#gremalynpipitbernardoethics digests compiled

7/24/2019 #GremalynpipitbernardoEthics Digests Compiled

1/99

LEGAL ETHICS 1938 project

1 LEDESMA V CLIMACO

FACTS: Ledesma is counsel de parte of one accused. Thereafter he !as appointed as "lection #e$istrar of Cadi% &e$ros

'ccidental () C'*"L"C Ledesma !ithdre! as counsel on the (asis that his appointment as "lection #e$istrar !ould re+uire full time

ser,ice as !ell as on the ,olume or pressure of !or- !ill pre,ent him from handlin$ ade+uatel) the defense. ud$e Climaco denied his motion and e,en appointed him as counsel de o/cio of the accused.

0SS": 2o& the !ithdra!al of Ledesma should (e allo!ed

"L4: &o.

#AT0':1. There is o(,ious reluctance of Ledesma to compl) !ith his responsi(ilities as counsel de o5cio. Then e,en

assumin$ that he continues his position his ,olume of !or- is li-el) to (e ,er) much less than present. There isno e6cuse for him to shir- from his o(li$ation as mem(er of the (ar !ho e6pects to remain in $ood standin$should ful5ll.

7. Ledesma !as not mindful of his o(li$ation as counsel de o5cio. e ou$ht to -no! that mem(ership in the (ar is apri,ile$e (urdened !ith conditions. ein$ appointed as counsel de o5cio re+uires a hi$h de$ree of 5delit) la! is aprofession and not a mere trade. #e+uires counsel of repute and eminence.

3. 0n criminal cases ri$ht to counsel is a(solute. &o fair hearin$ unless the accused (e $i,en an opportunit) to (eheard () counsel.

;. The denial () ud$e Climaco !as due to the principal e primaril) deals !ith the e6ception of lia(ilit) on cases of a dissol,ed partnership of the indi,idual

propert) of the deceased partner for de(ts contracted () the person !ho continues the (usiness usin$ thepartnership name. !hat the la! contemplates is a hold o,er situation preparator) to formal reor$ani%ation. Art.18;> treats more of a commercial partnership !ith a $ood !ill to protect rather than a professional partnership!hose reputation depends on the personal +uali5cations of its indi,idual mem(ers.

A partnership for the practice of la! cannot (e li-ened to partnerships formed () other professionals or for(usiness. a partnership for the practice of la! is not a le$al entit). 0t is not a partnership formed for then purposeof carr)in$ on trade or (usiness or of holdin$ propert). Thus assumed or trade name in la! practice is improper.

The ri$ht to practice la! is not a natural or constitutional ri$ht (ut is in the nature of a pri,ile$e or franchise. 0t must (e considered that in the =hil ippines no local custom permits or allo!s the continued use of a deceased

partners name. Therefore the cited pro,ision on Canons of =rofessional "thics is not applica(le.

40SS"&T0&B '=0&0'&: =etition ma) (e $ranted !ith the condition that it (e indicated in the letterheads of the 7 5rms that S)cip and

',aepa are dead or the period !hen the) ser,ed as partners sould (e stated therein.

3 CAYETANO V MONSOD

Facts: =res. A+uino nominated Christian *onsod to the position of C'*"L"C chairman. The Commission on Appointments a/rmed the nomination and appointed *onsod to the position.

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, GanaLopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C


2/99


#enato Ca)etano no! assails the appointment. e sa)s that *onsod is not +uali5ed to the position (ecause hehas not (een en$a$ed in the practice of la! for ten )earsD re+uirement is pro,ided () Consti Art. 9EC Sec. 11.

0ssue: 2?n *onsod is +uali5ed for the position of C'*"L"C chairman.

eld: SC sa)s )es. *onsod passed the (ar in 19> and had (een consistentl) pa)in$ his professional fees. e !or-ed

in a la! 5rm for se,eral )ears after $raduatin$ (ut after that had (een more en$a$ed in (usiness and politics fora list of his jo(s see p.738. Still the SC said that he can still (e considered as practicin$ la! if !e consider themodern concept of the practice of la!. This modern concept pertains to an) act !hether in or out of court !hichre+uires the application of la! le$al procedure -no!led$e trainin$ and e6perience.

SC no! sa)s that since most of *onsods jo(s in,ol,ed the la! e,en if he has not (een en$a$ed in traditionalla!)erin$ i.e. ma-in$ pleadin$s or appearin$ in court he can still (e considered as to ha,e (een en$a$ed in thepractice of la!.

4issents: *ost of the dissents focused on the issue that the Consti re+uirement pertains to ha(itual practice of la!. The

dissenters pointed out that for the past ten )ears *onsod reall) seldom practiced la!. This $roup (elie,ed thatthe Consti re+uired that the practice of la! (e on a re$ular (asis. ustice =adilla e,en came up !ith +uali5cationsG ha(itualit)H compensationH application of la! le$al principle practice or procedureH and att).Eclient relationship Gto determine !?n a person has (een en$a$ed in the practice of la!..

4 CUI V CUI

Facts: The main concern in this case is the respecti,e +uali5cations of esus Cui and Antonio Cui to the position of

administrator of ospicio de San ose de arii a charita(le institution esta(lished () 4on =edro Cui and 4onaeni$na Cui.

esus and Antonio are the sons of *ariano Cui a nephe! of the founders of the institution. Antonios claim to theposition is (ased on a con,enioD !here then administrator Teodoro resi$ned in fa,or of him. esus ho!e,er hadno prior notice of this.

esuss claim is that he should (e preferred pursuant to the deed of donation !hich reco$ni%ed their father*ariano as a le$itimate descendant to the position as he is the older of the t!o.

The deed ho!e,er $i,es preference to a descendant !ho has a titulo de a(o$adoD or a doctor or a ci,ilen$ineer or a pharmacist in order. 'r to the one !ho pa)s the hi$hest ta6es. esus holds the de$ree of achelorof La!s (ut is not a mem(er of the ar !hile Antonio is a mem(er of the ar he !as formerl) dis(arred thou$h() the SC and !as just reinstated !ee-s (efore assumin$ the position

0ssue:2ho has a (etter ri$ht to the position of administrator (et!een ose and AntonioI2hat does the term titulo de a(o$adoD meanI

eld:

Antonio. The term titulo de a(o$adoD is not just mere possession of the academic de$ree of achelor of La!s (utmem(ership in the (ar after due admission thereto +ualif)in$ one to the practice of la!. =ossession of the de$ree is notindispensa(le to +ualif) as a la!)er since completion of the prescri(ed courses ma) (e sho!n in some other !a).

0t !as also ar$ued that Antonio is dis+uali5ed for ha,in$ (een pre,iousl) dis(arred since the deed also pro,ided that anadministrator ma) (e remo,ed if found to lac- a sound moral character. o!e,er Antonio !as reinstated. Thisreinstatement is a reco$nition of his moral reha(ilitation after pro,in$ !hat !as re+uired () the ar. Antonios restorationto the roll of la!)ers !iped out restrictions and disa(ilities resultin$ from the pre,ious dis(arment.

5 ALAWI V ALAUYA

=A#T0"S ALA20 sales rep of ".. Jillarosa ALAKA incum(ent e6ecuti,e cler- of court

FACTS Throu$h ALA20S a$enc) a contract !as e6ecuted for the purchase on installments () ALAKA of a housin$ unit A housin$ loan !as also $ranted to ALAKA () the &ational ome *ort$a$e Finance Corporation &*FC Su(se+uentl) ALAKA !rote a letter to the =resident of Jillarosa ad,isin$ termination of his contract on the

$rounds that his consent !as ,itiated () $ross misrepresentation deceit fraud dishonest) and a(use ofcon5dence () ALA20andproceeded to e6pound usin$ acer(ic lan$ua$e

A cop) of the letter !hich (ore no stamps !as sent to the J= of Jillarosa ALAKA also !rote the &*FC repudiatin$ as ,oid his contract !ith Jillarosa and as-in$ for cancellation of his

loan Finall) ALAKA !rote 3 other letters to o/cers of the SC to stop deductions from his salar) re$ardin$ the loan

from &*FC



3/99


&*FC also !rote the SC re+uestin$ it to stop said deductions Learnin$ of the letters ALA20 5led a complaint alle$in$ that ALAKA

o Committed malicious and li(elous char$eso surped the title of attorne)

0SS" 2?& ALAKA J0'LAT"4 T" C'4" 'F C'&4CT A&4 "T0CAL STA&4A#4S F'# =L0C 'FF0C0ALS A&4"*=L'K""S

"L4 K"S =A#T0CLA#LK S"CT0'& ;#AT0'

Section ; pu(lic o/cials and emplo)ees at all times respect the ri$hts of others and refrain from doin$ actscontrar) to la! pu(lic order pu(lic safet) and pu(lic interestD

ALAKA (ein$ a mem(er of the Sharia ar and an o/cer of the Court ma) not use lan$ua$e !hich is a(usi,eo


4/99


0n decreein$ that (ar candidates !ho o(tained in the (ar e6aminations of 19; to 19M7 a $eneral a,era$e of N> per cent!ithout fallin$ (elo! M> per cent in an) su(ject (e admitted in mass to the practice of la! the disputed la! is not ale$islationH it is a jud$ment P a jud$ment re,o-in$ those promul$ated () this Court durin$ the )ears a


5/99


ri$hts. and +uasiEjudicial (odies shall remain e


6/99


K"S@ Althou$h '(lena is not )et con,icted of the crime of rape seduction or adulter) and he is not $uilt) of an) of the

$rounds for dis(arment enumerated in Sec 7M #ule 17N of the #ules of Court the enumeration is not e6clusi,eand the po!er of the court to e6clude un!orth) mem(ers of the (ar is inherent and is a necessar) incident to theproper administration of justice and can (e e6ercised e,en !ithout an) statutor) authorit) in all cases unlessproperl) prohi(ited () statutes.

American jurisprudence pro,ides that the continued possession of a $ood moral character is a re+uisite conditionfor the ri$htful continuance in the practice of la!. The loss re+uires suspension or dis(arment e,enthou$h thestatues do not e6plicitl) specif) that as a $round of dis(arment.

'(lenas ar$ument that he (elie,ed himself to (e a person !ith $ood moral character !hen he 5led hisapplication to ta-e the (ar e6amination is !ron$. 'nes o!n appro6imation of himself is not a $au$e of his moralcharacter. *oral character is not a su(jecti,e term (ut one !hich corresponds to o(jecti,e realit). *oralcharacter is !hat the person reall) is and not !hat he other people thin-s he is.

is pretension to !ait for the 18 th(irthda) of #o)on$ (efore ha,in$ carnal -no!led$e !ith her sho!s theschemin$ mind of '(lena and his ta-in$ ad,anta$e of his -no!led$e of the la!.

Also #o)on$ is the niece of his commonEla! !ife and he enjo)ed moral ascendanc) o,er her. '(lena too-ad,anta$e of #o)on$s trust on him.

