LEGAL ETHICS

Notes on Cases

Rule 138 and 139

Cayetano vs. Monsod

Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission on
Appointments confirmed the appointment despite Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's alleged
lack of the required qualification of 10 year law practice.

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. It embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and other works where the work
done involves the determination of the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion

The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent
from its Roll of Attorneys for “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues” to the IBP since the
latter’s constitution notwithstanding due notice.

All legislation directing the integration of the Bar have been uniformly and universally sustained as a
valid exercise of the police power over an important profession. The practice of law is not a vested
right but a privilege, a privilege moreover clothed with public interest.

When the respondent Edillon entered upon the legal profession, his practice of law and his exercise of
the said profession, which affect the society at large, were (and are) subject to the power of the body
politic to require him to conform to such regulations as might be established by the proper authorities
for the common good, even to the extent of interfering with some of his liberties.

Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law of Benjamin M. Dacanay

Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until he migrated to
Canada to seek medical attention for his ailments and became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.

Pursuant to RA 9225, petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. He returned to the Philippines
and now intends to resume his law practice.

The loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines.
The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners. The exception is when Filipino citizenship is
lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to
RA 9225. A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost
his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225.

Before he can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so,
conditioned on:
o the updating and payment of IBP membership dues;
o the payment of professional tax;
o the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is
specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and
update him of legal developments and
o the retaking of the lawyer’s oath.
Code of Professional Responsibility

Canon 1

1. Soriano vs. Dizon

Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Sec. 27 of Rule 138

When lawyers are convicted of frustrated homicide, the attending circumstances – not the mere fact of
their conviction – would demonstrate their fitness to remain in the legal profession. In the present
case, the appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly show his
unworthiness to continue as a member of the bar.

Moral turpitude has been defined as "everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good
morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his
fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals."

2. Chan vs. Go and Paras

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise
its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes his case by clear, convincing and
satisfactory evidence.

Go - There is no proof that respondents engaged in influence peddling, extortion, or in any unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Paras - Complainant’s charge of violation of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility is misplaced because he was not a government lawyer at the time material to the acts
complained of.

3. In re Financial Audit on the Books of Atty. Kho

Atty. Kho’s apparent good faith and his ready admission of the infraction, although certainly
mitigating, cannot negate the fact that his failure to remit P65,000 in judiciary funds for over a year
was contrary to the mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93. That omission was a breach of his
oath to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities3 and of his duties
under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

4. Garrido vs. Garrido & Valencia

The legal wife of Atty. Garrido filed a disbarment case against him and Atty. Valencia for gross
immorality.

Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure – such as the verification of pleadings and
prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of desistance
by the complainant – do not apply in the determination of a lawyer’s qualifications and fitness for
membership in the Bar.

Atty. Garrido - gross immorality, violation of the Lawyer’s Oath; and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7
and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Atty. Valencia - gross immorality, violation of Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

5. Tan vs. Gumba

The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. Disbarment will be imposed as a penalty
only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of the lawyer as
an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Where any lesser penalty can accomplish the end
desired, disbarment should not be decreed.

Respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

6. Ventura vs. Samson

The Court has often reminded members of the bar to live up to the standards and norms of the legal
profession by upholding the ideals and principles embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also
of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Lawyers are at all times subject to the watchful public
eye and community approbation. Needless to state, those whose conduct – both public and private –
fail this scrutiny have to be disciplined and, after appropriate proceedings, accordingly penalized.

Atty. Samson - Disbarred for Gross Immoral Conduct (having carnal knowledge with a young lass),
Violation of his oath of office, and Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Canon 2

1. Cantiller vs. Potenciano

Atty. Potenciano was more interested in getting the most out of the complainant who was in a
hopeless situation. He bragged about his closeness to the judge concerned in one case and talked
about the need to "buy" the restraining order in the other. Worse still he got P 10,000.00 as alleged
deposit in court which he never deposited. Instead he pocketed the same. The pattern to milk the
complainant dry is obvious.

Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with
their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of
public interest.

He is suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate
that he has rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law.

2. In re Tagorda

The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents
or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards, being a matter of personal taste or
local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is not per se improper. But solicitation of business by
circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interview not warranted by personal
relations, is unprofessional.

As mitigating, circumstances working in favor of the respondent there are, first, his intimation that he
was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and, third,
his promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future. But it should be distinctly understood that
this result is reached in view of the considerations which have influenced the court to the relatively
lenient in this particular instance and should, therefore, not be taken as indicating that future
convictions of practice of this kind will not be dealt with by disbarment.

3. Burbe vs. Magulta

Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration.

4. Khan vs. Simbillo

Atty. Simbillo had a paid advertisement in the newspaper which read ANNULMENT OF
MARRIAGE Specialist.

The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:

1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with
their clients.

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally
for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and
informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer
permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of which are
calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the
profession.

Atty. Simbillo is found guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. He is Suspended.

Canon 3

1. Cabarrus, Jr. vs. Bernas

Complainant accused Atty Bernas of violations of Article 172 of the RPC (falsification of documents)
and CPR (Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 3, 3.01 and Canon 10)

Forum shopping - filing another petition involving the same essential facts and circumstances, . . . ,
respondents approached two different fora in order to increase their chances of obtaining a favorable
decision or action.
The functions of the National Bureau of Investigations are merely investigatory and informational in
nature. It has no judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of granting any relief to a party. Its
findings are merely recommendatory.

Hence, the NBI cannot therefore be among those forums contemplated by the Circulars. Atty. Bernas
did not commit forum shopping.

2. Linsangan vs. Tolentino

CANON 3 - A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information or statement of facts.

Ambulance chasing - the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or
through an agent in order to gain employment.

Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:

(a) lawyer’s name;
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced

Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase "with financial assistance." The phrase was clearly used
to entice clients. He is suspended from the practice of law.

3. Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie

Atty. Dacanay questioned the respondent’s use of a letterhead belonging to a different law office (a
foreign law office name).

