Manreal, Amiel Bryan E.

JD-4A

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 7.01

EVANGELINE LEDA, complainant, vs. ATTY. TREBONIAN TABANG, respondent. A.C. No. 2505 February
21, 1992

Facts:

Respondent and Complainant contracted marriage at Tigbauan, Iloilo. The marriage, solemnized by
Judge Jose T. Tavarro of Tigbauan, was performed under Article 76 of the Civil Code. The parties agreed
to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after Respondent had finished his law studies and had taken
the Bar examinations to ensure a stable future for them.

Respondent finished his law studies and thereafter applied to take the Bar. In his application, he declared
that he was "single." He then passed the examinations but Complainant blocked him from taking his
Oath by instituting Bar Matter No. 78, claiming that Respondent had acted fraudulently in filling out his
application and, thus, was unworthy to take the lawyer's Oath for lack of good moral character.

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, Attached to it was Complainant's Affidavit of Desistance. The
Court dismissed Bar Matter No. 78 and allowed Respondent to take his Oath in a Resolution dated 20
August 1982. However, Complainant filed this Administrative Case, this time praying for Respondent's
disbarment.

Issue:

Whether the respondent have violated Canon 7 Rule 7.01 of the CPR even if it was agreed that such
marriage be kept a secret to the public?

Ruling:

YES, His declaration in his application for Admission to the Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a
gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which he should be made
answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides:
"A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppression of a material fact in
connection with his application for admission to the bar." That false statement, if it had been known,
would have disqualified him outright from taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of
good moral character.

Respondent's protestations that he had acted in good faith in declaring his status as "single" not only
because of his pact with Complainant to keep the marriage under wraps but also because that marriage
to the Complainant was void from the beginning, are mere afterthoughts absolutely wanting of merit.
Respondent cannot assume that his marriage to Complainant is void. The presumption is that all the
requisites and conditions of a marriage of an exceptional character under Article 76 of the Civil Code
have been met and that the Judge's official duty in connection therewith has been regularly performed.

Rule 7.02

IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. MELING IN THE 2002 BAR
EXAMINATIONS AND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE SHARI’A BAR, ATTY.
FROILAN R. MELENDREZ, petitioner. B. M. No. 1154 June 8, 2004

Facts:
Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition1 to
disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the
appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.

Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3)
pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City, namely:
Criminal Cases Noa. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral Defamation, and Criminal Case No.
15687 for Less Serious Physical Injuries.

Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases filed against him by Melendrez because
retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle his misunderstanding
with Melendrez. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has
moral ascendancy over them, he being their former professor in the College of Law, Meling
considered the three cases that actually arose from a single incident and involving the same parties
as "closed and terminated."

Issue:

Whether the petitioner is correct its contention.

Ruling:

Yes. Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not a matter of right but merely
a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to
possess good moral character. The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law. The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine
whether there is satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant.

The nature of whatever cases are pending against the applicant would aid the Court in determining
whether he is endowed with the moral fitness demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the existence of
such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be
unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant.

Meling’s concealment of the fact that there are three (3) pending criminal cases against him speaks
of his lack of the requisite good moral character and results in the forfeiture of the privilege bestowed
upon him as a member of the Shari’a Bar.

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 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person known by
him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute.

Rule 7.03

MAXIMINO NOBLE III, Complainant, v. ATTY. ORLANDO O. AILES, Respondent.

Facts:

Orlando, a lawyer, filed a Complaint for damages against his own brother, Marcelo 0. Ailes, Jr. (Marcelo),
whom Maximino represented, together with other defendants, therein. Sometime in December 2011,
Maximino learned from Marcelo that the latter had filed a separate case for grave threats and estafa
against Orlando.

When Maximino was furnished a copy of the complaint, he discovered that, through text messages,
Orlando had been maligning him and dissuading Marcelo from retaining his services as counsel, claiming
that he was incompetent and that he charged exorbitant fees, saying, among others:

 “Better dismiss [your] hi-track lawyer who will impoverish [you] with his unconscionable
[professional] fee. Max Noble, as shown in court records, never appeared even once, that's why
you lost in the pre-trial stage. “
 “get rid of [Noble] as [your] lawyer. He is out to squeeze a lot of money from [you]. “
 “daig mo nga mismong abogado mong polpol."

Issue:

Whether Respondent violated Canon 7 Rule 7.03 considering that the communication between Orlando
and Marcelo, who are brothers, was done privately and not directly addressed to Maximino nor intended
to be published and known by third persons.

Ruling:

YES. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who meet high standards of legal proficiency
and morality. Though a lawyer's 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 the judicial forum.

