LEGAL ETHICS

PRACTICE OF LAW
It is clear that when Atty. Lozada appeared for and in behalf of her husband and
actively participated in the proceedings therein within the two (2)-year suspension,
she, therefore, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Atty. Lozada would have
deserved a harsher penalty, but this Court recognizes the fact that it is part of the
Filipino culture that amid an adversity, families will always look out and extend a
helping hand to a family member, more so, in this case, to a spouse. Disbarment of
lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members
of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession.
While the Supreme Court has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers through
this kind of proceedings, it does so in the most vigilant manner so as not to frustrate
its preservative principle. ALVIN S. FELICIANO vs. ATTY. CARMELITA BAUTISTALOZADA, A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LAWYER

Atty. Amboy violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

particularly Rule 16.03 thereof, which requires that a lawyer shall deliver the funds
and property of his client upon demand. It is settled that the unjustified withholding
of money belonging to a client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.
Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to
raise the large sums of money in order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor
case. He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption. He compounded his
violation by actually using said illegality as his means of obtaining a huge sum from
the client that he soon appropriated for his own personal interest. His acts
constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant breach of his ethical
commitments under the Lawyers Oath not to delay any man for money or malice;
and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade him from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His deviant conduct
eroded the faith of the people in him as an individual lawyer as well as in the Legal
Profession as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law. Atty. Guico
committed grave misconduct and disgraced the Legal Profession. FERNANDO W.
CHU vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015, Per
Curiam
A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his
client gives rise to
the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of
the trust reposed
in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
professional ethics.
It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.
MARILEN G. SOLIMAN vs. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY, A.C. No. 10568,
January 13, 2015, J. Reyes
Atty. Caracol knew that Efren, his client, had already passed away at the time he
filed the Motion for
Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition. As an honest, prudent
and conscientious lawyer, he should have informed the Court of his clients passing
and presented authority that he was retained by the clients successors-in-interest
and thus the parties may have been substituted.

The Court would like to highlight the important role of an attorney in our judicial
system. Because of the particular nature of an attorneys function it is essential
that they should act with fairness, honesty and candor towards the courts and his
clients. Under Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall
not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead,
or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Here, Atty. Caracol, as observed by the IBP CBD, has been less than candid about
his representation.
The Court also observes that he has used underhanded means to attain his purpose.
Atty. Caracols blatant disregard of his duties as a lawyer cannot be countenanced.
In view of his actions of contravening his lawyers oath and in violation of Canons 8
and 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility the Court deems it
proper to suspend him from the practice of law for a
period of one year. - DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR. vs. ATTY. ISIDRO
L. CARACOL, A.C.
No. 7325, January 21, 2015, J. Villarama, Jr.
Aquino claims that he and Atty. Domingo agreed to a contract for contingent fees
equivalent to thirty percent (30%) of the increase of the just compensation
awarded, albeit verbally. However, a contract for contingent fees is an agreement in
writing by which the fees, usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in
the action, are made to depend upon the success in the effort to enforce or defend
a supposed right. Contingent fees depend upon an express contract, without which
the attorney can only recover on the basis of quantum meruit. Here, considering
that the contract was made verbally and that there was no evidence presented to
justify the 30% contingent
fees being claimed by Aquino, the only way to determine his right to appropriate
attorneys fees is to apply the principle of quantum meruit. AUGUSTO M. AQUINO
vs. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, as Presiding Judge Regional Trial CourtGuimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33 and MA. ALA F. DOMINGO and MARGARITA
IRENE F. DOMINGO, substituting Heirs of the deceased ANGEL T.
DOMINGO, G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015, J. Peralta
Hiring legal counsel does not relieve litigants of their duty to "monitor the status of
their cases, especially if their cases are taking an "unreasonably long time" to be
resolved. In the present case, petitioner took almost seven (7) years, or almost 84
months, from the Court of Appeals' issuance of
the Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration to file a Petition before this
court. HENRY ONG LAY HIN vs. COURT OF APPEALS (2Division), HON.
GABRIEL T. INGLES, as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 58, Cebu City, and
the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 191972,
January 26, 2015, J. Leonen
When a lawyer agrees to take up a clients cause, he makes a commitment to
exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. Once a lawyers services are
engaged, he is duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to
his clients cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. A lawyers acceptance to take
up a case impliedly stipulates that he will carry it to its termination, that is, until
the case becomes final and executory. Atty. Baterina practically abandoned this
duty when he allowed the proceedings to run its coursel without any effort to
safeguard his clients welfare in the meantime. His failure to file the required
pleadings on his clients behalf constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and renders him subject to disciplinary action.
JOSELITO F. TEJANO vs.
ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA, A.C. No. 8235, January 27, 2015, J. Carpio

