NOTES IN LEGAL ETHICS
I, ________________________, of ___________________________, do solemnly swear swear that I will maintain allegiance allegiance to the Republic Republic of the Philippines; Philippines; I will support and defend its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood nor consent to its commission; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will not delay any man’s cause for money or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good delity as well to the courts as to my clients and I impose upon myself this obligation voluntarily without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion! "o help me #od! THE LAWYER’S OATH:
DEFINITION OF TERMS:
$! LEGAL PROFESSION % group of men and women pursuing a learned art as a commo common n callin calling g in the spiri spiritt of publi public c servic service e ¬e' ¬e' three three eleme elements nts of (ega (egall Profession ) &a* organi+ation, &b* learning, and &c* spirit of public service*! ! LEGAL ETHICS % embodiment of all principles of morality and renement that should govern the conduct of every -ar member; branch of moral science that treats of the duties which a lawyer owes to the Court, his client, his Colleagues, and the Public; is embodied in the Constitution, rules of Court, Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional .thics, /urisprudence, moral laws and special laws!
PRACTICE ICE OF LAW LAW % an 0! PRACT any y acti activi vity ty in an and d out out of cour courtt whic which h re1ui e1uirres the the application of laws, legal procedure, knowledge, training and e2perience &Cayetano vs! 3onsod, #!R! 4o! $55$$0, "ept! 0, $66$*! 7! TITULO DE ABOGADO % not mere possession of academic degree of ((- but membership in the bar after due admission thereto, 1ualifying one for the practice of law! 8! BAR and BENCH % -ar refers to the whole body of attorneys and counsellors; collectively, the members of the legal profession! -ench denotes the whole body of /udges &-lack’s &-lack’s (aw 9ictionary, 9ictionary, :th edition*! :! LAWYER % general term for a person trained in law and authori+ed to advice or represent others in legal matters; a person licensed to practice law &-lack’s (aw 9ictionary, :th edition*! ! TRIAL LAWYER % one who personally handles cases in court, administrative agencies or boards!
$5! ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW % class of persons who are by license, o=cers of the court empowe empowere red d to appear appear,, prose prosecut cute e and defend defend an and d upon upon whom whom pecul peculiar iar duties duties,, responsibilities and liabilities are developed by law as a conse1uence! $$! COUNSEL DE OFFICIO % a counsel, appointed or assigned by the court who by reas reason on of e2per e2perien ience ce and abilit ability, y, may may ade1ua ade1uatel tely y defend defend the accus accused! ed! >e is normally appointed to represent one who is indigent in a criminal case! $! ATTORNEY AD HOC % one named or appointed by the court to defend an absentee defendant in the suit in which the appointment is made!
TTORNEY OF RECORD RECORD % one $0! ATTORNEY one whos whose e na name me must must appe appear ar some somewh wher ere e in permanent records or les of the case, or on the pleading or some instrument led in the case or on the appearance docket! $7! OF COUNSEL % an associate attorney or employee of law o=ces! $8! AMICUS CURIAE % ?friend of the court@! >e is a person with strong interest in or views on the sub/ect matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to le a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views! "uch amicus curiae briefs are commonly led in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest like civil rights! $:! AMICI PAR EXCELLENCE % -ar associations which which appear in court as friends to e2pound in some matters of law for the information of the court! $! BAR ASSOCIATION % is an association of members of the legal profession like the I-P where membership is integrated and compulsory! $
RETAINER % fees ! GENERAL RETAINER fees inten intended ded to secur secure e servic services es for futur future e legal legal problems! 0! SPECIAL RETAINER % fees paid for the engagement in a particular case!
$5! ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW % class of persons who are by license, o=cers of the court empowe empowere red d to appear appear,, prose prosecut cute e and defend defend an and d upon upon whom whom pecul peculiar iar duties duties,, responsibilities and liabilities are developed by law as a conse1uence! $$! COUNSEL DE OFFICIO % a counsel, appointed or assigned by the court who by reas reason on of e2per e2perien ience ce and abilit ability, y, may may ade1ua ade1uatel tely y defend defend the accus accused! ed! >e is normally appointed to represent one who is indigent in a criminal case! $! ATTORNEY AD HOC % one named or appointed by the court to defend an absentee defendant in the suit in which the appointment is made!
TTORNEY OF RECORD RECORD % one $0! ATTORNEY one whos whose e na name me must must appe appear ar some somewh wher ere e in permanent records or les of the case, or on the pleading or some instrument led in the case or on the appearance docket! $7! OF COUNSEL % an associate attorney or employee of law o=ces! $8! AMICUS CURIAE % ?friend of the court@! >e is a person with strong interest in or views on the sub/ect matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to le a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views! "uch amicus curiae briefs are commonly led in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest like civil rights! $:! AMICI PAR EXCELLENCE % -ar associations which which appear in court as friends to e2pound in some matters of law for the information of the court! $! BAR ASSOCIATION % is an association of members of the legal profession like the I-P where membership is integrated and compulsory! $
RETAINER % fees ! GENERAL RETAINER fees inten intended ded to secur secure e servic services es for futur future e legal legal problems! 0! SPECIAL RETAINER % fees paid for the engagement in a particular case!
7! CONTINGENT CONTRACT % an agreement whereby the fee, usually a 2ed percentage of what may be recovered, is made to depend on the success of the action! 8! CHAMPERTOUS CONTRACT % an agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay e2penses of proceedings to enforce the clients rights; is against public policy especially where the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his won e2pense in consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute! :! RETAINING LIEN % attorney’s lien over the property of the client held by the lawyer to apply to his claims upon due notice to the client! ! CHARGING LIEN % a lien upon all /udgments for the payment of money and e2ecutions issued in pursuance of such /udgments; a lawyer causes a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court that rendered /udgment or issuing e2ecution e2ecution with written notice to the client and adverse party &Rule $0<, "0c! 0, Rules of Court*!
SPECIAL APPEARANC APPEARANCE E % one 6! SPECIAL one sole solely ly inte intend nded ed to 1ues 1uesti tion on the the cour court’ t’s s /urisdiction! /urisdiction! 05! SUSPENSION % temporary withholding of a lawyer’s privilege to practice his profession for a certain period or for an indenite period of time! 0$! DISBARMENT % the act of the "upreme Court in withdrawing from an attorney the privilege to practice law! 0! REINSTATEMENT % resto estora rati tion on to a disb disbar arrred lawy lawyer er of the the priv privil ileg ege e to practice; readmission to the membership in the -ar! 00! JUDICIAL ETHICS % branch of moral science which treats of the right and proper conduct to be observed by all /udges and magistrates in trying and deciding cont contrrover oversi sies es brou brough ghtt to them them for for ad/u ad/udi dica cati tion on whic which h cond conduc uctt must ust be demonstrative of impartiality, integrity, competence, independence and freedom from improprieties! Dhe freedom from improprieties must be observed even in the /udge’s private private life! 07! COURT % a board or other tribunal which decides a litigation or contest! 08! JUDGE % a public o=cer who by virtue of his o=ce, is clothed with /udicial author authority ity!! E public public o=cer o=cer lawful lawfully ly appoi appoint nted ed to decide decide litiga litigated ted 1uest 1uestion ions s in accordance with law! 0:! DE JURE JUDGE % one who is e2ercising the o=ce of /udge as a matter of right; an o=cer of a court who has been duly and legally elected or appointed! 0! DE FACTO JUDGE % an o=cer who is not lawfully invested with all of the powers and duties conceded to /udges, but is e2ercising the o=ce of /udge under some color of right!
0
resident; &iii* at least $ years of age; &iv* must be of good moral character; &v* must not have been charged of a crime involving moral turpitude; and &vi* must have met the re1uired educational re1uirements &"ecs! and 8, Rule $0<, Rules of Court*! REQUISITES FOR ADMISSION INTO THE BAR' &$* must meet all academic
re1uirements; &* pass the bar e2am; &0* oath)taking before the "upreme Court, &7* signing of the Ettorney’s Roll and issuance of certicate of membership from Clerk of Court of the "upreme Court &must be in good standing*! DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF A LAWYER &Four)Fold 9uty to the Court, to the Public,
to the -ar and to his Client*' &a* maintain allegiance to the Republic and support the Constitution and obey the laws; &b* observe and maintain respect due to courts and their o=cers; &c* counsel or maintain such actionsproceedings only as appears to him to be /ust and defenses as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law; &d* employ means only consistent with truth and honor and never to mislead the /udge; &e* maintain inviolate the condence and preserve the client’s secrets; &f* abstain from all oAensive personality and advance no fact pre/udicial to the honor or reputation of a partywitness unless re1uired by the /ustice of the cause he is charged with; &g* not to encourage suitdelay any man’s cause for corrupt motive; &h* not to re/ect the cause of defencelessoppressed for any personal consideration; &i* to present every defense permitted by the law by all fair and honourable means, in the defense of a person accused of a crime regardless of his personal opinion as to the accused’s guilt, so that due process may be ensured &Rule $0<, "ec! 5, Rules of Court*! PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW – #eneral Rule' Eny person admitted
as a member of the -ar in good and regular standing is entitled to practice of law! .2ceptions % &a* person representing himself or a friend in the 3DC &"ec! 07, Rule $0<, Rules of Court*; &b* in criminal proceedings in a municipal court in a locality where a licensed member of the bar is not available &"ec! , Rule $$:, Rules of Court*; &c* person representing himself in the RDC &"ec! 00, Rule $0<, Rules of Court*; &d* persons authori+ed to represent the government in a case &"ec! $00, Rule $0<, Rules of Court*; &e* complainant himself or union representatives in labor cases &(abor Code*; &f* law students who have completed 0 rd year law and enrolled in a recogni+ed law school’s "upreme Court)approved legal education program to represent indigent clients, provided that, such appearance if before the RDC should be accompanied at all times by a supervising lawyer &Rule $0<)E*! PUBLIC OFFICIALS PROHIBITED FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW
% &a* Gudges and other o=cials or employees of "uperior courts &Rule $0<, "ec! 08, Rules of Court*; &b* H=cials and employees of the H=ce of the "olicitor #eneral; &c* #overnment Prosecutors; &d* President, ice)President, Cabinet members, their deputies and assistants &Ert! II, "ec! $0, Constitution*; &e* 3embers of
Constitutional Commissions &Ert! IJ)E, "ec! , Constitution*; &f* Hmbudsman and his deputies &Ert! JI, "ec!
appearance as counsel by 3embers of Congress before any court, electoral tribunal or 1uasi)/udicial and other administrative bodies &"ec! $7, Ert! I, Constitution*; &b* "anggunian members may practice their legal profession provided that they shall not (i) not appear in court in any civil case where the local government or any governmental ofce, agency or instrumentality is the adverse party; (ii) appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an national or local government ofcer/employee is accused o an oense committed in relation to his ofce; (iii) collect any ee or their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government unit o which they are ofcials; and (iv) use property and personnel o the government except when the sanggunian member concerned is deending the governments interest (!"#$%& *; &c* a retired /ustice or /udge receiving pension from the government cannot act as counsel in any civil case in which the government or any of its subdivision or agencies is the adverse party or in a criminal case wherein an o=ceremployee of the government is accused of an oAense in relation to his o=ce &RE 6$5, "ec! $*! GROUNDS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL' &a* client pursues an illegal or
immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling; &b* client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the canons and rules; &c* his inability to work with co)counsel will not promote the best interest of the client; &d* the mental and physical condition of the lawyer renders it di=cult for him to carry out the employment eAectively; &e* client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement; &f* lawyer is elected or appointed to a public o=ce; and &g* other similar cases &Rule !5$, CPR*! INSTANCES WHEN COUNSEL CANNOT RECOVER FULL AMOUNT DESPITE WRITTEN CONTRACT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES % &$* when stipulated attorney’s
fees are in e2cess of what the law e2pressly provides; &* when the attorney is guilty of fraud or bad faith against the client; &0* when counsel’s services were worthless because of his negligence; &7* when the contract of employment is illegal; &8* when counsel served adverse interest, unless he acted with consent of both parties! GUIDELINES IN DETERMINING ATTORNEY’S FEES (Rule 2!"# CPR$ % &a* time
spent and e2tent and services rendered and re1uired; &b* novelty and di=culty of 1uestion involved; &c* importance of sub/ect matter; &d* skill demanded of lawyer; &e* customary charges for similar services and I-P schedule of fees; &f* probability of losing other compensation; &g* amount involved in the controversy and benets resulting from the service; &h* contingency or certainty of compensation; &i* character of employment whether occasional or established; &/* the lawyer’s professional standing! INSTANCES OF ATTORNEY’S FEES ON QUANTUM MERUIT (&' )u*+ ' +e ,ee-.e/$ % &a* no e2press contract for attorney’s fees; &b* court determines fees
stipulated in the contract to be unconscionable or unreasonable; &c* contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely formal matters or defects in the e2ecution; &d*
counsel’s inability, for /ustiable cause, to nish the case to its conclusion; &e* when lawyer and client disregard the contract for attorney’s fees; &f* charging of fees beyond what is 2ed by law! OB0ECTIVES OF DISBARMENT AND SUSPENSION % &a* Compel attorney to deal
fairly and honestly with his client; &b* remove from the profession, a person whose misconduct has proved him M4FID to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the o=ce of an attorney; &c* punish lawyer although not so much as to safeguard the administration of /ustice; &d* set as an e2ample or warning for other members of the -ar; &e* safeguard the administration of /ustice from incompetence and dishonesty of lawyers; &f* protect the public! NATURE OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS % being sui generis &class by itself*, it
has the following characteristics' &a* neither civil or criminal; &b* double /eopardy cannot be availed of in a disbarment proceeding against a lawyer as such a lawyer who is convicted like for falsication cannot claim double /eopardy; &c* can be initiated motu proprio by the "upreme Court or the I-P and can be initiated without a complainant; &d* can proceed regardless of the interest or lack thereof, if facts proven warrant; &e* imprescriptible and as such the ordinary statues of limitations have no application to disbarment proceedings however, une2plained delay in ling of an administrative case creates suspicion over the motives of the complainant; &f* conducted condentially being condential in nature until its nal determination; &g* it is itself due process of law; &h* whatever has been decided in a disbarment case cannot be a source of right that may be enforced in another action like reconveyance or damages; GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT (Rule "1# Se*! 23 45 6+e Rule 45 C4u-6$ % &a*
9eceit; &b* 3alpractice or other gross misconduct in o=ce; &c* #rossly immoral conduct; &d* Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; &e* iolation of the Hath of H=ce; &f* Nilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and &g* Corrupt or Nilful appearance as attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so! QUALIFICATIONS OF 0USTICES AND 0UDGES % &a* Gustices of the Court of Eppeal
and "upreme Court % natural)born Filipino citi+en, at least 75 years of age, $8 years in the practice of law K"ection &$* of Erticle III of the ConstitutionL; &b* /udges of lower courts % natural)born Filipino citi+en, at least 08 &for RDC* and 05 &for 3DC* years of age, $5 years &for RDC* and 8 years &for 3DC* in the practice of law K"ection &* of Erticle III of the ConstitutionL! INSTANCES OF MANDATORY INHIBITION OF 0UDGES % &a* /udge’s actual
biaspre/udice concerning a party or personal knowledge of dispute evidentiary facts concerning proceedings; &b* /udge previously served as a lawyer or a material witness in the matter in controversy; &c* /udge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy; &d* /udge served as e2ecutor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the /udge served as counsel during their association, or the /udge or lawyer was a material witness therein; &e* /udge’s ruling in a lower court is the sub/ect of review; &f* /udge is related by consanguinity or a=nity to a party litigant within the : th civil degree or to counsel within the 7 th civil degree; or &g* /udge knows that his or her spouse or child has a nancial interest, as
heir, legatee, creditor, duciary, or otherwise, in the sub/ect matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially aAected by the outcome of the proceedings!
RE: APPLICATION FOR BAR ADMISSION (VICENTE CHING! BM"#$%! $&'$'$### % icente Ching passed the $66< -ar .2am but was prohibited from taking his oath due to a ?citi+enship@ issue having been born on Epril $$, $6:7 to a Chinese father and Filipino mother! 9espite, his oath of allegiance and a=davit of citi+enship e2ecuted in $666, "upreme Court denied his motion to take the lawyer’s oath reasoning that, when he was born in $6:7, the governing charter was the $608 Constitution which re1uired a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and an alien father to follow the latter’s citi+enship, unless electing Philippine citi+enship upon reaching the age of ma/ority! Ching failed to validly elect Philippine citi+enship! Dhe span of $7years that lapsed from the time he reached the age of ma/ority until he nally e2pressed his intention to elect Philippine citi+enship is clearly beyond the contemplation of the re1uiring of electing ?upon reaching the age of ma/ority@! DONNA MARIE S AGUIRRE VS EDWIN RANA! BM"$&)*! *'$&'+&&) % Respondent, a 555 -ar e2am passer was precluded from signing the Ettorney’s Roll because of a complaint charging him of appearing as counsel for a local candidate before the 3unicipal -oard of Canvassers prior to his oath)taking in 3ay 55$! In denying him admission into the -ar, the "upreme Court held that, before one is admitted to the -ar, he must possess the re1uisite moral integrity for membership in the legal profession! E bar candidate who is morally unt cannot practice law even if he passes the bar e2aminations! Respondent was engaged in law practice when he appeared before the canvassing board without being a member of the -ar! It is the signing in the Ettorney’s Rolls that makes one a full)Oedged lawyer! Dhe fact that Respondent passed the bar e2ams is immaterial! Passing the bar is not the only 1ualication to become a lawyer, Respondent should know that two essential re1uisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely, his lawyer’s oath to be administered by the "upreme Court and his signature in the Ettorney’s Roll!
ROMULO VILLA VS JUNEL ANTHONY AMA! ET AL! BM"*,%! *'$%'+&& % Gunel Ema, was one of the members of E1uila (egis Fraternity implicated and charged for the death of ?(enny@ illa! 9espite passing the bar in $66, Gunel was not allowed to take his lawyer’s oath! >e later petitioned to be admitted to the -ar when his conviction for homicide through conspiracy was set aside by the Court of Eppeals nding him only liable for physical in/uries and sentencing him to 5)days imprisonment! "upreme Court admitted him into the practice of law reasoning that the crime for which he was convicted was only slight physical in/uries, a light oAense which cannot be considered a grave violation of the moral sentiment of the community or done in the spirit of cruelty, hostility or revenge % a crime certainly not involving moral turpitude!
SOLIMAN SANTOS! JR VS ATTY FRANCISCO LLAMAS! AC"%,%#! $'+&'+&&& % Respondent who last paid his I-P membership dues in $66 subse1uently failed to indicate his I-P number in his pleadings and used at times the same I-P number for the years $668, $66: and $66! "upreme Court re/ected Respondent’s claim that he
honestly thought that he was e2empted from payment of I-P dues being a senior citi+en and being engaging in limited law practice only as he was principally into farming! Rule $06)E, "ection 6 re1uires every member of the I-P to pay annual dues! 4on)payment of such dues may warrant suspension or removal from the Ettorney’s Roll pursuant to "ection $5 of the same rule! Respondent can engage in law practice only by paying his dues, and it does not matter that his practice is ?limited@! Further, e2emption from ta2ation of senior citi+ens does not include e2emption from payment of membership or association dues!
PETITION TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW! BENJAMIN M DACANAY! P./0/01n.2! BM"$*,3! $+'$,'+&&, % Petitioner, a Philippine -ar member migrated to Canada and became a citi+en thereof! Pursuant to RE68 &Citi+enship Retention and Reac1uisition Ect of 550*, Petitioner reac1uired Filipino citi+enship and petitioned the "upreme Court to allow him to resume his law practice! In readmitting Petitioner, "upreme Court held that, Philippine citi+enship lost by reason of naturali+ation as a citi+en of another country but later reac1uired pursuant to RE 68, is deemed never to have been lost! >owever, although deemed never to have terminated his -ar membership, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues! >ence, before a lawyer who reac1uires Filipino citi+enship pursuant to RE 68 can resume his law practice, he must rst secure from the "upreme Court authority to do so, conditioned on' &a* updating and payment in full of the annual I-P membership; &b* payment of professional ta2; &c* completion of at least 0: credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; and &d* retaking of the lawyer’s oath!
JULIETA B NARAG VS! ATTY DOMINADOR M NARAG! AC")%&! *'+#'$##3 % Respondent, while engaged as a teacher had an illicit relationship with his $)year old student with whom he later lived after abandoning his family! "upreme Court disbarred Respondent reasoning that, good moral character is a continuing 1ualication re1uired of every member of the bar! Dhus, when a lawyer fails to meet the e2acting standard of moral integrity, the privilege to practice law may be withdrawn! Immoral conduct is conduct so wilful, Oagrant or shameless as to show indiAerence to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community! "uch conduct, must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency!
HOCORMA FOUNDATION! INC VS ATTY RICHARD FUN4! AC"#%! 3'$'+&$+ % >ocorma Foundation hired Respondent’s legal services in connection with, among others, the transfer of one of the properties sub/ect of several suits and over which same property he later instituted a suit in behalf of 3abalacat Insttitute without the foundation’s written consent! "upreme Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law reasoning that a lawyer owes his client undivided allegiance! -ecause of the highly duciary nature of their relationship, sound policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conOicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties! En attorney may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conOicts with that of his present or former client! Dhis rule is so absolute that good faith and honest intention on the erring lawyer’s part does not make it inoperative! Dhe reason for this is that a lawyer ac1uires knowledge of his former client’s doings, whether documented or
not, that he would ordinarily not have ac1uired were it not for the trust and condence that his client placed on him in the light of their relationship!
LYDIA CASTRO-JUSTO VS ATTY RODOLFO GALING! AC"*$,%! $$'$*'+&$$ % Respondent accepted Complainant’s engagement and wrote in her behalf a demand letter to 3s! oa for dishonored checks! "ubse1uently, he led a motion for consolidation and appeared as counsel for 3s! oa in the estafa and -P cases led against her by Complainant! Dhe latter charged this as representation of conOicting interests! "upreme Court suspended Respondent from law practice holding that, a lawyer)client relationship can e2ist despite close friendship! Dhis relationship was established the moment Complainant sought Respondent’s legal advice regarding the dishonored checks! Respondent conrmed this relationship by drafting the demand letter and referring to Complainant therein as ?my client@! Dhe fact that the demand letter was not utili+ed in the criminal complaint led and that Complainant hired another lawyer is of no moment! 4on)payment of professional fee will not e2culpate Respondent from liability! Ebsence of monetary consideration does not e2empt lawyers from complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases with conOicting interests &Canon $8* which prohibition attaches from the establishment of attorney)client relationship e2tending beyond its duration! Dhis prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste! In the course of the relationship, the lawyer learns facts connected with the client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the case! Dhe nature of the relationship is, therefore, one of trust and condence of the highest degree! (awyers must not only keep inviolate the client’s condence, but also avoid appearance of treachery and double)dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of /ustice!
