PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Howell T. Cilot
Joshua B. Mirabuna
Dexter Orlina
____________________________________________________
EXTRA LEGAL WAYS OF HANDLING CASES
CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within
the bounds of the law.
Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means
to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case
or proceeding.
…..
In defending his client, a lawyer may employ only such
means as are consistent with truth and honor. A lawyer shall
employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives
of his client. As a member of the bar and an officer of the court,
he should set the example as a man of peace and a champion of
the rule of law.
Examples of acts constituting violation of this Canon:
1. Obstruction of justice and abuse of legal process
2. Blackmailing
3. Misleading the Court
4. Introducing false evidence
1. Obstruction of justice and abuse of legal process
Acts which amount to obstruction in the administration
of justice may take many forms. They include such acts as
instructing a complaining witness in a criminal action not to
appear at the scheduled hearing so that the case against a client,
the accused, would be dismissed, asking a client to plead guilty to
a crime which the lawyer knows his client did not commit1,
advising a client who is detained for a crime to escape from
prison, employing dilatory tactics to frustrate cases on appeal to
drain the resources of the other party and compel him to submit
out of exhaustion2, and forum-shopping or filing multiple
petitions or complaints for a case that has been previously rejected
in the false expectation of getting favorable action.
Also, it is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully
use the judicial process, like the filing of dilatory motions,
frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying
the execution of a final judgment. By doing so, he made a
mockery of the judicial process to defeat the ends of justice and
opened himself to disciplinary action, such as suspension of the
practice of law.
In Villanueva v. Adre 172 SCRA 876 (1989), the Court
explained that forum shopping exists when, by reason of an
adverse decision in one forum, defendant ventures to another for
1
Fernandez vs Grecia, 223 SCRA 425 (1993)
2
Samar Mining Co. vs Amado, 24 SCRA 402 (1968)
a more favorable resolution of his case. In the case of Gabriel v.
Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 272 (1976), this Court explained that:
Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the
Court's processes and improper conduct that tends to impede,
obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be
punished as contempt of court. Needless to add, the lawyer who
filed such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously
delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects
himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing
any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to
act with all good fidelity to the courts and to maintain only such
actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth
and honor.
By having wilfully and knowingly abused his rights of
recourse in his efforts to get a favorable judgment, which efforts
were all rebuffed, respondent violated the duty of a member of the
Bar to institute actions only which are just and put up such
defenses as he perceives to be truly contestable under the laws
(Garcia v. Francisco, 220 SCRA 512 [1993]).
2. Blackmailing
Blackmail is the extortion of money from a person by
threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in the public
prints,…obtaining of value from a person as condition of
refraining from making an accusation against him, or disclosing
some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice. In common
parlance and in general acceptation, it is equivalent to and
synonymous with extortion, the exaction of money either for the
performance of duty, the prevention of an injury, or the exercise
of an influence. It is extorted by threats, or by operating on the
fears or credibility, or by promises to conceal or offers to expose
the weaknesses, the follies, or the crime of the victim. (Peña vs
Aparicio, 525 SCRA 457).
Similarly, in Sps Boyboy vs. Atty. Yabut, Jr.,3 The court
held that “an accusation for blackmail and extortion is a very
serious one which, if properly substantiated, would entail not only
respondent’s disbarment from the practice of law, but also a
possible criminal prosecution.
A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding. 4
CASE STUDY:
A.C. No. 10498, September 04, 2018
JUDGE ARIEL FLORENTINO R. DUMLAO, JR.,
Complainant,
Vs ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant is the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Branch 42, where CV Case No.
2004-0181-D, entitled "Pathways Trading International, Inc.
3
A.C. No. 7298, June 25, 2007
4
Rule 19.01, CPR
versus Univet Agricultural Products, Inc., et al.)," was pending.
Respondent is Pathways' counsel.
In this case, while CV case was pending before the sala
of complainant, respondent fraternized with complainant and
gave an impression that he was an influence peddler. He tried to
impress complainant with his influence by dropping names of two
Justices of the Supreme Court, who were supposedly his
colleagues and close friends.
Then, while defendants' notice of appeal was pending
before complainant, respondent asked him to deny the said notice
and issue a writ of execution. He declared that the case of
Pathways was closely monitored by the said Supreme Court
Justices. He also stated that then President Aquino III would
supposedly appoint him as the Presidential Legal Consultant.
Verily, respondent consistently applied his influence peddling
scheme in order to persuade complainant to rule in favor of his
client.
At the same time, he related to complainant that he
would share a portion of his attorney's fees with complainant in
exchange for the issuance of the writ of execution and the denial
of the notice of appeal filed by defendants. He also insisted that a
portion of the judgment would be donated to the U.P. Law Center.
Then, on May 22, 2014, respondent barged in the
chamber of complainant and required Sheriff Nabua to sign the
garnishment order he prepared, he again gave an impression that
he would be able to dismiss Sheriff Nabua because of his
influence with the higher authorities. He uttered the following
statements: "Kapag hindi mo pipirmahan ito, papatanggal kita ",
