Rule 12.

08 Cases:
JONAR SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. EDISON V. RAFANAN
A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004
PANGANIBAN, J.:
FACTS:
Complainant Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology, lodged a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Edison Rafanan before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleging, inter alia, that Atty. Rafanan violated Rule
12.07 and Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when the latter
executed an affidavit in favor of his client and offered the same as evidence in a case where
he is actively representing his client. The complaint also alleged that after the hearing of the
case, respondent accompanied by several persons waited for Complainant and after
confronting the latter disarmed him of his sidearm and thereafter uttered insulting words
and veiled threats.
In his answer, respondent denied having disarmed the complainant and uttered
insulting words nor veiled threats against the latter. He however admitted that he executed
an affidavit in favor of his client and offered the same as evidence in a case where he is
actively representing his client but interposed the defense that lawyers could testify on
behalf of their clients "on substantial matters, in cases where [their] testimony is essential to
the ends of justice." Complainant charged respondents clients with attempted murder.
Respondent averred that since they were in his house when the alleged crime occurred, "his
testimony is very essential to the ends of justice.
The IBP, while finding that administrative offense was committed by respondent for
violating the notarial law, recommended the dismissal of the complaint for alleged violation
of Rule 12.07 and Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
insufficiency of evidence. Hence, the present action was commenced.
ISSUE:
May a lawyer testify on substantial matters relative to the cause of the party which he is
actively representing in a case without violating the Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD:
YES. Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness,
except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged communication arising from an
attorney-client relationship. The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers
by the task of dissociating their relation to their clients as witnesses from that as advocates.
Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall them. In contradistinction, advocates
are partisans - those who actively plead and defend the cause of others. It is difficult to
distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness from the zeal of an
advocate. The question is one of propriety rather than of competency of the lawyers who
testify for their clients.
Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and at the same
time counsels for a cause, the preference is for them to refrain from testifying as witnesses,
unless they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to withdraw from active management
of the case.

Rule 13 Cases:
JUDGE ESTRELLITA M. PAAS vs. EDGAR E. ALMARVEZ
A.M. No. P-03-1690. April 4, 2003
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
FACTS:
Pasay City Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Estrellita Paas administratively charged
Almarvez, a Court Aide/Utility Worker, with discourtesy to his fellow employees, neglect in
performing duties (by not maintaining the cleanliness around the court premises and often
being absent from work), and solicitation of money (from prisoners before serving them their
Release Orders, and from litigants by offering to divulge confidential information in advance
of its unauthorized release).
The Court found that the aforementioned charges were not supported by evidence
since those who filed affidavits as evidence against Almarvez were not presented at the
hearings. The only offense which Almarvez was found to commit was inefficiency in the
discharge of his duties. Thus he was suspended for 3 months.
Almarvez had filed a counterclaim alleging that Judge Paas ordered him to undergo a
drug test after the latter had already filed an administrative complaint against him.
Regarding this, the court held that this elicits the suspicion the Judge is just fishing for more
evidence to support the administrative case she had already filed against Almarvez. This
was held to constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary, for which Judge
Paas should be duly reprimanded.
In a separate case for inhibition of Judge Paas in a criminal case, it was found that
Judge Paas husband, Atty. Paas, who is a private practitioner, was using his wifes office
address in his law practice, particularly in a criminal case he was handling which was
docketed at an RTC also in Pasay. In support of this charge, documents were submitted such
as 1) a Notice of Appeal signed by Atty. Paas, and 2) notices from Pasay City RTC, and from
the Supreme Court
This was admitted by Judge Paas, but she claims that this was done only to ensure
and facilitate the delivery of those notices.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Paas and Atty. Paas should be penalized for allowing the latter to use
the office of the former as his return address in his private practice.
HELD:
YES. Using the Judges address is a subtle was of sending a message that Atty. Paas is
the husband of a judge in the same building and should be given special treatment by other
judges or court personnel. In SC Administrative Circular No. 01-99, it was stated that court
officials and employees must never use their officesfor any other purpose that for court or
judicial functions.
Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impropriety in all
activities and shall not allow the use of the judicial office to advance the private interests of
others.SC Circular No. 3-92 prohibits the use of halls of justice for residential or commercial
purposes. It is unprofessional and dishonorable to misuse a public office to enhance a
lawyers prestige. It violates canons3, 10, 13, and 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

On his part, Atty. Paas was guilty of using a fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive address
that had no purpose other than to try to impress either the court in which his cases are
lodged, or his client, that he has close ties to a member of the judiciary, in violation of the
following rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 3, Rule 3.01, Canon 10, Rule
10.01, Canon 13, Canon 15 and Rule 15.06.
The need for relying on the merits of a lawyers case, instead of banking on his
relationship with a member of the bench which tends to influence or gives the appearance of
influencing the court, cannot be overemphasized. It is unprofessional and dishonorable, to
say the least, to misuse a public office to enhance a lawyers prestige. Public confidence in
law and lawyers may be eroded by such reprehensible and improper conduct.

