Case Digests for Briones, Lim, Aguas, Cabulisan

LEGAL ETHICS

within 5 days from receipt of the letter  – again, he did not file any Comment

Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1

(October 7, 1999).

CASE No. 139



COMMISSIONER DE LOS REY ES’ FINDINGS:

CPR - Canon 22: WITHDRAWAL OF S ERVICES FOR GOOD CAUSE

o

Rule 22.01 – Good Causes for Withdrawal of Services

Atty. Briones to file the required appellant's brief.

“A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:

a)

When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in

o

It is evident that he violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR.

o

She recommends that he be SUSPENDED from the practice of law

connection with the matter he is handling; b) c)

profession for a period of six (6) months.

When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these



IBP: Adopted and Approved the Report and Recommendation.

canons and rules;



May

When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest

e)

26,

2000,

Atty.

Briones

filed

with

the

IBP

a

Motion

for

Reconsideration/Reinvestigation. He contended:

of the client; d)

People vs. Cabacan has remained pending in view of the negligence of 

o

He filed a Comment on the administrative case but the same was not

When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for

considered by the investigating commissioner. Neither did the IBP

him to carry out the employment effectively;

conduct a formal investigation.

When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;



IBP: Motion is DENIED.



On October 5, 2000, Atty. Briones filed with the Court a Manifestation praying

f)

When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and

that his Comment submitted to the IBP on October 13, 2000 be considered by

g)

Other similar cases.”

the Court. o

[A.C. No. 5486 August 15, 2001] Formerly A.C. CBD Case No. 00-690

He failed to file an appellant’s brief in the said case because he never received a copy of the resolution requiring him to file said brief.

In Re: ATTY. DAVID BRIONES

o

If ever a copy was received by his secretary, the latter was not able to give it to him because he had already ceased practicing law  – failing

PONENTE: PUNO,  J.:

health.

NATURE: Arose from the continued failure of Atty. Briones to submit necessary appellant brief to the Second Division of SC

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Briones properly withdrew his services as counsel.

FACTS:

HELD: NO. He is still the counsel of record.



Atty. Briones is the counsel of the accused-appellant Restituto Cabacan in the



Atty. Briones was given notice through mail to file appellant’s brief but failed in

case: People of the Philippines vs. Restituto Cabacan

RATIO DECIDENDI: 

different occasions: 1 : He was given 30 days to file the brief but failed (August 6, 1998).

o

2 : Submit brief within 10 days and show cause order why Atty. Briones

could not ignore the directives coming from the Court.

nd

should not be disciplined by the Court  – failed (April 28, 1999). 

brief. Even if it were true that Atty. Briones has stopped practicing law, he still

st

o

The cessation of his law practice is not an excuse for his failure to file the required



It does not appear from the records of the said case that Atty. Briones has withdrawn his appearance. Unless he has withdrawn his appearance in the case,

The Court referred the matter of the repeated failure of Atty. Briones to file

the Court would still consider him as counsel for the accused-appellant and he

appellant's brief to the IBP for evaluation, report and recommendation (August

is expected to comply with all its orders and directives.

9, 1999). 

IBP Commissioner Victoria Gonzales-De Los Reyes informed Atty. Briones of the

RULING: Atty. David P. Briones is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)

Court's referral of the matter to the IBP and required him to file his Comment

months

LEGAL ETHICS

o

Later on, Atty. Villarosa, without due notice prior to a scheduled hearing,

Adopted from Mr. John Paul Beltran’s Digest by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1

surprisingly filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel, one day before its

CASE No. 140

scheduled hearing.

CPR - Canon 22: WITHDRAWAL OF S ERVICES FOR GOOD CAUSE



A careful perusal of said Motion to Withdrawas Counsel will conclusively show

Rule 22.01 – Good Causes for Withdrawal of Services

that no copy thereof was furnished to Lumot A. Jalandoni, neither does it bear

“A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:

her conformity.

a)

When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in

b)

o

A. Jalandoni, et al. was that he is a retained counsel of Dennis G. Jalbuena.

When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these

This is an estafa case filed by the representatives of PRC itself against

canons and rules; c)

spouses Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena

When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest

d)



It is worthy to note that from the outset, respondent already knew that Dennis G.

of the client;

Jalbuena is the son-in-law of Lumot A. Jalandoni being married to her eldest

When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for

daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena.

him to carry out the employment effectively; e)

The grounds alleged by Atty. Villarosa for his withdrawal as counsel of Lumot

connection with the matter he is handling;

o

When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to

Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests, breach of attorney-client confidentiality and deliberate withholding of 

comply with the retainer agreement;

records were committed by respondent.

f)

When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and

g)

Other similar cases.”

o

To effectively unravel the alleged conflict of interest, we must look into the cases involved. Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests, breach of attorney-client confidentiality was committed

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

by respondent.

