Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
Lasallian Commission on Bar Operations 2018
LEGAL ETHICS AND PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Justice Del Castillo Digests
Chel Sy Tet Valeza Gel Yatco
LCBO Chairperson Academic Affairs Legal Ethics and Practical
Chairperson Exercises Chairperson
Nico Garcia
LCBO Vice Chair for Janine Tutanes Donna Santy
Internals Rod Zantua Legal Ethics and Practical
Academic Affairs Deputy Exercises Chairperson
Steph Griar Chairpersons
LCBO Vice Chair for Ian Aquino
Externals RJ Cal
Dane Chua
Pat Costales Nolan Domingo
LCBO Executive Secretary Saibert Sison
Legal Ethics and Practical
Ces Naga Exercises Team Members
LCBO Executive Treasurer
Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises Justice Del Castillo Digests
LEGAL ETHICS
FABIE v. REAL
A.C. No. 10574 | 20 September 2016
Practice of Law
DOCTRINE: When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, he must show proof that he still
maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him
FACTS:
Fabie claimed to be the owner of a parcel of land under TCT R 1971 which was donated to him by
his sister.
He wanted to return the property so he engaged the services of Real to facilitate the return of
ownership.
Fabie gave Real the Deed of Sale, Deed of Donation, the Xerox and Original of copy of TCT R- 1971,
other documents, and 40,000 for expenses and professional fee. This is evidenced by an
acknowledgement receipt which had the wrong TCT number (TCT N-129303)
After more than a year, nothing was accomplished by Real. Fabie then asked for the items given to
be returned
Real returned TCT R- 1971but did not return the money and other documents even after demands
made by Fabie.
Fabie filed a complaint against Real
Real’s defense:
He received the mentioned items but they were not given to him to facilitate a transfer but to settle
the estate of Fabie’s father. But they weren’t able to do so.
Since they failed to settle the estate, he returned the items already which was evidenced by another
acknowledgment receipt containing the exact same provisions.
The only reason why they filed the complaint is because he was put in the middle of a family spat
He also attached a copy to TCT N-129303
Real also pointed out that Fabie couldn’t have given to him TCT N-129303 since it was reported
missing and was found later than the time the first acknowledgment receipt was signed.
Fabie’s claims:
The TCT number in the receipt was a typo made by the secretary of Real who typed up the receipt.
Real was able to acquire a copy of TCT N-129303 from Fabies mother and that he’s now using this
photocopy to negate his bad conduct.
Real denied these claims
ISSUE: Whether or not Real should be suspended for violation of Rule 18?
HELD: Yes, the evidence presented by Real was not sufficient to disprove his guilt.
"The Court has emphatically stated that when the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it
is not enough that [he] denies the charges against him; [he] must meet the issue and overcome the
evidence against [him]. [He] must show proof that [he] still maintains that degree of morality and
integrity which at all times is expected of [him]."
Respondent failed in this regard.
Evidence presented by Real is not enough to support his claims. Fabie was able to produce more
convincing evidence.
Because of this, it then appears that his claim that he returned the documents and money is not
credible.
3
ANACTA v. RESURRECCION
A.C. No. 9074 |14 August 2012
Practice of Law
DOCTRINE: One of the qualifications required of a candidate for admission to the bar is the possession
of good moral character
FACTS:
Anacta engaged and paid for the services of Atty. Resurrecccion for petition for annulment of
marriage before the RTC.
Atty. presented to Anacta a supposed copy of Petition for Annulment of Marriage stamped
“received” by the RTC with a docket number.
Anacta did not hear from respondent. So she made inquiries with the RTC and discovered that
there was no petition filed before the RTC.
Anacta terminated Atty. Resurrecccion’s services for “loss of trust and confidence” and requested
the RTC to refuse any belated attempts to file a petition on her behalf.
Anacta, through new counsel, wrote a letter to demand indemnification for damages Anacta
suffered due to Atty. Resurrecccion’s deceitful acts. Atty Resurrecccion failed to respond.
Anacta then filed a complaint before the IBP praying for disbarment for gross misconduct, deceit,
and malpractice.
IBP directed Atty Resurrecccion to submit and answer- he didn’t.
IBP ruled in favour of Anacta finding Atty. guilty of deceit and dishonesty when he misrepresented
having filed the petition for annulment.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be suspended for violations of the CPR?
HELD: Yes, one of the qualifications required of a candidate for admission to the bar is the possession of
good moral character, and, when one who has already been admitted to the bar clearly shows, by a series
of acts, that he does not follow such moral principles as should govern the conduct of an upright person,
and that, in his dealings with his clients and with the courts, he disregards the rule of professional ethics
required to be observed by every attorney, it is the duty of the court, as guardian of the interests of society,
as well as of the preservation of the ideal standard of professional conduct, to make use of its powers to
deprive him of his professional attributes which he so unworthily abused.
The court is vested with the authority to impose suspension in any of the following circumstances:
(1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) wilful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court; or (8) corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority to do so.
Clear and convincing evidence presented by Anacta proves that her allegations were true- that he
committed deceitful and dishonest acts by misrepresenting having filed the petition for annulment,
ignoring communications send to him by his client, and ignoring notices sent by the IBP.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD: Yes, the acts done by Resurreccion are violative of Rule 1.01.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
"The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes but also mandates the utmost
degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their
fiduciary relationship."
4
Clear and convincing evidence presented by Anacta proves that her allegations were true- that he
committed deceitful and dishonest acts by misrepresenting having filed the petition for annulment,
ignoring communications send to him by his client, and ignoring notices sent by the IBP.
ANDRES V. NAMBI
A.C. No. 7158 | 9 March 2015
Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility
DOCTRINE: For there to be gross ignorance of the law, the error must be moved with malice, bad faith,
corruption, fraud and dishonesty.
FACTS:
• Atty. Salimather V. Nambi (Nambi), as a labor arbiter, rendered a decision against M.A. Mercado
Construction and Sps. Maximo and Aida Mercado (Sps. Mercado).
• Sps. Mercado sought to appeal the decision but it was dismissed. As such, an Alias Writ of
Execution was issued against M.A. Mercado Construction to implement the Decision.
• The complainants in the labor case, however, filed an Ex Parte Mortion for Amendment of an Alias
Writ of Execution claiming that they could not collect from M.A. Mercado Construction because
it transferred all its assets to M.A. Block Work, Inc. As such, they pray that M.A. Mercado
Construction be included in the Writ of Execution.
• Atty Nambi found the Motion to be meritorious and issued an Amended Alias Writ of Execution
to enforce the monetary judgement in the amount of P19,527,623.55 against M.A. Blocks Work,
Inc.
• This prompted the stockholders of M.A. Block Works to file a Complaint for Disbarment against
Atty. Nambi for gross ignorance of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Nambi is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing the Amended Alias
writ of Execution?
Held: No, Atty Nambi is not guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
As a rule, for one to be held administratively accountable for gross ignorance of the law, there must be a
showing that the error was gross and patent as to support a conclusion that the actor was so moved with
malice, bad faith, corruption, fraud, and dishonesty.
Based on the order of Atty. Nambi which denied the Urgent Motion to Quash of Andres, Atty. Nambi’s
conclusion had some bases and was not plucked form thin air. Clearly, Atty. Nambi did not act whimsically
or arbitrarily; his ruling oculd not in any manner be characterized as imbued with malice, fraud or bad
faith. His conclusion was reached after an examination of the documents presented and evaluation and
assessment of the arguments raised by the parties. He did not capriciously rule on the issues presented; on
the contrary, he exerted efforts to weigh the positions of the contending parties.
Atty. Nambi should not be held accountable for committing an honest mistake or an error in the
appreciation of the facts of the case before him. Otherwise every labor arbiter or any judicial or quasijudicial
officer for that matter, would be continually plagued with the possibility of being administratively
sanctioned for every honest mistake or error he commits. For sure, this would not augur well to the
administration of justice as a whole.
NOTE: Atty. Nambi was, however, reprimanded for refusing to comply with the lawful order of the court.
Atty. Nambi refused to file a comment despite the court ordering him to do so and he failed to attend the
mandatory conference before the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline.
5
GABRIEL v. RAMOS
A.M. No. P-06-2256| 10 April 2013
DOCTRINE: We require nothing less than the highest standard of morality and decency for each and
every member, from the highest official to the lowest of the rank and file, to preserve the good name and
integrity of courts of justice.
FACTS:
Gabriel filed a complaint against Ramos, who is a sheriff of the RTC of Pasig, for Immorality and
Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Personnel for the ff reasons:
Ramos destroyed personal belongings and fired a gun in the house of his common law wife’s
mother. He was then charged with alarms and scandals and violation of domicile.
Jenelita is Ramos’ common law wife for 15 years and they have 3 children. Such a relationship
offends the morality and sense of decency of the people in the locality; such conduct violates the
constitution
Ramos argument:
He has been living in the house of his mistress’ mom. Hence, no violation of domicile. They were
actually removing their things from the house to transfer to another house nearby which the
mother didn’t like. Hence, she filed this case of violation of domicile.
Ramos admitted the common law relationship with Jenelita but denied that it was scandalous and
shocked the common decency- the 15 year dispels any vestiges of immorality and such
circumstances happened out of his place of work and such is not work related. Hence, he cannot
be subject of any administrative action.
These cases filed are to desist him from pursuing criminal acts against Gabriel.
OCA found him to be liable of immorality for his relationship. He was suspended.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ramos is guilty of immorality?
HELD: Yes, he is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct. He admission and justification of his
relationship is just proof of his immorality.
Immorality has been defined to include not only sexual matters but also “conducts inconsistent with
rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or
shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community, and
an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.”
The fact that he tried to rationalize it shows his moral indifference.
The illicit relationship between a married man and a woman who is not his wife remains illicit – the number
of years don’t matter.
These acts put in question his sense of morality, or the standard of morality he lives by. An officer of the
court, and any employee thereof for that matter, should be above reproach. The very existence of the court,
the institution we represent, is anchored on upholding what is true, right and just. That is why we require
nothing less than the highest standard of morality and decency for each and every member, from the
highest official to the lowest of the rank and file, to preserve the good name and integrity of courts of justice,
lest we be deemed unworthy to represent this honorable institution.
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. VIRGILIO L. MAZAREDO

