Digest

University of Cebu Banilad, College of Law

Case Digests for Legal Ethics Atty. Mark Anthony Gaviola

Submitted by: Mahinay, Shammah Rey c JD-1, M6

 A.C. No. 932, June 21, 1940 In re ATTY. ROQUE SANTIAGO Ernesto Baniquit wanted to contract a second marriage and sought the legal advice of the respondent. Baniquit was living separately from his wife Soledad Colares for nine consecutive years. The respondent, believing that seven years of separation of husband and wife would entitle either of them to contract a second marriage, prepared a document where it was stipulated that the contracting parties authorized each other to marry again, at the same time renouncing or waiving whatever right of action one might have against the party so marrying. Ernesto Baniquit subsequently contracted a second marriage with Trinidad Aurelio on June 11, 1939. The respondent then realized that he had made a mistake and sent for the contracting parties on June 30, 1939 and signed the deed of cancellation of the document. Whether or not the respondent is guilty of malpractice. Yes, the respondent Roque Santiago was found guilty of malpractice and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. The document prepared by the respondent is contrary to law, moral, and tends to subvert the vital foundation of the family. Atty. Santiago’s acts constitute malpractice which justifies disbarment from the practice of law. The respondent’s sheer ignorance of the law makes him   unfit or unsafe to be entrusted with the

responsibilities and obligations of a lawyer.

 A.C. No. 104, January 28, 1954 BENITA S. BALINON, petitioner, vs. CELESTINO M. DE LEON, ET AL., respondents. Respondent de Leon, still legally married to Vertudes Marquez, lived as husband and wife with Regina S. Balinon since December, 1948. He prepared an affidavit on February 4, 1948 before respondent Velayo, a notary public, dissolving the first marriage and stating that he will take Balinon as his life-partner. Respondent Velayo signed the same in violation of his oath of office as attorney and notary public despite the unlawful and immoral purposes of the foregoing affidavit. De Leon contends that while the affidavit may be illicit, it is not an agreement but a mere innocent unilateral declaration of facts. Velayo alleges, on the other hand, that his participation was limited to the task of notarizing the affidavit, as a matter of courtesy to a brother lawyer and without knowing its contents. Whether or not the respondents’ a cts merit a disciplinary action. Celestino M. de Leon was suspended from the practice of law for three years while Justo T. Velayo is hereby merely reprimanded. The affidavit prepared and signed by respondent De Leon virtually permitts himself to commit the crime of concubinage. His contention that the affidavit is only a unilateral declaration of facts is of no moment, since it undoubtedly enabled respondent De Leon to attain his purpose of winning over Regina S. Balinon with some degree of permanence. Velayo, on the other hand, did nothing except to affix his signature to the affidavit in question as a notary public. It is the duty of a notary public to at least guard against an illegal or immoral

1

arrangement. Velayo was negligent in just affixing his signature to the affidavit, although his fault is mitigated by the fact the he had relied on the good faith of his co-respondent.

 A.C. No. CBD-174, March 7, 1996 GIOVANI M. IGUAL, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO S. JAVIER, respondent. Igual’s mother had a   Civil Case pending with the Court of Appeals. Complainant wanted to hire respondent lawyer because of the lawyer’s “influence to several justices of the Court of Appeals” . Atty. Javier offered to collaborate in the appealed case. Complainant gave respondent P10,000.00 for safekeeping and should Igual’s mother and her lawyer Atty. Ibadlit disagree in his collaborating in the case, respondent would

to return the money. Respondent thus entered his formal appearance as collaborating counsel on April 3, 1991. Then, the respondent and complainant quarreled. The complain ant allegedly maligned the respondent’s character prompting the respondent not prepare an appellees brief. The complainant wrote respondent on June 27, 1991 stating that he is demanding P7,000.00 balance since P3,000.00 had already been refunded by respondent. Respondent did not file an Answer. Whether or not Javier violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Yes, respondent violated canons 15, 16, 17, and 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by his deceitful actions. Javier was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) MONTH and ORDERED to restitute to the complainant the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P7,000.00). In situations where the lawyer cannot agree with the client, the lawyer may exit from the relationship instead of merely maintaining a cold war of doing nothing in the case. The lawyer may secure a notice of withdrawal from the case or manifest to the court the circumstances why he can no longer proceed in representing his client. Otherwise, a lawyers act will be interpreted as abandonment. Respondent should have set aside his personal feelings and should have pursued diligently the cause of his client within the bounds of reason, justice, and fair play. Public interest requires that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or defense of his clients cause.

