Legal Ethics

Pugao, Johnlery O.4CLM

A.C. No. 6707

March 24, 2006

Huyssen vs. Gutierrez

Facts:

In 1995, complainant alleged that while respondent was still connected with the

Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), she and her three sons, who are all

American citizens, applied for Philippine Visas under Section 13[g] of the Immigration

Law. Respondent told complainant that in order that their visa applications will be

favorably acted upon by the BID they needed to deposit a certain sum of money worth.

Believing that the deposit was indeed required by law, complainant deposited with

respondent the total amount of US$20,000. Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as

proofs that he received the amounts deposited by the complainant but refused to give

her copies of official receipts despite her demands. After one year, complainant

demanded from respondent the return of US$20,000 who assured her that said amount

would be returned. When respondent failed to return the sum deposited the complainant

filed for disbarment in the Commission on Bar Discipline.

Issue/s:

Whether or not respondent’s conduct violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility and merits the penalty of disbarment.

Ruling:

Yes, the respondent had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The court held that, It is undisputed that respondent admitted having received the

US$20,000 from complainant as shown by his signatures in the petty cash

vouchers and receipts1 he prepared, on the false representation that that it was needed

in complainant’s application for visa with the BID. Respondent denied he

misappropriated the said amount and interposed the defense that he delivered it to a

certain Atty. Mendoza who assisted complainant and children in their application for visa

in the BID. Such defense remains unsubstantiated as he failed to submit evidence on

the matter. While he claims that Atty. Mendoza already died, he did not present the

death certificate of said Atty. Mendoza. Worse, the action of respondent in shifting the

blame to someone who has been naturally silenced by fate is not only impudent but

downright ignominious. Wherefore, the court hereby disbars Atty. Gutierrez.

A.C No. 6708

August 25, 2005

Quiambao vs. Bamba

Facts:

From June 2000 to January 2001, the complainant was the president and

managing director of Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. (AIB), a family-owned corporation

engaged in providing security and investigation services. She avers that she procured

the legal services of the respondent not only for the corporate affairs of AIB but also for

her personal case. About six months after she resigned as AIB president, or on 14 June

2001, the respondent filed on behalf of AIB a complaint for replevin and damages

against her before the MeTC of Quezon City for the purpose of recovering from her the

car of AIB assigned to her as a service vehicle. This he did without withdrawing as

counsel of record in the ejectment case, which was then still pending. Thus petitioner

Quiambao filed an administrative case for disbarment against respondent Bamba.

Issue/s:

Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting

interests in contravention of the basic tenets of the legal profession.

Ruling:

Yes, respondent is guilty of misconduct.

The court says that, In this case, it is undisputed that at the time the respondent

filed the replevin case on behalf of AIB he was still the counsel of record of the

complainant in the pending ejectment case. We do not sustain respondent’s theory that

since the ejectment case and the replevin case are unrelated cases fraught with

different issues, parties, and subject matters, the prohibition is inapplicable. His

representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated, obviously constitutes

conflict of interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double-dealing. While the

respondent may assert that the complainant expressly consented to his continued

representation in the ejectment case, the respondent failed to show that he fully

disclosed the facts to both his clients and he failed to present any written consent of the

complainant and AIB as required under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. Wherefore, the court hereby held Atty. Bamba guilty and is

suspended from the practice of law for one year.

A.C. No. 6549

September 22, 2006

Poon vs. Bassig-Chua

Facts:

Roberto Poon was the defendant in a case entitled "Metro Central Mercantile

Corporation (MCMC) v. Robert Poon. Atty. Janette Bassig-Chua on the other hand, was

the counsel of the plaintiff, MCMC. On 23 July 2004, Roberto charged respondent with

grave professional misconduct for deliberately failing to furnish his counsel, Atty.

Antonio R. Tupaz of the pleadings and motions she filed in Civil Case No. 174709.

Roberto prays that respondent be disbarred for grave professional misconduct and for

the total disregard of his right to due process. Roberto thus maintained that respondent

failed to live up to a lawyer's duty to uphold the rights of the parties in a case, even that

of the adverse party.

Issue/s:

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for failure to

furnish Atty. Tupaz of the pleadings she filed.

Ruling:

Yes, respondent should be held guilty.

The court held that, it is elementary that when a party is represented by counsel,

all notices should be sent to the party's lawyer at his given address. The purpose of the

rule is obviously to maintain a uniform procedure calculated to place in competent

hands the orderly prosecution of a party's case. The court finds that respondent should

be reprimanded for failing to comply with the rules. Under Canon 1 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the

land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Wherefore, the court hereby

reprimands and sternly warns Atty. Bassig-Chua for simple misconduct.

A.C. No. 5700

January 30, 2006

PAGCOR vs. Carandang

Facts:

The complaint alleges that Atty. Carandang, respondent, is the president of

Bingo Royale, Incorporated (Bingo Royale), a private corporation organized under the

laws of the Philippines. On 2 February 1999, PAGCOR and Bingo Royale executed a

"Grant of Authority to Operate Bingo Games." Article V of this document mandates

Bingo Royale to remit 20% of its gross sales to PAGCOR. This 20% is divided into 15%

to PAGCOR and 5% franchise tax to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In the course of

its operations, Bingo Royale incurred arrears amounting to P6,064,833.14 as of 15

November 2001. Instead of demanding the payment therefore, PAGCOR allowed Bingo

Royale and respondent Atty. Carandang to pay the said amount in monthly installment

of P300,000.00 from July 2001 to June 2003. Bingo Royale then issued to PAGCOR

twenty four Bank of Commerce checks in the sum of P7,200,000.00 signed by

respondent. However, when the checks were deposited after the end of each month at

the Land Bank, U.N. Avenue Branch, Manila, they were all dishonored by reason of

Bingo Royale’s "Closed Account." Despite PAGCOR’s demand letters dated 12

November and 12 December 2001, and 12 February 2002, respondent failed to pay the

amounts of the checks.

Issue/s:

Whether or not respondent is liable for serious misconduct and violations of

the Attorney’s oath and code of professional responsibility.

Ruling:

Yes, respondent is liable for serious misconduct.

The court rules that, whether to issue or not checks in favor of a payee is a

voluntary act. It is clearly a choice for an individual (especially one learned in the law),

whether in a personal capacity or officer of a corporation, to do so after assessing and

weighing the consequences and risks for doing so. As President of BRI, he cannot be

said to be unaware of the probability that BRI, the company he runs, could not raise

funds, totally or partially, to cover the checks as they fell due. Moreover, The Code of

Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to obey the laws of the land and promote

respect for law and the legal processes. It also prohibits a lawyer from engaging in

unlawful conduct. Wherefore, the court hereby declares Atty. Carandang guilty of

serious misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law for six months.

A.C. No. 5580

June 15, 2005

San Jose Homeowners Association Inc., vs. Romanillos

Facts:

In 1985, respondent represented San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc.

(SJHAI) before the Human Settlements Regulation Commission (HSRC) in a case

against Durano and Corp., Inc. (DCI) for violation of the Subdivision and Condominium

Buyer’s Protection Act (P.D. No. 957). SJHAI alleged that Lot No. 224 was designated

as a school site in the subdivision plan that DCI submitted to the Bureau of Lands in

1961 but was sold by DCI to spouses Ramon and Beatriz Durano without disclosing it

as a school site. While still the counsel for SJHAI, respondent represented Myrna and

Antonio Montealegre in requesting for SJHAI’s conformity to construct a school building

on Lot No. 224 to be purchased from Durano. When the request was denied,

respondent applied for clearance before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board

(HLURB) in behalf of Montealegre. Petitioner’s Board of Directors terminated

respondent’s services as counsel and engaged another lawyer to represent the

association. Respondent also acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who

substituted for DCI in a Civil Case. Thus, SJHAI filed a disbarment case against

respondent for representing conflicting interests.

Issue/s:

Whether or not respondent is liable for grave and serious misconduct.

Ruling:

Yes, respondent is liable.

The court held that, it is undoubtedly, respondent represented the inconsistent

interests of SJHAI, DCI as substituted by Lydia Durano-Rodriguez and the

Montealegres. Respondent was admonished yet he continued to represent Durano-

Rodriguez against SJHAI. It is inconsequential that petitioner never questioned the

propriety of respondent’s continued representation of Lydia Durano-Rodriguez. The lack

of opposition does not mean tacit consent. As long as the lawyer represents

inconsistent interests of two or more opposing clients, he is guilty of violating his oath.

Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates that a

lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all

concerned given after a full disclosure. Wherefore, the court hereby disbars Atty.

Romanillos.

A.C. No. 8243

July 24, 2009

Pacana vs. Pascual-Lopez

Facts:

On 2 January 2002, complainant was the Operations Director for Multitel

Communications Corporation (MCC). Sometime in July 2002, MCC changed its name to

Precedent Communications Corporation (Precedent). According to complainant, in mid-

2002, Multitel was besieged by demand letters from its members and investors because

of the failure of its investment schemes. He alleges that he earned the ire of Multitel

investors after becoming the assignee of majority of the shares of stock of Precedent

and after being appointed as trustee of a fund amounting to Thirty Million Pesos

deposited at Real Bank. Distraught, complainant sought the advice of respondent, From

then on, complainant and respondent constantly communicated, with the former

disclosing all his involvement and interests in Precedent and Precedent’s relation with

Multitel. Respondent gave legal advice to complainant and even helped him prepare

standard quitclaims for creditors. Later on, complainant knew that respondent was

representing the creditors of Multitel. Assuring the complainant that it was part of

respondent’s strategy of settling all the legal problems of the former, both parties

continued to work together.

Issue/s:

Whether or not respondent is liable for representing conflicting interests.

Ruling:

Yes, he is liable.

The court held that, there is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents

inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. Indubitably, respondent took

advantage of complainant’s hapless situation, initially, by giving him legal advice and,

later on, by soliciting money and properties from him. Simultaneously, she was also

doing the same thing to impress upon her clients, the party claimants against Multitel

that she was doing everything to reclaim the money they invested with Multitel.

Wherefore, the court hereby disbars respondent Atty. Pascual-Lopez.

A.C. No. 5050

September 20, 2005

Angeles vs. Figueroa

Facts:

Complainants narrate that they were the defendants in a Civil Case, while herein

respondent Atty. Figueroa was the counsel of Bartolome M. Angeles, the plaintiffs in

said case; on 25 September 1998, the trial court ordered respondent to file an answer to

complainants’ request for admission, after failing several times to file his answer,

respondent filed a manifestation dated 1 February1999, alleging that he has already

sent his answer to complainants’ request for admission through registered mail and that

he is in possession of registry receipts. In view of the failure of the complainants’

counsel and the court to receive the alleged answer, complainants went to the Central

Post Office of Lawton, Manila to investigate the matter. Tomas Baggay of the Inspection

Service of the Philippine Postal Corporation then sent complainants a letter citing the

letter-report of the Postmaster of Tanza, Cavite dated 24 February 1999 stating that the

letters bearing the alleged registry receipts by the respondent issued by the Tanza Post

Office all dated 16 November 1998 were not posted at said office. Complainants then

filed a motion to declare Atty. Figueroa and Bartolome, in contempt of court which the

court granted on 26 March 1999 ordering respondent to pay a fine of P2,000.00.

Respondent explained that he himself was surprised to find out that the pleadings he

sent by registered mail to the lower court and to the counsel of complainants were not

received by them; upon inquiry made in the Tanza Post Office, he found out that there

were anomalies.

Issue/s:

Whether or not respondent is liable of falsification of records.

Ruling:

No, he is not liable.

The court held that, a mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice.

Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. There must always be sufficient evidence to

support the charge. Respondent is not under obligation to prove his negative averment,

much less to disprove what has not been proved by complainants. Thus, we have

consistently held that if the complainant/ plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of

proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which

he bases his claim, the respondent/defendant is under no obligation to prove his

exception or defense. Wherefore, the court hereby dismisses the petition.

A.C. No. 6567

April 16, 2008

Saberon vs. Larong

Facts:

Complainant filed before the BSP a Petition against Surigaonon Rural Banking

Corporation (the bank) and Alfredo Tan Bonpin (Bonpin), whose family comprises the

majority stockholders of the bank, for cancellation of the bank's registration and

franchise. The Petition, he said, arose from the bank's and/or Bonpin's refusal to return

various checks and land titles, which were given to secure a loan obtained by his wife,

despite alleged full payment of the loan and interests. Respondent, in-house counsel

and acting corporate secretary of the bank, filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses to

the Petition stating, inter alia, that this is another in the series of blackmail suits filed by

plaintiff (herein complainant) and his wife to coerce the Bank and Mr. Bonpin for

financial gain. Respondent made statements of the same tenor in his Rejoinder to

complainant's Reply. Finding the aforementioned statements to be "totally malicious,

viscous and bereft of any factual or legal basis," complainant filed the present

complaint.

Issue/s:

Whether or not respondent is liable for misconduct.

Ruling:

Yes, he is liable of simple misconduct.

The court held that, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted

members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance the

interests of their clients. However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with

vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive

language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but

respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. Respecting

respondent's argument that the matters stated in the Answer he filed before the BSP

were privileged, it suffices to stress that lawyers, though they are allowed a latitude of

pertinent remark or comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold and for the

felicity of their clients, should not trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety

in making such remark or comment. Wherefore, the court hereby grants the petition and

respondent Atty. Larong is guilty of simple misconduct.

A.C. No. 5955

September 8, 2009

Hegna vs. Paderanga

Facts:

Herein complainant was the lessee of a portion of lot at Barangay Quiot Pardo,

Cebu City, which was owned by the heirs of Sabina Baclayon. The heirs of Baclayon,

through their representative Gema Sabandija, entered into a contract of lease with

complainant for a period of ten years, commencing from 26 June 1994. On 26

September 2001, complainant filed a complaint for forcible entry against therein

defendants entitled John Hegna v. Mr. & Mrs. Eliseo Panaguinip. On 1 March 2002,

therein defendants requested the complainant to move for the dismissal of the

complaint against them so as to prevent the issuance of the writ of execution thereon.

While therein defendants wanted to amicably settle the case, however, they failed to

mention the proposed settlement amount stated in the decision dated 21 December

2001. Subsequently, respondent Atty. Goering G.C. Paderanga filed an Affidavit of

Third-Party Claim dated 5 March 2002 before Sheriff Suarin, the sheriff executing the

judgment in the said civil case. In the said affidavit, respondent claimed that he was the

owner of Lot No. 3653-D-1 and a FUSO (Canter series) vehicle, which he bought from

therein defendants respectively, both of which could be erroneously levied by a writ of

execution issued in the civil case.

Issue/s:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct.

Ruling:

Yes, he is guilty of such conduct.

The court held that, there was indeed an anomaly which constitutes a violation of

the Canons of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer ought to have known that he cannot

acquire the property of his client which is in litigation. Respondent necessitates a heavy

penalty since the circumstances surrounding the transfer of ownership of properties

tend to indicate an anomalous transfer aimed to subvert the proper administration of

justice. Respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath, which mandates that he should support

the Constitution, obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted

authorities therein, and do no falsehood or not consent to the doing of any in court.

Further, he has also failed to live up to the standard set by law that he should refrain

from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening

confidence in the legal system. Wherefore, the court hereby suspends respondent Atty.

Paderanga for engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct.

A.C. No. 4947

June 7, 2007

Yap-Paras vs. Paras

Facts:

On 9 September 1998, herein petitioner-movant filed a verified Petition praying

for the disbarment of her estranged husband respondent Atty. Justo J. Paras alleging

acts of deceit, malpractice, grave misconduct, grossly immoral conduct and violation of

oath as a lawyer committed by the latter. The Court issued a Resolution finding Atty.

Paras guilty of committing a falsehood in violation of his lawyer's oath and of the Code

of Professional Responsibility. Thus, the Court resolved to suspend Atty. Paras from the

practice of law for a period of one year, with a warning that commission of the same or

similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty. The

aforesaid Resolution was received by respondent. Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion

for Reconsideration, during the pendency of the motion, complainant-movant filed with

the Court the instant Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment, alleging there under, inter

alia, that Atty. Paras violated the suspension order earlier issued by the Court with his

continued practice of law. In time, the Court issued a Resolution denying for lack of

merit. In the same resolution, the Court required Atty. Paras to comment on petitioner-

movant's Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment. It appearing that Atty. Paras failed to

file a comment on the Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment, the Court issued another

Resolution dated requiring Atty. Paras to show cause why he should not be held in

contempt of court for such failure and to comply with the said resolution within ten days

from receipt.

Issue/s:

Whether or not respondent is held liable for disobeying the court.

Ruling:

Yes, he is liable.

The court held that, all lawyers are expected to recognize the authority of the

Supreme Court and obey its lawful processes and orders. Here, Atty. Paras admitted

that he had been less than prudent, and indeed fell short, of his obligation to follow,

obey and comply with the specific Order of the Honorable Supreme Court contained in

Its Resolution. Wherefore, the court hereby, denies the petion for disbarment. However,

warns the respondent for failure to observe the respect due to the court.