lOMoARcPSD|9376230

Legal Ethics Case Digests

Legal Ethics (Arellano University)

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

Case Digests in Partial Fulfillment

of Requirements for Legal Ethics

Legal
Ethics

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION (10)

Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. 1036, June 10, 2003……………………..….2

Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210……………………..….3

B. CANON 1-3 THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY (13)

Linsangan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009……………………..….4

Barrientos v. Daarol, 218 SCRA 30, 40, January 29, 1993……………………..….5

C. CANON 4-6 THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY (2)

Olazo v. Tinga, AM. No. 10-5-7-SC, December 7, 2010……………………..….6

Atty. Julito Vitriolo et al., v. Atty. Dasig, AC No. 4984, April 1, 2003……………………..….7

D. CANON 7-9 THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION (11)

Mendoza v. Atty. Deciembre, AC No. 5338, February 23, 2009……………………..….8

Roque v. Balbin A.C. 7088, December 4, 2018 (In re: Canon 8,11,12,19) ……………………..
….9

E. CANON 10-13 THE LAWYER AND THE COURT (14)

Baculi v. Battung, AC No. 8920-September 28, 2011……………………..….10

Santeco v. Avance, AC No. 5834-formerly CBD 01-861, February 22, 2011……………………..
….11

F. CANON 14-16 THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT (16)

Aninon v. Sabitsana, Jr., AC No. 5098, April 11, 2012……………………..….12

Tangcay v. Cabarroguis, A.C. 11821, April 2, 2018……………………..….13

G. CANON 17-19 THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT (12)

Uy v. Tansinsin, 610 Phil. 709, 2009……………………..….14

Santiago v. Fojas, AC No. 4103, September 7, 1995, 248 SCRA 68……………………..….15

H. CANON 20-22 THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT (6)

Orcina v. Gaspar, AC No. 3773, September 24, 1997……………………..….16

Mercado v. Vitriolo, AC No. 5108, May 26, 2005……………………..….17

1|Page

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

INTRODUCTION

DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, complainant, vs. EDWIN L. RANA, respondent.

B.M. No. 1036. June 10, 2003, Carpio, J. (En Banc)

FACTS

Donna Marie Aguirre filed a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar against Edwin L. Rana, a 2000 Bar
Examinations passer, for unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave
misrepresentation.

Subject of the complaint is the appearance of Edwin L. Rana before the Municipal Board of Election
Canvassers (MBEC) of Mandaon, Masbate, as counsel of vice mayoralty candidate for May 2001
elections, George Bunan. Respondent filed with MBEC a pleading dated May 19, 2001 entitled “Formal
Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor”
when he only took the oath as member of the Bar on May 22, 2001 and haven’t even signed the Roll of
Attorneys yet. In addition, complainant points out that respondent is an employee of the municipal
government acting as the secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate thus not allowed by
law to act as a counsel for a client in any court or administrative body.

Edwin L. Rana admitted that Bunan requested his specific assistance to represent him before the MBEC
and that he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law. He
also confirmed that he signed the 19 May 2001 pleading that objected to the inclusion of certain votes in
the canvassing but claims that he did not sign the pleading as a lawyer or represented himself as an
attorney in the pleading. With regards to his employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan,
respondent claims that he submitted his resignation on May 11, 2001 which was said to be also
accepted and effective on the same date.
ISSUE

Whether respondent is allowed to represent vice mayoralty candidate George Bunan as his counsel
when he was not yet able to take the oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys
HELD

NO, respondent Edwin L. Rana is not allowed to act as legal counsel when he was not yet
able to take the lawyer’s oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys.

Edwin L. Rana took his lawyer’s oath on May 22, 2001 but the records showed that respondent appeared
as counsel for Bunan prior taking of his oath. In the pleading entitled ‘Formal Objection to the Inclusion
in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor’ dated 19 May 2001,
respondent signed as counsel for George Bunan. All these happened even before respondent took the
lawyers oath. Clearly, respondent engaged in the practice of law without being a member of the
Philippine Bar.

Obviously, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings before
the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of
unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called himself counsel knowing fully well that he was not a
member of the Bar. Having held himself out as counsel knowing that he had no authority to practice law,
respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
2|Page

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons
of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this
privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public
trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law
simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even
from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law
without a license.

INTRODUCTION

RENATO L. CAYETANO, Petitioner, v. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON.

R. SALONGA, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE in his
capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management, Respondents.

G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991, Paras, J. (En Banc)

FACTS

Renato L. Cayetano, as a citizen and taxpayer, filed an instant petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
contending the confirmation and appointment of Atty. Christian Monsod as Chairman of the Commission
on Elections shall be declared null and void on the grounds that respondent was not able to fulfill the
qualification of the engagement in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years.

On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of the respondent as
Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed
office as Chairman of the COMELEC.

