Tijam.legal Ethics 2011_new

8/17/2019 Tijam.legal Ethics 2011_new

1/29

5/13/2011

1

JUSTICE NOEL G. TIJAM

Court of Appeals

1

The Supreme Court held that the Respondent’s actof taking advantage of his office as the Registry ofDeeds and employing his knowledge of the rulesgoverning land registration for the benefit of hisrelatives has clearly demonstrated his unfitnessnot only to perform the functions of a civil servant but also to retain his membership in the bar.

2

Rule 6.02 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility provides that a lawyer in thegovernment service shall not use his publicposition to promote or advance his privateinterests, nor allow the latter to interfere withhis public duties. Respondents conduct

manifestly undermined the people’s confidencein the public office he used to occupy and castdoubt on the integrity of the legal profession.The ill- conceived use of his knowledge of theintricacies of the law calls for nothing less thanthe withdrawal of his privilege to practice law.

3

The Code of Professional Responsibility does notcease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has

joined the government service. In fact, by theexpress provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rulesgoverning the conduct of lawyers “ shallapply to lawyers in government in thedischarge of their official tasks.” Thus, where a lawyer’s misconduct as agovernment official is of such nature as toaffect his qualification as a lawyer or toshow moral delinquency, then he may bedisciplined as a member of the bar onsuch grounds.

4

Hadjula vs. Madianda, A.C. No. 6711; July 3,2007

Held: Complainant went to respondent, a lawyer who incidentally was also then a friend, to bare what she considered personal secrets and sensitivedocuments for the purpose of obtaining legaladvice and assistance. The moment thecomplainant approached the then receptiverespondent to seek legal advice, a variable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Suchrelationship imposes upon the lawyer certainrestrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the

profession.5

Among the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in this case,to keep inviolate confidential informationacquired or revealed during legal consultations.The fact that one is, at the end of the day, notinclined to handle the clients case is hardlyconsequence. Of little moment, too, is the fact thatno formal professional engagement follows the

consultation. Nor will it make any difference thatno contract whatsoever was executed by theparties to memorialize the relationship.

6

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

o b l

a

b l

C h

a

C

n R

s B a


2/29

5/13/2011

2

The High Court reiterated its ruling in Burbe vs.Magulta ( 432 Phil. 840(2002), thus.-

A lawyer- client relationship was established from

the very first moment complainant askedrespondent for legal advise regarding the former’s business. To constitute professional employment,it is not essential that the client employed theattorney professionally on any previous occasion.

7

It is not necessary that any retainer be paid,promised or charged; neither is it material that theattorney did not afterward handle the case for which his service was sought. If a person, inrespect to business affairs or troubles of any kind,consults a lawyer with a view to obtainingprofessional advice or assistance , and theattorney voluntarily permits or aquiesces with theconsultation, then professional employment isestablished.

8

Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship existsnotwithstanding the close personal relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or thenon-payment of the former’s fees.

Citing Dean Wigmore, the Supreme Court listed thefollowing essential factors to establish the

existence of the attorney-client communication:

9

1). Where legal advice of any kind is sought

2). From a professional legal adviser in his capacityas such.

3). The communications relating to that purpose

4). Made in confidence

5). By the client6). Are at his instance permanently protected

7). From disclosure by himself or by legal advisor8). Except the protection be waived

10

The Supreme Court, however, held that theseriousness of respondents offensenotwithstanding, there is room for compassion,absent compelling evidence that respondent acted with ill will. At the end of the day it appears thatrespondent was actuated by the urge to retaliate without perhaps realizing that, in the process ofgiving vent to a negative sentiment, she was violating rule of confidentiality.

11

Disposition: Respondent wasreprimanded and admonished to becircumspect in her handling ofinformation acquired as a result of alawyer-client relationship.Respondent was also sternly warnedagainst a repetition of the same orsimilar act.

12



o b l

eic

a

b l

C h

a

s

C

n R

e s

,e

s B a


3/29

5/13/2011

3

Competence, Diligence andFidelity to Client’s Cause

Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause ofhis client and he shall be mindful of the trustand confidence reposed in him.

Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client withcompetence and diligence.

13

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a

legal matter entrusted to him and hisnegligence in connection therewith shallrender him liable.

Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep his clientinformed of the status of his case and shallrespond within a reasonable time to theclient’s request for information.

14

Canoy vs. Ortiz

A.C. No. 5485; March 16, 2005“Lawyers who devote their professional

practice in representing litigants who couldill afford legal services deservecommendation. However, this mantle ofpublic service will not deliver the lawyer, nomatter how well-meaning, from theconsequences of negligent acts. It is not

enough to say that all pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation. Theydeserve quality representation as well.”“Once he agrees to take up the cause of aclient, a lawyer owes fidelity to such causeand must always be mindful of the trust andconfidence reposed in him.

15

He must serve the client with competenceand diligence and champion the latter’scause with wholehearted fidelity, care and

devotion. Else wise stated, he owed entiredevotion to the interest of the client, warmzeal in the maintenance and defense of hisclient’s rights, and the exertion of his utmostlearning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save bythe rules of law, legally applied. This simplymeans that his client is entitled to the benefitof any and every remedy and defense that isauthorized by the law of the land and he mayexpect his lawyer to assert every suchremedy or defense.

16

If much is demanded from an attorney, itis because the entrusted privilege topractice law carries with it the correlativeduties not only to the client but also to thecourt, to the bar and to the public. Alawyer who performs his duty withdiligence and candor not only protects theinterest of his client; he also serves theends of justice, does honor to the bar andhelps maintain the respect of thecommunity to the legal profession.”

17

Consolidated Farms, Inc. vs. Alpon, Jr.

A.C. No. 5525; March 4, 2005

“This Court has always reminded themembers of the legal profession thatevery case they handle deserves full andundivided attention, diligence, skill and

competence, regardless of its importance,and whether they accept it for a fee or forfree, and to constantly keep in mind thatnot only the property but also the life oftheir clients may be at stake.”

18



o b l

.

a

b l

C h

a n

C

n R

s l

e

B a


4/29

5/13/2011

4

Rollon vs. Naraval (A.C. No. 6424; March4, 2005)

“Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act

either as advisers or as advocates of anyperson who may wish to become theirclient. They may decline employment andrefuse to accept representation, if theyare not in a position to carry it outeffectively or competently. But once theyagree to handle a case, attorneys arerequired by the Canons of ProfessionalResponsibility to undertake the task withzeal, care and utmost dedication.

19

Abiero vs. Juanino

A.C. No. 5302; February 18, 2005

“The lawyer has the duty to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense ofthe case entrusted to him and to exercisereasonable and ordinary care and diligencein the pursuit or defense of the case. x x”

20

De Guzman vs. Basa

A.C. No. 5554; June 29, 2004

Rule 12.03, Code of ProfessionalResponsibility: A lawyer shall not, afterobtaining extensions of time to filepleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the

period lapse without submitting the sameor offering an explanation for his failure todo so.

21

Cheng vs. Agravante

A.C. No. 6183; March 23, 2004

“In this case, respondent’s filing of the

Memorandum of Appeal four (4) days afterthe deadline proves that his efforts fell shortof the diligence required of a lawyer. Hisfailure to perfect an appeal within theprescribed period constitutes negligence andmalpractice proscribed by the Code ofProfessional Responsibility, which providesthat a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matterentrusted to him and his negligence inconnection therewith shall render himliable.”

22

Barbuco vs. Beltran

A.C. No. 5092; August 11, 2004

“The fact that respondent was involved ina vehicular accident and suffered physicalinjuries as a result thereof cannot serveto excuse him from filing his pleadings ontime considering that he was a member ofa law firm composed of not just onelawyer. X x respondent could have askedany of his partners in the law office to filethe Appellant’s Brief for him or, at least,to file a Motion for Extension of Time tofile the said pleading.

23

B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. vs. Courtof Appeals

G.R. No. 41862; February 7, 1992

The confusion in the office of the law firmfollowing the death of one of its partners isnot a valid justification for failing to file the

brief. Upon receipt of the notice to file the brief, the law firm should have re-assignedthe case to another associate.

24



o b l

n

b l

C h

a

s

C

n R

s .

B a


5/29

5/13/2011

5

Abay vs. Montesino (A.C. No. 5718;December 4, 2003)

“x x Even if respondent was ‘honestly andsincerely’ protecting the interests ofcomplainant, the former still had no rightto waive the appeal without the latter’sknowledge and consent. If indeed,respondent felt unable or unwilling tocontinue his retainership, he should haveproperly withdrawn his appearance andallowed the client to appoint anotherlawyer.”

25

Edquibal vs. Ferrer A.C. No. 5687; February 3, 2005- Section 2, Rule 44, Rules of Court of Appeals:

“The counsel x x of the parties in the courtof origin shall be respectively considered astheir counsel x x in the Court of Appeals.”- The practice of law does not requireextraordinary diligence (exactissimadiligentia) or that “extreme measure of careand caution which persons of unusualprudence and circumspection use forsecuring and preserving their rights. All thatis required is ordinary diligence (diligentia)or that degree of vigilance expected of abonus pater familias.

26

Bergonia vs. Merrera (A.C. No. 5024;February 20, 2003)

Lawyers should fully familiarize themselves with the causes of their clients beforeadvising the latter on the soundness oflitigating. If they find that the intended suitis devoid of merit or that the pending action

is defenseless they should promptly informand dissuade their clients accordingly.

“A motion for extension to file an appellant's brief carries with it the presumption that theapplicant-lawyer will file the pleading withinthe period granted.”

27

Amaya vs. Tecson, A.C. No. 5996; February 7,2005It is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to

handle a legal matter; he is also required toprepare adequately and to give the appropriateattention to his legal work.Disbarment is the most severe form ofdisciplinary sanction, and as such, the power todisbar must always be exercised with greatcaution for only the most imperative reasonsand in clear cases of misconduct affecting thestanding and moral character of the lawyer as anofficer of the court and a member of the bar.Disbarment should not be decreed wherepunishment less severe – such as a reprimand,suspension, or fine – would accomplish the enddesired.

28

De Juan vs. Baria III (A.C. No. 5817; May27, 2004)

“x x (A)n attorney who undertakes anaction impliedly stipulates to carry it to itstermination, that is, until the case becomesfinal and executory. A lawyer is not atliberty to abandon his client and withdrawhis services without reasonable cause andonly upon notice appropriate in thecircumstances. x x”

29

Perea vs. Almadro

( A.C. Case No. 5246; March 20, 2003)

Respondent lawyer’s negligence wascompounded by his attempt to have the tribunal

believe the story of how his draft, stored in amagnetic diskette, mysteriously disappeared andhow the absence of such file in his diskette ledhim to believe that the same was already filed incourt. It was, said the High Court, “a verypreposterous story” and avoids the simple factthat respondent lawyer failed to submit thedemurrer.

30



a

b l

s

C

n R

e

l

s

s

B a


6/29

5/13/2011

6

Anderson, Jr. vs. Cardeño

A.C. No. 3523; January 17, 2005

“x x (I)t was incumbent upon respondent lawyer

to insist on his client’s participation. x x As alawyer representing the cause of his client, heshould have taken more control over thehandling of the case. Knowing that his client was based in the United States should, with morereason, have moved him to secure all the legalmeans available to him either to continuerepresenting his client effectively or to make thenecessary manifestation in court, with theclient’s conformity, that he was withdrawing ascounsel of record. x x”

31

Fernandez vs. Cabrera II

A.C. No. 5623; December 11,2003

“Acceptance of money from aclient establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives riseto the duty of fidelity to theclient’s cause. x x”

32

Complainants in this administrative case wereamong the complainant’s in a labor case which was decided in their favor. After the decision became final and executory , individualRelease, Waiver and Quitclaims werepurportedly signed and sworn to buy thecomplainants before the labor arbiter and inthe presence of respondent lawyer, who wasthe opposing parties, in the labor case. Thecomplainants denied signing quitclaims underoath before the labor arbiter, or having receivethe considerations therefore.

33

Respondent lawyer claimed he had not metcomplainants before, hence, could not ascertaintheir identities during the signing of the

quitclaims. He claimed that he went to the laborarbiter’s office on the request of his clients whotold him that complainants would be there tosubmit their quitclaims. However, the minutes ofthe proceedings in a related case, belied his claimthat he had not met the complainants before.

34

Furthermore, by his own information, the Labor Arbiter was entertaining doubts on the trueidentity of those who executed the quitclaims.The High Court said that as an officer of thecourt, a lawyer must assist in theadministration of justice, and any conduct onhis part that tends to obstruct, perverts orimpedes the administration of justiceconstitutes misconduct. Respondent lawyer was found guilty of negligence and grossmisconduct was suspended from the practiceof Law for 6 months.

35

Republic vs. Kenrick Development Corporation(G.R. No. 149576; Aug 8, 2006) A counsel’s authority and duty to sign apleading are personal to him. He may notdelegate it to just any person.His signature constitutes an assurance that he

has read the pleading, that to the best of hisknowledge, information and belief, there is agood ground to support it, and that it is notinterposed for delay. It is counsel alone, byaffixing his signature, who can certify to thesematters.

36



o b l

b l

C h

a

s

C

n R

,

.

l

s

s B a


7/29

5/13/2011

7

The preparation and signing of apleading constitute legal work

involving practice of law which isreserved exclusively for the membersof the legal profession. Counsel maydelegate the signing of a pleading toanother lawyer but cannot do so infavor of one who is not. A signature

by agents of a lawyer amounts tosigning by unqualified persons.

37

Conflict of Interests

Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shallnot represent conflictinginterests except by writtenconsent of all concernedgiven after a full disclosureof the facts.

38

Respondent was the former counsel of the late LydioFalame, complainants' father, in a forcible entrycase (first civil case) filed against the Lydio.Consequently, the MTC ruled in favor of LydioFalame. Despite of the termination of the case,Lydio engaged Respondent's service until his death.

Subsequently, Respondent became the counsel ofspouses Raleigh and Noemi Falame, who file acomplaint for declaration of nullity of deed of saleand its TCT (2nd civil case) involving the propertysubject in the first civil case against thecomplainants and Sugni corporation before theRTC.

The IBP Board of Governor dismissed thedisbarment complaint.

39

Court's Ruling: Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

provides: “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting

interests except by written consent of allconcerned given after a full disclosure of thefacts.”

A lawyer may not, without being guilty ofprofessional misconduct, act as counsel for a person

whose interest conflicts with that of his present orformer client. The test is whether, on behalf of one client,it is the lawyer's duty to contest for that which his duty toanother client requires him to oppose or when thepossibility of such situation will develop. The rule coversnot only cases in which confidential communicationshave been confided, but also those in which noconfidence has been bestowed or will be used. Inaddition, the rule holds even i f the inconsistency isremote or merely probable or the lawyer has acted ingood faith and with no intention to represent conflictinginterests.

40

The termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverseto or in conflict with that of the former client. Theclient's confidence once reposed should not be divested

by mere expiration of professional employment. Evenafter the severance of the relation, a lawyer should notdo anything which will injuriously affect his formerclient in any matter in which he previously representedhim nor should he disclose or use any of the client'sconfidences acquired in the previous relation.

