ETHICS

(J. Bersamin)

DE LEON VS. PEDRENA

708 SCRA 13, 22 October 2013
Administrative Matter; Sexual Harrasment

Facts: Petitioner Jocelyn De Leon, filed a disbarment case or suspension from the
practice of law against the respondent Atty. Pedrena. The petitioner alleged that the
respondent is her counsel for her case against his husband. When the respondent asked
the petitioner to ride with him, the petitioner acceded to his request. Inside the car, the
respondent rubbed her leg with his hand, tried to insert his finger into her firmly closed
hand, grabbed her hand and forcibly placed it in his cotch area and pressed his finger
against her private part.

Held: The petitioner was able to prove her case against the respondent. During the
clarificatory hearing, she was straightforward and spontaneous in answering questions
propounded on her. The court ruled that the possession of good moral character is both
a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar
and to retain membership to the legal profession. Members of the bar are clearly duty-
bound to observe the highest degree of morality and integrity in order to safeguard the
reputation of the bar. In the instant case, immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt
as to constitute a criminal cat, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the communitys sense of decency.

----------------

SESBRENO VS. CA
720 SCRA 57, 26 March 2014
Judges

Facts: Sesbrenos dwelling is included in those houses subject to the routine inspection
conducted by the violation of contract inspectors (VOC). Without his permission, he
contends that the VOC went to his house by threatening, forcing and coercing his
maids. The petitioner alleged that the VOC committed a violation of search and
seizures. The CA judge inhibits himself from participating in the resolution of the
motion for reconsideration filed by Sesbreno.
Held: The petioners contention is bereft of merit. As to the inhibition of a judge to his
case, although the trial judge had issued an order for his voluntary inhibition, he still
rendered the judgement in the end in compliance with the instruction of the executive
judge, whose administrative authority in the matter of the inhibition should be
respected. The motion for the inhibition was grounded on suspicion of her bias and
prejudice, but suspicion of bias and prejudice were not enough grounds for inhibition.

----------------

HENRY SAMONTE VS. ABELLANA

727 SCRA 80, 23 June 2014
Administrative Case re: Falsification of Documents

Facts: Samonte (Petitioner) brought his administrative complaint against the respondent
Atty. Abellana who had represented him in his case. The petitioner alleged that the
respondent committed serious acts of professional misconduct such as falsification of
documents, dereliction of duty, gross negligence and tardiness, and dishonesty. The IBP
recommended the disbarment of the petitioner since she has shown a facility for
utilizing false and deceitful practices as a means to cover up her delay and lack of
diligence in pursuing his client.

Held: In his dealings with his clients and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to be
honest, imbued with integrity and trustworthy. These expectations, though high and
demanding are the professional and ethical burdens of every member of the Philippine
Bar, for they have been given full expression in the Lawyers oath that every lawyer of
this country has taken upon admission as a bona fide member of the Law profession.

----------------

HECK VS. GAMOTIN

719 SCRA 339, 18 March 2014
Disbarment

Facts: Petitioner Heck, foreigner, filed a complaint for disbarment against the
respondent for offending him regarding with his case. The respondent is the City
Prosecutor who entertained the case of the petitioner against another city prosecutor for
unjust vexation. However, the petitioner claimed that respondent is deemed biased in
favor of his opponents counsel. Such acts like having a private meeting with the
opponents counsel and for shouting him in front of his family members.
Held: The court ruled that the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution
only for the most imperative reasons and in cases of clear misconduct affecting the
standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and the member of
the bar. In this case, the petitioners evidence is insufficient to warrant the disbarment of
the respondent.