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.

In Buatis Jr. v. People, the Court treated a lawyer's use of the words "lousy," "inutile," "carabao English,"
"stupidity," and "satan" in a letter addressed to another colleague as defamatory and injurious which
effectively maligned his integrity. Similarly, the hurling of insulting language to describe the opposing
counsel is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal profession. In this case, the IBP found the text
messages that Orlando sent to his brother Marcelo as casual communications considering that they were
conveyed privately.
To the Court's mind, however, the tenor of the messages cannot be treated lightly. The text messages
were clearly intended to malign and annoy Maximino, as evident from the use of the word ''polpol"
(stupid). Likewise, Orlando's insistence that Marcelo immediately terminate the services of Maximino
indicates Orlando's offensive conduct against his colleague, in violation of the above-quoted rules.
Moreover, Orlando's voluntary plea of guilty to the crime of unjust vexation in the criminal case filed
against him by Marcelo was, for all intents and purposes, an admission that he spoke ill, insulted, and
disrespected Maximino - a departure from the judicial decorum which exposes the lawyer to
administrative liability.
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

ATTY. HONESTO ANCHETA CABARROGUIS, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. DANILO A. BASA, RESPONDENT.

Facts:

Atty. Cabarroguis alleged in his complaint that he was the legal counsel of, Godofredo V. Cirineo, Jr., who
filed an estafa case against his sister-in-law, Erlinda Basa-Cirineo before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Davao City, Branch 11. Erlinda was represented by her brother, Atty. Basa. Atty. Cabarroguis accused Atty.
Basa of dilatory tactics when, after eight years of court trial, Atty. Basa asked for the inhibition of the
presiding judge, Hon. Renato Fuentes. After Judge Fuentes inhibited himself, all the other presiding
judges of the other regular RTCs to whom the case was raffled, also inhibited themselves one after the
other and for one reason or another.

Atty. Cabarroguis further alleged that Atty. Basa exhibited his immaturity on two occasions. First was
through an omnibus motion filed by Atty. Basa in a civil case on behalf of his clients, Raul and Evelyn
Molabola (collectively, the Molabolas), where he repeatedly spelled Atty. Cabarroguis' first name,
Honesto, as "HONESTo." Second was through a demand letter involving the same case in which Atty.
Basa purportedly misspelled the first name of Atty. Cabarroguis as "Honest."

Atty. Cabarroguis also alleged that in retaliation against him for being the private prosecutor in the estafa
case against Atty. Basa's sister, Erlinda, Atty. Basa filed numerous administrative, civil, and criminal cases
against him which were all malicious and unfounded.

Issue:

Whether or not the filed motion in which the respondent repeatedly spelled the name of the
complainant “HONESTo” and in a demand letter where he purportedly misspelled such name to
“Honest” tantamount to a violation of Canon 8 Rule 8.01.

Ruling:

YES. In this omnibus motion filed by Atty. Basa on behalf of his clients, the Molabolas. The Court notes
that this was not the first time that Atty. Basa misspelled the first name of Atty. Cabarroguis. In a
previous demand letter drafted by Atty. Basa and addressed to Atty. Cabarroguis, the latter's name had
also been misspelled as "Honest." While the mistake in the demand letter may be dismissed as
unintentional, the Court cannot arrive at the same conclusion with regard to the omnibus motion. By
spelling the first six letters of Atty. Cabarroguis's first name in capital letters and leaving the last letter in
lowercase, the impression given to the reader is that the author is attempting to illustrate an irony at the
expense of Atty. Cabarroguis. The misspelling was far from being a mere inadvertence as it had
consistently appeared in all 14 pages of the omnibus motion. Atty. Basa, as a lawyer, ought to know that
his action becomes all the more malicious given that the omnibus motion was not a mere private
communication but formed part of public record when he filed it in court.

the Court has disciplined lawyers who resorted to clearly derogatory, offensive, and virulent language
against their opposing counsels, in violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the CPR, viz.:

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD 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.

While it may be argued that the omnibus motion did not use language that can easily be characterized as
such, the Court finds Atty. Basa's method underhanded, a subtle way of name-calling, and was
improperly offensive to Atty. Cabarroguis just the same.

Inasmuch as the Court has exhorted lawyers not to be too onion-skinned and should be tolerant of
criticisms (especially those which are fair or mild) against them as litigation is inherently a hostile
endeavor between adverse or contending parties, this has been weighed against an oft-repeated similar
exhortation of the Court to treat their opposing counsels with courtesy, dignity, and civility. To the mind
of the Court, the act of Atty. Basa in poking fun at the name of Atty. Cabarroguis has traversed these
bounds and exhibited a conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court.

