Canon 4 8 Legal Ethics Case Digest

22. People v. Arrojado 1. YES.
G.R. No. 207041, 9 November 2015

BM No. 1922 requires practicing members of
DOCTRINE the bar to indicate in all pleadings filed before
B.M. No. 1922 requires practicing members of the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number
the bar to indicate in all pleadings filed before and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of
the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number Compliance or Certificate of Exemption.
and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as Section 1, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, as
may be applicable, for the immediately amended, defines pleadings as the written
preceding compliance period. Failure to statements of the respective claims and
disclose the required information would cause defenses of the parties submitted to the court
the dismissal of the case and the expunction of for appropriate judgment. Among the
the pleadings from the records. pleadings enumerated under Section 2 thereof
are the complaint and the answer in a civil
NOTE: Second sentence is amended to, suit. On the other hand, under Section 4, Rule
“Failure to disclose the required information 110 of the same Rules, an information is
would subject the counsel to appropriate defined as an accusation in writing charging a
penalty and disciplinary action.” person with an offense, subscribed by the
prosecutor and filed with the court. In
FACTS accordance with the above definitions, it is
Respondent was charged with the crime of clear that an information is a pleading since
murder by the Office of the City Prosecutor. the allegations therein, which charge a person
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the with an offense, is basically the same as a
Information against him on the ground that the complaint in a civil action which alleges a
investigating prosecutor who filed the said plaintiff’s cause or cause of action.
Information failed to indicate therein the
number and date of issue of her MCLE An information is, for all intents and purposes,
Certificate of Compliance, as required by Bar considered an initiatory pleading because it is a
Matter No. 1922. written statement that contains the cause of
action of a party, which in criminal cases is the
RTC issued an Order dismissing the State as represented by the prosecutor,
Information without prejudice. CA affirmed against the accused. Like a pleading, the
RTC. Information is also filed in court for appropriate
judgment.
ISSUE
1. WON the term “pleadings” as used in 2. YES.
B.M. No. 1922 includes criminal
Informations filed in court. B.M. No. 1922 provides that, “failure to
2. WON the failure of the prosecutor to disclose the required information would cause
indicate in the Information the number the dismissal of the case and the expunction of
and date of issue of her MCLE is a valid the pleadings from the records.”
ground to dismiss the subject
Information. The trial court’s dismissal of the Information
3. WON CA’s dismissal of the Information, was based on a clear and categorical provision
without prejudice, left the prosecution of a rule issued by this Court and so, the Court
without any other plain, speedy, and could not have committed a capricious or
adequate remedy. whimsical exercise of judgment nor did it
4. WON liberal construction applies. exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or
despotic manner. CA did not commit error in
RULING dismissing petitioner’s petition for certiorari.
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 1

Order dismissing the subject Information was
However, the more prudent and practical thing filed, the required number and date of issue of
that the trial court should have done in the the investigating prosecutor's MCLE Certificate
first place, so as to avoid delay in the of Compliance was still not included nor
disposition of the case, was not to dismiss the indicated. Thus, in the instant case, absent
Information but to simply require the valid and compelling reasons, the requested
investigating prosecutor to indicate therein the leniency and liberality in the observance of
number and date of issue of her MCLE procedural rules appear to be an afterthought,
Certificate of Compliance. hence, cannot be granted.
In any event, to avoid inordinate delays in the FALLO

disposition of cases brought about by a The instant petition is DENIED. The Decision
counsel's failure to indicate in his or her and Resolution of the CA is AFFIRMED.
pleadings the number and date of issue of his
or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance, this 23. Cerilla v. Lezama
Court issued an En Banc Resolution, dated A.C. No. 11483, 3 October 2017
January 14, 2014 which amended B.M. No.
1922 by repealing the phrase "Failure to DOCTRINE
disclose the required information would cause It must be emphasized that the primary duty
the dismissal of the case and the expunction of of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and
the pleadings from the records" and replacing promote respect for the law and legal
it with "Failure to disclose the required processes. They are expected to be in the
information would subject the counsel to forefront in the observance and maintenance
appropriate penalty and disciplinary action." of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the
obligation to be well-informed of the existing
3. NO. laws and to keep abreast with legal
developments, recent enactments and
Prosecutor could have simply re-filed the jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be
Information containing the required number conversant with basic legal principles. Unless
and date of issue of the investigating they faithfully comply with such duty, they
prosecutor's MCLE Certificate of Compliance, may not be able to discharge competently and
instead of resorting to the filing of various diligently their obligations as members of the
petitions in court to stubbornly insist on its bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to
position and question the trial court's dismissal committing mistakes.
of the subject Information, thereby wasting its
time and effort and the State's resources. FACTS
4. NO. complainant Luzviminda S. Cerilla filed an

administrative complaint for gross misconduct
Liberal construction may be invoked in against respondent Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama
situations where there may be some excusable with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
formal deficiency or error in a pleading,
provided that the same does not subvert the complainant stated that she is one of the
essence of the proceeding and connotes at co-owners of a parcel of land. complainant
least a reasonable attempt at compliance with engaged the services of respondent to file an
the Rules." unlawful detainer case against Carmelita S.
Garlito with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
However, the prosecution has never shown any
reasonable attempt at compliance with the rule She executed a Special Power of Attorney
enunciated under B.M. No. 1922. Even when (SPA) in favor of the respondent to perform
the motion for reconsideration of the RTC the following acts, to wit:

(1) To represent and act on my behalf in
filing a case of ejectment against Lita Garlito of IBP-CBD: During mandatory conference,
Sibulan, Negros Oriental; respondent admitted during the mandatory
conference that complainant did not give him
(2) To appear on my behalf during the any instruction to sell the property. That he
preliminary conference in Civil Case No. made it on his own volition and belief. penalty
497-04 and to make stipulations of facts, of suspension form practice of law for 2 years.
admissions and other matters for the early
resolution of the same including amicable BOG: adopted and approved CBD
settlement of the case if necessary. recommendation.
Complainant said that on the basis of the SPA, ISSUE:

respondent entered into a compromise
agreement with the defendant in the unlawful WON the respondent is guilty of gross
detainer case to sell the subject property of the misconduct
complainant for P350,000.00 without her
consent or a special authority from her. RULING:
Paragraph 2 of the Compromise Agreement
dated January 31, 2005 states: Court agrees with IBP CBD and BOG.
“2. The plaintiff is willing to sell [the] property Respondent entered into the Compromise
in question to the defendant in the amount of Agreement on the basis of the SPA granted to
P350,000.00 within a period of three months him by complainant. The SPA authorized
beginning February 1, 2005 up to April 30, respondent to represent complainant in filing
2005, the payment of which shall be paid in the ejectment case and "[t]o appear on
one setting.” [complainant's] behalf during the preliminary
conference in said ejectment case and to make
Complainant contended that respondent stipulations of fact, admissions and other
misrepresented in paragraph 2 of the matters for the early resolution of the case,
Compromise Agreement that she was willing to including amicable settlement of the case if
sell the subject property for P350,000.00. necessary." Nowhere is it expressly stated in
Complainant averred that she did not authorize the SPA that respondent is authorized to
the respondent to sell the property and she is compromise on the sale of the property or to
not willing to sell the property in the amount of sell the property of complainant.
P350,000.00, considering that there are other
co-owners of the property. The records show that respondent admitted
that he entered into the compromise
NOTE: the property's market value is not less agreement with the defendant in the unlawful
than P1,500,000.00. respondent sold the detainer case and stated that the plaintiff, who
property for only P350,000.00, so the is the complainant herein, was willing to sell
complainant and the other co-owners suffer the property to the defendant in the amount of
actual loss. P350,000.00 even if the complainant did not
instruct or authorize him to sell the property,
Respondent contended that the SPA given to and he merely acted upon his own belief.
him by the complainant was sufficient
authority to enter into the said compromise Because his alleged honest belief prejudiced
agreement. The amount of P350,000.00 was his client, since the property she was not
the price of the subject property, because the willing to sell was sold at a price decided upon
complainant paid the same amount for the by respondent on his own, which caused his
purchase of the property from the previous client and her co-owners to file further cases to
owners. recover their property that was sold due to

respondent's mistake. He overlooked the fact Responsibility. Hence, he is SUSPENDED from
that he was not authorized by his client to sell the practice of law for a period of TWO (2)
the property. Canon 5 of the Code of YEARS and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition
Professional Responsibility states: of the same or a similar offense shall be dealt
with more severely.
“CANON 5 - A lawyer shall keep abreast of
legal developments, participate in continuing 24. Intestate Estate of Jose Uy v. Maghari
legal education programs, support efforts to III
achieve high standards in law schools as well A.C. No. 10525, 1 September 2015
as in the practical training of law students and
assist in disseminating information regarding DOCTRINE: Guys sorry medj taas gud. J.
the law and jurisprudence.” Leonen man gud huhu.
The obligations of lawyers as a consequence of On details of lawyers in pleadings: We have

their Canon 5 duty have been reiterated in demonstrated that what can otherwise be
Hernandez v. Atty. Padilla, thus: dismissed as empty formalities are, in fact,
necessary solemnities. They are not ends in
It must be emphasized that the primary duty themselves but crucial means to enhance the
of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and integrity, competence and credibility of the
promote respect for the law and legal legal profession. They are vital to the
processes. They are expected to be in the dispensation of justice. The significance of
forefront in the observance and maintenance these solemnities, along with the legal
of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the profession's "high standard of legal proficiency,
obligation to be well-informed of the existing . . . morality, honesty, integrity, and fair
laws and to keep abreast with legal dealing."
developments, recent enactments and
jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be
conversant with basic legal principles. Unless FACTS
they faithfully comply with such duty, they
may not be able to discharge competently and This resolves a Complaint for disbarment
diligently their obligations as members of the directly filed before this court by complainant
bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to Wilson Uy, the designated administrator of the
committing mistakes. estate of Jose Uy. This Complaint charges
respondent Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari, III
As found by the IBP Board of Governors, (Maghari) with engaging in deceitful conduct
respondent also violated Canons 15 and 17 of and violating the Lawyer's Oath. Specifically,
the Code of Responsibility: Maghari is charged with the use of information
that is false and/or appropriated from other
“CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, lawyers in signing certain pleadings.
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client. This started as a dispute with regards to the
intestate estate of Jose Uy wherein, the
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the common law wife, Hofilena and the son Jose
cause of his client and he shall be mindful of Uy fought against being the administrator of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.” the deceased estate.
FALLO In the course of the proceedings, Wilson Uy

prayed for the issuance of a subpoena ad
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Samuel SM. testificandum to one, Magdalena Uy, as
Lezama is found guilty of violating Canons 5, treasurer of several businesses of the
15 and 17 of the Code of Professional deceased.