"Alam ng nasa itaas ito.", "Alam ng dalawang Justices ito," and
"Kung hindi niya pipirmahan ito, tutuluyan ko dismissal nito."
Respondent also sent several text messages to
complainant stating that the latter and Sheriff Nabua are guilty of
graft and that they will receive pleadings from the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violations of the
Rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
DECISION:
The highly immoral implication of a lawyer approaching
a judge — or a judge evincing a willingness — to discuss, in
private, a matter related to a case pending in that judge's sala
cannot be over-emphasized. A lawyer is duty-bound to actively
avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be seen to influence,
the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people's faith in the
judicial process is diluted. The primary duty of lawyers is not to
their clients but to the administration of justice. To that end, their
clients' success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member
of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of
the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest
which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his
devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical. A
lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain influence and receive
a favorable outcome for his or her client violates Canon 13 of the
Code.
On the other hand, bribery is classified as a serious
charge that constitutes malfeasance in office. When an attempted
bribery is committed, the transaction is always done in secret and
often only between the two parties concerned. A lawyer who
commits attempted bribery, or corruption of public officials,
against a judge or a court personnel, violates Canon 10 and Rule
10.01 of the Code.
The events that transpired on May 22, 2014 were duly
recorded in the incident report submitted by complainant to the
OCA. Respondent was given several opportunities to refute the
charges against him but he neither submitted his comment before
the Court, despite due notice, nor attended the mandatory
conference in the IBP.
Manifestly, the acts of respondent are palpably irregular
and disrespectful to the court and its officers. Respondent had the
gall to barge into the chambers of a judge and threaten his court
personnel. For his wanton disregard of the good conduct expected
from lawyers before the courts, respondent violated Rules 11.03
and 19.01 and Canons 11 and 19 of the Code.
Further, respondent also violated the Lawyer's Oath to
obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein; to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; and to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the
best of his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well
to the courts as to his clients.
Respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for two (2) years.
[ A.C. No. 7088, December 04, 2018 ]
ATTY. HERMINIO HARRY L. ROQUE, JR.,
COMPLAINANT,
VS. ATTY. RIZAL P. BALBIN, RESPONDENT.
FACTS:
For the Court's resolution is a verified complaint dated
March 1, 2006 filed before the Court by complainant Atty.
Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. against respondent Atty. Rizal P.
Balbin praying that the latter be subjected to disciplinary action
for his alleged unprofessional conduct.
Roque. alleged that he was the plaintiff's counsel in a
case entitled FELMAILEM, Inc. v. Felma Mailem, docketed as
Civil Case No. 2004-307 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Parañaque City, Branch 77 (MeTC). Shortly after securing a
favorable judgment for his client, Balbin, as counsel for the
defendant, and on appeal-started intimidating, harassing,
blackmailing, and maliciously threatening complainant into
withdrawing the case filed by his client. According to
complainant, respondent would make various telephone calls and
send text messages and e-mails not just to him, but also to his
friends and other clients, threatening to file disbarment and/or
criminal suits against him. Further, and in view of complainant's
"high profile" stature, respondent also threatened to publicize
such suits in order to besmirch and/or destroy complainant's name
and reputation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be administratively
sanctioned for the acts complained of.
RULING:
The Court finds respondent Atty. Rizal P. Balbin guilty
of violating Canon 8, Canon 19, and Rule 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. The Court
reasoned:
Lawyers are licensed officers of the court who are
empowered to appear, prosecute, and defend; and upon whom
peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are devolved by
law as a consequence. Membership in the Bar imposes upon them
certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal
profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.
In this case, respondent's underhanded tactics against
complainant were in violation of the CPR. As aptly pointed out
by the Investigating Commissioner, instead of availing of
remedies to contest the ruling adverse to his client, respondent
resorted to personal attacks against the opposing litigant's counsel,
herein complainant. Thus, it appears that respondent's acts of
repeatedly intimidating, harassing, and blackmailing complainant
with purported administrative and criminal cases and prejudicial
media exposures were performed as a tool to return the
inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions demonstrated a
misuse of the legal processes available to him and his client,
especially considering that the aim of every lawsuit should be to
render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them.
Furthermore, respondent's aforesaid acts of threatening
complainant with the filing of baseless administrative and
criminal complaints in an effort to strong-arm the latter and his
client into submission not only contravened the Lawyer's Oath,
which exhorts that a lawyer shall "not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid
nor consent to the same," but also violated Canon 19 and Rule
19.01 of the CPR.
Rule 19.01 states that a "lawyer shall employ only fair
and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and
shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present
unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding
4. Misleading the Court
A lawyer is a disciple of truth. Candor, fairness and
honesty, which should characterize the conduct of a lawyer
toward the court, require that the lawyer should never mislead the