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and
his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural
tendency goes, this trust and confidence is prone to abuse. The rule against
borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer
from taking advantage of his influence over his client. The rule presumes that the
client is disadvantaged by the lawyers ability to use all the legal maneuverings to
renege on his obligation. In Frias v. Atty. Lozada (Frias) the Court categorically
declared that a lawyers act of asking a client for a loan, as what herein respondent
did, is unethical, to wit: Likewise, her act of borrowing money from a client was a
violation of [Rule] 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer shall not
borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are fully protected by the
nature of the case and by independent advice. A lawyers act of asking a client for a
loan, as what respondent did, is very unethical. It comes within those acts
considered as abuse of clients confidence. The canon presumes that the client is
disadvantaged by the lawyers ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege
on her obligation. SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION AND BLESILDA
CONCEPTION vs ATTY. ELMER DELA ROSA, A.C. No. 10681, February 3,
2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe

This information assymetry is even more pronounced in an attorney-client

relationship. Lawyers are expected not only to be familiar with the minute facts of
their cases but also to see their relevance in relation to their causes of action or
their defenses. The salience of these facts is not usually patent to the client. It can
only be seen through familiarity with the relevant legal provisions that are invoked
with their jurisprudential interpretations. More so with the intricacies of the legal
procedure. It is the lawyer that receives the notices and must decide the mode of
appeal to protect the interest of his or her client. Thus, the relationship between a
lawyer and her client is regarded as highly fiduciary. Between the lawyer and the
client, it is the lawyer that has the better knowledge of facts, events, and remedies.
While it is true that the client chooses which lawyer to engage, he or she usually
does so on the basis of reputation. It is only upon actual engagement that the client
discovers the level of diligence, competence, and accountability of the counsel that
he or she chooses. In some cases, such as this one, the discovery comes too late.
Between the lawyer and the client, therefore, it is the lawyer that should bear the
full costs of indifference or negligence. REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ vs ATTY.
MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MAGRAGLLO, A.C. No. 10537, February 3, 2015, J.
Leonen
Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the
crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by
every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular
conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently
depends on all the surrounding circumstances.
While x x x generally but not always, crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude,
while crimes mala prohibita do not, it cannot always be ascertained whether moral
turpitude does or does not exist by classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum
prohibitum, since there are crimes which are mala in se and yet rarely involve moral
turpitude and there are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita
only. It follows therefore, that moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite
term, the meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial inclusion or
exclusion as the cases are reached.
The IBP-CBD correctly stated that Amparado and Yapchangco were just at the wrong
place and time. They did not do anything that justified the indiscriminate firing done
by Sesbreo that eventually led to the death of Amparado. Thus, circumstances
show the presence of moral turpitude. MELVYN G. GARCIA vs. ATTY. RAUL H.