Magdalena Uy’s counsel, Atty. Maghari (private
respondent in this case) filed for a motion to
quash subpoena and alternative motion to cite
the appearance of K.H. Uy. Signing with the ISSUE
following details: Whether or not respondent Atty. Pacifico M.
PACIFICO M. MAGHARI, III Counsel for Maghari, III engaged in unethical conduct and
Magdalena Uy of what proper penalty may be meted on him.
590 Ylac St., Villamonte Bacolod City
IBP O.R. No. 731938 11/24/08 B.C. RULING
PTR NO. 0223568 1/5/09 B.C. Yes. Meted with suspension for Two years (2)
ROLL NO. 20865 in the practice of law.
MCLE Compl. 0015970 1/14/09 Respondent's avowals, protestations, and ad
Atty. Maghari then filed the following pleadings hominem attacks on complainant fail to
after the first MTQ, (1) reply to opposition, (2) impress. HEITAD
motion for reconsideration, and (3) motion to The duplicitous entries speak for themselves.
recall subpoena and testificandum—all with The errors are manifest and respondent admits
different IBP OR, PTR No, Roll No. and their existence. This court would perhaps be
MCLE Compliance. well counseled to absolve respondent of
liability or let him get away with a proverbial
Knowing this, Wilson Uy filed for a disbarment slap on the wrist if all that was involved were a
case against Atty. Maghari. Pointing to typographical error, or otherwise, an error or a
Maghari's act of repeatedly changing and using handful of errors made in an isolated instance
another lawyer's professional details, Wilson or a few isolated instances. So too, if the error
Uy asserts that Maghari violated the Lawyer's pertained to only one of the several pieces of
Oath and acted in a deceitful manner. information that lawyers are required to
indicate when signing pleadings.
Respondent’s contention: None of these can be said of this case.
Respondent did not merely commit errors in
He insists that he did not incur disciplinary good faith. The truth is far from it. First,
liability. He claims that these entries were respondent violated clear legal requirements,
mere overlooked errors: and indicated patently false information.
For true indeed that after the draft of a Second, the way he did so demonstrates that
particular motion or pleading had been printed he did so knowingly. Third, he did so
and ready for signature, all what [sic] he did repeatedly. Before our eyes is a pattern of
after cursorily going over it was to a x his deceit. Fourth, the information he used was
signature thereon, specifically, atop his printed shown to have been appropriated from another
name, without giving any special or particular lawyer. Not only was he deceitful; he was also
attention to details as the "IBP, PTR, and MCLE larcenous. Fifth, his act not only of usurping
Numbers", considering that these are matters another lawyer's details but also of his
of record and are easily verifiable, thus he repeatedly changing information from one
gains nothing by "the usurpation of pleading to another demonstrates the intent to
professional details of another lawyer" and has mock and ridicule courts and legal processes.
no sinister motive or ill-purpose in so doing[.] Respondent toyed with the standards of legal
He attempts to diminish the significance of the practice.
dubious entries and instead ascribes ill motive Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court
to complainant. He faults complainant for provides for deceit as a ground for disbarment.
"nitpicking" and calls him a "sore loser" and a The Lawyer's Oath entails commitment to,
"disgruntled litigant" who is merely "making a among others, obeying laws and legal orders,
mountain out of a molehill" and is predisposed doing no falsehood, conducting one's self as a
to "fault-finding." And provided for his lawyer to the best of one's capacity, and acting
supposed correct details. with fidelity to both court and client.

No amount of feigned ignorance and ad To begin with, details were copied from a
hominem attacks on complainant can negate pleading submitted by another lawyer. These
the gravity of respondent's actions. His details somehow found their way into
insolent and mocking violation of statutory and respondent's own pleadings. Certainly, these
regulatory requirements is a violation of his details could not have written themselves, let
duties to society and to courts. His swiping of alone transfer themselves from a pleading
another lawyer's information is a violation of prepared by one lawyer to those prepared by
his duties to the legal profession. The another. Someone must have actually
unnecessary risks that he foiled on his client as performed the act of copying and transferring;
a possible result of deficiently signed pleadings that is, someone must have intended to copy
violate his duties to his client. Thus, and transfer them. Moreover, the person
respondent did not only act in a deceitful responsible for this could have only been
manner and violate the solemn oath he took to respondent or someone acting under his
be admitted into the legal profession; he also instructions; the pleadings on which they were
violated every single chapter of the Code of transferred are, after all, respondent's
Professional Responsibility pleadings.
It is as clear as the entries themselves that Second, these details were not merely copied,
respondent acted in a manner that is woefully they were modified. "B.C." was added to the
unworthy of an officer of the court. He was not IBP official receipt and professional tax receipt
even a good citizen. As respondent has fallen numbers copied from Atty. Natu-el. The facts
short of the ethical standards apropos to of modification and addition show active
members of the legal profession, we find it human intervention to make something more
proper to suspend respondent from the out of markings that could otherwise have
practice of law for two (2) years. simply been reproduced.
The requirement of a counsel's signature in Third, in subsequent pleadings, some details
pleadings, the significance of this requirement, copied from Atty. Natu-el were discarded while
and the consequences of non-compliance are some were retained. The December 8, 2010
spelled out in Rule 7, Section 3 of the Rules of Reply still bore Atty. Natu- el's Roll of
Court. Attorneys number and MCLE compliance
A counsel's signature on a pleading is neither number, but no longer his IBP official receipt
an empty formality nor even a mere means for number and professional tax receipt number.
identification. Through his or her signature, a The July 15, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration
party's counsel makes a positive declaration. only bore Atty. Natu-el's MCLE compliance
In certifying through his or her signature that number. This gradual act of segregating
he or she has read the pleading, that there is information — discarding some while retaining
ground to support it, and that it is not others, and retaining less over time — reveals
interposed for delay, a lawyer asserts his or that the author of these markings must have
her competence, credibility, and ethics. Signing engaged in a willful exercise that alltered those
a pleading is such a solemn component of legal that were to be discarded from those that were
practice that this court has taken occasion to to be retained. AIDSTE
decry the delegation of this task to Respondent is rightly considered the author of
non-lawyers as a violation of the Code of these acts. Any claim that the error was
Professional Responsibility. committed by a secretary is inconsequential.
As with the signature itself, these requirements Totality:
are not vain formalities. The totality of respondent's actions
Facts that indicate bad faith and negate demonstrates a degree of gravity that warrants
his “inadvertence” contention: suspension from the practice of law for an
Respondent acted deliberately. It is impossible extended period.
that the erroneous details he indicated on his This case involves anything but trivial
pleadings are products of mere inadvertence. non-compliance. It is much graver. The

con uence of: (1) respondent's many It is unsettling that respondent engaged in the
violations; (2) the sheer multiplicity of rules mockery and ridicule that he did of the very
violated; (3) the frequency — nay, pattern — same badges — his place in the Roll of
of falsity and deceit; and (4) his manifest Attorneys, his membership in the Integrated
intent to bring courts, legal processes, and Bar, his recognition as a practicing
professional standards to disrepute brings to professional, his continuing training and
light a degree of depravity that proves competence — that are emblematic of his
respondent worthy of being sanctioned. Having being a lawyer. Seeing as how he manifested
flagrantly disobeyed, deceived, and ridiculed such contempt for these badges, we find that
courts, respondent rightly stands to be at the there is every reason for preventing him, at
receiving end of disciplinary action. least temporarily, from engaging in the
profession these badges signify.
Respondent's circumstances are well within the
grounds for disciplining lawyers as specified by FALLO
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. His WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Pacifico M.
deception is well demonstrated. He ran afoul of Maghari, III, having clearly violated his
every single word, save perhaps his name, in Lawyer's Oath and the Canons of the Code of
the Lawyer's Oath. Then again, it was his own Professional Responsibility through his
signature, his own name, that respondent unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, is
Pacifico M. Maghari, III had disgraced. SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two
(2) years, effective upon receipt of a copy of
Respondent's acts also demonstrate a violation this Resolution.
of every single chapter of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. 25. Mapalad, Sr. v. Echanez
It is tempting to think that the only thing A.C. No. 10911, 6 June 2017
respondent did was to deviate from required
formalities. Respondent was, himself, quite FACTS
dismissive, stating that he did nothing more Complainant alleged that in a civil case for
than "cursorily [go] over . . . without giving Recovery of Possession and Damages,
any . . . attention to details . . . that . . . are complainant was one of the plaintiffs while
matters of record and are easily verifiable." It respondent was the defendants' counsel
is equally tempting to think it would be therein.
excessive of this court to engage in an overly
As the said case was decided in favor of the
rigid, pedantic emphasis on formalistic niceties.
plaintiffs, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal in
however, we have demonstrated that what can
which respondent indicated his MCLE
otherwise be dismissed as empty formalities
Compliance No. II-0014038 without indicating
are, in fact, necessary solemnities. They are
the date of issue thereof. The same thing
not ends in themselves but crucial means to
happened on appeal, and with other cases like
enhance the integrity, competence and a Petition for Injunction, Motion for Leave of
credibility of the legal profession. They are
Court, etc..
vital to the dispensation of justice. The
Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office,
significance of these solemnities, along with
Complainant discovered that respondent had
the legal profession's "high standard of legal
no MCLE compliance yet. The MCLE Office then
proficiency, . . . morality, honesty, integrity[,]
issued a Certification to that effect.
and fair dealing[,]" put in contrast with how
respondent has fallen dismally and disturbingly Hence, this complaint for disbarment.
short of the high standards that his profession Complainant argues that respondent's act of
demands, demonstrates the propriety of deliberately and unlawfully misleading the
momentarily suspending respondent from courts, parties, and counsels concerned into
engaging in legal practice. believing that he had complied with the MCLE
requirements when in truth he had not, is a
serious malpractice and grave misconduct.

