NECESSITY OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

IN THE LIFE OF A LAWYER

A. Requisite for admission to the Bar

1. Every applicant for admission as a

member of the bar must be a citizen of the

Philippines, at least twenty one years of age,

of good moral character, and a resident of

the Philippines, and must produce before

the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of

good moral character and that no charges

against him involving moral turpitude, have

been filed or pending in any court in the

Philippines (Sec. 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court)

2. A lawyer shall be answerable for

knowingly making false statement or

suppressing a material fact in connection

with his application for admission to the

bar. (Rule 701, CPR)

3. A lawyer shall not support the application

for admission to the bar of any person

known by him to be unqualified in respect

to character, education or other, or other

relevant attribute. (Rule 7.02, CPR)

B. Condition for maintenance of

membership in the Bar

4. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

(Rule 1.01, Rule of Professional

Responsibility [CPR])

5. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that

adversely reflects on his fitness to practice

law, now should he, whether in public or

private life, behave in a scandalous manner

to the discredit of the legal profession. (Rule

7.03, CPR)

6. A member of the bar may be removed or

suspended from his office as attorney-at-law

by the Supreme Court for any deceit,

malpractice, or for gross misconduct in such

office, gross immoral conduct, or by reason

of his conviction of a crime involving moral

turpitude, or for any violation of the oath

which he is required to take before

admission to practice, or for willful

disobedience or any lawful order of a

superior court, or for corruptly or willfully

appearing as an attorney for a party to a

case without authority to do so. The practice

of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of

gain, either personally or through paid

agents or brokers constitutes malpractice.

(Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court)

C. Definitions of good moral character.

7. Good moral character includes at least

common honesty (In E Del Rosario, 52 Phil.

399, Royong vs. Oblena, 7 SCRA 859)

8. From a lawyer, to paraphrase Justice Felix

Frankfurter, are expected those qualities of

truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full

candor, intellectual honesty, and the

strictest observance of fiduciary

responsibility – all of which, throughout the

centuries, have been compendiously

described as moral character. (Justice Fred

Ruiz Castro, “Apostacy in the Legal

Profession”, 64 SCRA 784.

9. Good moral character is more than just

the absence of bad moral character. Such

character expresses itself in the will to do

the unpleasant thing if it is right and the

resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is

wrong. (Cordon vs. Balicanta, 490 SCRA

299)

B. Good moral character and the duties of a

lawyer

CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

constitution, obey the laws of the land and

promote respect for law and the legal

processes..

A.C. 6057, June 27, 2006

PETER DONTON vs. ATTY. E. TANSINGCO

By his own admission, respondent admitted

that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified

from owning real property. Yet, in his

motion for reconsideration, [12] respondent

admitted that he caused the transfer of

ownership to the parcel of land to Stier.

Respondent, however, aware of the

prohibition, quickly rectified his act and

transferred the title in complainant’s name.

But respondent provided “some safeguards”

by preparing several documents, including

the Occupancy Agreement, that would

guarantee Stier’s recognition as the actual

owner of the property despite its transfer in

complainant’s name.In effect, respondent

advised and aided Stier in circumventing the

constitutional prohibition against foreign

ownership of lands by preparing said

documents.

Respondent had sworn to uphold the

Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and

the Code when he prepared and notarized

the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law

against foreign ownership of lands.

Respondent used his knowledge of the law

to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act

amounts to malpractice in his office, for

which he may be suspended.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in

unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

conduct.

A.C. No. 5542, July 20, 2006

DAYAN STA. ANA CHRISTIAN

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC.

vs. ATTY.NAPOLEON ESPIRITU

The fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate

is what places the law profession in a

unique position of trust and confidence, and

distinguishes it from any other calling. Once

this trust and confidence is betrayed, the

faith of the people not only in the individual

lawyer but also in the legal profession as a

whole is eroded. To this end, all members of

the bar are strictly required to at all times

maintain the highest degree of public

confidence in the fidelity, honesty and

integrity of their profession. The nature of

the office of a lawyer requires that he shall

be of good moral character. This

qualification is not only a condition

precedent to admission to the legal

profession, but its continued possession is

essential to maintain one’s good standing in

the profession. Law is a noble profession,

and the privilege to practice it is bestowed

only upon individuals who are competent

intellectually, academically, and, equally

important, morally. Because they are

vanguards of the law and the legal system,

lawyers must at all times conduct

themselves, especially in their dealings with

their clients and the public at large, with

honesty and integrity in a manner beyond

reproach.