In relation to this, Canon 17 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owesfidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful ofthe trust and confidence reposed on him. His highestand most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at allhazards and costs even to himself. The protection givento the client is perpetual and does not cease with thetermination of the litigation, nor is it affected by theparty's ceasing to employ the attorney and retaininganother, or by any other change of relation betweenthem. It even survives the death of the client.

41

In the case at bar, respondent admitted having jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh as defendantsin the first civil case. Evidently, the attorney-clientrelation between Lydio and respondent wasestablished despite the fact that it was only Raleigh

who paid him. The case of Hilado v. David tells usthat it is immaterial whether such employment waspaid, promised or charged for.

As defense counsel in the first civil case,respondent advocated the stance that Lydio solely

owned the property subject of the case. In thesecond civil case involving the same property,respondent, as counsel for Raleigh and his spouse,has pursued the inconsistent position that Raleighowned the same property in common with Lydio,

with complainants, who inherited the property,committing acts which debase respondent's rights asa co-owner.

42



o b l

.

a

b l

C h

a

s t

o

C

n R

t

t

t

s B a


8/29

5/13/2011

8

The fact that the attorney-client relation had ceased byreason of Lydio's death or through the completion of thespecific task for which respondent was employed is notreason for respondent to advocate a position opposed tothat of Lydio. Precedents tell us that even after thetermination of his employment, an attorney may not act as

counsel against his client in the same general matter, eventhough, while acting for his former client, he acquired noknowledge which could operate to his client's disadvantagein the subsequent adverse employment. And whilecomplainants have never been respondent's clients, theyderive their rights to the property from Lydio's ownershipof it which respondent maintained in the first civil case.

For representing Raleigh's cause which is adverse tothat of his former client — Raleigh's supposed co-ownership of the subject property — respondent is guilty ofrepresenting conflicting interests. Having previouslyundertaken joint representation of Lydio and Raleigh,respondent should have diligently studied and anticipatedthe potential conflict of interest.

Respondent was found guilty of representingconflicting interest and meted the penalty of reprimand.

43

Quiambao vs. Bamba A.C. No. 6708; August 25, 2005

The prohibition against representing conflictinginterests is founded on principles of publicpolicy and good taste.It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate theclient’s confidence, but also to avoid theappearance of treachery and double dealing foronly then can litigants be encouraged to entrusttheir secrets to their lawyers, which is ofparamount importance in the administration of justice.

Santos, Sr. vs. Beltran A.C. 5858; December 11, 2003“There is conflict of interest when a lawyerrepresents inconsistent interests of two or moreopposing parties. x x”

44

Quiambao vs. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708; August 25, 2005

Santos, Sr. vs. Beltran, A.C. 5858;December 11, 2003

Northwestern University, Inc. vs. Arquillo, A.C. No. 6632; August 2, 2005

Tests:1. Whether or not in behalf of one client,it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issueor claim, but it is his duty to oppose it forthe other client.

45

2. If the acceptance of the new retainer will

require the attorney to perform an act which willinjuriously affect his first client in any manner in

which he represents him, and also, whether he will be called upon in his new relation to useagainst his first client any knowledge acquiredthrough their connection.

3. Whether the acceptance of a new relation willprevent an attorney from the full discharge ofhis duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to hisclient or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness ordouble dealing in the performance thereof.

46

Termination of the attorney-client relationshipprecludes an attorney from representing a newclient whose interest is adverse to his formerclient.

Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility- A lawyer shall not representconflicting interests except by written consentof all concerned given after a full disclosure offacts.

Canon 21 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility- A lawyer shall preserve theconfidences and secrets of his client even afterthe attorney- client privilege is terminated.

47

A lawyer may not, without being guilty ofprofessional misconduct, act as counsel for aperson whose interest conflicts with that of hispresent or former client. He may not alsoundertake to discharge conflicting dutiesanymore than he may represent antagonisticinterests. This stern rule is founded on theprinciple of public policy in good taste. It springsfrom the relation of attorney and client which is

one of trust and confidence. Lawyers areexpected not only to keep inviolate the clientsconfidence, but also to avoid the appearance oftreachery and double- dealing for only then canlitigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets totheir lawyers, which is of paramount importancein the administration of justice.

48



o b l

us 2

a

a

b l

C

n

e

s

C

n R

s

o

B a


9/29

5/13/2011

9

Quiambao vs. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708; August 25, 2005

“The proscription against representation ofconflicting interests applies to a situation where theopposing parties are present clients in the sameaction or in an unrelated action. It is of no momentthat the lawyer would not be called upon to contendfor one client that which the lawyer has to oppose forthe other client, or that there would be no occasion touse confidential information acquired from one tothe disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposingparties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit,are present clients and the nature or conditions ofthe lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty ofundivided fidelity to both clients.”

49

The representation of conflicting interests madein good faith and with honest intention on thepart of the lawyer does not make the prohibitioninoperative.

“It must be noted that the proscription againstrepresentation of conflicting interests findsapplication where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter howeverslight the adverse interest may be. It applieseven if the conflict pertains to the lawyer’sprivate activity or in the performance of afunction in a non-professional capacity. In theprocess of determining whether there is aconflict of interest, an important criterion isprobability, not certainty, of conflict.”

50

Gamilla, et al. vs. Mariño, Jr. A.C. Case No. 4763; March 20, 2003 A lawyer cannot continue representing aclient, even with the client’s consent, after thelawyer brings suit in his own behalf against thesame defendant, if it is uncertain whether thedefendant will be able to satisfy both

judgments. A lawyer is not authorized to have financialstakes in the subject matter of the suit broughtin behalf of his client.

The objective of a disciplinary case is not somuch to punish the individual attorney as toprotect the dispensation of justice bysheltering the judiciary and the public frommisconduct or inefficiency of officers of thecourt. Restorative justice not retribution is thegoal in this type of proceedings.

51

When the case involves matters in which alawyer intervened while in governmentservice

Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leavinggovernment service, accept engagement oremployment in connection with any matterin which he had intervened while in saidservice.

52

PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.G.R. Nos. 151809-12; April 12, 2005“Matter” - “any discrete, isolatable actas well as identifiable transaction orconduct involving a particularsituation and specific party, and notmerely an act of drafting, enforcing orinterpreting government or agencyprocedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law.”“Intervention”- must be substantialand significant

53

Withdrawal of Services

Canon 22. – A lawyer shall withdraw hisservices only for good cause and uponnotice appropriate in the circumstances.

Santeco vs. Avance (A.C. No. 5834;December 11, 2003)

While the right of the client to terminatethe relation is absolute, i.e., with or without cause, the right of the attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation otherthan for sufficient cause is considerablyrestricted.

54



o b l

n o

o

a

b l

C

R n e

s

C

n R

-

,

s l

t

B a


10/29

5/13/2011

10

Rule 22.01, Code of ProfessionalResponsibility:

A lawyer may withdraw his services in

any of the following cases:a) When the client pursues an illegal orimmoral course of conduct;

b) When the client insists that the lawyerpursue conduct violative of the canonsand rules;

c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interestof his client;

55

d) When the mental and physical condition ofthe lawyer renders it difficult for him to carryout the employment effectively;e) When the client deliberately fails to pay thefees for the services or fails to comply with theretainer agreement;f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed topublic office; andg) Other similar cases. Whether or not a lawyer has a valid cause for withdrawing from a case, he may only retirefrom a case either by written consent of hisclient or by permission of the court after duenotice and hearing, in which event the lawyershould see to it that the name of the new counselis recorded in the case.

56

Good Moral Character and the Lawyer’sPrivate Affairs

Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold theconstitution, obey the laws of the landand promote respect for law and legalprocesses.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage inunlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

conduct.Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all timesuphold the integrity and dignity of thelegal profession, and support theactivities of the Integrated Bar.

