LEGAL ETHICS COMPILATION BATCH 2
Thus, they should be more sensitive in the
1.MARTIN LAHM III AND JAMES P. CONCEPCION,
COMPLAINANTS, VS. LABORARBITER JOVENCIO LL.
MAYOR, JR., RESPONDENT.
Facts: This case is a verified complaint filed by Martin
Lahm III and James P. Concepcion (complainants) praying
for the disbarment of Labor Arbiter Jovencio Ll. Mayor,
Jr. (respondent) for alleged gross misconduct and
violation of lawyers oath.
David Edward Toze filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
before the Labor Arbitration Branch of the NLRC against
the members of the Board of Trustees of the
International School, Manila which was raffled to the sala
of the respondent. Impleaded as among the party-
respondents are the complainants in the instant case.
Subsequently Toze filed a Verified Motion for the
Issuance of a TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction against
the Respondents. The latters counsel ask for extension
of time to oppose and make a comment to the motion
for the Issuance of TRO/Pr. Thereafter, respondent
issued an order which directed the parties to maintain
the status quo ante. The complainant sought for
reconsideration. Meanwhile, Toze was reinstated and
assumed his former position as Superintendent. The
Illegal Dismissal case was not resolved instead
respondent issued an order requiring the parties to
appear in his office to thresh out Tozes claim of moral
and exemplary damages. Hence, the complainants filed
a complainant for the disbarment of the respondent for
alleged gross misconduct and violation of lawyers oath.
Respondent Mayor argues that the complaint should be
dismissed for being premature and a subterfuge in order
to compel him to inhibit in resolving the said illegal
dismissal case. Based on finding, the Investigating
Commissioner recommended respondent to be
suspended for a period of six months which was adopted
and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its
Resolution. Respondent sought to reconsider but it was
denied, hence, this appeal.
Issue: Whether nor not respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct and violation of lawyers oath
Ruling: Yes, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and
violation of lawyers oath The SC agreed with the
resolution of IBP Board of Governors that the respondent
should be sanctioned. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court provides that a lawyer may be removed or
suspended from the practice of law, inter alia, for gross
misconduct and violation of the lawyers oath. According
to Canon 6 of said Code. Lawyers in government are
public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public
service.
performance of their professional obligations, as their
conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the
public.
2. In re: Financial Audit of Atty. Raquel G. Kho
FACTS: Atty. Kho is a former clerk of court of the RTC in
Eastern Samar. He was found guilty of gross misconduct
for his failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary
funds in his custody. She was fined P10k. Since his
malfeasance prima facie contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Supreme
Court ordered him to show cause why he should not be
disciplined as a lawyer and as an officer of the court. In
his explanation, Atty. Kho admitted that his failure to
make a timely remittance of the cash deposited with him
was inexcusable. He maintained, however, that he kept
the money in the courts safety vault and never once
used it for his own benefit.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of violating Canon 1,
Rule 1.01.
RULING: Yes. Atty. Khos apparent good faith and his
ready admission of the infraction, although certainly
mitigating, cannot negate the fact that his failure to remit
P65, 000 in judiciary funds for over a year was contrary
to the mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93.
That omission 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.
Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
for legal processes
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3. Magdalena Arciga vs Segundino Maniwang
FACTS: In 1970, when Maniwang was still a law student,
he had a relationship with Arciga, then a medical
technology student. They started having a sexual
relationship in 1971. In 1973, Arciga got pregnant. The
two then went to Arcigas hometown to tell the latters
parent about the pregnancy. They also made Arcigas
parents believe that they were already married but they
would have to have the church wedding in abeyance
until Maniwang passes the bar exams. Maniwang
secured a copy of his birth certificate in preparation of
securing a marriage license.
In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar. But after his oath
taking, he stopped communicating with Arciga. Arciga
located his whereabouts and there she found out that
Maniwang married another woman. Arciga confronted
Maniwangs wife and this irked Maniwang so he inflicted
physical injuries upon Arciga.
Arciga then filed a disbarment case against Maniwang
grounded on gross immoral conduct. Maniwang
admitted that he is the father of Arcigas child; that he
did promise to marry Arciga many times; that he broke
those promises because of Arcigas shady past because
apparently Arciga had an illegitimate child even before
her son with Maniwang was born.
ISSUE: Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred.
HELD: No. Maniwangs refusal to marry Arciga was not so
corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. But
the Supreme Court did say that 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. Immoral conduct has been
defined as that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of the
Community.
4. PO CHAM v. ATTY. PIZARRO A.C. No. 5499, 16 August
2005
Upon Atty. Pizarros representations to complainant Po
Cham that a certain parcel of land being offered for sale
to him was alienable and disposable, Po Cham gave Atty.
