June 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics

Attorney; the failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable
negligence. In Dalisay Capili v. Atty. Alfredo L. Bentulan, the Court held that the failure to file a brief
resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. In this case, the Court cannot
accept as an excuse the alleged lapse committed by his client in failing to provide him a copy of the case
records.
In the first place, securing a copy of the case records was within Atty. San Juan’s control and is a task
that the lawyer undertakes.
Second, Atty. San Juan, unlike his client, knows or should have known, that filing an appellant’s brief
within the reglementary period is critical in the perfection of an appeal. The preparation and the filing of
the appellant’s brief are matters of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive control and
responsibility of Atty. San Juan. It was incumbent upon him to execute all acts and procedures necessary
and incidental to the perfection of his client’s appeal.
Third, Atty. San Juan lacked candor in dealing with his client. He omitted to inform Tomas of the
progress of his appeal with the Court of Appeals. Worse, he did not disclose to Tomas the real reason for
the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the appeal. Neither did Atty. San Juan file a motion for
reconsideration, or otherwise resort to available legal remedies that might have protected his client’s
interest.
Atty. San Juan’s negligence undoubtedly violates the Lawyer’s Oath that requires him to “conduct
[himself] as a lawyer according to the best of (his) knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as
well to the courts as to (his) clients[.]” He also violated Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Rex Polinar Dagohoy v. Atty. Artemio V. San Juan. A.C. No. 7944, June 3,
2013.

Attorney; IBP findings and recommended penalties in administrative cases against lawyers are only
recommendatory. IBP’s recommended penalty of three (3) months suspension from the practice of law is
not commensurate to the gravity of the infractions committed. These infractions warrant the imposition
of a stiffer sanction. The following acts and omissions of Atty. San Juan were considered: first, the
negligence in handling his client’s appeal; second, his failure to act candidly and effectively in
communicating information to his client; and more importantly, third, the serious and irreparable
consequence of his admitted negligence which deprived his client of legal remedies in addressing his
conviction.
In Pineda v. Atty. Macapagal, the Court imposed a one (1) year suspension from the practice of law on a
lawyer who, like Atty. San Juan, had been found guilty of gross negligence in handling his client’s case.
With this case as the norm, Atty. San Juan should be meted a suspension of one (1) year from the
practice of law for his negligence and inadequacies in handling his client’s case.
Moreover, IBP’s findings and stated penalty are merely recommendatory; only the Supreme Court has
the power to discipline erring lawyers and to impose against them penalties for unethical conduct. Until
finally acted upon by the Supreme Court, the IBP findings and the recommended penalty imposed
cannot attain finality until adopted by the Court as its own. Thus, the IBP findings, by themselves, cannot
be a proper subject of implementation or compliance. Rex Polinar Dagohoy v. Atty. Artemio V. San
Juan. A.C. No. 7944, June 3, 2013.

Court personnel; dishonesty. Ismael Hadji Ali, a court stenographer I at the Shari’a Circuit Court,
represented that he took and passed the Civil Service Professional Examination but evidence showed
that another person took the exam for him. Per CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 1991, the
use of spurious Civil Service eligibility constitutes dishonesty, among others. Dishonesty is a malevolent
act that has no place in the judiciary. Hadji Ali failed to observe the strict standards and behavior
required of an employee in the judiciary. He has shown unfitness for public office. Pursuant to the Civil
Service Rules, Hadji Ali was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement and other
benefits. Civil Service Commission v. Ismael A. Hadji Ali, et al., A.M. No. SCC-08-11-P, June 18, 2013.

Court personnel; dishonesty and grave misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of some established
and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior as well as gross negligence by a public
officer. To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty,
momentous and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of
judgment. The misconduct must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance
of the public officer’s official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect,
or failure to discharge the duties of the office.
Dishonesty is the “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; untrustworthiness; lack of
integrity; lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness and straightforwardness.”
In this case, respondent deceived complainant’s family who were led to believe that he is the legal
representative of the Hodges Estate. Boasting of his position as a court officer, a City Sheriff at that,
complainant’s family completely relied on his repeated assurance that they will not be ejected from the
premises.
In Re: Complaint Filed by Paz De Vera Lazaro Against Edna Magallanes, Court Stenographer III, RTC Br.
28 and Bonifacio G. Magallanes, Process Server, RTC Br. 30, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, the Court
stressed that to preserve decency within the judiciary, court personnel must comply with just
contractual obligations, act fairly and adhere to high ethical standards. In that case, the court held that
court employees are expected to be paragons of uprightness, fairness and honesty not only in their
official conduct but also in their personal dealings, including business and commercial transactions to
avoid becoming the court’s albatross of infamy.
More importantly, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 671350 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees mandates that public officials and employees shall remain true to the
people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone,
especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall
refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public
safety and public interest. Rodolfo C. Sabidong v. Nicolasito S. Solas. A.M. No. P-01-1448, June 25, 2013.

Court personnel; Prohibition in acquiring property involved in litigation within the jurisdiction of their
courts. Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibits court officers such as clerks of court from
acquiring property involved in litigation within the jurisdiction or territory of their courts. The rationale
is that public policy disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved, i.e., the
relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar control exercised by these persons. “In so providing,
the Code tends to prevent fraud, or more precisely, tends not to give occasion for fraud, which is what
can and must be done.”
For the prohibition to apply, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency
of the litigation involving the property. Where the property is acquired after the termination of the case,
no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil Code attaches.
In this case, when respondent purchased Lot 11-A on November 21, 1994, the Decision in Civil Case No.
14706 which was promulgated on May 31, 1983 had long become final. Be that as it may, it cannot be
said that the property is no longer “in litigation” at that time considering that it was part of the Hodges
Estate then under settlement proceedings.
A thing is said to be in litigation not only if there is some contest or litigation over it in court, but also
from the moment that it becomes subject to the judicial action of the judge. A property forming part of
the estate under judicial settlement continues to be subject of litigation until the probate court issues an
order declaring the estate proceedings closed and terminated. The rule is that as long as the order for
the distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed
closed and terminated. The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after
the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the
same. Rodolfo C. Sabidong v. Nicolasito S. Solas. A.M. No. P-01-1448, June 25, 2013.