LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

SURVEY OF LATEST CASES
IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(JANUARY 1999 MAY 2003)
SM: WHAT CONSTITUTES PRACTICE OF LAW
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS LADAGA
3!0 SCRA 32" #2001$
FACTS:
Atty. Ladaga, an RTC Branch Clerk of Court, acted as pro bono
counsel for a relative in a criminal case, without the previous
authority from the Chief Justice of the upreme Court as
re!uired "y the Administrative Code. An administrative
complaint was filed against Atty. Ladaga for practicing law
without permission from the #epartment $ead %CJ& as re!uired
"y law. Atty. Ladaga 'ustified his appearance as he merely gave
a free legal assistance to a relative and that he was on an
approved leave of a"sence during his appearances as such
counsel. (oreover, the presiding 'udge of the court to which he
is assigned knew his appearances as such counsel.
ISSUE:
)hether Atty. Ladaga*s appearances as a pro bono counsel for
a relative constitutes practice of law as prohi"ited "y the
Administrative Code.

HELD:
+o. ,ractice of law to fall within the prohi"ition of the statute
should "e customarily or ha"itually holding one*s self to the
pu"lic as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. -t
does not pertain to isolated court appearances as in this case.
+evertheless, for his failure to o"tain a prior permission from the
head of the #epartment %CJ& as re!uired "y law, respondent
was reprimanded.
SM: E%ISTENCE OF ATTORNEY CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP IS NOT DETERMINED &Y A&SENCE
OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
SPOUSES LIRIO U RA&ANAL AND CAYETANO D
RA&ANAL VS ATTY FAUSTINO F TUGADE
AC NO 13'2 JUNE 2'( 2002
F)*+,:
This is an administrative complaint filed "y
complainant spouses Cayetano and Lirio Ra"anal against Atty.
.austino .. Tugade. -t is alleged that respondent, as counsel
for complainant Cayetano Ra"anal, did not file the appellant*s
"rief in the Court of Appeals despite having "een granted "y the
appellate court an e/tension of time to file the same, as a result
of which the appeal filed "y Cayetano was dismissed and the
decision of the then Circuit Criminal Court of Tuguegarao,
Cagayan "ecame final and e/ecutory.
Respondent claims however that he was not the
counsel of complainant Cayetano Ra"anal prior to the filing of a
motion for reconsideration "efore the Court of Appeals and he
could not "e held responsi"le for the dismissal of complainant*s
appeal for failure of counsel to file the appellant*s "rief.
I,,-.:
)hether or not the lawyer should "e disciplined
H./0:
0es. The a"sence of a written contract does not
preclude a finding that there was a professional relationship
which merits attorney*s fees for professional services rendered.
A written contract is not an essential element in the employment
of an attorney1 the contract may "e e/press or implied. To
esta"lish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and
assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter
pertinent to his profession. -n this case, complainant sought and
received legal advice from respondent Tugade, who admitted
that he agreed to sign the appellant*s "rief to "e filed and that he
received ,233.33 from complainant spouses. -t is therefore
clear that a lawyer4client relationship e/isted "etween the two.
$e thus violated the Code of ,rofessional Responsi"ility which
provides5
R6L7 89.3:. A lawyer shall not, after o"taining e/tensions of
time to file pleadings, memoranda or "riefs, let the period lapse
without su"mitting the same or offering an e/planation for his
failure to do so.
R6L7 8;.3:. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him lia"le.
CANON 1
SM: IMMORAL( DISHONEST CONDUCT
SOLEDAD NU1E2 VS ATTY ROMULO RICAFORT
AC NO !0!3 MAY 29( 2002
F)*+,:
ometime in <cto"er 8=;9 petitioner authori>ed
respondent attorney to sell her two parcels of land located in
Lega>pi City for ,?3,333. he agreed to give respondent 83
percent of the price as commission. Respondent succeeded in
selling the lots, "ut despite complainant*s repeated demands, he
did not turn over to her the proceeds of the sale. This forced
complainant to file against respondent and his wife an action for
a sum of money "efore the Regional Trial Court of @ue>on City.
Respondent was declared in default and 'udgment
was rendered in favor of petitioner. Respondent appealed said
decision to the Court of Appeals "ut the same was dismissed for
failure to pay the docket fee within the re!uired period.
A writ of e/ecution was issued, it appeared however
that only a partial amount has "een paid "y the lawyer. .our
postdated checks were su"se!uently issued to cover the
"alance. aid checks however, upon presentment were
dishonored "ecause the account against which they were drawn
was closed. #emands to make good the checks were to no
avail so a case for violation of B, 99 was filed "y petitioner.
The lawyer denied the allegations and filed several
motions for e/tension of time to file comment. Complainant filed
a motion to cite lawyer for contempt for his alleged delaying
tactics un"ecoming of a lawyer and a law dean.
I,,-.:
)hat is the lia"ility of the lawyerA
H./0:
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
+
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of grave misconduct in
his dealings with complainant. Rule 8538 of Canon 8 of the Code
of ,rofessional Responsi"ility which provides that BA lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful
conductC.
Respondent had no intention to BhonorC the money
'udgment against him in as can "e gleaned from his %8&
issuance of postdated checks1 %9& closing of the account against
which said checks were drawn1 and %:& continued failure to
make good the amounts of the checks.
SM: DECEITFUL CONDUCT4 FUNDS ENTRUSTED &Y
CLIENTS
PENTICOSTES VS I&ANE2
303 SCRA 251
FACTS:
The sister4in4law of Atty. ,enticostes was sued for
non4 remittance of payments. The respondent, ,ros.
-"ane> was given "y the sister4in4law of ,enticostes ,8,;3? as
payment of her contri"ution arrears "ut said respondent did
not remit the amount to the system. Complainant filed with the
RTC a complaint for professional misconduct against -"ane>
due to the latter*s failure to remit to the her contri"ution and
for respondent*s misappropriation of the amount.
ISSUE:
)hether or not respondent*s act amounted to violation
of his oath as a lawyer.
HELD:
0es. +on4remittance "y a pu"lic prosecutor for over
one year of funds entrusted to him constitutes conduct in gross
violation of Rule 8.38 of the Code of ,rofessional Responsi"ility
which provides that Ba lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.C Lawyers are "ound to
promptly account for money or property received "y them on
"ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes
professional misconduct.
SM: VIOLATION OF THE NOTARIAL LAW
NUNGA VS VIRAY
30" SCRA 35'
FACTS:
Dictor +unga, president of the (asantol Rural Bank
filed a complaint for dis"arment against Atty. Diray on the
ground of gross and serious misconduct for notari>ing
documents when he was not commissioned to do so at the time
the said documents were e/ecuted.
ISSUE:
)hether or not the respondent*s act is a valid ground
for dis"arment.
HELD:
0es. )here the notari>ation of a document is done "y
a mem"er of the ,hilippine Bar at a time when he has no
authori>ation or commission to do so, the offender may "e
su"'ected to disciplinary action. .or one, performing a notarial
without such commission is a violation of the lawyer*s oath to
o"ey the laws, more specifically, the +otarial Law. A notarial
document is "y law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
.or this reason, notaries pu"lic must o"serve with utmost care
the "asic re!uirements in the performance of their duties.
SM: VIOLATION OF THE NOTARIAL LAW
ALITAGTAG VS A++6 GARCIA
F.78-)86 "( 2002
FACTS:
This is a petition for dis"arment against respondent
Atty. Dirgilio R. Earcia for the falsification of a deed of donation
and notari>ing the same.
-t appears that Atty. Earcia notari>ed the #eed of
#onation covering a parcel of land. )hen said document was
e/amined "y the ,+, La"oratory upon complaint of Dioleta
.lores Alitagtag, it certified that the !uestioned signature in the
#eed of #onation and the standard signatures of the deceased
donor, Caesar B. .lores, B)7R7 +<T )R-TT7+ B0 <+7 A+#
T$7 A(7 ,7R<+C. $ence, the #eed of #onation was
declared falsified and thus, null and void "y the lower court.