Rule 8.02

ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VIRGIL R. CASTRO, Respondent. A.C. No. 6396
October 25, 2005

Facts:

Complainant Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and Vice-President of IBP-
Nueva Vizcaya Chapter. On 5 May 2003, respondent went to complainant’s office to inquire whether the
complete records of Civil Case No. 784, entitled Sps. Crispino Castillano v. Sps. Federico S. Castillano and
Felicidad Aberin, had already been remanded to the court of origin, MCTC Dupax del Norte, Alfonso
Castaned, Nueva Vizcaya. It must be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of either party
in Civil Case No. 784.

Complainant informed respondent that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true
copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should first be presented to serve as basis for the
transmittal of the records to the court of origin. To this respondent retorted scornfully, He then turned
and left the office, banging the door on his way out to show his anger. The banging of the door was so
loud it was heard by the people at the adjacent RTC, Branch 30 where a hearing was taking place.
After a few minutes, respondent returned to the office, still enraged, and pointed his finger at
complainant and shouted, "Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak ah!"
("Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill feelings against my client, don’t turn your ire on me!")
Complainant was shocked at respondent’s words but still managed to reply, "I don’t even know your
client, Sir." Respondent left the office and as he passed by complainant’s window, he again shouted,
"Ukinnam nga babai!" ("Vulva of your mother, you woman!")

Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the incident. She felt that her credibility had been
tarnished and diminished, eliciting doubt on her ability to command full respect from her staff. She filed
with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Unprofessional
Conduct against respondent.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 8 Rule 8.02 of the CPR.

Ruling:

YES. It should be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. Had he been
counsel of record, it would have been easy for him to present the required certified true copy of the
decision of the Court of Appeals. He need not have gone to Manila to procure a certified true copy of the
decision since the Court of Appeals furnishes the parties and their counsel of record a duplicate original
or certified true copy of its decision.

His explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when its records were already transmitted
to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization from
either the parties to represent them, respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.

Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

Rule 8.02—A lawyer shall not, directly, or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784, respondent
deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that case. It does not matter
whether he did so in good faith.
Canon 9- A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF
LAW.

Rule 9.01

HERNANDO PETELO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SOCRATES RIVERA, RESPONDENT. A. C. No. 10408,
October 16, 2019

Facts:

In a complaint, there was a declaration that Fe Mojica Petelo (Fe), thru her Attorney-in-Fact, Hernando
Petelo (Petelo), engaged the legal services of Atty. Rivera and that Petelo himself caused the preparation
of the Complaint. Upon discovery of the pendency of the Complaint, Petelo filed on March 31, 2014 a
Petition before this Court praying for the disbarment, suspension, or imposition of any disciplinary action
against respondent Atty. Rivera.

In 2011, his sister, Fe, who was based in the USA, designated him as Attorney-in-Fact to enter into a Joint
Venture Agreement with Red Dragon Builders Corporation (Spouse Jessie and Fatima Manalansan as
owners) for the construction of a townhouse on the lot owned by Fe. The spouse inveigled him into
surrendering to them the original copy of TCT No. 455711, which they eventually used as collateral for
the Php8 million loan with World Partners Bank. However, the spouse unable to pay such loan which
resulted to foreclosure proceedings against the mortgage. During the auction sale, World Partners Bank
emerged as the highest bidder.

When Petelo got wind of the foregoing transactions, he instructed his daughter to secure a certified true
copy of TCT No. 455711 from the Register of Deeds of Makati City. To his surprise, he learned that an
entry of lis pendens pertaining to Civil Case No. 13-580 for Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate
Mortgage, Promissory Note, Certificate of Sale and Foreclosure Proceedings in Connection with TCT No.
455311 with Damages before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 150, was annotated at the back of the title.
Upon further investigation with the RTC, Petelo found out that the civil complaint was filed by
respondent Atty. Rivera purportedly on Petelo's and Fe's behalf.

Since he never engaged the services of Atty. Rivera, Petelo wrote the latter a letter seeking
clarification/explanation as to how his services was engaged, but the same went unheeded. Petelo filed
the instant administrative case. However, when Atty. Rivera eventually submitted his Comments, it was
noticed that Atty. Rivera presented a different version each time he submitted a comment where the
Court referred this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and
recommendation. The defense of Atty. Rivera that the filing of the complaint and the affixing of his
"signatures" therein might have been orchestrated by the staff of disbarred lawyer Bede Tabalingcos
where he admitted that he remained in contact with the office of Tabalingcos and that said office have
been using his signature/details without his authority.

Issue:

Whether or not the affixation of signature/details of the respondent without his authority tantamount to
a violation of Canon 9 Rule 9.01 of the CPR.