In a resolution dated February 10, 2010, this Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any
Court required the respondent to file a falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
comment on the complaint within 10 days from court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court
notice. Respondent failed to comply. to be mislead by any artifice.
This Court, thus, issued another resolution In using a false MCLE compliance number in
dated requiring the respondent to show cause his pleadings, respondent also put his own
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with clients at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can
or held in contempt for such failure and, again, be fatal to the client's cause as pleadings with
to file a comment to the complaint. such false information produce no legal effect.
Respondent again failed to comply. In so doing, respondent violated his duty to his
The IBP-CBD recommended that ATTY. clients. 26 Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR
ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ be DISBARRED and provide:
that his name be stricken from the Roll of CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause
Attorneys upon finality of the decision. of his client and shall be mindful of the trust
The Issue and confidence reposed upon him.
Should respondent be administratively CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with
disciplined based on the allegations in the competence and diligence.
complaint and evidence on record? Third.The respondent also repeatedly failed to
The Ruling obey legal orders of the trial court, the
YES. Respondent was given ample opportunity IBP-CBD, and also this Court despite due
to answer the imputations against him and notice.The IBP- Court orders should be
defend himself but he did not do so despite respected not only because the authorities who
due notices. issued them should be respected, but because
of the respect and consideration that should be
At any rate, respondent's acts of misconduct
extended to the judicial branch of the
are clearly manifest, thus, warranting the
government, which is absolutely essential if
exercise by this Court of its disciplinary power.
our government is to be a government of laws
First. It was clearly established that and not of men.
respondent violated Bar Matter No. 850. No
Clearly, respondent's act of ignoring the said
less than the MCLE Office had issued a
court orders despite notice exhibited an
certification of non compliance.
unpardonable lack of respect for the authority
Second. Despite such non-compliance, of the Court.
respondent repeatedly indicated a false MCLE
Respondent's culpability is further highlighted
compliance number in his pleadings before the
by the fact that, as cited by the IBP Board of
trial courts. In doing so, not only once but four
Governors in its resolution, respondent had
times, respondent acted in manifest bad faith,
already been sanctioned by the IBP twice.
dishonesty, and deceit. He indeed misled the
Respondent was found guilty of engaging in
courts, litigants - his own clients · included -
notarial practice without a notarial commission,
professional colleagues, and all others who
and was thus suspended from the practice of
may have relied on such pleadings containing
law for two years with the warning. Later,
false information.
respondent was again guilty of performing
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the notarial acts without a notarial commission.
constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
and was thus suspended from the practice of
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
law for two years and barred permanently from
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
being commissioned as notary public with a
conduct.
stem warning that a repetition of the same
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness shall be dealt with severely. 33 It is
and good faith to the court. noteworthy that in both cases, respondent
already manifested his lack of regard, not only

for the charges against him, but most of Rupinta and the decision was rendered
importantly to the orders of the IBP and the against him by respondent.
courts. In the said cases, the respondent
likewise failed to file answers, While respondent was still the Presiding Judge
As vanguards of our legal system, they are of MTCC, Tangub City, another civil complaint
expected to maintain legal proficiency and a was filed by Ronald Rupinta with his mother,
high standard of honesty, integrity, and fair Anastacia Rupinta, as co-plaintiff, against
dealing. Also, of all classes and professions, Carmen Alfire and Pacifico Conol, for
the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale,
the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for Reconveyance of Ownership, Accounting of
him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and Rents and Fruits and Attorney's Fees and
override the laws, to trample them underfoot Damages with Petition for the Appointment of
and ignore the very bonds of society, is a Receiver. Complainant represented the
unfaithful to his position and office and sets a plaintiffs and the complaint was heard by
detrimental example to the society. respondent as Presiding Judge of MTCC.
WHEREFORE, respondent Anselmo S. Echanez
is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law, Since 17 January 1996, the aforesaid case
and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN FROM hibernated and respondent was appointed
THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 35, Ozamis
City. Sometime on 23 March 2006, the newly
appointed Presiding Judge of MTCC 10th
26. Pasok v. Zapatos Judicial Region, Tangub City, Judge Rodolfo L.
A.C. No. 7388, 19 October 2016 Vapor, issued an Order informing the parties
on the aforesaid case whether they were
DOCTRINE amenable for him to render judgment on
A lawyer shall not, after leaving government the case of which complainant's client agreed
service, accept engagement or employment in and filed their Memorandum. However,
connection with any matter in which he had
complainant was surprised when he received a
intervened while in said service. The restriction Manifestation from the defendants that they
extended to engagement or employment. The are now represented by respondent, the
respondent could not accept work or former judge who once presided over the
employment from anyone that would involve or aforesaid case.
relate to any matter in which he had
intervened as a judge except on behalf of the Despite the warning of the complainant that
body or authority that he served during his the appearance of respondent is highly illegal,
public employment. The restriction as applied immoral, unethical and adverse to the interest
to him lasted beyond his tenure in relation to
of the public, respondent, being the previous
the matters in which he had intervened as presiding judge, continued on with his
judge. Accordingly, the fact that he was appearance for the appellees.
already retired from the Bench, or that he was
already in the private practice of law when he Respondent raised as his defense that he
was engaged for the case was inconsequential. cannot be charged nor penalized of any
violation as the counsel of the defendants
FACTS because when he rendered the first judgment
Respondent was the former Presiding Judge of in the Forcible Entry case, he believes he was
the RTC of Br. 35, Ozamis City and retired as completely in absolute neutrality. He also avers
such. Before his appointment in the RTC, he that he is encountering extreme poverty due to
was the Presiding Judge of the MTCC 10th the absence of adequate income and as a
Judicial Division, Tangub City where he source of livelihood he was constrained to
presided over a Forcible Entry case entitled
handle the aforesaid case.
“Ronaldo Rupinta v. Sps. Pacifico Conol and
Malinda Conol.” Complainant was the counsel

ISSUE direct intervention thereon while still a
WON respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the member of the Bench was impermissible. He
CPR. should have maintained his ethical integrity by
avoiding the engagement by the defendants.
RULING
YES. FALLO
Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 6.03 of
To come within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Canon 6 of the CPR and is suspended from the
Code of Professional Responsibility, the practice of law for 1 month.
respondent must be shown to have accepted
the engagement or employment in relation to a 27. Trovela, v. Robles, et al.
matter that, by virtue of his judicial office, he AC. No. 11550, 4 June 2018
had previously exercised power to influence
the outcome of the proceedings. DOCTRINE
The respondent, in his capacity as the judge of The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has
the MTCC of Tangub City, presided over the no jurisdiction to investigate government
case before eventually inhibiting himself from lawyers charged with administrative offenses
further proceedings. His act of presiding involving the performance of their official
constituted intervention within the meaning of duties.
the rule whose text does not mention the
degree or length of the intervention in the FACTS
particular case or matter. In this context, he
not only exercised the power to influence the Complainant initiated this disbarment
outcome of the proceedings but also had a complaint against Pasig City Assistant
direct hand in bringing about the result of the Prosecutor Michael B. Robles (Robles) of Pasig
case by virtue of his having the power to rule City for issuing a resolution recommending the
on it. dismissal of his complaint for estafa a gainst his
former employers.
The restriction extended to engagement or
employment. The respondent could not accept the complainant stated that he became the
work or employment from anyone that would Employee Relation Director of Sky Cable; he
involve or relate to any matter in which he had later on received a termination letter signed by
intervened as a judge except on behalf of the Salonga informing him of his relief from work
body or authority that he served during his and of his compensation being paid until the
public employment. The restriction as applied effective date of his termination; that his
to him lasted beyond his tenure in relation to payslips for the periods from July 16, 2006 to
the matters in which he had intervened as July 31, 2006 and from August 1, 2006 to
judge. Accordingly, the fact that he was August 15, 2006 still reflected deductions of
already retired from the Bench, or that he was his savings contributions to the Meralco
already in the private practice of law when he Employees Savings and Loan Association
was engaged for the case was inconsequential. (MESALA); that withholding taxes of P4,509.45
and P4,235.70, respectively, were also
In any case, his representing the defendants in deducted from his compensation; that he
the civil cases was not the only way by which discovered that such deductions were not
he could improve his dire financial situation. It remitted to MESALA; and that Sky Cable did
would not be difficult for him, being a lawyer not reimburse the amounts of his unremitted
and a former member of the Bench, to accept deductions despite demand.
clients whom he could ethically represent in a
professional capacity. His taking on of the The complainant also seeks the disbarment of
defendants' civil cases despite his previous former Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano

(Arellano) and former Secretary of Justice Leila respondents as officials performing or
M. De Lima (De Lima) for allegedly incurring discharging their official duties as lawyers of
inordinate delay in issuing their resolutions the Government is always to be differentiated
resolving his petition for review and motion for from their accountability as members of the
reconsideration before the Department of Philippine Bar. The IBP has no jurisdiction to
Justice (DOJ). investigate them as such lawyers.
IN SHORT: After dismissal of his complaint by "The Ombudsman Act of 1989," prescribes the
the respondent-prosecutor, when he elevated jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.
his MR to the other respondents, the same was Section 15, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 6770
dismissed, and he filed a petition for review to provides:
appeal the dismissal of the complaint to the
heads of DOJ but the same was dismissed. “Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. —
The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
ISSUE: following powers, functions and duties:
Should the respondents be administratively (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on
disciplined based on the allegations of the complaint by any person, any act or omission
complainant? of any public officer or employee, office or
agency, when such act or omission appears to
RULING: be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has
primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by
Dismiss the administrative case against the the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his
respondents for lack of jurisdiction. primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any
stage, from any investigatory agency of
the complainant has posited that Robles, Government, the investigation of such cases.”
Obuñgen and Ang committed grave errors of
facts and law that require an inquiry into their The 1987 Constitution clothes the Office of the
mental and moral fitness as members of the Ombudsman with the administrative
Bar; and that Arellano and Secretary De Lima disciplinary authority to investigate and
be declared guilty of dereliction of duty or prosecute any act or omission of any
gross inexcusable negligence for belatedly government official when such act or omission
resolving his petition for review and motion for appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
reconsideration. inefficient. The Office of the Ombudsman is the
government agency responsible for enforcing
The acts complained of undoubtedly arose administrative, civil, and criminal liability of
from the respondents' performance or government officials "in every case where the
discharge of official duties as prosecutors of evidence warrants in order to promote efficient
the Department of Justice. Hence, the service by the Government to the people.”
authority to discipline respondents Robles,
Obuñgen, Ang and Arellano exclusively FALLO
pertained to their superior, the Secretary of
Justice. In the case of Secretary De Lima, the WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the
authority to discipline pertained to the disbarment complaint filed against all the
President. In either case, the authority may respondents for lack of jurisdiction.
also pertain to the Office of the Ombudsman,
which similarly exercises disciplinary 28. Campos v. Campos
jurisdiction over them as public officials A.C. No. 8644, 22 January 2014
pursuant to Section 15, paragraph 1, of
Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of DOCTRINE
1989). Indeed, the accountability of FACTS

