You are on page 1of 15

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS CASES

1. Sps. Yu v. Atty. Palana (Canon 1, Rule 1.01)


FACTS:
Sps. Yu met a certain Mr. Mark Anthony U. Uy who introduced himself as the Division
Manager of Wealth Marketing and General Services Corporation that was engaged in
spot currency trading. Mr. Uy persuaded the complainants to invest a minimum
amount of P100,000.00 or its dollar equivalent. Wealth Marketings promises were
false and fraudulent, and that the checks earlier issued were dishonoured for the
reason account closed. The investors and complainants then discovered that
Wealth Marketing had already ceased its operation and a new corporation was
formed named Ur-Link Corporation which supposedly assumed the rights and
obligations of theformer.
As Wealth Marketings Chairman of the Board of Directors, respondent assured the
complainants that Ur-Link would assume the obligations of the former company.
Respondent signed an Agreement which assured the complainants that Ur-Link
would assume the responsibilities of the former company, which, again, turned out
to be another ploy to further deceive the investors.
Complainants then lodged a criminal complaint for syndicated estafa against the
respondent and his co-accused. Despite the standing warrant for his arrest,
respondent went into hiding and has been successful in defying the law, to this
date. In an Order, Director for Bar Discipline required respondent to submit his
Answer to the complaint but the latter failed to comply. Respondent was thereafter
declared in default and the case was heard ex parte. Commissioner recommended
that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law for committing acts of
defraudation and defying law orders. [Commissioner found out that Ur Link was
created only to perpetuate fraud and to avoid obligations]
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Palana should be disbarred.
RULING:
YES. Lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As vanguards of our
legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a
high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the
peoples faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. Lawyers may be
disciplined whether in their professional or in their private capacity for any conduct
that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor.

2. Guevarra v. Atty. Eala


FACTS:
A complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for
grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyers oath. In the
Complaint, Joselano Guevarra first met the Eala in 2000 when his then fiance Irene
Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne
Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene, Guevarra noticed that Irene had been receiving from
respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read I love you, I
miss you, or Meet you at Megamall. He also noticed that Irene habitually went
home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes
did not go home from work. When he asked her whereabouts, she replied that she
slept at her parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.
Complainant then saw Irene and Eala together on 2 occasions. On the 2nd occasion,
he confronted them which led to Irene abandoning the conjugal house.
Subsequently, Complainant went uninvited to Irenes birthday celebration at which
he saw her and the Eala celebrating with her family and friends. Out of
embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following
that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal
belongings. Complainant soon learned that Irene and Eala already living together in
a house that was few blocks away from the church they got married. Few months
thereafter, Irene gave birth to a baby girl and wrote the name of Eala as the father
in the certificate of live birth.
Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of marriage to Irene and a criminal
complaint for adultery against respondent and Irene. Petitioner also filed a
complaint for disbarment before the IBP-CBD on the ground of gross immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath which was dismissed by the
IBP Board of Governors due to lack of merit.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Eala should be disbarred for his illicit relationship.
RULING:
YES. While it 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.
He violated the lawyers oath when he sworn that he will support the Constitution
and obey its laws. Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the
same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law.
3. Advincula v. Atty. Macabata (Canon I, Rule 1.01 & Canon 7, Rule
7.03)
FACTS:
Cynthia Advincula seeked the legal advice of the respondent Atty. Macabata,
regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours. After their dinner, Atty.
Macabata sent Advincula home and while she is about to step out of the car, Atty.
Macabata hold her arm and kissed her on the cheek and embraced her very tightly.
Subsequently, after their meeting at Starbucks coffee shop in Quezon City to finalize
the draft of complaint to be filed in court, Atty. Macabata again offered a ride, which
he usually did every time they met. When she was almost restless respondent
stopped his car and forcefully hold her face and kissed her lips while the other hand
was holding her breast. Advincula is even in a state of shocked succeeded in
resisting his criminal attempt and immediately manage to go out of the car.
In the late afternoon, complainant sent a text message to respondent informing him
that she decided to refer the case with another lawyer and needs to get back the
case folder from him.
After series of messages, respondent replied "talk to my lawyer in due time." Then
another message was received by her at 4:06:33 pm saying "Ano k ba. Im really sri.
Pls. Nxt ime bhave n me." (Ano ka ba. Im really sorry. Please next time behave na
ko), which is a clear manifestation of admission of guilt.
By way of defense, Atty. Macabata further elucidated that: (1) there was a criminal
case for Acts of Lasciviousness filed by complainant against respondent pending; (2)
legal name of complainant is Cynthia Advincula Toriana since she remains married
to a certain Jinky Toriana; (3)complainant was living with a man not her husband;
and (4) complainant never bothered to discuss respondents fees and it was
respondent who always paid for their bills every time they met and ate at a
restaurant.

