MAKING LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE
We have a clear case of an attorney whose acts exhibit
People vs. Estebia
27 SCRA 106 (1969)
FACTS:
Atty Lope E. Adriano, a member of the Bar, was
appointed by the Supreme Court as Estebia's (convicted
of rape and sentenced to suffer capital punishment)
counsel de oficio.
In the notice of his appointment, Adriano was required
to prepare and file his brief for the appeal within thirty
days from notice. He was advised that to enable him to
examine the case, the record would be at his disposal.
Adriano filed a motion for extension FIVE TIMES, all
granted by the court. Yet no brief had been filed until the
last deadline.
Adriano was ordered to show cause within ten days as to
why disciplinary action should not be taken against him
for failure to file appellant's brief despite the lapse of the
time. Adriano did not bother to give any explanation.
For failing to comply with the, Supreme Court, , resolved
to impose upon him a fine of P500 within fifteen days
from notice with a warning that upon further non-
compliance with the said resolution (filing the brief)
within the same period of fifteen days, "more drastic
disciplinary action will be taken against him." Still,
counsel paid no heed.
Finally, the SC ordered Adriano to show cause within ten
days from notice thereof why he should not be
suspended from the practice of law "for gross
misconduct and violation of his oath of office as
attorney." By express order of the SC, the resolution was
personally served upon him. He ignored the resolution.
ISSUE:
WON Adrianos acts warrants suspension?
RULING:
Attorney Lope E. Adriano was suspended from the
practice of law throughout the Philippines for a period of
one (1) year.
RATIONALE:
willful disobedience of lawful orders of this Court. A
cause sufficient is thus present for suspension or
disbarment.
The counsel's pattern of conduct, it would seem, reveals
a propensity on the part of counsel to benumb
appreciation of his obligation as counsel de oficio and of
the courtesy and respect that should be accorded this
Court.
By specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney
to render professional aid to a destitute appellant in a
criminal case who is unable to employ an attorney.
Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so
assigned "to render the required service."
A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an indigent
prisoner", our Canons of Professional Ethics demand,
"should always exert his best efforts" in the indigent's
behalf.
A lawyer who is a vanguard in the bastion of justice is
expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and
a little less of self interest. Because of this, a lawyer
should remain ever conscious of his duties to the
indigent he defends.
An attorney's duty of prime importance is "[t]o observe
1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP
and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers.
The first Canon of the Code of Ethics enjoins a lawyer "to
maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, not
for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial
office, but for the maintenance of its supreme
importance." By the oath of office, the lawyer undertook
to "obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities."
People vs. Rosqueta
55 SCRA 486 (1974)
FACTS:
Rosqueta Jr. and two others were convicted of a crime.
They appeal their conviction until it reached the
Supreme Court.
Their lawyer (counsel de parte), Atty. Gregorio Estacio,
failed to file their brief for the appeal. And so the
Supreme Court ordered Atty. Estacio to show cause why
he should not be disciplined for failure to file said brief.
Atty. Estacio failed yet again to submit his explanation.
The Supreme Court then suspended him from the
practice of law except for the purpose of filing the Brief
in this particular case.
Atty. Estacio then filed a Motion for Reconsideration
where he explained that he did actually prepare an
explanation the same being left with Rosqueta Sr (father
of accused) for the latter to mail it.
But then Rosqueta Sr.s house burned down together
with the explanation. He only came to know of this fact
when he was preparing for the Motion for
Reconsideration.
appellants or from their near relatives the amount
necessary to pursue the appeal, that does not necessarily
conclude his connection with the case. It has been a
commendable practice of some members of the bar
under such circumstances, to be designated as counsel
de oficio. That way the interest of justice is best served.
Appellants will then continue to receive the benefits of
advocacy from one who is familiar with the facts of the
case. What is more, there is no undue delay in the
administration of justice. Lawyers of such category are
entitled to commendation.
What has earned a reprimand however is his
irresponsibility. He should be aware that in the
pursuance of the duty owed this Court as well as to a
client, he cannot be too casual and unconcerned about
the filing of pleadings. It is not enough that he prepares
them; he must see to it that they are duly mailed. Such
inattention as shown in this case is inexcusable. At any
rate, the suspension meted on him under the
circumstances is more than justified.
It seems, however, that well-nigh five months had
elapsed. That would suffice to atone for his misdeed.

