Legal Ethics

1. Atty. Baliga and Atty. Calubaquib were found guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and of the Lawyers Oath for allowing their secretaries to
notarize documents in their stead, in violation of Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law. The
lawyers were suspended from the practice of law and their notarial commissions were revoked and
they were disqualified from reappointment as notaries public for 2 years.

Atty. Baliga, the Regional Director of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), was also suspended
from his position as Director/Attorney VI of CHR. Atty. Baligas suspension from the practice of
law prevented him from assuming his post as Regional Director for want of eligibility in the
meantime that his authority to practice law is suspended. Atty. Baliga argued that he cannot be
suspended for acts not connected with his functions as CHRs Regional Director. According to Atty.
Baliga his suspension from practice of law did not include his suspension from public office. Despite
suspension, Atty. Baliga continued performing his functions as CHR Regional Director. Is Atty.
Baligas contention correct?

No. Practice of law is any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. It includes [performing] acts which are characteristics
of the [legal] profession or [rendering any kind of] service [which] requires the use in any degree of
legal knowledge or skill. Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered
practice of law. In Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991), this court cited the deliberations of the
1986 Constitutional Commission and agreed that work rendered by lawyers in the Commission on Audit
requiring [the use of] legal knowledge or legal talent is practice of law.

The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on Human Rights Regional Director constitutes
practice of law. Thus, the Regional Director must be an attorney a member of the bar in good standing
and authorized to practice law. When the Regional Director loses this authority, such as when he or she is
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a necessary qualification to
the position he or she is holding. The disbarred or suspended lawyer must desist from holding the position
of Regional Director.

Atty. Baligas performance of generally managerial functions was not supported by the record. It was also
immaterial. He held the position of Commission on Human Rights Regional Director because of his
authority to practice law. Without this authority, Atty. Baliga was disqualified to hold that position. All
told, performing the functions of a Commission on Human Rights Regional Director constituted practice
of law. Atty. Baliga should have desisted from holding his position as Regional Director.

As for Atty. Baliga, we remind him that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. To
enjoy the privileges of practicing law, lawyers must [adhere] to the rigid standards of mental fitness,
[maintain] the highest degree of morality[,] and [faithfully comply] with the rules of [the] legal
profession. (LINGAN VS. CALUBAQUIB, A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014)
Legal Ethics

2. Teresita, a Municipal Treasurer, hired Atty. Alvarez to handle several cases against her filed
before the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Alvarez, then working in the Legal Section of the
National Center for Mental Health, asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee. However, Atty.
Alvarez did not enter his appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman nor sign any pleadings.
Atty. Alvarez also said that he needed to pay the amount of P500,000.00 to his friends and
acquaintances working at the Office of the Ombudsman to have the cases against Teresita dismissed.
Two (2) weeks after, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution and decision recommending
the filing of a criminal complaint against Teresita, and her dismissal from service, respectively.
Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least a portion of the amount she gave. Atty.
Alvarez promised to return the amount to Teresita; however, he failed to fulfill this promise.
Teresita sent a demand letter to Atty. Alvarez, which he failed to heed. Is Atty. Alvarez, as a lawyer
working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of
Health, authorized to engage in the private practice of law?

Generally, no. Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Memorandum Circular No. 17, Series of
1986, government officials or employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of their
profession unless authorized by their department heads. More importantly, if authorized, the practice of
profession must not conflict nor tend to conflict with the official functions of the government official or
employee.

In this case, respondent was given written permission by the Head of the National Center for Mental
Health, whose authority was designated under Department of Health Administrative Order No. 21, Series
of 1999. However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit against the Ombudsman and against
government in general, respondent put himself in a situation of conflict of interest. Respondents practice
of profession was expressly and impliedly conditioned on the requirement that his practice will not be in
conflict with the interest of the Center and the Philippine government as a whole.

There is basic conflict of interest here. Respondent is a public officer, an employee of government. The
Office of the Ombudsman is part of government. By appearing against the Office of the Ombudsman,
respondent is going against the same employer he swore to serve. In addition, the government has a serious
interest in the prosecution of erring employees and their corrupt acts. Under the Constitution, [p]ublic
office is a public trust. The Office of the Ombudsman, as protectors of the [P]eople, is mandated to
investigate and prosecute . . . any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency,
when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

A conflict of interest exists when an incumbent government employee represents another government
employee or public officer in a case pending before the Office of the Ombudsman. The incumbent officer
ultimately goes against governments mandate under the Constitution to prosecute public officers or
employees who have committed acts or omissions that appear to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
Furthermore, this is consistent with the constitutional directive that [p]ublic officers and employees must,
at all times, be accountable to the [P]eople, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. (FAJARDO VS. ALVAREZ, A.C. No.
9018, April 20, 2016)
Legal Ethics

3. Corazon introduced Atty. Espejo to Victoria. Following the introduction, Corazon told
Victoria that Atty. Espejo was her lawyer in need of money and wanted to borrow P250,000 from
her (Victoria). Victoria trusted Atty. Espejo and agreed to lend her the amount of P250,000. Atty.
Espejo issued a check dated February 2, 2009 for 275,000 covering the loan amount and agreed
interest to secure the payment of the loan. On due date, Atty. Espejo requested Victoria to delay the
deposit of the check since she was still waiting for the release of the proceeds of a bank loan to fund
the check. After 2 months of waiting, Victoria received no word from Atty. Espejo as to whether or
not the check was already funded enough. In July 2009, Victoria received an Espejo-issued check
dated July 10, 2009 in the amount of P50,000 for the interest which accrued due to the late payment
of the principal obligation. Victoria deposited the said check however the check bounced due to
insufficiency of funds.

Atty. Espejo failed to pay despite Victorias repeated demands. Upon deposit of the first check to
her account, the said check was also dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Victoria thereafter
became more aggressive in her efforts to recover her money. A demand letter was even personally
handed to Atty. Espejo but still she refused to pay. A criminal complaint was filed against the latter
for violation of BP 22 and Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC. Atty. Espejo disregarded the notices
and subpoenas issued by the Prosecutors Office which she personally received and continued to
ignore Victorias demands. An administrative case was then filed against Atty. Espejo before the
CBD. Despite directives to file an answer, Atty. Espejo did not submit any. At the mandatory
conference set by the IBP Commissioner, only Victoria appeared. Does failure to pay just debts and
the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct?

