ENRIQUE M. REYES vs. ATTY. LEOPOLDO T.

MAGLAYA
[243 SCRA 214]
Topic: Canon 16

FACTS: Complainant and administrative complaint Atty. Leopoldo Maglaya. He

alleged the following:
1. That complainant endorsed to the respondent, all pertinent papers regarding
the anomalous and fraudulent actuations of one Angelica Offemaria an
alleged president and General Manager of the Bicol Veterans Handicrafts
Enterprises, Inc., in which complainant was defrauded of P31,863.30, for the
purpose of filing the necessary criminal action against said Angelica
Offemaria and for the recovery of the aforesaid amount.
2. That the respondent agreed to handle the case, and asked for the amount of
P1,500.00, as his fee.
3. That once having received the documents and the check for P1,500.00,
complainant has heard from respondent, although said complainant has
been calling said respondent almost daily, to inquire as to the status of the
case he has endorsed.
4. At the request of complainant, another letter was addressed to the
respondent demanding the return of the P1,500.00, within 5 days from
receipt thereof, but respondent failed to return the aforesaid amount up to
the present, although he received the letter of demand.
5. That, however, due to respondent's inaction in the case endorsed to him by
the complainant for a period of more than 4 months; his failure to return all
the documentary evidence entrusted to him, and his failure to return the
amount he received, the case against Offemaria has not yet been
commenced up to the present.
Respondent averred that at the time of the endorsement of said case,
complainant Reyes merely had xerox copies of his documents as the originals
were in the possession of one Agent Urmatan of the Criminal Investigation Service
("CIS") of the Philippine Constabulary where complainant first had his case
investigated.
Respondent Maglaya also stated that the amount of P1,500.00 which he received
from complainant, was not only for his fees but also for expenses incurred in
retrieving complainant's records from the CIS. Furthermore, respondent submitted
that "complainant has no cause of action, except the return of P1,500.00 which
respondent agreed to if only to show complainant that respondent cannot profit at
the former's expense despite time and money spent on his case.
In his Reply, complainant Reyes insisted that the amount of P1,500.00 was for
respondent's fee in the filing of the criminal action against Angelica Offemaria and
not for expenses in retrieving the records from the CIS. He also pointed out that
respondent was not candid with this Court when he alleged that he did not receive
the record or file of the complainant. As a matter of fact, his receipt of the
complete file of complainant against Angelica Offemaria from the PC-CIS is
evidenced by a receipt in respondent's own handwriting as early as 20 July 1979.
Thus, considering that respondent had with him the complete file of complainant
obtained by respondent from the PC-CIS as early as 20 July 1979, and yet had not
instituted the desired criminal action against said Angelica Offemaria more than 3
months later, complainant was impelled in a letter to demand from respondent
the return of the documents and the amount of P1,500.00. Hence, complainant
contended that such inaction was indicative of respondent's negligence in
handling the case of his client.

ISSUES: Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility?

RULINGS: Yes. The Court is in full accord with the findings and recommendation
of the IBP that respondent by his admissions has sufficiently demonstrated
conduct showing his unfitness for the confidence and trust which characterize the
attorney-client relationship. By his unexplained failure to return the amount of
P1,500.00 demanded by com-plainant-client receipt of which he had
acknowledged and which he had agreed to return at the earliest possible
opportunity, he failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer.
He has in particular disregarded Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of
his client when due or upon demand x x x. His inexcusable act of withholding
money belonging to his client warrants the imposition of disciplinary sanction.
The Court also finds that respondent has not exercised the diligence required of
lawyers in the handling of their clients cases. He failed to act upon complainants
case for a period of more than 3 months from the time the complete file of
complainant against Angelica Offemaria was endorsed to him by Atty. Abando of
the PC-CIS. To make matters worse, respondent failed to respond to complainants
inquiries regarding the status of his case, a duty which was incumbent upon him.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby SUSPENDS ATTY. LEOPOLDO T. MAGLAYA from the
practice of law for a period of 1 year from notice hereof, with a WARNING that a
repetition of the same or any other misconduct will be dealt with more severely.

