1

DIANA RAMOS VS. ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG, AC No.

6788, August 23, 2007
FACTS:

the following constitute prohibited

acts and transactions of any public
official and employee and are
hereby declared unlawful:

In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the

assistance of respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in
filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses
Jovellanos. She gave respondent P8,500 as
attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt
for P5,000 only.

xxx xxx xxx

The complainant tried to attend the scheduled

hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses.
Oddly, respondent never allowed her to enter the
courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He
would then come out after several hours to inform
her that the hearing had been cancelled and
rescheduled. This happened six times and for each
appearance in court, respondent charged her P350.

xxx xxx xxx

After six consecutive postponements, the

complainant became suspicious. She personally
inquired about the status of her cases in the trial
courts of Bian and San Pedro, Laguna. She was
shocked to learn that respondent never filed any
case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact
employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).
According to respondent, the complainant knew that
he was in the government service from the very
start. Because he was with the PAO and aware that
the complainant was not an indigent, he
declined. Nevertheless, he advised the complainant
to consult Atty. Tim Ungson, a relative who was a
private practitioner. Atty. Ungson, however, did not
accept the complainant's case as she was unable to
come up with the acceptance fee agreed upon.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING: Yes. Canon 6 of the CPR provides that these
canons shall apply to lawyers in government services
in the discharge of their tasks. Lawyers are expected
to conduct themselves with honesty and
integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government
service are expected to be more conscientious of
their actuations as they are subject to public
scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but
also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to
public service.
Government employees are expected to devote
themselves completely to public service. For this
reason, the private practice of profession is
prohibited. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees
provides:
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and
Transactions. -- In addition to acts
and omissions of public officials
and employees now prescribed in
the Constitution and existing laws,

DONGA, R.A | PAULINO, T.J

(b) Outside employment and other

activities related thereto, public
officials and employees during
their incumbency shall not:

(1) Engage in the private practice

of profession unless authorized by
the Constitution or law, provided
that such practice will not conflict
with their official function.[25]

Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle

private cases for they are expected to devote
themselves full-time to the work of their respective
offices.
In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from
the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15,
1992 while he was still connected with the PAO.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client
relationship.
Aggravating
respondent's wrongdoing was his receipt of
attorney's fees. The PAO was created for the
purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent
litigants. Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of
the Revised Administrative Code provides:
Sec. 14. xxx
The PAO shall be the principal law
office of the Government in
extending free legal assistance to
indigent persons in criminal, civil,
labor, administrative and other
quasi-judicial cases.
As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not
have accepted attorney's fees from the
complainant as this was inconsistent with
the office's mission. Respondent violated
the prohibition against accepting legal fees
other than his salary.
Aside from disregarding the prohibitions against
handling private cases and accepting attorney's fees,
respondent also surreptitiously deceived the
complainant. Not only did he fail to file a complaint
against the Jovellanoses, respondent also led the
complainant to believe that he really filed an action
against the Jovellanoses. He even made it appear
that the cases were being tried and asked the
complainant to pay his appearance fees for hearings
that never took place. These acts constituted

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

2
dishonesty, a violation of the lawyer's oath not to do
any falsehood.

he delivered the said amount to a certain Atty.

Mendoza.

Thus, Atty. Jose R. Imbang is found guilty of violating

the lawyers oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 18,
Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Accordingly,
he
is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his
name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys. He is also ordered to return to
complainant the amount of P5,000 with interest at
the legal rate, reckoned from 1995, within 10 days
from receipt of this resolution.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent has violated

Rule 6.02 of the Canon 6 of the CPR.

GISELA HUYSSEN VS. ATTY. GUTIERREZ, AC. NO.

6707, MARCH 24, 2006
FACTS: Complainant alleged that in 1995, 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 for a period of one year which
could be withdrawn after one year. Believing that
the deposit was indeed required by law, complainant
deposited with respondent on six different occasions
from April 1995 to April 1996 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
World Mission for Jesus (of which complainant was a
member) sent a demand letter to respondent for the
immediate return of the money. In a letter dated 1
March 1999, respondent promised to release the
amount not later than 9 March 1999. Failing to
comply with his promise, the World Mission for
Jesus sent another demand letter. After respondent
made several unfulfilled promises to return the
deposited amount, complainant referred the matter
to a lawyer who sent two demand letters to
respondent. The demand letters remained
unheeded.
Thus, a complaint for disbarment was filed by
complainant in the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
At the outset it should be noted that there is no
question that respondent received the amount of
US$20,000 from complainant, as respondent himself
admitted that he signed the vouchers (Annexes A to
F of complainant) showing his receipt of said amount
from complainant. Respondent however claims that
he did not appropriate the same for himself but that