Yes. It has already been settled that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless
checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned. Verily, lawyers must at all
times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. In Tomlin II v.
Moya II, 483 SCRA 154 (2006), We explained that the prompt payment of financial obligations is one of
the duties of a lawyer, thus: In the present case, respondent admitted his monetary obligations to the
complaint but offered no justifiable reason for her continued refusal to pay. Complainant made several
demands, both verbal and written, but respondent just ignored them and even made himself scarce.
Although he acknowledged his financial obligations to complainant, respondent never offered nor made
arrangements to pay his debt. On the contrary, he refused to recognize any wrong doing nor shown remorse
for issuing worthless checks, an act constituting gross misconduct. Respondent must be reminded that it
is his duty as lawyer to faithfully perform at all times his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to
his clients. As part of his duties, he must promptly pay his financial obligations.

The fact that Atty. Espejo obtained the loan and issued the worthless checks in her private capacity and
not as an attorney of Victoria is of no moment. As we have held in several cases, a lawyer may be
disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession but also for gross misconduct outside
of his professional capacity. While the court may not ordinarily discipline a lawyer for misconduct
committed in his nonprofessional or private capacity, the Court may be justified in suspending or removing
him as an attorney where his misconduct outside of the lawyers professional dealings is so gross in
character as to show him morally unfit and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer.
(HEENAN VS. ESPEJO, A.C. No. 10050, December 3, 2013)
Legal Ethics

4. Maria Victoria, 13 years of age, alleged that she was raped by Atty. Danilo Samson, a married
man, while she was sleeping in the maids room at respondents house sometime in December 2001.
Another incident occurred in March 2002 at respondents poultry farm when he asked Maria
Victoria to go with him. Thereafter, respondent gave Maria Victoria 500 pesos and warned her not
to tell anyone what had happened or he would kill her and her mother. Atty. Samson admitted that
sexual intercourse indeed transpired between him and Maria Victoria. He claimed that when he
invited Maria Victoria to go to a place where they could be alone, she did not show any act of
hesitation. He asserted that they had sexual intercourse based on their mutual understanding. The
IBP recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of one year from the practice of law
for immorality with a warning that repetition of the same or similar act will merit a more severe
penalty. Maria Victoria argued that the penalty imposed by the IBP is not commensurate to the
gravity and depravity of the offense. Did Atty. Samson commit a grossly immoral conduct that
requires disbarment?

Yes. Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. Immoral conduct is
gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys
sense of decency. From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of respondent
himself, we find that respondents act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former
employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction.

Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no remorse
whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her
money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect
for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he
procured the act by enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low
regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for, among others, any deceit, grossly immoral
conduct, or violation of the oath that he is required to take before admission to the practice of law. It bears
to stress that membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. As a privilege bestowed by
law through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances concretely
show the lawyers lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers.

Illicit sexual relations have been previously punished with disbarment, indefinite or definite suspension,
depending on the circumstances. In this case, respondents gross misbehavior and unrepentant demeanor
clearly shows a serious flaw in his character, his moral indifference to sexual exploitation of a minor, and
his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and
place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate
disciplinary action.

The Court is mindful of the dictum that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only
in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of
the Court and as a member of the bar. Thus, where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could
accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be decreed. However, in the present case, the
seriousness of the offense compels the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most
appropriate penalty. (VENTURA VS. SAMSON, A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012)
Legal Ethics

5. Grace engaged the services of Atty. Eduardo for the annulment of her marriage to which she
paid P42,000. A month later, Atty. Eduardo presented to Grace a supposed copy of a petition for
Annulment of Marriage which bore the stamped receipt of the RTC Quezon City, as well as its
docket number (Civil Case No. 04-25141). From then on, Grace did not hear from Atty. Eduardo or
receive any notice from the trial court relative to the said petition. This prompted Grace to make
inquiries with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC Quezon City. To her surprise and dismay,
she discovered that no petition for annulment docketed as Civil Case No. 04-25141 was ever filed
before the said court. Grace terminated the services of Atty. Eduardo for loss of trust and
confidence. Through her new counsel, Grace wrote a letter to Atty. Eduardo demanding for an
explanation as to how the latter intended to indemnify her for damages she had suffered due to his
deceitful acts. Atty. Eduardo has not replied thereto hence Grace filed before the IBP a verified
complaint praying the Atty. Eduardo be disbarred. Should Atty. Eduardo be disbarred immediately
for committing deceitful and dishonest acts?

No. In any of the following circumstances, to wit: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct; (4)
grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers
oath; (7) wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; or (8) corruptly or wilfully appearing
as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so; the Court is vested with the authority and
discretion to impose either the extreme penalty of disbarment or mere suspension. Certainly, the Court is
not placed in a straitjacket as regards the penalty to be imposed. There is no ironclad rule that disbarment
must immediately follow upon a finding of deceit or gross misconduct. The Court is not mandated to
automatically impose the extreme penalty of disbarment. It is allowed by law to exercise its discretion either
to disbar or just suspend the erring lawyer based on its appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the
case. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law,
legal processes but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and
the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.

In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel, 395 SCRA 386 (2003), the Court found respondent therein to have committed
dishonesty and abused the confidence of his client for failing to file the ejectment suit despite asking for
and receiving from the complainant the money intended as filing fees. In his bid for exoneration, therein
respondent attempted to mislead the Court by claiming that he has not yet received the registry return card
of the notice to vacate hence his failure to file the ejectment suit. However, the records indubitably showed
that he had already received the same. Moreover, therein respondent likewise refused to return the monies
he received from the complainant despite repeated demands. The Court thus concluded that therein
respondent's actions constitute gross misconduct. Nevertheless, based on its appreciation of the evidence,
the Court refrained from imposing the penalty of disbarment. Instead, it imposed the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for a period of six months.