FERNANDO MARTIN PENA vs. ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIO

[A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007]
Topic: Canon 19

FACTS:Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in

an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
against complainant Fernando Martin Pena. Hufana is praying for claim for
separation pay, but Pena rejected the claim as baseless.
Thereafter, Aparicio sent Pena a letter reiterating his client's claim for
separation pay. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should Pena
fail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger
amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple charges such as tax
evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of business license to
operate due to violations of laws.

ISSUE:WON Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.01) of the CPR, enjoining every
lawyer to represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law?

HELD: Yes. Under Canon 19, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any
unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client
designed to secure leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their
own cases against the lawyer's client.
Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding."
In the case at bar, the threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but
they also amount to blackmail. Blackmail is "the extortion of money from a person
by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in the public prints,obtaining
of value from a person as a condition of refraining from making an accusation
against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice." The
letter in this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even
contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant which have
nothing to do with his client's claim for separation pay. Indeed, letters of this
nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility.
It was not respondent's intention to point out complainant's violations of the law
as he so gallantly claims. Far from it, the letter even contains an implied promise
to "keep silent" about the said violations if payment of the claim is made on the
date indicated.
DECISION: While the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards, we hold
that disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed on respondent, considering
that he wrote the same out of his overzealousness to protect his client's interests.
Accordingly, the more appropriate penalty is reprimand.

YU VS. ATTY. PALAA, JULY 14, 2008

Topic: Suspension, Disbarment and Discipline of Lawyers

FACTS:
Mr. Mark Anthony U. Uy who introduced himself as the Division Manager of
Wealth Marketing and General Services Corporation engaged in spot currency
trading.
Mr. Uy persuaded the complainants to invest a minimum amount of
P100,000.00 or its dollar equivalent. Wealth Marketings promises were false
and fraudulent, and that the checks earlier issued were dishonored for the
reason account closed. It had already ceased its operation and a new
corporation was formed named Ur-Link Corporation which supposedly assumed
the rights and obligations of the former.
As Wealth Marketings Chairman of the Board of Directors, respondent
assured the complainants that Ur-Link would assume the obligations of the
former company. Respondent signed an Agreement to that effect which, again,
turned out to be another ploy to further deceive the investors.
complainants lodged a criminal complaint for syndicated estafa against the
respondent and his co-accused.
Despite the standing warrant for his arrest, respondent went into hiding and
has been successful in defying the law, to this date.
In an Order dated November 17, 2006, Director for Bar Discipline required
respondent to submit his Answer to the complaint but the latter failed to
comply. Respondent was thereafter declared in default and the case was heard
ex parte.
Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice
of law.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mr. Uy should be disbarred?

HELD:Yes. Lawyers as instruments in the administration of justice are expected to

maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. They may be disciplined whether in their professional or
in their private capacity for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty,
probity and good demeanor.
Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases
against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they
may proceed independently of criminal cases.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. x x x
Power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most
imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and
moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.
The Court notes that this is not the first time that respondent is facing an
administrative case, for he had been previously suspended from the practice of
law in Samala v. Palaa and Sps. Amador and Rosita Tejada v. Palaa. In Samala,
respondent also played an important role in a corporation known as First Imperial
Resources Incorporated, being its legal officer.
Respondent meted the penalty of suspension for 3 years with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
The fact that respondent went into hiding in order to avoid service upon him of
the warrant of arrest issued by the court (where his criminal case is pending)
exacerbates his offense.
Finally, we note that respondents case is further highlighted by his lack of regard
for the charges brought against him. His disobedience to the IBP is in reality a
gross, blatant and unpardonable disrespect of the Court. The contumacious
behaviour of respondent in the instant case which grossly degrades the legal
profession indeed warrants the imposition of a much graver penalty ---
disbarment.

DUMADAG VS. LUMAYA [334 SCRA 513]

Topic: REINSTATEMENT/READMISSION

On the basis of an administrative complaint for Unethical Practices, Conflict of

Interest and Disloyalty To Clients filed by complainant against respondent praying
that the corresponding disciplinary action be imposed on the latter.
The OSG submitted a Report finding respondent culpable for infidelity and
disloyalty to his client, negligence of duty, unethical practices and violation of his
lawyers oath. As penalty, the OSG recommended that after due hearing,
"respondent be suspended from the practice of law for not less than 5 years."
Thereafter, in a Resolution the Court found that respondent made a "clear breach
of the canons of professional responsibility" and suspended respondent
indefinitely from the practice of law. A "Petition For Reinvestigation and
Reconsideration," was subsequently denied by the Court per its Resolution.