A.C. No. 6792, January 25, 2006

ROBERTO SORIANO vs. ATTY. MANUEL

DIZON

The totality of the facts unmistakably bears

the earmarks of moral turpitude. By his

conduct, respondent revealed his extreme

arrogance and feeling of self-importance. As

it were, he acted like a god on the road, who

deserved to be venerated and never to be

slighted. Clearly, his inordinate reaction to a

simple traffic incident reflected poorly on

his fitness to be a member of the legal

profession. His overreaction also evinced

vindictiveness, which was definitely an

undesirable trait in any individual, more so

in a lawyer. In the tenacity with which he

pursued complainant, we see not the

persistence of a person who has been

grievously wronged, but the obstinacy of

one trying to assert a false sense of

superiority and to exact revenge”

A.C. No. 5700, January 30, 2006.

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING

CORPORATION vs. ATTY. DANTE A.

CARANDANG

Clearly, even if the check was drawn by

Bingo Royale, still respondent is liable.

In People v. Tuanda, we explained the

nature of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 as follows:

The gravamen of the offense punished by

B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a

worthless check or a check that is

dishonored upon its presentation for

payment . . . . The thrust of the law is to

prohibit under pain of penal sanctions, the

making of worthless checks and putting

them in circulation. Because of its

deleterious effects on the public interest, the

practice is proscribed by the law. The law

punishes the act not as an offense against

property but an offense against public

order.

The effects of the issuance of a worthless

check transcends the private interests of the

parties directly involved in the transaction

and touches the interests of the community

at large. The mischief it creates is not only a

wrong to the payee or holder, but also an

injury to the public. The harmful practice of

putting valueless commercial papers in

circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can

very well pollute the channels of trade and

commerce, injure the banking system and

eventually hurt the welfare of society and

the public interest.

A.C. No. 6963. February 9, 2006.]

VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E.

BERNABE

Respondent's act of notarizing the

Magkasanib na Salaysay in the absence of

one the affiants is in violation of Rule 1.01,

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility and the Notarial Law. By

affixing his signature and notarial seal on

the instrument, he led us to believe that

Basilia personally appeared before him and

attested to the truth and veracity of the

contents of the affidavit when in fact it was a

certain Pronebo who signed the document.

Respondent's conduct is fraught with

dangerous possibilities considering the

conclusiveness on the due execution of a

document that our courts and the public

accord on notarized documents. Respondent

has clearly failed to exercise utmost

diligence in the performance of his function

as a notary public and to comply with the

mandates of the law.

A.C. 5377, June 15, 2006

VICTOR LINGAN vs. ATTYS. CALUBAQUIB &

BALIGA

Notarization by a notary public converts a

private document into a public one and

makes it admissible in evidence without

further proof of its authenticity. Notaries

public must therefore observe utmost care

with respect to the basic requirements of

their duties.

Being not only lawyers but also public

officers, respondents should have been

acutely aware of their responsibilities.

Respondents’ acts did not amount to mere

simple and excusable negligence. Having

failed to perform their sworn duty,

respondents were squarely in violation of

Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility.

A.C. 5907, July 21, 2006

ELSA MONDEJAR vs. ATTY. VIVIAN RUBIA

The document clearly appears to have been

ante-dated in an attempt to exculpate

Marilyn from the Anti-Dummy charge

against her in 2002.

The document was allegedly notarized on

January 9, 2001 but a new revised/amended

document was made in 2002 bearing the

original date of execution/acknowledgment.

If that were so, how could an error have

been committed regarding the other year

2001 original entries in the notarial register,

when the purported new document was to

retain the original January 9, 2001 date as it

would merely input additional conditions

thereto? The above-quoted discussion by

the Investigating IBP Commissioner of why

he discredited respondent’s explanation

behind the conflicting dates appearing in the

document is thus well-taken.

A.C. No. 6010, August 28, 2006

ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL

FACULTY & STAFF vs.

ATTY. ROLANDO DELA CRUZ

Undoubtedly, respondent’s act constitutes

immoral conduct. But is it so gross as to

warrant his disbarment? Indeed, he

exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of

morality required of him as a member of the

Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of

marriage which is a sacred institution

demanding respect and dignity. His act of

contracting a second marriage while the

first marriage was still in place, is contrary

to honesty, justice, decency and morality

However, measured against the definition,

we are not prepared to consider

respondent’s act as grossly immoral. This

finds support in the following

recommendation and observation of the IBP

Investigator and IBP Board of Governors.

:

A.C. No. 6313, September 7, 2006

CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG vs. ATTY.

DIOSDADO RONGCAL

While it is has been held in disbarment

cases that the mere fact of sexual relations

between two unmarried adults is not

sufficient to warrant administrative

sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so

with respect to betrayals of the marital vow

of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-

marital relations are punishable under

penal law, sexual relations outside marriage

is considered disgraceful and immoral as it

manifests deliberate disregard of the

sanctity of marriage and the marital vows

protected by the Constitution and affirmed

by our laws.

A.C. No. 54171 . March 31, 2006.

AMADOR Z. MALHABOUR vs. ATTY.

ALBERTI R. SARMIENTO

Respondent failed to comply with the above

provisions. Records show and as found by

Investigating Commissioner, respondent

committed deceit by making it appear that

complainant executed a Special Power of

Attorney authorizing him (respondent) to

file with the NLRC a Motion for Execution

and to collect the money judgment awarded

to the former. Worse, after receiving from

the NLRC cashier the check amounting to

P99,490.00, he retained the amount. It was

only when complainant reported the matter

to the NBI that respondent paid him

P40,000.00 as partial payment of the

"award." In fact, there still remains an

outstanding balance of P10,000.00.

Moreover, as correctly found by IBP

Commissioner Maala, respondent has no

right to retain or appropriate unilaterally

his lawyer's lien by dividing the money into

60-40 ratio. Obviously, such conduct is

indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.

He was clinging to something not his and to

which he had no right.

A.C. No. 6288, June 16, 2006

MARILI C. RONQUILLO, et al. vs. ATTY.

HOMOBONO CHAVEZ

In the instant case, respondent may have

acted in his private capacity when he

entered into a contract with complainant

Marili representing to have the rights to

transfer title over the townhouse unit and

lot in question. When he failed in his

undertaking, respondent fell short of his

duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. It cannot be

gainsaid that it was unlawful for respondent

to transfer property over which one has no

legal right of ownership. Respondent was

likewise guilty of dishonest and deceitful

conduct when he concealed this lack of right

from complainants. He did not inform the

complainant that he has not yet paid in full

the price of the subject townhouse unit and

lot, and, therefore, he had no right to sell,

transfer or assign said property at the time

of the execution of the Deed of Assignment.

His acceptance of the bulk of the purchaser

price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty

Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos

(P937,400.00). despite knowing he was not

entitled to it, made matters worse for him.

Rule 1/02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or

abet activities aimed at defiance of the law

or at lessening confidence in the legal

system.

A.C. No. 6968, August 9, 2006

ATTY. ORLANDO V. DIZON vs. ATTY.

MARICHU LAMBINO

In the main, Atty. Dizon invoked Section 1

(a) of Republic Act 157 (The NBI Charter)

which empowers the NBI “to undertake

investigations of crimes and other offenses

against the laws of the Philippines, upon its

own initiative and as public interest may

require” [5] and to make arrests. The

invocation does not impress. Said section

does not grant the NBI the power to make

warrantless arrests. The NBI Charter clearly

qualifies the power to make arrests to be “in

accordance with existing laws and rules.”

Members of the investigation staff of the

Bureau of Investigation shall be peace

officers, and as such have the following

powers:

(a) To make arrests, searches and seizures

in accordance with existing laws and rules.

[6]

x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

By persisting in his attempt to arrest the

suspected students without a warrant, Atty.

Dizon violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility.

CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of

legal developments, participate in

continuing legal education programs,

support efforts to achieve high standards in

law schools as well as in the practical

training of law students and assist in

dessiminating information regarding the

law and jurisprudence.

A.C. No. 6352, February 27, 2006

SPS. WILLIAMS vs. ATTY. RUDY ENRIQUEZ

As pointed out by the Investigating

Commissioner, Canon 5 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility requires that a

lawyer be updated in the latest laws and

jurisprudence. Indeed, when the law is so

elementary, not to know it or to act as if one

does not know it constitutes gross

ignorance of the law. As a retired judge,

respondent should have known that it is his

duty to keep himself well-informed of the

latest rulings of the Court on the issues and

legal problems confronting a client. In this

case, the law he apparently misconstrued is

no less than the Constitution, the most basic

law of the land. Implicit in a lawyer’s

mandate to protect a client’s interest to the

best of his/her ability and with utmost

diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the

law and legal developments, and participate

in continuing legal education programs.

Thus, in championing the interest of clients

and defending cases, a lawyer must not only

be guided by the strict standards imposed

by the lawyer’s oath, but should likewise

espouse legally sound arguments for clients,

lest the latter’s cause be dismissed on a

technical ground. Ignorance encompasses

both substantive and procedural laws.

CANON 6 – Thee canons shall apply to

lawyers in government service in the

discharge of their official tasks-

Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government

service shall not use is public position to

promote or advance his private interests,

nor allow the latter to interfere with his

public duties.

A, C. No. 6707, March 24, 2006

GISELLA HUYSSEN vs. ATTY. FRED L.

GUTIERREZ

Respondent’s act of asking money from

complainant in consideration of the latter’s

pending application for visas is violative of

Rule 1.01 [17] of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, which prohibits members of

the Bar from engaging or participating in

any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts.

Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of

Rule 6.02 [18] of the Code which bars

lawyers in government service from

promoting their private interest. Promotion

of private interest includes soliciting gifts or

anything of monetary value in any

transaction requiring the approval of his

office or which may be affected by the

functions of his office. [19] Respondent’s

conduct in office betrays the integrity and

good moral character required from all

lawyers, especially from one occupying a

high public office. A lawyer in public office is

expected not only to refrain from any act or

omission which might tend to lessen the

trust and confidence of the citizenry in

government; he must also uphold the

dignity of the legal profession at all times

and observe a high standard of honesty and

fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in

government service is a keeper of the public

faith and is burdened with high degree of

social responsibility, perhaps higher than

his brethren in private practice.

A.C. No. 6705. March 31, 2006.

RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. CARLOS

B. SAGUCIO .

Nonetheless, respondent admitted that he

rendered his legal services to complainant

while working as a government prosecutor.

Even the receipts he signed stated that the

payments by Taggat were for "Retainer's

fee." Thus, as correctly pointed out by

complainant, respondent clearly violated

the prohibition in RA 6713.

However, violations of RA 6713 are not

subject to disciplinary action under the

Code of Professional Responsibility unless

the violations also constitute infractions of

specific provisions of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. Certainly, the

IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate

violations of RA 6713 — the Code of

Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public

Officials and Employees — unless the acts

involved also transgress provisions of the

Code of Professional Responsibility.

Here, respondent's violation of RA 6713 also

constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon

1, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not

engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct." Respondent's admission

that he received from Taggat fees for legal

services while serving as a government

prosecutor is an unlawful conduct, which

constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01..

A.C. No. 4517, September 11, 2006

AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR. vs. ATTY

VITALIANO FABROS, ET AL.

As public officers, respondents failed to live

up to the high degree of excellence,

professionalism, intelligence and skill

required of them. [16] As lawyers, they were

found to have engaged in unlawful,

dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct.

They also violated their oath as officers of

the court to foist no falsehood on anyone.

Furthermore, by express provision of Canon

6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

the avoidance of such conduct is demanded

of them as lawyers in the government

service:

As lawyers in the government service,

respondents were under an even greater

obligation to observe the basic tenets of the

legal profession because public office is a

public trust.

CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself

with courtesy, fairness and candor towards

his professional colleagues, and shall void

harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

A.C. 6501, August 31, 2006

ATTY. LEON L. ASA, et al. vs. ATTY. PABLITO

M. CASTILLO, et al.

A final word. The spectacle of members of

the bar being engaged in bickering and

recrimination is far from edifying. Mutual

bickerings and unjustified recriminations

between brother attorneys detract from the

dignity of the legal profession and will not

receive any sympathy from this Court.

Personal colloquies between counsels which

promote unseemly wrangling should thus

be carefully avoided.

CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness

and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not allow any

falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in

court, nor shall he mislead or allow the

court to be misled by any artifice.

A.C. No. 5246, May 2, 2006

EDGAR O. PEREA vs. ATTY. RUBEN T.

ALMADRO

Said statement shows very clearly that Atty.

Almadro has received a copy of the

complaint. For how can he prepare a draft of

his comment if it were not so? This should

have alerted Atty. Alambra to verify the

veracity of the claim of Atty. Almadro Atty.

Alambra should not have relied on the

statement given by Atty. Almadro. Their

being classmates in the law school is not a

reason to be less cautious in his dealings

with the Court. He is an officer of the court,

and as such, he owes candor, fairness and

good faith to the court.

A.C. NO. 6198, September 15, 2006

RENATO MALIGAYA vs. ATTY. ANTONIO

DORONILA

By stating untruthfully in open court that

complainant had agreed to withdraw his

lawsuits, Atty. Doronila breached these

peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. Not

only that, he violated the lawyer’s oath to

“do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of

any in court,” of which Canon 10 and Rule

10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed

on every lawyer’s duty to “never seek to

mislead the judge or any judicial officer by

an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”

Rule 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules

of procedure and shall not misuse them to

defeat the ends of justice.