----------------

RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT ON THE ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT

AND FOR ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS OF LENDING MONEY AT USURIOUS
RATES OF INTEREST OF MS. DOLORES T. LOPEZ, SC CHIEF JUDICIAL STAFF
OFFICER, AND MR. FERNANDO MONTALVO, SC SUPERVISING JUDICIAL
STAFF OFFICER, CHECKS DISBURSEMENT DIVISION, FISCAL MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET OFFICE.
737 SCRA 176, 30 September 2014

Facts: A letter-complaint was sent by a concerned employee who chose to remain

anonymous to Complaints and Investigation Division of the Office of Administrative
Services of the Supreme Court assailing the profitable lending-money with usurious
interest scheme engaged by respondents. It stated that the respondents had been
involved in the money-lending activities targeting the low-salaried employees of the
Court, that such money-lending had been going on with the help of the personnel of the
Checks Disbursement Division of FMBO by enticing employees of the Court to pledge
forthcoming benefits at a discounted rate and ATM cards were surrendered by the
borrowers to the respondents as collateral for the individual borrowing.

Ruling: Section 1 of its Article XI Public Office is a public trust. Public officers and
employees must at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead
modest lives. Administrative Circular no. 5 provides prohibition for the employees and
officials of the Judiciary from engaging directly in any private business, vocation or
profession, even outside their office hours. The prohibition has been at ensuring that
full-time officers and employees of the courts render full-time service, for only thereby
could any undue delays in the administration of justice and in the disposition of court
cases be avoided. The nature of the work of court employees and officials demanded
their highest degree of efficiency and responsibility, but they would not ably meet the
demand except by devoting in their undivided time to the government service. This
explains why court employees have been enjoined to strictly observe official time and to
devote every second or moment of such time to serving the public. Considering that the
official and personal conduct and deportment of all the people who work for the
Judiciary mirrored the image of the Court itself, they should strive to comport
themselves with propriety and decorum at all times, and to be above suspicion of any
misdeed and misconduct. Only thereby would they earn and keep the publics respect
for and confidence in the Judiciary. As a public servant, therefore, respondent Lopez
knew only too well that she was expected at all times to exhibit the highest sense of
honesty and integrity.
----------------

SEARES, JR. VS. GONZALES-ALZATE

685 SCRA 397, 14 November 2012
Conflict of Interest

Facts: Atty. Saniata Gonzales-Alzate was charged with incompetence and professional
negligence, and a violation of the prohibition against representing conflicting interests.
Complainant Seares, Jr. is her former client. Seares solicited the legal services of Atty.
Alzate for the 2007 election protest. Turqueza, represented by Atty. Alzate filed an
administrative complaint against Seares, Jr.

Held: The Court ruled that Atty. Alzates legal representation of Turqueza neither
resulted in her betrayal of the fidelity and loyalty she owed to Seares, Jr. as his former
attorney. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits an attorney
from representing a party in a controversy that is directly or indirectly related to the
subject matter of a previous litigation involving another client. Representing conflicting
interests would only occur where the attorneys new engagement would require her to
use against a former client any confidential information gained from the previous
professional relation. The prohibition did not cover a situation where the subject matter
of the present engagement was totally unrelated to the previous engagement of the
attorney. To constitute the violation, the attorney should be shown to intentionally use
against the former client the confidential information acquired by her during the
previous employment.

----------------

MORTEL VS. KERR

685 SCRA 1, 12 November 2012
Counsels negligence

Facts: Respondent Kerr instituted a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage against

Mortel, who duly filed an answer through Atty. Mas. The pre-trial was re-set four
times, and on the fifth setting Mortel and Atty. Mas were not around when the case was
called, hence the RTC declared Mortel in default. Atty. Tumulak filed a notice of
appearance in behalf of Mortel, but RTC did not act on the notice. RTC rendered
judgment in favor of Kerr. Thereafter, Mortel, through Atty. Lacambra filed a motion
for new trial and Atty. Mas filed his withdrawal of appearance. RTC denied Mortels
motion for new trial, noting that Atty. Mas withdrawal as counsel of Mortel had been
approved by the RTC on March 26, 2001. Considering that the records of the case
showed that Atty. Mas had received the decision, the motion for new trial had been
filed out of time. The RTC granted the withdrawal of Atty. Lacambra and Atty. Mas as
counsels for Mortel, and finally recognized Atty. Tumulak as the only counsel. Atty.
Tumulak filed in the CA a petition for review on certiorari but the CA dismissed the
petition. Atty. Tumulak sought for reconsideration but the CA denied the motion for
reconsideration. Instead of appealing via petition for review on certiorari in the SC,
Atty. Tumulak filed in the CA an urgent motion for extension of time to appeal to the
SC.