SPS VIRGILO 5 ANGELINA ARANDA VS ATTY EMMANUEL ELAYDA! AC",#&,! $+'$'$& % Respondent failed to notify Complainants who were here clients in a civil case of the scheduled hearing which resulted in the submission of the case for decision! (ater, Respondent took no steps, or at the very least, informed his clients of the adverse decision rendered which became nal and e2ecutory! Respondent claimed that he did not have Complainants’ contact number or address and that the clients were the ones remiss in making a follow up of their case’s status! "upreme Court suspended Respondent from law practice citing amongst others, his duty of delity to his client’s cause &Canon $* and his duty to serve his client with competence &Canon $<*, mindful not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him &Rule $e simply cannot wait for his clients to make an in1uiry about the development in their case! Close coordination between counsel and client is necessary for them to ade1uate prepare for the case, as well as to eAectively monitor the progress of the case!
DOLORES VDA DE FAJARDO VS ATTY REXIE BUGARING! AC"$$)! $&','+&&% % Complainant engaged Respondent to handle two cases aAecting inherited land! Nhen asked about his fees, Respondent said, ?huwag na ninyo alalahanin iyon, para ko na kayong nanay o lola@! Efter the cases were settled, Complainant oAered Respondent P$55k but he re/ected! Qears later, Complainant
learned that her property had been attached by Respondent after he led a civil case for sum of money against her! "upreme Court suspended Respondent reasoning that, the proper time to deal with the issue of professional fees is upon commencement of the lawyer)client relationship! Respondent should have determined and entered into an agreement regarding his fees when he was rst retained by Complainant! "uch prudence would have spared the Court this controversy over a lawyer’s compensation, a suit that should be avoided e2cept to prevent imposition, in/ustice or fraud! Nhile, a lawyer is entitled to the court’s protection against any attempt on the client’s part to escape payment of legitimate attorney’s fees, such protection however must not be sought at the e2pense of truth! Complete candor or honesty is e2pected from lawyers, particularly when they appear and plead before the courts for their own causes against former clients!
TORBEN B OVERGAARD VS ATTY GODWIN VALDE6! AC",#&+! #'+&'+&&3 % Efter receipt of about P655 to represent Complainant, a 9utch national, in several cases led by and against him, Respondent failed to give any update as to the case status, he also failed to enter his appearance in some cases! Respondent also failed to inform Complainant of the arraignment dates in the criminal cases against him and even failed to mention that he was entitled to prepare counter)a=davits! Narrants for Complainants arrests were subse1uently issued for his non)attendance! "upreme Court disbarred Respondent holding that, he had indubitably fallen below the e2acting standards demanded of -ar members! >e did not only neglect his client’s case, he abandoned his client and left him without any recourse but to hire another lawyer! Ecceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney)client relationship and gives rise to the duty of delity to the client’s cause! E lawyer is bound to serve his client with competence and diligence! E lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable!
FIDELA VDA DE ENRI7UE6 VS ATTY MANUEL SAN JOSE! AC")*#! +'+)'+&&, % Respondent was paid to le an unlawful detainer suit! Nhen he did not le the case, Complainant demanded for the return of her documents! 9ue to non) compliance by Respondent, the case prescribed! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! E lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence! It is his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence and he should e2ert his best eAorts to protect, within the bounds of law, the interest of his client! En attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion!
LUCILA S BARBUCO VS ATTY RAYMUNDO N BELTRAN! AC"+! 3'$$'+&&% % Complainant hired Respondent to appeal her case to the Court of Eppeals! (ater, she learned that her appeal had been dismissed for failure to le appellant’s brief! Respondent claimed that he timely led the appeal only that he was late in ling the re1uired brief because he was physically incapacitated for several days due to a vehicular incident! In suspending Respondent, the "upreme Court reasoned that, Respondent’s conduct relative to the belated ling of the appellant’s brief falls below the standards e2acted upon lawyers on dedication and commitment to their client’s cause! Failure to le brief within the reglementary period constitutes ine2cusable negligence! Dhat Respondent was suAered physical in/uries from a vehicular accident cannot serve to e2cuse him from ling his
pleadings on time considering that he was a member of a law rm composed of not /ust one lawyer! >e could have asked any of his partners in the law o=ce to le the brief or, at least, to seek e2tension of time to le such pleading!
FERNANDO MARTIN PENA VS ATTY LOLITO APARICIO! AC",+#3! *'+'+&&, % >is demand for separation pay for his client in an illegal dismissal case having been re/ected by the Complainant, Respondent wrote threatening to le criminal cases for ta2 evasion and falsication against Complainant! Respondent alleged that the disbarment complaint against him should be dismissed for want of certication against forum)shopping! "upreme Court held that, as to the necessity of a certication against forum shopping to a disbarment complaint, the ling of multiple suits and conOicting decisions rarely happens in disbarment complaints considering that said proceedings are either taken by the "upreme Court motu proprio or by the I-P upon veried complaint of any person, thus, if the complainant fails to attach a certication against forum shopping the pendency of another disciplinary action against the same respondent may still be ascertained with ease! "upreme Court reprimanded Respondent that, while a lawyer shall represent his client with +eal within the bounds of law, his duty is not to his client but to the administration of /ustice % his client’s success is wholly subordinate and his conduct must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics! Dhe writing of demand letters is standard practice and tradition in this /urisdiction, but, the letter in this case contains more than /ust a simple demand to pay containing as it did a threat to le retaliatory charges against Complainant which have nothing to do with his client’s claim!
ALEX ONG VS! ATTY ELPIDIO UNTO! AC"+%$,! +'*'+&&+ % For failing to heed his demand letters seeking child support for his client, Respondent led criminal cases against Complainant for alleged violation of the Retail Drade 4ationali+ation (aw and Enti)9ummy (aw plus administrative cases before the -ureau of 9omestic Drade, the Commission on Immigration and the H=ce of the "olicitor #eneral! "upreme Court suspended Respondent reasoning that, Canon $6 re1uires a lawyer to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful ob/ectives of his client and not to present, participate or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain improper advantage in any case or proceeding! Respondent had not e2ercised the good faith re1uired of a lawyer in handling of his client’s legal aAairs! >e tried to coerce Complainant to comply with his demand letter by threatening to le various charges against the latter! Efter non)compliance, he made good his threat and led a string of criminal and administrative cases % this act is malicious as the cases led did not have any bearing or connection to his client’s cause!
ARELLANO UNIVERSITY! INC VS ATTY LEOVIGILDO MIJARES III! AC"3)3&! $$'+&' % Respondent was disbarred for failing to turn over certain papers which he supposedly secured for Complainant after the latter had paid him P855k to Respondent as facilitation and processing e2penses for the titling of a certain property! "upreme Court held that, ?every lawyer has the responsibility to protect and advance his client’s interest such that he must promptly account for whatever money or property his client may have entrusted to him@! E lawyer’s conversion of funds entrusted to him is a gross violation of professional ethics! NICANOR GON6ALES VS MIGUEL SABACAJAN +%# SCRA +,* % Respondent held Complainants’ owner’s copies of land titles purportedly! 9espite demand,
Respondent refused to surrender to Complainants said titles claiming that he was holding them in behalf of a client to whom Complainants were supposedly indebted! In suspending Respondent, the "upreme Court posited that, if complainant did have alleged monetary obligations with his client, that did not warrant Respondent’s summarily conscating their titles since there was no showing in the records that the same were given as collateral or any court order authori+ing Respondent to take custody of said title! E lawyer shall impress upon his client the need for compliance with laws and principles of fairness!
ATTY RICARDO SALOMON! JR VS ATTY JOSELITO FRIAL! AC",3+&! #'$+'+&&3 % Mpon his own undertaking, Respondent &who was counsel for the plaintiA in a civil case* took possession of Complainant’s two vehicles which were attached! Complainant claimed that, several times, one of the cars was used by unauthori+ed persons and the other car was destroyed in a re while parked in Respondent’s residence! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! E writ of attachment issues to prevent defendant from disposing of attached properties to secure satisfaction of any /udgment that may be recovered by the plaintiA! Nhen attached ob/ects are destroyed then the attached properties would necessarily be of no value and attachment would be for naught! E lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benet or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the condence reposed in him by his client! Dhus, money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstance be commingled with his own or be used by him!
REYNARIA BARCENAS VS ATTY ANORLITO ALVERO! AC"3$#! %'+)'$& % Respondent received P055k from Complainant to be used to redeem the latter’s rights as tenant of a riceeld! Respondent told Complainant that he would deposit the money in court because the creditor refused to accept it! (ater, Complainant found out that Respondent was losing a lot in cockghts and no /udicial deposit was made! Complainant demanded for the return of his money but Respondent failed to comply! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! Nhen a lawyer received money from the client for a particular purpose, he is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for that purpose! If he does not use the money for the intended purpose, he must promptly return the money to his client!
MELVIN D SMALL VS ATTY JERRY BANARES! AC",&+$! +'+$'+&&, % Respondent received money for acceptance and ling fees! 9espite Complainant constant follow)up as to the status of the cases, Respondent merely answered that he was still preparing the documents! 3onths passed, Respondent failed to present any document prompting Complainant to demand for a full refund! Respondent failed to comply! In suspending Respondent, the "upreme Court held that, ?every lawyer holds in trust moneys of his client that may come into his possession! Further, he should account for all money received from the client and deliver funds of the client upon demand! Respondent received money and since he failed to render any legal service to Complainant, he should have promptly accounted for and returned the money, but he failed to do so!
CLETO DOCENA VS ATTY DOMINADOR 7 LIMON! SR! AC"+)3,! #'$&'$##3 % Respondent asked for P$5k to post a bond to stay the e2ecution of a decision in a
civil case pending appeal! Efter favorable /udgment in the appeal, Complainant went to court to withdraw his bond only to discover that no such bond was posted, much less re1uired! "upreme Court disbarred Respondent! Nhile the amount involved may be small, the nature of the transgression calls for a heavier penalty! Dhe Code mandates that, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct! #ood moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but must also be possessed at all times in order to maintain one’s good standing in that e2clusive and honored fraternity! If it has to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, by their lives, accord continuing delity to them! -y e2torting money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation, Respondent reduced the law profession to a level so base, so low and dishonorable and most contemptible!
ENGR GILBERT TUMBO4ON VS ATTY MARIANO PEFIANCO! AC"*$$*! 3'$'+&$+ % Efter failing to pay Complainant the agreed commission for a case referral, Respondent wrote informing Complainant that the client would shoulder payment of the commission because he agreed to reduce his attorney’s fees! Respondent was suspended from law practice! Dhe "upreme Court held that, practice of law is a privilege bestowed by the "tate on those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal 1ualications for the profession! Respondent violated Rule 6!5, Canon of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, e2cept in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar!
MANUEL CAMACHO VS ATTY LUIS PANGULAYAN! ET AL! AC"%3&,! )'++'+&&& % Complainant who represented e2pelled students in a civil case against the school complained that the latter’s lawyer secured the dismissal of said complaint by brokering a deal with the students allowing them readmission into the school without Complainant’s presence or knowledge! In suspending Respondent, the "upreme Court held that Canon 6 provides that, ?a lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the sub/ect of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel! It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law@!
JOSE C SABERON VS ATTY FERNANDO T LARONG! AC"**,! %'$*'+&&3 % Respondent as counsel for a bank led various pleading using abusive and oAensive language hinting that Complainant was merely blackmailingcoercing his client for nancial gain! "upreme Court imposed a ne with a warning on Respondent! Dhe Code mandates for a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel and, in his professional dealings, refrain from using language which is abusive, oAensive or otherwise improper! Dhe adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in the pursuit of their duty to advance their clients’ interests! >owever, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not /ustify the use of oAensive and abusive language!