The use of a foreign law office name is misleading towards the public and the clients. Rule 3.02 of the
CPR - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The use of
the firm name is unethical since Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law in the
Philippines.

4. Cordova vs. Labayen

As an officer of the court, a lawyer has the sworn duty to assist in, not to impede or pervert, the
administration of justice. They should not induce their clients to file administrative cases to judges
whenever a judge decides against their client.

Canon 5

1. Dulalia vs. Cruz

Respondent violated Canon 5 when he claimed that he was not aware that the Family Code already
took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he came
back to the Philippines together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as "ignorance of
the law excuses no one from compliance therewith." Canon 5 - a lawyer shall keep abreast of legal
developments.
Lawyers are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This
duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with
legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence.

2. De Roy vs. CA

There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette before
they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is the bounden duty of counsel
as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where
issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in the advance reports of Supreme
Court decisions (G. R. s) and in such publications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA)
and law journals.

Canon 6

1. PNB vs. Cedo

Having been an executive of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the
opposite side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction which he formerly handled
while still an employee of complainant, in violation of Canon 6

A lawyer represents conflicting interest when, in behalf on one client, it is his duty to contend for that
which duty to another client requires him to oppose.

2. Re Resolution of the Court against Atty. Avecilla

Taking judicial records, such as a rollo, outside court premises, without the court’s consent, is an
administratively punishable act.

The act of Atty. Avecilla in borrowing a rollo for unofficial business entails the employment of deceit
not becoming a member of the bar.

He violated Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the CPR:

Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

Canon 7

1. Samala vs. Atty. Palaña

Atty. Palaña committed fraudulent activities in making the respondent believe that his money would
be safely invested and failed to return it when the latter wants to withdraw it.

Atty. Palaña violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR, which states:
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
2. Leda vs. Atty. Tabang

Atty. Tabang declared in his Application for Admission to the Bar that he is single and contends that
he hid his marriage to the complainant because it is void. He submitted conflicting statements in the
Court in order to suit himself and it is evident that he lacks good moral character.

He violated Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly
provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppression of a
material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar”.

Canon 8

1. Atty. Barandon vs. Atty. Ferrer

Rule 8.01 of the CPR provides:

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

Atty. Ferrer imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in
Civil Case 7040.

Atty. Ferrer uttered words with intent to annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and discredit Atty. Barandon
in the presence of lawyers, court personnel, and litigants waiting for the start of hearing in court.
These language is unbecoming a member of the legal profession.

2. Atty. Reyes vs. Atty. Chiong

Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. The bickering and the hostility of
their clients should not affect their conduct and rapport with each other as professionals and members
of the bar.

Atty. Chiong’s failure to resort to the proper remedies strengthen complainant’s allegation that the
civil action was intended to gain leverage against the estafa case filed by the client of Atty. Reyes to
the client of the respondent.

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall conduct himself
with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel."

Canon 9

1. Cambaliza vs. Atty. Tenorio

A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice
law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
read as follows:

Canon 9 – A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which
by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is
founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to
those individuals found duly qualified in education and character.

2. Plus Builders vs. Atty. Revilla

Atty. Revilla is involved in the unauthorized practice of law by allowing a group of non-lawyers to
submit a pleading collectively representing themselves as law partners in KDC Legal Services, Law
Officers, and Associates and solicited fees for such.

The lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is
founded on public interest and policy.

He is found guilty of violating the CPR specifically Canon 9.

Canon 10

1. Fernandez vs. Atty. De Ramos – Villalon

A lawyer has the duty to be truthful in all his dealings, however this duty does not require him to
advance matters of defense on behalf of his client’s opponent. Only the client’s operative facts and not
the other evidentiary facts need to be included in the Complaint.

2. Rudecon Management Corp. & Atty. Tacorda vs. Atty. Camacho

There was no intention on the part of Atty. Camcho to commit forum shopping since he called the
trial court’s attention with respect to the pendency of the other Civil Case.

In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is
clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant.

Case was dismissed since the complainant failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show
that respondent willingly and deliberately to falsehood and unlawful and dishonest conduct in
violation of the standards of honesty as provided for by the CPR.

Canon 11

1. Ng vs. Alar

Respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings and called the Labor Arbiter cross-
eyed in making his findings of facts and that the NLRC commissioner acted with malice ruling that
the Labor Arbiter decided correctly.

Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of unnecessary language is proscribed.

2. Guerrero vs. Villamor

In the pleadings before the CA, petitioners used abusive language in describing respondent’s acts,
hence the latter cited them for direct contempt, which was later set aside by the SC.

The respondent did not violate the CPR. The order of direct contempt may only be considered an error
of judgment. A judge may not be administratively charged for mere errors of judgment in the absence
of showing of any bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose. Moreover, judges cannot be held to account
criminally, civilly, or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered by them in good faith

Canon 12

1. Fabroa vs. Paguinto

Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter
disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility.
A Court’s Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with
partially, inadequately, or selectively". Respondent’s obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s
orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the
Court’s lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.

2. People vs. Jardin

The accused asked for several postponements and failed to appear on several occasions.

An attorney as an officer of the court is called upon to assist in the due administration of justice. Like
the court itself, he is an instrument to advance its cause. For this reason, any act on the part of a
lawyer that obstructs perverts or impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and
justifies disciplinary action against him.

3. Garcia vs. Francisco

A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and the administration
of justice.

The cause of the respondent’s client is obviously without merit. The respondent was aware of this fact
when he willfully resorted to the gambits summarized above, continuously seeking relief that was
consistently denied, as he should have expected. By grossly abusing his right of recourse to the courts
for the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was disdaining the obligation
of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear to him to be just and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

4. Cabagui vs. CA

The Court required “Atty. Eugenio Millado to show cause within ten (10) days from notice hereof
why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for trifling with the Court by filing this third
petition despite previous resolutions of this Court.

The Court finds respondent guilty of gross negligence in not having complied with a “show cause”
resolution and of abusing the right of recourse to the Court by filing multiple petitions for the same
cause in the false expectation of getting favorable action from one division as against the adverse
action of the other division.
Canon 13

1. Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Mauricio

Atty. Mauricio has violated the CPR. His recourse to the Media, even after being told to desist from
such was a violation of Rule 13.03 of Canon 13, “A lawyer shall not make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party”. His action
has put not only the company Foodsphere and CDO in a bad light, but has also degraded the dignity
and authority of the legal system.

He has also violated Canon 1.01 by engaging in deceitful conduct taking advantage of the complaint
against CDO to advance his own interests, and Canon 8, when he used abusive and offensive
language in his dealings.

2. Re: Suspension of Atty. Bagabuyo, Former Senior State Prosecutor

Respondent caused the publication of an article in the August 18, 2003 issue of Mindanao Gold Star
Daily. Atty. Bagabuyo again resorted to the media, this time at Radio Station DXKS. He attacked
once again Judge Tan.

Atty. Bagabuyo is guilty of violating Canon 13, Rule 13.02 of the CPR. Instead of resorting to the
available judicial remedies before him, Atty. Bagabuyo has degraded the dignity and authority of the
court and the presiding judge, as well as promoted distrust in the administration of justice when he
resorted to media and declared his complaints there.

Atty. Bagabuyo is also cited for violation of Canon 11, when he disrespected the courts and the
judicial officers and Rule 11.05 when he did not submit grievances against a judge to proper
authorities only.

Canon 14

1. Blanza & Pasion vs. Archangel

If a lawyer volunteers his services to a client, and therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees,
nevertheless, he is bound to attend to a client’s case with all due diligence and zeal. By volunteering
his services, he has established a client-lawyer relationship.

Despite the dismissal of the charges against the respondent because complainants themselves are
partly to blame for the delay in filing their respective claims for their failure to cooperate and pay for
the Photostat services, the respondent has failed to live up to that ideal standard. It was unnecessary to
have complainants wait, and hope, for six long years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to co-
operate, respondent should have forthwith terminated their professional relationship instead of
keeping them hanging indefinitely.

Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 14.04 of Canon 14 of CPR.

2. Francisco vs. Portugal

More than a year after the petition was filed, they learned that the Court had already issued a
Resolution dated 3 July 2002, denying the petition for late filing and non-payment of docket fees and
that the said Resolution had attained finality and warrants of arrest had already been issued against the
accused because respondent, whose whereabouts remained unknown, did nothing to prevent the
reglementary period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.

Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for the accused, he as a lawyer who is
presumably steeped in court procedures and practices, should have filed the notice of withdrawal
himself instead of the accused. It should have been respondent who undertook the appropriate
measures for the proper withdrawal of his representation.

He could relieve himself of his responsibility as counsel only first by securing the written conformity
of the accused and filing it with the court pursuant to Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court. A
client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation at anytime with or without cause.
The respondent violated Canon 14 of CPR.

Canon 15

1. Justo vs. Galing

Respondent was guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR. By representing parties with
conflicting interests in a controversy, without showing any proof that he had obtained the written
consent of the conflicting parties, respondent should be sanctioned.

Lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.

2. Abragan vs. Rodriguez

Complainants filed a case of indirect contempt against Sheriff Fernando Loncion et al. Much to their
surprise, respondent represented the sheriff (complainants hired the services of the respondent to
represent in a case for Forcible Entry).

Respondent violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. Respondent should have evaluated the
situation first before agreeing to be counsel for the defendants in the indirect contempt proceedings.
Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to their clients, and should at all times weigh their actions,
especially in their dealings with the latter and the public at large.

3. Santiago vs. Saguico

Respondent, Atty. Sagucio was a former Personnel manager and Counsel of Taggat Industries Inc.
Thereafter, he was appointed as Asst. Provincial prosecutor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Employees of
Taggat filed criminal charges against the complainant who took over the management and control of
Taggat.

There is no conflict of interest on the part of the respondent when he handled the preliminary
investigation of the criminal charges filed by the Taggat Employees. The issue of the matter of the
criminal complaint was pertaining to the withholding of the wages and salaries of the Taggat
employees which occurred from April 1, 1996 to July 15, 1997. Evidently, the respondent was no
longer connected with the Taggat Inc during such period since he is working as Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor since 1992.
A lawyer’s absolute duty to his former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the
lawyer’s employment with the client. It is apparent that the intent of the law is to impose upon the
lawyer the duty to protect the interests of his clients only on matters that he has previously handled for
the former client and specifically not for issues and cases that arose after the lawyer-client relationship
has ended.

4. Gonzales vs. Cabucana

Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to Gonzales’s residence and harassed the latter. Gatcheco asked
her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her filed complaint.

The respondent is guilty violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. The court finds that there is no
merit to respondent’s allegation that it was his brother who represented Gonzales, thus there could be
no conflict of interest. Furthermore, it was an admission from the respondent himself that it was their
law firm which represented Gonzales in the civil case. Being the case, it is apparent that there could
be conflicting interest which may affect the duty of administration of justice, and specifically, will
strain the lawyer-client relationship.

However, In consideration of the facts, the Court considered as mitigating circumstances the fact that
the respondent is representing the Gatcheco spouses pro bono and that it was his firm and not
respondent personally which handled the civil case of Gonzales.

Canon 16

1. Penticostes vs. Ibañez

While payment of the contested amount had been effected to the SSS on November 23, 1990,
however, the same was made only after a complaint had been filed against respondent. Respondent’s
claim that he may not be held liable because he committed such acts, not in his capacity as a private
lawyer, but as a prosecutor is unavailing.

2. Small vs. Banares

Small sought for the services of Atty. Banares on August of 2001 in connection with several
complaints. P20,000 as acceptance fee was made and another P60,000 payment as filing fee on
September of 2001. Respondent then informed complainant that he shall be preparing documents for
the cases. Complainant made several inquiry on the status of the cases but respondent repeatedly told
him to wait as respondent was still preparing the documents.