Ruling: The Court ruled that Mortel was not bound by counsels negligence. A client is
bound by his counsels conduct, negligence and mistake in handling a case. To allow a
client to disown his counsels conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative,
and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. But the rule
admits of exceptions, the Court held the client not concluded by the negligence,
incompetence or mistake of the counsel. When the incompetence, ignorance or
inexperience of counsel is so great and the result is so serious that the client, who
otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in Court, the client
deserves another chance to present his case; hence the litigation may be reopened for
that purpose.

----------------

MATURAN VS. GUTIERREZ-TORRES

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1606-MTJ, 19 September 2012
Period to resolve or decide a case

Facts: Complainant Atty. Maturan, the counsel for the private complainant in criminal
case filed a sworn complaint against Judge Gutierrez-Torres charging her with
unjustifiably delaying the rendition of the decision in his clients criminal case. Atty.
Muturan averred that the criminal case had remained pending and unresolved despite
its having been submitted for decision since June 2002. Atty. Maturan stated that Judge
Torres failure to render the judgment within 90-day period from submission of the case
violated Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Constitution.
Ruling: Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution requires that all cases or
matters filed after the effectivity of the Constitution must be decided or resolved within
twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless
reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three
months for all other lower courts. Thereby, the Constitution mandates all justices and
judges to be efficient and speedy in the disposition of the cases or matters pending in
their courts. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires
judges to "devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include the
performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of
decisions and to "perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved
decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. These judicial canons
directly demand efficiency from the judges in obvious recognition of the right of the
public to the speedy disposition of their cases. In such context, the saying justice
delayed is justice denied becomes a true encapsulation of the felt need for efficiency and
promptness among judges. All judges should be mindful of the duty to decide
promptly, knowing that the publics faith and confidence in the Judiciary are no less at
stake if they should ignore such duty.

----------------

HABAWEL VS. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

G.R. No. 174759, 7 September 2011
Respect due to the courts

Facts: The petitioners were the counsel of Surfield Development Corporation (Surfield),
sought reconsideration in behalf of Surfield, insisting that it is gross ignorance of the
law for [the Court of Tax Appeals] to have held that it has no jurisdiction over [their]
petition; the grossness of [the Court of Tax Appeals] ignorance of the law is matched
only by the unequivocal expression of this [the Court of Tax Appeals] jurisdiction over
the instant case and this Court lacked the understanding and respect for the doctrine
of stare decisis. The Court of Tax Appeals finds the statements of petitioners counsel
as derogatory, offensive and disrespectful.

Held: Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all attorneys to

observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and to insist
on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility specifically enjoins all attorneys thus: A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. The test for
criticizing a judges decision is, therefore, whether or not the criticism is bona fide or
done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. An
imputation in a pleading of gross ignorance against a court or its judge, especially in the
absence of any evidence, is a serious allegation, and constitutes direct contempt of
court. Every attorney must use only fair and temperate language in arguing a worthy
position on the law, and must eschew harsh and intemperate language that has no place
in the educated ranks of the Legal Profession.