'(lenas contention that the Solicitor Beneral e6ceeded his authorit) in 5lin$ the present complain !hich isentirel) di


7/99


Torres contends that his acts !ere done in $ood faith (elie,in$ for himself that his and the si(lin$s had alread)a$reed on ho! to dispose of the said lot. That the false testimon) !as a clear o,ersi$ht. And that his conformit)throu$h his si$nature !as pro forma (ecause the propert) !as a paraphernal propert) of *arcelina and his !ife.

0n,esti$atin$ Commissioner of 0= su$$ested dis(arment

0SS": 2o& Torres should (e dis(arredI

"L4: K"S

#AT0':1. The la!)ers oath to !hich all la!)ers ha,e su(scri(ed in solemn a$reement to dedicate themsel,es to the

pursuit of justice is not a mere ceremon) or formalit) for practicin$ la! to (e for$otten after!ards nor is it mere!ords drift and hollo! (ut a sacred trust that la!)ers must uphold and -eep in,iola(le at all times.

7. A la!)er is the ser,ant of the la! and (elon$s to a profession to !hich societ) has entrusted the administration ofla! and the dispensation of justice he should ma-e himself more an e6emplar for others to emulate and heshould ma-e himself more an e6emplar for others to emulate and he should not en$a$e in unla!ful dishonestimmoral or deceitful conduct.

3. The supreme penalt) of dis(arment is meted out onl) in clear cases of misconduct that seriousl) a>T !as paid to C enite% Architect and Technical *ana$ement for ser,ices not rendered as consultants.



8/99


Ariola claims that the document he notari%ed !as superuous and unnecessar) and prejudiced no one andtherefore he should (e e6onerated G the document !as cancelled the same da) he notari%ed it hence le$all)there !as no pu(lic document that e6isted.

0ssue: 2?& Ariola can (e held lia(le.

eld: Kes. &otaries pu(lic should not authenticate documents unless the persons !ho si$ned them are the ,er) same

persons !ho e6ecuted them an personall) appeared (efore the to attest to the contents and truth of !hat arestated therein.

is assertion of falsehood in a pu(lic document contra,ened one of the most cherished tenets of the le$alprofession and potentiall) cast suspicion on the truthfulness of e,er) notarial act.

Ariola is dis(arred and not merel) suspended for a )ear.

14 CHUA 9 MESINA' J#

Facts: Att) Simeon *esina is the le$al counsel of spouses Anna Chua and Chua An. The spouses leased a (uildin$ o!ned

() *esinas famil). The propert) ho!e,er !as actuall) mort$a$ed in fa,or of a (an- for a loan o(tained ()*esinas motherPFelicisima *elencio !ho !as the re$istered o!ner as !ell.

2hen Felicisima failed to meet her o(li$ations to the (an- the spouses !ere con,inced () *esina to help hismother in consideration for the purchase of the same lot at a certain price. A deed of sale !as made con,e)in$the propert) to the spouses.

ut !hen the spouses !ere appraised for capital $ains ta6 Att) *esina su$$ested to e6ecute another deed ofsalePthis time the date of the transaction is 19N9 !hich is (efore the e


9/99


&L#C dismissed case statin$ that Son has a(andoned his !or- and termination is for a ,alid cause thou$h orderedFather to pa) =M>>> as penalt) for failure to ser,e notice of said termination to son

ISSUE W


10/99


Att). 'rti% informs the Court that he has mostl) catered to indi$ent and lo!Eincome clients atconsidera(le 5nancial sacri5ce to himself. Att). 'rti% admits that the period !ithin !hich to 5le the position paperhad alread) lapsed. e attri(utes this failure to timel) 5le the position paper to the fact that after his election asCouncilor of acolod Cit) he !as fran-l) preoccupied !ith (oth his functions as a local $o,ernment o/cial andas a practicin$ la!)er.D

0ssue: 2?& Att). is lia(le to (e sanctioned.

eld: Att). 'rti% is to (e sanctioned. Suspension from the practice of la! for one 1 month.

Se,eral of the canons and rules in the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit) $uard a$ainst the sort of conduct.

CA&'& 18GA LA2K"# SALL S"#J" 0S CL0"&T 20T C'*="T"&C" A&4 40L0B"&C".

#ule 18.>3GA la!)er shall not ne$lect a le$al matter entrusted to him and his ne$li$ence inconnection there!ith shall render him lia(le.

#ule 18.>;GA la!)er shall -eep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond!ithin a reasona(le time to the clients re+uest for information.

is failure to do so constitutes a ,iolation of #ule 18.>3 of the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit). A la!)ero!es 5delit) to such cause and must al!a)s (e mindful of the trust and con5dence reposed in him. e o!es entirede,otion to the interest of the client. The relationship of la!)erEclient (ein$ one of con5dence there is e,er presentthe need for the client to (e ade+uatel) and full) informed of the de,elopments of the case and should not (e leftin the dar-.

&either is the Court molli5ed () the circumstance of Att). 'rti%s election as a Cit) Councilor of acolodCit) as his adoption of these additional duties does not e6onerate him of his ne$li$ent (eha,ior.

1 PEOPLE 9 STA TERESA

Facts:An$eles Sta. Teresa !as found () the trial court to (e $uilt) (e)ond reasona(le dou(t of rapin$ his 17E)ear old dau$hterand !as $i,en the penalt) of death. The case is no! on automatic re,ie!.

2hen accused !as arrai$ned he pleaded not $uilt). After 9 da)s his counsel de o5cio made a manifestation that theaccused !anted to chan$e his plea to $uilt).D The prosecution no lon$er presented testimonial e,idence and merel)presented e6hi(its to !hich counsel de o5cio did not comment nor o(ject. 4urin$ the promul$ation of #TCs decisioncounsel failed to appear and the trial jud$e had to appointanother counsel de o5cio for the purpose of promul$ation.

0ssue: 2?& counsel de o/cio dischar$ed his duties properl)

eld: &'. The a((re,iated and a(orted presentation of the prosecution e,idence and the impro,ident plea of $uilt) !as not in

accordance !ith re+uirements of due process Considerin$ the $ra,it) of the o>>. half of !hich is pa)a(le at the 5lin$ of the case and the (alance after the decision has(een rendered.



11/99


Similar ad,ertisement also appeared in The =hilippine Star and *anila ulletin. Uhan Assist. Court Administrator 5led a case a$ainst Sim(illo for ,iolatin$ the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit)

#ule 7.>3 and 3.>1. Sim(illo admitted that he caused the ad,ertisement (ut he ar$ued that solicitation and ad,ertisement is not

prohi(ited per se and that it is a(out time to chan$e our ,ie!s a(out the prohi(ition on ad,ertisin$ andsolicitation. e also said that the interest of the pu(lic is not ser,ed () the prohi(ition and su$$ested that the(an (e lifted.

0= recommended that Sim(illo (e suspended for 1 )ear and that repetition of similar act !ill (e dealt !ith more

se,erel). 2hile the case !as (ein$ in,esti$ated upon () the court Sim(illo a$ain ad,ertised his le$al ser,ices for 7 timesin the u) V Sell Free Ads *a$a%ine.

0SS": 2?& Sim(illo ,iolated the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit)

"L4: K"S@ #ule 7.>3 pro,ides a la!)er shall not do or permit to (e done an) act desi$ned primaril) to solicit le$al (usiness

!hile #ule 3.>1 states that a la!)er shall not use or permit the use of an) false fraudulent misleadin$ decepti,eundi$ni5ed selfElaudator) or unfair statement or claim re$ardin$ his +uali5cations or le$al ser,ices.

0t has (een repeatedl) stressed that the practice of la! is not a (usiness. 0t is a profession in !hich the dut) topu(lic ser,ice not mone) is the primar) consideration. The $ainin$ of li,elihood should (e a secondar)consideration.

Aside from ad,ertisin$ himself as an Annulment of *arria$e SpecialistD his assurance of his clients that an

annulment ma) (e o(tained in ;E months from the 5lin$ of the case encoura$es people !ho mi$ht other ha,e7ndthou$ht to dissol,e their marria$e. Solicitation of le$al (usiness is not proscri(ed. o!e,er solicitation must (e compati(le !ith the di$nit) of the

le$al profession. The use of simple si$ns statin$ the name?s of the la!)ers the o/ce and residence address andthe 5elds of e6pertise as !ell as ad,ertisement in le$al periodicals (earin$ the same (rief data are permissi(le.

The use of callin$ cards is no! accepta(le.

2: IN RE TAGORDA

Facts: Luis Ta$orda is a mem(er of the pro,incial (oard of 0sa(ela =re,ious to the last election he used placards !hich in a !a) !as ad,ertisin$ his ser,ices as a la!)er and notar)

pu(lic e also !rote a letter to a lieutenant of a (arrio in "cha$ue0sa(ela. 0n essence he !as informin$ the lieutenant

that he !ill (e in "cha$ue durin$ the !ee-ends and the lieutenant should con,e) this information to the otherpeople in his to!n.

0ssue: 2?& the acts of Ta$orda is ad,ertisin$

eld: Kes Ta$orda is in a !a) ad,ertisin$ his ser,ices and this is contrar) to the Canons of =rofessional "thics !ala pa

)un$ code of professional responsi(ilit) 1979 case to The most !orth) and e


12/99


o 0 onl) did it once. 0 !ont repeat it a$ain@

o 0 ne,er had an) case () reason of the pu(lication

0SS": 2o& a)ot can (e char$ed !ith malpracticeI

"L4: K"S.

1. The pu(lication is tantamount to a solicitation of (usiness from the pu(lic. Section 7M of #ule 17N e6pressl)pro,ides amon$ other thin$s that Wthe practice of solicitin$ cases at la! for the purpose of $ain either personall)or thru paid a$ents or (ro-ers constitutes malpractice.W 0t is hi$hl) unethical for an attorne) to ad,ertise histalents or s-ill as a merchant ad,ertises his !ares. La! is a profession and not a trade.

7. 0n In re Ta(orda M3 =hil. the respondent attorne) !as suspended from the practice of la! for the period of onemonth for ad,ertisin$ his ser,ices and solicitin$ !or- from the pu(lic () !ritin$ circular letters. That caseho!e,er !as more serious than this (ecause there the solicitations !ere repeatedl) made and !ere moreela(orate and insistent..Considerin$ his plea for lenienc) and his promise not to repeat the misconduct the Courtis of the opinion and so decided that the respondent should (e as he here() is reprimanded.

3. WThe most !orth and e


13/99


This is a dis(arment case a$ainst Att). #o(erto #omanillos for representin$ conictin$ interests and for usin$ thetitle ud$eD despite ha,in$ (een found $uilt) of $ra,e and serious misconduct in Rarate , #omanillos.

Apparentl) #omanillos !as pre,iousl) an acti,e (oard mem(er as corporate secretar) of 4urano Corp. 0nc. 4C0.ut it allo!ed itself to represent San ose omeo!ners Association 0nc SA0 (efore the human Settlements#e$ulation Commission in a case a$ainst the same 4C0.

0rrele,ant info: the case a(o,e !as an alle$ed ,iolation of 4C0 of the Su(di,ision and Condominium u)ers=rotection Act. 4C0 sold a land desi$nated as a school site !ithout disclosin$ it as such. pa$e 1>

2hen SA0s petition o,er the land !as denied the SA0s oard terminated #omanillos ser,ices.