Pizarro two checks representing the purchase price of
the said property. Po Cham subsequently took
possession of the property and installed a barbed wire
fence at its front portion. Soon after, however, a forest
guard approached him and informed him that the
property could not be fenced for the reason that it was
part of the Bataan National Park. Upon investigation, Po
Cham discovered that the property is not an alienable or
disposable land susceptible of private ownership.
Po Cham demanded the return of the purchase price but
Atty. Pizarro did not heed to the demand. Po Cham
thereafter charged Atty. Pizarro of violation of his oath
as a member of the Bar. The IBP, in its Report and
Recommendation, found Atty. Pizarro to have violated
his oath as a member of the Bar.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Pizarro violated his solemn oath as
a lawyer
HELD:Yes. Atty. Pizarro has utterly failed to substantiate
his documented claim of having irrevocable rights and
interests over the property which he could have
conveyed to Po Cham. Atty. Pizarro must thus be faulted
for fraudulently inducing Po Cham to purchase non-
existent irrevocable rights, interest and participation
over an inalienable property.
The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional
or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor to
thus render him unworthy of the privileges which his
license and the law confer upon him, may be sanctioned
with disbarment or suspension.
5. ABELLA V BARRIOS, JR
FACTS:
Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from
the CA involving a Labor Case. Thus, he filed a Motion for
Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the Regional
Arbitration Branch which the respondent was the Labor
Arbiter. After the lapse of 5months, complainants
motion remained unacted, prompting him to file a
Second Motion for Execution. However, still, there was
no action until the complainant agreed to give
respondent a portion of the monetary award after the
latter asked from the former how much would be his
share. Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of execution
but the employer of the complainant moved to quash the
said writ. Eventually, issued a new writ of execution
wherein complainants monetary awards were reduced
to the effect that it modifies the DECISION of the CA.
Complainant now filed the instant disbarment
complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), averring that respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting money from
complainant in exchange for a favorable resolution; and
(b) issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and
advantage to PT&T, complainants employer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross
immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon
1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.
RULING:
 YES. Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition
against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03
proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or
proceeding or delaying any mans cause for any corrupt
motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly
directed to lawyers in government service, enjoining
them from using ones public position to: (1) promote
private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3)
allow private interests to interfere with public duties. It
is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government
office may be disciplined as a member of the Bar only
when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his
oath as a lawyer.
The infractions of the respondent constitute gross
misconduct. Immoral conduct involves acts that are
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and
respectable members of the community. It treads the
line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to
a high degree, or when committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
communitys sense of decency. On the other hand, gross
misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the
transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere
error of judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court states that when a lawyer is found guilty of gross
immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be
suspended or disbarred. However, the Court takes
judicial notice of the fact that he had already been
disbarred in a previous administrative case, which
therefore precludes the Court from duplicitously
decreeing the same. The court impose a fine in the
amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondents
transgressions to equally deter the commission of the
same or similar acts in the future.
6. NARAG vs. NARAG
Atty. Dominador Narag was alleged to have abandoned
his family for his paramour who was once his student in
the tertiary level. The administrative complaint of
disbarment was filed by his wife, Mrs. Julieta Narag.
Respondent filed motion to dismiss because allegedly
the complainant fabricated the story as well as the love
letters while under extreme emotional confusion arising
from jealousy. The case took an unexpected turn when
another complaint was filed, the wife as again the
complainant but now together with their seven children
as co-signatories. After several hearings, the facts
became clear, that the respondent indeed abandoned
his family as against morals. In addition, the assailed
relationship bore two children.
ISSUE: Is Narag guilty of gross immorality?
HELD: Yes, and so the respondent is disbarred. The
complainant was able to establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the respondent breached the
high and exacting moral standards set for the members
of the law profession. Good moral character is not only a
condition precedent to the practice of law, but a
continuing qualification for all members of the bar.
Canon 7 states that A lawyer shall at all times uphold
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support
the activities of the Integrated Bar. Meanwhile, Rule
7.03 states that A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession. Undoubtedly, the canons of law practice
were violated.
7. In Re Quinciano D. Vailoces AC No. 439 September 30,
1982
FACTS: This is a petition filed by Quinciano D. Vailoces
for readmission to practice of law and the inclusion of his
name in the roll of attorneys after having served his
sentence for being convicted of falsification of public
document wherein the court found that petitioner, as a
member of the bar in his capacity as a notary public,
acknowledged the execution of a document purporting
to be the last will and testament of one Tarcila Visitacion
de Jesus. Presented for probate before the CFI of Negros
Oriental, the genuineness of the document was
impugned by the forced heirs of the alleged testatrix, and
the court finding that the document was a forgery,
denied probate to the will.
On December 1967, petitioner was
granted by the President of the Philippines absolute
unconditional pardon and restored him full civil and
political rights. Since August 1968, petitioner had
repeatedly sought readmission to the practice of law, the
first of which was denied by this Court in a minute
resolution dated August 30, 1968. And he filed another
on December 1977 this time attaching among others
resolution of Negros Oriental Bar Association signed by
78 members thereof endorsing his plea for
reinstatement.
