Cases Canon 10 to 21

7/13/2019 Cases Canon 10 to 21

1/54

CANON 10

Samala vs Valencia

FACTS: A complaint was filed by Clarita J. Samala (complainant) against Atty. Luciano D.Valencia (respondent) for Disbarment on the following grounds: (a) serving on two separate

occasions as counsel for contending parties; (b) knowingly misleading the court by submittingfalse documentary evidence; (c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rentalfees; and (d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children. After respondentfiled his Comment, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) forinvestigation, report and recommendation. Commissioner Reyes prepared the Report andRecommendation and found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for six months. The IBPBoard of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of CommissionerReyes but increased the penalty of suspension from six months to one year. The Court adoptsthe report of the IBP Board of Governors except as to the issue on immorality and as to therecommended penalty.

On serving as counsel for contending parties.

In Civil Case No. 95-105-MK, entitled "Leonora M. Aville v. Editha Valdez" fornonpayment of rentals, herein respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, alsoacted as counsel for the tenants Lagmay, Valencia, Bustamante and Bayuga.

In Civil Case No. 98-6804 entitled "Editha S. Valdez and Joseph J. Alba, Jr. v. SalveBustamante and her husband" for ejectment, respondent represented Valdez against Bustamante- one of the tenants in the property subject of the controversy. Defendants appealed. In hisdecision, Presiding Judge Reuben P. dela Cruz warned respondent to refrain from repeating theact of being counsel of record of both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK.

But in Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK, entitled "Editha S. Valdez v. Joseph J. Alba, Jr. andRegister of Deeds of Marikina City," respondent, as counsel for Valdez, filed a Complaint for

Rescission of Contract with Damages and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 275500against Alba, respondent's former client in Civil Case No. 98-6804 and SCA Case No. 99-341-MK.

Records further reveal that respondent admitted that in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK, hewas the lawyer for Lagmay (one of the tenants) but not for Bustamante and Bayuga albeit he filedthe Explanation and Compliance for and in behalf of the tenants. Respondent also admitted thathe represented Valdez in Civil Case No. 98-6804 and SCA Case No. 99-341-MK againstBustamante and her husband but denied being the counsel for Alba although the case is entitled"Valdez and Albav. Bustamante and her husband," because Valdez told him to include Alba asthe two were the owners of the property and it was only Valdez who signed the complaint forejectment. But, while claiming that respondent did not represent Alba, respondent, however,avers that he already severed his representation for Alba when the latter charged respondent with

estafa. Thus, the filing of Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK against Alba.

On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence.

Complainant alleges that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 for ejectment, respondent submittedTCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership despite the fact that a new TCT No. 275500was already issued in the name of Alba on February 2, 1995. During the hearing beforeCommissioner Raval, respondent avers that when the Answer was filed in the said case, that wasthe time that he came to know that the title was already in the name of Alba; so that when the


2/54

court dismissed the complaint, he did not do anything anymore. Respondent further avers thatValdez did not tell him the truth and things were revealed to him only when the case for rescissionwas filed in 2002. Upon examination of the record, it was noted that Civil Case No. 2000-657-MKfor rescission of contract and cancellation of TCT No. 275500 was also filed on November 27,2000,

35before RTC, Branch 273, Marikina City, thus belying the averment of respondent that he

came to know of Alba's title only in 2002 when the case for rescission was filed. It was revealedduring the hearing before Commissioner Raval that Civil Case Nos. 00-7137 and 2000-657-MKwere filed on the same date, although in different courts and at different times. Hence,respondent cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the title he submitted was already cancelled inlieu of a new title issued in the name of Alba in 1995 yet, as proof.

On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

During the hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmaywho are all over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he haseight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his wifedied in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998. Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was stayingin one of the apartments being claimed by complainant. However, he does not consider his affairwith Lagmay as a relationship and does not consider the latter as his second family.

51 He

reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in Muntinlupaand another in Marikina.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent lawyer has committed acts in violation of the Canons ofProfessional Responisbility

HELD: On serving as counsel for contending parties. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests exceptby written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not,without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interestconflicts with that of his present or former client. He may not also undertake to dischargeconflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule isfounded on the principles of public policy and good taste.

16It springs from the relation of attorney

and client which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolatethe client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for onlythen can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramountimportance in the administration of justice. From the foregoing, it is evident that respondent'srepresentation of Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and her husband, in one case, and Valdezagainst Alba, in another case, is a clear case of conflict of interests which merits a correspondingsanction from this Court. Respondent may have withdrawn his representation in Civil Case No.95-105-MK upon being warned by the court, but the same will not exculpate him from the chargeof representing conflicting interests in his representation in Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK.

Respondent is reminded to be more cautious in accepting professional employments, torefrain from all appearances and acts of impropriety including circumstances indicating conflict ofinterests, and to behave at all times with circumspection and dedication befitting a member of the

Bar, especially observing candor, fairness and loyalty in all transactions with his clients.


Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibilitywhich provides that 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 mislead by any artifice. It matters not that the trialcourt was not misled by respondent's submission of TCT No. 273020 in the name of Valdez,dismissing the complaint for ejectment. What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent in
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt35#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt35#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt35#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt51#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt51#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt16#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt16#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt16#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt16#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt51#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt35#fnt35


3/54

trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title wasalready cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of Alba.


Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not

engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify thedegree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining alawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, orshameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of thecommunity. Thus, in several cases, the Court did not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for keeping amistress in defiance of the mores and sense of morality of the community. That respondentsubsequently married Lagmay in 1998 after the death of his wife and that this is his first infractionas regards immorality serve to mitigate his liability.

The Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct andviolation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt of hereinResolution.

ANALYSIS: As to the courts, a lawyer has the duty not do any falsehood, nor consent to thedoing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice. Also, alawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Upon his admissionto the bar, he swore that he will do no falsehood, and will not do anything to mislead the court. Insuch situations, it does not matter whether the court was really misled or not. What is decisive isthe intent of such lawyer to deceive the court which will render him liable for such act.

As to the lawyers clients, it is the duty of a lawyer to maintain inviolate the confidencereposed in them by the client. Such duty does not cease even when the professional relationshipof the attorney and client has been terminated. It is perpetual and outlasts such professionalrelationship. Along with such duty requires a lawyer to represent conflicting interests only uponwritten consent of all those concerned given after full disclosure of the facts. It does not only

covers cases which are confidential in nature, but also those which are confided in which noconfidence has been bestowed. A way to determine the inconsistency of interests is to determinewhether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent n attorney from the full discharge of his dutyof undivided loyalty to his client and whether he will be called upon in his new relation to useagainst his first client any knowledge acquired in the previous employment. The attorney- clientrelationship prohibits an attorney from accepting employment from his clients adversary either inthe same case or in a different but related action. Such applied whether or not the lawyer hasacquired confidential information from his former client. The reason for the prohibition is found inthe relation of the attorney- client, which is one based on trust and confidences of the highestdegree.

