Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
RENE B. GOROSPE
Lex Bar Review
(Cebu)
A lawyer is legally justified in advising against the turn over of suspects to an NBI agent where there
is no basis for the latter to effect a warrantless arrest.
Atty. Dizon, then Chief of the Special Operations Group (SOG) of the NBI, by persisting in his
attempt to arrest the suspected students without a warrant, violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional ResponsibilityLawyers
which provides
that Leaders
a lawyers shall
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws
Ethical,
Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 2 of 44
of the land, and promote the respect for law and legal processes, and that they shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law.
b. Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Atty. Raquel G.
Kho, Clerk of Court IV, Regional Trial Court, Oras, Eastern Samar, 521 SCRA 25
(2007)
A clerk of courts failure to remit judiciary funds for over a year, an omission contrary to the
mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93, is a breach of his oath to obey the laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities, and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
It is no accident that Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 are the first edicts laid down in the Code of Professional
Responsibility for these are a lawyers foremost duties. Lawyers should always keep in mind that,
although upholding the Constitution and obeying the law is an obligation imposed on every citizen, a
lawyers responsibilities under Canon 1 mean more than just staying out of trouble with the law. As
servants of the law and officers of the court, lawyers are required to be at the forefront of observing and
maintaining the rule of law, making themselves exemplars worthy of emulation. This, in fact, is what
a lawyers obligation to promote respect for law and legal processes entails.
The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful
conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary to law is unlawful. It does not necessarily imply the
element of criminality although it is broad enough to include it. The presence of evil intent on the part
of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01.
4. Immorality
a. Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, 424 SCRA 42 (2004)
The act of a lawyer of only giving intermittent support to his children with his wife after having
abandoned them undermines the institutions of marriage and family, institutions that society looks to for
the rearing of children, for the development of values essential to the survival and well-being of
communities, and for the strengthening of the nation as a whole. As officers of the court, lawyers must
not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be perceived to be of good moral character and
must lead a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. The moral
delinquency that affects the fitness
member of
the bar
to continue as such, including that which
LEXofRaEVIEWS
AND
SEMINARS
makes a mockery of the inviolable social
institution
of marriage,
BAR
Review
2009outrages the generally accepted moral
standards of the community.
(Cebu)
b. Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 422 SCRA 527 (2004)
A lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another he is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply
and abide by the laws in his private affairs can hardly be expected to do so in his professional dealings
nor lead others in doing so. Disbarment proceedings are warranted against a lawyer who abandons his
lawful wife and maintains anLawyers
illicit relationship
anotherPrincipled
woman.
Ethical,with
Leaders
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 3 of 44
An applicant for admission to membership in the bar must show that he is possessed of good moral
character, a requirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar
admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any
question concerning his mental or moral fitness before he became a lawyer.
Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 4 of 44
On Motion for Reconsideration: In view of respondents show of repentance and active service
to the community, the Court deemed it just and reasonable to convert the penalty of indefinite suspension
to a definite period of two years suspension.
f. Vitug v. Rongcal, 501 SCRA 166 (2006)
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral
character. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law
practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. As officers of the
court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral
character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. To justify
suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral.
While it is has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two
unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so
with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations
are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral
as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
g. Advincula v. Macabata, 517 SCRA 600 (2007)
Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be. This permissiveness
notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a high degree of social
responsibility and, hence, must handle their personal affairs with greater caution. It is difficult to state
with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is grossly immoral conduct or to specify the
moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar.
The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the
immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.
Acts of kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks as mere gestures of friendship and camaraderie, forms
of greetings, casual and customary. However, the acts of respondent, though, in turning the head of
complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips are distasteful. Nevertheless, such act, even if
considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be considered grossly immoral.
Finally, complainants bare allegations that respondent made use and took advantage of his position
as a lawyer to lure her to agree to have sexual relations with him deserves no credit complainant
miserably failed to comply with the burden of proof required of her.
h. St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz, 499
SCRA 614 (2006)
The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
possess the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar
is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during
good behavior, and he can be deprived
it for misconduct
LEX RofEVIEWS
AND Sascertained
EMINARSand declared by judgment of the
court after opportunity to be heard has BAR
been afforded
him. Without
Review
2009 invading any constitutional privilege
or right, an attorneys right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend, based on
conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney.
(Cebu)
It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from
the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney and, thus, to protect the public and those charged with
the administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney.
The law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members. There is no
distinction as to whether the transgression
is committed
in the
lawyers professional capacity or in his
Lawyers Ethical,
Leaders
Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 5 of 44
private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time
and a mere citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional activities but even his private life, insofar
as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts,
may at any time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities. Membership in the bar
may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral conduct.
i. Guevarra v. Eala, 529 SCRA 1 (2007)
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension
uses the phrase grossly immoral conduct, not under scandalous circumstances.
In a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife, it is immaterial
whether the affair was carried out discreetly. A lawyer, in carrying on an extra-marital affair with a
married woman prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage was null and void, and despite such
lawyer himself being married, showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law he betrayed
his unfitness to be a lawyer.
5. Moral Turpitude
a. Orbe v. Adaza, 428 SCRA 567 (2004)
A lawyers issuance of worthless checks and his contumacious refusal to comply with his just
obligation for nearly eight years is appalling and hardly deserves compassion from the Court.
b. Moreno v. Araneta, 457 SCRA 329 (2005)
Issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, as the effect transcends the private
interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community
at large. The act of a lawyer in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does
not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon
its presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude.
c. Soriano v. Dizon, 480 SCRA 1 (2006)
By conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, a lawyer is deemed to have become unfit to
uphold the administration of justice and to be no longer possessed of good moral character. Conviction
for a crime involving moral turpitude may relate, not to the exercise of the profession of lawyers, but
certainly to their good moral character. Where their misconduct outside of their professional dealings
is so gross as to show them morally unfit for their office and unworthy of the privileges conferred upon
them by their license and the law, the court may be justified in suspending or removing them from that
office.
Respondent seriously transgressed Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his
illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities. He has
thus brazenly violated the law and disobeyed the lawful orders of the courts.
Good moral character is an essential
qualification
for S
the
privilege to enter into the practice of law.
LEX REVIEWS
AND
EMINARS
It includes at least common honesty.BAR
Respondent
consistently
Review
2009 displayed dishonest and duplicitous
behavior. Lawyers must be ministers of truth. No moral qualification for bar membership is more
important than truthfulness. The rigorous ethics of the profession places a premium on honesty and
(Cebu)
condemns duplicitous behavior. Hence, lawyers must not mislead the court or allow it to be misled by
any artifice. In all their dealings, they are expected to act in good faith.
In sum, when lawyers are convicted of frustrated homicide, the attending circumstances not the
mere fact of their conviction would demonstrate their fitness to remain in the legal profession. In the
present case, the appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly show
his unworthiness to continueLawyers
as a member
of the bar.
Ethical,
Leaders Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 6 of 44
6. Deceitful Conduct
a. Cham v. Paita-Moya, SCRA (A.C. No. 7494, 27 June 2008)
A lawyer who has incurred just debts has the moral duty and legal responsibility to settle them when
they become due. She should comply with just contractual obligations, and act fairly and adhere to high
ethical standards to preserve the courts integrity, since she is an employee thereof. Deliberate failure
to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct.
A lawyer-lessees act of abandoning a leased apartment unit to avoid her obligations for the rent and
electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct. And, her defense that she does not know where to find the
lessor or his office is specious and does not inspire belief where she had been occupying the apartment
unit and paying the rents due (except for the period complained of) for almost two years. This is only
a desperate attempt to justify what is clearly an unjustifiable act.
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are
expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealing. Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar,
to the courts and to their clients. As part of those duties, they must promptly pay their financial
obligations.
b. Manaois v. Deciembre,
(Adm.
Case
No. 5364, 20 August 2008)
LEX SCRA
REVIEWS
AND
SEMINARS
[C]omplainant had supplied respondent with blank personal checks as security for the P20,000 loan
she had contracted and which respondent subsequently deceitfully filled out with various amounts they
(Cebu)
had not agreed upon and with full knowledge that the loan had already been paid. After the filled-out
checks had been dishonored upon presentment, respondent even imprudently filed multiple lawsuits
against complainant. Verily, respondent is guilty of serious dishonesty and professional misconduct. He
committed an act indicative of moral depravity not expected from and highly unbecoming of a member
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 7 of 44
of the Bar.1 The fact that the conduct pertained to respondents private dealings with complainant is of
no moment. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his
private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a good condition precedent to the practice of
law, but also a continuing qualification for all members of the Bar.]
b. Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, Former Senior State Prosecutor, 535 SCRA
200 (2007)
Lawyers
Ethical,
Leaders
Principled
Olbes v. Deciembre, A.C. No.
