Assignment in Ethics

8/9/2019 Assignment in Ethics

1/30

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY, INC. vs. ATTY. LEOVIGILDO H. MIJARES III, A.C. No. 8380

FACTS: This disbarment case about the need for a lawyer to account forfunds entrusted to him by his client. Complainant Arellano ni!ersity" #nc.en$a$ed the ser!ices of respondent %eo!i$ildo &. 'i(ares ###" a memberof the bar" to secure a certificate of title co!erin$ a dried up portion of theestero de san 'i$uel that the ni!ersity had been occupyin$. #n itscomplaint for disbarment" complainant alle$ed that it $a!e respondent allthe documents the latter needed to accomplish his wor) and was $i!en *+00"000.00 on top of his attorney,s fees" supposedly to co!er the e-pensesfor facilitation and processin$. espondent informed the ni!ersity that healready completed the titlin$ of the property" meanin$ that he succeededin $ettin$ the appro!al of the 'etro 'anila /e!elopment Authority. The

ni!ersity reuested respondent for copies of the appro!al but heun(ustifiably failed to comply despite repeated demands. 1hen he madehimself scarce" the ni!ersity was prompted to withdraw all the cases ithad entrusted to him and demand the return of the money it $a!e to him.The ni!ersity e!entually terminated respondent,s ser!ices. The Commissioner,s recommended that respondent be disbarred" howe!er the2oard of o!ernors modified it to indefinite suspension.

#SS4:

1hether or not respondent is $uilty of misappropriatin$ the money that hisclient" the ni!ersity" entrusted to him for use in facilitatin$ and processin$the titlin$ of a property that it claimed.

%#N:

The Court is not inclined to let him off with the penalty of indefinitesuspension which is another way of sayin$ he can resume his practice after a time if he returns the money and ma)es a promise to shape up. 4!ery

lawyer has the responsibility to protect and ad!ance the interestsof his client such that he must promptly account for whate!er money orproperty his client may ha!e entrusted to him. As a mere trustee of saidmoney or property" he must hold them separate from that of his own andma)e sure that they are used for their intended purpose. #f not used" hemust return the money or property immediately to his client upon demand.


2/30

In Re: Procedre !do"#ed $% Jd&e D!n'e( L'!n&co)A.M. No. **++-+MTC. A&s# , /0001

Facts: TC 5ud$e *edro Sun$a of San Fernando" *ampan$a recei!edinformation about irre$ularities in the disposition of (ueten$ cases beforethe 'TC6s of the said re$ion. pon in!esti$ation" 5ud$e Sun$a disco!eredthat of the ++ (ueten$ cases filed in 5uly 7" +3 were assi$ned to 2ranch7 of the 'TC of San Fernando presided by 5ud$e /aniel %ian$co. Notin$that statistical improbability that +3 out of ++ (ueten$ cases should beassi$ned to only 7 2ranch" 5ud$e Sun$a demanded a written e-planationas to how such a situation had come about. #n his letter" 5ud$e %ian$coe-plained that it has been his practice to automatically ta)e o!er all (ueten$cases without the need for rafflin$. The reason he cited is that the accusedin such cases are depri!ed of their liberty and that by automatically

assi$nin$ these cases to his branch" the accused can file motions for bailand the same can be entertained immediately without waitin$ for the raffle.#n short" because of the need for pro!isional liberty" all (ueten$ cases areconsidered to be automatically raffled to his branch so that he mayentertain motions for bail and the accused can be immediately releasedupon filin$ of the bond. The Supreme Court ordered further in!esti$ation of the case and placed 5ud$e %ian$co on pre!enti!e suspension.

&eld: #%T9. 5ud$e %ian$co clearly !iolated Supreme Court Circular No.

which pro!ides: ; All cases filed with the Court in stations or groupings

where there are two or more branches shall be assigned or distributed tothe different branches by raffle. No case may be assigned to any branchwithout being raffled.; There is no connection at all between respondent,salle$ed desire to facilitate the release of such accused on bail and hisuestionable act of retainin$ the records of the cases for direct assi$nmentto his own sala. For after $rantin$ bail to the accused" his alle$ed purposeof immediately e-tendin$ pro!isional liberty to the accused shall alreadyha!e been ser!ed. There is thus no need or (ustification to retain therecords of the cases and consider them


3/30

beha!ior in the performance of (udicial duties should be free from theappearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. 5ud$e %ian$cowas suspended from ser!ice for > months without pay and issued thewarnin$ that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more se!erely.


4/30

RE: SC Dec's'on d!#ed M!% /0, /00 V P!c#o('n

#n 'ay ?008" the Supreme Court" in .. No. 7>7@++ *actolin !sSandi$anbayanB" affirmed the con!iction of Atty. odolfo *actolin for !iolation of Article 7? of the e!ised *enal Code Falsification by a *ri!ate#ndi!idualB. #t was duly pro!ed that *actolin falsified a letter" and presentedsaid letter as e!idence in a court of law" in order to ma)e it appear that hisfellow councilor actin$ as #CD'ayor ille$ally caused the disbursement of public funds. #n said decisions" the Supreme Court referred the case to the#nte$rated 2ar of the *hilippines for appropriate administrati!e actions

a$ainst *actolin.

ISSUE: 1hat administrati!e sanctions can be imposed upon Atty. *actolinconsiderin$ his con!ictionE

HELD: odolfo *actolin should be" and is henceforth disbarred. The crimeof falsification of public document is contrary to (ustice" honesty" and $oodmorals and" therefore" in!ol!es moral turpitude. 'oral turpitude includese!erythin$ which is done contrary to (ustice" honesty" modesty" or $oodmorals. #t in!ol!es an act of baseness" !ileness" or depra!ity in the pri!ateduties which a man owes his fellowmen" or to society in $eneral" contrary tothe accepted and customary rule of ri$ht and duty between man andwoman" or conduct contrary to (ustice" honesty" modesty" or $ood morals.

As a rule" the Supreme Court e-ercises the power to disbar with $reatcaution. 2ein$ the most se!ere form of disciplinary sanction" it is imposed


5/30

only for the most imperati!e reasons and in clear cases of misconductaffectin$ the standin$ and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of thecourt and a member of the bar. 2ut it has always been held that it isappropriate to disbar a lawyer if he is con!icted by final (ud$ment for a

crime in!ol!in$ moral turpitude. Further" *actolin,s situation is a$$ra!atedby the fact that althou$h his con!iction has been affirmed" he has notser!ed his sentence yet.