DONGA, R.A | PAULINO, T.J

RULING: Yes. Considering that respondent was able

to perpetrate the fraud by taking advantage of his
position with the Board of Special Inquiry of the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, makes it
more reprehensible as it has caused damage to the
reputation and integrity of said office. It is submitted
that respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which reads:
"A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties."
Respondents acts are more despicable. Not only did
he misappropriate the money of complainant;
worse, he had the gall to prepare receipts with the
letterhead of the BID and issued checks to cover up
his misdeeds. Clearly, he does not deserve to
continue, being a member of the bar.
Time and again, we have declared that the practice
of law is a noble profession. It is a special privilege
bestowed only upon those who are competent
intellectually, academically and morally. Indeed, the
primary objective of administrative cases against
lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring
individual lawyers but also to safeguard the
administration of justice by protecting the courts
and the public from the misconduct of lawyers, and
to remove from the legal profession persons whose
utter disregard of their lawyers oath have proven
them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed
in them as members of the bar. It bears stressing
also that government lawyers who are public
servants owe fidelity to the public service, a public
trust. As such, government lawyers should be more
sensitive to their professional obligations as their
disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified
in the public eye.
As a lawyer, who was also a public officer,
respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict
demands and high standards of the legal profession.
Thus, Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez is hereby DISBARRED
from the practice of law and ordered to return the
amount he received from the complainant with legal
interest from his receipt of the money until
payment.
RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO VS. ATTY. CARLOS B.
SAGUCIO, A.C. No. 6705
March 31, 2006
FACTS:

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

3
Ruthie Lim-Santiago is the daughter of Alfonso Lim
and Special Administratrix of his estate. Alfonso Lim
is a stockholder and the former President of Taggat
Industries, Inc. Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio was the
former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of
Taggat Industries, Inc. until his appointment as
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao,
Cagayan.
Sometime in July 1997, 21 employees of Taggat filed
a criminal complaint entitled "Jesus Tagorda, Jr. et
al. v. Ruthie Lim-Santiago. Taggat employees
alleged that complainant, who took over the
management and control of Taggat after the death
of her father, withheld payment of their salaries and
wages without valid cause. Respondent, as Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor, was assigned to conduct the
preliminary investigation. He resolved the criminal
complaint.
Complainant now charges respondent with the
following violations:
1. Rule 15.03
Responsibility

of

the

Code

of

Professional

Complainant contends that respondent is guilty of

representing conflicting interests. Respondent, being
the former Personnel Manager and Retained
Counsel of Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat
very well. Respondent should have inhibited himself
from hearing, investigating and deciding the case
filed by Taggat employees.
2. Engaging in the private practice of law while
working as a government prosecutor
Complainant also contends that respondent is guilty
of engaging in the private practice of law while
working as a government prosecutor. Complainant
presented evidence to prove that respondent
received P10,000 as retainers fee for the months of
January and February 1995, another P10,000 for the
months of April and May 1995, and P5,000 for the
month of April 1996.
Complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent for
violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and for defying the prohibition against
private practice of law while working as government
prosecutor.
Respondent claims that when the criminal complaint
was filed, respondent had resigned from Taggat for
more than five years. Respondent asserts that he no
longer
owed
his
undivided
loyalty
to
Taggat. Respondent argues that it was his sworn
duty to conduct the necessary preliminary
investigation. Respondent
contends
that
complainant failed to establish lack of impartiality
when he performed his duty.