Atty. Christian Monsod passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He religiously pays
his dues as a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and has also been paying his
professional license fees since then. Among his work experiences upon his graduation at the University
of the Philippines College of Law is an associate under the law firm of his father, Operation Officer under
the World Bank Group, Chief Executive Officer of MERALCO, former Secretary-General and National
Chairman of NAMFREL, co-chairman of the Bishops Businessmen’s Conference for Human Development,
member of the Davide commission, member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-2987), Chairman of
its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and others.
ISSUE

Whether Atty. Monsod who is appointed as Chairman of the COMELEC possessed the required
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years

HELD

YES, Atty. Christian Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for more than ten (10)
years.

Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term "practice of law", particularly the modern
concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of
the Constitution, Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a
lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich
and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years.

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. Practice of law means any
activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of
3|Page

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or
service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill." (111 ALR 23).

CANON 1-3 THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009, Corona, J. (First Division)

FACTS

Pedro L. Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for alleged solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional
services.

As per complainant, Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino and his paralegal, Fe Marie Labiano, tried to poach his
clients for them to change legal representation. Aside from this, respondent even vowed to give financial
assistance and speedy collection on their claims. Atty. Tolentino even personally called and sent
messages to these clients.

Linsangan presented a sworn affidavit of James Gregorio to the Court which stated how the respondent
tried to make him change legal representation and avail of his services in exchange for a loan of Php
50,000. A sample of respondent’s calling card was also presented as evidence which says – “NICOMEDES
TOLENTINO LAW OFFFICE CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. Services
Offered: Consultation and Assistance to Overseas Seamen Repatriated Due to Accident, Injury, Illness,
Sickness, Death and Insurance Benefit Claims Abroad.”

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when he tried to
poach clients

HELD

YES, Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 and other canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

All lawyers are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner in accordance with the Code of
Professional Responsibility. However in this case, it is evident that the respondent indeed tried to
convince the complainant’s clients to avail of his legal services. Canon 3 of the CPR states that - A
lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statement of facts. The practice of law is indeed a profession and not a business that
advertising their services with the primary objective of profit-making is commercialization and degrades
the true essence of the legal profession. Rule 2.03 of the CPR also provides that - A lawyer shall not do

4|Page

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. Thus, lawyers are not allowed
to solicit cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such
actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment. Rule 2.03 should also be read in connection
with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.

This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing" (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an
attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment as a measure to protect the
community from barratry and champerty. In this case, the complainant presented substantial evidence to
prove that respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as profited from referrals’ suits.

CANON 1-3 THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

VICTORIA BARRIENTOS, Complainant, v. TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL, Respondent.

A.C. No. 1512. January 29, 1993, Per Curiam (En Banc)
FACTS

Victoria C. Barrientos seeks the disbarment of respondent Transfiguracion Daarol, a member of the
Philippine Bar, on grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct.

The complainant, a teenager and first year student then, and respondent got to know each other in 1969 as
the former often went to their house being a friend of the complainant’s sister Norma. Daarol introduced
himself to Barrientos as a single man, living along in Galas, Dipolog City and the General Manager of
Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZANECO). On June 27, 1973, Daarol invited Barrientos to
be one of the usherettes in Mason’s convention in Sicayab, Dipolog City for three whole days, which the
complainant and her parents’ agreed to given that he pick her up from her residence and take her home.

After the convention, Daarol religiously went to the complainant’s house and courted her. One day, he took
her out for a joy ride to Sicayab and strolled along the beach where he proposed his love to her saying that
if the respondent told her that if she would accept him, he would marry her within six (6) months from her
acceptance. On July 7, 1973, she finally accepted respondent’s offer of love and respondent continued his
usual visitations almost every night thereafter and they agreed to get married in December 1973. After
such, Daarol eventually convinced Barrientos, who was initially hesitant as they are not married yet, to
have sexual intercourse in the premise that he loves her and that they will marry soon. In the middle of
September 1973, the complainant found out that she is pregnant. Daarol suggested to have the fetus
aborted to which Barrientos objected.

On October 26, 1973, Daarol visited Barrientos and her mother at Singalong, Manila where he told them
that he could not marry because he was already married. The respondent was married to Romualda A.
Sumaylo on September 24, 1955 at Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte by a catholic priest, Rev. Fr. Anacleto
Pellamo, Parish Priest. They have one (1) son. Respondent had been separated from his wife for about 16
years at the time of his relationship with Barrientos.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Transfiguracion Daarol should be disbarred on the grounds of deceit and immoral conduct

HELD

YES, Atty. Transfiguracion Daarol should be disbarred from the Philippine Bar for being
deceitful and grossly immoral.

Based from the given facts, it can be derived that Barrientos was never informed by the respondent of his
5|Page

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

real status as a married individual. He only disclosed it to the complainant when she is already pregnant.
Furthermore, Daarol also misrepresented himself when he told Barrientos that he is eligible to remarry as
he is already separated with his wife for 16 years and that he would work for an annulment. This is
considered as deception as Daarol never worked on the annulment process and that as a lawyer, he was
well aware that mere separation is not a ground for annulment. This is a clear violation of Canon 1 Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility - A lawyer shall not to engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to appease his sexual desires, respondent Daarol has grossly
demonstrated his moral delinquency. Hence, his removal for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar on
the grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court) is in order. Good
moral character is a condition which precedes admission to the Bar (Sec. 2. Rule 138, Rules of Court) and is
not dispensed with upon admission thereto. It is a continuing qualification which all lawyers must possess
(People v. Tuanda, 181 SCRA 682 [1990]; Delos Reyes v. Aznar, 179 SCRA 653 [1989]), otherwise, a lawyer
may either be suspended or disbarred.