The records show that respondent sent a letter stressing that he was not seeking
a reconsideration of the denial of his petition for reinvestigation, respondent
averred in sum that he was a "not very healthy" 62 year old who merely wanted
to know how long he would stay suspended and if he was disqualified to be issued
a commission as a notary public considering that his commission was not
renewed.
Respondent filed a Manifestation where he prayed that the Court issue a
resolution or decision on his averments that:
1. he has been suspended from the practice of law and denied a notarial
commission for more than 1 year already;
2. for lack of practicing lawyers and notaries public in the Municipality of Baganga,
Davao Oriental
3. more than 50% of the pending civil and criminal cases were cases handled by
the respondent and these cases are still pending resolution especially due to the
lack of lawyers in the municipality
4. there is no regular judge in Baganga after the retirement of Judge Verano and
many detained accused are in jail without hope for an early resolution of their
cases coupled with the fact that respondent is still under suspension and they
cannot hire "exorbitant" lawyers;
5. he has been advised to secure petitions to be signed by all Barangay Chairmen
in the 18 Barangays of the municipality, the 74 Chapters of the GKK, all NGOs,
other religious and civic organizations and to submit them to the Supreme Court
to request the Court to lift his indefinite suspension so that he may help those
who are actually helpless and so that he may be issued a notarial commission in
order to help those who need notarial assistance without fear of being charged
beyond their capacity to pay;
6. the filing of the Manifestation is for the purpose of requesting the Court to
provide him with advice as to whether the filing of a petition was necessary to lift
the order of his indefinite suspension as well as the issuance of a notarial
commission.
In a Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner recommended
the lifting of the indefinite suspension of respondent. The Board of Governors of
the IBP adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, respondent who turned 71 years old last
October 25, 1999, once again implores and at the same time chides the Court for
slumbering on acting upon the IBP Resolution to lift his indefinite suspension,
although he still insists on his innocence.
The insolence of respondents remonstrations that the Court has been sleeping on
its job in acting upon his case not only underscores his callous disregard of the
myriad administrative and judicial travails the Court has to contend with as the
Tribunal of Last Resort, among them, the chronic problem of an overflowing
docket of which his case is but one additional aggravation; it also betrays his
absolute lack of appreciation and disrespect for the efforts and measures
undertaken by the Court to cope with these concerns. Needless to state, such
presumptuousness is only too deserving of rebuke.

ISSUES: Whether or not the Court is bound by the findings of the IBP in the
decision of lifting respondents indefinite suspension?

RULING: No. Respondent must know that the Court is neither bound by the
findings of the IBP nor, much less, obliged to accept the same as a matter of
course because as the Tribunal which has the final say on the proper sanctions to
be imposed on errant members of both bench and bar, the Court has the
prerogative of making its own findings and rendering judgment on the basis
thereof rather than that of the IBP, OSG, or any lower court to whom an
administrative complaint has been referred to for investigation and report.
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid
standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and
faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions
required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the
privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession,
has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline its
members is not only a right but a bounden duty as well x x x That is why respect
and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members.

