Updates in Legal Ethics,

2017-2020
Justice Hector Hofileña
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.

• Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or of
lessening confidence in the legal system.
• Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive, encourage any suit or proceeding, or
delay any man’s cause.
Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo v. Atty.
Aristedes A. Maramot
A.C. No. 9067, January 31, 2018

The respondent prepared the deed of donation. At the time of his preparation of the
document, he actually knew that Princess Anne was a minor; hence, his claim of having then
advised that her parents should represent her in the execution of the document. Mommayda
was likewise a minor. His awareness of the latter's minority at the time was not disputed
because he was also representing Mommayda in the latter's adoption proceedings aside from
being Mommayda's neighbor. Nonetheless, he still indicated in the deed of donation that the
donees were of legal age. His doing so, being undeniably dishonest, was contrary to his oath
as a lawyer not to utter a falsehood. He thereby consciously engaged in an unlawful and
dishonest conduct, defying the law and contributing to the erosion of confidence in the Law
Profession.
Spouses Geraldy and Lilibeth Victory vs.
Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado
A.C. No. 10580, July 12, 2017

• Facts: Respondent enticed the complainants to enter into financial transactions with her with
promises of good financial returns. The transactions went well for 10 months. Later on,
respondent became evasive in accounting for the P5 million investments of the
complainants. They filed a complaint for estafa against her. Later, they met with her and
agreed to staggered payments. Respondent issued three postdated checks in the amount of
P300,000.00 each. The checks bounced.

• Held: Deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute
gross misconduct. Respondent SUSPENDED for one year.
Spouses Geraldy and Lilibeth Victory vs.
Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado
A.C. No. 10580, July 12, 2017

• Respondent denied having accepted the case and alleged that he referred the case and
complainant’s money to another lawyer whom he cannot locate anymore.

• Held: Respondent’s defense is not credible. If he had no hand in obtaining the fake decision,
why did he handle its registration in the OCR of Dumaguete and assisted the complainant in
his marriage to the Australian woman? He even contributed to the complainant’s wedding
expenses in the significant amount of P108,000.00.

• Respondent was held liable for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR and DISBARRED.
Roman dela Rosa Verano vs. Atty. Luis F.
Diores, Jr.
A.C. No. 8887, November 27, 2017

• Facts: In an SPA, complainant authorized respondent to use the former’s parcel of land to obtain a
bail bond in a particular case against the latter. Subsequently, he discovered that respondent used
the property as guaranty for bail bonds in more than 61 criminal cases against him. In some of
those cases, respondent was convicted and jumped bail.
• Held: In dealing with clients or other people, lawyers are expected to observe the highest degree
of good faith, fairness and candor, both in their private and professional capacities. Thus, any form
of deception or fraudulent act committed by a lawyer in either capacity is not only disgraceful and
dishonorable, but also severely undermines the trust and confidence of people in the legal
profession, violates Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR, and puts the lawyer's moral character into
serious doubt as a member of the Bar, rendering him unfit to continue his practice of law.
(DISBARRED)
Oliver Fabregais vs. Atty. Hernando
Facundo, Jr.
A.C. No. 10145, June 11, 2018

• Facts: Respondent was charged with illicit and immoral actions with the complainant’s wife. The
10 year old daughter of the complainant signed an affidavit stating that the respondent slept in
the same bed with her and her mother and she saw the respondent embracing her mother. The
following morning while she, her mother and two other women were in a room, the respondent
came out of the bathroom dressed only in a “tapis”. She and the other women were told to leave
the room while the respondent and her mother were left behind for sometime.
• The respondent denied any immoral relations with the complainant’s wife. He only gave her
shelter in her case for annulment of marriage with the complainant. He only asked her and her
daughter to sleep in his bed so that they can enjoy the airconditioning. He came out of the
bathroom dressed in a “malong”, not a “tapis”.
Oliver Fabregais vs. Atty. Hernando
Facundo, Jr.
A.C. No. 10145, June 11, 2018

• Held: The evidence is insufficient to establish that the respondent had an immoral relationship with
the complainant’s wife. But his acts were without doubt condemnable. He apparently had no
qualms or scruples about being seen sleeping on his bed with another man’s wife, his arms
intertwined in tender embrace with the latter. His claim that he had the best of intentions “reeks
with racy, ribald humor”. A modicum of decency should have impelled “Tito Attorney” to behave
more discreetly and more sensitively .

• Suspended for one month.

AAA vs. Atty. Antonio N. De Los Reyes
A.C. No. 10031, September 14, 2018

• Facts: Complainant was hired as secretary to respondent who was Vice President of a
government owned corporation. Her appointment was co-terminus with his, and because of
this, he claimed that she cannot be transferred to another position without his consent. He
also started courting her and eventually “sexploited” her, practically making her his slave.
She finally filed a complaint for disbarment against him.
• Held: Indeed, respondent committed acts of gross immorality in the conduct of his personal
affairs with AAA that show his disregard of the lawyer’s path and of the CPR.
• DISBARRED
Vidaylin Yamon-Leach vs. Atty. Arturo
B. Astorga
A.C. No. 5987, August 28, 2019

• Facts: Respondent lawyer convinced the complainant to buy a beachfront property of

someone who died two years before. When complainant sent him P1.8 million to pay for the
property, he produced a fake deed of sale. When his scheme was discovered, he promised
to return the complainant’s money but did not comply with his promise. Complainant filed
an administrative case against him. He ignored five notices sent by the court.
• Held: Respondent’s cavalier attitude of ignoring the notices of the court constitutes
professional misconduct, violative of Canon 12 of the CPR.
Vidaylin Yamon-Leach vs. Atty. Arturo
B. Astorga
A.C. No. 5987, August 28, 2019