SESBRENO, A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, February 3, 2015, Per
Curiam

Verily, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who
signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. To
recount, records reveal that Rodriguez used, among others, the Deed of Absolute
Sale notarized by Atty. Salve to file an ejectment complaint against Salita. However,
it must be remembered that Salita was merely made to sign such document as
collateral for his loan and that he had already fully paid the same, as evidenced by
the notarized Release of Real Estate Mortgage executed by Rodriguez herself.
Considering the circumstances, it is simply unfathomable for Salita to appear before
Atty. Salve to have the said document notarized, as it will be detrimental to his own
interests. Hence, the Court finds that Atty. Salve notarized the preformed
Deed of Absolute Sale without Salitas presence before him. - MELANIO S. SALITA
vs. ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE, A.C. No. 8101, February 04, 2015, J. PerlasBernabe
The rule on conflict of interest is based on the fiduciary obligation in a lawyer-client
relationship. Lawyers must treat all information received from their clients with
utmost confidentiality in order to encourage clients to fully inform their counsels of
the facts of their case. Atty. Santos with full knowledge that Rufina Turla had another
heir, he acceded to Mariano Turlas request to prepare the Affidavit of SelfAdjudication. ROBERTO BERNARDINO vs. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS, A.C.
No. 10583, February 18, 2015, J. Leonen

Ruby engaged the services of Atty. Espejo regarding a donation case. Allegedly, Atty.
Espejo failed to account the payment of the filing fees which Ruby extended. Atty.
Espejo, then was assisted by Atty. Bayot who drafted several documents regarding
the case. Ruby demanded the excess of the payment of the filing fees he extended
but Atty. Espejo did not return the money. Moreover, Atty. Espejo allegedly failed to
notify Ruby of the status of the case. Hence, Ruby filed a disciplinary action
complaint against both Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot. Both the IBP-CDB and the IBP
Board of Governors sanctioned both lawyers. However, Atty. Espejo died. Hence, the
complaint proceeded only against Atty. Bayot. Atty. Bayot alleged that there was no
attorney-client relationship between Ruby and him since he merely assisted Atty.
Espejo. In resolving this issue, the Court ruled that Documentary formalism is not
an essential element in the employment of an attorney; the contract may be
express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and
assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his
profession. Further, acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorneyclient relationship. Accordingly, as regards the case before the RTC, Ruby had two
counsels Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot. - MICHAEL RUBY vs. ATTY. ERLINDA B.
ESPEJO and ATTY. RUDOLPH DILLA BAYOT, A.C. No. 10558, February 23,
2015, J.
Reyes

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or

more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the
lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the
other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by
him when he argues for the other client." Another test of the inconsistency of
interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from

the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.
In this case, the Court concurs with the IBP's conclusions that respondents
represented conflicting interests and must therefore be held liable. As the records
bear out, respondents' law firm was engaged and, thus, represented complainant in
the labor cases instituted against him. However, after the termination thereof, the
law firm agreed to represent a new client, FEVE Farms, in the filing of a criminal
case for qualified theft against complainant, its former client, and his wife. As the
Court observes, the law firm's unethical acceptance of the criminal case arose from
its failure to organize and implement a system by which it would have been able to
keep track of all cases assigned to its handling lawyers to the end of, among others,
ensuring that every engagement it accepts stands clear of any potential conflict of
interest. WILFREDO ANGLO vs. ATTY. JOSE MA. V. VALENCIA, ATTY. JOSE MA.
J. CIOCON, ATTY. PHILIP Z. DABAO, ATTY. LILY UY- VALENCIA, ATTY. JOEY P.
DE LA PAZ, ATTY. CRIS G. DIONELA, ATTY. RAYMUNDO T. PANDAN, JR., ATTY.
RODNEY K. RUBICA," AND ATTY. WILFRED RAMON M. PENALOSA, A.C. No.
10567, February 25, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe

Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 provides that A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable. This rule was violated by Atty. Delfin when he failed to file an action in court
despite receipt receipt of P48,000. Furthermore, respondent also violated Rules
16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when he failed to refund said amount that
complainant gave him despite repeated demands. Rule 16.01 provides that A
lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client. Rule 16.03 states that A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his
client when due or upon demand. EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE vs. ATTY. DELFIN R.
AGCAOILI, JR., A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015, J.
Perlas-Bernabe