DONGA, R.A | PAULINO, T.J

ISSUE: Whether or not being a former lawyer of

Taggat posits conflict of interests with his work as
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor.
Whether or not respondent engaged in the private
practice of law while being a government lawyer.
RULING: As to the first issue, no. In the present
case, we find no conflict of interests when
respondent handled the preliminary investigation of
the criminal complaint filed by Taggat employees in
1997. The issue in the criminal complaint pertains to
non-payment of wages that occurred from 1 April
1996 to 15 July 1997. Clearly, respondent was no
longer connected with Taggat during that period
since he resigned sometime in 1992.
The fact alone that respondent was the former
Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat
and the case he resolved as government prosecutor
was labor-related is not a sufficient basis to charge
respondent for representing conflicting interests. A
lawyers immutable duty to a former client does not
cover transactions that occurred beyond the
lawyers employment with the client. The intent of
the law is to impose upon the lawyer the duty to
protect the clients interests only on matters that he
previously handled for the former client and not for
matters that arose after the lawyer-client
relationship has terminated.
As to the 2nd issue, respondent engaged in the
private practice of law while working as a
government prosecutor.
"Private practice of law" contemplates a succession
of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily
holding ones self to the public as a lawyer.
The law does not distinguish between consultancy
services and retainer agreement. For as long as
respondent performed acts that are usually
rendered by lawyers with the use of their legal
knowledge, the same falls within the ambit of the
term "practice of law." Nonetheless, respondent
admitted that he rendered his legal services to
complainant while working as a government
prosecutor.
Thus, we find respondent Atty. Carlos B.
Sagucio GUILTY of violation of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility.
Accordingly,
we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio
from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective
upon finality of this Decision.
EDILBERTO M. CUENCA VS. COURT OF APPEALS and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 109870
December 1, 1995
FACTS:

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

4
After his petition for review of the Court of Appeals'
judgment affirming his conviction for violation of the
"Trust Receipts Law" was denied by this Court in a
Resolution dated February 9, 1994, petitioner filed
on July 6, 1994 a pleading entitled "SUBSTITUTION
OF COUNSEL WITH MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. The Motion for New Trial
shall be grounded on newly discovered evidence and
excusible (sic) negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Petitioners Motion for
New Trial should be granted.
RULING: Yes. The People is inclined to allow
petitioner to establish the genuineness and due
execution of his brother's affidavit in the interest of
justice and fair play.

WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion For New Trial is

hereby GRANTED. Let the case be RE-OPENED and
REMANDED to the court of origin for reception of
petitioner's evidence.
OMAR P. ALI VS. ATTY. MOSIB A. BUBONG, A.C. No.
4018. March 8, 2005
FACTS: This is a petition for disbarment filed against
Atty. Mosib Ali Bubong for having been found guilty
of grave misconduct while holding the position of
Register of Deeds of Marawi City.

Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility, prosecutors who
represent the People of the Philippines in a criminal
case are not duty bound to seek conviction of the
accused but to see that justice is done. Said Rule
6.01 of Canon 6 states:

It appears that this disbarment proceeding is an offshoot of the administrative case earlier filed by
complainant against respondent. In said case, which
was initially investigated by the Land Registration
Authority (LRA), complainant charged respondent
with illegal exaction; indiscriminate issuance of
Transfer Certificate of Title and manipulating the
criminal complaint filed against Hadji Serad Bauduli
Datu and others for violation of the Anti-Squatting
Law. It appears from the records that the Baudali
Datus are relatives of respondent.

Canon 6 These canons shall apply to lawyers in

government service in the discharge of their official
tasks.

ISSUE: Whether respondent may be disbarred for

grave misconduct committed while he was in the
employ of the government.

Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in

public prosecution is not to convict but to see that
justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing
the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible
and is cause for disciplinary action. (Emphasis
supplied.)

RULING: Yes.

The above duty is well founded on the instruction of

the U.S. Supreme Court in Berger v. United States,
295 U.S. 78 (1935) that prosecutors represent a
sovereign "whose obligation to govern impartially
is compelling as its obligation to govern at all;
and whose interest, therefore in a criminal
prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that
justice shall be done.
In both cases, the Court, opting to brush aside
technicalities and despite the opposition of the
Solicitor General, granted new trial to the convicted
accused concerned on the basis of proposed
testimonies or affidavits of persons which the Court
considered as newly discovered and probably
sufficient evidence to reverse the judgment of
conviction. Being similarly circumstanced, there is no
nagging reason why herein petitioner should be
denied the same benefit. It becomes all the more
plausible under the circumstances considering that
the "People" does not raise any objection to a new
trial, for which reason the Solicitor General ought to
be specially commended for displaying once again
such statesmanlike gesture of impartiality. The
Solicitor General's finest hour, indeed.