CYNTHIA ADVINCULA vs. ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACA2ATA A.C. 'o. ?0@ 'arch " ?00 FACTS: Cynthia Ad!incula filed a disbarmnent case a$ainst Atty. 4rnesto '.'acabata on the $round of $ross immorality. She alle$ed that sometime in

/ecember ?00@ she sou$ht the le$al ad!ice of the Atty. 'acabata"re$ardin$ her collectibles from Gueensway Tra!el and Tours. n February70" ?00+" they met at Hensho estaurant in Tomas 'orato" GueIon City todiscuss the possibility of filin$ the complaint a$ainst Gueensway Tra!el andTours because they did not settle their accounts as demanded. After thedinner" Atty. 'acabanta sent Cynthia home and while she is about to stepout of the car" held her arm and )issed her on the chee) and embraced her!ery ti$htly. n 'arch >" ?00+" Cynthia met Atty. 'acabanta at Starbuc)s coffee shop

in 1est A!enue" GueIon City to finaliIe the draft of the complaint to be filedin Court. After the meetin$" Atty. 'acabanta offered a$ain a ride" which heusually did e!ery time they met. Alon$ the way" Cynthia was wanderin$ whyshe felt so sleepy where in fact she (ust $ot up from bed a few hours a$o.

Alon$ oose!elt A!enue " GueIon City" when she was almost restless Atty.'acabanta stopped his car and forcefully held her face and )issed her lipswhile the other hand was holdin$ her breast. Cynthia succeeded in


6/30

resistin$ his criminal attempt and immediately mana$ed to $et out of thecar. #n the late afternoon" Cynthia sent a te-t messa$e to Atty. 'acabantainformin$ him that she decided to refer the case with another lawyer andneeds to $et bac) the case folder from him. #SS4: 1N the e-chan$e of te-t messa$es between Atty. 'acabanta andCynthia are admissible in e!idence. &4%/: #n the case at bar" respondent admitted )issin$ complainant on the lips.&owe!er" it is difficult to state with precision and to fi- an infle-ible standard

as to what is


7/30

All told" as shown by the abo!e circumstances" respondent,s acts are not$rossly immoral nor hi$hly reprehensible to warrant disbarment orsuspension.

Gev!rr! vs. E!(!, A.C. No. 345 , A&s# , /003

6!c#s: 5oselano ue!arra filed a Complaint for /isbarment before the

#nte$rated 2ar of the *hilippines #2*B Committee on 2ar /iscipline C2/B

a$ainst Atty. 5ose 4mmanuel '. 4ala a.).a. Noli 4ala respondentB for

;$rossly immoral conduct and unmiti$ated !iolation of the lawyer6s oath.;

The complainant first met respondent in 5anuary ?000 when hiscomplainant6sB thenDfiancee #rene 'o(e #reneB introduced respondent Atty.

4ala" a lawyer and a sportscaster" to him as her friend who was married to

'ary Ann Tantoco with whom he had three children. After his marria$e to

#rene" complainant noticed that #rene had been recei!in$ from respondent

cellphone calls" as well as messa$es some of which read ;# lo!e you"; ;#

miss you"; or ;'eet you at 'e$amall.; &e also noticed that #rene habitually

went home !ery late at ni$ht or early in the mornin$ of the followin$ day"

and sometimes did not $o home from wor). 1hen he as)ed about her whereabouts" she replied that she slept at her parents6 house

in 2inan$onan" iIal or she was busy with her wor). 'ore so" complainant

has seen #rene and respondent to$ether on two occasions. n the second

occasion" he confronted them followin$ which #rene abandoned the

con(u$al house.'oreo!er" Complainant later found" in the master6s

http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/01/guevarra-vs-eala-ac-no-7136-august-1.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/01/guevarra-vs-eala-ac-no-7136-august-1.html


8/30

bedroom" a folded social card bearin$ the words ;# %o!e 9ou; on its face"

which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated ctober "

?000" the day of his weddin$ to #rene. Also" it was re!ealed that #rene $a!e

birth to a $irl in ?00? and #rene named respondent in the Certificate of %i!e

2irth as the $irl6s father.

#n his answer" espondent specifically denies ha!in$ e!er flaunted an

adulterous relationship with #rene" the truth of the matter bein$ that their

relationship was low profile and )nown only to the immediate members of

their respecti!e families. &e also said that his special relationship with #rene

is neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to $rossly

immoral conduct as would be a $round for disbarment.

Isse: 1hether the respondent be disbarred from the practice of %aw.

He(d: 94S. The case at bar in!ol!es a relationship between a married

lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. #t is immaterial whether

the affair was carried out discreetly. 1hile it has been held in disbarment

cases that the mere fact of se-ual relations between two unmarried adults

is not sufficient to warrant administrati!e sanction for such illicit beha!ior" it

is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital !ow of fidelity. 4!en if not

all forms of e-traDmarital relations are punishable under penal law" se-ual

relations outside marria$e is considered dis$raceful and immoral as it

manifests deliberate disre$ard of the sanctity of marria$e and the marital

!ows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. espondent

in fact also !iolated the lawyer6s oath he too) before admission to practice

law. Furthermore" respondent !iolated ule 7.07 of Canon 7 of the Code of

*rofessional esponsibility which proscribes a lawyer from en$a$in$ in

;unlawful" dishonest" immoral or deceitful conduct"; and ule .03 of

Canon of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from en$a$in$ in any

;conduct that ad!ersely reflects on his fitness to practice law.;

As a lawyer" respondent should be aware that a man and a woman

deportin$ themsel!es as husband and wife are presumed" unless pro!en


9/30

otherwise" to ha!e entered into a lawful contract of marria$e. #n carryin$ on

an e-traDmarital affair with #rene prior to the (udicial declaration that her

marria$e with complainant was null and !oid" and despite respondent

himself bein$ married" he showed disrespect for an institution held sacred

by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.

T'on& vs 6(orendo

FACTS:

Atty. eor$e Florendo has been ser!in$ as the lawyer of spouses 4lpidio

and 'a. 4lena Tion$. 4lpidio" a S citiIen is often times away. For twoyears" he suspected that his wife and Atty. Florendo were ha!in$ an affair.Finally in 7+" he was able to listen to a telephone con!ersation where heheard Atty. Florendo mention amorous words to 'a. 4lena. Atty. Florendoconfronted the two and both e!entually admitted to their illicit relationship.