court. He shall neither do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any. He may be disciplined for making a false allegations in a
pleading,5 misquoting the text of a document, the testimony of a
witness, the argument of opposing counsel, or the contents of a
decision, or the suppressing of vital facts which bear on the merit
or lack of merit of an action or petition.
In Fernandez vs Atty. Grecia, a disbarment complaint
5
Occena vs Marquez, 60 SCRA 38 (1974)
against Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia was filed by Doctors
Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco and Achilles Bartolome
and the St. Luke's Medical Center where they are accredited
medical practitioners. Atty. Grecia was charged with dishonesty
and grave misconduct in connection with the theft of some pages
from a medical chart which was material evidence in a damage
suit filed by his clients against the aforenamed doctors and St.
Luke's. The court held that by descending to the level of a
common thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the
legal profession. He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to
continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of lawyers. He
has forfeited his membership in the BAR.
CASE STUDY
A.C. No. 3548 July 4, 2002
JOSE A. RIVERA, complainant,
vs. ATTY. NAPOLEON CORRAL, respondent.
FACTS:
On September 1, 1990, Jose A. Rivera instituted a
Complaint for Disbarment charging Atty. Napoleon Corral with
Malpractice and Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the
Philippine Bar. A Decision on Civil Case No. 17473 for Ejectment
was received by Annaliza Superio, Secretary of Atty. Napoleon
Corral, on February 23, 1990. A NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed
in court by Atty. Napoleon Corral on March 13, 1990, a copy of
which was served on plaintiff’s counsel. On March 14, 1990,
however, [at] about 1:50 p.m. Atty. Napoleon Corral came to the
Office of the Clerk of Court, Branch 7, Bacolod City and changed
the date February 23, 1990 to February 29, 1990. Realizing later
that there is no 29th in February 1990, he filed a "REPLY TO
PLAINTIFF’S MANIFESTATION" claiming therein that he
received the Decision not on the 29th in February 1990 but on the
28th of February 1990.
The complainant alleged that Atty. Napoleon Corral
violated the proper norms/ethics as a lawyer by tampering with
particularly by personally and manually changing entries in the
court’s record without the Court’s prior knowledge and
permission, conduct unbecoming of a member of the Philippine
Bar much more so because in so doing he was found to have been
motivated by the desire of suppressing the truth.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Napoleon Corral is guilty of
misconduct
RULING:
The primary objective of administrative cases against
lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring individual
lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice by
protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of
lawyers, and to remove from the legal profession persons whose
utter disregard of their lawyer’s oath have proven them unfit to
continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the
bar. A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him
to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
While the prevailing facts of the case do not warrant so
severe a penalty as disbarment, the inherent power of the Court to
discipline an errant member of the Bar must, nonetheless, be
exercised because it cannot be denied that respondent has violated
his solemn oath as a lawyer not to engage in unlawful, dishonest
or deceitful conduct.
By altering the material dates to make it appear that the
Notice of Appeal was timely filed, respondent committed an act
of dishonesty. Under pertinent rules, dishonesty constitutes grave
misconduct upon which the Court, in a recent case, imposed a
one-year suspension on respondent therein for inserting in the
records of the case a certification of non-forum shopping and
making it appear that the same was already part of such records at
the time the complaint was filed. It should be stressed that
brazenly resorting to such a legal subterfuge to mislead the court
and to cover up for his failings toward his client is not only a
disgraceful indictment on respondent’s moral fiber and personal
fitness to his calling as a lawyer. It is also an embarrassment to
his brethren in the Bar. Such misconduct warrants a similar
penalty for the Court cannot tolerate any misconduct that tends to
besmirch the fair name of an honorable profession.
4. Introducing false evidence
A lawyer may be disbarred for knowingly presenting or
introducing false evidence in any proceeding as his act is a
violation of his oath to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing
of any in court. His action constitutes a willful disregard of his
solemn duty to act at all times in a manner consistent with the
truth.
In Young vs Batuegas, the court held that a lawyer must
be a disciple of truth. . He swore that he will do no falsehood nor
consent to the doing of any in court and shall conduct himself as
a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. He
should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation
is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the
case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct
conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect
only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading
before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his
client’s rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense
of his client’s cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of
truth.
A lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a
profession to which the society has entrusted the administration
of law and the dispensation of justice. As such, he should make
himself more an example for others to emulate.
6
People vs Tuanda, A.C. No. 3360, Jan. 30, 1990
LAWYERS FACING PERSONAL CASES
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest
immoral or deceitful conduct.
……
The lawyer’s duty to obey the laws and promote respect
for law and legal processes, negatively put, demands that he shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
An unlawful conduct is an act or omission which is against the
law. A dishonest act is an act of lying or cheating. An immoral or
deceitful conduct is one that involves moral turpitude. It includes
anything done contrary to justice, modesty or good morals or to