FERDINAND A CRU6 VS ATTY STANLEY CABRERA! AC",),! $&'+'+&&% % Complainant was a 7 th year law student who personally instituted and appeared in cases in his own behalf! In one case, Respondent who was the opposing party’s counsel remarked, ?Eppear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna@! Dhe "upreme Court admonished Respondent to be more circumspect in his performance of his duties as an o=cer of the court! Respondent’s comment was intended to point out to the trial court that Complainant was not a lawyer to correct the /udge’s impression of Complainant’s appearance as the /udge in her order noted that Complainant was a lawyer! "uch single outburst, though uncalled for, is not of such magnitude as to warrant Respondent’s suspension or reproof! It is but a product of impulsiveness or the heat of the moment in the course of an argument between them! Respondent was reminded that Complainant is not precluded from personally litigating his cases pursuant to "ec! 07, Rule $0< of the Rules of Court!
ANA MARIE CAMBALI6A VS ATTY ANA LU6 CRISTAL-TENORIO! AC"*+#&! ,'$%'+&&% % Charged with assisting in the illegal law practice of Felicisimo Denorio who was not a -ar member, Respondent admitted that Felicisimo is named as a senior partner because of investments in her law o=ce! Nhile the disbarment case was pending, Complainant withdrew her complaint claiming that it was all a mere misunderstanding! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! En a=davit of withdrawal of the disbarment case does not, in any way, e2onerate Respondent! E suspensiondisbarment case may proceed regardless of Complainant’s interestlack of interest % such proceedings involve no private interest and aAord no redress for private grievance and are solely for the public welfare, that is, to prevent courts of /ustice from the o=cial ministrations of person unt to practice in them! If the evidence on record warrants, respondent may be suspendeddisbarred despite complainant’s desistance or withdrawal of charges! Respondent is guilty of assisting in the unauthori+ed practice of law! Dhe lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not assist in, the unauthori+ed practice of law is founded on public interest and policy! Public policy re1uires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly 1ualied in education and character! Dhe purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not sub/ect to the disciplinary control of the Court!
FLORENCE MACARRUBO VS ATTY EDMUNDO MACARRUBO! AC"*$%3! +'+,'+&&% % Respondent married and fathered two children with Complainant by representing that his previous marriage was void! (ater, he abandoned Complainant and entered into a third marriage with another woman! In his defense, Respondent presented the decree of nullity of his marriage with Complainant and denied employing deception in marrying her insisting that, despite her full knowledge of his prior marriage, Complainant dragged him against his will to a sham wedding to protect her and her family’s reputation due to her pregnancy! Dhe "upreme Court disbarred Respondent reasoning that, ?while his marriage to Complainant has been annulled by nal /udgment, this did not cleanse his conduct of every tinge of impropriety@! >aving lived with Complainant as husband and wife while his rst marriage was subsisting made him liable for concubinage % conduct inconsistent with the good moral character re1uired for continued right to practice law! "uch conduct imports moral turpitude and is a public assault upon the basic social institution of marriage!
WILSON CHAM VS ATTY EVA PAITA-MOYA! AC",%#%! *'+,'+&&3
% Respondent leased an apartment owned by Complainant’s company! 9espite repeated demands, she failed to settle her unpaid account and vacated the leased premises without notifying Complainant! Dhe "upreme Court suspended Respondent from law practice reasoning that, ?having incurred /ust debts, she had the moral and legal responsibility to settle them when they became due@! Respondent’s abandonment of the leased premises to avoid her obligations for rent and electric bills constitutes deceitful conduct violative of Canon$!
ISIDRA BARRIENTOS VS ATTY ELERI66A LIBIRAN-METEORO! AC"*%&3! 3')$'+&&% % Respondent issued several checks in payment of a pre)e2isting debt! 9ue to their dishonor, Complainant led -P! In suspending Respondent, the "upreme Court held that the issuance of checks later dishonoured for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer untness for the trust and condence reposed on her! It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render her unworthy of public condence! Dhe issuance of a series of worthless checks also shows Respondent’s remorseless attitude, unmindful to the deleterious eAects of such act to the public interest and order! It also manifests a lawyer’s low regard to her commitment to the oath she has taken when she /oined her peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession she should hold in high esteem!
JOSELANO GUEVARRA VS ATTY JOSE EMMANUEL EALA! AC" ,$)*! 3'$'+&&, % Respondent, a married man cohabited with Irene, a married woman! In his defense, Respondent posited that, his special friendship with Irene was low) prole and not scandalous and that he did no damage to the institution of marriage as he was still civil and in good terms with his own wife! "upreme Court disbarred Respondent holding that Respondent did not deny his adulterous relationship with Irene, what he denied was having Oaunted such relationship maintain that it was ?low prole and known only to immediate members of their respective families@! Respondent’s denial is a negative pregnant % a denial with admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not s1uarely denied! Dhe Rules of Court employs the term ?grossly immoral conduct@ as a ground for disbarment and not ?under scandalous circumstances@ as used in Ert! 007 &concubinage* of the Revised Penal Code! Nhile the mere fact of se2ual relations between two unmarried adults is not su=cient to warrant administrative sanction for illicit behaviour, it is not so with respect to the betrayals of the marital vow of delity! .ven if not all forms of e2tra)marital relations are punishable under penal law, se2ual relations outside marriage is deemed disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and a=rmed by our laws!
ROSARIO MECARAL VS ATTY DANILO VAS7UE6! AC"3)#+! *'+#'$& % Complainant, who was the secretary of Respondent, later became his lover and common)law wife! Respondent brought Complainant to a religious cult which he headed up in the mountains! Dhere Respondent left her where she was tortured, brainwashed and drugged and held in captivity until her mother and law o=cers rescued her! "upreme Court disbarred Respondent holding that his acts of converting his secretary into a mistress, contracting two marriages are grossly immoral which no civili+ed society in the world can countenance! Further,
Complainant’s subse1uent detention and torture is gross misconduct which only a beast may be able to do! ALFREDO ROA VS ATTY JUAN MORENO! AC"3)3+! %'+$'$& % In selling a piece of land, Respondent issued, instead of a deed of sale, a temporary receipt and a certicate of land occupancy assuring Complainant that he could already use the lot! Nhen he could not register the certicate with the Register of 9eeds, Complainant confronted Respondent and learned that the latter was not the property owner and the land was in fact sub/ect of pending litigation! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! >is credibility is highly 1uestionable % he even issued a bogus certicate of land occupancy to Complaint whose only fault what that he did not know better! Do the unlettered, said certicate could have easily passed as document evidencing title! Respondent violated Rule $!5$ ¬ to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct*! Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not conned to performance of a lawyer’s professional duties! E lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity! Dhe test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an o=cer of the court! RODRIGO MOLINA VS ATTY CEFERINO MAGAT! AC"$#&&! *'$)'+&$+ % Respondent was counsel for an accused against whom Complainant led a case for assault upon an agent of a person in authority and breach of peace and resisting arrest! Respondent move for 1uashal of said cases alleging double /eopardy as supposedly a similar case for slight physical in/uries had been led against his client! Dhe records revealed however that no such case was led by 3olina! Dhe latter claimed that the ling of the motion to 1uash was in bad faith to mislead the court! "upreme Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law nding that, there was deliberate intent on his part to mislead the court when he led the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double /eopardy! >e should not make any false and untruthful statement in his pleadings! If it were true that there was a similar case for slight physical in/uries that was really led in court, all he had to do was secure a certication from that court that, indeed, a case was led!
PARALUMAN AFURONG VS ATTY ANGEL A7UINO! AC"$,$! #'+)'$### % Do stay the e2ecution of a decision obtained by Complainant in an e/ectment case he led multiple petitions and even a motion to postpone a scheduled hearing supposedly due to his appearance in another case when there was actually none! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! It is an attorney’s duty to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be /ust and such defences only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law! -ecause the decision in the e/ectment case had reached nality and e2ecution was being eAected, Respondent should not have led a petition for certiorari considering that there was no apparent purpose for it than to delay e2ecution of /udgment! Respondent likewise committed a falsehood when he stated in his motion for postponement that he had to attend another hearing! >e himself admitted that he only included such statement in order to give more ?force@ to his motion! "uch act violates a lawyer’s duty to avoid concealment of the truth from the court! E lawyer is mandated not to mislead the court in any manner!
NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO VS! ATTY JAMES FLORIDO! AC"*+%! $'+&'+&&% % Respondent went to the Complainant who was his estranged wife to
demand custody of their children supposedly based upon a resolution of the Court of Eppeals granting him temporary custody! Per certication from the Court of Eppeals, no such resolution had been issued! In suspending Respondent, the "upreme Court held that, ?candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer@! Dhe burden cast on the /udiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel!
ATTY JOSABETH ALONSO VS ATTY IBARO RELAMIDA! JR! AC"3%3$! 3')'$& % Respondent was counsel for the complainant in a labor case for constructive dismissal! Dhe (abor Erbiter ruling that there was voluntary resignation, dismissed the labor case! Dhis decision was sustained by the "upreme Court and became nal and e2ecutor! Respondent led a second complaint for illegal dismissal based on the same cause! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! Ell lawyers must bear in mind that their oaths are neither mere words nor an empty formality! E lawyer owes delity to his client’s cause but not at the e2pense of truth and the administration of /ustice! Filing multiple petitions constitutes abuse of court processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of /ustice punishable as contempt of court!
HON MARIANO S MACIAS VS ATTY ALANIXON A SELDA! AC"*%%+! $&'+$'+&&% % Respondent who was counsel for the protestee in an electoral protest before Complainant led a motion to withdraw as counsel citing heavy workload! Efter his motion was granted, Respondent e2ecuted an a=davit saying that he really withdrew from the case because Complainant pre)/udged the case and even insinuated that protestee would lose! Dhis a=davit became the basis of protestee’s motion for inhibition against Complainant! "upreme Court suspended Respondent holding that, ?all members of the legal profession made a solemn oath to, inter alia, do no falsehood’ and conduct themselves as lawyers according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all good delity as well to the courts as to their clients’@! Nhen Respondent e2ecuted his a=davit retracting his reason for withdrawing as counsel, he admitted under oath his misrepresentation! >e misled the court in clear violation of his oath as a lawyer and failed to abide by the Code! Candor towards the courts is a cardinal re1uirement of the practicing lawyer! In fact, this obligation to the bench for candor and honesty takes precedence! Dhus, saying one thing in his motion and another in his subse1uent a=davit is a transgression of this imperative which necessitates appropriate punishment!
LIBIT VS ATTY EDELSON OLIVA +), SCRA ), % Respondent was charged with falsifying the sheriA’s return of summons in a civil case where he was counsel for the plaintiA! In disbarring Respondent, the "upreme Court held that he committed acts of misconduct which warranted the e2ercise by the court of its disciplinary powers! Dhe practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the "tate on those who show that they possess and continue to possess the 1ualications re1uired by law! Hne of these re1uirements is the observance of honesty and candor! Courts are entitled to e2pect only complete candor and honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them! E lawyer’s rst duty is not to his client but to the courts as he is above all an o=cer of the court sworn to assist the courts in rendering /ustice to all! For this reason, he is re1uired to swear to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing in any in court!
ATTY ISMAEL 4HAN! JR VS ATTY RI6ALINO SIMBILLO! AC"+##! 3'$#'+&&) ) Respondent posted paid ads in two national newspapers advertising his services as an ?annulment e2pert at P7<,555!55 within 7 to : months! >e admitted to the ads but reasoned that there was nothing wrong with such conduct! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! Dhe practice of law is not a business but a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration! (awyering is not primarily meant to be a money)making venture and law advocacy is not capital that necessarily yields prots! #aining of a livelihood should be secondary consideration as duty to public service and to administration of /ustice should be the primary consideration of lawyers! "olicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed! >owever, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the legal profession’s dignity! If made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no in/ury to lawyers and to the -ar! Mse of simple signs stating the names of the lawyer’s, the o=ce and residence address and elds of practice as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible! Calling cars are acceptable! Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and informative data is likewise allowable!