RENATO M. MALIGAYA vs. ATTY. ANTONIO G. DORONILLA,JR.,A.C. No. 6198, September 15, 2006

Facts:Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. of the Judge Advocate Generals Service is before us on acharge of unethical conduct for having uttered a falsehood in open court during a hearing of a civilcase. The civil case was an action for damages filed by complainant Renato M. Maligaya, adoctor and retired colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, against several military officers


4/54

for whom Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel. At one point during the February 19, 2002 hearing ofthe case, Atty. Doronilla said:

And another matter, Your Honor. I was appearing in other cases he [complainantMaligaya] filed before against the same defendants. We had an agreement that if wewithdraw the case against him, he will also withdraw all the cases. So, with thatunderstanding, he even retired and he is now receiving pension.

Considering this to be of some consequence, presiding Judge Reynaldo B. Daway askeda number of clarificatory questions and thereafter ordered Atty. Doronilla to put his statements inwriting and file the appropriate pleading. However, Atty. Doronilla submitted no such pleading oranything else to substantiate his averments.

Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines(IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. The complaint, was referred to a commissioner forinvestigation. Complainant swore before the investigating commissioner that he had neverentered into any agreement to withdraw his lawsuit. Atty. Doronilla explained his side, admittedseveral times that there was, in fact, no such agreement. He explained in his memorandum thathis main concern was to settle the case amicably among comrades in arms without going to trial.He pointed out that his false statement had no effect on the continuance of the case and

therefore caused no actual prejudice to complainant. Investigating commissioner Lydia A.Navarro submitted a report and recommendation finding Atty. Doronilla guilty of purposely statinga falsehood in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility andrecommending that he be suspended from the government military service as legal officer for aperiod of three months.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Doronilla violated the Code of Professional Reponsibility.

Held: The Supreme Court averred that by stating untruthfully in open court that complainanthad agreed to withdraw his lawsuits Atty. Doronilla breached the peremptory tenets of ethicalconduct. He violated the lawyers oath to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any incourt. The common caricature that lawyers by and large do not feel compelled to speak the truthand to act honestly should not become a common reality. To this end, Canon 10 and Rule 10.01

of the Code of Professional Responsibility state:CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND GOOD FAITH TO THECOURT.Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any incourt; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

His act infringed on every lawyers duty to never seek to mislead the judge or anyjudicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. Atty. Doronillas unethical conductwas compounded, moreover, by his obstinate refusal to acknowledge the impropriety of what hehad done. Rather than express remorse for that regrettable incident, Atty. Doronilla resorted toan ill-conceived attempt to evade responsibility, professing that the falsehood had not beenmeant for the information of Judge Daway but only as a sort of question to complainantregarding a pending proposal to settlethe case.

In the light of his avowal that his only aim was to settle the case amicably amongcomrades in arms without going to trial, perhaps it is not unreasonable to assume that what hereally meant to say was that he had intended the misrepresentation as a gambit to get theproposed agreement on the table, as it were. But even if that had been so, it would have been nojustification for speaking falsely in court. A lawyers duty to the court to employ only such meansas are consistent with truth and honor forbids recourse to misrepresentation. Thus, even as wegive Atty. Doronilla the benefit of the doubt and accept as true his avowed objective of getting theparties to settle the case amicably, we must call him to account for resorting to falsehood as ameans to that end.


5/54

Atty. Doronillas offense is within the ambit of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,

which in part declares:A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by theSupreme Court for any deceit x x x or for any violation of the oath which he is required totake before admission to practice x x x.

The suspension referred to in the foregoing provision means only suspension from thepractice of law. For this reason, the Supreme Court disagreed with the IBPs recommendation forAtty. Doronillas suspension from the government military service. After all, the only purpose ofthis administrative case is to determine Atty. Doronillas liability as a member of the legalprofession, not his liability as a legal officer in the military service. His suspension fromemployment as a military legal officer may well follow as a consequenceof his suspension fromthe practice of law.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practiceof law for TWO MONTHS. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar misconductshall be dealt with more severely.

Analysis: I agree with the deciasion of the Supreme Court. There is a strong public interest

involved in requiring lawyers who, as officers of the court, participate in the dispensation ofjustice, to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor. Atty. Doronillamaintained the untenable position that he had done nothing wrong in the hearing of the civil case.There is nothing in the duty of a lawyer to foster peace among disputants that makes it necessaryunder any circumstances for counsel to state as a fact that which is not true.

As provided in the Lawyer's Oathand the Code of Professional Responsibilty A lawyershall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allowthe Court to be misled by any artifice.

PLUS BUILDERS and EDGARDO C. GARCIA v. Atty. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR.A.M. No. 2006-11-SC. September 13, 2006.

FACTS:On April 7, 1999, Plus Builders Inc. filed before the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite(PARAD) of DAR, DARAB CASE NOS. R-402-027-99 up to R-402-031-99, inclusive, againstLeopoldo De Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido De Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria MartirezSiongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco; Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra(TENANTS/FARMERS) in which the petitioners received a favorable decision. On December 17,1999, counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS who at that time was Atty. Damian S. J. Vellaseca, fileda pro-forma Motion for Reconsideration and Manifestation. As a result, PARAD did not give duecourse to the same. On March 27, 2000, another counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS, by the nameof Atty. Willy G. Roxas, who represented himself as counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS, filed amanifestation stating that he is representing TENANTS/FARMERS and alleged that they werebona fide members of the Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC). Then came ANASTACIO.On May 31, 2001, Respondent Anastacio Revilla Jr., knowing that there was a monetaryjudgment by way of Disturbance Compensation granted to Tenants/Farmers, filed aMotion for Leave of Court to Allow Correction of Caption and Amendment of Judgment (referringto the Decision of PARAD of Cavite dated November 15, 1999.)After realizing that his motionfailed to give him beneficial monetary gain from the PARAD judgment, a Petition forPreliminary Injunction with prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and to QuashAlias Writ of Execution with Demolition plus Damages was filed by Respondent before theDARAB Central Office, Quezon City, notwithstanding the fact that this instant case was appealed


6/54

by another lawyer (Atty. Willy Roxas.) TRO was issued by DARAB. On appeal by the petitionersto CA, the court rendered the TRO as null and void for having been issued w/ojurisdiction.Enraged by his defeat, Respondent filed a verified "Action to Quiet Title" beforethe Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite praying for a TRO , (it was later dismissed on theground of res judicata) among others, to deliberately and maliciously stop the enforcement of theDecisions of the higher courts to implement the PARAD Decision dated November 15, 1999. Inaddition, Respondent signed his pleading under a group of non-lawyers joining him in thepractice of law as KDC LEGAL SERVICES, LAW OFFICERS AND ASSOCIATES whichincluded KDC as law partners in violation of the Rules on the practice of law with non-lawyers.

ISSUE:Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Lawyers are officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration ofjustice. They act as vanguards of our legal system, protecting and upholding truth and therule of law. They are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings, especially with thecourts. Verily, the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers from committing orconsenting to any falsehood in court or from allowing the courts to be misled by any artifice.Moreover, they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeatthe ends of justice.

Good faith, fairness and candor constitute the essence of membership in the legalprofession. Thus, while lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their client, they must never abusetheir right of recourse to the courts by arguing a case that has repeatedly been rejected. Neithershould they use their knowledge of the law as an instrument to harass a party or to misusejudicial processes. These acts constitute serious transgression of their professional oath.