As a result of such findings, the -B, recommended the
suspension of Atty. Earcia from the practice of law for two %9&
years.
ISSUE:
)hether or not there is reasona"le ground to "elieve
that Atty. Earcia "e dis"arred.
HELD:
07. Article 983:, ec.8%?& provides that a notary
pu"lic B shall certify that the person acknowledging the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same
person who e/ecuted it, and acknowledged that the #eed of
#onation is authentic.C $e assisted his father4in4law, the donor,
in e/ecuting the same. By notari>ing the document, he likewise
acknowledged that the signature therein is the donor*s true
signature.
)here the notary pu"lic is a lawyer, a graver
responsi"ility is placed upon his shoulder "y reason of his
solemn oath to o"ey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent
to the doing of any.
A notary who acknowledged a document that was a
forgery destroys the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
$e does not deserve to continue as mem"er of the "ar.
SM: VIOLATION OF THE NOTARIAL LAW
FLORES VS CHUA
30" SCRA 3"!
FACTS:
The complainant seeks the dis"arment of respondent
Atty. Chua, a practicing lawyer and a notary pu"lic, for various
offenses amounting to malpractice, gross misconduct, violation
of his lawyer*s oath, the C,R as well as the provisions of the
laws of the ,hilippines, to wit5 %a& .raud through falsification and
forgery of pu"lic document1 %"& foisting falsehood and fa"ricated
pu"lic document to molest and harass parties1 and %c& li"el,
misrepresentation and unlawful advertisement.
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
(
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
ISSUE:
)hether or not the charges against Atty. Chua
sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against him.
HELD:
0es. )hen a notary pu"lic is a lawyer, a graver
responsi"ility is placed upon his shoulder "y reason of his
solemn oath to o"ey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent
to the doing of any. The Code of ,rofessional Responsi"ility
also commands him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the
integrity and dignity of legal profession. The "ar should maintain
a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair
dealing. A lawyer "rings honor to the legal profession "y
faithfully performing his duties to society, to the "ar, to the
courts, and to his clients.
SM: CANON 14 RULE 101 CPR
FIDEL A9UINO VS A++6 OSCAR MANESE
AC N: 39!54 APRIL 3( 2003
FACTS:
Complainant filed this complaint against respondent, a
+otary ,u"lic, for notari>ing and preparing a #eed of A"solute
ale dated eptem"er 8F, 8==? which could not have "een
e/ecuted and sworn to "y Lilia #. Cardona, one of the therein
three vendors G signatories, she having died on +ovem"er 9F,
8==3, or four years earlier.
-t appears that complainant is the lawful tiller of the
land su"'ect of the sale. Comparative 7/amination conducted "y
the +B- shows that the specimen signatures of Lilia Cardona
and her signature appearing on the said #eed of A"solute ale
were not written "y one and the same person.
-n his comment, respondent asserted that complainant
has no personality to complain as he has neither a legal right or
claim over the land nor legal personality to challenge the sale1
as a +otary ,u"lic, he is not e/pected to know every person
who goes to him for notari>ation of documents.
ISSUE:
)hether or not the contentions of the respondent are tena"le.
HELD:
+o. Complainant has the legal personality to file this
complaint "ecause as a tenant, his rights over the land are
distur"ed "y the transfer of the ownership of the land. -n any
event, proceedings for dis"arment, suspension or discipline of
lawyers may, under ection 8 of Rule 8:= G B of the Rules of
Court, motu proprio "e taken "y the C or the -B, upon the
verified complaint of any person.
Respondent cannot also successfully plead that he is
not e/pected to know every person who goes to him for
notari>ation of their documents "ecause in the Acknowledgment
of the #eed, he affirmed that all the persons who appeared
"efore him %including Lilia Cardona& are known to him Bto "e the
same individuals who e/ecuted the instrument and
acknowledged to him that the same is their free act and
voluntary deedC.
Canon 8 of the Code of ,rofessional Responsi"ility
re!uires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and to o"ey the laws
of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes1
and Rule 8.38 thereof proscri"es lawyers from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. $is reckless
act of notari>ing the #A without ascertaining that the vendors G
signatories thereto were very same person who e/ecuted it and
personally appeared "efore him to attest to the contents and
truth of what were stated therein "reached the foregoing rules.
CANON 11
SM: RESPECT TOWARDS THE COURT AND JUDICIAL
OFFICERS
VILLAFLOR VS SARITA
305 SCRA 129
FACTS:
Complainant filed a case for dis"arment against
respondent "efore the -B, Commission on Bar #iscipline. The
Commissioner assigned to investigate the case issued an order
directing respondent to file his answer or comment to the
complaint. The period of time alloted to answer the complaint
lapsed without respondent su"mitting his comment. An order
was issued re!uiring the parties to attend the hearing of the
case "ut the respondent failed to appear. A notice of hearing
was sent to respondent "ut again he failed to attend the
proceeding. After giving the respondent enough opportunity to
face the charges against him, which the latter did not avail, the
case was su"mitted for resolution.
ISSUE:
)hether or not failure to o"ey notices from the -B,
investigators constitutes an unethical act.
HELD:
0es. As an officer of the court, it is the duty of a lawyer
to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes
fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. -t is his foremost
responsi"ility to o"serve and maintain the respect due to the
courts of 'ustice and 'udicial officers. The highest form of respect
to the 'udicial authority is shown "y a lawyer*s o"edience to
court orders and processes.
CANON12
SM: MOTION FOR EXTENSION IS NOT GRANTED AS A
MATTER OF RIGHT.
RAMOS VS A++6 DAJOYAG
F.78-)86 25( 2002
FACTS:
This is a complaint filed "y 7rnesto (. Ramos against
Atty. (ariano A. #a'oyag Jr. for negligence in failing to appeal a
ruling of the +LRC, which affirmed the dismissal "y the La"or
Ar"iter of a complaint for legal dismissal.
-t appears that Ramos was terminated from work for
failure of his lawyer, Atty. #a'oyag, to file on time the petition for
certiorari, when the upreme Court dismissed it with finality.
.rom the records, it can "e gleaned that Atty. #a'oyag
moved for an e/tension to file which was granted "ut the
Resolution granting the 8
st
e/tension contained a warning that
no further e/tension would "e given. Atty. #a'oyag, on the other
hand, e/plained that he was not aware of this "ecause when he
filed his motion for last e/tension for only 93 days, he had not
yet received the copy of said resolution. $e further e/plained
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
*
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
that he relied on good faith that his (otion for 8
st
7/tension of :3
days would "e granted without the warning G as this was only a
first e/tension1 and also that he re!uested for a second and last
e/tension of 93 days for which he complied with the filing of the
,etition for Certiorari on the last day of the supposed e/tended
period.
ISSUE:
)hether or not Atty. Ramos is guilty of negligence.
HELD:
0es. Rule 89.3: of the Code of ,rofessional
Responsi"ility provides5 BA lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the
period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so ". (otions for e/tension are
not granted as a matter of right "ut in the sound discretion of the
court, and lawyers should never presume that their motions for
e/tension or postponement will "e granted or that they will "e
granted the length of time they pray for. #ue diligence re!uires
that they should conduct a timely in!uiry with the division clerks
of court of the action on their motions and, the lack of notice
thereof will not make them any less accounta"le for their
omission.
SM: GROSS NEGLIGENCE
GALEN VS PAGUIRIGAN
M)8*; 21( 2002
FACTS5
This is a complaint for dis"arment and damages filed
"y spouses Lolita and Romy Ealen, spouses 7nri!ueta and
Tomas Rasdas, and spouses 7speran>a and 7rnesto Dilla
against Atty. Antonio B. ,aguirigan.
-t appears that Atty. ,aguirigan failed to file the
Appellees Brief for the complainants due to his mistaken "elief
that the trial court*s decision would "e affirmed. To make
matters worse, after "eing granted a :34day e/tension of the
time to file a petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals, he again lost through default the "enefit of the
e/tension granted as he failed to file his petition for review within
the e/tended period granted. $e faults the upreme Court in not
acting on his motion until close to the end of the :34day period
he was asking for.