any vileness, baseness or depravity in the private and social duties
that a man owes to his fellowmen or society, contrary to accepted
rule of right and duty between man and man.
Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for
any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in
honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue
as an officer of the court, or an unfit or unsafe person to enjoy
the privileges and to manage the business of others in the
capacity of an attorney, or for conduct which tends to bring
reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable
opinion of the public. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. 3248,
September 18, 1992, p. 15.)
Good moral character
The importance of integrity and good moral character as
part of a lawyer's equipment in the practice of his profession has
been stressed by this Court repeatedly.
. . . The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency
as well as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a
lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully
performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his
clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the
legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of
the profession. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. 3248, September
18, 1992, pp. 13-14.)
The qualification of god moral character is not only a
condition precedent to an admission to the practice of law; it is
also essential for remaining in the practice of law.6 Thus, lawyers
must always conduct themselves in their professional and non-
professional life with good moral character and without
deception.
CASE STUDY:
A.M. No. 3360 January 30, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant
vs. ATTY. FE T. TUANDA, respondent.
FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Fe T. Tuanda received from one
Herminia A. Marquez several pieces of jewelry, with a total stated
value of P36,000.00, for sale on a commission basis, with the
condition that the respondent would turn over the sales proceeds
and return the unsold items to Ms. Marquez. Respondent, instead
of returning the unsold pieces of jewelry which then amounted to
approximately P26,250.00, issued three checks. Upon
presentment for payment, all three (3) checks were dishonored by
the drawee bank, Traders Royal Bank, for insufficiency of funds.
Notwithstanding receipt of the notice of dishonor, respondent
made no arrangements with the bank concerning the honoring of
checks which had bounced and made no effort to settle her
obligations to Ms. Marquez.
Consequently, four (4) informations were filed against
respondent with the Regional Trial Court of Manila: one for
estafa, and three (3) for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. In due time, after
trial, the trial court rendered a decision which acquitted
respondent of the charge of estafa and convicted respondent of
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in all three (3) cases.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the
decision of the trial court but, in addition, suspended respondent
Tuanda from the practice of law. Respondent filed a Motion to
Lift Order of Suspension stating that suspension from the practice
of law is a harsh if not a painful penalty aggravating the lower
court's penalty of fine considering that accused-appellant's action
on the case during the trial on the merits at the lower court has
always been motivated purely by sincere belief that she is
innocent of the offense charged nor of the intention to cause
damage to the herein plaintiff-appellee.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Motion to lift Order of Suspension be
granted.
DECISION:
The Court affirms the suspension from the practice of
law imposed by the Court of Appeals upon respondent Tuanda.
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that "the offense of which
she is found guilty involved moral turpitude." We should add that
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a serious criminal offense which
deleteriously affects public interest and public order.
Respondent was thus correctly suspended from the
practice of law because she had been convicted of crimes
involving moral turpitude. Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court provide as follows:
Sec. 27. Attorneys renewed or suspended by Supreme
Court on what grounds. A member of the bar may be removed or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court of
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which
he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents
or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
We should add that the crimes of which respondent was
convicted also import deceit and violation of her attorney's oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which
she was bound to "obey the laws of the land." Conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case,
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not) relate to the exercise of the
profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and affects
the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense.
Purpose of Requirement for Good Moral Character
The purpose for the requirement of good moral
character are: (1) to protect the public; (2) to protect the image of
lawyers; and (3) to protect prospective clients
Continued possession of Good Moral Character is essential
The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires
that he shall be a person of good moral character. This
qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law, in the exercise of privileges of
members of the Bar. Gross misconduct on the part of a lawyer,
although not related to the discharge of professional duties as a
member of the bar, which puts his moral character in serious
doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.
(Melendrez vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 662, 676.)
CASE STUDY
A.M. No.P-06-2177
June 27, 2006
(Formerly A.M. No. 06-4-268-RTC)
RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT
CONDUCTED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF
ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO, CLERK OF COURT IV,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ORAS, EASTERN SAMAR .
FACTS:
This administrative case is a result of the audit conducted
by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the books of
accounts of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, former clerk of court of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar.