It must be noted that when the Court of Appeals and this Court upheld that Decision,respondent resorted to a different forum to pursue his clients lost cause. In the disturbancecompensation case, he represented his clients as tenants and acknowledged that complainantswere the owners of the subject land. In the action to quiet title, however, he convenientlyrepudiated his previous admission by falsely alleging that his clients were adverse possessorsclaiming bona fide ownership. Consequently, he was able to obtain a temporary restraining orderpreventing the execution of the provincial adjudicators decision. While a lawy er owes absolu te

fidel i ty to the cause of his cl ient, ful l devotion to h is genuine interest, and warm zeal in themaintenance and defense of his rig hts, as wel l as the exertion of his utm ost learning and

abi li ty , he must do s o only w i th in the bounds of the law.

The lawyers duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorizedpractice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practiceof law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. Thepermissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject towithdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. Thepurpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence ordishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of theCourt. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethicsof the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid

of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate.And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman inthe unauthorized practice of law (refer to CANON 9)

WHEREFORE, Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby found guilty of gross misconductand is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt ofthis Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt withmore severely.


7/54

Analysis: Although the court deemed it right that the respondent be held guilty, I do not fullyagree with the penalty imposed upon him. The practice of law is far more different than anyprofession in such a way that serving the public is incumbent upon a lawyer, having said that, itshould be given stress that a lawyer is not given his license to practice to give him the freedom toconduct any money-making scheme that opportune him. The respondent in his own cunningway devised certain legal actions which does not only impede the propagation of justice but alsomanipulate the unlearned.

I believe it would be more apt to impose upon him a penalty of at least 3 monthssuspension in order for him to know the gravity of the consequences due to a lawyer whosedemeanor runs counter to the means and the ends of justice.

CANON 11

Judge Lacurom vs Atty. JacobaAC 7252, March 10, 2006.

Facts: Complainant charged respondents with violation of Rule 11.03, 11.04 and 19.01 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility. The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiffAlejandro R. Veneracion in a civil case for unlawful detainer against defendant FedericoBarrientos. The MTC rendered judgment in favor of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to theRTC. The case was raffled to Branch 30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting as pairing judge. On29 June 2001, Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution reversing the earlier judgments rendered infavor of Veneracion. Veneracions counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with Request forInhibition) dated 30 July 2001 (30 July 2001 motion), one pertinent portion of which read:

II. PREFATORY STATEMENT

This RESOLUTION of REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is entirely DEVOID offactual and legal basis. It is a Legal MONSTROSITY in the sense that the Honorable RTC actedas if it were the DARAB (Dept. of Agrarian Reform ADJUDICATION BOARD)! x x x HOWHORRIBLE and TERRIBLE! The mistakes are very patent and glaring! x x xOn 6 Aug. 2001, Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear before his sala and explainwhy he should not be held in contempt of court for the very disrespectful, insulting andhumiliating contents of the 30 July 2001 motion. The respondents replied that they were justarticulating their feelings of schok, bewilderment and disbelief at the sudden reversal of their goodfortune not driven by any desire to just cast aspersions at the Honorable Pairing judge. They mustbelieve that big monumental errors deserve equally big adjectives, no more no less.

On 13 Sept. 2001, Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of contempt andpenalized her with imprisonment for five days and fine of 1,000. Judge Lacurom later rendered adecision finding Jacoba guilty of contempt of court and sentencing him to pay a fine of 500 fortyping or preparing the said motion while he was serving his suspension from the practice of law.

Issue:Whether or not the respondents violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held: The respondents are situated differently within the factual setting of this case. Thecorresponding implications of their actions also give rise to different liabilities. We first examinethe charge against Velasco-Jacoba. There is no dispute that the genuine signature of Velasco-Jacoba appears on 30 July 2001 motion. Velasco-Jacobas responsibility as counsel is governedby Sec. 3, Rule 7 of the Rule of Court. By signing the 30 July 2001 motion, Velasco_Jacoba ineffect certified that she had read it, she knew it to be meritorious, and it was not for the purpose ofdelaying the case. Her signature supplied the motion with legal effect and elevated its status frommere scrap of paper to that of a court document. This violation is an act of falsehood before the


8/54

courts, which is itself is a ground for subjecting her to disciplinary action, independent of anyother ground arising from the contents of the 30 July 2001 motion. We now consider the evidenceas regards Jacoba. His name does not appear in the 30 July 2001 motion. He asserts theinadmissibility of Velasco-Jacobas statement pointing to him as the author of the motion.

His answer with second motion for inhibition did not contain a denial of his wifes account.Instead, Jacoba impliedly admitted authorship of the motion by stating that he trained his gunsand fired at the errors which he perceived and believed to be gigantic and monumental. No doubt,the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion greatly exceeded the vigor required of Jacobato defend ably his clients cause. We recall his use of the following words and phrases: abhorrentnullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake, horrible error, boner and an insult to the judiciaryand an anachronism in the judicial process.Even Velasco-Jacoba acknowledged that the wordscreated a cacophonic picture of total and utter disrespect.In maintaining the respect due to thecourts, a lawyer is not merely enjoined to use dignified language but also to pursue the clientscause through fair and honest means.

WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the practice of law for 2 yrs.Effective upon finality of this decision. We also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from thepractice of law for 2mos. effective upon finality of this decision. We STERNLY WARNrespondents that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall merit a more severe sanction.

Analysis: The suspension of Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba and Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from thepractice of law is just.It is said that Canon 11 of the CPR constantly remind lawyers that secondonly to the duty of maintaining allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support theConstitution and obey the laws of the land is the duty of all attorneys to observe and maintain therespect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.

Court orders, however erroneous they may be, must be respected especially by lawyerswho are themselves officers of the court. The language of a lawyer, both oral and written, must berespectful and restrained in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession and with hisbehavioral attitude towards his brethren in the profession for a lawyer who uses intemperate,abusive, abrasive or threatening language betrays disrespect to the court, disgrace the bar andinvites the exercise by the court of its disciplinary power.

JOHNNY NG v. ATTY. BENJAMIN C. ALAR.

AC 7252 (CBD 05-1434), November 22, 2006

FACTS: A verified complaint was filed by Johnny Ng against Atty. Benjamin C. Alar before theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar Discipline, for Disbarment. Complainantalleges that he is one of the respondents in a labor case with the National Labor RelationsCommission (NLRC) while respondent is the counsel for complainants. The Labor Arbiter (LA)

dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the NLRC rendered a Decision

affirming the decision of theLA. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit stating that they cannothelp suspecting that the decision under consideration was merely copied from the pleadings ofrespondents-appellees with very slight modifications. Commissioner Dinopol opted to believe themyth instead of the facts. He fixed his sights on the tent in front of the wall and closed his eyes tothe open wide passage way and gate beside it. His eyes, not the ingress and egress of thepremises, are blocked by something so thick he cannot see through it. His impaired vision cannotbe trusted, no doubt about it. Commissioner Dinopol has enshrined a novel rule on money claims .In his Answer respondent Alar contends that the instant complaint only intends to harass him andto influence the result of the cases between complainant and the workers in the different fora