 A.C. No. 3694, June 17, 1993  ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, ISABELO ONGTENGCO, ACHILLES BARTOLOME, AND ST. LUKES MEDICAL CENTER, complainants, vs. ATTORNEY BENJAMIN M. GRECIA, respondent. Attorney Damaso B. Aves, the husband of late Linda Aves, brought an action for damages against St. Luke's Hospital and the at tending physicians of his wife due to the hospital’s incompetence in handling his late wife’s pregnancy. Respondent Attorney Benjamin Grecia was counsel for the case.

2

On July 16, 1991, Attorney Grecia borrowed from Mrs. Robles, the Clerk of Court, the folder containing the medical records of Mrs. Aves. Robles then saw Grecia tear off two (2) pages of the medical records, crumpled the papers and placed them inside the right pocket of his coat. He immediately returned the folder to Mrs. Robles and left the office. Grecia then called his alleged driver and gave the crumpled papers from his coatpocket. Judge Capulong confronted the man and ordered him to give her the papers which Grecia had passed on to him. The man produced the crumpled pages "72" and "73" of the medical folder. On August 20, 1991, St. Luke's failed this disbarment case against Grecia. Whether or not the respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. Yes, the Court finds Attorney Benjamin Grecia guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and grossly unethical behavior as a lawyer. Grecia was disbarred and his license to practice law in the Philippines was cancelled. By stealing two pages from Linda Aves' medical chart and passing them on to his driver, he violated Rule 1.01, canon 1 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility as well as canon 7 thereof which provide that: Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. A lawyer is an officer of the courts and is tasked to uphold justice. An incorrigible practitioner of "dirty tricks," like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge the role of "an instrument to advance the ends of justice." Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of lawyers.

 A.C. No. 6131, February 28, 2005 EDUARDO L. NUÑEZ, EUGENIO O. NUÑEZ, ELISA NUÑEZ-ALVARICO and IMELDA L. NUÑEZ, complainants, vs. Atty. ARTURO B. ASTORGA, respondent. On June 5, 1968, the late Maria Ortega Vda. De Nuñez executed a Sale with Right to Repurchase of a lot in favor of Eugenio O. Nuñez for a consideration of P400.00. The stipulated time of repurchase was ten (10) years from the date of execution thereof or until June 5, 1978. The vendor ’s right to repurchase subsequently expired without any agreement of extending said period of repurchase. Eugenio O. Nuñez occupied and possessed said Lot for more than 40 years. A year after the execution of the said pacto de retro sale, the late Maria Ortega Vda. de Nuñez and her son Ricardo Nuñez, extrajudicially partitioned his estate including the subject Lot. Ricardo Nuñez then appointed respondent, Atty. Astorga, as administrator. Astorga had been disturbing the peaceful occupation and possession of complainants of the Lot claiming that complainants have no right over the same. Complainants then agreed to buy the subject Lot and respondent, who, without being appointed by the court as administrator of the intestate estate of the late spouses Ricardo Nuñez sold and conveyed to Imelda Nuñez

3

and Elisa Nuñez-Alvarico, daughters of Eduardo, the portions of the Lot they were occupying. After which Elisa Nuñez-Alvarico filed a criminal complaint for Estafa against respondent. Sometime on 29 March 2001 at around 7:30 in the evening, respondent went to the house of Eduardo L. Nuñez at corner J.P. Laurel and M.L. Quezon Sts., Baybay, Leyte and threatened to kill Eduardo Nuñez. Whether or not the respondent commit a conduct unbecoming an attorney. Yes, respondent ’s offensive language against complainants and their counsel unbecoming an attorney. Atty. Arturo B. Astorga is ACQUITTED of the charge of serious misconduct, but is held liable for conduct unbecoming an attorney and is FINED two thousand pesos. The legal profession exacts a high standard from its members. Lawyers shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law. Neither shall they, whether in public or in private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. 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 opposing counsel. Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Astorga’s statement constitute conduct unbecoming a member of the legal profession.

G.R. No. 148326, November 15, 2001 PABLO C. VILLABER, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and REP. DOUGLAS R. CAGAS, respondents. Villaber and Cagas were rival candidates for a congressional seat in the First District of Davao del Sur during 2001 elections. Cagas filed a consolidated petition to disqualify Villaber alleging Villaber was convicted for issuing a bouncing check worth P100,000.00 and was sentenced to suffer one (1) year imprisonment. Cagas further alleged that this crime involves moral turpitude making Villaber disqualified to run for any public office. In his answer, Villaber countered that a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not involve moral turpitude. On April 30, 2001, the COMELEC (Second Division), declared Villaber disqualified as a candidate for and from holding any elective public office and canceling his certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC ruled that a conviction for violation of B.P Blg. 22 involves moral turpitude. Whether or not violation of B.P. Blg. 22 involves moral turpitude. Yes, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 involves moral turpitude. The elements of the offense are: 1. The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value; 2. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and 4

3. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. The presence of the second element manifests moral turpitude. A conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 imports deceit and certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person.

 A.C. No. 6313, September 7, 2006 CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG, complainant, vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL, respondent . Complainant states that she and respondent met when she was looking for a lawyer to assist her in suing Arnulfo Aquino ("Aquino"), the biological father of her minor daughter, for support. She and respondent then started having a sexual relationship. She narrates that he had progressed to making sexual advances towards complainant, to the accompaniment of sweet inducements. Complainant acknowledges that she succumbed to these advances, assured by respondent's claim that the lawyer was free to marry her, as his own marriage had already been annulled. On February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign an Affidavit of Disclaimer stating that even as Aquino was denoted as the father in the birth certificate of her daughter, he was, in truth, not the real father. She was not allowed to read the contents of the Affidavit, she claims. Respondent then allegedly advised complainant that Aquino gave him P150,000.00 cash and P58,000.00 in two (2) postdated checks to answer for the medical expenses of her daughter. Instead of turning them over to her, respondent handed her his personal check in the amount of P150,000.00 and promised to give her the balance of P58,000.00 soon thereafter. However, respondent informed her that he could not give her the said amount because he used it for his political campaign as he was then running for Provincial Board Member of the 2nd District of Pampanga. According to the respondent, however, when the emissary handed P150,000.00 in cash the complainant allegedly told respondent that he could keep the remaining P38,000.00, not P58,000.00 as alleged. Although she did not say why, he assumed that it was for his attorney's fees. As regards their illicit relationship, respondent admits of his sexual liaison with complainant. He, however, denies luring her with sweet words and empty promises. He denies that he tricked her into believing that his marriage was already annulled. Whether or not the respondent is guilty of grossly immoral conduct. No, Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal was found GUILTY of immorality but not sufficient for a grossly immoral conduct. Respondent does not deny that he had an extra-marital affair with complainant, albeit brief and discreet, and which act is not "so corrupt and false " in order to merit disciplinary sanction. However, one of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. However, the court noted that respondent had expressed 5

remorse over his indiscretion and had in fact ended the brief illicit relationship years ago and should be taken as mitigating circumstances in his favor. Also, the complainant would not have been so easily deceived as a woman of sufficient age. 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.

 A.C. No. 3405, June 29, 1998 JULIETA B. NARAG, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOMINADOR M. NARAG, respondent. The St. Louis College of Tuguegarao engaged the services of Atty. Dominador M. Narag as a full-time college instructor in the College of Arts and Sciences and as a professor in the Graduate School. In 1984, Ms. Gina Espita, 17 years old and a first year college student, enrolled in subjects handled by Atty. Narag. Exerting his influence as her teacher, Atty. Narag courted Ms. Espita, gradually lessening her resistance until the student acceded to his wishes. The respondent eventually abandoned his family to live with Ms. Espita. Atty. Narag allegedly used his power and influence as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan to cause the employment of Ms. Espita at the Department of Trade and Industry Central Office at Makati, Metro Manila. The respondent argued however, that his wife, the complainant was constantly abusing him therefore prompting him to leave the marriage. Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Ethics for Lawyers. Yes, respondent violated canons of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers. Dominador M. Narag was DISBARRED. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

6

In the present case, the complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession. On the strength of the testimony of her witnesses and love letters sent to Gina, the complainant was able to establish that respondent abandoned his family and lived with another woman. Absent any evidence showing that these witnesses had an ill motive to testify falsely against the respondent, their testimonies are deemed worthy of belief. Respondent may have provided well for his family -- they enjoyed a comfortable life and his children finished their education. He may have also established himself as a successful lawyer and a seasoned politician. But these accomplishments are not sufficient to show his moral fitness to continue being a member of the noble profession of law.

 A.C. No. 1377, July 31, 1981. DORIS R. RADAZA, Complainant, vs. ROBERTO T. TEJANO, Respondent. Radaza and respondent were sweethearts. Complainant was then single, 30 years old and a physical education teacher at the Butuan City Central Elementary School, while respondent was also single, 28 years old, and the private secretary to the Mayor of Butuan City. Complainant and respondent constantly had sexual intercourse. As a consequence, complainant became pregnant and delivered a baby-boy. Respondent readily acknowledged being the father of the baby whom he named after him. While that complainant and respondent were having their relationship, respondent was also engaged to Florminda Buque, complainant’s cousin. This relation ship was known to complainant. On September 21, 1974,

respondent married Florminda Buque. Complainant contends in her testimony that she accepted respondent’s love and submitted to his importunings to have sexual relations due to the latter’s promise to m arry her. On the other hand,

respondent, while not denying their intimate relationship, disclaimed having promised to marry her, and alleged that their sexual intimacies were motivated by their mutual attraction and desire for each other. Whether or not the conduct of respondent constitute gross immoral conduct to merit disbarment. No, it does not constitute a gross immoral conduct. Respondent was only sternly admonished that any other misconduct on his part which might reflect unfavorably on the moral norms of the profession will be dealt with accordingly. In the case at bar, respondent denied having promised marriage to complainant. In fact, complainant knew beforehand that respondent was also engaged to her cousin, Florminda Buque, whom he eventually married. Complainant was mature enough to realize the folly of her acts. She could not have been so naive as to be deceived by such promise. Undoubtedly, the cohabition of respondent with petitioner is immoral for lack of a valid marriage. But to be the basis of a disciplinary action, the act must not merely be immoral; it must be ‘grossly immoral’ — ‘it must

be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.’ And the same must be established by clear and convincing proof, disclosing a case that is free from

doubt as to compel the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary power. 7

SBC Case No. 519, July 31, 1997 PATRICIA FIGUEROA, complainant, vs. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR., respondent. Patricia Figueroa petitioned that respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. be denied admission to the legal profession averring that respondent and she had been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was born to them and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry her. Complainant first acceded to sexual congress with respondent sometime in 1960. Their intimacy yielded a son, Rafael Barranco, born on December 11, 1964. It was after the child was born, complainant alleged, that respondent first promised he would marry her after he passes the bar examinations. Their relationship continued and respondent allegedly made more than twenty or thirty promises of marriage. He gave only P10.00 for the child on the latter’s birthdays. Her trust in hi m and their relationship ended in 1971, when she

learned that respondent married another woman. The Court resolved to cancel respondent’s scheduled oath -taking. On June 1, 1993, the Court referred the

case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Whether or not the respondent committed a grossly immoral act. No, the acts do not constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of respondent from the legal profession. His engaging in premarital sexual relations with complainant and promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his part but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community. Respondent and complainant were sweethearts whose sexual relations were evidently consensual. Complainant was then an adult who voluntarily and actively pursued their relationship and was not an innocent young girl who could be easily led astray. Unfortunately, respondent chose to marry and settle permanently with another woman. The Court “cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond which should be entered into because of love, not for any other reason”.

 Adm. Case No. 481, February 28, 1969 VIRGINIA C. ALMIREZ assisted by her father, AGAPITO ALMIREZ complainants, vs. ARTURO P. LOPEZ, respondent. Respondent courted Almirez by correspondence and became sweethearts. Although he had told the complainant of his intent to marry her, it was understood that the wedding would take place upon consummation of a given deal in which he expected to make a big amount of money. They subsequently had carnal knowledge of each other several times. Complainant became pregnant and upon knowing it, he urged her to see another lady doctor who could perform an abortion. Complainant did not agree and on August 22, 1961, complainant gave birth to a baby boy.

8

Prior thereto, on March, 1961, the wedding did not take place, because respondent blamed her for refusing to undergo an abortion. On the other hand, respondent argued that complainant was impregnated by another man. Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct. Lopez was found guilty of gross immoral conduct and was disbarred. The defense of the respondent actually reveals that there have been sexual relations between him and the complainant. The fact that respondent urged the complainant to have an abortion, besides being unlawful, is an act of “willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community”.

 A.C. No. 5916, July 1, 2003 SELWYN F. LAO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERT W. MEDEL, respondent. Respondent was indebted to Lao. In the payment of his outstanding obligation, respondent paid in worthless checks totaling P22,000.00. These dishonored checks were issued by defendant in replacement for previous checks issued to the complainant. The respondent made a request for a final extension of only ten (10) days from June 30, 2000, to pay P22,000.00 to Engr. Lao. However, Atty. Medel has not paid his indebtedness. On July 4, 2002, both parties appeared before the IBP-CBD for their scheduled hearing. But, while waiting for the case to be called, respondent suddenly insisted on leaving, supposedly to attend to a family emergency. Complainants counsel objected and Commissioner Cunanan, who was still conducting a hearing in another case, ordered him to wait. He, however, retorted in a loud voice, “It’s up to you.  This is only disbarment, my family is more important ”. And, despite the objection and the warning, he arrogantly left. He made no effort to comply with his undertaking to settle his indebtedness before leaving. Whether or not the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct. Atty. Medel was found guilty of gross misconduct was suspended for one year from the practice of law. It is evident from the records that he made several promises to pay his debt promptly. However, he reneged on his obligation despite sufficient time afforded him. Worse, he refused to recognize any wrongdoing and transferred the blame to complainant, on the contorted reasoning that the latter had refused to accept the formers plan of payment. It must be pointed out that complainant had no obligation to accept it, considering respondents previous failure to comply with earlier payment plans for the same debt. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all members of the bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law. Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Also, the high-handed manner in which respondent dealt with Commissioner Cunanan during the hearing, was taken as a discourtesy of respondent. Thus, it was imperative for him to respect the authority of the officer 9

assigned to investigate his case. Assuming that he had a very important personal matter to attend to, he could have politely explained his predicament to the investigating commissioner and asked permission to leave immediately.

March 3, 1923 In re suspension of VICENTE PELAEZ, attorney The respondent Vicente Pelaez was appointed guardian of the minor Gracia Cabrera. As such guardian, he came into possession of certain property, including twenty shares of the E. Michael & Co., Inc., and ten shares of the Philippine Engineering Co. While Pelaez was still the guardian of the minor, he borrowed P2,800 from the Cebu branch of the Philippine National bank. Shortly thereafter, to guarantee the loan, Pelaez, without the knowledge or consent of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, deposited with the Cebu branch of the Philippine National Bank the shares of stock corresponding to the guardianship. The judge of First Instance suspended him from the legal profession. To quote counsel for the respondent, "the misconduct of which the respondent in this case is guilty consist of having pledged the shares belonging to his ward, to guarantee the payment of his personal debt." Whether or not a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for non-professional misconduct. Yes, a lawyer may be subject to disciplinary measures for acts not related to his/her profession. It is a well-settled rule that a statutory enumeration of the grounds of disbarment is not to be taken as a limitation of the general power of the court in this respect. A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as lawyer for other than statutory grounds. As a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its officers for misconduct alleged to have been committed in his private capacity. But this is a general rule with many exceptions. The courts sometimes stress the point that the attorney has shown, through misconduct outside of his professional dealings, a want of such professional honesty as render him unworthy of public confidence, and an unfit and unsafe person to manage the legal business of others. The reason why such a distinction can be drawn is because it is the court which admits an attorney to the bar, and the court requires for such admission the possession of good moral character. The respondent was thus suspended for one year.

 A.C. No. 4017, September 29, 1999 GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS TALENTS POOL, INC., complainant, vs. ATTY. PRIMO R. NALDOZA, respondent. Respondent was the counsel of the complainant corporation in a case. When the said case was resolved in favor of the complainant, the respondent Atty. Naldoza knowing fully well that the said decision had already become final and unappealable, convinced the complainant to appeal the case before the Supreme Court. Thus, the respondent filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Review and that two (2) days later falsely 10

told the complainant corporation that the complainant had to pay, which it did, Cash Bond in UNITED STATES DOLLAR amounting to $2,555.00 to the Supreme Court in order that the said appealed case could be heard or acted upon by the Supreme Court. The said amount was given to the respondent. The receipt issued by the treasurer ’s office of the Supreme Court was revealed spurious. The respondent only paid P622.00. A criminal case for estafa was filed against respondent but acquitted on reasonable doubt, he was declared civilly liable in the amount of US$ 2,555. Whether or not the acts of the respondent constitute malpractice. The acts committed by respondent definitely constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney. They are in violation of his duty, as a lawyer, to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and to engage in no conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Such misconduct discredits the legal profession." Naldoza was subsequently disbarred. Respondents acts are more despicable. Not only did he misappropriate the money entrusted to him; he also faked a reason to cajole his client to part with his money. Worse, he had the gall to falsify an official receipt of this Court to cover up his misdeeds. Clearly, he does not deserve to continue being a member of the bar.

 A.M. No. R-705-RTJ, August 23, 1989 LIGAYA GONZALES-AUSTRIA, LEONILA FUERTES and EDGARDO SERVANDO, complainants, vs. JUDGE EMMANUEL M. ABAYA, RTC, Br. 51, Puerto Princess City and ANNA BELLE CARDENAS, respondents. Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria, then Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Puerto Princess City, Mrs. Leonila Fuertes and Mr. Edgardo Servando alleged that Judge Emmanuel M. Abaya, then Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 51, Puerto Princess City 2, (1) encashed the salaries of employee Miss Anabelle Cardenas who never reported for duty from August 1983 to May 1984 by forging of payee's signature in the treasury warrants, (2) received bribed money in exchange for favorable resolutions and decisions from different litigants in Branch 52, and (3) exacted a portion of Edgardo Servando ’s salaries as part and condition of his continued employment under Judge Abaya. Judge Abaya denied all these charges by saying that these were concocted in retaliation against the administrative complaint he filed against one of his accusers, Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria for dishonesty and grave misconduct. Gonzales-Austria allegedly forged his signature in a probation order. Whether or not Abaya and Gonzales-Austria committed acts worthy of disciplinary measures. Atty. Austria was suspended for on e year while Abaya’s retirement benefits were forfeited. Judge Emmanuel M. Abaya guilty of grave and serious misconduct. The office of a judge exists for one solemn end — to promote justice by administering it fairly and impartially. The judge is the visible representation of the law and of justice. From him, the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. For him then to transgress the highest ideals of justice and public service for personal gain is indeed a demoralizing example

11

constituting a valid cause for disenchantment and loss of confidence in the judiciary as well as in the civil service system. Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria admits to having signed the probation order and of having promulgated it, but explains that these were done with the knowledge and consent of Judge Abaya, who had asked her to prepare orders and decisions in Branch 52 to ease his load of presiding over two (2) branches. Atty. Austria's misconduct as Branch Clerk of Court to affect her qualification as a member of tile Bar, for precisely as a lawyer, she ought to have known the illegality of the act complained of.

 A.C. No. L-1117, March 20, 1944 THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, complainant, vs. ESTANISLAO R. BAYOT, respondent. The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice by publishing in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943, advertising his services. Respondent at first denied having published the advertisement but subsequently admitted having caused its publication and asked the court for mercy and leniency and promised never to do such act again. Whether or not the respondent violated the rule prohibiting solicitation of business. The advertisement in question was a violation of the ethics of his profession. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." The lawyer degrades himself and his profession by advertising his services or offering them to the public. But the respondent was only reprimanded because of his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct.

G.R. No. L-77691, August 8,1988 PATERNO R. CANLAS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and FRANCISCO HERRERA, respondents. Herrera owned eight parcels of land located in Quezon City. Between 1977 and 1978, he obtained various loans from the L & R Corporation totaling P420,000.00 and as security he executed deeds of mortgage in favor of the corporation over the parcels aforesaid. However, Herrera failed to pay the loan and his property was foreclosed and subsequently auctioned in which L & R Corporation was itself the highest bidder. Herrera filed a complaint for injunction against L & R Corporation where he was represented by the petitioner. Two years later, the parties entered into a compromise agreement where L & R Corporation will give Herrera another year to redeem the foreclosed properties subject to payment of P600,000.00, with interest of one per cent per month. They likewise stipulated that the petitioner shall be entitled to attorney's fees of P100,000.00. However, Herrera failed to repay the loans as well as the P100,000.00 in attorney's fees. Later, Herrera and petitioner agreed that petitioner would redeem the properties provided that Herrera executed a "transfer of mortgage" over the properties in his favor. They executed a "Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Redemption and/or to Redeem," a document that enabled the petitioner to register the same in his name. 12

The private respondent alleges that the "Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Redemption and/or to Redeem" had been falsified. Whether or not the petitioner committed a violation of hi oath. Yes, petitioner committed an infidelity to his oath "to do no falsehood". Petitioner used his mastery of procedural law to “score a technical knockout”  over his own client. Regarding attorney's fees, section 24, of Rule 138 , of the Rules, providing that lawyers may recover “reasonable compensation” from clients.

The petitioner's claim of P100,000.00 in attorney's fees is unreasonable. The case did not involve complex questions of fact or law that would have required substantial effort as to research or leg work for the petitioner to warrant his demands. Also, the Court notes that petitioner wanted to force the transfer of the properties to himself. But while the court cannot hold the petitioner liable for falsification he committed an infidelity to his oath. The petitioner, Atty. Patemo Canlas, was ordered to pay to the private respondent, Francisco Herrera, the sum of P326,000.00, and was ordered to show cause why no disciplinary action may be imposed on him for violation of his oath, as a lawyer.

 AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002 DOMINADOR P. BURBE, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA, respondent. Burbe hired Atty. Magulta to legally represent him in a money claim and possible civil case against certain parties for breach of contract. Magulta then prepared the demand letter and some other legal papers, including a settlement of the dispute with a filing fee P25,000.00. He was informed Magulta that the complaint had already been filed in court, but there was no such complaint filed. Upon confrontation, Magulta admitted that he did not file the complaint because he had spent the money for the filing fee for his own purpose and offered to reimburse Burbe by issuing two (2) checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in the amounts of P12,000.00 and P8,000.00, respectively. Magulta denied that there was no lawyer-client relationship between him and Burbe. According to him, Burbe was a kumpadre of a colleague and that he [Burbe] never paid him any fee for his services. Whether or not Magulta violated the Code of Professional Responsibiity. Yes, Magulta is found guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended for one (1) year. A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment complainant asked respondent for legal advice regarding the formers business. It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged. A lawyer-client relationship may exist despite the close personal relationship between the lawyer and the complainant. Hence, despite the fact that respondent dispensed legal advice to complainant as a personal favor to the kumpadre, the lawyer was duty-bound to file the complaint he had agreed to prepare at the soonest possible time, in order to protect the clients interest. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them.

13

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that lawyers shall hold in trust all moneys of their clients and properties that may come into their possession. Magulta’s failure to put the complainant’s money to its intended use is a gross violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

 ADM. CASE No. 5649, January 27, 2006 DANDY V. QUIJANO, Complainant, vs. GEOBEL A. BARTOLABAC (Labor Arbiter, NLRC-NCR South), and ALBERTO R. QUIMPO (Commissioner, NLRC-First Division), Respondents. Complainant, Quijano, was dismissed from service by the Mercury Drug Corporation. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and was decided in his favor. Complainant filed with respondent Labor Arbiter Bartolabac a motion for execution but despite the final resolution of his case, Bartolabac issued an order that in effect changed the tenor of the final judgment. While the decision of this Court had mandated complainant’s reinstatement, Bartolabac instead awarded backwages and separation pay.

The Court, upon learning this, issued a Resolution directing Bartolabac to fully comply with its Decision and to explain in writing why he should not be punished for indirect contempt for his actuations in handling the case and defiance of the Court’s directives.   Commissioner Quimpo, on the other hand directed the payment of

separation pay rather than reinstatement to a substantially similar position as ordered by the Court. This is because the position of complainant, a warehouse man, was already abolished. Whether or not respondents violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. Yes, respondents are liable for violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac and Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo were suspended for THREE (3) months. The Court is unyielding in its adjudication that complainant must be reinstated to his former position as warehouseman or to a substantially equivalent position. Both respondents labor arbiter and commissioner do not have any latitude to depart from the Court’s ruling. Respondents have no discretion on this matter, much

less any authority to change the order of the Court. In facts, the Court granted that complainant could be reinstated to a substantially equivalent or similar position as a viable alternative for the corporation to carry out.

 A.C. No. 3701, March 28, 1995 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, complainant, vs. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO, respondent. While respondent was still an employee of PNB, he participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for P200,000. When a civil action arose out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and complainant bank before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 146, respondent who had since left the employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy.

14

Similarly, when the same transaction became the subject of an administrative case filed by complainant bank against his former subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, for grave misconduct and dishonesty, respondent appeared as counsel for Elefan only to be later disqualified by the Civil Service Commission. Moreover, while respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of complainant’s Asset Management Group, he intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil action ensued between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a result of this loan account, the latter were represented by the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" of which respondent is one of the Senior Partners. Whether or not respondent violated Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility stating that, “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 s ervice”.

Yes, the respondent violated Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended for three years. There was a deliberate intent on the part of the respondent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the best position to see the legal weaknesses of his former employer, a convincing factor for the said clients to seek his professional service.

 A.C. No. 4807, March 22, 2000 MANUEL N. CAMACHO, complainant, vs. ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D. BALMORES, CATHERINE V. LAUREL and HUBERT JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND  ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, respondents. Nine students of AMA Computer College ("AMACC") were expelled therefrom upon the recommendation of the Student Disciplinary Tribunal. They were all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE, who apparently had caused to be published some objectionable features or articles in the paper. Complainant is the hired counsel of the expelled students. Respondents, then counsel for the defendants, procured compromise agreements (letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements) with four of complainant’s clients without his knowledge which required them to waive all kinds of claims they might have

had against AMACC, the principal defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it. Whether or not respondents violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics. Yes, Respondent Pangulayan is guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics and was suspended for three months while the case against the other respondents is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Canon 9 states that, "A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law." 15

When the individual letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were formalized, complainant was already the counsel for plaintiff students in the civil case. Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact but proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without at the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer. This failure of respondent, whether by design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague.

 A. C. No. 5398, December 3, 2002  ANTONIO A. ALCANTARA, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIANO PEFIANCO, respondent. The complainant, Atty. Alcantara, the incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public Attorney’ s Office in San Jose, Antique, had a heated argument with respondent Atty. Pefianco, shouting first at another lawyer (Atty. Salvani) then to Alcantara and called him “gago” (stupid) after a woman tried to amicably settle the civil aspect of the criminal because she was no longer interested in prosecuting the same. The tension escalated and the respondent almost punched Alcantara. Whether or not respondent violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Yes, Pefianco was found guilty of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, was fined P1,000.00, and reprimanded with a warning. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times. The evidence on record indeed shows that it was respondent Pefianco who provoked the incident in question. In this case, respondents meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused the untoward incident. He had no right to demand an explanation from Atty. Salvani why the case of the woman had not or could not be settled. Even so, Atty. Salvani in fact tried to explain the matter to respondent, but the latter insisted on his view about the case. Respondent ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. Whatever moral righteousness respondent had was negated by the way he chose to express his indignation. An injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.

 A.C. No. 2339, February 24, 1984. JOSE M. CASTILLO, Complainant, v. ATTY. SABINO PADILLA, JR., Respondent. Complainant was the counsel for the defendants (and at the same time, one of the defendants) in a criminal case for forcible entry. Respondent was counsel for the plaintiff of the said case. While complainant was formally offering his evidence in a court hearing, he heard respondent say "bobo." When complainant turned toward respondent, he saw the latter looking at him (complainant) menacingly. Embarrassed and

16

humiliated in the presence of many people, complainant was unable to proceed with his offer of evidence. The court proceedings had to be suspended. Whether or not respondent committed a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice. Yes, respondent was merely reprimanded for his misbehavior. Whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner of offering evidence, the remark "bobo" or "Ay, que bobo" was offensive and uncalled for. Respondent had no right to interrupt complainant which such cutting remark while the latter was addressing the court. In so doing, he exhibited lack of respect not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the court. The Court, however, notes that in the case at bar, respondent’s actuation was triggered by complainant’s own

manifest hostility and provocative remarks. Complainant is therefore not entirely free from blame when respondent unleashed his irritation through the use of improper words.

 A.M. No. 219, September 29, 1962 CASIANO U. LAPUT, petitioner, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO E.F. REMOTIGUE and ATTY. FORTUNATO P. PATALINGHUG, respondents. Petitioner was the counsel of Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera. Petitioner prepared two pleadings, however, Barrera refused to countersign these two pleadings and instead advised petitioner not to file them. Some weeks later, petitioner found in the records of said proceedings that respondent Atty. Fortunato Patalinghug had filed a written appearance as the new counsel for Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera. Petitioner voluntarily asked the court to be relieved as counsel for Mrs. Barrera. The other respondent, Atty. Remotigue, then entered his appearance. Complainant here alleges that the appearances of respondents were unethical and improper because respondents motive was to allegedly embarrass petitioner to the officials, lawyers and employees of said corporations, picturing him as a dishonest lawyer and no longer trusted by his client — all with the purpose of straining the relationship of the petitioner and his client, Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera; and that Atty. Patalinghug entered his appearance without notice to petitioner. Whether or not respondents are guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by allegedly soliciting cases and intriguing against a brother lawyer. No, no sufficient evidence were submitted to sustain the charges. According to investigation, the reason why Mrs. Barrera dismissed petitioner as her lawyer was that she did not trust him any longer, for one time she found out that some dividend checks which should have been sent to her were sent instead to petitioner, making her feel that she was being cheated by petitioner. Moreover, she found that withdrawals from the Philippine National Bank and Bank of the Philippine Islands have been made by petitioner without her prior authority. The court sees no irregularity in the appearance of respondent Atty. Fortunato Patalinghug as counsel for the widow. The evidence shows that Atty. Patalinghug's professional services were contracted by the widow. 17

 A.M. No. 944, July 25, 1974 FLORA NARIDO, complainant, vs. ATTORNEY JAIME S. LINSANGAN, respondent. Respondent Atty. Linsangan was the counsel of Flora Narido in a workmen's compensation case. Narido alleged that Linsangan violated the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured statement. Respondent accused Atty. Risma of the opposing party accountable for instigating his client, the complainant, Narido, to file the case in what respondent Linsangan called "embarrassment, humiliation and defamation" of a brother in a profession. Respondent Jaime S. Linsangan and Rufino B. Risma hurled accusations at each other. Whether or not the respondents merit a disciplinary action. No, respondent Jaime S. Linsangan is dismissed for lack of merit while respondent Rufino B. Risma is exculpated from the charge of having instigated the filing of an unfounded suit. The two respondents were advised to heed these words from Justice Laurel, announced in Javier v. Cornejo: "It should be observed, in this connection, that mutual bickering and unjustifiable recriminations, between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this court."

18