5365, 27 April
2005, 457
SCRA 341,
353.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 8 of 44
While lawyers are not prevented from being critical of orders and decisions that they may not agree
with, they are not that free to malign the judges who issued the same. Worse, they should course their
grievance through proper means and fora. So, if instead of questioning the judges acts before the higher
courts, they go to the press, then they are in trouble. Here, the respondent lawyer who used to be a Senior
State Prosecutor caused the holding of a press conference where he made statements against the order
of the judge granting bail to an accused who was charged with murder.
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend;
and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.
Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer
shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only.
Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that the trial court judge was displaying
judicial arrogance in an article which appeared in a local newspaper, which statements were made while
the criminal case was still pending in court. Such circumstance also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13,
which states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. As for a radio interview, he also violated Rule
11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities
only for redress of his grievances against the judge. He was also found of violating Canon 11 for his
disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that the judge was ignorant of the law, that as a
mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying the law, and that he was a liar.
Further, he also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to conduct [himself] as a lawyer
according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
[his] clients.
And just to make sure that the Court is not misunderstood in meting out penalties on disrespectful
criticism, the Court added that it is not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the
rules clearly provide for the proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely because respect for the
institution must always be maintained.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 9 of 44
correct and inexpensive adjudication of case and prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should
not use his knowledge of law as an instrument to harass a party nor to misuse judicial processes.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 10 of 44
respondents for the lots covered by their respective fully-paid contracts to sell and (b) in the name of
petitioner for those portions not covered by the claims of respondents.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 11 of 44
Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest, undertaken for public welfare and for the
purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of the persons unfit to practice
them. The power to disbar must
be exercised
withLeaders
great caution
and only in a clear case of misconduct
Lawyers
Ethical,
Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 12 of 44
which seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member
of the bar.
e. Asa v. Castillo, 500 SCRA 309 (2006)
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes candor, fairness
and good faith to the courts. Rule 10.01 of said Canon specifically commands that a member of the bar
shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 10.02 of the same Canon provides that a member of the bar shall
not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper or assert as a fact that which has not
been proved.
f. Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, SCRA (G.R. No. 173375, 25 September 2008)
Lawyers Unbelievable? * Notarized certification by alleged Asistant Postmaster showing attesting
to alleged received on 7 February 2006 for mailing but envelopes bore the notation 8 February * There
is a presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. On this basis, we have ruled in
previous cases that the Postmasters certification is sufficient evidence of the fact of mailing. This
presumption, however, is disputable. In this case, the Affidavit/Certification of the alleged Assistant
Postmaster cannot give rise to such a presumption, for not only does it attest to an irregularity in the
performance of official duties (i.e., mistake in stamping the date on the registered mail), it is essentially
hearsay evidence. Though notarized, we cannot give the affidavits of the Assistant Postmaster and
the clerk any probative value, since they were both notarized by a lawyer belonging to the same law firm
as petitioners counsel and, as such, are self-serving assertions not corroborated by any other evidence.
Considering the interest of his law firm in the case, we cannot rely solely on the jurat of the notary
public that the affiants/certifiers are indeed who they say they are. The affiants/certifiers herein claimed
to be officers or employees of the Cabanatuan City Post Office, but this Court has no way of ensuring
the veracity of such claim. It would have been different had petitioners presented an Official Receipt
as evidence of payment of appropriate fees corresponding to the issuance of such certifications by the
Assistant Postmaster and the clerk, who certified that the photocopy of the pertinent page of the Registry
Book was a faithful reproduction of the original and that she was the one who erroneously made the
notation 8 February 2006" on the envelope addressed to the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals. .
. . In addition, petitioners could have easily presented the original Registry Receipt No. A-2094. It
would have constituted the best evidence of the fact of mailing on 7 February 2006, even if a different
date had been stamped on the envelope of the subject registered mail. . . . * Lawyers Ethical: Given
the foregoing, we find no reason to reverse the assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals and disturb
its conclusions therein. Petitioners miserably failed to adduce credible and sufficient substantiation that
any inadvertence was committed by the Post Office of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. Instead of
supporting their cause, the affidavits submitted by petitioners, taken together with the mere photocopy
of Registry Receipt No. A-2094 without the presentation of the original thereof, actually lead this Court
to doubt whether petitioners counsel has been sincere in his dealings with the courts. Needless to stress,
a lawyer is bound by ethical principles in the conduct of cases before the courts at all times.]
6. Entry of Appearance
a. Regalado v. Regalado,
483
473AND
(2006)SEMINARS
LEX
RSCRA
EVIEWS
The lawyer here was required to explain why he should not be proceeded administratively for filing
the Petition for Review on Certiorari and the Petition for Relief from Order in the lower court without
(Cebu)
first entering his appearance as petitioners counsel or as collaborating counsel of the counsel of record.
7. Haphazard Pleadings
a. Heirs of Antonio Bobadilla v. Castillo, 526 SCRA 107 (2007)
A note on respondents Lawyers
attitude on Ethical,
the present
petition.Principled
Leaders
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 13 of 44
This Court observes the perfunctory manner by which respondent complied with this Courts
Resolution requiring him to comment on the petition. In his terse comment incorporated in his
Compliance, he pithily averred in one sweeping paragraph that the allegations contained in the petition
are all rehash or reiterations of the issues and arguments already passed upon by the appellate court. With
such lackadaisical outlook, respondent blinded himself with what appeared to be gross misrepresentation
foisted by petitioners, which would have otherwise put him on guard.
At this juncture, it is apropos to firmly remind lawyers of their duties, as officers of the court, to
exercise utmost care and complete candor in the preparation of pleadings and to lay before the court the
pertinent facts with methodical and meticulous attention, without any suppression, obscuration,
misrepresentation or distortion thereof.
b. Social Justice Society v. Atienza, Jr., SCRA (G.R. No. 156052, 13 February 2008)
A four-page memorandum that clearly contains neither substance nor research is absolutely insulting
to the Supreme Court. As a member of the bar and as an officer of the court, a lawyer ought to be keenly
aware that the chief safeguard of the body politic is respect for the law and its magistrates. There is
nothing more effective than the written word by which counsel can persuade the Court of the
righteousness of his cause. For if truth were self-evident, a memorandum would be completely
unnecessary and superfluous.
8. Intemperate Language
a. Saberon v. Larong, 551 SCRA 359 (2008)
To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong
language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients. However, while a lawyer is
entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive
and abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. In keeping with the dignity
of the legal profession, a lawyers language even in his pleadings must be dignified. The ascription of
blackmail in the Answer and Rejoinder filed by respondent is not legitimately related or pertinent to
the subject matters of inquiry of the proceedings.
It is of no consequence that the allegedly malicious statements of respondent were made not before
a court but before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas or any other quasi-judicial body.
Lawyers, though they are allowed a latitude of pertinent remark or comment in the furtherance of
the causes they uphold and for the felicity of their clients, should not trench beyond the bounds of
relevancy and propriety in making such remark or comment. Utterances, petitions and motions made in
the course of judicial proceedings have consistently been considered as absolutely privileged, however
false or malicious they may be, but only for so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of
inquiry.
A mere Notice of Resolution dismissing the administrative complaint fails to comply with the
procedural requirement that theLIBP
of Governors
shall state clearly and distinctly the
EXBoard
REVIEWS
AND Sdecision
EMINARS
findings of facts or law on which the BAR
same isReview
based. The2009
above requirement serves a very important
function not just to inform the parties of the reason for the decision as would enable them on appeal to
point out and object to the findings with which they are not in agreement, but also to assure the parties
(Cebu)
that the Board of Governors has reached the judgment through the process of legal reasoning.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 14 of 44
While it is true that the Supreme Court has been granted an extensive power of supervision over the
IBP, it is axiomatic that such power should be exercised prudently. The power of supervision of the
Supreme Court over the IBP should not preclude the IBP from exercising its reasonable discretion
especially in the administration of its internal affairs governed by the provisions of its By-Laws. The
actions and resolutions of theLawyers
IBP BoardEthical,
deserve toLeaders
be accorded
the disputable presumption of validity,
Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 15 of 44
which shall continue, until and unless it is overcome by substantial evidence and actually declared
invalid by the Supreme Court. There is no question that the IBP Board has the authority to remove its
members as provided in Article VI, Section 44 of the IBP By-Laws.