----------------

DECENA VS. MALANYAON

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217, 8 April 2013
Code of Judicial Ethics; Prohibition from engaging in the private practice of law or
giving professional advice to clients

Facts: The complainants have lodged an administrative complaint for conduct

unbecoming a judge against Hon. Nilo A. Malanyaon, the complainants averred that
complainant Rey C. Decena had brought an administrative case against Judge
Malanyaons wife, Dr. Amelita C. Malanyaon; that during the hearing of the
administrative case, Judge Malanyaon sat beside his daughter, Atty. Ma. Kristina C.
Malanyaon, the counsel of Dr. Amelita in the case. During the early stage of the hearing
when the hearing officer, Atty. Dennis Masinas Nieves, brought up the matter
regarding Dr. Malanyaons manifestation or motion (to dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction), Judge Malanyaon coached her daughter in making manifestations/motions
before the hearing officer, by scribbling on some piece of paper and giving the same to
the former, thus prompting her daughter to rise from her seat and/or ask permission
from the officer to speak, and then make some manifestations while reading or glancing
on the paper given by Judge Malanyaon. And he insisted that he was merely "assisting"
her daughter, who "just passed the bar.

Ruling: The Rules of Court expressly prohibits sitting judges like Judge Malanyaon
from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. The
New Code of Judicial Conduct reiterates the prohibition from engaging in the private
practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. The Code of Judicial Ethics
mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only
with respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside
his sala and as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality; a public official
is also judged by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with
propriety at all times. As we have very recently explained, a judges official life cannot
simply be detached or separated from his personal existence. Being a subject of constant
public scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that
might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.
A judge should personify judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service. The
personal behavior of a judge, both in the performance of official duties and in private
life should be above suspicion.

----------------

CAMPUGAN VS. TOLENTINO

752 SCRA 254, 11 March 2015
Disbarment

Facts: Complainants Jessie T. Campugan and Robert C. Torres seek the disbarment of
respondents Atty. Federico S. Tolentino, Jr., Atty. Daniel F. Victorio, Jr., Atty. Renato G.
Cunanan, Atty. Elbert T. Quilala and Atty. Constante P. Caluya, Jr. for allegedly
falsifying a court order that became the basis for the cancellation of their annotation of
the notice of adverse claim and the notice of lis pendens in the Registry of Deeds in
Quezon City.

Held: A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional
or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether his conduct renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates all lawyers to uphold at all times the dignity and
integrity of the Legal Profession. Lawyers are similarly required under Rule 1.01, Canon
1 of the same Code not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful
conduct. Failure to observe these tenets of the Code of Professional Responsibility
exposes the lawyer to disciplinary sanctions as provided in Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, 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 the
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience 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.

----------------
RAMISCAL VS. ORRO
784 SCRA 421, 23 February 2016
Fidelity to the cause of clients

Facts: Complainants engaged in the legal services of respondent Atty. Orro to handle a
case in which they were defendants seeking the declaration of nullity of title to a parcel
of land in Isabela. Respondent received P10, 000 acceptance fee from them and handled
the trial of their case until RTC decided in their favor. Plaintiffs appeals to the CA to
which the respondent requested from the complainants an additional P30, 000 for the
preparation and submission of their appellees brief in the CA. The CA reversed the
decision of the RTC but the respondent did not inform the complainants. They had
trouble communicating with respondent. When they finally reached him, he requested
for an additional P7, 000 as fee for filing a motion for reconsideration which he did not
file. Complainants lost their property measuring 8.479 hectares with a probable worth
of P3, 391,600.

Ruling: The Court believes that the respondent violated the Lawyers Oath which
contravenes the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 17 and Rules
18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18. CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. CANON 18
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 A lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable. Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed
of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's
request for information. The relationship of the lawyer and the client becomes imbued
with trust and confidence from the moment that the lawyer-client relationship
commences, with the lawyer being bound to serve his clients with full competence, and
to attend to their cause with utmost diligence, care and devotion. To accord with this
highly fiduciary relationship, the client expects the lawyer to be always mindful of
the formers cause and to be diligent in handling the formers legal affairs. As an
essential part of their highly fiduciary relationship, the client is entitled to the periodic
and full updates from the lawyer on the developments of the case.

He failed to discharge his burdens to the best of his knowledge and discretion and with
all good fidelity to his clients and his unexplained disregard of the orders issued to him
by the IBP to comment and to appear in the administrative investigation of his conduct
revealed his irresponsibility and disrespect for the IBP.