57

Facts: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot andthe building erected thereon located at 959 San Andres

Street, Malate, Manila. His mother and brother, ReginaCatu and Antonio Catu, contested the possession ofElizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor of one of theunits in the building. The latter ignored demands forthem to vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint wasinitiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa ofBarangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District of Manila

where the parties reside. Respondent, as punong barangay of Barangay 723,

summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. Whenthe parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement,respondent issued a certification for the filing of theappropriate action in court.

58

Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint forejectment against Elizabeth and Antonio Pastor in theMetropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11.Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for thedefendants in that case. In the course thereof, heprepared and signed pleadings including the answer withcounterclaim, pre-trial brief, position paper and notice ofappeal.

Because of this, complainant filed the instantadministrative complaint with the IBP, claiming thatrespondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyerand as a public officer when he stood as counsel for thedefendants despite the fact that he presided over theconciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong

barangay.

Issue: Whether or not Respondent violated the Code ofProfessional Responsibility when he acted as counsel for

Elizabeth and Antonio Pastor.59

Ruling:

While certain local elective officials (like governors,mayors, provincial board members and councilors) areexpressly subjected to a total or partial proscription topractice their profession or engage in any occupation, nosuch interdiction is made on the punong barangay andthe members of the sangguniang barangay. Expressiounius est exclusio alterius. Since they are excluded fromany prohibition, the presumption is that they are allowedto practice their profession. And this stands to reason

because they are not mandated to serve full time. In fact,the sangguniang barangay is supposed to hold regularsessions only twice a month.

Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was notforbidden to practice his profession. However, heshould have procured prior permission orauthorization from the head of his Department,as required by civil service regulations

60



o b l

e

a

b l

C

s

C

n R

m

e t

s

n

.r

B a


11/29

5/13/2011

11

Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by theirresponsible and improper In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written permission,respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In acting ascounsel for a party without first securing the required writtenpermission, respondent not only engaged in the unauthorizedpractice of law but also violated civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with theexacting ethical standards of the legal profession, respondentfailed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility:

CANON 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold theintegrity and the dignity of the legal profession andsupport the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing,he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legalprofession.

61

For not living up to his oath as well as for notcomplying with the exacting ethical standards of thelegal profession, respondent failed to comply withCanon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 7. A lawyer shall at all timesuphold the integrity and the dignity of the legalprofession and support the activities of theIntegrated Bar.

Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it.In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgracesthe dignity of the legal profession.

conduct of a member of the bar. Every lawyer shouldact and comport himself in a manner that promotespublic confidence in the integrity of the legalprofession.

A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspendedfrom his office as an attorney for violation of thelawyer's oath 20 and/or for breach of the ethics of thelegal profession as embodied in the Code ofProfessional Responsibility.

62

Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa was, therefore,found GUILTY of professionalmisconduct for violating his oath as alawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule1.01 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility. He was suspended

from the practice of law for a periodof six months effective from hisreceipt of the resolution.

63

Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall notengage in conduct that adverselyreflects on his fitness to practicelaw, nor should he, whether inpublic or private life, behave in ascandalous manner to the discreditof the legal profession.

64

As officers of the court, lawyers must not only infact be of good moral character but must also beseen to be of good moral character and leadinglives in accordance with the highest moralstandards of the community.

Good moral character- what a person really is, asdistinguished from good reputation, or from theopinion generally entertained of him, or theestimate in which he is held by the public in theplace where he is known.

Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality.

65

It is difficult to state with precision andto fix an inflexible standard as to whatis grossly immoral conduct or to specifythe moral delinquency and obliquity

which will render a lawyer unworthy ofcontinuing as a member of the bar. The

rule implies that what appears to beunconventional behavior to thestraight- laced may not be the immoralconduct that warrants disbarment.

66



a

o b l

,

C

b l

C

n R

s B a


12/29

5/13/2011

12

Tolentino vs. Mendoza A.C. No. 5151; October 19, 2004The requirement of good moral character isnot only a condition precedent to membershipin the Philippine Bar but is also a continuingrequirement to maintain one’s good standingin the legal profession.

Aldovino vs. Pujalte A.C. No. 5082; February 17, 2004“x x Membership in the legal profession is aprivilege. And whenever it is made to appearthat an attorney is no longer worthy of thetrust and confidence of the public, it becomesnot only the right but also the duty of thisCourt, which made him one of its officers andgave him the privilege of ministering within itsBar, to withdraw the privilege.”

67

Dantes vs. Dantes A.C. No. 6486; September 22, 2004Immoral conduct - conduct which is so

willful, flagrant, or shameless as toshow indifference to the opinion of goodand respectable members of thecommunity.To be the basis of disciplinary action,the lawyer’s conduct must not only beimmoral, but grossly immoral. That is,it must be so corrupt as to constitute acriminal act or so unprincipled as to bereprehensible to a high degree orcommitted under such scandalous orrevolting circumstances as to shock thecommon sense of decency.

68

Purposes of the requirement of good moralcharacter:(a) to protect the public;(b) to protect the public image of lawyers;(c) to protect prospective clients; and(d) to protect errant lawyers from themselves.

Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets ofmorality, not only upon admission to the Bar

but also throughout their legal career, in orderto maintain their good standing in thisexclusive and honored fraternity. They may besuspended from the practice of law ordisbarred for any misconduct, even if itpertains to his private activities, as long as itshows him to be wanting in moral character,honesty, probity or good demeanor.”

69

Bustamante-Alejandro vs. Alejandro

A.C. No. 4256; February 13, 2004No distinction has been made as to

whether the misconduct was committed inthe lawyer’s professional capacity or in hisprivate life. This is because a lawyer maynot divide his personality so as to be anattorney at one time and a mere citizen atanother. He is expected to be competent,honorable and reliable at all times since he

who cannot apply and abide by the laws ofprivate affairs, can hardly be expected todo so in other relations.

70

Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Palma A.C. 2474 ; June 30, 2005For the purpose of determining

whether a person is legally freeto

contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the firstmarriage was null and void abinitio is essential.

71

The fact that respondent lawyer provided wellfor his children is not sufficient to show hismoral fitness to continue being a member ofthe noble profession of the law. It has always been the duties of parents to support,educate and instruct their childrenaccording to right precepts and goodexample; and to give them love,companionship and understanding, as wellas moral and spiritual guidance ( Article220, Family Code ). But what respondentforgot is that he has also

duties to his wife. As a husband, he is obligedto live with her; observe mutual love, respectand fidelity; and render help and support ( Article 68, Family Code ). And mostimportant of all, he is obliged to remainfaithful to her until death.

72



o b l

b l

C

s

C

n R

s

.

e

,

B a


13/29

5/13/2011

13

Estrada vs. Escritor

A.M. No. P-02-1651;June 22,2006

The Supreme Court resolved to apply the

“compelling state interest test” and directed theOffice of the Solicitor General to intervene to:

(a) Examine the sincerity and centrality of respondent’sclaimed religious belief and practice;

(b) Present the evidence on the states “compellinginterest” to override respondent’s religious beliefand practice; and

(c) Show that the means that the state adopts inpursuing its interest is the least restrictive torespondent’s religious freedom.

73

The Solicitor General conceded that the sincerityand centrality of respondent’s claimedreligious belief and practice were beyondserious doubt. Thus, the burden shifted to thegovernment to demonstrate that the law orpractice justified a compelling secular objectiveand that it is the least restrictive means ofachieving that objective. The Solicitor General,however failed to show the “gravest abuses,endangering paramount interest” which couldlimit or override respondent’s fundamentalright to religious freedom. Neither did thegovernment exert any effort to show that themeans it sought to achieve its legitimate stateobjective is the least intrusive means.

