CANON 4 & 5

Jonar Santiago vs. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252,

October 5, 2004
FACTS: Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, was allegedly notarized several
documents on different dates and failed to: a) make the proper
notation regarding the Community Tax Certificate (CTC) of the
complainant; b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the
notarial register; and c) make and execute the certification and enter
his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized.
On the other hand, Atty. Rafanan admitted having
administered the oath but believed that non-notation of the Resident
Certificates as well as not entering the details of the notarized
documents in the notarial register was allowed. Notation of Resident
Certificates are applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary
public and was not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending
before courts and other government offices. He further asserted that
this was a popular practice among notaries public in Nueva Ecija, some
of whom were older practitioners.
ISSUES: What is the rule on registry of notarial documents?
HELD: The court ruled in the negative. The Notarial Law is explicit on
the obligations and duties of notaries public. They are required to
certify that the party to every document acknowledged before them
has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the
residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part
of such certification. They are also required to maintain and keep a
notarial register; to enter therein all instruments notarized by them;
and to give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged
before [them] a number corresponding to the one in [their] register
[and to state therein] the page or pages of [their] register, on which
the same is recorded. Failure to perform these duties would result in
the revocation of their commission as notaries public.
These formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply
neglected, considering the degree of importance and evidentiary
weight attached to notarized documents. Notaries public entering into
their commissions are presumed to be aware of these elementary
requirements.
It is intolerable that he did away with the basics of notarial
procedure allegedly because others were doing so. Being swayed by
the bad example of others is not an acceptable justification for

breaking the law.

Disbarment, however, cannot be granted considering the
nature of the infraction and the absence of deceit on the part of Atty.
Rafanan. A fine of P3, 000 is imposed with a warning that similar
infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely.
FELIZA P. DE ROY and VIRGILIO RAMOS v. CA
FACTS: The firewall of a burned-out building owned by petitioners
collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of
private respondents, resulting in injuries to private respondents and
the death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter. Private respondents had been
warned by petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its proximity to
the weakened wall but the former failed to do so. On the basis of the
foregoing facts, the RTC rendered judgment finding petitioners guilty of
gross negligence and awarding damages to private respondents. On
appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto by the CA.
On the last day of the 15-day period to file an appeal, petitioners filed
a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration,
which was eventually denied by the CA. Petitioners filed their motion
for reconsideration but this was also denied.
ISSUE: WON the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
petitioners motion for extention to file a Motion for Reconsideration
NO!
RATIO: The CA correctly applied the rule laid down in Habaluyas
Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, that the fifteen-day period for appealing or
for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended.
Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution, the rule
shall be strictly enforced that no motion for extension of time to file a
motion for reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or
Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate
Appellate Court. Such a motion may be filed only in cases pending with
the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, which may in its sound
discretion either grant or deny the extension requested.
Petitioners contend that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case
should not be made to apply to the case at bar owing to the nonpublication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette as of the
time the subject decision of the CA was promulgated. Contrary to
petitioners' view, there is no law requiring the publication of Supreme
Court decisions in the Official Gazette before they can be binding and
as a condition to their becoming effective. It is the bounden duty of
counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of
the Supreme Court particularly where issues have been clarified,

consistently reiterated, and published in the advance reports of

Supreme Court decisions and in such publications as the Supreme
Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law journals.
PCGG vs Sandiganbayan, et al G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12,
2005
Facts: On February 1991, Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoz,
who has currently resumed the private practice of law, was sought to
be disqualified from representing the Lucio Tan group, in the 1987 case
involving General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) as one of those
properties subject to a writ of sequestration by PCGG being alleged to
be ill gotten wealth acquired during the Marcos Regime. It was
averred by the PCGG that there exists an adverse interest on Mendoza
since he was the one who filed a petition praying for assistance and
supervision of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK when he was
still a Solicitor General, which bank was subsequently owned by the
Lucio Tan group when it submitted the winning bid. PCGG invokes Rule
6.03of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits former
government lawyers from accepting engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
service.
Sandiganbayan rejects PCGGs motion by arguing that CGG failed to
prove the existence of an inconsistency between respondent
Mendozas former function as Solicitor General and his present
employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group and that Mendozas
appearance as counsel for
respondents Tan,et al . was beyond the one-year prohibited period
under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since he ceased to be
Solicitor General in the year 1986.
Issue: WON Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies
to respondent Mendoza
Ruling: No, Rule 6.03 of the CPR is inapplicable in the case. Rule 6.03
A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which
he had intervened while in said service. The motion for disqualification
should be dismissed for the following reasons:
1) After discussing the history of the present Code of Professional
Responsibility which revealed that the word intervene is applicable to
both adverse interest conflicts and congruent interest conflicts, it has
been found that neither of these conflicts exists in the liquidation case
and the sequestration case.
2)The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the

sequestration cases.
The matter where he got himself involved was in informing Central
Bank on the procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK through
the courts and in filing the necessary petition in the then Court of First
Instance.
The subject matter ofthe special proceeding, therefore, is not the
same nor is related to but is different from the subject matter in the
civil case. The civil case involves the sequestration of the stocks owned
by respondents Tan, et al ., in Alied Bank on the alleged ground that
they are ill-gotten. The case does not involve the liquidation of
GENBANK. Nor does it involve the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank.
MECARAL V. VELASQUEZ
(April 23, 2010, A.C. No. 8392 [ Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2175], Per
Curiam,June 29, 2010)
Complainant was hired as a secretary by the atty. Velasquez who later
became his common-law wife. Mecaral was later brought to Upper San
Agustin in Caibiran, Biliran where he left her with a religious group
known as the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines. Later,
Mecaral returned home and upon knowing, Velasquez brought her back
to San Agustin where, on his instruction, his followers tortured,
brainwashed and injected her with drugs. Her mother, Delia Tambis
Vda. De Mecaral (Delia),having received information that she was
weak, pale and walking barefoot along the i the mountainous area of
Caibiran caused the rescue operation of Mecaral. Thus, Mecaral filed a
disbarment complaint against respondent and charged the latter with
bigamy for contracting a second marriage to Leny H.Azur on August 2,
1996, despite the subsistence of his marriage to his first wife, Ma.
Shirley G. Yunzal.
Issue: whether respondent is guilty of grossly immoral and acts which
constitute gross misconduct
Held: WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, is
DISBARRED, and his name ORDEREDSTRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys. This Decision is immediately executory and ordered to be
part of the records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant,
Supreme Court of the Philippines.Ruling: Investigating Commissioner of
the CBD found that [respondents] acts of converting his secretary into
a mistress; contracting two marriages with Shirley and Leny, are
grossly immoral which no civilized society in the world can
countenance. The subsequent detention and torture of the complainant
is gross misconduct [which] only a beast may be able to do. Certainly,
the respondent had violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility.The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed

by the state upon those who show that they possess, and continue to
possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such
privilege.When a lawyers moral character is assailed, such that his
right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it
behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to
the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is
morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys.Respondent has
not discharged the burden. He never attended the hearings before the
IBP to rebut the charges brought against him, suggesting that they are
true. Despite his letter dated March 28, 2008manifesting that he would
come up with his defense in a verified pleading, he never did.
REYES V. CHIONG
FACTS
Two Chinese-Taiwanese businessmen (Xu and Pan) entered into a
business venture to set up a factory for seafood products. Xu invested
P300,000. Eventually, Xu discovered that Pan had not established the
factory and asked for his money back. Pan became hostile and ignored
Xu. Xu engaged the services of Atty. Reyes, who filed a complaint for
estafa against Pan (represented by Atty. Chiong). The complaint was
assigned to Asst. Manila City Prosecutor Pedro Salanga, who issued a
subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation. For failure to
appear and submit a counter-affidavit, Salanga filed a criminal
complaint for estafa against Pan in the RTC of Manila. The RTC issued a
warrant of arrest against Pan. In response, Atty. Chiong filed a motion
to quash the warrant of arrest. He also filed with the RTC of
Zamboanga a civil complaint for the collection of a sum of money,
damages, and for the dissolution of the business venture against Xu,
Atty. Reyes and Salanga. Atty. Reyes then filed a disbarment case
against Atty. Chiong for filing a groundless suit, alleging that it was
instituted to exact vengeance. Atty. Chiong alleges that Atty. Reyes was
impleaded for conniving with Xu in filing the estafa case. Salanga was
impleaded because of the supposed irregularities in conducting the
investigation. The SC referred the case to the IBP.
ISSUE
W/N the civil complaint was groundless
W/N is was proper to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga in
the civil complaint
HELD
Yes, civil complaint was groundless and it was improper to implead
Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga in said civil complaint.
IBP: civil complaint was filed purposely to obtain leverage against the