A.C. No. 7056, September 13, 2006

PLUS BUILDERS, INC. vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO

E. REVILLA, JR.

It must be noted that when the Court of

Appeals and this Court upheld that Decision,

respondent resorted to a different forum to

pursue his clients’ lost cause. In the

disturbance compensation case, he

represented his clients as tenants and

acknowledged that complainants were the

owners of the subject land. In the action to

quiet title, however, he conveniently

repudiated his previous admission by

falsely alleging that his clients were adverse

possessors claiming bona fide ownership.

Consequently, he was able to obtain a

temporary restraining order preventing the

execution of the provincial adjudicator’s

Decision.

CANON 11 – A lawyer shall observe and

maintain the respect due to the courts and

to judicial officers and should insist in

similar conduct by others.

Rule 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from

scandalous, offensive and menacing

language or behavior before The courts.

A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006

JUDGE UBALDINO LACUROM vs. ATTYS.

JACOBA

Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer,

both as an officer of the court and as a

citizen, to criticize in properly respectful

terms and through legitimate channels the

acts of courts and judges. However, even the

most hardened judge would be scarred by

the scurrilous attack made by the 30 July

2001 motion on Judge Lacurom’s

Resolution. On its face, the Resolution

presented the facts correctly and decided

the case according to supporting law and

jurisprudence. Though a lawyer’s language

may be forceful and emphatic, it should

always be dignified and respectful, befitting

the dignity of the legal profession. The use

of unnecessary language is proscribed if we

are to promote high esteem in the courts

and trust in judicial administration.

Rule 11.04 – A lawyer shall not attribute to a

judge motives not supported by the record

or having no materiality to the case.

G.R. No. 145213. March 28, 2006.

JIMMY T. GO vs. HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, et.,

al.

Before closing, the Court has a few

observations regarding the conduct of

petitioner and his counsel in this case. The

petitioner alleges that:

“Now it can be told, that the fishy and

suspicious actuations of Atty. Javier was

done for the sole purpose of making sure

that Jimmy T. Go will lose his case. With due

respect, to our mind, it can even be said that

the respondent IBank and its counsel Atty.

Benedicto Valerio, Alberto Looyuko,

petitioner's nemesis against whom he

initiated several cases, and Looyuko's

counsel Atty. Flaminiano, the Honorable

Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court

of Makati City, Branch 150 Zeuz Abrogar

and Petitioner's negligent counsel Atty.

Javier are in cahoots with one another in

their common objective to pin down Mr.

Jimmy T. Go. Our apprehension is not

without basis, consider the following: “.

Petitioner thereafter goes on to state the

basis for his accusations against everyone

connected to the case: 1) Looyuko had

withdrawn his appeal; 2) Atty. Flaminiano

conformed to the writ of execution; 3) Atty.

Javier neglected his case and continued to

represent Looyuko in other cases; 4)

Looyuko supported the Motion to Cite

petitioner for contempt that was filed by the

Bank; and, 5) Judge Abrogar was once an

assistant fiscal under then Manila City Fiscal

Atty. Flaminiano.

x x x x x

The Court is also dismayed that such

baseless attacks were assisted by counsel,

who is an officer of the court. Under Canon

11 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE

AND MAINTAIN RESPECT DUE TO THE

COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS. In

particular, he shall not attribute to a judge

motive not supported by the records or by

evidence. A lawyer should submit

grievances against a Judge to the proper

authorities only. Atty. Caneda, Jr. should

have known better than to permit the

irresponsible and unsupported claim

against Judge Abrogar to be included in the

pleadings. Allowing such statements to be

made is against a lawyer's oath of office and

goes against the Code of Professional

Responsibility. Petitioner Jimmy T. Go and

Atty. Gregorio D. Caneda, Jr. are STRICTLY

WARNED not to make disrespectful

statements against a Judge without basis in

the records or the evidence.

CANON 12. A lawyer shall exert every effort

and consider it his duty to assist in the

speedy and efficient administration of

justice.

A.C. 6986, March 6, 2006

JULIUS AGUSTIN v. ATTY. ENRIQUE

EMPLEO

True, a lawyer cannot enter into a

compromise agreement without his client’s

consent. Be it remembered, however, that a

lawyer is also an officer of the court with the

correlative duty to see to it that cases are

disposed in the soonest possible time.

Here, respondent, fully aware that there is a

pending court order for the submission of a

compromise agreement, should have taken

pains to remind complainant about it and

ascertain the true intent of the latter

regarding the same, so that he, as

complainant’s counsel, can make the

necessary legal action in order for the case

not to be unduly delayed and appear not to

be indefinitely pending in the docket of the

court concerned.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay

a case, impede the execution of a judgment

or misuse court processes.