• As to the merits of the case, it is evident from the documents presented that respondent
who sought the complainant and encouraged her to invest in and buy the “beach-front”
property. Respondent volunteered and acted as complainant’s representative. He solicited
and received substantial amounts from her for the payment of the property, but produced a
deed of sale of another property which was supposedly signed before and notarized by him,
when in fact, the said sellers died eight years before. Respondent breached Article 19 of the
New Civil Code, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR , and his oath as a lawyer.
• Respondent had been penalized in two previous administrative cases.
• DISBARRED
Marie A. Venzon vs. Atty. Amador B. Peleo III
A.C. No. 9354, August 20, 2019

• Respondent lawyer was DISBARRED on the following grounds:

1. Maintaining a sexual relation with complainant when his marriage with his wife had not been
terminated.
2.Maintaining several other faithless relations with other women while in permanent relations
with his spouse and complainant.
3.Misusing the legal process of filing a petition for nullity of marriage to convince complainant
that he was truly determined to end his marriage with his wife.
4.Falsifying entries in his son’s birth certificate.
5.Failing to give child support.
6.Disrespecting an agreement with the IBP.
7. Deceiving the government and private business by availing of the Senior Citizen’s card to
which he was not qualified. (DISBARRED)
Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC) A
vs. Atty. Aurelio Jesus V. Lomeda
A.C. No. 11351, August 14, 2019

• As a Corporate Secretary, respondent executed a falsified Secretary’s Certificate to enable

the corporation to obtain a large loan from a bank.

• The circumstances in the present administrative case against respondent as a lawyer,

coupled with those in the administrative case against him as a judge and as witness in court,
certainly reveal his character and manifest his propensity to commit falsehood without
moral appreciation for, and regard to the consequences of his lies and frauds. (DISBARRED)
AA Total Learning Center for Young
Achievers, Inc. vs. Atty. Patrick A. Caronan
A.C. No. 12428, March 10, 2020

• Facts: This is a sequel to the case of Caronan vs. Caronan, in which it was discovered that
Richard Caronan assumed the identity of his brother Patrick Caronan and engaged in the
practice of law under the name of “Atty. Patrick Caronan”. In this case, he engineered the
sale of a parcel of land to the respondent, and pocketed the price of more than P7 million.

• Held: Respondent can no longer be penalized administratively because he has already been
removed from the roll of attorneys, without prejudice to civil and criminal cases filed against
him.
AA Total Learning Center for Young
Achievers, Inc. vs. Atty. Patrick A. Caronan
A.C. No. 12428, March 10, 2020

• Canon 6 – These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of
their official tasks.

• 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.

• Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said
service.
Arthur G. Monares vs. Atty. Levi S. Munoz
A.C. No. 5582, January 24, 2017

• Facts: Respondent was appointed Provincial Legal Officer of Albay in 1995. He was allowed
to continue practicing law by Governor Bichara and DILG Secretary Alunan, subject to the
condition, among others, that no government time shall be used in connection with such
practice. The consent of the Governor was renewed twice, after each reelection of the
Governor. The consent of the DILG Secretary was not renewed, but assumed to be valid until
revoked. Complainants charged him with unlawfully engaging in private practice of law. He
had previously been disciplined by the Ombudsman for unlawful practice of law, and
convicted by the Municipal Trial Court for violation of R.A. 6713.
Arthur G. Monares vs. Atty. Levi S. Munoz
A.C. No. 5582, January 24, 2017

• Held: Considering that respondent appeared in court at least 88 times in handling 30 cases
from April 1996 to August 2001, it is obvious that he used government time (40 hours a
week) in his private practice. He should have also obtained renewals of the consent of the
DILG Secretary.

• (Suspended for three years)

Susan Basiyo, et al. vs. Atty. Joselito C.
Alisuag
A.C. No. 11543, September 26, 2017

• The records show that on January 12, 2008, Alisuag prepared and notarized a Deed of
Absolute Sale for the purchase price of P1,973,820.00, covering a lot registered under the
name of Alejandro Castillo, with an area of 32,897 square meters. Prior to that, however,
there had been a similar document, also dated January 12, 2008, but with Basiyo as the lone
vendee. This had also been notarized by Alisuag sans the notarial document details. Yet
another Deed of Sale, dated January 19, 2008, with Document Number 77, Page Number 16,
Book XII, Series of 2008, was also signed and acknowledged by Alisuag as notary public, as
published on the local newspaper,  Palawan Mirror. Notably, the purchase price indicated in
this document was only P120,000.00.
Susan Basiyo, et al. vs. Atty. Joselito C.
Alisuag
A.C. No. 11543, September 26, 2017

• According to Alisuag, he agreed to notarize the same because the vendors told him that the
P120,000.00 was the purchase price the parties had eventually agreed on. However, six (6)
days after Alisuag had notarized the deed of sale with the purchase price of P120,000.00,
he gave complainants an estimate of P150,000.00 for capital gains tax. How he arrived at
P150,000.00 perplexes the Court. Even if the purchase price used was P1,973,820.00 for the
computation of the capital gains tax six percent (6%), the amount of P150,000.00 would still
be excessive. Also, based on the BIR Certificate Authorizing Registration, no estate tax was
either assessed or paid.
Susan Basiyo, et al. vs. Atty. Joselito C.
Alisuag
A.C. No. 11543, September 26, 2017

• Moreover, despite receiving an additional P10,000.00 for the filing of a civil suit against
Ganzon, Alisuag never filed said case. He likewise failed to secure the environmental
clearance and the wildlife permit for which he had previously received P300,000.00. He also
refused to render a complete accounting of the alleged expenses incurred relative to the
purchase of the subject property.

