracted his legal services. Received the P
no right to unilaterally appropriate his clients' money not only because he 41, 280 payment but claimed they were for actual and incidental
is bound by a written agreement but also because, under the expenses and not for legal services
circumstances, it was highly unjust for him to have done so. His clients 2. Asserted that he acted in good faith as shown by the fact that he
were mere squatters who could barely eke out an existence. They had returned the documents with an explanatory letter and refunded
painstakingly raised their respective quotas of P2,500.00 per family with complainant by issuing a personal check.
which to pay for the land only to be deprived of the same by one who, 3. Alleged that his failure was caused by his difficulty in making good the
after having seen the color of money, heartlessly took advantage of them. claimed amount, along with the fact that he was afflicted with diabetes
- Atty. Robinol has no basis to claim that since he was unjustly dismissed and loss of sight of his right eye.
by his clients he had the legal right to retain the money in his possession. 4. Claimed that he only agreed to help complainant with the condition that
Firstly, there was justifiable ground for his discharge as counsel. His his task was merely to go through the regular process of presenting
clients had lost confidence in him for he had obviously engaged in dilatory available documents, paying taxes and fees, and following up on the
tactics to the detriment of their interests, which he was duty-bound to pro. transfer, a task that a non-lawyer familiar with the procedure can perform.
tect. Secondly, even if there were no valid ground, he is bereft of any legal 5. Claimed to have discovered that the original copy of the transfer
right to retain his clients' funds intended for a specific purpose-the certificate of title had been burned and that complainant’s copy therefore
purchase of land. He stands obliged to return the money immediately to needed to be reconstituted before it can be cancelled and transferred.
their rightful owners. During this time, communication between both parties broke down, as
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
respondent’s mobile phone was stolen, he has no home phone and that unethical conduct was his drawing of a personal check and delivering the
phone calls between him and complainant at his work place had been same to complainant without sufficient funds in his bank account to cover
cute due to souring relationship with his co-workers. the check. Even as he promised to fund his account with the drawee
- A formal investigation was conducted by IBP thereafter and it found that bank, respondent failed to do so when the check became due. In this
the complainant engaged the legal services of the respondent as admitted case, respondent intransigently refused to return to the complainant the
by respondent himself in his letter to the complainant; that respondent amount of P 41,280 which he received for the expenses for the transfer to
was not able to meet his financial obligations due to financial difficulties her of the title of the property and for his professional fees. His dishonest
and that he was in good faith in his failure. The IBP Investigation conduct was compounded by his interjection of flimsy excuses for his
Commissioner also recommended that he be ordered to repay his client obstinate refusal to refund the amount to complainant
within 90 days from receipt of notice and warned that a repetition would Disposition Respondent Atty. Quiocho is found guilty of violating Canons
be dealt with more severely. 15 and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is suspended
- The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating from the practice of law for 1 year with a warning that a repetition of the
Commissioner’s recommendations with an additional sanction of same shall be dealt with more severely. He is also directed to restitute the
reprimand. complainant the full amount of 41,280 within 10 days from notice.
- If respondent fails to restitute the said amount within the aforesaid
ISSUE period, he shall be meted an additional suspension of 3 months for every
WON the penalty recommended by the Board of Governors corresponds month or fraction thereof of delay until he shall have paid the said amount
to the gravity of the wrong committed by respondent in full. In case a subsidiary penalty of suspension for his failure to
restitute the said amount shall be necessary, respondent shall serve
HELD successively the penalty of his one year suspension and the subsidiary
No. The Court finds that the penalty recommended by the Board of penalty.
Governors is not commensurate to the gravity of the wrong committed by
respondent. RUBIAS V BATILLER
Ratio 1: Respondent’s claim that complainant did not retain his legal TEEHANKEE; May 29, 1973
services flies in the face of his letter to complainant. Even if it were true
that no attorney-client relationship existed between them, case law has it FACTS
that an attorney may be removed or otherwise disciplined not only for - On August 31, 1964, plaintiff Domingo D. Rubias, a lawyer, filed a suit to
malpractice and dishonesty in the profession but also for gross recover the ownership and possession of certain portions of lot located in
misconduct not connected with his professional duties Barotac Viejo, Iloilo which he bought from his father-in-law, Francisco
Reasoning In this case, respondent failed to comply with his undertaking Militante in 1956 against its present occupant defendant, Isaias Batiller,
for almost two months. Worse, despite demands of complainant, he failed who illegally entered said portions of the lot on two occasions — in 1945
to refund the amount of P 41, 280 and to return to complainant the deed and in 1959. In his answer with counter-claim defendant claims that he
of absolute sale and title over the property. Respondent’s claim that and his predecessors-in-interest have always been in actual, open and
complainant could not contact him because he did not have any landline continuous possession since time immemorial under claim of ownership
at his residence and that his mobile phone was stolen in October 2001, is of the portions of the lot in question. Unfortunately, his title
hard to believe. He failed to adduce a morsel of evidence to prove that - Francisco Militante claimed ownership of a parcel of land located in the
his telephone at the business center was cut or that his mobile phone had Barrio of General Luna, municipality of Barotac Viejo province of Iloilo,
been stolen. Even then, respondent could have easily contacted the which he caused to be surveyed on July 18-31, 1934
complainant at her residence or could have written her a letter informing - Before WWII, Francisco Militante filed with the Court of First Instance of
her that the original copy of TCT No. 324411 in the custody of the Iloilo an application for the registration of the title of the land but was
Register of Deeds was burned when the Quezon City Hall was gutted by opposed by the Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry and other
fire and that there was a need for the reconstitution of said title. Neither oppositors. During WWII, the record of the case was lost. After the war,
did respondent adduce evidence that he had been sick with diabetes and Francisco Militante petitioned this court to reconstitute the record of the
had lost his sight in his right eye. Respondent simply refused to adduce case but in the end, the registration was denied.
evidence to prove his allegations in his Answer to the complaint. - He appealed but pending the decision (which was denied in the end),
Ratio 2: A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client Francisco Militante sold to the plaintiff, Domingo Rubias the land, and was
that may come to his possession. He is a trustee to said funds and registered in the Registry of Deeds
property. He is to keep the funds of his client separate and apart from his - Soon after, both Rubias and Militante were declaring the land for
own and those of others kept by him. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a taxation purposes
specific purpose such as for the registration of a deed with the Register of - On April 22, 1960, the plaintiff filed forcible Entry and Detainer case
Deeds and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title over real property against Isaias Batiller in the Justice of the Peace Court of Barotac Viejo
under the name of his client if not utilized, must be returned immediately Province of Iloilo
to his client upon demand therefor. - During the trial of this case on the merit, the plaintiff will prove by
Reasoning The lawyer’s failure to return the money of his client upon competent evidence the following:
demand gives rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated said > That the land he purchased from Francisco Militante under Exh.
money in violation of the trust reposed on him. The conversion by a "A" was formerly owned and possessed by Liberato Demontaño but
lawyer of funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of that on September 6, 1919 the land was sold at public auction by
professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal virtue of a judgment in a Civil Case entitled "Edw J. Pflieder plaintiff
profession. vs. Liberato Demontaño Francisco Balladeros and Gregorio Yulo,
Ratio 3: The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature and defendants", of which Yap Pongco was the purchaser (Exh. "1-3").
is of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character. A lawyer is duty- The sale was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of
bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and Iloilo on August 4, 1920, under Primary Entry No. 69 (Exh. "1"), and
transactions with his clients. The profession, therefore, demands of an a definite Deed of Sale was executed by Constantino A. Canto,
attorney an absolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, on Jan. 19, 1934 in favor of Yap Pongco
any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his client. (Exh. "I"), the sale having been registered in the Office of the
Reasoning In this case, respondent miserably failed to measure up to the Register of Deeds of Iloilo on February 10, 1934 (Exh. "1-1").
exacting standard expected of him. Although the Court is led to believe > On September 22, 1934, Yap Pongco sold this land to Francisco
that respondent’s failure to cause the transfer of the title of the property Militante as evidenced by a notarial deed (Exh. "J") which was
under the name of complainant was due to a financial problem that beset registered in the Registry of Deeds on May 13, 1940 (Exh. "J-1").
him shortly after he received the checks from complainant. It can easily - Defendants, on the other hand will prove by competent evidence during
be inferred from respondent’s letter that he used complainant’s money to the trial of this case the following facts:
alleviate if not solve his financial woes. What compounded respondent’s
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
> That lot No. 2 of the Psu-1552 it (Exh. '5') was originally owned and reimbursement of the price paid by him and other expenses, and ruled
possessed by Felipe Batiller, grandfather of the defendant Basilio that counsel is a lawyer and is presumed to know the law. He must,
Batiller, on the death of the former in 1920, as his sole heir. Isaias therefore, from the beginning, have been well aware of the defect in his
Batiller succeeded his father , Basilio Batiller, in the ownership and title and is, consequently, a possessor in bad faith."
possession of the land in the year 1930, and since then up to the - Article 1491 of our Civil Code (like Article 1459 of the Spanish Civil
present, the land remains in the possession of the defendant, his Code) prohibits in its six paragraphs certain persons, by reason of the
possession being actual, open, public, peaceful and continuous in relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property, from acquiring
the concept of an owner, exclusive of any other rights and adverse to such property in their trust or control either directly or indirectly and "even
all other claimants. at a public or judicial auction," as follows: (1) guardians; (2) agents; (3)
> That the alleged predecessors in interest of the plaintiff have never administrators; (4) public officers and employees; judicial officers and
been in the actual possession of the land and that they never had employees, prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers; and (6) others especially
any title thereto. disqualified by law.
> That Lot No. 2, Psu 155241, the subject of Free Patent application - New Civil Code recognizes absolute nullity of contracts "whose cause,
of the defendant has been approved. object, or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order
- On August 17, 1965, defendant's counsel manifested in open court that or public policy" or which are "expressly prohibited or declared void by
before any trial on the merit of the case could proceed he would file a law" and declares such contracts "inexistent and void from the beginning."
motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint which he did, alleging that plaintiff - nullity of such prohibited contracts is definite and permanent and cannot
does not have cause of action against him because the property in be cured by ratification. The public interest and public policy remain
dispute which he (plaintiff) allegedly bought from his father-in-law, paramount and do not permit of compromise or ratification. In his aspect,
Francisco Militante was the subject matter of LRC No. 695 filed in the CFI the permanent disqualification of public and judicial officers and lawyers
of Iloilo, which case was brought on appeal to this Court and docketed as grounded on public policy differs from the first three cases of guardians,
CA-G.R. No. 13497-R in which aforesaid case plaintiff was the counsel on agents and administrators (Article 1491, Civil Code), as to whose
record of his father-in-law, Francisco Militante. transactions it had been opined that they may be "ratified" by means of
- Invoking Arts. 1409 and 1491 of the Civil Code which reads: and in "the form of a new contact, in which cases its validity shall be
> Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the determined only by the circumstances at the time the execution of such
beginning: (7) Those expressly prohibited by law. new contract. The causes of nullity which have ceased to exist cannot
> ART. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire any purchase, impair the validity of the new contract. Thus, the object which was illegal
even at a public auction, either in person of through the mediation of at the time of the first contract, may have already become lawful at the
another: . time of the ratification or second contract; or the service which was
+ (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior impossible may have become possible; or the intention which could not
and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected be ascertained may have been clarified by the parties. The ratification or
with the administration of justice, the property and rights of in second contract would then be valid from its execution; however, it does
litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within not retroact to the date of the first contract."
whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective - As applied to the case at bar, the lower court therefore properly acted
functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring an upon defendant-appellant's motion to dismiss on the ground of nullity of
assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the plaintiff's alleged purchase of the land, since its juridical effects and
property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in plaintiff's alleged cause of action founded thereon were being asserted
which they may take part by virtue of their profession. against defendant-appellant.
- Defendant claims that plaintiff could not have acquired any interest in the
property in dispute as the contract he (plaintiff) had with Francisco CANTILLER V POTENCIANO
Militante was inexistent and void. (See pp. 22-31, Record on Appeal).
Plaintiff strongly opposed defendant's motion to dismiss claiming that
PER CURIAM; December 18, 1989
defendant can not invoke Articles 1409 and 1491 of the Civil Code as (ricky cantre)
Article 1422 of the same Code provides that 'The defense of illegality of
contracts is not available to third persons whose interests are not directly NATURE
affected' (See pp. 32-35 Record on Appeal). Administrative complaint versus Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano.
- On October 18, 1965, the lower court issued an order disclaiming
plaintiffs complaint (pp. 42-49, Record on Appeal.) In the aforesaid order FACTS
of dismissal the lower court practically agreed with defendant's contention - Subject of this administrative complaint is Humberto V. Potenciano, a
that the contract (Exh. A) between plaintiff and Francism Militante was null practicing lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar under Roll No.
and void. 21862. He is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also
with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer
ISSUES of the court.
WON the contract of sale between appellant and his father-in-law, the late - Complainant is the sister of Peregrina Cantiller, defendant in an action
Francisco Militante over the property subject of Plan Psu-99791 was void for "ejectment" before the MTC of Manila, Branch 57, San Juan, Metro
because it was made when plaintiff was counsel of his father-in-law in a Manila. Another action, likewise involving Peregrina but this time as
land registration case involving the property in dispute plaintiff, was then pending before the RTC, Branch 168, Pasig, Metro
Manila for "reconveyance with damages." Both actions involve the
HELD apartment unit being rented by Cantiller and her sister. When the two
YES. cases were concluded, Peregrina came out the losing party. The civil
- The purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his client is case for reconveyance was ordered dismissed by the RTC on June 9,
categorically prohibited by Article 1491 paragraph (5) of the Philippine 1987 while the civil case for ejectment was decided by the MTC against
Civil Code, reproduced supra; 6 and that consequently, plaintiff's her.
purchase of the property in litigation from his client (assuming that his - On October 8, 1987 pursuant to the writ of execution issued in the civil
client could sell the same since as already shown above, his client's claim case for ejectment, Cantiller and Peregrina were served a notice to vacate
to the property was defeated and rejected) was void and could produce the rented premises within four (4) days from receipt of notice. Desperate
no legal effect, by virtue of Article 1409, paragraph (7) of our Civil Code and at a loss on what to do, they consulted a certain Sheriff Pagalunan on
which provides that contracts "expressly prohibited or declared void by the matter. Pagalunan, in turn, introduced them to Potenciano. After such
law' are "inexistent and that "(T)hese contracts cannot be ratified. Neither introduction, the parties "impliedly agreed" that Potenciano would handle
can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived." their case.
- In a case, the Court ordered the issuance of a writ of possession for the - A petition entitled "Annulment of Judgment, Annulment of Sale and
return of the land by the lawyer to the adverse parties without Damages with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo Order,
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
etc." was prepared by Potenciano to forestall the execution of the order to standard of conduct by every attorney towards his client. The Court finds
vacate. In the afternoon of October 9, 1987, Cantiller was made to sign by that Potenciano failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client's
Potenciano what she described as a "[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, interests. Potenciano had knowledge beforehand that he would be asked
and haphazardly composed" petition for annulment of judgment. Cantiller by the presiding judge in Civil Case No. 55118 to withdraw his
alleges that Potenciano promised her that the necessary restraining order appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such prior
would be secured if only because the judge who would hear the matter knowledge, Potenciano took no steps to find a replacement nor did he
was his "katsukaran" (close friend). Potenciano demanded from Cantiller inform complainant of this fact. Even assuming that Potenciano had no
P1,000 as attorney's fee which the latter paid that same afternoon. previous knowledge that he would be asked to withdraw, the record is
However, when the case was raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the quite clear that four (4) days prior to the hearing of the preliminary
presiding judge asked Potenciano to withdraw as counsel in the case on injunction in Civil Case No. 55118 Potenciano already filed a motion
the ground of their friendship. therein withdrawing as complainant's counsel interposing as reason
- On October 11, 1987, Potenciano went to the house of Cantiller and therefore his frequent attacks of pain due to hemorrhoids. Despite this
asked her to be ready with P2,000 to be given to another judge who will void, Potenciano failed to find a replacement. He did not even ask
issue the restraining order in the ejectment case. Cantiller and her sister complainant to hire another lawyer in his stead. This Court agrees that the
were only able to raise the amount of P1,000 which they immediately petitions in Civil Cases Nos. 55118 and 55210 appear to be poorly
gave to Potenciano. Later Potenciano informed Cantiller and her sister prepared and written. Having represented himself capable of picking up
that he could not locate the judge who would issue the restraining order. the cudgels for the apparently lost cause of complainant Potenciano
The parties, then, instead went to the Max's Restaurant where Potenciano should have carefully prepared the pleadings if only to establish the
ordered some food-including two plastic bags of food allegedly to be given justness of his representation. The little time involved is no excuse.
to the judge who would issue the restraining order. At this juncture, Complainant reposed full faith in him. His first duty was to file the best
Potenciano asked for the remaining balance of the P2,000 which he pleading within his capability. Apparently Potenciano was more interested
earlier demanded. Cantiller gave her last money-a ten dollar ($10.00) bill. in getting the most out of the complainant who was in a hopeless
- Sometime after the filing of Civil Case No. 55118, Potenciano informed situation. He bragged about his closeness to the judge concerned in one
complainant and Peregrina that there was a need to file another case with case and talked about the need to "buy" the restraining order in the other.
the RTC to enable them to retain possession of the apartment. For this Worse still he got P10,000.00 as alleged deposit in court which he never
purpose, Potenciano told complainant to prepare the amount of deposited. Instead he pocketed the same. The pattern to milk the
P10,000.00 allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig complainant dry is obvious. The allegation of Potenciano that the P10,000
as purchase price of the apartment and another P1,000 to cover the was given to him as fee for his services, is simply incredible. Indeed, such
expenses of the suit. Potenciano stressed to the complainant the need amount is grossly disproportionate with the service he actually rendered.
and urgency of filing the new complaint. Complainant and Peregrina And his failure to return even a portion of the amount upon demand of
raised the said amounts through the kindness of some friends and complainant all the more bolsters the protestation of complainant that
relatives. On October 26, 1987, the money was handed over to the Potenciano does not deserve to remain as an officer of the court.
respondent. Disposition Court finds Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano be guilty of the
- At the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 55118 on charges against him and hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
October 30, 1987, Potenciano, contrary to his promise that he would for an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate that he has
secure a restraining order, withdrew his appearance as counsel for rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law.
complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as Respondent is ordered to return to complainant herein the sum of
replacement. Thus, no restraining order or preliminary injunction was P11,000 with legal interest from the date of this resolution until it is
obtained. As a consequence, the order to vacate was eventually enforced actually returned.
and executed.
- Sometime thereafter, it came to complainant's knowledge that there was ALISBO V JALINDOON
really no need to make a deposit of P10,000 relative to Civil Case No. GRINO-AQUINO; July 18, 1991
55210. After another inquiry, she found out that in fact there was no such
deposit made. Thus, on December 23, 1987, complainant sent a demand (kiyo miura)
letter to Potenciano asking for the return of the total amount of P11,000
which the former earlier gave to the latter. However, this letter was never FACTS
answered and the money was never returned. Hence, complainant lodged - 3/16/70: Ramon Alisbo engaged respondent Atty. Jalandoon as his
this administrative complaint against herein respondent. counsel in an action to recover his share of the estate of the deceased
- Potenciano in his answer contends that the filing of Civil Cases Nos. sps Catalina Sales and Restituto Gozuma w/c had been adjudicated to
55118 and 55210 was done in good faith and that the allegations of him under the judgment of CC No. 4963 because Alisbo failed to file a
complainant relative to the administrative charge against him are all lies, motion for execution of judgment in his favor w/in the reglementary 5-year
product of one's imagination and only intended to harrass him. period. The salient provisions of the Contract for Professional Services
(Exhibit A) between Alisbo and Attorney Jalandoon were the following:
ISSUE 1. That respondent will decide whether or not to file a suit for the
WON Potenciano is guilty if the charges against him recovery of Ramon Alisbo's share
2. That respondent will shoulder all expenses of litigation; and
HELD 3. As attorney's fees, respondent will be paid 50% of the value of the
Yes. property recovered.
Ratio When a lawyer takes a clients cause, he thereby covenants that he - 4/18/70: respondent prepared a complaint w/ Ramon, Teotimo, and
will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to Pacifico Alisbo as plaintiffs and Carlito Sales as defendant signed by him
exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause makes alone (CC No. 9559); on the same day, he withdrew it and replaced it with
such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him. a complaint w/ Ramon as sole plaintiff and Teotimo and Pacifico
Reasoning The acts of Potenciano in this case violate the most elementary impleaded as defendants w/c respondent and Atty. Pablo signed as
principles of professional ethics. Public interest requires that an attorney counsel
exert his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or defense of his - 12/8/71: an amended complaint was filed w/ Ramon, his judicial
client's cause. A lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor guardian Norberto, and eight others as plaintiffs, signed by Atty. Pablo
not only protects the interests of his client; he also serves the ends of alone (10 years after final judgment)
justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the - 8/21/73: defendant Sales filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
community to the legal profession. This is so because the entrusted action had prescribed
privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the - 10/3/73: the CFI of Negros Occidental dismissed the case on the ground
client but also to the court, to the bar or to the public. That circumstance of prescription
explains the public concern for the maintenance of an untarnished
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
(though Ramon filed the complaint w/in the ten-year prescriptive period, it was subsequently discharged by complainants as counsel. After
was null and void since Ramon was insane and hence w/o capacity to discharging respondent they found out that the name of Robert Leonido
sue) was not included in the charge. This omission was however remedied by
- 1/2/74: complainants charged Jalandoon w/ having deliberately caused their new counsel. When the adverse parties Soriano and Leonido filed a
the dismissal of CC No. 9559 and concealing the fact that he had been motion for reinvestigation of their case against herein complainants,
the former legal counsel of Sales Soriano and Leonido presented Ngayans’ first affidavit which contained
- Jalandoon claims he only discovered his previous professional herein respondent’s omission. This was allegedly made by Atty. Apolo P.
relationship with Sales during the pre-trial on Oct. 6, 1972 Gaminda, a former classmate of respondent. It appears then that Atty.
Tugade submitted an affidavit to the Court favorable to the cause of
ISSUE Soriano and Leonido. Further, it was found out that herein respondent
WON Jalandoon is guilty of non-disclosure to client of adverse or attorney was also a lawyer of the brother of Robert Leonido in an
conflicting interest insurance company.

HELD
- YES because:
1. Before filing the complaint, he had several interviews w/ Ramon and ISSUE
Norberto re: CC No. 4963 WON Atty. Tugade violation of subparagraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20,
2. He must have done research on the court records of CC No. 4963 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. 4 Simply put, whether he failed to uphold
3. For CC No. 9559, he had to inform himself of the personal the trust and confidence conferred to him by his clients
circumstances of defendant Sales
-w/ this knowledge, he should have declined employment by Alisbo due HELD
to conflict of interest YES. [a] Respondent's act of executing and submitting an affidavit as
- The actuations of respondent attorney violated Paragraphs 1 and 2, No. exhibit for Robert Leonido and Rowena Soriano advancing facts
6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provide: prejudicial to the case of his former clients demonstrates clearly an act of
6. ADVERSE INFLUENCE AND CONFLICTING INTEREST offensive personality against complainants, violative of the first part of
It is the duty of a lawyer at the time of retainer to disclose to the client all paragraph (f), Section 20, Rate 138, Rules of Court. Likewise,
the circumstances of his relations to the parties, and any interest in or respondent's act of joining the adverse parties in celebrating their victory
connection with the controversy, which might influence the client in the over the dismissal of the case against them shows not only his bias
selection of counsel. against the complainants but also constitutes a degrading act on the part
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express of a lawyer. It was meant only to titillate the anger of complainants.
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within [b] Respondent's failure to answer the complaint against him and his
the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting
in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to resistance to lawful order, of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his
another client requires him to oppose. (pp. 14-15, Solicitor General's oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
Report.)