Is a complaint for disbarment on grounds of P-28258 was in his possession. Eliseo was
serious misconduct, immorality and dishonesty aware of such fact, but he still deliberately and
filed against Atty. Eliseo M. Campos (Eliseo), maliciously asserted a falsehood. EHTIDA
former presiding judge of the Municipal Trial
Court of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur. The On February 11, 2009, Aida filed a Complaint
complainants herein are his wife, Aida R. for Legal Separation, Support and Separation
Campos (Aida), and their children, Alistair R. of Conjugal Properties against Eliseo. Aida
Campos (Alistair) and Charmaine R. Campos alleged that Eliseo confessed under oath that
(Charmaine) he is a homosexual. However, Eliseo, in effect,
contradicted the said confession when he
Eliseo and Aida were married in 1981. Alistair admitted to Alistair and Charmaine that he was
was born in 1982, and Charmaine, in 1986. then intimately involved with another woman.
Aida likewise claimed that Eliseo is
Eliseo purchased by installment a 936-square temperamental and had stopped giving support
meter lot (the property) in Bayugan, Agusan to their family.
del Sur from a certain Renato Alimpoos. Eliseo
thereafter applied for the issuance of a title in On April 6, 2009, Aida, Alistair and Charmaine
Alistair's name. Alistair was then a student filed before the Office of the Court
without an income and a capacity to buy the Administrator (OCA) an administrative
property. In 2006, Original Certificate of Title complaint for serious misconduct, immorality
(OCT) No. P-28258 covering the property was and dishonesty against Eliseo. Formal
issued in Alistair's name. Meanwhile, Alistair investigation was thereafter conducted.
got married and his wife and child likewise
resided in Eliseo's house until 2008. On September 14, 2009, after the conclusion
of a hearing on Eliseo's Petition for Declaration
Eliseo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nullity of Marriage before the RTC of
of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, Branch 7, a Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, Judge Eduardo
Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Casals (Judge Casals) called the parties for a
Marriage. He alleged that both he and Aida are conference in his chamber. A scuffice ensued
psychologically incapacitated to comply with inside the chamber. The police blotter filed
essential marital obligations. He claimed that promptly after the incident indicated that
during the first few days of their marriage, he Eliseo choked Charmaine and attempted to box
realized that he finds no gratification in but failed to hit Alistair.
engaging in sexual intercourse with his wife.
He alleged that he is a homosexual. He also Aida, Alistair and Charmaine filed the instant
averred that Aida experienced severe pain complaint for disbarment against Eliseo. They
when she delivered Alistair. Consequently, Aida alleged that Eliseo committed acts of
no longer wanted to bear children. He likewise dishonesty, immorality and serious misconduct
ascribed acts of infidelity to Aida. in (a) causing the issuance of OCT No. P-28258
in Alistair's name; (b) subsequently
On September 10, 2008, Eliseo executed an misrepresenting himself as the real owner of
Affidavit of Loss wherein he represented the lot covered by OCT No. P-28258; (c)
himself as the owner of the property covered falsely declaring under oath in the Affidavit of
by OCT No. P-28258. He declared that he Loss executed on September 10, 2008 that the
unknowingly lost the owner's certificate of title owner's copy of OCT No. P-28258 is missing
which used to be in his files. despite his knowledge that the said title is with
Alistair; (d) stating in his Petition for
Alistair filed before the Office of the Provincial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage that he is a
Prosecutor of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur a homosexual albeit admitting to his children
complaint for perjury against Eliseo. Alistair that he has an intimate relation with another
stated that the owner's copy of OCT No.

woman; and (e) choking and boxing his In recommending the imposition upon Eliseo of
children on September 14, 2009. a penalty of two years of suspension from the
practice of law, the IBP Board of Governors
After Eliseo's submission of his comment, the considered all the three charges of immorality,
Court referred the complaint to the Integrated dishonesty and misconduct against the former.
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation. However, this Court, on February 8, 2012, in
A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761, had already imposed
During the hearing, Eliseo insisted that the upon Eliseo a fine of Php20,000.00 for simple
allegations against him of (a) immorality and misconduct in causing the issuance of OCT No.
psychological incapacity in having extra-marital P-28258 in Alistair's name when the subject
affairs; and (b) serious misconduct in the property actually belongs to the former. The
execution of the Affidavit of Loss need not be charges of (a) immorality in engaging in
resolved anymore in the instant disbarment extra-marital affairs; and (b) dishonesty in
complaint since they are already the subjects executing the Affidavit of Loss on September
of other pending cases. He also expressed his 10, 2008, were, on the other hand, dismissed
doubt that Alistair is his biological son. He also by the Court after finding either the evidence
alleged that Aida, who had served for three of the complainants as insufficient or the issues
terms as a Provincial Board Member, had a raised being already the subjects of Eliseo's
lover, who was likewise a political figure. Aida pending Petition for the Declaration of Nullity
harbored the impression that Eliseo's filing of of Marriage.
his Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage caused the downfall of the former's It is worth emphasizing that the instant
political career. disbarment complaint and A.M. No. MTJ-10-
1761 are anchored upon almost the same set
IBP recommendation: of facts, except that in the former, the issue of
occurrence of the scuffle on September 14,
The Board suspended Eliseo from the practice 2009 is raised as well. This Court does not
of law for two years. intend to punish Eliseo twice for the same acts
especially since they pertain to his private life
ISSUE and were not actually committed in connection
with the performance of his functions as a
Whether or not Eliseo committed acts of magistrate before.
dishonesty, immorality and serious misconduct
based on the allegations above? The above-cited case suggests the superfluity
of instituting a disbarment complaint against a
lawyer when an administrative case had been
RULING: previously filed against him or her as a
Of the five issues raised herein, only the magistrate. Ideally therefore, the instant
allegation of Eliseo's engagement in the scuffle disbarment complaint should have been
inside the chamber of Judge Casals on consolidated with A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761.
September 14, 2009 shall be resolved. Anent However, it is well to note that Samson v.
the foregoing, this Court is compelled to once Caballero was promulgated by the Court on
again impose a fine upon Eliseo for violating August 5, 2009 subsequent to the filing of the
Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional instant disbarment complaint on April 6, 2009.
Responsibility when he conducted himself in a Further, while all the allegations in A.M. No.
manner not befitting a member of the bar. MTJ-10-1761 are replicated in the instant
disbarment complaint, the last issue of
This Court affirms the findings of the IBP Board engagement in the scuffle is an addition to the
of Governors that Eliseo deserves to be latter. Hence, this Court shall now resolve the
sanctioned for his unbecoming behavior.

said issue to write finish to the parties' FALLO
bickering.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds that respondent
In the instant disbarment complaint, tirades Eliseo M. Campos violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7
and bare accusations were exchanged. It bears of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A
stressing that not one of the parties had FINE of Five Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00) is
presented even one independent witness to hereby imposed upon him, with a STERN
prove what transpired inside the chamber of WARNING that a repetition of similar acts shall
Judge Casals on September 14, 2009. That a be dealt with more severely.
scuffle took place is a fact, but the question of
who started what cannot be determined with 29. Francia v. Abdon, A.C. No. 10031, 23
much certainty. While admitting his July 2014
engagement in the scuffle, Eliseo vigorously
attempts to justify his conduct as self-defense DOCTRINE:
on his part. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof
rests upon the complainant. In the absence of
While this Court finds credence and logic in preponderant evidence, the presumption of
Eliseo's narration of the incident, and innocence of the lawyer subsists and the
understands that the successive acts of the complaint against him must be dismissed. The
parties during the tussle were committed at a power to disbar must be exercised with great
time when passions ran high, he shall not be caution, and may be imposed only in a clear
excused for comporting himself in such an case of misconduct that seriously affects the
undignified manner. standing and the character of the lawyer as an
officer of the Court and as a member of the
Rule 7.03, Canon 7of the Code of bar.
Professional Responsibility explicitly
proscribes a lawyer from engaging in FACTS:
conduct that "adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, Complainant, Raul M. Francia, alleged that he
whether in public or private life, behave had a meeting with the respondent at the
in a scandalous manner to the discredit Makati Cinema Square to seek his assistance
of the legal profession." with respect to a pending case in the CA
involving the labor union of Nueva Ecija
Further, albeit not raised as an issue, this Electric Cooperative (NEECO).
Court views with disfavor Eliseo's statement
during the hearing conducted by the CBD on Respondent told the complainant that he can
March 18, 2011 that he doubts Alistair to be facilitate, expedite and ensure the release of a
his biological son. As a lawyer, Eliseo is favorable decision, particularly the award of
presumably aware that ascribing illegitimacy to assets and management of NEECO to the
Alistair in a proceeding not instituted for that union. But in order to do so, the union must
specific purpose is nothing short of defamation. produce the amount of ₱1,000,000.00, a
considerable portion of which is intended for
All told, Eliseo violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of Justice Sundiam, the ponente of the case and
the Code of Professional Responsibility when the two member justices of the division, while
he conducted himself in a manner not be fitting a fraction thereof is allotted to his costs.
a member of the bar by engaging in the scuffle
with his own children in the chamber of Judge Shortly thereafter, the complainant met the
Casals on September 14, 2009 and recklessly respondent again and handed him the amount
expressing his doubt anent the legitimacy of of ₱350,000 as partial payment,which was
his son Alistair during the hearing before the raised out of the individual contributions of the
CBD. members of the union.

On January 4, 2007, the union was advised Bar, the Court has consistently held that
that the CA has already rendered a decision on clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to
their case and the same was adverse to them. justify the imposition of administrative penalty
This infuriated the union members who then on a member of the Bar. Preponderance of
turned to the complainant and demanded for evidence means that the evidence adduced by
the return of the 350,000.00 that they raised one side is, as a whole, superior to or has
greater weight, is more convincing to the court
The respondent turned over the amount of as worthy of belief than that of the other.
₱100,000.00, representing the unspent portion
of the money given to him and promised to In the absence of preponderant evidence, the
pay the balance of ₱250,000.00 as soon as presumption of innocence of the lawyer
possible. The respondent, however, reneged on subsists and the complaint against him must
his promise. be dismissed.
Complainant prayed for the disbarment on After a careful review, the Court finds that the
Labor Arbiter Abdon (respondent) for violation evidence submitted by the complainant fell
of the lawyer's oath and the Code of short of the required quantum of proof. Aside
Professional Responsibility. from bare allegations, no evidence was
presented to convincingly establish that the
To support his claims, the complainant respondent engaged in unlawful and dishonest
submitted the following pieces of evidence: (1) conduct, particularly in extortion and
a transcript of the exchange of text messages influence-peddling.
between him and the respondent; (2) affidavit
of Butch Pena (Pena),officer of the Association Firstly, the transcript of the alleged exchange
of Genuine Labor Organization (AGLO); (3) a of text messages between the complainant and
transcript of the text message of a certain the respondent cannot be admitted in evidence
Paulino Manongsong, confirming the since the same was not authenticatedin
respondent’s mobile number; (4) copy of the accordance with A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC,
CA decision and (5) affidavit of Shirley Demillo pertaining to the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
(Demillo).
The Court cannot also give credence to the
For his part, the respondent denied the affidavits of Pena and Demillo which, on close
allegations. He merely referred Complainant to examination, do not prove anything about the
his former client, a certain Jaime "Jimmy" alleged transaction between the complainant
Vistan (Vistan). and Vistan was the one who and the respondent. In his affidavit, Pena, an
was given ₱350,000.00 as facilitation fee. officer of AGLO, the organization assisting the
union members of NEECO III, alleged:
The IBP-CBD, first dismissed the complaint,
then upon review of the case, APPROVED the Pena never had the opportunity to meet the
SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one respondent. He never knew the respondent
(1) year of Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon and to and did not actually see him receiving the
Return the Amount of Two Hundred Fifty money that the union members raised as
Thousand Pesos ([P]250,000.00) within thirty facilitation fee. His statement only proved that
(30) days from receipt of notice. the union members made contributions to raise
the amount of money required as facilitation
RULING fee and that they gave it to the complainant
for supposed delivery to the respondent.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof However, whether the money was actually
rests upon the complainant. delivered to the respondent was not known to
Pena.
Considering the serious consequences of the
disbarment or suspension of a member of the