ISSUE:
)hether Atty. ,aguirigan is guilty of gross negligence in the
performance of his duty.
HELD:
0es. )hile the failure to file the appellee*s "rief in a
case is not a ground for an adverse ruling against the appellee,
unlike the failure to file the appellant*s "rief which may result in
the dismissal of an appeal, nonetheless, the importance of filing
an appellee*s "rief cannot "e gainsaid. As has "een pointed out
repeatedly, B6pon appeal, the appellate court, not "eing in
position to hear firsthand the testimony of parties, can only place
great reliance on the "riefs and memoranda of the parties. The
failure to su"mit these pleadings could very well "e fatal to the
cause of the client.C
)orse, respondent failed to file his petition for review
within the e/tended period granted and even faulting the C for
his failure. -t only succeeds in showing his ignorance of two
"asic principles5 first, that a party cannot presume that his
motion will "e granted, and, second, that any e/tension granted
is always counted from the last day of the reglementary period
or the last period of e/tension previously sought andH or granted.
The last rule is important "ecause unless the e/tension from the
last day of the reglementary period or the day of last e/tension
is granted, this period would "ecome ine/tendi"le. Respondent
is thus guilty of violation of Rule 89.3: 3f the Code of
,rofessional responsi"ility which provides that BA lawyer shall
not, after o"taining e/tensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda, or "riefs, let the period lapse without su"mitting the
same or offering an e/planation for hi failure to do soC.
CANON 1!
SM: CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
DE GU2MAN VS DE DIOS
3!0 SCRA 320 #2001$
FACTS:
#iana #e Eu>man filed a dis"arment complaint against Atty. #e
#ios for representing conflicting interests. Complainant averred
that she engaged the services of respondent in 8==F as counsel
in order to form a hotel and restaurant corporation. )ith the
assistance of respondent, said corporation was registered with
the 7C. Respondent also represented complainant in one case
involving a property of the corporation. Respondent however
averred that since the action involved a property of the
corporation, she represented complainant to protect the
interests of the corporation, she "eing its legal counsel.
Complainant also averred that while respondent rose to "ecome
president of the corporation, she lost all her investments when
her delin!uent shares were sold "y the corporation in a pu"lic
auction upon the advise of respondent. The -B, dismissed the
complaint on the ground that there was no attorney G client
relationship.
ISSUE:
)hether there was attorney G client relationship which may
'ustify holding respondent guilty of representing conflicting
interests.
HELD:
0es. -t was complainant who retained respondent to form a
corporation. he appeared as counsel in "ehalf of the
complainant. There was also evidence of collusion "etween the
"oard of directors and respondent. -ndeed, the "oard of
directors now included respondent as the president. -t was also
upon her advice that the delin!uent shares of complainant were
sold at pu"lic auction. The present situation shows a clear case
of conflict of interests of the respondent.
SM: CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
ERLINDA A&RAGAN ETAL VS ATTY MA%IMO
RODRIGUE2
AC NO 333" APRIL 3( 2002
F)*+,:
ometime in 8=;2, complainants hired the services of
the respondent to represent in a case "efore the (TCC of
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
,
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Cagayan de <ro City. The case was won "y the complainants.
u"se!uently, when the lawyer allegedly surreptitiously dealt
with the su"'ect property with other persons, the petitioner
severed the lawyer G client relationship.
<n August 8==8, complainants filed a case of indirect
contempt against heriff .ernando Loncion et al. (uch to their
surprise, respondent represented the sheriff. ince the counsel
employed "y the complainants was a former student of
respondent, said counsel, egged "y the suggestions of
respondent withdrew the case without the petitioner*s consent.
That as a result of such withdrawal, su"se!uent events occurred
to the pre'udice of the complainants.
I,,-.:
)hether or not Atty. Rodrigue> should "e dis"arred.
H./0:
0es.
-n the present case, respondent clearly violated Rule
8F.3: of Canon 8F of the Code of ,rofessional Responsi"ility,
which provides that Ba lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests e/cept "y written consent of all concerned given after
full disclosure of the facts.C
SM: C:<=/>*+ := I<+.8.,+,
LOLITA ARTE2UELA VS ATTY RICARTE & MADERA2O
AC NO 33!3 APRIL 22( 2002
F)*+,:
Arte>uela filed "efore the upreme Court a verified
complaint for dis"arment against the respondent. he alleged
that respondent grossly neglected his duties her lawyer in a
damage suit and failed to represent her interests with >eal and
enthusiasm. According to her, when her case was scheduled for
pre4trial conference, respondent asked for its postponement
although all the parties were present. +otwithstanding
complainant*s persistent and repeated follow4up, respondent did
not do anything to keep the case moving. $e withdrew as
counsel without o"taining complainant*s consent.
Complainant also claimed that respondent engaged in
activities inimical to her interests. )hile acting as her counsel,
respondent prepared 7chavia*s Answer to the Amended
Complaint. The said document was even printed in respondent*s
office. Complainant further averred that it was respondent who
sought the dismissal of the case, misleading the trial court into
thinking that the dismissal was with her consent.
I,,-.:
)hether or not the lawyer should "e dis"arred.
H./0:
0es. $e is guilty of representing conflicting interests
prohi"ited "y Rule 8F.3: of Canon 8F of the Code of
,rofessional Responsi"ility.
To "e guilty of representing conflicting interests, a
counsel4of4record of one party need not also "e counsel4of4
record of the adverse party. $e does not have to pu"licly hold
himself as the counsel of the adverse party, nor make his efforts
to advance the adverse party*s conflicting interests of record444
although these circumstances are the most o"vious and
satisfactory proof of the charge. -t is enough that the counsel of
one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of the
other party, claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that
of his original client. To re!uire that he also "e counsel4of4record
of the adverse party would punish only the most o"vious form of
deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest form of disloyalty.
CANON 1"
SM: MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE CLIENT?S FUNDS
DOMINADOR P &UR&E VS ATTY AL&ERTO C MAGULTA
AC NO 99@"33 JUNE 10( 2002
F)*+,:
,etitioner engaged the services of the respondent to
help him recover a claim of money against a creditor.
Respondent prepared demand letters for the petitioner, which
were not successful and so the former intimated that a case
should already "e filed. As a result, petitioner paid the lawyer
his fees and included also amounts for the filing of the case.
A couple of months passed "ut the petitioner has not
yet received any feed"ack as to the status of his case.
,etitioner made several follow4ups in the lawyer*s office "ut to
no avail. The lawyer, to prove that the case has already "een
filed even invited petitioner to come with him to the Justice $all
to verify the status of the case. ,etitioner was made to wait for
hours in the prosecutor*s office while the lawyer allegedly went
to the Clerk of Court to in!uire a"out the case. The lawyer went
"ack to the petitioner with the news that the Clerk of Court was
a"sent that day.
uspicious of the acts of the lawyer, petitioner
personally went to the office of the clerk of court to see for
himself the status of his case. ,etitioner found out that no such
case has "een filed.
,etitioner confronted Atty. (agulta where he
continued to lie to with the e/cuse that the delay was "eing
caused "y the court personnel, and only when shown the
certification did he admit that he has not at all filed the complaint
"ecause he had spent the money for the filing fee for his own
purpose1 and to appease petitioner*s feelings, he offered to
reim"urse him "y issuing two %9& checks, postdated June 8 and
June F, 8===, in the amounts of ,89,333.33 and ,;,333.33,
respectively.
I,,-.:
)hether or not the lawyer should "e dis"arred.