Ruling:

YES. Atty. Rivera's flip-flopping version deserves no credence at all. What is apparent in his narration is
that he was indeed the one who filed the subject civil suit by allowing somebody to use his signature and
other details in the preparation of pleadings and filing the same before the court. Atty. Rivera's act of
allowing persons other than himself to use his signature in signing papers and pleadings, in effect,
allowed non-lawyers to practice law which led to his involvement in the filing of the unauthorized civil
suit. Although he claimed that the signatures were forgeries, there was nary a display of willingness on
his part to pursue any legal action against the alleged forgers. On the contrary, he openly admitted his
association with a disbarred lawyer and their ongoing agreement to allow the latter to use his signature
and "details" in the preparation of pleadings. Worse, he allowed one to continue to practice law
notwithstanding that this Court already stripped him of his license to practice law.

Clearly, the foregoing acts of Atty. Rivera constituted violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rule 9.01, Canon 9 which read:

Rule 9.01, Canon 9: A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

Atty. Rivera abused the privilege that is only personal to him when he allowed another who has no
license to practice law. Atty. Rivera made a mockery of the law practice which is deeply imbued with
public interest; he totally ignored the fact that his act of filing a suit will have a corresponding impact and
effect on the society, particularly on the life and property rights of the person or persons he wittingly
involved in the litigation, in this case, Fe and Petelo.

The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving practice of law which is
reserved exclusively for the members of the legal profession. Counsel may delegate the signing of a
pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who is not. There is, thus, no question that
by delegating to someone else the work that is reserved only for lawyers, Atty. Rivera violated Rule 9.01
of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In addition, the actuations of Atty. Rivera tended to
mislead the Court.

"The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or
franchise. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and
certified. The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but
also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust."
Rule 9.02

ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO, Respondent. A.C. No.
6116 August 1, 2012

Facts:

In the complaint, respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the
attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing Spouses Yap, whom he referred, in an action for
partition of the estate of the late Benjamin Yap. Their agreement was reflected in a letter dated August
11, 1995. However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed commission notwithstanding receipt of
attorney's fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or about P 40 million. Instead, he was informed
through a letter dated July 16, 1997 that Spouses Yap assumed to pay the same after respondent had
agreed to reduce his attorney's fees from 25% to 17%. He then demanded the payment of his
commission which respondent ignored.

The complainant alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards required of his
profession for having abandoned his legal wife and accused respondent of engaging in money-lending
business without the required authorization from the Bangko Sentralng Pilipinas.

In his defense, respondent explained that he accepted Sps. Yap's case on a 25% contingent fee basis and
advanced all the expenses. He disputed the August 11, 1995 letter for being a forgery and claimed that
Spouse Yap assumed to pay complainant's commission which he clarified in his July 16, 1997 letter.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is liable for violating Canon 9 Rule 9.02 even though alleging that such
letter was forge.

Ruling:

YES. 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. 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.

In the present case, respondent's defense that forgery had attended the execution of the August 11,
1995 letter was belied by his July 16, 1997 letter admitting to have undertaken the payment of
complainant's commission but passing on the responsibility to Spouses Yap. Clearly, respondent has
violated Rule 9.02 of Canon 9 of the CPR which states:

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar.

Canon 10- A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01

HERNANDO PETELO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SOCRATES RIVERA, RESPONDENT. A. C. No. 10408,
October 16, 2019

Facts:

In a complaint, there was a declaration that Fe Mojica Petelo (Fe), thru her Attorney-in-Fact, Hernando
Petelo (Petelo), engaged the legal services of Atty. Rivera and that Petelo himself caused the preparation
of the Complaint. Upon discovery of the pendency of the Complaint, Petelo filed on March 31, 2014 a
Petition before this Court praying for the disbarment, suspension, or imposition of any disciplinary action
against respondent Atty. Rivera.

In 2011, his sister, Fe, who was based in the USA, designated him as Attorney-in-Fact to enter into a Joint
Venture Agreement with Red Dragon Builders Corporation (Spouse Jessie and Fatima Manalansan as
owners) for the construction of a townhouse on the lot owned by Fe. The spouse inveigled him into
surrendering to them the original copy of TCT No. 455711, which they eventually used as collateral for
the Php8 million loan with World Partners Bank. However, the spouse unable to pay such loan which
resulted to foreclosure proceedings against the mortgage. During the auction sale, World Partners Bank
emerged as the highest bidder.