A.C. No. 5649, January 27, 2006

DANDY V. QUIJANO vs. GEOBEL A.

BARTOLABAC, et al.

Both respondents labor arbiter and

commissioner do not have any latitude to

depart from the Court’s ruling. The Decision

in G.R. No. 126561 is final and executory

and may no longer be amended. It is

incumbent upon respondents to order the

execution of the judgment and implement

the same to the letter. Respondents have no

discretion on this matter, much less any

authority to change the order of this Court.

The acts of respondent cannot be regarded

as acceptable discretionary performance of

their functions as labor arbiter and

commissioner of the NLRC, respectively, for

they do not have any discretions in

executing a final decision. The

implementation of the final and executory

decision is mandatory.

A.C. NO. 7062, September 26, 2006

RENERIO SAMBAJON, ET AL., vs. ATTY. JOSE

A. SUING

Herein complainants, four of the seven who

purportedly executed the Release Waiver

and Quitclaims, denied having signed and

sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said

documents or having received the

considerations therefor. Hence, spawned

the administrative complaint at bar, alleging

that respondent, acting in collusion with his

clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil,

“frustrated” the implementation of the Writ

of Execution by presenting before the Labor

Arbiter the spurious documents.

CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor,

fairness and loyalty in all his delings with

his client.

Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent

conflicting interest except by written

consent of all concerned given after a full

disclosure of the facts.

A.C. No. 6836, January 23, 2006

LETICIA GONZALES vs. ATTY. MARCELINO

CABUCANA

Complaint was plaintiff in a case for sum of

money handled by Atty. Edmar Cabucna of

the CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN

AND CABUCANA Law Office. After a decision

was rendered in favor of the complainant, a

writ of execution was issued but Sheriff

Romeo Gatcheco failed to fully implement

the same. This led to he filing by the

complainant of civil and criminal case

against the sheriff and his wife. Respondent

Marcelino Cabucana (of the same law office)

entered his appearance for the sheriff and

his wife in he said cases. Complainant filed

an administrative charge against him.

Respondent claimed that his appearance for

the sheriff and his wife was in good faith

and pro bono, and there is no conflict of

interest involved because it was his brother

Edmar who handled the civil case for ms.

Gonzales.

Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 15.03,

Canon 15 of the Code of Professional

responsibility. The representation of

opposing clients in unrelated cases

constitutes conflict of interests or, at the

very least, invites suspicion of double-

dealing.

A.C. No. 6160, March 30, 2006

NESTOR PEREZ v. ATTY. DANILO DELA

TORRE

As found by the IBP, at the time respondent

was representing Avila and Ilo, two of the

accused in the murder of the victim

Resurreccion Barrios, he was representing

the family of the murder victim. Clearly, his

representation of opposing clients in the

murder case invites suspicion of double-

dealing and infidelity to his clients.

What is unsettling is that respondent

assisted in the execution by the two accused

of their confessions whereby they admitted

their participation in various serious

criminal offenses knowing fully well that he

was retained previously by the heirs of one

of the victims. Respondent, who presumably

knows the intricacies of the law, should

have exercised his better judgment before

conceding to accused’s choice of counsel. It

did not cross his mind to inhibit himself

from acting as their counsel and instead, he

even assisted them in executing the

extrajudicial confession.

A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006

HUMBERTO C. LIM vs. ATTY. NICANOR

VILLAROSA

The representation by a lawyer of

conflicting interests, in the absence of the

written consent of all parties concerned

after a full disclosure of the facts, constitutes

professional misconduct which subjects the

lawyer to disciplinary action.

Even respondent’s alleged effort to settle

the existing controversy among the family

members] was improper because the

written consent of all concerned was still

required. A lawyer who acts as such in

settling a dispute cannot represent any of

the parties to it.

A.C. No. 6125, September 19, 2006

SIMON D. PAZ vs. ATTY. PEPITO A.

SANCHEZ

By respondent’s own admission, when he

filed the DARAB case on Dizon’s behalf

against complainant, both complainant and

Dizon were respondent’s clients at thqat

time. Respondent was representing

complainant against Lizares where

respondent was duty bound to defend

complainant’s title over the properties

against the claims of Lizares. While it is not

clear from the records that the Lizares cases

included Dizon’s property, it is undisputed

that respondent acted as complainant’s

counsel in the Lizares case. At the same

time, respondent was also representing

Dizon before the DARAB for cancellation of

lis pendens involving Dizon’s property,

which cancellation was needed for

complainant to purchase the Dizon

property. In filing the second DARAB case

pn Dizon’s behalf, respondent was duty-

bound to assail the complainant’s title over

Dizon’s property, which complainant had

purchased from Dizon. Respondent was

clearly in a conflict of interest situation.