• Certainly, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or for any
violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice.
Susan Basiyo, et al. vs. Atty. Joselito C.
Alisuag
A.C. No. 11543, September 26, 2017

[3]  Bynotarizing another deed of sale with a much lower purchase price, which was later
•
submitted to the BIR for the purpose of paying the capital gains tax, Alisuag clearly violated
his duty of upholding the respect for the law and protecting the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession. He allowed and acknowledged a document which was meant to deprive the
government of the correct amount of taxes. Additionally, he indubitably violated the
following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to file
the suit against Ganzon and secure the required environmental permits, and when he refused
to account for the amounts given to him by complainants, to wit:
Susan Basiyo, et al. vs. Atty. Joselito C.
Alisuag
A.C. No. 11543, September 26, 2017

• Alisuag's failure and inordinate refusal to render an accounting and return the remaining
money after numerous demands raises a reasonable presumption that he had converted it to
his own use.[4]

• The Court, therefore, agrees with the IBP Board's finding that Alisuag must be held
administratively accountable for his actions. Corollarily, Alisuag must render the necessary
accounting of expenses incurred and return the remaining unutilized amount. While it is true
that disciplinary proceedings should only revolve around the determination of the
respondent-lawyer's administrative, and not civil, liability, it must be clarified that said rule
remains applicable only when the claim involves moneys received by the lawyer from his
client in a transaction separate and distinct from, and not intrinsically linked to, his
professional engagement, as in the present case.[5]
Susan Basiyo, et al. vs. Atty. Joselito C.
Alisuag
A.C. No. 11543, September 26, 2017

• 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.
• Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Virgilio J. Mapalad, Sr. vs. Atty. Anselmo
S. Echanez
A.C. No. 10911, June 6, 2017

• Facts: In several pleadings filed in court, respondent indicated several MCLE Compliance No.
without indicting the date thereof. Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, it was discovered that
he has not complied with any MCLE requirement at all.
• Held: In repeatedly using false MCLE numbers in his pleadings filed in court, the respondent
acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty and deceit. He misled the courts, litigants, his own
clients included, professional colleagues and all others who depended on such pleadings for
information. He made mockery of this Court. He had already been sanctioned by the court
twice.

• DISBARRED
Laurence Punla and Marilyn Santos vs.
Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-Ona
A.C. No. 11149, August 15, 2017

• Facts: Complainants retained the services of respondent for annulment of their marriages.
She assured them that she can secure such annulment of their marriages within 6 months.
She fixed her fee at P350,000.00 which they paid. However, after 6 months, they discovered
that she never filed any complaint in their behalf. They demanded return of their money,
which respondent failed to do.
• Held: Respondent was found to be a “serial violator” of the CPR. There were 13
administrative cases filed against her, and in one of them, she was ordered disbarred. She
was fined P40,000.00 aside from ordered to return P350,000.00 to them, plus interest,
since she cannot be disbarred a second time.
Judge Ariel Florentino R. Dumlao Jr. vs.
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho
A.C. No. 10498, September 4, 2018

• Facts: Lawyer tried to fraternize, influence and the judge and a sheriff in a case he was
handling, boasted about his connections in government.

• Held: Found guilty of violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Canon 13, Rule 13.01, Canon 19 of CPR.
Suspended for 2 years only because he had previously been disbarred.
Michell Yap vs. Atty. Grace C. Buri
A.C. No. 11156, March 19, 2018

• Facts: Complainant was the vendor of a condominium unit, while respondent was her close
friend and her daughter’s godmother. Respondent made an offer to buy the property
complainant was selling but asked for reduction of the price from Php1,500,000.00 to Php
1,200,000.00. Complainant agreed and gave respondent possession of the unit upon down
payment of Php1,000,000.00. When complainant asked for payment of the balance,
respondent offered to pay at Php 5,000.00 a month. Complainant disagreed, and
respondent said she will just cancel the sale. Thereafter, respondent started threatening her
through text messages, and filed a case for estafa against her, which was dismissed.
Complainant filed the instant administrative case against her.
Michell Yap vs. Atty. Grace C. Buri
A.C. No. 11156, March 19, 2018

• Held: Respondent’s persistent refusal to pay her obligation despite frequent demands
clearly reflects her lack of integrity and moral soundness; she took advantage of her
knowledge of the law and clearly resorted to threats and intimidation in order to get away
with what she wanted.
• 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 her professional capacity. Buri’s
being a lawyer demands that she conduct herself as a person of the highest moral and
professional integrity probity in her dealings with others.
• Suspended for one year.
Michell Yap vs. Atty. Grace C. Buri
A.C. No. 11156, March 19, 2018

• Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
• Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
• Rule 8.02 – A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right and duty of any lawyer, without
fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque vs. Atty.
Rizal P. Balbin
A.C. No. 7088, December 4, 2018