H./0:
0es. The upreme Court upheld the decision of the
Commission on Bar #iscipline of the -B, as follows5 B-t is
evident that the ,9F,333 deposited "y complainant with the
Respicio Law <ffice was for the filing fees of the Regwill
complaint. )ith complainant*s deposit of the filing fees for the
Regwill complaint, a corresponding o"ligation on the part of
respondent was created and that was to file the Regwill
complaint within the time frame contemplated "y his client. The
failure of respondent to fulfill this o"ligation due to his misuse of
the filing fees deposited "y complainant, and his attempts to
cover up this misuse of funds of the client, which caused
complainant additional damage and pre'udice, constitutes highly
dishonest conduct on his part, un"ecoming a mem"er of the law
profession. The subsequent reimbursement by the respondent
of part of the money deposited by complainant for filing fees,
does not exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation of
said funds.C
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
-
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
CANON 15
SM: NEGLIGENCE OF AN ATTORNEY
REONTOY VS I&ADLIT
AC C&D N: 190 F.7 3( 1999
302 SCRA "03
FACTS:
An adverse decision was rendered "y the trial court against the
client of Atty. -"adlit. $e did not appeal the decision "ecause of
his opinion that to appeal would "e futile. An administrative
complaint was later filed "y Atty. -"adlit*s client against him for
failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period.
ISSUE:
)hether a lawyer may refuse to file an appeal on "ehalf of his
client when in his opinion to make an appeal would "e futile.
HELD:
+o. -t was highly improper for him to have adopted
such opinion since a lawyer is without authority to waive his
client*s right to appeal and his failure to appeal within the
prescri"ed period constituted negligence and malpractice.
6nder Rule 8;.3:, Canon 8; 3f the C,R Ba lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him lia"le.C
SM: DUTY OF A DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN ACCUSED
ENTERS A GUILTY PLEA
PEOPLE VS SEVILLENO
30! SCRA !19
FACTS:
The accused was charged with the crime of rape with
homicide committed against a = year old minor. $e entered the
plea of guilty for the crime charged. )hen the prosecution
rested its case, Atty. aldavia of the ,A< appointed as counsel
de oficio for the accused manifested that since his client had
already pleaded guilty he would no longer present any evidence.
$e only invoked the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty.
ISSUE:
)hether or not the counsel de officio of the accused
acted properly as defense counsel.
HELD:
+o. Canon 8; of the Code of ,rofessional
Responsi"ility re!uires every lawyer to serve his client with
utmost dedication, competence and diligence. $e must not
neglect a legal matters entrusted to him, and his negligence in
this regard renders him administratively lia"le. -n the instant
case, the defense lawyer did not protect, much less uphold the
fundamental rights of the accused. -nstead, they hapha>ardly
performed their function as counsel de officio to the detriment
and pre'udice of the accused.
CANON 19
SM: LAWYERS MUST REPRESENT THEIR CLIENT WITH
2EAL &UT WITHIN THE &OUNDS OF LAW
ONG VS UNTO
F.78-)86 "( 2002
FACTS:
This is a dis"arment case filed "y Ale/ <ng against
Atty. 7lpidio #. 6nto, for malpractice of law and conduct
un"ecoming of a lawyer.
-t is evident from the records that he tried to coerce
the complainant to comply with his letter4demand "y threatening
to file various charges against the latter. )hen the complainant
did not heed his warning, he made good his threat and filed a
string of criminal and administrative cases against the
complainant. They, however, did not have any "earing or
connection to the cause of his client,
The records show that the respondent offered
monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any
information against the complainant 'ust so he would have
leverage in his actions against the latter.
ISSUE:
)hether or not Atty. 6nto*s acts constitute
malpractice.
HELD:
0es. Canon 8= of the Code of ,rofessional
Responsi"ility mandates lawyers to represent their clients with
>eal "ut within the "ounds of the law. Rule 8=.38 further
commands that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful o"'ectives of his client and shall not
present, participate, or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to o"tain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
CANON 20
SM: R>A;+ := )++:8<.6, +: *:BC.<,)+>:< 7),.0 :< quantum
meruit
EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION VS A++6 MICHAEL DIONEDA
ADM CASE N: !1"24 MARCH 20( 2003
FACTS:
-n 8==I, complainant 7TC$A and respondent entered
into a Retainer*s Agreement wherein respondent lawyer agreed
to handle the case of the complainant against LD. Realty, (r.
Tinsay and B,- .amily avings Bank "y way of filing a
complaint G in G intervention. 7TC$A alleged that after
respondent received the amount of ,hp 93, 333, he did nothing
for the development of the case and to update the complaint4in4
intervention.
7TC$A then demanded the return of the amount
received "y respondent since he did nothing to protect the
interest of the complainant. Respondent promised to return the
amount "ut after deducting therefrom a reasona"le fee for the
efforts e/erted "y him. $e averred that the agreement also
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
included an earlier case with the $L6RB where he was a"le to
o"tain a favora"le 'udgment for the complainant.
-t appears however that respondent, for one reason or
another, failed to attend any hearing with the -B, Commission
on Bar #iscipline tasked to hear this administrative complaint.
ISSUE:
)hether or not respondent is entitled to compensation
"ased on the Retainer*s AgreementA -f not, is he entitled to
compensation "ased on quantum meruit?
HELD:
$e is not entitled to compensation neither "ased on
the Retainer*s Agreement nor on quantum meruit.
Eenerally, a valid written agreement fi/ing attorney*s
fees is conclusive as "etween the parties. And when "oth
parties are deemed to have impliedly repudiated the contract
and placed themselves in the position as though there was no
e/press stipulation as to the attorney*s fees, the lawyer*s
compensation shall "e determined on the "asis of quantum
meruit. $ere, the upreme Court considered the demand of
7TC$A for the refund of the entire amount received as
attorney*s fees and the counter G proposal of respondent to
deduct reasona"le fees for the efforts e/erted "y him as implied
repudiation of the contract "y "oth parties.
$owever, to deserve compensation "ased on
quantum meruit the lawyer must prove "y su"stantial evidence
that he is entitled to a reasona"le fee for his efforts in pursuing
his client*s case with the court taking into account certain factors
in fi/ing the amount of his fees. -t is noteworthy to point out
respondent*s failure to attend any hearing of his dis"arment
case "efore the -B, without presenting any reason.
Respondent*s lamenta"le attitude towards his client*s case is
clearly evident from his apparent disinterest in his own case for
dis"arment. Therefore, for having missed the opportunities to
present evidence in his favor without any satisfactory
e/planation as to his non4appearance, he should "e denied
compensation "ased on quantum meruit due to the lack of any
factual "asis to determine the value of his work as complainant*s
counsel.
CANON 22
SM: DUTY OF A LAWYER WHO SUCCEEDS IN A CASE

D&P VS CA
302 SCRA 3"2
FACTS:
The #B, filed with the office of the sheriff of (alolos an
application for e/tra4'udicial foreclosure of real and personal
properties involving several real and or chattel mortgage
e/ecuted "y the Continental Cement Corporation %CCC&. The
CCC filed a complaint with the RTC to principally sought to
en'oin the #,B and sheriff of (alolos, Bulacan from
commencing the foreclosure proceedings on CCC*s mortgage. A
hearing was scheduled for the sole purpose of e/amining three
of CCC*s witnesses "ut their counsels were not present.
Counsels 'ustified their a"sence due to the failure of the former
counsel to turn over the records of the case despite several
demands.
ISSUE:
)hether or not the a"sences of counsels are 'ustified under the
circumstances.
HELD:
+o. The withdrawal of previous counsel in the thick of the
proceedings would "e a reasona"le ground to seek
postponement of the hearing. $owever, such reason
necessitates a duty and o"ligation, on the part of the new
counsel to prepare himself for the ne/t scheduled hearing. The
e/cuse that it was due to the former counsel*s failure to turn
over the records of the case shows the negligence of the new
counsel to actively recover the records of the case. (ore
demands are not sufficient. Counsel should have taken
ade!uate steps to fully protect the interest of his client, rather
than pass the "lame on the previous counsel. A new counsel
who appears in a case in midstream is presumed o"liged to
ac!uaint himself with all the antecedent process and
proceedings that have transferred prior to his takeover.