The Court is not bound to impose the penalty of disbarment in cases of gross misconduct and/or dishonesty,
if in its appreciation of facts and in the exercise of its sound discretion, the penalty of suspension would be
more commensurate. Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches, should not be decreed where any punishment
less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired. This is as it should
be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of the erring person. In this
case, we believe that the penalty of suspension of four years will provide Atty. Resurreccion with enough
time to ponder on and cleanse himself of his misconduct. While we will not hesitate to remove an erring
attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will also not disbar
him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. We note that there is no mention in
the records of any previous or similar administrative case filed against herein respondent. (ANACTA VS.
RESURRECCION, A.C. No. 9074, August 14, 2012)
Legal Ethics

6. Engr. Tumbokon alleged in an administrative complaint for disbarment that Atty. Pefianco
undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the attorneys fees the latter would
receive in representing Spouses Yap, whom he referred in an action for partition of estate. Their
agreement was reflected in a letter dated August 11, 1995 however Atty. Pefianco failed to pay him
the agreed commission notwithstanding receipt of attorneys fees amounting to 17% of the total
estate or about P40 million. In a letter dated July 1997, Engr. Tumbokon was informed that Spouses
Yap assumed to pay the same after Atty. Pefianco had agreed to reduce his attorneys fees from
25% to 17%. He then demanded the payment of his commission which respondent ignored. Engr.
Tumbokon further alleged that Atty. Pefianco has not lived up to the high moral standard required
of his profession for having abandoned his legal wife with whom he has two children and cohabited
with another woman whom he has four children. Engr. Tumbokon also accused respondent of
engaging in money-lending business without the required authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas. Should Atty. Pefianco be disbarred immediately for violation of Lawyers Oath?

No. We rule that respondent should be sanctioned for his actions, We are minded that the power to disbar
should be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as member of the bar, or the misconduct
borders on the criminal, or committed under scandalous circumstance, which do not obtain here.
Considering the circumstances of the case, We deem it appropriate that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year as recommended.

The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess
and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are expected to
maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and
must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance
with the values and norms embodied in the Code. Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that
is wanting of the above standards whether in their professional or in their private capacity.

Respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress
with whom he begot four children notwithstanding that his moral character as well as his moral fitness to
be retained in the Roll of Attorneys has been assailed. The settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow
of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests
deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and
affirmed by our laws. Consequently, We find no reason to disturb the IBPs finding that respondent
violated the Lawyers Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

We find the charge of engaging in illegal money lending not to have been sufficiently established. A
business requires some form of investment and a sufficient number of customers to whom its output can
be sold at profit on a consistent basis. The lending of money to a single person without showing that such
service is made available to other persons on a consistent basis cannot be construed as indicia that
respondent is engaged in the business of lending. (ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON VS. ATTY. MARIANO
R. PEFIANCO, A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012)
Legal Ethics

7. In an En Banc Decision, the Court found Atty. Avance guilty of gross misconduct for
abandoning her clients cause in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders
directed at her without any explanation for doing so. She was ordered suspended from the practice
of law for 5 years and was likewise directed to return to complainant, within 10 days from notice
the amount of P3,900 which complainant paid her for filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals (CA) which she never filed. Atty. Avance moved to reconsider the decision but her motion
was denied subsequently, while her suspension was still in effect, Judge Amog-Bacar of RTC Iba,
Zambales sent a letter-report to the Court Administrator informing that Atty. Avance appeared and
actively participated in three cases wherein she misrepresented herself as Atty. Liezl Tanglao. When
her opposing counsels confronted her and showed to the court a certification regarding her
suspension, respondent admitted and concede that she is Atty. Avance but qualified that she was
only suspended for three years and that her suspension had already been lifted. Atty. Avance was
required to comment within 10 days from notice however she failed to file the required comment.
While the Court reiterated the directive to comment, still respondent failed to comply. The Court
issued a resolution finding respondent guilty of indirect contempt and was fine P 30,000. Despite due
notice, respondent failed to pay the fine imposed. Should the Court find the respondent unfit to
continue as member of the bar?

Yes. As an officer of the court, it is a lawyers duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The
highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyers obedience to court orders and processes.
Here, respondents conduct evidently fell short of what is expected of her as an officer of the court as she
obviously possesses a habit of defying this Courts orders. She willfully disobeyed this Court when she
continued her law practice despite the five-year suspension order against her and even misrepresented
herself to be another person in order to evade said penalty. Thereafter, when she was twice ordered to
comment on her continued law practice while still suspended, nothing was heard from her despite receipt
of two Resolutions from this Court. Neither did she pay the P30,000.00 fine imposed in the September 29,
2009 Resolution.

We have held that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross misconduct, insubordination or
disrespect which merits a lawyers suspension or even disbarment. Sebastian v. Bajar, 532 SCRA 435
(2007), teaches Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court
constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondents conduct indicates a high degree of
irresponsibility. A Courts Resolution is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied
with partially, inadequately, or selectively. Respondents obstinate refusal to comply with the Courts
orders not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Courts
lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for gross misconduct and/or
for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court.

In repeatedly disobeying this Courts orders, respondent proved herself unworthy of membership in the
Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to
discharge the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment. (SANTECO
VS. AVANCE, A.C. No. 5834, February 22, 2011)
Legal Ethics

8. A-1 Financial Services, Inc. granted the loan application of Atty. Valerio amounting to P
50,000. To secure the payment of the loan obligation, Atty. Valerio issued a postdated check in the
amount of P 50,000. However, upon presentation at the bank for payment on its maturity date, the
check was dishonored due to insufficient funds. As of the filing of the instant case, despite repeated
demands to pay her obligation, Atty. Valerio failed to pay the whole amount of her obligation. A-1
Financial Services filed a B.P. 22 case against Atty. Valerio. On the scheduled date of arraignment,
she failed to appear despite due notice. Subsequently, a Warrant of Arrest was issued but Atty.
Valerio posted no bail. Despite court orders and notices Atty. Valerio refused to abide. The IBP-
CBD required Atty. Valerio to file an answer but she did not file any responsive pleading at all. The
respondents mother explained, through a letter, that her daughter had been diagnosed with
schizophrenia; thus could not properly respond to the complaint against her. Mrs. Valerio
undertook to personally settle her daughters obligation. When the IBP-CBD required Atty. Valerio
to attend the mandatory conference, again, she failed to attend. Subsequently, when ordered by the
IBP that parties submit their position papers, no position paper was submitted by Atty. Valerio. Is
Atty. Valerio liable for gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Yes. In Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro, we held that:

x x x [the] deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute
gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice
of law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal
system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the peoples faith and confidence in the
judicial system is ensured. They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society,
to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial
obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms
of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Valerios conduct in the course of the IBP and court proceedings is also a matter of serious concern.
She failed to answer the complaint against her. Despite due notice, she failed to attend the disciplinary
hearings set by the IBP. She also ignored the proceedings before the court as she likewise failed to both
answer the complaint against her and appear during her arraignment, despite orders and notices from the
court. Clearly, this conduct runs counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
violates the lawyers oath which imposes upon every member of the Bar the duty to delay no man for money
or malice. Atty. Valerio has failed to live up to the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in
the Code of Professional Responsibility. In Ngayan v. Tugade, we ruled that a lawyers failure to answer
the complaint against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance
to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

In Lao v. Medel, we held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks
constitute gross misconduct for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the
practice of law. The same sanction was imposed on the respondent-lawyer in Rangwani v. Dino, having
found guilty of gross misconduct for issuing bad checks in payment of a piece of property, the title to which
was only entrusted to him by the complainant. However, in this case, we deem it reasonable to affirm the
sanction imposed by the IBP-CBD, i.e., Atty. Valerio was ordered suspended from the practice of law for
two (2) years, because, aside from issuing worthless checks and failing to pay her debts, she has also shown
wanton disregard of the IBPs and Court Orders in the course of the proceedings. (A-1 FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC. VS. ATTY. LAARNI N. VALERIO, A.C. No. 8390, July 2, 2010)
Legal Ethics

9. A deportation case was filed against William Strong. Lazaro Law Office represented by Atty.
Lazaro and his associates was recommended by Strongs friend to represent him. According to the
information given by Strong, his deportation case may be due to the complaint filed by his live-in
partner Rodica before the RTC of Kalibo against Hillview Marketing Corporation, represented by
Atty Tan, for recovery and possession and damages involving a property they own in Boracay. In
the said case, Rodica was represented by Atty. Ibutnande. Apparently, Rodica claimed that Atty.
Lazaro met with Atty. Tan to discuss the settlement package on the deportation case they filed
against Strong on the condition that Rodica withdraws her complaint from the RTC of Kalibo.

On May 25, 2011, the Bureau of Immigration rendered a judgment deporting Strong to leave
the country. Twelve days later, Rodica filed before the RTC a motion to withdraw her complaint
against Hillview. Atty. Espejo, an associate of the Lazaro Law Office, helped in drafting the
Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration for the case before the RTC
after Rodica pleaded him to prepare the same and was requested further to indicate the name of the
Lazaro Law Office, its partners including his name to give more weight and credence on the pleading.
Atty. Espejo admitted to acceding to Rodicas requests without the prior knowledge and consent of
the other senior lawyers of the firm. Atty. Espejo claimed that he did all of these out of his good
intention to help and assist Rodica as his friend. Does Atty. Espejos act of participating in the RTC
case violates the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Yes. At the outset, Atty. Espejo was well aware that Rodica was represented by another counsel in the
RTC case. As a practicing lawyer, he should know that it is the said counsel, Atty. Ibutnande, who has the
duty to prepare the said motion. In fact, he himself stated that it is Atty. Ibutnande who is in a better position
to evaluate the merit of the withdrawal of the Motion for Reconsideration. Atty. Espejos claim that he
drafted and signed the pleading just to extend assistance to Rodica deserves scant consideration. It is true
that under Rules 2.01 and 2.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not
reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed, and in such cases, even if he
does not accept a case, shall not refuse to render legal advise to the person concerned if only to the extent
necessary to safeguard the latters right. However, in this case, Rodica cannot be considered as defenseless
or oppressed considering that she is properly represented by counsel in the RTC case. Needless to state, her
rights are amply safeguarded. It would have been different had Rodica not been represented by any lawyer,
which, however, is not the case.

Moreover, the Court wonders why Atty. Espejo, knowing fully well that Rodica is not their law firms client
and without the knowledge and consent of his superiors, gave in to Rodicas request for him to indicate in
the said motion the names of his law firm, Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle for the purpose of giving more
weight and credit to the pleading. As a member of the bar, Atty. Espejo ought to know that motions and
pleadings filed in courts are acted upon in accordance with their merit or lack of it, and not on the reputation
of the law firm or the lawyer filing the same.

More importantly, he should have thought that in so doing, he was actually assisting Rodica in
misrepresenting before the RTC that she was being represented by the said law firm and lawyers, when in
truth she was not. It is well to remind Atty. Espejo that before being a friend to Rodica, he is first and
foremost an officer of the court. Hence, he is expected to maintain a high standard of honesty and fair
dealings and must conduct himself beyond reproach at all times. He must likewise ensure that he acts within
the bounds of reason and common sense, always aware that he is an instrument of truth and justice.

As shown by his actuations, Atty. Espejo fell short of what is expected of him. Under the circumstances,
Atty. Espejo should have exercised prudence by first diligently studying the soundness of Rodicas pleas
and the repercussions of his acts. (RODICA VS. LAZARO, A.C. No. 9259, August 23, 2012)
Legal Ethics

10. Manuel Villatuya, a financial consultant of Atty. Tabalingcos on technical and financial
matters on the latters numerous petitions for corporate rehabilitation, claimed that they had a
verbal agreement whereby he would be entitled to 50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court
in the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. He
alleged that Atty. Tabalingcos was able to rake in millions of pesos from the corporate rehabilitation
cases they were working on together. Complainant also claimed that he was entitled to the amount
of 900,000 for the 18 Stay Orders issued by the courts as a result of his work with respondent, and
a total of 4,539,000 from the fees paid by their clients. Complainant appended to his Complaint
several annexes supporting the computation of the fees he believes are due him. Manuel alleged that
Atty. Tabalingcos engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases for allegedly setting up two financial
consultancy firms used as fronts to advertise his legal services and solicit cases. On the third charge
of gross immorality, Manuel accused Atty. Tabalingcos of committing two counts of bigamy for
having married two other women while his first marriage was subsisting. He submitted a
Certification certifying that Bede S. Tabalingcos, herein respondent, contracted marriage thrice.
Did Atty. Tabalingcos violated the rule against unlawful solicitation?

Yes. Complainant charged respondent with unlawfully soliciting clients and advertising legal services
through various business entities. Complainant submitted documentary evidence to prove that Jesi & Jane
Management Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc. were owned and used as fronts by respondent to
advertise the latters legal services and to solicit clients. In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these
allegations and ruled that respondent had violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point
out the specific provision that was breached. A review of the records reveals that respondent indeed used
the business entities mentioned in the report to solicit clients and to advertise his legal services, purporting
to be specialized in corporate rehabilitation cases. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of
the Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though,
when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyers
duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily lend itself
to the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect
solicitation on the lawyers behalf or is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the
practice of law. It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle used by
respondent as a means to procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.
Annex C of the Complaint is a letterhead of Jesi & Jane Management, Inc., which proposed an agreement
for the engagement of legal services. The letter clearly states that, should the prospective client agree to the
proposed fees, respondent would render legal services related to the formers loan obligation with a bank.
This circumvention is considered objectionable and violates the Code, because the letter is signed by
respondent as President of Jesi & Jane Management, Inc., and not as partner or associate of a law firm.

Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the former is
acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations related to the practice of
law. The reason is that certain ethical considerations governing the attorney-client relationship may be
operative in one and not in the other. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether
respondent is offering consultancy or legal services. Considering, however, that complainant has not proven
the degree of prevalence of this practice by respondent, we affirm the recommendation to reprimand the
latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code. (VILLATUYA VS. TABALINGCOS, A.C. No. 6622,
July 10, 2012)
Legal Ethics

11. Atty. Bernardo used false pretenses and deceitful words to persuade the Bengcos that he
would expedite the titling of the land in Tagaytay City owned by the Miranda family who are an
acquaintance to the Bengcos. The latter were convinced that if they will finance and deliver to the
respondent the amount of P495,000 as advance money, he would expedite the titling of the subject
land. Atty. Bernardo also misrepresented himself as the lawyer of William Gatchalian, a
businessman and a prospective buyer of the subject land. Atty. Bernardo claimed that he has
contracts at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO and REGISTER OF DEEDS which were false, fraudulent
and were only made to induce that Bengcos to give and deliver the P495,000. Once in possession of
the said amount, Atty. Bernardo misappropriated and misapplied the same for personal use and
benefit. Despite demand upon him to return the said amount he failed and refused to do so. Did
Atty. Bernardo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for acts committed?

Yes. It cannot be overstressed that lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As vanguards
of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial
system is ensured. Lawyers may be disciplinedwhether in their professional or in their private capacity
for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor.

Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:

Rule 2.03.A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.

Rule 3.01.A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or
legal services.

There is no question that the respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself admitted in his
answer that his legal services were hired by the complainants through Magat regarding the purported titling
of land supposedly purchased. While he begs for the Courts indulgence, his contrition is shallow
considering the fact that he used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants into believing
that he can expedite the titling of the subject properties. He never denied that he did not benefit from the
money given by the complainants in the amount of P495,000.00.

The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy
is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary
consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.
(BENGCO VS. BERNARDO, A.C. No. 6368, June 13, 2012)
Legal Ethics

12. A complaint for qualified theft, docketed as L.S. No. 04-211, was filed by Facturan against
Mendoza et. al. The case was assigned for preliminary investigation to Prosecutor Amerkhan. The
latter forwarded the case records together with his Resolution recommending that Mendoza et. al
be prosecuted to herein respondent, Prosecutor Barcelona for approval and signature. However,
respondent neither approved nor signed the Resolution. Instead, he removed the case records from
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and brought it to his residence. Mendoza et. al appear to be
personally known to Prosecutor Barcelona since one of them is his cousin while the others are his
close friends. Facturan sought the intervention of the DOJ Secretary through the Chief State
Prosecutor. Unfortunately the latter could not take appropriate action on L.S. No. 04-211 as the case
records were still in possession of Prosecutor Barcelona who failed to turn them over despite the
directive to do so. Facturan learned that the case records had been turned over to the Provincial
Prosecution Office but without Prosecutor Amerkhans Resolution and Information. Neither did
Prosecutor Barcelona approve nor act upon the same, prompting Facturan to file this complaint for
disbarment against him. The IBP found respondent guilty for violating Canons 18 and 18.03 of the
CPR. Are there grounds existing to hold respondent administratively liable?
Yes. The Court concurs with the IBP's factual findings and recommendation to hold respondent
administratively liable, but not for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, but instead, of Rule 6.02,
Canon 6 of the same Code. The pertinent rules provide: CANON 6 -THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY
TO LA WYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.
xx xx Rule 6.02 -A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance
his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. He may be disciplined by this Court as
a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. In this
regard, Rule 6.02 above-quoted is particularly directed to lawyers in the government service, enjoining
them from using one's public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3)
allow private interests to interfere with public duties.
Absent any intelligent explanation as regards his lapses in the handling of LS. No. 04-211 and his failure
to timely return the case records thereof for further action, despite the directive to do so, it can only be
inferred that respondent not merely failed, but obstinately and deliberately refused to perform his duties
as a prosecutor. Such refusal, under the circumstances, evidently worked to the advantage of the
respondents in LS. No. 04-211 - which included respondent's cousin, Elezar - as the absence of the case
records in the office of the Provincial Prosecutor resulted in the delay in the filing of the appropriate criminal
information in court against them. Hence, it is apparent that respondent used his public position as a
prosecutor to advance and protect the private interest of his relative, which is clearly proscribed in the CPR.

Indeed, respondents actions and omissions in this case, i.e., his failure to resolve I.S. No. 04-211 and to
turn over the case records thereof despite orders to do so, appear to have been committed for the benefit of
and to safeguard private interests. As a lawyer who is also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to
cope with the strict demands and high standards of the legal profession. It bears stressing that a lawyer in
public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust
and confidence of the citizenry in government, he must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all
times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government
service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps
higher than her brethren in private practice. Accordingly, the Court finds that suspension for a period of
one (1) year, as recommended by the IBP, should be meted upon respondent. (FACTURAN VS.
BARCELONA, A.C. No. 11069, June 8, 2016)
Legal Ethics

13. Jovito Olazo filed a sales application covering a parcel of land in Taguig. The subject land
was declared open for disposition pursuant to Proclamation No. 172.To implement such
proclamation, Memorandum No. 119 was issued creating a Committee on Awards whose duty was
to study, evaluate, and make a recommendation on the applications to purchase the lands declared
open for disposition. The respondent, Associate Justice Tinga, was one of the members of the
Committee on Awards, in his official capacity as the Congressman of Taguig and Pateros.

1st Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02: Olazo claimed that respondent, abused his position as
Congressman and as member of the Committee on Awards, when he interfered with complainants
sales application because of his personal interest over the subject land which resulted to the denial
of complainants sales application.

2nd Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03: The second charge involves another parcel of land within the
proclaimed areas belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainants brother. The complainant alleged
that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo, complainants father, to direct Manuel to convey his
rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez who is the nephew of respondents deceased wife.
Did the actions of respondent constitute a breach of the standard ethical conduct first, while the
respondent was still an elective public official and a member of the Committee on Awards?

No. Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. He may be disciplined by this Court as
a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.

Since public office is a public trust, the ethical conduct demanded upon lawyers in the government service
is more exacting than the standards for those in private practice. Lawyers in the government service are
subject to constant public scrutiny under norms of public accountability.

In Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991), we defined the practice of law as any activity, in and out
of court, that requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
Moreover, we ruled that to engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics
of the profession; to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.

As a rule, government lawyers are not allowed to engage in the private practice of their profession during
their incumbency. By way of exception, a government lawyer can engage in the practice of his or her
profession under the following conditions: first, the private practice is authorized by the Constitution or
by the law; and second, the practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her official functions.

All told, considering the serious consequences of the penalty of disbarment or suspension of a member of
the Bar, the burden rests on the complainant to present clear, convincing and satisfactory proof for the
Court to exercise its disciplinary powers. The respondent generally is under no obligation to prove his/her
defense, until the burden shifts to him/her because of what the complainant has proven. Where no case has
in the first place been proven, nothing has to be rebutted in defense. (OLAZO VS. TINGA, A.M. No. 10-5-
7-SC, December 7, 2010)
Legal Ethics

14. Dionnie Ricafort filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Rene Medina for allegedly
slapping him in public in an incident where his tricycle side-swept respondents car. Ricafort alleged
that when the respondent alighted from his car and confronted him, respondent snapped at him,
saying: Wa ka makaila sa ako? (Do you not know me?). Respondent proceeded to slap
complainant, and then left. According to the complainant, he felt hurt, embarrassed, and
humiliated. Respondents act showed arrogance and disrespect for his oath of office as a lawyer.
Complainant alleged that this act constituted gross misconduct.

Respondent denied slapping complainant. He further alleged that complainants reckless driving
caused complainants tricycle to bump the fender of respondents car. When respondent alighted
from his car to check the damage, complainant approached him in an unfriendly manner.
Respondent pushed complainant on the chest to defend himself. According to respondent, the parties
already settled whatever issue that might have arisen out of the incident during the conciliation
proceedings before the Office of the Punong Barangay of Barangay Washington, Surigao City. Is
Atty. Medina administratively liable?

Yes. It is true that this Court does not tolerate the unceremonious use of disciplinary
proceedings to harass its officers with baseless allegations. This Court will exercise its
disciplinary power against its officers only if allegations of misconduct are established. A
lawyer is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him or her. He or she enjoys the
presumption that his or her acts are consistent with his or her oath. Thus, the burden of proof
still rests upon complainant to prove his or her claim. In administrative cases against
lawyers, the required burden of proof is preponderance of evidence, or evidence that is
superior, more convincing, or of greater weight than the other.

The purpose of administrative proceedings is to ensure that the public is protected from
lawyers who are no longer fit for the profession. In this instance, this Court will not tolerate
the arrogance of and harassment committed by its officers.

By itself, the act of humiliating another in public by slapping him or her on the face hints of
a character that disregards the human dignity of another. Respondents question to
complainant, Wa ka makaila sa ako? (Do you not know me?) confirms such character and
his potential to abuse the profession as a tool for bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
This arrogance is intolerable. It discredits the legal profession by perpetuating a stereotype
that is unreflective of the nobility of the profession. As officers of the court and of the law,
lawyers are granted the privilege to serve the public, not to bully them to submission.

Good character is a continuing qualification for lawyers. This Court has the power to impose
disciplinary sanctions to lawyers who commit acts of misconduct in either a public or private
capacity if the acts show them unworthy to remain officers of the court. (RICAFORT VS.
MEDINA, A.C. No. 5179, May 31, 2016)
Legal Ethics

15. Raul Francia sought the assistance of Atty. Abdon with respect to a pending case in the Court
of Appeals (CA) involving the labor union of Nueva Ecija III Electric Cooperative (NEECO III).
The respondent, who is a LA at NLRC Pampanga told Raul that he can facilitate, expedite and
ensure the release of a favorable decision. To bolster his representation, he told him that the same
regional office where he was assigned had earlier rendered a decision in favor of the labor union.
With the respondents assurance, the complainant yielded. Respondent told him that in order to
facilitate the release of such favorable decision, the union must produce the amount of P1 Million,
intended for the ponente of the case and the two member justices of the division, while a fraction
thereof is allotted to his costs.The amount of P350,000.00 which was raised out of the individual
contributions of the members of the union, as partial payment, was given to respondent. The
respondent assured him that a favorable ruling will be rendered by the CA in no time.Complainant
made several follow-ups with the respondent about the status of the decision a week before
Christmas on that same year however respondent would tell him that the decision has not yet been
signed since the lady justice, who was the only one left to sign, went to a Christmas party. The CA
was not able to render the promised favorable decision on the same year until early next year where
the same was rendered adversely to the union. Infuriated, the union members demanded for the
return of the P350,000. The respondent turned over the amount of P100,000.00, and promised to
pay the balance of P250,000.00 as soon as possible. However, the respondent failed to return the
money. Atty. Abdon admitted that he had a chance meeting with the complainant but denied that
he made any representation that he had the capacity to facilitate the release of a favorable decision
in the CA. Is Atty. Abdon administratively liable?

No. It is well to remember that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant.
For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by
convincing and satisfactory proof. In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of
innocence of the lawyer subsists and the complaint against him must be dismissed.

After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the evidence
submitted by the complainant fell short of the required quantum of proof. Aside from bare allegations, no
evidence was presented to convincingly establish that the respondent engaged in unlawful and dishonest
conduct, particularly in extortion and influence-peddling.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. For, the strength of the legal profession lies in the dignity
and integrity of its members. It is every lawyers duty to maintain the high regard to the profession by
staying true to his oath and keeping his actions beyond reproach. Also, the respondent, as a member of
the legal profession, has a further responsibility to safeguard the dignity of the courts which the public
perceives as the bastion of justice. He must at all times keep its good name untarnished and not be
instrumental to its disrepute.

The Court reiterates its directive to the members of the Bar to be mindful of the sheer responsibilities that
attach to their profession. They must maintain high standards of legal proficiency, as well as morality
including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. For, they are at all times subject to the scrutinizing eye of
public opinion and community approbation. Needless to state, those whose conduct both public and
private fails this scrutiny would have to be disciplined and, after appropriate proceedings, penalized
accordingly. (FRANCIA VS. ABDON, A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014)
Legal Ethics

16. Elpidio P. Tiong, an American Citizen, and his wife, Ma. Elena T. Tiong, are real estate
lessors in Baguio City. They are likewise engaged in the assembly and repair of motor vehicles. In
1991, they engaged the services of Atty. George M. Florendo not only as legal counsel but also as
administrator of their businesses whenever complainant would leave for USA. Sometime in 1993,
complainant began to suspect that respondent and his wife were having an illicit affair. His suspicion
was confirmed in the afternoon of May 13, 1995 when he chanced upon a telephone conversation
between the two. Listening through the extension phone, he heard respondent utter the words I love
you, Ill call you later. When confronted, his wife initially denied any amorous involvement with
respondent but eventually broke down and confessed to their love affair that began in 1993.
Respondent likewise admitted the relationship. In 1995, the parties, in the presence of a Notary
Public, respondent and Ma. Elena executed and signed an affidavit attesting to their illicit
relationship and seeking their respective spouses forgiveness. Complainant instituted the present
suit for disbarment o charging respondent of gross immorality and grave misconduct. In his Answer,
respondent admitted the material allegations of the complaint but interposed the defense of pardon.
Is the pardon extended by complainant in the Affidavit dated May 15, 1995 is sufficient to warrant
the dismissal of the present disbarment case against respondent for gross immoral conduct?

No. The pertinent provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility provide, thus:
CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. xxxx

CANON 7 A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF
THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. xxxx
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

It has been consistently held by the Court that possession of good moral character is not only a condition
for admission to the Bar but is a continuing requirement to maintain ones good standing in the legal
profession. It is the bounden duty of law practitioners to observe the highest degree of morality in order to
safeguard the integrity of the Bar. Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in his
public or private activities, which tends to show him deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor, is sufficient to warrant his suspension or disbarment.

In this case, respondent admitted his illicit relationship with a married woman not his wife, and worse, that
of his client. Contrary to respondents claim, their consortium cannot be classified as a mere moment of
indiscretion considering that it lasted for two (2) years and was only aborted when complainant overheard
their amorous phone conversation on March 13, 1995.

Respondents act of having an affair with his clients wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the
sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low
regard for the ethics of his profession. Likewise, he violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by
complainant which in itself is prohibited under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Undeniably, therefore, his illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral
conduct warranting disciplinary action from the Court. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides
that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office by the Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others. (TIONG VS. FLORENDO, A.C.
No. 4428. December 12, 2011)
Legal Ethics

17. The RTC received a letter from Mr. Hunt, a Solicitor in the United Kingdom (UK)
requesting a copy of the decision rendered by Judge Penuela in Special Proceedings Case No. 084
entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna, whose petitioner was
one Shirley Quioyo. Two months later, the RTC received another letter from Mr. Hunt reiterating
the request for a copy of the said decision. Judge Penuela instructed the civil docket clerk to retrieve
the records of Special Proceedings Case No. 084. It was then discovered that the RTC had no record
of Special Proceedings No. 084 wherein Shirley Quioyo was the petitioner. Instead, the court files
revealed that Judge Penuela had decided Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the
Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria, whose petitioner was one Serena Catin Austria.
Informed that the requested decision and case records did not exist, Mr. Hunt sent a letter dated
October 12, 2004 attaching a machine copy of the purported decision in Special Proceedings No. 084
entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna that had been presented
by Shirley Quioyo in court proceedings in the UK. After comparing the two documents, it was
discovered that the document attached to the October 12, 2004 letter was falsified. This discovery
was investigated by the NBI. It turned out that Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Atty. Salvador Pe, had
facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision in Special Proceedings No. 084 for a fee of P60,000.
The allegations against the respondent were substantially corroborated by Mary Rose Quioyo, a
sister of Shirley Quioyo. The respondent denied any participation in the falsification and that it was
Dy Quioyo, Shirlys brother caused the falsification of the decision. Does the allegations warrant
disciplinary proceedings against Atty. Pe?

Yes. In light of the established circumstances, the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for having
authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of
the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Lawyers are further
required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest
and immoral or deceitful conduct.

Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can justify a
lawyers disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Specifically, the deliberate falsification of the
court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part.
Worse, the act made a mockery of the administration of justice in this country, given the purpose of the
falsification, which was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status of a person. He thereby became
unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar.

No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a privilege
that the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to him
who fails to observe and respect the Lawyers Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in his professional
and private capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law not only for acts and
omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct not
directly connected with his professional duties that reveal his unfitness for the office and his unworthiness
of the principles that the privilege to practice law confers upon him. Verily, no lawyer is immune from the
disciplinary authority of the Court whose duty and obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer
misconduct committed either in a professional or private capacity. The test is whether the conduct shows
the lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, and whether the conduct
renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. (EMBIDO VS. PE, A.C. No. 6732,
October 22, 2013)
Legal Ethics

18. Spouses Nuezca alleged that Atty. Villagarcia sent them a demand letter, copy furnished to
various offices and persons, which contained not only threatening but also libelous utterances.
Allegedly, the demand letter seriously maligned and ridiculed complainants to its recipients.
Complainants likewise posited that several news clippings that were attached to the demand letter
were intended to sow fear in them, and claimed that the circulation thereof caused them sleepless
nights, wounded feelings, and besmirched reputation. Thus, they maintained that respondent should
be held administratively liable therefor. Does the allegations against Atty. Villagarcia constitute a
violation of the CPR?

Yes. The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency
and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.

Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the CPR provides: Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

In this case, the demand letter that respondent sent to complainants contained not merely a demand for them
to settle their monetary obligations to respondents client, but also used words that maligned their character.
It also imputed crimes against them, i.e., that they were criminally liable for worthless or bum checks and
estafa.

Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful,
befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no
place in the dignity of judicial forum. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic
but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive. (NUEZCA VS.
VILLAGARCIA, A.C. No. 8210, August 8, 2016)
Legal Ethics

19. A libel case against Eliseo Soriano is pending before the RTC of Quezon City. Complainant,
The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche represented by its founding partner, Attys. Francisco
Chavez, acted as the legal counsel of Soriano in the libel case while respondents, Atty. Lazaro and
Morta, represented private complainant Michael Sandoval. Atty. Chavez sought the cancellation of
the scheduled arraignment of Soriano pursuant to Rule 116, Section 11 ( c) of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure since a Petition for Review was filed before the DOJ. However, the RTC denied
Atty. Chavez motion and proceeded with the scheduled arraignment. The events that transpired
during the arraignment led complainant to conclude that the Presiding Judge was biased against its
client. Consequently, it filed a Motion for Inhibition requesting the Judge to voluntary inhibit
himself from the case. Respondents filed with the RTC a Vehement Opposition to contradict
complainant's motion. The respondents accused the complainant of antedating. The complainant
vehemently denied the allegation of antedating. Respondents alleged that the filing of the disbarment
complaint against them was a mere harassment tactic. They also contended that the statements they
had made in their pleadings were covered by the doctrine of privileged communication. Are the
respondents administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Yes. After a thorough evaluation of the pleadings filed by the parties and the Report and Recommendation
of Commissioner Limpingco, the Court finds respondents guilty of violating Canons 8 and 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. This Court has repeatedly urged lawyers to utilize only respectful and
temperate language in the preparation of pleadings, in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. Their
arguments, whether written or oral, should be gracious to both the court and the opposing counsel and
should consist only of such words as may be properly addressed by one honorable member of the bar to
another. In this case, respondents twice accused complainant of antedating a petition it had filed with the
DOJ without any proof whatsoever. This allegation of impropriety undoubtedly brought complainant and
its lawyers into disrepute. The accusation also tended to mislead the courts, as it was made without
hesitation notwithstanding the absence of any evidentiary support. The Court cannot condone this
irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.

Respondents' defense of absolute privilege is likewise untenable. Indulging in offensive personalities in the
course of judicial proceedings constitutes unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action, even if the
publication thereof is privileged. While lawyers may enjoy immunity from civil and criminal liability for
privileged statements made in their pleadings, they remain subject to this Court's supervisory and
disciplinary powers for lapses in the observance of their duty as members of the legal profession. We
believe, though, that the use of intemperate and abusive language does not merit the ultimate penalty of
disbarment. Nonetheless, respondents should be disciplined for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility and sternly warned that the Court will deal with future similar conduct more severely.
(THE LAW FIRM OF ASEOCHE VS. LAZARO AND MORTA, A.C. No. 7045, September 5, 2016)
Legal Ethics

20. A complaint for libel filed by Rev. Bemaldez against Dr. Impas, Sr. and a complaint for
falsification filed by Dr. Impas Jr. against Rev. Bemaldez were raffled to Prosecutor Bacatan for
preliminary investigation. Atty. Dadula, herein respondent, was the counsel of Dr. lmpas, Jr.
Prosecutor Bacatan found probable cause for libel and recommended its filing in court, while the
complaint for falsification was recommended for dismissal for lack of probable cause. Both
recommendations were approved by the City Prosecutor. Atty. Dadula filed a Motion to Determine
Probable Cause With Motion to Hold in Abeyance Trial With Motion to Defer Issuance of Warrant
and Motion to Defer Posting of Reduced Bail Bond in the libel case. In her pleadings, respondent
accused Prosecutor Bacatan of partiality and bias against her client. Respondent then concluded
that all these adverse actions of Prosecutor Bacatan must have been caused by bribery. Prosecutor
Bacatan denied the charges. According to her, the two cases were raffled on different dates and
received by her office on separate dates. Adopting a first-in-first-out policy, the libel case, which was
raffled first was resolved earlier than the falsification case. Did Atty. Dadula violate the CPR with
her accusations against Prosecutor Bacatan?

Yes. Membership in the bar imposes upon lawyers certain obligations to one another, including the
observance of honourable, candid and courteous dealings with other lawyers, as well as maintaining fidelity
to known and recognized customs and practices of the bar that make the practice of law a profession.

Members of the Bar must be reminded that "enthusiasm, or even excess of it, is not really bad. In fact, the
one or the other is no less a virtue, if channeled in the right direction. However, it must be circumscribed
within the bounds of propriety and with due regard for the proper place of courts in our system of
government." In earlier cases, we meted the penalty of fine for a lawyer's use of intemperate language.

We find that respondent violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. While zeal or
enthusiasm in championing a client's cause is desirable, unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal
or enthusiasm is disfavoured. When without proof nor enough basis on record, respondent swiftly
concluded, based only on gut feeling, that the complainant has been bribed or had acted for a valuable
consideration, her conduct has overstepped the bounds of courtesy, fairness and candor. (BACATAN VS.
DADULA, A.C. No. 10565, September 7, 2016)