The same observation holds true with respect and maliciously imputing corrupt motives on its
to the affidavit of Demillo. It was not members.
established with certainty that the person
whom she saw talking with the complainant WHEREFORE, for having committed an act
was the respondent. Even assuming that which compromised the public’s trust in the
respondent’s identity was established, Demillo justice system, Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon is
could not have known about the complainant hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
and respondent’s business by simply glancing for a period of ONE (1) MONTH effective upon
at them while she was on her way to the receipt of this Decision, with a STERN
supermarket to run some errands. WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar act in the future shall be dealt with
The power to disbar must be exercised with severely.
great caution, and may be imposed only in a
clear case of misconduct that seriously affects 30. Ricafort v. Medina
the standing and the character of the lawyer as A.C. No. 5179, 31 May 2016
an officer of the Court and as a member of the
bar. DOCTRINE
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
The respondent, however, is not entirely adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
faultless. He has, nonetheless, engendered the nor shall he whether in public or private life,
suspicion that he is engaged in an illegal deal behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
when he introduced the complainant to Vistan, of the legal profession. The act of humiliating
who was the one who allegedly demanded another in public by slapping him or her on the
₱1,000,000.00 in facilitation fee from the union face hints of a character that disregards the
members. human dignity of another. Respondent’s
question to complainant, “Wa ka makaila sa
His gesture of introducing the complainant to ako?” (“Do you not know me?”) confirms
Vistan precipitated the idea that what the such character and his potential to abuse the
latter asked of him was with his approval. profession as a tool for bullying, harassment,
and discrimination.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates that a "lawyer shall at FACTS
all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the Complainant alleged his tricycle sideswiped
legal profession." For, the strength of the legal respondent’s car. Respondent alighted in his
profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its car and confronted complainant. It was alleged
members.It is every lawyer’s duty to maintain that respondent snapped at complainant,
the high regard to the profession by staying saying: “Wa ka makaila sa ako?” ( “Do you not
trueto his oath and keeping his actions beyond know me?”). Respondent also allegedly
reproach. proceeded to slap the complainant and then
left. Later, a traffic aide informed the
Also, the respondent, as a member of the legal complainant of the plate number of
profession, has a further responsibility to respondent’s car. It was later learned that the
safeguard the dignity of the courts which the driver of the car was Atty. Medina, a provincial
public perceives as the bastion of justice. He board member of Surigao del Norte.
must at all times keep its good name
untarnished and not be instrumental to its The incident led to the filing of a complaint
disrepute. against the respondent as according to the
complainant, he felt hurt, embarrassed, and
Respondent compromised the integrity of the humiliated due to the acts of arrogance of the
judiciary by his association with a scoundrel respondent which is in disrespect for the oath
who earns a living by dishonoring the court of office as a lawyer. Attached to his complaint

were his affidavit, the traffic aide’s affidavit,
and a letter signed by the president of the Since it was already proven by preponderance
League of Mayors of Surigao del Norte and of evidence that the slapping occurred, it can
other 19 mayors of the province. be gleaned from the acts of the respondents
that he violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR.
IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended In this case, the act of humiliating another in
the penalty of suspension from the practice of public by slapping him or her on the face hints
law for 60 days from notice for misconduct and of a character that disregards the human
violation of Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of dignity of another. Respondent’s question to
Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of complainant, “Wa ka makaila sa ako?” ( “Do
Governors issued a resolution adopting the you not know me?”) confirms such character
findings of the commissioner but modifying the and his potential to abuse the profession as a
recommendation by suspending respondent tool for bullying, harassment, and
from the practice of law for 30 days. discrimination.
ISSUE 2. NO.
1. WON respondent may be held
administratively liable for violating This Court has previously established that
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR. disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui
2. WON complainant’s absence during the generis. They are neither civil nor criminal in
hearings before the IBP constitutes a nature. They are not a determination of the
bar against a finding of administrative parties' rights. Rather, they are pursued as a
liability. matter of public interest and as a means to
determine a lawyer's fi tness to continue
RULING holding the privileges of being a court officer.
1. YES.
As in criminal cases, complainants in
In administrative cases involving lawyers, the administrative actions against lawyers are
required burden of proof is preponderance of mere witnesses. They are not indispensable to
evidence. The courts presumes a lawyer to be the proceedings. It is the investigative process
innocent of the charges against him or her as and the finding of administrative liability that
he or she enjoys that his or her acts are are important in disciplinary proceedings.
consistent with his or her oath. Thus, it is the
complainant who must provide preponderance FALLO
of evidence to overcome this presumption. Respondent Atty. Rene O. Medina is found to
have violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code
In this case, the complainant had successfully of Professional Responsibility, and is
discharged this burden which is proven by the SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three
findings of the investigating commissioner that (3) months.
the slapping incident actually occurred, the
letter signed by the 19 mayors of Surigao del 31. Re: Anonymous complaint against
Norte also reinforced the assertions, the Atty. Untian, Jr.
affidavit made by the complainant, and the A.C. No. 5900, 10 April 2019
traffic aide present were also in great detail.
The League of Mayors' letter, signed by no less DOCTRINE
than 19 Mayors, strengthened complainant's
allegations. Contrary to respondent's claim Good moral character is more than just the
that it shows the political motive behind this absence of bad character. Such character
case, the letter reinforced complainant's expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant
credibility and motive. It reflects the public's thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the
reaction to respondent's display of arrogance. pleasant thing if it is wrong.

again?" Respondent retorted "What? You want
FACTS me to come again? I have not come the first
time and don't you know that it took me five
Subject of this Resolution is an Anonymous minutes to come, and you want me to come
Complaint against Atty. Cresencio P. Co again?" She later learned that respondent
Untian, Jr. (respondent) for his alleged sexual would narrate the said incident to almost all of
harassment of students of Xavier University, his classes. Dal felt offended that she was
Cagayan de Oro City (Xavier). subjected to such sexually charged language
and the fact that her embarrassment was
Complaint requested the Court to investigate retold in other classes.
the alleged sexual harassments that
respondent had committed against students of the Committee on Decorum recommended that
Xavier, particularly Antoinette Toyco (Toyco), respondent's teaching contract not be renewed
Christina Sagarbarria (Sagarbarria) and Lea on account of the accusations of sexual
Dal (Dal). The complaint was written in the harassment against him. It explained that
local dialect and made by an individual respondent was guilty of violating Xavier's
identifying himself or herself only as "law anti-sexual harassment guidelines.
practitioner."
Respondent lamented that the complaints for
Toyco claimed that respondent initially sexual harassment was made by disgruntled
expressed amorous interest when he sent her students who failed their classes for the
flowers anonymously through another law 2001-2002 school year as manifested by the
student. She stated that thereafter, fact that the incidents happened years apart
respondent would often text her through the but the complaints were made all at the same
phone of another law student. Toyco noted time.
eventually that respondent texted her through
his own phone where he would send romantic IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be
messages, poems, love notes and sweet suspended from the practice of law for two
nothings. She said that respondent also invited years. He observed that respondent was given
her to go to Camiguin with another law student all the opportunity to explain his side in the
but she turned it down. Toyco explained that investigation that Xavier had conducted.
while she was never sexually assaulted, Commissioner Hababag reminded that lawyers
respondent's unwelcome advances made her must be of good moral character and must
feel degraded as she could not easily ignore continue to possess it so long as he is part of
respondent for fear of reprisal. the legal profession.
Sagarbarria narrated that respondent showed IBP-BOG found that respondent was not guilty
her a photograph revealing only the face of a of sexual harassment as defined under
woman and asked her if she knew who the Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7877 or the
woman in the picture was. After she realized "Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995." He
that the woman in the picture looked like her, noted that there was no evidence to show that
respondent revealed the entire photograph respondent demanded or requested sexual
revealing a naked woman and teased her favors from Toyco, Sagarbarria and Dal.
within hearing distance of other law students.
Sagarbarria denied that she was the woman ISSUE:
because she had a distinctive mark on her
back for the past six years. WON the acts of respondent are condemnable.
Dal recounted that in one of her recitations RULING:

during respondent's class, she clarified a
question propounded to her saying "Sir, come Modified the penalty recommended. (higher)