Complainant’s evidence sufficient to find respondent guilty of violating Canons 16, 18, and 19 of the
CPR. The court sustained the findings and recommendations of the IBP for the suspension of 2 years
and the to return complainant’s P80,000.

3. Calaje vs. Atty. Soriano

The respondent asked for money allegedly to be put up as injunction bond, complainant however
found out that it was unnecessary as the application for writ was denied by the trial court.

Violated Canon 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession.
4. Meneses vs. Atty. Macalino

Respondent offered his legal services to complainant to help secure the release of the latter’s car from
the Bureau of Customs. Respondent received Php10,000 & Php30,000 without any receipt but failed
to give an update to the complainant

Violated Rule 16.01, 16.03 and 18.04

 Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client.
 Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand.
 Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

Canon 17

1. Spouses Aranda vs. Atty. Elayda

The respondent never informed the complainants of the schedule of their hearing and the adverse
judgment of the court.

Respondent was in another branch of the RTC and told the court stenographer to call him when the
spouses arrive

Violated Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.

2. Bautista vs. Atty. Gonzales

A lawyer is disqualified from acquiring by purchase the property and rights in litigation because of its
fiduciary relationship with such property and rights, as well as with the client.

Violated Canon 17

Note: Canons 18 and 19 were not discussed

Canon 18

1. Somosot vs. Atty. Lara

The complainant made no attempt to follow up her case. Respondent’s allegation that complainant
never paid him from May to August is no cause to withhold information regarding the request for
admission and the interrogatories.

Violated Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Canon 19

1. RCBI Bohol vs. Atty. Florido

  A lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his clients
success is wholly subordinate.
 While they are obliged to present every available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to
their clients must always be made within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the
expense of truth, the law, and the fair administration of justice.
 Violated Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the
law.

2. Pena vs. Atty. Aparicio

 Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should the latter fail to pay the amounts
they propose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages,
as well as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation
of business license to operate due to violations of laws.
 The letter was obviously designed to secure leverage to compel complainant to yield to their
claims.
 Violated Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present
unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

Canon 20

1. Cueto vs. Jimenez

Cueto engaged the services of Jimenez as notary public and after notarizing the Construction
Agreement, Cueto paid the agreed P50,000 as notarial fee. He paid P30,000 in cash and issued a
check for the balance in the amount of P20,000.

Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall avoid
controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to
prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. There was clearly no imposition, injustice or fraud obtaining in
this case to justify the legal action taken by respondent.

As borne out by the records, complainant Cueto had already paid more than half of respondent’s fee.
To resort to a suit to recover the balance reveals a certain kind of shameful conduct and inconsiderate
behavior.

2. Dalisay vs. Mauricio

Respondent agreed to handle Civil Case No. 00-044 on behalf of complainant. respondent received
the total amount of P56,000.00 from complainant for his supposed legal services, but no action had
been taken nor any pleadings prepared by the respondent except his alleged conferences and opinions
rendered when she frequented his law office.

Just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services. However, he
should charge only a reasonable amount of fees. Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
mandates that "A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees." Since respondent did not take
any step to assist complainant in her case, charging P56,000.00 is improper and unreasonable.

Canon 21
1. Rosacia vs. Bulalacao

The respondent violated Canon 21 of the CPR. an attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the
case in which he has represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client has terminated
as it is not good practice to permit him to defend another case for other person against his former
client under the pretext that the case is distinct from, and independent of the former case.
(Differentiate from the case of Santiago vs. Saguico)

2. Alcantara vs. De Vera

Rosario P. Mercado, one of the complainant hires the respondent Atty. Eduardo De Vera as her legal
counsel. The respondent garnished the bank deposits of the defendant, but did not turn over the
proceeds to Rosario claiming that he had paid part of the money to the judge while the balance was
his, as attorney’s fees.

The respondent’s act of filing a barrage of cases appears to be an act of revenge and hate driven by
anger and frustration against his former client who filed the disciplinary complaint against him for
infidelity in the custody of a client’s funds. It is a violation of Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the CPR.
The cases filed by the respondent against his former client involved matters and information acquired
by the respondent during the time when he was still Rosario’s counsel.

3. Palm vs. Atty. Iledan

What transpired on 10 January 2004 was not a board meeting but a stockholders’ meeting.
Respondent attended the meeting as proxy for Harrison. It is settled that the mere relation of attorney
and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the communication
to be confidential. Since the proposed amendments must be approved by at least a majority of the
stockholders, and copies of the amended by-laws must be filed with the SEC, the information could
not have been intended to be confidential.

Thus, the disclosure made by respondent during the stockholders’ meeting is not a violation of his
client’s secrets and confidence within the contemplation of Canon 21 of the CPR.

4. Salonga vs. Hildawa

The President of STAVA charged Atty. Hildawa of having withdrawn a deposit in favor of STAVA in
the amount of P104,543.80 without authority and of refusing to turn over the withdrawn sum of
STAVA. He was likewise charged with appearing as counsel for KBMBPM, an opponent of STAVA.

The following day he turned over the amount he received to STAVA’s Treasurer as the President was
then on leave.

Respondent was however reprimanded for having placed at risk his obligation of preserving the
confidentiality relation with a previous client. This obligation continues even after the attorney-client
relation ceases. He should not have appeared as counsel for a party his client has previously
contended with in a case similarly involving the said parties. Respondent violated Canon 21 of the
CPR.

Canon 22

1. Orcino vs. Gaspar

Complainant engaged the services of respondent to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file
against several suspects in the slaying of her husband. Respondent however failed to attend the bail
hearing where the court granted bail to all the accused. This angered the complainant and accused the
respondent of jeopardizing the case.

Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the CPR provides: ”A lawyer may withdraw his services from his client
only in the following instances:
(a) when a client insists upon an unjust or immoral conduct of his case;
(b) when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the CPR;
(c) when the client has two or more retained lawyersand the lawyers could not get along to the
detriment of the case;
(d) when the mental or physical condition of the lawyer makes him incapable of handling the
case effectively;
(e) when the client deliberately fails to pay the attorney's fees agreed upon;
(f) when thelawyer is elected or appointed to public office;
(g) other similar cases”.

Respondent's withdrawal was made on the ground that "there no longer existed the . . . confidence"
between them and that there had been "serious differences between them relating to the manner of
private prosecution." This circumstance is neither one of the foregoing instances nor can it be said that
it is analogous thereof.

2. Ceniza vs. Rubia

Respondent violated Canon 22 of the CPR which provides that a lawyer shall withdraw his services
only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Heavy workload is not
sufficient reason for the withdrawal of her services. When she accepted to handle the complainant’s
case, she undertook to do her duties with utmost attention, skill and competence, despite other
workloads to do with other client.

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice Cases

1. Talisic vs. Atty. Rinen

o Atty. Rinen did not deny his failure to personally verify the identity of all parties who
purportedly signed the subject document and whom, as he claimed, appeared before him on
April 7, 1994.

o "Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct." "The notarization of a document carries considerable
legal effect. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one,
and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.

o A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are
the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein.

2. Ang vs. Atty. Gupana

 o Respondent’s Notarial Report showed that Doc. No. 181 did not refer to the Deed of Absolute
Sale, but to an affidavit. As to the Affidavit of Loss, which was allegedly executed by the late
Candelaria Magpayo on April 29, 1994, it could not have been executed by her as she died
three years prior to the execution of the said affidavit of loss.

o Finds respondent administratively liable for violation of his notarial duties when he failed to
require the personal presence of Candelaria Magpayo when he notarized the Affidavit of Loss
which Candelaria allegedly executed on April 29, 1994 (Section 1 of the Notarial Law). The
purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free
act and deed.

o In merely relying on his clerical staff to determine the completeness of documents brought to
him for notarization, limiting his participation in the notarization process to simply inquiring
about the identities of the persons appearing before him, and in notarizing an affidavit
executed by a dead person, respondent is liable for misconduct (Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of the
Code of Professional Responsibility)

3. Tupal vs. Judge Rojo

o Municipal trial court judges cannot notarize affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose
marriage they will solemnize.

o Circular No. 1-90 MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no
lawyers or notaries public may, in the capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform any act
within the competency of a regular notary public, provided that:
(1) all notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the
municipal treasurer, and
(2) certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or
notary public in such municipality or circuit. Also,
(3) connected with their official functions and duties.

o Notarizing affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent with the duty to examine the parties’
requirements for marriage. He cannot objectively examine and review the affidavit’s
statements before performing the marriage ceremony. "The person authorized by law to
administer oaths" who notarizes the affidavit of cohabitation and the "solemnizing officer"
who performs the marriage ceremony are two different persons.

o Interviewing the contracting parties does not make the parties personally known to the notary
public Violated Section 2(b) of Rules on Notarial Practice.

4. Dizon vs. Atty. Cabucana

o The signatories in the Compromise Agreement testified that they signed the instrument in the
court room of MTCC but not in the presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public.

o Violated Section 2(b) Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice

Code of Judicial Conduct

Canon 1 - Independence
1. Ramirez vs. Macandog

o Respondent judge admitted to have succumbed to pressure in deciding the case in favor of
herein complainant

o Violated Sec. 1 Canon 1

2. Libarios vs. Dabalos

o The fact that the complainant and his sympathizers had staged a rally demanding the issuance
of a warrant of arrest against the accused is not a sufficient excuse for the unjustified haste of
respondent judge's act of fixing bail without a hearing.

3. Sabitsana, Jr. vs. Villamor

o The judge was inexcusably negligent for failure to account for the records of twelve (12) civil
and two (2) criminal cases.

o He also asked Judge Pitao whether the latter had received the note, and again warned the
latter about a certain "Big Man Egane," who was backing the complainant therein and that he
(Judge Pitao) better acquit the accused.

o Violated Canon 1 Section 2

4. Alfonso vs. Alonzo-Legasto

o The respondent transferred the complainants to other offices in the City Government, and has
not satisfactorily explained the entries in the allegedly falsified DTRs.

o Violated Canon 1 Section 5

5. Tan vs. Rosete

o Respondent’s act of sending a member of his staff to talk with complainant and show copies
of his draft decisions, and his act of meeting with litigants outside the office premises beyond
office hours violate the standard of judicial conduct.

o Violated Canon 1 Section 1

6. Borromeo vs. Mariano

o A Judge of First Instance may be made a judge of another district only with his consent.

7. Dimatulac vs. Villon

o The proceedings were replete with procedural irregularities which lead us to conclude that
something had gone awry in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga resulting in
 manifest advantage to the accused, more particularly the YABUTs, and grave prejudice to the
State and to private complainants, herein petitioners.

o Judge Villon committed grave abuse of discretion in rushing the arraignment of the YABUTs
on the assailed information for homicide.

Canon 2 – Integrity

1. Rural Bank of Barotac Nuevo vs. Cartagena

o The complaint charged the respondent with dishonesty and irresponsibility for failure, despite
repeated demands, to make good his promise to pay within the stipulated period, the
agricultural loan granted in his favor by the Bank.

o The case was dismissed for being moot and academic since complainant

2. Buenavenura vs. Benedicto

o Respondent judge: 1. Has been remiss in the supervision of-his court employees, 2. Had
involved himself in a program to furnish his court with the necessary facilities, by appointing
the members of the campaign committee, 3. Failed to exercise requisite care and discretion by
receiving the complainant in his private chambers, and 4. Failed to resolve in explicit
unmistakable terms the prosecution’s motion for suspension

o The acts of commission as well as of omission properly imputable to him, while not
warranting the imposition of any disciplinary sanction, clearly demonstrate the need for
greater care, prudence and discretion in his future actuations.