SM: WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL
ANGELITA C ORCINO D, ATTY GASPAR
AC N: 3''3 ( S.C+.B7.8 23( 199'
F)*+,:
<rcino engaged the services of Atty. Easpar to
prosecute a criminal case she intended to file against several
suspects in the slaying of her hus"and. Complainant paid
respondent his fees as stipulated. .orthwith, respondent entered
into his duties and performed them religiously from the
preliminary investigation with the office of the prosecutor until
the case was thereafter filed with the RTC of Baloc, to.
#omingo, +ueva 7ci'a.
Respondent however failed to attend the "ail hearing
scheduled in August 8==8. -t was at this nearing that the court,
over complainantJs o"'ections, granted "ail to all the accused.
After the hearing, complainant immediately went to respondentJs
residence and confronted him with his a"sence. Respondent
e/plained that he did not receive formal notice of the hearing.
Complainant "ecame "elligerent and started accusing him of
'eopardi>ing the case "y his a"sence. Respondent said that her
suspicions were "ased on rumors and intrigues fed to her "y her
relatives. Complainant, however, continued accusing him
"elligerently. he asked for the records of the case saying that
she could refer them to another lawyer. tung "y her words,
respondent gave her the records.
u"se!uently, respondent filed "efore the trial court a
K(otion to )ithdraw as CounselK "ut it did not "ear the consent
of complainant. The court issued an order directing respondent
to secure complainantJs consent to the motion Kand his
appearance as private prosecutor shall continue until he has
secured this consent.K Complainant refused to sign her
conformity to respondentJs withdrawal. (eanwhile, the hearings
in the criminal case continued. Respondent did not appear at
the hearings nor did he contact complainant. Complainant was
thus compelled to engage the services of another lawyer.
$ence, this complaint.
I,,-.:
)hether or not a lawyer is e/cused from his duty to
represent his client if said client refuses to give his consent to
the lawyer*s motion to withdraw his appearance.
H./0:
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
/
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
+o. A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or
special proceeding with the written consent of his client filed in
court and copy thereof served upon the adverse party. hould
the client refuse to give his consent, the lawyer must file an
application with the court. The court, on notice to the client and
adverse party, shall determine whether he ought to "e allowed
to retire. The application for withdrawal must "e "ased on a
good cause. -n the instant case, respondent did not file an
application with the court for it to determine whether he should
"e allowed to withdraw.
C:8://)86 >,,-.:
Eranting that the (otion to withdraw appearance filed
"y respondent is sufficient as to form, is it "ased upon a good
causeA
+o. Rule 99.38 of Canon 99 of the Code of
,rofessional Responsi"ility provides5 CA lawyer may withdraw
his services from his client only in the following instances5 %a&
when a client insists upon an un'ust or immoral conduct of his
case1 %"& when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct
violative of the Code of ,rofessional Responsi"ility1 %c& when the
client has two or more retained lawyers and the lawyers could
not get along to the detriment of the case1 %d& when the mental
or physical condition of the lawyer makes him incapa"le of
handling the case effectively1 %e& when the client deli"erately
fails to pay the attorneyJs fees agreed upon1 %f& when the lawyer
is elected or appointed to pu"lic office1 %g& other similar casesC.
RespondentJs withdrawal was made on the ground
that Kthere no longer e/istLedM the . . . confidenceK "etween them
and that there had "een Kserious differences "etween them
relating to the manner of private prosecution.K This circumstance
is neither one of the foregoing instances nor can it "e said that it
is analogous thereof.
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
CANON 1
SM: IGNORANCE OF A &ASIC LAW IS GROSS IGNORANCE
OF LAW
ATTY DANIEL O OSUMO VS JUDGE RODOLFO M
SERRANO
AM NO RTJ@00@1"0' APRIL 3( 2002
F)*+,:
A complaint was filed against respondent 'udge in
connection with a criminal case for (urder with (ultiple
.rustrated (urder pending in his sala. Complainant is the
private prosecutor in the a"ove4mentioned criminal case. $e
alleged that respondent 'udge, after denying the accused*s
demurrer to evidence without prior leave of court, set the
continuation of the hearing for the reception of defense
evidence, in disregard of Rule 88=, ection 8F of the Rules of
Court. Complainant contends that the demurrer to evidence
without prior leave of court amounted to a waiver of the right to
present evidence upon denial thereof. Thus, the prosecution
filed a motion to su"mit the case for 'udgment, which was
however denied. (oreover, respondent 'udge failed to resolve
the prosecution*s formal offer of evidence.
Respondent 'udge filed his Comment, arguing that
while a demurrer to evidence without prior leave of court
amounted to a waiver of the right to present evidence, the
accused in Criminal Case +o. 92=: was charged with the
heinous crime of (urder with (ultiple .rustrated (urder.
$ence, procedural rules should not prevail over the right of the
accused to "e heard.
I,,-.:
-s the 'udge lia"le for gross ignorance of lawA
H./0:
0es. <"servance of the law which he is "ound to
know and swore to uphold is re!uired of every 'udge. )hen the
law is sufficiently "asic, a 'udge owes it to his office to simply
apply it1 anything less than that would "e constitutive of gross
ignorance of the law. -n short, when the law is so elementary,
not to "e aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
The filing of the demurrer to evidence without leave of
court and its su"se!uent denial results in the su"mission of the
case for 'udgment on the "asis of the evidence on record.
Considering that the governing rules on demurrer to evidence is
a fundamental component of criminal procedure, respondent
'udge had the o"ligation to o"serve the same, regardless of the
gravity of the offense charged. -t is not for him to grant
concessions to the accused who failed to o"tain prior leave of
court. The rule is clear that upon the denial of the demurrer to
evidence in this case, the accused, who failed to ask for leave of
court, shall waive the right to present evidence in his "ehalf.
SM: IGNORANCE OF A &ASIC LAW IS GROSS IGNORANCE
OF LAW
RASMIA U TA&AO VS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE ACMAD
T &ARATAMAN
AM NO MTJ@01@1353 APRIL 11( 2002
F)*+,:
Respondent 'udge granted "ail to the accused who
appears to remain at large when the motion to grant the same
was filed "y the accused*s father.
Complainant avers that respondent committed grave
a"use of discretion in granting the motion for "ail on
recogni>ance "ecause %8& it was filed not "y the accused "ut "y
his father, $ad'i 0usoph Ta"ao1 %9& the prosecutor was not
furnished a copy of the motion and there was no hearing
conducted1 %:& it lacked the sworn statement of the accused
signed in the presence of two witnesses1 and %?& the motion
and its supporting affidavit were signed "y the father of the
accused. Complainant also contends that the accused is not
poor "ut is a certified pu"lic accountant and operates a transport
"usiness in (etro (anila. Thus, it is urged that he should not
have "een released on recogni>ance since he could put up a
cash "ond.
I,,-.:
)hether or not the 'udge erred in granting "ail to the
accused.
H./0:
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
0
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
0es. -n the case at "ar, respondent 'udge was fully
cogni>ant that the court had not yet ac!uired 'urisdiction over
the person of the accused who was still at large and yet, he
entertained and granted his motion for "ail. -n doing so,
respondent 'udge violated a tenet in criminal procedure which is
too "asic as to constitute gross ignorance of the law. )hen the
law violated is elementary, a 'udge is su"'ect to disciplinary
action.
SM: GROSS IGNORANCE OF LAW
ESPINO VS SALU&RE
3!2 SCRA ""9 #2001$
FACTS:
An administrative complaint was filed against Judge alu"re for
gross ignorance of law for issuing a warrant of arrest against
(elvin 7spino despite having lost 'urisdiction over the case "y
forwarding the records of the preliminary investigation he earlier
conducted to the ,rosecutor and information was filed
accordingly with the RTC. Judge alu"re averred that on the
"asis of the Bupplemental worn tatementC e/ecuted "y the
private complainant, he had the duty to conduct the necessary
preliminary investigation and since it was demanded "y the
results of his in!uiry, he issued the corresponding warrant of
arrest.
