Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Legal Ethics

Case No. 1 Lingan vs. Calubaquib


A.C. No. 5377
(June 30, 2014)

Facts:
Subject of this Resolution is the Motion to life the one-year suspension from the practice
of law of Atty. Jimmy Baliga and Atty. Romeo Calubaquib.

The SC found the respondents guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and of the Lawyers Oath for allowing their secretaries to
notarize documents in their stead, in violation of Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law.
The SC suspended respondents from the practice of law for one year, revoked their notarial
commissions and disqualified them from reappointment as notaries public for 2 years.
Complainant Victor Lingan prayed tthat respondents be disbarred not merely suspended from the
practice of law however the court denied such for lack of merit.

Atty. Baliga, the Regional Director of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), was
also suspended from his position as Director/Attorney VI of CHR through a CHR En Banc
resolution upon request of Lingan that Atty. Baliga be investigated by the CHR. Atty. Baligas
suspension from the practice of law prevented him from assuming his post as Regional
Director for want of eligibility in the meantime that his authority to practice law is
suspended.

Atty. Baliga argued that he cannot be suspended for acts not connected with his
functions as CHRs Regional Director. According to Atty. Baliga his suspension from practice
of law did not include his suspension from public office.

The SC received a letter from Lingan alleging that Atty. Baliga continued in practicing
law and in discharging his functions as CHR Regional Director. On Atty. Baligas Motion, the
CHR instead of suspending him, admonished him for violating the conditions of his commission
as a notary public. According to Lingan, he has a copy of the CHR En Banc Resolution suspending
Atty. Baliga but was not served a copy of Atty. Baligas motion for reconsideration. Lingan claimed
that the discharge of the functions of a CHR Regional Director necessarily required the practice
of law.

Upon endorsement of Lingans letter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for report
and recommendation, it was found that the period of suspension of Atty. Calubaquib and Baliga
had already lapsed. Atty. Baliga argued that to stretch the coverage of his suspension from the
practice of law to his public office would be tantamount to violating his constitutional rights to due
process and to the statutory principle in law that what is not included is deemed excluded.

The Court lifted the order of suspension of Atty. Calubaquib while evaluation, report, and
recommendation to lift one-year suspension of Atty. Baliga was referred to the OBC. The latter
stated that Atty. Baliga should not have been allowed to perform his functions, duties and
responsibilities which required acts constituting practice of law.
Legal Ethics

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Baligas motion to lift order of suspension from the practice of law
should be granted

Ruling:
No. The Court finds that Atty. Baliga violated the Courts order of suspension and therefore
it suspended him further from the practice of law for 6 months.

Attorneys Practice of Law Words and Phrases Practice of law is any activity, in or out of court,
which requires theapplication of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
Practice of law is any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. It includes [performing] acts which are
characteristics of the [legal] profession or [rendering any kind of] service [which] requires the
use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. Work in government that requires the use of legal
knowledge is considered practice of law. In Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991), this
court cited the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and agreed that work
rendered by lawyers in the Commission on Audit requiring [the use of] legal knowledge or legal
talent is practice of law.

Administrative Agencies Commission on Human Rights The Commission on Human Rights


(CHR) is an independent office created under the Constitution with power to investigate all forms
of human rights violations involving civil and political rights.The Commission on Human Rights
is an independent office created under the Constitution with power to investigate all forms of
human rights violations involving civil and political rights[.] It is divided into regional offices with
each office having primary responsibility to investigate human rights violations in its territorial
jurisdiction. Each regional office is headed by the Regional Director who is given the position of
Attorney VI.

Commission on Human Rights Regional Directors Powers and Functions of the Regional
Director of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).Under the Guidelines and Procedures in
the Investigation and Monitoring of Human Rights Violations and Abuses, and the Provision of
CHR Assistance, the Regional Director has the following powers and functions: a. To administer
oaths or affirmations with respect to [Commission on Human Rights] matters b. To issue mission
orders in their respective regional offices c. To conduct preliminary evaluation or initial
investigation of human rights complaints in the absence of the legal officer or investigator d. To
conduct dialogues or preliminary conferences among parties and discuss immediate courses of
action and protection remedies and/or possible submission of the matter to an alternative dispute
resolution e.To issue Commission on Human Rights processes, including notices, letter
invitations, orders, or subpoenas within the territorial jurisdiction of the regional office and f. To
review and approve draft resolutions of human rights cases prepared by the legal officer. These
powers and functions are characteristics of the legal profession. Oaths and affirmations are
usually performed by members of the judiciary and notaries public officers who are necessarily
members of the bar. Investigating human rights complaints are performed primarily by the
Commissions legal officer. Discussing immediate courses of action and protection remedies and
reviewing and approving draft resolutions of human rights cases prepared by the legal officer
require the use of extensive legal knowledge.

Same Same The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
Regional Director constitutes practice of law.The exercise of the powers and functions of a
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director constitutes practice of law. Thus, the Regional
Legal Ethics

Director must be an attorney a member of the bar in good standing and authorized to practice
law. When the Regional Director loses this authority, such as when he or she is disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a necessary qualification to the
position he or she is holding. The disbarred or suspended lawyer must desist from holding the
position of Regional Director.

Same Same Performing the functions of a Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Regional
Director constituted practice of law.Atty. Baligas performance of generally managerial functions
was not supported by the record. It was also immaterial. He held the position of Commission on
Human Rights Regional Director because of his authority to practice law. Without this authority,
Atty. Baliga was disqualified to hold that position. All told, performing the functions of a
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director constituted practice of law. Atty. Baliga should
have desisted from holding his position as Regional Director.

Attorneys Practice of Law Disbarment Suspension Willful Disobedience to Any Lawful Order of
a Superior Court Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, willful disobedience to any
lawful order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of
law.Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, willful disobedience to any lawful order
of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law: SEC. 27.
Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court grounds therefor.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 so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally
or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

Commission on Human Rights Practice of Law The Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
cannot, by mere resolutions and other issuances, modify or defy the Supreme Courts orders of
suspension from the practice of law.We remind the Commission on Human Rights that we have
the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. The Commission cannot, by mere
resolutions and other issuances, modify or defy this courts orders of suspension from the practice
of law. Although the Commission on Human Rights has the power to appoint its officers and
employees, it can only retain those with the necessary qualifications in the positions they are
holding.

Attorneys Practice of Law To enjoy the privileges of practicing law, lawyers must adhere to the
rigid standards of mental fitness, maintain the highest degree of morality, and faithfully comply
with the rules of the legal profession.As for Atty. Baliga, we remind him that the practice of law
is a privilege burdened with conditions. To enjoy the privileges of practicing law, lawyers must
[adhere] to the rigid standards of mental fitness, [maintain] the highest degree of morality[,] and
[faithfully comply] with the rules of [the] legal profession.

Fallo:
WHEREFORE, we further SUSPEND Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga from the practice of law for
six (6) months. Atty. Baliga shall serve a total of one (1) year and six (6) months of suspension
from the practice of law, effective upon service on Atty. Baliga of a copy of this resolution.

SERVE copies of this resolution to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the
Bar Confidant, and the Commission on Human Rights. SO ORDERED.
Legal Ethics

Case No. 2 Fajardo vs. Alvarez


A.C. No. 9018
(April 20, 2016)
Facts:

Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo (Teresita), a Municipal Treasurer, hired Atty.


Nicanor C. Alvarez (Atty. Alvarez) to handle several cases against her filed before the Office
of the Ombudsman. Atty. Alvarez, then working in the Legal Section of the National Center
for Mental Health, asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee. However, Atty. Alvarez did
not enter his appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman nor sign any pleadings. Atty.
Alvarez also said that he needed to pay the amount of P500,000.00 to his friends and
acquaintances working at the Office of the Ombudsman to have the cases against Teresita
dismissed.

Two (2) weeks after, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution and decision
recommending the filing of a criminal complaint against Teresita, and her dismissal from
service, respectively. Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least a portion of
the amount she gave. Atty. Alvarez promised to return the amount to Teresita; however,
he failed to fulfill this promise. Teresita sent a demand letter to Atty. Alvarez, which he
failed to heed.

Atty. Alvarez claimed that he has authority to engage in private practice of the profession
and that they had an arrangement that Teresita would consult him whenever a case was filed
against her including the payment scheme of the fees in accepting and handling such cases.

Atty. Alvarez accepted the case against Teresita dismissing her from service and asked
for P500,000.00 as acceptance fee. According to Atty. Alvarez, he arrived at the amount after
considering the difficulty of the case and the workload that would be involved. The fee is exclusive
of filing fees, appearance fees, and other miscellaneous fees such as costs for photocopying and
mailing.

Teresita filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Verified Complaint praying
for the disbarment of Atty. Alvarez. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. Investigating Commissioner found Atty.
Alvarez guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended Atty.
Alvarez's suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year. Atty. Alvarez was also ordered to
return the amount of P700,000.00 to Teresita with legal interest from the time of demand until its
full payment.

On the unauthorized practice of law, the Investigating Commissioner found that while Atty.
Alvarez claimed that he was authorized by his superior to privately practice law, the pleadings he
allegedly prepared and filed did not bear his name and signature. Hence, the Investigating
Commissioner stated that: The time that Respondent spent in following up the case of
Complainant in the Office of the Ombudsman is a time lost to the government which could have
been used in the service of many taxpayers.

Assuming that Atty. Alvarez was authorized by his superior to practice his profession, the
Investigating Commissioner stated that Atty. Alvarez was prohibited to handle cases involving
malversation of funds by government officials such as a municipal treasurer. Moreover, the
Investigating Commissioner found that the attorney's fees Atty. Alvarez asked for were
unreasonable.
Legal Ethics

Issue:
Whether respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, as a lawyer working in the Legal Section
of the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of Health, is authorized to
engage in the private practice of law; and

Ruling: No unless authorized by their department heads.

Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Memorandum Circular No. 17, Series
of 1986, government officials or employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of
their profession unless authorized by their department heads. More importantly, if authorized, the
practice of profession must not conflict nor tend to conflict with the official functions of the
government official or employee.

Attorneys Practice of Law Conflict of Interest By assisting and representing complainant in a


suit against the Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent put himself in a
situation of conflict of interest.In this case, respondent was given written permission by the
Head of the National Center for Mental Health, whose authority was designated under Department
of Health Administrative Order No. 21, Series of 1999. However, by assisting and representing
complainant in a suit against the Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent
put himself in a situation of conflict of interest. Respondents practice of profession was expressly
and impliedly conditioned on the requirement that his practice will not be in conflict with the
interest of the Center and the Philippine government as a whole.

Same Same Same By appearing against the Office of the Ombudsman, respondent is going
against the same employer he swore to serve.There is basic conflict of interest here.
Respondent is a public officer, an employee of government. The Office of the Ombudsman is part
of government. By appearing against the Office of the Ombudsman, respondent is going against
the same employer he swore to serve. In addition, the government has a serious interest in the
prosecution of erring employees and their corrupt acts. Under the Constitution, [p]ublic office is
a public trust. The Office of the Ombudsman, as protectors of the [P]eople, is mandated to
investigate and prosecute . . . any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or
agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

Same Same Same A conflict of interest exists when an incumbent government employee
represents another government employee or public officer in a case pending before the Office of
the Ombudsman.A conflict of interest exists when an incumbent government employee
represents another government employee or public officer in a case pending before the Office of
the Ombudsman. The incumbent officer ultimately goes against governments mandate under the
Constitution to prosecute public officers or employees who have committed acts or omissions that
appear to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. Furthermore, this is consistent with the
constitutional directive that [p]ublic officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to
the [P]eople, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Government Employees The objective in disciplinary cases is not to punish the erring officer or
employee but to continue to uplift the Peoples trust in government and to ensure excellent public
service.The objective in disciplinary cases is not to punish the erring officer or employee but to
continue to uplift the Peoples trust in government and to ensure excellent public service: [W]hen
an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of that officer or
Legal Ethics

employee, but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the publics faith and
confidence in the government. . . . These constitutionally enshrined principles, often repeated in
our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as
working standards by all in the public service.

Attorneys Disbarment In disbarment or disciplinary cases pending before this Court, the
complainant must prove his or her allegations through substantial evidence.In disbarment or
disciplinary cases pending before this Court, the complainant must prove his or her allegations
through substantial evidence. In Advincula v. Macabata, 517 SCRA 600 (2007), this Court
dismissed a complaint for disbarment due to the lack of evidence in proving the complainants
allegations: As a basic rule in evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the
allegations ei incumbit probation, qui decit, non qui negat cum per rerum naturam factum
negantis probation nulla sit. In the case at bar, complainant miserably failed to comply with the
burden of proof required of her. A mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice.
Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.

Same Same Lawyers should not be hastily disciplined or penalized unless it is shown that they
committed a transgression of their oath or their duties, which reflects on their fitness to enjoy
continued status as a member of the bar.Moreover, lawyers should not be hastily disciplined or
penalized unless it is shown that they committed a transgression of their oath or their duties which
reflects on their fitness to enjoy continued status as a member of the bar: The power to disbar or
suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with
great caution and only for the most weighty reasons and only on clear cases of misconduct which
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of
the Bar. Only those acts which cause loss of moral character should merit disbarment or
suspension, while those acts which neither affect nor erode the moral character of the lawyer
should only justify a lesser sanction unless they are of such nature and to such extent as to clearly
show the lawyers unfitness to continue in the practice of law. The dubious character of the act
charged as well as the motivation which induced the lawyer to commit it must be clearly
demonstrated before suspension or disbarment is meted out. The mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that attended the commission of the offense should also be considered.

Same Lawyers Oath Respondent violated the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) when he communicated to or, at the very least, made it appear to
complainant that he knew people from the Office of the Ombudsman who could help them get a
favorable decision in complainants case.We find that respondent violated the Lawyers Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he communicated to or, at the very least, made
it appear to complainant that he knew people from the Office of the Ombudsman who could help
them get a favorable decision in complainants case. Lawyers are mandated to uphold, at all
times, integrity and dignity in the practice of their profession. Respondent violated the oath he
took when he proposed to gain a favorable outcome for complainants case by resorting to his
influence among staff in the Office where the case was pending.

Same Dishonesty Respondents act of ensuring that the case will be dismissed because of his
personal relationships with officers or employees in the Office of the Ombudsman is unlawful and
dishonest.Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules 1.01,
and 1.02 prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Respondents act of ensuring that the case will be dismissed because of his personal relationships
with officers or employees in the Office of the Ombudsman is unlawful and dishonest. Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to always uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. In relation, Canon 13 mandates that lawyers shall rely upon the
Legal Ethics

merits of his [or her] cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court. A lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain influence
and receive a favorable outcome for his or her client violates Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. This act of influence peddling is highly immoral and has no place in the legal
profession.

Same Influence Peddling In the interest of ridding itself of corrupt personnel who encourage
influence peddling, and in the interest of maintaining the high ethical standards of employees in
the judiciary, the Supreme Court (SC) did not hesitate in dismissing its own employee from
government service when she peddled influence in the Court of Appeals (CA).In the interest of
ridding itself of corrupt personnel who encourage influence peddling, and in the interest of
maintaining the high ethical standards of employees in the judiciary, this Court did not hesitate in
dismissing its own employee from government service when she peddled influence in the Court
of Appeals: What brings our judicial system into disrepute are often the actuations of a few erring
court personnel peddling influence to party litigants, creating the impression that decisions can
be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the disillusionment of the public. This Court has never
wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the so called bad eggs in the judiciary. And whenever
warranted by the gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an administrative
case is meted to erring personnel.

Same Same In cases involving influence peddling or bribery,[t]he transaction is always done in
secret and often only between the two (2) parties concerned.In response to his alleged text
messages, respondent claims that complainant must have confused him with her other contacts.
Respondent found it mesmerizing that complainant was able to save all those alleged text
messages from two (2) years ago. Moreover, assuming these messages were true, still they
[were] not legally admissible as they [were] covered by the lawyer client privileged communication
as those supposed texts [had been] made for the purpose and in the course of employment,
[were] regarded as privileged and the rule of exclusion [was] strictly enforced. In cases involving
influence peddling or bribery, [t]he transaction is always done in secret and often only between
the two parties concerned. Nevertheless, as found by the Investigating Commissioner and as
shown by the records, we rule that there is enough proof to hold respondent guilty of influence
peddling.

Same Same Lawyers who offer no skill other than their acquaintances or relationships with
regulators, investigators, judges, or Justices pervert the system, weaken the rule of law, and
debase themselves even as they claim to be members of a noble profession.Lawyers who offer
no skill other than their acquaintances or relationships with regulators, investigators, judges, or
Justices pervert the system, weaken the rule of law, and debase themselves even as they claim
to be members of a noble profession. Practicing law should not degenerate to ones ability to have
illicit access. Rather, it should be about making an honest appraisal of the clients situation as
seen through the evidence fairly and fully gathered. It should be about making a discerning and
diligent reading of the applicable law. It is foremost about attaining justice in a fair manner. Law
exists to temper, with its own power, illicit power and unfair advantage. It should not be conceded
as a tool only for those who cheat by unduly influencing people or public officials.

Fallo:

WHEREFORE, Respondent Arty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is guilty of violating the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year with a
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Legal Ethics

Respondent is ORDERED to return the amount of P500,000.00 with legal interest to complainant
Teresita P. Fajardo.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

Вам также может понравиться