Also #omanillos acted as counsel for L)dia 4uranoE#odri$ue% !ho su(stituted for 4C0.

Thus a dis(arment case !as 5led for conictin$ interests.

The 0= handled the case (ut he !as merel) reprimanded.

0n spite of this he still continued to ser,e as counsel for 4uranoE#odri$ue%. Thus a second dis(arment case !as5led. 0t also included his use of jud$eD althou$h he !as found $uilt) of $ra,e and serious misconduct.

I**+"?2?& #omanillos should (e dis(arred

H"%&? Kes.

0t is inconse+uential that SA0 ne,er +uestioned the propriet) of respondents continued representation of4uranoE#odri$ue%. The lac- of opposition does not mean consent. As lon$ as the la!)er represents 7 or more

opposin$ clients he is $uilt) of ,iolatin$ his oath. is continued use of jud$eD ,iolated #ules 1.>1 and 3.>1. The penalt) imposed on him in the Rarate case

forfeiture of all lea,e and retirement (ene5ts and pri,ile$es: includin$ the title jud$e. he !as a jud$e (efore (uthe resi$ned instead of (ein$ (ooted out

The title jud$eD should (e reser,ed onl) to jud$es incum(ent and retired an not to those !ho !ere dishonora(l)dischar$ed from the ser,ice.

24 DIMATULAC 9 VILLON

Facts: 0n the prosecution of the Ka(uts for the murder of 4imatulac the '/ce of the =u(lic =rosecutor particularl) the

Asst =rosecutor and t!o ud$es !ho handled the case committed serious procedural a!s resultin$ in theimpairment of due process prejudicial to (oth the o


14/99


&o. The orders of ud$e #oura den)in$ *otion to 4efer proceedin$s are ,oid and set aside. The order of ud$e Jillon on thearrai$nment and the su(se+uent arrai$nment of the Ka(uts are ,oid and set aside. '/ce of the =ro,incial =rosecutor isordered to compl) !ith the 4' Secretar)s resolution.

=rosecutors are the representati,es not of an ordinar) part) to a contro,ers) (ut of a so,erei$nt) !hose o(li$ation to$o,ern impartiall) is as compellin$ as its o(li$ation to $o,ern at allH and !hose interest in a criminal prosecution is not thatit shall !in e,er) case (ut that justice (e done. The) are ser,ants of the la! !hose t!oEfold aim is that $uilt shall notescape and innocence shall not su191AntiEBraft and Corrupt =ractices Acts a$ainst Sec. of 4=0 Francisco Tatad.

1(a) Giving DGroup, a private corporation owned by his brother in-law unwarranted benefits; (b) receiving a chec fro! "oberto #allar, Gen$ %anager

of &!ity 'rading orp$, as consideration for the release of a chec to the said corp$ for printing services rendered during the onstitutional onvention

"eferendu!; and (c) failure to file his tate!ent of &ssets and *iabilities$



15/99


19N9 G Tatad had a fallin$ out !ith then =res. *arcos and the char$es (ecame !idel) -no!n.

4ec. 17 19N9 G a formal complaint !as 5led !ith the Tanod(a)an

Apr. 1 198> G Tanod(a)an referred the complaint to the =SC for in,esti$ation and report.

une 1 198> G report () =SC !as su(mitted recommendin$ the 5lin$ of char$es for $raft and corruption.

'ct. 7M 1987 G all a/da,its and counterEa/da,its !ere in and the case !as read) for disposition.

ul) M 198M G Tanod(a)an issued a resolution callin$ for the 5lin$ of char$es a$ainst Tatad in the Sandi$an(a)an.M informations !ere 5led a$ainst Tatad in 198M.

Tatad no! +uestions the propriet) of the 5lin$ of char$es. e alle$es that his ri$hts to due process and speed)disposition of cases ha,e (een ,iolated.

0ssue:

2?n Tatads ri$hts to due process and speed) disposition of cases ha,e (een ,iolated.

eld:

SC sa)s )es the) !ere ,iolated () the lon$ dela) in the termination of the preliminar) in,esti$ation () theTanod(a)an. Su(stantial adherence to the re+uirements of the la! and su(stantial compliance !ith the timelimitation prescri(ed () la! is part of procedural due process.

The case !as read) for disposition as earl) as 1987 (ut the informations !ere onl) 5led in 198M. A dela) of closeto 3 )ears can not (e deemed reasona(le or justi5a(le in the li$ht of the circumstance o(tainin$ in the case at

(ar. The char$es in the complaint speciall) his failure to 5le his Statement of Assets and Lia(ilities are not thatcomplicated to re+uire 3 )ears (efore formal complaints are 5led.

27 PN. 9 ATTY CEDO

Facts: =& 5led a complaint a$ainst Att). Cedo for ,iolation of #ule .>7 that states:A la'+er s$all not, a)ter leavin( (ov/t#service, accept en(a(e&ent or e&plo+&ent in connection 'it$ an+ &atter '$ic$ $e $ad intervened 'it$ in saidservice# Cedo !as the former Asst. JiceE=resident of the Asset mana$ement Broup of =&.

4urin$ Cedos stint !ith =& he (ecame in,ol,ed in 7 transactions: 1. sale of steel sheets to *s. 'n$and 7. inter,ened in the handlin$ of a loan of spouses Almeda. 2hen a ci,il action arose (ecause of Y1 Cedoafter lea,in$ the (an- appeared as one of the counsel of *s. 'n$. Also !hen Y7 !as in,ol,ed in a ci,il action theAlmedas !ere represented () the la! 5rm Cedo, Ferrer, Ma+ni(o 0 Associatesof !hich Cedo !as a Senior =artner.

Cedo claims that he did not participate in the liti$ation of *s. 'n$s case. e also claims that e,en if it!as his la! 5rm handlin$ the Almeda case the case !as (ein$ handled () Att). Ferrer.

0ssue: 2?& ,iolated #ule .>7.eld: Cedo ,iolated #ule .>7.

0n the comple6it) of !hat is said in the course of dealin$s (et!een the att). and the client in+uir) of thenature su$$ested !ould lead to the re,elation in ad,ance of the trial of other matters that mi$ht onl) furtherprejudice the complainant cause. 2hate,er ma) (e said as to !?n the att). utili%ed a$ainst his former clientinformation $i,en to him in a professional capacit) the mere fact that their pre,ious relationship should ha,eprecluded him from appearin$ as counsel for the other side.

I( * +,$#)"**),a% () #"$#"*",( ),(,/ ,("#"*(*' "B"$( ! "B$#"** ),*",( ) a%% (-"$a#("* ),"#,"& a("# (-" &*%)*+#" ) a(*0 A %a"# #"$#"*",(* ),(,/ ,("#"*(* -",' ,!"-a% ) )," %",(' ( * -* &+( () ),(",& )# (-a( -- &+( () a,)(-"# %",( #"+#"* -m ())$$)*"0

2 DINSAY 9 CIOCO

Facts:

=lanters *achiner) Corporation =LA*AC' mort$a$ed to Traders #o)al an- the an- certain properties assecurit) for the pa)ment of its loan. =LA*AC' defaulted in the pa)ment of the loan so the an- e6trajudiciall)foreclosed the mort$a$e. At a foreclosure sale conducted () the sheri


16/99


0ssue: 2?& Cioco ma) (e char$ed !ith dis(arment 2?& res adjudicata appplies

eld: Ciocos contention has no merit. #es adjudicata applies onl) to judicial or +uasiEjudicial proceedin$s and not to

the e6ercise of the Courts administrati,e po!ers as in this case. 4is(arment has not (een adjudicated in the pre,ious case. Therein Cioco !as administrati,el) proceeded a$ainst

as an errin$ Court personnel under the super,isor) authorit) of the court. erein Cioco is sou$ht to (edisciplined as a la!)er under the courts plenar) authorit) o,er mem(ers of the le$al profession.

2hile Cioco is in e


17/99


19N: Beneral an- V Trust Compan) Ben(an- encountered 5nancial di/culties. Central an- e6tended loans toBen(an- in the hope of reha(ilitatin$ it =31>*. &onetheless Ben(an- failed to reco,er.

19NN: Ben(an- !as declared insol,ent. A pu(lic (iddin$ of Ben(an-s assets !as held !ith the Lucio Tan Broup!innin$ the (id. Solicitor Beneral *endo%a representin$ the $o,ernment inter,ened !ith the li+uidation ofBen(an-.

198: after "4SA 0 Cor) esta(lished the =CBB to reco,er the il lE$otten !ealth of *arcos his famil) and cronies. 198N: =CBB 5led a case a$ainst Lucio Tan and certain other people (asta marami sila. 0n relation to this case

=CBB issued se,eral !rits of se+uestration on properties alle$edl) ac+uired () the respondents () ta-in$

ad,anta$e of their close relationship and inuence !ith *arcos. Sandi$an(a)an heard the case. "stelito *endo%a Solicitor Beneral durin$ the time of *arcos represented the respondents. 1991: =CBB 5led a motion to dis+ualif) *endo%a (ecause of his participation in the li+uidation of Ben(an-.

Ben(an- no! Allied an- is one of the properties that =CBB is see-in$ to (e se+uestered from the Lucion Tan$roup. =CBB in,o-ed #ule .>3 of the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit).

Sandi$an(a)an denied =CBBs motion. Accordin$ to the Sandi$an(a)an *endo%a did not ta-e an ad,erseposition to that ta-en on (ehalf of the Central an-. And *endo%as appearance as counsel !as (e)ond the 1)ear prohi(itor) period since he retired in 198.

0ssue: 2?& #ule .>3 of the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit) apllies to "stelito *endo%a

eld: &o it does not appl) to *endo%a. Sandi$an(a)an decision is a/rmed. The matter see 3rdnote or the act of *endo%a as Solicitor Beneral is ad,isin$ the Central an- on ho! to

proceed !ith the li+uidation of Ben(an-. This is not the matterD contemplated () #ule .>3 of the Code of

=rofessional #esponsi(ilit). The matter in,ol,ed in the li+uidation of Ben(an- is entirel) di3 should (e su(stantial and important. The role of *endo%a in theli+uidation of Ben(an- is considered insu(stantial.

SC is e,en +uestionin$ !h) =CBB too- such a lon$ time to re,i,e the motion to dis+ualif) *endo%a. Apparentl)=CBB alread) lost a lot of cases a$ainst *endo%a. U)les interpretation: =CBB $ettin$ desperate

Somethin$ to thin- a(out: SC is someho! of the opinion that #ule .>3 !ill ma-e it harder for the $o,ernment to$et $ood la!)ers in the future to !or- for them (ecause of the prohi(ition of acceptin$ cases in the future that!ere related to ones !or- as a $o,ernment counsel.