9/54

where they are pending; that the Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility applies onlysuppletorily at the NLRC when the NLRC Rules of Procedure has no provision on disciplinarymatters for litigants and lawyers appearing before it; that Rule X of the NLRC Rules of Procedureprovides for adequate sanctions against misbehaving lawyers and litigants appearing in casesbefore it; that the Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility does not apply to lawyerspracticing at the NLRC, the latter not being a court. Attached to the Counter-Complaint is theaffidavit of union president Marilyn Batan wherein it is alleged that Attys. Paras and Cruz violatedthe Code of Professional Responsibility of lawyers in several instances. In Answer to the Counter-Complaint respondents Paras and Cruz alleged that they merely instructed their client on how togo about filing the case, after having been served a copy of the derogatory MRMI; Canon 8should not be perceived as an excuse for lawyers to turn their backs on malicious acts done bytheir brother lawyers; the complaint failed to mention that the only reason the number ofcomplainants were reduced is because of the amicable settlement they were able to reach withmost of them; their engagement for legal services is only for labor and litigation cases. In hisReport and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of usingimproper and abusive language and recommended that respondent be suspended for a period ofnot less than three months with a stern warning that more severe penalty will be imposed in casesimilar misconduct is again committed. On the other hand, the Investigating Commissioner didnot find any actionable misconduct against Attys. Paras and Cruz and therefore recommendedthat the Counter-Complaint against them be dismissed for lack of merit. Acting on the Report and

Recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors issued the Resolution hereinbefore quoted.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Alar is correct in stating that the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility will only apply suppletorily to the NLRC.

HELD: While the Court agrees with the findings of the IBP, it does not agree that respondent Alardeserves only a reprimand. The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attackingboth its moral and intellectual integrity, replete with implied accusations of partiality, improprietyand lack of diligence. Respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings thatdoes not admit any justification.A lawyer's language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting anadvocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. Submitting pleadings containingcountless insults and diatribes against the NLRC and attacking both its moral and intellectual

integrity, hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer. Respondent'sassertion that the NLRC not being a court, its commissioners, not being judges or justices andtherefore not part of the judiciary; and that consequently, the Code of Judicial Conduct does notapply to them, is unavailing. In Lubiano v. Gordolla, the Court held that respondent becameunmindful of the fact that in addressing the NLRC, he nonetheless remained a member of theBar, an oath-bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not to his client but to the administrationof justice and whose conduct ought to be and must be scrupulously observant of law and ethics.It does not deter the Court from exercising its supervisory authority over lawyers who misbehaveor fail to live up to that standard expected of them as members of the Bar. Respondent hasclearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His actions erodethe publics perception of the legal profession.

However, the penalty of reprimand with stern warning imposed by the IBP Board of

Governors is not proportionate to respondents violation of the Canons of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility. Thus, he deserves a stiffer penalty of fine in the amount ofP5,000.00. Anent the Counter-Complaint filed against Attys. Paras and Cruz, the Court finds noreason to disturb the following findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner,as approved by the IBP Board of Governors, to wit:The Counter-complainant Batan failed to submit any position paper to substantiate its claimsdespite sufficient opportunity to do so.ACCORDINGLY,we find respondent Atty. Benjamin C. AlarGUILTYof violation of Canons 8

and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is imposed a fine of P5,000.00 withSTERN WARNINGthat a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more


10/54

severely. The Counter-Complaint against Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras and Atty. Elvin MichaelCruzis DISMISSED for lack of merit.

ANALYSIS: I concur with the Supreme Court that Atty. Alar violated the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility but I will only recommend that Atty. Alar must only be reprimanded. It is a must forlawyers that their arguments written or oral should be gracious to both the court and the court andopposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman toanother. Hence, Atty. Alar did not use the proper languages to express his disgust with thedecision of the NLRC.

However, reprimand will serve justice to the actions of Atty. Alar. His motion waspresented in a manner necessary for lawyer to do so. He still kept in mind the proper way onpresenting his arguments. Furthermore, there was nothing in the motion that downgraded thepersonality of the NLRC commissioner.

Gaisano v. AbrogarG.R. No. 145213. March 28, 2006]

FACTS: Respondent International Exchange Bank opened a credit line in favor of Looyuko towhich petitioner Go executed a Surety Agreement binding himself solidarily for all debts incurredunder the credit line. On various occasions, the defendants availed of the credit line and when thedebts became due, the Bank demanded that the defendants settle their obligations, however,defendants failed to pay. Respondent bank filed a Complaint before the RTC for Collection of aSum of Money against petitioner and Looyuko. Petitioner, at the start of the proceedings and untilthe case was submitted for decision, was represented by counsel, Atty. Javier. On October 7, theRTC rendered a decision, finding petitioner and Looyuko jointly and severally liable to the Bank.The decision was received by Atty. Javier, as counsel of record for petitioner on October 20. Priorto this receipt, however, the relationship had apparently turned sour for counsel and client. OnSeptember 30, Atty. Javier wrote to petitioner, informing the latter that he was withdrawing hisservices as counsel. Petitioner, however, formally released Atty. Javier only on October 29,through a Notice of Termination. On November 5, petitioner, now represented by Atty. Caneda,Jr., filed a Motion for Reconsideration. When the RTC denied the motion, petitioner through his

new lawyer filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC issued an Order denying the Notice of Appeal onthe ground that the reglementary period had already expired one day before petitioner filed hisNotice of Appeal, considering that the Registry Return Card showed that Atty. Javier received acopy of the decision on October 20. The decision having become final and executory, uponmotion by the Bank, the RTC ordered the issuance of a Writ of Execution against petitioner.Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules ofCourt with the CA to assail the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and the Notice of Appealand the granting of the issuance of a Writ of Execution. Petitioner claims that he should not bebound by the receipt of the decision by Atty. Javier who was no longer his counsel when the latterreceived the decision. The CA rendered a decision that denied the petition for lack of merit. Theappellate court held that the reglementary period to file the appeal began to run when Atty. Javier,who was still counsel of record as far as the RTC was concerned, received a copy of thedecision. Hence the present petition.

ISSUE:Whether or not his Notice of Appeal from the decision of the RTC should be given duecourse despite having been filed late.

HELD:The petition is without merit. The Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that the decisionwas properly mailed to Atty. Javier as he was still counsel of record. His receipt of the decision onOctober 20, is, therefore, the starting point from which to count the 15-day reglementary period.The RTC, therefore, correctly dismissed the Notice of Appeal that was filed late. Moreover, underSection 26 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, an attorney may withdraw his representation bywritten consent of his client filed in court. Otherwise, notice and hearing on the withdrawal are


11/54

necessary. Therefore, even if Atty. Javier had already written a letter to petitioner withdrawing hisservices as counsel, it did not become effective until after the submission by petitioner of theletter officially terminating Atty. Javiers services on October 29. In fact, petitioner even stated inthe letter that his termination of Atty. Javiers services was effective only beginning October 29.This constitutes an admission by petitioner that when Atty. Javier received the decision, he wasstill considered by petitioner as his counsel.