estafa case. There was no need to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor
Salanga since they were not parties in the business venture. Their
inclusion in the complaint was improper and highly questionable and
the suit was filed to harass both of them. In filing the civil suit, Atty.
Chiong violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. IBP recommended 2 years suspension
SC: affirmed IBPs recommendation. In addition, the Court mentioned
some alternative remedies Atty. Chiong could have taken if his
allegations were indeed true. Chiong could have filed a motion for
reinvestigation or motion for reconsideration of Salangas decision to
file the information for estafa. Motion to Dismiss the estafa case was
also available if it was indeed filed without basis.
Relevant Provisions:
Canon 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and
candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Lawyers Oath not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same.
saberon versus larong,a.c.no.6567,april 16,2008(LEGAL
ETHICS)
Facts:
Complainant saberon charged atty. larong respondent of grave
misconduct for allegedly using abusive and offensive language in
pleadings filed before the BSP.In An anwer filed by respondent atty.
larong with affirmative defenses to the petition stating inter alia,that
this is another in the series of blackmail suits filed by
plaintiff(complainant) and his wife to coerce the bank and mr.bonpin
for financial gain.
Finding the aformentioned statements to be "totally malicious,viscous
and bereft of any factual or legal basis" complainant filed the present
complaint.
By res.,the court referred the case to IBP for investigation.IBP
Investigating commissioner held that the word "blackmail" connotes
something sinister and criminal.Unless the person accused thereof is
criminally charged with extortion,he added,it would be imprudent,if not
offensive,to characterize that persons act as blackmail.In view
thereof,he recommended that respondent be found culpable of gross
misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for 30days.IBP
Board of Governor disapproved the recommendation and instead
dismissed the case for lack of merit
Issue:

Complainant appealed challenges hthev res. as illegal and void ab

initio for violating the mandatory requirements of sec12(a) of rule 139b of the revised rules of court that the same be reduced to
writing,clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which
it is based.
Held:
This court finds respondent guilty of simple misconduct for using
intemperate language in his pleadings.
The code of professional responsibility mandates:
canon 8- a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,fairness and
candor toward his professional colleagues,and shall avoid harassing
tactics against oppossing counsel.
canon 8.01-a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,use
language which is abusive,offensive or otherwise improper.
canon11-a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
court and to judicial officer and should insist on similar conduct.
rule11.03-a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,offensive,or
menacing language or behavior before the courts.
ALCANTARA V. PEFIANCO
Facts:
Atty. Alcantara (incumbent District Pubic Attorney of PAO in Anitque)
filed a complaint against Atty. Pefianco for conduct unbecoming of the
bar for using improper and offensive language and threatening and
attempting to assault complainant. This happened when Atty, Salvani
was conferring with his client in the PAO office when the wife of the
murdered victim, in tears, came and askef for a settlement. Moved by
the plight of the woman, Pefianco, who was standing nearby, scolded
and shouted at Salvani to not settle the case and to have his client
imprisoned so that he would realize his mistake. As head of the office,
Alcantara reproached Pefianco, but this ended up with Pefianco saying
that Alcantara was an idiot for sending him out of the PAO. Also,
Pefianco tried to attack Alcantara and even shouted at him, Gago ka!
The IBP Committee on Bar Discipline found that Pefianco violated
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issue:
W/N Pefianco is guilty of violating Canon 8
Held:
Yes. Canon 8 admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Pefiancos

meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused the

incident. And although Pefianco was moved by the womans plight,
what he thought was righteous did not give him the right to scold
Salvani and insult and berate those who tried to calm him down.
Whatever moral righteousness he had was negated by the way he
chose to express his indignation.
CAMBALIZA V. CRISTOBAL-TENORIO
FACTS
Cabliza, a former employee of Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, filed a
disbarment complaint on the grounds of deceit, grossly immoral
conduct and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office.
Deceit: represented herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio Jr, who
has a prior existing marriage
Grossly immoral conduct: disseminated libellous affidavits against a
Makati City counselor.
Malpractice: allowed her husband, a non-lawyer, to practice by making
him a senior partner in her law office. This is evidenced by 1) the law
office letterhead which included the husband as a senior partner, 2) an
id wherein he signed as an atty, 3) appearance in court as counsel.
HELD
Guilty of malpractice. Violated Canon 9 and Rule 9.01
Canon 9: a lawyer shall not assist in unauthorized practice of law
Rule 9.01: a lawyer shall not delated to any unqualified person the
performance of a task that may only be performed by members of the
bar in good standing
Even though Cabliza later on withdrew her complaint, IBP still pushed
through with the investigation because such is a disciplinary
proceeding. There is no private interest affected such that desistance
of the complainant will terminate the proceedings. The purpose is to
protect the bar from those unfit to practice law.
PLUS BUILDERS V. REVILLA
FACTS
In the case of PLUS BUILDERS, INC., and EDGARDO C. GARCIA vs. ATTY.
ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., , En Banc, A.C. No. 7056, February 11,
2009, the respondent lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration of the
decision of the Philippine Supreme Court, finding respondent guilty of
gross misconduct for committing a willful and intentional falsehood
before the court, misusing court procedure and processes to delay the
execution of a judgment and collaborating with non-lawyers in the

illegal practice of law.

On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial
Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of complainant, Plus Builders,
Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al., who
were the clients of respondent Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD
found that respondents clients were mere tenants and not rightful
possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the
way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining complainants
rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his clients lost cause,
respondent was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and
misused court processes with the intention to delay the execution of
the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for
temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title
despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed nonlawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law holding
themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm.
Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained of.
The courses of action he took were not meant to unduly delay the
execution of the DARAB Decision dated November 19, 1999, but were
based on his serious study, research and experience as a litigation
lawyer for more than 20 years and on the facts given to him by his
clients in the DARAB case. He believes that the courses of action he
took were valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights
and interests of Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. He stresses that he was
not the original lawyer in this case. The lawyer-client relationship with
the former lawyer was terminated because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al.
felt that their former counsel did not explain/argue their position very
well, refused to listen to them and, in fact, even castigated them. As
the new counsel, respondent candidly relied on what the
tenants/farmers told him in the course of his interview. They
maintained that they had been in open, adverse, continuous and
notorious possession of the land in the concept of an owner for more
than 50 years. Thus, the filing of the action to quiet title was resorted
to in order to determine the rights of his clients respecting the subject
property. He avers that he merely exhausted all possible remedies and
defenses to which his clients were entitled under the law, considering
that his clients were subjected to harassment and threats of physical
harm and summary eviction by the complainant. He posited that he
was only being protective of the interest of his clients as a good father
would be protective of his own family, and that his services to Leopoldo
de Guzman, et. al were almost pro bono.
HELD
It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is expected to give
his full attention, diligence, skill and competence to the case,
regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for

free. A lawyers devotion to his clients cause not only requires but also
entitles him to deploy every honorable means to secure for the client
what is justly due him or to present every defense provided by law to
enable the latters cause to succeed. In this case, respondent may not
be wanting in this regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that the
respondents acts complained of were committed out of his overzealousness and misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients
who were poor and uneducated. We are not unmindful of his dedication
and conviction in defending the less fortunate. Taking the cudgels from
the former lawyer in this case is rather commendable, but respondent
should not forget his first and foremost responsibility as an officer of
the court. In support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the
duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the
law. This obligation, however, is not to be performed at the expense of
truth and justice. This is the criterion that must be borne in mind in
every exertion a lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code of
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from
unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by
misusing court processes.