Concurrin$ 'pinions: =an$ani(an V Carpio: the con$ruent interest pron$ of #ule .>3 should ha,e a prescripti,e period Tin$a: #ule .>3 cannot appl) retroacti,el) to *endo%a !hen he !as Solicitor Beneral no #ule .>3 )et ottom line the) are all +uestionin$ the unfairness of the rule if applied !ithout an) prescripti,e period and if

applied retroacti,el)

&otes: Ad,erseEinterest conicts G !here the matter in !hich the former $o,ernment la!)er represents a client in

pri,ate practice is su(stantiall) related to a matter that the la!)er dealt !ith !hile emplo)ed !ith the$o,ernment and the interests of the current and former are ad,erse

Con$ruentEinterest conicts G the use of the !ord conictD is a misnomer it does not in,ol,e conicts at all as itprohi(its la!)ers from representin$ a pri,ate person e,en if the interests of the former $o,ernment client and thene! client are entirel) parallel

*atter G an) discrete isolata(le act as !ell as indenti5a(le transaction or conduct in,ol,in$ a particular situationand speci5c part)

0nter,ention G interference that ma) a


18/99


#AT0':1. 0t is !ellEsettled in a lon$ strin$ of cases that concealment of an att) in his application to ta-e the ar of the fact

that he had (een char$ed !ith or indicted foran alle$ed crime is a $round for re,ocation of his license to practicela!. Built) of Fraud upon the Court

7. Balan$s persistent denial of his in,ol,ement in an) criminal case !hich he later admitted and his failure to clearhis name for 13 )ears indicate his lac- of the re+uisite attri(utes of honest) pro(it) and $ood demeanor. e istherefore un!orth) to (e a la!)er. he did not o


19/99


The errorD or confusionD !as to his o!n ma-in$. ad his application sho!ed that he $raduated from Arellano it!ould ha,e sho!ed that he too- up la! months (efore o(tainin$ his Associate in Arts de$ree. e then !ouldha,e not (een permitted to ta-e the ar.

#ule: That =#"J0'S to the stud) of la! he had successfull) and satisfactoril) completed the re+uired preEle$aleducation as prescri(ed () the 4epartment of "ducation.D

The fact that he hurdled the (ar is immaterial. =assin$ the (ar is not the onl) +uali5cation to (ecome anattorne)EatEla!H ta-in$ the prescri(ed courses of le$al stud) in the re$ular manner is e+uall) essential.

34 CALU. 9 SULLER

Facts: Att) Suller raped the !ife of his nei$h(or Cristino Calu(. A criminal complaint for rape !as 5led a$ainst Suller. A complaint for dis(arment !as also 5led () Calu( (efore

the SC. The CF0 ac+uitted Suller for failure of the prosecution to pro,e $uilt (e)ond reasona(le dou(t.

0ssue:Can Att) Suller (e dis(arredI

eld:Kes. Ac+uittal in a criminal case is not determinati,e of an administrati,e case for dis(arment. A la!)er ma) (e dis(arredor suspended for misconduct !hether in his professional or pri,ate capacit) !hich sho!s that he lac-s moral character tocontinue as o/cer of the court. The rape () a la!)er of his nei$h(ors !ife constitutes such serious moral depra,it).

35 UI 9 .ONIFACIO

FACTS L"SL0"S side of the stor)

o L"SL0" i married CA#L'S and had ; children !ith himo Su(s+uentl) L"SL0" found out CA#L'S !as ha,in$ illicit relations !ith Att) 0#0S onifacio and (e$ot a

dau$htero CA#L'S admitted this relationship !ith L"SL0" !ho confronted 0#0So 0#0S told L"SL0" e,er)thin$ !as o,er (et!een her and CA#L'So o!e,er L"SL0" found out later the illicit relations continued and 0#0S e,en had 7ndchild !ith CA#L'So L"SL0" 5led a complaint for dis(arment a$ainst 0#0S on $round of immoralit)

0#0S side of the stor)o *et CA#L'S !ho represented himself as a (achelor !ith children () a Chinese !oman !ith !hom he had

lon$ (een estran$edo CA#L'S and 0#0S $ot married in a!aiio pon return to *anila the) did not li,e to$ether (ecause CA#L'S !anted his children !ith the Chinese

!oman to $raduall) -no! and accept his marria$e !ith 0#0So 2hen 0#0S -ne! a(out the 1stmarria$e she cut all ties !ith him

0n proceedin$s (efore the 0= Commission L"SL0" 5led a motion to cite 0#0S in contempt for ma-in$ falsealle$ations in her Ans!er to impress upon the 0= that her 1stchild () CA#L'S !as !ithin !edloc-

o 0#0S indicated in Ans!er she $ot married to CA#L'S in 'ct 77 198Mo o!e,er Certi5cate of *arria$e certi5ed () State #e$istrar re,ealed that date of marria$e !as actuall)

'ct 77 198N

ISSUE W


20/99


0#0S act of immediatel) distancin$ herself (elies the alle$ed moral indi


21/99


4elos #e)es failed her =atholo$) su(ject. As such she approached A%nar for reconsideration. A%narassured her that she !ould pass. 4espite her plea she failed the su(ject. A%nar told 4elos #e)es that she should$o !ith him to *anila or else she !ill un-. The) !ent to *anila. After dinin$ in a restaurant A%nar raped her t!icein the e,enin$ and thrice the ne6t mornin$ inside the Am(assador otel.

A%nar denies all the alle$ations and sa)s that !hen he !ent to *anila he slept at the house of his friends.

0ssue: 2?& A%nar is $uilt) of $ross misconduct.

eld: A%nar is $uilt) of $ross misconduct.The court a$rees !ith the Sol. Ben.s 5ndin$ that A%nar committed $ross misconduct. 2hile A%nar denied

ha,in$ ta-en 4elos #e)es to the Am(assador otel and had se6ual intercourse !ith her he did not present an)e,idence to sho! !here he !as on that date. I( * (-" &+( ) (-" %a"#' -","9"# -* m)#a% -a#a("# *$+( ,() +"*(),' () *a(* (-" )+#( (-a( -" * ( a,& $#)$"# () ",) ),(,+"& m"m!"#*-$ , (-"!a#0 H" a,,)( &*$",*" (- (-" -/- "Ba(,/ m)#a% *(a,&a#&* ) (-" $#)"**),0 G))& m)#a%-a#a("# * a ),(,+,/ +a%a(), ,""**a# () ",((%" ), () ),(,+" , (-" $#a(" ) %a

3 SO.ERANO 9 VILLANUEVA

Facts: So(erano 5led a petition for dis(arment alle$in$ that after Att). Jillanue,a had induced her to ta-e part in a fa-e

!eddin$ the latter coha(ited !ith her and later li,ed !ith her as hus(and and !ife. As a conse+uence of thisshe (ore him t!o children and su(se+uentl) Jillanue,a a(andoned them.

Soon thereafter So(erano sent a letter to the court as-in$ that no action (e ta-en on her petition until her motherhas arri,ed and decided !hether it should push thou$h.

So(erano sent another letter sa)in$ that her mother has arri,ed and that the case must case. So(erano a$ain !rote a letter sa)in$ that the 5lin$ of the petition !as not sincerel) her o!n !ish and that she

!as 5nall) !ithdra!in$ her complaint the last letter !ritten () So(erano to the court ho!e,er pra)ed that her motion to !ithdra! the petition (e

denied since Jillanue,a had procured the motion () means of threat and intimidation.

0ssue: 2?& Jillanue,a should (e dis(arred

eld: &' The letters of So(erano to Jillanue,a clearl) indicated that intimate relations had e6isted (et!een them prior to

the date !hen the alle$ed fa-e !eddin$ occurred. These indicate that there !as o need for Jillanue,a to sta$e afa-e !eddin$ to induce So(erano to coha(it !ith him.

Some of the letters sho!ed that So(erano reminded him of his promise to marr) her after he passed the (ar As to !hether the e6traEmarital relations (et!een So(erano and Jillanue,a !arrants disciplinar) action SC held

that in li$ht of the circumstances in this case these acts are neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act norso unprincipled as to !arrant a dis(arment of disciplinar) action.

Also distin$uished mem(ers of the (ar had attested to Jillanue,as $ood moral character. 'ne is no less thanthe "6ecuti,e ud$e of the CF0 of &e$ros 'ccidental !here Jillanue,a is practices his profession. The other is the4ean *ontema)or of the Ateneo Colle$e of La!. The last one is on. Buillermo Santos former Chairman ofA$ricultural Tenanc) Commission then ud$e of CF0 and Court of A$rarian #elations.

3 RAO SHENG 9 VELASCO

FACTS: #au Shen$ *ao is a Tai!anese national !ho en$a$ed the ser,ices of Att). An$eles Jelasco as his le$al consultant

and counsel of his compan) Forei$n 0n,estors Consultanc) and *ana$ement 0nc F0C*0. aru Ben each #esort and otel Corporation represented () Att) Jelasco as its director and stoc-holder

entered into a mana$ement a$reement !ith F0C*0 Att) Jelasco sold to #au Shen$ his 1>>>> shares in aru Ben for =1>>>>>> (ut the former refused to deli,er the

certi5cates to the Tai!anese despite complete pa)ment made () the Tai!anese Also 3 lands of Att). Jelasco !as (ou$ht () #au Shen$ for =3.3* !ith a remainin$ (alance of =3>>>>> (ut Att).

Jelasco still refused to deli,er the titles #au Shen$ 5led an administrati,e case a$ainst Att). Jelasco. #au Shen$ presented as e,idence letters made ()

Att). Jelasco !herein the latter !as as-in$ mone) from the former to (e $i,en to jud$es hearin$ his cases An additional char$e for immoralit) (ecause of his illicit relationship !ith Luc) *atien%o !ho is not his le$al !ife

!as 5led () #au Shen$ !herein he presented the (aptismal certi5cate of enn) Jelasco !hich listed Att). Jelascoas its father to$ether !ith the a/da,its of se,eral people con5rmin$ Jelascos illicit relationship !ith Luc) ase,idence

Att). Jelasco denied all the alle$ations of #au Shen$ !ith these ar$uments:o e could not decei,e #au Shen$ for the Tai!anese !as al!a)s represented in all their transactions ()

Att). =uro$



22/99


o e refused to deli,er the certi5cate of stoc-s and the land titles (ecause of the #au Shen$s incompletepa)ment of the purchase price

o As to the immoralit) claim Att). Jelasco presented a/da,its of his !ife and Luc) *atien%o0SS":

2?& Att). Jelasco is $uilt) of all the alle$ations made () #au Shen$"L4:

K"S@ Att). Jelasco !as found $uilt) of the ha,in$ illicit relationship !ith *atie%a and $i,in$ #au Shen$ theimpression that he !as in the position to inuence the court and he !as ordered suspended from the practice of

la! for 7 )ears The court found it unli-el) that #au Shen$ !as decei,ed () Att). Jelasco in all their transactions for he !asal!a)s represented () Att). =uro$ in all the dealin$s

ut Att). Jelasco is $uilt) of ha,in$ an adulterous relationship !ith *atien%a !ith !hom he has 3 children all(earin$ his surname as seen in all the school records of the children.