----------------
BAYONLA VS. REYES
660 SCRA 490, 22 November 2011
Gross Misconduct

Facts: Bayonla charged Atty. Reyes with gross dishonesty, deceit, conversion, and
breach of trust. Bayonla alleged that she and Alfredo had engaged the legal services of
Atty. Reyes to collect their share in the expropriation compensation from the Air
Transportation Office (ATO), Cagayan De Oro City agreeing to her attorneys fees of
10% of whatever amount would be collected; Atty. Reyes had collected P1 million from
the ATO; that Bayonlas share, after deducting Atty. Reyes attorneys fees, would
be P75,000.00, but Atty. Reyes had delivered to her only P23,000.00, and had failed to
deliver the balance of P52,000.00 despite repeated demands.

Held: The canons are appropriate considering that the relationship between a lawyer
and her client is highly fiduciary, and prescribes on a lawyer a great degree of fidelity
and good faith. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer
shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of her client that may come into her
possession. Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for all
money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.03 of Canon
16 demands that the lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due
or upon demand, subject to the lawyers lien over the funds, or the lawyers option to
apply so much of the funds as may be necessary to satisfy the lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to the client.

By not delivering Bayonlas share despite her demand, Atty. Reyes violated the
aforestated canons. The money collected by Atty. Reyes as the lawyer of Bayonla was
unquestionably money held in trust to be immediately turned over to the client. The
unjustified withholding of money belonging to the client warrants the imposition of
disciplinary sanctions on the lawyer. Without doubt, Atty. Reyes failure to immediately
account for and to deliver the money upon demand was deceit, for it signified that she
had converted the money to her own use, in violation of the trust Bayonla had reposed
in her. It constituted gross misconduct for which the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law became justified pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

----------------

RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ENGR. OSCAR L. ONGJOCO, CHAIRMAN OF

THE BOARD/CEO OF FH-GYMN MULTI-PURPOSE AND TRANSPORT SERVICE
COOPERATIVE, AGAINST HON. JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR., HON. RAMON M.
BATO, JR. AND HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, COURT
OF APPEALS
664 SCRA 465, 31 January 2012
Administrative complaint against a Judge

Facts: The Court received a letter from Engr. Ongjoco, Chairman of the Board and CEO
of the FH-GYMN Multi-Purpose and Transport Service Cooperative (FH-GYMN). The
letter included a complaint-affidavit, whereby Ongjoco charged the CAs Sixth Division
composed of Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. (as Chairman), Associate Justice
Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino as Members for rendering
an arbitrary and baseless decision, Ongjoco maintained that respondent members of the
CAs Sixth Division violated Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution by not
specifically stating the facts and the law on which the denial of the petition for review
was based.

Held: The Court found that the administrative complaint against respondent Justices of
the Court of Appeals baseless and utterly devoid of legal and factual merit, and
outrightly dismiss it. In administrative cases involving judicial officers, the
complainants always carried on their shoulders the burden of proof to substantiate their
allegations through substantial evidence.

A judges failure to correctly interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence
presented does not necessarily incur administrative liability, for to hold him
administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders,
assuming he has erred, will be nothing short of harassment and will make his position
doubly unbearable. His judicial office will then be rendered untenable, because no one
called upon to try the facts or to interpret the law in the process of administering justice
can be infallible in his judgment. Administrative sanction and criminal liability should
be visited on him only when the error is so gross, deliberate and malicious, or is
committed with evident bad faith, or only in clear cases of violations by him of the
standards and norms of propriety and good behavior prescribed by law and the rules of
procedure, or fixed and defined by pertinent jurisprudence.

----------------

NATIONAL POWER CORP VS HEIRS OF MACABANGKIT SANGKAY

G.R. No. 165828, 24 August 2011
Attorneys fees
Facts: Respondents sued NPC for the recovery of damages and of the property alleging
that they had belatedly discovered that one of the underground tunnels of NPC
traversed their land. NPC countered that the Heirs of Macabangkit had no right to
compensation. RTC ruled in favor of the respondents.