not to use slang language in class. Respondent
R.A. No. 7877 does not require that the victim assailed that these accusations were due to
had acceded to the sexual desires of the them failing in his class and that none of the
abuser. it is not necessary that there was an purported victims exhibited embarrassment or
offer for sex for there to be sexual harassment discomfort during the incidents in question.
as a superior's conduct with sexual respondent abused the power and authority he
underpinnings, which offends the victim or possessed over the complainants. His sexually
creates a hostile environment would suffice. laced conduct had created a hostile and
the essence of sexual harassment is not the offensive environment which deeply prejudiced
violation of the victim's sexuality but the abuse his students. In what was supposed to be a
of power by the offender. In other words, what safe place for them to learn and develop, they
the law aims to punish is the undue exercise of were instead subjected to unwarranted sexual
power and authority manifested through advances.
sexually charged conduct or one filled with
sexual undertones. It must be remembered that lawyers are both
preachers and stewards of law, justice, morals
CSC Resolution No. 01-0940 provides and fairness in that they are duty-bound to
examples of sexual harassment, to wit: propagate observance and deference thereto.
It is not enough that they know right from
“SEC. 5. The following are illustrative forms of wrong, just from unjust, moral or immoral,
sexual harassment: because they must not only speak of such
(a) Physical ideals, but must also live by them. Lawyers,
i. Malicious Touching aside from being competent and adept in
ii. Overt sexual advances dealing with the intricacies of the law, must
iii. Gestures with lewd insinuation also be individuals of honor and virtue. Legal
(b) Verbal, such as but not limited to, requests knowledge and ability, without the guidance of
or demands for sexual favors, and lurid morals and justice, is a dangerous tool, which
remarks may harm, instead of uplift others.
(c) Use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters Respondent's responsibilities and expectations
or [written] notes with sexual underpinnings are even more heightened because he is a law
(d) Other forms analogous to the [foregoing].” professor. He should be a beacon of righteous
and conscientious conduct.
Respondent's actions towards the students
concerned definitely constitute sexual Respondent, as a molder of minds of
harassment as defined by R.A. No. 7877 and soon-to-be lawyers, should guide his students
the pertinent rules and regulation. to behave and act in a manner consistent with
the lofty standards of the legal profession.
A reading of respondent's Answer would show Instead, he abused his position of authority
that he substantially admitted the accusations creating an offensive and uncomfortable
against him, although providing a justification atmosphere in school. Again, what should be a
for them. He stated that he showed a picture place of learning and growth had become a
of a naked woman to Sagarbarria only as a place of fear and distrust for the affected
joke and after he had confiscated it from students.
another student to prevent further circulation
in the school. Respondent narrated that he Even more disappointing that respondent fails
would text Toyco with "luv u" and "miss u" but to acknowledge the consequences of his
claimed that it was a common everyday text actions and disregard the hurt Sagarbarria,
devoid of any romantic overtones as evidenced Toyco and Dal may have felt. He generally
by its informality. Meanwhile, he clarified that claimed that they did not express any distress,
the statement he made to Dal was meant to embarrassment, or humiliation during the
inject humor in the classroom and to teach her incidents complained of. It must be stressed

that as their law professor, respondent when he represented the occupants of the lot
exercised moral ascendancy over them. owned by complainant's family, who previously
donated a parcel of land to the Roman Catholic
FALLO Church, which deed of donation respondent
notarized.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Cresencio P. Co
Untian, Jr. is SUSPENDED from the practice of Fourth, complainant further accused
law for five (5) years and ten (10) years from respondent of conniving with Regional Trial
teaching law in any school effective upon the Court (RTC), Naval, Biliran, Branch 16 Judge
finality of this Resolution, with a STERN Enrique C. Asis, who was his former client in
WARNING that a repetition of the same or an administrative case, to rule in his clients'
similar act will be dealt with more severely. favor.
32. Malabed v. Dela Pena Fifth, Complainant charged respondent with

A.C. No. 7594, 9 February 2016 grave misconduct when he de ed the
accessory penalty of his dismissal as a judge.
DOCTRINE: Respondent worked as Associate Dean and
Professor of the Naval Institute of Technology
Gross misconduct is defined as "improper or (NIT) — University of Eastern Philippines
wrong conduct, the transgression of some College of Law, which is a government
established and definite rule of action, a institution, and received salaries therefor, in
forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in violation of the accessory penalty of dismissal
character, and implies a wrongful intent and which is his perpetual disqualification from
not a mere error in judgment." reemployment in any government office.
FACTS Respondent answered:
Adelpha E. Malabed (complainant) against Respondent alleged that "the [Certificate to

Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña (respondent) for File Action] he used when he filed Civil Case
dishonesty and grave misconduct. No. [B-]1118 for quieting of title before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Naval, Biliran
Complainant alleged the following: was the certification of Lupon Chairman, the
late Rodulfo Catigbe, issued on May 9, 2001.
First, complainant claimed that the Certificate
to File Action in the complaint led by Ruling of the IBP:
respondent refers to a different complaint, that
is the complaint led by complainant's brother Respondent described complainant's counsel as
against Fortunato Jadulco "silahis" and accused complainant of
"cohabiting with a married man . . . before the
Second, complainant alleged that respondent wife of that married man died." According to
did not furnish her counsel with a copy of the the IBP Commissioner, such offensive language
free patent covered by Original Certificate of "[is a] clear manifestation[] of respondent's
Title (OCT) No. 1730, but respondent gross misconduct that seriously affect his
forwarded a copy to the Court of Appeals. standing and character as an officer of the
Complainant claimed that she could not court."
properly defend herself without a copy of the
title. She further claimed that the title IBP ruled that respondent is guilty of
presented by respondent was fabricated. dishonesty and gross misconduct and
dishonesty and recommended suspension for
Third, complainant also alleged that period of One (1) year.
respondent was guilty of conflict of interest

ISSUE: Title, etc. . . . was the certification . . . issued
on May 9, 2001, . . . ."
The sole issue in this case is whether
respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave Based on the records, the complaint for
misconduct. quieting of title in Civil Case No. B-1118 was
filed with the RTC on 18 October 2000. The
Certificate of Endorsement, which respondent
RULING: claimed was the certificate to file action he
used in Civil Case No. B-1118, was issued on 9
YES. Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. May 2001, or after the foling of the complaint
on 18 October 2000. It is apparent that the
Using foul language in pleadings Certificate of Endorsement did not exist yet
when the complaint in Civil Case No. B-1118
In his Comment, respondent called was filed. In other words, there is no truth to
complainant's counsel "silahis by nature and respondent's allegation that the subject matter
complexion" and accused complainant of of Civil Case No. B-1118 was brought before
"cohabiting with a married man . . . before the the Lupon Tagapamayapa and that a certificate
wife of that married man died." In his to file action was issued prior to the filing of
Rejoinder, respondent maintained that such the complaint. Clearly, respondent
language is not foul, but a "dissertation of misrepresented that he filed a certificate to file
truth designed to debunk complainant's and action when there was none, which act violated
her counsel's credibility in filing the Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.02 of the
administrative case." Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
We are not convinced. Aside from such CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
language being inappropriate, it is irrelevant to FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
the resolution of this case. While respondent is COURT.
entitled and very much expected to defend
himself with vigor, he must refrain from using Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any
improper language in his pleadings. falsehood; nor consent to the doing of
any in court; nor shall he mislead, or
For using improper language in his allow the Court to be misled by any
pleadings, respondent violated Rule 8.01 artifice.
of
Rule 10.02 — A lawyer shall not
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional knowingly misquote or misrepresent
Responsibility which states: the contents of a paper, . . . .
Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his Failure to furnish opposing counsel with
professional dealings, use language copy of title
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper. With regard to respondent's alleged act
of not furnishing complainant's counsel with a
Non-submission of certificate to file action copy of the free patent title, we find that it
does not constitute dishonesty.
The submission of the certificate to file action,
which evidences the non- conciliation between Admittedly, the Court of Appeals was
the parties in the barangay, is a pre-condition furnished a copy of OCT No. 1730, which
for the filing of a complaint in court. means that a copy of the title exists. There is
no showing that respondent deliberately did
Respondent counters that what he used "when not furnish complainant's counsel with a copy
he filed Civil Case No. [B-]1118 for Quieting of

of the title. The remedy of complainant should government-owned or controlled corporations.
have been to le with the Court of Appeals a Despite being disqualified, respondent
motion to furnish complainant or counsel with accepted the positions of Associate Dean and
a copy of the title so she and her counsel could Professor of NIT-College of Law, a government
examine the same. institution, and received compensation
therefor.
Conflict of Interest
In view of his disqualification from
Complainant accuses respondent of con ict of reemployment in any government office,
interest when the latter allegedly notarized a respondent should have declined from
deed of donation of a parcel of land executed accepting the designation and desisted from
by complainant's family in favor of the Roman performing the functions of such positions.
Catholic Church. Eventually, respondent Clearly, respondent knowingly defied the
allegedly sought to litigate as counsel for the prohibition on reemployment in a public office
opposing parties who are occupants in the lot imposed upon him by the Court.
owned by complainant's family.
Gross Misconduct
Suffice to state that notarization is different
from representation. A notary public simply In sum, respondent committed gross
performs the notarial acts authorized by the misconduct for (1) misrepresenting that he
Rules on Notarial Practice, namely, submitted a certificate to file action issued by
acknowledgments, oaths and affirmations, the Lupon Tagapamayapa when in fact there
jurats, signature witnessings, and copy was none prior to the institution of the civil
certifications. Legal representation, on the action of his client, Fortunato Jadulco, in Civil
other hand, refers to the act of assisting a Case No. B-1118; (2) using improper language
party as counsel in a court action. in his pleadings; and (3) defying willfully the
Court's prohibition on reemployment in any
As regards complainant's serious accusations government office as accessory penalty of his
against respondent of conniving with Judge dismissal as a judge. Gross misconduct is
Asis and conspiring with the latter to render defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the
judgments favorable to respondent's clients, transgression of some established and definite
such are bare allegations, without any proof. rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of
duty, willful in character, and implies a
Violation of prohibition on reemployment wrongful intent and not a mere error in
in government office judgment."
In our 9 February 1994 Resolution, we Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
dismissed respondent as Acting Judge of Court, gross misconduct is a ground for
Municipal Trial Court of Naval, Leyte and disbarment or suspension from the practice of
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial law.
Court of Caibiran-Culaba, Leyte for partiality,
with prejudice to reappointment to any public FALLO:
office, including government-owned or
controlled corporations. WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Meljohn
B. De la Peña GUILTY of gross misconduct and
There is no dispute that respondent knows full accordingly SUSPEND him from the practice of
well the consequences of his dismissal as a law for two (2) years with a WARNING that the
judge, one of which is the accessory penalty of commission of the same or similar act or acts
perpetual disqualification from reemployment shall be dealt with more severely.
in any government office, including