74

It is not enough to contend that the state’sinterest is important, because our Constitutionitself holds the right to religious freedom sacred.The state must articulate in specific terms thestate interest involved in preventing theexemption, which must be compelling, for onlythe gravest abuses, endangering paramountinterest can limit the fundamental right toreligious freedom. To rule otherwise would be to

emasculate the Free Exercise Clause as a sourceof right by itself. The government must do morethan assert the objectives at risk if exemption isgiven; it must precisely show how and to whatextent those objectives will be undermined ifexemptions are granted.

75

In this particular case and under these distinctcircumstances, respondents conjugalarrangement cannot be penalized as she madeout a case for exemption from the law based on

her fundamental right to freedom of religion.State interest must be upheld in order thatfreedoms – including religious freedom- may beenjoyed. In the area of religious exercise aspreferred freedom , however man standsaccountable to an authority higher that the state,and so the state interest sought to be upheldmust be so compelling that its violation willerode the very fabric of the state that will alsoprotect the freedom. In the absence of a showingthat such state interest exists, man must beallowed to subscribe to the Infinite.

76

Spouses Olbes vs. Deciembre

A.C. No. 5365; April 27, 2005“A high standard of excellence and ethicsis expected and required of members ofthe bar. Such conduct of nobility anduprightness should remain with them, whether in their public or in their privatelives. As officers of the courts andkeepers of the public’s faith, they are burdened with the highest degree ofsocial responsibility and are thusmandated to behave at all times in amanner consistent with truth and honor.”

77

“x x Good moral character includes atleast common honesty. No moralqualification for bar membership ismore important than truthfulness andcandor. The rigorous ethics of theprofession places a premium on honestyand condemns duplicitous behavior.

Lawyers must be ministers of truth.Hence, they must not mislead the courtor allow it to be misled by any artifice.In all their dealings, they are expected toact in good faith.”

78



o b l

a

b l

s

C

n R

f

s B a


14/29

5/13/2011

14

Facts: Complainant filed a complaint fordisbarment against respondent lawyer for

carrying on an illicit relationship with his wife.Respondent denied complainant’s allegation that

he and complainant’s wife were flaunting theiradulterous relationship, arguing that theirrelationship was low profile and known only tothe immediate members of their respectivefamilies. Respondent likewise disputedcomplainant’s allegation that his acts constitutedgross moral depravity, arguing that hisrelationship with complainant’s wife was notunder scandalous circumstances.

79

Later , complainants wife gave birth to a baby girl,and the Certificate of Live Birth bearing thesignature of complainant’s wife, showedrespondent as the father. Respondent deniedhaving personal knowledge of the birth certificate.Respondent also moved to dismiss the complaintdue to the pendency of a civil case filed bycomplainant for the annulment of his marriage,and a criminal complaint for adultery againstrespondent and complainant’s wife.

80

While the administrative case was beinginvestigated, respondent manifested thatcomplainant’s petition for the nullity of hismarriage was granted by the RTC, and thecriminal for adultery was withdrawn bycomplainant.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the adulterousrelationship between respondent andcomplainants wife was proven by more thanclearly preponderant evidence.

81

The High Court noted that respondent did notdeny his adulterous relationship withcomplainant’s wife; what he merely denied was

having flaunted such relationship. This, said theSupreme Court, constituted a negative pregnant

where the qualifying circumstances alone aredenied while the facts itself are admitted.

The High Court also considered as a negativepregnant, respondent’s denial of having personalknowledge of the birth certificate of the child

born by complainant’s wife, noting thatrespondent never denied being the father of thechild.

82

Furthermore, the Court noted that the affidavit ofthe records custodian of the hospital where thechild was born stated that it was complainant’s

wife who supplied the information on the child’spaternity. The Court also observed that thesignature of complainant on her marriagecertificate was the same as that appearing on the

birth certificate.

The Supreme Court rejected respondent’sassertion that his acts did not constitute grossimmoral conduct because they were supposedlynot under scandalous circumstances.

83

According to the High Court, this case involved arelationship between a married lawyer and amarried woman who is not his wife; it isimmaterial whether the affair was carried outdiscreetly. The Court reiterated that even if notall forms of extra-marital relations arepunishable under penal law , sexual relationsoutside marriage is disgraceful and immoral as it

manifest deliberate disregard of the sanctity ofmarriage and the marital vows protected by theConstitution (Vitug vs. Rongcal A.C. No. 6313;September 7, 2006). The Court furtherreiterated that carrying on an illicit affair with amarried woman constitutes grossly immoralconduct

84



o b l

a

b l

C h

a

,

s u

C

n R

s

t

B a


15/29

5/13/2011

15

and is indicative of an extremely low regard forthe fundamental ethics of the legal profession.

Said the Supreme Court that the marriage

between complainant his wife was subsequentlydeclared void ab initio was immaterial. The actscomplained of took place before the marriage

was declared null and void. As a lawyer,respondent should be aware that a man and a

woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, tohave entered into a lawful contract of marriage.In carrying on an extra-marital affair withcomplainant’s wife prior to the judicialdeclaration that her marriage with complainant

85

Was null and void, and despite respondent himself being married , he showed disrespect for aninstitution held sacred by the law, and he betrayedhis unfitness to be a lawyer.

As for complainant’s withdrawal of his petition forreview of the city prosecutor’ dismissal of hiscriminal complaint for adultery, the High Courtnoted that before complainant filed his motion to withdraw, the DOJ already reversed the dismissalof the complaint for adultery by the cityprosecutor.

86

Adultery being a private offense , the DOJ had nochoice but to grant complainant’s motion to withdraw. But even if the Information for adultery was filed in court and respondent andcomplainant’s wife were to be acquitted ofadultery after trial, the same would not have beena bar to the administrative complaint againstrespondent since administrative cases againstlawyers belong to a class of their own and may

proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.Disposition: Respondent was disbarred

87

Client’s Money/Property to be Held in Trust

Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness,loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with hisclient.

Canon 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys andproperties of his client that may come into hispossession.

Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money orproperty collected or received for or from the client.

Rule 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the funds of eachclient separate and apart from his own and those ofothers kept by him.

Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds andproperty of his client when due or upon demand.However, he shall have a lien over the funds and mayapply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy hislawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptlythereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to thesame extent on all judgments and executions he hassecured for his client as provided for in the Rules ofCourt.

88

Although a lawyer’s lien over a clientsproperty and satisfaction of his lawfulfees and disbursement is recognized,the same cannot be exercisedhaphazardly. The attorney-clientrelationship is a fiduciary relationship

which requires a high degree offidelity and good faith.

89

Hernandez vs. Go

A.C. No. 1526; January 31, 2005

“(Respondent’s) acts of acquiring forhimself complainant’s lots entrusted tohim are, by any standard, actsconstituting gross misconduct, agrievous wrong, a forbidden act, a

dereliction in duty, willful in character,and implies a wrongful intent and notmere error in judgment. Such conducton the part of the respondent degradesnot only himself but also the name andhonor of the legal profession. x x”

90



o b l

c o

a

b l

C h

a n

C

n R

s l

B a


16/29

5/13/2011

16

Almendarez Jr. vs. Langit

(A.C. No. 7057; July 25, 2006)

Respondent lawyer committed aflagrant violation of his oath when hereceived the monthly rentals intendedfor his client, without accounting forand returning such sum to its rightfulowner.

91

Respondent lawyer’s failure to turn over themoney to the plaintiff despite demand givesrise to the presumption that he hadconverted the money for his personal use and

benefit. This, is a gross violation of generalmorality as well as of professional ethics,impairing public confidence in the legalprofession. More specifically, it rendersrespondent lawyer liable not only for

violating the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility but also for contempt, asstated in Section 25, Rule 138 of the Rules ofCourt:

92

Sec. 25. Unlawful retention ofclient’s funds; contempt- Whenan attorney unjustly retains in hishands money of his client after it has

been demanded he may be punishedfor contempt as an Officer of theCourt who has misbehaved in hisofficial transactions; but proceedingsunder this section shall not be a bar toa criminal prosecution

93

Villanueva vs. Ishiwata A.C. No. 5041; November 23, 2004“The relationship between an attorney and hisclient is highly fiduciary in nature. Under his

oath, a lawyer pledges himself not to delay anyman for money and he is bound to conducthimself with good fidelity to his clients. A lawyershould thus refrain from any action whereby forhis personal benefit or gain, he abuses or takesadvantage of the confidence reposed in him byhis client. Accordingly, any money collected forthe client or other trust property coming into thelawyer's possession should promptly be reported by him. A lawyer must at all times conducthimself, especially in his dealings with his clientsand the public at large, with honesty andintegrity in a manner beyond reproach. x x”

94

Shulz vs. Flores A.C. No. 4219; December 8, 2003“Where a client gives money to his lawyer for a specificpurpose, such as to file an action, appeal an adverse

judgment, consummate a settlement, or pay thepurchase price of a parcel of land, the lawyer should,upon a failure to take such step and spend the moneyfor it, immediately return the money to his client. Thefact that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney’s fees on themoney in his hands collected for his client does notrelieve him from the obligation to make a promptaccounting. Neither is a lawyer entitled to unilaterallyappropriate his client’s money for himself by the merefact alone that the client owes him attorney’s fees.“The failure of an attorney to return the client’s moneyupon demand gives rise to the presumption that he hasmisappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice and

violation of the trust reposed in him by the client. It isnot only gross violation of the general morality as wellas of professional ethics; it also impairs publicconfidence in the legal profession and deservespunishment. In short, x x the unjustified withholdingof money belonging to his client, as in this case,

warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.”

95

Lemoine vs. Balon A.C. 5829; October 28, 2003“That respondent had a lien oncomplainant’s funds for his attorney’s feesdid not relieve him of his duty to account forit. The lawyer’s continuing exercise of hisretaining lien presupposes that the clientagrees with the amount of attorney’s fees to

be charged. In case of disagreement or whenthe client contests that amount for beingunconscionable, however, the lawyer mustnot arbitrarily apply the funds in hispossession to the payment of his fees. Hecan file, if he deems it desirable, thenecessary action or proper motion with theproper court to fix the amount of such fees.”

96



o b l

a

t

a

b l

C

R ,

s

.

C

n R

ur

n

s

b l

a,

B a


17/29

5/13/2011

17

Ong vs. Grijaldo

A.C. No. 4724; April 30, 2003

“A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not todelay any man for money or malice and is bound

to conduct himself with all good fidelity to hisclients. He is obliged to report promptly themoney of his client that has come into hispossession. He should not commingle it with hisprivate property or use it for his personalpurposes without his client’s consent.Respondent, by converting the money of hisclient to his own personal use without herconsent, was guilty of deceit, malpractice andgross misconduct. Not only did he degradehimself but as an unfaithful lawyer he besmirched the fair name of an honorableprofession.”

97

Candor, Fairness and Respect to Court,Colleagues and Opposing Party Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor,fairness and good faith to the court.Rule 10.1 - A lawyer shall not do anyfalsehood, nor consent to the doing ofany in court; nor shall he mislead orallow the court to be misled by anyartifice.Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage inunlawful, dishonest, immoral ordeceitful conduct.

98

Heirs of the late Herman Rey Romero vs. Reyes,Jr.

A.C. No. 6192; June 23, 2005

When they appear before a tribunal, lawyers actnot merely as representatives of a party but, firstand foremost, as officers of the court. Thus,their duty to protect their clients’ interests issecondary to their obligation to assist in thespeedy and efficient administration of justice.

While they are obliged to present every availablelegal remedy or defense, their fidelity to theirclients must always be made within theparameters of law and ethics, never at theexpense of truth, the law, and the fairadministration of justice.

99

Ramos vs, Pallugna A.C. No. 5908; October 25, 2004

The lawyers’ office does not permit violation ofthe law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.

A lawyer’s responsibility to protect andadvance the interests of his client does not

warrant a course of action propelled by illmotives and malicious intentions against theother party. Mandated to maintain the dignityof the legal profession, they must conductthemselves honorably and fairly. Theyadvance the honor of their profession and the

best interests of their clients when they renderservice or give advice that meets the strictestprinciples of moral law.

10

0

Young vs. Batuegas, et al. A.C. No. 5379; May 9, 2003“A lawyer must be a disciple of truth.”“He should bear in mind that as an officer ofthe court his high vocation is to correctlyinform the court upon the law and the factsof the case and to aid it in doing justice andarriving at the correct conclusion. Thecourts, on the other hand, are entitled toexpect only complete honesty from lawyersappearing and pleading before them.”“While a lawyer has the solemn duty todefend his client’s rights and is expected todisplay the utmost zeal in defense of hisclient’s cause, his conduct must never be atthe expense of truth.”

10

1

Vda. De Fajardo vs. Bugaring

A.C. No. 5113; October 7, 2004

“To be sure, a lawyer is entitled to theprotection of the courts against any attempton the part of a client to escape payment oflegitimate attorney’s fees. However, suchprotection must not be sought at the expenseof truth. Complete candor or honesty is

expected from lawyers, particularly whenthey appear and plead before the courts fortheir own causes against former clients, as inthis case. With his armada of legalknowledge and skills, respondent clearlyenjoyed the upper hand. x x”

10

2



o b l

-

a

b l

C

s

C

n R

s

b lt

B a


18/29

5/13/2011

18

In Re Almacen

31 SCRA 562 [1970]

“x x [D]isciplinary proceedings x x are suigeneris. Neither purely civil nor purelycriminal, this proceeding is not – and does notinvolve – a trial of an action or a suit, but israther an investigation by the Court into theconduct of its officers. Not being intended toinflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminalprosecution. Accordingly, there is neither aplaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may beinitiated by the Court motu proprio. Publicinterest is its primary objective, and the realquestion for determination is whether or not theattorney is still a fit person to be allowed theprivileges as such. x x”

10

3

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowinglymisquote or misrepresent the contents of apaper, the language or the argument ofopposing counsel, or the text of a decisionor authority, or knowingly cite as law aprovision already rendered inoperative byrepeal or amendment, or assert as a factthat which has not been proved.

10

4

Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 144412; November 18, 2003

“The syllabus of cases in official or unofficialreports of Supreme Court decisions orresolutions is not the work of the Court, nordoes it state this Court’s decision. The syllabus issimply the work of the reporter who gives hisunderstanding of the decision. The reporter writes the syllabus for the convenience of

lawyers in reading the reports. A syllabus is nota part of the court’s decision. A counsel shouldnot cite a syllabus in place of the carefullyconsidered text in the decision of the Court.”

“x x It is the duty of all officers of the court tocite the rulings and decisions of the SupremeCourt accurately.”

10

5

Hueysuwan-Florido vs. Florido A.C. No. 5624; January 20, 2004“Candor and fairness are demanded of everylawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would beintolerable if it could not take at face value what is

asserted by counsel. The time that will have to bedevoted just to the task of verification ofallegations submitted could easily be imagined.Even with due recognition then that counsel isexpected to display the utmost zeal in the defenseof a client’s cause, it must never be at the expenseof the truth. x x”

A lawyer’s language should be forceful butdignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting anadvocate and in keeping with the dignity of thelegal profession. The lawyer’s arguments, whether

written or oral, should be gracious to both courtand opposing counsel and should be of such wordsas may be properly addressed by one gentleman toanother.

10

6

Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor towardhis professional colleagues, and shall avoidharassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in hisprofessional dealings, use language whichis abusive, offensive or otherwiseimproper.

10

7

In an answer to a petition for cancellation of registrationand franchise filed against Sugigaonon Rural BankingCorporation before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Atty.Larong, the Rural Bank’s in-house counsel, stated, interalia:

“That this is another in the series of blackmail suits

filed by plaintiff [herein complainant Jose C. Saberon]and his wife to coerce the Bank and Mr. Bonpin forfinancial gain.”

Atty. Larong made the same statement of the same tenorin his Rejoinder to complainant's reply.

Finding the aforementioned statements to be“totally malicious, vicious and bereft of any factual andlegal basis,” complainant filed a complaint against Atty.Larong with the IBP.

10

8



o b l

a

b l

C h

a n

s

C

n R

e s B

o

s

ro”

B a


19/29

5/13/2011

19

Ruling: While a lawyer is entitled to present his case

with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justifythe use of offensive and abusive language. Languageabounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating

but not offensive. On many occasions, the Supreme Court has remindedmembers of the Bar to abstain from all offensivepersonality and top advance no fact prejudicial to thehonor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. Inkeeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer'slanguage even in his pleadings must be dignified.

It is of no consequence that the allegedly maliciousstatements of respondent were made not before a court but before the BSP.

Utterances, petitions and motions in the course of judicial proceedings have consistently been considered asabsolutely privileged, however false or malicious they may be, but only for so long as they as pertinent and relevant tothe subject inquiry.

10

9

Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe andmaintain the respect due to the courtsand to judicial officers and should insiston similar conduct by others.

Rule 11.03- A lawyer shall refrain fromscandalous, offensive and menacinglanguage or behavior before the courts.

Rule 11.04- Lawyers shall not attribute toa judge motives not supported by therecord or having no materiality to thecase.

11

0

Rule 11.05: A lawyer shall submitgrievances against a judge to theproper authorities only.

Canon 13Rule 13.02: A lawyer shall not make

public statements in the mediaregarding a pending case tending toarouse public opinion for and againsta party.

11

1

Estrada vs. SandiganbayanG.R. No. 159486-88; November 25, 2003“Criticism or comment made in good faith on thecorrectness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness,

of a decision of the Court would be welcome, if well-founded, such reaction can enlighten the court andcontribute to the correction of an error if committed.”“The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it willnot denounce criticism made by anyone against theCourt for, if well-founded, (it) can truly haveconstructive effects in the task of the Court, but it willnot countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosionof our people’s faith in the judicial system, let alone, bythose who have been privileged by it to practice law inthe Philippines.“x x In liberally imputing sinister and devious motivesand questioning the impartiality, integrity andauthority of the members of the Court, (the lawyer) hasonly succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct andpervert the dispensation of justice.”

11

2

Re : Letter dated February 21, 2005 of Atty. NoelS. Sorreda (A.M. No. 05 – 3 – 04- SC ; July 22,2005)

“ Mr. Chief Justice, I believe the manner the Courtcomported itself in the aforesaid case is totallyexecrable and atrocious, entirely unworthy ofthe majesty and office of the highest tribunal ofthe land. It is the action not of men of reason orthose who believe in the rule of law, but rather of bullies and tyrants from whom “might is right” .I say, shame on the High Court, for shovingdown a hapless suitor’ s throat a ruling which,from all appearances, it could not justify. “

“ Mr. Chief Justice, that is not only unjust; that iscraven cowardice, to deal with an adversary likethat . It is not something I would have expectedfrom the supreme judges of the land.”

11

3

“ Sadness as counsel, to come to the

realization that the highest institution of which I am an officer has sunk to such alow. Indignation as a citizen , that thepublic officers who are supposed to servehim and help him find justice, shouldinstead give judgements that so insult the

intelligence and glare with iniquity”

11

4



o b l

b l

C

.

s

C

n R

o

r

s l

a

B a


20/29

5/13/2011

20

Supreme Court :“ Unfounded accusations or allegationsor words tending to embarrass the

court or to bring it into disrepute haveno place in a pleading. Theiremployment serves no useful purpose.On the contrary, they constitute directcontempt of court or contempt in faciecuriae and a violation of the lawyersoath and a transgression of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility.”

11

5

“ While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to thecause of his client , full devotion to his clientsgenuine interest and warm zeal in themaintenance and defense of his clients rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning andability, he must do so only within the bounds ofthe law. A lawyer is entitled to voice hiscriticism within the context of the constitutionalguarantee of freedom of speech which must beexercised responsibly. After all, every rightcarries with it the corresponding obligation.Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, butfreedom with responsibility. The lawyers fidelityto his client must not be pursued at the expenseof truth and orderly administration of justice. Itmust be done with the confines of reason andcommon sense.”

11

6

The Supreme Court, citing the case of Uy vs.Depasucat (455 Phil. 9 [2003]) held that a lawyershall abstain from scandalous, offensive ormenacing language or behavior before the courts.The language vehicle does not run short ofexpressions which are emphatic but respectful,

convincing but not derogatory, illuminating butnot offensive. A lawyer’s language should beforceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with thedignity of the legal profession.

11

7

Submitting pleadings containing countlessinsults and diatribes against the NLRC

and attacking both its moral andintellectual integrity, hardly measures tothe sobriety of speech demanded of alawyer. It mattered not that the remarks were address to Commissioners of theNLRC, and not to members of the judiciary, because in addressing theNLRC, respondent lawyer nonethelessremain a member of the Bar.

11

8

Well recognized is the right of a lawyer, bothas an officer of the court and as a citizen, tocriticize in properly respectful terms andthrough legitimate channels, the acts ofcourts and judges. Though a lawyer’slanguage may be forceful and emphatic itshould always be dignified and respectful,

befitting the dignity of legal profession. Theuse of unnecessary language is proscribed if

we are to promote high esteem in the courtsand trust in judicial administration.

11

9

Held: The Supreme Court approved therecommendation of the office Bar Confidant.

The High Court held that respondent violated Rule11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility which states that a lawyer “ shallsubmit grievances against a judge to the properauthorities only.” Respondent also violated Rule13.02 of Canon 13 which stated that a “ lawyer shallnot make public statements in the media regardinga pending case tending to arouse public opinion foror against a party.

12

0



o b l

,

,.

a

b l

C

s

C

n R

s

c

B a


21/29

5/13/2011

21

Respondent also violated the Lawyer’s Oath as hehas sworn to conduct himself as a lawyeraccording to the best of his knowledge and

discretion with all the good fidelity as well to thecourts as to his clients.

According to the Supreme Court, it is not againstlawyers raising grievances against erring judges

but the rules clearly provide for the proper venueand procedure for doing so, precisely becauserespect for the institution must always bemaintained.

Disposition: Respondent was suspended from thepractice of law for 1 year.

12

1

Spouses Williams vs. Enriquez A.C. No. 6353; February 27, 2006“ x x Canon 5 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility requiresthat a lawyer be updated in the latestlaws and jurisprudence. Indeed, whenthe law is so elementary, not to know itor to act as if one does not know itconstitutes gross ignorance of the law.Xx”

12

2

Who may file an administrative complaint?Cojuangco , Jr. vs. Palma A.C. No. 2474; June 30, 2005“ Disbarment proceedings are undertaken

solely for public welfare. The only questionfor determination is whether respondent isfit to be a member of the bar. TheComplainant or the person who called theattention of this Court to the lawyer’s allegedmisconduct is in no sense a party and

generally has no interest in the outcomeexcept as all good citizens may have in theproper administration of justice. Thus, thisCourt may investigate charges againstlawyers, regardless of complainant’sstanding. In fact, it can do so motu proprio.X x”

12

3

Rayos- Ombac vs. Rayos, A.C. No. 2884; January 28, 1998“ . . . A case of suspension or disbarment may

proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest ofthe complainant. What matters is whether, on the

basis of the facts borne out by the record, thecharge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has

been duly proven. This rule is premised on thenature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceedingfor suspension or disbarment is not in any sense acivil action where the complainant is a plaintiffand the respondent lawyer is a defendant.Disciplinary proceedings involve no privateinterest and afford no redress for privategrievance. They are undertaken for the purpose ofpreserving courts of justice from the officialministration of persons unfit to practice in them.The attorney is called to answer to the court forhis conduct as an officer of the court. X x “

12

4

When the lawyer has been criminallycharged and convicted by final judgment.

Nuñez vs. Astorga

A.C. No. 6131; February 28, 2005

The mere existence of pending criminalcharges cannot be a ground fordisbarment or suspension of the lawyer.

However, in case the lawyer has beenconvicted of a crime involving moralturpitude, suspension or disbarment mayfollow as a matter of course, pursuant toSection 27 of Rule 138.

12

5

Barrios vs. Martinez A.C. No. 4585; November 12, 2004“Moral turpitude ‘includes everything which is done contraryto justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.’ It involves "anact of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties

which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general,contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty

between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice,honesty, modesty, or good morals.”The act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time ofthe issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in,or credit with, the drawee bank for the check in full upon itspresentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude.”“x x ‘A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any

sense a civil action where the complainant is plaintiff and the

respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedingsinvolve no private interest and afford no redress for privategrievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for thepublic welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts of

justice from the official ministrations of persons unfit topractice them.’ x x ”

12

6



o b l

b l

C h

s

C

n R

h

t

n.

c

ope

i

s

rt

.

B a


22/29

5/13/2011

22

Soriano vs. Dizon

A.C. No. 6792; January 25, 2006

“x x x . Homicide may or may not involvemoral turpitude depending on the degree ofthe crime. Moral turpitude is not involved inevery criminal act and is not shown by everyknown and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular convictioninvolves moral turpitude may be a questionof fact and frequently depends on all thesurrounding circumstances. X x x” ( CitingInternational Research Institute (IRRI) vs.NLRC, 221 SCRA 760 (1993)

12

7

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

A.C. No. 5499 ; August 16, 2005

“ It should be emphasized that a finding ofguilt in the criminal case will notnecessarily result in a finding of liability inthe administrative case. Conversely,respondent’s acquittal does not necessarilyexculpate him administratively.”

12

8

Jimenez vs. Jimenez A.C. No. 6712; February 6, 2006“ The long- settled rule is that the dismissal of a

criminal case on the ground of insufficiency ofevidence against an accused who is also arespondent in an administrative case does notnecessarily foreclose the administrativeproceedings against him or with it the relief

from administrative liability. The Quantum ofevidence needed in a criminal case is differentfrom that required in an administrative case.In the former, proof beyond reasonable doubtis needed; while the latter , a substantialevidence defined as such relevant evidence asa reasonable mind might accept as adequate tosupport a conclusion, is enough. X x”

12

9

Siy vs NLRCG.R. No. 158971; August 25, 2005“ A finding of contempt on the part of a lawyer does not

preclude the imposition of disciplinary sanctions

against him for his contravention of the ethics oflegal profession.”“ . . . The power to punish for contempt and the power

to disbar are separate and distinct, and that theexercise of one does not exclude the exercise of theother. A contempt proceeding for misbehavior incourt is designed to vindicate the authority of thecourt ; on the other hand , the object of a disciplinaryproceeding is to deal with the fitness of the court’sofficer to continue in that office, to preserve andprotect the court and the public from the officialministrations of persons unfit or unworthy to holdsuch office

13

0

The principal purpose of the exercise of thepower to cite for contempt is to safeguardthe functions of the court (while that) ofthe exercise of disciplinary authority bythe Supreme Court is to assure respect forthe orders of such court by attorneys who,as much as judges , are responsible for theorderly administration of justice .

13

1

When the administrativecomplaint is withdrawn.

Pariñas vs. Paguinto A.C. No. 6297; July 13, 2004 A compromise or withdrawal ofcharges does not terminate an

administrative complaintagainst a lawyer especially inthis case where the lawyeradmitted his misconduct.

13

2



o b l

a

b l

C h

a

C

n R

e s

.

s B a


23/29

5/13/2011

23

Tomlin II vs. Moya II

A.C. No. 6971; February 23, 2006

Forum- shopping applies only to judicial cases or proceedings,not to disbarment proceedings.

13

3

Testifying for the client

Rule 12.08 — A lawyer shall avoidtestifying in behalf of his client, except:

a) on formal matters, such as themailing, authentication or custody of aninstrument and the like;

b) on substantial matters, in cases wherehis testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, duringhis testimony, entrust the trial of the caseto another counsel.

13

4

Santiago vs. Rafanan

A.C. No. 6252; October 5, 2004

“. . . under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in certain casespertaining to privileged communication arising froman attorney-client relationship. The reason behindsuch rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers by thetask of dissociating their relation to their clients as witnesses from that as advocates. Witnesses areexpected to tell the facts as they recall them. In

contradistinction, advocates are partisans — those who actively plead and defend the cause of others. Itis difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartialityof a disinterested witness from the zeal of anadvocate. The question is one of propriety ratherthan of competency of the lawyers who testify fortheir clients.”

13

5

x x although the law does notforbid lawyers from being

witnesses and at the same timecounsel for a cause, thepreference is for them to refrainfrom testifying as witnesses,unless they absolutely have to;and should they do so, to

withdraw from activemanagement of the case.”

13

6

Privileged CommunicationSection 24(b), Rule 130, Rules of Court:

“Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The followingpersons cannot testify as to matters learned inconfidence in the following cases:

(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent ofhis client, be examined as to any communicationmade by the client to him, or his advice giventhereon in the course of, or with a view to,professional employment, can an attorney'ssecretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and hisemployer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;

13

7

Section 20, Rule 138:

“Sec. 20.It is the duty of an attorney:

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and atevery peril to himself, to preserve the secrets ofhis client, and to accept no compensation inconnection with his client's business except fromhim or with his knowledge and approval;

Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility:

Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause ofhis client and he shall be mindful of the trust andconfidence reposed in him.

13

8



o b l

,

a

b l

C

t

s

C

n R

e

a

n

l

'

e

s B a


24/29

5/13/2011

24

Considerations Favoring Confidentiality

Regala vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. Nos. 105938 & 108113; Sept. 20, 1996

“Encouraging full disclosure to a lawyer by oneseeking legal services opens the door to a wholespectrum of legal options which would otherwise be circumscribed by limited informationengendered by a fear of disclosure. An effectivelawyer-client relationship is largely dependentupon the degree of confidence which exists between lawyer and client which in turnrequires a situation which encourages a dynamicand fruitful exchange and flow of information. Itnecessarily follows that in order to attaineffective representation, the lawyer must invokethe privilege not as a matter of option but as amatter of duty and professional responsibility.”

13

9

Mercado vs. Vitriolo

A.C. No. 5108; May 26, 2005

Only by such confidentiality and protection will a person be encouraged to repose hisconfidence in attorney.

Abstinence from seeking legal advice in agood cause is an evil which is fatal to thedetermination of justice.

14

0

Mercado vs. Vitriolo A.C. No. 5108; May 26, 2005Factors to establish the existence of the privilege:1. There exists an attorney-client relationship, or aprospective attorney-client relationship, and it is by

Documents

Tijam.legal Ethics 2011_new