Commissioner recommended the imposition of the penalty of 1 month suspension


on respondent for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP then
passed Resolution No. XVII-2006-117, approving and adopting, with modification
that Atty. Ernesto A. Macabata is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 3 months.
ISSUE:
WON respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral or which constitute
serious moral depravity that would warrant his disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law.
RULING:
No. The SC held that lawyers are expected to abide the tenets of morality, not only
upon admission to the Bar but all throughout their legal career as lawyers belong to
an exclusive and honored fraternity. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the
integrity of the legal profession and should adhere to the unwaveringly to the
highest standard of morality. The respondent admitted to the act of kissing the
complainant on the lips as evidenced as well of his asking for apology from
complainant in his text message. Regardless of the fact that the respondent
admitted that he kissed the complainant but the Court held that this was not
accompanied by malice because the respondent immediately asked for forgiveness
after sensing the annoyance of the respondent after texting him. Thus the Court
held that this is not grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible which will warrant
disbarment or suspension. But the Court reprimanded respondent to be more
prudent and cautious.
4. Heirs of the Late Spouses Lucas vs. Atty. Salud Beradio (Canon 1,
Rule 1.01)
FACTS:
During their lifetime, the spouses Villanueva acquired several parcels of land in
Pangasinan, one of which was covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
2522. Francisca died in 1968, and Lucas in 1974. Their 5 children, namely, Simeona,
Susana, Maria, Alfonso, and Florencia, survived them.
In 1984, Alfonso executed an Affidavit of Adjudication stating that as the only
surviving son and sole heirs of the Sps. Villanueva, he was adjudicating to himself
the parcel of land under OCT No. 2522. Alfonso then executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale conveying the property to Adriano Villanueva. Atty. Beradio appeared as notary
public on both the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale.
Contrary to the misrepresentations of Alfonso, his sister Florencia was still alive at
the time he executed the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale, as were
descendants of the other children of the spouses Villanueva. Complainants claimed
that Atty. Beradio was aware of this fact, as Atty. Beradio had been their neighbor in

Balungao, Pangasinan, from


their family. Complainants
surrounding circumstances
conspiring with Alfonso to
property.

the time of their birth, and he constantly mingled with


accused respondent of knowing the true facts and
regarding the properties of the Sps. Villanueva, yet
deprive his co-heirs of their rightful shares in the

Commissioner Villadolid of IBP found that respondent violated the provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the spirit and intent of the notarial law when
she notarized the affidavit knowing that Alfonso was not the sole compulsory heir of
the spouses Villanueva. It was recommended that respondent be reprimanded or
suspended from the practice of law for up to 6 months.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Beradio should be suspended for her actions
RULING:
YES. A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most
common of which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of a document or
instrument. In the performance of such notarial acts, the notary public must be
mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a document. The
notarial seal converts the document from private to public, after which it may be
presented as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution.
Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act.
Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement or
information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or
her notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public
accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity
and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined and public confidence
on notarial documents diminished. In this case, respondents conduct amounted to a
breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers
to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code which proscribes lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
5. Samala v. Atty. Valencia
FACTS:
Clarita J. Samala filed a complaint against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for Disbarment
on the following grounds: (a) serving on 2 separate occasions as counsel for
contending parties; (b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false
documentary evidence; (c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for
nonpayment of rental fees; and (d) having a reputation of being immoral
by siring illegitimate children.

IBP Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the


Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for
6 months. IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation of Commissioner Reyes but increased the penalty of suspension
from 6 months to 1 year.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Valencia should be suspended
RULING:
YES. Held suspended for 3 years.
(a)serving on 2 separate occasions as counsel for contending parties;
Records show that in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK, filed in the RTC of Marikina City,
entitled Leonora M. Aville v. Editha Valdez for nonpayment of rentals, herein
respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel for
the tenants Lagmay, Valencia, Bustamante and Bayuga by filing an Explanation and
Compliance before the RTC.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel
for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. He
may not also undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may
represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded on the principles of
public policy and good taste. It springs from the relation of attorney and client which
is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the
clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and doubledealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
(b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary
evidence
Complainant alleges that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 filed before MTC, Branch 75 for
ejectment, respondent submitted TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership
despite the fact that a new TCT No. 275500 was already issued in the name of Alba
on February 2, 1995.
Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead

by any artifice. What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to


mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was
already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name
of Alba.
(c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees
Complainant alleges that respondent filed several civil cases as retaliation for the
criminal cases the complainant filed against his client (estafa) and to his son
(trespass to dwelling.
We find the charge to be without sufficient basis. The act of respondent of filing the
aforecited cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and his own
interest, on the other, cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge unless
it can be clearly shown that the same was being done to abuse judicial processes to
commit injustice.
The filing of an administrative case against respondent for protecting the interest of
his client and his own right would be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is
obligated to defend and prosecute the right of his client.
(d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
During the hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita
Lagmay who are all over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also
admitted that he has eight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over
20 years of age, and after his wife died in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998.
Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was staying in one of the apartments
being claimed by complainant. However, he does not consider his affair with
Lagmay as a relationship and does not consider the latter as his second family. He
reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in
Muntinlupa and another in Marikina.
In this case, the admissions made by respondent are more than enough to hold him
liable on the charge of immorality. During the hearing, respondent did not show any
remorse. He even justified his transgression by saying that he does not have any
relationship with Lagmay and despite the fact that he sired three children by the
latter, he does not consider them as his second family. It is noted that during the
hearing, respondent boasts in telling the commissioner that he has two houses - in
Muntinlupa, where his first wife lived, and in Marikina, where Lagmay lives. It is of
no moment that respondent eventually married Lagmay after the death of his first
wife. The fact still remains that respondent did not live up to the exacting standard
of morality and decorum required of the legal profession.
Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult

to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet,
for purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community. Thus, in
several cases, the Court did not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for keeping a
mistress in defiance of the mores and sense of morality of the community. That
respondent subsequently married Lagmay in 1998 after the death of his wife and
that this is his first infraction as regards immorality serve to mitigate his liability.
6. Soriano v. Atty. Dizon
FACTS:
A disbarment complaint was filed against Atty. Dizon with the Commission on Bar
Discipine (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Complainant alleges
that the conviction of respondent for frustrated homicide which involves moral
turpitude, together with the circumstances surrounding the conviction, violates
Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and constitutes
sufficient ground for his disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.
Because of the failure of Atty. Dizon to submit his Answer to the Complaint, the CBD
issued a Notice informing him that he was in default, and that an ex-parte hearing
had been scheduled.
He was convicted of frustrated homicide when he was driving with his wife under
the influence of liquor. A taxi driver then overtook him which resulted on a car
chase. The 2 had a fight and Atty. Dizon then fired a shot to the driver hitting the
latters neck. Atty. Dizon then sped off.
The commissioner found that respondent had not only been convicted of such
crime, but that the latter also exhibited an obvious lack of good moral character,
based on the following facts:
1. He was under the influence of liquor while driving his car;
2. He reacted violently and attempted to assault Complainant only because the
latter, driving a taxi, had overtaken him;
3. Complainant having been able to ward off his attempted assault, Respondent
went back to his car, got a gun, wrapped the same with a handkerchief and shot
Complainant, who was unarmed;
4. When Complainant fell on him, Respondent simply pushed him out and fled;
5. Despite positive identification and overwhelming evidence, Respondent denied
that he had shot Complainant;

6. Apart from [his] denial, Respondent also lied when he claimed that he was the
one mauled by Complainant and two unidentified persons; and,
7. Although he has been placed on probation, Respondent has,
satisfied his civil liabilities to Complainant.

to date, not yet

ISSUE:
WON frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude and WON guilt warrants
disbarment.
RULING:
YES. Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to
justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the
private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general,
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Good moral character
includes at least common honesty. Homicide may or may not involve moral
turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. A question of fact and frequently
depends on all the surrounding circumstances. The acts of aggression shown by
respondent will not be mitigated by the fact that he was hit once and his arm
twisted by complainant. Under the circumstances, those were reasonable actions
clearly intended to fend off the lawyers assault.
He shot the victim when the latter was not in a position to defend himself. To make
matters worse, respondent wrapped the handle of his gun with a handkerchief so as
not to leave fingerprints. His illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm and his
unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities
Where their misconduct outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show
them morally unfit for their office and unworthy of the privileges conferred upon
them by their license and the law, the court may be justified in suspending or
removing them from that office.
7. Basas v. Atty. Miguel Icawat
FACTS:
In a letter-complaint, complainant Teodulfo B. Basas alleged negligence on the part
of respondent lawyer Miguel I. Icawat in the handling labor cases involving him and
his co-workers. Complainant was one of several workers who filed three separate
complaints before the NLRC against their employer FMC.
In those cases, the workers alleged that they were illegally dismissed and
demanded payment of termination pay, accrued leave benefits, 13th month pay,
and moral damages. Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of FMC, after finding
that the workers were project workers whose services were validly terminated upon

