Lawyers Oath

1.) Ong vs Delos Santos A.C. No. 10179 March 04, 2014
Facts: In January 2008, complainant Benjamin Ong was introduced to respondent
Atty. William F. Delos Santos by Sheriff Fernando Mercado of the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila. After several calls and personal interactions between them, Ong
and Atty. Delos Santos became friends.
In time, according to Ong, Atty. Delos Santos asked him to encash his postdated
check inasmuch as he was in dire need of cash. To reassure Ong that the check
would be funded upon maturity, Atty. Delos Santos bragged about his lucrative
practice and his good paying clients. Convinced of Atty. Delos Santos financial
stability, Ong handed to Atty. Delos Santos on January 29, 2008 the amount of
P100,000.00 in exchange for the latters Metrobank Check No. 0110268 postdated
February 29, 2008.
However, the check was dishonored upon presentment for the reason that the
account was closed. Ong relayed the matter of the dishonor to Atty. Delos Santos,
and demanded immediate payment, but the latter just ignored him. When efforts to
collect remained futile, Ong brought a criminal complaint for estafa and for violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Atty. Delos Santos. Ong also brought this
disbarment complaint against Atty. Delos Santos in the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), which docketed the complaint as CBD Case No. 11-2985.
Issue: By issuing the worthless check, did Atty. Delos Santos violate Canon 1, Rule
1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Ruling:
Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and responsibility to
maintain his good moral character. In this regard, good moral character is not only a
condition precedent relating to his admission into the practice of law, but is a
continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his membership in the Philippine
Bar. The Court unwaveringly demands of him to remain a competent, honorable,
and reliable individual in whom the public may repose confidence. Any gross
misconduct that puts his moral character in serious doubt renders him unfit to
continue in the practice of law.
The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of
the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the
community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or
holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless
commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousandfold, can very well pollute
the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt
the welfare of society and the public interest.

lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or in their
private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the
court.
That his act involved a private dealing with Ong did not matter. His being a lawyer
invested him whether he was acting as such or in a non-professional capacity
with the obligation to exhibit good faith, fairness and candor in his relationship with
others. There is no question that a lawyer could be disciplined not only for a
malpractice in his profession, but also for any misconduct committed outside of his
professional capacity. His being a lawyer demanded that he conduct himself as a
person of the highest moral and professional integrity and probity in his dealings
with others.
2. Judge Madrid V Atty. Dealca A.C. No. 7474 , September 9, 2014,
Facts: The complainant, Presiding Judge Jose Madrid is an RTC judge in Sorsogon.
He filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Dealca, a lawyer, who
he accused of filing frivolous administrative cases against judges and personnel of
the courts.
The case arose when Atty. Dealca filed an Entry of Appearance in a criminal case in
behalf of the accused, replacing Atty. Vicente Judar, who had filed a Motion to
Withdraw. Aside from entering his appearance, Atty. Dealca also moved to have the
case re-raffled to another branch. Considering the adverse incidents between the
incumbent Presiding Judge and the undersigned, where he does not appear before
the incumbent Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also hear cases handled by
the undersigned.
The complainant denied the motion to re-raffle, ordering that the court will not allow
a case to be removed from it because of the personal sentiments between the judge
and counsel. It noted that Atty. Dealcass motion is an affront to the integrity of the
court, and his propensity for filing administrative cases against the judge, which
were all, dismissed by the Supreme Court. He should not have accepted the case,
when his main purpose was to remove the case from the judge, not to represent the
client. He denied the motion to withdraw filed by Atty. Judar and denied the entry of
appearance of Atty. Dealca.
Consequently, Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint with the Office of the Bar
Confidant against respondents practice of entering his appearance as counsel and
then moving for the inhibition of the judge on the pretext of previous adverse
incidents between them. In his comment-complaint Atty. Dealca asserted that his
order unlawfully deprived the accused of his constitutional right to be represented
by counsel; that it was the judge who exhibited bias and prejudice against the
accused, and that it should be Judge Madrid who should be disbarred and ultimately
dismissed from the judiciary.