 On January 1978 the Board of Governors
of the Integrated Bar transmitted to the Honorable
Supreme Court for its favorable consideration. The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines subsequently received
a petition dated February 1978 signed by the people of
the Municipality of Bindoy, Province of Negros Oriental
vehemently opposing the reinstatement of Mr. Vailoces
acusing him of having a querida and misbehaviors.
Issue: Should petitioner be reinstated?
Ruling: The court sustains that the petitioner has
sufficiently proven himself fit to be readmitted to the
practice of law. The pardon did not itself warrant his
reinstatement. The Evidence of reformation is required
before the applicant is entitled to reinstatement,
notwithstanding the attorney has received a pardon. The
question for reinstatement is whether the applicant is of
good moral character in the sense in which that phrase
is used when applied-at-law and is a fit and proper
person to be entrusted with the privileges of the office if
an attorney.
8. AC No. 4904, August 12, 2004
ANA A. CHUA and MARCELINA HSIA v. ATTY. SIMEON
M. MESINA, JR.,
FACTS: Ana Chua and Marcelina Hsia were business
partners. Atty. Simeon Mesina Jr. is the legal counsel of
the Chua spouses. The Chua spouses are also lessees of
a building in Burgos St., Cabanatuan and another
property in Melencio St., Cabanatuan. The owner of
these properties is the mother of Atty. Simeon Mesina,
Jr., Mrs. Mesina. Mrs. Mesina mortgaged these
properties in favor of Planters Development Bank to
secure a loan. Mrs. Mesina failed to pay the bank. Her
son convinced the Chua spouses to help her mother, and
in exchange, the Melencio property would be sold to
them at P850/Sqm. The spouses and their business
partner accommodated the request and paid the bank in
the amount of Php983, 125.40. Mrs. Mesina executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale, dated Jan 19, 1985, in favor of
complainants. The complainants were made to pay the
capital gains tax so they consulted Atty. Mesina about it.
He suggested that they execute another Deed of
Absolute Sale, antedated to 1979, before the effectivity
of the law mandating the payment of capital gains tax.
Another Deed was executed by Mrs. Mesina, in favor of
complainants, in the purchase price of Php85, 400,
antedated to Feb 9, 1979. After liquidating the
transactions that occurred, Mrs. Mesina was found to
have an existing debt balance to the spouses in the
amount of Php400, 000. Atty Mesina acknowledge the
obligation to be his and undertook to settle it within two
years. On Jan 21, 1986, a title over the Melencio property
was issued to the complainants. A certain Juanito Tecson
filed an Affidavit in Feb 20, 1986, charging Mrs. Mesina,
the complainants, for Falsification of Public Document
and violation of the Internal Revenue Code.
Tecson alleged he was also a lessee of the
Melencio property and was supposed to also
purchase it along with the complainants
Tecson wants to relate that the Feb 9, 1979 Deed
did not reflect the true value of the Melencio
property and was antedated to evade payment
of capital gains tax
Atty. Mesina proposed that the complainants
simulate a deed of sale of the Melencio property wherein
complainants would resell it to Mrs. Mesina, dated April
1, 1986. A new title was accordingly issued on April 4,
1986 in the amount of Php85, 400.00 in favor of
Felecisima Melencio. The owners copy was entrusted
to complainants. Tecson filed an Affidavit of Desistance
alleging that his filing of the criminal complaint arose
out of mere misunderstanding and difference and that
he had no sufficient evidence. On May 2, 1990, Atty
Mesina approached complainants and told them he
would borrow the owners copy of Mrs. Mesinas titled
with the promise that in 4 months, he would let Mrs.
Mesina execute a deed over the Melencio property in
favor of the complainants. Mrs. Mesina died in the early
part of 1991. Transfer of title was never effected. The
Melencio property was being offered for sale to the
public. The spouses and Hsia filed on Aug 24, 1992 a
complaint against Atty Mesina and his two siblings
before the RTC of Nueva Ecija for Declaration of Nullity
of Sale and Reconveyance of Real Property. At the time
of the filing of this administrative complaint in 1998, the
civil case against the Mesina siblings was still pending. By
Resolution of July 13, 1998, the Court directed Atty
Mesina to file Comment on the complaint within 10 days.
By Resolution of Dec 2, 1998, the Court required Atty.
Mesina to comment on the complaint, noting that the
complaint sent to him at his office in Bel-Air on July 13,
1998 was returned unserved with the notation,
Moved. The Court however considered the Jul 13
Resolution served on Atty Mesina by substituted service
pursuant to Rule 13, Sec 8, Rules of Civil Procedure 1997.
Atty. Mesina was accordingly deemed to have waived
the filing of the required comment. Thru Res of Dec 2,
1998, the case was referred to the IBP for investigation,
report and recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Mesina is guilty of violating
Canon 1.
