Combined Legal Ethics n Profession Case Digest

CASE DIGEST FOR LEGAL ETHICS 1. Vil Villegas legas v. Legaspi Legaspi G.R. G.R. No. L-538 L-538! ! "a#$% "a#$% &5' 1!8& &. Ala(i v. Ala)*a A.". SDC !+-&,  Fe#)a#* &/'1!!+0 3. Lees2a v. Cli2a$o G.R. No L-&3815 )4e &8'1!+/ /. I4 Re %e I4eg#aio4 o6 %e 7a# o6 %e ,%ilippi4es /! SCRA && 1!+30 5. Sal$eo v. v. He#4a4e G.R. No. L-/&!!& L-/&!!& A)g)s 8'1!35 . ,%il. La(*e#s Asso$iaio4 v. Ag#ava Ag#ava G.R. No. L-1&/& Fe#)a#* 1'1!5! +. ,eople v. A9)i4o G.R. No. L-&3!:8 8. Go4ales v. Alva#e Alva#e G.R. No. L1!:+& !. Do#ao v. v. ,ila# A.C. No. &3 O$oe# &8'1!58 &8'1!58 1:. 7la4a v. A#$a4gle A#$a4gle A.C. No. /!& Sepe2ve# 5'1!+ 11. Co-,e#e v. v. La4i4 G.R. No. &&3&: )l* &!'1!8 1&. STa. "a#ia v. T)aso4 A.C. No. 3! )l* 31'1!/ 13. Delgao v. CA G.R. No. /3!& Nove2e# 1:'1!8 1/. ,eople v. Log#o4io G.R. No. !&/1 O$oe# 13'1!!& 15. ,eople v. A)g)si4 G.R. No. 11:&!: a4)a#* &5'1!!5 1. ,eople v. Holgao G.R. No. L&8:! "a#$% &&'1!: 1+. Tela4 v. CA G.R. No. !5:& O$oe# /'1!!1 18. ,eople v. Ni$olas G.R. No. 88381:8& Nove2e# &1'1!!1 1!. ,eople v. Sa4os G.R. No. 11+8+3 De$e2e# &&'1!!+ &:. "i#a4a v. CA &1. Hila Hilao o v. v. Nava##o Nava##o &&. I4 Re Eilio4 Eilio4 A.". A.". No. 1!&8' A)g)s A)g)s 3'1!+8 3'1!+8

Villegas v. v. Legaspi G.R. No. L-538! "a#$% &5' 1!8&

RA;L A. VILLEGAS' petitioner, ASSE"7L-/A/0- ' #espo4e4-appellee $AC3G  Attorney Vicente =. $rancisco filed a motion for reconsideration 4ith regards to a case that is pending in court. >e 4as said to have inserted a paragraph in his motion 4hich the court finds to contain inecusable disrespect of the authority of the court and an intentional contempt of its dignity. 3he phrasesG . . . and constitutes an outrage to the rights of the petitioner $elipe 5alcedo and a mockery of the popular 4ill epressed at the polls . . . . . . . because 4e should not 4ant that some citizen, particularly some voter of the municipality of 3iaong, 3ayabas, resort to the press publicly to denounce, as he has a right to do, the is conduct must, perforce, be par ecellence, especially so 4hen, as in this case, he vol"nteers his professional services. espondent here has not lived up to that ideal standard. %t 4as unnecessary to have complainants 4ait, and hope, for si long years on their pension claims. ;pon their refusal to co&operate, respondent should have forth4ith terminated their professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging indefinitely. And altho 8e voted that he not be reprimanded, in a legal sense, let this be a reminder to Atty. Arcangel of 4hat the high standards of his chosen profession re2uire of him. Accordingly, the case against respondent is dismissed. 5o ordered

G.R. No. L-&&3&: )l* &!' 1!8 "ERCEDES R;TH CO77-,ERE@ a4 Da2aso ,e#e' ,eiio4e#  V HON. GREGORIO LANTIN #espo4e4

1ercedes uth Cobb&Perez and 0amaso Peres !petitioners" resorted to a series of actions and petitions abetted by their counsel for the sole purpose of th4arting the eecution of a simple money eldG 3he fact becomes inescapable that the Perez spouses, coached by their counsels, had sallied forth on a strategem of :remedies: proolgado!appellant" 4as charged in the court of $irst %nstance 4ith slight illegal detention for kidnapping and illegally detaining Artemia $arbreag of her personal liberty. 0uring the 3rial, the eldG ne of the great principles of