CANON 1 lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings

with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a
Paulina Yu v. Atty Berlin Dela Cruz
manner beyond reproach.
A.C. No. 10912 January 19, 2016
CANON 2
FACTS: Respondent lawyer agreed to represent Paulina Yu in several cases
Pedro L. Linsangan vs. Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
after having received various acceptance fees: 1) People v. Tortona for
attempted homicide (Case No. 06-359)with acceptance fee of P20, 000; 2) A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009
Paulina T. Yu v. Pablo and Radel Gamboa for qualified theft/ estafa (LS. No.
FACTS:
XV-07-INV-116-05339) with acceptance fee of P8, 000; and 3) Paulino T. Yu
v. Roberto Tuazon et al. (Civil Case No. LP-00-0087) with acceptance fee of The case is a complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan of the
P15,000. Linsangan and Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for
solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
On Nov. 29, 2011, while lawyer-client relationship subsists, respondent
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie
borrowed pieces of jewelry from complainant and used such jewelry for his
Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent
personal use. In order to facilitate redemption, respondent issued a check in
promised the, financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims
favor of the complainant but upon presentment the check was dishonored
and persistently called them and sent text messages to induce them to hire
for the reason of ―Account Closed‖. Complainant immediately notified the
their services. The complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James
respondent of the dishonor of the check. In a letter, complainant demanded
Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer
the return of the jewelry and acceptance fees but the respondent did not do
client relations with complainant and utilize respondent‘s services instead,
so. On June 7, 2012, the complaint was referred to IBP- Commission on Bar
in exchange of a loan of 50,000 which is proven by a calling card.
Discipline for investigation and recommendation. On June 7, 2013, they
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the
recommended to disbar the respondent for violating rule 16.04 and rule
printing and circulation of the said calling card.
1.01. On September 28, 2014, the IBP-BOG affirmed the said
recommendation in Resolution No. XXI-2014-698. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF SOLICITATION
WHICH CONSTITUTES MALPRACTICE.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS HELD LIABLE?
HELD: YES. Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
HELD: Yes, the respondent lawyer violated canons 1, 16, 17, and rules 1.01,
that a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
16.04 of the CPR. His act of issuing worthless check constitutes grave
solicit legal business. Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for
violations of the CPR and the Lawyer‘s oath. This indicates a lawyer's
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers.
unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of
Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment. In this
personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of
case, Labiano‘s calling card contained the phrase ―with financial assistance
public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, and thus
which was used to entice his clients to change counsels.
seriously and irreparably tarnishes the image of the profession. Such
conduct, while already off-putting when attributed to an ordinary person, is
much more abhorrent when exhibited by a member of the Bar. In this case,
respondent lawyer turned his back from the promise that he once made CANON 3
upon admission to the Bar. As "vanguards of the law and the legal system,
Linsangan v. Tolentino not steal another lawyer's client nor induce the latter to retain him
by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his
A.C. No. 6672. September 4, 2009
services. Respondent never denied having Gregorio in his client list
FACTS: The case is a complaint for disbarment led by Pedro Linsangan nor receiving benefits from Labiano's referrals. He also did not deny
against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and Labiano's connection to his office. This rule proscribes "ambulance
encroachment of professional services. Complainant alleged that chasing" (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an
respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain
clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial employment) as a measure to protect the community from barratry
assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. James Gregorio and champerty.
attested that Labiano insisted that he sever his lawyer- client relations with
Also, Rule 16.04 prohibits money-lending venture of lawyers with his clients
complainant and utilize respondent's services instead, in exchange for a
as borrowers. The only exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has
loan of P50,000.
to advance necessary expenses (such as ling fees, stenographer's fees for
Also, the calling card given to him was attached to the complaint for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond,
Labiano's calling card contained the phrase "with financial assistance" which etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client. The rule is intended to
complainant asserts is unethical. The complaint was referred to the safeguard the lawyer's independence of mind so that the free exercise of his
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines judgment may not be adversely affected. With this, Court holds Atty.
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. In its report and Tolentino liable for violating Canon 8 Rule 8.02 and Canon 16 Rule 16.04.
recommendation, they found that respondent had encroached on the
2.Yes, Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper calling card for it violates
professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.02 and other canons
Canon 3. Lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
not a business. To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to
Moreover, he contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain, commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the public's
personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of
138 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that respondent service to which every member of the bar is called. Professional calling cards
be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a may only contain the following details: (a) lawyer's name; (b) name of the
heavier penalty. 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
ISSUE: phrase "with financial assistance". The phrase was clearly used to entice
1. WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO ENCROACHED UPON clients to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OF ATTY. PEDRO LINSANGAN. actions. It lured clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking
advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. Court holds
2. WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. TOLENTINO IS LIABLE FOR THE IMPROPER respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino guilty for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03,
CALLING CARD OF LABIANO. 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
RULING: Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and is suspended from the
practice of law for the period of one year.
1. Yes, Atty. Tolentino encroached upon the services of Atty.
Linsangan. Court emphasized the settled rule that a lawyer should
 ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT, ATTY. DE CASTRO VIOLATED HIS DUTY TO
SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY DELAYING THE
CANON 4
PROCEEDINGS.
OSEPH C. CHUA vs. ATTY. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO
HELD: Yes. Here, Atty. De Castro clearly caused a mockery of the judicial
[A.C. No. 10671. November 25, 2015.] proceedings and inflicted injury to the administration of justice through his
deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral conduct. "Indeed, he
FACTS: In a verified complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline abused beyond measure his privilege to practice law." Undoubtedly, Atty.
(CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Joseph C. Chua (Chua) De Castro failed to live up to the exacting standards expected of him as a
sought the disbarment of Atty. Arturo M. De Castro (Atty. De Castro) for his vanguard of law and justice. He showed his great propensity to disregard
capricious and continuous unethical practice of law in deliberately delaying, court orders. His acts of wantonly employing dilatory tactics show an utter
impeding and obstructing the administration of justice in his strategy for the disrespect for the Court and the legal profession. In line with jurisprudence,
defense of his client in Civil Case No. 7939 pending before the Regional Trial however, this Court held that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of
Court of Batangas City, Branch 84. misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as
Chua alleged that his company, Nemar Computer Resources Corp. (NCRC), an officer of the court. In the present case, this Court, after considering the
filed a collection case against Dr. Concepcion Aguila Memorial College, circumstances and records of the case, finds that the suspension from the
represented by its counsel, Atty. De Castro. According to Chua, since the practice of law for three (3) months of Atty. De Castro, as recommended by
filing of the collection case on June 15, 2006, it took more than five (5) years the IBP Board of Governors, is sufficient to discipline him.
to present one witness of NCRC due to Atty. De Castro's propensity to seek CANON 5
postponements of agreed hearing dates for unmeritorious excuses.