The facts of the case show that Atty. Mendoza engaged in improper or wrong
conduct, as found under Rule 1.01, as the failure to pay the loan was willful in
character and implied a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment. The Court
finds it undisputed that Atty. Mendoza obtained a loan in the amount of PhP
500,000.00. He signed the promissory note and acknowledgement receipt showing
he received PhP 500,000.00. Although he initially denied getting this amount and
claimed that he only received P100,000.00, he did not present any evidence to
prove his claim. He later also admitted the validity of his loan without qualification
as to the amount.
Also undisputed is the fact that Ms. Sosa tried to collect the amount due upon
maturity but Atty. Mendoza failed to pay. In fact, Ms. Sosa deferred depositing the
post-dated check upon Atty. Mendozas request, and based on his promises that he
would pay. Despite all these, he still failed to comply with his obligation. Worse, the
check when finally deposited was dishonored, a fact that Atty. Mendoza did not
dispute. ANTONINA S. SOSA vs. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA, A.C. No. 8776,
March 23, 2015, J. Brion
SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT & DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS

A complaint for disbarment was filed by Arcatomy S. Guari against Atty. Christine
Antenor-Cruz Limpin for allegedly filing a false General Information Sheet (GIS) with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Members of the bar are reminded
that their first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather than seek

exceptions as loopholes. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who

connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action
against the lawyer. ARCATOMY S. GUARIN vs. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C. LIMPIN,
A.C. No. 10576, January 1, 2015, J. Villarama, Jr
The petitioners filed an administrative complaint against the respondent. It is the
contention of the respondent that the Waiver and Quitclaim signed by the
petitioners would bar his administrative prosecution. The Supreme Court ruled that
a case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of
interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts
borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been
proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A
proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant
is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. SPOUSES WILLIE AND
AMELIA UMAGUING vs. ATTY. WALLEN R. DE VERA, A.C. No. 10451, February
04, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue
as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of
the community, conduct for instance, which makes a mockery of the inviolable
social institution of marriage. Atty. Catindigs subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of his previous one definitely manifests a deliberate disregard of the
sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and
affirmed by our laws. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality
required of him as a member of the bar, which thus warrant the penalty of
disbarment. DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ vs. ATTY.TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY.
KAREN E. BAYDO, A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015
A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in good moral
character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor as to render him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the Court. In disciplinary proceedings against members of
the bar, only clear preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability. As
long as the evidence presented by complainant or that taken judicial notice of by
the Court is more convincing and worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto, the imposition of disciplinary sanction is justified. The Court has
required that a complainant has the onus of proving the charges against respondent
by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. In the case at bar, there could be no
other reason for Atty. Mejica to file the cases against PO1 Caspe other than to get
back at him. Thus, we agree that the confluence of circumstances points to Atty.
Mejicas corrupt motive in helping Gaduena in filing cases against Caspe, in
violation of Rules 1.03, 1.04 and 10.01 of the CPR. PO1 JOSE B. CASPE vs. ATTY.
AQUILINO A. MEJICA, A.C. No. 10679, March 10, 2015, J. Villarama, Jr.
Atty. Gonzales was charged with grave misconduct for forcefully kissing Serrano.
The court ruled that Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer. The misconduct is considered as grave if it involves additional elements such
as corruption or willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules,
which must be proven by substantial evidence; otherwise, the misconduct is only
simple. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an
official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or
character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to
duty and the rights of others. In other words, in grave misconduct, the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established
rule must be evident. ATTY. JACINTO C. GONZALES vs. MAILA CLEMEN F.
SERRANO,G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015, J. Peralta

When a lawyer knowingly issues a check against insufficient balance, he shall be

liable for serious misconduct. TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ vs. ATTY. TRINA DE
VERA, A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015,J. Leonen
NOTARIAL PRACTICE

Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the
commission. Clearly, a notary could not perform notarial functions in the place
where he was not commissioned to perform such act. Furthermore, by performing
notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, is a violation, not
only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice, but also
Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all
lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and
directs them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.
RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL
PRACTICE, A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015, J. Mendoza
The petitioners accused the respondent of notarizing a document that is forged. The
Supreme Court ruled that whoever acts as Notary Public must ensure that the
parties executing the document be present. Otherwise, their participation with
respect to the document cannot be acknowledged. Notarization of a document in
the absence of the parties is a breach of duty. JIMMY ANUDON AND JUANITA
ANUDON vs. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA, A.C. No. 5482, February 10, 2015, J.
Leonen
Notarial acts give private documents a badge of authenticity that the public relies
on when they encounter written documents and engage in written transactions.
Hence, all notaries public are duty-bound to protect the integrity of notarial acts by
ensuring that they perform their duties with utmost care. A notarial register is prima
facie evidence of the facts there stated. It has the presumption of regularity and to
contradict the veracity of the entry, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more
than
merely preponderant.
CRESCENCIANO
M.
PITOGO
vs.
ATTY.
JOSELITOTROY SUELLO, A.C. No. 10695, March 18, 2015, J. Leonen

A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with
public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. Good faith cannot be a mitigating
circumstance in situations since the duty to function as a notary public is personal.
[The Court notes] that the error could have been prevented had Atty. Examen
diligently performed his functions: personally checked the correctness of the
documents. To say that it was his secretarys fault reflects disregard and unfitness
to discharge the functions of a notary public for it is he who personally
acknowledges the document. He was behooved under Sec. 251, Chapter 11 of the
Revised Administrative Code to check if the proper cedulas were presented and
inspect if the documents to be acknowledged by him reflected the correct details.
This Court cannot stress enough that notarization is not a routinary act. It is imbued
with substantive public interest owing to the public character of his duties.
In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Examen also transgressed the
his oath as a lawyer, provisions of the CPR and Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court. HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO vs.
ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN, A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015, J. Villarama,
Jr.

CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Respondents were charge of malpractice but thereafter the complainants condoned

them. The court ruled that the Court cannot just set aside the finding of culpability
against the respondents merely because the complainants have decided to forgive
them or settle matters amicably after the case was completely evaluated and
reviewed by the IBP. The complainants forgiveness or even withdrawal from the
case does not ipso facto obliterate the misconduct committed by Francisco. To begin
with, it is already too late in the day for the complainants to withdraw the
disbarment case considering that they had already presented and supported their
claims with convincing and credible evidence, and the IBP has promulgated a
resolution on the basis thereof. It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only
learned in law, but also known to possess good moral character. Lawyers should act
and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach,
in order to promote the publics faith in the legal profession. SPOUSES ROGELIO
AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP AND ATTY.
WHELMA F. SITON-YAP, A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015, J. Reyes
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is
bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for
the intended purpose. Consequently, if not used accordingly, the money must be
returned immediately to the client.16 As such, a lawyers failure to return the
money to his client despite numerous demands is a violation of the trust reposed on
him and is indicative of his lack of integrity, as in this case. Clearly, respondent
failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession
commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment and,
hence, must be disciplined accordingly. SHIRLEY OLAYTA-CAMBA vs. ATTY.
OTILIO SY BONGON, A.C. No. 8826, March 25,2015, J. Perlas- Bernabe

JUDICIAL ETHICS
INTEGRITY

Administrative complaints against members of the judiciary are viewed by the Court
with utmost care, for proceedings of this nature affect not only the reputation of the
respondents concerned, but the integrity of the entire judiciary as well. Thus, when
two court employees accused a Judge of sexual harassment, yet they failed to
properly report the incident-with one waiting for 2 years before filing a complaintand their complaint was unsubstantiated while the Judge presented documentary
and testimonial evidence leading to a reasonable conclusion that he could not have
committed the sexual advances, then the complaint must be dismissed. SAMAHAN
NG MGA BABAE
SA HUDIKATURA (SAMABAHU) vs. JUDGE CESAR O. UNTALAN, Regional Trial
Court, Branch
149, Makati City, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2363, February 25, 2015, J. Villarama, Jr.