The removal of Atty. de Vera as member of the Board of Governors ipso facto meant his removal
as EVP as well. Thus, to be EVP of the IBP, one must necessarily be a member of IBP Board of
Governors. Atty. de Veras removal from the Board of Governors, automatically disqualified him from
acting as IBP EVP. Thus there was a resultant vacancy in the position of IBP EVP. Article VI, Section
41(g) of the IBP By-Laws expressly grants to the Board the authority to fill vacancies, however arising,
in the IBP positions. The election by the 2003-2005 IBP Board of Governors of a new EVP, who will
assume the Presidency for the term 2005-2007, was well within the authority and prerogative granted
to the Board by the IBP By-Laws, particularly Article VII, Section 47, which provides that [t]he EVP
shall automatically become President for the next succeeding term.
The Court cannot give credence to the argument of Atty. De Vera that, assuming his removal as IBP
Governor and EVP was valid, his replacement as IBP EVP should come from Eastern Mindanao Region
pursuant to the rotation rule set forth in Article VII, Section 47, of the IBP By-Laws. It is clear that it is
the position of IBP EVP which is actually rotated among the nine Regional Governors. The rotation with
respect to the Presidency is merely a result of the automatic succession rule of the IBP EVP to the
Presidency. In the case at bar, the rotation rule was duly complied with since upon the election of Atty.
De Vera as IBP EVP, each of the nine IBP regions had already produced an EVP and, thus, the rotation
was completed. It is only unfortunate that the supervening event of Atty. de Veras removal as IBP
Governor and EVP rendered it impossible for him to assume the IBP Presidency.
The automatic succession rule affords the IBP leadership transition seamless and enables the new
IBP National President to attend to pressing and urgent matters without having to expend valuable time
for the usual adjustment and leadership consolidation period. The time that an IBP EVP spends assisting
a sitting IBP President on matters national in scope is in fact a valuable and indispensable preparation
for the eventual succession. It will also be inconsistent with the purpose and spirit of the automatic
succession rule if the EVP for the term 2003-2005 will be elected exclusively by the members of the
House of Delegates of the Eastern Mindanao region.
The spectacle presented by two members of the bar engaged in bickering and recrimination is
far from edifying, and detract from dignity of the legal profession.
In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyers language must be dignified and choice
of language is important in preparation
pleadings.
Arguments
in pleadings should be gracious to both
LawyersofEthical,
Leaders
Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 16 of 44
court and opposing counsel and be such of words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to
another.
b. Asa v. Castillo, 500 SCRA 309 (2006)
Mutual bickerings and unjustified recriminations between brother attorneys detract from the dignity
of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this Court. Personal colloquies between
counsels which promote unseemly wrangling should thus be carefully avoided.
It is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation they
deserve quality representationLawyers
as well. Ethical, Leaders Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 17 of 44
Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of professional ethics and
are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. Those who are guilty of such infraction
may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.
h. Solatan v. Inocentes,
466 SCRA
1 (2005)
Lawyers
Ethical,
Leaders Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 18 of 44
An attorney has no power to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained
to establish the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are
sought and received in any manner pertinent to his profession
An attorney giving advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client resulting in
detriment to the latter may be held guilty of disloyalty. Where the statement of a lawyer to his clients
adversary is in consonance with such lawyers foremost duty to uphold the law as an officer of the court,
that statement in such a context should not be construed as giving advice in conflict against the interests
of his client.
i.
FIL-GARCIA, INC. v. HERNANDEZ, SCRA (A.C. No. 7129, 16 July 2008) {Puno, C.J.} [FIRST
DIVISION] [Client Uninformed * Complaint for recovery of money (construction contract) through
Atty. Ligsay * RTC judgment in favor of complainant reversed by CA * MR filed through
respondent (Atty. Hernandez) * CA Denial received 8 May 2001, due 23 May * Instead of filing an
appeal within the reglementary period, respondent filed three (3) successive motions for extension
of time 1st one, he alleged that he was engaged as counsel by a mayoralty candidate and a senatorial
candidate which required his presence in the canvassing of votes (request for 30 day extension) ...
2nd extension, alleging that he fell ill (request for 20 days) ... 3rd extension, allegation that [he]
severely underestimated the time needed to complete the petition because he had to work on other
equally urgent legal matters, which were unattended to during his illness. (Prayer for 10 days) *
6 August: Receipt of Courts Resolution denying 1st motion for extension for failure to show that it
has not lost the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period within which to appeal in view of the lack of
statement of material dates * MR re 6 August Resolution * 20 August Resolution denying 2nd and
3rd motions for extension of time * Another MR re 20 August Resolution * MR Denied, together
with Petition that was already filed * DELAYED ADVICE TO CLIENT: As admitted by respondent,
he received a copy of the Courts resolution dated October 1, 2001 denying complainants appeal
on November 15, 2001. However, respondent forwarded a copy of the same to complainants office
only on June 16, 2002. (7 months) * Complaint for Disbarment (3 extensions and wrong choice
of mode of appeal), and delayed advice * Lastly, respondent admits that he failed to immediately
inform complainant of the development of the case. However, the said omission was not deliberate
nor prompted by malice or intent to injure the complainant but was brought about by the sudden
unexpected technicalities that besieged the appeal of the case to the Supreme Court which caused
him dismay and made it hard for him to inform complainant of the same. * NEGLIGENCE:
Respondents conduct relative to the belated filing of complainants petition for review on certiorari
falls short of his obligation to serve his client with competence and diligence under Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents act of filing three (3) successive motions for
extension of time to file the petition on the careless assumption that each motion will be granted by
the Court, and without taking care of informing himself of the Courts action thereon, constitutes
inexcusable negligence. Moreover, respondent knowingly referred to Rule 65 in the petition he
belatedly filed as an afterthought in his desperate attempt to salvage the appeal. Rule 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer not to 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, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts
it for a fee or for free. He must
constantly
keep in
mindSthat
his actions or omissions or nonfeasance
LEX
REVIEWS
AND
EMINARS
would be binding upon his client. BAR
Thus, he
is
expected
to
be
Review 2009 acquainted with the rudiments of law
and legal procedure, and a client who deals with him has the right to expect not just a good amount
of professional learning and competence but
also a whole-hearted fealty to the clients cause.
(Cebu)
While pressure of work or some other unavoidable reasons may constrain a lawyer to file a motion
for extension of time to file pleadings, he should not presume that his motion for extension of time
will be granted. Well-settled is the rule that motions for extension of time to file a pleading are not
granted as a matter of course but lie in the sound discretion of the court. It is thus incumbent on any
movant for extension to exercise due diligence to inform himself as soon as possible of the Court's
action on his motion, by timely inquiry from the Clerk of Court. Should he neglect to do so, he runs
the risk of time running out
on him, for
which he
will have
nobody but himself to blame. * OTHER
Lawyers
Ethical,
Leaders
Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 19 of 44
While it is the duty of a lawyer to encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will
admit of a fair settlement, the same must be done in a manner that will not cause prejudice to the other
party. In this case, respondents failure to attend several hearings on the pretext that he was exploring
the possibility of amicable settlement between the contending parties, resulted in the dismissal of
complainants suit.
Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 20 of 44
b. Grand Placement and General Services Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 481 SCRA 189
(2006)
It is the duty of a lawyer to pay heed to the urgency and importance of registered letter sent by the
court. Until his dismissal or withdrawal is made of record in court, any judicial notice sent to a counsel
of record is binding upon his client even though as between them the professional relationship may have
been terminated. A notice to a lawyer who appears to have been unconscionably irresponsible cannot
be considered as a notice to his client.
c. Anastacio-Briones v. Zapanta, 507 SCRA 1(2006)
Until a lawyers withdrawal shall have been approved, he remains counsel of record and 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 his appearance on record. Until his dismissal or withdrawal is made of record, any judicial notice sent
to the lawyer was binding upon his client though as between them the professional relationship may have
been terminated.
d. Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, 456 SCRA 45 (2005)
Where the counsels negligence is so gross, it should not prejudice the accuseds right to be heard,
especially in a case where the imposable penalty may be death.
e. Adecer v. Akut, 489 SCRA 1 (2006)
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence. He shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. Nor shall
he neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
The Court noted that in this age of cellular phones, long distance telephone accessibility, and even
overnight mail delivery, it is highly unlikely that respondent would not be able to attend to his clients
needs were he so inclined.
While the Court commiserated with respondent for the loss of his wife, and appreciated fully that
during the period of a mans existence when the sense of mortality and loss is most closely felt more than
ever, it would appear that no responsibility is more important than tending to loved ones. Nevertheless,
such is the lawyers charge that no personal consideration should stand in the way of performing a
legal duty. In these situations, it is only fair that a lawyer should lighten his case load lest he prejudice
his clients cases.
Litigants entrust their properties, liberties, and even lives, in the hands of their lawyers, who must
protect these values with utmost zeal and vigilance. The lawyer should serve his client in a
conscientious, diligent and efficient manner and he should provide a quality of services at least equal
to that which lawyers generally would expect of a competent lawyer in the like situation. By agreeing
to be his clients counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree
of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the
clients interests and take all steps
or do
acts necessary
and his client may reasonably expect
LEX
Rall
EVIEWS
AND therefor,
SEMINARS
him to discharge his obligations diligently.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 21 of 44
demonstrated an utter lack of regard for the very serious charges against him and a gross disrespect for
the Court when he failed to file his comment after being required to file his response to the said charges.
Respondent could have presented sufficient justification for his inability to file the appellants briefs but
failed to do so.
In view of the forgoing circumstances, he does not deserve anymore to remain as an active member
of the legal profession. The breaches of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the palpable sloth
and irresponsibility he has demonstrated in handling the cases of his client undeniably reveal that he has
become more of a liability than an asset to the legal profession. He cannot be entrusted anymore with
the sacred duty and responsibility to protect the interests of any prospective client. If he is then allowed
to resume his law practice after suspension, this will surely subvert the ends of justice, dishonor the bar,
and lose the respect of society for the profession of law. The Court will not allow such affront to pass.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 22 of 44
The penalty of suspension or disbarment is meted out in clear cases of misconduct that seriously
affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. In this case, respondent has
shown her great propensity to disregard court orders. Respondents acts of wantonly disobeying her
duties as an officer of the courtLawyers
show an utter
disrespect
for thePrincipled
Court and the legal profession. However,
Ethical,
Leaders
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 23 of 44
the Court will not disbar a lawyer if it finds that a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired
end. Respondents acts constitute gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders of a
superior court. Respondent also violated Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Her
suspension is consequently warranted.
d. Briones v. Jimenez, 522 SCRA 236 (2007)
This arose from incidents in an Intestate Estate Proceeding. Briones was the Special Administrator
while respondent Jimenez was counsel for the heirs. Briones complains about the act of the respondent
in filing a criminal case against the former for allegedly resisting and seriously disobeying the RTC
Order directing Briones to deliver residue of the estate to the Heirs (Art. 151, RPC). Complainant
claimed that the filing of the unfounded criminal complaint was meant to obtain an improper advantage
and to coerce complainant to deliver to the Heirs without any writ of execution or any pronouncement
from the RTC as to the finality of the Order. On the other hand, respondent contended that when he
assisted the Heirs in filing a criminal case against complainant, he was merely fulfilling his legal duty
to take the necessary steps to protect the interests of his clients.
[T]here is sufficient ground in support of complainants claim that respondent violated Rule 19.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Records reveal that before respondent assisted the Heirs in
filing the criminal complaint against herein complainant, he sent demand letters to the latter to comply
with the Order of Judge Tipon to deliver the residue of the estate to the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson.
Considering that complainant did not reply to the demand letters, respondent opted to file said criminal
complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the court. The Order referred to
is the third part of the assailed Order dated April 3, 2002 which directs complainant to deliver the residue
to the Heirs in proportion to their shares. As aptly pointed out by complainant, respondent should have
first filed the proper motion with the RTC for execution of the third part of said Order instead of
immediately resorting to the filing of criminal complaint against him. A mere perusal of the rest of the
Order dated April 3, 2002 readily discloses that the approval of the report of complainant as Special
Administrator was suspended prior to the audit of the administration of complainant. Consequently, the
RTC would still have to determine and define the residue referred to in the subject Order. The filing of
the criminal complaint was evidently premature.
The long and short of it? Fair play demands that respondent should have filed the proper motion
with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of the estate delivered to his clients and not subject
complainant to a premature criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, [a]lthough respondent failed to live
up to this expectation, there is no evidence that he acted with malice or bad faith. Consequently, it is but
fit to reprimand respondent for his act of unfair dealing with complainant.
e. Pena v. Aparicio, 525 SCRA 444 (2007)
This is complaint for disbarment for violation of Rule 19.01 the act of a lawyer writing a demand
letter the contents of which threatened complainant with the filing of criminal cases for tax evasion and
falsification of documents. In short, complainant claims an act of blackmail from the respondent lawyer.
Under Rule 19.01 (Employment of Fair and Honest Means for Lawful Objectives), a lawyer should
not file or threaten to file any unfounded
or baselessAND
criminal
case or cases against the adversaries of his
LEX REVIEWS
SEMINARS
client designed to secure a leverage to
compel
the adversaries
BAR
Review
2009to yield or withdraw their own cases
against the lawyers client. In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its Rule
proscribe. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should the latter fail to pay the amounts
(Cebu)
they propose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as well
as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of business license
to operate due to violations of laws. The threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they
also amount to blackmail. Blackmail is the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation
or exposure or opposition in the public prints, . . . obtaining of value from a person as a condition of
refraining from making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his
prejudice. In common parlance
and in Ethical,
general acceptation,
it is equivalent to and synonymous with
Lawyers
Leaders Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 24 of 44
extortion, the exaction of money either for the performance of a duty, the prevention of an injury, or the
exercise of an influence. Not infrequently, it is extorted by threats, or by operating on the fears or the
credulity, or by promises to conceal or offers to expose the weaknesses, the follies, or the crime of the
victim.
But is the act of threatening the possibility of criminal prosecution blackmail? Or, when does a
demand letter become blackmail? [I]t is quite obvious that respondents threat to file the cases against
complainant was designed to secure some leverage to compel the latter to give in to his clients demands.
It was not respondents intention to point out complainants violations of the law as he so gallantly
claims. Far from it, the letter even contains an implied promise to keep silent about the said violations
if payment of the claim is made on the date indicated. Indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard
practice and tradition in this jurisdiction. It is usually done by a lawyer pursuant to the principal-agent
relationship that he has with his client, the principal. Thus, in the performance of his role as agent, the
lawyer may be tasked to enforce his clients claim and to take all the steps necessary to collect it, such
as writing a letter of demand requiring payment within a specified period. However, the letter in this case
contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges
against complainant which have nothing to do with his clients claim for separation pay. The letter was
obviously designed to secure leverage to compel complainant to yield to their claims. Indeed, letters of
this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Further, the Court said that [t]he privileged nature of the letter was removed when respondent used
it to blackmail complainant and extort from the latter compliance with the demands of his client.
Nevertheless, while the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards, we hold that disbarment
is too severe a penalty to be imposed on respondent, considering that he wrote the same out of his
overzealousness to protect his clients interests. Accordingly, the more appropriate penalty is
reprimand.
As a sidelight in this case, the Court took an this as an occasion to discuss whether there is a need
for a certification against forum shopping in disbarment complaints. The Investigating Commissioner
and the IBP Board of Governors took against complainant his failure to attach the certification against
forum shopping to his complaint and consequently dismissed his complaint. This Court, however,
disagrees and, accordingly, grants the petition. However, a remand of the case to the IBP would unduly
prolong its adjudication. The Courts determination is anchored on the sui generis nature of disbarment
proceedings, the reasons for the certification against forum shopping requirement, complainants
subsequent compliance with the requirement, and the merit of complainants complaint against
respondent. Thus, [i]n view of the nature of disbarment proceedings, the certification against forum
shopping to be attached to the complaint, if one is required at all in such proceedings, must refer to
another administrative case for disciplinary proceedings against the same respondent, because such other
proceedings or action is one that necessarily involves the same issues as the one posed in the
disbarment complaint to which the certification is supposedly to be attached.
Further, [i]t would seem that the scenario sought to be avoided, i.e., the filing of multiple suits and
the possibility of conflicting decisions, rarely happens in disbarment complaints considering that said
proceedings are either taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) upon the verified
of any
person.
Thus, if the complainant in a disbarment
LEXcomplaint
REVIEWS
AND
SEMINARS
case fails to attach a certification against
forum
shopping,2009
the pendency of another disciplinary action
BAR
Review
against the same respondent may still be ascertained with ease.