RULING: YES, he is guilty
Complainants filed on April 1, 2002 their position paper
with
a. photocopies of checks paid to the Planters Dev.
Bank
b. Affidavit of Atty. Mesina acknowledging the
Php400, 000 debt to the spouses
c. Deed of Absolute Sale dated Jan 19, 1985
d. Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 9, 1979 issued to
the complainants on Jan 21, 1986
e. Affidavit of Juan Tecson
f. Deed of Absolute Sale dated Apr 1, 1986, executed
by complainants in favor of Mrs. Mesina
g. Complaint of Chua and Hsia, Facts
2. The Respondent never appeared but the IBP deemed
the case submitted for report and recommendation
given the length of the time of the case. The Court finds
Atty, Mesina is guilty of GROSS MISCONDUCT for
a. Advising complainants to execute another Deed
of Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade
payment of capital gains taxes, he violated his
duty to promote respect for law and legal
processes, and not abet activities aimed at the
defiance of the law; that he intended to defraud
not only a private party but the government is
aggravating.
b. Convincing complainants to execute a simulated
Deed of Absolute Sale wherein they made it
appear that complainants reconvened the
Melencio property to his mother, he committed
dishonesty.
c. Inveigling his own clients into turning over to him
the owners copy of his mothers title upon
misrepresentation that he would, in 4 months,
have a deed of sale executed by his mother in
favor of complainants, he likewise committed
dishonesty.
As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his
client but the business transaction must be characterized
with utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of
good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his
dealings with his client is a much higher standard that is
required in business dealings where the parties trade at
arms length. In fine, the Respondent violated his oath
of office and more specifically Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.Rule 1.02. - A
lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.
9. Khan v Simbillo
A.C. No.5299
August 19, 2003
FACTS: Respondent, Rizalino Simbillo, published
advertisements on different news publications on
different dates regarding his services as an Annulment
of Marriage specialist Petitioner, Ismael Khan, in his
capacity as an assistant court administrator and chief of
the public information office filed an administrative
complaint against respondent for improper advertising
and solicitations of his legal services, in violations of Rule
2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
Court. Respondent admitted acts imputed to him but
argued that his acts for advertising and solicitation are
not prohibited acts. Respondent prays for his acquittal
because of the courts ruling that advertisement of legal
services offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public
policy and public order. The Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) investigated the acts of the petitioner
and found the respondent guilty of the administrative
complaint filed by the petitioner.
ISSUE: W/N respondents published advertisement is a
valid act and does not violate the Rules of Court or the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:NO Pursuant to Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court, the practice of
law is not a business but a profession which duty
to public service, not money, is the prime
consideration. The duty to public service and to
the administration of justice should be the
primary consideration of lawyers.
Elements that distinguish the legal profession
from a business
- A duty of public service, of which the
emolument is a by-product, and in which
one may attain the highest eminence
without making much money
 - A relation as an officer of the court to the
administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity and reliability;
- A relation to clients in the highest degree of
fiduciary
- A relation to colleagues at the bar
characterized by candor, fairness, and
unwillingness to resort to current business
methods of advertising and encroachment
on their practice, or dealing directly with
their clients.
In advertising himself as an Annulment of Marriage
Specialist he undermines to sanctity of marriage. A
lawyer may not properly publish biographical and
informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal
or society program. A lawyer is not permitted to publish
any contents which are likely to deceive or injure the
public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the
profession. Respondent Simbillo is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one year.
10 JUAN DULALIA, JR. v. ATTY. PABLO C. CRUZ
(2007)
The primary duty of lawyers is to be well-informed of the
existing laws, o keep abreast with legal developments,
recent enactments, and jurisprudence, and be conversant
with basic legal principles.
Susan Soriano Dulalia (Susan), wife of Juan, applied for a
permit in the Municipal Government to build a high
rise building in Bulacan. The permit was not released due
to the opposition of Atty. Cruz who sent a letter to the
Municipal Engineers office, claiming that the building
impedes the airspace of their property which is adjacent
to the Dulalias property. Juan Dulalia (Juan) filed a
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo Cruz (Cruz)
for immoral conduct.
Juan also claimed that Cruzs illicit relationship with a
woman while still married is in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Cruz invokes good faith,
claiming to have had the impression that the applicable
provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code, for
while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the
Code shall have retroactive application, there is a
qualification.
ISSUE:Whether or not Cruz violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility
HELD: Cruzs claim that he was not aware that the Family
Code already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in
the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he
came back to the Philippines together with his second
wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as ignorance of the
law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, as opposed to
grossly immoral conduct, connotes conduct that shows
indifference to the moral norms of society and the
opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. Gross immoral conduct on the other hand
must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree.
It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers
is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
the law and legal processes. This duty carries with it the
obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to
keep abreast with legal developments, recent
enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they
be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless
they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be
able to discharge competently and diligently their
obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may
become susceptible to committing mistakes.
The Court therefore concludes that Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is
guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the
practice of law for one year.
11. Trieste V. Sandiganbayan
145 SCRA 508 Legal Ethics Prosecutor Must
Recommend Dismissal of Case If There is No Ground To
Sustain It
FACTS: Trieste was the mayor of Numancia, Aklan. In
1980, during his term, the Municipality of Numancia
purchased construction materials from Trigen Agro-
Industrial Development Corporation. Trieste was
allegedly the president of said corporation. Trieste was
then sued for allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act particularly for willfully and
unlawfully having financial or pecuniary interest in a
business, contract or transaction in connection with
which said accused intervened or took part in his official
capacity and in which he is prohibited by law from having
any interest.
Trieste, in defense, said that he already divested his
interest from the corporation when he took his office as
mayor; that he sold his shares to his sister; he presented
evidence to that effect. The Solicitor General doubted
said sale because it was not registered in the Securities
and Exchange Commission. Further, the advertisement
of Trigen in the local rotary club shows that Trieste is the
president of the corporation.
In time, the old Sol-Gen was replaced by a new one. The
new Sol-Gen gave credit to the arguments presented by
Trieste as it recommended the dismissal of the case on
the ground that Trieste did divest his interest from the
corporation by virtue of his selling his shares to his sister;
that said sale cannot be doubted simply because it was
not reported to the SEC; that sales of stocks are not
required to be reported in the SEC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the recommendation of the
Solicitor General is correct.
RULING: Yes. The Solicitor General is well within his
rights to make such recommendation. A public
prosecutor should not hesitate to recommend to the
court the accuseds acquittal if the evidence in his
possession shows that the accused is innocent. If on
appeal by the accused from a conviction by the trial court
he finds no legal basis to sustain the conviction, he
should not also hesitate to recommend that the accused
be acquitted.
12. PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: The PCGG, established to recover the alleged ill-
gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos, his
family and his cronies, filed with the Sandiganbayan a
complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution,
accounting and damages and sequestration against
Respondents Tan (among others). The PCGG filed a
motion to disqualify Respondent Mendoza as counsel of
Respondents Tan on the basis that Mendoza was then
the SolGen and counsel to Central Bank who actively
interfered in the liquidation of GENBANK which was
acquired by Respondents Tan. Sandiganbayan issued a
resolution denying PCGGs motion to disqualify
respondent Mendoza since it failed to prove the
existence of an inconsistency between respondent
Mendozas former function as Solicitor General and his
present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan
group. PCGG invokes Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which prohibits former
government lawyers from accepting engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service.
ISSUE: Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza. Again,
the prohibition states: A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or employment
in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in the said service.
RULING: NO. Code 6.03 of the Code of ProAfessional
Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza
because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor General
in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter
different from the matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096.
The rule cannot apply retroactively to respondent
Mendoza. Obviously, and rightly so, they are disquieted
by the fact that (1) when respondent Mendoza was the
Solicitor General, Rule 6.03 has not yet adopted by the
IBP and approved by this Court, and (2) the bid to
disqualify respondent Mendoza was made after the
lapse of time whose length cannot, by any standard,
qualify as reasonable.
13. WILFREDO M. CATU vs. ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA
A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008
Facts.Petitioner initiated a complaint against Elizabeth
Catu and Antonio Pastor who were occupying one of the
units in a building in Malate which was owned by the
former. The said complaint was filed in the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th
District of Manila where Respondent was the punong
barangay. The parties, having been summoned for
conciliation proceedings and failing to arrive at an
amicable settlement, were issued by the respondent a
certification for the filing of the appropriate action in
court. Petitioner, thus, filed a complaint for ejectment
against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila where respondent entered his
appearance as counsel for the defendants. Because of
this, petitioner filed the instant administrative complaint
against the respondent on the ground that he committed
an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer
when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the
fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings
between the litigants as punong barangay. In his
defense, respondent claimed that as punong barangay,
he performed his task without bias and that he acceded
to Elizabeths request to handle the case for free as she
was financially distressed.
The complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) where after evaluation, they found
sufficient ground to discipline respondent. According to
them, respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and, as an elective official,
the prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA6713.
Consequently, for the violation of the latter prohibition,
respondent committed a breach of Canon 1. Respondent
was then recommended for suspension from the
practice of law.
Issue. Whether or not Atty. Rellosa violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Ruling. Yes. A civil service officer or employee whose
responsibilities do not require his time to be fully at the
disposal of the government can engage in the private
practice of law only with the written permission of the
head of the department concerned in accordance with
Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.
Notwithstanding all of these, respondent still should
have procured a prior permission or authorization from
the head of his Department, as required by civil service
regulations. For this failure, responded violated his oath
as a lawyer, that is, to obey the laws, Rule 1.01, CPR
and, for not complying with the ethical standards of the
legal profession, Canon 7, CPR. Respondent was found
GUILTY of professional misconduct, SUSPENDED from
the practice of law and was strongly advised to look up
and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.