-Jalandoon had delayed the filing of CC No. 9559, instead asking the IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW
court to resolve the pending incidents in CC No. 4963. The first complaint TINGA; July 30, 2004
w/ Ramon and his brothers was only partially defective due to Ramon’s
insanity; by making Ramon the sole plaintiff in the second complaint, it (monch bacani)
was rendered wholly defective and ineffectual in stopping the prescriptive
period FACTS
- Jalandoon alleges to have only found out about Ramon’s incapacity on - On August 6, 1987, Edward Benavente, the creditor of a certain Castro,
July 17, 1971, he only amended the complaint impleading his guardian as obtained a judgment against Castro in a civil case. Maquera served as
plaintiff 5 months . later when it had prescribed Castro’s counsel in said case. Castro’s property subject of the case, a
Disposition It was more than simple negligence; the Court found parcel of land, was to be sold at a public auction in satisfaction of his
respondent guilty of serious misconduct and infidelity and was suspended obligation to Benavente. Castro, however, retained the right of
for a period of 2 years. redemption over the property for one year. The right of redemption could
be exercised by paying the amount of the judgment debt within the
NGAYAN V TUGADE aforesaid period.
- At the auction sale, Benavente purchased Castro’s property for $500.00,
PER CURIAM; February 7, 1991 the amount which Castro was adjudged to pay him.
(rean balisi) - On December 21, 1987, Castro, in consideration of Maquera’s legal
services in the civil case involving Benavente, entered into an oral
NATURE agreement with Maquera and assigned his right of redemption in favor of
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Violation of the latter.
subparagraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court - On January 8, 1988, Maquera exercised Castro’s right of redemption by
paying Benavente $525.00 in satisfaction of the judgment debt.
FACTS Thereafter, Maquera had the title to the property transferred in his name.
- Respondent, Atty. Faustino Tugade, had been complainants’ (Fulgencio, - On December 31, 1988, Maquera sold the property to C.S. Chang and
Tomasa and Bella Aurora Ngayan) counsel for a number of cases prior to C.C. Chang for $320,000.00
this complaint. Complainants asked Atty. Tugade to prepare an affidavit to - The Superior Court of Guam suspended Atty. Mosquera from the
be used as basis for a complaint to be filed against Mrs. Rowena Soriano practice of law for 2 years as he acquired his client’s property as payment
and Robert Leonido as a consequence of the latter's unauthorized entry for his legal services, then sold it and as a consequence obtained an
into complainants' dwelling. Without thoroughly reading the same, Mrs.
Tomasa A. Ngayan allegedly signed it because she was rushed to do the 4
same. After signing, Mrs. Ngayan noted a paragraph which did not Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: "(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to
mention Leonido was with Soriano when both suddenly barged into himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business
except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
complainants' residence. Mrs. Ngayan allegedly told respondent about his "(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
omission and in front of her, Atty Tugade crossed out the paragraph she witnesses, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged"
complained about and promised to make another affidavit. Respondent
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
unreasonably high fee for handling his client’s case. It was in violation of Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty. Camano representing
Rules 1.5 and 1.8(a) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in half of the attorney’s fees.
Guam. - Complainant failed to make any other payment. The sheriff in
- The IBP on the other hand, concluded that although the said court found coordination with Atty. Camano enforced the writ of execution and levied
Maquera liable for misconduct, “there is no evidence to establish that he the properties found in the subject apartment. Complainant renegotiated
committed a breach of ethics in the Philippines.” However, they and Atty. Camano agreed to release the levied properties and allow
suspended him indefinitely for failure to pay his annual dues as a member complainant to remain at the apartment. Acting on Atty. Camano’s advice,
of the IBP. complainant presented an affidavit of ownership to the sheriff who
released the levied items. However, a gas stove was not returned to the
ISSUE complainant but was kept by Atty. Camano in the unit of the Genito
WON Maquera’s acts in Guam constitute as grounds for suspension in Apartments where he was temporarily staying.
the Philippines - complainant filed the instant administrative case for disbarment against
Atty. Camano and Atty. Inocentes. The IBP Board of Governors resolved
HELD to suspend Atty. Camano from the practice of law for 1 year and to
Yes. reprimand Atty. Inocentes for exercising command responsibility.
- Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
“The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a ISSUES
competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction 1. WON Atty. Camano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his 2. WON Atty. Inocentes violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the
acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary
agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or
suspension” HELD
- The Superior Court of Guam found that Maquera acquired his client’s 1. YES
property by exercising the right of redemption previously assigned to him Ratio An attorney has no right to act as counsel or legal representative for
by the client in payment of his legal services. Such transaction falls a person without being retained. No employment relation was offered or
squarely under Article 1492 in relation to Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the accepted in the instant case.
Civil Code of the Philippines. Paragraph 5 of Article 1491 prohibits the Reasoning Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires
lawyer’s acquisition by assignment of the client’s property which is the all lawyers to observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with their
subject of the litigation handled by the lawyer. Under Article 1492, the clients. Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party with an
prohibition extends to sales in legal redemption. interest conflicting with that of his client may be held guilty of disloyalty.
- The prohibition ordained in paragraph 5 of Article 1491 and Article 1492 However, the advice given by Atty. Camano in the context where the
is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his office, an attorney complainant was the rightful owner of the incorrectly levied properties was
may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and in consonance with his duty as an officer of the court. It should not be
unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client. construed as being in conflict with the interest of the spouses Genito as
- Mosquera’s acts are violative of a lawyer’s sworn duty to act with fidelity they have no interest over the properties. The act of informing
toward his clients. They are also violative of the Code of Professional complainant that his properties would be returned upon showing proof of
Responsibility, specifically, Canon 17 and Rule 1.01. his ownership may hint at infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence of
Disposition Atty. Mosquera is required to show cause within 15 days why double dealing and betrayal.
he should not be suspended or disbarred. For the meantime, he is 2. YES
suspended from the practice of law for 1 year or until he shall have paid Ratio His failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under
his membership dues, whichever comes later. the charge of his law firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. As name
practitioner of the law office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the
SOLATAN V INOCENTES responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the
TINGA; August 9, 2005 firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Reasoning Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on
(jonas azura) the latter’s dealings with complainant. This is the linchpin of his
supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof.
NATURE Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the
comings and goings of the cases handled by persons over which they are
FACTS exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to
- Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty. Oscar foreclose violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons
Inocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office was retained under their charge.
by spouses Genito, owners of an apartment complex when the Genito Disposition Petition granted. Sanction on Atty. Camano is affirmed. Atty.
Apartments were placed under sequestration by the PCGG. They Inocentes is admonished with the warning that repetition of the same or
represented the spouses Genito before the PCGG and the similar omission will be dealt with more severely.
Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against non-paying tenants
occupying the Genito Apartments. LEGARDA V COURT OF APPEALS
- Complainant’s sister was a tenant of the Genito Apartments. It appears
that she left for the States and her apartment was used by members of PER CURIAM; June 10, 1992
her family. A complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals was filed (ajang pineda)
against her and a decision was rendered in a judgment by default
ordering her to vacate the premises. FACTS
- Complainant was occupying said apartment when he learned of the - Victoria Legarda was the defendant in a complaint for a specific
judgment. He informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange the performance with damages filed by private respondent New Cathay
execution of a new lease contract by virtue of which he would be the new House Inc (NCHI). The complaint is aimed at compelling Victoria Legarda
lessee of the apartment. Atty. Inocentes referred him to Atty. Camano, the to sign a lease contract involving her house and lot which Cathay House
attorney in charge of ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito Inc. intended to use in operating a restaurant. As prayed for in the
Apartments. During the meeting with Atty. Camano, an verbal agreement complaint, the lower court issued a TRO enjoining Victoria Legarda and
was made in which complainant agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of her agents from stopping the renovation of the property.
his sister, including awarded attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- Thereafter, Antonio Coronel of the Coronel Law office entered his - the court thereafter ordered the parties to submit their affidavits and
appearance as counsel for Legarda. position papers w/in 10 days from receipt of order – but the respondent
- He filed an urgent motion for extension of 10 days which was granted failed to do so. Nonetheless, the court dismissed the complaint on the
by the court. However, Legarda was not able to file her answer within the ground that the plaintiffs were not the real parties in interest
10 days given so she was declared in default, thereby paving way for the - The plaintiffs appealed the decision. The RTC directed the parties to
presentation of evidence ex parte file their memoranda. Once again, the respondent failed to do so. The
- The lower court then rendered a decision by default leaving Legarda on courts original decision was reversed and set aside.
the losing end. Upon appeal, the CA found the petition unmeritorious and Petitioners' Claim
dismissed it. It said, “It is our belief that this case is one of pure and - Having lost the case, the complainant filed this administrative issue for
simple negligence on the part of the defendant’s counsel, who simply professional delinquency consisting of his failure to file the required
failed to file the answer in behalf of the defendant.” pleadings. The complainants contend that due to respondent’s inaction,
- But inspite of the CA’s tirade on his professional competence, Atty. he lost the opportunity to present his cause and ultimately, the case itself
Coronel did not lift a finger to file a motion for reconsideration, neither did Respondents' Comments
he initiate moves towards an appeal on the decision which was adverse - respondent denies this and stresses that he was not the original
and prejudicial to his client. Thus the CA decision became final. counsel of the couple
- Victoria Legarda then got a new lawyer and won the case. - he avers that when he agreed to represent complainant at the
- The court then required Atty. Coronel to show cause w/in 10 days from continuation of the preliminary conference in the main case, it was for the
notice why he should not be held administratively liable for his acts and sole purpose of asking leave of court to file an amended answer bec, he
omissions w/c resulted in grave injustice to petitioner. was made to believe that it was made by a non-lawyer. When found out
- He filed for another 30-day extension. Then another 30-day extension. that it was actually made by lawyer, he asked the court to relieve him as
Not filed in time, the 2nd motion was denied the couple’s counsel, but he was denied.
- He also asserts that he purposely did not file a rejoinder believing in
ISSUE good faith that it wasn’t anymore necessary
WON Atty. Colorado was negligent thus violating Canon 18 of the
Professional Code of Responsibility ISSUE
WON Atty. Oca (respondent) violated the lawyer’s oath through his
HELD professional deliquency
Yes.
- Atty. Colorado violated Canon 18 which states that “A lawyer shall HELD
serve his client w/ competence and diligence” specifically Canon 18.03, “a Yes.
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence - His failure to file the affidavits did not prejudice his clients for the court
in connection therewith shall render him liable.” nevertheless rendered a decision favorable to them. But failure to do so
- This is not the only case wherein in dealing w/ the court’s orders, Atty. per se is a violation of Rule 18.03
Coronel appears to exhibit a pattern of negligence, inattention to his - The respondent did not submit the affidavits and position paper when
obligations as counsel, sloppiness and superciliousness. In Imelda required by the MCTC. With his resolution not to file the pleadings
Marcos vs PCGG, the court imposed a fine on him after he was found already firmed up, he did not bother to inform the MCTC of his resolution
guilty of negligence in mockery of the authority of the court
Ratio - Respondent’s stubborn and uncaring demeanor surfaced again when
- Lawyers are indispensable part of the whole system of administering he did not file a rejoinder to complainant’s reply
justice in this jurisdiction. At a time when strong disturbing criticisms are Ratio
being hurled at the legal profession, strict compliance w/ one’s oath of - The lawyer’s oath embodies the fundamental principles that guide
office and the canons of professional ethics is an imperative. every member of the legal fraternity. From it springs the lawyer’s duties
- Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and and responsibilities that any infringement thereof can cause his
beyond reproach in dealing w/ their clients. The profession is not disbarment, suspension or other preliminary action
synonymous w. an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of public - Canon 18: A lawyer shall serve his client w/ competence and diligence
interest. - Much is demanded from those who engage in the practice of law
because they have a duty not only to their clients but also to the court, to
ENDAYA V OCA the bar and to the public. The lawyer’s diligence and dedication to his
TINGA; September 3, 2003 work and profession not only promote the interest of his client, it likewise
help attain the ends of justice by contributing to the proper and speedy
(ajang pineda) administration of cases, maintain respect to the legal profession.