PEDRO LINSANGAN VS ATTY NICOMEDES TOLENTINO! AC"**,+! #'%' % Respondent solicited Complainant’s client by persistently te2ting and calling them to transfer legal representation with promises of nancial aid and e2peditious collection of claims! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! (awyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a business! (awyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares as the contrary would commerciali+e the legal practice, degrade the profession in the public’s estimation and impair its ability to e=ciently render that high character of service to which every -ar member is called! >ence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers! "uch actuation constitutions malpractice % a ground for disbarment!
MANUEL VILLATUYA VS ATTY BEBE TABALINGCOS! AC"**++! ,'$&'+&$+ 8 "upreme Court warned Respondent that, an agreement like the one supposedly forged between him and Complainant for the latter to receive $5S of the former’s attorney’s fees for every /udicially)approved corporate rehabilitation plan prepared by the Complainant, is violative of Rule 6!5! proscribing a lawyer from dividing or agreeing to divide fees for legal services rendered with a person not licensed to practice law! Respondent owned what purports to be a nancial and legal consultancy company which was in reality a vehicle for Respondent to procure professional employment, specically for corporate rehabilitation! E company letterhead proposing that should the prospective client agree to the proposed fees, Respondent would render legal services related to the former’s loan obligation with a bank proves that Respondent violated Rule !50 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of prot! In suspending Respondent, "upreme Court held that, a lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation! Impropriety arises though when the business is of such nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the bar! Dhis
inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer, or that can be used as a cloak for indirectly solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of such a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as practice of law!
ATTY JULITO VITRIOLO! ET AL VS ATTY FELINA DASIG! AC"%#3%! %'$'+&&) % Respondent who was the H=cer)in)Charge of the (egal EAairs "ervice of the Commission on >igher .ducation was charged with solicitation of money from various applicants for correction of names pending before her o=ce! In disbarring Respondent, the "upreme Court ruled that, ?generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government o=ce may not be disciplined as a -ar member for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government o=cial! >owever, if said misconduct as a government o=cial also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by the Court as a -ar member! Respondent’s misconduct as a C>.9 lawyer is of such a character as to aAect her 1ualication as a -ar member! Es a lawyer, she ought to have known that it was patently unethical and illegal for her to demand sums of money as consideration for the approval of applications and re1uests awaiting action by her o=ce!
DAN JOEL V LIM VS ATTY EDILBERTO BARCELONA! AC"%)3! )'$&'+&&% % Respondent who was the chief of the 4(RC)Public Essistance Center purportedly demanded money from Complainants to in settlement of labor cases purportedly led by their employees and even threatened to close their businesses and put them in /ail if they refused to settle! "upreme Court disbarred Respondent reasoning that, if a lawyer’s misconduct in the discharge of o=cial duties as a government o=cial is of such character as to aAect his 1ualication as a lawyer or shows moral delin1uency, he may be disciplined as a -ar member on such ground! (awyers in government service in the discharge of their o=cial tasks have more restrictions than lawyers in private practice! Nant of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public o=ce!
WILFREDO M CATU VS ATTY VICENTE G RELLOSA! AC N1 ,)3! +'$#'+&&3 % Respondent, as barangay captain presided over the (upon conciliatin proceedings over a land dispute and later entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in the subse1uent e/ectment case instituted involving the same parties! "upreme Court suspended Respondent from law practice reasoning that, while "ec! 65 of the (ocal #overnment Code sub/ected certain elective local o=cials to the proscription to practice their profession, no such interdiction is made on the punong barangay and members of the sangguniang baragay, however, he should have procured prior permission or authori+ation from the the "ecretary of 9I(# before he entered his appearance as counsel pursuant to "ec! $, Rule $< of the Revised Civil "ervice Rules! 4on)compliance therewith constituted a violation of his oath as a lawyer to obey the laws!
AURELIO M SIERRA! VS JHOSEP Y LOPE6! ET AL! AC N1 ,%#! 3'+#'+&&3 % Complainant charged Respondent who were all city prosecutors with dereliction of duty and gross ignorance of the law for not re1uiring the parties in certain criminal cases instituted by Complainant to simultaneously appear during preliminary investigation! "upreme Court dismissed the complaint holding that, Rule $$ of the Rules of Court does not re1uire a confrontation between the parties!
Preliminary investigation is ordinarily conducted through submission of a=davits and supporting documents through e2change of pleadings!
ANGEL BAUTISTA VS ATTY RAMON GON6ALES $3+ SCRA $$ 8 Respondent accepted a civil case on contingency basis at 85S of the value of the litigated property! Efter termination of the engagement, Respondent transferred to himself T of the property sub/ect of litigation! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! In e2ecuting a document transferring T of the sub/ect properties to himself, Respondent violated the law e2pressly prohibiting a lawyer from ac1uiring his client’s property or interest involved in any litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his profession &Ert! $76$, CC*! Nhile a lawyer may in good faith advance litigation e2penses, the same should be the sub/ect of reimbursement! En agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay e2pense proceedings to enforce the client’s right is C>E3P.RDHM"! "uch an agreement is against public policy, especially where, as in this case, the attorney has agreed to carry out the action at his own e2penses of some bargain to have part of the thing in litigation!
IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM LAW PRACTICE IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY LEON G MA7UERA! BM",#)! ,')&'+&&% % Etty! 3a1uera who was admitted to the Philipppine -ar was later admitted to law practice in #uam! Dhe "uperior Court of #uam suspended him from practicing in #uam due to misconduct for ac1uiring his client’s property as payment for his legal services! Dhe #uam court transmitted certied copies of his suspension to the Philippine "upreme Court! 3ay a Philippine -ar member be suspendeddisbarred for an infraction for which he has been suspendeddisbarred from law practice in a foreign countryU 9isbarmentsuspension of a Philippine -ar member by a competent court or other disciplinary agency in a foreign /urisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action constitutes a ground for disbarmentsuspension from law practice in the Philippines! Dhe /udgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarmentsuspension!
CRISTINO CALUB VS ATTY ABRAHAM SULLER! AC"$%,%! $'+3'+&&& % E lawyer, under the prete2t of borrowing a blade, went to his neighbor’s house and raped her! 9ue to reasonable doubt however he was ac1uitted! >e argued that such ac1uittal should warrant the dismissal of the disbarment case against him! In disbarring Etty! "uller, the "upreme Court reasoned that ac1uittal due to prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not determinative of the administrative case! Dhe privilege to practice law is bestowed upon individuals who are competent intellectually, academically and e1ually important, morally!
MAXIMO DUMADAG VS ATTY ERNESTO LUMAYA! AC"+*$%! *'+#'+&&& % "uspended indenitely from law practice, Respondent led various pleadings including a petition to lift his suspension seeking among others, clarication as to the e2act term of his suspension considering he was already : years of age and the lack of law practitioners in their locality! (ater he wrote the Chief Gustice again imploring but also chiding the Court for slumbering’ on acting on his petition although still insisting his innocence! Instead of lifting his suspension, the "upreme Court 2ed his period of suspension at $5 years! Dhe insolence of Respondent’s
remonstrations that the Court was sleeping on its /ob in acting on his case not only underscores his callous disregard of the myriad administrative and /udicial travails the Court has to contend with as the Court of (ast Resort, it also betrays his absolute lack of appreciation and disrespect for the eAorts and measures undertaken by the Court to cope with these concerns! 4eedless to state, such presumptuousness is only too deserving of rebuke! Indeniteness of Respondent’s suspension, far from being cruel or degrading or inhuman has the eAect of placing, as it were, the key to the restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer in his own hands % that sanction has the eAect of giving Respondent the chance to purge himself in his own good time of his contempt and misconduct by acknowledging such misconduct, e2hibiting appropriate repentance and demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up to the e2acting standards of conduct rightly demanded from every -ar member and o=cer of the courts!
LIGAYA MANIAGO VS ATTY LOURDES DE DIOS! AC",%,+! )')&'$& % Respondent who had been suspended for : months from law practice was charged of violating the order of her suspension by service as counsel for a Gapanese national! In dismissing the petition against Respondent, the "upreme Court noted that Respondent had already served her prior :)months suspension and had written a manifestation to the Court of such fact! Do be sure, the "upreme Court laid the following guidelines in relation to resumption of practice following full service of suspension, to wit' &a* the suspended lawyer must rst present proof of his compliance by submitting certications from the I-P and .2ecutive Gudge that he has indeed desisted from law practice during the period of suspension; &b* thereafter, the Court, after evaluation and upon favorable recommendation from the H=ce of the -ar Condant, will issue a resolution lifting the suspension order and allow him to resume his practice! It was only unfortunate that this procedure was overlooked with regards to Respondent’s prior suspension! CARLOS REYES VS ATTY JEREMIAS R VITAN! AC"3)! 3'$&'$& % "uspended for an aggregate period of T years as a result of four administrative cases, Respondent petitioned the "upreme Court for reinstatement as a member in good standing of the -ar and to be allowed to practice law! "upreme Court granted Respondent’s application for reinstatement eAective upon his submission to the Court of a sworn statement that' &a* he has completely served the four suspension orders imposed on him successively; &b* he desisted from the law practice during the period of suspension; &c* he has returned the sums of money to the complainants as ordered by the court in the previous administrative cases; &d* he has furnished copies of his sworn statement to the I-P and the .2ecutive Gudge! LEONARD RICHARDS VS PATRICIO ASOY! AC"+*! $&'$+'$& % In $6<, Respondent was disbarred for grave professional misconduct and ordered to reimburse P$:,555 to Complainant! Dhe latter wrote the Court several times to report non)payment by Respondent! Respondent then sought readmission to the -ar in $66:, claiming that he had consigned the money with the Court’s cashier! Eccording to Respondent, his belated compliance, that is, 6 years from the order to reimburse was due to his inability to locate complainant! "upreme Court denied Respondent’s petition and the a later petition in 5$5 reasoning that, Respondent’s /ustication Oimsy as it is, considering that Complainant’s address was readily available with the Court what with the numerous letters reporting Respondent’s non)compliance, glaringly speaks of his lack of candor, of his dishonesty, if not
deance of Court orders, 1ualities that do not endear him to the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers! Respondent denigrated the dignity of his calling by displaying a lack of candor towards the Court! -y taking his sweet time to eAect reimbursement of the P$:,555!55 % and through consignation with this Court at that ) he sent out a strong message that the legal processes and orders of this Court could be treated with disdain or impunity!
FIDELA AND TERESITA BENGCO VS ATTY PABLO BERNARDO! AC"*)*3! *'$)'+&$+ % Complainants charged that Respondent with a certain ?3agat@ enticed them to pay money supposedly to e2pedite titling of their property without having performed the task for which he was engaged! Dhe "upreme Court found untenable Respondent’s defense of prescription % that the complaint was led two years after the supposed deceit was committed! Edministrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe! Dhe lapse of considerable time from the commission of the oAending act to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer!
ELPIDIO TIONG VS ATTY GEORGE FLORENDO! AC"%%+3! $+'$+'+&$$ % Complainant conrmed that Respondent who was his lawyer was having an aAair with his wife when he overheard, through the e2tension phone, Respondent say ?I (ove Qou@ to Complainant’s wife! (ater, and in the presence of their spouses, Respondent and Complainant’s wife admitted their amorous aAair and then and there, e2ecuted an a=davit before a notary public attesting to their illicit and seeking their respective spouses’ forgiveness! Dhis a=davit signed by Complainant, Respondent and their spouses provided that no criminal or legal action would be taken against the oAending parties! 9espite such stipulation, Complainant sought for the disbarment of Respondent who interposed the defense of pardon! "upreme Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law holding that his act of having an aAair with his clientVs wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of delity! It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession! Mndeniably, this illicit relationship amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action from the Court! E case for suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts! It is not an investigation into the respondent’s acts as a husband but on his conduct as an o=cer of the court and his tness to continue as a member of the -ar! >ence, the a=davit, which is akin to an a=davit of desistance, cannot have the eAect of abating the proceedings!