JIMENEZ vs. ATTY. VERANO

AC NO. 8198, JULY 15, 2014
SERENO, C.J.:
FACTS:
Brodett and Tecson (identified in media reports attached to the Complaint as the
Alabang Boys) were the accused in cases filed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) for the illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs. In a Joint Inquest Resolution issued on
2 December 2008, the charges were dropped for lack of probable cause.
Because of the failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask clarificatory questions
during the evaluation of the case, several media outlets reported on incidents of bribery and
cover-up allegedly prevalent in investigations of the drug trade. This prompted the House
Committee on Illegal Drugs to conduct its own congressional hearings. It was revealed
during one such hearing that respondent had prepared the release order for his three clients
using the letterhead of the DOJ.
Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption (VACC), sent a letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They stated
that respondent had admitted to drafting the release order, and had thereby committed a
highly irregular and unethical act. They argued that respondent had no authority to use the
DOJ letterhead and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a member of the bar.
For his part, Atty. Lozano anchored his Complaint on respondents alleged violation of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall uphold
the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for legal processes. Atty.
Lozano contended that respondent showed disrespect for the law and legal processes in
drafting the said order and sending it to a high-ranking public official, even though the latter
was not a government prosecutor. Atty. Lozanos verified Complaint-Affidavit was filed with
the Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP.
The Commissioner noted that both complaints remained unsubstantiated, while the
letter-complaint of Jimenez and Vizconde had not been verified. Therefore, no evidence was
adduced to prove the charges. However, by his own admissions in paragraphs 11 and 12 of
his Comment, respondent drafted the release order specifically for the signature of the DOJ
Secretary. This act of feeding the draft order to the latter was found to be highly irregular,
as it tended to influence a public official. Hence, Commissioner Abelita found respondent
guilty of violating Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended
that he be issued a warning not to repeat the same or any similar action.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violation of Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
After a careful review of the records, we agree with the IBP in finding reasonable grounds to
hold respondent administratively liable. Canon 13, the provision applied by the Investigating
Commissioner, states that a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from
any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.
We believe that other provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility likewise prohibit
acts of influence-peddling not limited to the regular courts, but even in all other venues in

the justice sector, where respect for the rule of law is at all times demanded from a member
of the bar.

Rule 13.01 Cases:

CESAR L. LANTORIA vs. ATTY. IRINEO L. BUNYI
A.M. No. 1769
June 8, 1992
FACTS:
An administrative complaint was filed by Lantoria against Bunyi, a member of the Philippine
Bar, on the ground that Bunyi committed acts of graft and corruption, dishonesty and
conduct unbecoming of a member of the IBP, and corruption of the judge and bribery in
relation to Bunyis handling of a civil case wherein Bunyi was counsel of Mrs. Mascarinas.
The latter was the owner of the farm involved and Lantoria is the supervisor and manager of
the said farm. Three civil cases presided by Judge Galicia involved an ejectment suit of
squatters in the said farm where the defendants were declared in default.
Correspondences between Lantoria and Bunyi showed that Bunyi initially enclosed a
letter in an envelope addressed to Judge Galicia in a confidential and private manner. Judge
Galicia thru the mediation of Lantoria informed Bunyi that he is willing to let Bunyi write the
decisions for the 3 civil cases. Lantoria informed the same to Bunyi which later delivered the
3 decisions thru Lantoria.
Three years later, Lantoria file the present case against Bunyi alleging that they won
the said cases because Bunyi wrote the decisions in those cases. Bunyi contends that
Lantoria had knowledge of the request of Judge Galicia to Bunyi as the said judge had two
salas before him. Also, Bunyi contends that the drafting of the decision was not an idea
spawned by him. Furthermore, he contends that his participation is merely on revision.
The solicitor general investigated the matters and found that Bunyi prepared the
draft of the decisions and that he had previous communications with the judge regarding
drafting the same. Moreover, Bunyi admitted that he prepared the said decisions and that
the subject letters do exist. The Solicitor General found Bunyi guilty of highly unethical and
unprofessional conduct for failure to perform his duty, as an officer of the court, to help
promote the independence of the judiciary and to refrain from engaging in acts which would
influence judicial determination of a litigation in which he is counsel. The Solicitor General
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year. Lantoria did not attend hearing of the case and later filed his withdrawal of the same.
Bunyi gave an apology but he denied the allegations of offering a gift to Judge Galicia.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bunyi violated Rule 13.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
lawyers.
HELD:
Yes. The determination of the merits of the instant case should proceed notwithstanding
withdrawal of complaint due to the Bunyi having admitted that the letters in question truly
exist, and that he even asked for an apology from the Court, for whatever effects such
letters had on his duty as a lawyer.
Clearly, respondent violated Canon 13 of the Professional Ethics on attempts to exert
personal influence on the court. A lawyer should not communicate or argue privately with
the judge as to the merits of a pending cause and deserves rebuke and denunciation for any
device or attempt to gain from a judge special personal consideration or favor.

In the new Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer's attempt to influence the

court is rebuked, as shown in Canon 13 and Rule 13.01, respectively. CANON 13 A lawyer
shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court. Rule 13.01 A lawyer shall not
extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for, cultivating
familiarity with judges.
Court finds Bunyi guilty of unethical practice in attempting to influence the court where he
had pending civil case.