DONGA, R.A | PAULINO, T.J

The Code of Professional Responsibility does

not cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has
joined the government service. In fact, by the
express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules
governing the conduct of lawyers shall apply to
lawyers in government service in the discharge of
their official tasks. Thus, where a lawyers
misconduct as a government official is of such nature
as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show
moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a
member of the bar on such grounds. Although the
general rule is that a lawyer who holds a
government office may not be disciplined as a
member of the bar for infractions he committed as a
government official, he may, however, be disciplined
as a lawyer if his misconduct constitutes a violation
of his oath a member of the legal profession.
[A] lawyer in public office is expected not only to
refrain from any act or omission which might tend to
lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in
government, she must also uphold the dignity of the
legal profession at all times and observe a high
standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise
said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of
the public faith and is burdened with high degree of
social responsibility, perhaps higher than her
brethren in private practice.
In the case at bar, respondents grave
misconduct, as established by the Office of the
President and subsequently affirmed by this Court,
deals with his qualification as a lawyer. By taking

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

5
advantage of his office as the Register of Deeds of
Marawi City and employing his knowledge of the
rules governing land registration for the benefit of
his relatives, respondent had clearly demonstrated
his unfitness not only to perform the functions of a
civil servant but also to retain his membership in the
bar. Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility is explicit on this matter. It reads:
Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall
not use his public position to promote or advance his
private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere
with his public duties.
Respondents conduct manifestly undermined the
peoples confidence in the public office he used to
occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of the legal
profession. The ill-conceived use of his knowledge of
the intricacies of the law calls for nothing less than
the withdrawal of his privilege to practice law.
As for the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the
deceased complainants daughter, requesting for the
withdrawal of this case, we cannot possibly
favorably act on the same as proceedings of this
nature cannot be interrupted or terminated by
reason of desistance, settlement, compromise,
restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of
the complainant to prosecute the same.[37] As we
have previously explained in the case of Irene RayosOmbac v. Atty. Orlando A. Rayos:[38]
Thus, respondent Atty. Mosib A. Bubong is
hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
OLAZO VS. JUSTICE TINGA, AM NO. 10-5-7-SC,
December 07, 2010
FACTS: In March 1990, the complainant filed a sales
application covering a parcel of land situated in Brgy.
Lower Bicutan in the Municipality of Taguig. The land
was previously part of Fort Andres Bonifacio that
was segregated and declared open for disposition
pursuant to Proclamation No. 2476 and
Proclamation No. 172.
To implement Proclamation No. 172, Memorandum
No. 119 was issued by then Executive Secretary
Catalino Macaraig, creating a committee on Awards
whose duty was to study, evaluate and make a
recommendation on the application to the purchase
of the lands declared open for disposition. The COA
was headed by the Director of Lands and the
respondent was one of the Committee Members, in
his official capacity as the Congressman of Taguig
and Pateros; the respondents district includes areas
covered by the proclamations.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Rule
6.02 and Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for representing conflicting interests.
RULING: No. Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility highlights the continuing standard of
ethical conduct to be observed by government
lawyers in the discharge of their official tasks. Since

DONGA, R.A | PAULINO, T.J

public office is a public trust, the ethical conduct

demanded upon lawyers in the government service
is more exacting than the standards for those in
private practice. Lawyers in the government service
are subject to constant public scrutiny under norms
of public accountability. They also bear the heavy
burden of having to put aside their private interest in
favor of the interest of the public; their private
activities should not interfere with the discharge of
their official functions.
The first charge involves a violation of Rule
6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It
imposes the following restrictions in the conduct of a
government lawyer:
A lawyer in the government service
shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.

The above provision prohibits a lawyer from

using his or her public position to: (1) promote
private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3)
allow private interest to interfere with his or her
public duties. We previously held that the
restriction extends to all government lawyers who
use their public offices to promote their private
interests.
In the case at bar, we find the absence of
any concrete proof that the respondent abused his
position as a Congressman and as a member of the
Committee on Awards in the manner defined under
Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Private practice of law after separation from public
office
As proof that the respondent was engaged
in an unauthorized practice of law after his
separation from the government service, the
complainant presented the Sinumpaang Salaysay,
dated January 20, 2000, of Manuel and the
document entitled Assurance where the respondent
legally represented Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez. Nevertheless, the foregoing pieces of
evidence fail to persuade us to conclude that there
was a violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Under the circumstances, the foregoing
definition should be correlated with R.A. No.
6713 and Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which impose certain restrictions on
government lawyers to engage in private practice
after their separation from the service.
Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 reads:
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and
Transactions. In addition to acts
and

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

6
omissions of public officials and
employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the
following
shall
constitute
prohibited acts and transactions of
any public official and employee
and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:
xxxx
(b) Outside employment and other
activities related thereto. Public
officials and employees during
their incumbency shall not:
xxxx
(2) Engage in the private practice
of
their
profession
unless
authorized by the Constitution or
law, provided, that such practice
will not conflict or tend to conflict
with their official functions; x x x
These prohibitions shall continue
to apply for a period of one (1)
year after resignation, retirement,
or separation from public office,
except in the case of subparagraph
(b) (2) above, but the professional
concerned cannot practice his
profession in connection with any
matter before the office he used to
be with, in which case the one-year
prohibition shall likewise apply.