In this case, respondent's underhanded tactics against complainant were in violation of Canon
8 of the CPR. As aptly pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, instead of availing of
remedies to contest the ruling adverse to his client, respondent resorted to personal attacks
against the opposing litigant's counsel, herein complainant. Thus, it appears that respondent's
acts of repeatedly intimidating, harassing, and blackmailing complainant with purported
administrative and criminal cases and prejudicial media exposures were performed as a tool to
return the inconvenience suffered by his client.
Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque vs. Atty.
Rizal P. Balbin
A.C. No. 7088, December 4, 2018

• His actions demonstrated a misuse of the legal processes available to him and his client,
specially considering that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties
according to law, not to harass them.[16]  More significantly, the foregoing showed
respondent's lack of respect and despicable behavior towards a colleague in the legal
profession, and constituted conduct unbecoming of a member thereof.
• Furthermore, respondent’s aforesaid acts of threatening complainant with the filing of
baseless administrative and criminal complaints in an effort to strong-arm the latter and his
client into submission not only contravened the Lawyer’s Oath, which exhorts that a lawyer
shall “not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor
give aid nor consent to the same,” but also violated Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 of the CPR.
Ret. Judge Virgilio Alpajora vs. Atty.
Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan
A.C. No. 8208, January 10, 2018

• The Court is mindful of the lawyer's duty to defend his client's cause with utmost zeal.
However, professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with necessary
restrictions and qualifications.[48] The filing of cases by respondent against the adverse
parties and their counsels, as correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner,
manifests his malice in paralyzing the lawyers from exerting their utmost effort in protecting
their client's interest.[49] Even assuming arguendo that such acts were done without malice,
it showed respondent's gross indiscretion as a colleague in the legal profession.
Ret. Judge Virgilio Alpajora vs. Atty.
Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan
A.C. No. 8208, January 10, 2018

• Canon 9 - A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

• Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to an unqualified person the performance of
any task which by law may only be performed by member of the bar in good
standing.
Tomas P. Tan, Jr. vs. Atty. Heide V. Gumba
A.C. No. 9000, January 10, 2018

• It is common sense that when the Court orders the suspension of a lawyer from the practice
of law, the lawyer must desist from performing all functions which require the application of
legal knowledge within the period of his or her suspension.[42] To stress, by practice of law,
we refer to "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
characteristic of the legal profession, or rendering any kind of service which requires the use
in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.”[43] In fine, it will amount to unauthorized practice,
and a violation of a lawful order of the Court if a suspended lawyer engages in the practice
of law during the pendency of his or her suspension.[44]
Joaquin G. Bonifacio vs. Atty. Edgardo O.
Era and Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas
A.C. No. 11754, October 3, 2017

• In this case, it is undisputed that Atty. Era committed the following acts: (1) appeared on
behalf of his winning clients in the public auction of the condemned properties; (2) tendered
bid in the auction for his clients; (3) secured the certificate of sale and presented the said
document to the corporation's officers and employees present in the premises at that time;
(4) insisted that his clients are now the new owners of the subject properties, hence, should
be allowed entry in the premises; (5) initiated the pull out of the properties; and (6)
negotiated with Bonifacio's children in his law office as regards the payment of the
judgment award with interest instead of pulling out the properties.[40]
Joaquin G. Bonifacio vs. Atty. Edgardo O.
Era and Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas
A.C. No. 11754, October 3, 2017

• It is true that being present in an auction sale and negotiating matters relating to the same
may not be exclusively for lawyers, as opined by the Investigating Commissioner. However,
in this case, as aptly put by the Board in its Resolution, Atty. Era's acts clearly involved the
determination by a trained legal mind of the legal effects and consequences of each course
of action in the satisfaction of the judgment award.[41] Precisely, this is why his clients chose
Atty. Era to represent them in the public auction and in any negotiation/settlement with the
corporation arising from the labor case as stated in the SPA being invoked by Atty. Era.
[42] Such trained legal mind is what his clients were relying upon in seeking redress for their

claims.
Joaquin G. Bonifacio vs. Atty. Edgardo O.
Era and Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas
A.C. No. 11754, October 3, 2017

• This is evident from the fact that they agreed not to enter into any amicable settlement
without the prior written consent of Atty. Era, the latter being their lawyer.[43] It could readily
be seen that the said SPA was executed by reason of Atty. Era being their legal counsel.
Thus, We are one with the Board's submission that the said SPA cannot be invoked to
support Atty. Era's claim that he was not engaged in the practice of law in performing the
acts above-cited as such SPA cunningly undermines the suspension ordered by this Court
against Atty. Era, which we cannot countenance.
Joaquin G. Bonifacio vs. Atty. Edgardo O.
Era and Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas
A.C. No. 11754, October 3, 2017

• Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

• Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
nor shall he mislead the court by any artifice , or allow the court to be misled.
• Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them
to defeat the ends of justice.
Judge Nimfa S. Sitaca vs. Atty. Diego M.
Palomares, Jr.
A.C. No. 5285, August 14, 2019

• Facts: In a criminal case for murder against Dunhill Palomares, the son of respondent lawyer,
Judge Sitaca, the judge presiding over the case, was informed by her Clerk of Court that the
respondent was present in court for the purpose of securing approval of the bond for his son’s
release, approved by the judge of another court. Judge Sitaca issued the order of release, but not
long after, she was informed that the supposed bail bond was actually nonexistent.
• The respondent claimed that the bail bond and its approval were secured by a certain William
Guiliani
• Held: The IPB found the approval of the bond suspicious. Why was bail granted when the case was
non-bailable? Why did respondent fail to present the bail bond and the petition for its approval?
How did Guiliani get hold of the required documents?