The Court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation, Several months
thereafter, the Court indorsed pertinent documentary evidence offered by
complainants showed that respondent filed by himself (1) Bar Matter No. 1197 and
acting as counsel for the complainants (2) Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 04-2113-RTJ; (3)
OMB-L-C-05-0478-E; (4) Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2385-RTJ and (5) Adm. Matter
OCA IPI No. 05-2191-RTJ. These five (5) cases are factual evidence of the cases that
respondent had filed by himself and as counsel for the complainants against court
officers, judges and personnel as a consequence of the IBP Election and incidents in
cases that respondent had handled as counsel for the parties in the said cases.
The IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty Dealca be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six months. IBP Commissioner Hababag ultimately
submitted his Report and Recommendation finding Atty. Dealca guilty of violating
the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing frivolous
administrative and criminal complaints; recommending that he be suspended from
the practice of law for 1 year,. Upon review by the IBP-BOG, it modified the
recommendation and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit which Judge Madrid
moved to reconsider which the IBP denied.
Issue:
(1) WON Atty. Dealca file frivolous administrative and criminal complaints against
judges and court personnel in violation of the Lawyers Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
(2) WON Atty. Dealca is guilty of unethical practice in seeking the inhibition of Judge
Madrid in Criminal Case No. 2006-6795?
Ruling:
1.YES.
Although the Court always admires members of the Bar who are imbued with a
high sense of vigilance to weed out from the Judiciary the undesirable judges and
inefficient or undeserving court personnel, any acts taken in that direction should be
unsullied by any taint of insincerity or self-interest. It is for that reason that Atty.
Dealcas complaint against Judge Madrid has failed our judicious scrutiny, for the
Court cannot find any trace of idealism or altruism in the motivations for initiating it.
Instead, Atty. Dealca exhibited his proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant for
harassment, considering that, as IBP Commissioner pointed out, his bringing of
charges against judges, court personnel and even his colleagues in the Law
Profession had all stemmed from decisions or rulings being adverse to his clients or
his side.
He should now be reminded that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice
to the parties according to law, not to harass them. The Lawyers Oath exhorts upon
the members of the Bar not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit. Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty under his Lawyers Oath

not to initiate groundless, false or unlawful suits. The duty has also been expressly
embodied in Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility thuswise:
Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit
or proceeding or delay any mans cause.
His being an officer of the court should have impelled him to see to it that the
orderly administration of justice must not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as he must
resist the whims and caprices of his clients and temper his clients propensities to
litigate, so must he equally guard himself against his own impulses of initiating
unfounded suits. While it is the Courts duty to investigate and uncover the truth
behind charges against judges and lawyers, it is equally its duty to shield them from
unfounded suits that are intended to vex and harass them, among other things.
Moreover, Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts in the
proper administration of justice. He disregarded his mission because his filing of the
unfounded complaints, including this one against Judge Madrid, increased the
workload of the Judiciary. Although no person should be penalized for the exercise of
the right to litigate, the right must nonetheless be exercised in good faith.
2. YES
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and
defend the legal causes for their clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties,
responsibilities and liabilities are devolved upon them by law. Verily, their
membership in the Bar imposes certain obligations upon them. In this regard, Canon
11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility pertinently state:
Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and
to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case.
All lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and to
promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is the respect for the
courts that guarantees the stability of the judicial institution. Atty. Dealcas
averment that Judge Madrid did not hear cases being handled by him directly
insinuated that judges could choose the cases they heard, and could refuse to hear
the cases in which hostility existed between the judges and the litigants or their
counsel. Such averment, if true at all, should have been substantiated by him
because it put in bad light not only Judge Madrid but all judges in general. This he
failed to do. The right of a party to seek the inhibition or disqualification of a judge
who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in
handling the case must be balanced with the latters sacred duty to decide cases
without fear of repression.
Thus, it was incumbent upon Atty. Dealca to establish by clear and convincing
evidence the ground of bias and prejudice in order to disqualify Judge Madrid from
participating. The latters bare allegations of Judge Madrids partiality or hostility did
not suffice, because the presumption that Judge Madrid would undertake his noble