CANON 4-6 THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

JOVITO S. OLAZO, Complainant, vs. JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA (Ret.), Respondent.

A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC, December 7, 2010, Brion, J. (En Banc)

FACTS

Complainant filed a disbarment case against retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga for
violation of Rule 6.02, 6.03, and 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing
conflicting interests.

On the violation of Rule 6.02, complainant claimed that Justice Dante O. Tinga abused his position as a
Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when he unduly interfered with Olazo’s
sales application covering a parcel of land situated in Barangay Lower Bicutan in the Municipality of
Taguig due to personal interest. The complainant alleged that the respondent exerted undue pressure
and influence over his father, Miguel P. Olazo, for the latter to contest the complainant’s sales
application and claim the subject land himself. Eventually, it led to the denial of the sales application of
the complainant which is an evident abuse of his official functions.

Regarding the violation of Rule 6.03, another parcel of land was involved which was owned by the
complainant’s brother, Manuel Olazo. The complainant claims that Justice Tinga convinced his father to
direct Manuel to convey his rights over the subject land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. As a result of the
interference on Justice Tinga, the rights to the land were transferred to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.

On the violation of Rule 1.01, the complainant claims that Justice Tinga engaged in unlawful conduct as
even if he knew that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a qualified beneficiary under Memorandum No.
119 as he is not a bona fide resident of the proclaimed areas and is not eligible for the award, he still
acted as an instrument to transfer the rights to Joseph. In addition, the complainant also alleged that
Justice Tinga violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct an Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees or Republic Act No. 6713 since he practiced law within the one-year prohibition, when he
appeared as counsel for Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards.
ISSUE

Whether Justice Dante O. Tinga violated Rules 6.02, 6.03 and 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD

6|Page

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

NO, the respondent did not violate the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility highlights the continuing standard of ethical conduct
to be observed by government lawyers in the discharge of their official tasks. In addition to the standard
of conduct laid down under R.A. No. 6713 for government employees, a lawyer in the government
service is obliged to observe the standard of conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Based on the given facts, it does not show that the respondent did in any way promote, advance or use
his private interests in the discharge of his official duties. Since the sales application was not brought
before the Committee on Awards when the respondent was still a member, no sufficient basis exists to
conclude that he used his position to obtain personal benefits. We note in this regard that the denial of
the complainant’s sales application over the subject land was made by the DENR, not by the Committee
on Awards. Also, the respondent had already completed his third term in Congress and his stint in the
Committee on

Given the serious consequences of the penalty of disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the
burden rests on the complainant to present clear, convincing and satisfactory proof for the Court to
exercise its disciplinary powers.

CANON 4-6 THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, PRECILLANA J. HONORICA, ARLEEN J. RAMOS, DR. ROGER PEREZ,
DR. IMELDA DARAUG, DR. REMIGIA NATHANIELZ, CELEDONIA CORONACION, and JOSE
RABALO, complainants, vs. ATTY. FELINA DASIG, Respondent.

A.C. No. 4984 - April 1, 2003, Per Curiam (En Banc)

FACTS

Several high-ranking officers of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) filed an administrative case
for disbarment against Atty. Felina Dasig, then OIC of Legal Affairs of CHED, due to gross misconduct of
the latter in violation of the Attorney’s Oath and for using public office to secure financial gain at the
expense of the reputation of CHED.

Some of the allegations are extorting money from people with pending applications/requests before her
office in exchange for her promise to act favorably on said applications/requests, filing eleven (11)
baseless, groundless and unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City,
transgressing subparagraph b (22), Section 365 of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to
pay just debts owing to "Borela Tire Supply" and "Novas Lining Brake & Clutch" as evidenced by the
dishonored checks she issued, instigating the commission of a crime against complainant Celedonia R.
Coronacion and Rodrigo Coronacion, Jr. when she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a
guard of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the Coronacions on the
evening of May 14, 1997, and authoring and sending to then President Joseph Estrada a libelous and
unfair report, which maligned the good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors
calculated to justify her ill motive of preventing their re-appointment and with the end view of securing
an appointment for herself.
ISSUE

Whether Atty. Felina Dasig should be disbarred for gross misconduct and violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
HELD

YES, Atty. Felina Dasign should be disbarred for gross misconduct and violation of several
rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the

7|Page

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if said misconduct
as a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined
by this Court as a member of the Bar. Based on the facts, several instances were cited and proven which
showed her dishonesty and gross misconduct.