GRACE M ANACTA VS ATTY EDUARDO RESURRECCION! AC"#&,%! 3'$%'+&$+ % Respondent committed deceitful and dishonest acts by misrepresenting that he had already led a petition for annulment of marriage on Complainant’s behalf after receipt of P7,555!55! >e went to the e2tent of presenting to Complainant a supposed copy of the petition duly led with the court! (ater, Complainant found out from the court that no such petition was led! Finding Respondent guilty of deceit and gross misconduct, the "upreme Court suspended him from law practice reasoning that, there is no ironclad rule that disbarment must immediately follow upon a nding of deceit or gross misconduct! Dhe Court is not mandated to automatically impose the e2treme penalty of disbarment where a lesser penalty will su=ce to accomplish the desired end!
Enent the issue of whether Respondent should be directed to return the money he received from Complainant, this case is the opportune time to harmoni+e the Court’s ruling on this matter! Nhen the matter sub/ect of the in1uiry pertains to the mental and moral tness of the respondent to remain as member of the legal fraternity, the issue of whether respondent be directed to return the amount received from his client shall be deemed within the Court’s disciplinary authority! In this case, it is clear that Respondent violated his lawyer’s oath and code of conduct when he withheld the amount of P7,555!55 despite his failure to render the necessary legal services and after complainant demanded its return! >e must be therefore directed to return the same!
RODOLFO ESPINOSA VS ATTY JULIETA OMANA! AC"#&3$! $&'$+'+&$$ % Respondent purported advised that Complainant and his wife could live separately and dissolve their marriage, preparing for that purpose, a ?asunduan 4g Paghihiwalay! Respondent claimed that, it was not her but a part)time o=ce staA who notari+ed the document! In suspending Respondent from law practice and being a notary public, the "upreme Court held that, e2tra/udicial dissolution of the con/ugal partnership without /udicial approval is void and a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and e2tra/udicially dissolving the con/ugal partnership, which is e2actly what HmaWa did in this case!In preparing and notari+ing a void document, Respondent violated Rule $!5$, Canon $ &duty not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful*! Respondent knew fully that the asunduan has no legal eAect and is against public policy! .ven granting arguendo that, it was her part)time staA who notari+ed the contract, it only showed Respondent’s negligence in doing her notarial duties! E notary public is personally responsible for the entries in his notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the blame on his secretaries or any member of his staA!
TAN TIONG BIO VS ATTY RENATO L GON6ALES! AC"**)%! 3'+)'+&&, % Respondent was duly commissioned as a notary public for Xue+on City but notari+ed a deed of sale in Pasig City! In suspending Respondent, the "upreme Court reasoned that, while seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, Respondent’s act of notari+ing documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsication! Respondent by performing through the years notarial acts in Pasig City where he is not so authori+ed indulged in deliberate falsehood! -y such malpractice as a notary public, Respondent violated Canon directing every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession!
JESSICA UY VS ATTY EMMANUEL SA9O! AC"*&! #'$$'+&&3 % For notari+ing documents despite e2piration of his notarial commission, "upreme Court suspended Respondent holding that, practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the "tate on those who show they posses, and continue to possess, 1ualications re1uired by law for conferment of such privilege! E lawyer’s act of notari+ing without the re1uisite commission therefor is reprehensible constituting as it does, not only malpractice but also the crime of falsication of public documents! 4otari+ation is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest converting a private document into a public document making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity! Es such, only those who are 1ualied and authori+ed may act as notaries public! Respondent’s reliance upon his
aide’s representation that his commission had been renewed shows disregard of the re1uirements for issuance of a notarial commission!
DOLORES DELA CRU6 VS ATTY JOSE DIMAANO! JR! AC",,3$! #'$+'+&&3 % Respondent notari+ed a deed which allowed 4avarro &Complainant’s sister* full ownership over the estate of their deceased parents! Complainant’s signature on this deed was forged and Complainant did not even appear before Respondent! "upreme Court gave no credence to Respondent’s defense that he simply relied upon 4avarro’s representations because they had been long time neighbours and he believed she would not lie to him! "upreme Court held that notaries public should refrain from a=2ing their signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who e2ecuted it and personally appeared before them to attest to the truth of what are stated therein, otherwise, notaries public would not be able to verify the genuineness of the signatures and whether the document is the party’s free act or deed! 4otaries public are re1uired by the 4otarial (aw to certify that the party to the instrument has acknowledged and presented the proper residence certicate!
LOREN6O BRENNISEN VS ATTY RAMON CONTAWI! AC",%3$! %'+%'+&$+ % Complainant, being a M" resident, entrusted the administration of his land along with its title to Respondent! ia a spurious "pecial Power of Ettorney, Respondent mortgaged and subse1uently sold the sub/ect property to Roberto >o! "upreme Court suspended Respondent for violating Canon $ for disposing his client’s property without his knowledge or consent and partaking of the proceeds of the sale for his own benet! Respondent’s contention that he merely accommodated the re1uest of his then nancially)incapacitated o=ce assistants to conrm the spurious "PE is Oimsy and implausible, as he was fully aware that complainantVs signature reOected thereon was forged! ATTY FLORITA LINCO VS ATTY JIMMY LACEBAL! AC",+%$! $&'$,'+&$$ % Respondent is charged with dishonesty and violation of the 4otarial (aw for notari+ing a deed of donation allegedly e2ecuted by Complainant’s husband &Etty! Elfredo (inco* in favor of his illegitimate minor child, despite Respondent’s knowledge that a=ant died a day prior to notari+ation! Respondent claimed a=ant, whom he meet prior to his demise, asked him to notari+e the deed of donation which a=ant signed in Respondent’s presence! "ince Respondent did not have his notarial register, he told a=ant to bring the deed to his o=ce anytime for notari+ation! >ence, despite knowledge of death, Respondent notari+ed the deed to accommodate a colleague! Dhe "upreme Court suspended Respondent from law practice and being a notary public nding that, a=ant’s previous personal appearance before Respondent does not /ustify the notari+ation of the deed due to a=ant’s absence on the day of notari+ation! Dhe rule re1uires Respondent not to notari+e a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who e2ecuted and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truthfulness! Further, in the notarial acknowledgment, Respondent attested to a=ant’s personal appearance before him on the day of notari+ation, yet, a=ant clearly could not have appeared as he already died a day before! Clearly, Respondent made a false statement and violated Rule $5!5$ of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer!
CORA6ON NEVADA VS ATTY RODOLFO CASUGA! AC",#$! )'+&'+&$+ 8 Complainant is the principal stockholder of a hotel where Hne in Gesus Christ Church holds its services! Respondent and Complainant being both church members, became friends! Respondent took advantage of their friendship by failing to deliver the P65,555 rental deposit paid, after Respondent represented himself as hotel administrator and entered into a lease contract with Gung Chul for o=ce space in the hotel! Complainant also entrusted to Respondent several /ewelries intended for sale! Respondent however, failed to return the proceeds of the sale or the unsold articles to Complainant! In suspending Respondent from law practice and being a notary public, the "upreme Court held that, he was guilty of misrepresentation, when he made it appear that he was authori+ed to enter into a contract of lease in behalf of 4evada when, in fact, he was not! For failing to return or remitting proceeds of the sale, upon demand, he also breached his duty to hold in trust property belonging to his client &Canon $:, Rule $:!50*! 3oreover, Respondent’s act of a=2ing his signature above the printed name ?.dwin 4evada@, without any 1ualication, veritably made him a party to the lease contract! Dhus, his act of notari+ing a deed to which he is a party is a plain violation of the Rule I, "ec! 0&a* of the 4otarial Rules!
HON JULIETA DECENA VS JUDGE NILO MALANYAON! AM"RTJ-&+-$**#! %'$%'+&&% % 9uring a municipal session wherein the revocation of two resolution granting authority to permit a cockpit was being deliberate, Respondent whose nephew was one of such cockpit operators, heckled and interruption the session by hurling accusatory remarks and insults toward the municipal o=cial! Respondent claimed that he was merely present during the council session in his private capacity as a ta2payer! In imposing a ne on Respondent, the "upreme Court held that, he should be reminded that his /udicial identity does not terminate at the end of the day when he takes oA his /udicial robes! .ven when garbed in casual wear outside of the halls of /ustice, a /udge retains the air of authority and moral ascendancy that he or she wields inside the sala! E /udge’s o=cial life cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal e2istence! Es such, he should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, as well as behave at all times as to promote public condence in the integrity and impartiality of the /udiciary!
SALVADOR SISON VS JUDGE JOSE F CAOIBES! JR! AM"RTJ-&)-$,,$! '+,'+&&% % Respondent ordered Complainant who was an 339E tra=c enforcer to appear in his court and e2plain why he issued a tra=c ticket to Respondent’s son even if the latter had introduced himself to be a son of a /udge! For failure to appear and e2plain, Respondent cited Complainant in contempt, ordered him arrested and only discharged him after admitting before Respondent that he made a mistake! "upreme Court dismissed Respondent from the service! Initially, he appeared to be /ustied in holding Complainant for contempt due to the latter’s refusal to comply with his order! >owever, Complainant was not a party to any pending cases! Nhat triggered the contempt charge was the tra=c incident involving Respondent’s son % this being a personal matter involving his son, Respondent should have refrained from ordering Complainant’s arrest and detention! E /udge should so behave at all times to promote public condence in the integrity and impartiality of the /udiciary!
CARLOS DIONISIO VS! HON 6OSIMO V ESCANO! AM"RTJ#3-$%&&! +'$'$### % Respondent posted an ad in the court bulletin board for ?attractive waitresses and
personable waiters for the family)owned restaurant! >e even interviewed some applicants in his court! E news ad accepting such applicants even listed the address of his court! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! >is conduct constitutes involvement in private business and improper use of o=ce facilities for the promotion of the family business! Gudges must not allow themselves to be distracted from the performance of their /udicial tasks by other lawful enterprises!
6ENAIDA BESO VS JUDGE JUAN DAGUMAN! AM"MTJ-##-$+$$! $'+3'+&&& % Respondent was a municipal /udge of "ta! 3argarita! >e solemni+ed Complainant’s marriage in his residence in Calbayog City! In imposing a ne on Respondent, the "upreme Court held that, a person presiding over a court of law must not only apply the law but must also live and abide by it and render /ustice at all times without resorting to shortcuts clearly uncalled for! E /udge is not only bound by oath to apply the law; he must also be conscientious and thorough in doing so! Certainly, /udges, by the very delicate nature of their o=ce should be more circumspect in the performance of their duties! Considering that Respondent’s /urisdiction covers the municipality of "ta! 3argarita, he was not clothed with authority to solemni+e a marriage in Calbayog City!
SALVADOR RUI6 VS JUDGE AGELIO BRINGAS! AM"MTJ-&&-$+**! %'*'+&&& % In a hearing before Respondent, Complainant who was the scal got into a verbal e2change with Respondent after Complainant re1uested time to submit his recommendation to an accused’s guilty plea! Respondent directed that it be put on record that Complainant does not know how to compute the proper penalty and that he even took the bar three times! "upreme Court suspended Respondent! Dhe duty to maintain respect for the court’s dignity applies to members of the -ar and bench alike! E /udge should be courteous both in conduct and language especially to those appearing before him! >e can hold counsels to a proper appreciation of their duties to the court, their clients and the public without being petty, arbitrary, overbearing or tyrannical! >e should refrain from conduct that demeans his o=ce and remember always that courtesy begets courtesy!