Jelasco ,iolated Canon 1 #ule 1.1>1 () en$a$in$ in unla!ful and immoral acts. La!)ers are (urdened !ith thehi$hest de$ree of social responsi(ilit) and thus must handle their personal a- each. Si)empre tumal(o$

)un m$a che-e. 4eciem(re then 5led =77 V estafa cases a$ainst the 'l(es spouses. #e-lamo si)empre sila 'l(es. The) are e,en sa)in$ that some of their o/cemates su3 e committed falsi5cation !hen he 5lled up the (lan- chec-s e,en if this !as not a$reed upon and despite

-no!led$e that the loan had alread) (een paid. e e,en 5led =77 cases a$ainst the couple. This sho!s the ,ileness and !retchedness of his soul. Fran-lin !as

e,en detained for 3 months (ecause of the cases. 4eciem(re is found to (e lac-in$ $ood moral character. Bood moral character includes at least common honest). The penalt) recommended () the 0= of suspension for 7 )ears is too mild. 4eciem(re is suspended from the

practice of la! inde5nitel).

41 GRANDE 9 DA SILVA

FACTS: "milio Brande is the pri,ate o


23/99


"L4: K"S

#AT0':1. The nature of the o/ce of an att) re+uires that a la!)er shall (e a person of $ood moral character. Bross

misconduct !hich puts the la!)ers moral character in serious dou(t ma) render her un5t to continue in thepractice of la!. A la!)er ma) (e disciplined for e,adin$ pa)ment of a de(t ,alidl) incurred. The loss of moralcharacter of a la!)er for an) reason !hatsoe,er shall !arrant her suspension or dis(arment.

7. An) !ron$doin$ !hich indicates moral un5tness for the profession !hether it (e professional or nonEpro justi5esdisciplinar) action. For a la!)ers professional and personal conduct must at all times (e -ept (e)ond reproachand a(o,e suspicion.

er deli(erate refusal to accept the notices ser,ed on her stains the no(ilit) of the profession. o! else !ould a la!)erendea,or to ser,e justice and uphold the la! !hen she disdains to follo! e,en simple directi,es. Also Canon 1 sa)s that ala!)er shall uphold the consti o(e) the la!s of the land and promote respect for the le$al processes.

42 COJUANGCO 9 PALMA

Facts:Complainant Cojuan$co !a a client of An$ara Concepcion #e$ala and Cru% La! '/ces and =alma !as the la!)er assi$nedto handle his cases. =almas relationship !ith the Cojuan$cos (ecame intimate. e fre+uented theis house and e,entutored Cojuan$cos 77E)ear old dau$hter *aria Luis Cojuan$co.

2ihtout the -no!led$e of complainant Cojuan$cos famil) =alma married Lisa in on$-on$. 0t !as onl) the ne6t da) that=alma informed complainant of such fact. Complainant !as shoc-ed -no!in$ full) !ell that =alma is a married man andhas 3 children.

Complainant 5led !ith CF0 a petition for declaration of nullit) of the marria$e (et!een respondent =alma and Lisa. CF0delared that marria$e null and ,oid. Thereafter Cojuan$co 5leed !ith the SC the instant complaint for dis(arment.

*ean!hile the 5rst di,ision of SC issued a resolution settin$ aside the CF0 4ecision declarin$ the marria$e null and ,oidand remandin$ the case to the CF0 for proper proceedin$. To this date the records fail to disclose the outcome of this case.

0ssue:2?n =alma should (e dis(arred...

eld:K"S.There is no distinction as to !hether the trans$ression is committed in the la!)ers professional capacit) or in his pri,atelife. =rofessional competenc) alone does not ma-e a la!)er !orth) mem(er of the ar. Bood moral character is al!a)san indispensa(el re+uirement.

The truth is respondent married Lisa !hile he has a su(sistin$ marria$e !ith "li%a(eth erosisima. Therefore he e6hi(iteda deplora(le lac- of that de$ree of moralit) re+uired of him as a mem(er of the (ar. #espondents culpa(ilit) isa$$ra,ated () the fact that Lisa !as just 77 )ears old and !as under ps)cholo$ical treatment for emotional immaturit).

The su(se+uent jud$ment of annullment of marria$e has no (earin$ to the instant dis(arment proceedin$. A dis(armentcase is sui $eneris for it is an in,esti$ation () the court into the conduct of its o/cers.

43 REYES 9 CHIONG JR0

Fa(*? Att). #amon #e)es counsel for Ron$$i Qu.

Att). Jictoriano Chion$ r for Chia sien =an.

Qu a ChineseETai!anese !ent into a (usiness ,enture !ith =an. =an !as supposed to set up a Ce(uE(ased5sh(all tempura and seafood products factor). e did not esta(lish it and so Qu as-ed that his mone) (ereturned.

Qu then 5led a case of estafa a$ainst =an. =rosecutor Salan$a then issued a su(poena a$ainst =an.

Att). Chion$ then 5led a motion to +uash (ut he also 5led a ci,il complaint for the collection of a sum of mone)and dama$es as !ell as for the dissolution of a (usiness ,enture a$ainst Qu Att) #e)es and =rosecutor Salan$a.

e alle$ed that Salan$a !as impleaded as an additional defendant (ecause of the irre$ularities the latter hadcommitted in conductin$ the criminal in,esti$ation he still 5led the complaint a$ainst =an in spite of =ansmotions.

Att). #e)es !as alle$edl) impleaded (ecause he alle$edl) conni,ed !ith Qu in 5lin$ the estafa case !hich !as(aseless.

0= recommended that Chion$ (e suspended for 7 )ears.



24/99


I**+"?2?& Chion$ should (e suspended.

H"%&? Kes.

Canon 8 of the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit) pro,ides that a la!)er shall conduct himself !ith courtes)fairness and candor to!ards his professional collea$ues and shall a,oid harassin$ tactics a$ainst opposin$

counsel. 0f Chion$ (elie,ed that the t!o had conspired to act ille$all) he could ha,e instituted dis(arment proceedin$s.

As a la!)er Chion$ should ha,e ad,ised his client of the a,aila(ilit) of these remedies. Thus the 5lin$ of thecases had no justi5cation.

La!)ers should treat their opposin$ counsels and other la!)ers !ith courtes) di$nit) and ci,ilit).

An) undue ill feelin$ (et!een clients should not inuence counsels in their conduct and demeanor to!ard eachother.

44 ALCANTARA 9 PEFIANCO

Facts: Att) =e5anco is counsel in a criminal case. 'ne da) the pri,ate o


25/99


RATIO 0t !ould appear that !hen indi,idual letters of apolo$) and #eEadmission A$reements !ere formali%ed CA*AC'

!as alread) the retained counsel of the e6pelled A*A students =A&BLAKA& and associates ha,in$ full -no!led$e of this fact still proceeded to ne$otiate !ith the e6pelled A*A

students and their parents !ithout at least communicatin$ the matter to their la!)er CA*AC' This failure of =A&BLAKA& and associates !hether () desi$n or o,ersi$ht is an e6cusa(le ,iolation of the

canons of profession ethics and in utter disre$ard of a dut) o!in$ to a collea$ue The e6cuse that a$reements !ere e6ecuted for settlin$ the administrati,e case !as (elied () the *anifestation

!hich states 9 si$natories a$reed amon$ others to terminate ALL ci,il criminal and administrati,e proceedin$sthe) ma) ha,e a$ainst A*A arisin$ from their pre,ious dismissalD

ence =A&BLAKA& should (e suspended for 3 months

DOCTRINEA la!)ers should not in an) !a) communicate upon the su(ject of contro,ers) !ith a part) represented () counsel muchless should he underta-e to ne$otiate or compromise the matter !ith him (ut should onl) deal !ith his counsel. 0t isincum(ent upon the la!)er most particularl) to a,oid e,er)thin$ that ma) tend to mislead a part) not represented ()counsel and he should not underta-e to ad,ise him as to la!.

46 TORRES 9 JAVIER

Facts: This is an administrati,e case 5led () Att). 0reneo Torres a$ainst Att). ose a,ier for malpractice $ross misconduct

in o/ce as an attorne) and?or ,iolation of the la!)ers oath. There !ere 3 causes of action First the alle$ations stem from statements?remar-s made () a,ier in the pleadin$s he 5led in a petition for audit

of all funds of the ni,ersit) of the "ast Facult) Association "FA Torres is the =resident. a,ier implied thatTorres had a moti,e to (ur$lari%e the o/ce of "FA to $et certain documents.

Second Torres alle$es that a,ier used lan$ua$e that !as clearl) a(usi,e o


26/99


0ssue: 2?& the la!)er is $uilt) of cooperatin$ in the ille$al practice of la!.

eld: The la!)er is $uilt).The court a$rees !ith the 5ndin$ of the Commissioner on ar 4iscipline. Accordin$ to the Commissioner

Att). cooperated in ille$al practice in ,iolation of #ule 9.>1 (ased on the 1. The la!)ers dut) to pre,ent or not assist in the unauthori%ed practice of la! is founded on pu(licinterest and polic). The purpose is to protect the pu(lic the client the (ar and the court from the incompetenceand dishonest) of those unlicensed to practice.

4 TAN TE> .ENG 9 DAVID

Facts: Tan Te- en$ is a nonEla!)er !hile 4a,id is a la!)er. 4a,id drafted a contract si$ned () him and Tan Te- en$

statin$ amon$ others that 'n all commissions and attorne)s fees that !e shall recei,e from our clients !e shalldi,ide 5ft)E5ft).D 0n the same contract 4a,id also a$reed not to deal directl) !ith their clients.

The (usiness relationship (et!een 4a,id and Tan Te- en$ did not last since there !ere mutual accusations ofdou(lecross.

Tan Te- en$ accused 4a,id of not compl)in$ !ith the a$reement and denounced the latter to then =residentialAssistant #onaldo Ramora to the '/ce of Ci,il #elations at Camp Crame and to the Supreme Court. e did not5le an) action to enforce the a$reement.

2hile the case !as (ein$ in,esti$ated () the Solicitor Beneral Tan Ta- en$ died. This case !as su(mitted fordecision.

0ssue:2?& the a$reement !as ,alid.

eld: &'. The a$reement is ,oid (ecause it !as tantamount to malpractice !hich is the practice of solicitin$ cases at la!

for the purpose of $ain either personall) or throu$h paid a$ents or (ro-ers.D This meanin$ is in consonance !iththe principle that the practice of la! is a profession not a (usiness.

The commerciali%ation of la! practice is condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted () theAmerican ar Association:3;. &o di,ision of fees for le$al ser,ices is proper e6cept !ith another la!)er (ased upon a di,isionof ser,ice or responsi(ilit).D3M. The professional ser,ices of a la!)er should not (e controlled or e6ploited () an) la! a$enc)personal or corporate !hich inter,enes (et!een client and la!)er[D

4a,id should ha,e -no!n (etter than to enter and act upon such ,oid and unethical a$reement.e is reprimanded for (ein$ $uilt) of malpractice.