When Petelo got wind of the foregoing transactions, he instructed his daughter to secure a certified true
copy of TCT No. 455711 from the Register of Deeds of Makati City. To his surprise, he learned that an
entry of lis pendens pertaining to Civil Case No. 13-580 for Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate
Mortgage, Promissory Note, Certificate of Sale and Foreclosure Proceedings in Connection with TCT No.
455311 with Damages before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 150, was annotated at the back of the title.
Upon further investigation with the RTC, Petelo found out that the civil complaint was filed by
respondent Atty. Rivera purportedly on Petelo's and Fe's behalf.

Since he never engaged the services of Atty. Rivera, Petelo wrote the latter a letter seeking
clarification/explanation as to how his services was engaged, but the same went unheeded. Petelo filed
the instant administrative case. However, when Atty. Rivera eventually submitted his Comments, it was
noticed that Atty. Rivera presented a different version each time he submitted a comment where the
Court referred this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and
recommendation. The defense of Atty. Rivera that the filing of the complaint and the affixing of his
"signatures" therein might have been orchestrated by the staff of disbarred lawyer Bede Tabalingcos
where he admitted that he remained in contact with the office of Tabalingcos and that said office have
been using his signature/details without his authority.

Issue:

Whether or not the affixation of signature/details of the respondent without his authority tantamount to
a violation of Canon 10 Rule 10.01 of the CPR.

Ruling:

YES. Atty. Rivera's flip-flopping version deserves no credence at all. What is apparent in his narration is
that he was indeed the one who filed the subject civil suit by allowing somebody to use his signature and
other details in the preparation of pleadings and filing the same before the court. Atty. Rivera's act of
allowing persons other than himself to use his signature in signing papers and pleadings, in effect,
allowed non-lawyers to practice law which led to his involvement in the filing of the unauthorized civil
suit. Although he claimed that the signatures were forgeries, there was nary a display of willingness on
his part to pursue any legal action against the alleged forgers. On the contrary, he openly admitted his
association with a disbarred lawyer and their ongoing agreement to allow the latter to use his signature
and "details" in the preparation of pleadings. Worse, he allowed one to continue to practice law
notwithstanding that this Court already stripped him of his license to practice law.

Clearly, the foregoing acts of Atty. Rivera constituted violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rule 10.01, Canon 10 which read:

Rule 10.01, Canon 10: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; now
shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving practice of law which is
reserved exclusively for the members of the legal profession. Counsel may delegate the signing of a
pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who is not. There is, thus, no question that
by delegating to someone else the work that is reserved only for lawyers, Atty. Rivera violated Rule 9.01
of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In addition, the actuations of Atty. Rivera tended to
mislead the Court.
Rule 10.02

LEONARDO G. PUNO v. ATTY. JOHN NATHANIEL I. MARASIGAN, A.C. No. 12674

Facts:

The case stemmed from several criminal cases filed by complainant against Joel R. Umandap (Umandap)
at the Davao City. During the second scheduled arraignment of Umandap, respondent manifested in
open court that he filed an Urgent for Reinvestigation before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP),
Davao City on the ground that Umandap was deprived of the opportunity to fi]e his counter-affidavit.
The MTCC granted the motion.

However, respondent did not submit any counter-affidavit. The MTCC issued an order to arraign
Umandap. Six days before the scheduled arraignment, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion [Motion to
Quash and Motion to Refer to Another Investigating Prosecutor]. Where respondent falsely quoted
Section 3 (a) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court by adding the phrase "for lack of probable cause" under
paragraph 1.a. of his Omnibus Motion and in his motion for reconsideration, respondent again twisted
the text of the Ombudsman Resolution.

Issue:

Whether respondent is administratively liable for violation of Rules 10.02 of Canon 10 of the CPR.

Ruling:

YES. respondent knowingly misrepresented the text of the Ombudsman's Resolution on two occasions:
first, when he stated under paragraph 4 of his Omnibus Motion that no public officer was indicted in the
criminal complaint, when in truth, Engr. Gudin was criminally charged and second, when he reiterated
the same misrepresentation in his Motion for Reconsideration.

Respondent's actuation is indubitably a violation of Canon 10 of the CPR which mandates every lawyer
to observe candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court. In particular, respondent violated Rule 10.02
which provide as follows:

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the
language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as
law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment or assert as a fact that which has
not been proved.
As jurisprudence elucidates, lawyers have an obligation to the court as well as to the opposing party to
make only truthful statements in their pleadings. The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if
it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to
the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined.

Rule 10.03

EDGARDO A. TAPANG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARIAN C. DONAYRE, RESPONDENT. A.C. No. 12822,
November 18, 2020

Facts:

Complainant was a respondent in a labor case for illegal dismissal and monetary claims filed by Ananias
Bacalso (Bacalso) before the Labor Arbiter (LA). In the Decision, the LA dismissed the case for lack of
merit.