CANON 16 – A lawyer shal hold in trust all

moneys and properties of his client that may

come into his possession.

A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006

ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ vs. ATTY.LEONARD

S. DE VERA

In the instant case, the act of Atty. de Vera in

holding on to his client’s money without the

latter’s acquiescence is conduct indicative of

lack of integrity and propriety. It is clear

that Atty. de Vera, by depositing the check in

his own account and using the same for his

own benefit is guilty of deceit, malpractice,

gross misconduct and unethical behavior.

He caused dishonor, not only to himself but

to the noble profession to which he belongs.

For, it cannot be denied that the respect of

litigants to the profession is inexorably

diminished whenever a member of the

profession betrays their trust and

confidence. Respondent violated his oath to

conduct himself with all good fidelity to his

client.

A.C. No. 2591, September 8, 2006

LETICIA ADRIMISIN vs. ATTY. ROLANDO

JAVIER

A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand

the funds held by him on behalf of his client

gives rise to the presumption that he has

appropriated the same for his own use in

violation of the trust reposed in him by his

client. Such act is a gross violation of general

morality as well as of professional ethics. It

impairs public confidence in the legal

profession and deserves punishment.

A.C. No. 7057, July 25, 2006

DAVID ALMENDAREZ, JR. vs. ATTY.

MINERVO L. LANGIT

Respondent committed flagrant violation of

his oath when he received the sum of money

representing the monthly rentals intended

for his client, without accounting for and

returning such sum to the rightful owner.

Respondent received the money in his

capacity as counsel for the complainant.

Therefore, respondent held the money in

trust for complainant.

CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the

cause of his client and he shall be mindful of

the trust and confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client

with competence and diligence.

A.C. No. 4285, May 2, 2006

FLORENCIA SOMOSOT vs. ATTY. ELIAS

PONTEVEDRA

Canon 17 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility provides that lawyers owe

fidelity to the cause of their clients and must

therefore be always mindful of the trust and

confidence reposed in them. Under Canon

18, they are mandated to serve their clients

with competence and diligence. Specifically,

they are not to “neglect a legal matter

entrusted to [them], and [their] negligence

in connection therewith shall render [them]

liable.” Additionally, they are required to

keep their client informed of the status of

the latter’s cases and to respond within a

reasonable time to requests for information.

[13] Before admission to the bar, lawyers

subscribe to an oath to conduct themselves

“with all good fidelity as well to the courts

as to their clients.” Failure to comply with

these abiding precepts of ethical conduct

renders counsel liable for violating the

canons of his profession.

In this case, respondent failed to exercise

that degree of diligence required of him in

the performance of his duties. While it was

impossible for him to prepare a

memorandum without the transcripts of

stenographic notes and his case folder, and

while respondent may have been

constrained simply to enter into an

agreement with the opposing counsel to

submit the case for decision without

memorandum, respondent failed to inform

the trial court of said agreement. He should

have filed a manifestation before the trial

court informing it of the agreement instead

of leaving the trial court waiting and

wondering whether said memoranda will be

filed at all. His omission not only gave

complainant much anxiety, it also needlessly

compounded the long delay in the

resolution of the 23-year-old case. Worse,

respondent did not inform complainant that

the case had been submitted for decision

without memorandum despite

complainant’s repeated requests for

information regarding the status of her case.

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a

legal matter entrusted to him and his

negligence in connection therewith shall

render him liable.

A.,C. No. 4676, May 4, 2006

SPS. ANTONIO SORIANO vs. ATTY. RENATO

REYES

Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility provides that a

lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter

entrusted to him and his negligence in

connection therewith shall render him

liable. In this case, by reason of Atty. Reyes’s

negligence, complainant suffered actual loss.

He should have given adequate attention,

care and time to his cases. This is why a

practicing lawyer may accept only so many

cases that he can efficiently handle.

Otherwise, his clients will be prejudiced.

Once he agrees to handle a case, he should

undertake the task with dedication and care.

If he should do any less, then he is not true

to his lawyer’s oath.