Canon 3 – Impartiality

1. Pimentel vs. Salanga

o since respondent judge is not legally under obligation to disqualify himself, we may not
prevent him from sitting, trying and rendering judgment in the cases herein mentioned.

2. Ty vs. Banco Filipino

The role of the trial judge in the conduct of judicial proceedings should only be confined to promote
the expeditious resolution of controversies and prevent unnecessary waste of time or to clear up some
obscurity. There is, however, undue interference where the judges participation in the conduct of the
trial tends to build or bolster a case for one of the parties. This is enjoined by the Code of Judicial
Conduct, Rule 3.06.

There is undue interference if the judge, as in the instant case, orders the presentation of specific
documentary evidence without a corresponding motion from any party, or directs a party when and
who to present as a witness and what matters such witness will testify on. To our mind, respondent
judge transgressed the boundaries of impartiality when he suggested to Banco Filipino what evidence
to present to prove its case. While the trial court may interfere in the manner of presenting evidence in
order to promote the orderly conduct of the trial, the final determination of what evidence to adduce is
the sole prerogative of the contending parties.
3. Parayno vs. Meneses

o Respondent judge inhibited himself (cause: certain degree of greater sympathy of the Judge to
the protestee)

o Inhibition was improper (it should be based on good, sound or ethical grounds, or for just and
valid reasons. It is not enough that a party throws some tenuous allegations of partiality at the
judge)

4. Martinez vs. Gionerella

o A Judge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial decision, but also render it in such
a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the
judge's integrity.

o His statement in the decision acquitting Arnold Bayongan to the effect that the "crime was
committed by Cresencio Martinez" renders it impossible for respondent to be free from the
suspicion that in deciding petitioner's case, respondent will be biased and prejudiced.

5. Palang vs. Soza

After respondent Judge had acquitted Julieto P. Herrera of the crime of estafa, with the statement in
his opinion that the charge was nothing but a "clear concocted story" with the testimonies being"
rehearsed and rehashed therefore, maliciously presented by the offended party, now petitioner.

The respondent Judge manifests that he voluntarily inhibits himself from conducting the trial of the
said case.

This voluntary inhibition by respondent Judge is to be commended. He has lived up to what is

expectedof occupants of the bench. The public faith in the impartial administration of justice is thus
reinforced. It is not enough that they decide cases without bias and favoritism. It does not suffice that
they in fact rid themselves of prepossessions. Their actuation must inspire that belief. This is an
instance where appearance is just as important as the reality. Like Caesar's wife, a judge must not only
be pure but beyond suspicion. At least, that is an ideal worth striving for. What is more, there is
deference to the due process mandate.

6. Gutierrez vs. Santos

Respondent de la Rosa filed a motion to disqualify the Hon. Arsenio Santos from trying and deciding
the case, upon the ground that sometime in 1948 he had acted as counsel for fishpond owners, like the
petitioner Gutierrez, in an administrative investigation in involving the same or at least similar issues
and properties, and had expressed views in the course of said investigation prejudicial or adverse to
the contention of the respondents in the pending case.

The true intention or the real ground for the disqualification of a judge or judicial officer is the
impossibility of rendering an impartial judgment upon the matter before him. It has been said, in fact,
that due process of law requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, and that every
litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
The respondent judge himself has candidly stated that the opinion expressed by him "might, some
way or another, influence (on) his decision in the case at bar" . The fear he has thus expressed — of
not being able to render a truly impartial judgment — does not appear to be capricious and whimsical,
having in mind particularly that in his order of denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration, His
Honor reiterated that in the aforesaid letter he informed the Secretary of the Interior that the streams
and rivers to be auctioned, for lease purposes, by the municipal council of Macabebe, Pampanga, were
private and not public streams and rivers; that the streams and rivers subject of the petition for
prohibition filed by herein petitioner were among those that he considered as private in nature; that,
therefore, the interests of Borja and his other clients "were identical to the interest of the herein
petitioner etc."

In view of these circumstances, the opinion thus expressed by him years ago "might, some way or
another, influence his decision" in the case before him.

7. Umali vs. Villaluz

Respondent Judge Onofre Villaluz voluntarily inhibited himself from trying the case "for the peace of
mind of the parties concerned and to insure an impartial administration of justice" on the ground that
before the criminal case (complaint for a robbery case where petitioner is the complainant) was filed
in his court, he already had personal knowledge of the same

Personal knowledge of the case pending before him is not one of the causes for the disqualification of
a judge under the first paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court which took
effect on January 1, 1964. But paragraph 2 of said Section 1 of Rule 137 authorizes the judge, "in the
exercise of his sound discretion, to disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reason
other than those mentioned" in paragraph 1.

Herein respondent Judge, because of his personal knowledge of the case, at least had conducted a
careful self-examination after hearing some incidents on the criminal case wherein petitioner is the
complainant, because such personal knowledge on his part might generate in his mind some bias or
prejudice against the complaining witness or any of the accused or in an manner unconsciously color
his judgment one way or the other without the parties having the opportunity to cross-examine him as
a witness.

It is possible that the respondent Judge might be influenced by his personal knowledge of the case
when he tries and decides the same on the merits, which would certainly constitute a denial of due
process to the party adversely affected by his judgment or decision. It is best that, after some
reflection, the respondent Judge on his own initiative disqualified himself from hearing the robbery
case filed by herein petitioner and thereby rendered himself available as witness to any of the parties
and therefore maybe subject to cross-examination.

8. People vs. Gomez

The judge prays that he should be disqualified and that the case should be ordered re-raffled and the
reason is that "in all frankness, he has lost all respect in the manner the special prosecutor, Atty.
Enrique A. Agana has been prosecuting the case."