(Cebu)
6. Misappropriation of or Non-Accounting for Funds and Other Properties
a. Velez v. De Vera, 496 SCRA 345 (2006)
Beyond doubt, the unauthorized use by a lawyer of his clients funds is highly unethical. Canon 16
of the Code of Professional Responsibility is emphatic about this. By his admission that he used his
clients money for personal Lawyers
use, respondent
unwittingly
his own fate since this admission
Ethical,
Leaderssealed
Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 25 of 44
constitutes more than substantial evidence of malpractice. His act in holding on to his clients money
without the latters acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. And, by
depositing the check in his own account and using the same for his own benefit, he is guilty of deceit,
malpractice, gross misconduct and unethical behavior. He caused dishonor, not only to himself but to
the noble profession to which he belongs.
b. Almendarez, Jr. v. Langit, 496 SCRA 402 (2006)
A lawyer commits a flagrant violation of his oath where he receives the sum of money representing
the monthly rentals intended for his client, without accounting for and returning such sum to its rightful
owner. A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his clients money for himself by the mere fact
that the client owes him attorneys fees.
Respondents failure to turn over the money to complainant despite the latters demands gives rise
to the presumption that he had converted the money for his personal use and benefit. This is a gross
violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics, impairing public confidence in the legal
profession. More specifically, it renders respondent liable not only for violating the Code but also for
contempt (25, Rule 138).
The misconduct of a lawyer is aggravated by his unjustified refusal to heed the orders of the IBP
requiring him to file an answer to the complaint-affidavit and, afterwards, to appear at the mandatory
conference. Indeed, he is justly charged with conduct unbecoming a lawyer, for a lawyer is expected to
uphold the law and promote respect for legal processes. Further, a lawyer must observe and maintain
respect not only to the courts, but also to judicial officers and other duly constituted authorities,
including the IBP. Under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the Court has empowered the IBP to conduct
proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys.
Needless to say, too, the act of issuing a bouncing check further compounded respondents
infractions. The act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes
willful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in law and lawyers. Such
conduct indicates the respondents
unfitness
for the
trust andPrincipled
confidence reposed on him, shows such
Lawyers
Ethical,
Leaders
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 26 of 44
lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence and
constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders
and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves
officers of the court. And while respondent issued a check in the amount of P
=120,000.00 in favor of
complainant, purportedly to satisfy the judgment against him, the check was later dishonored for having
been drawn against a closed account.
d. Salomon, Jr. v. Frial, SCRA (A.C. No. 7820, 12 September 2008)
Lawyer of attaching creditor taking custody of two cars (Nissan Sentra and a Volvo) through his own
undertaking without court knowledge and authority * Nissan seen in other places, being used by others
(but not the lawyer himself) and the Volvo destroyed by fire but not reported * Defense: For safekeeping
and maintenance and gassing up * Canons of Professional Ethics: Frial guilty of grave misconduct
arising from his violation of Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (Dealing with Trust
Property Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the
possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and should not under any
circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him.) * A lawyer is first and foremost an
officer of the court. As such, he is expected to respect the courts order and processes. Atty. Frial
miserably fell short of his duties as such officer. He trifled with the writ of attachment the court issued.
* Very patently, Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of taking good care of the attached cars. He also
allowed the use of the Nissan Sentra car by persons who had no business using it. He did not inform the
court or at least the sheriff of the destruction of the Volvo car. What is worse is that he took custody of
them without so much as informing the court, let alone securing, its authority. For his negligence and
unauthorized possession of the cars, we find Atty. Frial guilty of infidelity in the custody of the attached
cars and grave misconduct.
7. Conflict of Interests
a. Hornilla v. Salunat, 405 SCRA 220 (2003)
A lawyer retained by a corporation cannot represent the members of the board in a derivative suit
as this would constitute conflict of interest.
b. Northwestern University, Inc. v. Arquillo, 465 SCRA 513 (2005)
Corollary to the duty of lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and
transactions with their clients, they shall not represent conflicting interest, except with all the concerned
clients written consent, given after a full disclosure of the facts. It is a hornbook doctrine grounded on
public policy that a lawyers representation of both sides of an issue is highly improper.
c. Solatan v. Inocentes, 466 SCRA 1 (2005)
An attorney has no power to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained
to establish the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are
sought and received in any manner
to hisAND
profession.
LEXpertinent
REVIEWS
SEMINARS
An attorney giving advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client resulting in
detriment to the latter may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, where the statement of a lawyer to his
(Cebu)
clients adversary is in consonance with such lawyers foremost duty to uphold the law as an officer of
the court, that statement in such a context should not be construed as giving advice in conflict against
the interests of his client.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 27 of 44
to contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose. In determining whether there
is conflict of interest, an important criterion is probability, not certainty, of conflict.
It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid appearance
of treachery and double-dealing for only then litigants can be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers in the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the
clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case.
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the
opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action a lawyers
representation of opposing clients in two cases, though unrelated, obviously constitutes conflict of
interests, or at least, invites a suspicion of double-dealing. The proscription against representation of
conflicting interests finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same
general matter however slight the adverse interest may be it applies even if the conflict pertains to the
lawyers private activity or in the performance of a function in a non-professional capacity.
The representation of conflicting interest in good faith and with honest intention on the part of the
lawyer does not make the proscription inoperative. Lawyers are not obliged to act either as an adviser
or advocate to every person who wish to become their client they have the right to decline such
employment subject to the Code of Professional Responsibility.
e. Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin, Jr., 477 SCRA 634 (2005)
A lawyer is personally barred by the rules of ethics from representing an interest contrary to that
earlier espoused by his law firm.
f. Gonzales v. Cabucana, 479 SCRA 320 (2006)
One test of inconsistency of interest is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent full
discharge of a lawyers duty of undivided fidelity to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the
opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. The representation of
opposing clients, though unrelated, constitutes conflict of interest or at the very least, invites suspicion
of double dealing which the Court cannot allow.
While there may be instances where lawyers cannot decline representation, they cannot be made to
labor under the conflict of interest between a present client and a prospective one.
The Court considers as mitigating circumstance the fact that the lawyer represented the other client
pro bono and it was his firm and not he personally that handled the case of the adverse party.
g. Lim, Jr. v. Villarosa, 490 SCRA 494 (2006)
It is only upon strict compliance
with
the condition
ofEMINARS
full disclosure of facts that a lawyer may
LEX R
EVIEWS
AND S
appear against his client; otherwise, hisBAR
representation
of conflicting
Review
2009 interests is reprehensible. The rule
on conflict of interest covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided
but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used the rule prohibits a lawyer
(Cebu)
from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether
or not they are parties in the same action or in totally unrelated cases.
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except byLawyers
written consent
of all
concerned
given after full disclosure of the facts.
Ethical,
Leaders
Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 28 of 44
Lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to
contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose. The proscription against
representation of conflicting interest applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients
in the same action or in an unrelated action.
The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his clients
case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge
must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be given him to take advantage
of the clients secrets. A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence is
abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof.
8. Attorneys Fees
a. Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr., 456 SCRA 508 (2005) and 479 SCRA 307 (2006)
`
When a lawyer accepts the professional fee from the client, it is understood that he agrees to take up
the latters case and that an attorney-client relationship between them is established. A member of the
legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest and warm zeal in the maintenance
and defense of his rights verily, when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise
due diligence in protecting his rights.
While, just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services, he should
charge only a reasonable amount, however charging P
=56,000.00 is improper where the lawyer did not
take any step to assist his client.
On Motion for Reconsideration: A party should decide early what version he is going to advance.
A change of theory in the latter stage of the proceedings is objectionable, not due to the strict application
of procedural rules, but because it is contrary to the rules of fair play, justice, and due process. In fact,
if anything at all has been achieved by respondents inconsistent assertions, it is his dishonesty to the
Court. Surely, he cannot expect to be paid for doing nothing.
Canon 19 outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal
proceeding confront client and seek rectification, failing which terminate relationship!
b. Lijauco v. Terrado, 500 SCRA 301 (2006)
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the
duty of fidelity to the client s cause. The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney
agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.
A fee of P
=70,000.00 for legal assistance in the recovery of a deposit amounting to P
=180,000.00 is
unreasonable. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to
practice law, except in certain cases.
LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS
(Cebu)
A lawyer may enforce his right to his fees by filing the necessary petition as an incident of the main
action in which his services were rendered or in an independent suit against his client. Nevertheless, suits
to collect fees should be avoided and should be filed only when circumstances force lawyers to do so.