A.C. No/ 4809, May 3, 2006

SPS. WILLIAM ADECER vs. ATY. EMMANUEL

AKUT

Respondent is bound by the representations

he made in his Memorandum in Support of

the Petition for Probation, i.e., that a timely

petition for probation was not filed due to

the fact that he was out of town and that

complainants were laboring under the

misapprehension that the civil liability must

be paid in full before probation could be

availed of. Either of his two “explanations” is

enough ground to render him liable for

negligence under the Code of Professional

Conduct. First, despite his receipt of a copy

of the Decision and the consequent running

of the fifteen (15)-day period to file a

petition for probation, respondent went out

of town without contacting complainants to

give them proper legal advice. Furthermore,

his admission that complainants were [1]

under the impression that they first had to

pay off their civil liabilities prior to filing a

petition for probation and [2] unaware that

they had only fifteen (15) days from their

counsel’s receipt of a copy of the decision to

file their petition, proves that he failed to

give complainants timely legal advise

CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his

client with zeal within the bounds of the

law.

A.C. 6317, August 31, 2006

LUZVIMINDA LIJAUCO vs. ATTY. ROGELIO

TERRADO

Respondent’s disregard for his client’s

interests is evident in the iniquitous

stipulations in the compromise agreement

where the complainant conceded the

validity of the foreclosure of her property;

that the redemption period has already

expired thus consolidating ownership in the

bank, and that she releases her claims

against it. As found by the Investigating

Commissioner, complainant agreed to these

concessions because respondent misled her

to believe that she could still redeem the

property after three years from the

foreclosure. The duty of a lawyer to

safeguard his client’s interests commences

from his retainer until his discharge from

the case or the final disposition of the

subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of

money from a client establishes an attorney-

client relationship and gives rise to the duty

of fidelity to the client’s cause. The canons of

the legal profession require that once an

attorney agrees to handle a case, he should

undertake the task with zeal, care and

utmost devotion.

Respondent’s admission that he divided the

legal fees with two other people as a referral

fee does not release him from liability. A

lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide

a fee for legal services with persons not

licensed to practice law, except in certain

cases.

Rule 19.02 – A lawyer who has received

information that his client in the course of

the representation, perpetuated a fraud

upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly

call upon the client to rectify the same, and

failing which he has to terminate the

relationship with such client in accordance

with the Rules of Court.

A.C. No. 5655, January 23, 2006

VALERIANA U. DALISAY v. ATTY. MELANIO

MAURICIO,

Assuming that complainant indeed offered

falsified documentary evidence in Civil Case

No. 00-044, will it be sufficient to exonerate

respondent? We believe not. First, Canon 19

outlines the procedure in dealing with

clients who perpetrated fraud in the course

of a legal proceeding. Consistent with its

mandate that a lawyer shall represent his

client with zeal and only within the bounds

of the law, ………. As a lawyer, respondent is

expected to know this Rule. Instead of

inaction, he should have confronted

complainant and ask her to rectify her

fraudulent representation. If complainant

refuses, then he should terminate his

relationship with her.

CANON 21 – A lawyer shall preserve the

confidences and secrets of the client.

A.C. No. 7023, March 30, 2006

BUN SIONG YAO vs. ATTY.EDUARDO A.

AURELIO

Notwithstanding the veracity of his

allegations, respondent’s act of filing

multiple suits on similar cases of action in

different venues constitutes forum-

shopping, as correctly found by the

investigating commissioner. This highlights

his motives rather than his cause of action.

Respondent took advantage of his being a

lawyer in order to get back at the

complainant. In doing so, he has inevitably

utilized information he has obtained from

his dealings with complainant and

complainant’s companies for his own end.

CANON 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair

and reasonable fees.

A.C. No. 152072, January 31, 2006

ROMEO G. ROXAS, et al. vs. ANTONIO DE

ZUZUARREGUI, JR., et al.

However, in cases where contingent fees are

sanctioned by law, the same should be

reasonable under all the circumstances of

the case, and should always be subject to the

supervision of a court, as to its

reasonableness, such that, under Canon 20

of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a

lawyer is tasked to charge only fair and

reasonable fees.

CANON 22 – A lawyer shall withdraw his

services only for good cause and upon

notice appropriate in the circumstances.

A.C. No. 6155, March 14, 2006

MA. GINA FRANCISCO, et al. vs. ATTY. JAIME

J. PORTUGAL

In a criminal case like that handled by

respondent in behalf of the accused,

respondent has a higher duty to be

circumspect in defending the accused for it

is not only the property of the accused

which stands to be lost but more

importantly, their right to their life and

liberty. …….

Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for the accused, he as a lawyer who is presumably steeped in court procedures and practices, should have filed the notice of withdrawal himself instead of the accused. At the very least, he should have informed this Court through the appropriate manifestation that he had already given instructions to his clients on the proper way to go about the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal, as suggested by Commissioner Villadolid. In not so doing, he was negligent in handling the case of the accused.