HUMBERTO C. LIM, JR., in behalf of PENTA RESORTS CORPORATION/Attorney-inFact

of

LUMOT

A.

JALANDONI, complainant,

vs.

ATTY.

NICANOR

V.

VILLAROSA, respondent.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Villarosa properly withdrew his services as counsel. HELD: NO. RATIO DECIDENDI: 

In his comment, respondent stated that it was he who was not notified of the

PONENTE: CORONA, J.:

hiring of Atty. Alminaza as the new counsel in that case and that he withdrew

NATURE: Disbarment against respondent Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa

from the case with the knowledge of Lumot A. Jalandoni and with leave of court.

FACTS:

The rule on termination of attorney-client relations may be summarized as



Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa is a practicing lawyer and a member of the IBP. Lumot

follows:

A. Jalandoni who is the Chairman/President of Penta Resorts Corporation (PRC)



o

The relation of attorney and client may be terminated by the client, by the

and owns the biggest shares of stocks in the corporation, was sued which

lawyer or by the court, or by reason of circumstances beyond the control of 

involved the possession of land where Alhambra hotel, the only property owned

the client or the lawyer. The termination of the attorney-client relationship

by PRC, is situated.

entails certain duties on the part of the client and his lawyer.

The latter engaged the legal services of Atty. Villarosa. o

o



Accordingly, it has been held that the right of an attorney to withdraw or

Atty. Villarosa, as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship,

terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is considerably restricted.

represented Lumot A. Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case.

Canon 22 of the CPR reads:

Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client were entrusted to Atty. Villarosa.

o

 A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.



An attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case. A lawyer who desires to retire from an action without the written consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court. He must serve a copy

of

his

petition upon his client and the adverse party at least three days before the date set for hearing, otherwise

the court may treat the application as a "mere

scrap of paper ." 

Respondent made no such move. He admitted that he withdrew as counsel on April 26, 1999, which withdrawal was supposedly approved by the court on April28, 1999. The conformity of Mrs. Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty. Villarosa because of the appearance of Atty. Alminaza in court, supposedly in his place. A client may discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause and thereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance.



Thus, it has been held that a client is free to change his counsel in a pending case and thereafter retain another lawyer to represent him. That manner of changing a lawyer does not need the consent of the lawyer to be dismissed. Nor does it require approval of the court. The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondent but to act as additional counsel. Mrs. Jalandonis conformity to having an additional lawyer did not necessarily mean conformity to respondents desire to withdraw as counsel. Respondents speculations on the professional relationship of Atty. Alminaza and Mrs. Jalandoni find no support in the records of this case.

RULING: Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa is hereby found GUILTY of violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.

LEGAL ETHICS Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1

CASE No. 151 NCJC - Canon 3: IMPARTIALITY

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Atty. Aguas should be held in contempt of court.



Whether or not the Judge of CFI Bacolor’s action wrong.

HELD:

“Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not



NO. There was no evidence to support it.

only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made. ”



YES.

Section 1 – Without Fear or Factor “Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice. ”

RATIO DECIDENDI: On Issue No. 1

[G.R. No. 12 August 8, 1901]



The witnesses say and the judge finds that “his attitude was menacing”

In the matter of the proceedings against MARCELINO AGUAS for contempt of the

(bastante amenazadora) in the moment of making his protest, but beyond that

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA

there is nothing in the record which even tends to show that he was disrespectful to the court or unmindful of its dignity.