Atty. Florendo and 'a. 4lena then e-ecuted and si$ned an affida!it" whichwas later notariIed" statin$ that they admit of their illicit relationship thatthey are see)in$ the for$i!eness of their respecti!e spouse. 4lpidio for$a!eFlorendo and 'a. 4lena. 2ut ne!ertheless" 4lpidio filed a disbarment case

a$ainst Florendo.

Florendo said he can no lon$er be sanctioned because he was alreadypardoned.

ISSUE: 1hether or not Atty. Florendo is correct.


10/30

HELD: No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is a sui$eneris case. This class of cases is meant to protect the public and thecourts of undesirable members of the le$al profession. As such" pardon bythe offended party of the act complained of does not operate to offset the

$round for disbarment or suspension. Florendo,s act of ha!in$ an affair withhis client,s wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marria$e and his own marital !ow of fidelity. #t showed his utmost moraldepra!ity and low re$ard for the ethics of his profession. &e !iolated thetrust reposed upon him by his client Canon 7" Code of *rofessionalesponsibilityB. &is illicit relationship with 'a. 4lena amounts to adis$raceful and $rossly immoral conduct warrantin$ disciplinary action.Section ?" ule 738 of the ules of Court pro!ides that an attorney maybe disbarred or suspended from his office for any deceit" malpractice" or other $ross misconduct in office" &ross(% '77or!( condc#" amon$others. #t cannot be also said" as he claims" that their relationship is merelya moment of indiscretion considerin$ that their affair went on for more thantwo years. Florendo was suspended for > months.

A##%. Po('c!r"'o I. C!#!(!n vs A##%. Jose('#o M. S'(vos!A.C. No. 3>0B

FACTS: Atty. Sil!osa was an Assistant *ro!incial *rosecutor of 2u)idnonand a *rosecutor in e$ional Trial Court" 2ranch 70"'alaybalay City"2u)idnon. Atty. Sil!osa appeared as counsel for the accused in the samecase for which he pre!iously appeared as prosecutor. Atty. Sil!osaappeared as public prosecutor in CriminalCase No. 70?+>D00 4speronCaseB" for the comple- crime of double frustrated murder and lateron No!ember ?3" ?00+" Atty.Sil!osa" as pri!ate lawyer and as counsel forthe accused" filed a motion to reinstate bail pendin$ finality of (ud$ment ofthe 4speron Case. Atty. Sil!osa made an attempt to bribe *rosecutorToribio for 30"000.00php and failed. *rosecutor Toribio e-cuted her affida!iton 5une 7@" 7" a day after the failed bribery attempt" and had itnotariIed by Atty. Nemesio 2eltran" then *resident of the #2*D2u)idnonChapter. n 'ay 78" ?00>" the Sandi$anbayan con!icted Atty.Sil!osa inCriminal Case. ?> for direct bribery on an N2# setDup entrapmentoperation" wherein" Atty. Sil!osa demanded 7+"000.00php from %anticse for


11/30

the dismissal of the case and for the release of Cadinas who was indetention for more than two years.

#SS4:7. 1hether or not respondent !iolated ule >.03 of theCodeof *rofessional esponsibility.?. 1hether or not a delay of the filin$ for an administrati!ecomplainte-onerate a respondent.3. 1hether or not crime in!ol!in$ moral turpitude can be a $round fordisbarment.

&4%/:7. 9es" respondent !iolated ule >.03 of the Code of *rofessionalesponsibility of the #nte$rated 2ar of the *hilippines. Atty. Sil!osa6sattempt to minimiIe his role in said case would be una!ailin$. The fact isthat he is presumed to ha!e acuainted himself with the facts of the said

case. Such would constitute sufficient inter!ention in the case. ule >.03 ofthe Code of *rofessional esponsibility states ;A lawyer shall not" afterlea!in$ $o!ernment ser!ice" accept en$a$ement or employment inconnection with any matter in which he had inter!ened while in saidser!ice.; The Court a$ree with Commissioner Funa6s findin$ that

Atty.Sil!osa !iolated ule >.03" when he entered his appearance in themotion to *ost 2ail *endin$ Appeal" Atty. Sil!osa con!eniently for$ot ule7+.03 which pro!ides that ;A lawyer shall not represent conflictin$ intereste-cept by written consent of concern $i!en after a full disclosure of facts.;

Atty.Sil!osa6s representation of conflictin$ interests merit at least thepenalty of suspension.

?. No" delay of filin$ for an administrati!e complaint does not e-onerate arespondent. There is certain difficulty to dissect a claim of bribery thatoccurred more than se!en years a$o. #n this instance" the conflictin$alle$ations are merely based on the word of one person a$ainst the word of another. 1hen the inte$rity of a member of the bar is challen$ed" it is notenou$h that he denies the char$es a$ainst him. &e must show proof thathe still maintains that de$ree of morality and inte$rity which at all times

e-pected of him. Atty. Sil!osa failed in this respect. The Court says" meredelay in filin$ of an administrati!e complaint a$ainst a member of thebar does not automatically e-onerate a respondent. Administrati!e offensesdo not prescribe. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time ofthe commission of the act complaint of and the time of the institution of thecomplaint" errin$ member of the bench and bar can not escape the


12/30

disciplinin$ arm of the Court. Atty. Sil!osa6s failed attempt at bribin$*rosecutor Toribio also merit at least the penalty of suspension.

3. 9es" crime in!ol!in$ moral turpitude can be a $round for disbarment.'oral turpitude is defined as an act of baseness" !ileness" or depra!ity inthe pri!ate duties which a man owes to his fellow men" or to society in$eneral" contrary to (ustice" honesty" or $ood morals. There is no doubt thatthe Sandi$anbayans6 (ud$ment in Criminal CaseNo. ?> is a matter ofpublic record and is already final. ule 738" Section ? pro!ides" A member of the bar may be disbarred by reason of his con!iction of a crime in!ol!in$moral turpitude. The crime of direct bribery is a crime in!ol!in$ moralturpitude" as ruled" in 'a$no !s C'4%4C. The practice of %aw is apri!eled$e" and Atty.Sil!osa has pro!ed himself unfit to e-ercise hispri!ile$e. 1herefore" respondent Atty. 5oselito '. Sil!osa is hereby

disbarred and his name ordered stric)en from the oll of Attorneys. Soordered

OVERGAARD V. VALDE8

6ACTS!er$aard is a /utch national who en$a$ed the ser!ices of Atty.