G.R. No. 201359 | 23 September 2015
6
DOCTRINE: Lawyers should not willfully and intentionally resort to falsehood and deception in order to
misguide, obstruct and impede the proper administration of justice.
FACTS:
Virgilio L. Mazaredo (Mazaredo) is an employee of Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay). He
was assigned to MV Tahitan Princess where he was medically repatriated.
Mazaredo was diagnosed to be suffering from coronary artery disease, three-vessel involvement and he
was made to undergo angioplasty.
After the operation, Mazaredo filed a complaint against Magsaysay for recovery of permanent total
disability and sickness benefits.
The counsels of Magsaysay, Attorneys Herbert A. Tria (Tria) and Jerome Pampolina (Pampolina)
repeatedly attempted to mislead the LA, the NLRC, the CA and the SC that a “Medical Report” was issued
by the company-designated physician stating that Mazaredo’s condition was not work related.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Tria and Pampolina should be subjected to disciplinary action for attempting
to deceive the court?
HELD: Yes, Atty. Tria and Pampolina should be disciplined. Tria and Pampolina continued to refer to the
document “Medical Report” in their pleadings when it appears in truth and in fact that there is no such
document. It would appear, therefore, that such medical report was contrived in order to satisfy the legal
requirement that the company-designated physician must make a definitive assessment of the employee’s
fitness to work in order to justify a denial of disability benefits.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct" (Rule 1.01); he "shall not, for any corrupt motive or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause" (Rule 1.03); he "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 10.01); and he "shall not knowingly x x x assert as a fact that which
has not been proved" (Rule 10.02).
Lawyers should not transcend the bounds of propriety and commit a travesty before the Court by
willfully, intentionally and deliberately resorting to falsehood and deception in handling their
client’s case in order to misguide, obstruct and impede the proper administration of justice.
PLAZA v. AMAMIO
A.M. No. P-08-2559 | 19 March 2010
DOCTRINE: The court and its premises shall be used exclusively for court or judicial functions and not for
any other purpose. As temples of justice, their dignity and sanctity must be preserved at all times.
FACTS:
Plaza (Clerk of Court) filed a complaint against Atty. Amamio, Vasquez (Legal Researcher) and
Patalinghug (Court Stenpgrapher) for allowing a party and raffle draw to be held by Sara Lee
(Beauty and Fashion products) in the Hall of Justice of Argao Cebu in violation of Administrative
Circular No. 3-92 which prohibits the use of the of the Hall of Justice for commercial or residential
purposes.
The respondents did not deny allowing the party to be held and argue that the Hall of Justice had
been used in similar ways in the past claiming that a beauty pageant was held at the front of the
Hall and the ground floor lobby was used; that the Hall had also been used in a Sinulog festival
when onlookers used the stairs and the second floor to watch the parade and performances in the
Plaza.
7
They accused also claimed the Hall is a cultural heritage and the centerpiece of the municipality,
thus the activities which was planned by Sara Lee was appropriate in promoting the municipality
of Argao; that it was appropriate to show the building to visitors who wanted to visit and see the
building. Finally the respondents claim that they acted in the best of their abilities, acted in good
faith, without malice, and had no intention to prejudice the interests of the court.
The RTC made a recommendation of dismissing the case for a lack of substantial evidence to
substantiate the charge while the OCA found to the contrary finding the respondents violated
Admin Circular No. 3-92 by allowing a raffle draw in the lobby of the Argao Hall of Justice,
recommending Atty. Amamoio to be SUSPENDED, Vasquez and Patalinghug
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants disrespected the courts for violating Administrative Circular 3-92
when they allowed Sara Lee to hold a party and raffle draw in the ground floor lobby of the Hall of Justice.
HELD: Yes, the holding of a raffle draw at the Argao Hall of Justice by the staff of Sara Lee degraded the
honor and dignity of the court and exposed the premises, as well as the judicial records to danger of loss
or damage. In Administrative Circular No. 3-92, we have already reminded all judges and court personnel
that "the Halls of Justice may be used only for purposes directly related to the functioning and operation
of the courts of justice, and may not be devoted to any other use
The Argao Hall of Justice is not meant to be used for festivities, and in fact should remain closed to the
public during such occasions.
The contention that there was no danger to the building and the records since the raffle draw was merely
held at the ground floor lobby and that those who attended the raffle draw were decent people, majority
of whom are women, is untenable.
Time and again, the Court has always stressed in pertinent issuances and decisions that courts are temples
of justice, the honor and dignity of which must be upheld and that their use shall not expose judicial records
to danger of loss or damage. So strict is the Court about this that it has declared that the prohibition against
the use of Halls of Justice for purposes other than that for which they have been built extends to their
immediate vicinity including their grounds.
If the building housing the Argao Hall of Justice is such an important historical landmark, all the more
reason why activities, such as Sara Lee raffle draw, should not be held within. At most, the said Hall of
Justice could have been made part of a regular local tour, to be viewed at designated hours, which viewing
shall be confined to certain areas not intrusive to court operations and records.
DAVAO IMPORT DISTRIBUTORS v. LANDERO