Before closing, the Court has a few observations regarding the conduct of petitioner andhis counsel in this case. The petitioner made accusations against everyone connected to thecase. 1) Looyuko had withdrawn his appeal; 2) Looyukos counsel, Atty. Flaminiano, conformedto the writ of execution; 3) Atty. Javier neglected his case and continued to represent Looyuko inother cases; 4) Looyuko supported the Motion to Cite petitioner for contempt that was filed by theBank; and, 5) Judge Abrogar was once an assistant fiscal under then Manila City Fiscal Atty.Flaminiano. Petitioners particular attack against an RTC Judge is a serious accusation thaterodes trust and confidence in our judicial system. This Court will not hesitate to sanction personswho recklessly and nonchalantly impute ill motives that are nothing more than unfoundedspeculations. The above suspicious circumstances enumerated, whether taken together orseparately, are plainly unjustified as they fail to even remotely show the existence of a grandconspiracy against petitioner. For all their derogatory implication, they are clearly unsubstantiatedand disrespectful to a member of the Bench. The Court is dismayed that such baseless attacks

were assisted by counsel, who is an officer of the court. Under Canon 11 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility, A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN RESPECT DUE TOTHE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS. In particular, he shall not attribute to a judgemotives not supported by the records or by evidence. A lawyer should submit grievances againsta Judge to the proper authorities only. Atty. Caneda, Jr. should have known better than to permitthe irresponsible and unsupported claim against Judge Abrogar to be included in the pleadings.Allowing such statements to be made is against a lawyers oath of office and goes against theCode of Professional Responsibility. Petitioner Jimmy T. Go and Atty. Caneda, Jr. are STRICTLYWARNED not to make disrespectful statements against a Judge without basis in the records orthe evidence.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals isAFFIRMED.

ANALYSIS: I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Lawyers are allowed to voice outgrievances and submit accusations even against a judge, however, it must be supported by therecords and must be made to the proper authorities only, as provided by Rule 11.05 of the Codeof Professional Responsibility.

Although Atty. Caneda has suspicions of ill-motives and conspiracy by the judge and theopposing counsel, and even if it were true and supported by the records or by evidence, it is stillhis duty to observe and maintain respect to the courts and judicial officers. His failure to do soviolated his oath as a lawyer as well as Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as iterodes the trust and confidence of the people in our judicial system. I believe that the penalty ofstrict warning is proper because the attacks that he made were only implications and notexpressly direct.

In Re BagabuyoAdm. Case No. 7006, October 9, 2007

FACTS: This administrative case stemmed from the events of the proceedings in People v.Plaza, heard before the sala of Judge Tan, RTC of Surigao City. The case was originally raffled tothe sala of Judge Buyser. The Counsel for the defense filed a motion to fix the amount of bailbond. Respondent Bagabuyo, then Senor State Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the


12/54

case, mainly on the ground that the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusionperpetua, was not subject to bail under the Rules of Court. However, Judge Buyser inhibitedhimself from further trying the case because of the harsh insinuation of Bagabuyo that he lacksthe cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate, by allegedly suggesting the filing of the motion to fixthe amount of bail bond by counsel for the accused. The case was transferred to Branch 29presided by Judge Tan. Judge tan favorably resolved the motion to fix amount of bail bond andfixed the amount of bond at P40, 000. Bagabuyo file a motion for reconsideration which motionwas denied for lack of merit. Bagabuyo appealed fro these orders to the CA.

Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies, respondent caused the publication ofan article regarding the order granting bail to the accused in the August 18, 2003 issue of theMindanao Gold Star Daily. The Article, entitled Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge forallowing murder suspect to bail out. Later the RTC of Surigao City directed Bagabuyo and thewriter of the article to appear in court to explain why they should be cited in contemptRespondent admitted that he held a press conference but refused to answer whether he madethe statements in the article. For his refusal to answer, the trial court declared him in contempt ofthe court. He appealed the indirect contempt order to the CA. Despite the citation of indirectcontempt, respondent presented himself to the media for interviews in a radio station and againattacked the integrity of Judge Tan and the trial courts disposition in the proceedings of thecriminal case.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bagabuyo violated the Code of professional Responsibility.

HELD: Bagabuyo SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year with stern warningagainst repetition of similar offense which shall be dealt with accordingly.

Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute anddefend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are imposed by law as aconsequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of theCode of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect dueto the courts and to judicial officers and he should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authoritiesonly. Respondent violated Rule 11.05 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press

conference where he made statements against the Order allowing the accused to be released onbail. Respondent also violated canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displayingjudicial arrogance in the newspaper article. Respondents statement in the article which weremade while the criminal case is still pending in court also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13 whichstates that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending casetending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. Respondent also violated the Lawyersoath as he was sworn to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge anddiscretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. It is the duty of the lawyer tomaintain towards the court a respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to upholdthe dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken.Respect for the court guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without suchrespect, would be resting on a shaky foundation. The Court is not against lawyers raisinggrievances against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the proper venue and procedure

for doing so, precisely because respect for the institution must always be maintained.

ANALYSIS: Atty. Bagabuyo was sanctioned with a penalty finely deserved. This case willexemplify that lawyers who no right whatsoever to disrespect the administrator of justice. Any acttending to lead to such an effect cannot be justified by the fact that the advocate knows moreabout the law as compared to the sitting judge. Court orders, however erroneous they maybe,must be respected especially by lawyers who are themselves officers of the court. This attitude isessential to the maintenance of a government of laws and not of men. This respect must be hadnot because of the incumbents to the judicial position but because of the authority that vests in


13/54

them. Hence, in no case may a lawyer lambast the personal character of a judge simplybecause the latter committed a reversible error.

The circumstance that Bagabuyo is actually a public officer should be considered asaggravating. If a Senior state prosecutor can disrespect a judge of a trial court, the otherprosecutors lower in rank may view the court with a significantly lowered ascendancy. This is adangerous situation in the States effort to administer justice. In fact, this attitude from publicofficers may be imitated by other lawyers thus causing a disastrous contagion in the legalprofession, which could ultimately lead to the abolition of one of the fundamental compass of theprofessional ethics that is the maintenance of due respect to the courts. It may happen that thecounsel possesses greater knowledge of the law than the judge who presides over the court. Itmay also happen that since no court claims infallibility, judges may grossly err in their decisions.Nevertheless, discipline and self-restraint on the part of the bar even under these adverseconditions are necessary for the orderly administration of justice.

CANON 12

PABLO R. OLIVARES v. ATTY. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR.A.C. No. 6323, April 13, 2007

Facts: Olivares alleged that respondents client, Sarah Divina Morales Al-Rasheed, repeatedlysued him for violations of the lease contract which they executed over a commercial apartment inOlivares Building in Paraaque. In 1993, Al-Rasheed filed an action for damages and prohibitionwith prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The casewas dismissed for improper venue. Six years later, Al-Rasheed filed an action for breach ofcontract with damages in the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque. The case was again dismissedfor failure to prosecute. Al-Rasheed, through counsel Atty. Villalon, sought a review of the orderdismissing case but the Court of Appeals did not give due course to her appeal. The subsequentpetition for review on certiorari filed in the Supreme Court was likewise denied. On January 29,

2004, Al-Rasheed re-filed the 1999 suit in the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque, where it wasagain dismissed on the grounds of res judicata and prescription. Respondent, on the other hand,asserts that he was only performing his legal obligation as a lawyer to protect and prosecute theinterests of his client. Respondent further claims he could not refuse his clients request to file anew case because Al-Rasheed was the oppressed party in the transaction.

Issue:Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibilities.

Held: A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect forlaw and legal processes. Moreover, a lawyers should not wittingly or willingly promote or sueany groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. With all this in mind,respondent should have refrained from filing the second complaint against Olivares. He ought tohave known that the previous dismissal was with prejudice since it had the effect of anadjudication on the merits. There was no excuse not to know this elementary principle of

procedural law. Furthermore, he violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility which states that A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall notmisuse them to defeat the ends of justice. A lawyers fidelity to his client must not be pursued atthe expense of truth and justice. Lawyers have the duty to assist in the speedy and efficientadministration of justice. Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the Courts processes. Itconstitutes improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade justice. Those who filemultiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for incompetence or willfulviolation of their duties as attorneys to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain onlysuch actions that appear to be just and consistent with truth and honor.


14/54

The Supreme Court finds that a reprimand is insufficient and rules instead that CBDs

recommendation for a six-month suspension from the practice of law to be more commensurateto the violation committed. However, in view of respondents death on September 27, 2006, thepenalty can no longer be imposed on him. This development has, in effect, rendered thisdisciplinary case moot and academic.

Analysis: It is generally true that lawyers have the obligations to protect and prosecute theinterests or rights of their client by filing the proper action, however, if such rights alreadyprescribed or such action was dismissed due to their own fault or inaction they can not assail thatthey are still performing their duty since they are already estopped by law on exercising theirrights. They can not file any legal actions to different courts just to pursue their interests sincesuch act would constitute harassment on the part of the respondent and would also constitutedisrespect to the integrity of the court in making their decisions.

Lawyers ought to have known that previous dismissal of a case is prejudicial since it hadthe effect of an adjudication on the merits. There was no excuse not to know this elementaryprinciple of procedural law. Moreover, as correctly stated by the Supreme Court, a lawyersfidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and justice. Lawyers have theduty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice but filing multiple actions

constitutes an abuse of the Courts processes. It constitutes improper conduct that tends toimpede, obstruct and degrade justice.

RENERIO SAMBAJON, RONALD SAMBAJON, CRISANTO CONOS, and FREDILYNBACULBAS v. ATTY. JOSE A. SUING.

A.C. No. 7062 September 26, 2006[Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1355]

FACTS: Complainants sought the disbarment of Atty. Suing before the IBP on the grounds ofdeceit, malpractice, violation of Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.Herein complainants were among the complainants in "Microplast, Inc. Workers Union,

Represented by its Union President Zoilo Ardan, et al. v. Microplast, Incorporated and/or JohnnyRodil and Manuel Rodil," for ULP and Illegal Dismissal, while respondent was the counsel for thetherein respondents. Said case was consolidated with "Microplast Incorporated v. Vilma Ardan, etal.," for Illegal Strike. In 2001, the NLRC dismissed the Illegal Strike case, and declared theemployer-clients of respondent guilty of ULP, and directed the reinstatement of the 9complainants to their former position with full backwages. The decision became final andexecutory. However, on the basis of individual Release Waiver and Quitclaims dated February27, 2004 purportedly signed and sworn to by seven of the complainants in the ULP and IllegalDismissal case before Labor Arbiter Santos in the presence of respondent, the Labor Arbiterdismissed said case insofar as the seven complainants were concerned. Herein complainants, 4of the 7 who purportedly executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims, denied having signed andsworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the considerationstherefor. Hence, this administrative complaint, alleging that respondent, acting in collusion withhis clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil, "frustrated" the implementation of the Writ of Execution bypresenting before the Labor Arbiter the spurious documents. Complainants also filed a criminalcomplaint for Falsification against respondent and his clients before the Prosecutors Office.

ISSUES: Whether or not respondent actually committed the falsification.

Whether or not respondent can be disbarred for his alleged manipulation of four allegedRELEASE WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM by herein complainants who subsequently disclaimed thesame as bogus and falsified.


15/54

HELD: Respondent places the responsibility of ascertaining the identities of the parties whoexecuted the Release Waiver and Quitclaims on the Labor Arbiter; however, he, himself had thesame responsibility because he was under obligation to protect his clients interest, especiallygiven the amount allegedly given by them in consideration of the execution of the documents. Hisanswers to the clarificatory questions of COMM Hababag show otherwise; wherein, he claimsthat he was only asked to go to the Office of the Labor Arbiter in order to witness the signing andfor a lawyer to be present, and not to get involved. However, he also conceded that the purposeof his presence is to represent his and see that these documents are properly signed and thatthese people are properly identified and verified them in front of Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos.Besides, by respondents own information, Labor Arbiter Santos was entertaining doubts on thetrue identity of those who executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims That should have alertedhim to especially exercise the diligence of a lawyer to protect his c lients interest. But he was notand he did not.

Diligence is "the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is theopposite of negligence." A lawyer serves his client with diligence by adopting that norm ofpractice expected of men of good intentions. He thus owes entire devotion to the interest of hisclient, warm zeal in the defense and maintenance of his rights, and the exertion of his utmostlearning, skill, and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from him, save by therules of law legally applied. The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence(exactissima diligentia) or that "extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusualprudence and circumspection use for securing and preserving their rights. All that is required isordinary diligence (diligentia) or that degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater familias. x x x

And this Court notes the attempt of respondent to influence the answers of his clientManuel Rodil when the latter testified before Commissioner Manuel Hababag: Not only didrespondent try to coach his client or influence him to answer questions in an apparent attempt notto incriminate him (respondent). His client contradicted respondents claim that the ReleaseWaiver and Quitclaim which he (respondent) prepared was not the one presented at the ArbitersOffice, as well as his implied claim that he was not involved in releasing to the complainants themoney for and in consideration of the execution of the documents.

As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called upon to assist in the administration of justice.He is an instrument to advance its cause. Any act on his part that tends to obstruct, perverts orimpedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct. While the Commission on BarDiscipline is not a court, the proceedings therein are nonetheless part of a judicial proceeding, adisciplinary action being in reality an investigation by the Court into the misconduct of its officersor an examination into his character. While the disbarment of respondent is, under the facts andcircumstances attendant to the case, not reasonable, neither is reprimand as recommended bythe IBP. This Court finds that respondents suspension from the practice of law for six months isin order.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Jose A. Suing, is found GUILTY of negligence andgross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Six (6) Months,with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

ANALYSIS: I disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court. Respondent should be given aharsher penalty of suspension for 6 months because even if it was not proven that hemanipulated the signing of the Release Waiver and Quitclaim, there was no negligence on hispart. I believe that he was aware that he aware of the false identities of the persons who signedthe quitclaims; this was shown during the interviews.


16/54

Moreover, there intent to obstruct justice when he tried to influence his client whiletestifying before the Commissioner; and during said trial, the client contradicted respondentsclaim that he was not the one who prepared the Release Waiver and Quitclaim presented.

CANON 15

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., and BEN A. NICOLAS v. Atty. MACARIO D.ARQUILLO.AC 6632 : August 2, 2005

Facts:A letter complaint was filed with the integrated Bar of the Philippnis by Ben A. Nicolas,acting for himself and on behalf of Northwestern University, Inc. In that Letter-Complaint, Atty.Macario D. Arquillo was charged with deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and/or violation of hisoath as attorney by representing conflicting interests.Complainant alleges that in a consolidated NLRC cases, respondent appeared and acted ascounsels for both complainants . Complainants, as their evidence, submitted the Motion toDismiss dated August 12, 1997 filed by Jose G. Castro, represented by his counsel, hereinrespondent filed before the NLRC of San Fernando, La Union. Sixteen (16) days later or onAugust 28, 1997, respondent filed a Complainants Consolidated Position Paper, this time

representing some of the complainants in the very same consolidated case. In his Report,Commissioner Dennis B. Funa found respondent guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests ruleunder the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, the former recommended the latterssuspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. The Board of Governors of theIBP adopted the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Funa, with the modification thatthe period of suspension was increased to two (2) years. Respondent filed a Motion forReconsideration but the same was denied..