JaldeI. They entered into a retainer a$reement" pro!idin$ that for 00K"JaldeI would represent !er$aard as counsel in ? cases filed by him4stafa and a mandamus caseB and ? cases filed a$ainst him ther %i$htthreats and !iolation of the AntiDJiolation a$ainst women and their childrenactB.

!er$aard sent L7>" 8+@ to Atty. JaldeI !ia tele$raphic ban) transfer.

@ months after" !er$aard demanded for a report on the status of hiscases. #n spite of many phone calls and emails" JaldeI couldn,t bereached. &ence" !er$aard inuired on his own" and disco!ered thatJaldeI didn,t file his entry of appearance in any of the cases" that acounterDaffida!it was reuired from him" and that the criminal cases a$ainsthim ha!e already been arrai$ned and warrants were issued for his arrest.&e was constrained to find a new lawyer.


13/30

!er$aard then wrote a$ain and tried to locate JaldeI to demand thereturn of documents entrusted to the latter" as well as the L7>K payment.No word was heard from JaldeI. !er$aard filed a case with the #2* for JaldeI,s dismissal for $ross malpractice" immoral character" dishonesty anddeceitful conduct.

The #2* reuired JaldeI to file an answer" but he did not comply. &ealso failed to attend the hearin$ and was declared in default. %ater" aclarificatory hearin$ was set" but JaldeI ne!er showed. #2* found him$uilty of !iolatin$ canons 7" 7+" 7>" 7" and 78 and his penalty was a 3Dyear suspension and he was ordered to return !er$aard,s money.

HELDSC a$rees with the findin$s of #2*" but declared that JaldeI be

disbarred for fallin$ below the standards reuired of lawyers.

Canon 78 pro!ides that a lawyer must ser!e his client withcompetence and dili$ence. ule 78.03 reuires a lawyer to not ne$lect ale$al matter entrusted to him and his ne$li$ence will ma)e him liable.JaldeI should indeed be liable because he was not (ust incompetent" hewas useless not (ust ne$li$ent" he was indolent and rather than helpin$his client" he pre(udiced him. &e abandoned his client and left him withoutany recourse. #t was a clear e!asion of duty. Also" his failure to act on thedisbarment case a$ainst him" without any e-planation" is a clear e!idenceof ne$li$ence on his part.

ule 78.0@ reuires that a lawyer )eep his client informed of thestatus of his case and to respond within reasonable time to the client,sreuest for information. /espite !er$aard,s efforts" JaldeI a!oided hisclient and ne!er bothered to reply. Clearly" the rule was !iolated.


14/30

/e %eon !. Castelo ?077B MFalsification case /octrine:O %ac) of intent to misrepresent shows that the defendant is innocent fromfalsehood or falsification.

Facts: This case stems from another suit where the $o!ernment sou$ht thetransfer certificates of title TCTsB co!erin$ two parcels of land of theSpouses %im &io and /olores Chu encroachin$ on a public

Calle(on and on a portion of the'alabonDNa!otas i!er shoreline. /e %eon"as !oluntary inter!enor" accuses Castelo with the serious administrati!eoffenses of dishonesty and falsification warrantin$ his disbarment orsuspension as an attorney. /e %eon claims that Castelo made it appearthat spouses %im &io and /olores Chu ha!e participated in the ma)in$ andfilin$ of the Answers when they were already dead as of that time. Casteloclaims that he prepared the initial pleadin$s based on his honest belief that


15/30

Spouses %im &io and /olores Chu were then still li!in$. &ad he )nown thatthey were already deceased" he would ha!e most welcomed theinformation and would ha!e mo!ed to substitute %eonardo and 1illiam %imas defendants for that reason#ssues:7. 1PN Castelo committed falsehood or falsification in his pleadin$s.

&eldPatio:7.

N. To all attorneys" truthfulness and honesty ha!e the hi$hest !alue theyare e-pected to obser!e and maintain the rule of law and to ma)ethemsel!es e-emplars worthy of emulation by others.CANN 7 D A %A194 S&A%% *&%/ T&4 CNST#TT#N" 249T&4%A1S F T&4 %AN/ AN/ *'T4 4S*4CT F %A1 AN/

%4A% *C4SS4S.ule 7.07 D A lawyer shall not en$a$e in unlawful" dishonest" immoral ordeceitful conduct.CANN 70 D A %A194 14S CAN/" FA#N4SS AN/ / FA#T&T T&4 CT.ule 70.07 D A lawyer shall not do any falsehood" nor consent to the doin$of any in Court nor shall he mislead" or allow the Court to be misled by anyartifice. #n the case at hand" Castelo e-pressly named therein asdefendants !isDQD!is his inter!ention not only the Spouses %im &io and

/olores Chu" the ori$inal defendants" but also their sons %eonardo %im"and 1illiam %im" the same persons whomthe respondent had already alle$ed in the Answer to be the transferees andcurrent owners of the parcels of land. 'ore so" the respondent did not misrepresent that Spouses %im &io and /oloresChu were still li!in$. n the contrary" the respondent directly stated in theanswer to the complaint in inter!ention with counterclaim and crossDclaimand in the clarification and submission that the Spouses %im &io and/olores Chu were already deceased. 4!en assumin$ that any of therespondent=s pleadin$s mi$ht ha!e created any impression that the

Spouses %im &io and /olores Chu were still li!in$" the respondent is stillnot $uilty of any dishonesty or falsification. For one" the respondent wasactin$ in the interest of the actual owners of the properties when he filedthe answer with counterclaim and crossDclaim on April 7" ?00>. Secondly"ha!in$ made clear at the start that the Spouses %im &io and /olores Chuwere no lon$er the actual owners of the affected properties due to thetransfer of ownership e!en prior to the institution of the action" and that the


16/30

actual owners needed to be substituted for said spouses" whether theSpouses %im &io and /olores Chu were still li!in$ or dead as of the filin$ of the pleadin$s became immaterial. %astly" /e %eon could not disclaim)nowled$e that the Spouses were no lon$er li!in$. &is (oinin$ in the actionas a !oluntary inter!enor char$ed him with notice of all the other persons interested in the liti$ation.

ni!ersity of the*hilippines *B law professors Tristan A. Catindi$ and Carina C.%aforteIa and 3+ other faculty members of the * Colle$e of %aw" as well asadmonishin$ /ean 'ar!ic %eonen for !io"


17/30

Court resol!es to merely note the same. Contumacious speech or conductdirected a$ainst a court or (udicial officer" if committed by a memberof the 2ar" sub(ect the offender to disciplinary proceedin$s underthe Code of *rofessional esponsibility" which prescribes that lawyersobser!e and promote due respect for the courts. #n such disciplinarycases" the sanctions are not penal but administrati!e such as" disbarment" suspension"reprimand or admonition. Contumacious speech andPorbeha!iour directed a$ainst the Court on the part of a lawyer may be punishableeither as contempt or an ethical !iolation" or both in the discretion of the Court. 1henthe Court initiates contempt proceedin$s andPor disciplinary proceedin$sa$ainst lawyers for intemperate and discourteous lan$ua$e and beha!iourdirected at the courts" the e!il sou$ht to be pre!ented is the same R the de$radationof the courts and the loss of trust in the administration of (ustice. Jerily" when theCourt chooses to institute an administrati!e case a$ainst a respondent

lawyer" the mere citationordiscussion in the orders or decision in the administrati!e caseof (urisprudence in!ol!in$ contempt proceedin$s does not transformthe action from a disciplinary proceedin$ to one for contempt. &ad thisCourt opted to cite respondents for contempt of court" which is punishableby imprisonment or fine" this Court would ha!e initiated contempt proceedin$s inaccordance with the ules of Court.RE: LETTER O6 THE UPLA= 6ACULTY ENTITLED >RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT 2Y THE6ACULTY O6 THE UNIVERSITY O6 THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGEO6 LA= ON THEALLEGATIONS O6 PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION INTHESUPREME COURT? A.'. N. 70D70D@DSC" 8 'AC& ?077" EN !ANC%eonardoD/e Castro" ".BSC 5ustice 'ariano /el Castillo rendered a decision inVinuya, et al.

v. Executive ecretary ..No. 7>??30B. Counsels Attys. &. &arry %. oue" 5r. Atty. oueB andomel e$alado 2a$ares Atty.2a$aresB for Jinuya"et al. the < #alaya $olas


18/30

=B" filed a supplemental 'otion for econsideration" on the$round that" interalia" char$e of pla$iarism as one of the $rounds for reconsideration of theVinuya/ecision and a twistin$ of the true intents of the pla$iariIed sources by the ponenciawas made to suit the ar$umentsof the assailed 5ud$ment for denyin$ the*etition. 1or)s alle$edly pla$iariIed in theVinuyadecision werenamely: 7B 4!an 5. Criddle and 4!an Fo-D/ecent,s article


19/30

';'c!#'on ;or !d7'ss'on #o #9e 2!r, #o condc# #9e7se(ves


20/30

only within the conte-t of a functionin$ and orderly system of dispensin$ (ustice" within the conte-t" in other words" of !iable independent institutionsfor deli!ery of (ustice which are accepted by the $eneral community. TheShow Cause esolution does not interfere with respondents, academic freedom.4!en if the Court was willin$ to accept respondents, proposition in theCommon Compliance thattheir issuance of the Statement was in )eepin$ withtheir duty to 7DC Kalayaan A!enue" GueIon City" for aconsideration of *8"000.00 permonth for a term of one year.pon the e-piration of said lease contract" respondentinformed the complainant that she would nolon$er renew the same but reuested ane-tension of her stay at the apartment unit until 30 5une ?000 witha commitmentthat she would be payin$ the monthly rental durin$ the e-tension period.Complainantappro!ed such reuest but increased the rental rate to


21/30

*8">+0.00 per month. espondent stayed in saidpremises for se!eralmonths without payin$ any rent and e!en failin$ to pay her electric bills. Areportreached complainant6s office that respondent had secretly !acatedthe apartment unit" brin$in$ alon$ with

* a $ e 7>%e$al 4thics Case /i$est5ud$e *hilip A$uinaldo3AA" A.9. ?077D?07?her the door )eys. Also" respondent did not heed complainant6s repeatedwritten demands for payment of her obli$ations despite due receipt of the same"compellin$ complainant to file the present Complaint.espondent alle$ed thatshe had reli$iously paid her monthly rentals and had not !acatedtheapartment unit surreptitiously. She also a!erred that she transferred to anotherplace because she was $i!ennotice by the complainant to !acate the premises to

$i!e way for the repair and reno!ation of the same" but which ne!er happeneduntil presently. espondent actually wanted to as) that complainant toaccount forher deposit for the apartment unit" but she could not do so since she didnot )now complainant6s address orcontact number. For the same reason"she could not turn o!er to the complainant the door )eys tothe !acated apartment unit.ISSUE:1hether or not respondent has !iolated the Code of *rofessional esponsibilityH E L D : L ! < % e r s 7 s # " r o 7 " # ( % " ! % # 9 e ' r ; ' n ! n c ' ! (o $ ( ' & ! # ' o n s .

A re!iew of the records would re!eal that respondent is" indeed" $uiltyof willful failure to pay (ustdebt. Complainant is able to fully substantiatethat respondent has e-istin$ obli$ations that she failed tosettle.espondent did not e-pressly deny receipt of letters of demand in her

Answer to the Complaint.&a!in$ failed to rebut the fore$oin$ alle$ations" she mustbe deemed to ha!e admitted them. A receipt is a written and si$nedac)nowled$ment that money or $oods ha!e been deli!ered. #n theinstantcase" the respondent failed to dischar$e the burden of pro!in$payment" for she was unable toproduce receipts or any other proof of

payment. #t is thus e!ident to this Court that respondent willfully failed topay her (ust debts. #t is thus e!ident to this Court that respondent willfullyfailed to pay her (ustdebts.&a!in$ incurred (ust debts" respondent had themoral duty and le$al responsibility to settle them when they became due.espondent should ha!e complied with (ust contractual obli$ations" andacted fairly and adhered to hi$h ethical standards to preser!e the court6sinte$rity" since she is an employee thereof.#ndeed" when respondent


22/30

bac)trac)ed on her duty to pay her debts" such act already constituted a$roundfor administrati!e sanction. espondent left the apartment unit without settlin$her unpaid obli$ations" and without the complainant6s )nowled$eand consent. espondent6s abandonment of the leased premises toa!oidher obli$ations for the rent and electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct!iolati!e of the Code of *rofessional esponsibility" particularly Canon # and ule7.07 thereof" which e-plicitly state:;CANN 7D A lawyer shall uphold the constitution"obey the laws of the land andpromote respect for law and le$al processes.;ule 7.07D

A lawyer shall not en$a$e in unlawful" dishonest" immoral or deceitfulconduct.; Jerily"lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society" to thebar" to the courtsand to their clients. As part of those duties" theymust promptly pay their financial obli$ations. Theirconduct mustalways reflect the !alues and norms of the le$al profession asembodied in the Code of *rofessional esponsibility. n these

considerations" the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers forany professional or pri!ate misconduct showin$ them to be wantin$ inmoral character" honesty" probity and$ood demeanor DD or to be unworthy tocontinue as officers of the Court.

