JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

THE 2015 CASES ATBP.
PREPARED BY:

PROF. ERICKSON H. BALMES

THESE NOTES ARE MEANT TO BE SHARED
SHARING THEM IS A GOOD KARMA WAITING TO HAPPEN!

Praise the LORD!

I will praise the Lord with my whole heart,
In the assembly of the upright and in the congregation.
The works of the Lord are great, Studied by all who have pleasure in them.
His work is honorable and glorious, And His righteousness endures forever.
He has made His wonderful works to be remembered;
The Lord is gracious and full of compassion.
He has given food to those who fear Him;
He will ever be mindful of His covenant.
He has declared to His people the power of His works,
In giving them the heritage of the nations.
The works of His hands are verity and justice;
All His precepts are SURE.
They stand fast forever and ever,

And are done in truth and uprightness.

He has sent redemption to His people;
He has commanded His covenant forever:
Holy and awesome is His name.
The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom;
A good understanding have all those who do His commandments.
His praise endures forever.
(Psalm 111)

PART I. MEMORY AID GALORE:

Advocate
A person who champions the cause of another in a court of law. It usually refers to a legal counselor or
attorney-at-law.
Bangalore Draft
MCLE and Bar Reviewer in Legal Ethics and Commercial Law - Jurists Bar Review Center, Cosmopolitan
Review Center, CPRS Bar Review Center, Luminous Bar Review, Dagupan, Powerhaus Review Center,
Chan Robles Internet Review, PCU Bar Review, Albano Review Center, the Magnificus Review Center and
the UP LAW Center.
Member, Select Committee Answering the Bar Examination Questions in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL
ETHICS , UP Law Center.
The compiler wishes to acknowledge the valuable contribution of his research assistant, Clarizza Grace
Napa in researching the cases involved in this compilation.

2016 Notes on Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.
Page 1 of 8

The draft, agreed to by world jurists in a judicial conference held in Bangalore, India, and adopted as the
model by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in promulgating the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, both of which took effect on June 1,
2004. A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004.
Case at Bar VS Case at Bench
Case at Bar is the case being tried by the trial court in the exercise of its jurisdiction, i.e., the case that is
currently the subject of a particular trial or judicial proceeding WHILE Case at Bench is the case being heard
before an appellate court.
Consent Judgment
A compromise agreement between the parties to end further litigation by having a court of competent
jurisdiction approve the compromise as having the same force and effect as a judgment by the court. Thus,
once approved, it has the force of res judicata with respect to the contentious issues in the case. Such a
judgment, as a rule, is immediately executory. Del Rosario vs. Madayag and Leviste, 247 SCRA 767;
Central Bank vs. CA, 61 SCRA 348; Pasay City vs. Manila, 132 SCRA 156.
De Minimis
A Latin adjective for describing something that is too insignificant or trifling for the courts to bother with.
Hurried justice
Such promptness as is not sobered with prudence and wisdom in the final disposition of cases frequently
resulting in speedy injustice.
Judges Family
Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, a judges family includes his spouse and children, as well as
children-in-law, and any other relative by consanguinity or affinity\within the sixth civil degree, or person
who is a companion or employee of the judge and who lives in the judges household.
Juris Consult
A lawyer who is recognized as an expert in a specialized branch of the law, e.g., international law,
constitutional law, Sharia or Islamic law. A juris consult is an existing position in the judiciary under
Sharia law in our country.
Justice
A title RESERVED by law and Court rules in reference to incumbent and retired members of the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals only. It may NOT be used by other
officials from whichever branch of government even if said officials are given the rank of justice. JBC No
001, En Banc Resolution, Feb. 14, 1989.
Liberty and Prosperity Doctrine
A judicial philosophy espoused by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban which advances the view that in
cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government, and in favor of the
poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed, and the weak; but in conflicts primarily concerned
with economic policies, courts must be deferential to the political branches of government, namely, the
Presidency and Congress; hence, as a rule, courts will not pass upon the merits or wisdom of economic
policies, for these matters have been left by the people to the President and Congress to evaluate and
decide. Bayan Muna vs. Ermita, GR No. 169838, April 25, 2006; La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc.
vs. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1.
Malpractice
The failure of a lawyer to exercise on behalf of his client, the knowledge, skill and ability ordinarily
possessed by members of the Bar whereby an actual loss is caused the client (7 Am Jur 2d Attys., sec. 167,
et seq)
Notatu Dignum
A Latin term which refers to the presumption of regularity in the performance of a judges functions, hence,
bias, prejudice and even undue interest cannot be presumed, especially when weighed against a judges
sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to any person and do equal
right to the poor and the rich. Mamerto Maniquiz Foundation vs. Pizarro, 448 SCRA 140.
Pairing Judge