ELIBENA A. CABILES VS. ATTY. LEANDRO S. CEDO
Atty. De Castro's flimsy excuses would vary from simple absence without
notice, to claims of alleged ailment unbacked by any medical certificates, to A.C. NO. 10245. AUGUST 16, 2017 DEL CASTILLO, J:
claims of not being ready despite sufficient time given to prepare, to the
FACTS: Complainant Elibena Cabiles (Elibena) filed this administrative
sending of a representative lawyer who would profess non-knowledge of
complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the
the case to seek continuance, to a plea for the postponement without
disbarment of Atty. Leandro Cedo (respondent lawyer) for neglecting the
providing any reason therefore.
two cases she referred to him to handle. According to Elibena, she engaged
Moreover, Chua averred that when the trial court required Atty. De Castro the services of respondent lawyer to handle an illegal dismissal case, i.e.,
to explain why he should not be held in contempt for such delays, he NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-16153-08 entitled "Danilo Ligbos v. Platinum
belatedly made his explanation, further contributing to the delay of the Autowork and/or Even Cabiles and Rico Guido, " where therein respondents
proceedings. For his defense, Atty. De Castro countered that his pleas for were Elibena's business partners. Respondent lawyer was paid Php5,500.00
continuance and resetting were based on valid grounds. Also, he pointed for drafting therein respondents' position paper and Php2,000.00 for his
out that most of the resetting were without the objection of the counsel for every appearance in the NLRC hearings. During the hearing set on March 26,
NCRC, and that, certain resetting were even at the instance of the latter. 2009, only Danilo Ligbos (Danilo), the complainant therein, showed up and
submitted his Reply.

On the other hand, respondent lawyer did not file a Reply for his clients,
despite being paid his appearance fee earlier. In a Decision dated March 31,
2009, the Labor Arbiter ruled for Danilo, and ordered the clients of until he had fully complied with all the MCLE requirements for all his non-
respondent lawyer to pay Danilo back wages, separation pay, and 13th compliant periods.
month pay. Elibena moreover claimed that respondent lawyer failed to
In the present case, respondent lawyer failed to indicate in the pleadings
indicate his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance in
filed in the said labor case the number and date of issue of his MCLE
the position paper and in the memorandum of appeal that he prepared.
Certificate of Compliance for the Third Compliance Period, i.e., from April
Elibena pointed to a certification issued on June 29, 2010 by the MCLE
15, 2007 to April 14, 2010, considering that NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-
Office that respondent lawyer had not at all complied with the first, second,
16153-08 had been pending in 2009. In fact, upon checking with the MCLE
and third compliance periods of the (MCLE) requirement.
Office, Elibena discovered that respondent lawyer had failed to comply with
Elibena also averred that in May 2009, she hired respondent lawyer to file a the three MCLE compliance periods. For this reason, there is no doubt that
criminal case for unjust vexation against Emelita Claudit. Elibena claimed respondent lawyer violated Canon 5, which reads:
that, despite payment of his professional fees, respondent lawyer did not
CANON 5 — A lawyer shall keep abreast of Legal developments, participate
exert any effort to seasonably file her Complaint for unjust vexation before
in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high
the City Prosecutor's Office; that the Office of the City Prosecutor of
standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students
Muntinlupa City dismissed her Complaint for unjust vexation on September
and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.
10, 2009 on the ground of prescription; and that although she moved for
reconsideration of the Order dismissing the case, her motion for CANON 6
reconsideration was denied by the City Prosecutor's Office in a resolution
dated October 19, 2009. YU v. DELA CRUZ

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT VIOLATED CANON 5 OF THE CODE FACTS:

OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Dela Cruz was representing Yu in cases and received acceptance fees in
HELD: YES. Bar Matter 850 mandates continuing legal education for IBP three different cases of Yu. On November 29, 2011, respondent Dela Cruz
members as an additional requirement to enable them to practice law. This borrowed jewelry from complainant Yu then Dela Cruz pledged the same
is "to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and with the Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. for the amount of P29,945 Dela Cruz
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the then issued a check amounting to P34,500 to Yu. Upon presentment to the
standards of the practice of law." Non-compliance with the MCLE bank the said check was dishonored to the prejudice of Yu and demanded
requirement subjects the lawyer to be listed as a delinquent IBP member. In the return of the payment of the jewelry and the return of the acceptance
Arnado v. Adaza, we administratively sanctioned therein respondent lawyer fees paid for by Yu. The said demand was made with the assistance of Atty.
for his non-compliance with four MCLE Compliance Periods. Miralles. The IBP, through an action initiated by Yu, and required Dela Cruz
to submit a response. However despite multiple attempts Dela Cruz failed
We stressed therein that in accordance with Section 12 (d) of the MCLE the file a response despite the receipt of the notice requiring the same.
Implementing Regulations, even if therein respondent attended an MCLE
Program covered by the Fourth Compliance Period, his attendance therein ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT DELA CRUZ VIOLATED CANON 6
would only cover his deficiency for the First Compliance Period, and he was RULING: Yes. Due to complainant's respect for respondent lawyer, she
still considered delinquent and had to make up for the other compliance trusted his representation that the subject jewelry would be redeemed
periods. Consequently, we declared respondent lawyer therein a delinquent upon maturity. She accepted respondent lawyer's check, which was
member of the IBP and suspended him from law practice for six months or
eventually dishonored upon presentment. It becomes evident that Dela recommends the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a
Cruz used his public position to his advantage in order to secure the loan period of not less than three (3) years.
from the Yu on the form jewelry for personal gain to the prejudice of the
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. AZNAR IS GUILTY FOR VIOLATING THE CODE
client, Yu. The court however reserves 70 disbarment for cases of such a
OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HAVING CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
sever character that only disbarment may serve as a proper remedy.
WITH A STUDENT
However, one cannot discard the fact that the reputation of lawyers
becomes tainted though the acts of others in abusing the trust given to RULING: Yes. Atty.Aznar is guilty for showing grossly immoral conduct. It is
them by their clients. the duty of a lawyer, whenever his moral character is put in issue, to satisfy
this Court that he is a fit and proper person to enjoy continued membership
CANON 7
in the Bar. He cannot dispense with nor downgrade the high and exacting
DELOS REYES V. AZNAR moral standards of the law profession. Delos Reyes submitted to
respondent's solicitation for sexual intercourse not because of a desire for
FACTS:
sexual gratification but because of respondent lawyer‘s moral ascendancy
Complainant Delos Reyes, a second year medical student of the over her and fear that if she would not accede, she would flunk in her
Southwestern University (Cebu), alleged that respondent Atty. Jose B. subjects. As chairman of the college of medicine where she was enrolled,
Aznar, then chairman of said university, had carnal knowledge of her for the latter had every reason to believe that respondent lawyer could make
several times under threat that she would fail in her Pathology subject if she good his threats. A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or
would not submit to lawyer‘s lustful desires. She further alleged that when by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. A member
she became pregnant, Atty. Aznar, through a certain Dr. Gil Ramas, had her of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.
undergo forced abortion. Respondent filed his Answer denying any personal
In the present case, he is guilty for violating Canon 7, Rule 7.03 which
knowledge of complainant as well as all the allegations contained in the
provides that ―a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflects on
complaint and by way of special defense, averred that Delos Reyes is a
his fitness to practice law nor shall he be, whether in public or private life,
woman of loose morality.
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession‖. It
Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and was highly immoral of respondent, a married man with children, to have
recommendation. According to him, t is clear that Delos Reyes was taken advantage of his position as chairman of the college of medicine in
compelled to go to Manila with Atty. Aznar upon the threat of respondent asking complainant, a student in said college, to go with him to Manila
that if she failed to do so, she would flunk in all her subjects and she would where he had carnal knowledge of her under the threat that she would
never become a medical intern It has been established also that Delos Reyes flunk in all her subjects in case she refused. Respondent Atty. Aznar is
was brought by Atty. Aznar to Ambassador Hotel in Manila for three days hereby disbarred from the practice of law.
where he repeatedly had carnal knowledge of her upon the threat that if
CANON 8
she would not give in to his lustful desires, she would fail in her Pathology.
LINSANGAN V. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
In effect, the Solicitor General found that the charge of immorality against
respondent Aznar has been substantiated by sufficient evidence both FACTS:
testimonial and documentary; while finding insufficient and uncorroborated
This is a complaint for disbarment case filed by Pedro Linsangan of the
the accusation of intentional abortion. The Solicitor General then
Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional prior and existing marriage with another woman. However, through
services. Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe spurious means, the respondent and Felicisimo R. Tenorio Jr., were able to
Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. obtain a false marriage contract which states that they were married on
Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection February 10, 1980 in Manila.
on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called
As to grossly immoral conduct, the complainant alleged that the respondent
them and sent them messages. To support his allegations, complainant
caused the dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit derogatory to
presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried
Makati City Councilor DivinaAloraJacome. On the complaint of malpractice
to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer – client relations with complainant
or other gross immoral conduct in office, the complainant alleged that the
and utilize respondent‘s services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.
respondent
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its report and
recommendation, found that respondent had encroached on the (1) cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband, who is not a
professional practice of complainant violation Rule 8.02 of the CPR. member of the Philippine Bar;
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of Code of (2) converted her client‘s money to her own use and benefit, which led to
Professional Responsibility. the filing of estafa case against her; and
RULING: Yes. Respondent violated Rule 8.02 of the CPR. Settled is the rule (3) threatened the complainant and her family on January 24, 2000 with the
that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer‘s client nor induce the latter statement ―Isangbalaka lang‖ to deter the, from divulging respondent‘s
to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for illegal activities and transactions.
his services. Again the Court notes that respondent never denied having
these seafarers in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labianos The charge of malpractice or other gross misconduct in office was likewise
referrals. Furthermore, he never denied Labianos connection to his office. denied by the respondent. She claimed that her Cristal-Tenorio Law Office is
Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal registered with the Department of Trade and Industry as a single
practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR. Wherefore, proprietorship, as shown by its Certificate of Registration of Business Name.
Atty. Tolentino is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of Further, the respondent averred that this disbarment complaint was filed by
one year and he is sternly warned. the complainant to get even with her. She terminated complainant‘s
employment after receiving numerous complaints that the complainant
CANON 9 extorted money from different people with the promise of processing their
passports and marriages to foreigners, but she reneged on her promise.
CAMBALIZA V CRISTAL-TENORIO ADM. CASE NO. 6290, JULY 14, 2004
In the Report and Recommendation of IBP Commissioner on Bar Discipline
FACTS: In a verified complaint for disbarment filed with the Committee on
Milagros V. San Juan, it was found that the complainant failed to
Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on May 30, 2000
substantiate the charges of deceit and grossly immoral conduct. However,
complainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a former employee of respondent Atty.
she found the respondent guilty of the charge of cooperating in the illegal
Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, charged the latter with deceit,
practice of law by Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., in violation of Canon 9 and Rule
grossly immoral conduct, and malpractice or other gross misconduct in
9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility based on the following
office.
evidence: (1) the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office, which lists
On deceit, the complainant alleged that the respondent has been falsely Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., as a senior partner; (2) the Sagip Communication
representing herself to be married with FelicisimoR. Tenorio, Jr., who has a Radio Group identification card of Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., signed by
respondent as Chairperson; (3) and the Order dated 18 June 1997 issued by Llantino, as counsel for accused, filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail,
the Metropolitan Trial Court in Criminal Cases Nos. 20729 20734, wherein alleging that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in
Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., entered his appearance as counsel and even authority.
moved for the provisional dismissal of the cases for failure of the private
Respondent Susa, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC, calendared the motion
complainants to appear and for lack of interest to prosecute the said cases.
on December 15, 2000 despite the lack of notice of hearing to the private
Thus, Commissioner San Juan recommended that the respondent be
complainant, violation of the three-day notice rule, and the failure to attach
reprimanded.
the Certificate of Detention. Respondents filed their respective comments,
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS OF THE RECORD, THE that:
CHARGE OF DECEIT AND GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT HAS BEEN DULY
(1) they immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and brought him to the
PROVEN WHICH CONTRAVENES CANON 9 AND RULE 9.01 OF THE CODE OF
NBI to voluntarily surrender but due to heavy traffic, they arrived at the NBI
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
at 2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the certificate of detention indicated that
HELD: the accused surrendered on December 14, 2000;

Yes, affirm the IBPs finding that the respondent is guilty of assisting in the (2) complainant, as private prosecutor, was not entitled to any notice,
unauthorized practice of law. A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar nevertheless, they furnished the State and City prosecutors copies of the
to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice law is guilty of violating motion with notice of hearing thereof and that the hearing of a motion on
Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The term shorter notice is allowed under Rule 15, Sec. 4(2) of the Rules of Court.
practice of law implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF DELIBERATE
public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in
FALSEHOOD
consideration of his services.
RULING: Respondents Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of deliberate
Holding ones self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that
falsehood. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. The courts, on the other
purpose like identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in
hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing
representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office
and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his
for the general practice of law. In this case, Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a
clients rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his
lawyer, but he holds himself out as one. His wife, the respondent herein,
clients cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.
abetted and aided him in the unauthorized practice of the legal profession.
Wherefore, for culpable violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND GOOD FAITH TO
Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio is THE COURT
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
CANON 10 of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice. Respondents contend that their allegation of the accused‘s
YOUNG V. BATUEGAS, LLANTINO AND SUSA AC NO. 5379
detention was merely a statement of an ultimate fact which still had to be
FACTS: The casw was filed for allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in proved by evidence at the hearing of the Motion; that they were able to
court and violating the lawyers oath Complainant is the private prosecutor show that their client was already under the custody of the NBI at the
in Criminal Case No. 00-187627 for Murder. Respondents Batuegas and hearing held on December 15, 2000 does not exonerate them.
The fact remains that the allegation that the accused was in the custody of 2. Atty. Rivera claims that he does not think there is a reason or there is a
the NBI on December 13, 2000 was false. Respondent clerk of court should need to be furnished with his request for subpoena, and that his request for
not be made administratively liable for including the Motion in the calendar subpoena is not a litigated motion and thus, does not require him to do so.
of the trial court, considering that it was authorized by the presiding judge.
The court asked Atty. Adorio what the rule is and that she cite the rule so
However, he is reminded that his administrative functions, although not
that they can examine her protest whereby she is insinuating to the Court
involving the discretion or judgment of a judge, are vital to the prompt and
that there was something there, that they don't even know the request for
sound administration of justice.
subpoena. We quote her response: Atty. Adorio: There was an instance,
CANON 11 your honor, when this case was called by the Clerk for arraignment, the
Clerk would say that the accused would be coming. And one time, your
ATTY. LEAH ADORIO V. HON. LUCAS BERSAMIN, PRESIDING JUDGE G.R.
honor, the Court already issued an Order of arrest, and it was already past
NO. 120074; JUNE 10, 1997
10:00 o'clock in the morning when the accused arrived…
FACTS: This is a special civil action for certiorari which seeks to set aside the
Petitioner was apparently referring to an incident that allegedly occurred on
Order of Judge Lucas P. Bersamin dated May 5, 1995 insofar as it holds
July 13, 1994, the date set for the accused's arraignment. According to
petitioner in direct contempt and sentences her therefor. Atty. Leah Adorio
petitioner, the accused failed to appear in court on said date even after the
was the former private prosecutor of complainant Philip See Go in a case
third call at around 11:00 a.m. Consequently, the Court ordered the
involving his violations of B.P. Blg. 22 pending before the sala of respondent
issuance of a warrant of arrest and the confiscation/cancellation of the
Judge. Pre-trial in these cases was concluded on January 16, 1995. Upon
accused's bail bond. The clerk in charge of the record then went to the door
agreement of the parties, trial on the merits was set on March 8, 15 and 22,
separating the courtroom and the staff's office and whispered to someone
all at 8:30 a.m.
in the office.
Unknown to petitioner, counsel for the accused filed several requests
After two minutes, the same clerk again rose from her seat, went back to
addressed to the Branch Clerk of Court for the issuance of subpoenas duces
the door, and announced to the Court that the accused would be late.
tecum requiring officials of several banks to bring before the court microfilm
Respondent Judge replied that the Court will wait for the accused. However,
copies of various checks. The subpoenas were issued. On March 8, 1995,
on March 8, 1995, Philip See allegedly examined the record but found that
which petitioner supposed to be the date of the presentation of the
the incidents which purportedly transpired during the arraignment were not
prosecution's evidence, Atty. Adorio came to court and was surprised by the
reflected therein. The above revelations by Atty. Adorio prompted the
presence of the bank officials therein.
following response from respondent Judge: Court: Will you call everybody,
During the hearing, respondent Judge called for a recess to enable counsel all the staff inside . . . and you point to me who is that . . .? If you want me
for the accused to confer with the bank officers. When the case was again to be disqualified in these cases, you make it in writing. You file your motion
called, the following arguments took place: to inhibit, I will disqualify myself because I don't want to hear such
accusations. Any participation of my staff which I am now parading before
1. Atty. Adorio said that no copy issued by this court was ever given to the you . . . I don't like that kind of accusation. The private prosecutor was
private prosecutor. That, as a rule, the opposing party must be a party to directed to file a Request for inhibition in writing stating the grounds.
whatever paper the other party may file, it seems that Atty. Rivera was Pursuant to said order, petitioner filed a "Motion for Inhibition and for Re-
hiding something from them. Raffle of Cases" in behalf of her client. Petitioner's statements in her motion
alleges that: (1) the issuance of the subpoenas duces tecum was irregular;
and (2) the court and court procedure were subject to the "control" of the The grounds for disqualification are unworthy of any consideration. The
accused. questioning by the private prosecutor of the issuance of the subpoena is
unfounded and due to a misplaced sense of procedural requirements. As far
Atty. Adorio and Philip Go were found guilty of direct contempt of this Court
as the text and language of the motion are concerned, the Court considers
for disrespect to the Court and its Presiding Judge and are accordingly
them to be irresponsible and disrespectful especially the accusation that the
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 2 days and to pay a fine of P200.00
Court had come under the control of the accused and had committed an
each. Pending execution of the sentence, the transmittal of the records to
irregularity of procedure.
the Honorable Executive Judge, through the Office of the Clerk of Court, for
purposes of re-raffle shall be held in abeyance. These statements amount to an unmitigatedly disrespectful attitude
towards the Court and its Presiding Judge. There is therefore no recourse
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THESE STATEMENTS WHICH IMPUTE TO THE
but to find both the complainant and his former private prosecutor guilty of
COURT THAT IT COMMITTED AN IRREGULARITY OF PROCEDURE
direct contempt. Petitioner's allegation that the proceedings before the trial
CONSTITUTE DIRECT CONTEMPT AND THUS RESULT TO A VIOLATION OF
court were "irregular" therefore lacks basis. Such statement, when read
CANON 11
with petitioner's remark that the so-called irregularities "show the accused's
HELD: control over the court and court procedure," is nothing short of
contemptuous.
Yes. The court declared petitioner and her client, in direct contempt.
Contrary to petitioner's allegations, there was nothing "irregular" in the The latter statement is particularly alarming for it implies that court
issuance of the subpoenas duces tecum. Requests by a party for the proceedings are a mere farce, and the court a mere stooge subject to the
issuance of subpoenas do not require notice to other parties to the action. manipulation of the opposing party. It suggests that the judge was moved
No violation of due process results by such lack of notice since the other by considerations other than his sense of justice and fair play thereby calling
parties would have ample opportunity to examine the witnesses and into question the integrity and independence of the court.
documents subpoenaed once they are presented in court.
Such statement tends to bring the authority and administration of law into
The imputation that the Court has come under the control of the accused disrespect and constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional
on account of the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum upon his request Responsibility, specifically:
but without notice to the complainant or the public prosecutor is most
CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
unfair and disrespectful to the Court and is a highly irresponsible accusation
courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
on the part of the private complainant and the private prosecutor (who had
meanwhile withdrawn from the case). Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the courts.
The issuance of a subpoena at a party's instance is not subject to prior or
simultaneous notice to the adverse party of the request therefor, for, such Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported
notice is not required by the Rules of Court. Rule 119, Section 3 of the Rules by the record or having no materiality to the case. Consequently, it was
of Court which prescribes the order of trial in criminal cases does not ruled that respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
preclude the defense from procuring subpoenas duces tecum during the declaring petitioner guilty of direct contempt.
time of the prosecution's presentation of evidence.
However, the court found the penalty imposed by respondent Judge upon
petitioner too severe. Punishment in contempt cases are meted on a
corrective principle to vindicate the authority and dignity of the courts and with indicting physical and psychological abuse on Maria Mercedes Vistan,
the administration of justice. Accordingly, it reduced the same to a fine of her 13-year-old grandniece. Respondent was the one who conducted the
P200.00. preliminary investigation of the Complaint for child abuse and later indicted
petitioner for 21 counts thereof. The DOJ reversed respondent Velasco's
CANON 12
recommendation upon a Petition for Review filed by petitioner.
ANGELES V. GUTIERREZ G.R. NOS. 189161 & 189173. MARCH 21, 2012
Consequently, the Informations, which had been filed in the meantime,
FACTS: Petitioner Judge Adoracion Angeles was, at the time this Petition were ordered withdrawn by the trial court. Petitioner later filed an
was filed, the Presiding Judge of Branch 121 of the Caloocan City Regional administrative Complaint against respondent for gross misconduct, gross
Trial Court (RTC); while private respondent Emmanuel Velasco was a senior ignorance of the law, incompetence, and manifest bad faith arising from the
state prosecutor at the Department of Justice (DOJ). alleged malicious indictment. Falsification of Public Document - The alleged
falsification of public document arose from the same preliminary
On 20 February 2007, petitioner Judge Angeles filed a criminal Complaint investigation conducted by respondent in the child abuse cases mentioned
against respondent Velasco with the Ombudsman and sought his indictment above.
before the Sandiganbayan for the following acts allegedly committed in his
capacity as a prosecutor: According to petitioner Judge Angeles, respondent Velasco made it appear
that he had conducted a clarificatory hearing on the Complaint for child
1. Failure to present a material witness abuse on June 1999 as shown in the supposedly attended the hearing, was
2. Engaging in private practice by insisting on the reopening of child abuse seriously sick and could not have appeared at the alleged clarificatory
cases against petitioner; hearing.

3. Falsifying a public document to make it appear that a clarificatory hearing Minutes of the said hearing. Petitioner alleges that Leonila Vistan, the
on the child abuse Complaint was conducted. Failure to present a material witness who supposedly attended the hearing, was seriously sick and could
witness - According to the Complaint, Velasco, was the trial prosecutor in a not have appeared at the alleged clarificatory hearing.
criminal case involving the smuggling of jewelry. ISSUE: WON THE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR VIOLATED CANON 12 OF THE
He failed to present a material witness in the aforesaid case. The witness, a CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY?
gemmologist of the Bureau of Customs, was to testify on the type of DECISION: Yes. the Court notes with strong disapproval both parties' resort
substance making up the pieces of smuggled jewelry. According to to abuse of the judicial processes of this Court. This is the third case we
petitioner, considering the materiality of the gemmologist's testimony, know of that the parties have filed against each other, and that has reached
which respondent must have known of, since he was the handling trial the Supreme Court. This fact is especially regrettable, considering that
prosecutor of the case, his failure to offer the said testimony in court shows petitioner as judge and respondent as prosecutor should have been well-
that he tried to suppress the evidence in favor of the accused in the said cognizant of our clogged court dockets and should have thus exercised more
case. restraint in filing cases against each other. Canon 12 of the Code of
Engaging in private practice by insisting on the reopening of child abuse Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer from filing multiple actions
cases against petitioner - The second act complained of refers to arising from the same cause and from misusing court process. Judging from
respondent Velasco's filing of two Petitions to reopen the child abuse cases the number of cases and the vengeful tone of the charges that the parties
filed against petitioner Judge Angeles. Petitioner was previously charged have hurled against each other in their pleadings, they seem more bent on
settling what has become a personal score between them, rather than on ATTY. AUGUSTO G. NAVARRO, for and in behalf of PAN-ASIA
achieving the ends of justice.The parties are warned against trifling with INTERNATIONAL COMMODITIES, INC. vs . ATTY. ROSENDO MENESES III
court process. This case shall, hopefully, serve as a reminder of their ethical [CBD A.C. No. 313. January 30, 1998.]
and professional duties and put an immediate end to their recriminations.
FACTS This administrative case against respondent Atty. Rosendo Meneses
CANON 13 III was introduced by a complaint-affidavit filed by Atty. Augusto G. Navarro
on June 7, 1994 before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated
RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE
Bar of the Philippines, for and in behalf of Pan-Asia International
PROSECUTOR A.C. No. 7006, October 9, 2007 AZCUNA, J:
Commodities, Inc. Herein complainant charges respondent Meneses with
Factual Antecedents: malpractice and gross misconduct unbecoming a public defender; by
violating his oath to do everything within his power to protect his client's
Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused, declaring interest; by willful abandonment; and loss of trust and confidence, due to
that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove his continued failure to account for the amount of P50,000.00 entrusted to
the crime of homicide and not the charge of murder. Respondent Atty. him to be paid to a certain complainant for the amicable settlement of a
Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, then Senior State objected thereto mainly on the pending case.
ground that the original charge of murder, punishable with Reclusion
Perpetua, was not subject to bail. Instead of availing himself only of judicial The complaint-affidavit alleged that Frankwell Management and Consultant,
remedies, respondent caused the publication of an article regarding the Inc., a group of companies which includes Pan-Asia International
Order granting bail to the accused in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Commodities; Inc., through its Administrative Manager Estrellita Valdez,
Mindanao Gold Star Daily. engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Meneses.