RUFINO CASIMIRO VS JUDGE OCTAVIO FERNANDE6! AM"MTJ-&%-$+! $'+#'+&&% 8 Efter the dismissal of the criminal case against Complainant, Respondent failed to return the cash bond posted! Respondent only later issued a check to refund Complainant’s cash bond! Per "C Circular 4o! 85)68, all collections from bail bonds, rental deposits and other duciary collections shall be deposited within 7 hours by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with the (and -ank of the Philippines, in the name of the court, with its Clerk of Court and the .2ecutive Gudge as authori+ed signatories! Nhile there is no direct and hard evidence that Respondent made personal use of the cash bond, his wife’s issuance of her personal check to Complainant in the amount of the cash bond, indicates so! -y his actuations then, Respondent placed his honesty and integrity under serious doubt! E /udge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of such in all activities!
ENGRACIO DIALO! JR VS JUDGE MARIANO MACIAS! AM"RTJ-&%-$3#! ,'$)'+&&% % Complainant and a companion, who were both witness in the administrative case for immorality led against Respondent by his wife! Hn their
way to 3anila for the hearing of the administrative case, they were arrested and detained by police reports based upon Respondent’s report that they were would)be assassin! 9uring the pendency of the administrative case against Respondent for oppression, Complainant withdrew his complaint! "upreme Court ned Respondent! Complainant’s withdrawaldisavowal of the contents of his administrative complaint does not necessarily warrant its dismissal! Edministrative actions cannot depend on complainant’s willpleasure who may, for his own reasons, condone what may be detestable! 9esistance cannot divest the Court of its /urisdiction to investigate and decide the complaint against the respondent because public interest is at stake in the conduct and actuations of o=cials and employees of the /udiciary! -y respondent’s act of re1uesting for complainant’s and his companion’s warrantless arrest, he violated complainant’s constitutional right, an act which partakes of the nature of oppression, dened as an ?act of cruelty, severity, unlawful e2action, domination or e2cessive use of authority!@
ATTY GLORIA LASTIMOSA-DALAWAMPU VS JUDGE RAPHAEL B YRASTOR6A! AM N1 RTJ-&)-$,#)! +''+&&% % Nhen Complainant asked for a resetting, Respondent cut her oA saying, ?9o not give me so many e2cuses 2 2 2 I don’t care who you areY 2 2 2 Qou can le one thousand administrative cases against me! I don’t care@! In another case, Respondent scolded Complainant for failure to le pre)trial brief! "ubse1uently, when pre)trial was conducted and Complainant was absent due to another engagement, Respondent ordered Complainant’s client to produce the original documents in ve minutes or the case would be dismissed! "upreme Court reprimanded Respondent! 3ere desistance on Complainant’s part does not warrant dismissal of an administrative complaint against any member of the bench and the /udiciary! Court’s interest in the /udiciary’s aAairs is a paramount concern that knows no bounds! Mpon assumption to o=ce, a /udge ceases to be an ordinary mortal and becomes the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of /ustice! >e must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence! Dhe tenor of Respondent’s statement can easily instill in the minds of those who heard them that as a /udge he is above the law! Respondent’s unfounded act of insulting Complainant in open court and cutting her oA in mid) sentence while she was still e2plaining her side e2hibited a manifest disregard of his duty be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers! E /udge should conduct proceedings in court with tting dignity and decorum!
HEIN6 R HEC4 VS JUDGE ANTHONY E SANTOS! AM"RTJ-&$-$*,! +'+)'+&&% % Prior to his appointment as RDC /udge, Respondent supposedly violated the notarial law by notari+ing documents in $6<5 to $6<7 without being commissioned as notary public! 3ay a retired /udge disciplined for notari+ing documents without the necessary commission more than 5 years agoU "upreme Court ned Respondent! E /udge may be disciplined for acts committed prior to his appointment to the /udiciary! Possession of good moral character is not only a prere1uisite to admission to the bar but also a continuing re1uirement to the practice of law! Dhus, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor! Respondent is being charged not for acts committed as a /udge; he is charged, as a member of the bar, with notari+ing documents without the re1uisite notarial commission therefor! .ven then, though Respondent has already retired from the /udiciary, he is still considered as a
member of the bar and as such, is not immune to the disciplining arm of the "upreme Court, pursuant to Erticle III, "ection : of the $6< Constitution!
RODRIGO 7 TUGOT VS JUDGE MAMERTO COLIFLORES! AM N1 MTJ-&&$))+! +'$*'+&&% % Respondent dismissed an e/ectment case wherein Complainant was one of the plaintiAs! Dhe latter appealed the dismissal but were advised to re) le their notice of appeal because the records transmitted to the appellate court did not have a notice of appeal! Es it turned out, the notice of appeal was not lost but was simply misplaced in Respondent’s o=ce! "upreme Court ned Respondent! Courts e2ist to dispense and promote /ustice! Reali+ation of this solemn purpose depends to a great e2tent on the intellectual, moral and personal 1ualities of the men and women who are called to serve as /udges! 3isplacement of the notice of appeal indicates gross negligence! Respondent should have been more prudent in determining the cause of its temporary loss, which caused unnecessary inconvenience to Complainant, whose right to appeal was aAected! Es administrative o=cers of the courts, /udges should organi+e and supervise court personnel to ensure the prompt and e=cient dispatch of business, as well as the observance of high standards of public service and delity at all times! >e should adopt a system of records management, so that les are kept intact despite the temporary absence of the person primarily responsible for their custody!
ELENA R ALCARA6 VS JUDGE FRANCISCO S LINDO! AM N1 MTJ-&%-$)#! %'$%'+&&% % >aving declared Complainant and her co)defendants in a civil collection suit in default, Respondent proceeded with plaintiA’s e2 parte presentation of evidence and thereafter, rendered /udgment in plaintiA’s favour! rendered /udgment in a civil case Complainant alleged that she was not furnished various pleading and orders including plaintiA’s motion to declare defendants in default and the order granting the same! "upreme Court ned Respondent! Rule 6, "ec! &a* of the Rules on Civil Procedure re1uires that ? a party in deault shall be entitled to notice o subse'uent proceedings but shall not tae part in the trial @! "o, even when a defendant is already declared in default, he is entitled to notice of subse1uent proceedings! Respondent’s failure to comply with the elementary dictates of procedural rules constitutes a violation of the Code of Gudicial Conduct! Dhe Code is e2plicit in its mandate that, ?a udge shall be aithul to the law and maintain proessional competence @! Competence is the mark of a good /udge! >aving accepted the e2alted position of a /udge, whereby he /udges his own fellowmen, the /udge owes it to the public who depend on him, and to the dignity of the court he sits in, to be procient in the law!
SPS RODOLFO 5 SYLVIA CABICO VS JUDGE EVELYN DIMACULANGAN7UERIJERO! AM"RTJ-&+-$,)! %'+,'+&&, % Respondent dismissed a criminal case for rape on ground of full payment of civil liability and disinterest to prosecute, despite the manifestation in court that Complainants who were the parents of the $)year old victim would not settle and their refusal to sign the a=davit of desistance! "upreme Court ned Respondent! Respondent dismissed the criminal case after the accused had paid their individual civil liability! Dhis is in utter disregard and in gross ignorance of the law because payment of civil liability does not e2tinguish criminal liability! Nhen a law or rule is basic, a /udge owes it to his o=ce to simply apply the law! Enything less is gross ignorance of the law! Es an advocate of /ustice and a visible representation of the law, a /udge is e2pected to keep abreast with and be procient in the interpretations of our laws! >aving
accepted the e2alted position of a /udge, Respondent owes the public and the court she sits in prociency in the law!
MARISSA MONDALA VS JUDGE REBECCA MARIANO! AM"RTJ-&*-+&$&! $'+'+&&, % Respondent supposedly misrepresented in her report of pending cases that a decision had already been rendered in a certain case when in fact, it was still with Complainant &legal researcher* for research and drafting! Respondent claimed mere oversight and not misrepresentation, i!e!, at the time the monthly report was made, a decision had actually been prepared! "upreme Court ned Respondent! E decision in a civil case is rendered only upon the signing by the /udge who penned the same and upon ling with the clerk of court! E draft of a decision does not operate as /udgment on a case until the same is duly signed and delivered to the clerk for ling and promulgation! Mnder "ec! $, Canon of the 4ew Code of Gudicial Conduct, /udges ought to ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view o a reasonable observer ! Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the /udicial o=ce but also to the personal demeanor of /udges!
GIDEON JUSON VS JUDGE VICENTE MONDRAGON! AM"MTJ-&,-$*3! $&')'+&&, % Respondent purportedly delayed for over three year in resolving Complainant’s motion to intervene in a civil case for recovery of a land! Respondent admitted the delays citing failing health due to a stroke and his load of supervising three courts at a time as causes therefor! "upreme Court ned Respondent! Rules prescribing time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of /udicial business! Gudicial o=ce e2acts nothing less than faithful observance of the Constitution and the law in the discharge of o=cial duties! "ection $8&$*, Erticle III of the Constitution, mandates that cases or matters led with the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution! >is failing health, as an e2cuse for the delay hardly merits serious consideration! .ven if he was stricken by an illness hampering his due performance of his duties, it was incumbent upon him to inform this Court of his inability to seasonably decide the cases assigned to him! Es to his additional work in supervising three courts at a time, such will not e2onerate him! >is failure to decide the case on time cannot be ignored! Respondent should have know that if his caseload, additional assignments or designations, health reasons or other facts prevented the timely disposition of his pending cases, all he had to do was simply ask this Court for a reasonable e2tension of time to dispose of his cases!
CONRADO LADIGON VS JUDGE RIXON GARONG! AM"MTJ-&3-$,$+! 3'+&'+&&3 % Respondent used his title as ?/udge@ and his court’s o=cial stationary in writing a letter)complaint to the Chairman of the First Mnited 3ethodist Church in 3ichigan, M"E about the surreptitious manner of the incorporation of the -anard elly 3emorial Mnited 3ethodist Church, singling out Complainant to be part of the deception! Edmitting that he used his court’s letterhead and signed his letter using the word ?/udge@, Respondent reasoned that he merely used an ordinary bond paper and typed thereon his court’s station ?to indicate the return or inside address@! "upreme Court admonished Respondent! Nhat is involved here is the rule that ?Gudges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities@! Respondent’s transgression was not per se in the use of the letterhead,
but in not being very careful and discerning in considering the circumstances surrounding the use of his letterhead and his title! Mse of a letterhead should not be considered independently of the surrounding circumstances of the use % the underlying reason that marks the use with the element of ?impropriety@ or ?appearance of impropriety@! Respondent crossed the line of propriety when he used his letterhead to report a complaint involving an alleged violation o church rules and, possibly, o *hilippine laws! Coming from a /udge with the letter addressed to a foreign reader, such report could indeed have conveyed the impression of o=cial recognition or notice of the reported violation!