14. In Re Galang August 29, 1975
FACTS: Victorio Lanueva who was the Bar Confidant
during the 1971 Bar Examination revealed one Oscar
Landicho, a bar examinee, in his confidential letter that
the result of the bar exam of one of the bar examinee
later identified as Ramon Galang was raised before the
result was released to make him pass the bar. Acting
upon said letter, the court called the 5 bar examiners and
the Bar Confident Lanuevo to submit their sworn
statements on the matter. Each of the 5 bar examiners
were approached by Lanuevo with the examination
booklet asking them to re-evaluate the grades of the bar
examiner explaining that it is a practice policy in bar
exams that he will review the grades obtained in all
subjects by an examiner and when he finds a candidate
to have extraordinary high grades in other subjects and
low grade in one subject he can bring it to the examiner
for reconsideration to help the candidate pass. In good
faith of trust and confidence to the authority of Lanuevo,
the examiners re-evaluated the exam of the candidate
and reconsider the grade they give for each subject
matter. Further investigation also revealed that Ramon
Galang was charged with crime of slight physical injuries.
ISSUE: WON Lanuevo has the authority to ask bar
examiners to re-evaluate and re-correct the examination
result of a bar candidate.
RULING: His duty as a Bar Confident is limited only as a
custodian of the examination notebooks after they are
corrected by the examiners where he is tasked to tally
the general average of the bar candidate. All requests for
re-evaluation of grades from the bar exam shall be made
by the candidate themselves. He has breached the trust
and confidence given to him by the court and was
disbarred with his name stricken out from the rolls of
attorneys. Galang was likewise disbarred for fraudulently
concealing the criminal charges against him in his
application for the bar exam while under oath
constituting perjury. The court believed that the 5 bar
examiners acted in good faith and thereby absolved from
the case but reminded to perform their duties with due
care.
15. Leda vs. Tabang [A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992]
Facts: Complainant Evangeline Leda and Respondent
Atty. Trebonian Tabang contracted marriage performed
under Article 76 of the Civil Code as one of exceptional
character. The parties agreed to keep the fact of
marriage a secret until after Respondent had finished his
law studies and had taken the Bar examinations,
allegedly to ensure a stable future for them. Complainant
admits, though, that they had not lived together as
husband and wife. Complainant, thereafter, filed a
Petition for Disbarment against respondent alleging,
among others, for having misrepresented himself as
single when in truth he is already married in his
application to take the bar exam and for being not of
good moral character contrary to the certification he
submitted to the Supreme Court. Respondent averred
that he and Complainant had covenanted not to disclose
the marriage for the reason that said marriage was void
from the beginning in the absence of the requisites of
Article 76 of the Civil Code thus he could not have
abandoned Complainant because they had never lived
together as husband and wife and that when he applied
for the 1981 Bar examinations, he honestly believed that
in the eyes of the law, he was single.
Issue: Whether or not Respondent lacks of good moral
character and violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility
Held : Yes, Respondent's lack of good moral character is
only too evident. He has resorted to conflicting
submissions before this Court to suit himself. He has also
engaged in devious tactics with Complainant in order to
serve his purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon 10
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good
faith to the court" as well as Rule 1001 thereof which
states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent
to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow
the court to be misled by any artifice." Courts are entitled
to expect only complete candor and honesty from the
lawyers appearing and pleading before them.
Respondent, through his actuations, has been lacking in
the candor required of him not only as a member of the
Bar but also as an officer of the Court. Hence, respondent
is subjected to suspension from the practice of law until
further Orders.
16 Castillo vs Padilla
FACTS: Atty. Jose M. Castillo, complainant, seeks the
suspension of respondent from the practice of law for
the use of insulting language in the course of judicial
proceedings.
Complainant was the counsel for the defendants (and at
the same time, one of the defendants) in Criminal Case
No. 13331 for forcible entry before the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Caloocan. Respondent was counsel for the
plaintiff. At the hearing of the case on November 19,
1981, while complainant was formally offering his
evidence, he heard respondent say "bobo." When
complainant turned toward respondent, he saw the
latter looking at him (complainant) menacingly.
Embarrassed and humiliated in the presence of many
people, complainant was unable to proceed with his
offer of evidence. The court proceedings had to be
suspended.
While admitting the utterance, respondent denied
having directed the same at the complainant, claiming
that what he said was "Ay, que bobo", referring to "the
manner complainant was trying to inject wholly
irrelevant and highly offensive matters into the record"
while in the process of making an offer of evidence.
ISSUE: W/N the respondent elicited an improper conduct
for a lawyer
RULING: YES. Respondent was reprimanded.
Among the duties of an attorney are: (1) to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice; and (2)
to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance
no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party
or witness unless required by the justice of the cause
with which he is charged. (Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec.