Issue:Whether or not Respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests.

Held: The court agrees with the findings of the IBP Board of Governors, but reduce therecommended period of suspension to one year.

The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness and

loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. Corollary to this duty, lawyers shallnot represent conflicting interests, except with all the concerned clients written consent, givenafter a full disclosure of the facts

When a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is a conflict of interests,the existence of which is determined by three separate tests:(1) when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to fight for an issue or claim, but isalso duty-bound to oppose it for another client;(2) when the acceptance of the new retainer will require an attorney to perform an act that mayinjuriously affect the first client or, when called upon in a new relation, to use against the first oneany knowledge acquired through their professional connection; or(3) when the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of an attorneys dutyto give undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or

double dealing in the performance of that duty.

In the present case, Atty. Macario D. Arquillo, as counsel for Respondent Jose C. Castroin NLRC Cases, filed a Motion to Dismiss those cases. Shortly thereafter, a position paper wasfiled by Atty. Arquillo as counsel for several complainants in another consolidated NLRC CasesAll the cases in the second set were included in the first one, for which he had filed the subjectMotion to Dismiss. Furthermore, in his position paper for the complainants, Atty. Arquilloprotected his other client. This Court does not agree. Atty. Arquillos acts cannot be justified bythe fact that, in the end, Castro was proven to be not personally liable for the claims of thedismissed employees. Having agreed to represent one of the opposing parties first, the lawyer


17/54

should have known that there was an obvious conflict of interests, regardless of his alleged beliefthat they were all on the same side. It cannot be denied that the dismissed employees were thecomplainants in the same cases in which Castro was one of the respondents.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Macario D. Arquillo is found GUILTY of misconduct and is herebySUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective upon his receipt ofthis Decision, with a warning that a similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely in thefuture.

Analysis: The Code of professional responsibility highly proscribes the act of a lawyer inrepresenting conflicting interests. An attorney cannot represent adverse interests. It is ahornbook doctrine grounded on public policy that a lawyers representation of both sides of anissue is highly improper. The proscription applies when the conflicting interests arise with respectto the same general matter, however slight such conflict may be. It applies even when theattorney acts from honest intentions or in good faith.

The attorney in that situation will not be able to pursue, with vigor and zeal, the clientsclaim against the other and to properly represent the latter in the unrelated action, or, if he can doso, he cannot avoid being suspected by the defeated client of disloyalty or partiality in favor of thesuccessful client. The foregoing considerations will strongly tend to deprive the relation of

attorney and client of those special elements which make it one of trust and confidence.

LETICIA GONZALES vs. ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANAAC 6836 : January 23, 2006

FACTS:Gonzales was the complainant in a case for sum of money and damages filed before theMunicipal Trial Court of Santiago City, where she was represented by the law firm CABUCANA,CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar Cabucanahandling the case and herein respondent as an associate/partner. A decision was rendered in thecivil case ordering the losing party to pay Gonzales the amount of P17,310.00 with interest andP6,000.00 as attorneys fees. Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ of

execution issued in connection with the judgment which prompted Gonzales to file a complaintagainst the said sheriff with the court. Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house ofGonzales; they harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance regardingher complaint before the Court; Gonzales thereafter filed against the Gatchecos criminal casesfor trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation.Respondent represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against the said spouses;respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law since respondents acceptance of thecases of the Gatchecos violates the lawyer-client relationship between complainant andrespondents law firm and renders respondent liable under the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility (CPR) particularly Rule 15.03.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is liable under Rule 15.03 of the CPR

HELD: It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interestsexcept by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.Suchprohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Lawyers are expected notonly to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery anddouble-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.

The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of interests in this case, as the civil casehandled by their law firm where Gonzales is the complainant and the criminal cases filed by


18/54

Gonzales against the Gatcheco spouses are not related, has no merit. The representation ofopposing clients in said cases, though unrelated, constitutes conflict of interests or, at thevery least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which this Court cannot allow.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. is FINED the amount of Two ThousandPesos (P2,000.00)with a STERN WARNING that a commission of the same or similar act in the

future shall be dealt with more severely. .

Analysis: The issue of conflicting interests between different clients of the same lawyer hasalways been a debate at least for some lawyers who argue that no such conflict exists. In thecase at hand, Atty. Cabucana clearly represented divergent interests as he represented a sheriffwho is an executor of his former client Leticia Gonzales whom the latter had conflict with. It takesthe minutest of common sense to see that such was a conflict. An advocate of justice is expectedno less than to weigh the issues in order to come up with a supposition on whether there isindeed a conflict. Respondent being a lawyer is expected such.

The fine of Php 2,000 is but fitting to be imposed upon the lawyer. The stern warning isalso enough for the respondent to see that justice has no room for tolerating the acts of lawyerswho even without intent, represents conflicting interests of different clients. Likewise, they are

expected to represent the client with all good fidelity.

NESTOR PEREZ Vs. ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE;March 30, 2006 A.C. No. 6160

Facts: In a letter-complaint addressed to then Chief Justice Davide, Jr., complainant Perezcharged respondent Atty. de la Torre with misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a lawyer forrepresenting conflicting interests. Perez alleged that he is the barangay captain of Binanuaanan,Calabanga, Camarines Sur; that several suspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom, amongthem Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila, were apprehended and jailed by the police authorities; that

respondent went to the municipal building of Calabanga where Ilo and Avila were being detainedand made representations that he could secure their freedom if they sign the preparedextrajudicial confessions; that unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing theheirs of the murder victim; that on the strength of the extrajudicial confessions, cases were filedagainst them, including herein complainant who was implicated in the extrajudicial confessions asthe mastermind in the criminal activities for which they were being charged.

Respondent denied the accusations against him. He explained that while being detainedat the Calabanga Municipal Police Jail, Avila sought his assistance in drafting an extrajudicialconfession regarding his involvement in the crimes of kidnapping for ransom, murder androbbery. He advised Avila to inform his parents about his decision to make an extrajudicialconfession, apprised him of his constitutional rights and of the possibility that he might be utilizedas a state-witness. Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his

extrajudicial confession, he conferred with Ilo in the presence of his parents; and only after hewas convinced that Ilo was not under undue compulsion did he assist the accused in executingthe extrajudicial confession.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests.

Held: There is conflict of interests when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or moreopposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fightfor an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for oneclient, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule


19/54

covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those inwhich no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.There is a representation of conflictinginterests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which willinjuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he willbe called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired throughtheir connection.The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principlesof public policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns allthe facts connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points ofthe case. Thenature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Itbehooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid theappearance of impropriety and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrusttheir secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.