The Attorneys Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any violation thereof
is a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. The Attorneys Oath imposes upon
every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. Said duty is further stressed in
Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents demands for sums of money to
facilitate the processing of pending applications or requests before her office violates such duty, and
runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the Bar. Such actions likewise run contrary to Rule 1.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence, the
Code of Professional Responsibility, promulgated on June 21, 1988, was not meant to govern the conduct
of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in government service. This is clear from
Canon 6 of said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the
public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations,
as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.

CANON 7-9 THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

EUGENIA MENDOZA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE, Respondent.

A.C. No. 5338, February 23, 2009, Per Curiam (En Banc)

FACTS

Eugenia Mendoza filed a petition seeking the disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre for his acts of
fraudulently filling up blank postdated checks without her authority and using the said checks for filing
unfounded criminal suits against her.

Eugenia is a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila who has a monthly salary of Php 6,000. She
borrowed from Rodela Loans, Inc., through Atty. Deciembre, an amount of Php 20,000 payable in six (6)
months at 20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks, drawn against the Postal Bank. Although she was
unable to faithfully pay her obligations on their due dates, she made remittances to Atty. Deciembre’s
Metrobank account from November 11, 1998 to March 15, 1999 in the total sum of Php 12,910. Claiming
that the amounts remitted were not enough to cover the penalties, interests and other charges,
respondent warned complainant that he would deposit a Postal check filled up by him on March 30, 1999
in the amount of Php 16,000. Afraid that respondent might sue her in court, complainant made good
said check and respondent was able to encash the same on March 30, 1999. Thereafter, complainant
made subsequent payments to the Metrobank account of respondent from April 13, 1999 to October 15,
1999, thereby paying respondent the total sum of Php 35,690.

Complainant further claimed that, later, respondent filled up two of the postal checks she issued in
blank, with the amount of Php 50,000 each and with the dates January 15, 2000 and January 20, 2000
respectively, which respondent claims was in exchange for the Php 100,000 cash that complainant
received on November 15, 1999. Eugenia insisted that she never borrowed the said amount from Atty.
Deciembre and that it was unlikely that respondent would lend her, a mail sorter with a basic monthly
salary of less than Php 6,000.00, such amount. Complainant also claimed that respondent victimized
other employees of the Postal Office by filling up, without authorization, blank checks issued to him as
condition for loans.

8|Page

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Victor V. Deciembre should be disbarred for his acts of fraudulently filling up blank
postdated checks without the complainant’s authority and for filing unfounded suits

HELD

YES, Atty. Deciembre should be disbarred as he is guilty of gross misconduct and violated
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

First, he demands excessive payments from his borrowers; then he fills up his borrowers' blank checks
with fictitious amounts, falsifying commercial documents for his material gain; and then he uses said
checks as bases for filing unfounded criminal suits against his borrowers in order to harass them. Such
acts manifest respondent's perversity of character, meriting his severance from the legal profession.

Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that - A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. The fact that there is no
attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by respondent were done in his
private capacity cannot shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability. A lawyer may be disciplined for
acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession
or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. Indeed, there is no distinction as to whether the
transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not
divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.

CANON 7-9 THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

ATTY. HERMINIO HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. RIZAL P. BALBIN, Respondent.

A.C. No. 7088, December 04, 2018, Perlas-Bernabe, J. (En Banc)

FACTS

Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. filed a complaint praying for disciplinary action against Atty Rizal P.
Balbin for alleged unprofessional conduct.

In a case entitled Felmailem, Inc. v. Felma Mailem, Atty. Roque is the counsel of the plaintiff and Atty.
Balbin is the counsel of the defendant. Shortly after securing a favorable judgment for his client, the
complainant claims that the respondent started intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and maliciously
threatening him into withdrawing the case field by his client. He also alleged that Atty. Balbin even made
several telephone calls, text messages, and e-mails not just directed to him, but also to his other friends
and other clients, all containing threats to file disbarment and/or criminal suits against him. In addition,
in view of Atty. Roque’s said “high profile” stature, respondent also threatened to publicize such suits in
order to tarnish and/or destroy complainant’s name and reputation.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Rizal Balbin should be administratively sanctioned for threatening the complainant

HELD

YES, Atty. Balbin should be administratively sanctioned for the acts mentioned.
9|Page

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that - A lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics
against opposing counsel.
Case law instructs that "lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy,
dignity, and civility. A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon
their relations with their professional brethren. Since they deal constantly with each other, they must
treat one another with trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence
counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations,
and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession, but also
constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.”
In this case, respondent's underhanded tactics against complainant were in violation of Canon 8 of the
CPR. As aptly pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, instead of availing of remedies to contest
the ruling adverse to his client, respondent resorted to personal attacks against the opposing litigant's
counsel, herein complainant. Thus, it appears that respondent's acts of repeatedly intimidating,
harassing, and blackmailing complainant with purported administrative and criminal cases and
prejudicial media exposures were performed as a tool to return the inconvenience suffered by his client.
His actions demonstrated a misuse of the legal processes available to him and his client, especially
considering that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not
to harass them. More significantly, the foregoing showed respondent's lack of respect and despicable
behavior towards a colleague in the legal profession, and constituted conduct unbecoming of a member
thereof.

CANON 10-13 THE LAWYER AND THE COURT

JUDGE RENE B. BACULI, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MELCHOR A. BATTUNG, Respondent.

A.C. No. 8920, September 28, 2011, Brion, J. (Second Division)

FACTS

Judge Rene B. Baculi filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Melcho A. Battung for the alleged
violation of Canons 113 and 124 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On July 24, 2008, Judge Baculi claimed that Atty. Battung was shouting while arguing his motion for
reconsideration of Civil Case No. 202. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his voice but instead, the
respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that he would be cited for direct contempt, the
respondent shouted, "Then cite me!”. Judge Baculi cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of
P100.00. The respondent then left. While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-entered the
courtroom and shouted, "Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!". Judge
Baculi ordered the sheriff to escort the respondent out of the courtroom and cited him for direct
contempt of court for the second time.
After his hearings, Judge Baculi went out and saw the respondent at the hall of the courthouse,
apparently waiting for him. The respondent again shouted in a threatening tone, "Judge, I will file gross
ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!" He kept on shouting, "I am not afraid of you!" and
challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and lawyers escorted him out of the building. Judge Baculi also
learned that after the respondent left the courtroom, he continued shouting and punched a table at the
Office of the Clerk of Court.

ISSUE

10 | P a g e

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

Whether Atty. Melchor A. Battung should be reprimanded for violation of Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD

YES, Atty. Melchor A. Battung violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Canon 11 states that - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Furthermore, Rule 11.03 states that - A lawyer
shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
Based on the given facts, the respondent clearly violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by shouting at him inside the
courtroom during court proceedings in the presence of litigants and their counsels, and court personnel.
The respondent even came back to harass Judge Baculi. This behavior, in front of many witnesses,
cannot be allowed. We note that the respondent continued to threaten Judge Baculi and acted in a
manner that clearly showed disrespect for his position even after the latter had cited him for contempt.
In fact, after initially leaving the court, the respondent returned to the courtroom and disrupted the
ongoing proceedings. These actions were not only against the person, the position and the stature of
Judge Baculi, but against the court as well whose proceedings were openly and flagrantly disrupted, and
brought to disrepute by the respondent.
Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their position and avowed duty to the courts,
cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents.
A lawyer is expected to give due respect to the courts and judicial officers at all times.

CANON 10-13 THE LAWYER AND THE COURT

TERESITA D. SANTECO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE, Respondent.

A.C. No. 5834, February 22, 2011 (formerly CBD-01-861), Per Curiam (En Banc)

FACTS

11 | P a g e

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

Teresita D. Santeco filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Luna B. Avance for gross misconduct and
multiple acts of defiance of Court orders.

This case originated from an administrative complaint of Teresita against Atty. Avance for mishandling
Civil Case No. 97-275, an action to declare a deed of absolute sale null and void and for reconveyance
and damages, which complainant had filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The Court
in this case found Atty. Avance guilty of gross misconduct for, among others, abandoning her client’s
cause in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her without any
explanation for doing so. She was ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years,
and was likewise directed to return to complainant, within ten (10) days from notice, the amount of Php
3,900 which complainant paid her for the filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA),
which she never filed.
Subsequently, while respondent’s five-year suspension from the practice of law was still in effect, it was
found out that respondent had appeared and actively participated in three cases wherein she
misrepresented herself as "Atty. Liezl Tanglao.". When her opposing counsels confronted her and showed
to the court a certification regarding her suspension, respondent admitted and conceded that she is Atty.
Luna B. Avance, but qualified that she was only suspended for three years and that her suspension has
already been lifted. The Judge stated that respondent nonetheless withdrew her appearance from all the
cases. Atty. Avance was directed to revert to the Court within ten (10) days from notice but she failed to
comply. The Court then ruled that Atty. Avance is guilty of indirect contempt, fined an amount of Php
30,000, and that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely. Atty.
Avance also failed to pay the said fine.
ISSUE

Whether Atty. Avance should be disbarred for gross misconduct and repeated defiance of
Court orders

HELD

YES, Atty. Avance should be disbarred for the said acts.

Based on the given facts, the Court finds respondent unfit to continue as a member of the bar. As an
officer of the court, it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The highest
form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes.

Here, respondent’s conduct evidently fell short of what is expected of her as an officer of the court as
she obviously possesses a habit of defying this Court’s orders. She willfully disobeyed this Court when
she continued her law practice despite the five-year suspension order against her and even
misrepresented herself to be another person in order to evade said penalty. Thereafter, when she was
twice ordered to comment on her continued law practice while still suspended, nothing was heard from
her despite receipt of two Resolutions from this Court. Neither did she pay the Php 30,000 fine imposed
in the September 29, 2009 Resolution.

The Court held in this case that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross misconduct,
insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyer’s suspension or even disbarment.

CANON 14-16 THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., Respondent.