The OCA, in its memorandum dated April 18, 2006, had
the following findings: (1) there was a shortage of P545.00 in
remittances to the General Fund; (2) a cash shortage of P24.00 in
the Sheriff’s General Fund; and (3) Atty. Kho did not deposit on
time in the authorized depository bank the collections for the
Fiduciary Fund (P 60,000) and Special Allowance for the
Judiciary Fund (P 5,000). It also noted that Atty. Kho had already
restituted the P545.00 and P24.00 cash shortages.
On January 26, 2006, the OCA received a letter-
complaint with the information that Kho, along with his alleged
common-law-wife, stenographer Riza Amor L. Libanan, was
engaged in lending out to court employees money in his
possession as clerk of court, personally deriving profit from the
interest earned.
The OCA found Kho liable for violating OCA Circular
No. 8A-93 dated April 21, 1993 when he kept the funds in a safety
vault for more than a year. All clerks of lower courts are supposed
to deposit all collections from bail bonds, rental deposits and other
fiduciary collections with the Land Bank upon receipt thereof.
Thus, it recommended that (1) the audit report be docketed as a
regular administrative complaint against Kho and (2) a fine in the
amount of P 10,000 be imposed on him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Kho is guilty of violating Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
DECISION:
Kho failed to make a timely turn-over of cash deposited
with him. This was inexcusable because he could have purchased
postal money orders from the local post office payable to the chief
accountant, Accounting Division, FMO-OCA. The money could
have earned interest had he not kept them in the vault for over a
year. As found by the OCA, although Kho had restituted all his
cash accountabilities, he was nevertheless liable for failing to
immediately deposit the collections for the judiciary funds.
The failure to remit the funds in due time constitutes
gross dishonesty and gross misconduct. It diminishes the faith of
the people in the Judiciary. Dishonesty, being in the nature of a
grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the
service even if committed for the first time. However, Kho
showed remorse by immediately restituting the cash shortages and
complying with the directives of the audit team. And considering
that this is his first offense, we find that the penalty of P 10,000
fine is sufficient.
We note that Kho has already transferred to the
Department of Justice. However, it neither renders this matter
moot nor frees him from liability.
Moreover, his misconduct reflects on his fitness as a
member of the bar. His malfeasance prima facie contravenes
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Hence, he should explain why no further disciplinary sanction
should be imposed on him.
A.C. No. 6792 January 25, 2006
ROBERTO SORIANO, Complainant,
vs. Atty. MANUEL DIZON, Respondent.
FACTS:
Respondent, Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his car to
Concepcion, Tarlac with his wife. Along Abanao Street, Soriano,
the complainant in this case, a taxi driver, overtook the car driven
by the respondent who was under the influence of liquor.
Incensed, Atty. Dizon tailed the taxi driver until the latter stopped
to make a turn at the Chugum and Carino Streets. The respondent
also stopped his car, berated Soriano and held him by his shirt. To
stop the aggression, the taxi driver forced open his door causing
respondent to fall to the ground. The taxi driver knew that
respondent had been drinking because he smelled of liquor.
Taking pity on Atty. Dizon who looked elderly, the taxi driver got
out of his car to help him get up. But the accused, by now enraged,
stood up immediately and was about to deal the taxi driver a fist
blow when the latter boxed him on the chest instead. Respondent
fell down a second time, got up again and was about to box the
taxi driver but the latter caught his fist and turned his arm around.
The taxi driver held on to the respondent until he could be pacified
and then released him. The respondent went back to his car and
got his revolver and shot the taxi driver hitting him on the neck.
Soriano survived but sustained a spinal cord injury, which caused
paralysis on the left part of his body and disabled him for his job
as a taxi driver.
The trial court promulgated its decision, then respondent
filed an application for probation, which was granted by the court
on several conditions. These included satisfaction of the civil
liabilities imposed by the court in favor of the taxi driver, Roberto
Soriano.
Respondent failed to comply with this undertaking and
even appealed the civil liability. IBP recommended that Dizon be
disbarred foe having been convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent be disbarred.
DECISION:
The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the earmarks
of moral turpitude. Clearly, his inordinate reaction to a simple
traffic incident reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member of
the legal profession. His overreaction also evinced vindictiveness,
which was definitely an undesirable trait in any individual, more
so in a lawyer.
It is also glaringly clear that respondent seriously
transgressed Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm and his
unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities. He has thus brazenly
violated the law and disobeyed the lawful orders of the courts. The
Court remind him that, both in his attorney’s oath and in the Code
of Professional Responsibility, he bound himself to "obey the
laws of the land."
All told, Atty. Dizon has shown through this incident that
he is wanting in even a basic sense of justice. He obtained the
benevolence of the trial court when it suspended his sentence and
granted him probation. And yet, it has been four years since he
was ordered to settle his civil liabilities to complainant. To date,
respondent remains adamant in refusing to fulfill that obligation.
Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may
relate, not to the exercise of the profession of lawyers, but
certainly to their good moral character. Where their misconduct
outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them
morally unfit for their office and unworthy of the privileges
conferred upon them by their license and the law, the court may
be justified in suspending or removing them from that office.
Respondent was DISBARRED, and his name is
ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