ABRAHAM L. RAMIREZ vs. HON. ANTONIA CORPUZ-MACANDOG

A.M. No. R-351-RTJ September 26, 1986
Topic: JUDICIAL ETHICS - Independence

FACTS: A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed by Deputy Sheriff Abraham
L. Ramirez of the RTC of Caloocan City to secure his release from the Caloocan
City jail. Ramirez was ordered arrested by respondent judge for direct contempt
of court consisting in his alleged disobedience to the writ of preliminary injunction
enjoining him from demolishing the improvements of the intervenors in said case.
Deputy Sheriff Ramirez had previously been directed by Judge Socorro Tirona-
Liwag of the same court in an order to demolish the improvements of the
defendants in Civil Cases Nos. C-7380, C-7361, C-7362, C-7363, C-7364, C-7839,
C-7841 and C-7842. Said defendants are the intervenors in Civil Case No. 8682 on
whose motion respondent judge issued the preliminary injunction.
The immediate execution of the order of arrest was effected thru a handwritten
note of respondent judge addressed to then superintendent of the Northern Police
District, Brig. Gen. Alfredo Lim. Upon orders of the Court, however, Deputy Sheriff
Ramirez was released from jail. Thereafter, the court resolved to treat the petition
as an administrative case and to require respondent judge to comment thereon.
Respondent judge denied having acted arbitrarily or capriciously in causing the
arrest of Ramirez. She justified the arrest as a means of preserving substantial
justice so that any decision rendered in Civil Case No. 8682 may not be rendered
moot and academic and as a curative measure to preserve the greater interest of
social justice. The handwritten note, on the other hand, was explained as a means
to preserve the integrity of courts of justice in the enforcement of valid and lawful
orders. She added that the writ of preliminary injunction was issued by her in the
exercise of her original jurisdiction, while the Order was issued by Judge Liwag in
the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which the latter should not have done as she
should have remanded the case to the court of origin for execution.

ISSUES: Whether or not the decisions rendered by respondent Judge

Macandog showed her to be mentally and morally unfit to remain in her office?

RULINGS: Yes. Judges are required to observe due care in the performance
of their official duties. They are likewise charged with the knowledge of internal
rules and procedures, especially those which relate to the scope of their authority.
They are dutybound to observe and abide by these rules and procedures,
designed, as they are, primarily to ensure the orderly administration of justice.
Thus, confronted with a serious challenge to one's authority, an ordinary prudent
man would perceive the reasonableness, if not the wisdom, of the
suggestion/request that the question at hand be referred to this Court.
The hasty and reckless attitude of respondent judge in taking cognizance of and
deciding Civil Case No. 12172 despite the strong objection against her authority
and the reasonable request for referral of the question to this Court, constitutes
misconduct in office warranting disciplinary sanction.
Anent respondent's averment that she was granted authority by the Court to take
cognizance of all kinds of cases in Branch CXXI, suffice it to say that the same was
revoked by the implementation of the Judiciary Reorganization Act on January 17,
1983.
Respondent Judge Macandog has shown herself to be mentally and morally unfit
to remain in her office. Her removal must perforce be effected.
In view of the disclosure by respondent that the decision in Civil Case No. C-9831
was rendered under undue pressure and influence, the party aggrieved thereby
may take such remedial steps as may be warranted.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Antonia Corpuz-Macandog is hereby ordered
dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and pay, and
with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the government or any of its
agencies or instrumentalities.

FRANCISCO CHAVEZ vs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY

403 SCRA 1; May 6, 2003
Topic: JUDICIAL ETHICS - Impartiality

FACTS: In July 2002, Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation lost a case
(PEA-Amari Scandal) before the Supreme Court involving certain reclaimed lands.
Upon receipt of the adverse decision, Amari filed a Motion for Inhibition asking the
ponente of said case, Justice Antonio Carpio, to inhibit from the case on the
ground that before Justice Carpio was appointed to the Supreme Court, he wrote a
column in the Manila Times newspaper where he questioned the legality of the
agreement between the Public Estates Authority and Amari regarding the said
reclaimed property (PEA-Amari deal). Amari insists that Justice Carpio already
prejudged the issue as his bias and prejudice were already apparent. Amari also
prays for a re-deliberation after Justice Carpio inhibits.

ISSUE: Whether or not Justice Carpio should inhibit from the case by reason of the
said Manila Times column.

HELD: No. In the first place, the decision was already promulgated when Amari
filed its motion requesting Justice Carpio to inhibit. The rule is that a motion to
inhibit must be denied if filed after a member of the Court had already given an
opinion on the merits of the case. Reason: a litigant cannot be permitted to
speculate upon the action of the Court (only to) raise an objection of this sort after
a decision has been rendered.

Second, judges and justices are not disqualified from participating in a case just
because they have written legal articles on the law involved in the case.

Third, looking at Justice Carpios Manila Times article, his article questioned the
legality of the PEA Amari deal on the basis of the lack of public bidding. In this
particular case before the Supreme Court, the issue of the absence of public
bidding was not raised by any of the parties involved hence, Justice Carpios write
up had nothing to do with the very merits of the case.