completion of the projects for which they were hired. However, FMC was ordered to
pay the worker' claims for wage differentials, 13th month pay, service incentive
leave pay, and attorney's fees.
Aggrieved, the workers informed respondent that they wanted to appeal the
decision. Atty. Icawat filed a notice of appeal. However, respondent did not file a
memorandum of appeal as required under the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.
Sensing that respondent had no intention to file a memorandum, complainant and
his co-workers asked respondent to just withdraw from the case. Instead of
withdrawing, however, Atty. Icawat threatened to sue their group and the new
lawyer they would hire, said the complainant. Complainant also claims that he and
his co-workers gave respondent P280.00 for filing fee but respondent made a
receipt for only P180.00.
Respondent asserted that he filed a notice of appeal at the behest of Flutarco
Sueno, complainant in one of the labor cases. Respondent claims that herein
complainant, along with the other workers, did not wish to file an appeal since they
had no money to spend. Respondent alleges that complainant and the other
workers instead asked him to withdraw from the case, which respondent refused to
do since he did not have a basis therefor and he had already filed a notice of
appeal. Respondent also argues that despite his having filed a notice of appeal, he
had not received any notice from the NLRC directing him to file an appeal brief.
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent liable for negligence and
unprofessional conduct for his failure to file the required memorandum of appeal
before the NLRC, and to account for all the money he received from his clients. Both
are clear violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE:
WON he is subject to a penalty due to his acts.
RULING:
YES. Respondent's failure to file the memorandum of appeal required by the NLRC
Rules of Procedure reveals his poor grasp of labor law and clearly prejudiced the
interests of his clients. Respondent manifestly fell short of the diligence required of
his profession, in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 provides:
"A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable."
For his failure to issue the proper receipt for the P280.00 he received from his
clients - which he later on claimed to be insufficient for an "old experienced lawyer",

whether the amount be P180.00 or P280.00 - respondent also violated Rule 16.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility:

"A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from
the client."
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to FINE Atty. Miguel I. Icawat in the amount of
P500.00, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense or a similar
misconduct will be dealt with more severely.
8. Pimentel Jr. v. Attys. Llorete and Salayon (hinanap ko lang digest sa
net)
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P.
Salayon
FACTS:
Attys. Antonio Llorente and Ligaya Salayon were election officers of the COMELEC
and held the position of Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively for the Pasig City
Board of Candidates. The respondents helped conduct and oversee the 1995
elections. Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. alleged that the
respondents tampered with the votes received by them by either adding more votes
for particular candidates in their Statement of Votes (SoV) or reducing the number
of votes of particular candidates in their SoV. Pimentel filed an administrative
complaint for their disbarment. Respondents argued that the discrepancies were
due to honest mistake, oversight and fatigue. Respondents also argued that the IBP
Board of Governors had already exonerated them from any offense and that the
motion for reconsideration filed by Pimentel was not filed in time.
RULING: GUILTY.
Respondents do not dispute the fact that massive irregularities attended the
canvassing of the Pasig City election returns. The only explanation they could offer
for such irregularities is that the same could be due to honest mistake, human error,
and/or fatigue on the part of the members of the canvassing committees who
prepared the SoVs. There is a limit, we believe, to what can be construed as an
honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue, in the performance of official duty. The
sheer magnitude of the error renders the defense of honest mistake or oversight
due to fatigue, as incredible and simply unacceptable. Indeed, what is involved here
is not just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per precinct as
reflected in the election returns and the subsequent entry of the erroneous figures
in one or two SoVs but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial
candidates at the expense of the petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation
in the election returns. A lawyer who holds a government position may not be

disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyers oath or is of such character as to
affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such
individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. Here, by
certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach
of Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By express provision of Canon
6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition, they
likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to do no falsehood. The Court
found the respondents guilty of misconduct and fined them PhP 10,000 each and
issued a stern warning that similar conduct in the future will be severely punished.
9. Soliman Santos v. Atty. Llamas (net lang ulit)
FACTS:
Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. It
appears that Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not indicated the
proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated
IBP Rizal 259060 but he has been using this for at least 3 years already. On the
other hand, respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a
limited practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted
from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption is the payment of
membership dues.
RULING: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall
pay annual dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground
for removal of the delinquents name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter
whether or not respondent is only engaged in limited practice of law. Moreover,
the exemption invoked by respondent does not include exemption from payment of
membership or association dues.
In addition, by indicating IBP Rizal 259060 in his pleadings and thereby
misprepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the
Rizal Chpater, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.01
which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Lawyer
was suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.
10.
Teodoro Rivera v. Atty. Angeles (net ulit, tamad na ko
magdigest)

FACTS:
Atty. Sergio Angeles was the legal counsel of Teodoro Rivera and 2 others in a civil
case. Rivera and his 2 co-plaintiffs received a favorable decision. Atty. Angeles
received almost PhP 50,000 from one of the defendants in the case as partial
fulfillment of the judgement against the latter. Atty. Angeles, however, never told his
clients of the amount he had received and never remitted the same to him, leaving
them to discover such fact on their own. Rivera and his co-plaintiffs filed an
administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Angeles.
RULING: GUILTY. Atty. Angeles was not disbarred but the Court ruled that his act
amounted to serious misconduct. The Court has repeatedly stressed the importance
of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyers equipment in the
practice of his profession. For it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the
profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their
trust and confidence. The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid
for the legal services he has extended to his client but such right should not be
exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the money intended for his
clients. There should never be an instance where the victor in litigation loses
everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer. For deceit in dealing with his client,
Atty. Angeles was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.
11.

Rasmus Anderson Jr. v. Atty. Cardeno (net ulit)

FACTS:
This is an administrative case filed by petitioner against respondent charging for
malpractice and neglect of duty from alleged neglect or deliberate mishandling of a
case resulting to the latters prejudice. Petitioner specifically alleged that
respondent failed to file an opposition and did not appear at the formal hearing set
considering the merits of the demurrer. Furthermore, respondent did not file a
Motion for Reconsideration after the trial court issued an order finding the
respondents demurrer to evidence meritorious. Moreover, respondent insisted to
represent the complainant despite verbal withdrawing the case as his counsel. On
the other hand, respondent concluded that complainant cannot accuse him of
deliberately causing their defeat in the case, when in fact, he did his best with such
little information, support and cooperation by the complainant and the latters
friends. It was his friends who chose to take another path to deal with the case
and proposed to employ acts to corrupt the judge .IBP Commissioner, found
respondent guilty of neglect of duty which was affirmed by the IBP Board of
Governors.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violate Canon 18 of the Code of CPR?

RULING:
YES. The court sustains the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of
Governors. Hence, it was held that a lawyer should never neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty subjects him to
disciplinary action. Respondent is reminded that the practice of law is a special
privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically
and morally. This court has been exacting in its expectations for the members of the
Bar always to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain
from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence of the public.
12.

Elmer Canoy vs. Atty. Jose Max Ortiz (net ulit)

FACTS:
Complainant alleged that respondent appear as his counsel in a labor case, for
illegal dismissal of his former employer filed with the NLRC. In 1998, Labor
Arbiter hearing the complaint, ordered the parties to submit their respective
position papers. Complainant then submitted all the necessary documents and
records to respondent so that he can prepare of the position paper. Thereafter,
he made several follow-up of the case but all was unfruitful. Until he learned
from the NLRC when he follow-up the case, that it was dismissed for
respondents failure to submit position papers. Respondent did not even
communicate to him about the status of the case. On the other hand,
respondents comment averred that he is confident that the case could be
resolved by way of compromise. That he prepared position paper of the
complainant but before he could submit, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case.
Respondent admitted that his failure to submit position paper to the fact that he
was preoccupied with both his functions as an elected official and as a practicing
lawyer. His desire to help was beyond physical limitations and he withdrew from
his other cases and his free legal services. IBP find the case with merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent failed to exercise that degree of competence and
diligence required of him in prosecuting his clients claim?
RULING:
Yes, it was held that once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence and
champion the latters cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Elsewise
stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his clients rights and the exertion of his utmost

learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client,
save by the rules of law legally applied.

You might also like