4 PEOPLE 9 DE LUNA

FACTS: 4e Luna "T al. respondents -no! that the) did not pass the (as e6amination. Althou$h the) sou$ht admission

under the ar Flun-ers Act the) !ere noti5ed of the decision of the SC den)in$ their petitions. utnot!ithstandin$ their dis+uali5cation to (e admitted to the (ar the) too- their oaths as la!)ers (efore a notar)pu(lic and formall) ad,ised the SC of such oath ta-in$ and that the) !ill en$a$e in the practice of la! in all courtsof the =hilippines

#TC: not $uilt) of contempt of court unless the respondents actuall) en$a$ed in the practice of la! or heldout to the pu(lic that the) are la!)ers () means of circulars

0SS": 2?& the act of the respondents of ta-in$ their oath (efore a notar) pu(lic constitutes contempt of court

"L4: K"S@ The oath as la!)er is a prere+uisite to the practice of la! and ma) (e ta-en onl) (efore the SC () those

authori%ed () the latter to en$a$e in such practice. #espondents clearl) de5ed and challen$ed the orders of the SC () !illfull) ta-in$ the la!)ers oath (efore the

notar) pu(lic despite the resolution of the SC den)in$ their petition to (e admitted to the (ar. The rulin$ of the lo!er court is !ron$ for assumin$ to (e an attorne) 6 6 6 and actin$ as such !ithout

authorit)D is onl) one of the $rounds under #ule ; section 3. Also () ta-in$ the oath of o/ce as attorne)EatEla! and notif)in$ the SC of !hat the) had done and their intent to

practice la! in all courts of the =hilippines the respondents had for all intent and purposes held out to the pu(licas such as attorne)EatEla!



27/99


The case is remanded to the court of ori$in

5: PHILIPPINE LAWYERS 9 AGRAVA

Facts: A$ra,a is the 4irector of the =hilippines =atent '/ce =='. A$ra,a issued a circular announcin$ that there !ill (e an e6amination to determine !ho are +uali5ed to practice

as patent attorne)s (efore the =='. =hil. La!)ers Assoc. =LA 5led this case for prohi(ition and injunction a$ainst A$ra,a. =LA: one !ho passes the (ar is licensed to practice la! and is +uali5ed to practice (efore the =='. A$ra,a is in

e6cess of his jurisdiction in issuin$ the additional +uali5cation A$ra,a: prosecution of patent cases does not in,ol,e entirel) or purel) the practice of la! (ut includes the

application of scienti5c and technical -no!led$e. That li-e his S counterpart he can re+uire additionalre+uirements to practice (efore the =='.

Ta-e note G A$ra,a has (een issuin$ e6aminations (efore (ut it !as onl) no! that this po!er has (een contended

0ssue: 2?& appearance (efore the ==' constitutes or is included in the practice of la!

eld: Kes it is still !ithin the am(it practice of la!D. A$ra,a is in e6cess of his jurisdiction !hen he re+uires an

additional e6amination for la!)ers. The SC has the e6clusi,e and constitutional po!er !ith respect to admission to the practice of la! in the

=hilippines. The practice of la! em(races an) acti,it) in or out of court !hich re+uires the application of la! le$al principlepractice or procedure and calls for le$al -no!led$e trainin$ and e6perience.

Althou$h it is admitted that there is some technicalit) in,ol,ed in the !or- for ==' (ut e,er)thin$ still $oes (ac-to the =atent la! as !ell as other la!s.

As to A$ra,as contention that he has the authorit) just li-e his S counterpart this contention is !ron$. The =hil.=atent la! and the S =atent la! are di


28/99


Facts:*?J =a,lodar o!ned and operated () the Far "astern Shippin$ Compan) F"SC arri,ed at the port of *anila. Senen Ba,ino!as assi$ned () the *anila =ilots Association *=A to conduct doc-in$ manue,ers for the safe (erthin$ of the ,essel.Ba,ino stationed himself in the (rid$e !ith the master of the ,essel Jictor Ua,an-o, (eside him.

2hen the ,essel !as alread) a(out 7>>> feet from the pier Ba,ino ordered the anchor dropped. Ua,an-o, rela)ed theorders to the cre! of the ,essel. o!e,er the anchor did not hold as e6pected. The speed of the ,essel did not slac-en. Acommotion ensued (et!een the cre! mem(ers. 2hen Ba,ino in+uired a(out the commotion Ua,an-o, assured Ba,inothat there !as nothin$ to it.

The (o! of the ,essel rammed into the apron of the pier causin$ considera(le dama$e to the pier. ==A 5led a complaintfor a sum of mone) a$ainst F"SC Ba,ino and *=A. CA ruled in fa,or of ==A holdin$ them lia(le !ith *=A emplo)er ofUa,an-o, entitled toreim(ursement from Ba,ino.

0ssue:Are the counsels for the parties committed acts !hich re+uire the e6ercise of the courts disciplinar) po!ersI

eld:K"S. The records sho! that the la! 5rm of 4el #osario and 4el #osario thru its associate Att) Tria is the the counsel ofrecord for F"SC in (oth B# no 13>>8 and B# no 13>1M>. B# 13>>8 !hich is assi$ned to the Courts second di,isioncommenced !ith the 5lin$ of a ,eri5ed motion for e6tension of time !hich contained a certi5cation a$ainst forumshoppin$ si$ned () counsel Tria statin$ that to the (est of his-no!led$e there is no action or proceedin$ pendin$ in the SC CA or an) other tri(unal.

#e,ie!in$ the records the court 5nds that the petition 5led () *=A in B# no 13>1M> then pendin$ !ith the third di,ision!as dul) 5led !ith a cop) thereof furnished () re$istered mail to counsel for F"SC att) Tria. 0t !ould (e fair to concludethat !hen F"SC 5led its petition B# no 13>>8 it !ould aread) ha,e recei,ed a cop) of the cop) of the petition () *=A. 0t!a therefore encum(ent upon F"SCto inform the court of the pendin$ action. ut considerin$ that it !as a superuit) at that sta$e of the proceedin$ it (ein$unnecessar) to 5le such certi5cation of non forum shoppin$ !ith a mere motion for e6tension the court disre$arded sucherror.

'n the other hand it too- the 'SB representin$ ==A an ordinatel) and unreasona(l) lon$ period of time to 5le itscomment thus undul) dela)in$ the resolution of these cases. 0n B# no 13>>8 it too- 71> da)s (efore the 'SB 5led itscomment. F"SC !as not e,en furnished !ith a cop). 0n Br no 13>1M> it too- 18> da)s (efore comment !as 5led. Thisdisinclination of the 'SB to seasona(l) 5le re+uired pleadin$s constitutes deplora(le disser,ice to the pu(lic and can onl)(e cate$ori%ed as ine/cienc) on the part of the $o,t la! o/ce.

Counsel for F"SC the la! 5rm of 4el #osario and 4el #osario speci5call) its asscociate Tria is reprimaded and !arned thata repetition of the same acts shall (e dealt !ith se,erel).

The ori$inal mem(ers of the le$al tean of the 'SB are admonished and !arned tha a repetition shall also (e dealt !ithmore strin$entl).

a-a lan$ itanon$ -un$ ano rulin$: The decision of the CA is a/rmed. Ba,ino *=A and F"SC are declared solidaril) lia(le!ith *=A entitled to reim(ursement from Ba,ino for such amount of the adjud$ed pecuniar) lia(ilit) in e6cess of theamount e+ui,alent to NMO of its prescri(ed reser,ed fund.

53 COMELEC 9 NOYNAY

Facts: ud$e Tomas &o)na) ordered the records of a certain election case to (e !ithdra!n and directed to the Comelec. The case !as a$ainst 4iosdada Amor a pu(lic school principal and other pu(lic school teachers for ha,in$

,iolated the 'mni(us "lection Code: for ha,in$ en$a$ed in partisan political acti,ities. Comelec !anted to prosecute Amor et al. This case is irrele,ant to the main case Apparentl) the ma6imum imposa(le penalt) in each of the cases does not e6ceed )ears.

The jud$e dismissed the cases usin$ as (asis the udiciar) #eor$ani%ation Act: &ot e6ceedin$ )ears not !ith#TC (ut !ith *TC. ut the 'mni(us "lection Code states that the re$ional trial court shall ha,e the e6clusi,e jurisdiction to tr) and

decide an) criminal action or proceedin$s for ,iolation of this code QQQD A closer readin$ of the udiciar) #eor$ani%ation Act in its 5rst sentence sa)s: "6cept in cases fallin$ !ithin the

ori$inal jurisdiction of the #e$ional Trial Court QQQD The 'mni(us "lection Code is an older la! , the udiciar) "lection Act ud$e &o)na) did not read at all the openin$ sentence of the udiciar) "lection ActD !hen he dismissed the

cases.

Comelecs la!)er !as Att). ose al(uena from the Comelec le$al department.



29/99


0n his *otion for #econsideration see p 73 he +uoted the memorandum of te Court Administrator not the SCand made it appear that these !ere the !ords of the SC.

e cited a case (ut erroneousl):o 2hat he used: Al(erto &alde%aD?Al(ertoo Al(erto &aldo%a

e said the case !as in ,olume 7;M of the SC#A (ut it !as reall) in ,olume 7M;.

0ssue:

2?& ud$e &o)na) has the jurisdiction to handle the election cases in his sala.eld:

#C &ote: parts of the SC decision !ere in the FactsD portion since )ou !ill not understand the case if 0 placed itin the (ottomD

Kes. ud$e &o)na) and Att). al(uena should also (e admonished. The jud$e should (e reminded of his dut) to (e studious of the principles of la! to administer his o/ce !ith due

re$ard to the inte$rit) of the s)stem of the la! itself to (e faithful to the la! and to maintain professionalcompetence.

al(uena should also (e admonished for his utter carelessness in his references. #ule 1>.>7 mandates that a la!)er shall not -no!in$l) mis+uote or misrepresent the te6t of a decision or

authorit).

54 RIVERA 9 CORRAL

Facts: A decision in a case for ejectment !as sent to Att) Corral. is secretar) recei,ed the decision on Fe( 73 199>. 'n *arch 13 199> Att) Corral 5led a notice of appeal. The ne6t da) Corral !ent to the '/ce of the Cler- of

Court to chan$e the date of receipt of the decision from Fe( 73 to Fe( 79 !hich !as later chan$ed to Fe( 78!hen Corral reali%ed that there !as no Fe( 79 that )ear. =ara hindi si)a maEdis+ualif) n$ 1MEda) appeal period.

#i,era 5led a complaint for dis(arment a$ainst Att) Corral for tamperin$ the courts records !ithout such courtspermission or -no!led$e.

The 0= in,esti$atin$ committee a/rmed the char$es and recommended suspension. Later on the 0= oardordered Corrals suspension.

Corral claims he !as not a> AT"BAS 5led a *anifestation !ith *otion for ail alle$in$ that the accused has ,oluntaril)

surrendered to a person in authorit) and as such is no! under detention pon ,eri5cation !ith the &0 K'&B disco,ered that the accused surrendered on 4ec 1; 7>>> not !" AT"BAS et al in their defense alle$ed that

o 'n 4ec 13 7>>> upon learnin$ that a !arrant of arrest !as issued a$ainst their client the) 5led a*anifestation !ith *otion for ail

o The) immediatel) fetched accused from Ca,ite and (rou$ht him to &0 to ,oluntaril) surrendero o!e,er due to hea,) tra/c the) arri,ed at &0 at 7am the ne6t da)o That !as !h) the Certi5cate of 4etention indicated that the accused surrendered on 4ec 1; 7>>> and

not 13



30/99


o As to lac- of notice K'&B (ein$ a pri,ate prosecutor is not entitled to such as onl) the State and Cit)prosecutors should (e $i,en notices

0n,esti$atin$ Commissioner recommended suspension of months 0= Commission on ar 4iscipline in a resolution appro,ed said recommendation

ISSUE W


31/99


The SC thin-s that suspension of )ears is too much so the) lo!ered the penalt) to just a 7E)ear suspension.