There being no appeal filed by Bacalso with the NLRC. The LA Decision became final and executory. Atty.
Donayre, as the counsel on record for Bacalso, received a copy of the Decision. Atty. Donayre filed
another illegal dismissal complaint in Bacalso's behalf with the same claims as the earlier case against
complainant before the LA. This prompted complainant to file a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of res
judicata. However, instead of acting on the motion, the LA directed the parties to submit their respective
position papers. In its decision, the LA rendered judgment in favor of Bacalso. On appeal, the NLRC
overturned the LA's ruling and dismissed on the grounds of res judicata and the lack of an employer-
employee relationship between complainant and Bacalso.

Hence, complainant filed the instant administrative case against Atty. Donayre for her alleged violation of
the rule against forum shopping.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent committed forum shopping and if so, is this tantamount violation of
Canon 10 Rule 10.03 of the CPR.

Ruling:

YES. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multip le suits involving the same parties for
the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable
judgment. While there is no showing that Atty. Donayre was the one who prepared and filed Bacalso's
first complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims the records reveal that she was the counsel on
record for Bacalso when the LA dismissed the case. Notwithstanding the finality of the dismissal of the
earlier case, Atty. Donayre deliberately filed another labor case, based on the same cause of action,
involving the same parties, and with the same prayer before the LA.
By her conduct, there is no question that Atty. Donayre had violated the rule against forum shopping and
the doctrine of res judicata in breach of Rule 10.03, Canon 10 which provides:

CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends
of justice.

Such action clearly reveals a misplaced zealousness and malicious intent to relitigate the case in the
hope of gaining a favorable judgment. It also demonstrates a clear abuse and misuse of court processes
to the detriment not only of the winning patty, but also of the administration of justice.

Canon 11- A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO
JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Rule 11.01

JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS, III, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, RESPONDENT.

LGBTS CHRISTIAN CHURCH, INC., REVEREND CRESENCIO "CEEJAY" AGBAYANI, JR., MARLON FELIPE,
AND MARIA ARLYN "SUGAR" IBAÑEZ, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION.

ATTY. FERNANDO P. PERITO, ATTY. RONALDO T. REYES, ATTY. JEREMY I. GATDULA, ATTY. CRISTINA A.
MONTES, AND ATTY. RUFINO POLICARPIO III, INTERVENORS-OPPOSITORS.

Facts:

During the preliminary conference, Falcis, who appeared on his own behalf and on behalf of petitioners-
intervenors, was ordered to show cause why he should not be cited in direct contempt:

Considering that petitioner Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III was attired with a casual jacket, cropped jeans and
loafers without socks, Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen directed him to show cause by June 6,
2018, why he should not be cited in direct contempt for his failure to observe the required decorum
during the preliminary conference which is a formal session of the Court. Petitioner was likewise advised
to request a briefing from his former professors, or the law firm he is going to retain, on the proper
protocols to be observed inside the Court, to facilitate an orderly and smooth proceeding during the oral
argument.

Issue:

Whether Falcis is guilty of contempt of court.

Ruling:

YES. Atty. Falcis acted in a contumacious manner during the preliminary conference.

Atty. Falcis is not an uninformed layperson. He has been a member of the Philippine Bar for a number of
years. As an officer of the court, he is duty bound to maintain towards this Court a respectful attitude
essential to the proper administration of justice. He is charged with knowledge of the proper manner by
which lawyers are to conduct themselves during judicial proceedings. His Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility exhort him to maintain the requisite decency and to afford dignity to this
Court.

Lawyers must serve their clients with competence and diligence. Under Rule 18.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, "[a] lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation."
Atty. Falcis' appearance and behavior during the preliminary conference reveal the inadequacy of his
preparation. Considering that the Advisory for Oral Arguments was served on the parties three (3)
months prior to the preliminary conference, it was inexcusably careless for any of them to appear before
this Court so barely prepared.

The preliminary conference was not mere make-work. Rather, it was essential to the orderly conduct of
proceedings and, ultimately, to the judicious disposition of this case. Appearance in it by counsels and
parties should not be taken lightly.

Atty. Falcis jeopardized the cause of his clients. Without even uttering a word, he recklessly courted
disfavor with this Court. His bearing and demeanor were a disservice to his clients and to the human
rights advocacy he purports to represent.

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO
JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

Rule 11.02

HENRYSAMONTE, Petitioner, vs ATTY. GINES ABELLANA, Respondent. A.C. No. 3452

Facts:

Complainant Henry E. Samonte brought this administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Gines N.
Abellana who had represented him as the plaintiff in a Civil Case in which they have lost.