ISSUE:
)hether Judge alu"re is guilty of gross ignorance of law.
HELD:
0es. As a 'udge, he is presumed to know the law. And when the
law is so elementary, not to "e aware of it constitutes gross
ignorance of law. -t is a "asic rule that once information is filed
in the RTC, it is that court which must issue a warrant of arrest
against the accused in a criminal case pending "efore it.
Eenerally however, to constitute gross ignorance of law, the
acts complained of must not only "e contrary to e/isting law and
'urisprudence, "ut were motivated "y "ad faith, fraud,
dishonesty and corruption. Although these circumstances were
not all attendant in the case at "ar, the fact still remains that
respondent 'udge is ignorant of the "asic rule in issuing warrants
of arrest. .or lack of "ad faith, he was merely fined.
SM: GROSS IGNORANCE OF LAW
MONTEROLA VS J-0A. CAOI&ES J8
M)8*; 15( 2002
FACTS:
Respondent Judge Jose .. Caoi"es, Jr., promulgated
a decision in favor of herein complainants pouses Adriano and
$ilda (onterola in a civil case. #ue to said decision, the spouse
filed a (otion for 7/ecution, since the defendant pouses (ario
N (avis #elagado did not appeal the decision and the period of
appeal had already lapsed.
Judge Caoi"es, however, refused to grant the motion
for the issuance of the )rit of 7/ecution.
-n his comment, respondent 'udge denied the
allegations in the complaint. $e made it clear that he would
issue the order for the issuance of the )rit of 7/ecution "ut
there was a necessity to determine first the e/act amount due
the complainants. According to him, this delay could not "e
considered as dereliction of duty "ecause it was "asically due to
the sudden resignation of his personnel which gave rise to
confusion that affected the disposition of pending matters.
Additionally, the (otion for 7/ecution filed "y the complainants
was a pro forma motion for failing to comply with the
re!uirements of sec.F, Rule 8F of the 8==I Rules of Civil
,rocedure, as it lacked notice of hearing, and proof of service.
ISSUE:
)hether or not respondent 'udge*s refusal to issue a
)rit of 7/ecution was an act un"ecoming of a 'udge.
HELD:
0es. There is no dispute that the decision of
respondent had already "ecome final N e/ecutory. 7/ecution of
the said decision should have issued as a matter of right, in
accordance with sec. 8, Rule := of the 8==I Rules of Civil
,rocedure.
-n failing to issue the )rit of 7/ecution in compliance
with the clear mandate of the said rule, respondent either
deli"erately disregarded the rule or demonstrated ignorance
thereof. $is 'ustification for his admitted delay in the issuance of
the writ, namely, pro forma character of the motion for
e/ecution, necessity to determine the e/act amount and
confusion of court records due to the resignation of his key staff
are very flimsy. -n attempting to hide his ignorance "y anchoring
his BinactionC on other provisions of the Rules of Court,
respondent all the more manifest a lack of familiarity on the
harmonious interplay of the provisions of procedural law.
)hile 'udges should not "e disciplined for inefficiency
on account merely of occasional mistakes or errors of
'udgments, it is highly imperative that they should "e conversant
with fundamental and "asic legal principles in order to merit the
confidence of the citi>enry.
SM: GROSS IGNORANCE OF LAW
GERRY JAUCIAN VS JUDGE SALVACION & ESPINAS
AM NO RTJ@01@1"31 MAY 9( 2002
F)*+,:
Complainant, as losing mayoral candidate for the
(unicipality of #araga, Al"ay, in the (ay 88, 8==; local
elections, filed a petition, dated (ay 99, 8==;, denominated as
an Oelection protest andHor revisionHrecounting of votes,* on the
ground that fraud and anomalies were allegedly committed
during the aforesaid local elections, "oth in the course of voting
and during the counting and ta"ulation of the "allots, to his
pre'udice. $e prayed for the issuance of an order directing the
revision or recounting of the "allots in the contested 88?
precincts as enumerated in his petition, the nullification and
setting aside of the proclamation of )ilson Andes as mayor, and
his own proclamation as mayor.
Respondent 'udge, despite "eing apprised of the
relevant law, consistently and un'ustly refused to order a recount
of all of the contested "o/es and "allots. Respondent 'udge
"ased her order on a repealed law.
I,,-.:
)hether or not the 'udge should "e made lia"le for the
erroneous decision.
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
1
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
H./0:
0es.
-ndeed, as models of competence, integrity and
independence, 'udges are e/pected to e/hi"it more than 'ust a
cursory ac!uaintance with statutes and procedural rules. To "e
a"le to render su"stantial 'ustice and maintain pu"lic confidence
in the legal system, they are e/pected to keep a"reast of all
laws, legal principles and prevailing 'urisprudence and to remain
conversant with them. 7veryone, especially a 'udge, is
presumed to know the laws and apply them properly in all good
faith. Judicial competence re!uires no less. -gnorance of the law
e/cuses no one 44 least of all, a 'udge.
Thus, 'udges may "e held administratively lia"le for
gross ignorance of the law when it is shown that 44 motivated "y
"ad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption 44 they ignored,
contradicted or failed to apply settled law and 'urisprudence.
CANON 2
SM: JUDGES SHOULD AVOID ACTS OF IMPROPRIETY
WHETHER INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF THE
COURTROOM
&ALDERAMA VS ALAGAR
J)<-)86 15( 2002
FACTS:
pouses 7dmundo and Carmelita Balderama filed a
letter4complaint against respondent Judge Adolfo Alagar of the
RTC, an .ernando City, La 6nion with the <ffice of the Court
administrator for partiality and "ias and impropriety.
-t appears that the spouses are the accused in a
criminal case for estafa through falsification of pu"lic documents
pending "efore Judge Alagar. Complaints charged Judge Alagar
for impropriety as he was seen fraterni>ing with private
complaints in the criminal case, spouses Jamie and Bernerda
Ader. They thus filed a motion for inhi"ition against Judge
Alagar which was denied.
Judge Alagar on the other hand e/plained that it was
his driver who drove the 'udge*s car, who offered, on at least 9
occasions, the spouses Ader a ride to the court wherein they
had a hearing "efore the sala of respondent 'udge. Judge
Alagar further e/plained that he was not personally aware of
what his driver did and only found out later upon investigation.
ISSUE:
)hether or not there is reasona"le ground to "elieve
that respondent Judge transgressed the high standard of moral
ethics mandated of magistrates "y allowing himself to "e seen
at the residence of the private complainants.
HELD:
0es. )hat has not "een clearly proven, however, was
whether or not Judge Alagar had knowledge of his driver*s
actuations, and also whether or not he ever personally went to
the spouses Ader*s residence or fetched them for a hearing
anytime. +otwithstanding this lack of direct proof of fraterni>ing
with the party litigants in a case pending "efore his sala, this
court holds that Judge Alagar should have nonetheless have
e/ercised a greater degree of diligence in the supervision of his
driver.
Canon 9 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates
that a 'udge should avoid not only actual acts of impropriety, "ut
e!ually also the appearance thereof in all his activities, whether
inside or outside the courtroom. A 'udge*s official conduct should
"e free from the appearance of impropriety1 and his personal
"ehavior, not only in the "ench and in the performance of official
duties, "ut also in his everyday life should "e "eyond reproach.
SM: CANON 2 CJC
SINNOT VS J-0A. &ARTE
AM N: RTJ 99 13!34 DECEM&ER 13( 2001
FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint filed against Judge
Recaredo ,. Barte, of RTC Pam"oanga del ur, Branch 9= for
"ias and partiality for the ac!uittal of +enito Eadonan, the
accused in a dou"le murder case in the sala of respondent.
Respondent does not deny the fact that he has an
illicit relationship woth the daughter of the accused, Richel
Eadonan, a woman not his wife.