The recovery of attorneys fees on the basis of quantum meruit is permitted where there is no express
agreement for the payment of attorneys fees, and it is basically a legal mechanism which prevents an
unscrupulous client from running
away Ethical,
with the fruits
of thePrincipled
legal services of counsel without paying
Lawyers
Leaders
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 29 of 44
for them while avoiding unjust enrichment on the part of the lawyer himself.
Demanding P
=50 million on top of the generous sums and perks already given to the lawyers is an act
of unconscionable greed which is shocking to this Court. Lawyers could not charge their clients a fee
based on percentage absent an express agreement to that effect. The practice of law is a decent profession
and not a money-making trade compensation should be but a mere incident.
d. Bach v. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices, 501 SCRA 419 (2006)
The rule is that the issue of the reasonableness of attorneys fees based on quantum meruit is a
question of fact, and well-settled is the rule that conclusions and findings of fact by the lower courts are
entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed except for strong and cogent reasons.
The circumstances to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a claim for attorneys fees
the following: (1) the amount and character of the service rendered; (2) labor, time, and trouble involved;
(3) the nature and importance of the litigation or business in which the services were rendered; (4) the
responsibility imposed; (5) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy
or involved in the employment; (6) the skill and experience called for in the performance of the services;
(7) the professional character and social standing of the attorney; (8) the results secured; and (9) whether
the fee is absolute or contingent, it being recognized that an attorney may properly charge a much larger
fee when it is contingent than when it is not. And, Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility enumerates the following factors which should guide a lawyer in determining his fees.
The imposition of legal interest on the amount payable to private respondent as attorneys fees is
unwarranted. Even as the parties can freely stipulate on the terms of payment, still the imposition of
interest in the payment of attorneys fees is not justified. Article 2209 of the Civil Code does not even
justify the imposition of legal interest on the payment of attorneys fees as it is a provision of law
governing ordinary obligations and contracts. Lawyeringis not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are
not merchants. Law advocacy, it has been stressed, is not capital that yields profits. Its returns are simple
rewards for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy
a greater deal of freedom from governmental interference, is impressed with a public interest, for which
it is subject to State regulation. A lawyers compensation for professional services rendered are subject
to the supervision of the court, not just to guarantee that the fees he charges and receives remain
reasonable and commensurate with the services rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and integrity
of the legal profession to which he belongs. Upon taking his attorneys oath as an officer of the court,
a lawyer submits himself to the authority of the courts to regulate his right to charge professional fees.
The fact that an attorney plays a vital role in the administration of justice underscores the need to
secure to him his honorarium lawfully earned as a means to preserve the decorum and respectability of
the legal profession. A lawyer is as much entitled to judicial protection against injustice, imposition of
fraud on the part of his client as the client against abuse on the part of his counsel. The duty of the court
is not alone to see that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful manner; it is also its duty to see that a lawyer
is paid his just fees. With his capital consisting only of his brains and with his skill acquired at
tremendous cost not only in money but in expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the protection
of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of his client to escape payment of his just
compensation. It would be ironic
if after
putting forth
theSbest
in him to secure justice for his client, he
LEX
REVIEWS
AND
EMINARS
himself would not get his due.
BAR Review 2009
(Cebu)
9. Ortiz v. San Miguel Corporation, SCRA (G.R. Nos. 151983-84, 30 July 2008)
Petition by lawyer alone, claiming his attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the original
awards but which were reduced when his clients (the complainants) agreed to execute quitclaims for
lesser amounts the attorneys fees accordingly adjusted * The lower attorneys fees were then withheld
from the amounts given to the complainants and subsequently handed over to Ortiz * ATTORNEY S FEES
CONCEPTS: [T]here are twoLawyers
commonlyEthical,
acceptedLeaders
concepts Principled
of attorneys fees, the so-called ordinary
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 30 of 44
and extraordinary. In its ordinary concept, an attorneys fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a
lawyer by his client for the legal services the former has rendered to the latter. The basis of this
compensation is the fact of the attorneys employment by and his agreement with the client. In its
extraordinary concept, attorneys fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be
paid by the losing party in a litigation. The instances in which these may be awarded are those
enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, specifically paragraph 7 thereof, which pertains to actions
for recovery of wages, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they have agreed that
the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. Article 111
of the Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the extraordinary concept of attorneys fees. *
Article 111 is an exception to the declared policy of strict construction in the awarding of attorneys
fees. Although express findings of fact and law are still necessary to prove the merit of the award, there
need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages.
* Based on the foregoing, the attorneys fees awarded by the NLRC in its Decisions in the Aguirre and
Toquero Cases pertain to the complainants, petitioners clients, as indemnity for damages; and not to
petitioner as compensation for his legal services. * NO RIGHT TO OPPOSE: And since the attorneys
fees pertained to the complainants as indemnity for damages, it was totally within the complainants
right to waive the amount of said attorneys fees and settle for a lesser amount thereof in exchange for
the immediate end to litigation. Petitioner cannot prevent complainants from compromising and/or
withdrawing their complaints at any stage of the proceedings just to protect his anticipated attorneys
fees. * NOT REAL PARTY : In the case at bar, it is beyond cavil that the petitioner is not the real party
in interest; hence, he cannot file this Petition to recover the attorneys fees as adjudged by the NLRC .
. . . Not being the party to whom the NLRC awarded the attorneys fees, neither is the petitioner the
proper party to question the non-awarding of the same by the appellate court. * LAW BUSINESS ? It
may do well for petitioner to remember that as a lawyer, he is a member of an honorable profession, the
primary vision of which is justice. The practice of law is a decent profession and not a
money-making trade. Compensation should be but a mere incident. * CLAIM AGAINST CLIENTS:
If petitioner earnestly believes that the amounts he already received are grossly deficient, considering
the substantial time and efforts he and his assistant lawyers invested, as well as the personal money he
expended for the prosecution of complainants cases for more than seven or eight years, then petitioners
remedy is not against the private respondent, but against his own clients, the complainants. *
QUITCLAIMS SANS LAWYER : There is no specific provision in the Labor Code, as amended, which
requires the conformity of petitioner, as the complainants counsel, to make their Deeds of Release,
Waiver and Quitclaim valid. * Petition Denied
10. J-Phil Marine, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, SCRA (G.R. No. 175366, 11
August 2008)
Counsel Questioning Clients Compromise Agreement * That respondent was not assisted by his
counsel when he entered into the compromise does not render it null and void. * It bears noting that,
as reflected earlier, the Quitclaim and Waiver was subscribed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter.
* Respondents counsel nevertheless argues that [t]he amount of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P450,000.00) given to respondent on April 4, 2007, as full and final settlement of judgment award,
is unconscionably low, and un-[C]hristian, to say the least. Only respondent, however, can impugn the
consideration of the compromise as being unconscionable. The relation of attorney and client is in
LEX
REVIEWS
AND
SEMINARS
many respects one of agency, and
the general
rules of
agency
apply to such relation. The acts of an agent
are deemed the acts of the principalBAR
only ifReview
the agent acts
within the scope of his authority. The
2009
circumstances of this case indicate that respondents counsel is acting beyond the scope of his authority
in questioning the compromise agreement. That
a client has undoubtedly the right to compromise a
(Cebu)
suit without the intervention of his lawyer cannot be gainsaid, the only qualification being that if such
compromise is entered into with the intent of defrauding the lawyer of the fees justly due him, the
compromise must be subject to the said fees. In the case at bar, there is no showing that respondent
intended to defraud his counsel of his fees.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 31 of 44
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 32 of 44
Where it has been amply established that a lawyer at CHR, who was not properly authorized to
attend hearings of his private cases, has been actually attending said hearings, it is an ineluctable
conclusion that he falsified his Daily Time Records (DTRs) when he certified that he was at the office
on the same days and times that he was in court.
4. Lim v. Barcelona, 425 SCRA 67 (2004)
If a lawyers misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as a government official is of such a
character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined
as a member of the Bar on such ground. Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
tasks have more restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Extortion by a government lawyer, an
outright violation of the law, calls for the corresponding grave sanctions.
Government lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as their disreputable
conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye.
5. Santos v. Cacho-Calicdan, 502 SCRA 197 (2006)
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended from practice for any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct
in office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the
lawyers oath, willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or willful and unauthorized
appearance for a party to a case, as specified in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. A deceitful
act, in particular, constitutes a violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Nonetheless, the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution. In disbarment proceedings, the case against the respondent must be
established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof, the burden of which rests upon the complainant.
