20. Alpajora vs.

Calayan
Case: A.C. No. 8208
Ponente: GESMUNDO, J
Decision Date: Jan 10, 2018
Retired Judge Alpajora files a counter-complaint against lawyer Calayan, resulting in
Calayan's suspension from the practice of law for two years due to violations of
professional conduct and dishonesty.
Facts:
 Retired Judge Virgilio Alpajora filed a counter-complaint against lawyer Atty.
Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan.
 Calayan previously filed an administrative complaint against Alpajora for
ignorance of the law and/or issuance of undue order.
 The administrative complaint against Alpajora was dismissed by the Court.
 Alpajora filed a counter-complaint against Calayan, accusing him of filing a
malicious and harassment administrative case, propensity for dishonesty,
misquoting provisions of law, and misrepresentation of facts.
 Alpajora prayed for Calayan's disbarment and cancellation of his license as a
lawyer.
 The case originated from an intra-corporate case filed before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City.
 Calayan, as the President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Calayan
Educational Foundation, Inc. (CEFI), filed pleadings as "Special Counsel pro
se" for himself.
 The case was re-raffled to Alpajora's sala, and he issued an Omnibus Order
for the creation of a management committee and the appointment of its
members.
 Calayan filed the administrative case against Alpajora.
Issue:
1. Whether Calayan's actions constitute violations of professional conduct and
dishonesty.
2. Whether Alpajora's counter-complaint against Calayan is valid.
Ruling:
 The Court found Calayan guilty of violating professional conduct and
dishonesty.
  Calayan's filing of multiple cases against opposing parties and their counsels,
as well as his unsupported imputations against Alpajora, showed his malice
and lack of discretion as a colleague in the legal profession.
 The Court also found that Calayan failed to observe candor, fairness, and
good faith before the court, and his filing of multiple actions impeded the
speedy and efficient administration of justice.
 The Court adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and the
recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of
Governors.
 Calayan was suspended from the practice of law for two years, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant a more
severe penalty.
Ratio:
 Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, and lawyers
should act with honesty and integrity to promote the public's faith in the legal
profession.
 The case for disbarment or suspension is not meant to grant relief to a
complainant, but to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable
members and protect the public and the courts.
 Lawyers should observe and maintain respect for the courts and judicial
officers, refrain from attributing unsupported motives to judges, and assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
 The importance of candor, fairness, and good faith in a lawyer's conduct
before the court was highlighted.
21. Madrid vs. Dealca
Case A.C. No. 7474
Ponente BERSAMIN, J
Decision Date Sep 9, 2014
A lawyer is suspended from the practice of law for one year after filing frivolous
administrative and criminal complaints against judges and court personnel, violating
his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and promote confidence in
the fair administration of justice.
Facts:
 Complaint for disbarment filed by Presiding Judge Jose L. Madrid against
Atty. Juan S. Dealca.
 Atty. Dealca filed frivolous administrative cases against judges and court
personnel after Judge Madrid denied his motion to re-raffle a criminal case
pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Sorsogon City.
 Judge Madrid initiated the complaint on the grounds of gross misconduct and
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issue:
1. Did Atty. Dealca file frivolous administrative and criminal complaints against
judges and court personnel in violation of the Lawyer's Oath?
2. Was Atty. Dealca guilty of unethical practice in seeking the inhibition of Judge
Madrid in the criminal case?
Ruling:
 The Court found Atty. Dealca guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and
suspended him from the practice of law for one year.
 The Court warned him that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with
more severely.
Ratio:
 Atty. Dealca's filing of frivolous administrative and criminal complaints against
judges and court personnel violated his duty under the Lawyer's Oath not to
initiate groundless, false, or unlawful suits.
 Atty. Dealca's actions exhibited vindictiveness and harassment, as he filed
these complaints whenever decisions or rulings were adverse to his clients or
his side.
 The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice, not to harass the parties
involved.
 Atty. Dealca's filing of numerous unfounded complaints increased the
workload of the Judiciary and showed a lack of good faith.
 Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by making baseless allegations against Judge Madrid in his
motion to inhibit.
 He insinuated that judges could choose the cases they heard and refused to
hear cases where hostility existed between the judges and the litigants or their
counsel.
 Atty. Dealca failed to substantiate these allegations with clear and convincing
evidence.