+oticea"ly, complainants did not take any action to
inhi"it respondent from the case at the time of the trial. -t was
only when they learned a"out the special relationship of
respondent Judge and a daughter of the accused after the trial
of the criminal cases that they speculated on the partiality of
respondent. $ence they filed this administrative case asking
that the criminal cases "efore the RTC, Pam"oanga del ur
should again "e tried "ecause the presiding 'udge, herein
respondent, was "iased and partial in favor of the accused.
ISSUE:
)hether or not a 'udge*s illicit relationship with the
daughter of the accused sufficient to reverse his 'udgment of
ac!uittal in an administrative case.
HELD:
+o. -n an administrative case, the court can only pass
upon the administrative lia"ility of the respondent. -t cannot "e a
su"stitute for other 'udicial remedies availa"le to the
complainant, such as a (otion for Reconsideration or a pecial
Civil Action for Certiorari.
Canon 9 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that
a 'udge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all activities. A 'udge, in order to promote pu"lic
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the 'udiciary, must
"ehave with propriety at all times, in the performance of his
official duties and in his everyday life. Respondent*s intimate
relationship with a woman other than his wife shows his moral
indifference to the opinion of a good and respecta"le mem"er of
the community.
CANON 3
SM: ADMINSTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST A JUDGE NOT
AGROUND FOR INHI&ITION IN THE CASE
CRU2( JR VS JOVEN
3!0 SCRA '0 #2001$
FACTS:
Atty. Cru> filed an administrative complaint against Judge Joven
for gross negligence, a"use of authority, dereliction of duty and
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
+)
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
failure to render decision within :3 days as so prescri"ed "y the
Rules on ummary ,rocedure in an e'ectment case then
pending "efore him despite default on the part of the defendant
and proper motion from the plaintiff. The failure to decide within
the said period was due to the orders of respondent inhi"iting
himself from the case on the ground that an administrative
complaint against him filed "y the defendant was then pending.
Judge Joven 'ustified his orders as to Bassure the parties of the
impartiality and cold neutrality of a 'udgeC.
ISSUE:
)hether Judge Joven*s orders of inhi"ition proper.
HELD:
+o. (ere filing of an administrative case against a 'udge is not a
ground for dis!ualifying him from hearing the case. -n the
evolvement of the pu"lic perception on the 'udiciary, there can
likely "e no greater empirical data that influences it than the
prompt and proper disposition of cases "efore the courts.
SM: PROMPT DISPOSITION OF COURT &USINESSES
GON2ALES DECANO VS SIAPNO
3!3 SCRA 2"9
FACTS:
Judge Alicia Eon>ales G #ecano, 7/ecutive Judge, RTC
6rdaneta, ,angasinan, reported to the <CA the failure of Judge
iapno to decide numerous cases within the re!uired periods
dspite having "een su"mitted for decision. Respondent 'udge
'ustified is failures averring that his staff failed to transmit to him
the stenographic notes of the proceedings to which he can rely
on his decisions including the typed te/t of his decision for his
signature. $e also averred that his failure to render a decision in
some cases were due to his appointments "y the same
7/ec.Judge to numerous courts in ,angasinan.
ISSUE:
)ere the e/cuses of respondent 'udge sufficient to escape
administrative sanctionsA
HELD:
+o. Rule :.3F of the Code of Judicial Conduct re!uires 'udges to
dispose of the court*s "usiness promptly and decide cases
within the re!uired periods. Judges are charged with the
administrative responsi"ility of organi>ing and supervising the
court personnel to secure the prompt and efficient dispatch of
"usiness. Also, additional assignments or designations imposed
upon a 'udge do not make him less lia"le for the delay in
deciding cases.
SM: PROMPT DISPOSITION OF COURT &USINESSES
MELISSA DOMONDON ET AL VS JUDGE PERCIVAL
MANDAP LOPE2
AM NO RTJ@02@1"9" JUNE 20( 2002
F)*+,:
This case against respondent 'udge arose from a case
filed "y complainants who were all students of A(A College.
aid students were mem"ers of the editorial "oard of the
school*s official pu"lication who were e/pelled from the school
for alleged li"elous and scandalous writings in a spoof paper
they pu"lished.
Complainants filed a case for damages with prayer for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory in'unction
against A(A Computer College and (auricia $errera, #ean of
tudent Affairs. Complainants pressed their re!uest for the
immediate resolution of their application for preliminary
mandatory in'unction "efore the end of the enrollment period so
that they can enroll in the first trimester of 0 8==I48==;. They
alleged that respondent 'udge failed to resolve their application
for mandatory in'unction on time to the pre'udice of the
complainants. Respondent countered however that there was
no provision in law providing for a timeframe in resolving such
application. <n June 8?, 8==I, on the "asis of the pleadings of
the parties, respondent 'udge dismissed the case itself after
finding that the e/pulsion of the complainants from the school
was for cause and was effected only after an investigation
during which they were duly heard.
I,,-.:
)hether or not the 'udge is lia"le for the delay.
H./0:
0es. Canon :, Rule :.3F of the Code of Judicial
Conduct en'oins 'udges to Bdispose of the court*s "usiness
promptly and decide cases within the re!uired periodsC.
Judge Lope> cannot invoke the a"sence of any
provision prescri"ing a period within which to resolve an
application for a writ of in'unction. $e should have "een guided
"y the e/igencies of the situation. $e knew that complainants
were seeking the writ of preliminary mandatory in'unction
precisely "ecause they wanted to "e readmitted "y the college
and for them to "e a"le to enroll in the first trimester of school
year 8==I48==;.
-t is also undisputed that no trial was ever conducted
"y respondent 'udge "efore dismissing the complaint for lack of
merit. Respondent 'udge could not do this since there were
issues of facts which had to "e resolved.
SM: PROMPT DISPOSITION OF COURT &USINESS4
ORGANI2ATION AND SUOERVISION OF COURT
PERSONNEL
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS JUDGE
MARCELINO L SAYO JR
AM NOS RTJ@00@1!5' MAY '( 2002
F)*+,:
This administrative case were commenced "y two
letters of complaint addressed to the Chief Justice. -n those
letters, Judge (arcelino L. ayo Jr. of the Regional Trial Court
%RTC& of (anila, Branch ?F, was charged with gross
misconduct, incompetence, corrupt practices, immorality, undue
delay in rendering a decision, making untruthful statements in
his Certificates of ervice, and ha"itual tardiness.
The first letter, dated +ovem"er 8=, 8===, was signed
and sworn to "y Bella Balaguer4.a"ro, court interpreter in
respondent*s sala who was forced "y the 'udge to leave for
whimsical and capricious reasons
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
++
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
The second letter, dated +ovem"er 9:, 8===, was
authored "y Juanito Ro/as, court legal researcher1 7ufracio B.
,ilipiQa, sheriff -D1 (erlita (. #ecena, court stenographer ---1
Lina +orma . Ealicinao, court stenographer ---1 and Christine
alvador, clerk --- who complained that the very short period
since the appointment of respondent 'udge, five employees in
the said "ranch were either detailed or transferred to another
"ranch or office without any apparent reason
<n <cto"er 9=, 8===, the Chief Justice received a
similar letter from a Bconcerned employeeC of Branch ?F alleging
gross incompetence of Judge ayo, as demonstrated "y his
failure to decide cases way "eyond the prescri"ed period and
his ha"itual tardiness %almost past 83533 a.m.& in coming to
court.
I,,-.:
)hether or not the 'udge is lia"le for his acts.
H./0:
The Code of Judicial Conduct re!uires a 'udge to
dispose of the court*s "usiness promptly "y deciding cases and
matters within the re!uired period of ninety %=3& days from the
date of their su"mission for decision, as mandated "y the
Constitution.
Judges should act with dispatch in resolving pending
incidents, so as not to frustrate and delay the satisfaction of a
'udgment. Their inaction or procrastination to act one way or
another gives room for suspicion that they are "iased. As
dispensers of 'ustice, they should act in such a manner as to
avoid suspicion, so that faith in the administration of 'ustice may
"e preserved. #elay in resolving motions and incidents within
the reglementary period of =3 days fi/ed "y the Constitution and
the law cannot "e e/cused or condoned.