Atty. Estacio also explained that his clients are

withdrawing their appeal by reason of their failure to

1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP

raise the needed fund for the appeal, as shown through
their affidavits.

ISSUE:

WON Estacios acts warrants suspension

RULING:

YES. However, his liability is MITIGATED due to the

circumstances.

The suspension of Atty. Gregorio B. Estacio is lifted. The

requirement to file the brief is dispensed with but Atty.
Gregorio B. Estacio is censured for negligence and
inattention to duty.

RATIONALE:

Respondent should be aware that even in those cases

where counsel de parte is unable to secure from
Hilado vs. David
84 Phil 569 (1949)

*IMPORTANT CASE
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Was there an attorney-client relationship between
Hilado brought against Assad to annul the sales of several Francisco and Hilado? If so, was there a breach?
houses and corresponding lots which were executed
during the Japanese occupation. These sales were RULING:
executed by Hilados late husband, allegedly without her
knowledge. YES.

Counsel for Hilado: Delgado, Dizon, Flores, Rodrigo. RATIONALE:

Counsel for Assad: Ohnic, Velilla and Balonkita, they
were replaced by Francisco. (in case youre wondering
David is the judge who tried the case)
Dizon in the name of his firm, wrote to Francisco, urging
him to cease representing Assad on the ground that
HILADO had consulted with FRANCISCO regarding her
case. It was alleged that she turned over papers to
Francisco and that he sent her a written opinion. When
they did not receive an answer to this suggestion,
counsel for Hilado filed a motion in court to disqualify
Francisco from representing Assad.
The letter to Hilado from Francisco was presented as
evidence. In the letter Francisco described the basic facts
which brought about the controversy, gave his opinion
1st Doctrine:
Mere consultation with a lawyer in his professional
capacity is sufficient to establish attorney-client
relationship.
Formality is not an essential element of the employment
of an attorney. The contract may be express or implied
and it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of the
attorney is sought and received, in matters pertinent to
his profession. An acceptance of the relation is implied
on the part of the attorney from his acting in behalf of his
client in pursuance of a request by the latter.
2nd Doctrine:

1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP

that the action would not prosper because of the Mere fact of a previous attorney-client relationship is
circumstances (title was already transferred, price was enough to prohibit the subsequent retainer.
not grossly inadequate, the allegation that Assad is not
the real purchaser is difficult to prove and that Mr Hilado A lawyer cannot represent a client who is adverse to his
is dead) previous client involved in the same case or subject
matter.
He therefore declined to appear as counsel and returned
the records. The letter was dated July 13, 1945. Francisco 3rd Doctrine:
alleges that in May 1945, a real estate broker, came to
his office to approach him about representing a Syrian Confidentiality exists during and after the attorney-client
national embroiled in real estate case (Assad). He alleges relationship.
that he accepted this case and that it was only a month
later that Hilado appeared and brought her case to him.
It was however only in 1946 that Assad formally
requested him to handle the case because Assads
American lawyer had gone to the states.

Judge David dismissed the case to disqualify Hidalgo as

counsel for Assad because the interchange between
Francisco and Hilado had not created an attorney-client
relation.
APPLICABILITY OF CODE TO GOVERNMENT LAWYERS five days from notice. This Solicitor General is hereby
ordered to investigate the conduct of Attorney Alberto
Macoco vs. Diaz Suguitan and file later the corresponding report.
70 Phil 97 (1940)

NO NEED FOR DIGEST. SHORT CASE.

A complaint for malpractice filed by one Marcelino

Macoco against Esteban B. Diaz, attorney-at-law, with
license to practice in Philippine courts.

In order to redeem a property belonging to his wife's

father, which had been levied upon sold at public
auction, complainant Marcelino Macoco deposited with
the provincial sheriff of Ilocos Norte the sum of P380. As
no redemption could be done, the money was returned
by the sheriff to one Alberto Suguitan, then counsel for
Marcelino Macoco. Suguitan used the money according
to himself and failed to turn it over to Macoco;
whereupon, the latter entrusted its collection to
respondent herein, Esteban B. Diaz. It appears that Diaz
succeeded in collecting P300 from Suguitan, but he also
misappropriated this amount.

