ethics digest canon 14 onwards

8/12/2019 Ethics Digest Canon 14 Onwards

1/10

RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGEOF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND

MISREPRESENTATION IN THESUPREME COURT

A.M. NO. 10-10-4-SC, 8 MARCH 2011,

EN BANC

(Leonardo-De Castro,

J

.)SC Justice Mariano Del Castillo rendered a decision in

Vinuya, et al

.

v. Executive Secretary

(G.R.No. 162230). Counsels Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. (Atty. Roque) and Romel Regalado Bagares

(Atty.Bagares) for Vinuya,

et al

. (the

Malaya Lolas

), filed a supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, on theground that, inter alia, charge of plagiarismas one of the grounds for reconsideration of the

Vinuya

decisionand a twisting of the true intents of the plagiarized sources by the

ponencia

was made to suit the argumentsof the assailed Judgment for denying the Petition. Works allegedly

plagiarized in the

Vinuya

decision werenamely: (1) Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decents article A Fiduciary Theory of Jus

Cogens; (2)Christian


2/10


3/10

countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating

but not offensive.The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:CANON 1A lawyer shall uphold

the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.RULE 1.02

A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lesseningconfidence in the

legal system.CANON 10A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.Rule 10.01A

lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall hemislead, or allow

the Court to be misled by any artifice.Rule 10.02A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or

misrepresent the contents of paper, the language orthe argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a

decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provisionalready rendered inoperative by repeal or

amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.Rule 10.03A lawyer shall observe the

rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.CANON 11A lawyer shall

observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers andshould insist on similar

conduct by others.RULE 11.05 A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities

only.CANON 13 A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety

which tendsto influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.

What respondent seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like allconstitutional

freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted toand

accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interest. One of these

fundamentalpublic interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the

administration of justice. There is no antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system

of administering justice. For the protection and maintenance of freedom of expression itself can be

secured only within thecontext of a functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice, within the

context, in other words, of viable independent institutions for delivery of justice which are accepted by

the general community. TheShow Cause Resolution does not interfere with respondents academic

freedom.Even if the Court was willing to accept respondents proposition in the Common Compliance

thattheir issuance of the Statement was in keeping with their duty to participate in the development of

the legalsystem by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the improvement of the

administration of justice under Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, we cannot agree

that they have fulfilledthat same duty in keeping with the demands of Canons 1, 11 and 13 to give due

respect to legal processes andthe courts, and to avoid conduct that tends to influence the courts.

Members of the Bar cannot be selectiveregarding which canons to abide by given particular situations.

With more reason that law professors arenot allowed this indulgence, since they are expected to

provide their students exemplars of the Code of Professional Responsibility as a whole and not just their

preferred portions thereof.The Court finds that there was indeed a lack of observance of fidelity and due

respect to the Court,particularly when respondents knew fully well that the matter of plagiarism in the

Vinuya decision and the merits of the Vinuya decision itself, at the time of the Statements issuance,

were still both sub judice orpending final disposition of the Court.


4/10

A.C. No. 6155 March 14, 2006MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M. JOAQUIN

vs.

ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGALTINGA,

J.:

FACTS:SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin were involved in

ashooting incident which resulted in the death of two individuals and the serious injury of another. As a

result,Informations were filed against them before the Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated

murder eventuallythey were convicted. Complainants engaged the services of herein respondent for theaccused. Respondentthen filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan but it was denied

still the respondent filedan Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, with the

attached Second Motion for Reconsideration and filed with this Court a Petition for Review on

Certiorari.Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again despite the frequent telephone

callsthey made to his office. When respondent did not return their phone inquiries, complainants went

torespondents last known address only to find out that he had moved out without any forwarding

address.More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were constrained to personally

verify the status of the petition and they were shocked that their petition was denied due to late filing

and non-payment of docket fees and said resolution had attained finality and warrants of arrest had

already been issued againstthem.Complainants filed before the SC an affidavit-complaint against Atty.Jaime Juanito P. Portugal(respondent) for violation of the Lawyers Oath, gross misconduct, and gross

negligence for allegedmishandling of the petition which eventually led to its denial with finality.