4: SS*4NS#N F ATT9. 4%# H. 2AA29" F'4 STAT4*S4CT A.C. No. 00> ctober " ?0078. 4: SS*4NS#N F

ATT9. 4%# H. 2AA29" F'4 STAT4 *S4CTA.C.No. 00> ctober " ?00

Facts #n the Crim. Case No. +7@@" which is declared by 5ud$e 2uyser as acrime of homicide and not of murder" the counsel for the defense filed a'otion to Fi- the Amount of 2ail 2ond. espondent Atty. 2a$abuyoob(ected thereto on the $round that the ori$inal char$e of murder is notsub(ect to bail. 5ud$e 5ose 'anuel *. Tan fa!orably resol!ed the 'otion forbail and denied the respondents motion for reconsideration for lac) ofmerit. #nstead of a!ailin$ himself of (udicial remedies" respondent caused

the publication of an article re$ardin$ the order" in which prosecutorlambasts and lashes out at (ud$e Tan for allowin$ the murder suspect outon bail. The article also contains misrepresentation about the stren$th ofthe e!idence a$ainst the accused in the criminal case. espondent admitsto ha!e held a press conference but refused to answer whether he madethe statements in the newspaper article. For refusin$ to answer" the trialcourt declared him in contempt. After this" respondent still entertained


23/30

media inter!iew in a radio station" and in said inter!iew" a$ain attac)ed theinte$rity of 5ud$e Tan" callin$ him a (ud$e who does not )now the law" aliar" and a dictator who does not accord due process to the people. &e wasordered by the trial cause to show cause why he should not be held incontempt and not be suspended from the practice of law for !iolatin$Canon 77 and 73 of the Code of *rofessional esponsibility. &owe!er" onscheduled hearin$ respondent did not appear or informed the court of hisabsence.#ssue: 1hether or not respondent should be suspended for !iolatin$ theCode ulin$

ulin$: The ffice of the 2ar Confidant found that the acts of therespondent constitute $ra!e !iolation of oath of office" and with saidfindin$s the Supreme Court a$reed. espondent !iolated ule 77.0+ of

Canon 77 when he caused the holdin$ of a press conference where hemade statements a$ainst the rder allowin$ the accused to post bail. &ealso !iolated the same Canon for his disrespect of the court when he statedthat 5ud$e Tan was i$norant of the law" that he was studyin$ mah(on$instead of studyin$ the law and that he was a liar. The SC held that it is nota$ainst lawyers raisin$ $rie!ances a$ainst errin$ (ud$es but the rulespro!ide the proper !enue and procedure because respect for the institutionmust always be maintained. &ence" Atty. 2a$abuyo was suspended fromthe practice of law for one year.

ANSON TRADE CENTER, INC., ANSON EMPORIUM CORPORATION !ndTEDDY ENG SE CHEN vs.PACI6IC 2ANING CORPORATION, Re"resen#ed$% I#s L'B'd!#or, #9e Pres'den# o; #9e P9'('""'ne De"os'# Insr!nceCor"or!#'on, G.R. No. 3****M!rc9 3, /00*6ACTS:*etitioners are corporations en$a$ed in retail andPor wholesale $eneralmerchandisin$ and they obtained a loan from the respondent. Subseuently" thepetitioners defaulted in the payment of their loan. espondent made se!eral


24/30

demands for payment upon petitioners" to no a!ail. This prompted the respondent tofile a collection case a$ainst the respondent. The petitioner mo!ed for the dismissal of the case due to the nonDappearance of the respondent in the preDtrial. Therespondents filed a *etition for Certiorari under ule >+" prayin$ that the TCcommitted $ra!e abuse of discretion amountin$ to lac) or in e-cess of

(urisdiction when it dismissed the case due to the respondent,snon appearance. The latter asserted that its absence is notintentional because they are under$oin$ liuidation process and the'onetary 2oard is orderin$ the closure of respondent due toinsol!ency. espondent pleaded for the rela-ation of the rules to a!ert irreparabledama$e to it.

ISSUE:=9e#9er or no# #9e #r '!( cor# co77'##ed &r!ve !$se o; d'scre# 'on 'n d's7'ss'n&res"onden#s c(!'7 !&!'ns# #9e

"e#'#'oner de #o non+!""e!r!nce 'n #9e "re #r'!(.

HELD:9es" the trial court committed $ra!e abuse of its discretion. The Court findthat the petition of the petitioner is unmeritorious. *ertinent pro!isions of ule 78 of the e!ised ules of Court on *reDTrial read: S4C. @. Appearance of parties. R #t shal l be th e du ty of th e pa rt ie s and thei r counsel to appear atthe preDtrial. The nonDappearance of a party may be e-cused only if

a!al id cause is shown therefor or i f a representat i!e shal l appear in h is behal f fu l lyauthoriIed in writin$ to enter into an amicablesettlement" to submit to alternati!e modes of dispute resolution" and to enter intostipulations or admissions of facts and of documents.*ursuant to the aforeDuotedpro!isions" nonDappearance by the plaintiff in the preDtrial shall because fordismissal of the action. &owe!er" e!ery rule is not without an e-ception. #n fact"Section @" ule78 of the e!ised ules of Court e-plicitly pro!ides that the nonDappearance of a party may be e-cused if a!alid cause is shown therefor. 1e findsuch a !alid cause e-tant in the case at bar. There is no uestion that hereinrespondent recei!ed notice of the preDtrial conference scheduledon 70

ctober ?00+" but it failed to attend the same. Such nonDappearancenotwithstandin$" the Court f Appeals annulled the 70 ctober ?00+ rder of the TC dismissin$ the case after findin$ that respondentdid notintentionally snub the preDtrial conference. There is no reason to disturb suchfindin$. The 'onetary 2oard ordered the closure of respondent by reason of insol!ency" and it has sincebeen represented by its liuidator */#Cin all its underta)in$s. Still in the course of the