- The facts and circumstances in this case indubitably show respondent’s
NATURE failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer
A complaint filed by Artemio Andaya against Atty. Wilfredo Oca for
violation of the lawer’s oath and for professional delinquency or infidelity
BLANZA V ARCANGEL
FACTS BENGZON; September 5, 1967
- Nov. 7, 1991 - a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against (javi bautista)
Endaya and his spouse, Patrosenia Endaya. The complaint was filed by
Apolonia Hornilla, Pedro Hernandez and Dominador Hernandez NATURE
- Dec. 13, 1991 – the Endaya couple filed their answer which was Original Proceeding in the Supreme Court. Disciplinary action.
prepared by a certain Isaias Ramirez. A preliminary conference was
conducted w/c the couple attended w/o counsel. During the conference, FACTS
complainant categorically admitted that plaintiffs were the declared - On April, 1955, Atty. Arcangel volunteered to help them in their
owners for taxation purposes of the land involved in the case respective pension claims in connection with the death of their husbands,
- Thereafter, the complainant couple sought services of the public both P.C. soldiers. They handed Arcangel pertinent documents and also
attorney’s office in Batangas City wherein the respondent attorney was affixed their signatures on blank papers. After which, they noticed that
assigned to handle the case respondent lost interest and no progress was made. After 6 years they
- At the continuation of the preliminary conference, respondent finally asked respondent to return the said documents but the latter
appeared as counsel; he also moved for the amendment of the answer refused. Upon questioning by Fiscal Rana to whom the case was referred
previously filed by the couple, but his motion was denied by the Solicitor General respondent admitted having received the
documents but explained that it was for photostating purposes only. His
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
failure to immediately return them was due to complainants’ refusal to any reason why the court’s admonishing for a limited time to do
hand him money to pay for the photostating costs which prevented him compliance does not apply to this case now before Us.”
from withdrawing the documents. Anyway, he had already advanced the - Abay attributes the failure of Montesino to submit the brief to the latter’s
expenses himself and turned over the documents to the fiscal. gross negligence and evident bad faith
- Fiscal found respondents explanation satisfactory and recommended the - Montesino allegedly abandoned the appeal without the knowledge and
respondents exoneration. However, Sol Gen feels that respondent consent of the NIT and supposedly never told NIT that its appeal had
deserves at least a severe reprimand considering 1) his failure to attend already been dismissed thus the complaint
to complainants pension claims for 6 years; 2) his failure to immediately - Montesino answered (October 29, 2002) that
return the documents despite repeated demands upon him, and 3) his 1. pending appeal, he discovered that the property that it was
failure to return to complainant Pasion, allegedly all of her documents. seeking to recover had been the subject of another case which was
a result of the overlapping transfers of rights effected by the heirs of
ISSUE Vicente Galo
WON Atty. Arcangel is guilty of professional non-feasance 2. he felt that to pursue the appeal would be “dilatory, expensive,
frivolous and taxing to the precious time of the CA and it was wise to
HELD advise the stockholders of the NIT to abandon the appeal and
No. Respondent’s explanation for the delay in filing the claims in returning instead file appropriate Complaints against Grandea, et al to recover
the documents has not been controverted by complainants. On the NIT’s claimed properties
contrary, they admitted that respondent asked them to shoulder the 3. complainant was unjustly adamant in his demand to continue with
photostating expenses but they did not give him any money. Hence, the appeal despite legal advice and since he sincerely felt that the
complainants are partly to blame. Moreover, the documents and their best way to protect the rights of NIT was to file appropriate
photostats were actually returned by respondent during the fiscal’s complaints, he allowed the period to submit NIT’s Appellant’s Brief to
investigation with him paying for the photostating costs himself. As for the lapse
alleged failure of the respondent to all her documents to complainant 4. although NIT did not pay his legal fees or reimburse him for his
Pasion, the former denies this. the affidavit of Mrs. Blanza pardoning expenses, he still faithfully performed his duty during the entire time
respondent cannot prejudice complainant Pasion because res inter alios he served as its counsel
acta alteri nocere non debet. Complainant Pasion had another opportunity - April 24, 2003 – IBP Report by San Juan found respondent guilty of
to substantiate her charges in a hearing but she let it go. Neither she nor violating the Code of Professional Responsibility because:
her counsel of record appeared. Thus, the Curt refused to take 1. not able to justify his failure to file the brief.
disciplinary action against respondent due to lack of clear preponderance > if respondent actually believed it was futile to pursue the appeal,
of evidence substantiating the accusations against him. why did he request from CA numerous extensions of time to file
2. Montesino admits that after he advised NIT and herein
complainant on the futility of pursuing the appeal, the latter
- Nevertheless the Court also stated that “we cannot but counsel against expressed the wish to continue the appeal
his actuations as a member of the bar. A lawyer has a more dynamic and > should have given due importance to the decision of his client to
positive role in the community than merely complying with the minimal avail of a legal remedy available to it under the legal system
technicalities of the statute. As a man of law, he is necessarily a leader of 3. recommended suspension from the practice of law for a period of
the community looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct must, six months, with a warning that a harsher penalty would be meted
perforce, be par excellence, especially so when, as in this case, he out for a similar infraction in the future
volunteers his professional services. Respondent here has not lived up to
that ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have complainants wait and ISSUE
hope, for 6 long years in their pension claims. Upon their refusal to co- WON pursuing methods not according to the client’s wish and consent
operate, he should have terminated their professional relationship rather deserves sanction
than keep them hanging. And although we voted that he not be
reprimanded, in a legal sense, let this be a reminder to Atty. Arcangel of HELD
what the high standards of his chosen profession require of him.” YES and SC agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
Reasoning
ABAY V MONTESINO - The legal profession is invested with public trust. Its goal is to render
PANGANIBAN; December 4, 2003 public service and secure justice for those who seek its aid. They must
perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and
their clients in accordance with the values and norms of the legal
NATURE
profession, as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Any
Original Proceeding in the Supreme Court. Disciplinary action.
conduct found wanting in these considerations, whether in their
professional or private capacity, shall subject them to disciplinary action.
FACTS
Failure of respondent to file the appellant’s brief was a clear violation of
- June 21, 2002 - Eduardo T. Abay charges Atty. Raul T. Montesino with
his professional duty to his client
gross negligence, gross incompetence and evident bad faith, in violation
- The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to serve their
of his oath as a member of the Philippine bar
clients with competence and diligence. Rules 18.03 and 18.04 specifically
- Negros Institute of Technology (NIT), of which Abay is a stockholder,
provide:
hired Montesino as counsel in an action for “Cancellation of Title of
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
Ownership, Recovery of Ownership and Possession and Damages with
him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
Preliminary Injunction” against the estate of Vicente T. Galo
liable.
- April 27, 1995 - RTC dismissed the civil case.
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of
- November 3, 1995 - Motion for Reconsideration of the judgment of
his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s
dismissal was denied by the trial court
request for information.
- Although Montesino filed a Notice of Appeal with CA, he failed to submit
- Client and lawyer disagreed on the legal course to be taken regarding
an appellant’s brief and in March 19, 1999, CA dismissed the appeal with
the appealed case. The lawyer advised the client to abandon the appeal
the following admonition:
and to consider the other available remedies but the client wanted to
“We made a warning in our Resolution dated as early as October 20,
pursue it. Feeling that he was “unjustly adamant” in wanting to do so, the
1998 that no further extension will be entertained. Precisely
lawyer contrary to the desire of the client deemed it wise to abandon the
because of non-submission of the Brief, we directed, on January 8,
appeal without informing his client and not filing an appellant’s brief is
1998, the dismissal of the appeal. This is not to mention the fact that
prejudicial because such failure could result in the dismissal of the
a total of 120 days extension, over and above the 45-day
appeal.
reglementary period, had already been granted …We cannot see
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- The conduct of shows that he failed to exercise due diligence, and that ISSUES
he had a cavalier attitude towards the cause of his client. The 1. WON confirmation of attorney’s fees is premature
abandonment by the former of the latter’s cause made him unworthy of 2. WON IAC correctly ruled that the alleged confirmation of attorney's fees
the trust that his client reposed in him. Even if respondent was “honestly would not be binding on all heirs
and sincerely” protecting the interests of complainant, the former still had
no right to waive the appeal without the latter’s knowledge and consent. HELD
- If indeed respondent felt unable or unwilling to continue his retainership, 1. YES
he should have properly withdrawn his appearance and allowed the client Ratio An attorney's fee cannot be determined until after the main litigation
to appoint another lawyer. has been decided and the subject of recovery is at the disposition of the
- Moreover, the appellate court noted that respondent failed to file the court. The issue over attorney's fee only arises when something has been
appellant’s brief despite being granted several extensions of time to file it. recovered from which the fee is to be paid.
He therefore violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Reasoning Since the main case from which the petitioner's claims for their
Responsibility, which mandates that fees may arise has not yet become final, the determination of the
lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, propriety and amount of attorney’s fees should be held in abeyance. This
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the is especially true given the subsequent developments in the civil case
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so against Guerrero and PHILAMGEN: On May 21, 1987, the SC rendered
- We emphasize that all lawyers owe fidelity to their client’s cause. judgment setting aside the May 1983 decision of IAC.
Regardless of their personal views, they must present every remedy or - Also, the supposed contract alleged by petitioners as the basis for their
defense within the authority of the law in support of that cause. fees provides that the recovery of the amounts claimed is subject to
Disposition Atty. Raul T. Montesino is found guilty of negligence and is certain contingencies.
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months, effective Obiter Counsel's claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the
upon receipt of this Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of the very action in which the services in question have been rendered, or in a
same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely. separate action. If the first alternative is chosen, the Court may pass upon
said claim, even if its amount were less than the minimum prescribed by
QUIRANTE V INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT law for the jurisdiction of said court, upon the theory that the right to
REGALADO; January 31, 1989 recover attorney's fees is but an incident of the case in which the services
of counsel have been rendered. Also, there is the assumption that the
court trying the case is to a certain degree already familiar with the nature
NATURE
and extent of the lawyer's services.
Appeal by certiorari to review the judgment of the IAC
- However, what is being claimed here as attorney's fees by petitioners is
different from attorney's fees as an item of damages provided for under
FACTS Article 2208 of the Civil Code, wherein the award is made in favor of the
- Atty. John QUIRANTE is the counsel of Dr. Indalecio CASASOLA in a litigant, not of his counsel, and the litigant, not his counsel, is the
case involving a contract with a building contractor named Norman judgment creditor who may enforce the judgment for attorney's fees by
GUERRERO, who failed to perform his part of the contract within the execution. Here, the petitioner's claims are based on an alleged contract
period specified. Dr. Casasola also sued PHILAMGEN, (The Philippine for professional services, with them as the creditors and the private
American General Insurance Co. Inc.) which acted as bondsman for respondents as the debtors.
Guerrero. - In filing the motion for confirmation of attorney's fees, petitioners chose
- Oct 16, 1981 – RTC Manila ruled in favor of CASASOLA by rescinding to assert their claims in the same action. This is also a proper remedy
the contract. It ordered Guerrero and Philamgen to pay actual damages, under our jurisprudence.
moral damages, exemplary damages, liquidated damages, amount of 2. NO
surety bond, and attorney’s fees (P30T). It also denied MFR filed by Reasoning This decision is also pre-emptive of factual and evidentiary
Philamgen on Nov 4, 1982. matters that may be presented for consideration by the trial court. “The
(During this period, Dr. CASASOLA died, leaving his widow and several orderly administration of justice dictates that such issue be likewise
children as survivors.) determined by the trial court inasmuch as it also necessarily involves the
- Philamgen brought the case to the appellate court, and the IAC, on May same contingencies in determining the propriety and assessing the extent
4, 1983, dismissed petition for quashal of the writ of execution. The case of recovery of attorney's fees.”
was then elevated to SC and is now still pending. Disposition Decision of IAC is affirmed except for the portion which holds
- June 18, 1983 – QUIRANTE filed a motion for the confirmation of his
that the alleged confirmation to attorney's fees should not adversely affect
attorney’s fees, which was granted by the RTC. RTC also denied MFR
the non-signatories thereto.
filed by the opposing party. But the IAC reversed the decision of RTC
(IAC granted petition for certiorari filed CASASOLA heirs.) Hence,
QUIRANTE filed this appeal by certiorari in the SC.
TANHUECO V DE DUMO
Petitioners’ Claims PER CURIAM; April 25, 1989
- There was an oral agreement between him and the late Dr. Casasola
with regard to his attorney's fees, which agreement was allegedly NATURE
confirmed in writing by the widow, Asuncion Vda. de Casasola, and the Administrative case in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
two daughters of the deceased, Mely Garcia and Virginia Nazareno.