A.C. No. 5116 | 13 April 2015
DOCTRINE: An attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and with utmost
diligence
FACTS:
Davao Import Distributors, Inc. engaged the services of Atty. Landero to file a Complaint against for the
recovery of one split type air-conditioner with replevin and damages.
On the scheduled date of pre-trial, Atty. Landero failed to appear. And since he also failed to inform Davao
of the scheduled pre-trial, they too were unable to attend. As a result, the case was dismissed for non-suit.
MTCC issued a Decision ordering Davao to pay moral damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
Without filing a Motion for Reconsideration, Atty. Landero appealed the MTCC Decision to the Regional
Trial Court (RTC). RTC issued its Decision affirming the MTCC Decision.
8
Davao then disbursed money to Atty. Landero so that he may file a petition for review before the Court of
Appeals. Initially, he file for extension. However, he failed to file the same such that the CA dismissed the
appeal.
Hence, a Complaint for Disbarment was filed where Davao asserts that Atty. Landero's actuations of (1)
not appearing in the pre-trial of the case, (2) not availing of the legal remedies against the dismissal of the
Complaint due to non-suit, and (3) failing to file a petition for review, constitute unprofessional behavior
or misconduct and violations of Canon 12 of the CPR, which merit disciplinary action, if not, disbarment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants violated the CPR by neglecting his client’s case
HELD: Yes, a lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. While he owes his entire devotion to the
interest and causes of his client, he must ensure that he acts within the bounds of reason and common
sense, always aware that he is an instrument of truth and justice.
As an officer of the court and its indispensable partner in the sacred task of administering justice, graver
responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show
respect to its processes. Any act on his part which tends visibly to obstruct, pervert or impede and degrade
the administration of justice constitutes professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary
action against him.
CAOILE v. MACARAEG
AC No. 720 | 17 June 2015
DOCTRINE: A motion for extension to file an appellant’s brief carries with it the presumption that the
applicant-lawyer will file the pleading within the requested extended period. Failure to do so without any
reasonable excuse violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.
FACTS:
This is a Disbarment case filed by Caoile against Atty. Macaraeg for neglect and dereliction of duty.
Caoile alleged that:
Along with four others, they engaged the services of Atty. Macaraeg in an action for recovery of
ownership filed before the CFI of Lingayen, Pangasinan;
CFI rendered a judgment AGAINST them, so, Caoile et al decided to appeal before the CA;
Atty. Macaraeg filed a Notice of Appeal; he moved for extension of time to file the Caoile’s brief;
in the last motion for extension, Atty. Macaraeg alleged that he was already in the process of doing
the finishing touches on the brief and just needed to have it printed. Yet, the extended period
expired without Atty. Macaraeg filing any brief.
The CA, dismissed the appeal and such became final and executory.
Caoile et al were not aware of the dismissal until they were served with the CFI’s writ of Execution
and a Notice of Sale at public auction of their property.
When Caoile confronted Atty. Macaraeg about the dismissal of the case, Atty. Macaraeg told them
that it was because he was not paid in full for his services in filing the appeal.
Atty. Macaraeg denied Francisco’s accusation that he neglected their case. He pointed out that:
to push through with the appeal he even advanced some of the appeal expenses.
While he admitted that he failed to submit an appellants’ brief, he averred that the same was
actually the fault of his clients who failed to provide the necessary funds to file said brief.
He constantly reminded Francisco to give him the amount necessary to cover the costs of the
transcript and printing of the appeal brief.
9
He even filed three motions for extension of time to file brief to give Francisco more time to come
up with the said payment. Still, Francisco was unable to pay.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Macaraeg violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD: Yes, if Atty. Macaraeg truly believed that the necessary funds from his clients were not forthcoming,
he could have excused himself from the case. The Code of Professional Responsibility allows a counsel to
withdraw his services for a good cause, including the client’s failure to comply with the retainer agreement.
● A motion for extension to file an appellant’s brief carries with it the presumption that the applicant-
lawyer will file the pleading within the requested extended period. Failure to do so without any
reasonable excuse violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.
● The court, however, dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for disbarment because the complainant
had already lost interest in pursuing this disbarment case against Atty. Macaraeg and that there is
truth in the handwritten notation in the return of the subpoena that Atty. Macaraeg had already
passed away.
SALABAO v. VILLARUEL
A.C. No. 8084 | 24 August 2015
DOCTRINE: While it is true that lawyers owe "entire devotion" to the cause of their clients, it cannot be
emphasized enough that their first and primary duty is "not to the client but to the administration of
justice."
FACTS:
● Salabao filed a case against Lumberio for his deceitful or fraudulent conduct of taking her real
property. Lumberio was represented by respondent Atty. Villaruel.
● The RTC ruled in her favor.
● In order to delay the case, Villaruel appealed to the CA and later again to the SC. The SC still ruled
in favor of Salabao. The decision became final and executory.
● Undeterred, Villaruel further tried to defer the execution of the decision by brining a Petition for
Annulment of Judgment of the RTC to the CA. He lost again and appealed to the SC with clear or
new arguments other than what he had presented before the CA.
● Still, Villaruel filed a Petition for Certiorari seeking to annul the Order of the RTC before the Court
of Appeals which was dismissed.
● He filed a new complaint before the RTC and filed several Motions for Inhibition and Contempt
that were meant to delay the resolution of the case.
● He likewise filed an administrative case against the Judge of the RTC which denied the second
attempt to delay the execution of the SC decision.
● Salabao complained that Villaruel made her suffer because of his abuse of processes and disregard
for her rights as a litigant- that Villaruel had done more than enough to suppress her rights as a
winning litigant and filed this case for abuse of processes pursuant to Rule 10.03 and Rule 10.02 of
Canon 10 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
● Atty. Villaruel denied the accusation and clarified that to his mind, the said his actions are
completely justified under the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants disrespected Violated the CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath.
10
HELD: Yes. He relentlessly filed petitions and appeals in order to exhaust all possible remedies to obtain
relief for his client which is considered tantamount to abusive and a spiteful effort to delay the execution
of Judgment.
A lawyer’s first and primary duty is not to the client but to the administration of justice.
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "A lawyer shall exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice."
Thus, in the use of Court processes, the lawyer's zeal to win must be tempered by the paramount
consideration that justice be done to all parties involved, and the lawyer for the losing party should not
stand in the way of the execution of a valid judgment.
Because a lawyer is an officer of the court called upon to assist in the administration of justice, any act of a
lawyer that obstructs, perverts, or impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies
disciplinary action against him.
DAGING v. DAVIS
AC No. 9395 | 12 November 2014
DOCTRINE: A lawyer cannot invoke, as a defense, good faith and/or non-use of information given by the
client in a disbarment case for conflicting interest.
FACTS:
This is a Disbarment case filed against Atty. Davis.
Daging alleged in her complaint that:
She was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music Lounge;
She leased from Pinlac a building space in Baguio City where she operated the bar;
She received a Retainer proposal from Davis & Sabling Law Office signed by Atty. Davis and Atty.
Sabling.
Such was eventually resulted in the signing by Daging, Atty. Davis, and Atty. Sabling of a retained
Agreement;
The lease was terminated by Pinlac and inventoried all the equipment therein, and informed her
that Balageo would take over the operation of the bar. Hence, she filed an ejectment case against
Pinlac and Balageo before the MTC;
Atty. Davis appeared as counsel for Balageo during the subsistence of said Retainer Agreement.
Atty. Davis DENIED participation in the takeover or acting as business partner of Balageo in the
operation of the bar; Balageo is the sole proprietress of the establishment; It was Atty. Sablong, his
partner, who initiated the proposal and was in fact the one who was able to convince Daging to
accept the law office as her retainer.
Investigating Commissioner rendered a report and recommendation finding Atty. Davis GUILTY
of betrayal of his client’s trust and for misuse of information obtained from his client to the
disadvantage of the latter and to the advantage of another person; hence, recommended that Atty.
Davis be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
IBP Board of Governors adopted such report and recommendation but upon motion of Atty. Davis,
the penalty was reduced to six months suspension considering that there is no proof that Atty.
Davis actually handled any previous legal matters involving Daging.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Davis is guilty of violating Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
11
HELD: Yes, based on the established facts, it is indubitable that Atty. Davis transgressed Rule 15.03 of
Canon 15 of the CPR. (Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.)
A lawyer may not act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or
former client. The prohibition against representing conflicting interests is absolute and the rule
applies even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting
interests.
A lawyer may not act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or
former client.
The prohibition against representing conflicting interests is absolute and the rule applies even if
the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests.
a lawyer who takes up the cause of the adversary of the party who has engaged the services of his
law firm brings the law profession into public disrepute and suspicion and undermines the
integrity of justice.
Indeed, Atty. Davis could have simply advised both complainant and Balageo to instead engage
the services of another lawyer.
CAMPOS v. ESTEBAL
AC No. 10443 | 8 August 2016
