Maureen D.
Tatad October 26, 2022
Juris Doctor- 1
Basic Legal and Judicial Ethics
Atty. Trizia Janelli Paulino-Denuna
Olbes vs. Deciembre
A.C. No. 5365, April 27, 2005
Panganiban, J.:
Facts:
The complainants were government employees. Through respondent, Lourdes renewed
a loan application from Rodela Loans Inc., in the amount of P10,000.00. She issued and
delivered 5 PNB blank checks, which served as collateral for the approved loan and
future loans. Lourdes paid the respondent P14,874.37 intended for the loan plus
surcharges, penalties, and interests, for which the latter issued a receipt.
Notwithstanding the full payment of the loan, the respondent filled up the blank checks
entrusted to him by writing on those checks amounts that had not been agreed upon at
all and deposited the same checks which were dishonored upon presentment because
the account is already closed. Thereafter, he filed a criminal case against the
complainants for estafa and for violation of B.P. 22. Thus, the complainants filed a
verified petition for the disbarment of Atty. Deciembre and charged the respondent with
willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty, falsification, and conduct unbecoming a
member of the Bar.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rules
1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
Respondent lawyer violated Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for he seriously transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank
checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and despite full
knowledge that the loan was supposed to be secured by the checks had already been
paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his
material gain. The respondent is clearly guilty of serious dishonesty and professional
misconduct. He committed an act indicative of moral depravity not expected from, and
highly unbecoming a member of the bar. His propensity for employing deceit and
misrepresentation is reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the
detention of one petitioner is loathsome. Respondent is hereby indefinitely
SUSPENDED from the practice of law.
Tan Tek Beng v. David
A.C. No. 1261, December 29, 1983
Aquino J.,:
Facts:
In 1970, Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng, a non-lawyer, entered into agreement whereby
Tan Tek Beng will supply clients to Atty. David and exchange thereof, Atty. David shall
give Tan Tek Beng 50% of the attorney’s fee collected as the latter’s commission. Atty.
David also agreed not to deal with clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng directly without the
latter’s consent. The agreement went sour due to allegations of double-cross from both
sides. Tan Tek Beng denounced Atty. David before the Supreme Court but did not seek
the enforcement of their agreement.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. David is guilty of malpractice.
Ruling:
The Court held that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to
malpractice which is "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers”
The practice of law is a profession and not a business.
A lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others.
The Court censures David for entering such a void and unethical agreement and
discountenances his conduct, not because of the complaints, but because David should
have known better.
Respondent is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice.
Atty. Khan vs. Atty. Simbillo
A.C. No. 5299, August 9, 1993
Ynares-Santiago, J.:
Facts:
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that appeared in the
issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads: "ANNULMENT OF
MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667."Further research by the Office of the Court
Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that similar advertisements
were published in the issues of the Manila Bulletin and issue of The Philippine Star.
Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of
the Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T.
Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule
2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27
of the Rules of Court the Integrated Bar of the Philippines finding respondent 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, and suspended him from the practice of law for
one (1) year with the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more
severely.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Simbillo committed an act in violation of Rule 2.03 and
Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court.
Ruling:
Yes. It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. The
gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration.
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.
There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself
admits that he caused the publication of the advertisements. What adds to the gravity of
respondent’s acts is that in advertising himself as a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage
Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but
also the sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary
climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an
annulment may be obtained in four to six months from the time of the filing of the case,
he in fact encourages people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and would
have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
Therefore, respondent RIZALINO T. 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 from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR
effective upon receipt of this Resolution.
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
Rule 2.03. – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business.
Rule 3.01. – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding
his qualifications or legal services.
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.
– A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by
the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
without authority to do so.
In re: Togarda
March 23, 1929
Malcolm, J.:
Facts:
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. He admits that during
his campaign, he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano which, in
translation means that he is a lawyer and a notary public; and that as a notary public he
can do notarial acts such as execution of deeds of sale, can renew lost documents, and
etc.; that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect debts; that he offers free consultation;
and that he is willing to serve the poor. The respondent further admits that he is the
author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of the barrio in his home municipality
advising the latter that even though he was elected as a provincial board member, he
can still practice law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same to his people; that the
is willing to receive works regarding preparations of sales contracts and affidavits etc.;
that he is willing to receive land registration cases for a charge of three pesos
Issue:
Whether or not the advertisement of Atty.Tagorda through the card and letter
constitutes malpractice.
Ruling:
Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and
especially with his brother’s lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation
for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the
outcome of character and conduct. Solicitation of business by circulars or
advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal
relations, is unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by
indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust
companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers in
exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect
advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning
the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of
the lawyer’s position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the
tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare
cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.
Tagorda’s liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young inexperienced
lawyer and that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts. So instead of being
disbarred, he was suspended from the practice of law for a month.
Samonte vs. Gatdula
A.M. No. P-99-1292 February 26, 1999
Gonzaga-Reyes, J.:
Facts:
Respondent Gatdula was charged with grave misconduct in engaging in the private
practice of law. The complainant was the representative of her sister for ejectment
pending with the MTC. The execution of that decision in favor of the plaintiff was
enjoined by Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City where the respondent is the Branch Clerk of
Court. The complainant alleged that the respondent tried to convince her to change his
lawyer if she wanted the execution of the judgment to proceed and even gave her his
calling card with the name “Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig, and Celera Law
Offices” with address at 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City
which complainant attached to her affidavit-complaint. Respondent, when asked to
comment, claimed that it was the complainant who showed him in the said calling card
and asked him if he could handle the case but to which he refused as he was not
connected with the law firm, though he was invited to join the firm. The case was set for
hearing several times but the complainant nor her counsel did not appear. The return of
the service stated that the complainant was broad. Respondent testified in his own
behalf and vehemently denied the complainant’s allegation. He, however, did not deny
that his name appeared on the calling card or that the calling card was printed without
his knowledge and consent.