A.C. No. 5098, April 11, 2012, Brion, J. (Second Division)

12 | P a g e

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

FACTS

Josefina M. Aninon filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. who is charged of:
(1) violating the lawyer’s duty to preserve confidential information received from his client;1 and (2)
violating the prohibition on representing conflicting interests.

Josefina engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a
Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Canej, Jr. However,
Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for
the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The
complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained from her in filing
the civil case.

Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation and execution of the Deed
of Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that
the present disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the
disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him and had instigated the complaint for this
reason.
ISSUE

Whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests

HELD

YES, Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct from representing conflicting interests.

In this case, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client against another client in the
same action; he also accepted a new engagement that entailed him to contend and oppose the
interest of his other client in a property in which his legal services had been previously retained.
Moreover, the records show that Atty. Sabitsana failed to obtain the written consent of his two
clients, as required by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility - A lawyer
shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level
of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full
disclosure of the client’s most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered
exchange of information between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential
information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and
discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to avoid
representing conflicting interests.

CANON 14-16 THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

DARIO TANGCAY, Complainant, v. HONESTO ANCHETA CABARROGUIS, Respondent.

A.C. No. 11821 (formerly CBD Case No. 15-4477), April 02, 2018, Del Castillo, J. (First
Division)
13 | P a g e

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

FACTS

Dario Tangcay filed a complaint against Atty. Honesto Cabarroguis for impropriety before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippones – Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).

The complainant inherited a parcel of land from his father and the same was registered in his name
under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-288807. One Emilia S. Solicar filed a Petition for Probate of
a purported Last and Will Testament of his late father docketed as Special Proceedings No. 4833-98. As
such, Dario contacted the legal services of Atty. Cabarroguis to defend and represent him in the probate
case. While handling the case, Atty. Cabarroguis learned, that the subject property was mortgaged with
the First Davao Lending Corporation (lending corporation) for Php 100,000. Atty. Cabarroguis then
offered the complainant a loan of Php 200,000 with an interest lower than, what the lending corporation
imposed. Dario accepted the same and signed the real estate mortgage unaware of the illegality and
impropriety of a lawyer lending money to a client. However, Dario defaulted in payment. Atty.
Cabarroguis then instituted a Judicial Foreclosure of the real estate mortgage.

In compliance with the Order of IBP-CBD, Atty. Cabarroguis filed, his revert dated March 11, 2015. Atty.
Cabarroguis essentially claimed that, despite his generosity and liberality in the collection of his
professional legal fees, he was still not fully paid for the cases he won for Tangcay.
ISSUE

Whether Atty. Cabbaroguis violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when he lent money to the
complainant

HELD

YES, Atty. Cabbaroguis violated the prohibition against lawyers lending money to their
clients
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) states that - A lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Furthermore, Rule 16.04 thereof
states that - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lead money to a
client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he
is handling for the client. Based on the given facts, there is hardly any doubt or dispute that Atty.
Cabarroguis did lend money to his client, Tangcay, this fact being evidenced by a real estate mortgage
which the latter signed and executed in favor of the former.
In Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, the Court explained why the lending of money by a lawyer to his client is
frowned upon, viz. - The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only exception is,
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees,
stenographer's fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for
a matter that he is handling for the client.
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer's independence of mind so that the free exercise of his
judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is
handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the client's cause. If the lawyer lends money to the
client in connection with the client's case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter
of the case or an additional stake in its outcome. Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to
consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of
his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the
client's cause.

CANON 17-19 THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

NATIVIDAD UY, Complainant, v. ATTY. BRAULIO RG TANSINSIN, Respondent.

A.C. NO. 8252 : July 21, 2009, Nachura, J. (Third Division)

14 | P a g e

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

FACTS

Natividad Uy was the defendant in an ejectment case filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC),
Branch 49, Caloocan City, entitled “Josefina Orlanda herein represented by her Attorney-in-fact Ma.
Divina Gracia Orlanda v. Natividad Uy and all other persons claiming rights under her”. She contracted
Atty. Tansinsin to be her legal counsel in the said case. Atty. Tansinsin was required to file a Position Paper
as a revert on the complaint for ejectment. However, Atty. Tansinsin failed to file one for and on behalf of
Natividad Uy. The MeTC arrived on a decision on which Natividad through Atty. Tansinsin filed a Notice of
Appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On May 25, 2004, the RTC dismissed the appeal solely because
of the failure of respondent to file a memorandum on appeal. The motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied for having been filed out of time.
Realizing that she lost her case because of the negligence of her counsel, complainant initiated the
disbarment case against respondent, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar
Discipline (CBD). Complainant averred that she gave her full trust and confidence to respondent, but the
latter failed miserably in his duty as a lawyer and advocate. She also claimed that respondent's failure to
file the required position paper and memorandum on appeal constituted gross incompetence and gross
negligence, which caused grave injury to complainant. Lastly, complainant alleged that not only did
respondent fail to file the required pleadings, he also was remiss in informing her of the status of the
case.
Atty. Tansinsin admitted that complainant obtained his legal services, but no legal fee was ever paid to
him. Respondent explained that he could not submit an intelligible position paper, because the contract
between complainant and her lessor had long expired. He added that he failed to file the position paper
and memorandum on appeal, because complainant told him that she would work out the transfer of
ownership to her of the land subject matter of the ejectment case. In effect, respondent said that he did
not submit the required pleadings, because he knew that the law favored the plaintiff as against the
defendant (complainant herein) in the ejectment case.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Tansinsin violated Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he failed to file the required pleadings and inform his client of the status of the case
HELD