PONENTE: SMITH, J.:



In our opinion both testimony and finding state a mere conclusion which, in the absence of the facts from which it was deduced, is wholly valueless to support

NATURE: Criminal case where a witness for the defendant was seized by the judge

a judgment of contempt. The statement that the attorney’s attitude was

and the attorney was held in contempt

“menacing” tended no more to competently establish the alleged offense of 

contempt than if the witnesses had testified and the court had found that his

FACTS: 

conduct was “contemptuous or lacking in respect.”

August 29, 1900, during the progress of a trial then being held before CFI at



should have been testified to by the witnesses and found by the court, and

in the case, not to look at the attorney for the defendant but to fix his attention

failing that, the record does not show concrete facts sufficient to justify the

on the judge who was at the time examining him. o

Instead of looking at the judge (based from how I understand it), he was looking at the attorney who’s questioning him.



conclusion that he was disrespectful to the court or offensive to its dignity.

On Issue No. 2 

the shoulder and turning him about was unwarranted and an interference with

by the shoulders, and using the expression, “Lingon ang mucha” (“Look at

that freedom from unlawful personal violence to which every witness is

o

Attorney of the defendant: shook him

o

Judge: only turned him about.

Against such conduct the appellant had the right to protest and to demand were respectfully made and with due regard for the dignity of the court.

RULING: Ruling of the CFI is REVERSED, costs de oficio.

Two days after, Atty. Marcelino Aguas, was held in contempt and was suspended for 20 days for wanting in respect to the court by making use of 

NOTE: I guess the part to which our topic in this case applies is to the first issue, that a

“improper phrases,” and by interrupting opposing counsel in their examination

 judge should work without prejudicing others.

of witnesses. 

entitled while giving testimony in a court of justice. 

The said “seizing” was placed on record as insisted by the attorney of the

defendant. 

In our opinion the action of the judge in seizing the witness, Alberto Angel, by

Judge, thereupon, arose from his seat and approaching the witness, seized him me”). According to:



The specific act from which it was inferred that his attitude was menacing

Bacolor, Pampanga, the court had occasion to caution Angel Alberto, a witness

Atty. Aguas appealed but was denied by the lower court. Hence this appeal.

LEGAL ETHICS

o

She had no knowledge that Judge Pagalilauan was maintaining a querida.

Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1

But she recalled that a certain Divina Calaycay frequented the sala of the

CASE No. 151

Judge but explained that Divina was the widow of Judge Infante S.

NCJC - Canon 3: IMPARTIALITY

Calaycay, a friend of the judge and his predecessor in office.

“Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not

o

only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made. ”

Section 2 – Enhances Confidence of the Public

Cabading denied having any knowledge of practicing lawyers preparing decisions for Pagalilauan.



“Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and

JUDGE PAGALILAUAN’S COMMENT: o

With the peeping incident:

enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the



Denied the charges

impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.. ”



But admitted that while presiding judge of the RTC of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, he boarded in the house of Isabelo P. Castillo, father of 

[A.M. No. RTJ-96-1363. October 12, 1998]

Marilyn C. Dumayas and his former sheriff.

TOMAS CABULISAN, complainant , vs. JUDGE ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN, respondent.



He explained that he was not accustomed to sitting on the toilet bowl in the comfort room, he would squat on the bowl with his feet

PONENTE: BELLOSILLO, J.:

and not his buttocks resting on it. 

He claimed that under that circumstance, he had to balance himself 

NATURE: Administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Judge Adrian N.

by placing one hand on the divider while mounting the bowl and

Pagalilauan filed by Tomas Cabulisan

dismounting from it. 

FACTS: 

top of the divider with his left hand to balance himself. His left hand almost dislodged the clothes of Marilyn which were draped on the

Cabulisan alleged that the following were committed by Judge Pagaliluan: o

Peeping into the bathroom where Marilyn C. Dumayas, a public health

divider. He held on to them to prevent them from falling on the

nurse of the Sanchez Mira School of Arts and Trade, and daughter of the

floor.

owner of the house where he was boarding, was then taking a bath;





o

Having a mistress; and

o

Allowing local practitioners to write decisions for him

o

With the mistress issue: 

He insisted that he and Calaycay were merely friends, as he and her late husband were former classmates. There were even instances

Complaint was referred to NBI which procured statements from Dumayas,

after the death of Judge Calaycay when she would visit him to ask

alleged victim of the peeping incident, and Gemma C. Cabading, Court

help in connection with her husband’s death benefits from the

Interpreter, RTC-Br. 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan.

Employees Compensation Commission considering that he was

SWORN STATEMENT BEFORE THE NBI OF DUMAYAS:

formerly Executive Labor Arbiter of the NLRC before becoming a

o

 judge.

Morning of February 1995 (specific day was not mentioned) while she was taking a bath in the bathroom she noticed someone enter the

o

towel, she saw the face of Judge Pagalilauan over the concrete dividing wall with his eyes looking at her naked body so she hurriedly wrapped herself with her towel and went out of the bathroom immediately. o

A week after, a similar incident happened again.

GEMMA C. CABADING’S SWORN STATEMENT:

With the accusation of allowing local practitioners to write decisions for him:

adjacent comfort room. After she finished and was about to take her



On the said incident, while using the toilet bowl, he had to hold the





Baseless and merely fabricated.

CA Findings and Recommendation: o

Justice Aliño-Hormachuelos recommended the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the identity of the complainant could not be verified.



now says is true is not sufficient ground for concluding that her previous

SC referred back the case to Justice Aliño-Hormachuelos for a more thorough

statements were false.

investigation on the ground that the alleged non-existence of the complainant was insufficient basis for dismissal. 

Dumayas appeared in a formal investigation stating that:

On the matter of the grave misconduct 

The judge clearly admits his presence in the adjoining toilet; his defense which

Judge Pagalilauan was a boarder in her family’s house where she was also

consists mainly of the denial that he stared at Marilyn cannot prevail over the

staying in 1995.

latter's positive assertion that she saw him looking at her naked body, specially

o

Their house had only one bathroom which adjoined the comfort room.

in this case where she identified respondent in two separate peeping incidents

o

The two rooms were separated by a concrete divider about 2-1/2 meters

as the culprit.

o

in height which did not go all the way to the ceiling. o

o



We cannot accept his explanation that he had to hold the top of the divider

This time however she claimed that she did not exactly see the Judge

with his hand to balance himself because he was not accustomed to sitting on

looking at her; that she only saw his forehead and that she “simply

the toilet bowl. It is a feeble excuse considering his stature and educational

suspected” that he peeped at her.

background. In this administrative case, we are principally concerned with the

She also declared that she did not remember if the peeping incident really happened twice.

moral fiber of respondent. 

We have repeatedly held that while every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Pagalilauan should be disciplined because of grave misconduct.

uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary.

On the issue of having a mistress and the allegation of allowing practicing lawyers to write decisions for him

HELD: YES. RATIO DECIDENDI:



The judge is absolved.



No evidence for the mistress issue.



The writing of decision issue was denied by the Court interpreter.

On the matter where the affidavit of Dumayas was given more credit 

As a rule, affidavits are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony

RULING: Judge Adrian N. Pagalilauan, RTC-Br. 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, is

given in open court. However, in the instant administrative case, the sworn

fined P10,000.00

statement of Dumayas contains a detailed account of the two peeping incidents which is so persuasive as to convince us that it was what actually transpired, and not the version of respondent which is practically a mere 

VITUG, J. dissenting: 

The affidavit, in my view, should not be given greater weight than that of her

denial.

formal testimony. In the first place, the affidavit was not made part of the

Marilyn apparently has “forgotten” what she had once narrated specially in this

testimony either by reiteration or incorporation; neither had she been cross-

case where the testimony before the investigating justice was given more than

examined thereon. The basic philosophy behind the requirement of due

2 years after the incident. The fact that she has recounted the facts differently

process, I submit, should not be held irrelevant to an administrative proceeding

now may show a “failure of memory,” or could it be that she was swayed by the fact that her husband was a process server of respondent’s while her father

of this kind where at stake is one’s moral integrity. 

was respondent’s former sheriff? Her sworn statement was replete with

previously executed where she there claimed to have seen respondent staring

details which makes it more convincing and should be given more weight than her testimony simply denying that she saw respondent staring at her. Merely because she testified that what she had declared was false and that what she

Marilyn’s statement was, of course, a far cry from the affidavit she had

at her naked body. 

It would seem improbable for Dumayas to have merely “forgotten” what she once narrated, the matter was not a minor detail but, in fact, the very focus of  her case against respondent.