2016 Notes on Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.
Page 2 of 8

A judge who is designated to cover for another judge in the latters court or sala in the event of one or the
others absence due to resignation, dismissal, retirement, death, suspension, or prolonged absence. He takes
cognizance of all cases in the paired sala as acting judge therein until the return of the regular incumbent
judge or assumption of duty of a new judge.
Pro Bono
A Latin term which means for the public good. It usually refers to a lawyers services which are extended
for free, usually for a good cause or for an indigent litigant.
Pro Se
A Latin term which denotes on his own behalf. It is usually used in connection with the representation of
ones self in a court of law without the assistance of an attorney.
Quantum Meruit
Literally, it means As much as he deserves. In determining attorneys fees, it means that the attorney will
be paid for his services as much as he should deserve, when the services are prematurely terminated by the
act of either of the parties, or by reason of death, disability or operation of law, considering the importance of
the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered and the professional standing of the
lawyer.
Subjudice
A legal principle expressed in Latin which means that a certain matter is under judicial or court consideration
whose result or consequence is still undetermined and, therefore may not be an appropriate subject to
comment on publicly as to its possible outcome. Any such comment may subject the commentator to
contempt of court.
PART II. JURISPRUDENCE
ANTONIO S. ASCAO, JR., et. al. VS. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR.
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405, January 12, 2015
SERENO C.J.
FACTS:
San Jose, Occidental Mindoros Mayor, Jose Villarosa, allegedly wanted to demolish the public
market to use its space to erect the new San Jose Commercial Complex. As herein complainants were the
alleged section leaders of the lessees of market stalls in the said public market, they filed a Petition for
Prohibition with urgent application for the issuance of TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI)
against the municipality and the Mayor.
During the first hearing, only 12 out of more than 500 members supporting the complainants were
allowed to enter; while the entire entourage of the Mayor, none of whom were parties to the case, were all
allowed inside. Further, all complainants were escorted outside except for one who will give her testimony.
At the next hearing, when the Mayor exited through the door used by the Judge and the employees, Judge
Jacinto, Jr. was the one who explained the Mayors excuse.
Moreover, complainants claimed that Judge Jacinto, Jr. argued, berated, accused, scolded, confused
and admonished them without basis or justification. The latter also asked them confusing and misleading
questions geared towards their damage and favorable to their adversary. According to complainants, it is
common knowledge to the entire community that Judge Jacinto, Jr. is beholden to the Mayor and its allies.
As stated by the report of investigating justice, of which the Court adopted the findings and
recommendation, Judge Jacinto, Jr. failed to submit the transcript of notes for the second hearing without
plausible reason. While in the first hearing, it was found that apart from the judge raising his voice when
addressing the witness and uttering abrasive and unnecessary statements, he also made insulting and,
sometimes, needlessly lengthy declarations.
ISSUE:
Whether Judge Jacinto, Jr. seriously violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Ethics and
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
HELD:

2016 Notes on Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.
Page 3 of 8

YES. Although the other charges of Judge Jacinto, Jr.s partiality were not proven by clear and
convincing evidence on the basis of his Order to lift the TRO or on the mere fact that he did not allow the
more than 500 members to enter the courtroom, the Court found petitioners claim that Judge Jacinto, Jr.
berated, scolded, confused and admonished their witnesses without basis or justification to be noteworthy.
As he also raised his voice and uttered abrasive and unnecessary remarks, it only shows that he failed to
conduct himself in accordance to Sec. 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary, which mandates the Judge to maintain order and decorum in all proceedings. He should also be
considerate, courteous and civil to all persons in his court.
He further violated Sec. 1 of Canon 2 and Sec. 1 of Canon 4, enjoining judges not only from
committing acts of impropriety, but also acts that have the appearance of impropriety. By appearing to be the
Mayors advocate in explaining why the mayor left the courtroom, when not even the latters own lawyers
knew that, he undoubtedly diminished public confidence and public trust in him as a judge. He gave
petitioners reason to doubt his integrity and impartiality. Thus, he also violated Sec. 2 of Canon 3, which
mandates judges to ensure that their conduct maintains the confidence of the public, both in and out of the
court. From the foregoing, Judge Jacinto, Jr. was found guilty of unbecoming conduct.
MARILEN G. SOLIMAN VS. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY
A.C. No. 10568, January 13, 2015
REYES J.
FACTS:
Soliman engaged the services of Atty. Amboy in a partition case substantiated by a Retainer
Agreement for which Soliman agreed to pay P50,000.00 as acceptance fee. Later on, Atty. Amboy was
advised to no longer institute a partition case. She instead just facilitated the issuance of the titles to the
subject property from the co-owners to the individual owners. Thereafter, Atty. Amboy told Soliman of the
delay in the issuance of titles due to the failure of the other co-owners to submit certain documents. She then
told Soliman that someone from the Register of Deeds (RD) can help expedite the issuance for a fee of
P50,000.00. After depositing the payment for the real property tax, Soliman also deposited the P50,000.00 to
Atty. Amboys bank account as payment for her contact in the RD. However, Atty. Amboy failed to deliver
the respective certificates of title of Soliman and her co-owners.
She then kept on asking Atty. Amboy for any updates, but the latter was unresponsive. Thereafter,
Soliman asked Atty. Marasigan, Deputy RD of Manila, if he received the P50,000.00. He answered in the
negative, and claimed that Atty. Amboys failure to file certain documents was the reason the release of the
titles could not be processed.
The recommendation of the Investigating Commisioner suggesting Atty. Amboy of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by failing to observe due diligence in dealing with Soliman was
approved and adopted. It further stated that she failed to inform her client of the status of the proceedings for
the issuance of the said titles.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Amboy violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
YES. The circumstances of this case clearly show that Atty. Amboy, after receiving 25,000.00 as
payment for her professional services, failed to submit material documents relative to the issuance of
separate certificates of title to the individual owners of the property. It was her negligence that caused the
delay in the issuance of the certificates of title, which is contrary to the CPR mandating lawyers like her to
never neglect a legal matter entrusted to them; and to keep their clients informed of the status of their case
and respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information. Furthermore, she encouraged to
resort to an illegal act when she asked from Soliman P50,000.00 as payment for her contact in the RD, but
still failed to issue the certificates of title. Clearly, Atty. Amboys acts undermined the legal proceses, which
she swore to uphold and defend.
Moreover, Atty. Amboy violated Canon 16 of the CPR, particularly Rule 16.03, when she failed to
return the money to Soliman even after a demand was made. It is settled that the unjustified withholding of
money belonging to a client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action. Thus, she is suspended from the

2016 Notes on Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.
Page 4 of 8

practice of law for two years.