Respondent Judge states in his answer herein, that he took into account matters not in the record and
outside of judicial notice, which provided a real though unstated reason for his dismissal order. Said
matter was an alleged dinner invitation from a stranger, styled as Col. Miguel M. Moreno, extended
thru Assistant City Fiscal Ybañez, which he regarded as suspicious and unusual; that after some
investigation as to this man, he concluded that "the indications were to the effect that some 'pillos' and
opportunists were making the Court of First Instance of Cebu the unwitting forum for extortion and
exploitation of persons charged with crime."
Such consideration of extraneous matters by respondent Judge, albeit in good faith, rendered the
dismissal as one affected with partiality and bias, making it null and void, for lack of another
fundamental prerequisite to due process in a criminal case, namely, an impartial Judge, not moved by
prejudice or bias.

Respondent judge is deemed to have inhibited himself from further taking cognizance of the case.

9. Oktubre vs. Velasco

o Canon 2, Rule 2.03:

A judge shall not allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or
judgment.

o Rule 3.12 of the Code kerrs

A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably
be questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings where:

(a) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(b) the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or
matters in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their
association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;

(c) the judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;

(d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree
or to counsel within the fourth degree;

(e) the judge knows that the judge's spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee,
creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding.

o The judge should not have taken cognizance of the cases in the first place.

10. Sandoval vs. CA

o Rule 3.12 (c) of the Code – the judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review

o As trial court judge, he presided partly over the case below, heard part of plaintiff's evidence
and ruled on motions. The decision itself, however, was penned by another judge.

o While he is not legally required to decline from taking part in the case, it is our considered
view that his active participation in the case below constitutes a "just or valid reason," under
Section 2 of Rule 137 for him to voluntarily inhibit himself from the case.

11. Villaluz vs. Mijares

 o Judge took cognizance and decided Special Proceedings for the correction of entry in the birth
record of her granddaughter.

o It is mandatory for respondent to have inhibited herself.

o Violated Rule 137 Section 1 and Rule 2.03 of the Code

12. Hurtado vs. Judalena

Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly prohibits a judge or judicial officer from
sitting in a case where he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguity or affinity.
This is mandatory.

Respondent judge is the brother of the respondent Isabel G. Judalena and their close relationship
notwithstanding, and despite the prohibition mentioned above, the respondent judge took cognizance
of the case and issued the controversial order directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction, after which he inhibited himself from sitting on the case for the same reasons. Such action,
to our mind, is reprehensible as it erodes the all important confidence in the impartiality of the
judiciary.

13. Perez vs. Suller

Respondent Judge conducted the preliminary investigation in said case although the complaining
witness, Cristobal Suller, Jr. is his nephew and thereafter issued the warrant of arrest against the
accused on the same day the complaint was filed without requiring the accused and their witnesses to
submit their counter-affidavits; that on the following day, a Friday, respondent judge purposely left
his station to thwart any opportunity for the accused to post bail.

While conducting preliminary investigation may not be construed strictly as "sitting in a case," the
underlying reason behind disqualification under Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and
Section 1 of Rule 137 is the same, the principle that no judge should preside in a case in which he is
not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent.

Respondent judge's participation in the preliminary investigation, involving his nephew is a violation
of the aforequoted rules laid down to guide members of the judiciary.

14. Garcia vs. dela Peña

The judge was dismissed from the service however he shall enjoy all vacation and sick leave benefits
that he earned. Any judicial personnel, who has been dismissed from the service, “may still enjoy all
vacation and sick leave benefits that he earned during the period of his government service”. The
lifting of his prohibition for reemployment serve no practical purpose since he is more than 73 years
old now.

Canon 4

1. Vidal vs. Dojillo

The complainant alleged that Judge Dojillo "sat beside the counsel of his brother" and "actively
coached, aided, assisted, and guided said counsel by now and then saying something, handing piece of
writing, reminding, and or stopping the counsel from manifesting something to the court, and other
similar acts."
Although concern for family members is deeply ingrained in the Filipino culture, respondent, being a
judge, should bear in mind that he is also called upon to serve the higher interest of preserving the
integrity of the entire judiciary. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to avoid not
only impropriety but also the mere appearance of impropriety in all activities. Even if respondent did
not intend to use his position as a judge to influence the outcome of his brother’s election protest, it
cannot be denied that his presence in the courtroom during the hearing of his brother’s case would
immediately give cause for the community to suspect that his being a colleague in the judiciary would
influence the judge trying the case to favor his brother. The fact that neither complainant nor his
counsel objected to the presence of respondent during the hearing is immaterial. Respondent himself
should have refrained from publicly showing his seemingly active interest and participation in the
case, for he does not deny that he whispered and passed notes to his brother’s lawyer during the
course of the hearing.

2. Ribaya vs. Parcia

3. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Paderanga

Petitioner informed the court that the compromise agreement was signed and was explaining further
when the court told him repeatedly to ‘shut up.’ Then petitioner requested the court to stop shouting at
him.

Respondent Judge’s action in declaring and punishing Atty. Oclarit in direct contempt of court
constituted misconduct and an abuse of authority. The same was all the more highlighted by his
failure to state in the written order of direct contempt the specific cause thereof.

Atty. Oclarit was only trying to explain the propriety of obtaining a settlement before a Barangay
Captain but respondent Judge would not listen. It was respondent Judge who first shouted
successively at Atty. Oclarit to ‘shut up’, an act unbecoming of an impartial and a neutral judge.

Although Atty. Oclarit might have also addressed the trial court in a way not altogether tolerable,
respondent Judge was not justified in resorting to drastic action especially like in this case where the
measure taken involved a deprivation of liberty.

Indeed, Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that:

A judge should be patient, attentive and courteous to all lawyers, especially the
inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should
avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts
instead of the courts for the litigants.

4. Omaña vs. Yulde

Respondent Judge should have avoided fraternization with lawyers in a drinking session or attending
the party tendered by the ex-mayor. The conduct of a judge must be free from any whiff of
impropriety not only with respect to the performance of his judicial duties but also to his behavior
outside his sala and even as a private individual.
Respondent had reached the compulsory retirement age of 70 years. Cessation from office because of
retirement does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint against a judge while he was
still in service.