• DISBARRED
Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal
vs. Atty. Walter T. Young
A.C. No. 9298, July 29, 2019

• Facts: In an ejectment case in Paranaque City, Judge Macapagal received a letter from Atty.
Walter T. Young, threatening her with an administrative case and a criminal case for
“knowingly issuing an unjust judgment” if a writ of possession and demolition will be
enforced against his clients whom he claimed are not parties to the case. Respondent denied
any intent to malign.
• Held: The sending of the letter is highly improper.
Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal
vs. Atty. Walter T. Young
A.C. No. 9298, July 29, 2019

• Canon 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration 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.
Dr. Eduardo R. Alicias vs. Atty. Vicencio
S. Baclig
A.C. No. 9919, July 19, 2017

• Facts: A case for recovery of property was filed by Lamorena, et al. against Robert Alicias
and Urvillo A. Paa at the RTC of Vigan, with Atty, Baclig as counsel for the the plaintiffs.
Subsequently, an action for reconveyance, annulment of deeds and quieting of title was filed
by Lamorena et al. against Robert Alicias and Urvillo Paas in the MTCC in Vigan City.
However, Atty. Baclig was not counsel for Lamorena et al. in this case. Atty. Baclig was
charged with forum shopping.
• Eventually, the case in the MTCC was dismissed. However, on September 19, 2012, another
amended complaint was filed Alicias and Paa before the RTC. The complaint prayed for
similar reliefs as those which were sought for in the complaint before the MTCC.
Dr. Eduardo R. Alicias vs. Atty. Vicencio
S. Baclig
A.C. No. 9919, July 19, 2017

• There was forum shopping in this case, for while the case before the MTCC was pending,
Atty. Baclig consented to the filing of another complaint for another forum, the RTC. Such
cases deal with the same parties and same reliefs. A ruling in one case would resolve the
other, and vice versa.
• Regardless of the fact that Atty. Baclig did not act as counsel in the MTCC case, he did not
categorically deny the allegation of forum shopping by complainant. He was able to answer
the 10 causes of action raised by complainant, except the issue on forum shopping. Hence,
he is deemed to have admitted that he has knowledge the pendency of a similar complaint
before the MTCC when the complaint before the RTC was filed.
• Atty. Baclig CENSURED and SEVERELY WARNED
Dr. Eduardo R. Alicias vs. Atty. Vicencio
S. Baclig
A.C. No. 9919, July 19, 2017

• Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client.
• Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts.
• Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and
principles of fairness.
• Rule 15.08 – A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation
concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to the client whether he is
acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
Silvestra Medina vs. Atty. Rufino Lizardo
A.C. No. 10533, January 31, 2017

• Facts: Silvestra and her nephew delivered two titles to respondent in connection with a case
for partition of the lands covered by them. After the case was decided, respondent refused
to return the titles to them, because a certain Martinez asked him to keep the titles, to
protect his rights as a buyer of the properties covered by the said title and was the one who
spent for the partition proceedings.
• Held: The respondent’s representation of Martinez without the consent of Silvestra and her
nephew, is tantamount to a conflict of interest, which requires the written consent of all the
parties concerned.
• Respondent was suspended for one year
Paces Industrial Corp. vs. Atty. Edgardo
M. Salandanan
A.C. No. 1346, July 25, 2017

• Facts: Respondent was a stockholder, officer and legal counsel of the complainant company.
As such, he handled cases against complainant, including a case for collection filed by E.E.
Black & Co. In time, respondent and his group severed their relationship with the
complainant. Respondent accepted a retainer from Black and entered his appearance in the
case of Black against the complainant.
• Held: Even the termination of the lawyer-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of his former client.
• SUSPENDED for 3 years
Gregorio V. Capinpin, Jr. vs. Atty.
Estanislao L. Cesa, Jr.
A.C. No. 6933, July 5, 2017

• Facts: Complainant’s property was being foreclosed by the respondent’s client, Family
Lending Corporation (FLC). Respondent was counsel for FLC. However, he approached the
complainant and represented that he can influence the sheriff to delay the foreclosure
proceedings and FLC to agree to a compromise agreement in which complainant will be
paying a lower amount. He told the complainant that his fee will be P1 million. Complainant
paid him partially, but he was not able to produce any compromise.
• The complainant demanded return of his money but respondent failed to pay.
• Held: Respondent violated Canon 15 in negotiating with the complainant without the written
consent of the client. He also violated Canon 18 in receiving money from persons other than
his client.
• SUSPENDED for one year.
Rene J. Hierro vs. Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II
A.C. No. 9459, January 7, 2020

• Facts: Atty. Nava became the retained counsel of Hierro in seven criminal cases against the
latter. But he subsequently appeared as counsel for Hierro’s wife Annalyn in a case for a
temporary protective order (TPO) against Hierro. In securing such TPO, he cited the seven
criminal cases against Hierro. He also had adulterous relations with Annalyn.
• Held: In accepting the case for a TPO against Hierro, Atty. Nava was guilty of conflict of
interest. He should also have desisted from having an illicit relationship with Annalyn not
only because she was married but because her husband was his client.
• Disbarred
Jonathan Parungao vs. Atty. Dexter B.
Lacuanan
A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020

• Facts: In 2007, Atty. Lacuanan was introduced to Jonathan. Since then, Atty. Lacuanan served as
Jonathan’s counsel in several transactions involving Jonathan alone or both him and his wife Mary
Grace. According to Jonathan, a friendship between him and Atty. Lacuanan developed. Jonathan
had confided details about his person, family and marriage with Atty. Lacuanan. By February, 2013,
his marriage with Mary Grace developed some problems. Jonathan was suddenly served with a
subpoena from the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, requiring him to attend the
preliminary investigation of a criminal complaint for Concubinage, Physical Injury, and threats filed
against him by Mary Grace.
Jonathan Parungao vs. Atty. Dexter B.
Lacuanan
A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020

• Jonathan was surprised that Atty. Lacuanan attended the said hearings before the assistant city
prosecutor as counsel for Mary Grace. Subsequently, in September 2013, Jonathan received
summons dated August 30, 2013, for the declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Mary Grace,
through her counsel, Atty. Lacuanan.
• Based on the foregoing allegations, Jonathan prayed for the disbarment of Atty. Lacuanan for
representing conflicting interests in violation Canon 15.03 and 17 of the CPR, the Lawyer’s Oath and
Section 20 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Jonathan Parungao vs. Atty. Dexter B.
Lacuanan
A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020

• Held: We hold that Atty. Lacuanan is not guilty of representing conflicting interests and absolve him
of all administrative charges.

• In Quiambao vs. Bamba, the Court had the occasion to lay down the tests by which it can be
determined whether or not a conflict of interests exists. One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound
to fight for an issue in behalf of one client, and at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other
client. Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is

whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment.
Jonathan Parungao vs. Atty. Dexter B.
Lacuanan
A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020

• Of the three tests identified above, the third test – with references of “new relation”, “former client”
and “previous employment” – specifically applies to a situation wherein the professional
engagement with the former client was already terminated when the lawyer entered into a new
engagement with the present client. It bears to stress that this test explicitly requires the lawyer’s
use against the former client of “confidential information acquired through their connection or
previous employment”. The intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the duty to protect the
client’s interests only on matters that he previously handled for the former client and not for matters
that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated.
Jonathan Parungao vs. Atty. Dexter B.
Lacuanan
A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020

• Hence, for there to be conflicting interests when a former client is involved, the following
circumstances must concur: (a) the lawyer is called upon in his present engagement to make use
against a former client confidential information which was acquired through their connection or
previous employment, and (b) the present engagement involves transactions that occurred during
the lawyer’s employment with the former client and matters that the lawyer previously handled for
the said client.
• In contrast, when the opposing parties are both the lawyer’s present clients, the probation on
conflicting interests is generally stricter and its extent broader.
• The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality.
Jonathan Parungao vs. Atty. Dexter B.
Lacuanan
A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020

• Canon 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession.

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

• Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and
those of others kept by him.

• Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are
fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Vicka Marie D. Isalos, Complainant, vs.
Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal, Respondent
A.C. No. 11822, November 22, 2017

• In this case, it is indubitable that respondent received the amount of P1,200,000.00 from
complainant to be used to cover the expenses for the transfer of title of the subject property
under C Five's name. Respondent admitted having received the same, but claimed that she
had spent a portion of it for various expenses, such as documentation, permits, and licenses,
among others, as evidenced by the Statement of Expenses with attached receipts. However,
it has been established that the registration of the property in C Five's name could not have
materialized, as the subject property was covered by a Free Patent issued on August 13,
2009 which, consequently, bars it from being sold, assigned, or transferred within a period
of five (5) years therefrom.
Vicka Marie D. Isalos, Complainant, vs.
Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal, Respondent
A.C. No. 11822, November 22, 2017

• Thus, and as the CBD-IBP had aptly opined,[29] there was no longer any reason for
respondent to retain the money. Furthermore, the expenditures enumerated in the
Statement of Expenses, except for the documentation and notarization fees for which no
receipts were attached, do not relate to the purposes for which the money was given, i.e.,
the documentation and registration of the subject property. As such, even if official receipts
had been duly attached for the other purposes which, the Court notes, respondent failed to
do despite the opportunity given - the expenditures are not legitimate ones. Hence, the
Court finds respondent to have violated the above-cited rules, to the detriment and
prejudice of complainant.
HDI Holdings Philippines, Inc. vs. Atty.
Emmanuel N. Cruz
A.C. No. 11724, July 31, 2018

• Facts: Respondent was appointed in-house counsel and corporate secretary of complainant corporation. In
time, he gained the trust and confidence of the directors of the corporation. He was entrusted with P3
million to bid for a property, and it took him four months to return the same after the bid fled. A few months
later, he borrowed P4 million to purchase his house. He was entrusted with P6 million to purchase another
property, but the bid failed. He asked that it be converted into a loan to pay 4 million to pay his brother’s
gambling debts, and this was granted by the company. Subsequently, he facilitated the purchase of another
property for P26,987,500.00, which was given to him. It turned out that the property was purchased for
P15,298,400.00 only, and he failed to account for the balance of P1,689,100.00. Thereafter, he was given P5
million to be paid as earnest money for another property, and P16,250,000.00 for the balance of the
purchase price. It was discovered later on that the said property was never offered for sale, and the
company demanded the return of the P21,250,000.00 given to him. He ignored the demand. He also failed
to account for P4,408,967.18 as rentals collected by him for the corporation.
HDI Holdings Philippines, Inc. vs. Atty.
Emmanuel N. Cruz
A.C. No. 11724, July 31, 2018

• Held: Respondent found guilty of violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 7, Rule 7,03, Rules
16.01, 16, 02, 16.03. 16.04, and Canon 27 of the CPR. As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing
with his client but the business transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good
faith. His acts constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney.