Held: The recovery of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is a device that
prevents an unscrupulous client from running away with the fruits of the legal services
of counsel without paying for it and also avoids unjust enrichment on the part of the
attorney himself. An attorney must show that he is entitled to reasonable compensation
for the effort in pursuing the client's cause, taking into account certain factors in fixing
the amount of legal fees. In the event of a dispute as to the amount of fees between the
attorney and his client, and the intervention of the courts is sought, the determination
requires that there be evidence to prove the amount of fees and the extent and value of
the services rendered, taking into account the facts determinative thereof.

----------------

LORENZO SHIPPING CORP. VS. DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT

G.R. No. 155849 August 31, 2011
Contempt

Facts: DMAP commenced in the CA a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
challenging the constitutionality of EO 213 and MC 153. CA dismissed the petition for
certiorari and prohibition. DMAP appealed to the Court which was subsequently
denied. In October 2002, DMAP held a general membership meeting (GMM) on the
occasion of which DMAP, acting through its co-respondents Lorenzo Cinco, its
President, and Cora Curay, a consultant/adviser to Cinco, publicly circulated the Sea
Transport Update. Petitioners filed a special civil action for contempt against the
respondents.

Held: Contempt of court is of two kinds, namely: direct contempt, which is committed
in the presence of or so near the judge as to obstruct him in the administration of justice;
and constructive or indirect contempt, which consists of willful disobedience of the
lawful process or order of the court. The test for criticizing a judge's decision is, whether
or not the criticism is bona fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls
of decency and propriety. Viewed through the prism of the test, the Sea Transport
Update was not disrespectful, abusive, or slanderous, and did not spill over the walls of
decency and propriety. Thereby, the respondents were not guilty of indirect contempt
of court.
 ----------------

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NABLE

G.R. No. 176692, 27 June 2012
Attorneys fees

Facts: The DAR compulsorily acquired a portion of the landholding of respondents

pursuant to CARL. However, nable rejected the valuation of LBP. DARAB affirmed the
valuation of LBP. After DARAB denied her motion for reconsideration, Nable instituted
against DAR and LBP a petition for the judicial determination of just compensation

Held: The Court sustain the CAs deletion of the RTCs award of 10% attorneys fees.
Under Article 2208, Civil Code, an award of attorneys fees requires factual, legal, and
equitable justifications. Clearly, the reason for the award must be explained and set
forth by the trial court in the body of its decision. The award that is mentioned only in
the dispositive portion of the decision should be disallowed. Considering that the
reason for the award of attorneys fees was not clearly explained and set forth in the
body of the RTCs decision, the Court has nothing to review and pass upon.

----------------

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM VS CANCINO-ERUM

A.M. No. RTJ-09-2182, 5 September 2012
Gross ignorance of the law

Facts: GSIS charged respondent RTC Judge Maria A. Cancino-Erum, the then Executive
Judge of the RTC in Mandaluyong City, with grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the
law, and violation of the Rules of Court. The charges against the respondents were both
based on the non- raffling of a Civil Case.

Held: The Court have always regarded as a fundamental precept that an administrative
complaint against a judge is inappropriate as a remedy for the correction of an act or
omission complained of where the remedy of appeal or certiorari is a recourse available
to an aggrieved party. Two reasons underlie this fundamental precept, namely: (a) to
hold otherwise is to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the
facts or to interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his
judgment; and (b) to follow a different rule can mean a deluge of complaints, legitimate
or otherwise, and our judges will then be immersed in and be ceaselessly occupied with
answering charges brought against them instead of performing their judicial functions.
To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be
contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but must also be motivated by bad faith,
fraud, dishonesty and corruption.