5. Garcia vs. de la Peña

Respondent judge's taking cognizance of the criminal case despite the fact that private complainant is
his brother — a relative within the second degree of consanguinity — in violation of the rule on
compulsory disqualification of judges under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. He is
dismissed from the service.

6. Javier vs. de Guzman

Respondent took advantage of his position as Regional Trial Court Judge of Makati, Metro Manila, by
filing a collection case against Complainants and Lolita Javier before the same Court, instead of filing
the suit in Quezon City where the Javiers reside or in Manila where respondent resides. It might be
said that respondent was acting in the legal exercise of the option granted to him in the Agreement.
Nonetheless, the undersigned submits that in thus acting, respondent had fallen short of what is
expected of him as a Judge and officer of the court among whose duties it is to see to it that public
confidence in the honor, dignity, integrity and independence of the judiciary is not eroded, pursuant to
Canons 3 and 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics

7. In re Designation of Judge Manzano

Judge Manzano, Executive Judge, RTC, bagui, Ilocos Norte, was designated as a member of the
Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice. The Provincial/City Committees on Justice are created
to insure the speedy disposition of cases of detainees, particularly those involving the poor and
indigent ones, thus alleviating jail congestion and improving local jail conditions. It is evident that
such Provincial/City Committees on Justice perform administrative functions.

Under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall
not be designated to any agency performing quasi- judicial or administrative functions (Section 12,
Art. VIII, Constitution).

8. NBI vs. Villanueva

The Canons of Judicial Ethics requires a judge to keep himself free from any appearance of
impropriety. His personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties but also
outside the court, must be beyond reproach, for he is -- as he is so aptly perceived to be -- the visible
personification of law and of justice. A judicial office circumscribes a personal conduct and imposes a
number of inhibitions, whose faithful observance is the price one has to pay for holding an exalted
position.

Though he denies encouraging the three young women to apply for jobs as GROs, his actions loudly
speak otherwise. It is undisputed that he accompanied them to the night clubs. However, it does not
constitute serious or gross misconduct since the acts complained of are not connected with the
performance of respondent's official duties. However, such acts are violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, specifically Canon 2 which states that "[a] judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities."
Respondent was found guilty of immorality. The evidence shows that respondent and Marian Herrera
were lovers and was not merely his business consultant.

Section 8, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and immorality constitute serious charges and its sanctions,
under Section 11, include dismissal, suspension from office without salary and fine. (Respondent was
fined since he is already retired)

Canon 5

1. People vs. Boras

Canon 6

1. Maquiran vs. Grageda

2. Briones vs. Ante

Briones asked for and got the docket book from Rabanal. She then went back to the staff room and
placed the docket book on top of a filing cabinet but it fell on the floor, causing a loud sound. She was
about to pick it up when respondent judge appeared and shouted asking why she threw the docket
book and cursed, asking her to leave because she was not needed. Respondent got a monobloc chair
and threw it at complainant, hitting her on the forehead and right arm.

Respondent judge violates Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon 3 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics which mandate, respectively, that "a judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities," and that "a judge’s official conduct should be free from
the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the
performance of official duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach." These most
exacting standards of decorum are expected of magistrates if only to promote public confidence in the
judiciary.

3. Yu-Asensi vs. Villanueva

Respondent Judge is guilty of habitual tardiness which amounts to serious misconduct and
inefficiency. Circular No. 13, issued July 1, 1987 which lays down the Guidelines on the
Administration of Justice particularly Section 1 of the guidelines set for trial courts states in no
uncertain terms that:

1. Punctuality and strict observance of office hours. — Punctuality in the holding of

scheduled hearings is an imperative. Trial judges should strictly observe the requirements of
at lease (sic) eight hours of service a day, five hours of which should be devoted to trial,
specifically from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 2:00 to 4:30 as required by par. 5 of the
 Interim Rules issued by the Supreme Court on January 11, 1983, pursuant to Sec. 16 of B.P.
129.

Similarly, Section 5 of Supervisory Circular No. 14, issued October 22, 1985 provides:

5. Session Hours. — Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall hold daily sessions from Monday to Friday
from 8:30 to 12:00 noon and from 2:00 to 4:30 p.m. assisted by a skeletal force, also on
rotation, primarily to act on petitions for bail and other urgent matters.

Rule 3.01 of Canon 3 calls for a judge to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional
competence. Rule 3.05 admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and to
decide cases within the periods fixed by law. Rule 3.09 requires a judge to organize and supervise the
court personnel to insure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business and requires at all times the
observance of high standards of public service and fidelity. Respondent judge unfortunately failed to
live up to these standards.

4. Beso vs. Daguman

Complainant and her fiancé Yman got married and our marriage was solemnized by judge Juan
Daguman in his residence of J.P.R. Subdivision in Calbayog City, Samar. As presiding judge of the
MCTC Sta. Margarita Tarangnan-Pagsanjan, Samar, the authority to solemnize marriage is only
limited to those municipalities under his jurisdiction. Clearly, Calbayog City is no longer within his
area of jurisdiction.

Also, respondent Judge neglected his duty when failed to register the marriage of complainant to
Bernardito Yman.

5. De la Cruz vs. Pascua

Respondent judge was negligent when she issued the two Orders referred to above. Her reliance of the
word of the intervenors who showed her a copy of an alleged petition was clearly uncalled for. She
should have waited for a notice from the Supreme Court and in the absence of any restraining order,
she should have tried the election case with dispatch until its termination.

Respondent judge admits in her comment that both intervenors showed her a copy of their "Petition
by Appeal on Certiorari." What she should have done was to read it carefully and ascertain where it
was filed. Had she done so, she should have known that it was not elevated to this Court, but to the
COMELEC.

Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates, among others, that a judge should perform his
official duties with DILIGENCE. The same Canon specifically provides that a judge should maintain
professional competence and decide cases within the required periods. Respondent judge is guilty of
inefficiency and was fined.