57 ESTRADA 9 SANDIGAN.AYAN

Facts: Att). =a$uia is the counsel of oseph "strada in the case of "strada ,s. Arro)o. Att). =a$uia asserts that the mem(ersof the Supreme Court should inhi(it themsel,es from hearin$ the petition (ecause of R+%" 501: ) (-" C)&" )

J+&a% C),&+( !hich prohi(its jud$es from participatin$ in partisan political acti,ities. Accordin$ the Att).=a$uia the justices ha,e ,iolated the rule () participatin$ in the "4SA 7 rall) and authori%in$ the assumption ofo/ce () =resident Arro)o.

The Sandi$an(a)an denied the petition and motion for reconsideration of Att). =a$uia to dismiss all thecriminal cases a$ainst "strada. Att). =a$uia attac-ed the decision of the Court in the case of "strada ,s. Arro)o ()sa)in$: similar in the decisions in,ol,in$ admin. a$encies if the act of the justices is la!ful it is the act of theSupreme Court and if the act of the jud$es is not la!ful it is not the act of the Supreme Court. As such Att).=a$uia asserts that the decision in "strada ,s. Arro)o (ein$ unla!ful in ,ie! of #ule M.1> of Code of udicialConduct is not the act of the SC.

Att). =a$uia repeated his assault on the court in (oth (roadcast and print media. For that reason thecourt as-ed him to sho! cause !h) he should not (e sanctioned.

0ssue: 2?& Att). =a$uia should (e sanctioned for conduct un(ecomin$.

eld: A((0 Pa/+a * *a,(),"&0 H" * ,&",("% *+*$",&"& #)m $#a(" ) %a0Canon 11 of the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit) mandates the la!)er should o(ser,e and maintain

the respect due to the courts and judicial o/cers. 0n li(erall) imputin$ sinister and de,ious moti,es and +uestionin$the impartialit) inte$rit) and authorit) of the mem(ers of the court Att). =a$uia has onl) succeeded see-in$ to

impede o(struct and per,ert the dispensation of justice.Att). =a$uia has also (een called to the mandate of #ule 13.>7 of the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit)

prohi(itin$ a mem(er of the (ar from ma-in$ such pu(lic statements on a case that ma) tend to arouse pu(licopinion for or a$ainst a part).

5 TIONGCO 9 AGUILARCanon 1> *orada

Facts: Att). Tion$co 5led a petition !ith the Supreme Court for a re,ie! of a lo!er courts decision. The petition contained malicious and intemperate lan$ua$e. Tion$co stated that the decision of the trial court

ud$e !as crafted to fool the !innin$ part)D a h)pocritical jud$ment in plainti


32/99


o 0t has ne,er (een their intent to (e disrespectfulo 0t !as the result of o,erenthusiasm on the part of Att). Armonio !ho thou$ht (est to focus the attention

of the court to the issue in the case and !as not in an) !a) meant to sli$ht or o


33/99


ermoso. ud$ment !as rendered in fa,or of ermoso orderin$ the defendants to (e held joint) and se,erall)lia(le.

The Sheri< of *anila le,ied upon the shares of common stoc- re$istered in 4amaso =ere%name !ith the #epu(lican-.

=etitioners used the rules of procedure to suspend the e6ecution of jud$ment. and the) mana$ed to ha,e thesale suspended 6

o The) alle$ed that le,) !as hi$hl) e6cessi,e and unjusto ",en the !ife of 4amaso =ere% 5led to lift the !rit of e6ecution alle$in$ that the shares of stoc- !ere

conju$al assets and that the de(t !as a personal o(li$ation.0SS": 2o& petitioners restored to tric-) snea-) and maneu,erin$ tactics to th!art the ends of justiceI

"L4: K"S

#AT0':1. 4urin$ the protracted liti$ation the petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions at some sta$esalternatin$l) a(etted () their counsel for the sole purpose of th!artin$ the e6ecution of a simple mone) jud$ment !hichhas lon$ (ecome 5nal and e6ecutor). Some of the actions !ere 5led onl) to (e a(andoned or !ithdra!n. The petitionersand their counsel far from ,ie!in$ courts as sanctuaries for those !ho see- justice ha,e tried to use them to su(,ert the,er) ends of justice.

62 MAGAT 9 SANTIAGO

Facts:For dela)in$ the termination of an unla!ful detainer case () 5lin$ multiple petitions (efore the SC in,ol,in$ the same

su(ject matters and cause of action !hich !ere attempts () the same part) and his counsel to dela) enforcement of ajud$ment that has lon$ (ecome 5nal and e6ecutor) the SC suspended Att) *a$at from the practice of la! .

The court in rulin$ for the suspension of *a$at stated that a la!)er o!es the dut) of $ood faith and honora(le dealin$ tothe judicial tri(unal (efore !hom he practices his profession. 0nherent in that o(li$ation is the dut) to assist in the speed)disposition of cases.

Att) *a$at and mem(ers of his famil) is no! pra)in$ for judicial clemenc) e6pressin$ their profound re$ret for his pastmisconduct and his a,o!al ot amend his !a)s in ,ie! if the said famil)s 5nancial and economic di/culties to his ina(ilit)to earn his li,elihood as a la!)er. This plea has (een reiterated for a period of more than 7 )ears since his suspension.

0ssue:2?n the suspension should (e terminated...

eld:K"S. The court is satis5ed that *a$at appreciates the si$ni5cance of his dereliction and he has assured the court that he

no! possesses the re+uisite pro(it) and inte$rit) necesar) to $uarantee that he is !orth) to (e restored to the practice ofla!.

63 MILLARE 9 MONTERO

Facts: #C &ote: The 5rst part of the case is pointless. 0t just !ants to impress on )ou that Att). *ontero used procedure

to circum,ent the administration of justice =ac5ca *illare the mother of the complainant o(tained a fa,ora(le jud$ment a$ainst "lsa Co. The case !as for

ejectment 5led !ith the *TC. The jud$ment of the *TC (ecame 5nal and e6ecutor) on &o,em(er 198. &umerous appeals?complaints?petitions !ere 5led to frustrate the e6ecution of the *TC jud$ment. The summar)

of !hich is in pa$e 8. There is no need to -no! !hat the) are thou$h.

0ssue: 2?& Att). *onteros acts are justi5ed.

eld: &o. *ontero should (e suspended for one )ear as recommended () the 0= !hich found him $uilt) of malpractice. ud$in$ from the num(er of actions 5led *ontero is also $uilt) of forum shoppin$. ) ha,in$ !illfull) and -no!in$l) a(used his ri$hts of recourse in his e


34/99


*ontero has made a moc-er) of the judicial process. And disre$arded the canons in intentionall) frustratin$ theri$hts of a liti$ant in !hose fa,or a jud$ment in the case !as rendered: thus a(used procedural rules to defeatthe ends of su(stantial justice.

64 ETERNAL GARDENS 9 CA

Facts: Seelin spouses 5led a case a$ainst Central 4)ein$ for +uietin$ of title. The spouses !on and the decision in their

fa,or (ecame 5nal an e6ecutor). 2hen the spouses 5led a *otion for an 0mmediate 2rit of =ossession "ternal Bardens *emorial =ar- Corp

opposed claimin$ that it is the true and re$istered o!ner of the propert)Pha,in$ (ou$ht the same from Central4)ein$ in $ood faith. 0t also ar$ued that it !as not (ound () the decision since it !as not impleaded in the case.

ut the trial court fa,ored the spouses and dismissed "ternal Bardens claim since the jud$ment in the +uetin$ oftitle case !as (indin$ upon the latter (ein$ the successorEinEinterest of Central 4)ein$. The CA on the same$rounds denied "ternal Bardens appeal.

So Seelin spouses 5led for a second !rit of e6ecution. 4ahil sa ma-ulit not to mention optimistic si "ternalBardens na$E5le pa ito ulit n$ motion reconsideration. 0t further contended that since there is a pendin$ issue onpossession a di


35/99


=AB0#0BA& !as clearl) ne$li$ent in the performance of his duties. e admits that he failed to 5le the appellees (rief!hich just sho!s the ca,alier attitude he too- to!ards his clients cause. Althou$h the failure to 5le the appellees (rief ina case is not a $round for an ad,erse rulin$ the importance of 5lin$ an appellees (rief cannot (e $ainsaid (ecause uponappeal the appellate court can onl) place $reat reliance on the (riefs and memoranda of the parties. Thus the failure tosu(mit these pleadin$s could ,er) !ell (e fatal to the cause of the client.

To ma-e matters !orse =AB0#0BA& did not onl) fail to 5le an appellees (rief (ut after (ein$ $ranted a 3> da) e6tensionof the time to 5le a petition for re,ie! of the decision of the CA he a$ain lost throu$h default () failin$ to 5le said petition.And =AB0#0BA&S alle$ation a(out the SCs (elated action on the petition onl) succeeds in sho!in$ his i$norance of 7(asic principles: 5rst that a part) cannot presume that his motion !ill (e $ranted and second that an) e6tension $rantedis al!a)s counted from the last da) of the re$lementar) period !hich is 'ct 1; 199N 3not )ro& t$e da+ t$e resol%tion 'asdated4.

=AB0#0BA& is thus $uilt) of ,iolation of #ule 17.>3 of the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit) !hich pro,ides a la!)ershall not after o(tainin$ e6tensions of time to 5le pleadin$s memoranda and (riefs let the period lapse !ithoutsu(mittin$ the same or o


36/99


4espite of this #afanan cannot (e made administrati,el) lia(le. First the SC considered that it is the dut) of a

la!)er to assert e,er) remed) and defense for the (ene5t of the client. Thus in defense of his client #afanan is

supposed to do e,er)thin$ in his po!er. Since he is a !itness to the crime his a/da,it is essential to the

defense of his client. 2hat he should ha,e done thou$h !as to e6empt himself from (ein$ counsel. This !ould

ensure his credi(ilit) as a !itness.

0n the end (ecause of his ,iolation of the &otarial La!s and Canon M of the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit)

#afanan is 5ned 3>>>.

67 .ER.ANO 9 .ARCELONA

Facts: The heirs of ilapo appointed Att). 4aen as their att).EinEfact. Att). 4aen !as su(se+uentl) arrested () the*untinlupa police. The heirs of ilapo tried to loo- for a la!)er to secure the release of Att). 4aen. The heirs !ererecommended to Att). arcelona. 2hen the spouses ,isited Att). 4aen the) learned that Att). 4aen had decided toen$a$e the ser,ices of Att). arcelona. Att). arcelona then proceeded to tell the heirs if the) could produce =M>Uhe could secure the release of Att). 4aen the ne6t da). ecause the heirs could not produce the total amount the)merel) $a,e =1MN>>.