The Court ruled that the inclusion or retention of the respondent’s name in the
professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which is a violation of Section 7,
subparagraph (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials or Employees).
The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with the dispensation of justice from
the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk must not only be characterized by propriety and
decorum but above all else must be above suspicion.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 3.03 for engaging in the private practice
of law while holding public office.
Ruling:
Yes. While the respondent vehemently denies the complainant’s allegations, he does
not deny that his name appears on the calling card attached to the complaint, which
admittedly came into the hands of the complainant.
The above explanation tendered by the Respondent is an admission that it is his name
that appears on the calling card, a permissible form of advertising or solicitation of legal
services. Respondent does not claim that the calling card was printed without his
knowledge or consent, and the calling card carries his name primarily and the name of
Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig, and Celera with address at 220 Mariwasa Bldg.,
717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City” in the left corner. The card clearly gives the
impression that he is connected with the said law firm. The inclusion/retention of his
name in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7
sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as “Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.”
“(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
official functions.”
The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not
only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above
suspicion. Responded was reprimanded and ordered by the court to exclude his name
in the firm name of any office engaged in the private practice of law.
Dulalia Jr. vs Cruz
A.C. No, 6854, April 25, 2007
Carpio Morales, J.:
Facts:
Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, Bulacan, respondent, is
charged by Juan Dulalia, Jr., complainant, of violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Complainant’s wife Susan Soriano Dulalia filed an application for
building permit for the construction of a warehouse. Despite compliance with all the
requirements for the purpose, she failed to secure a permit, she attributing the same to
the opposition of respondents who wrote a letter to Carlos J. Abacan, Municipal
Engineer and concurrent Building Official of Meycauayan saying that unbearable
nuisances that the construction creates and its adverse effects particularly the imminent
danger and damage to their properties, health and safety of the neighbours adjoining
the site. By complainant’s claim, respondent opposed the application for building permit
because of a personal grudge against his wife Susan who objected to respondent’s
marrying her first cousin Imelda Soriano while respondent’s marriage with Carolina
Agaton is still subsisting.
Respondent married Imelda Soriano at the Clark County, Nevada, USA, when the
Family Code of the Philippines had already taken effect. He invokes good faith,
however, he claiming to have had the impression that the applicable provision at the
time was Article 83 of the Civil Code. For while Article 256 of the Family Code provides
that the Code shall have retroactive application, there is a qualification there under that
it should not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil
Code or other laws. In respondent’s case, he being out of the country since 1986, he
can be given the benefit of the doubt on his claim that Article 83 of the Civil Code was
the applicable provision when he contracted the second marriage abroad. From 1985
when allegedly his first wife abandoned him, an allegation which was not refuted, until
his marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano, there is no showing that he was romantically
involved with any woman. And, it is undisputed that his first wife has remained an
absentee even during the pendency of this case. Respondent’s misimpression that it
was the Civil Code provisions which applied at the time he contracted his second
marriage and the seemingly unmindful attitude of his residential community towards his
second marriage notwithstanding, respondent may not go scot free.
Issue:
Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Responsibility?
Ruling:
Yes. Respondent’s claim that he was not aware that the Family Code because he was
in the United Stated does not lie, as "ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith." It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. They
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 theexisting laws and to
keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is
imperative that they be conversant with basic legalprinciples. Unless they faithfully
comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently
their obligations as members of thebar. Worse, they may become susceptible to
committing mistakes.
Lahm vs Mayor
A.C. No. 7430, February 15, 2012
Reyes, J.:
Facts:
On 5 September 2006, a certain David Edward Toze filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal before the Labor Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission against the members of the Board of Trustees of the International School,
Manila. The case was raffled to the sala of the respondent, Labor Arbiter Jovencio Ll.
Mayor, Jr. During the proceedings, Toze filed a Verified Motion for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, to which the complainants,
Martin Lahm III and James P. Concepcion, opposed. Thereafter, the respondent issued
an Order directing the parties in the said case to maintain the status quo ante, which
consequently reinstated Toze to his former position as superintendent of the
International School Manila. Despite the complainants’ motion for an early resolution of
their motion to dismiss the said case, respondent maintained his Order. Thus, the
complaint praying for the respondent’s disbarment for alleged gross misconduct and
violation of lawyer’s oath.
Issue:
Is the respondent guilty for the gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath?
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court concurred with the conclusion of the Investigating
Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline that the respondent was guilty
for gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath. Gross misconduct is any
inexcusable, shameful, or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned
with the administration of justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to
the right determination of the cause. The motive behind this conduct is generally a
premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose.
Under the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the labor arbiters no longer have the
authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining orders.
However, the respondent, in violation of the said rule, vehemently insist that he has the
authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order.
Further, the unfounded insistence of the respondent on his supposed authority to issue
writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, taken together with the
delay in the resolution of the said motion for reconsideration, would clearly show that
the respondent deliberately intended to cause prejudice to the complainants.
In stubbornly insisting that he has the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction
and/or temporary restraining order contrary to the clear import of the 2005 Rules of
Procedure of the NLRC, the respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which mandates lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds? A member of
the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as an attorney by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or
for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to
practice, or for wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or wilful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