role to dispense justice according to law and the evidence and without fear or favor
should only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
On a final note, it cannot escape our attention that this is not the first administrative
complaint to be ever brought against Atty. Dealca. In Montano v. Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, we reprimanded him for violating Canon 22 and Rule 20.4, Canon 20
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and warned him that a repetition of the
same offense would be dealt with more severely.
3. Salabao v. Villaruel A.C. No. 8084 August 24, 2015
FACTS: Complainant narrates that in 1995 she filed a case against Elmer Lumberio
for his deceitful or fraudulent conduct of taking her precious real property situated
in Taguig City. After hearing, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 162, Pasig City issued its resolution in her favor in
2002. Respondent then entered the picture as counsel for Lumberio. From then on,
Complainant complained that Respondent had made her suffer because of his abuse
of processes and disregard for her rights as a litigant. In 2002, the Regional Trial
Court Pasig City which tried Civil Case No. 65147 issued its resolution in her favor. In
order to delay the case, Respondent brought the case on appeal to the Court of
Appeals under CA-GR CV No. 76360. The Court of Appeals decided in her favor on
January 13, 2004 but Respondent again filed an appeal before the Supreme Court
under GR No. 167413. Lumberio lost and nthe case became final and executory.
Undeterred, respondent tried to defer the execution of the decision of the RTC, by
bringing to the Court of Appeals a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under CA-GR
SP No. 97564. When rebuffed, he again appealed to the Supreme Court under GR
No. 181243 sans a clear or new argument other than what he had presented before
the Court of Appeals. Still, Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari seeking to annul
the 29 November 2007 Order of the RTC before the Court of Appeals under CA-GR
SP No. 101992 which was however dismissed. From here on, there was not stopping
the Respondent. Once again he filed a new complaint before the RTC of Mauban,
Quezon, Branch 64 under Civil Case No. 08-0666-M. Apart from this, Respondent
filed several Motion, Inhibition and Contempt that were meant to delay the
resolution of the case. He likewise filed an administrative case against Judge Briccio
Ygaa of RTC Branch 153, Taguig City.
Complainant then complained that Respondent had done more than enough to
suppress her rights as a winning litigant and filed this case for abuse of processes
pursuant to Rule 10.03 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).Respondent, for his part, denied the
accusation and clarified that the several pleadings he had filed had centered on the
legality of the court's decision ordering the cancellation of the title of Lumberio in
such ordinary proceeding for cancellation of the title. To his mind, the said ordinary
proceeding for cancellation of title before the RTC Branch 153, Taguig City was void

because the law vests upon the government through the Solicitor General the power
to initiate a reversion case if there is such a ground to cancel the title issued by the
Land Management Bureau in favor of Lumberio.
In his Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner found at
respondent "relentlessly filed petitions and appeals in order to exhaust all possible
remedies to obtain relief for his client"5 which he considered as tantamount to
"abusive and a spiteful effort to delay the execution of Judgment." He thus
recommended that respondent be meted out the penalty of suspension for four
months. In its Resolution the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
Issue: Should respondent be held administratively liable?
Ruling: YES.
While it is true that lawyers owe "entire devotion" to the cause of their clients, it
cannot be emphasized enough that their first and primary duty is "not to the client
but to the administration of justice." Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that "A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice." Thus, in the use of
Court processes, the lawyer's zeal to win must be tempered by the paramount
consideration that justice be done to all parties involved, and the lawyer for the
losing party should not stand in the way of the execution of a valid judgment. This is
a fundamental principle in legal ethics and professional responsibility that has
iterations in various forms:
Rule 138, Section 20, Rules of Court:
Duties of attorneys. - It is the duty of an attorney: xxxx
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as
appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to
be honestly debatable under the law;
xxxx
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance
of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any
corrupt motive or interest; (Emphasis supplied)
Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the
same cause.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes. (Emphasis
supplied)

Because a lawyer is an officer of the court called upon to assist in the administration
of justice, any act of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts, or impedes the
administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action
against him.
In this case, the judgment in favor of complainant had become final and executory
by July 27, 2005. Respondent however proceeded to file no less than twelve (12)
motions and cases in various courts subsequent to the Entry of Judgment. From the
nature and sheer number of motions and cases filed, it is clear that respondent's
intention was to delay the execution of the final judgment.In epitome, to sustain
petitioner's insinuation of extrinsic fraud is to make a mockery of Our judicial
system. We take exception to the unjustified delay in the enforcement of the RTC
Decision dated 31 July 2002 which has long become final and executory. This is
obviously a spiteful ploy to deprive respondent of the fruits of her victory. It is quite
clear that respondent has made a mockery of the judicial process by abusing Court
processes, employing dilatory tactics to frustrate the execution of a final judgment,
and feigning ignorance of his duties as an officer of the court. He has breached his
sworn duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and
violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and Rule 138, Sec. 20 (c) and (g) of the Rules of Court. In so doing,
he is administratively liable for his actions.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Andres C. Villaruel, Jr. is hereby
found GUILTY of violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby suspended from the practice of
law for a period of eighteen (18) months.