20 (b) and (f). The Canons of Professional Ethics likewise
exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities between
counsel. (Canon 17.)
Whether directed at the person of complainant or his
manner of offering evidence, the remark "bobo" or "Ay,
que bobo" was offensive and uncalled for. Respondent
had no right to interrupt complainant which such cutting
remark while the latter was addressing the court. In so
doing, he exhibited lack of respect not only to a fellow
lawyer but also to the court. By the use of intemperate
language, respondent failed to measure up to the norm
of conduct required of a member of the legal profession,
which all the more deserves reproach because this is not
the first time that respondent has employed offensive
language in the course of judicial proceedings. He has
previously been admonished to refrain from engaging in
offensive personalities and warned to be more
circumspect in the preparation of his pleadings. (CA-G.R.
No. 09753-SP, Court of Appeals; Civil Case No. C-7790 CFI
of Caloocan.)
The Court, however, notes that in the case at bar,
respondents actuation was triggered by complainants
own manifest hostility and provocative remarks.
Complainant is therefore not entirely free from blame
when respondent unleashed his irritation through the
use of improper words.
WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby reprimanded for his
misbehavior. He is directed to observe proper decorum
and restraint and warned that a repetition of the offense
will be dealt with more severely.c
17. Enrique Zaldivar v. Raul Gonzalez, G.R. No. 79690-
707 February 1, 1989
Facts: Petioner Zaldivar was the governor of Antique and
was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was
the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the case.
Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the
authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases
under the 1987 Constitution. Gonzales proceeded with
the investigation and he filed criminal information
against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper
interview that the Supreme Courts issuance of the TRO
is a manifestation that the rich and influential persons
get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, it is
difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be
given due course published in Philippine Daily
Globe,1988:". Rather, the court sought to convey that
it regarded the contumacious acts or statements (which
were made both in a pleading filed before the Court and
in statements given to the media) and the misconduct of
respondent Gonzalez as serious acts flaunted in the face
of the Court and constituting a frontal assault upon the
integrity of the Court and, through the Court, the entire
judicial system.
Issue: Whether Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.
Ruling: The respondent Gonzalez constitutes contempt
and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of
the Supreme Court.
What Gonzalez seems unaware of is that
freedom of speech and of expression, not absolute and
that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be
adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements
of equally important public interests. Gonzalez, apart
from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a
Special Prosecutor who owes duties of fidelity and
respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the
embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in
the government of the Republic. The Supreme Court
suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the practice of
law.
The Court Resolved to deny the Motion for
Reconsideration for lack of merit.
Additional.info:
G.R. No. 80578. April 7, (1993). Zaldivar v Gonzalez.
(another case) Ruling: Like the prodigal son in the Biblical
story, respondent Raul M. Gonzales comes before Us
repentant. The motion for reconsideration is granted in
that the suspension of respondent Raul M. Gonzales from
the practice of law is hereby lifted. This resolution is
immediately executory.
18. Reyes Vs Chiong Jr.
Facts:Before us is a Sworn Complaint filed by Atty. Ramon
P. Reyes with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court,
seeking the disbarment of Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. for
violation of his lawyers oath and of Canon 8 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.After the Third Division of
this Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
resolved to suspend him. In his Complaint, Atty. Reyes
alleges that sometime in January 1998, his services were
engaged by one Zonggi Xu,a Chinese-Taiwanese, in a
business venture that went awry. Xu invested P300,000
on a Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products
factory being set up by a certain Chia Hsien Pan, another
Chinese-Taiwanese residing in Zamboanga
City.Eventually, the former discovered that the latter had
not established a fishball factory. When Xu asked for his
money back, Pan became hostile, making it necessary for
the former to seek legal assistance.
Xu, through herein complainant, filed a Complaint for
estafa against Pan, who was represented by respondent.
The Complaint, docketed as IS 98J-51990, was assigned
to Assistant Manila City Prosecutor Pedro B. Salanga, who
then issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary
investigation on October 27 and 29, 1998. The latter
neither appeared on the two scheduled hearings nor
submitted his counter-affidavit. Hence, Prosecutor
Salanga filed a Criminal Complaint for estafa against him
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. On April
8, 1999, the Manila RTC issued a Warrant of Arrest
against Pan. Thereafter, respondent filed an Urgent
Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest. He also filed with
the RTC of Zamboanga City a Civil Complaint for the
collection of a sum of money and damages as well as for
the dissolution of a business venture against complainant,
Xu and Prosecutor Salanga. When confronted by
complainant, respondent explained that it was Pan who
had decided to institute the civil action against Atty.
Reyes. Respondent claimed he would suggest to his client
to drop the civil case, if complainant would move for the
dismissal of the estafa case. However, the two lawyers
failed to reach a settlement.