YES, Atty. Tansinsin violated Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility given his negligence in filing the pleadings on time and disclosing the status
of the case to his client.
Atty. Tansinsin’s failure to file the required pleadings on time violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves
his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance, and whether he accepts it
for a fee or for free. By agreeing to be his client's counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary
diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by the character of the business he
undertakes to do, to protect the client's interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor; and
his client may reasonably expect him to discharge his obligations diligently.
Also, the respondent in his failure to inform his client about the developments in her case clearly violated
Rule 18.04 which states that - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. It bears stressing that the
lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Thus, there is a need for the client to be
adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case. A client should never be left groping
in the dark, for to do so would be to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in the lawyer so
retained in particular and in the legal profession in general.

CANON 17-19 THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, BENJAMIN Q. HONTIVEROS, MR. SOCORRO F. MANAS, and TRINIDAD
NORDISTA, complainants, vs. ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS, respondent.

15 | P a g e

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

A.C. No. 4103, September 7, 1995, Davide Jr., J. (First Division)

FACTS

Veronica S. Santiago, Benjamin Q. Hontiveros, Socorro F. manas, and Trinidad Nordista filed a complaint
against Atty. Amado R. Fojas praying for disbarment due to his alleged neglect and malpractice of law.

The complainants were defendants in the Court of Appeals Case No. CA-G.N. CV No. 38153. They claim
that they lost in the said case because of Atty. Amado Fojas’ malpractice and negligence in the
performance of his duty as their legal counsel. Under false pretenses, Atty. Fojas assured the
complainants that everything was in order. He also told them that he already answered the complaint
but did not even gave the complainants a copy. Later on, they discovered that he never answered it
after all because according to Atty. Fojas, he was a very busy man. Because of this, the complainants
lost the Judge Capulong case and their appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Atty. Fojas, in his revert, admits his "mistake" in failing to file the complainants' answer in Civil Case No.
3526-V-91, but he alleges that it was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration, which was
unfortunately denied by the court. He asserts that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was a "losing cause" for the
complainants because it was based on the expulsion of the plaintiff therein from the Far Eastern
University Faculty Association (FEUFA) which was declared unlawful in the final decision in NCR-OD-M-90-
10-050. Thus, "the unfavorable judgment in the Regional Trial Court is not imputable to his mistake but
rather imputable to the merits of the case, i.e., the decision in the Expulsion case wherein defendants
(complainants herein) illegally removed from the union (FEUFA) membership Mr. Paulino Salvador. . . ."
He further claims that the complainants filed this case to harass him because he refused to share his
attorney's fees in the main labor case he had handled for them. The respondent then prays for the
dismissal of this complaint for utter lack of merit, since his failure to file the answer was cured and, even
granting for the sake of argument that such failure amounted to negligence, it cannot warrant his
disbarment or suspension from the practice of the law profession.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Fojas committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in
failing to file for the complainants an answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91

HELD

YES, Atty. Fojas committed inexcusable negligence when he did not file an answer.
Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that - A lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent's inability to exercise due
diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a
fee or for free.
The respondent's negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a
"losing cause" for the complainants since the claims therein for damages were based on the final
decision of the Med-Arbiter declaring the complainants' act of expelling Salvador from the union to be
illegal. This claim is a mere afterthought which hardly persuades us. If indeed the respondent was so
convinced of the futility of any defense therein, he should have seasonably informed the complainants
thereof.

CANON 20-22 THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

16 | P a g e

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

ANGELITA C. ORCINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSUE GASPAR, Respondent.

A.C. No. 3773. September 24, 1997, Puno, J. (Second Division)