- The attorney's fees would then be computed as follows: FACTS
(A). In case of recovery of the P120,000.00 surety bond, the attorney's - On February 24, 1975, complainant Hilaria Tanhueco filed before the
fees of the undersigned counsel (Atty. Quirante) shall be P30,000.00. Court a petition for Disbarment against respondent Justininao G. de
(B). In case the Honorable Court awards damages in excess of the Dumo for having violated the Canons of Professional Ethics by his a0
P120,000.00 bond, it shall be divided equally between the Heirs of I. refusal to remit her money collected by him from debtors of the
Casasola, Atty. John C. Quirante and Atty. Dante Cruz. complainant; and b) refusal to return documents entrusted to him as
IAC’s ruling counsel of complainant in certain collection cases.
- “Firstly, there is still pending in the Supreme Court a petition which may SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT:
or may not ultimately result in the granting to the Casasola family of the Evidence for Complainant
total amount of damages given by RTC. Hence the award of damages - Complainant secured the legal services of respondent to collect
may be premature. Secondly, assuming that the grant of damages to the indebtedness from her different debtors. Although she offered to execute
family is eventually ratified, the alleged confirmation of attorney's fees will a document evidencing their lawyer-client relationship, respondent told
not and should not adversely affect the non-signatories thereto.” her that it was not necessary. She nonetheless offered to give him 15% of
what he may be able to collect from the debtors.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- Complainant also declared that respondent borrowed from her fees due in respect of the amount actually collected by him, and turn over
P2,000.00, P1,300.00 and P3,000.00 on three separate occasions, but the remaining balance to the complainant.
she could not remember when she gave those amounts. Respondent did 2) Ratio Contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law. But when it is
not pay those loans. shown that a contract for a contingent fee was obtained by undue
- Respondent filed cases against her debtors and that one of them, influence exercised by the attorney upon his client or by any fraud or
Constancia Manosca, paid P12,500.00 to respondent. Informed of such imposition, or that the compensation is clearly excessive, the Court must
payment by Manosca herself, complainant confronted respondent but the and will protect the aggrieved party.
latter denied having received payment from any of her debtors. Reasoning Respondent claimed that he charged complainant, his client, a
Complainant then brought the matter to the attention of Malacanang contingent fee of 1) 50% of the sum of principal and interest collected
which referred her to Camp Crame. Notwithstanding subsequent from different debtors; and 2) attorney’s fees charged to the defendant
demands of complainant for the money, respondent had refused to give and “not to be included in the computation.”
her the amount. Under this scheme, respondent was actually collecting as attorney’s fees
Evidence for Respondent more than half of the total amount due from defendant debtors. The
- Complainant indeed secured services of respondent to collect from her contingent fee here is grossly excessive.
debtors, with the agreement that he gets 50% of what he may be able to And there is reason to believe that fraud was committed –complainant
collect. He thus filed cases against Tipace, Manosca, Morena, Jr., and was an old and sickly woman and, in respondent’s words, “penniless.”
others, and was able to obtain favorable judgment in the cases against She was already 76 yrs. old when she filed the complaint. In her
Manosca, Tipace and Leonila Mendoza. The initial payments made by circumstance, and given her desire to realize debts owed to her before
these judgment-debtors were all given to complainant. With respect to death took over, she would easily succumb to the demands of respondent
Manosca, respondent obtained a judgment for P19,000.00 although the attorney regarding his attorney’s fees.
debt was only P12,000.00. In Mambulao Lumber Company v PNB, it was explained that the principle
- Respondent also declared that complainant was influenced by her that courts should reduce stipulated attorney’s fees whenever it is found
debtors, who were also her friends, into distrusting him. Ultimately, under the circumstances of the case that the same is unreasonable is
because comlainant filed a complaint against him, he terminated his deeply rooted in this jurisdiction.
relationship with complainant and demanded his attorney’s fees A lawyer is primarily a court officer charged with the duty of assisting the
equivalent to 50% of what he had collected. Complainant refused to pay court in administering impartial justice between the parties, and hence,
him, hence, he did not also turn over to her the P12,000.00 initial payment the fees should be subject to judicial control.
of Manosca, which he considered, or applied, as part payment of his Disposition WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved that:
attorney’s fee. Respondent estimated his attorney’s fee due from 1. respondent is guilty of violation of the attorneys’ oath and
complainant in the amount of P17,000.00 of serious professional misconduct and shall be SUSPENDED from
- Respondent denied having borrowed the amounts of P2,000.00, the practice of law for six months and WARNED that repetition of the
P1,300.00, P3,000.00 and P1,000.00, pointing out that complainant did same or similar offense will be more severely dealt with;
not even have money to pay him so that he handled the cases for her on 2. the attorney’s fees that respondent is entitled to in respect
contingent basis. He also denied having received documentary evidence of collection cases here involved shall be an amount equivalent to
from the complainant. What evidence he had were all gathered by him on fifteen percent of the total amount collected by respondent from the
his initiative. debtors in those cases;
Findings and Recommendation 3. respondent shall return forthwith to the estate of
- Both respondent and complainant admit of an attorney-client relationship complainant Hilaria Tanhueco, the P12,000.00 respondent received
between them. on behalf of his client less attorney’s fees due to him in respect of
- Respondent also admitted having received P12,000.00 from judgment- that amount (P12,000.00 less fifteen percent thereof) or a net
debtor Constancia Manosca, without turning over the amount to his client, amount of P10,200.00; and
complainant herein, and applying it instead as part of his attorney’s fees. 4. respondent shall return to the estate of complainant Hilaria
- Undoubtedly, respondent’s failure to account for the P12,000.00, Tanhueco any documents and papers received by him from the
representing payment of the judgment-debt of Manosca constitutes deceased complainant in connection with the collection cases for
unprofessional conduct and subjects him to disciplinary action. which he was retained. If he has in fact made any other collections
- As regards the charges that respondent received documents evidencing from deceased complainant’s debtors, he shall promptly account
the debts to complainant and had refused to return them to the latter, and therefore to complainant’s estate and shall be entitled to receive in
that respondent also borrowed some amounts from her, there is no respect thereof the fifteen percent attorney’s fees provided for
competent, conclusive evidence to support them. Perforce, such herein.
allegations have no factual basis. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished each to the Bar Confidant
- It is recommended that respondent be severely reprimanded and and spread on the personal record of respondent attorney, and to the
admonished that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
more severely. (To this recommendation, the Court does not agree)
ALBANO V COLOMA
ISSUES FERNANDO; OCTOBER 11, 1967
1. WON respondent violated Canon 11 (now Canon 16) regarding trust of
client’s moneys
NATURE
2. WON respondent violated Canon 13 (now Canon 20) regarding
Original Action in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
attorney’s fees.
FACTS
HELD
Coloma was the counsel of Albano and his mother during the Japanese
1) Ratio Moneys collected by an attorney on a judgment rendered in favor
occupation. Albano alleged that after liberation and long after the courts
of his client, constitute trust funds and must be immediately paid over to
had been reorganized Coloma failed to expedite the hearing and
the client.
termination of their civil case, as a result of which they had themselves
Reasoning When respondent withheld and refused to deliver the money
represented by another lawyer. He also claimed that Coloma intervened
received by him for his client, the deceased complainant Hilaria in the case to collect her attorney’s fees. Coloma denied that she did
Tanhueco, he breached the trust reposed upon him. The fact that a nothing to expedite the hearing and termination of the civil case as the
lawyer ahs a lien for fees on moneys in his hands collected for his client, record would show that she filed “more than 20 papers and pleadings;
does not relieve him from his duty to promptly account for the moneys went to trial for several days and, with the assistance of her sister who
received; his failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. was also a lawyer, obtained a favorable judgment in the Court of First
In the present case, what respondent could have properly done was to Instance for the petitioner and his co-plaintiffs; and filed with the Court of
make an accounting with his client, the complainant, deduct his attorney’s Appeals a 35-page brief, finished after careful, conscientious, and
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
exhaustive study and preparation.” She likewise denied that she could - Oct 15, 1984, RTC issued an order granting payment of attorney’s fees,
have been removed for her failure to comply with the obligations as P936,000, to private respondent. Respondent CA affirmed trial court’s
counsel as she served “faithfully, efficiently, continuously, and to the best order.
of her knowledge and capacity.” Her dismissal then, according to her, was
made without just cause and without her consent and only when she had ISSUES
already won the case for them in the Court of First Instance and in the 1. WON private respondent is entitled to the enforcement of its charging
Court of Appeals. lien for payment of its attorney’s fees.
2. WON a separate civil suit is necessary for the enforcement of such lien
ISSUE 3. WON private respondent is entitled to 25% of the actual and current
WON Coloma may recover attorney’s fees market values of the litigated properties on a quantum meruit basis.

HELD HELD
Yes. Any counsel who is worthy of his hire is entitled to be fully 1. NO. A charging lien to be enforceable as security for the payment of
recompensated for his services. With his capital consisting solely of his attorney’s fees requires as a condition sine qua non a judgment for money
brains and with his skill, acquired at tremendous cost not only in money and execution in pursuance of such judgment secured in the main action
but in the expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the protection by the attorney in favor of his client.
of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of a client to - in this case, the dismissal order neither provided for any money
escape payment of his fees. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the best judgment nor made any monetary award to any litigant, much less in favor
that is in him to secure justice for the party he represents, he himself of petitioner. Private respondent’s supposed charging lien is thus without
would not get his due. Such an eventuality this Court is determined to legal basis.
avoid. It views with disapproval any and every effort of those benefited by - an attorney may acquire a lien for his compensation upon money due his
counsel’s services to deprive him of his hard-earned honorarium. Such an client form the adverse party in nay action or proceeding in which the
attitude deserves condemnation. attorney is employed, but such lien does not extend to land which is the
subject matter of the litigation. An attorney merely defeating recovery
METROBANK V CA against his client as e defendant is not entitled to a lien on the property
REGALADO; January 23, 1990 involved in litigation for fees and the court has no power to fix the fee of
an attorney defending the client’s title to property already in the client’s
NATURE possession.
Petition for review on certiorari impugning the decision of CA affirming 2. NO. A lawyer may enforce his right to fees by filing the necessary
order of RTC, fixing attorney’s fees and directing petitioner Metropolitan petition as an incident in the main action in which his services were
Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) to pay its attorneys, private rendered when something is due his client in the action from which the fee
respondent Arturo Alafriz and Associates, the amount of P936,000 as is to be paid.
attorney’s fees on a quantum meruit5 basis. - an enforceable charging lien, duly recorded, is within the jurisdiction of
the court trying the main case and this jurisdiction subsists until the lien is
FACTS settled. This, however, applies only where the charging lien is valid and
- Private respondent handled civil cases for the declaration of nullity of enforceable.
certain deeds of sale, with damages, in behalf of Metrobank from March 3. The Court refrained from resolving the third issue so as not to preempt
1974 to September 1983. or interfere with the authority and adjudicative facility of the proper court to
- Celedenio Javier bought 7 parcels of land owned by Eustaquio hear and decide the controversy in a proper proceeding which may be
Alejandro, et al. These were mortgaged by Javier with Metrobank to brought by private respondent.
secure a loan obligation of Felix Angelo Bautista and/or International NOTE: in fixing a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by a
Hotel Corporation. Obligors defaulted and Metrobank foreclosed the lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, the elements to be considered are
mortgages. generally (1) the importance of the subject matter in controversy (2) extent
- Alejandro brought suit against Javier and included Metrobank as of services rendered (3) professional standing of lawyer .
defendant, alleging deceit, fraud and misrepresentation committed against Disposition Petition for review is granted, decision of CA is reversed and
him by Javier. set aside, without prejudice to appropriate proceedings as may be brought
- it was during the pendency of these suits that the lands were sold by by private respondent to establish its right to attorney’s fees and the
Metrobank to its sister corporation, Service Leasing Corporation, for amount thereof.
P600,000. On same day, properties were resold to Herby Commercial
and Construction Corporation for P2.5M. Herby then mortgaged the same
properties to Banco de Oro for P9.2M. Private respondent did not have
knowledge of such transactions. ROXAS V DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR.