PROPRIETY

The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary mandates that judges
must not only maintain their independence, integrity and impartiality; they must
also avoid any appearance of impropriety or partiality, which may erode the
people's faith in the Judiciary. Members of the Judiciary should be beyond reproach
and suspicion in their conduct, and should be free from any appearance of
impropriety in the discharge of their official duties, as well as in their personal
behavior and everyday life. ANTONIO S. ASCAO, JR., CONSOLACION D.
DANTES, BASILISA A. OBALO, JULIETA D. TOLEDO, JOSEPH Z. MAAC,
EMILIANO E. LUMBOY, TITA F. BERNARDO, IGMEDIO L. NOGUERA, FIDEL S.
SARMIENTO, SR., DAN T. TAUNAN, AMALIA G. SANTOS, AVELINA M.
COLONIA, ERIC S. PASTRANA, AND MARIVEL B. ISON vs. PRESIDING JUDGE
JOSE S.JACINTO, JR., A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405, January 12, 2015, CJ Sereno

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Being designated as acting Clerk of Court or OIC, Ms. Miranda had the duties and
responsibilities of a Branch Clerk of Court. As such, it was her duty to collect and
receive, by herself or through a duly appointed cashier, all monies in payment of all
legal fees; as well as to receive deposits, fines, and dues. A Clerk of Court, or an
acting Clerk of Court, has the duty to ensure full compliance with the circulars of
this Court and the Court Administrator on deposits or collections of court funds.
Clerks of Court perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the courts
funds, revenues, records, properties, and premises. As such, they are generally
regarded as treasurer, accountant, guard, and physical plant manager thereof. It is
the duty of the Clerks of Court to faithfully perform their duties and responsibilities.
They are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts. It is also their
duty to ensure that the proper procedures are followed in the collection of cash
bonds. Clerks of Court are officers of the law who perform vital functions in the
prompt and sound administration of justice. Thus, an unwarranted failure to fulfil
these responsibilities deserves administrative sanctions and not even the full
payment of the collection shortages will exempt the accountable officer from
liability. RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BALIUAG, BULACAN, A.M. No. P-15-3298,
February 04, 2015, CJ. Sereno

Grave misconduct is committed when there has been '"a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligence by a public officer. 'The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the
additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard
established rules, all of which must be established by substantial evidence, and
must necessarily be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct." In this case,
Alcantara and Jacinto admitted to taking and encashing checks of their co-workers
without permission. There is no doubt that their acts of repeatedly stealing the
checks and forging the signatures of their co-workers constitute grave misconduct
and dishonesty. ANONYMOUS LETTER COMPLAINT AGAINST REYNALDO C.
ALCANTARA, UTILITY WORKER I, BR. 70, AND JOSEPH C. JACINTO,
ELECTRICIAN, HALL OF JUSTICE, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BURGOS, PANGASINAN, A.M. No. P-15-3296, February 17, 2015, Per Curiam
Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.
The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption,
willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be
established by substantial evidence. As distinguished from simple misconduct, the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of