FACTS

Angelita Orcino filed a letter-complaint praying for disciplinary sanctions against Atty. Josue Gaspar, her
former counsel, for abandoning his duties and for failing to return the legal fees she fully paid for his
services.
The complainant engaged Atty. Gaspar to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file against several
suspects in the slaying of her husband. Several payments for Atty. Gaspar’s legal fees were already
given by Angelita and their agreement was embodied in a contract executed on February 22, 1991. As
such, Atty. Gaspar entered into his duties. He interviewed witnesses and gathered evidence to build a
case against the suspects. He drew up the necessary sworn statements and dutifully attended the
preliminary investigation. The case was thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Baloc,
Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.
As private prosecutor, respondent religiously attended the bail hearings for the accused although these
hearings were postponed on motion of the accused's counsel. Respondent however failed to attend the
hearing scheduled in August 1991. It was at this hearing that the court, over complainant's objections,
granted bail to all the accused. After the hearing, complainant immediately went to respondent's
residence and confronted him with his absence. Respondent explained that he did not receive formal
notice of the hearing. Complainant became belligerent and started accusing him of jeopardizing the
case by his absence. Respondent said that her suspicions were based on rumors and intrigues fed to
her by her relatives. Complainant, however, continued accusing him belligerently. She asked for the
records of the case saying that she could refer them to another lawyer. Stung by her words,
respondent gave her the records.
Complainant never returned the records nor did she see respondent. On September 18, 1991,
respondent filed before the trial court a "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel." The motion did not bear the
consent of complainant. On October 23, 1991, the court issued an order directing respondent to secure
complainant's consent to the motion "and his appearance as private prosecutor shall continue until he
has secured this consent." Complainant refused to sign her conformity to respondent's withdrawal.
Meanwhile, the hearings in the criminal case continued. Respondent did not appear at the hearings nor
did he contact complainant. Complainant was thus compelled to engage the services of another
lawyer. Hence, the letter-complaint.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Gaspar violated Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
abandoning his duties
HELD

YES. Atty. Gaspar violated Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Canon 22 provides that – A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances. The valid reasons for withdrawal are stated in Rule 22.01.

In the given case, Atty. Gaspar’s reasons was "there no longer existed the xxx confidence" between
them and that there had been "serious differences between them relating to the manner of private
prosecution”. The said reason was evidently not valid grounds under Rule 22.01. Neither can this be
considered analogous to the grounds enumerated. Assuming, nevertheless, that respondent was
justified in terminating his services, he, however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the cold
unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the
court. Until his withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record who is
expected by his client as well as by the court to do what the interests of his client require. He must still
appear on the date of hearing for the attorney-client relation does not terminate formally until there is
a withdrawal of record.

17 | P a g e

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

CANON 20-22 THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

ROSA F. MERCADO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, respondent.

A.C. No. 5108, May 26, 2005, Puno, J. (Second Division)

FACTS

Rosa Mercado is a Senior Education Program Specialist of the Standards Development Division, Office of
Programs and Standards while respondent is a Deputy Executive Director IV of the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED). Complainant's husband filed Civil Case No. 40537 entitled "Ruben G. Mercado
v. Rosa C. Francisco," for annulment of their marriage with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City.

In August 1992, Atty. Anastacio P. de Leon, counsel of complainant, died. On February 7, 1994, Atty.
Vitriolo entered his appearance before the trial court as collaborating counsel for complainant. On March
16, 1994, respondent filed his Notice of Substitution of Counsel, informing the RTC of Pasig City that he
has been appointed as counsel for the complainant, in substitution of Atty. de Leon. It also appears that
on April 13, 1999, respondent filed a criminal action against complainant before the Office of the City
Prosecutor, Pasig City, entitled "Atty. Julito Vitriolo, et al. v. Rose Dela Cruz F. Mercado," and docketed as
I.S. No. PSG 99-9823, for violation of Articles 171 and 172 (falsification of public document) of the
Revised Penal Code. Respondent alleged that complainant made false entries in the Certificates of Live
Birth of her children, Angelica and Katelyn Anne. More specifically, complainant allegedly indicated in
said Certificates of Live Birth that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez, and that their
marriage was solemnized on April 11, 1979, when in truth, she is legally married to Ruben G. Mercado
and their marriage took place on April 11, 1978.

Complainant denied the accusations and alleged that said criminal complaint for falsification of public
document disclosed confidential facts and information relating to the civil case for annulment, then
handled by respondent Vitriolo as her counsel. This prompted complainant Mercado to bring this action
against respondent. She claims that, in filing the criminal case for falsification, respondent is guilty of
breaching their privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship, and should be disbarred.
ISSUE

Whether Atty. Vitriolo violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney and
client when he filed a criminal case for falsification of public document against his former
client.
HELD

No, Atty. Vitriolo was not proven to have violated the rule on privileged communication
between attorney and client due to lack of merit.
Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that - A lawyer shall preserve the confidence
and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. In engaging the services of
an attorney, the client reposes on him special powers of trust and confidence. Their relationship is
strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. The relation is of such delicate, exacting and
confidential nature that is required by necessity and public interest. Only by such confidentiality and
protection will a person be encouraged to repose his confidence in an attorney.
Based on the given facts, the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainant's allegations. We note
that complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by respondent.
All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. She contends that respondent
violated the rule on privileged communication when he instituted a criminal action against her for
falsification of public documents because the criminal complaint disclosed facts relating to the civil case
for annulment then handled by respondent. She did not, however, spell out these facts which will
determine the merit of her complaint. The Court cannot be involved in a guessing game as to the
existence of facts which the complainant must prove. The burden of proving that the privilege applies is
placed upon the party asserting the privilege.

18 | P a g e

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|9376230

19 | P a g e

Downloaded by Ma. Lourdes Tamayo (mdtamayo17@gmail.com)