Atty. Abellana made it appear that he had filed Civil Case on June 10, 1988, conformably with their
agreement, although the complaint was actually filed on June 14, 1988 where he denied the charge of
falsification of documents, clarifying that the actual filing of the complaint could be made only on June 14,
1988 instead of on June 10, 1988 because Samonte had not given enough money to cover the filing fees and
other charges.

Respondent was unable to attend hearings and he blamed Samonte for his inability to submit the formal offer
of exhibits on time, pointing out that Samonte had failed to give the duplicate originals of the documentary
exhibits despite his request because of the latter’s absence from the country for being a pilot.

Based on the reply and the annexes Atty. Abellana had filed. Samonte noted in the letter that the reply
attached to the comment of Atty. Abellana was not authentic based on the categorical statement of the
Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 5 of the RTC in Cebu City to the effect that no such reply had been filed in
behalf of Samonte; and that the rubber stamp affixed on the reply supposedly filed by Atty. Abellana in
Samonte’s behalf was not also the official rubber stamp of Branch 5.
Issue:

Whether the respondent is guilt of violating Rule 11.02 of Canon 11 of the CPR.

Ruling:

YES. Every lawyer is a servant of the Law, and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as well as be an
exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that honesty, integrity
42

and trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to client’s request for information.

His explanation that Samonte was himself the cause of the belated filing on account of his inability to remit
the correct amount of filing fees and his acceptance fees by June 10, 1988, as agreed upon, did not excuse
the falsification, because his falsification was not rendered less dishonest and less corrupt by whatever
reasons for filing at the later date. He ought to remember that honesty and integrity were of far greater value
for him as a member of the Law Profession than his transactions with his client.

The finding on Atty. Abellana’s neglect in the handling of Samonte’s case was entirely warranted. He
admitted being tardy in attending the hearings of the civil case. He filed the formal offer of evidence in behalf
of his client way beyond the period to do so, a fact that he could not deny because the RTC Judge had himself
expressly noted the belated filing in the order issued in the case. Atty. Abellana was fortunate that the RTC
Judge exhibited some tolerance and liberality by still admitting the belated offer of evidence in the interest of
justice.
Rule 11.03

JUDGE ARIEL FLORENTINO R. DUMLAO, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Respondent.

Facts:

Complainant is the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Branch 42 (RTC),
where "Pathways vs Univet (defendants)," was pending. Respondent is Pathways' counsel.

While the case was pending, respondent attempted to fraternize with him. He also tried to impress
complainant with his influence by dropping names of notables and his connection with the University of the
Philippines.

In the course of the proceedings, Pathways, through respondent, filed a motion for summary judgment. The
RTC found the said motion meritorious because there was no genuine issue in the case. Defendants, through
their new counsel, Atty. Geraldine U. Baniqued (Atty. Baniqued), filed a notice of appeal before the RTC.

Thereafter, respondent started to call complainant and even promised to share a portion of his attorney's fees
with complainant in exchange for the denial of the notice of appeal filed by defendants and the issuance of
the writ of execution. The promise was accompanied by a threat that if the offer is refused, respondent would
file a disbarment case against complainant. Complainant was shocked by the bribery offer and threat of
respondent. However, initially hesitated in taking immediate measures against the inappropriate acts of
respondent as he was cowed by the latter's claim that he had power and influence.

The RTC denied defendants' notice of appeal because Atty. Baniqued had no standing to represent
defendants. Then RTC issued a Certificate of Finality and a Writ of Execution. On the same day the
Respondent went to the RTC where he demanded Court Sheriff to go with them and serve the writ of
execution.

At that point, complainant was convinced of the abusive and scheming character of respondent to influence
the court. Sheriff Nabua issued a Notice of Garnishment as per instruction of respondent to the different bank
accounts of defendants. The latter then informed Sheriff Nabua that they have personal properties in the
form of poultry and swine feeds that were sufficient to cover the obligation stated in the writ of execution
where Pathways refused to accept the offer of defendants.Respondent barged into complainant's chambers
and demanded that he order the court sheriff to sign the Garnishment Order. Consequently, Sheriff Nabua
justifiably refused to sign the document prepared by respondent. Thereafter, respondent tried to threat the
Sheriff.

Issue:

Whether the respondent have violated Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 of the CPR.

Ruling:

YES. The Court finds that respondent violated the Code and the Lawyer's Oath for influence peddling,
attempted bribery, threatening court officers and disrespecting court processes.