JOSEPHINE JA6MINES TAN VS JUDGE SIBANAH USMAN! AM"RTJ-$$-+***! +$-$$ % Complainant and her co)party litigants led a motion to inhibit Respondent! 9uring the hearing for said motion, Respondent became emotional, forced Complainant to testify without counsel, demanding a public apology, relentlessly interrogating her and nally ordering her detained for direct contempt nding her in direct contempt until she divulged her informant or publicly apologi+ed to the court but not e2ceeding 05 days! "upreme Court ned Respondent! 4o amount of rationali+ation can reconcile the limit of the $5)day period of imprisonment for direct contempt set in "ec! $, Rule $ of the Rules of Court with the 05)day ma2imum period of imprisonment 2ed by Respondent! -y virtue of his o=ce, Respondent knows or should have known this so basic a rule! Dhe glaringly clarity of the rule tripped Respondent to commit a glaring error which was made even more Oagrant by the fact that Respondent was actually detained for $6 days! Failure to follow basic legal commands as prescribed by law and the rules is tantamount to gross ignorance of the law! OCA VS FORMER JUDGE LEONARDO LEONIDA! AM"RTJ--+$#3! $'$3'$$ % Per /udicial audit and inventory conducted when Respondent availed of optional retirement, the H=ce of the Court Edministrator determined that Respondent failed to decide $5 criminal cases and 70 civil cases as well as to resolved motions in $5 civil cases! "upreme Court ned Respondent! E /udge’s failure to decide a case within the reglementary period warrants administrative sanction! Dhe Court treats such cases with utmost rigor for delay in the administration of /ustice, no matter how brief, deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case! 4ot only does it magnify the cost of seeking /ustice, it undermines the people’s faith and condence in the /udiciary lowering its standards and bringing it to disrepute! Dhe administration of /ustice demands that those who don /udicial robes be able to comply fully and faithfully with the task set before them! Es frontline o=cials of the /udiciary, /udges should, at all times, act with e=ciency and with probity! Dhey are duty)bound not only to be faithful to the law, but likewise to maintain professional competence! Dhe pursuit of e2cellence must be their guiding principle! Dhis is the least that /udges can do to sustain the trust and condence which the public reposed on them and the institution they represent! OCA VS JUDGE BENJAMIN ESTRADA! AM"RTJ--+$,)! $'$3'$$ % In the review of the monthly report of cases from 3DCC 3alaybalay, -ukidnon, the HCE noted that Respondent issued orders dismissing certain cases even when he was no longer the /udge of said court having been promoted to the RDC! (ikewise the RDC .2ecutive Gudge &-acal* issued similar orders aAecting certain 3DCC cases! -oth /udges admitted the acts claiming that they did not intend to violate the law, acting as they did out of their desire to uphold the accused’s right to liberty in the cases they took cogni+ance of! -oth /udges were ned by the "upreme Court! Dheir shared
intention to uphold the accused’s right to liberty cannot /ustify their action in e2cess of their authority in violation of e2isting regulations! Dhe vacuum in a rst level court &3DC* due to the absence of a presiding /udge is not remedied by a take)over of the duties of the still)to)be appointed or designated /udge for that court, which is what they did! Instead of allowing Respondent and herself to act on pending 3DCC cases, the RDC .2ecutive Gudge should have designated a municipal /udge within her area of supervision to act on the pending cases!
IMELDA MARCOS VS JUDGE FERNANDO PAMINTUAN! AM"RTJ-&,-+&*+! $'$3'$$ % In $66:, then Gudge Reyes issued an order which later became nal and e2ecutor releasing the #olden -uddha status in custodial egis to the heirs of Rogelio Ro2as! In implementing said order, Respondent in his 3ay 55: Hrder added a statement to the eAect that the #olden -uddha in the court’s custody was a ?fake or mere replica@! >aving been previously warned and punished for various infraction, Respondent was dismissed from the service by the "upreme Court! Nhile /udges like any other citi+en are entitled to freedom of e2pression, belief, association and assembly, but in e2ercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such manner as to preserve the dignity of the /udicial o=ce and the impartiality and independence of the /udiciary! It is a2iomatic that when a /udgment is nal and e2ecutor, it becomes immutable and unalterable! It may no longer be modied in ay respect either by the court which rendered it or even by the "upreme Court! It is ine2cusable for Respondent to have overlooked such basic legal principle no matter how noble his ob/ectives were at that time! Gudges owe it to the public to be well)informed, thus, they are e2pected to be familiar with the statutes and procedural rules at all times! Nhen the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the law!
ATTY NORLINDA DESCALLAR VS HON REINERIO RAMAS! AM"RTJ-&*-+&$! $+'$'$& % For omitting to reOect his absences in his 3ay and Gune 558 Certicates of "ervice, "upreme Court FI4.9 Respondent for dishonesty! Respondent admitted he reported for work intermittently or did not report at all, after his Hrder that he had to temporarily stop working due to the death threats he receiving in relation to a decision he made over an electoral protest case! Indeed, there may be threats to his life as alleged in his order but such threats do not /ustify cessation from performing /udicial functions! Dhreats are concomitant peril in public o=ce especially in the /udiciary, where magistrates decide and determine sensitive issues that normally generate or provoke reprisals from losing litigants! Dhis is a conse1uence that a /udge should be prepared of! Dheir e2alted position entails a great responsibility unyielding to one’s personal convenience! Respondent is presumed to be aware of his duties and responsibilities under the Code of Gudicial Conduct ) a /udge should perform o=cial duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence &Canon 0*, a /udge be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence &Rule 0!5$*, and a /udge to observe high standards of public service and delity at all times &Rule 0!56*! Respondent irrefragably failed to observe these standards by making untruthful statements in his Certicates of "ervice to cover up his absences!
GAUDENCIO PANTILO III VS JUDGE VICTOR CANOY! AM"RTJ-$$-++*+! +'#'$$ % "upreme Court FI4.9 Respondent for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and appearance of impropriety for verbally ordering the release of the accused in a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide even when no information was yet led! Respondent also granted accused’s motion to release his impounded vehicle despite said motion despite violation of the 0)day notice rule! In his defense, Respondent invoked accused’s constitutional right to bail which supposedly did not re1uire that a person be charged in court before one could apply for it! Nhile, It is settled that an accused in a criminal case has the constitutional right to bail, herein)complaint focused on the manner of accused’s release from detention! In sum, there was no written application for bail, no certicate of deposit from the -IR collector or provincial, city or municipal treasurer, no written undertaking signed by 3elga+o, and no written release order! Nhile Respondent insisted that such may be considered as ?constructive bail,@ there is no such species of bail under the Rules! 9espite the noblest of reasons, the Rules of Court may not be ignored at will and at random to the pre/udice of the rights of another!
JOSEPHINE JA6MINES TAN VS JUDGE SIBANAH USMAN! AM"RTJ-$$-+***! +$-$$ 8 In a hearing on a motion for inhibition led by Complainant relative to a suit pending before Respondent, the latter forced Complainant to take the stand, then and there, demanded a public apology and relentlessly interrogated her till Respondent issued an order nding Complainant guilty of direct contempt and ordered her detention until she divulged her informant or publicly apologi+ed to the Court but not to e2ceed 05 days! "upreme Court FI4.9 Respondent reasoning that, no amount of rationali+ation can reconcile the limit of the $5)day period of imprisonment for direct contempt set in "ec! $, Rule $ of the Rules of Court with the 05)day &ma2imum period of* imprisonment that Respondent 2ed in his order! -y virtue of his o=ce, Respondent knows or should have known this so basic a rule! Dhe glaring clarity of the rule tripped Respondent to commit a glaring error, which was made even more Oagrant by the fact that Complainant was actually imprisoned for $6 days! Failure to follow basic legal commands as prescribed by law and the rules is tantamount to gross ignorance of the law! -y accepting the e2alted position of a /udge, Respondent ought to have been familiar with the legal norms and precepts as well as the procedural rules! DANIEL SEVILLA VS JUDGE FRANCISCO LINDO! AM"MTJ-&3-$,$%! +'#'$$ % Complainant charged that Respondent repeated reset the hearing of the -P case he led so as to force him to enter into a compromise agreement evident from Respondent’s comment to him that, ? +r -evilla, ang hirap mo namang paiusapan .onting pera lang yan ahala a maghintay sa wala0 In imposing a FI4. on Respondent, "upreme Court held that, a trial /udge who allows, or abets, or tolerates numerous unreasonable postponements of the trial, whether out of ine=ciency or indolence, or out of bias towards a party, is administratively liable! Postponement of a hearing in a civilcriminal case may at times be unavoidable, the Court however, disallows undueunnecessary postponements of court hearings, simply because they cause unreasonable delays in the administration of /ustice and, thus, undermine the people’s faith in the Gudiciary, aside from aggravating the nancial and emotional burdens of the litigants! Dhus, the Court has en/oined for postponements and resettings to be allowed only upon meritorious grounds! Dhe strict /udicial policy on postponements applies with more force and greater reason to prosecutions involving violations of -P , the prompt resolution of which has been ensured by their being now covered by the !ule on -ummary *rocedure – a
precisely adopted to promote a more e2peditious and ine2pensive determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of cases! Respondent Oagrantly violated the letter and spirit of both of Rule $!5 of the 1ode o 2udicial 1onduct, which en/oined all /udges to administer /ustice impartially and without delay ; and of Canon : of the 1anons o 2udicial 3thics, which re1uired him as a trial /udge ?to be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering that /ustice delayed is often /ustice denied!@ rule
LYDELLE CON7UILLA VS JUDGE LAURO BERNARDO! AM"MTJ--$,),! +'#'$$ % Respondent was charged with usurpation of authority, grave misconduct and ignorance of the law for conducting a preliminary investigation and nding probable cause therein to charged Complainant with direct assault! "upreme Court "M"P.49.9 Respondent, reasoning that, Respondent’s conduct of such preliminary investigation directly contravenes E!3! 4o! 58)<):)"C &eAective Hctober 8, 558*, amending Rules $$ and $$7 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure! Dhe latter removed the conduct of preliminary investigation from /udges of the rst level courts and making it incumbent upon them to forward the records of the case to the Prosecutor’s H=ce for preliminary investigation! Indeed, competence and diligence are prere1uisites &Canon 0* to the due performance of /udicial o=ce! >ence, when a law or rule is basic, /udges owe it to their o=ce to simply apply the law! Enything less is gross ignorance of the law! Gudges should e2hibit more than /ust a cursory ac1uaintance with the statutes and procedural rules and should be diligent in keeping abreast with developments in law and /urisprudence!
ELADIO PERFECTO VS JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO ESIDERA! AM-RTJ-$$-++,&! $')$'$$ % Respondent was charged with soliciting and receiving money from a scal and a private practitioner supposedly to defray e2penses for a religious celebration and barangay esta! In her answer, Respondent brushed oA the a=davit of Fiscal Ching who witnessed the solicitation, claiming that the scal who was a former law student to whom she gave a 0)grade because her codigo’ was still inserted in the e2amination booklet, is of ?dubious personality@ with a ?narcissistic personality disorder@! FI4.9 for impropriety and conduct unbecoming, the "upreme Court held that, use of acerbic words was uncalled for considering Respondent’s status! Further, her act of soliciting &under the guise of a religious cause* betrays not only her lack of maturity as a /udge but also a lack of understanding of her vital role as an impartial dispenser of /ustice, held in high esteem and respect by the local community, which must be preserved at all times! It spawns the impression that she was using her o=ce to unduly inOuence or pressure Etty! Qruma, a private lawyer appearing before her sala, and Prosecutor 9ia+ into donating money through her charismatic group for religious purposes! E /udge must be like Caesar’s wife ) above suspicion and beyond reproach! Respondent’s act discloses a deciency in prudence and discretion that a member of the /udiciary must e2ercise in the performance of his o=cial functions and of his activities as a private individual! It is never trite to caution Respondent to be prudent and circumspect in both speech and action, keeping in mind that her conduct in and outside the courtroom is always under constant observation!
FLORENDA TOBIAS VS JUDGE MANUEL LIMSIACO! AM-MTJ--$,)%! $-$#-$$ % Complainant who charged Respondent with corruption for allegedly oAering ?package deals@ to litigants, claimed that the court stenographer informed her sister that Respondent re1uired P05,555 to provide counsel, prepare