The article, entitled "Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing While serving as such counsel, Atty. Meneses held various cases and was
murder suspect to bail out" properly compensated by his client in accordance with their retainer
agreement. On December 24, 1993, respondent acknowledged the sum of
Issue: Whether or not respondent Atty is liable for violating Canon 13.02? P50,000.00 from Arthur Bretaña, the accused in said case, to be given to
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Canon 13, Rule 13.02 that states therein offended party, a certain Gleason as consideration for an out-of-
that ―a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a court settlement and with the understanding that a motion to dismiss the
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. That case would be filed by respondent Meneses. Despite subsequent repeated
instead of resorting to the available judicial remedies before him, Atty. requests, respondent failed to present to his client the receipt
Bagabuyo has degraded the dignity and authority of the court and the acknowledging that Gleason received said amount.
presiding judge, as well as promoted distrust in the administration of justice A verification made with the Regional Trial Court of Makati revealed that no
when he resorted to media and declared his complaints there. WHEREFORE, motion to dismiss or any pleading in connection therewith had been filed,
in view of the foregoing, Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo is found guilty of and the supposed amicable settlement was not finalized and concluded.
violating Rule 13.02, Canon 13 for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice Despite repeated demands in writing. On the hearings, the respondent
of law for one (1) year. failed to attend despite due notice. He then moved to postpone and reset
CANON 14 the hearing of the case for several times due to health problems. On the re-
scheduled date, respondent again failed to attend. Thus the Commission
considered him to have waived his right to present evidence in his defense FACTS: Complainant Ariel G. Palacios, the disbarment of respondent Atty.
and declared the case submitted for resolution. Bienvenido Braulio M. Amora, Jr. for alleged violation of: among many
others, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY IN VIOLATING CANON
Complainant is the owner-developer of more or less 312 hectares of land
14 OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BY NOT ATTENDING
estate property located at Barangays San Vicente, San Miguel, Biluso and
THE SCHEDULED HEARINGS OF THE COURT.
Lucsuhin, Municipality of Silang, Province of Cavite ("property").
HELD YES. It is settled that a lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for every
Said property was being developed into a residential subdivision,
person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline
community club house and two (2) championship golf courses (the "Riviera
employment subject, however, to the provisions of Canon 14 of the Code of
project"). In 1996, complainant entered into purchase agreements with
Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client,
several investors in order to finance its Riviera project.
he owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed on him. One of these investors was Philippine Golf Development and Equipment,
Inc. who paid the amount of Php54 Million for the purchase of 2% interest
Respondent Meneses, as counsel, had the obligation to inform his client of
on the Riviera project consisting of developed residential lots Complainant
status of the case and to respond within a reasonable time to his client's
retained the services of respondent of the Amora and Associates Law
request for information. Respondent's failure to communicate with his
Offices to represent and act as its legal counsel in connection with the
client by deliberately disregarding its requests for an audience or
Riviera project Respondent's legal services include the following: issuance of
conference is an unjustifiable denial of its right to be fully informed of the
consolidated title(s) over the project, issuance of individual titles for the
developments in and the status of its case. Respondent Meneses'
resultant individual lots, issuance of license to sell by the Housing and Land
misconduct constitutes a gross violation of his oath as a lawyer which, inter
Use Regulatory Board, representation before the SEC, and services
alia, imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or
concerning the untitled lots included in the project, registration of the
malice.
Riviera trademark with the Intellectual Property Office. For the said legal
He blatantly disregarded Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional services, he was paid in three different checks. 220 As complainant's legal
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or counsel, respondent was privy to highly confidential information regarding
property collected or received for or from his client. Respondent was merely the Riviera project which included but was not limited to the corporate set-
holding in trust the money he received from his client to be used as up, actual breakdown of the shares of stock, financial records, purchase
consideration for the amicable settlement of a case he was handling. Since agreements and swapping agreements with its investors.
the amicable settlement did not materialize, he was necessarily under
Respondent was also very familiar with the Riviera project and further knew
obligation to immediately return the money, as there is no showing that he
that complainant had valid titles to the properties of the Riviera project and
has a lien over it. As a lawyer, he should be scrupulously careful in handling
was also knowledgeable about complainant's transactions with Phil Golf
money entrusted to him in his professional capacity, because a high degree
After complainant terminated respondent's services as its legal counsel,
of fidelity and good faith on his part is exacted.
respondent became Phil Golf's representative and assignee. Respondent
CANON 15 began pushing for the swapping of Phil Golf's properties with that of
complainant. These proposals were rejected by complainant for being
PALACIOS vs. ATTY. AMORA Jr. grossly disadvantageous to the latter.
After complainant's rejection of the said proposals, respondent filed a case conflicting interests. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by complainant,
against its former client, herein complainant on behalf of a subsequent respondent did not merely act as its investor at his own behest. Respondent
client (Phil Golf) before the HLURB for alleged breach of contract. In this was acting for and in behalf of Phil Golf. Worse, at Phil Golfs instance, he
HLURB case, respondent misrepresented that Phil Golf is a duly organized caused the filing of a Complaint against complainant with the HLURB,
and existing corporation under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines stating that he is the duly authorized representative and assignee of Phil
because it appears that Phil Golf's registration had been revoked as early as Golf and that he caused the preparation of the complaint.
03 November 2003.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests
Despite Phil Golf's revoked Certificate of Registration, respondent further of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of
certified under oath that he is the duly authorized representative and one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his
assignee of Phil Golf. Respondent, however, was not authorized to act for duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this
and on behalf of said corporation because Phil Golf's corporate personality argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client."
has ceased The IBP-BOG recommended the suspension from the practice of
This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have
law of respondent for a period of three (3) years and ordering the return of
been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or
the amount of PhP1.8 Million to the complainant within six (6) months
will be used.
ISSUE: whether Atty. Amora should be held administratively liable based on
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a
the allegations on the Complaint.
new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
RULING: undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof. respondent's
Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain
representation of Phil Golf violated the rules on conflict of interest as he
as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with
undertook to take up the causes of his new client against the interest of his
another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the
former client The relationship between a lawyer and his client should ideally
prospective client.
be imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence.
Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
Part of the lawyer's duty to his client is to avoid representing conflicting
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
interests. ; nor can he accept employment from another in a matter
The requirement under Rule 15.03 is quite clear. A lawyer must secure the
adversely affecting any interest of his former client. It is his duty to decline
written consent of all concerned parties after a full disclosure of the facts.
employment in any of these and similar circumstances in view of the rule
Respondent, however, failed to present any such document. Respondent prohibiting representation of conflicting interests.
argues that AFP-RSBS gave its formal and written consent to his status as an
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Bienvenido Braulio M. Amora, Jr. GUILTY
investor and allowed him to be subrogated to all the rights, privileges and
of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 15, Rule 15.03; Canon 21, Rule
causes of action of an investor. This purported approval, however, is not the
21.01 and 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
consent that the CPR demands.
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. Atty.
Court ruled that a lawyer's failure to acquire a written consent from both Amora is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
clients after a full disclosure of the facts would subject him to disciplinary with more severely.
action. Absent such written consent, respondent is guilty of representing
CANON 16
MENESES V ATTY. MACALINO client‘s cause would do. Respondent said that the spouses did not bother to
contact him to prepare for the case and in fact he had to ask for
FACTS: Respondent offered his legal services to complainant to help secure
postponement of the case for reason that he still have to confer with the
the release of complainant‘s car from the Bureau of Customs. They agreed
spouses who were not around.
that the case package deal will be 60,000php. Hence, complainant initially
gave 10,000php and additional 30,000php to expedite the release of the car ISSUE: WON respondent violated Canon 17 of Code of Professional
without issuing a receipt. Afterwards, respondent failed to give complainant Responsibility
an update on the matter despite the repetitive inquiries of the complainant.
RULE: Atty. Elayda failed to exert all efforts to present every remedy or
Complainant went to the NBI to file a complaint for estafa case against the
defense authorized by law to protect the petitioners‘ cause. While it is true
respondent. Hence, an investigation was conducted. In response,
that communication is a shared responsibility between a counsel and his
respondent stated in his letter that he would settle the matter and return
clients, it is the counsel's primary duty to inform his clients of the status of
the 40,000php.
their case and the orders which have been issued by the court. Besides, it is
However, he only return the 20,000 with a receipt. The case for estafa elementary procedure for a lawyer and his clients to exchange contact
against him was found insufficient to prosecute him. Therefore, the NBI details at the initial stages in order to have constant communication with
advised that the complainant should file a complainant for disbarment. each other. Again, Atty. Elayda's excuse that he did not have the spouses
Complainant filed a disbarment with the Commission on Bar Discipline of Aranda's contact number and that he did not know their address is simply
the IBP. Despite receipt of the notice of hearing, respondent failed to unacceptable.
appear.
CANON 18
ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Rule
DAGOHOY V. SAN JUAN
16.03?
FACTS:
RULING: YES. There is clearly a breach of lawyer-client relations. It is the
lawyers duty to keep the client regularly and fully updated on the An administrative case for gross negligence was charged to respondent,
developments of the client‘s case. The Code provides that a lawyer shall Atty. San Juan, in connection with the dismissal of his client‘s appeal filed
keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a before the Court of Appeals. Tomas Dagohoy, his client and the father of
reasonable time to the clients request for information. The IBP complainant Rex Polinar Dagohoy, was charged with and convicted of theft
recommended the imposition of a penalty of 1 year suspension from the by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, of Panabo City, Davao del Norte.
practice of law.
According to the complainant, Atty. San Juan‘s failure to file the appellant‘s
CANON 17 brief resulted to the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals. In
addition, Atty. San Juan did not file a motion for reconsideration against the
SPS. ARANDA V. ATTY. ELAYDA A.C. No. 7907. December 15, 2010
Court of Appeal‘s order of dismissal.
FACTS: Respondent was Petitioners‘ counsel in a previous case where
Atty. San Juan was also accused of being untruthful in dealing with the
petitioners were respondents against Guballa. The spouses alleged that
complainant for failing to inform the latter of the real status of Tomas‘
respondent‘s handling of their case was "sorely inadequate‖ evidenced by
appeal and for not disclosing the real reason for its dismissal. In the
her absence, not notifying the spouses the setting of a case, and not lifting
respondent‘s defense, it was his client‘s fault who failed to furnish him a
any finger to have an order reconsidered as what a counsel devoted to their
copy of the case records to enable him to prepare and file the appellant‘s annulment. However, the same was denied together with his subsequent
brief. motions.

He also tried saving the situation but a relative of Tomas prevented him ISSUE: W/N respondent violates Canon 19 of the CPR
from further acting on the case.
HELD: YES. Under Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
ISSUE: Was the complainant guilty of gross negligence? lawyer is required to represent his client "within the bounds of the law."
The Code enjoins a lawyer to employ only fair and honest means to attain
RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court stated that securing a copy of the case
the lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) and warns him not to allow
records was within Atty. San Juan‘s task as the lawyer. Second, Atty. San
his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case (Rule 19.03). In short,
Juan knows that filing an appellant‘s brief within the reglementary period is
a lawyer is not a gun for hire.
critical. Third, the records also disclose Atty. San Juan‘s lack of candor in
dealing with his client. The Court found Atty. San Juan in violation of Rule Advocacy, within the bounds of the law, permits the attorney to use any
18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, arguable construction of the law or rules which is favorable to his client. But
which provide: the lawyer is not allowed to knowingly advance a claim or defense that is
unwarranted under existing law. He cannot prosecute patently frivolous and
CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
meritless appeals or institute clearly groundless actions.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
Professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
necessary restrictions and qualifications. WHEREFORE, respondent is
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case SUSPENDED for one year.
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
CANON 20
information. The Court resolved to suspend Atty. San Juan for a period of
one year and to deny his motion to be allowed to return to the practice of TORIBIO P. PEREZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SCOTTISH UNION AND NATIONAL
law. INSURANCE CO., defendant. MIGUEL H. MITRE, appellant. C.A. No. 8977,
MARCH 22, 1946
CANON 19
Facts: The plaintiff is seeking to recover (1) P6,000, as attorney's fees in a
RODOLFO MILLARE vs. ATTY. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO A.C. No. 3283 July
criminal case for arson against the defendant Miguel H. Mitre who, in a
13, 1995
written contract (Exhibit D), had covenanted to pay the same out of the
FACTS: Pacifica Millare, the mother of the complainant, obtained a proceeds of a fire insurance policy (No. 5518308), for P12,000, issued in his
favorable judgment from the MTC which ordered respondent‘s client to favor by the defendant Scottish Union and National Insurance Co., and (2)
vacate the premises subject of the ejectment case. Co, through respondent P1,485, unpaid balance of attorney's fees owing by the defendant Miguel H.
as counsel, appealed the decision but was dismissed. According to the CA, Mitre in four other.
