A Survey of the 2009-2010 Cases in Legal Ethics Penned by Justice Roberto

A. Abad
COMPILED BY
Prof. Erickson H. Balmes
Heavenly FATHER
Please Fill in the GAPS
Please Fill the BLANKS!
Amen
I.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaintaffidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or
imposition of appropriate disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Edwin Z.
Ferrer, Sr. for filing a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained
abusive, offensive and improper language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon
presented a falsified document in court. The said document purported to be a
notarized document executed at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer.
Moreover, on December 19, 2000, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty.
Barandon saying, Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng
pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado
na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo
taga-rito at the Municipal Trial Court in Daet before the start of a hearing.
The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his
unethical act; yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office
secretary of the IBP Chapter in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of
lasciviousness; and criminal cases for libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon
filed against him.
On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBPCBD submitted to this Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two years
of Atty. Ferrer. The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to
prove Atty. Ferrers violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He attributed to Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the
falsification of the plaintiffs affidavit despite the absence of evidence that the
document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon was a party to it. The
Investigating Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the threatening
remarks imputed to him in the presence of other counsels, court personnel, and
litigants before the start of hearing. On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors
passed Resolution adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioners
recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year.

WHETHER OR NOT THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND THE IBP

INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER ERRED IN FINDING RESPONDENT GUILTY
OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND IF THE PENALTY IMPOSED WAS
JUSTIFIED.
The Supreme Court examined the records of this case and finds no reason to
disagree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and
the Investigating Commissioner.
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of
legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer
to administrative liability.
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and
avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Atty. Ferrers actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he
imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of an affidavit without evidence that the
document had indeed been falsified. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his
charge of falsification in a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive
language against a fellow lawyer. The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use
dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal
system.
Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at
all times. Several disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrers drunken invectives
at Atty. Barandon shortly before the start of a court hearing and Atty. Ferrer failed to
show convincing evidence denying the said charge against him.
All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are
mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct
themselves honorably and fairly. Atty. Ferrers display of improper attitude,
arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a
lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court, was a patent
transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold. Consequently,
the penalty of suspension of one from the practice of law is deemed just and proper
(ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR. Vs. ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR., A.C.
No. 5768, MARCH 26, 2010).
II. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
1.
On April 8, 2006 complainant Roland Ernest Marie Jose Spelmans (Spelmans),
a Belgian, filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao, a complaint for
theft and graft and corruption against respondent Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Judge
Gaydifredo Ocampo (Judge Ocampo) of Polomolok, South Cotabato.
Spelmans alleged in his affidavit that in 2002 his wife, Annalyn Villan (Villan), filed a
complaint for theft against Joelito Rencio (Rencio) and his wife from whom Spelmans

rented a house in Polomolok, South Cotabato. Spelmans claimed, however, that this
complaint was but his wifes scheme for taking out his personal properties from that
house. In the course of the investigation of the complaint, Judge Ocampo, together
with the parties, held an ocular inspection of that rented house and another one
where Spelmans kept some of the personal belongings of his late mother.
During the ocular inspection, Judge Ocampo allegedly took pieces of antique,
including a marble bust of Spelmans mother, a flower pot, a statue, Oakwood
chairs and other items. In the meantime, the Bureau of Immigration happened to
detain Spelmans in Manila and let him free only on January 28, 2003.
The Ombudsman, Mindanao, referred Spelmans complaint against Judge Ocampo to
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In his comment of August 8, 2006,
Judge Ocampo denied the charge, pointing out that Spelmans wife, Villan (the
complainant in that theft case), gave him certain household items for safekeeping
before she filed the case of theft against Rencio. On August 28, 2002, however,
after conducting a preliminary investigation in the case, Judge Ocampo dismissed
Villans complaint.
Only in 2006, according to Judge Ocampo, when he received a copy of Spelmans
complaint for grave misconduct did he learn of the couples separation and his
unwitting part in their legal battles. As a last note, Judge Ocampo said that instead
of hurling baseless accusations at him, Spelmans should have thanked him because
he kept his personal properties in good condition.
On October 17, 2006 OCA found Judge Ocampo guilty of committing acts of
impropriety and maintaining close affinity with a litigant in violation of Canons 1 and
4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Since, under Rule
140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, a violation of Supreme Court rules,
directives, and circulars constitutes a less serious charge, punishable either with
suspension or fine, the OCA recommended the imposition of a fine of P5,000.00 on
Judge Ocampo with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall
be dealt with more severely.
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT OF A JUDGE IN TAKING AND KEEPING
PERSONAL ITEMS BELONGING TO A LITIGANT IN HIS COURT CONSTITUTES
A VIOLATION OF THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT.
While the OCA correctly found respondent judge liable for his actions, the OCA
however, erred in charging him an offense falling merely under Section 11(B), in
relation to Section 9(4) of Rule 140, as amended, which is a less serious charge of
violation of Supreme Court rules, punishable by either suspension from office
without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months
or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. Respondent judge
should instead be made accountable for gross misconduct constituting violations of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Section 6 of Canon 1, Section 1 of
Canon 2, and Section 1 of Canon 4.
Judge Ocampo's defenses on the charges against him were unsatisfactory.

The following may be gleaned from evidence presented. Judge Ocampo does not
deny that he conducted an ocular inspection of the houses that Spelmans used in
Polomolok. But the purpose of this ocular inspection is suspect. Judge Ocampo did
not explain what justified it. Also, If Judge Ocampo's claims that the subject
properties were entrusted to him by Spelmans' wife are true, it would constitute
trust relations between them and should have prompted Judge Ocampo to inhibit
himself from hearing the case. Moreover, by his admission, Judge Ocampo returned
the items only after four years when Spelmans already filed a complaint against
him. He makes no claim that he made a previous effort to return those supposedly
entrusted items either to Villan or to Spelmans. His years of possession obviously
went beyond mere safekeeping.
From the circumstances, his acts were motivated by malice. He was not a
warehouseman for personal properties of litigants in his court. He certainly would
have kept Spelmans properties had the latter not filed a complaint against him. He
was guilty of covetousness. It affected the performance of his duties as an officer of
the court and tainted the judiciarys integrity. He should be punished accordingly.
The Court finds respondent Judge GUILTY of gross misconduct and IMPOSES on him
the penalty of SUSPENSION from office without salary and other benefits for six (6)
months. (ROLAND ERNEST MARIE JOSE SPELMANS Vs. JUDGE GAYDIFREDO T.
OCAMPO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, POLOMOLOK, SOUTH COTABATO, A.M.
No. MTJ-07-1663, March 26, 2010).
Thy WILL be DONE Oh Lord,
LORD Thy WILL be DONE!
AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM!