INTRODUCTION to LAW - Case Digests for Legal Ethics

INTRODUCTION TO LAW CASES FOR LEGAL ETHICS ____________________________ 1)

JOSELANO GUEVARRA VS. ATTY. JOSE EALA FACTS: Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyers oath. Eala’s alleged grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer, has been swor n to uphold. In pursuing obsessively his illicit love for Guevarra's wife, he mocked the institution of marriage, betrayed his own family, broke up Guevarra’s marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and degrades the legal profession. Guevarra was the fiancee of Irene Moje with whom Eala had a relationship while married to Marianne Tantoco with whom the latter had three children. Moje abandoned the conjugal house and following one incident, Moje went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of the household appliances. Guevarra now contends that Eala and Moje were flaunting their adulterous relationship as they attended social functions together.

Eala, on the other hand, claims that their relationship was low profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective families as he was still known to be married to Tantoco. He specifically denies the allegations regarding his adulterous relationship and that his acts demonstrate gross moral depravity thereby making him unfit to keep his membership in the bar, the reason being that his relationship with Moje was not under scandalous circumstances as would be a ground for disbarment pursuant to Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court and that he maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful relationship with Tantoco even if the latter was aware of his special friendship with Moje. Eala and Moje then had a child whose birth certificate the former is indicated as the father then proving their illicit relationship aside from Eala’s own admission. After investigation, IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan found the charge against respondent sufficiently proven. The Commissioner thus recommended that Eala be disbarred for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — immoral conduct — and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code — conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The IBP Board of Governors, however, moved to dismiss the case and annulled and set aside the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner hence this petition.

RULING: The petition was granted. Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala was disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As Eala insists that disbarment does not lie because his relationship with Irene was not, under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, it not being under scandalous circumstances, the Court held that said rule which provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension uses the phrase grossly immoral conduct, not under scandalous circumstances. Whether a lawyers sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as grossly immoral conduct depends on the surrounding circumstances. The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly. As a lawyer, Eala should be aware that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. In carrying on an extra-marital affair with Moje prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.

2) People vs. Barrozo FACTS: Jennie Valeriano was a respondent in several cases for estafa and violation of Batas Pambasa Blg. 22 which were assigned to Barrozo as Assistant Public Prosecutor of Dagupan City, Pangasinan. Valeriano then claims that Barrozo told her that he would resolve the cases in her favor in exchange for ₱20,000.00 hence, Valeriano went to the Office of Regional State Prosecutor to report the matter. The Regional State Prosecutor introduced her to agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and then proceeded to carry out an entrapment operation. During the operation conducted of February 15, 2005, respondent was caught red-handed by the NBI agents receiving the amount of ₱20,000.00 from Valeriano. As a result, a case for direct bribery was filed against Barrozo. The Sandiganbayan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt but only sentenced him to an Indeterminate Sentence. However, after said incident, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter from Wat & Co. of Hong Kong stating that its client in Hong Kong received a letter from the Philippines signed by "Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo," asking for long service payment from the employers of domestic helper Anita G. Calub who passed away. His conviction is a ground for disbarment from the practice of law under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Barrozo argues that he did not engage in the practice of law as his act of signing the claim

letter does not constitute such practice. He averred that he signed it not for any monetary consideration, but out of his sincere desire to help the claimants. And since there is no p ay m e n t i nvo lve d , n o l aw ye r- c l i e n t relationship was established between him and the claimants. This therefore negates practice of the law on his part. RULING: The Court adopts the OBC’s recommendation of disbarment of Barrozo. His act therefore of extorting money from a party to a case handled by him does not only violate the requirement that cases must be decided based on the merits of the parties respective evidence but also lessens the people’s confidence in the rule of law. Lawyers in public office are expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. A government lawyer is keeper of public faith and is burdened with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his brethren in private practice. The fact that the offender agrees to accept a promise or gift and deliberately commits an unjust act or refrains from performing an official duty in exchange for some favors, denotes a malicious intent on the part of the offender to renege on the duties which he owes his fellowmen and society in general. Also the fact that the offender takes advantage of his office and position is a betrayal of the

trust reposed on him by the public. It is a conduct clearly contrary o the accepted rule of right and duty, justice, honesty, and good morals. In all respects, direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. The Court is mindful that a lawyer’s conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude does not automatically call for the imposition of the supreme penalty of disbarment since it may, in its discretion, choose to impose the less severe penalty of suspension. Here, however, the circumstances surrounding the case constrain the Court to impose the penalty of disbarment as recommended by the OBC. 3) Pedro Linsangan vs. Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. Linsangan alleges that Tolentino, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages. To suppor t his allegations, he presented the swor n affidavit  of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with Linsangan and utilize Tolentino’s services instead, in

exchange for a loan of P50,000. Tolentino, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling card. RULING: Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. He was likewise sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Tolentino had encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.02 on his alleged intrusion into Linsangan’s professional practice. A lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services. Lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To allow a lawyer to a d ve r t i s e h i s t a l e n t o r s k i l l i s t o commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the public’s estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which every member of the bar is called. Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04. The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance

necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographer’s fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client. If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the client’s case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome. Any act of solicitation constitutes malpractice; however, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not prepared to rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible for the printing and distribution of Labiano’s calling cards. 4) Evangeline Leda vs. Trebonian Tabang FACTS: Leda and Tabang contracted marriage at Tigbauan, Iloilo. The marriage, solemnized by Judge Jose T. Tavarro of Tigbauan, was performed under Article 76 of the Civil Code as one of exceptional character. The parties agreed to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after Tabang had finished his law studies and taken the Bar. He finished his law studies in 1981 and thereafter applied to take the Bar. In his application, he declared that he was “single." He then passed the examinations but Leda blocked him from taking his Oath by instituting Bar Matter No. 78, claiming that Tabang had acted fraudulently in filling out his application and, thus, was unworthy to take the lawyer's Oath for lack of good moral character. Tabang claims that he had acted in good faith in

declaring his status as "single" not only because of his pact with Leda to keep the marriage under wraps but also because that marriage to the Complainant was void from the beginning. RULING: Tabang was suspended from the practice of law until further Orders, the suspension to take effect immediately. Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. He has resorted to conflicting submissions before this Court to suit himself. He has also engaged in devious tactics with Complainant in order to serve his purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court" as well as Rule 10.01 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice." Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them (Chavez v. Viola). Tabang through his actuations, has been lacking in the candor required of him not only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of the Court. It cannot be overemphasized that the requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law (People v. Tuanda).

5) Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao vs. Atty. Virgil Castro FACTS: This administrative case concerns a lawyer who hurled invectives at a Clerk of Court. Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. she filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a Complaint-Affidavit with supporting documents against respondent Atty. Virgil R. Castro for Unprofessional Conduct, specifically violation of Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Castro went to complainants office to inquire whether the complete records of Civil Case entitled Sps. Crispino Castillano v. Sps. Federico S. Castillano and Felicidad Aberin. DallongGalicinao informed Castro that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should first be presented to serve as basis for the transmittal of the records to the court of origin. To this respondent retorted scornfully. After a few minutes, respondent returned to the office, still enraged, and pointed his finger at complainant and shouted a curse, plus, “if you are harboring ill feelings against my client, dont turn your ire on me.” and then cursed at her again. Castro admits having inquired about the status of the transmittal of the records, however, he has no explanation as to what transpired on that day.

During the hearings, Castro kept failing to appear. The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned that any other complaint for breach of his professional duties shall be dealt with more severely. RULING: Castro was fined in the amount of 10, 000 pesos with a warning that any similar infraction with be dealt with more severely. His explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization from either the parties to represent them, respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court. Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784, respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that case. It does not matter whether he did so in good faith. Moreover, in the course of his questionable activities relating to Civil Case No. 784, Castro acted rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised his voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman and in front of her subordinates.  Castro 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. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility demands that lawyers 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 towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times. 6) Edita Noe-Lacsamana vs. Yolando Busmente FACTS: Noe-Lacsamana alleged in her complaint that she was the counsel for Irene Bides, the plaintiff in a Civil Case while Busmente was the counsel for the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza Dela Rosa would accompany Ulaso in court, projecting herself as Busmentes collaborating counsel. Dela Rosa signed the minutes of the court proceedings in Civil Case No. 9284 nine times but upon verification with the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, she discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer. The IBP-CBD recommended Busmente’s suspension from the practice of law for not less than five years. Dela Rosa continued to represent Ulaso until 2005, which belied Busmentes allegation that Dela Rosa was able to illegally practice law using his office address without his knowledge and only due to Dela Rosas connivance with his former secretary Macasieb. The issue, therefore, is whether Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal

practice of law that warrants his suspension from the practice of law. RULING: The Court agrees with the IBP but modified the period of his suspension to six months in reference to Canon 9 which states that a lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law. The Court ruled that the term practice of law implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his services. It further ruled that holding ones self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law. In this case, it has been established that Dela Rosa, who is not a member of the Bar, misrepresented herself as Busmentes collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284. The only question is whether Busmente indirectly or directly assisted Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of law. Pleadings and court notices were still sent to Busmentes office until 2005. The IBPCBD noted that Dela Rosas practice should have ended in 2003 when Macasieb left. Also, his counter-affidavit clearly showed that Busmente was the legal counsel in Civil Case No. 9284 and that he allowed Dela Rosa to give legal assistance to Ulaso.

7) Eduardo Berenguer vs. Pedro Carranza FACTS: A complaint against respondent Pedro B. Carranza was filed for deception practiced on the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, in that aware of the falsity of an Affidavit of Adjudication and Transfer executed by the mother of his client to the effect that her own mother left no legitimate ascendants or descendants or any other heirs except herself, when, as a matter of fact, the deceased was survived by four other daughters and one son, father of the complainant, he introduced the same in evidence. Carranza’s failure to read the affidavit proves that he did not properly inform himself of the evidence he was going to present in court, thereby exhibiting an indifference to proof inconsistent with facts he definitely knows. Thus, respondent has contributed to confusion and the prolongation of the cadastral suit. RU L I NG : Pe d ro B . C a r r a n z a wa s reprimanded and warned that a repetition of an offense of such character would be much more severely dealt with. The Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, through any of the district judges, was likewise directed to administer in public the reprimand thus imposed on respondent Pedro B. Carranza. Every member of the bar must be on his guard, lest through oversight or inadvertence, the way he conducts his case or the evidence he presents could conceivably result in a failure of justice. Even if there be no intent to deceive, therefore, a lawyer whose conduct, as

in t his case, betrays inattention or carelessness should not be allowed to free himself from a charge thereafter instituted against him by the mere plea that his conduct was not willful and that he has not consented to the doing of the falsity. There would be a failure of justice if courts cannot rely on the submission as well as the representations made by lawyers, insofar as the presentation of evidence, whether oral or documentary, is concerned. If, as unfortunately happened in this case, even without any intent on the part of a member of the bar to mislead the court, such deplorable event did occur, he must not be allowed to escape the responsibility that justly attaches to a conduct far from impeccable. 8) The Officers and Members of the IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter vs. Judge Fernando Pamintuan FACTS: This is an Administrative Complaint filed by the officers and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Baguio-Benguet Chapter against Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3 of Baguio City, for gross ignorance of the law, gross violation of constitutional rights of the accused, arrogance, violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, oppression and graft and corruption. RULING: Respondent Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3 of Baguio City, was suspended for a period of one (1) year effective immediately. He is sternly WARNED that a repetition of

the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. a) On gross ignorance of the law — The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in the imposition of penalties in crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code is a basic precept. The respondent judges repeated misapplication thereof in quite a number of criminal cases he had rendered constitutes gross ignorance of the law. A judge is presumed to know the law and when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Failure to follow basic legal commands constitutes gross ignorance of the law from which no one may be excused, not even a judge. b) On gross violation of the constitutional rights of the accused — The unreasonable delay of the respondent judge in resolving the motions submitted for his resolution clearly constituted a violation of the parties constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their cases. c) On arrogant, oppressive and improper conduct and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct — This conduct of the respondent judge was utterly unbecoming a magistrate and violated canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. d) On graft and corruption — In Gacayan vs. Pamintuan, the Court found him guilty of violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics which amount to

grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming an officer of the judiciary and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service. 9) Nicasio Alcantara vs. Vicente Ponce and the People of the Philippines FACTS: This case was preceded by respondent Vicente C. Ponce’s filing a string of criminal complaints against petitioner Nicasio I. Alcantara and his family including one for estafa against petitioner in the Makati Prosecutors Office. In essence, respondent Ponce alleged that petitioner had swindled him out of 3,000,000 shares of Floro Cement Corporation. Alcantara then filed a complaint for libel against respondent Ponce in connection with a newsletter submitted by Ponce to the Investigating Prosecutor prefaced with the quotation “For every extraordinary fortune there is a great crime” and the text:

“An

example is Marcos. We need not discuss this. Second example is the Alcantaras. a) Overshipment of log; b) Land grabbing; c) Corruption of public office; d) Corporate grabbing. He claims that: (1) the statements therein were defamatory; (2) respondent had circulated it in the Makati Prosecutors Office and (3) the newsletter could not be considered an annex to the sur-rejoinder because respondent had not attached it to the said affidavit but had given it thereafter. While City Prosecutor Imelda P. Saulog found probable cause for libel and recommending

the filing of an information in court hence a case filed, the Secretary of Justice reversed the petition based on the finding that the newsletter was a privileged communication, having been submitted to the investigating prosecutor Benjamin R. Bautista as an intended annex to respondents sur-rejoinder. The Secretary of Justice thus directed the withdrawal of the information. The trial court likewise ruled that the absence of the essential element of publicity precluded the commission of the crime of libel. The CA, however, assailed the decision of the trial court rendered by Judge Salvador, saying he committed grave abuse of discretion for granting the withdrawal of the information for libel against respondent Ponce. RULING: The petition was denied. Since the newsletter was presented during the preliminary investigation, it was vested with a privileged character. Liberally applying the privileged communication doctrine, these statements were still relevant to the complaint under investigation because, like the averments therein, they also involved petitioners alleged rapacity and deceitfulness. 10) Elisa Venterez vs. Atty. Rodrigo Cosme FACTS: This is a Complaint filed by complainants Eliza V. Venterez, Genaro de

Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V. Palma and Ramon de Vera against respondent Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme, charging the latter with Abandonment, Gross Negligence and Dereliction of Duty.

Complainants contracted the legal services of respondent in Civil Case No. 981 entitled, Sps. Daniel and Lolita Oviedo, et al. v. Eliza de Vera, et al., for Declaration of Ownership with Damages filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calasiao, Pangasinan. Cosme represented the complainants, who were defendants in said case, until a Decision thereon was rendered by the MTC. Complainants alleged that they directed C o s m e t o e i t h e r fi l e a M o t i o n fo r Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but respondent failed or refused to do so. The 15day period within which to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration of the MTC Decision then expired. Elisa V. Venterez was likewise constrained to contract another l aw y e r t o p r e p a r e t h e M o t i o n fo r Reconsideration. The core issue is whether the respondent committed culpable negligence in handling complainants case, as would warrant disciplinary action. RULING: Atty. Rodr igo Cosme was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar wrongdoing will be dealt with more severely. What constitute good cause for the withdrawal of services by the counsel are identified under Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding with the written consent of his client filed in court and with a copy

thereof served upon the adverse party. Although the instant case does not fall under any of the grounds of the aforementioned rule, he cannot just do so and leave complainants in the cold, unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court. Until his withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record who is expected by his clients, as well as by the court, to do what the interests of his clients require. He must still appear before the court to protect the interest of his clients by availing himself of the proper remedy, for the attorney-client relations are not terminated formally until there is a withdrawal of record. All told, the Court rules and so hold that on account of Cosme’s failure to protect the interest of complainants, he indeed violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Cosme was reminded that the practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally. The Court has been exacting in its expectations for the members of the Bar to always 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.