A lawyer must not disrespect the officers of the court. Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that
branch of the government to which they belong, as well as to the State which has instituted the judicial
system. It is the duty of a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers. A lawyer who disrespects the court and its officers violates Canon 11 and Canon 11.03 of the Code,
to wit:

CANON 11 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL
OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
Courts.
The acts of respondent are palpably irregular and disrespectful to the court and its officers. Respondent had
the gall to barge into the chambers of a judge and threaten his court personnel.
Rule 11.04

JUDGE ROSEMARIE V. RAMOS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, BANGUI, ILOCOS NORTE,
complainant, VS. ATTY. VICENTITO M. LAZO, respondent. A.C. No. 10204. September 14, 2020

Facts:

Atty. Lazo, a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte delivered a speech during the
Question and Privilege Hour of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. In his Speech, he related that in a Criminal
Case pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Presiding Judge Ramos issued an Order
inhibiting from the case in view of a report made to the OIC Prosecutor that she received P2,000,000.00
in exchange for the acquittal of the four accused.

Subsequently, Atty. Lazo again delivered a speech before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan regarding
Criminal Case for illegal sale of dangerous drugs decided by Judge Ramos. Atty. Lazo intimated that there
was something "fishy" about the case. Allegedly, the case was re-opened to receive newly discovered
evidence, which eventually resulted to an acquittal. Atty. Lazo theorized that the reversal was due to
Judge Ramos' personal bias in favor of the accused's relative who is "'very, very, very, very close" to her.
In both instances, the media was present during the delivery of Atty. Lazo's speeches.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent being a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte
through his speech violated Canon 11 Rule 11.04 of the CPR.

Ruling:
YES. It is every lawyer's sworn and moral duty to help build the high esteem and regard towards the
courts that is essential to the proper administration of justice. Canon 11 mandates that lawyers shall
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. Relative thereto, Rules 11.04
provides that a lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motive not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case. Unsubstantiated Criticisms and Unfounded Personal Attacks Against Judges
Degrade the Administration of Justice. It is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona
fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair
criticism, on the one band, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other.
Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a
misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.

Atty. Lazo’s contention that he was merely performing his duty to protect the people of Ilocos Norte
failed to persuade. No matter how noble his intentions were, he had no reason to disregard the proper
protocol, and to malign and degrade Judge Ramos outside of legitimate channels. Nothing prevented
him from directly filing a complaint before the OCA if he truly believed in his cause. Worse, he knew that
the media was present during the hearings. Their presence fueled the rapid spread of rumors and
malicious imputations against Judge Ramos.

Atty. Lazo's privilege to speak before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan should not have been used as a
vehicle to ridicule and degrade Judge Ramos. Regardless of his conviction in the righteousness of his
cause, there was no excuse to vilify Judge Ramos and her judicial office in public. He cannot conveniently
claim that his speeches were uttered in the performance of his official duty.

In fine, Atty. Lazo Canon 11, Rule 11.04, when he uttered baseless and unsubstantiated grave accusations
against Judge Ramos before the public and in the presence of the media. In turn, his acts not only
maligned Judge Ramos, but tarnished her judicial office, and undermined the people's confidence in the
integrity of the judicial officers and in the administration of justice.

Rule 11.05

GAUDENCIO S. URBINA and VEDASTO B. GESMUNDO complainants, vs. JUDGE MAXIMO A.

Facts:

After the Court's resolution of February 6, 1974 dismissing the complaint "for failure to make out a prima
facie case without prejudice to respondent's filing a separate administrative complaint for unwarranted
harassment against complainant Atty. Vedasto B. Gesmundo as sought in respondent's comment," there
were belatedly reported to the Court the verified Joint motion for suspension and/or to declare
respondent and Atty. Marcial Esguerra in contempt of court" filed by complainant Gaudencio S. Urbina
for allegedly having made through said complainant's former counsel, Atty. Marcial Esguerra, grave
threats against complainant's life if he (complainant) did not withdraw his complaints against
respondent.

Respondent convincingly denies as pointless the alleged threat thru Atty. Esguerra against complainant
Urbina's life. Respondent further submitted the corroborative affidavit of Atty. Esguerra, stating that he
merely telephoned Urbina to suggest that the pending appeal rather than the criminal complaint for
allegedly knowingly rendering an unjust judgment was his proper recourse against respondent's adverse
decision

Issue:

Whether the administrative complaints against judges can be filed immediately.

Ruling:

No. It is appropriate to enjoin complainants and members of the bar who file administrative complaints
against judges of inferior courts that they should do so after proper circumspection and without the use
of disrespectful language and offensive personalities, so as not to unduly burden the Court in the
discharge of its function of administrative supervision over inferior court judges and court personnel.