 The right to seek the inhibition or disqualification of a judge must be balanced
with the judge's duty to decide cases without fear of repression.
 Atty. Dealca's bare allegations of bias and prejudice did not suffice to
disqualify Judge Madrid from participating in the criminal case.
 Atty. Dealca's actions violated his duties as a lawyer to uphold the dignity and
authority of the courts and to promote confidence in the fair administration of
justice.
 The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year and warned
him of more severe consequences for any similar infractions in the future.
22. Mariano vs. Laki
Case A.C. No. 11978
Ponente: PER CURIAM
Decision Date: Sep 25, 2018
A disbarment complaint is filed against Atty. Jose N. Laki for dishonesty,
unprofessional conduct, and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility
after failing to file a petition for annulment of marriage and refusing to return the
client's money, resulting in his disbarment and order to return the amount of
P150,000.00.
Facts:
 Kenneth R. Mariano filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Jose N. Laki.
 Mariano engaged Atty. Laki's legal services for the filing of a petition for
annulment of his marriage.
 Atty. Laki asked for a total amount of P160,000.00 as a package deal for his
professional fee, docket fee, and expenses.
 Mariano initially paid P50,000.00 and made subsequent payments of
P40,000.00 and P60,000.00.
 After almost a year, Mariano discovered that the petition has yet to be filed.
 Atty. Laki claimed that the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Tarlac, where he allegedly filed the petition, was dismissed by the Supreme
Court, so he decided to withdraw the case.
 Mariano demanded the return of his money, but Atty. Laki failed to do so.
Issue:
 Did Atty. Laki commit dishonesty, unprofessional conduct, and violations of
the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Ruling:
 The court ruled in favor of Mariano and disbarred Atty. Laki from the practice
of law.
 Atty. Laki was ordered to return the amount of P150,000.00 to Mariano.
Ratio:
 Atty. Laki violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires lawyers to act with the highest standards of
truthfulness, fair play, and nobility.
 Atty. Laki violated Canon 16, Rules 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03, which pertain to
the accounting of money and properties received by lawyers from clients and
 their duty to deliver the funds and property of the client when due or upon
demand.
 Atty. Laki's failure to render an accounting and return the money constituted a
violation of these rules.
 Atty. Laki's false assurances to Mariano regarding securing a favorable
decision cast doubts on the integrity of the courts and violated Canon 11 and
Rule 11.04, which require lawyers to observe respect for the courts and
judicial officers and prohibit attributing motives to judges not supported by the
record.
 Atty. Laki's nonchalant attitude towards the proceedings and his repeated
disregard of the IBP's directives also constituted conduct unbecoming a
lawyer.
 Therefore, the court found Atty. Laki guilty of gross misconduct and willful
disobedience of lawful orders, leading to his disbarment.
23. Cabarroguis vs. Basa
Case A.C. No. 8789
Ponente: CAGUIOA, J
Decision Date: Mar 11, 2020
Atty. Danilo A. Basa is suspended from practicing law for six months due to his
violation of professional ethics and standards, including dilatory tactics, filing of
malicious cases, and offensive behavior towards Atty. Honesto Ancheta
Cabarroguis.
Facts:
 Atty. Honesto Ancheta Cabarroguis filed a complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Danilo A. Basa.
 Atty. Cabarroguis accuses Atty. Basa of violating ethical rules and
professional standards.
 Atty. Basa allegedly exhibited dilatory tactics in a criminal case by repeatedly
asking for the inhibition of the presiding judge, causing delays in the trial.
 Atty. Basa also allegedly filed numerous malicious and unfounded
administrative, civil, and criminal cases against Atty. Cabarroguis in retaliation
for being the private prosecutor in a criminal case involving Atty. Basa's sister.
Issue:
 Whether the complaint against Atty. Basa should be dismissed.
Ruling:
 The Court reverses the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board
of Governors (IBP-BOG) and reinstates the previous resolution finding Atty.
Basa guilty of violating professional ethics.
 The Court finds that Atty. Basa violated the Lawyer's Oath and several canons
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Atty. Basa exhibited dilatory tactics and filed malicious cases against Atty.
Cabarroguis in retaliation.
 The Court agrees with the original findings of the IBP that Atty. Basa's actions
were harassing and aimed at causing delay.