25/30

liuidation of respondent" its liuidator */#C was reor$aniIed in the late ?00@ toearly ?00+. The four departments in the*/#C handlin$ liti$ation were reduced to one"with the new %iti$ation /epartment ha!in$ only four inDhousecounsels whoassumed thousands of cases arisin$ from the closure by the 'onetary2oard of more than@00 ban)s. #t is understandable how the notice forthe preDtrial conference in the case could belost or o!e r l o o)ed " as t he */ # C was s t i l l cop in$ and ad (u st i n $ wi t h t h e c ha n $ es r e s u l t i n $ f r o m i t s reor$aniIation.=HERE6ORE" premises considered" the instant *etition for e!iew on Certiorari ishereby DENIED.%roblem Areas in $egal Ethics & 'ross #isconduct & #alpractice of $aw &

#isconduct

#n ?00" CoraIon Ne!ada" filed a disbarment case a$ainst Atty. odolfoCasu$a. Ne!ada alle$ed the followin$:

7. That Atty. Casu$a acuired se!eral pieces of (ewelry from her the (ewelries include diamond earrin$s and diamond rin$s amountin$*300"000.00. and a ole- $old watch worth L7?"000.00 that Casu$aassured her that he will sell them but despite repeated demands" Casu$ane!er remitted any money nor did he return said (ewelries.

?. That in ?00>" Casu$a" ta)in$ ad!anta$e of his close relationship with

Ne!ada they belon$ to the same reli$ious sectB" Casu$a representedhimself as the hotel administrator of the hotel 't. CrestB that Ne!ada ownthat as such" Casu$a was able to enter into a contract of lease with one5un$ Chul that he ne$otiated an office space with Chul in said &otel for *0"000.00 that Casu$a notariIed said a$reement that he for$ed thesi$nature of 4dwin Ne!ada husbandB that he ne!er remitted the *0) toNe!ada.

#n his defense" Casu$a said:

7. That Ne!ada actually pawned said (ewelries in a pawnshop that shelater ad!ised Casu$a,s wife to redeem said (ewelries usin$ 'rs. Casu$a,swife that Casu$a can sell said (ewelries and reimburse herself from theproceeds that he still has possession of said (ewelries.


26/30

?. That he ne!er recei!ed the *0"000.00 that it was recei!ed by acertain *astor h that he was authoriIed as an a$ent by 4dwin Ne!ada toenter into said contract of lease.

ISSUE: 1hether or not there is merit in Atty. Casu$a,s defense.

HELD: No. Atty. Casu$a is in !iolation of the followin$:

. Gross M'scondc#: Casu$a misrepresented himself as a dulyauthoriIed representati!e of Ne!ada when in fact he was not. &e ne!er adduced e!idence showin$ that he was duly authoriIed either by 4dwin or CoraIon. &e also dialed to adduce e!idence pro!in$ that he ne!er recei!edthe *0) from Chul. n the contrary" a notariIed letter showed that Casu$adid recei!e the money. &is misrepresentations constitute $ross misconductand his mere denial does not o!ercome the e!idence presented a$ainst

him./. V'o(!#ed C!non 5 o; #9e Code o; Pro;ess'on!( Res"ons'$'('#%: #t ishis duty as a lawyer to account for all moneys and property of his client thatmay come to his possession. This is still applicable e!en thou$h saidpropertyPmoney did not come to his possession by !irtue of a lawyerDclientrelationship. &e failed to adduce e!idence to pro!e his claim that Ne!adapawned said (ewelries. &e ne!er presented receipts. Further" e!enassumin$ that Ne!ada did pawn said items" Casu$a was still duty bound toreturn said (ewelries upon demand by Ne!ada.

4. V'o(!#'on o; No#!r'!( R(es: &e si$ned a document contract of leaseB in behalf of another person without authoriIation. &is for$ery made him anactual party to the contract. #n effect he was notariIin$ a document in whichhe is party in !iolation of the notarial rules Secs. 7 and 3" ule #JB.

. M!("r!c#'ce o; L!


27/30

6IL+GARCIA, INC. V. HERNANDE8

6ACTFilomeno arcia" president of FilDarcia #nc." after losin$ his case in

the CA for a sum of money" secured the ser!iced of Atty. Fernando&ernandeI" who recei!ed the denied resolution for arcia as counsel" andwas $i!en 7+ days to appeal.

#nstead of filin$ the appeal" &ernandeI filed for a 'otion for 4-tension the day before the e-piration of the period to file the appeal""alle$in$ that he was counsel for a mayoralty candidate and a senatorialcandidate" and he was also needed in the can!assin$ of !otes" so theur$ency of the nature of his wor) will not allow him the limited time to filethe appeal" thus as)ed for 30 days e-tension.

30 days later" &ernandeI a$ain filed his ?nd 'otion for 4-tension" this

time" because he fell ill" and his physical state will not allow him to file theappeal on time" thus as)in$ for ?0 days e-tension.

?0 days later" the 3rd 'otion for 4-tension was filed" with the $rande-cuse that because he fell ill the last time" his wor) load piled up" thusreuirin$ him more time to conclude on the wor) load he missed when hewas ill" plus the appeal" hence the reuest for 70 days e-tension" to which70 days later" he did actually file the appeal. FinallyUB

f course" afterwards" &ernandeI learned that all three 'otions for 4-tensions were denied by the court" and to his dismay" recei!ed a copy of

the resolution denyin$ the appeal all to$ether. &owe!er" instead of informin$ his client" FilDarcia" he decides to forward the resolution of denial of the appeal some months later" which $reatly an$ered his client"pushin$ him to file for his disbarment.

ISSUE#s &ernandeI liable for malpractice" $ross misconduct" tantamount to

!iolation of his oath as a lawyer" which warrant his disbarmentE

HELD

9es" to $ross ne$li$ence" but no to disbarment.The filin$ of 3 motions for e-tension on the careless assumption that

each motion will be $ranted by the Court" and without ta)in$ care of informin$ himself of the Court6s action thereon" constitutes ine-cusablene$li$ence. 'oreo!er" respondent )nowin$ly referred to ule >+ in thepetition he belatedly filed as an afterthou$ht in his desperate attempt tosal!a$e the appeal.


28/30

ule 7?.0@ en(oins a lawyer not to ;unduly delay a case" impede thee-ecution of (ud$ment or misuse court proceedin$s.; 1hile pressure of wor) or some other una!oidable reasons may constrain a lawyer to file amotion for e-tension of time to file pleadin$s" he should not presume thathis motion for e-tension of time will be $ranted. 'otions for e-tension of time to file a pleadin$ are not $ranted as a matter of course but lie in thesound discretion of the court. #t is thus incumbent on any mo!ant for e-tension to e-ercise due dili$ence to inform himself as soon as possible of the Court6s action on his motion" by timely inuiry from the Cler) of Court.Should he ne$lect to do so" he runs the ris) of time runnin$ out on him" for which he will ha!e nobody but himself to blame.

A lawyer who finds it impracticable to continue as counsel shouldinform the client and as) that he be allowed to withdraw from the case toenable the client to en$a$e the ser!ices of another counsel who can study

the situation and wor) out a solution.To ma)e matters worse" it too) respondent months from the time he

recei!ed a copy of the Court6s resolution to inform complainant of the same.&e was merely suspended for > months" considerin$ that respondent

humbly admitted his fault in not immediately informin$ complainant of thestatus of the case.

Arro%o+Pos'd'o v. V'r!n, A.C. No. 50-

YNARES+SANTIAGO, J.:6!c#s:#n Au$ust 7>" Atty. Jitan contacted Celia *osidio and showed herdocuments consistin$ of ta-declarations of properties purportedly formin$part of the estate of Nicolasa S. de uImanDArroyo" butwere not includedin the #n!entory of *roperties for distribution in Special *roceedin$ No. CD+?+. &econ!inced complainant to file another case to reco!er her share inthe alle$ed undeclared propertiesand demanded *700"000.00 as le$al feestherefor. After se!eral months" howe!er" Atty. Jitan failed toinstitute anyaction. Celia *osidio decided to fore$o the filin$ of the case and as)ed for

the return of the*700"000.00" but Atty. Jitan refused despite repeateddemands.Conseuently" Celia *osidio filed an action for sum of money anddama$es a$ainst Atty. Jitanbefore 2ranch 87" 'etropolitan Trial Court"JalenIuela City which was doc)eted as Ci!il Case No. 730.The (ud$mentof the 2ranch 87 'T* JalenIuela is rendered in fa!or of the Celia *osidioand a$ainst theAtty. Jitan.Atty. Jitan appealed to the e$ional Trial Courtwhich affirmed the 'etropolitan Trial Courtdecision. Thus" Celia *osidio


29/30

filed a 'otion for #ssuance of a 1rit of 4-ecution which was $rantedon'arch 7" ?007.To satisfy the (ud$ment a$ainst him" Atty. Jitan issued*rudential 2an) chec) number 0338@?+dated 'ay 37" ?007 in theamount of *7?0"000.00 in fa!or of Celia *osidio. &owe!er" uponpresentmentfor payment" the chec) was dishonored for the reason:

ACCNT C%S4/. /espite a written notice ofdishonor and demanddated September 3" ?007" Atty. Jitan. refused to honor his obli$ation.

Atty. Jitan. denied complainant,s alle$ations. &e admitted ha!in$ recei!edthe amount of *700"000.00 but claimed that the same was partial payment for hisser!ices in Special *roceedin$ CaseNo. CD+?+. Further" he alle$ed that hehad already paid complainant the amount of *7+0"000.00 ase!idenced bya eceipt V Guitclaim dated Au$ust 70" ?000.n 'arch 7" ?00@" the casewas referred to the #nte$rated 2ar of the *hilippines #2*B forin!esti$ation"

report and recommendation. n 5anuary 7+" ?00>" the #n!esti$atin$Commissioner submitted his eport8 findin$ respondent $uilty of !iolatin$ the lawyer,soath and the Code of *rofessional esponsibility in defraudin$ his client and issuin$ a chec)without sufficient funds to co!erthe same.Isse:

1hether or not Atty. Jitan should be disbar He(d:#n the instant case" respondent recei!ed the amount of *700"000.00 asle$al fees for filin$additional claims a$ainst the estate of Nicolasa S. deuIman Arroyo. &owe!er" he failed to institute anaction" thus it wasimperati!e that he immediately return the amount to complainant upondemandtherefor. &a!in$ recei!ed payment for ser!ices which were notrendered" respondent was un(ustified in)eepin$ complainant,s money. &is obli$ation was to immediately return the said amount.&is refusal to

do so despite complainant,s repeated demands constitutes a !iolation ofhis oath where he pled$es notto delay any man for money and swears to conduct himself with $oodfidelity to his clients.A lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for hispersonal benefit or $ain" he abuses orta)es ad!anta$e of the confidencereposed in him by his client. A lawyer should be scrupulously carefulin


30/30

handlin$ money entrusted to him in his professional capacity" because ahi$h de$ree of fidelity and$ood faith on his part is e-acted.A lawyer isobli$ed to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come tohispossession. &e is a trustee to said funds and property. &e is to )eep thefunds of his client separate andapart from his own and those of others )eptby him. 'oney entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purposesuch as for there$istration of a deed with the e$ister of /eeds and for e-penses andfees for thetransfer of title o!er real property under the name of his client ifnot utiliIed" must be returnedimmediately to his client upon demand therefor. The lawyer,s failure toreturn the money of his clientupon demand $a!e rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated saidmoney in !iolation of thetrust reposed on him. The con!ersion by a lawyerMof funds entrusted to him by his client is a $ross!iolation of professional

ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the le$al profession.#t is clearfrom the fore$oin$ that respondent fell short of the e-actin$ moral andethicalstandards imposed on members of the le$al profession. espondent,srefusal to return complainant,smoney upon demand" his failure to comply with the lawful orders of the trialcourt" as well as theissuance of a bouncin$ chec)" re!eal his failure to li!eup to his duties as a lawyer in consonance withthe strictures of his oath andthe Code of *rofessional esponsibility.#t cannot be o!eremphasiIed that

membership in the le$al profession is a pri!ile$e. 1hene!er itis made toappear that an attorney is no lon$er worthy of the trust and confidence ofthe public" itbecomes not only the ri$ht but also the duty of this Court"which made him one of its officers and $a!ehim the pri!ile$e of ministerin$within its 2ar" to withdraw the pri!ile$e

Documents

Assignment in Ethics