established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. Corruption, as

an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person
who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit
for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. To
constitute misconduct, the act or acts must have a direct relation to and be
connected with the performance of his official duties. Considering that the acts
complained of, the remarks against Judge Tormis and Francis, were made by Judge
Paredes in his class discussions, they cannot be considered as misconduct. They
are simply not related to the discharge of his official functions as a judge. Thus,
Judge Paredes cannot be held liable for misconduct, much less for grave
misconduct. JILL M. TORMIS vs. JUDGE MEINRADO PAREDES, A.M. No. RTJ-132366, February 04, 2015, J. Mendoza
The fact that the judge explained his inadvertence was mainly because of the bulk
of wok that he had to attend to attend to as the case was brought to him barely a
year since he was appointed as judge is of no moment. Judges took an oath to
dispense their duties with competence and integrity; to fall short would be a
disservice not only to the entire judicial system, but more importantly, to the public.
CHUA KENG SIN vs. JUDGE JOB M. MANGENTE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 54, NAVOTAS CITY, M. No. MTJ-15-1851, February 11,
2015, J. Leonen
Well-settled is the rule that unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty,
corruption, malice or ill-will, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice,
respondent judge may not be held administratively liable for gross misconduct,
ignorance of the law or incompetence of official acts in the exercise of judicial
functions and duties, particularly in the adjudication of cases. Further, to hold a
judge administratively accountable for every erroneous rule or decision he renders
would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position doubly
unbearable. Thus, Atty. Nambi should not be held accountable for committing an
honest mistake or an error in the appreciation of the facts of the case before him.
Otherwise every labor arbiter or any judicial or quasi-judicial officer for that matter,
would be continually plagued with the possibility of being administratively
sanctioned for every honest mistake or error he commits. YOLANDA A. ANDRES,
MINETTE A.MERCADO, AND ELITO P. ANDRES vs. ATTY. SALIMATHAR V.
NAMBI, A.C. No. 7158, March 09, 2015, J. Del Castillo
Sheriffs are expected to know the rules of procedure pertaining to their functions as
officers of the court, relative to the implementation of writs of execution, and should
at all times show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of their
duties. Any act deviating from the procedure laid down by the Rules of Court is
misconduct that warrants disciplinary action, which may be deemed as Simple
Neglect of Duty or even Grave Abuse of Authority. In this case, respondent, as a
Sheriff, failed to follow the Rules in executing the judgment in Civil Case No. 345
and in the disposition of the subject truck therefore warranting disciplinary
measures. FELISICIMO* R. SABIJON and ZENAIDA A. SABIJON vs. BENEDICT**
M. DE JUAN, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF KABACAN, NORTH
COT ABATO, BRANCH 22, A.M. No. P-14-3281, January 8, 2015, J. PerlasBernabe
Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requires a sheriff implementing a writ of
execution (1) to make and submit a return to the court immediately upon
satisfaction in part or in full of the judgment; and (2) if the judgment cannot be
satisfied in full, to make a report to the court within 30 days after his receipt of the
writ and state why full satisfaction could not be made. In the case at bar, without
filing his return on the writ, Sheriff Duca served a notice of auction sale, stating an
amount as the rentals-in-arrears due and demandable. The amount was allegedly
his erroneous computation of the rentals-in-arrears due because it was not based on

the decision of the RTC. Sheriff Duca is guilty of simple misconduct. CONCHITA S.
BAHALA vs. CIRILO DUCA, SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT IN
CITIES, BRANCH 1, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, A.M. No. P-08-2465, January 12,
2015, J. Bersamin
The Court stresses once again that sheriffs play an important role in the
administration of justice. As agents of the law, they are called upon to discharge
their duties with due care and utmost diligence. In serving the courts writs and
processes and implementing its orders, they cannot afford to err without affecting
the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice. JUDGE
GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR. vs. GEORGE E. VIAJAR, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, BUTUAN CITY, A.M. No. P-11-2940, January 21,
2015, J. Carpio
Time and time again, the Supreme Court has stressed that those charged with the
dispensation of justice - from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk - are
circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct at all times must
not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be
beyond suspicion. Every employee should be an example of integrity, uprightness
and honesty. The inculpatory acts committed by Redoa are so grave as to call for
the most severe administrative penalty. Dishonesty and grave misconduct, both
being in the nature of a grave offense, carry the extreme penalty of dismissal from
service with forfeiture of retirement benefits. OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR vs. CONSTANTINO P. REDOA, former Clerk of Court II,
Municipal Trial Court, Tanauan, Leyte, A.M. No. P-14-3194, January 27,
2015, Per Curiam
While indeed the failure to pay just debts can, broadly speaking, be considered as a
form of misconduct since the legal attribution of that term (misconduct) would cover
almost every possible intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law
or standard of behavior, the correct
classification of respondents dereliction should be willful refusal to pay just debts,
as it is the latter which specifically constitutes the offense she had committed.
When the gravamen of the offense is the unwillingness to pay a just obligation, the
more accurate finding would be to hold the errant employee liable for willful failure
to pay just debts. MARY-ANN* S. TORDILLA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NAGA CITY, CAMARINES SUR, BRANCH 27 vs.
LORNA H. AMILANO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF NAGA CITY, CAMARINES SUR, BRANCH 61, A.M. No. P-14-3241, February
04, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe

Conduct is prejudicial to the public service if it violates the norm of public

accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the peoples faith in the
Judiciary. By the habituality and frequency of his unauthorized absences, Sarceno
did not live up to the degree of accountability, efficiency, and integrity that the
Judiciary has required of its officials and employees. His position as Clerk III was
essential and indispensable to the Judiciarys primary mandate of the proper
administration of justice. This mandate dictated that he as a court employee should
devote his office hours strictly to the public service, if only to repay and serve the
people whose taxes were used to maintain the Judiciary. His habitual absenteeism
severely compromised the integrity and image that the Judiciary sought to preserve,
and thus violated this mandate. LEAVE DIVISION O.A.S., OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. TYKE J. SARCENO, A.M. No. P-11-2930,
February 17, 2015, Per Curiam

Dishonesty is the "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness;

lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and
straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray." Upon examination of
Dawang's photograph on the picture-seat plan of the August 18, 1996 Career
Service Professional Examination and her photographs on her Personal Data Sheets,
the individual whose picture appears on the picture-seat plan is not Dawang.
Allowing another person to take the examination on one's behalf is an act of
dishonesty. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AS REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR IV
MARIA LETICIA G. REYNA vs. JOVILYN B. DAWANG, A.M. No. P-15-3289,
February 17, 2015, Per Curiam
Court agree with the OCA findings that Contrerass act of affixing her signature to
the jurat portion of the administrative complaint prepared by her father had no
direct relation to her work as the then clerk of court of RTCIriga City. The power of
ex officio notaries public has been limited to notarial acts connected to the exercise
of their official functions and duties. This means that they have no longer had the
authority to notarize documents that do not bear any relation to the performance of
their official functions. Any one of them who does so would be committing an
unauthorized notarial act, which amounts to engaging in the unauthorized practice
of law and abuse of authority. While we agree with her that ex officio notaries public
are not authorized to perform a notarial act in relation to private documents, the
applicable test is not based merely on the nature of the transaction as private, but
also on the relationship between the document and the official functions and duties
of the ex officio notary public. BENITO B. NATE vs. JUDGE LELU P. CONTRERAS,
BRANCH 43, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, VIRAC, CATANDUANES, A.M. No. RTJ152406, February 18, 2015, CJ. Sereno

The Court cannot tolerate non-submission of financial reports, non-reporting and

non-deposit of collections, undue delay in the deposit of collections, unauthorized
withdrawal, and non-explanation of incurred shortages and undeposited collections.
Said infractions Certainly constitute gross negligence, dishonesty, and grave
misconduct which are serious offenses that deserve the penalty of dismissal under
Section 52, Rule IV of the Civil Service Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases.
Consequently, respondent, for violating the trust reposed upon her as a collecting
officer of the judiciary, the SC affirmed the recommendation of the OCA to dismiss
respondent from service. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. CLERK
OF COURT EMMANUELA A. REYES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BANI,
PANGASINAN, A.M. No. P-10-2872, February 24, 2015, PerCuriam
The role that Sheriffs play in the dispensation of justice is pivotal. They serve as the
agents to ensure that arduous and painstaking court proceedings will result in a
final execution. It is incumbent upon them to act in a manner fitting of the dignity of
their office as employees of the judiciary.
Respondent in the case at bar demanded that complainant give him money before
he would implement the Writ of Execution which under the law is his duty to
perform. For doing so, the SC found him guilty of guilty of gross misconduct.
Consequently, respondent was dismissed from service. ASTORGA AND REPOL
LAW OFFICES, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ARNOLD B. LUGARES vs.
ALEXANDER D. VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
60, MAKATICITY, A.M. No. P-09-2668, February 24, 2015, Per Curiam