- Aug 16, 1983 private respondent then filed a motion to enter the CHICO-NAZARIO: January 31, 2006
charging lien6 in the records of the civil cases, pursuant to Sec 37, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, equivalent to 25% of the actual and current FACTS
market values of the litigated properties, as attorney’s fees. - 1977, the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed expropriation
- Alejandro et al filed a motion to dismiss their complaints, which lower proceedings against the Zuzuarreguis for parcels of land belonging to
court granted. them situated in Antipolo, Rizal with a total land area of 1, 790, 570.36
- May 28, 1984, private respondent filed motion to fix its attorney’s fees, - The Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas
based on quantum meruit. Metrobank manifested it had fully paid private and Santiago N. Pastor
respondent. Private respondent, however, countered that the P50,000 - They executed a Letter-Agreement dated April 22, 1983 which indicated
given by petitioner could not be considered as full payment but merely a that the contingent fees that the lawyers will receive at P11 or more per
cash advance, including P14000 paid on Dec 15, 1980. It also appears square meter is thirty percent of the just compensation
that private respondent attempted to arrange a compromise with - The appropriate proceedings thereafter ensued and on October 29,
Metrobank in order to avoid suit, offering a compromise amount of 1984, a Partial Decision was rendered fixing the just compensation to be
P600,000 but negotiations were unsuccessful. paid to the Zuzuarreguis at P30 per square meter
51
- The NHA filed a Motion for Reconsideration for the lowering of the
quantum meruit - (lit. “so much as he deserved”) cause of action for reasonable value of services rendered, or amount of just compensation in accordance with applicable laws
occasionally of goods or materials provided, under circumstances in which there was no enforceable contract to pay for - Pending the resolution of the MFR filed by the NHA, a joint special
them but it would be unfair to leave plaintiff uncompensated.
6 power of attorney was executed by the Zuzuarreguis in favor of Attys.
Charging lien or attorney’s lien – a lien on money, papers, and property of a client in the hands of an attorney, or a lien
Roxas and Pastor
that an attorney may request from a court on a fund or judgment obtained for the client by the attorney’s efforts, to
secure payment of attorney’s fees.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- On December 10, 1985, a Letter-Agreement was executed by and - In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which
between the Zuzuarreguis and Attys. Roxas and Pastor which fixed the is equal to 44% of the just compensation paid by the NHA to the
just compensation due the Zuzuarreguis at P17, and anything in excess of Zuzuarreguis. Considering that there was no full blown hearing in the
that shall be the contingent fees of Attys. Roxas and Pastor for their legal expropriation case, ending as it did in a Compromise Agreement, the 44%
services is undeniably excessive. In the opinion of the Court, 87.17% of the yields
- Resolution No. 1174 dated December 16, 1985, issued by the NHA, of the bond should go to the Zuzuarreguis computing from the amounts
stated that the property would be acquired at a cost of P19.50 per square stipulated in the Letter-Agreement. The remaining amount is what is due
meter and that it will be paid in NHA Bonds which the yield would be to Attys. Roxas and Pastor. The SC affirms the decision of CA with
based on the Central Bank rate at the time of the payment modification in the computation of the attorneys’ contingent fees.
- As a result of the NHA Resolution, a Compromise Agreement was
executed and it was approved by the Court in a Decision dated December URBAN BANK, INC. V ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA
20, 1985. PUNO; September 7, 2001
- Computed at P19.50 per square meter, the property of the Zuzuarreguis
was expropriated at a total price of P34, 916, 122. The total amount
NATURE
released by the NHA was P54, 500, 00. The difference of P19, 583, 878
Administrative Matter. Disbarment
is, undoubtedly, the yield of the bonds.
- The amount turned over to the Zuzuarreguis by Atty. Roxas amounted to
P30, 520, 000 in NHA bonds FACTS
- On August 25, 1987, a letter was sent by the Zuzuarreguis’ new counsel - Complainant charges that respondent is guilty of deceit, malpractice and
to Attys. Roxas and Pastor demanding that the latter deliver to the gross misconduct in violation of Section 27, Rule 138, of the Revised
Zuzuarreguis the yield corresponding to bonds paid by the NHA within a Rules of Court.
period of 10 days from receipt, under pain of administrative, civil and/or - 1 December 1994, Complainant bought a parcel of land located along
criminal action Roxas Boulevard from the Isabela Sugar Company (“ISC” for brevity).
- Attys. Roxas and Pastor answered stating that the amount that they go - One of the conditions of the sale was for ISC to cause the eviction of all
seems huge from the surface but it just actually passed their hands. the occupants found in said property. This condition was incorporated in
- On September 29, 1987, a letter was again sent to Attys. Roxas and the Contract to Sell and adopted in the subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale
Pastor formally terminating their services executed by and between ISC and Complainant.
- The Zuzuarreguis then filed a civil action for Sum of Money and - ISC hired Atty. Magdaleno M. Peña. He proceeded to take the
Damages, they demanded that the yield on the NHA bonds be turned necessary steps to evict the occupants of the property subject of the sale.
over to them - During the eviction process, Complainant was informed by ISC and
- The RTC dismissed the complaint Peña about the necessity of a letter of authority in favor of the latter,
- The Zuzuarreguis filed a Notice of Appeal granting him the authority to represent the bank in maintaining possession
- The Court of Appeals ordered Attys. Roxas and Pastor to return to the of the aforesaid property and to represent the bank in any court action
plaintiffs the amount of P12, 596, 425, already deducting the reasonable that may be instituted in connection with the exercise of said duty.
attorney’s fees in the amount of P4,4 76,426.275 - Complainant acceded to the request and issued a letter-authority dated
- Attys. Roxas and Pastor filed a MFR 15 December 1994, but only after making it very clear to Peña. that it was
- The Zuzuarreguis also filed a MFR ISC which contracted his services and not Complainant.
- The NHA and Pedrosa also filed a MFR - Peña then requested for a modification of said letter of authority by
- All MFRs were denied for lack of merit furnishing Complainant with a draft containing the desired wordings
- Attys. Roxas and Pastor then filed a petition for certiorari (including the date, i.e., 19 December 1994) and asking Complainant to
modify the previous letter by issuing a new one similarly worded as his
ISSUES draft.
- If only to expedite and facilitate matters, Complainant willingly obliged
1. WON the letter-agreement executed by the parties should stand as law
and re-issued a new letter of authority to Respondent, this time
between them
incorporating some of Peña’ s suggestions.
2. WON the contingent fees were reasonable
- Eventually, the eviction of the occupants of the property in question was
successfully carried out.
HELD
- After the lapse of more than thirteen (13) months, Peña filed a collection
1. Yes. A contract is a meeting of the minds between two persons
suit against herein Complainant and its senior officers “for recovery of
whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or
agent’s compensation and expenses, damages and attorney’s fees” on
to render some service. The Zuzuarreguis, in entering into the Letter-
the basis of the letter given to him for the purposes of evicting the
Agreement, fully gave their consent thereto. In fact, it was them who sent
occupants.
the said letter to Attys. Roxas and Pastor, for the purpose of confirming all
- According to Complainant: Peña, knowing fully well the circumstances
matters which they had agreed upon previously. There is absolutely no
surrounding the issuance of said letter of authority, constitutes deceit,
evidence to show that anybody was forced into entering into the Letter-
malpractice and gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Agreement. It is basic that a contract is the law between the parties.
Revised Rules of Court. Said provision enumerates the grounds for the
2. No. Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and Pastor are to
suspension and disbarment of lawyers, namely:
receive contingent fees for their professional services.
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court, on
Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states: a contract for
what grounds, - A member of the bar may be removed or
contingent fee, where sanctioned by law, should be reasonable
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
under all the circumstances of the case including the risk and
any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such
uncertainty of the compensation, but should always be subject t o
office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his
the supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
violation of the oath of which he is required to take before
states the guidelines by which a lawyer should determine his fees
admission to practice, or for willful disobedience of any lawful order
(see original)
of a superior court or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an
- Indubitably entwined with the lawyer’s duty to charge only reasonable
attorney for a party to a case without any authority to do so.
fees is the power of this Court to reduce the amount of attorney’s fees if
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
the same is excessive and unconscionable (Section 24, Rule 138, Rules
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
of Court). Attorney’s fees are unconscionable if they affront one’s sense
malpractice. (Emphasis supplied)”
of justice, decency or reasonableness. Therefore, the power to determine
- Peña denied all the allegations and moved to dismiss the complaint.
the reasonableness of attorney’s fees stipulated by the parties is a matter
- He added that there was no reason for him to deceive complainant into
falling within the regulatory prerogative of the courts.
writing a letter of authority because he knew very well that the verbal
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
agreement was sufficient to constitute an attorney-client relationship. - At the MTRCB meeting of 19 January 1993, MTRCB Chair Mendez was
- We referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for informed about Resolution No. 8-1-91. An Ad Hoc Committee composed
investigation. of MTRCB members was then constituted to look into the appointments
- The IBP decided in favor of Peña and recommended that the complaint extended by former Chairman Morato, as well as the qualifications of the
be dismissed for lack of merit. appointees.
- The Committee resolved to recommend to the MTRCB the approval of
ISSUE the appointments, except that of Corpuz and seven others
WON Peña should be disbarred on the ground of deceit, - On 27 July 1993, Corpuz and one Larry Rigor filed a complaint with the
malpractice and gross misconduct CSC requesting a formal investigation and hearing. In her comment to the
complaint, Mendez stated that she discovered that the appointments
HELD extended by Morato were not submitted to the MTRCB for approval
NO. pursuant to Section 5(c) of P.D. No. 1986; hence to cure the defect, she
Reasoning submitted the appointments to the MTRCB.
***Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest, undertaken for - On 31 August 1993, the CSC promulgated Resolution No. 93-3509
public welfare and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the granting the MTRCB authority to fill up positions vacated in the agency
official ministration of the persons unfit to practice them. due to appointments, which were not submitted to the MTRCB for
- Complainant has not proferred any proof tending to show that approval. In the Resolution of the CSC dated December 23, 1993, they
respondent really induced it, through machination or other deceitful ruled that: The appointment of Atty. Corpuz, if defective, could have been
means, to issue the December 19 letter of authority ostensibly for the the subject of a direct action for revocation or recall which may be brought
purpose of evicting illegal occupants, then using the very same letter for to the Commission within a reasonable period of time after its approval. . .
demanding agent’s compensation. Since no such action was filed with the Commission, we can safely state
- No evidence in respect of the supposed deceit, malpractice or gross that Corpuz had already acquired security of tenure in the said position.
misconduct was adduced by the complainant. It is one thing to allege Hence, the Commission can not allow the current Board's disapproval of
deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct, and another to demonstrate by the said appointment to produce any effect. Atty. Corpuz can no longer be
evidence the specific acts constituting the same. separated from the service except for cause and after observing the
- The letter, from respondent’s own admission, just served to officially requirements of due process.
confirm a done deal. It was, hence, utilized solely as documentary - The MTRCB filed with us a special civil action for certiorari, which we
evidence to buttress respondent’s assertion regarding the existence of the referred to the CA in view of Republic Act No. 7902. In its decision, the
agency agreement. (Respondent here is not suing by virtue of the letter CA declared null and void Resolution No. 93-5964 of the CSC, ruling that
of authority as what the Complainant is saying, but grounded on the oral since the appointment of Corpuz was not approved by the MTRCB, the
contract of agency the two purportedly entered into. appointment was invalid and he could not invoke security of tenure. The
- Indeed, respondent, with or without the letter, could have instituted a suit record shows that the appointment of Corpuz was not approved by the
against the complainant. There is no gainsaying that a verbal Board, as mandated by PD 1986 Sec16. As such, he cannot invoke the
engagement is sufficient to create an attorney-client relationship. security of tenure, even if he has rendered service for a number of years.
- Respondent can hardly be faulted and accused of deceit, malpractice - Corpuz filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then
and gross misconduct for invoking the aid of the court in recovering filed an instant petition under Rule 45 RoC and asked the Court to reverse
recompense for legal services which he claims he undertook for the the decision of CA on the ground that: “THE COURT OF APPEALS
complainant, and which the latter does not deny to have benefited from. ERRED IN RULING THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER ATTY.
Indeed, what he did was a lawful exercise of a right. DAVID B. CORPUZ DID NOT HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE MTRCB
Disposition The disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. BOARD WHICH IF NOT CORRECTED, IS TANTAMOUNT TO A
Magdaleno M. Peña is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO SECURITY OF
TENURE”
- In his memorandum, he declared that he is no longer seeking
CORPUZ V CA
reinstatement but for the continuity of his government service from the
DAVIDE; January 26, 1998 time he was illegally dismissed up to the time he was permanently
employed with the Office of the Ombudsman.
NATURE ISSUE
Petition to set aside the decision of CA which reversed the resolution of WON Corpuz can invoke security of tenure
the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the latter declaring that petitioner’s
separation from the service as Atty V in the MTRCB was not in order and HELD
directed that he be automatically restored to his position. Ratio
No, he cannot invoke security of tenure.
FACTS Reasoning
- Atty Corpuz was appointed MTRCB’s legal counsel – Prosecutor and - There are two stages in the process of appointing MTRCB personnel,
Investigation Services (Supervising Legal Staff Officer). The appointment other than its Secretary, namely: (a) recommendation by the Chairman
was approved by the Asst Regional Director of the CSC-NCR. which is accomplished by the signing of the appointment paper, which is
Subsequently, he was designated Attorney V under the Salary among his powers under Section 5(d); and (b) approval or disapproval by
Standardization Law. the MTRCB of the appointment.
- August 1991, the MTRCB passed MTRCB Resolution No. 8-1-91 5 - It is long settled in the law of public offices and officers that where the
entitled "An Act To Declare The Appointments Of The Administrative And power of appointment is absolute, and the appointee has been
Subordinate Employees Of This Board As Null And Void." This undated determined upon, no further consent or approval is necessary, and the
resolution noted that the past and present Chairmen of the MTRCB had formal evidence of the appointment, the commission, may issue at once.
failed to submit for approval the appointments of administrative and Where, however, the assent or confirmation of some other officer or body
subordinate employees to the MTRCB before forwarding them to the is required, the commission can issue or the appointment may be
CSC, in violation of Section 5 of P.D. No. 876-A, and later, P.D. No. 1986. complete only when such assent or confirmation is obtained. In either
- CORPUZ was unaware of the promulgation of Resolution No. 8-1-91 as case, the appointment becomes complete when the last act required of
he was then on leave. The Resolution was likewise kept secret and it was the appointing power is performed. Until the process is completed, the
only on 12 March 1993 that an announcement 8 of its contents was appointee can claim no vested right in the office nor invoke security of
posted by an Ad Hoc Committee on the MTRCB bulletin board. This tenure.
announcement invited the submission of any information concerning the - A public official or employee who assumed office under an incomplete
appointments involved therein to the Committee. It appears, however, that appointment is merely a de facto officer for the duration of his occupancy
nothing was immediately done to implement Resolution No. 8-1-91. of the office for the reason that he assumed office under color of a known
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
appointment which is void by reason of some defect or irregularity in its
exercise. Undeniably, under the facts here, CORPUZ was such a de facto GENATO V SILAPAN
officer. PUNO, July 14, 2003
Disposition WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the
assailed decision of 13 October 1995 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. NATURE
SP-No. 37694 is AFFIRMED.
Complaint for disbarment
HILADO V DAVID FACTS
TUASON;1949 Complainant’s Side
- July 1992, respondent allegedly asked the complainant if he could rent a
NATURE small office space in complainant’s building in Quezon City for his law
Original action. Certiorari practice. Complainant acceded and introduced respondent to Atty.
Benjamin Dacanay, complainant’s retained lawyer, who accommodated
FACTS respondent in the building and made him handle some of complainant’s
- Blandina Gamboa Hilado brought an action Against Selim Jacob Assad cases.
to annul the sale of several houses and lot executed by her now - Respondent borrowed two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) from
deceased husband during the Japanese occupation. complainant which he intended to use as down payment for the purchase
- In the course of the case, Hilado consulted respondent Vicente J. of a new car. In return, respondent issued to complainant a postdated
Francisco with regard the case filed against Assad despite the fact that check in the amount of P176,528.00 to answer for the six (6) months
she had previously retained a different set of lawyers to act on her behalf. interest on the loan. He likewise mortgaged to complainant his house and
Francisco claims that at the time, he already advised her that her case lot in Quezon City but did not surrender its title claiming that it was the
cannot prosper on the basis of what was told him by her. subject of reconstitution proceedings before the Quezon City Register of
- In any case, Hilado brought to his office documents related to the case. Deeds.
Francisco claims that these documents were received by his assistant. - The respondent bought the car but the document of sale was issued in
Atty Agrava. When advised of the same, he instructed Atty. Agrava to the complainant’s name and financed through City Trust Company.
return the documents as the firm will not handle her case against Assad. - January 1993: respondent introduced to complainant a certain
- Atty Agrava thought that in returning the documents a proper Emmanuel Romero who wanted to borrow money from complainant.
explanation be made as to why the firm is not taking her case. Atty. Complainant lent Romero the money and, from this transaction,
Francisco signed the letter to Hilado without reading the same. respondent earned commission in the amount of P52,289.90.
- On January 28, 1946, Atty Francisco entered his appearance as Complainant used the commission to pay respondent’s arrears with the
attorney of record for Assad in the case instituted by Hilado. car financing firm.
- On May 29, 1946, the lawyers of Hilado wrote Francisco urging him to - Subsequently, respondent failed to pay the amortization on the car and
discontinue representing Assad on the grounds that he was consulted by the financing firm sent demand letters to complainant. Complainant tried
Hilado with regard to her case. and that during the consultation, certain to encash respondent’s postdated check with the drawee bank but it was
documents were turned over to him. dishonored as respondent’s account therein was already closed.
- When Francisco did not reply, Hilado’s lawyers, on her behalf, filed this - Respondent failed to heed complainant’s repeated demands for
original action. payment. Complainant then filed a criminal case against respondent for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and a civil case for judicial
ISSUE foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
WON Francisco should be disqualified from representing his clients - In the foreclosure case, the respondent alleged that the complainant is
against Hilado engaged in buy and sell of deficiency taxed imported cars, shark loans
and shady deals, and has many cases pending in court, which the
HELD complainant denied, adding that the allegations were libelous and were
Ratio irrelevant to the foreclosure case. A particular allegation states that in one
- Yes. Based on the facts, a relationship of attorney and client between case, the complainant would only give the respondent the document of
Francisco and Hilado ensued when he issued the written opinion to sale of the car if the latter would bribe the review committee of the DOJ
Hilado. The letter binds and estops him in acting for others against Hilado. for a case of the complainant. According to the complainant, the allegation
Reasoning was, aside from being false, immaterial to the foreclosure case and
- The SC noted that it is in the interest in the administration of justice that maliciously designed to defame him, the respondent was also guilty of
lawyers are viewed without reproach in their actuations. Hence, even if it breaking their confidential lawyer-client relationship and should be held
were true that what was given to Francisco were facts that were already administratively liable.
public knowledge, there is no way of knowing if this was in fact the case. - the complainant then filed this complaint for disbarment, praying also
- In citing jurisprudence on the matter, the court held that a lawyer is that an administrative sanction be meted against respondent for his
engaged professionally when he is just in fact listening to a client’s issuance of a bouncing check
preliminary statement of his case or when he is giving advice thereon. Respondent’s Side
That formality is not the essence of employment. - It was complainant who offered him an office space in his building and
- The fact that the action against Francisco was brought four months after retained him as counsel as the latter was impressed with the way he
he filed in appearing in the case does not operate as a waiver of Hilado’s handled a B.P. 22 case filed against complainant.
right to ask for his disqualification. The confidence once reposed cannot - There was nothing libelous in his imputations of dishonest business
be divested by expiration of professional employment. The Court also practices to complainant and his revelation of complainant’s desire to
stated that in matters of the practice of law the jurisdiction of the court is bribe government officials in relation to his pending criminal case. He
pervasive. This flows from the fact that lawyers are officers of the court claimed to have made these statements in the course of judicial
where they practice, forming a part of the machinery of the law for the proceedings to defend his case and discredit complainant’s credibility by
administration of justice and as such are subject to the disciplinary establishing his criminal propensity to commit fraud, tell lies and violate
authority of the court. laws. He argued that he is not guilty of breaking his confidential lawyer-
- The Court then expounded on the nature of the “retaining fee” as a client relationship with complainant as he made the disclosure in defense
means of compensating the lawyer who was asked to give professional of his honor and reputation.
advise to the detriment of the lawyer not being able to act as counsel for - Respondent asserted that he executed the real estate mortgage in favor
the other side, even if he has declined to perform the services required by of complainant without consideration and only as a “formal requirement”
the original client. The fee is separate from the fee that a client is so he could obtain the P200,000.00 loan and for this reason, he did not
obligated to pay the lawyer for the services which he was retained to surrender his title over the mortgaged property to complainant.
perform.
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
- Respondent claimed that he issued the postdated check, not for account subject matter of litigation therein and respondent’s professional
or for value, but only: (a) to serve as “some kind of acknowledgment” that competence and legal advice were not being attacked in said case.
he already received in advance a portion of his attorney’s fees from the Disposition IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty. Essex L. Silapan is
complainant for the legal services he rendered, and (b) as a form of ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months
assurance that he will not abandon the cases he was handling for effective upon receipt of this Decision. Let a copy of this Decision be
complainant. furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the
- Respondent denied that he received a P52,289.90 commission from Philippines. The Court Administrator is directed to circulate this order of
Romero’s loan which he allegedly helped facilitate, alleging that the suspension to all courts in the country.
amount paid to him was for attorney’s fees. He used this amount to pay SO ORDERED.
his arrears with the car financing firm. On January 29, 1993, before
paying the next amortization on the car, he asked complainant to execute DOMINGO V AQUINO
a deed of sale transferring ownership of the car to him. Complainant TEEHANKEE; April 29, 1971
refused and insisted that he would transfer ownership of the car only after
the termination of his criminal case which respondent was handling as his
NATURE
defense lawyer. Consequently, respondent stopped paying the
An original action for certiorari challenging a judgment of the Court of
amortization on the car. Respondent also alleged that he filed a perjury
Appeals as null and void for having been allegedly entered in excess of
case against complainant who, in turn, filed a complaint for libel against
jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion.
him.
- October 27, 1993: the Court referred the administrative case to the
FACTS
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. Asuncion Domingo Sta. Maria and Atty. Luis Domingo, Jr. were appointed
- August 3, 2002, the Board of Governors of the IBP approved the report co-special administrators of the estate of Luis Domingo, Sr. Pedro Aquino
of the investigating commissioner finding the respondent guilty as charged filed a money claim on the estate. CFI approved the money claim of
and recommending his suspension from the practice of law for one (1) Aquino. Both parties appealed to the CA. CA affirmed CFI judgment with
year. modifications in favor of Aquino (allowed compounded interest). The
estate's counsel in the CA, Atty. Jose A. Unson, did not receive the notice
ISSUES and copy of the judgment sent to him by registered mail; but the estate's
attorneys in the intestate proceedings pending in the lower court, Attys.
1. WON the court has the jurisdiction to sanction respondent for his
Primicias, Del Castillo and Macaraeg, were verbally informed by
issuance of the bouncing check
respondent's counsel of the judgment. Consuelo Domingo de Lopez filed
2. WON the respondent committed a breach of trust and confidence by
on March 9, 1967, with the CA an "Appearance with Motions for
imputing to complainant illegal practices and disclosing complainant’s
Substitution and to be served with a copy of the Judgment," stating that
alleged intention to bribe government officials in connection with a
Asuncion Domingo Sta. Maria had long resigned as special administratrix
pending case, and thus would be sanctioned
with the permission of the intestate court, that Atty. Luis Domingo, Jr.
(who had caused the prosecution of the appeal) was removed from his
HELD
trust by the intestate court, for having squandered cash funds of the
1. NO, it is not for the Court to sanction respondent for his issuance of a
estate, that, as a consequence, she was appointed judicial administratrix
bouncing check, which would be determined by the trial court.
and has since been administering the estate alone; that as judicial
Ratio We shall not delve into the merits of the various criminal and civil
administratrix, she wished to file a motion for reconsideration and that the
cases pending between the parties. It is for the trial courts handling these
clerk of court be directed to serve copy of said judgment on her counsel
cases to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations made therein.
instead of on Atty. Unson and praying that as present judicial
2. YES, respondent’s allegations and disclosures in the foreclosure case
administratrix, she be substituted in lieu of the former joint administrators
amount to a breach of fidelity sufficient to warrant the imposition of
and that her counsel be served with copy of the CA’s decision. CA denied
disciplinary sanction against him.
motion for reconsideration. After almost 5 mos. and after respondent had
Ratio A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his
filed in the intestate court a motion for execution of the judgment,
clients, with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. His petitioner filed this petition alleging that CA decision was entered in
relationship with his clients should be characterized by the highest degree excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion. This was
of good faith and fairness. opposed by Aquino on the ground of finality.
Reasoning Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of ISSUE
the trust and confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is WON CA’s decision has become final
that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him
in his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. HELD
-The obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises
YES
at the inception of their relationship. The protection given to the client is
Ratio CA decision has become final and executory in accordance with the
perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it
Rules of Court and since no appeal was filed.
affected by the party’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining
Reasoning Motion for reconsideration was filed out of time and delay was
another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even
without legal basis. Petitioner’s motion for substitution filed with the
survives the death of the client.
appellate court after its decision recognized the fact that the appellate
-However, the privilege against disclosure of confidential communications
court had already duly handed down its adverse decision and petitioner
or information is limited only to communications which are legitimately and
merely expressed her wish to belatedly file a motion for reconsideration
properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not
on behalf of the petitioner estate. She was apparently resigned to the
extend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a
futility of filing any such motion, in view of the finality of the appellate
fraud. If the unlawful purpose is avowed, as in this case, the
court's decision — for such motion was never filed. She cannot use as an
complainant’s alleged intention to bribe government officials in relation to
excuse the substitution of administrators/counsels. The records at bar
his case, the communication is not covered by the privilege as the client
amply show that Atty. Jose A. Unson was the counsel on record of the
does not consult the lawyer professionally. It is not within the profession
petitioner estate in the appellate court and never filed any withdrawal as
of a lawyer to advise a client as to how he may commit a crime as a
such counsel. He was representing the estate and not the administrator,
lawyer is not a gun for hire. Thus, the attorney-client privilege does not
Luis Domingo, Jr., so that even after latter’s removal, the former remains
attach, there being no professional employment in the strict sense.
to be counsel of estate. No withdrawal as counsel or petition for change of
-The disclosures were not indispensable to protect his rights as they were
counsel was filed in accordance with the Rules of Court. Notice and copy
not pertinent to the foreclosure case. It was improper for the respondent
of the CA's decision were duly served by registered mail on the estate's
to use it against the complainant in the foreclosure case as it was not the
counsel of record at his address of record in accordance with Rule 13,
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
section 8 of the Rules of Court. And in accordance with said Rule, service deliberately fail to pay him the attorney’s fees. In fact, complainant
by registered mail of the appellate court's decision upon the petitioner's exerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation.
counsel of record was deemed completed and effected upon the - Rule 20.4 of Canon 20, mandates that a lawyer shall avoid
addressee's failure to claim his mail on the fifth day after the first notice of controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort
the postmaster. The present administratrix gives no satisfactory to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
explanation as to her failure to substitute herself vice Luis Domingo, Jr., - Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing
since the latter's removal or to then engage new counsel vice Atty. Unson and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of
in the appellate court. the bar will disbarment be imposed as a penalty. It should never be
Disposition Petition dismissed; petitioner’s counsel shall pay treble costs decreed where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would
for falsely representing to the SC that the CA had granted “new and accomplish the end desired. Reprimand is deemed sufficient.
further relief” to Aquino when, in fact, he had duly prayed for the relief
awarded and for filing unmeritorious cases that clog the court dockets; OBANDO V FIGUERAS
writ of preliminary injunction issued on Nov. 7, 1967 is dissolved. NARVASA; 1990
MONTANO V IBP NATURE
KAPUNAN, May 21, 2001 Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the RoC, seeking to annul a Decision
of the CA which affirmed dismissal, without prejudice, of Petitioner
FACTS Felizardo Obando’s action for annulment of contract and reconveyance
- Montano hired the services of Atty. Dealca as his counsel in earlier ordered by the RTC of QC.
collaboration with Atty. Gerona in a case pending before the Court of
Appeals wherein the complainant was the plaintiff-appellant. FACTS
- The parties agreed upon attorney’s fees in the amount of - 1964: Alegria Figueras and her stepsons Eduardo and Francisco filed a
P15,000, 50% of which was payable upon acceptance of the case and Petition for settlement of the intestate estate of her deceased husband
the remaining balance upon the termination of the case. Accordingly, Jose Figueras.
complainant paid respondent the amount of P7,500 - pending settlement of the estate, Alegria died. Eduardo assumed
- Even before Atty. Dealca had prepared the appellant’s brief and administration of the joint estates of Jose and Alegria.
contrary to their agreement that the remaining balance be payable after - Eduardo was served a Petition for Probate of what purported to be
the termination of the case, Atty. Dealca demanded an additional Alegria’s Last Will and Testament, filed by Felizardo Obando, Alegria’s
payment from complainant. nephew (herein petitioner)
- Complainant obliged by paying the amount of P4,000. - the alleged Will bequeathed to Obando properties left by the Figueras
- Prior to the filing of the appellant’s brief, Atty. Dealca again couple, including 2 parcels of land in Quezon City.
demand payment of the remaining balance of 3,500. - Probate case was consolidated with the intestate proceedings, and
- When complainant was unable to do so, lawyer withdrew his Obando was appointed as Eduardo’s co-administrator of the joint estates.
appearance as complainant’s counsel without his prior knowledge - upon investigation, the NBI found the Will was a forgery, which led to the
and/or conformity. conviction of Obando for estafa through falsification of a public document
- Montano claimed that such conduct exceeded the ethical - 1990: probate court denied Eduardo’s Motion for authority to sell the
standards of the law profession and prays that the latter be sternly dealt parcels of land. Despite denial, he sold the lots to Amigo Realty
with administratively. Complainant later on filed motions praying for the Corporation, on the strength of an Order issued by the probate court in
imposition of the maximum penalty of disbarment. 1991. New titles were issued in the name of Amigo Realty.
- IBP conducted investigation, report and recommendation. It - 1992: Petitioner Obando, as co-administrator and universal heir of
found respondent counsel guilty of unprofessional conduct and Alegria, filed Complaint against Eduardo and Amigo Realty (respondents),
recommended that he be “severely reprimanded.” for the nullification of the sale.
- IBP Board of Governors resolved that the penalty be amended - 1997: the probate court removed Obando from his office as co-
to 3 months suspension from the practice of law. administrator.
- Atty. Dealca sought reconsideration saying: - Consequently, respondents filed Motion to Dismiss, based on Obando’s
> Complainant went to him just to prepare and submit loss of his legal standing to pursue the case.
complainant’s appellant’s brief on time at the agreed fee of - 1993: Trial Court granted the Motion and dismissed the civil case
P15,000.00, 50% down and 50% upon its completion - Petitioner Obando filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Denied.
> He was able to finish the appellant’s brief ahead of its - CA dismissed Obando’s Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus
deadline, so he advised the complainant about its completion - rejected Obando’s contention: that he did not lose his legal
with the request that the remaining balance of P7,500.00 be personality to prosecute the civil case, since there was no
paid. categorical statement that the purported will was a forgery, and its
> Complainant paid P4,000.00 only, promising to pay the probate was still pending
P3,500.00 “tomorrow” or on “later particular date.” This - affirmed the dismissal of the action because the probate court’s
promise-non-payment cycle went on repeatedly until the last Order alluded to the fact that the Will was a forgery.
day of the filing of the brief. - that the probate of the Will had not been decided on the merits
> Even without being paid completely, he, of his own free will did not change the fact that the probate court had removed
and accord, filed complainant’s brief on time; Such P3,500.00 Petitioner Obando as co-administrator.
remains unpaid until now Petitioners' Claim
-Assignment of Errors:
ISSUE Simply stated, the following issues are raised by the petitioners: (1)
WON Atty. Dealca’s conduct just and proper whether the trial court could act on a motion filed by a lawyer who was
allegedly no longer Eduardo's counsel of record; (2) whether a motion to
HELD dismiss filed after the responsive pleadings were already made can still
No. We find Atty. Dealca’s conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal be granted; (3) whether the conviction of Petitioner Obando for estafa
profession. through falsification and the revocation of his appointment as
- Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyer administrator, both of which are on appeal, constitute sufficient grounds to
shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice dismiss the civil case; and (4) whether there was a conflict between the
appropriate in the circumstances. Order dismissing the civil case and the previous actions of the trial court.
- Although he may withdraw his services when the client deliberately fails
to pay the fees for the services, under the circumstances of the present ISSUES
case, Atty. Dealca’s withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not 1. WON the trial court could act on a motion filed by a lawyer who was
LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
allegedly no longer Eduardo's counsel of record Motion was granted because the probate court had already removed him
2. WON a motion to dismiss filed after the responsive pleadings were from his office as co-administrator. The change in his legal capacity
already made can still be granted accounts for the difference in the adjudication of the trial court.
3. WON that it was premature for the trial court to dismiss the civil case Disposition the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Resolution
because Obando's conviction for estafa through falsification was still on AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
appeal
4. WON trial court whimsically and capriciously departed from its previous
rulings when, in its Resolution dated February 11, 1993, it granted
Eduardo's later Motion to Dismiss

HELD
1. the lawyer was still Eduardo’s counsel of record.
Ratio Representation continues until the court dispenses with the services
of counsel in accordance with Section 26, Rule 138 of RoC. Counsel may
be substituted only with the ff requisites: (1) new counsel files a written
application for Substitution; (2) the client’s written consent is obtained; (3)
the written consent of the lawyer to be substituted is secured
Reasoning Eduardo did not dismiss his Atty (Yuseco). The Motion to
Dismiss was beneficial to respondent Eduardo, he had no reason to
complain. At the discretion of the court, an atty. who has been dismissed
by a client is allowed to intervene in a case in order to protect the client’s
rights. In this case, any irregularity should have been raised by
respondent Eduardo, and not the petitioners.
2. YES
Ratio if the plaintiff loses his capacity to sue during the pendency of the
case, as in the present controversy, the defendant should be allowed to
file a motion to dismiss, even after the lapse of the reglementary period
for filing a responsive pleading.
Reasoning The period to file a motion to dismiss depends upon the
circumstances of the case. Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court
requires that, in general, a motion to dismiss should be filed within the
reglementary period for filing a responsive pleading.
However, even after an answer has been filed, the Court has allowed a
defendant to file a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) lack of
jurisdiction,22 (2) litis pendentia,23 (3) lack of cause of action,24 and (4)
discovery during trial of evidence that would constitute a ground for
dismissal.25 Except for lack of cause of action or lack of jurisdiction, the
grounds under Section 1 of Rule 16 may be waived. If a particular ground
for dismissal is not raised or if no motion to dismiss is filed at all within the
reglementary period, it is generally considered waived under Section 1,
Rule 9 of the Rules.26
- the respondents did not waive their right to move for the dismissal of the
civil case based Petitioner Obando's lack of legal capacity. It was only
after he had been convicted of estafa through falsification that the probate
court divested him of his representation of the Figueras estates. It was
only then that this ground became available to the respondents. Hence, it
could not be said that they waived it by raising it in a Motion to Dismiss
filed after their Answer was submitted. Verily, if the plaintiff loses his
capacity to sue during the pendency of the case, as in the present
controversy, the defendant should be allowed to file a motion to dismiss,
even after the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a responsive
pleading.
3. NO.
Ratio When an appointment as co-administrator of an estate is revoked by
a probate court, a final conviction in a criminal case has nothing to do with
such revocation.
Reasoning This argument has no bearing at all on the dismissal of the civil
case. Petitioner Obando derived his power to represent the estate of the
deceased couple from his appointment as co-administrator. 27 When the
probate court removed him from office, he lost that authority. Since he
lacked the legal capacity to sue on behalf of the Figueras estates, he
could not continue prosecuting the civil case. 28 Thus the trial court
properly granted the Motion to Dismiss on this ground. 29 Whether a final
conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is necessary to remove
him from his administration is not a proper issue in this Petition. He should
raise the matter in his appeal of the Decision removing him from
administration of the Figueras estates.
4. NO. There is no conflict between these court rulings.
Reasoning they were based on different grounds. The first Motion to
Dismiss was denied because, at the time, Petitioner Obando still had legal
capacity to sue as co-administrator of the Figueras estates. The second