Likewise, respondent cannot use the alleged
inefficiency and antagonistic attitude of his staff towards him as
a defense. The Code of Judicial Conduct re!uires a 'udge to
organi>e and supervise the court personnel to ensure the
prompt and efficient dispatch of "usiness, as well as to o"serve
high standards of pu"lic service and fidelity at all times. The
ina"ility of respondent to control and discipline his staff
demonstrates his weakness in administrative supervision, an
undesira"le trait frowned upon "y this Court.
SM: C)<:< 34 C:0. := J-0>*>)/ C:<0-*+
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS J-0A.
TOMAS NOYNAY
AM N: RTJ 02 1'034 M)8*; 15( 2003
FACTS:
This administrative case stems from a certification
dated July 8:, 9338 written "y Judge alvador L. -nfante, the
successor of respondent. $e reported therein that at least F2
cases had "een left undecided "y Judge +oynay.
-n his e/planation, respondent gave several reasons
for his failure to decide the cases during his stint as presiding
'udge5
8. That he inherited more or less 93 cases when he
assumed office1
9. That his "ranch is the lone RTC within his
'urisdiction1
:. ,ressure due to heavy turn out of load or cases1
?. -ntermittent electrical "rown G outs1
F. $ealth andHor physical indisposition due to age
and his recent eye operations1
2. <ccasional mental "aleck4out.
The <ffice of the Court Administrator also found out
that this is the second time respondent is asked to e/plain his
delay in rendering decisions.
ISSUE:
Are the e/cuses presented "y respondent sufficient to
e/cuse him from administrative lia"ilityA
HELD:
+o. Canon :, Rule :.3F of the Code of Judicial
Conduct mandates 'udges to dispose of the court*s "usiness
within the periods prescri"ed "y the law and the rules. 6nder the
constitution, lower court 'udges are directed to decide a case
within =3 days from its su"mission. .ailure to comply with this
mandate constitutes gross inefficiency.
But in meritorious cases, the 'udge may re!uest the
upreme Court through the <CA for e/tension of time to
dispose cases "efore them. Respondent should have known
that if his health, his caseload or other factors hindered him from
disposing of cases with dispatch, all he needed to do was to
re!uest an e/tension of time from the upreme Court. $e did
not.
SM: INHI&ITION4 DIS9UALIFICATION
SALES VS CALVAN
F.78-)86 2'( 2002
FACTS:
This is a complaint for gross violation of the Code of
Judicial conduct and the Rules of Court, and for knowingly
rendering an un'ust 'udgment or order, filed "y Reynolan T.
ales, then incum"ent mayor of ,agudpud, -locos +orte,
against Judge (elvyn 6. Calvan.
The <ffice of the Court Administrator recommended
that respondent "e fined ,hp 83,333 for conducting a
preliminary investigation in a criminal case, though dis!ualified
"y the Rules of Court as he is closely related to the deceased
Rafael Benemerito and the complaining witness, considering
that respondent*s wife is their niece. Their relationship is within
the apparent am"it of the aforecited laws.
ISSUE:
)hether or not the rule on dis!ualification applies only
to cases where the 'udge is called upon to decide a case, and
not to preliminary investigations.
HELD:
+o. To BsitC in a case means Bto hold court1 to do any
act of a 'udicial nature. To "e formally organi>ed and proceeding
with the transaction of "usinessC. The prohi"ition is thus not
limited to cases in which a 'udge hears the evidence of the
parties "ut includes as well cases where he acts "y resolving
motions, issuing orders and the likeR* B7vidently, the
dis!ualification applies even to preliminary investigation stage
where the 'udge would have to act on a set of facts presented to
him and determine whether or not there is pro"a"le cause to
charge an accused.
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
+(
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
The appropriate step for respondent to take would
have "een to immediately desist from hearing the case, even at
the preliminary investigation stage. $is failure to do so is a
glaring violation not only of the Rules of Court "ut also Rule :.89
of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that5 EIn every
instance the udge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition!.
DIS&ARMENT AND SUSPENSION
NAVARRO VS MENESES III
25! SCRA !5"
FACTS:
Respondent lawyer was charged with dis"arment for dishonesty.
The -B, found him guilty. The dispositive portion of the -B,
Resolution reads5
"x x x #espondent Atty. #osendo $eneses is hereby
%&%'()*(* from the practice of law for + years and is hereby
directed to return the ,ifty Thousand 'esos he received from
the petitioner within -. days from receipt of this resolution.
,ailure on his part to comply will result in his *I%/A#$()T.!
ISSUE:
)hether a penalty in the alternative is proper.
HELD:
#isposition of this nature should "e avoided. -n the imposition of
penalties in criminal cases, it has long "een the rule that the
penalty imposed in a 'udgment cannot "e in the alternative,
even if the law provides for alternative penalties, nor can such
penalty "e su"'ect to a condition. There is no reason why such
legal principles in penal law should not apply in administrative
disciplinary actions which, as in this case, also involved punitive
sanctions.
A++:8<.6?, O)+;:
B-, SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS, of SSS%,lace of "irth&SSSSSdo
solemnly swear that - will maintain allegiance to the Repu"lic of
the ,hilippines1 - will support its Constitution and o"ey the laws
as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein1 - will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court1 - will not wittingly nor willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the
same1 - will delay no man for money or malice, and - will conduct
myself as a lawyer according to the "est of my knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients1 and - impose upon myself these voluntary o"ligations
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
o help me EodC
REMOVAL OF JUDGES
SM: MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE4 WILLFUL NEGLECT4
CORRUPTION AND INCOMPETENCY
ANG VS J-0A. ASIS
J)<-)86 1!( 2002
FACTS:
Eina B. Ang charged Judge 7nri!ue C. Asis of the
RTC of +aval, Biliran, with Bri"ery, 7/tortion and Diolation of the
Anti4Eraft and ,ractices Act relative to an 7lection case.
Complainant alleged that she filed with respondent*s
court an election protest against her opponent, Caridad Atok,
who was declared mayor of Tawayan, Biliran in the (ay 8==;
elections. )hile her protest was pending, respondent allegedly
intimated to complainant*s lawyers that he will decide the case
in complainant*s favor in e/change for monetary consideration1
that without her knowledge, complainant*s father delivered to
respondent the total amount of ,hp 8?3,333.33.
Respondent rendered his decision in the election
protest declaring Caridad Atok winner in the mayoralty race.
Respondent vehemently denied the charges of
complainant and instead, cited various citations he received as
a mem"er of the Judiciary of Biliran "ecause of his integrity.
ISSUE:
)hether or not 'udge Asis is lia"le for e/tortion and
"ri"ery.
HELD:
+<. The ground for the removal of a 'udicial office
should "e esta"lished "eyond reasona"le dou"t. uch is the
rule where the charge on which the removal is sought is
misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, incompetency,
etc. The general rule in regard to admissi"ility in evidence in
criminal trials applies. Bad faith does not simply connote "ad
'udgment or negligence1 it imputes a dishonest purpose or some
moral o"li!uity and conscious doing of a wrong1 a "reach of a
sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill4will1 it partakes of
the nature of fraud. To reiterate, "ad faith is not presumed and
he who alleges the same has the onus of proving it.
Complainant has not, in fact, adduced any proof that impropriety
attended the issuance of the su"'ect decision. -n view of the fact
that complainant relied mainly on second4 hand information to
prove her charges, her complaint is reduced into a "are
indictment or mere speculation.
Prepared by the LEGAL ETHICS SECTION Chief ROMMEL AYSON Assistant Chief GEORGE FUKAI III Members GERALD CABRERA,
ERIC JASON DUGYON, JOHN RAY LIBIRAN, MARVIN TAVARES, MARLO PABLO and MA. LUISA PUL-OC. All R!"#$ R%$%&'%d by the
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS ())*.
+*