33. The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda At first recommended that Respondent Attys.
Aseoche, etc. v. Lazaro, et al. be REPRIMANDED for using improper language
A.C. No. 7045, 5 September 2016 in their pleadings with a warning that a
repetition of the same will be dealt with more
FACTS severely.
Complainant, Law Firm of Chavez Miranda
Aseoche, acted as the legal counsel of Soriano Upon Motion for Reconsideration of the
while respondents, Attys. Lazaro and Morta, Resolution they recommended the dismissal of
represented Sandoval. Soriano and Sandoval the instant case on the basis of complainant's
were parties in a Libel case. failure to implead an indispensable party,
Libel case
ISSUE
Complainant sought the cancellation of Whether the IBP’s latest ruling should be set
Soriano's scheduled arraignment.During the aside.
hearing, Atty. Chavez (founding partner) Whether Respondents are guilty of violating
informed the RTC that a Petition for Review Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional
had been filed before the DOJ on 10 October Responsibility.
2005. Atty. Chavez presented an extra copy
before the RTC, and explained that the main OUR RULING
copy of the Petition stamped received by the
DOJ was still with the office messenger, who Yes. SET ASIDE the latest Resolution.
had personally filed the pleading the day
before. There is sufficient justification to discipline
respondents for violation of the Code of
The RTC, however, proceeded with Soriano's Professional Responsibility.
arraignment. Complainant filed a Motion for
Inhibition against the Judge. Respondents Non-joinder of a party is not a ground to
opposed the Motion for Inhibition in a pleading dismiss a disciplinary proceeding.
called Vehement Opposition, where they allege
that private complainant antedated the filing or Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are
mailing of the petition. sui generis. These proceedings are neither
Complainant denied the allegation of purely civil nor purely criminal, but are rather
antedating. As proof, complainant attached a investigations by the Court into the conduct of
copy of the Petition bearing the DOJ stamp. its officers. Technical rules of procedure are
II. Disbarment case not strictly applied, but are construed in a
On 8 February 2006, Complainant sought the manner that allows us to determine whether
disbarment of Respondents) for violation of lawyers are still fit to fulfill the duties and
Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional exercise the privileges of their
Responsibility for falsely and maliciously office.anrobleslaw
accusing Complainant and its lawyers of
antedating a Petition for Review filed with the In disbarment proceedings, the Court merely
Department of Justice (DOJ) on 10 October calls upon members of the bar to account for
2005.w their actuations as officers of the Court.
Respondents alleged that the filing of the Consequently, only the lawyer who is the
disbarment complaint against them was a subject of the case is indispensable. No other
mere harassment tactic. As proof, they cited party, not even a complainant, is
the non-inclusion as a respondent in the needed.chanrobleslaw
Complaint, a signatory to the Vehement
Opposition, Public Prosecutor Jaban-Fama. In this case, respondents are only called upon
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE IBP to account for their own conduct. Specifically,

respondents’ pleadings contain the accusation opposing counsel and should consist only of
that complainant antedated the filing of a such words as may be properly addressed by
petition before the DOJ. The fact that Public one honorable member of the bar to another.
Prosecutor Jaban-Fama also signified her In this case, respondents twice accused
conformity to the pleadings containing these complainant of antedating a petition it had filed
statements is irrelevant to the issue of whether with the DOJ without any proof whatsoever.
respondents' conduct warrants the imposition This allegation of impropriety undoubtedly
of disciplinary sanctions. brought complainant and its lawyers into
disrepute. The accusation also tended to
Respondents cannot excuse their misconduct mislead the courts, as it was made without
by invoking the presumption of regularity hesitation notwithstanding the absence of any
accorded to official acts of the public evidentiary support. The Court cannot condone
prosecutor. It must be emphasized that the act this irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.
in question, i.e. the preparation of the
pleadings subject of the Complaint, was Indulging in offensive personalities in the
performed by respondents and not by the course of judicial proceedings constitutes
public prosecutor. Hence, any impropriety in unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary
the contents of or the language used in these action, even if the publication thereof is
pleadings originated from respondents. The privileged.While lawyers may enjoy immunity
mere fact that the public prosecutor signed the from civil and criminal liability for privileged
pleadings after they were prepared could not statements made in their pleadings, they
have cured any impropriety contained therein. remain subject to this Court's supervisory and
disciplinary powers for lapses in the
The claim of respondents that they relied in observance of their duty as members of the
good faith on the approval of the public legal profession.robleslaw
prosecutor is likewise untenable. As lawyers,
they have a personal obligation to observe the WHEREFORE, Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel
Code of Professional Responsibility. Morta are hereby ADMONISHED to use only
respectful and temperate language in the
This obligation includes the duty to conduct preparation of pleadings and to be more
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor circumspect in dealing with their professional
towards their professional colleagues, including colleagues. They are likewise STERNLY
opposing counsel. Respondents cannot WARNED that a commission of the same or
disregard this solemn duty solely on the basis similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
of the signature of a public prosecutor and more severely.
later seek to absolve themselves from liability
by pleading good faith. 34. Belo-Henares v. Guevarra
A.C. No. 11394, 1 December 2016
II DOCTRINE
Yes. Respondents are guilty of violating Canons Respondent’s inappropriate and obscene
8 and 10 of the Code of Professional language, and his act of publicly insulting and
Responsibility. undermining the reputation of complainant
through the subject Facebook posts are in
This Court has repeatedly urged lawyers to complete violation of the provisions in the
utilize only respectful and temperate language Code of Professional Responsibility particularly
in the preparation of pleadings, in keeping with Rule 7.03, Rule 8.01, and Rule 19.01. By
the dignity of the legal profession. posting the subject remarks on Facebook
directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent
Their arguments, whether written or oral, disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is
should be gracious to both the court and the

bound to observe proper decorum at all times, ISSUE
be it in his public or private life. WON respondent may be held administratively
liable for violating the CPR.
FACTS
Maria Victoria Belo-Henares (Complainant) is RULING
the Medical Director and principal stockholder YES.
of the Belo Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI) and
engaged in the specialized field of cosmetic While the respondent argues that the
surgery. On the other hand, Atty. Roberto complaint violates his constitutionally-
Guevarra is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina guaranteed right to privacy as the remarks
Norcio, who filed a criminal case against were made in private on his private account
complainant for an allegedly botched surgical that can only be viewed by his friends, he may
procedure on her buttocks in 2002 and 2005, still be held administratively liable. Restricting
purportedly causing infection and making her the privacy of one’s Facebook posts to
ill in 2009. “Friends” does not guarantee absolute
protection from the prying eyes of another
In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on user who does not belong to one’s circle of
his Facebook account insulting and verbally friends.
abusing complainant. The Facebook posts by
the respondent claims that complainant is a Respondent’s inappropriate and obscene
“quack doctor” and engaged in bribing language, and his act of publicly insulting and
government officials. He even claims that the undermining the reputation of complainant
complainant is addicted to botox which through the subject Facebook posts are in
resulted to her obtaining a mental disease. The complete violation of Rules 7.03, 8.01, and
complaint alleged that the Facebook posts by 19.01 of the CPR.
the respondent were not only intended to
destroy BMGI’s medical personnel, as well as By posting the subject remarks on Facebook
the entire medical practice of around 300 directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent
employees for no fair or justifiable cause. disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is
Moreover, through Facebook, respondent bound to observe proper decorum at all times,
allegedly threatened complainant with criminal be it in his public or private life. He overlooked
conviction without factual basis and proof. the fact that he must behave in a manner
Complainant likewise averred that some of befitting of an officer of the court, that is,
respondent’s Facebook posts were sexist, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted
vulgar, and disrespectful to women. Finally, inappropriately and rudely; he used words
complainant also averred that the attacks unbecoming of an officer of the law, and
against her were made with the object to conducted himself in an aggressive way by
extort money from her. hurling insults and maligning complainant’s
and BMGI’s reputation.
In the Report and Recommendation of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines-CBD, it FALLO
recommended that responded be suspended Respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra
for a period of one year from the practice of is found guilty of violation of Rules 7.03, 8.01,
law, with a stern warning that a repetition of and 19.01 of the Code of Professional
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from
finding him liable for violating a number of the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
Canons in the Code of Professional effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and
Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
resolved to adopt and approve the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
recommendations of the IBP-CBD. severely.

35. Pheninah D.F. Washington v. Dicen “It is the observation of the respondent that
A.C. No. 12137, 9 July 2018 complainant is no longer thinking on her own
but has become fixated on her illicit and
DOCTRINE immoral, if not adulterous relationship with her
ex-husband, Martin Vince, (while current
"The practice of law is a privilege given to husband is in the [United States] reportedly
lawyers who meet the high standards of legal recuperating from a surgery), a foreigner who
proficiency and morality. Any violation of these by the latter's manipulation caused her to be
standards exposes the lawyer to administrative estranged from the entire Flores-Dicen clan.”
liability."
The IBP thus concluded that Atty. Dicen had
FACTS failed to adhere to the duty imposed upon
lawyers not to use language "which is abusive,
This administrative case is rooted on a offensive or otherwise improper." It noted that
Letter-Complaint filed by Pheninah D.F. Atty. Dicen's use of offensive language "and
Washington (complainant) against respondent his resort to gossip to prove a point, fell short
Atty. Samuel D. Dicen (Atty. Dicen) for of the gracious, gentlemanly, courteous,
"unethical practice of law, [and] abuse of [the] dignified, civil and temperate (even if forceful)
privilege and power vested upon him as a language required of him as a lawyer."
lawyer."
The IBP-BOG resolved to adopt and approve
Complainant alleged she went to her house in the Report and Recommendation of the
Dumaguete City, then occupied by the family IBP-CBD to admonish Atty. Dicen.
of her niece, Roselyn R. Toralde (Roselyn), in
order to perform necessary repairs thereon ISSUE:
after discovering that said house was in a
dilapidated state and badly infested by The issue for the Court's resolution is whether
termites. The repairs, however, did not push Atty. Dicen should be held administratively
through as planned because the police arrived liable for violating Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the
in the premises and arrested complainant and Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for
her companions. Complainant claimed that it his use of intemperate language in his
was Atty. Dicen, Roselyn's uncle and her first pleadings.
cousin, who had ordered her to be arrested for
trespassing even though she was the lawful RULING:
owner of the property in question.
Canon 8 of the CPR in particular, instructs that
IBP-CBD, Commissioner Jose Alfonso M. a lawyer's arguments in his pleadings should
Gomos, found no merit in the allegations of be gracious to both the court and his opposing
unethical practice of law against Atty. Dicen. counsel, and must be of such words as may be
Nevertheless, it recommended that Atty. Dicen properly addressed by one gentleman to
be admonished "to be gracious, courteous, another.20 "The language vehicle does not run
dignified, civil and temperate (even if forceful) short of expressions which are emphatic but
in his language." The IBP pointed to: (a) Atty. respectful, convincing but not derogatory,
Dicen's Manifestation where he described illuminating but not offensive."
complainant's actions as having "no sane
purpose," and meant only to "satisfy her crazy Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the CPR provides:
quest for revenge," and even characterized
complainant as a "lunatic;" and (b) Atty. “Ru1e 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his
Dicen's Position Paper where he stated: professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.”