To negate any culpability, respondent explained that he did not offer his legal services toaccused Avila and Ilo but it was the two accused who sought his assistance in executing theirextrajudicial confessions. Nonetheless, he acceded to their request to act as counsel afterapprising them of their constitutional rights and after being convinced that the accused wereunder no compulsion to give their confession. The excuse proffered by the respondent does notexonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibilitywhich prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all

concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. As found by the IBP, at the time respondentwas representing Avila and Ilo, two of the accused in the murder of the victim ResurreccionBarrios, he was representing the family of the murder victim. Clearly, his representation ofopposing clients in the murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his clients.

What is unsettling is that respondent assisted in the execution by the two accused of theirconfessions whereby they admitted their participation in various serious criminal offensesknowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims. Respondent,who presumably knows the intricacies of the law, should have exercised his better judgmentbefore conceding to accuseds choice of counsel. It did not cross his mind to inhibit himself fromacting as their counsel and instead, he even assisted them in executing the extrajudicialconfession. Considering that this is respondents first infraction, disbarment as sought by thecomplaint is deemed to be too severe. Under the present circumstances, we find that a

suspension from the practice of law for three years is warranted.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Danilo de la Torre is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 15.03 of theCode of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. He is SUSPENDED forTHREE YEARS from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He isWARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Analysis: The existence of a lawyer-client relationship requires that the lawyer maintains thehighest degree of respect towards the confidence reposed upon him by his client. Suchrelationship requires the disclosure of information necessary to render legal services efficiently.Hence, the lawyer must not represent conflicting interests, without the written consent of theclients. Such prohibition is placed to avoid the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing foronly then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of

paramount importance in the administration of justice.

Hence, a lawyer must at all times take into consideration the welfare of his client beforedoing any further actions. The existence on the rule on privilege communications and prohibitionagainst representing conflicting interest are means of safeguarding the interests of the client.

Samala vs Valencia


20/54

FACTS: A complaint was filed by Clarita J. Samala (complainant) against Atty. Luciano D.Valencia (respondent) for Disbarment on the following grounds: (a) serving on two separateoccasions as counsel for contending parties; (b) knowingly misleading the court by submittingfalse documentary evidence; (c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rentalfees; and (d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children. After respondentfiled his Comment, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) forinvestigation, report and recommendation. Commissioner Reyes prepared the Report andRecommendation and found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for six months. The IBPBoard of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of CommissionerReyes but increased the penalty of suspension from six months to one year. The Court adoptsthe report of the IBP Board of Governors except as to the issue on immorality and as to therecommended penalty.

On serving as counsel for contending parties.

In Civil Case No. 95-105-MK, entitled "Leonora M. Aville v. Editha Valdez" fornonpayment of rentals, herein respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, alsoacted as counsel for the tenants Lagmay, Valencia, Bustamante and Bayuga.

In Civil Case No. 98-6804 entitled "Editha S. Valdez and Joseph J. Alba, Jr. v. SalveBustamante and her husband" for ejectment, respondent represented Valdez against Bustamante- one of the tenants in the property subject of the controversy. Defendants appealed. In hisdecision, Presiding Judge Reuben P. dela Cruz warned respondent to refrain from repeating theact of being counsel of record of both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK.

But in Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK, entitled "Editha S. Valdez v. Joseph J. Alba, Jr. andRegister of Deeds of Marikina City," respondent, as counsel for Valdez, filed a Complaint forRescission of Contract with Damages and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 275500against Alba, respondent's former client in Civil Case No. 98-6804 and SCA Case No. 99-341-MK.

Records further reveal that respondent admitted that in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK, hewas the lawyer for Lagmay (one of the tenants) but not for Bustamante and Bayuga albeit he filedthe Explanation and Compliance for and in behalf of the tenants. Respondent also admitted thathe represented Valdez in Civil Case No. 98-6804 and SCA Case No. 99-341-MK againstBustamante and her husband but denied being the counsel for Alba although the case is entitled"Valdez and Albav. Bustamante and her husband," because Valdez told him to include Alba asthe two were the owners of the property and it was only Valdez who signed the complaint forejectment. But, while claiming that respondent did not represent Alba, respondent, however,avers that he already severed his representation for Alba when the latter charged respondent withestafa. Thus, the filing of Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK against Alba.


Complainant alleges that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 for ejectment, respondent submittedTCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership despite the fact that a new TCT No. 275500was already issued in the name of Alba on February 2, 1995. During the hearing beforeCommissioner Raval, respondent avers that when the Answer was filed in the said case, that wasthe time that he came to know that the title was already in the name of Alba; so that when thecourt dismissed the complaint, he did not do anything anymore. Respondent further avers thatValdez did not tell him the truth and things were revealed to him only when the case for rescissionwas filed in 2002. Upon examination of the record, it was noted that Civil Case No. 2000-657-MKfor rescission of contract and cancellation of TCT No. 275500 was also filed on November 27,


21/54

2000,35

before RTC, Branch 273, Marikina City, thus belying the averment of respondent that hecame to know of Alba's title only in 2002 when the case for rescission was filed. It was revealedduring the hearing before Commissioner Raval that Civil Case Nos. 00-7137 and 2000-657-MKwere filed on the same date, although in different courts and at different times. Hence,respondent cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the title he submitted was already cancelled inlieu of a new title issued in the name of Alba in 1995 yet, as proof of th


During the hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmaywho are all over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he haseight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his wifedied in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998. Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was stayingin one of the apartments being claimed by complainant. However, he does not consider his affairwith Lagmay as a relationship and does not consider the latter as his second family.

51 He

reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in Muntinlupaand another in Marikina.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent lawyer has committed acts in violation of the Canons of

Professional Responisbility

HELD: On serving as counsel for contending parties. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests exceptby written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not,without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interestconflicts with that of his present or former client. He may not also undertake to dischargeconflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule isfounded on the principles of public policy and good taste.

16It springs from the relation of attorney

and client which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolatethe client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for onlythen can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramountimportance in the administration of justice. From the foregoing, it is evident that respondent's

representation of Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and her husband, in one case, and Valdezagainst Alba, in another case, is a clear case of conflict of interests which merits a correspondingsanction from this Court. Respondent may have withdrawn his representation in Civil Case No.95-105-MK upon being warned by the court, but the same will not exculpate him from the chargeof representing conflicting interests in his representation in Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK.

Respondent is reminded to be more cautious in accepting professional employments, torefrain from all appearances and acts of impropriety including circumstances indicating conflict ofinterests, and to behave at all times with circumspection and dedication befitting a member of theBar, especially observing candor, fairness and loyalty in all transactions with his clients.


Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibilitywhich provides that 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 mislead by any artifice. It matters not that the trialcourt was not misled by respondent's submission of TCT No. 273020 in the name of Valdez,dismissing the complaint for ejectment. What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent intrying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title wasalready cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of Alba.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt35#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt35#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt35#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt51#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt51#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt16#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt16#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt16#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt16#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt51#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/ac_5439_2007.html#fnt35#fnt35


22/54

Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall notengage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify thedegree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining alawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, orshameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of thecommunity. Thus, in several cases, the Court did not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for keeping amistress in defiance of the mores and sense of morality of the community. That respondentsubsequently married Lagmay in 1998 after the death of his wife and that this is his first infractionas regards immorality serve to mitigate his liability.

The Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct andviolation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt of hereinResolution.

ANALYSIS: As to the courts, a lawyer has the duty not do any falsehood, nor consent to thedoing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice. Also, alawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Upon his admissionto

Documents

Cases Canon 10 to 21