Respondent contends that he wasnot the original counsel of the accused. He only met the accused

during the promulgation of theSandiganbayan decision convicting the accused of two counts of

homicide and one count of attemptedhomicide. He was merely requested by the original counsel to be

on hand, assist the accused, and bepresent at the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision and the

petition was filed within thereglementary period. Respondent sent a letter the PO3 Joaquin for his

formal withdrawal as counsel but thelatter did not reply. Upon the investigation of the IBP, it ruled

respondent guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the

imposition of penalty ranging from reprimand tosuspension of six (6) months.ISSUE: Whetherrespondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling G.R. No. 152621-23,which eventually

led to the

ad cautelam

petitions dismissalwith finality.RULING:YES, SC ordered for the suspension of the respondent from the

practice of law for three (3)months. The SC agreed to the IBP that the dismissal of the


5/10

ad cautelam

petition was primarily due to thegross negligence of respondent Once he agrees to take up the cause of

the client, the lawyer owes fidelity tosuch cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence

reposed in him. He must serve the clientwith competence and diligence, and champion the latters

cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, anddevotion. In a criminal case like that handled by respondentin behalf of the accused, respondent has ahigher duty to be circumspect in defending the accused for it

is not only the property of the accused whichstands to be lost but more importantly, their right to their

life and liberty. Thus, in the creation of lawyer-clientrelationship, there are rules, ethical conduct and

duties that breathe life into it, among those, the fiduciaryduty to his client which is of very delicate,

exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high degreeof fidelity and good faith that is

required by reason of necessity and public interest.In this case, respondent ought to know that he was

the one who should have filed the Notice toWithdraw and not the accused. His tale that he sent a

registered letter to the accused and gave theminstructions on how to go about respondents withdrawal

from the case defies credulity. It should have beenrespondent who undertook the appropriate measures

for the proper withdrawal of his representation. Heshould not have relied on his client to do it for him ifsuch was truly the case. The rule in this jurisdiction isthat a client has the absolute right to terminate the

attorney-client relation at anytime with or without cause.The right of an attorney to withdraw or

terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,considerably restricted. Among the

fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney whoundertakes to conduct an action

impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty toabandon it without reasonable

cause. A lawyers right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudicationarises only from the clients

written consent or from a good causeFurthermore, after agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a

lawyer owes fidelity to both causeand client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client

relationship. Lawyering is not abusiness; it is a profession in which duty of public service, not money, is

the primary consideration.

Public Attorneys Office vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R.Nos. 154297-300. February 15, 2008]

24SEPPonente: AZCUNA, J.

FACTS:

Chief Public Attorney filed an Urgent and Ex-ParteMotion to be Relieved as Court-Appointed Counselwith the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan, praying that she be relieved of her duties and

responsibilities as counsel de oficiofor the said accused on the ground that she had a swelling workload

consisting of administrative matters and that the accused are not indigent persons; hence, they are not

qualified to avail themselves of the services of PAO. Respondent Court found the reasons of the Chief

Public Attorney to be plausible and relieved the Chief Public Attorney as counsel de oficioof former

President Joseph Estrada and Mayor Jose Estrada. The remaining eight PAO lawyers filed an Ex-


6/10

ParteMotion To Be Relieved As Court-Appointed Counsels with respondent Court on the ground that the

accused are not indigents; therefore, they are not qualified to avail themselves of the services of

PAO. Respondent Court issued a Resolution denying the motion, but retaining two of the eight PAO

lawyers, namely, the petitioners Atty. Usita, Jr. and Atty. Andres.

Later, PAO filed a Manifestation and Compliance which informed the Court that petitioners Atty. Usita and

Atty. Andres were appointed as Assistant City Prosecutors of the Quezon City Prosecutors Office

sometime in August 2002, and that PAO is left as the lone petitioner in this case. PAO asserts that while

its lawyers are also aware of their duties under Rule 14.02 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, PAO lawyers are limited by their mandate as government

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction in issuing the subject Resolutions retaining two PAO lawyers to act as counsels de oficiofor

the accused who are not indigent persons.

HELD:

NO. Petition dismissed for being moot.

RATIO:

The Court holds that respondent did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the subject Resolutions as

the issuance is not characterized by caprice or arbitrariness. At the time of PAOs appointment, the

accused did not want to avail themselves of any counsel; hence, respondent exercised a judgment call to

protect the constitutional right of the accused to be heard by themselves and counsel during the trial of

the cases.

Subsequently, respondent reduced the number of PAO lawyers directed to represent the accused, in viewof the engagement of new counsels de parte, but retained two of the eight PAO lawyers obviously to meet

such possible exigency as the accused again relieving some or all of their private counsels.

In any event, since these cases of the accused in the Sandiganbayan have been finally resolved, this

petition seeking that PAO, the only remaining petitioner, be relieved as counsel de oficiotherein has

become moot.

LOLITA ARTEZUELA VS. ATTY. RICARTE B. MADERAZO

A.C. NO. 4354. APRIL 22, 2002

Facts:

Artezuela filed before the Supreme Court a verified complaint for disbarment against the respondent.