DOCTRINE: Atty. Estebal’s act of receiving such substantial sums from complainants without in the least
intending to honor his word to secure the United States (U.S.) tourist visas that he promised to get for them
constitutes a breach of his professional responsibility.
FACTS:
This is a Disbarment case filed by Campos against Atty. Estebal.
Campos alleged that:
Campos engaged the services of Atty. Estebal to assist them in securing tourist visas to the US;
They entered into a Service Contract stipulating an acceptance/service fee of Php200,000.00;
In case no visa is issued, Campos is entitled to a refund of what has been actually paid less 7% thereof;
Campos paid Atty. Estebal Php150,000.00; the two other complainants, Batac and Carpio paid Atty. Estebal
Php75,000.00 and Php120,000.00 respectively. However, unlike Campos, the agreement two other
complainants with Atty. Estebal was not put into writing;
Despite receipt of their monies, Atty. Estebal failed to apply or secure for them the said visas. Thus, they
demanded the return of their monies.
However, despite repeated demands, Atty. Estebal failed to return the said amount.
Hence, they filed this case praying for the suspension/disbarment of Atty Estebal from the practice of law
and that he be directed to return the said amount.
Atty. Estebal averred that:
he suggested that complainants file a collective application, meaning that the complainants, along with
other applicants for a U.S. tourist visa, should constitute themselves into a tour group, so that their overall
chances of obtaining visas for all members of the group would be enhanced;
that he made this suggestion because he believed that the more applicants join the group, the lesser the fees
that would be charged;
that it was agreed that a group of 10 applicants would comprise a tour group;
that although some applicants paid the proper fees and submitted the required documents, others neither
paid the proper fees nor submitted the necessary documents;
that because of this lack of cohesive action, the plan did not push through at all.
12
Atty. Estebal posited that complainants’ demand for the return or refund of their money has no factual or
legal basis at all, especially because he had invested considerable time, talent and energy in the processing
of complainants’ tourist visa applications with the U.S. Embassy.
ISSUE: Whether or Not Atty. Estebal is guilty of professional misconduct for violating Canon 15?
HELD: Yes, Respondent violated Canon 15 for the reason that he was not candid enough to tell the
complainants their chance[s] of getting [a] US visa.
● Instead, the respondent made the complainants believe that they will have a good chance of getting
the US visa if they will be joined with other groups. It turned out to be false. Complainants waited
for so long before the respondent could find other members of the group. In the end, nothing
happened.
● CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS
HELD: Yes, he violated Canon 16, Rule 16.01 because he did not account [for] the money he received from
the complainants, because of this, it became unclear to the complainants how much is the amount due to
the respondent.
SABITSANA v. MUERTEGUI
G.R. No. 181359| 5 August 2013
DOCTRINE: The termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent
an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client on a matter involving confidential
information which the lawyer acquired when he was counsel.
FACTS:
Garcia sold a parcel of unregistered land to Muertegui, whose family members immediately took
possession of the same. This sale was however not registered.
Later on, Garcia sold the same parcel of unregistered land to Muertegui’s family lawyer, Atty.
Sabitsana. This second sale was registered.
Muertegui et al. tried to have the land registered in their favor but Atty. Sabitsana opposed to this.
Thus Muertegui filed a case for quieting of title against petitioners Atty. Sabitsana and his wife,
claiming that they bought the lot in bad faith. It was revealed that Atty. Sabitsana was consulted
by the family before the sale in Muertegui’s favor was executed.
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, declared the sale in Atty. Sabitsana’s favor void.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Sabitsana had purchased the lot in good faith and hence cannot be liable
under the CPR?
HELD: No, Atty. Sabitsana was remiss as counsel to the Muertegui family. Instead of advising them to
register the sale, he took advantage of the situation and bought the same lot and registered it ahead of his
clients. Instead of protecting his client’s interest, Atty. Sabitsana practically preyed on him.
He took advantage of confidential information disclosed to him by his client. He had no right to
take a position, using information disclosed to him in confidence by his client that would place him
13
in possible conflict with his duty. He owed the Muerteguis his undivided loyalty. He had the duty
to protect the client, at all hazards and costs even to himself.
Even if Atty. Sabitsana has ceased to act as the Muertegui family’s lawyer, he still owed them his
loyalty. The termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client on a matter involving
confidential information which the lawyer acquired when he was counsel.
MALANGAS v. ZAIDE
A.C. No. 10675 | 31 May 2016
DOCTRINE: A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client
and deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
FACTS:
Malangas engaged the legal services of Atty. Zaide in a complaint for damages amounting to 5m.
Malangas then gave Atty. Zaide the ff amounts after being made to believe that such were the
amounts necessary to commence a 5m suit.
20,000 acceptance fee
50,000 filing fee.
Atty. Zaide commenced the suit in the RTC and even gave a copy of the complaint which was
stamped ‘received’ by the RTC.
Malangas found out that the complaint was dismissed for failure to prosecute
Atty. Zaide deliberately failed to attend two hearings and
Failed to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss even after being given an extension.
Malangas asked Atty. Zaide to file a motion for reconsideration but Zaide instead filed a
withdrawal of appearance leaving Malangas without counsel
Malangas asked for the return of the 20,000 and an accounting of the docket fees paid to the RTC.
To which Atty. Zaide only replied that “he was made to understand that the ‘docket fee; in the case
was part of the claims’- he didn’t return the money or give any accounting.
Malangas sent a relative to the RTC and found out that Atty. Zaide only filed claims for only
250,000 and not 5m. And that out of the 50,000 filing fees, Zaide only paid 2,623.60 to the RTC
Malangas then filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Zaide for commiting acts of
dishonesty etcetc, in violation of the canons of judicial ethics
Atty. Zaide claimed that he didn’t receive any acceptance fee only appearance fees.
IBP: ruled in favor of Malangas after finding that Zaide had actually received payments for his
services.
ISSUE: Whether or not Zaide is guilty of professional misconduct, and for violating canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes, Respondent lawyers refusal to account for the funds given to him, especially his refusal to
return the amount paid in excess of what was required as docket fees, clearly violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03
of the CPR, to wit:
Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy
his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien
to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules
of Court.
14
The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing
with the moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their fiduciary relationship. Any lawyer who does not
live up to this duty must be prepared to take the consequences of his waywardness.
By his deliberate failure to file a Comment on or Opposition and by his failure to appear at the hearings,
he unduly delayed the case. These failings are clearly offensive to Rules 18.0327 and 18.0428 of the CPR.
A.C. No. 9074 |14 August 2012
DOCTRINE: : A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
FACTS:
and malpractice.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 16of the CPR?
HELD: Yes, it is thus clear that respondent violated his lawyer’s oath and code of conduct when he
withheld the amount of ₱ 42,000.00 despite his failure to render the necessary legal services and after
complainant demanded its return. He must therefore be directed to return the same.
Rule 16.01 of the CPR states: A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client.
Rule 16.03 states: A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
VIRAY v. SANICAS
A.C. No. 7337 | 29 September 2014
DOCTRINE: Refusal and failure to render an accounting and return the money after demand made by the
client raises the presumption that he converted it to his own use. The unjustified withholding of the funds
also warrants the imposition of disciplinary action against him.
FACTS:
Viray engaged the services of Atty. Sanicas in a labor case against Lopez. Lopez, in that case, was
ordered to pay Viray a total amount of 189, 491.60.
15
Atty. Sanicas received payments from Lopez on behalf of Viray on nine separate occasions for
almost 3 months without informing Viray or even giving him an accounting thereon.
An alias writ of execution was issued for the payment of the award due to Viray.
During the implementation for such writ, Viray found out that Atty. Sanicas had already collected
95,000.
Viray claims that Atty. Sanicas misrepresented that he was authorized to receive payments in his
behalf.
Viray made several demands to remit to him the amount of 95,000 less attorney’s fees of 20,000.
But Atty. Sanicas ignored these.
Viray then filed a complaint in the barangay but the summons was ignored by Atty. Sanicas
Atty. Sanicas argues that he is authorized to receive the money and entitled to receive the amounts
because of an agreement with Viray that he would be receiving additional attorneys fees and be
reimbursed for expenses incurred in the duration of his service.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Sanicas is guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to promptly account to
his client the funds received in the course of his professional engagement and return the same upon
demand.
HELD: Yes, refusal and failure to render an accounting and return the money after demand made by the
client raises the presumption that he converted it to his own use. The unjustified withholding of the funds
also warrants the imposition of disciplinary action against him.
There is no proof of the agreement between the parties with regard to the authority to receive the money.
But even present this proof, the same does not exempt him from his duty or informing his client the
amounts he received in the course of his employment.
The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel and client imposes on a lawyer the duty to account
for the money or the property received for or from the client. He is obliged to render a prompt accounting
of all the property and money he has collected for his client.
Atty. Sanicas’ failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and upon demand
violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral soundness, and warrants
the imposition of disciplinary action.
SPOUSES WARRINER v. ATTY. DUBLIN

A.C. No. 5239 | 18 November 2013
DOCTRINE: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
FACTS:
Spouses Warriner sought the services of Atty. Dublin in the filing of a complaint for damages in
the RTC. During the proceedings, Atty. Dublin requested the court for a period of 10 days within
which to submit his formal offer of documentary evidence but belatedly filed the same. He also
did not oppose the other party’s motion to dismiss, which eventually led to the dismissal of the
case. He was allowed an extension of 30 days within which to file his Comment but after two years,
he has not yet filed one so the court issued a show-cause order.
In his comment belatedly filed 8 years after the prescribed period, Atty. Dublin claimed that he
should not be held administratively liable for filing a belated formal offer of documentary evidence
because he only did so to protect the legal profession as he averred that Warriner authored the
damage to his own property by draining the soil erosion prevention ditches.
16
The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Dublin guilty of mishandling the case, in violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP Board of Governors affirmed, recommending
suspension of the practice of law for 1 year.
Atty. Dublin claimed that his failure to timely file comment on the administrative case does not
constitute defiance of the Court’s directives but was an expression of frustration with the Court
when it entertained an unmeritorious complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Dublin is guilty of mishandling the case, in violation of Rule 18.03 of the CPR?
HELD: Yes, Rule 18.03 provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Records show that the 10–day period given to Atty. Dublin to submit his formal offer of documentary
evidence pursuant to the RTC Order dated November 11, 1997 lapsed without any compliance from him.
Instead of asking the RTC to set aside the Order, he filed a motion to admit the belated formal exhibits.
Atty. Dublin deliberately mishandled the case because he believed that the exhibits were fabricated. If he
believes that the exhibits to be presented in evidence by his clients were fabricated, then he has the option
to withdraw from the case based on Canon 22.
Furthermore, Atty. Dublin propensity to disobey and disrespect court orders and processes. There were
also contradictions in his statements before the court. Thus, the penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for six months is proper.
CABAUATAN v. VENIDA
G.R. No. 10043 | 20 November 2013
DOCTRINE: Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family
makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just
to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society.
FACTS:
Cabauatan alleged that she was the appellant in another case originally handled by a different
lawyer but she decided to change her counsel and engage the services of Venida.
When Cabauatan was following up on the status of the case, Venida assured her that he was doing
his best in dealing with the case.
Later on, Cabautan lost contact with Venida.
CA informed her that her appeal had been abandoned and her case dismissed because Venida
never submitted his Entry of Appearance with the CA and did not submit any pleading with the
CA
Cabauatan then filed this Disbarment case against Venida for gross, reckless and inexcusable
negligence.
IBP directed Venida to file his answer however Venida failed to file such.
The parties were directed to submit their Manadatory Conference Brief but only Cabautan
submitted. Venida failed to also appear in the mandatory conference.
The conference was reset, but, still, Venida failed to appear and thus, he was deemed to have
waived his right to be present and submit evidence in his behalf.
ISSUE: Whether or not Venida was negligent in handling the case of his client in violation of Canon 18 of
the CPR?
17
HELD: Yes, when a lawyer takes a clients’ cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in
protecting the latter’s rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good
father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him
answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society.
Venida neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by his client, Cabautan, and he is liable therefor.
This is a clear violation of Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
enjoins lawyers to keep their clients informed of the status of their case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the clients’ request for information.
In addition, Venida is also guilty of disregarding IBP notices and orders when he failed to file his
Answer, to attend the mandatory conference, and to file his Position Paper despite receipt of the
corresponding notices.
His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for 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.
Atty. Freddie A. Venida is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year.
FAJ CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. SAULOG

