The Lawyer and Society Reviewer

1 | L e g a l P r o f e s s i o n : L a w y e r a n d S o c i e t y

THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

I. CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE

LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL

PROCESSES.

Zaldivar v. Gonzales (G.R. No. 80578, 07 October 1988, 166 SCRA 316)

o FACTS: The following are the subjects of this Resolution filed by the

Petitioner: a Motion, dated 9 February 1988, to Cite in Contempt filed by petitioner Enrique A. Zaldivar against public respondent Special Prosecutor (formerly Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzalez, in connection with G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and G.R. No. 80578. and a Resolution of this Court dated 2May 1988 requiring respondent Hon. Raul Gonzalez to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt and/or subjected to administrative sanctions for making certain public statements. The Motion cited as bases the acts of respondent Gonzalez in:

(1) Having caused the filing of the information against petitioner in Criminal Case No. 12570 before the Sandiganbayan; and

(2) Issuing certain allegedly contemptuous statements to the media in relation to the proceedings in G.R. No. 80578. In respect of the latter, petitioner annexed to his Motion a photocopy of a news article which appeared in the 30 November 1987 issue of the "Philippine Daily Globe."

o ISSUE: Are lawyers entitled to the same degree of latitude of freedom of speech towards the Court?

o RULING: No. The Court begins by referring to the authority to discipline

officers of the court and members of the Bar. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court's constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself of law. Moreover, the Supreme Court has inherent power to punish for contempt, to control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of the Court including lawyers and all other persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court.

Only slightly less important is the public interest in the capacity of the Court effectively to prevent and control professional misconduct on the part of lawyers who are, first and foremost, indispensable participants in the task of rendering justice to every man. Some courts have held, persuasively it appears to us, and that a lawyer's right of free expression may have to be more limited than that of a layman.


A. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.

Vitriolo v. Dasig (A.C. No. 4984, 01 April 2003, 400 SCRA 172)

o FACTS:

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty.

Felina S. Dasig, an official of the Commission on Higher

Education (CHED). The charge involves gross misconduct of

respondent in violation of the Attorneys Oath for having used

her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of

the dignity and reputation of the CHED.

Almost all complainants are high-ranking officers of the CHED.

They allege that while respondent was OIC of Legal Affairs

Service, CHED, committed acts that aregrounds for disbarment

under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

During her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, attempted to

extort from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella

G. Eje, and Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as consideration for

her favorable action on their pending applications or requests

before her office.

Complainants likewise aver that respondent violated her oath

as attorney-at-law by filing eleven (11) baseless, groundless,

and unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of

Quezon City, which were subsequently dismissed

Complainants also allege that respondent instigated the

commission of a crime against complainant Celedonia R.

Coronacion and Rodrigo Coronacion, Jr., when she encouraged

and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard of the Bureau of

Jail Management and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the

Coronacions. As a result of this incident, a complaint for grave

threats against the respondent and her son, was lodged.

Complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then

President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which

maligned the good names and reputation of no less than eleven

(11) CHED Directors calculated to justify her ill motive of

preventing their re-appointment and with the end view of

securing an appointment for herself.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline concluded that

respondent unlawfully used her public office in order to secure

financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation

of the Commission on Higher Education. It was recommended


that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for the

maximum period allowable of three (3) years with a further

warning that similar action in the future will be a ground for

disbarment of respondent.

The IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV- 2002-

393, adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation

of the Investigating Commissioner and Respondent was

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years.

o ISSUE: Whether or not respondent attorney-at-law, as Officer-in-

Charge (OIC) of Legal Services, CHED, may be disciplined by this

Court for her malfeasance, considering that her position, at the time of

filing of the complaint, was “Chief Education Program Specialist, Standards

Development Division, Office of Programs and Standards, CHED.

o HELD:

Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office

may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct

in the discharge of his duties as a government official.

However, if said misconduct as a government official also

constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be

disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar. In this case,

the record shows that the respondent OIC, Legal Services,

CHED, attempted to extort sums of money as consideration for

her favorable action on their pending applications or requests

before her office. The evidence remains unrefuted, given the

respondents failure, despite the opportunities afforded her by

this Court and the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to

comment on the charges. We find that respondents misconduct

as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect her

qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought

to have known that it was patently unethical and illegal for her

to demand sums of money as consideration for the approval of

applications and requests awaiting action by her office. Thus,

respondent Atty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross

misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the Attorneys Oath

as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is

hereby ordered DISBARRED.

Yuhico v. Gutierrez (A.C. No. 8391, 23 November 2010, 635 SCRA 684)


o ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Gutierez is guilty of gross misconduct

under the code of legal profession.

Whether or not respondent can be disbarred at the second

time.

o HELD:

Yes , xxx.. A lawyer may be sanctioned by non payment of debts

for gross misconduct and be suspended from the practice of

law. Lawyers are instruments for administration of justice and

vanguards of our legal system. they are expected to maintain

not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard of morality,

honesty , integrity and fair dealing so that peoples faith and

confidence in judicial system is ensured. they must, at all times.

faithfully perform their duties to society , to the bar , the courts

and to their clients, which include propmp payment of financial

obligations.

No, in a previous case decided by the court in Huyssen v. Atty.

Gutierrez wherein he was already disbarred for same kind of

offense, the Supreme Court , however , cannot adopt its

recommendation to disbar gutierrez for the second time since

we do not have a law or jurisprudence granting double or

multiple disbarment.

Rafols v. Barrios Jr. (A.C. No. 4973, 15 March 2010, 615 SCRA 206)

o FACTS:

The complainants were the plaintiffs in Civil case of the

Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General Santos City, wherein

they sought the cancellation of a deed of sale. The case was

assigned to Judge Dizon, Jr. The complainants were

represented by the respondent Barrios. On December 22, 1997,

the respondent visited the complainants at their residence and

informed complainant Manuel that the judge handling their

case wanted to talk to him. The respondent and Manuel thus

went to the East Royal Hotel's coffee shop where Judge Dizon,

Jr. was already waiting. The respondent introduced Manuel to

the judge, who informed Manuel that their case was pending in

his sala. The judge likewise said that he would resolve the case

in their favor, assuring their success up to the Court of Appeals,

if they could deliver P150,000.00 to him.

o ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct


o HELD:

YES. Court approved and adopted the report and

recommendations of the OBC (Office of the Bar Confidant) but

imposed the supreme penalty of disbarment. Respondent's act

of introducing the complainants to the judge strongly implied

that the respondent was aware of the illegal purpose of the

judge in wanting to talk with the respondent's clients. Thus, the

court unqualifiedly accepted the aptness of the following

evaluation made in the OBC's Report and Recommendation:

being the Officer of the Court, he must have

known that meeting litigants outside the court is

something beyond the bounds of the rule and

that it can never be justified by any reason. By

his overt act in arranging the meeting between

Judge Dizon and complainants-litigants in the

Coffee Shop of the East Royal Hotel, it is crystal

clear that he must have allowed himself and

consented to Judge Dizon's desire to ask money

from the complainants-litigants for a favorable

decision of their case which was pending before

the sala of Judge Dizon.

The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened with

conditions. The attorney is a vanguard of our legal system, and,

as such, is expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but

also a very high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and

fair dealing in order that the people's faith and confidence in

the legal system are ensured. Any violation of the high moral

standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition on the

attorney of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and

disbarment.

Collantes v. Renomeron (A.C. No. 3056, 16 August 1991, 200 SCRA 584)

o FACTS:

This complaint for disbarment is related to the administrative

case which complainant Attorney Fernando T. Collantes, house

counsel for V & G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. filed against

Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban

City, for the latter's irregular actuations with regard to the


application of V & G for registration of 163 pro forma Deeds of

Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its subdivision.

V & G had requested the respondent Register of Deeds to

register some deeds of sale with assignment of lots of the V & G

mortgaged to GSIS by the lot buyers. There was no action from

the respondent.

Another request was made for him to approve or deny

registration of the uniform deeds of absolute sale with

assignment. Still no action except to require V & G to submit

proof of real estate tax payment and to clarify certain details

about the transactions.

Although V & G complied with the desired requirements,

respondent Renomeron suspended the registration of the

documents pending compliance by V & G with a certain

"special arrangement" between them, which was that V & G

should provide him with a weekly round trip ticket from

Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip,

or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondent's Quezon City house

and lot by V & G or GSIS representatives.

Respondent confided to the complainant that he would act

favorably on the 163 registrable documents of V & G if the

latter would execute clarificatory affidavits and send money

for a round trip plane ticket for him.

The plane fare amounting to P800 (without the pocket money

of P2,000) was sent to respondent.

Because of V & G's failure to give him pocket money in addition

to plane fare, respondent imposed additional registration

requirements. Fed up with the respondent's extortionate

tactics, the complainant wrote him a letter challenging him to

act on all pending applications for registration of V & G within

twenty-four (24) hours.

Respondent formally denied registration of the transfer of 163

certificates of title to the GSIS on the uniform ground that the

deeds of absolute sale with assignment were ambiguous as to

parties and subject matter.

Respondent elevated the matter to the Administrator, National

Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration. The

NLTDRA ruled that the questioned documents were

registrable.


Exasperated by respondent's conduct, the complainant filed

with the NLTDRA administrative charges, against respondent

Register of Deeds.

Upon receipt of the charges, NLTDRA Administrator Teodoro

G. Bonifacio directed respondent to explain in writing why no

administrative disciplinary action should be taken against him.

Respondent was further asked whether he would submit his

case on the basis of his answer, or be heard in a formal

investigation.

In his answer, respondent denied the charges of extortion and

of directly receiving pecuniary or material benefit for himself

in connection with the official transactions awaiting his action.

Although an investigator was appointed by NLTDRA

Administrator Bonifacio to hear Attorney Collantes' charges

against him, Attorney Renomeron waived his right to a formal

investigation. Both parties submitted the case for resolution

based on the pleadings.

The investigator, Attorney Leonardo Da Jose, recommended

dropping the charges of:

(1) dishonesty; (2) causing undue injury to a party through

manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable

negligence; and (3) gross ignorance of the law and procedure.

He opined that the charge of neglecting or refusing, in spite

repeated requests and without sufficient justification, to act

within a reasonable time on the registration of the documents

involved, in order to extort some pecuniary or material benefit

from the interested party, absorbed the charges of conduct

unbecoming of a public official, extortion, and directly

receiving some pecuniary or material benefit for himself in

connection with pending official transactions before him.

Brushing aside the investigator's recommendation, NLTDRA

Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio on February 22, 1988,

recommended to Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A. Ordoñez that

the respondent: (1) be found guilty of simple neglect of duty:

(2) be reprimanded to act with dispatch on documents

presented to him for registration; and (3) be warned that a

repetition of similar infraction will be dealt with more

severely.

After due investigation of the charges, Secretary Ordoñez

found respondent guilty of grave misconduct.


As recommended by the Secretary of Justice, the President of

the Philippines, dismissed the respondent from the

government service.

Attorney Collantes also filed in this Court on June 16, 1987, a

disbarment complaint against said respondent.

o ISSUE: whether the respondent register of deeds, as a lawyer, may

also be disciplined by this Court for his malfeasances as a public

official.

o RULING:

The answer is yes, for his misconduct as a public official also

constituted a violation of his oath as a lawyer.

o RATIO DECIDENDI:

The lawyer's oath, imposes upon every lawyer the duty to

delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a

source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his

suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action.

As the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro said:

"A person takes an oath when he is admitted to the Bar which

is designed to impress upon him his responsibilities. He

thereby becomes an 'officer of the court' on whose shoulders

rests the grave responsibility of assisting the courts in the

proper, fair, speedy and efficient administration of justice. As

an officer of the court he is subject to a rigid discipline that

demands that in his every exertion the only criterion be that

truth and justice triumph. This discipline is what has given the

law profession its nobility, its prestige, its exalted place. From a

lawyer, to paraphrase Justice Felix Frankfurter, are expected

those qualities of truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full

candor, intellectual honesty, and the strictest observance of

fiduciary responsibility — all of which, throughout the

centuries, have been compendiously described as moral

character."

"Membership in the Bar is in the category of a mandate to

public service of the highest order. A lawyer is an oath-bound

servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by

inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is

the advancement of the quest of truth and justice, for which he

has sworn to be a fearless crusader."

The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in

government service in the discharge of their official tasks


(Canon 6). Just as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards

for Public Officials requires public officials and employees to

process documents and papers expeditiously (Sec. 5, subpars.

[c] and [d] and prohibits them from directly or indirectly

having a financial or material interest in any transaction

requiring the approval of their office, and likewise bars them

from soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in the

course of any transaction which may be affected by the

functions of their office (Sec. 7, subpars. [a] and [d]), the Code

of Professional Responsibility forbids a lawyer to engage in

unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01,

Code of Professional Responsibility), or delay any man's cause

"for any corrupt motive or interest"

"A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on

his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or

private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of

the legal profession." (Rule 7.03, Code of Professional

Responsibility.)

This Court has ordered that only those who are "competent,

honorable, and reliable" may practice the profession of law for

every lawyer must pursue "only the highest standards in the

practice of his calling."

The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney

Renomeron committed as a public official have demonstrated

his unfitness to practice the high and noble calling of the law.

He should therefore be disbarred.

B. Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at

defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

Kupers v. Hontanosas (A.C. No. 5704. May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 325)

o FACTS:

Willem Kupers (KUPERS) filed an administrative complaint

against Atty. Johnson Hontanosas (HONTANOSAS) for the

latter had allegedly prepared and notarized contracts that

violated PD 471 which limits an alien from leasing private

lands for 25 years only and renewable for another 25 years.

KUPERS claimed that HONTANOSAS allegedly prepared two

memorandums of agreement and contracts of lease between 1)

Swiss national spouses Busse and Hochstrasser over a

property in Cebu City for 50 years, renewable for another 50


years and 2) Swiss national spouse Busse and Karl Emberger

over a parcel of land Cebu for a period of 49 years, renewable

for another 49 years. KUPERS also alleged that HONTANOSAS

had served conflicting interests since he performed legal

services to adverse parties.

HONTANOSAS responded that KUPERS should be the one that

should be punished for meddling in the affairs of his clients

because he is not privy to the agreements between

HONTANOSAS and his clients. HONTANOSAS also avers that

the assailed contracts are valid under RA 7652.

Comm. Doroteo Aguila of the IBP recommended the

suspension of HONTANOSAS. The IBP Board of Governors,

however, dismissed the complaint because HONTANOSAS did

not really perform an illegal act.

o ISSUE: Whether or not Hontanosas should be suspdended.

o HELD:

YES. Much is demanded from those who engage in the practice

of law because they have a duty not only to their clients, but

also to the court, to the bar, and to the public.The lawyer's

diligence and dedication to his work and profession ideally

should not only promote the interests of his clients. A lawyer

has the duty to attain the ends of justice by maintaining respect

for the legal profession.

The investigating commissioner and the IBP Board of

Governors both found that the majority of the charges against

the respondent lack proof. Our own review of the records

confirms that most of the charges are unsupported by

evidence. Such charges are simply the unsubstantiated

accusations in the complaint with nary a whit of concrete proof

such as affidavits of the clients whose trust respondents had

allegedly breached.

However, administrative cases against lawyers are suigeneres

and as such the complainant in the case need not be the

aggrieved party. Thus even if complainant is not a party to the

contracts, the charge of drafting and notarizing contracts in

contravention of law holds weight. A plain reading of these

contracts clearly shows that they violate the law limiting lease


of private lands to aliens for a period of twenty five (25) years

renewable for another twenty five (25) years.

In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts,

respondent violated the Attorney's Oath and several canons of

the Code of Professional Responsibility. One of the foremost

sworn duties of an attorney-at-law is to "obey the laws of the

Philippines". This duty is enshrined in the Attorney's Oathand

in Canon 1, which provides that "(a) lawyer shall uphold the

constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for

law and legal processes". Rule 1.02 under Canon 1 states:

"A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at

defiance of the law or at decreasing confidence in the

legal systems".

The other canons of professional responsibility which

respondent transgressed are the following:

CANON 15 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,

FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND

TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

xxxxxxxxx

Rule 15.07 — A lawyer shall impress upon his client

compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness

CANON 17 — A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE

OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE

TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

Aside from constituting violation of the lawyer's oath, the acts

of respondents also amount to gross misconduct under

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by

Supreme Court, grounds therefor. — A member of the

bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as

attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,

malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,

grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction

of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any

violation of the oath which he is required to take before

admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience

appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without

authority so to do. . . .


C. Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,

encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause;

D. 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a

controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

Castaneda v. Ago 65 SCRA 505 (G.R. No. L-28546, 30 July 1975)

o FACTS

In 1955, Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against

Ago in the CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries.

Judgement was rendered in 1957 in favor of Castaneda and

Henson. In 1961, the Supreme Court affirmed judgment. After

remand, trial court issued writ of execution, ago moved for a

stay of execution but was denied. Levy was made on ago ‘s

house and lots the sheriff advertised the sale. Ago moved to

stop the auction but the CA dismissed petition. SC affirmed it.

Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction

to restrain sheriff from enforcing writ of execution but his

motions were denied. In 1963, the sheriff sold the house and

lots to Castaneda and Henson. Ago however, failed to redeem

it. In 1964 ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered

against him in the replevin suit saying it was personal

obligation and that his wife one half share in their conjugal

house could not legally be reached by the levy made. CFI of

Quezon City then issued a writ of preliminary injunction

restraining Castaneda the Register of Deeds and the sheriff

from registering the final deed of sale. The battle on the matter

of lifting and restoring the restraining order continued. In

1966. Agos filed a petition fo certiorari and prohibition to

enjoin sheriff and enforcing writ of possession but the

Supreme Court dismissed it. Agos filed a similar petition with

Court of Appeals which also dismissed the petition. Agos

appealed to SC which dismissed the petition. Agos filed another

petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA and gave

due course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction.

o ISSUE: Whether or Not Ago’s lawyer encouraged his clients to

avoid controversy.

o HELD

No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of complaint for

annulment of the sheriff ‘s sale, justice demands that the

petitioners, long denied of the fruits of their victory in the

replevin suit, must now enjoy them for the respondents Agos,


abetted by their lawyer Atty Luison have misused legal

remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the

satisfaction of the judgement, to the extended prejudice of the

petitioners.

Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his

exalted position as officer of the court. Atty Luison has allowed

himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator

of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and conciliator for

compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of

litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and

moral justice.

The attitude of the respondents and their counsel of

maneuvering for fourteen years to doggedly resist execution of

the judgment through manifold tactics in and from one court to

another is to be condemned because far from viewing courts as

sanctuaries for those who seek justice, they try to use them to

subvert the very ends of justice.

II. CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN

EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE

INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVE-NESS OF THE PROFESSION.

A. Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause

of the defenseless or the oppressed.

Bar Matter No. 2012 Proposed Rule on Mandatory Legal Services for

Practicing Lawyers June 23, 2009

Governs the mandatory requirement for practicing lawyers to

render FREE LEGAL AID SERVICES in all cases (whether civil,

criminal, or administrative) involving indigent and pauper

litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is needed.

All practicing lawyers are required to render a minimum of

sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent litigants in

a year.

Clerks of Court and the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP

Chapter are designated to coordinate with a lawyer for cases

where he may render free legal aid service.

RA No. 9999 or the "Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010”

The State shall guarantee free legal assistance to the poor and

ensure that every person who cannot afford the services of a

counsel is provided with a competent and independent counsel

preferably of his/her own choice, if upon determination it


appears that the party cannot afford the services of a counsel,

and that services of a counsel are necessary to secure the ends

of justice and protect of the party.

Art. III, Sec. 11 Constitution

Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and

adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by

reason of poverty

Ledesma v. Climaco 57 SCRA 473 (1974)

o FACTS:

Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an

accused in a case pending in the sala of the respondent judge.

On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election

Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He

commenced discharging his duties, and filed a motion to

withdraw from his position as counsel de parte.

The respondent Judge not only denied the motion but also

appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants.

On November 3, 1964, petitioner filed an urgent motion to be

allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, premised on the

policy of the Commission on Elections to require full time

service as well as on the volume or pressure of work of

petitioner, which could prevent him from handling adequately

the defense.

On November 6, Judge denied the motion. Hence, Ledesma

instituted this certiorari proceeding.

o ISSUE: Whether or not a member of the bar may withdraw as

counsel de oficio due to appointment as Election Registrar.

o HELD:

The ends of justice would be served by requiring Ledesma to

continue as counsel de oficio because: the case has been

postponed at least 8 times at the defense's instance; there was

no incompatibility between duty of petitioner to defend the

accused, and his task as an election registrar. There is not likely

at present, and in the immediate future, an exorbitant demand

on his time.

B. Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he

shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to

the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s rights.

III. CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

SERVICE INTHE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.


Office of the Court Administrator v. Ladaga (A.M. No. P-99-1287, 26

January 2001, 350 SCRA 326)

o FACTS:

Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional

Trial Court of Makati, Branch 133, requested the Court

Administrator, Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, for authority to

appear as pro bono counsel of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza

Ladaga for Falsification of Public Document pending before the

Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 40. While

respondent’s letter-request was pending action, the private

complainant sent a letter to the Court Administrator

requesting certification regarding the respondent’s authority

to appear as counsel for the accused in the said criminal case.

The Office of the Court Administrator referred the matter to

respondent for comment.

In respondent’s comment, he admitted appearing in Criminal

Case No. 84885 without prior authorization. He reasoned out

that the factual circumstances surrounding the said criminal

case such as his cousin not having enough resources. He also

stated that his appearances on hearings for the said criminal

case were covered by his leave application approved by the

presiding judge. Furthermore, he said that his appearance on

the criminal case did not prejudice his office nor the interest of

the public since he did not take advantage of his position.

o ISSUE: Is the respondent allowed to act as legal counsel to

Criminal Case No. 86885?

o HELD:

No. Respondent, though not liable from Sec. 7(b)(2) of Republic

Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public

Officials and Employees), failed to obtain a prior permission

from the head of the Department as required by Sec. 12 Rule

XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. Although respondent

filed a leave approved by the presiding judge of the court to

which respondent is assigned, the presiding judge is not the

head of the Department contemplated by law.

Atty. Misael M. Ladaga was reprimanded with a stern warning

that any repetition of such act would be dealt with more

severely.

Documents

The Lawyer and Society Reviewer