She alleged that respondent grossly neglected his duties her lawyer in a damage suit and failed to

represent her interests with zeal and enthusiasm. According to her, when her case was scheduled for

pre-trial conference, respondent asked for its postponement although all the parties were present.


7/10


8/10

Issue:

Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.

Held:

Yes. He is guilty of representing conflicting interests prohibited by Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility.

To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record of one party need not also be

counsel-of-record of the adverse party. He does not have to publicly hold himself as the counsel of the

adverse party, nor make his efforts to advance the adverse partys conflicting interests of record---

although these circumstances are the most obvious and satisfactory proof of the charge. It is enough

that the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of the other party, claiming

adverse and conflicting interests with that of his original client. To require that he also be counsel-of-

record of the adverse party would punish only the most obvious form of deceit and reward, with

impunity, the highest form of disloyalty.

DUTY TO HIS CLIENT Melvin Small v. Atty. Jerry Banares A.C. no. 7021, 516 SCRA 323, February 21, 2007

This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Melvin D. Small (complainant) against Atty. Jerry Banares

(respondent) for failure to render legal services and to return the money received for his legal services.

Facts:

On 30 August 2001, complainant engaged the services of respondent in connection with several

complaints to be filed against one Lyneth Amar (Amar). Complainant paid respondent P20,000 as

acceptance fee. On 4 September 2001, complainant gave respondent P60,000 as filing fees for the cases

against Amar. Respondent then wrote a demand letter for Amar and talked to Amar on the phone.

Respondent also informed complainant that he would be preparing the documents for the cases.

Complainant consistently communicated with respondent regarding the status of the cases. But

respondent repeatedly told complainant to wait as respondent was still preparing the documents. On 5

January 2002, complainant required respondent to present all the documents respondent had preparedfor the cases against Amar. Respondent was not able to present any document. This prompted

complainant to demand for a full refund of the fees he had paid respondent. Complainant even hired

the services of Atty. Rizalino Simbillo to recover the money from respondent. But respondent failed to

return the money. Hence, complainant filed a case for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines (IBP) against respondent.

Issue:


9/10

Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canons 16, 18, and 19 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

Ruling:

Yes. The Code provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. The Code

states that a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a

reasonable time to the client's request for information. The Code also mandates that every lawyer shall

hold in trust all moneys of his client that may come into his possession. Furthermore, a lawyer shall

account for all money received from the client and shall deliver the funds of the client upon demand. In

this case

the respondent, after receiving Php 80,000.00 for filing of the case against Amar, failed to give

complainant an update on the status of the cases. Moreover, it appears that respondent failed to file the

appropriate cases against Amar. Respondent's failure to communicate with complainant was an

unjustified denial of complainant's right to be fully informed of the status of the cases. Thus, respondent

should have promptly accounted for and returned the money to complainant. But even after demand,

respondent did not return the money. Respondent's failure to return the money to complainant upon

demand is a violation of the trust reposed on him and is indicative of his lack of integrity.

Adjudication:

WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Jerry Banares GUILTY of violating Canons 16 and 18 and Rules

16.01, 16.03, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent

from the practice of law for two years effective upon finality of this Decision. We ORDER respondent to

RETURN, within 30 days from notice of this decision, complainant's P80,000, with interest at 12% per

annum from the date of promulgation of this decision until full payment. We DIRECT respondent tosubmit to the Court proof of payment within fifteen days from payment of the full amount.

A.C. No. 5162 March 20, 2003

EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, complainant,

vs.

ATTY. MICHAEL DIONEDA, respondent.

ECTHA and respondent entered into a Retainers Agreement wherein respondent lawyer agreed

to handle the case of the complainant for P20,000.00 as attorneys fees and P1,000.00 as

appearance fee per hearing. It was further agreed that respondent lawyer would update the

complaint and work on the development of the case.

Respondent failed to do such. Demands to give back the money were made but to no avail, thusthis administrative charge. Despite due notice, respondent never attended the IBP

administrative hearings.

Held: SUSPENDED for six (6) months, with WARNING that repetition of the same will merit

more severe penalty, and is ORDERED to RETURN to complainant their money with interest.

A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY to the cause of his client mindful always of the trust and

confidence reposed in him. An attorney-at-law must serve his client with competence and

diligence at all times, and never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, for it is his sworn duty


10/10

to delay no man for money or malice and to conduct himself in a proper manner not just to his

client, but also to the court, the legal profession and society at large.

Respondents lamentable attitude towards his clients case is clearly evident from his apparent

disinterest in his own case for disbarment. Dioneda never bothered to present evidence in his

defense. He disregarded all notices sent to him by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, which

were personally served at his office address. He never appeared before the Commission despiteseveral opportunities to do so and explain his side.

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 has 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.

ethics digest canon 14 onwards

Documents