A. M. No. 2104 August 24, 1989
NARCISO MELENDREZ and ERLINDA DALMAN,
complainants,
vs. ATTY. REYNERIO I. DECENA, respondent.
acts constitute moral turpitude, being "contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty or good morals." The standard required from members
of the Bar is not, of course, satisfied by conduct which merely
avoids collision with our criminal law. Even so, respondent's
conduct, in fact, may be penalizable under at least one penal
statute — the anti-usury law.

FACTS: The exploitative deception exercised by respondent

In a sworn complaint, the spouses Erlinda Dalman and
Narciso Melendrez charged Reynerio I. Decena, a member of the
Philippine Bar, with malpractice and breach of trust. The
complainant spouses alleged, among others, that respondent had,
by means of fraud and deceit, taken advantage of their precarious
financial situation and his knowledge of the law to their prejudice,
succeeded in divesting them of their only residential lot in
Pagadian City; that respondent, who was their counsel in an estafa
case against one Reynaldo Pineda, had compromised that case
without their authority.
attorney upon the complainants in his private transactions with
them, and the exacting of unconscionable rates of interest
compelled the Court to the conviction that he has lost that good
moral character which is indispensable for continued membership
in the Bar. Respondent Reynerio I. Decena was DISBARRED and
his name has been stricken from the Rollo of Attorneys.

It has been established that respondent committed the

following acts:
1. Respondent made it appear on the 5 August 1975 real estate
mortgage that the amount loaned to complainants was P5,000.00
instead of P4,000.00;

2. Respondent exacted grossly unreasonable and usurious interest;

3. He made it appear in the second real estate mortgage of 7 May

1976 that the loan extended to complainants had escalated to
P10,000.00;

4. He failed to inform complainants of the import of the real

mortgage documents and inducing them to sign those documents
with assurances that they were merely for purposes of "formality";

5. He failed to demand or refrained from demanding payment

from complainants before effecting extrajudicial foreclosure of
the mortgaged property; and

6. He failed to inform or refrained from informing complainants

that the real estate mortgage had already been foreclosed and that
complainants had a right to redeem the foreclosed property within
a certain period of time.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.

DECISION:
Clearly, the complained acts as described and levelled
against respondent Decena are contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals for which he may be suspended. The
moral turpitude for which an attorney may be disbarred may
consist of misconduct in either his professional or non-
professional attitude. The complained acts of respondent imply
something immoral in themselves, regardless of the fact whether
they are punishable by law. The doing of the act itself, and not its
prohibition by statute, fixes the moral turpitude.

The acts of the respondent constitute deception and

dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. The
acts of respondent "imply something immoral in themselves
regardless of whether they are punishable by law" and that these