FERNANDO W. CHU VS. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR.
A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015
PER CURIAM
FACTS:
Atty. Guico handled a complaint for illegal dismissal against CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation
(CVC), the company of his client named Fernando Chu. The former then filed an appeal in behalf of CVC.
Meanwhile, Atty. Guico asked Chu to prepare a substantial amount of money to be given to the NLRC
Commissioner to insure a favorable decision. Chu called and gave the money amounting to P300,000.00 to
Atty. Guicos assistant, Nardo. Subsequently, Atty. Guico handed Chu a copy of an alleged draft decision of
the NLRC in favor of CVC, which was printed on the dorsal portion of used paper apparently emanating
from Atty. Guicos office. He also told Chu to raise another P300,000.00 to encourage the NLRC
Commissioner to issue the decision. Chu then brought P280,000.00 to Atty. Guicos office, which was
received by Nardo without issuing any receipt.
Chu followed up on the status of the CVC case, but Nardo said that he would only know it after
Christmas. On Jan. 11, 2008, Chu asked Nardo if the NLRC Commissioner had accepted the money. Nardo
assured him that the money was still with Atty. Guico who would return it if the NLRC Commissioner did
not accept the same. Meanwhile, on Jan. 19, 2009, the NLRC promulgated a decision adverse to CVC.
The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Guico had violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of
the CPR, and recommended the disbarment of the latter for his act of extortion and misrepresentation causing
dishonor to the legal profession.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Guico violated the Lawyers Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a favorable
decision.
HELD:
YES. Despite denying that the draft decision came from him, Atty. Guicos participation in the
generation of the draft was undeniable. In order to deflect the imputation, he stated that Chus witnesses in a
criminal case that he handled for him could have easily taken the used paper containing the draft decision
from his office. Atty. Guicos attempt to downplay the sourcing of used paper from his office was futile
because he did not expressly contradict the statement of Chu. In the Courts view, Atty. Guico made the
implied admission because he was fully aware that the used paper had unquestionably come from his office.
This testimony of Chu and his witnesses sufficed to confirm that he had committed the imputed gross
misconduct by demanding and receving P580,000.00 from Chu to obtain a favorable decision. He violated
the law against bribery and corruption. He compounded his violation by using said illegality to obtain a huge
sum from his client and appropriated the same for his own personal interest.
For breaching his ethical commitments under the Lawyers Oath not to delay any man for money or
malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade him from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, Atty. Guico ceased to be a servant of the law. Thus, he is
disbarred from membership in the IBP.
ARCATOMY S. GUARIN VS. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C. LIMPIN
A.C. No. 10576,, January 14, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR. J.
FACTS:
Mr. Celso G. de los (Mr. Celso) Angeles hired Guarin as Chief Operating Officer and thereafter as
President of OneCard Company Inc., a member of the Legacy Group of Companies. He eventually resigned
on Aug. 11, 2008. Meanwhile, on Nov. 2008, Atty. Limpin, the Corporate Secretary of Legacy Card, Inc.
(LCI), also under the Legacy Group, filed with the SEC a General Information Sheet (GIS) for LCI. The GIS
identified Guarin as Chairman of the Board of Directors (BOD) and President. On Dec. 2008, LCI
voluntarily dissolved with the SEC. Guarin then filed a complaint against Atty. Limpin attesting that he was

2016 Notes on Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.
Page 5 of 8

never a stockholder, chairman and president of LCI, but the latter still listed him as such even though he
knew otherwise. Moreover, the Secretarys Certificates presented by Atty. Limpin, which shows three board
meetings bearing Guarins signature, only manifest that Guarin was a mere signatory of LCIs bank accounts.
Also noting that despite knowing the irregularity of Mr. Celsos procedure of having the power to appoint or
designate directors or officers of Legacy, Atty. Limpin still accede to his doing.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commission on Bar Disciplines Report which found that
Atty. Limpin violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Limpin should be held administratively liable for the acts committed.
HELD:
YES. There is no indication that Guarin held any share to the corporation, making him ineligible to
hold a seat in the BOD and be the president of the company. Thus, the Court finds that in filing a GIS that
contained false information, Atty. Limpin committed an infraction which did not conform to her oath as a
lawyer in accord with Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR. Furthermore, in allowing herself to be swayed by
the business practice of having Mr. Celso appoint the members of the BOD and officers despite the rules
enunciated in the Corporation Code with respect to the election of such officers, Atty. Limpim has
transgressed Rule 1.02 of the CPR.
Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather
than seek exceptions as loopholes. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in
violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer. Thus, the Court
suspends Atty. Limpin from the practice of law for six months.
DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR. VS. ATTY. ISIDRO L. CARACOL
A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR. J.
FACTS:
The subject land, OCT No. 433, was a homestead patent granted to Micael Babela. 33, 296 square
meters of the land was then given to Efren as his legal heir. Due to the enactment of the agrarian reform law,
the emancipation patents and titles were issued to Hermogena and Danilo, who sold the land to Raymunda
Villahermosa. Thereafter, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) ordered the
cancellation of the emancipation patents and Transfer Certificates of Title derived from OCT No. 433
because it was not covered by the agrarian reform law. Subsequently, Atty. Caracol, as Addl Counsel for
the Plaintiffs-Movant, filed a motion for execution to fully implement the said order. He also filed a
Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition as counsel for Efren. However,
Villahermosa alleged that Atty. Caracol had no authority to file the motions since Efren could not have
authorized Atty. Caracol because Efren had already been dead; and his real client was Ernesto Aguirre, who
had allegedly bought the subject parcel of land.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD that found
Atty. Caracols commission of deceitful acts and misconduct, which is in violation of his oath as a lawyer.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Caracol should be held administratively liable for deceit, gross misconduct and violation of
the lawyers oath.
HELD:
YES. An attorney has no power to act as counsel for a person without being retained nor may he
appear in court without being employed unless by leave of court. Also, an attorney-client relationship
terminates upon death of either client or the lawyer. In this case, Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had already
passed away at the time he filed the second motion. As an honest, prudent and conscientious lawyer, he
should have informed the Court of his clients passing and presented authority that he was retained by the
clients successors-in-interest and thus the parties may have been substituted. But, Atty. Caracol instead used
underhanded means to attain his purpose. His disregard of his duties as a lawyer cannot be countenanced.

2016 Notes on Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.
Page 6 of 8

Hence, in contravening his lawyers oath and in violating Canons 8 and 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, he is then suspended from the practice of law for one year.
HENRY ONG LAY HIN VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GABRIEL T. INGLES, and the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015
LEONEN J.
FACTS:
Ong and Obsioma, Jr. were convicted of estafa. The Court of Appeals (CA) then issued an Entry of
Judgment declaring their case as final and executory on May 15, 2003. Based on the registry return card,
Ongs former counsel, Zosa & Quijano Law Offices, received the CAs Resolution on April 29, 2003. Thus,
the trial court, presided by Judge Ingles, ordered the arrest of Ong. Only after six years did he get arrested
and is serving his sentence at the New Bilibid Prison. Thereafter, Ong filed a Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition, and Mandamus with application for issuance of preliminary injunction. He alleged that his
counsel never received a copy of the CA Resolution. Assuming that the latter did received the same, Ong
argues that his counsel was grossly negligent in failing to appeal the CA Resolution, thus depriving him of
due process.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in issuing the entry of judgment.
2. Whether or not the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest and commitment
order against Ong.
3. Whether or not Ongs former counsel was grossly negligent.
HELD:
1. No. Ongs counsel had notice that the CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration as early as April
21, 2004. As he failed to rebut this presumption, it is presumed that his counsel received the CA Resolution
on April 29, 2003 as indicated in the registry return card. Since he did not file an Appeal within 15 days,
Under Rule 51, Sec. 10 of the Rules of Court on Judgment, the Decision became final and executory on
May 15, 2003.
2. No. Since the Court of Appeals had already issued the Entry of Judgment and had remanded to the
trial courts the original records of the case, it became the trial courts duty to execute the judgement.
3. Yes. However, the negligence of his counsel binds him. The only exception to the rule is when the
reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives him of due process of law. In this case, he took almost
seven years from the issuance of the CA Resolution to file a Petition before the Court. He ought to have been
sooner alerted of the unreasonably long time the CA was taking in resolving his appeal. His failure to
know or to find out the real status of his appeal rendered him undeserving of any sympathy from the Court
vis--vis the negligence of his former counsel.
MELVYN G. GARCIA VS. ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREO
A.C. No. 7973 and 10457, February 3, 2015
PER CURIAM
FACTS:
Atty. Sesbreo, pro bono counsel for Garcias daughters, filed a Second Amended Complaint against
him. Garcia then filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Sesbreo for continuing in practicing law
despite being convicted, and just on parole, for the crime of homicide, which is a crime against moral
turpitude. Atty. Sesbreo answered that the disqualification applies only during the term of sentence. He
further alleged that homicide does not involve moral turpitude.
ISSUE:
Whether conviction for the crime of homicide involves moral turpitude.

2016 Notes on Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.
Page 7 of 8

HELD:
YES. Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension
under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, but homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude
depending on the degree of the crime. It may be a question of fact. The Court then reviewed the Decision in
People v. Sesbreo and agreed that the circumstances show the presence of moral turpitude.
The Court also noted that the executive clemency granted to Atty. Sesbreo was not absolute and
unconditional and did not restore his full civil and political rights. His executive clemency only mentioned a
commutation, which is a mere reduction of penalty, only partially extinguishing his criminal liability. The
penalty for Sesbreo was never wiped out. It must be noted then that a violation of the high moral standards
of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty against a lawyer, which in this case,
is the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM!
#AMDG+
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Batangas City

LANI AND EULO

Thank you for the Unconditional Love, Inspiration and
Support
FOR WHEN WE ARE AT OUR WEAKEST
HE IS AT HIS STRONGEST!
LET GO AND LET GOD!

2016 Notes on Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.
Page 8 of 8