• DISBARRED, and ordered to return the amounts given to him for purchase of properties and money
collected by him as rentals, but cannot be ordered to pay the money he borrowed as a personal loan.
Atty. Florante S. Legaspi, Complainant, vs.
Atty. El Cid C. Fajardo, Respondent
A.C. No. 9422, November 19, 2018

• In this case, it is clear that respondent indeed violated the rule on conflict of interest when he
entered his appearance for defendant Malino in Civil Case No. CV-08-5950, and thereafter, accepted
his appointment as attorney-in-fact for Gabriel, who was the plaintiff in the same case, and even
submitted pleadings and motions on Gabriel's behalf therein. As aptly remarked by the Investigating
Commissioner, "it is undeniable that [respondent] placed himself in a situation where he could as
easily manipulate one side to gain an advantage for the other."[35] Jurisprudence provides that "it
behooves attorneys, like Caesar's wife, not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to
avoid the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing.
Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of
paramount importance in the administration of justice.
Atty. Florante S. Legaspi, Complainant, vs.
Atty. El Cid C. Fajardo, Respondent
A.C. No. 9422, November 19, 2018

• Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.

• Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence

• Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Heirs of Nestor Tan Sr. vs. Atty. Nestor
Beltran
A.C. No. 5819, February 1, 2017

• Facts: Lawyer was retained to file a complaint in a civil case. He was given money to pay the
docket fees, which he delivered to the Clerk of Court. Unfortunately, the Clerk of Court
miscomputed the docket fees and sent an order to pay the additional amount to the lawyer
after the latter had already withdrawn from the case with the consent of his client. The
lawyer no longer notified his client and the case was dismissed for non-payment of the fees.
Heirs of Nestor Tan Sr. vs. Atty. Nestor
Beltran
A.C. No. 5819, February 1, 2017

• Held: Atty. Beltran should have acted with prudence by informing his previous client about
his receipt of the order for payment of additional fees. After all, lawyers are officers of the
court, and like the court, the respondent is duty-bound to take steps to advance to cause of
justice.
• Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure. A
client who deals with counsel has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional
learning and competence, but also a wholehearted fealty to the client's cause
• SUSPENDED for 2 months.
Patricia Maglaya Ollada vs. Atty.
Estrella O. Laysa
A.C. No. 7936, June 30, 2020

• Facts: Respondent was paid P35,000.00 to handle a problem of the complainant with her
lessor. Respondent sent one letter of demand to the lessor and was not heard from
afterwards. She did not reply to letters from the Supreme Court. She had no record of
attending an MCLE seminar. She had no address with the Secretary of her IBP Chapter.
• Held: Respondent has been remiss in his duty to report changes in her office address to the
IBP Chapter Secretary. She had been remiss in her IBP and MCLE requirements. She violated
Rule 16.01 and 18.03 of the CPR. Suspended for 3 years.
Orlando Castelo vs. Atty. Ronaldo Ching
A.C. No. 11165, February 6, 2017

• Facts: Notary Public was accused of notarizing a falsified deed of sale, because the alleged
vendors were out of the Philippines at the date it was executed. Notary Public denied his
signature on the document, but was not able to explain why the notarization of the
document appeared in his Notarial Register.

• Held: While the Notary may be given the benefit of the doubt on who signed the document,
the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the document was reported in his notarial
register. This is gross negligence.

• Suspended for months and perpetually disqualified from being appointed a Notary Public.
Susan T. de Leon vs. Atty. Antonio A.
Geronimo
A.C. No. 10441, February 14, 2018

• Atty. Geronimo was unjustifiably remiss in his bounden duties as De Leon’s counsel. The lack of
proper communication and coordination between De Leon and Atty. Geronimo is palpable but
cannot possibly be attributed to the client’s lack of diligence. It is rather incredible that while De
Leon was supposedly no longer interested in filing an opposition to the appeal filed by the
employees before the NLRC, she even took the entire records of the case from Atty. Geronimo in
January 2005.
• It is inconceivable that De Leon would simply refuse to oppose the NLRC’s ruling considering that it
ordered her and her co-respondents to reinstate the employees and pay them more than P7 Million.
The fact is that she had been consistently kept in the dark as to the true status of her case,
preventing her from pursuing an appeal. She would not have learned about it had she not called her
lawyer herself to finally follow up.
Susan T. de Leon vs. Atty. Antonio A.
Geronimo
A.C. No. 10441, February 14, 2018

• Atty. Geronimo’s negligence cost De Leon her entire case and left her with no appellate remedies.
Her legal cause was orphaned, not because a court of law ruled on the merits of her case, but
because a person privileged to act as her counsel failed to discharge his duties with the requisite
diligence. Atty. Geronimo failed to exhaust all possible means to protect his client’s interest, which is
contrary to what he had sworn to do as a member of the legal profession.
Zenaida Martin-Ortega vs. Atty. Angelyn
Tadena
A.C. No. 12018, January 29, 2020

• Facts: Respondent lawyer assisted client in taking possession of his estranged wife’s
condominium through forceful means.

• Held: While it cannot be ruled with certainty that Atty. Tadena truly engaged in threats,
intimidation and forcible entry into the subject property, the Court agrees with the
Investigating Commissioner that at the very least, Atty. Tadena could have advised her client
to file and make the proper representation before the court instead of surreptitiously
entering the premises. Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it
should not be at the expense of the truth and the administration of justice.
Zenaida Martin-Ortega vs. Atty. Angelyn
Tadena
A.C. No. 12018, January 29, 2020

• Canon 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.

• Rule 20.03 – A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of his client,
accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or
other compensation whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone
other than the client.
• Rule 20.04 – A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud.
Jocelyn Ignacio vs. Atty. Daniel T. Alviar
A.C. No. 11482, July 17, 2017

• Facts: Complainant retained services of respondent to assist her son in a criminal case.
Respondent asked for and was paid P100,000 as acceptance fee. He did not appear at the
arraignment. Complainant terminated his services and demanded the return of the
P100,000.00. Respondent refused, claiming he was not obliged to reimburse an acceptance
fee.
• Held: The Court has not shied from ordering a return of the acceptance fee in cases where a
lawyer in handling a client’s case. Considering the respondent’s conduct, he is entitled to
only P3,000 as attorney’s fees based on quantum meruit, and ordered to return P97,000 to
the complainant.
Adela Violago vs. Atty. Bonifacio F.
Aranjuez, Jr.
A.C. No. 10254, March 9, 2020

• Facts: Respondent was retained to handle an ejectment case in the Court of Appeals. The
appeal was dismissed due to technical errors, but was later settled amicably. Nevertheless,
an administrative case was filed against respondent for negligence.
• Held: Clearly, respondent attempted and exerted earnest efforts to remedy the technical
albeit fatal defects of the petition. Respondent was ADMONISHED with Stern Warning.
Eugenio E. Cortez vs. Atty. Hernando
P. Costes
A.C. No. 9119, March 12, 2018

• Complainant retained the services of respondent to handle an illegal dismissal case against
his former employer. The respondent handled the case, which resulted in an award of P1
million to complainant. Respondent claimed one-half of that as contingent fee. Complainant
insisted that the agreed fee was for 12% only.
• Held: Contingent fee should be by means of a written retainer agreement. The claim for a
50% contingent fee is excessive. On the other hand, the claim for only 10% on the basis of
the Labor Code is erroneous, because the Labor Code refers to the extraordinary attorney’s
fees only.
Vantage Lighting Philippines, Inc., et al vs. Atty.
Jose A. Diño, Jr. / Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr. vs. Attys.
Paris and Sherwin G. Real
A.C. No. 7389, July 2, 2019 / A.C. No. 1-596, July 2, 2019

• Facts: Respondent was retained by complainants to handle a case PHPC ad Hitachi Plant Engineering
Co. Per Retainer Agreement, complainants agreed to pay respondent an acceptance fee, per pleading
fee, appearance fee, deposit for costs of litigation and success fee. After payment of the appearance
fee, respondent told the complainants to pay an additional P150,000.00 for issuance of a TRO, which
he euphemistically referred to as “mobilization” and “representation” expenses. Thereafter, respondent
sent complainants several messages to collect the said amount altho no TRO was issued.
Subsequently, respondent filed criminal cases for estafa against the complainants for non-payment of
his fees, for grave oral defamation, and falsification of document. Complainants filed an administrative
case agains respondent, and in turn, respondent filed an administrative case against the new counsel
of the complainants.
Vantage Lighting Philippines, Inc., et al vs. Atty.
Jose A. Diño, Jr. / Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr. vs. Attys.
Paris and Sherwin G. Real
A.C. No. 7389, July 2, 2019 / A.C. No. 1-596, July 2, 2019

• Held: Atty. Diño is found guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath and the CPR.
Gross misconduct is defined as an inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a
person concerned with the administration of justice. Atty, Diño tainted the image of justice by claiming
that the P150,000.00 to be collected from Vantage will be used to facilitate the issuance of a TRO. By
representing to his clients that he can secure the issuance of a TRO by bribing the judge, Atty. Diño
violated Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Unfortunately, instead of relying on the
merits of his client’s cause, Atty. Diño represented to his client that the judicial system can be bought.
Worse, Atty, Diño threatened his clients that they would not like the succeeding events if they fail to pay
him. Indeed, he made true his threats, as he filed five actions against his clients within a span of two
months
• DISBARRED
Vantage Lighting Philippines, Inc., et al vs. Atty.
Jose A. Diño, Jr. / Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr. vs. Attys.
Paris and Sherwin G. Real
A.C. No. 7389, July 2, 2019 / A.C. No. 1-596, July 2, 2019

• Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-
client relation is terminated.

• Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his clients except:
A. when authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the disclosure.
B. when required by law
C. when necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by
judicial action.
Joann G. Minas vs. Atty. Domingo A. Doctor
A.C. No. 12660, January 28, 2020

• Facts: Complainant’s vessel with some Taiwanese crewmen were detained for illegal fishing.
The complainant retained the service of respondent lawyer to have the vessel and crew
released. To accomplish this, respondent asked for, and was given P800,000.00 and
$50,000.00. He failed to account for them. An administrative case was filed against him,
and in the investigation, he invoked privileged communication about money given him.
• Held: The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of
confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be confidential. Suspended for
two years.
Rosa Yap Paras vs. Justo de Jesus Paras
A.C. No. 5333, March 13, 2017

• Facts: On October 18, 2000, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one
year and 6 months to be served simultaneously. On May 27, 2002, he filed a motion to lift
suspension, alleging that he completed his suspension period on May 27, 2002. Thereafter,
he admitted that he started accepting new clients and appeared in court after filing his
motion to lift.
• Held: A lawyer’s suspension is not automatically lifted upon the lapse of the suspension
period. The lawyer must submit the required documents and wait for an order from the
Court lifting his suspension. Respondent ordered suspended for 6 months “for recording
purpose only, considering that he had been disbarred in another case.