G.R. No. 200759 | 25 March 2015
DOCTRINE: The mistakes of counsel bind the client, except in cases of gross or palpable negligence of
counsel.
FACTS:
FAJ Construction and Saulog entered into a construction agreement for the construction of a
residential building whereby payment to FAJ Construction shall be on a progress billing basis.
Construction of the building commenced and Saulog made initial payments but refused to make
further payments, prompting FAJ Construction to terminate the construction contract.
FAJ Construction sent demand letters and Saulog replied that the former should be held liable
instead because its work was defective. This led FAJ Construction to file an action for collection of
sum of money with the RTC.
Saulog claimed that while she religiously paid, FAJ Construction’s work was defective so she
incurred substantial expenses for the repair of the building and for the finalization of the
construction.
During the scheduled hearing, FAJ’s counsel and witness failed to appear so the RTC dismissed
the case. FAJ Construction filed a MR, claiming that its counsel failed to appear because of arthritis
which was granted but they both failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing again.
FAJ Construction once again moved for postponement, but failed to appear for the continuation of
the trial. RTC then issued an Order striking off the direct testimony of FAJ Construction’s witness
from the record.
CA affirmed the RTC decision, holding that FAJ Construction adopted a pattern of delay and was
guilty of employing dilatory maneuvers and of trifling with Saulog’s right to speedy dispensation
of justice.
SC dismissed the petition for review on certiorari for failure to submit a verified statement of
material date of filing the MR of the CA judgment. It became final and executory.
As to Saulog’s counterclaim, the RTC ordered FAJ Construction to pay Saulog.
CA affirmed, ruling that FAJ Construction cannot be excused from the actions of its counsel since
it is likewise a settled rule that mistakes of counsel binds the client. It is only in case of gross or
18
palpable negligence of counsel when courts must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered
thereby
ISSUE: Whether or not FAJ Construction should not be punished for the negligence of its counsel?
HELD: No, FAJ Construction was itself neglectful of its duties relative to its case, and it continued to retain
the services of its counsel which it now conveniently claims to be negligent, even after repeatedly suffering
from the latter’s claimed lack of care.
It appears that despite witnessing firsthand the caliber of its lawyer during the initial presentation of its
evidence in 2003, FAJ Construction changed counsel only after the trial court’s January 30, 2006 Decision
on Saulog’s counterclaim.
Thus, the general rule still applies that the mistakes of counsel bind his client.
CHUA v. JIMENEZ
A.C. No. 9880 | 3 November 2016
DOCTRINE: A lawyer does not have a right to hold on to his client’s documents due to nonpayment of his
fees; when a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render
an accounting to his client, showing that he spent the money for the purpose intended.
FACTS:
• This is a Disbarment case filed against Atty. Jimenez for grave misconduct, malpractice,
dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.
• The complaint alleged that:
o Complainant entered into a retainership agreement with Atty. Jimenez for the latter to
handle all his legal problems, with particular emphasis on those that needed filing in the
courts. For these, he gave Atty. Jimenez the amount of Php235,127.00 for the necessary
filing fees;
o All pertinent documents were also entrusted to Atty. Jimenez;
o For the last seven years prior, he had never attended a single hearing on any case that he
had assigned to respondent, save for two in which case he was a defendant;
o Respondent allegedly would advise him of upcoming hearings only to cancel them last
minute due purportedly to cancellations, postponements, or resettings of the hearings;
o He had written several times for the return of the documents he had entrusted to
respondent as well as the amount of Php245,127;
o He terminated respondent’s legal services for failure to file the necessary cases
• Atty Jimenez denied the charges and alleged that he had been pressuring the complainant for the
payment of professional services rendered by his law firm amounting to Php1,300,000.00. Because
of this non-payment/failure to arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement for the payment of his
professional fees, he has withheld the filing of the cases. Atty. Jimenez also denied receiving the
amount of Php235,127.00.
19
• The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Jimenez guilty of violating the CPR, particularly
Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 as well as Canon 22, Rule 22.02 and recommended that Atty.
Jimenez be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months.
• IBP Board of Governors modified the recommended penalty to suspension of one (1) year. (MR,
adopted IC’s penalty of 3 months)
ISSUE: Whether or Not Atty. Jimenez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when he failed to
file the cases indorsed by complainant despite receipt of filing fees?
HELD: Yes, Atty. Jimenez is found guilty of violation of the CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath and is hereby
suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months
• The respondent’s issue on the supposed nonpayment of his fees should have prompted him to seek
communication with complainant and resolve such matter. He should not have used the same as
a ground for his inaction insofar as the cases referred to him were concerned. A lawyer’s negligence
in the discharge of his obligations arising from the relationship of counsel and client may cause
delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant particularly his client.
CAMPOS v. ESTEBAL
AC No. 10443 | 8 August 2016
Legal and Judicial Ethics and Practical Exercises – Legal Ethics - Duties and Responsibilities of a
Lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility
DOCTRINE: Atty. Estebal’s act of receiving such substantial sums from complainants without in the least
intending to honor his word in fulfilling his promise constitutes a breach of his professional responsibility.
FACTS:
● This is a Disbarment case filed by Campos against Atty. Estebal.
● Campos alleged that:
o Campos engaged the services of Atty. Estebal to assist them in securing tourist visas to the
US;
o They entered into a Service Contract stipulating an acceptance/service fee of
Php200,000.00;
o In case no visa is issued, Campos is entitled to a refund of what has been actually paid less
7% thereof;
o Campos paid Atty. Estebal Php150,000.00; the two other complainants, Batac and Carpio
paid Atty. Estebal Php75,000.00 and Php120,000.00 respectively. However, unlike Campos,
the agreement two other complainants with Atty. Estebal was not put into writing;
o Despite receipt of their monies, Atty. Estebal failed to apply or secure for them the said
visas. Thus, they demanded the return of their monies.
o However, despite repeated demands, Atty. Estebal failed to return the said amount.
o Hence, they filed this case praying for the suspension/disbarment of Atty Estebal from the
practice of law and that he be directed to return the said amount.
● Atty. Estebal averred that:
o he suggested that complainants file a collective application, meaning that the
complainants, along with other applicants for a U.S. tourist visa, should constitute
themselves into a tour group, so that their overall chances of obtaining visas for all
members of the group would be enhanced;
20
o that he made this suggestion because he believed that the more applicants join the group,
the lesser the fees that would be charged;
o that it was agreed that a group of 10 applicants would comprise a tour group;
o that although some applicants paid the proper fees and submitted the required documents,
others neither paid the proper fees nor submitted the necessary documents;
o that because of this lack of cohesive action, the plan did not push through at all.
o Atty. Estebal posited that complainants’ demand for the return or refund of their money
has no factual or legal basis at all, especially because he had invested considerable time,
talent and energy in the processing of complainants’ tourist visa applications with the U.S.
Embassy.
HELD: Yes, he attorney’s fees that he collected from the complainants are excessive and unreasonable.
Considering the degree of work and number of hours spent, the amount he collected from the complainants
is not commensurate to the degree of services rendered. Obviously, respondent took advantage of the
weakness of the complainants in their desire to go the United States.
There is hardly any doubt that Atty. Estebal’s act of receiving such substantial sums from complainants
without in the least intending to honor his word to secure the U.S. tourist visas that he promised to get for
them constitutes a breach of his professional responsibility. It was both a refusal and a failure to give
complainants their due; it was also both a refusal and a failure to observe honesty and good faith in his
dealings with them. Indeed, Atty. Estebal acted unjustly; he denied complainants their due; and he
displayed unmitigated dishonesty and bad faith in his professional and personal relations with
complainants.
CHUA v. JIMENEZ
A.C. No. 9880 | 8 November 2016
DOCTRINE: A lawyer does not have a right to hold on to his client’s documents due to nonpayment of his
fees.
FACTS:
This is a Disbarment case filed against Atty. Jimenez for grave misconduct, malpractice, dishonesty, and
conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.
The complaint alleged that:
Complainant entered into a retainership agreement with Atty. Jimenez for the latter to handle all his legal
problems, with particular emphasis on those that needed filing in the courts. For these, he gave Atty.
Jimenez the amount of Php235,127.00 for the necessary filing fees;
All pertinent documents were also entrusted to Atty. Jimenez;
For the last seven years prior, he had never attended a single hearing on any case that he had assigned to
respondent, save for two in which case he was a defendant;
Respondent allegedly would advise him of upcoming hearings only to cancel them last minute due
purportedly to cancellations, postponements, or resettings of the hearings;
He had written several times for the return of the documents he had entrusted to respondent as well as
the amount of Php245,127;
He terminated respondent’s legal services for failure to file the necessary cases
Atty Jimenez denied the charges and alleged that he had been pressuring the complainant for the payment
of professional services rendered by his law firm amounting to Php1,300,000.00. Because of this non-
21
payment/failure to arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement for the payment of his professional fees,
he has withheld the filing of the cases. Atty. Jimenez also denied receiving the amount of Php235,127.00.
The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Jimenez guilty of violating the CPR, particularly Canon 18,
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 as well as Canon 22, Rule 22.02 and recommended that Atty. Jimenez be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of three months.
IBP Board of Governors modified the recommended penalty to suspension of one (1) year. (MR, adopted
IC’s penalty of 3 months)
ISSUES: Whether or not Atty. Jimenez has a right to hold on to his client’s documents, even after the
relationship of lawyer-client has been terminated, due to nonpayment of his or her legal fees?
HELD: No.
• Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responibility states that “A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which
the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter,
including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.”
• In this case, the court applied the En Banc case of Fabie v. Atty. Real, 803 SCRA 388 (2016), where
the Court suspended the errant lawyer from the practice of law for six (6) months for failing to
return the documents and money entrusted to him by his client. At the same time, he was ordered
to return the money with legal interest from the time he received the same until full payment
thereof.
• As such, Atty. Jimenez was ordered to return to complainant the pertinent records and documents,
and the fees paid to him with interest of 12% per annum reckoned from the respective date of
receipt.
A.C. No. 9074 |14 August 2012
Suspension, Disbarment and Discipline of Lawyers
DOCTRINE: Violations of the lawyers oath and code of conduct falls within the Court disciplinary
authority.
FACTS:
and malpractice.
22
ISSUE: Whether or not the case falls within the disciplinary authority of the Court?
HELD: Yes, if the matter involves violations of the lawyers oath and code of conduct, then it falls within
the Court disciplinary authority.
However, if the matter arose from acts which carry civil or criminal liability, and which do not directly
require an inquiry into the moral fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of a
judicial action which is understandably outside the purview of the Courts disciplinary authority.
Thus, we hold that when the matter subject of the inquiry pertains to the mental and moral fitness of the
respondent to remain as member of the legal fraternity, the issue of whether the respondent be directed to
return the amount received from his client shall be deemed within the Courts disciplinary authority.
DALMACIO-JOAQUIN v. DE LA CRUZ
A.M. No. P-06-2241 | 10 July 2012
DOCTRINE: Dishonesty is not simply bad judgment or negligence. Dishonesty is a question of intention.
FACTS:
Judge Dalmacio-Joaquin alleged that Dela Cruz submitted belated and false returns of service of notice
belated return of service of notice:
order dated Nov. 25, 2005 relative to criminal case no. 5744-96 on December 9, 2005 but served the same to
the parties only on March 23, 2006
false returns of service:
in criminal cases 04-0488 and 04-0489, Dela Cruz stated that accused was no longer residing at her given
address
however during pre-trial this was denied by the accused herself
in criminal case 04-0483, Dela Cruz stated in his return of service that accused was not longer residing at
his given address because the house thereat has been demolished
complainant said this wasn’t true. accused was his neighbor and still living there
in criminal case 05-0213, same. Dela Cruz said that accused did not live there anymore.
denied by the 2 accused
Dela Cruz denied all allegations
report of the investigating judge:
Dela Cruz did submit a late order regarding the false entries, the same were NOT deliberately done as he
only relied on his sources
OCA agreed with the investigating judge and also said submitting false returns amounts to dishonesty
ISSUE: Whether or not Dela Cruz actions of submitting belated and false returns amounted to dishonesty
HELD: No, this Court has defined dishonesty as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud.
Dishonesty is not simply bad judgment or negligence. Dishonesty is a question of intention.
The Court agrees with the observation of the investigating judge that Dela Cruz did not deliberately or
intentionally make such erroneous entries. As Dela Cruz explained, he merely relied on the persons whom
he interviewed when he went to the given addresses. The Court is inclined to give credence to said
explanation considering that no ill-motive, malice, or corruption was imputed upon Dela Cruz
Hence, he is guilty only of negligence in the performance of his tasks, and not of dishonesty
23
A.C. No. 9074 |14 August 2012

DOCTRINE: The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial
discretion based on the surrounding facts. The Court is not mandated to automatically impose the extreme
penalty of disbarment upon a finding of deceit or gross misconduct
FACTS:
Atty. Resurrecccion presented to Anacta a supposed copy of Petition for Annulment of Marriage
stamped “received” by the RTC with a docket number.
and malpractice.
IBP ruled in favour of Anacta finding Atty. Resurrecccion guilty of deceit and dishonesty when he
misrepresented having filed the petition for annulment.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred?
HELD: No, suspension is a sufficient sanction.

In any of the following circumstances, to wit: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct; (4) grossly
immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7)
wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; or (8) corruptly or wilfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so; the Court is vested with the authority and
discretion to impose either the extreme penalty of disbarment or mere suspension.
The Court either disbars or suspends them based on its collective appreciation of attendant circumstances
and in the exercise of its sound discretion.The Court is not mandated to automatically impose the extreme
penalty of disbarment upon a finding of deceit or gross misconduct.
The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar.
FELIPE v. MACAPAGAL
A.C. No. 4549 | 2 December 2013
DOCTRINE: The unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of the SC and IBP constitutes utter disrespect
for the judiciary; such is also unbecoming of a lawyer, for 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.
FACTS:
This is a Disbarment case filed against Atty. Macapagal.
Complainants herein charged Atty. Macapagal of dishonesty and alleged that:
24
Atty. Macapagal violated his duty as a lawyer and prayed that he be disbarred and ordered to pay
complainants the amount of P500,000 representing the damages that they suffered;
Atty. Macapagal committed dishonesty when he stated in an Answer that the parties therein are
strangers to each other despite knowing that the defendants are half-brothers and half-sisters of
complainants;
Atty. Macapagal introduced a falsified Certificate of Marriage as part of his evidence;
Atty. Macapagal knowingly filed a totally baseless pleading that is not in accordance with the rules
of procedure; said filing delayed the proceedings in a Civil Case.
Note: Complainants also filed a perjury case based on the grounds mentioned above.
The Investigating Commissioner set the hearing and Atty. Macapagal failed to attend such despite
receipt of notice.
11 years later, the IBP Investigating Commissioner submitted its report and recommended that
Atty. Macapagal be suspended from the practice of law for a month. However, the IBP board of
governors modified such and recommended that Atty. Macapagal be suspended from the practice
of law for a year.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Macapagal committed an act unbecoming of a lawyer when he disregarded
the lawful orders of the Court and the IBP?
HELD: Yes, the unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of this Court and the IBP is not only irresponsible,
but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of
a lawyer, for 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.
Atty. Macapagal was reprimanded for failing to give due respect to the Court and the IBP.
Atty. Macapagal failed to file his comment despite due notice.
With regard to the perjury charges, the court dismissed the complainants’ petition (without
prejudice) because the such will be dealt with in another proceeding.
RODICA v. LAZARO
A.C. No. 9259 | 23 August 2012
DOCTRINE: In suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and
the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove her allegations by preponderant evidence
FACTS:
• William Strong, an American was arrested and detained by the operatives of the Bureau of
Immigration (BOI)
• He sought the services of Atty. Manuel, who is a partner at the M.M. Lazaro and Associates Law
Offices (Lazaro Law Office / LLO)
• During a meeting with LLO, Strong casually mentioned that he has a property in Boracay and that
he suspected his neighbors as the persons who caused his arrest
o he also mentioned that Rodica, his live in partner, filed a complaint before the RTC for
recovery of possession and damages (against Hillview, represented by MOST Law) in
connection with mentioned Boracay property
• Upon inquiry with the BOI, it was discovered that Strong’s arrest was made pursuant to an Interpol
Red Notice; and that Strong is wanted in Brazil for numerous crimes
o Strong then pleaded with Atty. Manuel to expedite his deportation
• In her complaint, Rodica alleged that LLO called up Atty. Tan (of MOST Law), and thereafter, Atty.
Manuel allegedly informed Rodica that Atty. Tan admitted having initiated the immigration case
25
resulting in the detention of Strong; that Atty. Tan demanded for Rodica to withdraw the RTC case
as part of a settlement package
• Rodica also claimed that she is a client of LLO and that she was deceived into causing the
withdrawal of the RTC case
ISSUE: Whether or not the allegations in Rodica’s complaint merit the disbarment or suspension of
respondents
HELD: No, in Siao v. Atty. De Guzman, Jr. this Court reiterated its oft repeated ruling that in suspension
or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests
upon the complainant to clearly prove her allegations by preponderant evidence
• Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior
to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the
court as worthy of belief that that which is offered in opposition thereto.
ISSUE: Whether or not the complainant was denied due process
HELD: No, the Court will outrightly dismiss a Complaint for disbarment when on its face, it is clearly
wanting in merit.
Thus, in International Militia of People Against Corruption & Terrorism v. Chief Justice Davide, Jr.
the Court, after finding the Complaint insufficient in form and substance, dismissed the same
outright for utter lack of merit
In this case, the Court did not dismiss outright the disbarment Complaint. In fact, it even required
the respondents to file their respective Answers
The presumption of innocence accorded to respondents was not overcome
AGADAN v. KILAAN
A.C. No. 9385 | 11 November 2013
Notarial Practice
DOCTRINE: Failure to make the proper entries in the notarial register is a ground for revocation of the
notarial commission. A notary public cannot escape his dereliction of duty by putting the blame on his
secretary.
FACTS:
Mariano Agadan (Agadan) filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines against Atty.
Richard Baltazar Kilaan (Atty. Kilaan) for falsification of documents, dishonest, and deceit. They allege
that:
Atty. Kilaan intercalated certain entries in the application for issuance of Certificate of Public Entry by
substituting the name of Gary Adasing (Adasing) to Joseph Batingwed (Batingwed).
Atty. Kilaan submitted false documentary requirements in support of Batingwed’s application.
Atty. Kilaan prepared a Decision granting the application of Batingwed.
A mandatory conference was conducted wherein it was found:
That the Verification in Batingwed’s application was notarized by Atty Kilaan but the Notarial Registry
indicated that it refers to a Deed of Sale and not the Verification.
Adasing was not abroad as shown by the Affidavit of Adasing in contradiction to the statement of Atty.
Kilaan.
Atty. Kilaan is now arguing that the he delegated the job of recording the documents to his secretary and
the mistake was due to the fault of the secretary.
26
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Kilaan violated the Notarial Law?
Held: Yes, the notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register. Respondents
cannot be relieved of responsibility for violation of the Notarial Law by passing the buck to their secretaries.
Notarization is not an empty , meaningless, or routinary act but one invested with substantive public
interest such that only those who are qualified or authorized to do so may act as notaries public. The
protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be
prevented form inflicting themselves upon the public the courts and the administrative offices in general.
• The inaccuracies in his Notarial register and his failure to enter the documents he admittedly
notarized constitute dereliction of duty as a notary public. He cannot escape liability by putting
the blame on his secretary. The lawyer himself, not merely his secretary, should be held
accountable for these misdeeds.
• Aside from violating the Notarial Law, respondent also violated his Lawyer’s Oath and the Code
of Professional responsibility by committing falsehood in the pleadings he submitted before the
IBP. His claim that Adasing was abroad hence could not corroborate the explanation made by
Batingwed was proved to be untruthful when complainants submitted the Affidavit of Adasing
insisting that he never left the country.
JUDICIAL ETHICS
GARINGAN-FERRERAS v. UMBLAS
A.M. No. P-11-2989 | 10 January 2017
Judicial Ethics
DOCTRINE: Court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants in an
office dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility.
FACTS:
• Ferreras received an email with an attachment purportedly included a certificate of finality (COF)
dated March 24, 2006, of Civil Case No. 33-398C-2006 entitled “Reynaldo Z. Ferreras v Wyna Marie
G. Ferreras” for Declaration of nullity of marriage issued by the RTC
• The COF which bore the signature of Umblas as officer-in-charge (OIC) clerk of court stated that
in the decision, the marriage between complainant and Reynaldo was declared void ab initio on
the ground of psychological incapacity, and also granting complainant custody of their child, and
dissolving their conjugal property regime, had already become final and executory
• Fearing foul play since she had absolutely no knowledge about said case no received any summons
regarding the same, Ferreras asked for a certification from the NSO which confirmed an annotation
on the records of her marriage.
• Umblas denied the material allegations of the complaint, stating that his signature was forged
o he also said that he was no longer OIC Clerk of Court and responsible for such issuances
as he had been replaced prior to the date of issuance
ISSUE: Whether or not Umblas fraudulently, maliciously, and willfully caused the preparation of, and
signed a COF of a non existent case from Branch 33 RTC Ballesteros that led to the declaration of nullity of
the marriage between Ferreras and complainant
HELD: Yes, having affirmatively raised the defense of forgery, the burden rests upon Umblas to prove the
same.
27
• He cannot discharge this burden by simply claiming that no such case was on filed with the RTC
• aside from his bare denial, respondent did not even make any attempt to show that the signature
appearing in the COF was not his signature
• Falsification of an official document such as court records is considered a grave offense. it also
amounts to dishonesty
• Court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants in an office
dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility.
• Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum
SOMBILON v. GARAY
G.R. No. 179914 | 16 June 2014
Discipline of Members of the Judiciary
DOCTRINE: Blatant disregard of basic, elementary, and well-known rules of procedure and law is gross
ignorance of the law.
FACTS:
Sps. Sombilon mortgaged a property they owned to PNB. This was foreclosed and sold at public
auction. The redemption period lapsed but it was not redeemed.
Later, Sps. Sombilon sought the help of Atty. Garay, telling him they wanted to reacquire the lot.
They went to PNB to inquire about the property.
However, the next day, Atty. Garay went to the bank alone and offered to buy the property for
himself. Learning this, Sps. Sombilon offered to buy back the property.
PNB decided to approve the offer of Atty. Garay since Sps. Sombilon failed to make the down
payment.
PNB filed a petition for issuance of a writ of possession, which the RTC granted.
Sps. Sombilon filed an MR, which the RTC Judge Venadas granted, holding in abeyance the
implementation of the writ of possession.
Atty. Garay then filed a complaint against Judge Venadas charging him with Grave Abuse of
Authority and Grave Misconduct when he proceeded with the hearing of Sps. Sombilon’s MR
despite lack of notice to PNB, thus ignoring Secs. 4-6 of Rule 15 of the RoC.
The OCA found Judge Venadas administratively liable for grave abuse of authority bordering on
gross ignorance of procedure.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Venadas is guilty of grave abuse of authority for proceeding with the hearing
of Sps. Sombilon’s MR despite without notice to PNB.
HELD: Yes, Judge Venadas is guilty of grave abuse of authority bordering on gross ignorance of procedure.
Blatant disregard of basic, elementary, and well-known rules of procedure and law is gross ignorance of
the law, which is classified as a serious charge punishable by either dismissal from service, suspension for
more than three months but not exceeding six months, or a fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding
P40,000.
Thus, in view of his blatant disregard of the rules and his grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
assailed Order, and considering that this is his first offense, Judge Venadas is guilty of grave abuse
of authority bordering on gross ignorance of the law and is fined the amount of P20,000.
BENANCILLO v. AMILA
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2149 | 09 March 2011
28
DOCTRINE: Judges are held to higher standards of integrity and ethical conduct than attorneys and other
persons not vested with public trust.
FACTS:
Benancillo avers that the Judge Amila of the RTC issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
against her live-in partner which included a directive to turn over to her personal effects, including
properties in their diving business.
The Benancillo states that the Amila constantly ruled in her favor but Amila refused to enforce the
TPO.
Amila called Benancillo and her counsel to a meeting in Amila’s chambers but they did not proceed
when Benancillo learned that intervenors were joining them.
Amila later issued an Order rescinding the initial order granting the TPO.
Benancillo argues that Judge Amila’s conduct smacks of impropriety and partiality.
Benancillo then charged the judge with grave abuse of discretion, gross ignorance of the law and
procedure and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment/order for issuing the questioned Orders.
OCA found that Judge Amila acted inappropriately for:
calling for a meeting in his chambers
using derogatory and irreverent language in presenting complainant as an opportunist, a mistress
in an illegitimate relationship, and that she was motivated by insatiable greed.
Amila explained that he called for the meeting in his chambers because he wanted to advice the
parties that he will rescind his initial order granting the TPO.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Amila, is found guilty of impropriety?
HELD: Yes.
• Calling meeting to his chambers
o Judge Amila acted inappropriately in calling for a meeting inside his chambers. This act
would logically create an impression to Benancillo that the meeting of the judge with the
intervenors had turned his views around towards issuing a revocation of the initial Order.
• For derogatory and irreverent language.
o It is reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, litigant or witness. The act betrays
lack of patience, prudence and restraint. Thus, a judge must at all times be temperate in
his language. He must choose his words, written or spoken, with utmost care and
sufficient control. The wise and just man is esteemed for his discernment. Pleasing speech
increases his persuasiveness.
• The Code recognizes that even acts that are not per se improper can nevertheless be perceived by
the larger community as such. Be it stressed that judges are held to higher standards of integrity
and ethical conduct than attorneys and other persons not [vested] with public trust.
LAUREL v. VARDELEON
G.R. No. 202967| 5 August 2015
DOCTRINE: The unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms
of judicial conduct and constitutes a ground for administrative sanction.
FACTS:
Petitioner Laurel filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership and/or quieting of
title against respondent Vardeleon.
29
Vardeleon moved to correct the Pre-Trial Order, in order to reflect therein Laurel’s supposed
admission made during pretrial that she knew of Vardeleon’s possession of the subject property
since 1975.
August 19, 2005: The RTC denied Vardeleon’s motion so he filed an MR but the RTC did not act
on such.
Laurel moved to reset the hearing.
September 2, 2005: The RTC granted the motion provided that Laurel defrays the transportation
expenses as well as the appearance fee of Vardeleon’s counsel. Laurel likewise filed an MR but the
RTC also did not act on it.
October 12, 2005: During the scheduled hearing, Laurel moved to postpone trial on the ground
that there are pending motions that have to be resolved. However, the RTC denied this motion as
well as the 2 pending MR’s.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC was remiss in its duty to act on the two pending motions before it.
HELD: Yes, it appears that the RTC did not even grant the parties the opportunity to comment respectively
on these motions, and instead simply summarily denied them in open court during the scheduled hearing.
The trial court should be reminded that the unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident
is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes a ground for administrative sanction against
the defaulting magistrate.
OCA v. GUAN
A.M. No. P-07-2293 | 15 July 2015
DOCTRINE: Any shortages in the amounts to be remitted and the delay in the actual remittance thereof
constitute gross neglect of duty for which the clerk of court shall be held administratively liable
FACTS:
A financial audit of the books of accounts of MTC, Bulan, Sorsogon covering the period of July
28, 1993 to August 31, 2004 disclosed that some collections were not properly and accurately
recorded in the cashbooks
The audit team filed a complaint against Guan, former clerk of court of MTC Bulan
Court Administrator Christopher Lock, approved and submitted to the Court the
recommendation against Guan
Guan explained that he could no longer account for the shortages because some of the records
pertaining thereto could no longer be found
ISSUE: Whether or not Guan’s transgressions constitute simple neglect of duty only
HELD: No, as found by the audit team, Guan’s accountabilities were either due to unreported or
undeposited collections of to deposited collection but with lacking documentation.
This only demonstrates Guan’s disorganized way of managing and documenting his collections
which, as aptly observed by the OCA is in violation of Administrative Circular No. 5-93
The Court disagrees with the OCA’s finding that Guan’s transgression constitute simple neglect
of duty only
In OCA v Acampado, the Court declared that any shortages in the amounts to be remitted and
the delay in the actual remittance thereof constitute gross neglect of duty for which the clerk of
court shall be held administratively liable
30
Moreover, in OCA v. Melchor, Jr. it was held that delayed remittance of cash collections
constitutes gross neglect of duty because this omission deprives the court of interest that could
have been earned if the amounts were deposited in the authorized depository bank
OCA v. ABARINTOS
A.M. No. CA-12-26-P| 17 August 2015
DOCTRINE: No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an
office in the judiciary.
FACTS:
This administrative complaint charged respondent Abarintos, former Records Officer at the
Judicial Records Division of the CA, Cebu, of taking the ATM card of her officemate and
withdrawing therefrom P10,000 without the latter’s knowledge and consent.
The Investigating Justice found sufficient evidence to hold Abarintos liable therefor.
Upon referral of the case, the OCA held her guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty.
ISSUE: Whether or not Abarintos is guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty given the unauthorized
withdrawal.
HELD: Yes, Such act constitutes grave misconduct and dishonesty. Misconduct is a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer. It is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the
law, or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.
Dishonesty, on the other hand, has been defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud. It implies
untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle on the part of the
individual who failed to exercise fairness and straightforwardness in his or her dealings.
As head of the Judicial Records Division, and involved in the administration of justice, Abarinto ought to
live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in public service. Indeed, no position demands
greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office in the judiciary.
As Abarinto is already resigned, she is fined P5,000 with forfeiture of whatever benefits still due her from
the government, except accrued leave credits. She is likewise declared disqualified from reemployment in
the government service.
ISSUE: Whether or not Abarintos is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for
having receiving a pleading beyond office hours.
HELD: No, the charge of tampering is not supported by sufficient evidence.

As to her receipt of a pleading beyond office hours, court personnel are not prohibited from rendering
genuine public service beyond the regular office hours. Truly, public servants at times should share a part
of their extra time and skills in order to facilitate swift delivery of service to the public.
BALANAY v. ADALIM-WHITE
31
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2443| 11 January 2016

DOCTRINE: When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge who does not apply it is guilty of gross ignorance
of the law.
FACTS:
Respondent Judge Adalim-White was charged with gross ignorance of the law for allowing
Adamas six furloughs despite being charged with murder, a non-bailable offense, and without
requiring the prosecution to comment or giving it opportunity to be heard thereon.
She was likewise charged with serious misconduct for falsifying a TSN in the same criminal case
by directing her court stenographer to delete from said TSN the prosecution’s reservation to
present additional witnesses and insert therein other statements which were not made during the
said hearing.
CA Justice Diy opined that Judge Adalim-White is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and simple
misconduct.
The OCA on the other hand recommended that she is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and
serious misconduct.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Adalim-White is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and serious misconduct
HELD: Yes.
Gross Ignorance of the Law
It is basic that bail hearing is necessary even if the prosecution does not interpose any objection or leaves
the application for bail to the sound discretion of the court. Whether bail is a matter of right or discretion,
a hearing for a petition for bail is required. Thus, Judge Adalim-White is administratively liable for gross
ignorance of the law.
It is also basic that litigious motions that do not contain a notice of hearing are nothing but a useless piece
of paper which the court should not act upon. These rules are so elementary that not to know them
constitutes gross ignorance of the law. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to
simply apply it; anything less than that would be gross ignorance of the law.
Serious Misconduct
A TSN is supposed to be a faithful and exact recording of all matters that transpired during a court
proceeding. Judge Adalim-White’s act of directing her subordinate to alter the TSN by incorporating
therein statements pertaining to substantial matters that were not actually made during the hearing
constitutes gross misconduct which warrants administrative sanction.
Proper Penalty
Since respondent had previously been adjudged guilty and penalized for various infractions, with repeated
warnings of more severe sanction in case of repetition, the penalty is a one-year suspension without salary
and other benefits.
32

Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

Lasallian Commission on Bar Operations 2018

LEGAL ETHICS AND PRACTICAL EXERCISES

ISSUE: Whether or not Ramos is guilty of immorality?

MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. VIRGILIO L. MAZAREDO

DAVAO IMPORT DISTRIBUTORS v. LANDERO

SPOUSES WARRINER v. ATTY. DUBLIN

FAJ CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. SAULOG

A.C. No. 9074 |14 August 2012

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred?

HELD: No, suspension is a sufficient sanction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the complainant was denied due process

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Kilaan violated the Notarial Law?

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Amila, is found guilty of impropriety?

HELD: No, the charge of tampering is not supported by sufficient evidence.

A.M. No. RTJ-16-2443| 11 January 2016

S-ar putea să vă placă și