Respondent admitted the misappropriation. He averred,

however, that he had an agreement with Macoco for the
payment of the money by him misappropriated; that
when this agreement failed, he again entered into a
similar arrangement with Hermenegildo Galapia, Lope
Ragragola and Pedro Ragragola, who, as he attempted to
prove, were the persons to whom the sum of P300 was

1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP

really due, Macoco being merely a trustee thereof; and
that in pursuance of this arrangement whereby he would
pay the sum of P300, deducting therefrom 20 per cent
for his attorney's fees, he had already made partial
payments to said persons. Macoco, however, and Lope
Ragragola denied this agreement.

Whatever might have been the agreement and with

whomsoever respondent might have entered it into, the
undeniable fact remains that he misappropriated the
money in breach of trust. This makes him unfit for the
office of an attorney-at-law. And his being a deputy fiscal
and not law practitioner at the time of the
misappropriation, far from mitigating his guilt,
aggravates it. Want of moral integrity is to be more
severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible
public office.

Wherefore, respondent Esteban B. Diaz is hereby

disbarred from the practice of law, and is hereby ordered
to surrender his certificate to the clerk of court within
Pimentel vs. Llorente and Salayon
339 SCRA 154 (2000)
FACTS:
Attys. Antonio Llorente and Ligaya Salayon were election
officers of the COMELEC and held the position of
Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively for the Pasig
City Board of Candidates. The respondents helped
conduct and oversee the 1995 elections.
Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. alleged
that the respondents tampered with the votes received
by them by either adding more votes (example; Votes for
Sen. Enrile) for particular candidates in their Statement
of Votes (SoV) or reducing the number of votes of
particular candidates in their SoV.
Pimentel filed an administrative complaint for their
disbarment.
The IBP recommends the dismissal of petitioner's
complaint on the basis of the following: (1) respondents
had no involvement in the tabulation of the election
returns, because when the Statements of Votes (SoVs)
were given to them, such had already been accomplished
and only needed their respective signatures; (2) the
canvassing was done in the presence of watchers,
representatives of the political parties, the media, and
the general public so that respondents would not have
risked the commission of any irregularity; and (3) the acts
dealt with in R.A. No. 6646, 27(b) are mala in se and not
mala prohibita, and petitioner failed to establish criminal
intent on the part of respondents
Respondents argued that the discrepancies were due to
honest mistake, oversight and fatigue.
Respondents also argued that the IBP Board of
Governors had already exonerated them from any
offense and that the motion for reconsideration filed by
Pimentel was not filed in time.
ISSUE:
WON the acts of Llorente and Salayon warrant sanctions
RULING:
YES. the Court finds respondents Antonio M. Llorente
and Ligaya P. Salayon GUILTY of misconduct and imposes
on each of them a FINE in the amount of P10,000.00 with
a WARNING that commission of similar acts will be dealt
with more severely.
In this case, respondents do not dispute the fact that
massive irregularities attended the canvassing of the
Pasig City election returns. The only explanation they
could offer for such irregularities is that the same could
be due to honest mistake, human error, and/or fatigue
on the part of the members of the canvassing
committees who prepared the SoVs.
The sheer magnitude of the error, not only in the total
number of votes garnered by the aforementioned
candidates as reflected in the CoC and the SoVs, which
did not tally with that reflected in the election returns,
but also in the total number of votes credited for
senatorial candidate Enrile which exceeded the total
number of voters who actually voted in those precincts
during the May 8, 1995 elections, renders the defense of
honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue, as incredible
and simply unacceptable
Despite the fact that these discrepancies, especially the
double recording of the returns 22 precincts and the
variation in the tabulation of votes as reflected in the
SoVs and CoC, were apparent on the face of these
documents and that the variation involves substantial
number of votes, respondents nevertheless CERTIFIED
the SoVs as true and correct. Their acts constitute
misconduct.
1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP
RATIONALE:
Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in
question, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01
of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not
engage in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct." By express provision of Canon 6, this is made
applicable to lawyers in the government service. In
addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as
lawyers to "do no falsehood."
It may be added that, as lawyers in the government
service, respondents were under greater obligation to
observe this basic tenet of the profession because a
public office is a public trust.
Trieste vs. Sandiganbayan
145 SCRA 508 (1986)
FACTS:
Trieste was the mayor of Numancia, Aklan. In 1980,
during his term, the Municipality of Numancia purchased
construction materials from Trigen Agro-Industrial
Development Corporation. Trieste was allegedly the
president of said corporation. Trieste was then sued for
allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act particularly for willfully and unlawfully having
financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or
transaction in connection with which said accused
intervened or took part in his official capacity and in
which he is prohibited by law from having any interest.
issues and the evidence and the law involved, the Court
takes a similar view that the affirmance of the decision
appealed from cannot be rightfully sustained.
The conscientious study and thorough analysis made by
the Office of the Solicitor General in this case truly reflects
its consciousness of its role as the People's Advocate in
the administration of justice to the end that the innocent
be equally defended and set free just as it has the task of
having the guilty punished.
This Court will do no less and, therefore, accepts the
submitted recommendation that the decision and
resolution in question of the respondent Sandiganbayan
be reversed and that as a matter of justice, the herein
petitioner be entitled to a judgment of acquittal.