There !ere se,eral meetin$s (et!een the heirs and Att). arcelona re$ardin$ the $rease mone)D to (eused to alle$edl) (ri(e an SC justice. The heirs made another pa)ment ,ia a chec- !orth =7;>>>. 'n anotheroccasion the heirs !ent to the house of Att). arcelona and $a,e =1>>>>. The total amount $i,en () the heirs toAtt). arcelona reached =;>>>.

Commissioner autista found Att). to (e $uilt) of malpractice and (reach of dut) and recommended that

he (e dis(arred.

0ssue: 2?& Att). arcelona should (e dis(arred.

eld: A((0 .a#"%),a *-)+%& !" &*!a##"&04is(arment proceedin$s are sui $eneris. 0ts intention is to safe$uard the administration of justice ()

protectin$ the court and pu(lic from the misconduct of the o/cers of the court.0n this case Att). demonstrated a penchant for misrepresentin$ that he had connections to secure the

release of Att). 4aen. Att). arcelona misrepresented to the complainant that he could $et the release of Att). 4aen!ith his connection !ith a Supreme Court ustice. 0nstead of promotin$ respect for la! and the le$al processesAtt). arcelona demeaned the le$al profession () ta-in$ mone) from a client under the prete6t of ha,in$connections !ith a mem(er of this court.

6 ALMARVE8 9 PAAS

Facts: =asa) Cit) *etropolitan Trial Court ud$e "strellita =aas administrati,el) char$ed Almar,e% a Court Aide?tilit)

2or-er !ith discourtes) to his fello! emplo)ees ne$lect in performin$ duties () not maintainin$ the cleanlinessaround the court premises and often (ein$ a(sent from !or- and solicitation of mone) from prisoners (eforeser,in$ them their #elease 'rders and from liti$ants () o


37/99


sin$ the ud$es address is a su(tle !as of sendin$ a messa$e that Att). =aas is the hus(and of a jud$e in thesame (uildin$ and should (e $i,en special treatment () other jud$es or court personnel.

0n SC Administrati,e Circular &o. >1E99 it !as stated that court o/cials and emplo)ees must ne,er use theiro/ces[for an) other purpose that for court or judicial functions.D

Code of udicial Conduct pro,ides that a jud$e should a,oid impropriet) in all acti,ities and shall not allo! the useof the judicial o/ce to ad,ance the pri,ate interests of others.

SC Circular &o. 3E97 prohi(its the use of halls of justice for residential or commercial purposes. 0t is unprofessional and dishonora(le to misuse a pu(lic o/ce to enhance a la!)ers presti$e. 0t ,iolates canons

3 1> 13 and 1M of the Code of =rofessional #esponsi(ilit). A((0 Paa* * *+*$",&"& )# 3 m),(-* #)m (-" $#a(" ) %a' -%" J+&/" Paa* *-a%% $a a ," )P12':::

6 NESTLE 9 SANCHE8

FACTS: From ul) 8E1> union mem(ers of nion of Filipro "mplo)ees or the Uim(erl) 0ndependent La(or nion !ho 5led

a case in court intensi5ed their pic-ets that the) had (een conductin$ since une 1N in front of the =adre Faura$ate of the SC

4espite of the !arnin$ $i,en () the court to their leaders and counsel the pic-etin$ continued The union mem(ers are o(structin$ the access to and e$ress from the courts premises. The) ha,e also

constructed pro,isional shelters alon$ the side!al-s set up -itchens and littered the place. the) too- turnsharan$uin$ the court all da) lon$ !ith the use of loudspea-ers

0SS": 2?& the rall)ists must (e held !ith contempt

"L4: The contempt char$es !ere dismissed The Counsel of the union mem(ers apolo$i%ed to the court and promised that the incident !ill not (e repeated

a$ain The pic-etin$ !as actuall) done () the mem(ers of the =A*A&T0U =a$-a-aisa n$ *An$$a$a!a sa Timo$

Uatalu$an an unre$istered loose alle$iance of a(out NM unions in the Southern Ta$alo$ and not () either thenion of Filipro "mplo)ees or the Uim(erl) 0ndependent La(or nion.

ut the court !ill not hesitate in future similar incidents to appl) the full force of the la! and punish for contemptthose !ho attempt to pressure the court to actin$ one !a) or the other in an) case pendin$ (efore it.

The court is entitled to proceed to the disposition of its (usiness in an orderl) manner free from outsideinterference o(structi,e of its functions and tendin$ to em(arrass the administration of justice.

An) attempt to pressure or inuence courts of justice throu$h the e6ercise of either ri$ht amounts to an a(usethereof and is no lon$er !ithin the am(it of constitutional protection and that an) such e


38/99


Kes. 0t is apparent that the ACC#A la!)ers !ere onl) impleaded to force them to disclose the identit) of theirclients.

=CBB has no ,alid cause of action

0ssue: 2?& the attorne)Eclient pri,ile$e prohi(its the ACC#A la!)ers from re,ealin$ the identit) of their clients

eld: Beneral rule: a clients identit) should not (e shrouded in m)ster)

o "6ceptions: !here a stron$ pro(a(ilit) e6ists that re,ealin$ the clients name !ould implicate that clientin the ,er) acti,it) for !hich he sou$ht the la!)ers ad,ice

o 2here disclosure !ould open the client to ci,il lia(ilit)o 2here re,ealin$ the identit) !ould furnish the onl) lin- that !ould (e necessar) to con,ict an indi,idual

of a crime The prosecution should rel) on the stren$th of their e,idence and not on the !ea-ness of the defense #oco merel) stated that he !as actin$ as nomineeEstoc-holder for the client and is part of le$itimate la!)erin$.

The ACC#A la!)ers also made such statement and should also (e dropped.

0n re: Canon 1; the relation of attorne) and client is strictl) personal and hi$hl) con5dential and 5duciar) the la!)er is more than a mere a$ent or ser,ant (ecause he possesses special po!ers of trust and con5dence

reposed on him () his client

71 DAROY 9 LEGASPIFACTS:

Complainants char$ed Att). #amon Cha,e%E Le$aspi !ith malpractice for ha,in$ misappropriated the sum of=;>>>.>> !hich he had collected for them. The) pra)ed that he (e dis(arred

FACTAL "J04"&C": Complainants hired Att). Le$aspi to represent them in the intestate proceedin$ for thesettlement of the estate of the spouses Bon%a$a. The complainantEheirs in a joint petition !hich Att). Le$aspisi$ned as counsel a$reed that the coconut land left () the decedents !ould (e di,ided into e+ual parts and thatthe proceeds of the sale of the land !ould (e distri(uted amon$ them.

Att). Le$aspi !rote to the father of *rs. 4aro) Teo5lo Le$aspi that the mone) deposited could (e !ithdra!n.o!e,er Att). Le$aspi had alread) !ithdra!n the mone) therefore he acted in (ad faith. 0t turned out that Att).Le$aspi !as also an heir althou$h it !asnt sho!n ho!.

0SS": 2o& Att). Le$aspi should (e dis(arred (ecause he ,iolated the relation (et!een attorne) and his clientI"L4: K"S@#AT0':1. The relation (et!een an att) and his client is hi$l) 5duciar) in nature and of a ,er) delicate e6actin$ and con5dentialcharacter re+uirin$ a hi$h de$ree of 5delit) and $ood faith. 0n ,ie! of that special relationship la!)ers are (ound topromptl) account for mone) or propert) recei,ed () them on (ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutesprofessional misconduct. The fact that a la!)er has a lien for fees on mone) in his hands collected for his clients does notrelie,e him from the dut) of promptl) accountin$ for the funds recei,ed.7. The complainants ho!e,er ha,e to reco,er the mone) in an ordinar) action and not in this dis(arment proceedin$.

72 DEE 9 CA

4ee and his father !ent to the residence of Att) *utuc to see- his ad,ice re$ardin$ the pro(lem of the alle$edinde(tedness of petitioners (rother 4e!e) 4ee to Ceasars =alace. =etitioners father !as apprehensi,e o,er the safet)of his son 4e!e) ha,in$ heard of a lin- (et!een the ma5a and Ceasars =alace and his possi(ilit) that his son ma) (eharmed at the instance of the latter.

Att) *utuc assured petitioner and his father that he !ould in+uire into the matter after !hich his ser,ices !ere reportedl)contracted for =1>>>>>.

Further in,esti$ations re,ealed that the alle$ed de(t of 4e!e) had actuall) (een incurred () #amon S) !ith 4e!e)merel) si$nin$ for the chits. Att) *utuc tal-ed !ith the president of Ceasars palace and ad,ised the president that for thesa-e and in the interest of the casino it !ould (e (etter to ma-e #amon S) ans!er for the inde(tedness. The presidenttold him that if he could con,ince #amon S) to ac-no!led$e the o(li$ation 4e!e) !ould (e e6culpated from lia(ilit).#amon S) ac-no!led$ed the o(li$ation thereafter the account of 4e!e) !as cleared.

Att) *utuc sent demand letters to petitioner demandin$ the (alance of =M>>>> as attorne)s fees. =etitioner 4ee i$noredsaid letters. Att) *utuc 5led a complaint a$ainst petitioner 4ee for the collection of attorne)s fees.

=etitioner denied the e6istence of an) professional relationship of attorne) and client (et!een hin and Att) *utuc. 4eeinsists that the ,isits made to Att) *utuc !as merel) informal and that Att) *utuc had not (een speci5call) contacted to



39/99


handle the pro(lem. The =M>>>> $i,en to Att) *utuc !as alle$ed to (e $i,en not in the nature of attorne)s fees (utmerel) poc-et mone).

0ssue:2?n there !as a la!)erEclient relationship[

eld:K"S. The a(sence of a !ritten contract !ill not preclude the 5ndin$ that there !as a professional relationship !hichmerits attorne)s fees for professional ser,ices rendered. To esta(lish the relationship it is su/cient that the ad,ice andassistance of an attorne) is sou$ht and recei,ed in an) matter pertinent to his profession. An acceptance of the relation isimplied on the part of the attorne) from his actin$ on (ehalf of his client in pursuance of a re+uest from the latter.

Therefore *utuc is entitled to recei,e a reasona(le compensation.

Att) *utuc did not represent conictin$ interests as claimed () 4ee !hen 4ee alle$ed that *utuc !as actin$ as a$ent ofCeasars =alace. *utucs representations in (ehalf of petitioner 4ee !ere not in resistance to the casinos claim (ut !ereactuall) $eared to!ard pro,in$ the lia(ilit) of true de(tor #amon S).

73 .R SE.ASTIAN 9 CA

Facts: "ulo$io #e)es (efore he died 5led an action for dama$es a$ainst the 4irector of =u(lic 2or-s and # Se(astian. # Se(astian #S !as held to (e lia(le (ut the 4irector of =u(lic 2or-s !as e6onerated. #S appealed. 4urin$ the pendenc) of the appeal #e)es died. e !as su(stituted () his heirs the #e)eses. 0n 19N; #S recei,ed notice to 5le Appelants rief !ithin ;M da)s from receipt. Counsel for #S The ai%as Al(erto and Associates

#gremalynpipitbernardoethics digests compiled

Documents