Co should have filed a petition for review and not an ordinary appeal.
The defendant Miguel H. Mitre acknowledges the execution of Exhibit D and
Respondent argued that the decisions of the MTC and the RTC dismissing
the fact that the plaintiff had rendered professional services, but it is
the appeal were null and void for being contrary to law, justice and equity.
alleged, at the same time, (a) that the stipulated fee in the case of arson
Respondent, admitting his mistake in filing an ordinary appeal instead of a
(P550) had been fully paid, Exhibit D being a simulation conceived by the
petition for review, prayed that he be allowed to file an action for
plaintiff and intended merely to bar all claims to the insurance proceeds FACTS: Complainant William S. Uy engaged the services of respondent
arising from defendant's criminal liability; (b) that the stipulated fee in CA- lawyer for the filing of a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title.
G.R. No. 6398 and CA-G.R. No. 6499 was P100 each, of which a total of P100 After consulting with Atty. Gonzales the circumstances surrounding the lost
had already been paid in said cases; (c) that civil case No. 3048 was not a title and discussing the fees and costs, respondent prepared, finalized and
litigation of the defendant Miguel H. Mitre who was included therein for submitted to him a petition to be filed before the Regional Trial Court.
being the husband of the principal defendant Maria Perez de Mitre; and (d) When the petition was about to be filed, respondent went to complainant‘s
that the plaintiff undertook to handle the administrative case against office asking for an amount other than what they have previously agreed
Arambulo as part of the arson case. The Court of First Instance of Albay upon.
rendered a judgment in favor of Perez, from which Mitre now appeals.
Respondent left his office after reasoning with him. Expecting that said
Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to have fee of P6,000 as petition would be filed, complainant was surprised to find out later that
provided in Exhibit D, in compensation for his professional service in arson instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title,
case. respondent filed a letter-complaint against him with the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor for Falsification of Public Documents.
Held: Yes. The Court held that the gravity of the situation confronted by the
appellant after the rendition of the judgment of the Court of First Instance is The letter-complaint contained facts and circumstances pertaining to the
shown by the fact that he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the transfer certificate of title that was the subject matter of the petition which
period of from ten to twelve years and to pay an indemnity of P101,115. respondent was supposed to have filed. Respondent claims that he gave
That the plaintiff had handled appellant's defense with competence and complainant a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is withdrawing
success cannot be gainsaid, it being enough to state that the appellant was the petition he prepared and that complainant should get another lawyer to
acquitted in the Court of Appeals before which the plaintiff orally argued, in file the petition thereby terminating the lawyer-client relationship between
addition to a 78-page brief which had filed therein. him and complainant; that there was no longer any professional relationship
between the two of them when he filed the letter-complaint for falsification
The amount of P6,000 cannot be regarded as excessive or unjust, especially
of public document; that the facts and allegations contained in the letter-
because said fee is in a sense contingent upon the acquittal of the appellant,
complaint for falsification were culled from public documents procured
since no insurance money was of course forthcoming if the fire which
from the Office of the Register of Deeds.
destroyed the insured property could be proven to have resulted from
incendiarism for which the appellant was criminally liable. The income of a The IBP found him guilty of violating Rule 21.02, Canon 21 of the Canons of
lawyer is not a safe criterion of his professional ability. Many very good Professional Responsibility and recommended for his suspension for 6
lawyers earn but small incomes while lawyers of inferior ability may prosper months.
financially. Neither is the length of time a lawyer has practiced a reliable
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Canon 21 of the CPR?
measure of his ability; his competency must be judged by the character of
his work. HELD: No. Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for Estafa Through
Falsification of Public Documents filed by respondent against complainant
CANON 21
were obtained by respondent due to his personal dealings with
WILLIAM S. UY VS. ATTY. FERMIN L. GONZALES A.C. NO. 5280, MARCH 30, complainant.
2004 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Respondent volunteered his service to hasten the issuance of the certificate Perhaps changing her mind, Orcino refused to give her consent. Gaspar,
of title of the land he has redeemed from complainant. Clearly, there was however, did not attend the subsequent hearings. Orcino then filed an
no attorney-client relationship between respondent and complainant. administrative complaint against Gaspar for abandoning the case.

The preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was only incidental ISSUE WON the respondent violated Canon 22, Rule 22.01 of Code of
to their personal transaction. Whatever facts alleged by respondent against Professional Responsibility (CPR)
complainant were not obtained by respondent in his professional capacity
RULING Yes. When Orcino uttered that she‘s terminating Atty. Gaspar‘s
but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased son
services, she did so in a burst of passion. She did not really mean to
and therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for estafa against
terminate Atty. Gaspar at all as evidenced by her refusal to give consent to
herein complainant, which necessarily involved alleging facts that would
Gaspar‘s motion. The belligerence of Orcino towards Gaspar is
constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any way, violating Canon 21.
understandable and is attributed to her over zealousness to bring justice to
There is no way we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint against the death of her husband. At any rate, a lawyer cannot unilaterally
herein complainant to a misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in terminate his legal services to his client. Unlike the other way around where
honesty, probity and good demeanor or that renders him unworthy to a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship
continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise would be precluding with or without just cause. Atty. Gaspar has no reason to presume that his
any lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to protect his personal or motion shall be granted by the court.
proprietary interests. Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
He should have not left Orcino in the cold and should have continued
appearing for her until there is a withdrawal of record and a successor
placed in his stead. Gaspar was admonished accordingly. He was also
CANON 22
directed to return half of what was paid him.
ANGELITA ORCINO vs. ATTY. JOSUE GASPAR [Adm. Case No. 3773.
September 24, 1997] PUNO, J

FACTS Petitioner Angelina Orcino‘s husband was murdered and she was
zealous in prosecuting the suspects. She hired Atty. Gaspar as her counsel
and they agreed to a P20,000.00 attorney‘s fee which Orcino paid. Atty.
Gaspar did his duty religiously from interviewing witnesses to attending
hearings and the preliminary investigation. But on the day bail is to be
heard, Atty. Gaspar failed to appear. Bail was granted in favor of the
suspects and this enraged Orcino.

She then went to Gaspar‘s residence where Gaspar reasoned out that he did
not receive a notice of hearing hence his absence. Finding his reason to be
insufficient, Orcino demanded the records of the case and advised Gaspar
that she‘ll be hiring another lawyer. Gaspar complied and thereafter he filed
a motion to withdraw as counsel. The court did not grant his motion
because the same was without Orcino‘s written consent.