 The Court also finds that Atty. Basa's misspelling of Atty. Cabarroguis' name
in a court motion was offensive and violated professional standards.
 Therefore, Atty. Basa is suspended from practicing law for six months.
Ratio:
 The Court's decision is based on the violation of professional ethics and
standards by Atty. Basa.
 Atty. Basa's dilatory tactics and filing of malicious cases against Atty.
Cabarroguis were aimed at causing delay and harassing his fellow lawyer.
 Atty. Basa's misspelling of Atty. Cabarroguis' name is considered offensive
and a violation of professional conduct.
 Therefore, the Court suspends Atty. Basa from practicing law for six months.
24. Garcia vs. Lopez
Case: A.C. No. 6422
Ponente: CORONA, J
Decision Date: Aug 28, 2007
In the case of Garcia v. Lopez, Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez was found guilty of
misrepresentation and violation of professional responsibility for falsely claiming to
represent all the heirs in a land registration case, resulting in his suspension from the
practice of law for one month.
Facts:
 Atty. Wilfredo T. Garcia filed a complaint against Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez for
violation of his oath as a member of the bar and officer of the court, and
misrepresentation.
 Complainant was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento in a land
registration case pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos,
Bulacan.
 The court granted Sarmiento's application for registration and confirmation of
her title over a tract of land.
 The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court and became final and
executory.
 The RTC directed the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree
of registration and certificate of title, but the LRA failed to comply.
 Complainant filed an urgent motion to cite the LRA administrator in contempt
of court.
 On September 19, 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs
of Sarmiento, filed his entry of appearance and motion for postponement.
 Complainant alleged that he was surprised by this as he had not withdrawn
from the case and accused respondent of misrepresenting himself to the
court.
Issue:
 Whether respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez violated his lawyer's oath and
committed misrepresentation by falsely claiming to represent all the heirs of
Angelina Sarmiento in the land registration case.
Ruling:
  The court ruled in favor of the complainant and found respondent Atty.
Beniamino A. Lopez guilty of misrepresentation and violation of professional
responsibility.
 The court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one month.
Ratio:
 Lawyers are officers of the court with certain duties, responsibilities, and
liabilities.
 They are duty-bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession and act
honorably, fairly, and candidly towards each other.
 Complainant was the counsel of record for Angelina Sarmiento, and upon her
death, the attorney-client relationship was terminated.
 However, complainant was retained as counsel by some of the heirs.
 By filing an entry of appearance and motion for postponement on behalf of the
"compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento" without authorization to
represent all the heirs, respondent was guilty of misrepresentation.
 He violated his lawyer's oath and the rules of conduct for lawyers, specifically
Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 which require lawyers to be candid, fair, and honest
in court.
 Respondent also violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 which prohibit lawyers from
encroaching upon the professional employment of another lawyer.
 By falsely claiming to represent all the heirs, respondent encroached upon the
legal functions of complainant as the counsel of record.
 The court emphasized that even if respondent's actions were not a calculated
deception, he was still remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court.
 Therefore, the court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one
month.
25. THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 10571. November 11, 2020.
ATTY. VIRGILIO A. SEVANDAL, complainant, vs. ATTY. MELITA B.
ADAME, respondent.

Facts:
 Atty. Virgilio A. Sevandal filed a complaint against Atty. Melita B. Adame for
encroaching upon his professional services and receiving attorney's fees
without authority in a NLRC case.
 Atty. Sevandal claimed that he was engaged by Merlina Borja-Sevandal to
provide legal advice and assistance in her claims with various offices and
agencies.
 They had a verbal agreement and executed a Retainer Contract and an
Addendum to Retainer Contract.
 Atty. Adame, on behalf of Merlina, filed a complaint with the NLRC and Atty.
Sevandal entered his appearance as counsel without authority.
 Atty. Sevandal also received attorney's fees without rendering any service.
Issue:
 Whether Atty. Sevandal should be suspended from the practice of law and
ordered to return the amount of P300,000.00 to his client.
Ruling:
 Atty. Sevandal was found guilty of encroaching upon the professional services
of Atty. Adame.
 He was suspended from the practice of law for one year.
 He was ordered to return the amount of P300,000.00 to his client.
 The court modified the recommendation of the IBP, reducing the suspension
from two years to one year.
Ratio:
 The court based its decision on Rule 8.02, Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from encroaching upon
the professional employment of another lawyer.
 Atty. Sevandal's acts of appearing as counsel and receiving attorney's fees
without authority violated this rule.
 The court also considered the fact that Atty. Sevandal demanded and
received a substantial amount of money not due to him.
 Therefore, the court found him guilty of encroachment and suspended him
from the practice of law for one year.
 Atty. Sevandal was also ordered to return the amount of P300,000.00 to his
client.
26. Binay-an vs. Addog
Case A.C. No. 10449
Ponente N/A
Decision Date Jul 28, 2014
Atty. Atanacio D. Addog is suspended from practicing law for six months after
convincing clients to execute affidavits of desistance in exchange for money,
encroaching upon the legal functions of another lawyer and engaging in
unscrupulous behavior.
Facts:
 Francisco Binay-an and other heirs of Barot Binay-an filed a complaint against
Atty. Atanacio D. Addog.
 The complainants are plaintiffs in a civil case for Annulment of Documents
filed with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) against
Angeline Damaso and the Cordillera Small Business Assistance Center, Inc.
 The complainants are represented by Atty. Jerome W. Selmo, while Atty.
Addog represents the defendants.
 During a meeting in Mandarin Restaurant, Damaso and Addog convinced
Paul and Bienvenido Palos, who are also heirs of Barot Binay-an, to execute
separate Affidavits of Desistance.
 Addog notarized the affidavits and submitted them to the NCIP, but they were
denied.
 The complainants filed a complaint for misconduct against Addog with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Issue:
 Whether Atty. Atanacio D. Addog should be held liable for misconduct for
convincing the complainants to execute affidavits of desistance in exchange
for money and encroaching upon the legal functions of another lawyer.
Ruling:
 The Court, First Division, adopted the findings of the Investigating
Commissioner and imposed a penalty of six months suspension from the
practice of law on Atty. Atanacio D. Addog.
  The Court found that Addog's actions violated Canon 8, Rule 8.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from encroaching upon
the professional employment of another lawyer.
 Addog's act of preparing the affidavits of desistance and notarizing them
without informing the complainants' counsel encroached upon the legal
functions of Atty. Selmo.
 Addog's disclosure that the affidavits were executed in exchange for money
was deemed unscrupulous.
 The Court emphasized that such acts constitute malpractice and grave
misconduct that erode confidence and trust in the legal profession.
Ratio:
 The Court based its ruling on Canon 8, Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from encroaching upon the
professional employment of another lawyer.
 The Court found that Addog's actions in preparing and notarizing the affidavits
of desistance without informing the complainants' counsel violated this rule.
 Additionally, Addog's disclosure that the affidavits were executed in exchange
for money was deemed unscrupulous.
 The Court emphasized the importance of upholding ethical tenets in the legal
profession to maintain confidence and trust in the profession.
 Therefore, Addog was suspended from the practice of law for six months, with
a warning that similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
27. IN RE: Teresa Quiñal Blanco
Case G.R. No. 223816
Ponente N/A
Decision Date Jun 22, 2016
Atty. Teresa Quiñal Blanco's petition for judicial clemency and compassion is denied
as it should have been filed before the Department of Agrarian Reform, the
disciplining authority that rendered the decision.
Facts:
 Atty. Teresa Quiñal Blanco, a Public Attorney III, files a petition for judicial
clemency and compassion.
 Atty. Blanco was one of the respondents in an administrative case for gross
neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
 A decision was rendered on June 5, 2009, finding Atty. Blanco guilty of simple
neglect of duty and imposing a penalty of suspension for one month and one
day.
 Atty. Blanco's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 8, 2012.
 Atty. Blanco claims to have fully served her suspension from March 1, 2013,
to April 1, 2013.
 Atty. Blanco seeks judicial clemency and the removal of her disqualification
from being nominated to any judicial post.
Issue:
 Whether Atty. Blanco's petition for judicial clemency and compassion should
be granted.
Ruling:
 The Court denies Atty. Blanco's petition.
 The petition should have been filed before the disciplining authority, which is
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) that rendered the decision.
 The DAR has primary jurisdiction to investigate and discipline its officials and
employees, including the power to modify the penalty imposed or grant
clemency if warranted.
  Therefore, the petition for judicial clemency and compassion should have
been filed before the DAR.
Ratio:
 The disciplining authority, in this case, the DAR, has the primary jurisdiction to
investigate and discipline its officials and employees.
 This authority includes the power to modify penalties or grant clemency.
 Any petition for judicial clemency and compassion should be filed before the
disciplining authority that rendered the decision.
 Since Atty. Blanco's petition was filed directly before the Court instead of the
DAR, it was denied.
28. Huyssen vs. Gutierrez
Case A.C. No. 6707
Ponente PER CURIAM
Decision Date Mar 24, 2006
A lawyer in government service is disbarred for misappropriating funds and issuing
worthless checks, violating professional ethics and betraying the public trust.
Facts:
 Gisela Huyssen filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Fred L.
Gutierrez.
 Gutierrez was connected with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
(BID) at the time.
 Huyssen and her three American citizen sons applied for Philippine Visas
under Section 13g of the Immigration Law.
 Gutierrez informed Huyssen that they needed to deposit a certain sum of
money for one year for their visa applications to be favorably acted upon by
the BID.
 Huyssen deposited a total of US$20,000 with Gutierrez on six different
occasions from April 1995 to April 1996.
 Gutierrez prepared receipts/vouchers as proof of receiving the deposited
amounts but refused to give Huyssen copies of official receipts.
 After one year, Huyssen demanded the return of the deposited amount, but
Gutierrez failed to return it.
 The World Mission for Jesus, of which Huyssen was a member, sent demand
letters to Gutierrez, who made promises to return the money but failed to do
so.
 Gutierrez issued postdated checks to Huyssen, but they were dishonored.
 Huyssen referred the matter to a lawyer, who sent demand letters to
Gutierrez, which were also ignored.
 Huyssen filed a complaint for disbarment against Gutierrez.
Issue:
  Whether Gutierrez should be disbarred for misappropriating funds and issuing
worthless checks in violation of professional ethics.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the complainant and ordered the
disbarment of Gutierrez.
 Gutierrez admitted to receiving the US$20,000 from Huyssen through his
signatures on the petty cash vouchers and receipts he prepared.
 Gutierrez claimed that he delivered the money to a certain Atty. Mendoza who
assisted Huyssen and her family in their visa application, but he failed to
substantiate this claim.
 Gutierrez issued personal checks to Huyssen, indirectly admitting his guilt.
 Gutierrez's actions violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers in government service from promoting
their private interests.
 Gutierrez's issuance of worthless checks was considered gross misconduct.
 Gutierrez was disbarred from the practice of law and ordered to return the
amount he received from Huyssen with legal interest.
 The case was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for criminal
prosecution and to the Department of Justice for appropriate administrative
action.
Ratio:
 Lawyers in government service have more restrictions and are expected to
have a higher standard of moral integrity.
 Gutierrez's admission of receiving the money, his issuance of personal
checks, and his failure to substantiate his defense all pointed to his guilt.
 The practice of law is a noble profession that requires honesty and integrity.
 Lawyers in government service have a higher responsibility to uphold the
dignity of the legal profession and maintain the trust and confidence of the
public.
 Gutierrez's actions violated these standards and warranted his disbarment.
 The issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct and is a
manifestation of moral turpitude.
 Gutierrez's misappropriation of funds and issuance of worthless checks were
not only a violation of professional ethics but also a betrayal of the public trust.
29. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Llorente
Case A.C. No. 4680
Ponente MENDOZA, J
Decision Date Aug 29, 2000
Lawyers accused of tampering with election votes are found guilty of misconduct and
breach of trust, resulting in a fine and a warning for future offenses.
Facts:
 Complaint for disbarment against lawyers Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P.
Salayon.
 Allegation that the respondents tampered with the votes received by
complainant Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. in the May 8, 1995 elections.
 Respondents were members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers.
 Accused of violating their lawyers' oath and breaching public trust.
 Complainant alleged that the respondents manipulated the votes in favor of
certain senatorial candidates and reduced his votes.
 Irregularities included padding of votes, double recording of returns, and
discrepancies in the tabulation of votes.
Issue:
 Whether the respondents are guilty of misconduct, serious breach of trust,
and violation of the lawyer's oath in connection with the discharge of their
duties as members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers.
Ruling:
 The court found the respondents guilty of misconduct.
 The evidence presented by the complainant, as well as the evidence taken
judicial notice of by the court, was more convincing and worthy of belief than
that offered by the respondents.
 The irregularities in the canvassing of the election returns were not mere
mathematical errors but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain
senatorial candidates at the expense of the complainant.
 The respondents certified the Statements of Votes (SoVs) as true and correct
despite the apparent discrepancies and variations in the tabulation of votes.
  By doing so, the respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and violated their oath of office as lawyers.
Ratio:
 In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clear
preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability.
 Lawyers need to observe honesty both in their private and public dealings.
 Lawyers in the government service are under a greater obligation to observe
this basic tenet of the profession because a public office is a public trust.
 The court imposed a fine of P10,000.00 on each of the respondents as a
penalty for their misconduct, with a warning that similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
30. Fermin vs. Bedol
Case A.C. No. 6560
Ponente PERALTA, J
Decision Date Sep 16, 2019
An administrative complaint for disbarment is filed against Atty. Lintang H. Bedol for
issuing premature notices of a special election, leading to his suspension from the
practice of law for one year.
Facts:
 The case involves an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Mike A.
Fermin against Atty. Lintang H. Bedol.
 Bedol, in his capacity as the Provincial Election Supervisor III of
Maguindanao, issued premature notices of a special election in Barangay
Guiawa, Kabuntalan, Maguindanao.
 The notices were issued before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
had issued its resolution declaring a failure of election and the holding of a
special election.
 Fermin argues that Bedol's actions showed a disregard for the truth and a
disrespect for the rule of law, making him unfit to remain as a member of the
Bar.
 Fermin prays for Bedol's disbarment to protect future clients from his corrupt
and dishonest behavior.
 Bedol claims that the notices were issued to inform and notify the concerned
candidates of the upcoming special election and to allow sufficient time for
election personnel to prepare.
 Bedol argues that all the cases filed against him with the COMELEC were
dismissed for lack of cause of action.
 The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation.
Issue:
 Whether Atty. Lintang H. Bedol violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Ruling:
  Atty. Lintang H. Bedol is guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
 Bedol is suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Ratio:
 The Supreme Court concurred with the findings and conclusions of the IBP,
stating that Bedol's issuance of premature notices of a special election was
not in compliance with the procedures under the law and the COMELEC
rules.
 Bedol's actions violated his duty to obey the laws and legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities, thus violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 Lawyers are expected to respect and abide by the law, and their personal
deference to the law inspires respect and obedience from the public.
 Lawyers in public office, like Bedol, are held to a higher standard of honesty
and fair dealing.
 Bedol's claim that there was not enough time to prepare for the special
election had no basis in law, and he should have prioritized compliance with
the rules of procedure.
 Therefore, Bedol is suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a
stern warning that a repetition of the same offense will warrant a more severe
penalty.
 Bedol is directed to inform the Court when he starts serving his suspension.
 Copies of the resolution are to be distributed to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, the Office of the Court Administrator, and the Office of the Bar
Confidant.
31. Presidential Commission on Good Government vs. Sandiganbayan
Case G.R. No. 151809-12
Ponente PUNO, J
Decision Date Apr 12, 2005
Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza is disqualified from representing
respondents in a case involving alleged ill-gotten wealth due to his previous
intervention in the liquidation of GENBANK, as ruled by the Supreme Court,
highlighting the importance of ethical standards and preventing conflicts of interest in
the legal profession.
Facts:
 Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza was representing respondents
in a case involving alleged ill-gotten wealth.
 The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a complaint
against respondents, including Lucio Tan, for reversion, reconveyance,
restitution, accounting, and damages.
 The PCGG alleged that Tan and others acquired properties through their
close relationship with former President Ferdinand Marcos.
 The PCGG issued writs of sequestration on these properties.
Issue:
 Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
Mendoza, who previously intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK as
Solicitor General.
Ruling:
 Rule 6.03 does not apply to Mendoza in this case.
Ratio:
 The act of advising the Central Bank on the procedure to liquidate GENBANK
is not the "matter" contemplated by the rule.
 The intervention must be significant and substantial, and Mendoza's
involvement in the liquidation of GENBANK does not meet this criteria.
 Various policy considerations were taken into account:
  The need to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain ethical standards
in the legal profession.
 The importance of not discouraging competent lawyers from entering
government service.
 The potential prejudice to clients if their chosen counsel is disqualified.
 The need to balance the interests of former government lawyers and
the government's right to recruit competent counsel.
 The Court denied the petition and upheld the Sandiganbayan's resolutions
allowing Mendoza to represent the respondents.
 Fairness and the principle of conclusiveness of judgment were considered, as
there was a previous final order in another case resolving the same issue of
disqualification.
32. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ladaga
Case A.M. No. P-99-1287
Ponente KAPUNAN, J
Decision Date Jan 26, 2001
A court clerk is reprimanded for acting as pro bono counsel for his cousin without
obtaining written permission from the court, although his actions did not constitute
the "private practice" of law.
Facts:
 Atty. Misael M. Ladaga is a Branch Clerk of Court in the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 133, Makati City.
 He appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, in
a criminal case for Falsification of Public Document.
 Atty. Ladaga did not obtain prior permission from the Court to act as counsel
for his cousin.
 The Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative complaint against
Atty. Ladaga for violating the prohibition on the private practice of law without
authorization.
Issue:
 Whether Atty. Ladaga's appearance as pro bono counsel for his cousin
constitutes the "private practice" of law.
 Whether Atty. Ladaga should have obtained written permission from the Court
before acting as counsel for his cousin.
Ruling:
 Atty. Ladaga's appearance as pro bono counsel for his cousin does not
constitute the "private practice" of law.
 Atty. Ladaga failed to obtain written permission from the Court, as required by
the Revised Civil Service Rules.
 Atty. Ladaga was reprimanded with a stern warning.
Ratio:
 The prohibition on the private practice of law refers to a succession of acts
habitually or customarily holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer.
 Atty. Ladaga's isolated appearances as counsel for his cousin did not meet
this definition.
 Atty. Ladaga's appearances as pro bono counsel for his cousin were isolated
instances and did not constitute private practice.
 However, Atty. Ladaga still violated the Revised Civil Service Rules by failing
to obtain written permission from the Court before appearing as counsel.
 Atty. Ladaga was reprimanded for this violation and warned of more severe
consequences for any repetition of such act.
33. Catu vs. Rellosa
Case A.C. No. 5738
Ponente CORONA, J
Decision Date Feb 19, 2008
A lawyer is suspended for six months after representing a party in court without
obtaining permission to practice his profession as an incumbent punong barangay,
despite not violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Facts:
 Wilfredo M. Catu filed a complaint against Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa.
 Catu's mother and brother were in a dispute with Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and
Antonio Pastor over the possession of a unit in a building.
 The dispute was brought to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723,
where Rellosa served as the punong barangay.
 After failed attempts at conciliation, Rellosa issued a certification for the filing
of a court case.
 Regina and Antonio filed an ejectment complaint against Elizabeth and Pastor
in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.
 Rellosa entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants.
 Catu filed an administrative complaint against Rellosa, alleging that he
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and civil service rules.
Issue:
 Did Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa violate the Code of Professional Responsibility
and civil service rules by representing one party in court after presiding over
the conciliation proceedings as the punong barangay?
Ruling:
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found sufficient grounds to
discipline Rellosa.
 The Supreme Court modified the findings and the recommended penalty.
  Rellosa did not violate Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as
it only applies to former government lawyers.
 Rellosa, being an incumbent punong barangay, was not covered by that
provision.
 Section 90 of RA 7160, not Section 7 (b) (2), governs the practice of
profession by elective local government officials.
 Punong barangays and members of the sangguniang barangay are not
prohibited from practicing their profession.
 However, they should obtain prior permission or authorization from the head
of their department, as required by civil service regulations.
 Rellosa failed to secure the necessary permission.
 Rellosa was found guilty of professional misconduct for violating his oath as a
lawyer and Canons 1 and 7, as well as Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Ratio:
 Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies only to former
government lawyers, not incumbent ones.
 Section 90 of RA 7160 governs the practice of profession by elective local
government officials.
 Punong barangays and members of the sangguniang barangay are not
prohibited from practicing their profession.
 They should obtain prior permission or authorization from the head of their
department.
 Rellosa violated his oath as a lawyer by engaging in the unauthorized practice
of law and violating civil service rules.
 Rellosa was suspended from the practice of law for six months.