Only a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an
officer of the Court and as a member of the bar will warrant disbarment.
6. Maligaya v. Doronilla, Jr., 502 SCRA 1 (2006)
The suspension referred to in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court means only suspension
from the practice of law. For this reason, the Court disagreed with the IBPs recommendation for Atty.
Doronillas suspension from the government military service. After all, the only purpose of the
administrative case is to determine Atty. Doronillas liability as a member of the legal profession, not
his liability as a legal officer in the military service. Thus, it would be improper for the Court to order,
as a penalty for his breach of legal ethics and the lawyers oath, his suspension from employment in the
Judge Advocate Generals Service. Of course, suspension from employment as a military legal officer
may well follow as a consequence of his suspension from the practice of law but that should not be
reason for the Court to impose it as a penalty for his professional misconduct. The Court would be
going beyond the purpose of the proceeding were we it to do so.
7. Gumaru v. Quirino State College, 525 SCRA 412 (2007)
LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS
[T]he Solicitor General cannot refuse to represent the government, its agencies, instrumentalities,
BAR Review 2009
officials and agents without a just and valid reason. He should not desist from appearing before the Court
even in those cases where his opinions may be inconsistent with the government or any of its agents he
(Cebu)
is expected to represent. As in the case of fiscals
or prosecutors, bias or prejudice and animosity or
hostility do not constitute legal and valid excuses for inhibition. Unlike a practicing lawyer who has the
right to decline employment, a fiscal or prosecutor, or the Solicitor General in the case at bar, cannot
refuse to perform his functions without violating his oath of office. Refusal to perform the duty is
compellable by a writ of mandamus.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 33 of 44
General, or otherwise fail or refuse to forward the papers of a case to the OSG for appropriate action.
Actions filed in the name of the Republic that are not initiated by the OSG will be summarily dismissed.
Moreover, the fee of the lawyer who rendered legal service to the government in lieu of the OSG or the
OGCC is the personal liability of the government official who hired his services without the prior written
conformity of the OSG or the OGCC, as the case may be.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 34 of 44
G.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization
converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. For this reason,
notaries public should not take for granted the solemn duties pertaining to their office. Slipshod methods
in their performance of the notarial act are never to be countenanced. They are expected to exert utmost
care in the performance of their duties, which are dictated by public policy and are impressed with public
interest.
A notary public should exercise utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the person who
represents himself. He should not rely on Community Tax Certificates in view of the ease with which
community tax certificates are obtained these days. As a matter of fact, recognizing the established
unreliability of a community tax certificate in proving the identity of a person who wishes to have his
document notarized, the Supreme Court did not include it in the list of competent evidence of identity
that notaries public should use in ascertaining the identity of persons appearing before them to have their
documents notarized.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 35 of 44
Finally, it has not escaped our notice that in paragraph 2 of complainants affidavit of desistance, she alluded that Atty.
(Cebu)
Carlitos C. Villarin notarized her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated
November 12, 2004 which was attached to the complaint filed
with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, without requiring her to personally appear before him in violation of the
Notarial Law. This allegation must likewise be investigated.
* * * * *
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is DIRECTED to investigate the allegation
that Atty. Carlitos C. Villarin notarized the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Victorina Bautista dated November 12, 2004, without
requiring the latters personal appearance.
Ethical,
Leaders
Principled
W ell, it just goes to show that Lawyers
you cannot afford
to splatter
ink on your
enemy if youre standing too close to him.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 36 of 44
f. St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz, 499
SCRA 614 (2006)
It has been emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On
the contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization of a private document converts the document into
a public one making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document
is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe
with the utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence
of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.
The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere
casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyers act of notarizing documents without the
requisite commission to do so as reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also *
* * the crime of falsification of public documents.
The Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a document is done by a member of
the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be
subjected to disciplinary action or one, performing a notarial act without such commission is a violation
of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear
that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in
deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within
the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By acting as a notary
public without the proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same Code,
which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
g. Pantoja-Mumar v. Flores, 520 SCRA 470 (2007)
Notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act it is through the act of
notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence
without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. A notary public should not notarize
a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and
personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.
h. Guerrero v. Bihis, 521 SCRA 394 (2007)
The acknowledgment of a notarial will coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare
before an officer of the law, the notary public, that they executed and subscribed to the will as their own
free act or deed. And, an acknowledgment can only be made before a competent officer, that is, a lawyer
duly commissioned as a notary public. Outside the place of his commission, a notary public is bereft of
power to perform any notarial act he is not a notary public. Acknowledgment taken outside the
territorial limits of the officers jurisdiction is void as if the person taking it were wholly without official
character.
i. Aquino v. Pascua, 539 SCRA 1 (2007)
LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS
A lawyer is guilty of misconduct inBAR
the performance
of 2009
his duties if he fails to register in his Notarial
Review
Register the affidavits-complaints which were filed in an administrative case before the Civil Service
Commission.
(Cebu)
j. St. Marys Farm, Inc. v. Prima Real Properties, Inc., SCRA (G.R. No. 158144, 31 July
2008)
Sale of company property by virtue of a notarized board resolution subsequently claimed to have
been forged.
Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 37 of 44
Further challenging the due execution of the board resolution bearing the Secretarys Certification,
petitioner wants us to consider the same as inadmissible on the ground that Atty. Agcaoili did not appear
before a notary public for notarization. We do not agree, because in the past, we have already held that
the non-appearance of the party before the notary public who notarized the deed does not necessarily
nullify or render the parties transaction void ab initio. However, the non-appearance of the party
exposes the notary public to administrative liability which warrants sanction by the Court. This fact
notwithstanding, we agree with the respondent court that it is not enough to overcome the presumption
of the truthfulness of the statements contained in the board resolution. To overcome the presumption,
there must be sufficient, clear and convincing evidence as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to
the falsity of the certificate. In the absence of such proof, the document must be upheld. Notarization
converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in court without further proof
of its authenticity.
On the basis of this notarized board resolution, respondent had every reason to rely on Rodolfo
Aganas authority to sell the subject property. Undeniably then, the respondent is an innocent purchaser
for value in good faith.
* * * * *
It is of no moment that the checks were made payable to Rodolfo Agana and not to the company
which, according to the petitioner, should have alerted the respondent to inquire further into the extent
of Aganas authority to transfer the subject property. This was no longer necessary considering that
respondent had every reason to rely on Rodolfo Aganas authority to sell, evidenced by the notarized
Certification. As explained in the Bautista case:
When the document under scrutiny is a special power of attorney that is duly notarized, we
know it to be a public document where the notarial acknowledgment is prima facie evidence of
the fact of its due execution. A buyer presented with such a document would have no choice
between knowing and finding out whether a forger lurks beneath the signature on it. The notarial
acknowledgment has removed that choice from him and replaced it with a presumption
sanctioned by law that the affiant appeared before the notary public and acknowledged that he
executed the document, understood its import and signed it. In reality, he is deprived of such
choice not because he is incapable of knowing and finding out but because, under our notarial
system, he has been given the luxury of merely relying on the presumption of regularity of a duly
notarized SPA. And he cannot be faulted for that because it is precisely that fiction of regularity
which holds together commercial transactions across borders and time.
In sum, all things being equal, a person dealing with a seller who has [in his] possession
title to the property but whose capacity to sell is restricted, qualifies as a buyer in good faith if
he proves that he inquired into the title of the seller as well as into the latters capacity to sell;
and that in his inquiry, he relied on the notarial acknowledgment found in the sellers duly
notarized special power of attorney. He need not prove anything more for it is already the
function of the notarial acknowledgment to establish the appearance of the parties to the
document, its due execution and authenticity.
LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS
This notwithstanding, the court concluded, Assuming this to be true, same could be considered
an error which did not nullify,Lawyers
(sic) the Deed
of Sale
or Compra
Y Venta. At most, the document would
Ethical,
Leaders
Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 38 of 44
l. Dela Cruz v. Dimaano, Jr., SCRA (A.C. No. 7781, 12 September 2008)
It bears reiterating that notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal
on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally
appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein, for under Section 1
of Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an instrument or document shall be considered authentic
if the acknowledgment is made in accordance its requirements. Without the appearance of the person
who actually executed the document in question, notaries public would be unable to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the partys
free act or deed. Furthermore, notaries public are required by the Notarial Law to certify that the party
to the instrument has acknowledged and presented before the notaries public the proper residence
certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place, and date of issue
as part of certification.