Facts:Whether Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. violated his
lawyers oath and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Ruling: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.Mandated to
maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must
conduct themselves honorably and fairly.Moreover,
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that [a] lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.Respondents actions do not measure
up to this Canon. Civil Case No. 4884 was for the
collection of a sum of money, damages and dissolution of
an unregistered business venture. It had originally been
filed against Spouses Xu, but was later modified to
include complainant and Prosecutor Salanga. We concur
with the IBP that the amendment of the Complaint and
the failure to resort to the proper remedies strengthen
complainants allegation that the civil action was
intended to gain leverage against the estafa case. The
lack of involvement of complainant and Prosecutor
Salanga in the business transaction subject of the
collection suit shows that there was no reason for their
inclusion in that case. It appears that respondent took
the estafa case as a personal affront and used the civil
case as a tool to return the inconvenience suffered by his
client. His actions demonstrate a misuse of the legal
process. The aim of every lawsuit should be to render
justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them.
Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other
lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. A great part of
their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar,
depends upon their relations with their professional
brethren. Since they deal constantly with each other,
they must treat one another with trust and respect. Any
undue ill feeling between clients should not influence
counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each
other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and
offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from
the dignity of the legal profession, but also constitute
highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary
action. Furthermore, the Lawyers Oath exhorts law
practitioners not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue
any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor
consent to the same.
WHEREFORE, respondent is found guilty as charged and
is hereby SUSPENDED for two (2) years from the practice
of law, effective immediately
19. In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys of
Michael A. Medado, B.M. No. 2540, September 24,
2004
Facts: Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his law
degree in the year 1979, took and passed the same years
bar examinations and took the Attorneys Oath, but
failed to sign the Attorneys Roll. After more than 30
years of practicing the profession of law, he filed the
instant Petition on February 2012, praying that he be
allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado said that
he was not able to sign the Roll of Attorneys because he
misplaced the notice given to him and he believed that
since he had already taken the oath, the signing of the
Roll of Attorneys is not urgent, nor as crucial to his status
as a lawyer. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) after
conducting clarificatory conference on the matter
recommended to the Supreme Court that the instant
petition be denied for petitioners gross negligence,
gross misconduct and utter lack of merit.
Issue: Whether the petitioner be allowed to sign in the
roll of attorneys?
Held: Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign the
Roll of Attorneys subject to the payment of a fine and the
imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from
the practice of law. The Court cannot forbid the
petitioner from signing the Roll of Attorneys because
such action constitutes disbarment. Such penalty is
reserved to the most serious ethical transgressions of
members of the Bar. The Court cited three main points
which demonstrate Medados worth to become a full-
fledged member of the Philippine Bar. First, Medado
demonstrated good faith and good moral character
when he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in the
Roll of Attorneys. It was Medado himself who admitted
his own error and not any third person. Second,
petitioner has not been subject to any action for
disqualification from the practice of law. He strove to
adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics of the
profession and that he has prima facie shown that he
possesses the character required to be a member of the
Philippine Bar. Third, Medado appears to have been a
competent and able legal practitioner, having held
various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron,
Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil
Company, and the Energy Development Corporation.
However, the Court cannot fully free Medado from all
liability for his years of inaction. His justification of his
action, that it was neither willful nor intentional but
based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of
judgment was opposed by the Court.
20. Five J Taxi vs. NLRC
Facts: Private respondent Maldigan and Sabsalon was
hired by the petitioner as taxi drivers. The contract was
composed of a 24-hour shifting schedule on 4 days. They
had to make a boundary from 450 (non aircon) and 700
(aircon), adding to that are car washing expense and
deposit for any deficiency in the boundary. Petitioner
learned that Maldigan has been working for another taxi
company, while Sabsalon was held up by armed
passengers. Sabsalon went back to work but failed to
report on several occasions, even leaving his taxi, and
failing to remit his boundary mark. Respondents
requested for the reimbursements of their respective
deposits, but the petitioner refused because of the
repairs incurred by their vehicles. Respondent now files
a complaint for illegal dismissal and deduction; included
therein is the alleged lawyers fee of his representative.
Issue: Whether the deductions were illegal.
Ruling: Yes, the deposits made were illegal. Article 114 of
the Labor Code provides as follows: Deposits for loss or
damage. No employer shall require his worker to make
deposits from which deductions shall be made for the
reimbursement of loss of or damage to tools, materials,
or equipment supplied by the employer, except when
the employer is engaged in such trades, occupations or
business where the practice of making deposits is a
recognized one, or is necessary or desirable as
determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate
rules and regulations. Non-lawyers may appear before
the NLRC or any labor arbiter only (1) if they represent
themselves, or (2) if they represent their organization
or the members thereof. While it may be true that
Guillermo H. Pulia was the authorized representative of
private respondents, he was a non-lawyer who did not
fall in either of the foregoing categories. Hence, by clear
mandate of the law, he is not entitled to attorney's fees.