As a rule, government lawyers are not

allowed to engage in the private practice of their
profession during their incumbency. By way of
exception, a government lawyer can engage in the
practice of his or her profession under the following
conditions: first, the private practice is authorized by
the Constitution or by the law; and second, the
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his
or her official functions. The last paragraph of
Section 7 provides an exception to the exception. In
case of lawyers separated from the government
service who are covered under subparagraph (b) (2)
of Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, a one-year prohibition
is imposed to practice law in connection with any
matter before the office he used to be with.
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility echoes this restriction and prohibits
lawyers, after leaving the government service, to
accept engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened while in
the said service. The keyword in Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility is the term
intervene which we previously interpreted to
include an act of a person who has the power to
influence the proceedings.[31] Otherwise stated, to
fall within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the respondent must
have accepted engagement or employment in a

DONGA, R.A | PAULINO, T.J

matter which, by virtue of his public office, he had

previously exercised power to influence the
outcome of the proceedings.
As the records show, no evidence exists
showing that the respondent previously interfered
with the sales application covering Manuels land
when the former was still a member of the
Committee on Awards. The complainant, too, failed
to sufficiently establish that the respondent was
engaged in the practice of law. At face value, the
legal service rendered by the respondent was limited
only
in
the
preparation
of
a
single
document. In Borja, Sr. v. Sulyap, Inc.,[32] we
specifically described private practice of law as one
that contemplates a succession of acts of the same
nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to
the public as a lawyer.
Thus,
the
court
dismissed the
administrative case for violation of Rule 6.02 and
Rule 6.03 filed against retired Supreme Court
Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.
RODOLFO M. BERNARDO VS. ATTY. ISMAEL F.
MEJIA, Adm. Case No. 2984
FACTS:
On January 23, 1987, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr.
accused his retained attorney, Ismael F. Mejia, of the
following administrative offenses: misappropriating
his funds and converting to his personal
use, falsification of certain documents and issuing a
check, knowing that he was without funds in the
bank, in payment of a loan obtained from Bernardo
in the amount of P50,000.00, and thereafter,
replacing said check with others known also to be
insufficiently funded.

On July 29, 1992, the Supreme Court En

Banc rendered a Decision Per Curiam, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court DECLARES
the [sic] respondent, Atty. Ismael
F. Mejia, guilty of all the charges
against him and hereby imposes on
him the penalty of DISBARMENT.
Pending finality of this judgment,
and effective immediately, Atty.
Ismael F. Mejia is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of
law. Let a copy of this Decision be
spread in his record in the Bar
Confidants Office, and notice
thereof furnished the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, as well as
the Court Administrator who is
DIRECTED to inform all the Courts
concerned of this Decision.
On June 1, 1999, Mejia filed a Petition praying that
he be allowed to reengage in the practice of law.

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

7
ISSUE: Whether or not the applicant shall be
reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great
extent on the sound discretion of the Court.
RULING: Yes. In the petition, Mejia acknowledged his
indiscretions in the law profession. Fifteen years had
already elapsed since Mejias name was dropped
from the Roll of Attorneys. At the age of seventyone, he is begging for forgiveness and pleading for
reinstatement. According to him, he has long
repented and he has suffered enough. Through his
reinstatement, he wants to leave a legacy to his
children and redeem the indignity that they have
suffered due to his disbarment.
After his disbarment, he put up the Mejia Law
Journal, a publication containing his religious and
social writings. He also organized a religious
organization and named it El Cristo Movement and
Crusade on Miracle of Heart and Mind.
The Court is inclined to grant the present petition.
Fifteen years has passed since Mejia was punished
with the severe penalty of disbarment. Although the
Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejias
disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact
that Mejia is already of advanced years. While the
age of the petitioner and the length of time during
which he has endured the ignominy of disbarment
are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for
reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the
rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment in
1992, no other transgression has been attributed to
him, and he has shown remorse. Obviously, he has
learned his lesson from this experience, and his
punishment has lasted long enough. Thus, while the
Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its
erring officers, it also knows how to show
compassion when the penalty imposed has already
served its purpose. After all, penalties, such as
disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to
correct offenders.
We reiterate, however, and remind petitioner that
the practice of law is a privilege burdened with
conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of
mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of
morality and faithful compliance with the rules of
the legal profession are the continuing requirements
for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
QUE VS. ATTY. REVILLA JR., AC No. 7054, Dec. 4,
2009
FACTS: In a complaint for disbarment, Conrado Que
accused Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. before the
Integrated
Bar
of
the
Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP
Committee on Bar Discipline or CBD) of committing
the following violations of the provisions of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court:
(1) The respondents abuse of court
remedies and processes by
filing
a
petition