A thorough review of the records clearly shows To make matters worse, Atty. Dicen continued
that Atty. Dicen had resorted to the use of his personal tirades against complainant in his
derogatory language in his pleadings filed Position Paper where he stated that:
before the IBP in order to rebut the allegations
hurled against him. “It is the observation of the respondent that
complainant is no longer thinking on her own
For instance, in his Manifestation, Atty. Dicen but has become fixated on her illicit and
referred to complainant as a "lunatic" who was immoral, if not adulterous[,] relationship with
on a "crazy quest for revenge" against him, her ex-husband, Martin Vince, (while current
viz.: husband is in the [United States] reportedly
recuperating from a surgery), a foreigner
“That evidently, if this affidavit has also been who[,] by the latter's manipulation[,] caused
filed with this Honorable Commission, the her to be estranged from the entire
purpose can only be to misle[a]d and muddle Flores-Dicen Clan. Blinded by manipulative
its findings of facts; otherwise, then it has no lover[,] Martin[,] she had become so hostile
sane purpose except to persecute respondent and unreasonable, if not unchristian[,] to her
and satisfy her crazy quest for revenge against relatives who are members of the Seventh-Day
respondent who she wants to answer for her Adventist Church.”
arrest and detention when she was caught by
police officers in the act of demolishing the The totality of these circumstances leads the
house of her niece, Roselyn Toralde; That Court to inevitably conclude that Atty. Dicen
these puzzling moves of the complainant, i.e., violated Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the CPR for his
demolishing (against the advice of her counsel) use of language that not only maligned
the house of her niece to evict her despite the complainant's character, but also imputed a
pendency of an unlawful detainer case and the crime against her, i.e., that she was
filing of an administrative case before [the] IBP committing adultery against her husband who
x x x because she was unlawfully arrested and was, at the time, living in the United States.
detained by the police for her attempt at
demolishing a house appear to be lunatic;” Indeed, Atty. Dicen could have simply stated
the ultimate facts relative to complainant's
In the same pleading, Atty. Dicen also called allegations against him, explained his
complainant "a puppet and a milking cow" of a participation (or the lack of it) in the latter's
certain Martin, who he suggested was arrest and detention, and refrained from
complainant's lover in the Philippines while her resorting to name-calling and personal attacks
husband was in the United States: in order to get his point across. After all,
"[t]hough a lawyer's language may be forceful
“That[,] in fact[,] this [sic] puzzling acts of and emphatic, it should always be dignified
complainant finds some rationality if eyes are and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
set beyond the complainant and focus[ed] on profession. The use of intemperate language
the man that has made her a puppet and a and unkind ascriptions has no place in the
milking cow. This man is a certain Martin, a dignity of judicial forum."
foreigner, [living] with her in her "home alone"
while her husband is in the U.S. reportedly FALLO
recuperating from some surgery. Since then[,]
complainant has become aggressive in WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Samuel D.
pursuing her vendetta against all her siblings Dicen is found GUILTY of violating Rule 8.01,
and relatives for imagined ungrateful acts, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
claiming that their lives have become better Responsibility. He is hereby ADMONISHED to
because of her, and therefore should kowtow refrain from using language that is abusive,
to her every whims and caprices.” offensive or otherwise improper in his
pleadings, and is STERNLY WARNED that a

repetition of the same or similar acts will be [Y]our Honor”, “I don't want to think the
dealt with more severely. Honorable Court is bias[ed]” and “I am going
to think the Honorable Court is bias[ed]” all in
36. Canete v. Puti open court.
A.C. No. 10949, 14 August
For his part, Atty. Puti prayed for the dismissal
DOCTRINE of the complaint against him. He denied ever
appearing intoxicated in court. He also claimed
The Court has consistently held that that it was Atty. Tan who provoked him when
disbarment and suspension of an attorney are the latter made threats against him. According
the most severe forms of disciplinary action, to him, it was his duty to call out the judge for
which should be imposed with great caution. being biased and that he was only discharging
They should be meted out only for duly proven his duties to his client by representing him with
serious administrative charges. Suspension in zeal.
this case is not a commensurate penalty to the
offense. Findings of the IBP:
FACTS: The Investigating Commissioner of the CBD

issued a Report and Recommendation finding
An administrative complaint (complaint) filed Atty. Puti liable for misconduct for violating the
by Carmelita Canete (Canete) against Atty. Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Artemio Puti (Atty. Puti) with the Commission Responsibility and recommending his
on Bar Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the suspension for two (2) years from the practice
Philippines (IBP). of law.
In her complaint, Canete claimed that her IBP Board of Governors stated that the
husband was a victim in a criminal case for allegations are fully supported by the evidence
kidnapping for ransom with double murder on record and applicable laws, and for violation
filed against Atty. Puti's client. Canete averred of the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 8, Rule 10.01,
that Atty. Puti had, in numerous occasions, 10.03, Canon 10 and Canon 11 of the Code
appeared in court while he was intoxicated and of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Artemio
made discourteous and inappropriate remarks Puti is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
against the public and private prosecutors as law for six (6) months.
well as the judge.
ISSUE
Canete claimed that Atty. Puti provoked her
private counsel, Atty. Arturo Tan (Atty. Tan), Whether or not Atty. Puti should be suspended
by calling him "bakla" during the hearings from the practice of law?
and saying “No Answer! Bakit 2 kayong
prosecutor? Malaki siguro bayad sa inyo.” RULING
Both in open court. No. Not suspension but only reprimand with
strong warning.
In addition, Canete also alleged that during the
May 9, 2013 hearing, Atty. Puti uttered the
words "to the handsome public prosecutor" The Court adopts the findings of the IBP, with
with seething sarcasm. modifications.
Lastly, Canete averred that during the May 22, Canete filed the instant complaint against Atty.
2013 hearing, Atty. Puti repeatedly bullied and Puti for: 1) appearing in the hearings while
threatened the judge in open court saying that drunk; 2) provoking and insulting the
“That is an abuse of discretion on your part, prosecutors; and 3) disrespecting the court.
These grounds shall be discussed in seriatim.

On the allegation that Atty. Puti appeared For his statements against the private and
intoxicated in court on numerous occasions, public prosecutors, Atty. Puti violated the
Canete claimed that these were witnessed by following provisions under the Code of
several court personnel, his co-counsels, and Professional Responsibility:
opposing counsels. Atty. Puti denied such claim
and argued that there is no evidence on record CANON 8 — A lawyer shall conduct
that he appeared in court while intoxicated. himself with courtesy, fairness, and
The Court agrees with Atty. Puti. It was not candor toward his professional
sufficiently proven that Atty. Puti ever colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
appeared at a court hearing while he was tactics against opposing counsel.
intoxicated — despite Canete's claim that the
same was witnessed by several persons. Thus, Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his
Atty. Puti cannot be held liable on this ground. professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise
Regarding the second ground, the TSN of the improper.
hearings held at the trial court plainly show
that Atty. Puti employed impertinent and As regards the final ground, the TSN of the
discourteous language towards the opposing May 22, 2013 hearing shows that Atty. Puti
counsels. made several remarks against the judge.
Specifically, Atty. Puti stated in open court that
To recall, Atty. Puti called Atty. Tan "bakla" in the judge was abusing his discretion and
a condescending manner. To be sure, the term implied that the judge was partial and biased.
"bakla" (gay) itself is not derogatory. It is used Moreover, Atty. Puti threatened the judge that
to describe a male person who is attracted to he would withdraw from the case and walk out
the same sex. Thus, the term in itself is not a if his request was not granted. Again, such
source of offense as it is merely descriptive. statements were improper.
However, when "bakla" is used in a pejorative
and deprecating manner, then it becomes While a lawyer, as an officer of the court, has
derogatory. Such offensive language finds no the right to criticize the acts of courts and
place in the courtroom or in any other place for judges, the same must be made respectfully
that matter. Atty. Puti ought to be aware that and through legitimate channels. In this case,
using the term "bakla" in a derogatory way is Atty. Puti violated the following provisions in
no longer acceptable — as it should have been the Code of Professional Responsibility:
in the first place. Verily, in Sy v. Fineza, the
Court ruled that the respondent judge's act of CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and
ruling that a witness should not be given any maintain the respect due to the courts
credence because he is a "bakla" was most and to judicial officers and should insist
unbecoming of a judge. on similar conduct by others.
As against the public prosecutors, Atty. Puti Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from
made the following statement: "Bakit 2 kayong scandalous, offensive or menacing
prosecutor? Malaki siguro bayad sa inyo." Such language or behavior before the Courts.
remark was clearly unprofessional, especially
since Atty. Puti used to be a public prosecutor. Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute
By nonchalantly accusing the prosecutors of to a Judge motives not supported by the
having been bribed or otherwise acting for a record or have no materiality to the
valuable consideration, Atty. Puti overstepped case.
the bounds of courtesy, fairness, and candor
which he owes to the opposing counsels. As a defense, Atty. Puti claimed that he was
merely doing his duty to call out the judge for
being biased. He maintained that he was only
discharging his duties to his client by

representing him with zeal. Such contention
deserves scant consideration.
While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a

client's cause is desirable, unprofessional
conduct stemming from such zeal or
enthusiasm is disfavored.
In the penalty to be imposed, the Court

disagrees with the IBP's recommendation that
Atty. Puti be suspended from the practice of
law for six (6) months. While Atty. Puti is
found to have violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility, suspension from the practice of
law is not a commensurate penalty. The Court
has consistently held that disbarment and
suspension of an attorney are the most severe
forms of disciplinary action, which should be
imposed with great caution. They should be
meted out only for duly proven serious
administrative charges.
Thus, while Atty. Puti is guilty of using

inappropriate language against the opposing
counsels and the judge, such transgression is
not of a grievous character as to merit his
suspension since his misconduct is considered
as simple rather than grave.
FALLO
WHEREFORE, finding Atty. Artemio Puti GUILTY

of violating Canons 8 and 11 and Rules 8.01,
11.03, and 11.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Court REPRIMANDS him
with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar act in the future will be dealt
with more severely.

Canon 4 8 Legal Ethics Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canon 4 8 Legal Ethics Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canon 4 8 Legal Ethics Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

22. People v. Arrojado 1. YES.

G.R. No. 207041, 9 November 2015

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 1

In any event, to avoid inordinate delays in the FALLO

4. NO. complainant Luzviminda S. Cerilla filed an

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 2

Complainant said that on the basis of the SPA, ISSUE:

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 3

The obligations of lawyers as a consequence of On details of lawyers in pleadings: We have

FALLO In the course of the proceedings, Wilson Uy

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 4

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 5

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 6

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 7

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 8

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 9

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 10

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 11

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 12

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 13

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 14

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 15

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 16

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 17

Dal recounted that in one of her recitations RULING:

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 18

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 19

32. Malabed v. Dela Pena Fifth, Complainant charged respondent with

FACTS Respondent answered:

Adelpha E. Malabed (complainant) against Respondent alleged that "the [Certificate to

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 20

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 21

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 22

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 23

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 24

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 25

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 26

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 27

FACTS: The Investigating Commissioner of the CBD

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 28

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 29

While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a

In the penalty to be imposed, the Court

Thus, while Atty. Puti is guilty of using

WHEREFORE, finding Atty. Artemio Puti GUILTY

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 30

You might also like