----------------

IN RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL

TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN AND REPORT
ON THE INCIDENT AT BRANCH 49, SAME COURT.
A.M. No. 08-4-253-RTC, 12 January 2011
Inefficiency

Facts: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) uncovered the mismanagement
of the records of Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Urdaneta City, while
still presided by Judge Joven F. Costales (Judge Costales), with Atty. Max Pascua
(Atty. Pascua) as the Branch Clerk of Court. The mismanagement included the
following, to wit: (a) some case records bore no dates of receipt by the branch; (b)
several case records did not contain the latest court actions and court processes taken;
(c) action had not been taken in some cases from the time of their filing; (d) the case
record of Criminal Case No. U-12848 had not been immediately transmitted to the
Office of the Prosecutor, despite the transmittal having been ordered as early as January
19, 2005; (e) some cases had not been set for further hearing, or had had no further
actions taken on them; (f) the issuances of summonses and alias summonses by the
Branch Clerk of Court had been delayed despite the corresponding orders for that
purpose; (g) action had not been taken on cases set for ex parte reception of evidence;
and (h) Criminal Case No. U-13095 had been set for trial with respect to one of the
accused who had not been arraigned.

Held: The sins of Judge Costales consisted of omissions. To start with, he failed to act on
some cases from the time of their receipt at Branch 45 until the period of the audit. And,
secondly, he did not properly supervise the court personnel, as borne by the records of
some cases either not containing the latest court actions and court processes taken, or
not showing the actions taken from the time of their filing, or not being set for further
hearing or action, or revealing the delayed issuances of summonses and alias
summonses despite the corresponding orders towards that end, or by inaction on cases
set for ex parte reception of evidence.

Judge Costales uncharacteristically ignored that he discharged judicial and

administrative duties as the Presiding Judge of Branch 45. He seemingly forgot that his
responsibility of efficiently and systematically managing his caseload was the
inseparable twin to his responsibility of justly and speedily deciding the cases assigned
to his court. He should have remembered all too easily that he had
assumed both responsibilities upon entering into office as Presiding Judge, and that he
was bound to competently and capably discharge them from then on until his
compulsory retirement. His failure to discharge them properly by organizing and
supervising his court personnel with the end in view of bringing them to the prompt
dispatch of the courts business in anticipation of his forced retirement reflected his
inefficiency and breached his obligation to observe at all times the high standards of
public service and fidelity.

In this regard, Judge Costales could not deflect the blame to Atty. Pascua as his Branch
Clerk of Court. The responsibility of organizing and coordinating the court personnel to
ensure the prompt and efficient performance of the courts business was direct and
primary for him as the judge. Truly, the duty to devise an efficient recording and filing
system that would have enabled himself and his personnel to monitor the flow of cases
and to manage their speedy and timely disposition pertained to him first and foremost.
Moreover, he should know that his subordinates were not the guardians of his
responsibilities as the judge. Being in legal contemplation the head of his branch, he was
the master of his own domain who should be ready and willing to take the
responsibility for the mistakes of his subjects, as well as to be ultimately responsible for
order and efficiency in his court. He could not hide behind the inefficiency or the
incompetence of any of his subordinates.

As with Judge Costales, omissions made up Atty. Pascuas myriad faults. Atty. Pascua
bore the responsibility for the non-issuance of summonses or alias summonses in some
cases, for the failure to indicate the dates of receipt of case records by Branch 45, for the
failure to receive evidence ex parte despite the orders to that effect, for the failure to
prepare and submit (or cause the submission of) the monthly inventories, and for the
failure to report and update the records of the cases of the branch. Such omissions
involved matters that he should have routinely and regularly performed. His duty as
the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 45 required him to receive and file all pleadings
and other papers properly presented to the branch, endorsing on each such paper the
time when it was filed.