DONGA, R.A | PAULINO, T.J

for certiorari before the Court

of Appeals (CA), two petitions
for annulment of title before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
a petition for annulment of
judgment before the RTC and
lastly, a petition for declaratory
relief before the RTC. The
respondent also repeatedly
attacked the complainants and
his siblings titles over the
property subject of the
unlawful detainer case;
(2) The respondents commission of
forum-shopping.
(3) The respondents lack of candor
and respect towards his
adversary and the courts by
resorting to falsehood and
deception
to
misguide,
obstruct and impede the due
administration of justice.
(4) The respondents willful and
revolting
falsehood
that
unjustly
maligned
and
defamed the good name and
reputation of the late Atty.
Alfredo
Catolico
(Atty.
Catolico), the previous counsel
of the respondents clients.
(5) The respondents deliberate,
fraudulent and unauthorized
appearances in court in the
petition for annulment of
judgment for 15 litigants, three
of whom are already deceased;
(6) The respondents willful and
fraudulent appearance in the
second petition for annulment
of title as counsel for the
Republic
of
the Philippines without being
authorized to do so.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent can be held
liable for the imputed unethical infractions and
professional misconduct, and the penalty these
transgressions should carry.
RULING: Yes. Except for the penalty, we agree with
the Report and Recommendation of Investigating
Commissioner Cunanan and the Board of Governors
of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline.
Maligning the name of his fellow lawyers
To support the charge of extrinsic fraud in his
petition for annulment of judgment, the respondent
attacked (as quoted above) the name and reputation

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

8
of the late Atty. Catolico and accused him of
deliberate neglect, corrupt motives and connivance
with the counsel for the adverse party.
We find it significant that the respondent failed to
demonstrate how he came upon his accusation
against Atty. Catolico. The respondent, by his own
admission, only participated in the cases previously
assigned to Atty. Catolico after the latter died. At the
same time, the respondents petition for annulment
of judgment also represented that no second motion
for reconsideration or appeal was filed to contest
the MeTC and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer
case for the reason that the respondent believed the
said decisions were null and void ab initio.
Under these circumstances, we believe that the
respondent has been less than fair in his professional
relationship with Atty. Catolico and is thus liable for
violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which obligates a lawyer to conduct
himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward
his professional colleagues. He was unfair because
he imputed wrongdoing to Atty. Catolico without
showing any factual basis therefor; he effectively
maligned Atty. Catolico, who is now dead and unable
to defend himself.
Given the respondents multiple violations, his past
record as previously discussed, and the nature of
these violations which shows the readiness to
disregard court rules and to gloss over concerns for
the orderly administration of justice, we believe and
so hold that the appropriate action of this Court is to
disbar the respondent to keep him away from the
law profession and from any significant role in the
administration of justice which he has disgraced. He
is a continuing risk, too, to the public that the legal
profession serves. Not even his ardor and
overzealousness in defending the interests of his
client can save him. Such traits at the expense of
everything else, particularly the integrity of the
profession and the orderly administration of justice,
this Court cannot accept nor tolerate.

Atty. Linsangan. Said client later executed an

affidavit in support of Atty. Linsangans allegations.
Atty. Linsangan also questioned the propriety of
Labianos calling card which appears as follows:
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
In his defense, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing
Labiano. He also denied authorizing the printing of
such calling cards.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
encroached upon the professional services of Atty.
Pedro Linsangan.
HELD:
1. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer should not
steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to
retain him by a promise of better service, good
result or reduced fees for his services. By recruiting
Atty. Linsangans clients, Atty. Tolentino committed
an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal
practice.

Thus, Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. is found liable

for professional misconduct for violations of the
Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03,
Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule
19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule
138 of the Rules of Court and hold that the
respondent should be DISBARRED from the practice
of law.
PEDRO LINSANGAN VS. ATTY. TOLENTINO, 598
SCRA 133 Legal Ethics Unethical Solicitation of
Legal Business
FACTS:
In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino alleging that Atty. Tolentino, through his
paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, pirated a client of

DONGA, R.A | PAULINO, T.J

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS