YUSON V.
VITAN
 Mar Yuson, a cab driver w/ 8 kids, inherited some
money. They used this money to buy a 2nd hand
cab w/ the help of Atty Vitan, but their other plans
(repair house and hold debut for daughter) was
suspended bec. Atty vitan borrowed from them
100k.
 It was agreed that it would be paid at the end of
the year in time for the debut and as a guarantee,
Vitan issued several PD Checks but the bank
account of the lawyer is closed.
 To recover the debt, Yuson sought the help of
IBP National Committee on Legal Aid. The Atty
defaulted so he gave a collateral for the loan: a
deed of sale of Vitan’s land in Bulacan.
 Yuson’s intention was to either sell or mortgage
the land so that the proceeds would be used as a
payment for Vitan’s loan. However, a 2nd DOAS
this time in favor of Vitan was executed.
Complainant was able to mortgage the property
for 30k, but Vitan did not redeemed this amount
but simply offered another promised to pay to the
complainants.
 He admitted having given several postdated
checks amounting to P100,000, supposedly to
guarantee the indebtedness of Estur to
complainant. Atty. Vitan argued for the first time
that it was she who had incurred the debts, and
that he had acted only as a "character reference
and/or guarantor."
HELD:
The records satisfactorily reveal the failure of
respondent to live up to his duties as a lawyer in
consonance with the strictures of the Lawyer's
Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and
the Canons of Professional Ethics, thereby
degrading not only his person but his profession
as well. So far, we find that his lack of sincerity in
fulfilling his obligations is revealed by his acts of
issuing promissory notes and reneging on them;
executing a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale; and
breaking his promise to redeem the property
from the mortgagee.
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months, effective upon his receipt of this
Decision, with the warning that a repetition of
the same or any other misconduct will be dealt
with more severely.
CHUA V. DE CASTRO
 Joseph Chua, owner of Nemar Computer
Resources Corp. (NCRC) filed a collection suit
against Dr. Concepcion Aguila Memorial College,
which was represented by Atty. Arturo De Castro.
 Chua alleged that Atty. De Castro employed
delaying tactics in the course of his duty of
defending his client, and thus filed a disbarment
case against him.
 Chua attests that Atty. De Castro managed to
delay the presentation of his witness for five years
by constantly seeking to postpone a scheduled
hearing.
 Furthermore, Chua alleges that Atty. De Castro’s
excuses for postponement are merely weak alibis
and are mostly unmeritorious.
 For his part, Atty. De Castro contends that his
excuses were based on valid reasons, and that the
reschedules and resetting set by the court were
not even objected by NCRC’s counsel.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. De Castro violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility by deliberately
employing delaying tactics for the advantage of his
client.
Held: Atty. De Castro was found guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility by constantly
maneuvering ways to successfully delay the disposition
of Chua’s case against his client.
By doing so, Atty. De Castro impeded the
administration of justice and inflicted injury and
prejudice to NCRC. Atty. De Castro was suspended
from practice for three (3) months, and was given a
stern warning.
 ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN

 Petitioner Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane filed a letter-complaint to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) charging respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of ―demeaning,
humilating, and berating‖ him during a hearing of Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc. v. Samue
Malabanan, et al. where Mane was counsel for the plaintiff.

 During the proceedings, Belen asked Mane about the latter’s law school. When Mane answered
that he came from Manuel L. Quezon University (MLQU), Belen told him: ―Then you’re not from
UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a saying and I know this, not all
law students are created equal, not all law schools are created equal, not all lawyers are created
equal despite what the Supreme Being that we all are created equal in His form and substance.‖

 Belen further lambasted Mane and lectured him on the latter’s person, seemingly disregarding
the case at hand. Subsequently, the OCA, upon evaluation, found that Belen’s insulting remarks
were unwarranted and inexcusable and recommended a reprimand of Belen.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the statements and actions made by Judge Belen during the hearing constitute conduct
unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct

HELD:

The Court held that an alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. For a
judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on his alma mater is clearly an
engagement in an argumentum ad hominem.

A judge must address the merits of the case and not the person of the counsel. If Judge Belen felt that his
integrity and dignity were being ―assaulted,‖ he acted properly when he directed complainant to explain
why he should not be cited for contempt. He went out of bounds, however, when he engaged on a
supercilious legal and personal discourse.

GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a judge and is REPRIMANDED therefor. He is further warned that a
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.