Trieste, in defense, said that he already divested his

interest from the corporation when he took his office as Prosecutor Must Recommend Dismissal of Case If There
mayor; that he sold his shares to his sister; he presented is No Ground To Sustain It
evidence to that effect. The Solicitor General doubted
said sale because it was not registered in the Securities
and Exchange Commission. Further, the advertisement
of Trigen in the local rotary club shows that Trieste is the
president of the corporation.

In time, the old Sol-Gen was replaced by a new one. The

new Sol-Gen gave credit to the arguments presented by
Trieste as it recommended the dismissal of the case on
the ground that Trieste did divest his interest from the
corporation by virtue of his selling his shares to his sister;

1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP

that said sale cannot be doubted simply because it was
not reported to the SEC; that sales of stocks are not
required to be reported in the SEC.

ISSUE:

WON Trieste is guity of graft and corruption?

(In relation to Legal Ethics, the SCs decision mentions of

the responsibility of prosecutors)

RULING:

No. No evidence as found and recommended by the

SolGEn (SOLGEN=PROSECUTOR)

In relation to legal ethics:

Considering the correct facts now brought to the

attention of this Court by the Solicitor General and in
view of the reassessment made by that Office of the
People vs. Madera
57 SCRA 349

FACTS:

In April 1970, while Elino Bana was sleeping in his house,

he was shot by Raymundo Madera. Behind Madera were
Marianito Andres and Generoso Andres. Elino Bana died
before he could be brought to the hospital but he made
a dying statement wherein he positively identified
Madera as his shooter. Two of Banas sons who were at
the house when the shooting happened identified
Madera as the shooter as well as the two behind him.
The trial court convicted the three for murder.

Madera, Andres and Andres were convicted of murder,

thus they appealed.

They appealed. Then Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza

recommended the conviction of Madera but also
recommended the acquittal of Marianito and Generoso.

ISSUE:

WON Conviction was correct

RULING:

Correct in the case of Madera, not in the case of the two

Andreses, who shall be acquitted due to insufficiency of
evidence.

1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP

In relation to legal ethics:

PART OF THE RULING:

This is good a time as any to emphasize upon those in

charge of the prosecution of criminal cases that the
prosecutor's finest hour is not when he wins a case with
the conviction of the accused. His finest hour is still
when, overcoming the advocate's natural obsession for
victory, he stands up before the Court and pleads not for
the conviction of the accused but for his acquittal. For
indeed, his noble task is to prosecute only the guilty and
to protect the innocent. We, therefore, commend
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor
Dominador L. Quiroz and Solicitor Sinfronio I. Ancheta for
having correctly recommended the acquittal of the
appellants Marianito Andres and Generoso Andres.
Dimatulac vs. Judge Villon
297 SCRA 679 (1998)
On or about November 2, 2005 all the accused under the
leadership of Mayor Santiago Yabut went to the house
of PO3 Virgilio Dimatulac. Some of the accused
positioned themselves around the house while the
others stood by the truck and the mayor stayed in the
truck with the body guard. Accused Billy YAbut, Kati
Yabut & Francisco Yambao went inside the house
strongly suggested to go down to see themayor outside
and ask for sorry. As Dimatulac went down to the house
and he was shot to kill as a consequence he died.
The accused were charged with murder.
Judge David, finding probable cause, issued a warrant of
arrest without bail.
The accused were ordered to file their counter affidavit
against the complaint.
Only one of the accused filed a counter affidavit.
The case was forwarded to the Provincial Prosecutor of
Pampanga for further action.
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Sylvia Alfonso-Flores
conducted a reinvestigation. It was not clear whether the
reinvestigation was done motu propio or by the request
of the respondent.
Alfonso-Flores then recommended that the crime
committed, by the YABUTS (mayor and relatives) was
Homicide instead of murder contending that some of the
elements of murder were not present and recommended
for the accused to BAIL. (even if they were not even
arrested yet, despite a standing warrant) and the case
against the other defendants be dismissed.
The complainants filed an appeal against the resolution
of Alfonso Flores in the DOJ, based on the ground that
the evidences were not fairly appreciated.
Despite the appeal, The Provincial Prosecutor and
Alfonso-Flores proceeded to file an information of
homicide against the accused.
Judge Roura, handling the case, hastily scheduled the
arraignment and approved the cash bonds of the
YABUTs, each in the amount of P20,000.00, and recalled
the warrants for their arrest.
The complaints filed a motion to defer the proceedings
and that a pending appeal is filed with the DOJ.
Judge Roura did not take heed of the motions of the
complainants.
Petitioners filed a motion to inhibit Judge Roura from
hearing the case on the ground that he: (a) hastily set the
case for arraignment while the former's appeal in the
DOJ was still pending evaluation; and (b) prejudged the
matter, having remarked in open court that there was
"nothing in the records of the case that would qualify the
case into Murder.
Eventually Judge Roura voluntarily inhibited thus the
case was transferred to the RTC presided over by herein
public respondent Judge Sesinando Villon, who hastily
scheduled another arraignment, despite pending appeal
and a CA resolution to defer proceedings.
The complainants again filed an Urgent Motion to Set
Aside Arraignment, citing the resolution of the Court of
Appeals which, inter alia, deferred resolution on the
application for a temporary restraining order "until after
the required comment is submitted by the respondent;"
stressed that the filing of the information for the lesser
offense of homicide was "clearly unjust and contrary to
law in view of the unquestionable attendance of
circumstances qualifying the killing to murder;" and
asserted that a number of Supreme Court decisions
supported suspension of the proceedings in view of the
1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP
pendency of their appeal before the DOJ.
Eventually, the Secretary Teofisto Guingona of the DOJ
resolved the appeal in favor of petitioners. Secretary
Guingona ruled that treachery was present and directed
the Provincial Prosecutor of San Fernando, Pampanga
"to amend the information filed against the accused
from homicide to murder.
Despite all appeals by the complainant, Judge Villalon
proceeded contending that the Yabuts deserve a speedy
trial.
ISSUE:
WON the judicial authorities namely the Prosecutor of
Pampanga and Judge Villon acted arbitrarily
RULING:
YES. The proceedings were replete with procedural
irregularities which lead us to conclude that something
had gone awry in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
of Pampanga resulting in manifest advantage to the
accused, more particularly the YABUTs, and grave
prejudice to the State and to private complainants,
herein petitioners.
Indubitably, there was on the part of the public
prosecution, indecent haste in the filing of the
information for homicide, depriving the State and the
offended parties of due process.
All the foregoing demanded from any impartial mind,
especially that of Judge Villon, a cautious attitude as
these were unmistakable indicia of the probability of a
miscarriage of justice should arraignment be
precipitately held. However, Judge Villon cursorily
ignored all this. While it may be true that he was not
bound to await the DOJ's resolution of the appeal, as he
had, procedurally speaking, complete control over the
case and any disposition thereof rested on his sound
discretion, his judicial instinct should have led him to
peruse the documents submitted and to initially
determine, for his own enlightenment with serving the
ends of justice as the ultimate goal, if indeed murder was
the offense committed; or, he could have directed the
private prosecutor to secure a resolution on the appeal
within a specified time. Given the totality of
circumstances, Judge Villon should have heeded our
statement in Marcelo that prudence, if not wisdom, or
at least, respect for the authority of the prosecution
agency, dictated that he should have waited for the
resolution of the appeal then pending before the DOJ. All
told, Judge Villon should not have merely acquiesced to
the findings of the public prosecutor.
Up to the level then of Judge Villon, two pillars of the
criminal justice system failed in this case to function in a
manner consistent with the principle of accountability
inherent in the public trust character of a public office.
Judges Roura and Villon and prosecutors Alfonso-Flores
and Datu need be reminded that it is in the public
interest that every crime should be punished and judges
and prosecutors play a crucial role in this regard for theirs
is the delicate duty to see justice done, i.e., not to allow
the guilty to escape nor the innocent to suffer.
Prosecutors must never forget that, in the language of
Suarez v. Platon, they are the representatives not of an
ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty
whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling
as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest,
therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall
win every case but that justice be done. As such, they
are in a peculiar and every definite sense the servants
of the law, whose two-fold aim is that guilt shall not
escape or innocence suffer.
Prosecutors are charged with the defense of the
community aggrieved by a crime, and are expected to
prosecute the public action with such zeal and vigor as if
they were the ones personally aggrieved, but at all times
cautious that they refrain from improper methods
designed to secure a wrongful conviction. With them lies
the duty to lay before the court the pertinent facts at the
judge's disposal with strict attention to punctilios,
thereby clarifying contradictions and sealing all gaps in
the evidence, with a view to erasing all doubt from the
court's mind as to the accused's innocence or guilt.
The judge, on the other hand, "should always be
imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in
the discharge of his obligation to promptly and properly
administer justice." He must view himself as a priest,
for the administration of justice is akin to a religious
crusade. Thus, exerting the same devotion as a priest
"in the performance of the most sacred ceremonies of
religious liturgy," the judge must render service with
impartiality commensurate with the public trust and
confidence reposed in him. Although the determination
1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP
of a criminal case before a judge lies within his exclusive
jurisdiction and competence, his discretion is not
unfettered, but rather must be exercised within
reasonable confines. The judge's action must not impair
the substantial rights of the accused, nor the right of the
State and offended party to due process of law.
Indeed, for justice to prevail, the scales must balance;
justice is not to be dispensed for the accused alone. The
interests of society and the offended parties which have
been wronged must be equally considered. Verily, a
verdict of conviction is not necessarily a denial of justice;
and an acquittal is not necessarily a triumph of justice,
for, to the society offended and the party wronged, it
could also mean injustice. Justice then must be rendered
even-handedly to both the accused, on one hand, and
the State and offended party, on the other.
People vs. Pineda
20 SCRA 748 (1967)
FACTS:
Respondents Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo and Rufino
Borres stand indicted before the Court of First Instance
of Lanao del Norte, as principals, in five (5) separate
cases, four for murder.
The five informations were planted upon facts gathered
by the prosecuting attorney (THE FISCAL) from his
investigation. Of course, the truth of these facts is yet to
be tested in the crucible of a full-dress trial on the merits.
On the night of July 29, 1965, the occupants of the home
of the spouses Teofilo Mendoza and Valeriana Bontilao
de Mendoza in Pugaan City of Iligan, were asleep. It was
then that guns (rifle, caliber 22) and paliuntod
(homemade gun) were fired in rapid succession from
outside the house. Teofilo Mendoza fell dead.
Thereafter, defendants below destroyed the door of the
house, entered therein, and let loose several shots killing
Neceforo Mendoza, all minor children of the couple
and wounding Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza.
Two of the three defendants in the five criminal cases
heretofore listed Tomas Narbasa and Tambak Alindo
moved for a consolidation thereof "into one (1)
criminal case." Their plea is that "said cases arose out of
the same incident and motivated by one impulse."
Giving the nod to defendants' claim, respondent Judge,
directed the City Fiscal to unify all the five criminal
cases, and to file one single information. He also
ordered that the other four cases, "be dropped from the
docket."
The City Fiscal balked at the foregoing order, sought
reconsideration thereof, upon the ground that "more
than one gun was used, more than one shot was fired
and more than one victim was killed.
Respondent Judge denied the motion to reconsider. He
took the position that the acts complained of "stemmed
out of a series of continuing acts on the part of the
accused, not by different and separate sets of shots,
moved by one impulse and should therefore be treated
as one crime though the series of shots killed more than
one victim;" and that only one information for multiple
murder should be filed, to obviate the necessity of trying
five cases instead of one.
ISSUE:
Should there be one information, either for the complex
crime of murder and frustrated murder or for the
complex crime of robbery with multiple homicide and
frustrated homicide? Or, should the five indictments
remain as they are?
YES. But what is more relevant to legal ethics in this case
is that:
The impact of respondent Judge's orders is that his
judgment is to be substituted for that of the prosecutor's
on the matter of what crime is to be filed in court. The
question of instituting a criminal charge is one
addressed to the sound discretion of the investigating
Fiscal. The information he lodges in court must have to
be supported by facts brought about by an inquiry made
by him. It stands to reason then to say that in a clash of
views between the judge who did not investigate and the
fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the offended
party or the defendant, those of the Fiscal's should
normally prevail. In this regard, he cannot ordinarily be
subject to dictation. We are not to be understood as
saying that criminal prosecution may not be blocked in
exceptional cases. A relief in equity "may be availed of to
stop it purported enforcement of a criminal law where it
is necessary (a) for the orderly administration of justice;
(b) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an
oppressive and vindictive manner; (c) to avoid
multiplicity of actions; (d) to afford adequate protection
1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP
to constitutional rights; and (e) in proper cases, because
the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or was 'held
invalid.' Nothing in the record would as much as intimate
that the present case fits into any of the situations just
recited.
Tan Jr. vs. Gallardo
73 SCRA 306 (1976)
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor
General Alicia Simpio-Diy and Solicitor Eduardo L. Kilayko
for respondents.Estanisloo A. Fernandez and Dakila F.
Castro &Associate as private prosecutors.- petitioners
seek the annulment of respondent Judge's Orders in the
Criminal Case People of the Philippines v Jorge Tan, Jr,
Cesar Tan, Teofanis Bondoc, Osmundo Tolentino,
Mariano Bartido and Librado Sode for frustrated murder
and Double Murder of the son and uncle of Mayor
InigoLarazzabal.
Judge Pedro Gallardo made the two life sentences to
death penalty allegedly after meeting with Mayor
Larazzabal and receipt of other paraphernalia such as
whisky and wine according to the court stenographer.
SolGen, on behalf of the People of the Philippines,
submitted his Comment to the petition. They are
"persuaded that there are bases for stating that the
rendition of respondent Judge's decision and his
resolution on the motion for new trial were not free from
suspicion of bias and prejudice therefore, they
interpose no objection to the remand of the
aforementioned criminal cases" for the rendition of a
new decision by another trial judge."-
Private prosecutors submitted their Comment in
justification of the challenged Orders of the respondent
Judge and objected to the remand of this case.- Feb 12,
1976, the petitioners moved to strike out the "Motion to
Admit Attacked Comment" and the "Comment" of the
private prosecutor on the ground that the latter has
"absolutely no standing in the instant proceedings
before this Honorable Court and, hence, without any
personality to have any paper of his entertained by this
Tribunal
Private prosecutors now contend that they are entitled
to appear before this Court, to take part in the
proceedings, and to adapt a position in contravention to
that of the Solicitor General.
ISSUE:
WON private prosecutors have the right to intervene
independently of the Solicitor General and to adopt a
stand inconsistent with that of the latter
RULING
NO
Ratio
Private prosecutors cannot intervene
independently of and take a position inconsisten twith
that of the Solicitor General.
Reasoning
Participation of the private prosecution in the
instant case was delimited by this Court in its Resolution
of October 1, 1975, thus: "to collaborate with the
Solicitor General in the preparation of the Answer and
pleadings that may be required by this Court." To
collaborate means to cooperate with and to assist the
Solicitor General. It was never intended that the private
prosecutors could adopt a standing dependent of or in
contravention of the position taken by the Solicitor
General
Since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereignty
of the State, it is but natural that the representatives of
the State should direct and control the prosecution.
CITED:
Suarez v Platon:
The prosecuting officer "'is the representative not
1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP
of, an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
sovereignty whose obligation
to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation
to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a
criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but
that justice shall he done. As such, he is in a peculiar and
very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold
aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence
suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-
indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard
blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much
his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to
produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every
legitimate means to bring about a just one."
People v Esquivel:
That there is an absolute necessity for prosecuting
attorneys to lay "before the court the pertinent facts at
their disposal
withmethodical and meticulous attention, clarifyingcont
radictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in their
evidence, to the end that the court's mind may not
be tortured by doubts, that the
innocentmay not suffer and the guilty not escapeunpuni
shed. Obvious to all, this is theprosecution's prime duty
to the court, to the accused, and to the state."- It is for
the purpose of realizing the aforementioned objectives
that the prosecution of offenses is placed under the
direction and control of the supervising officer.

It is evident that the Solicitor General alone is

authorized to represent the State or the People of the
Philippines , the interest of the private prosecutors is
therefore subordinate to that of the State and they
cannot be allowed to take a stand inconsistent with
that of the Solicitor General, for that would
be tantamount to giving the latter the direction and
control of the criminal proceedings, contrary to the
provisions of law and the settled rules on the matter.

1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP

PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan and Mendoza
(2005)
Matter is defined as any discrete, isolatable act as well
as identifiable transaction or conduct involving a
particular situation and specific party, and not merely an
act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or
agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing
abstract principles of law. The act of advising the Central
Bank, on how to proceed with the said banks liquidation
and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI
of Manila is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
FACTS:
On July 17, 1987, pursuant to its mandate under
Executive Order No. 1 of then President Corazon C.
Aquino, the PCGG, on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines, filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for
reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and
damages against respondents Lucio Tan, then President
Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos and others
referred to as dummies of the Marcoses. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 0005 of the Sandiganbayan
(Second Division).
In connection therewith, the PCGG issued several writs
of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the
above-named persons by means of taking advantage of
their close relationship and influence with former
President Marcos. Shortly thereafter, respondents Tan,
et al. filed with this Court petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and injunction seeking to, among others,
nullify the writs of sequestration issued by the PCGG.
After the filing of the comments thereon, this Court
referred the cases to the Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division)
for proper disposition.
In all these cases, respondents Tan, et al. are represented
by their counsel Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, who served as
the Solicitor General from 1972 to 1986 during the
administration of former President Marcos. The PCGG
opined that Atty. Mendozas present appearance as
counsel for respondents Tan, et al. in the case involving
the sequestered shares of stock in Allied Banking Corp.
runs afoul of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility proscribing former government lawyers
from accepting engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in said service.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the present engagement of Atty.
Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. in Civil
Cases Nos. 0096-0099 violates the interdiction embodied
in Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING:
The petition is denied.
The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in comprehending first,
the meaning of matter referred to in the rule and,
second, the metes and bounds of the intervention
made by the former government lawyer on the matter.
The American Bar Association in its Formal Opinion 342,
defined matter as any discrete, isolatable act as well as
identifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular
situation and specific party, and not merely an act of
drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract
principles of law.
Beyond doubt, the matter or the act of respondent
Mendoza as Solicitor General involved in the case at bar
is advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the
said banks liquidation and even filing the petition for its
liquidation with the CFI of Manila. We hold that this
advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure
to liquidate GENBANK is not the matter contemplated
by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP
ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear as daylight in
stressing that the drafting, enforcing or interpreting
government or agency procedures, regulations or laws,
or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do
not fall within the scope of the term matter and cannot
disqualify.
It goes without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent
Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a
Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an
intervention on a matter different from the matter
involved in Civil Case No. 0096.
The evils sought to be remedied by the Rule do not exist
where the government lawyer does an act which can be
considered as innocuous such as x x x drafting, enforcing
or interpreting government or agency procedures,
regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of
law.
The petition in the special proceedings is an initiatory
pleading; hence, it has to be signed by respondent
Mendoza as the then sitting Solicitor General. For
another, the record is arid as to the actual participation
of respondent Mendoza in the subsequent proceedings.
Similarly, the Court in interpreting Rule 6.03 was not
unconcerned with the prejudice to the client which will
be caused by its misapplication.

It cannot be doubted that granting a disqualification

motion causes the client to lose not only the law firm of
choice, but probably an individual lawyer in whom the
client has confidence The client with a disqualified
lawyer must start again often without the benefit of the
work done by the latter

The Court has to consider also the possible adverse effect

of a truncated reading of the rule on the official
independence of lawyers in the government service. The
case at bar involves the position of Solicitor General, the
office once occupied by respondent Mendoza. It cannot
be overly stressed that the position of Solicitor General
should be endowed with a great degree of
independence. It is this independence that allows the
Solicitor General to recommend acquittal of the
innocent; it is this independence that gives him the right
to refuse to defend officials who violate the trust of their
office.

Any undue diminution of the independence of the

Solicitor General will have a corrosive effect on the rule

1-ESTRELLADO FILES 2013 by CBDP

of law.

Mr. Justices Panganiban and Carpio are of the view,

among others, that the congruent interest prong of Rule
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility should be
subject to a prescriptive period.

Mr. Justice Tinga opines that the rule cannot apply

retroactively to respondent Mendoza. Obviously, and
rightly so, they are disquieted by the fact that (1) when
respondent Mendoza was the Solicitor General, Rule
6.03 was not yet adopted by the IBP and approved by this
Court, and (2) the bid to disqualify respondent Mendoza
was made after the lapse of time whose length cannot,
by any standard, qualify as reasonable.