Rule II, Sec. 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice now requires a party to the instrument to
present competent evidence of identity. Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity.The phrase
competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an individual based on (a) at least one
current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the
individual, or, (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document
or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual,
or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who
each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.
One last note. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the
duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It
must be remembered that notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a
private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of
preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. A notarized document is by law entitled to full
credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic requirements in
notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public on notorized documents will be eroded.
H.
1. Purpose
a. Soriano v. Dizon, 480 SCRA 1 (2006)
Lawyers
Ethical,isLeaders
The purpose of a proceeding
for disbarment
to protectPrincipled
the administration of justice by requiring
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 39 of 44
that those who exercise this important function be competent, honorable and reliable lawyers in whom
courts and clients may repose confidence. Thus, whenever a clear case of degenerate and vile behavior
disturbs that vital yet fragile confidence, the Supreme Court shall not hesitate to rid the profession of
odious members.
b. Gonzales v. Cabucana, 479 SCRA 320 (2006)
The Courts exercise of its power to take cognizance of administrative cases against lawyers is not
for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties, but to protect the court and the public
against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in his profession.
2. Disbarment as Last Recourse
a. Pantoja-Mumar v. Flores, 520 SCRA 470 (2007)
Disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as reprimand,
suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired.
b. Salomon, Jr. v. Frial, SCRA (A.C. No. 7820, 12 September 2008)
The rule is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the
standing and moral character of a lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. With the view
we take of the case, there is no compelling evidence tending to show that Atty. Frial intended to pervert
the administration of justice for some dishonest purpose. Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches, should not
be decreed where any punishment less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish
the end desired. This is as it should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic life
and honor of the erring person. * SUSPENDED for ONE YEAR]
It is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint
against a lawyer may be acted upon, otherwise, the Supreme Court will be rendered helpless from
vigorously applying the rules on admission to and continuing membership in the legal profession during
the whole period that the criminal
caseEthical,
is pending
final disposition
when the objectives of the two
Lawyers
Leaders
Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 40 of 44
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 41 of 44
incapacitated, albeit such acts really fall short of what is expected from a lawyer.
4. Procedural Safeguards
a. Nava v. Sorongon, 421 SCRA 1 (2004)
In complaints for disbarment, a formal investigation is a mandatory requirement.
b. Uytengsu III v. Baduel, 477 SCRA 621 (2005)
Procedural due process demands that respondent lawyer should be given an opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses against him. He enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the
charges against him until the contrary is proved. The case must be established by clear, convincing and
satisfactory proof.
c. Guevarra v. Eala, 529 SCRA 1 (2007)
Clearly preponderant evidence i.e., that the evidence adduced by one party which is more
conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the other
is the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.
5. Imprescriptibility
a. Heck v. Santos,, 423 SCRA 329 (2004)
The qualification of good moral character is a requirement which is not dispensed with upon
admission to membership of the bar. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain ones good standing in the
profession. It is a continuing requirement to the practice of law and therefore does not preclude a
subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning ones mental or moral
fitness before he became a lawyer. This is because his admission to practice merely creates a rebuttable
presumption that he has all the qualifications to become a lawyer. Possession of good moral character
is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law.
An administrative complaint against an erring lawyer who was thereafter appointed as a judge, albeit
filed only after twenty-four years after the offending act was committed, is not barred by prescription.
If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath they took
as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately come
forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they
ought to answer for. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as
well as the administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of the
commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members
of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement
is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts which
violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers Oath.
Thus, even the lapse of considerable
from the
commission
of the offending act to the institution
LEX time,
REVIEWS
AND
SEMINARS
of the administrative complaint, will not
eraseReview
the administrative
BAR
2009 culpability of a lawyer who notarizes
documents without the requisite authority therefor.
(Cebu)
b. Frias v. Bautista Lozada, 489 SCRA 345 (2006)
The defense of prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers.
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP derives its authority to take cognizance of
administrative complaints against lawyers from the Supreme Court which has the inherent power to
regulate, supervise and control
the practice
of law
in the Philippines.
Lawyers
Ethical,
Leaders
PrincipledHence, in the exercise of its
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 42 of 44
delegated power to entertain administrative complaints against lawyers, the CBD-IBP should be guided
by the doctrines and principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP which provides for a prescriptive
period of two years for the filing of administrative complaints against lawyers runs afoul of the settled
ruling of the Court. It should therefore be struck down as void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires.
6. Miscellaneous Considerations
a. Ferrer v. Tebelin, 461 SCRA 207 (2005)
The act of a respondent lawyer of ignoring the notices of hearing sent to him at his address which
he himself furnished, or to notify the IBP-CBD of his new address if he had moved out of his given
address, betrays his lack of courtesy and irresponsibility as a lawyer.
b. Espiritu v. Ulep, 458 SCRA 1 (2005)
Aside from his patent lack of respect for the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and its proceedings,
a lawyers repeated and obviously deliberate failure to appear in the scheduled hearings revealed an
attempt to wiggle away from having to explain and ventilate his side
c. Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin, 477 SCRA 634 (2005)
Although Rule 139-B, 12(C) of the Rules of Court makes no mention of a motion for
reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its history suggests that such motion is prohibited. It may
therefore be filed within 15 days from notice to a party. Indeed, the filing of such motion should be
encouraged before resort is made to the Supreme Court as a matter of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 43 of 44
2. Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, 540 SCRA 424 (2007)
A lawyer who has lost his citizenship cannot practice in the Philippines. Does his reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of
2003) automatically restore the privilege to practice law?
Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates
membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In
other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners. The exception is when Filipino
citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired
pursuant to RA 9225. This is because all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country
shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225].
Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his
Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Nevertheless, although he is
also deemed never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume
law practice accrues.
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines and he
reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions (he) shall apply with the proper authority
for a license or permit to engage in such practice. Stated otherwise, before a lawyer who reacquires
Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this
Court the authority to do so, conditioned on: (a) the updating and payment in full of the annual
membership dues in the IBP; (b) the payment of professional tax; (c) the completion of at least 36 credit
hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is specially significant to refresh the
applicant/petitioners knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and (d) the
retaking of the lawyers oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a
lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines.
2. Miscellany
a. Heck v. Santos, 423 SCRA 329 (2004)
EXadministrative
REVIEWS AND
SEMINARS
AM No. 02-9-02-SC appliesLto
cases already
filed but the respondents have not yet
been required to comment on the complaints.
BAR Review 2009
b. Maddela v. Dallong-Galicinao, 450(Cebu)
SCRA 19 (2005)
An administrative case against a court official who is a lawyer, based on grounds which are likewise
grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar, shall be considered as disciplinary
proceedings against such official both as a court official and as a member of the Bar.
c. Re: Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Atty. Marilyn B. Joyas, Clerk of Court V,
Lawyers
RTC Manila, Br.
16, 529Ethical,
SCRA 28Leaders
(2007) Principled
Legal Ethics
Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar)
Page 44 of 44
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, the administrative case against respondent Clerk of Court as a
court personnel shall also be considered as a disciplinary proceeding against her as a member of the bar.
She was dropped from the rolls and her position declared vacant, and Fined P
=5,000 for unprofessional
conduct as member of the Bar.
d. De La Cruz v. Carretas, 532 SCRA 218 (2007)
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, the administrative case against respondent judge was also
considered as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the bar. Violation of the fundamental
tenets of judicial conduct embodied in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,
the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics constitutes a breach of Canons 1 and 11
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Certainly, a judge who falls short of the ethics of the judicial
office tends to diminish the peoples respect for the law and legal processes. He also fails to observe and
maintain the esteem due to the courts and to judicial officers. Respondent judge also transgressed Canon
8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he humiliated, insulted or embarrassed
lawyers appearing in his sala. Instead of establishing a cordial and collaborative atmosphere with
lawyers, respondent judge alienated them and effectively disregarded their significant role in the
administration of justice. He was found guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge, for which he was fined
=7,500 and also adjudged guilty of violating Canons 1, 8 and 11 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of
P
Professional Responsibility, for which was fined another amount of =
P7,500.
3. Tan v. Pacuribot, SCRA (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1982, 14 December 2007)
In this case, the Court dismissed the respondent judge for sexual harassment he committed against
a court stenographer and a clerk in the Parole and Probation Office. He was likewise required to show
cause why he should not be disbarred as a member of the Philippine Bar.