Atty. Pascua was equally accountable with Judge Costales for the inefficient handling of
the court records of Branch 45. His being the Branch Clerk of Court made him the
custodian of such records (i.e., pleadings, papers, files, exhibits, and the public
properties pertaining to the branch and committed to his charge) with the sworn
obligation of safely keeping all of them. Like his Presiding Judge, he carried on his
shoulders the burden to see to the orderly and proper keeping and management of the
court records, by which he was required to exercise close supervision of the court
personnel directly charged with the handling of court records. His position of Branch
Clerk of Court rendered him an essential and ranking officer of the judicial system
performing delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper
administration of justice. Alas, he failed to so perform.

----------------

SOFIO VS. VALENZUELA

666 SCRA 55, 15 February 2012
Gross negligence of counsel

Facts: The CA decreed that the petitioners did not adduce evidence to prove the
existence of a tenancy relationship between them and the respondents. The CA decision
became final and executory after the petitioners neither moved for reconsideration nor
appealed by certiorari to the Court. The petitioners then filed in the CA a motion to
recall entry of judgment with motion for leave of court to file a motion for
reconsideration.

Finding the negligence of the petitioners former counsel being matched by their own
neglect (of not inquiring about the status of the case from their former counsel and not
even taking any action against said counsel for neglecting their case), the CA denied the
motion to recall entry of judgment.

Held: The gross negligence of counsel alone would not even warrant a deviation from
the principle of finality of judgment, for the client must have to show that such
negligence resulted in the denial of due process to the client. When the counsels
mistake is so great and so serious that the client is prejudiced and is denied his day in
court, or when the counsel is guilty of gross negligence resulting in the clients
deprivation of his property without due process of law, the client is not concluded by
his counsels mistakes and the case can be reopened in order to give the client another
chance to present his case. As such, the test herein is whether their former counsels
negligence deprived the petitioners of due process of law.

----------------

SEVILLA VS. LINDO

642 SCRA 277, 9 February 2011
Ethics; Gross Misconduct
Facts: Daniel G. Sevilla charged Hon. Francisco S. Lindo, with delay in the disposition
of Criminal Case No. J-L00-4260 (a prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang
22 [BP 22] entitled People v. Nestor Leynes).

Sevilla asserted that Judge Lindo thereby violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, which requires that a judge should administer justice impartially and
without delay; that Judge Lindo also violated Section 1, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court,
which mandates that justice be impartially administered without unnecessary delay;
that Judge Lindos unreasonable resetting of the hearings 12 times rendered
inconsequential his right to the speedy disposition of his case; and that such resettings
were made upon the instance of Judge Lindo, not upon motion of the parties.

Held: Judge Lindo is held liable for delay in the disposition of his cases that was
tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his official duties.

Although the postponement of a hearing in a civil or criminal case may at times be

unavoidable, the Court disallows undue or unnecessary postponements of court
hearings, simply because they cause unreasonable delays in the administration of
justice and, thus, undermine the peoples faith in the Judiciary, aside from aggravating
the financial and emotional burdens of the litigants. For this reason, the Court has
enjoined that postponements and resettings should be allowed only upon meritorious
grounds, and has consistently reminded all trial judges to adopt a firm policy against
improvident postponements.

Judge Lindo made or allowed too many unreasonable postponements that inevitably
delayed the proceedings and prevented the prompt disposition of Criminal Case No. J-
L00-4260 out of manifest bias in favor of the accused, to the prejudice of Sevilla as the
complainant in Criminal Case No. J-L00-4260. Thus, he flagrantly violated the letter and
spirit both of Rule 1.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which enjoined all judges to
administer justice impartially and without delay; and of Canon 6 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics, which required him as a trial judge "to be prompt in disposing of all
matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied."

----------------

REAS VS. RELACION

642 SCRA 266, 9 February 2011
Court Personnel, Misconduct
Facts: Benigno B. Reas, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, in Cebu
City charged in the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Carlos M. Relacion, Clerk
III of the RTC, Branch 15, in Cebu City with gross dishonesty and grave misconduct.
Reas alleged in his complaint that by prior arrangement, the Clerk of Court of the RTC
(COC) delivered to the Cebu CFI Community Cooperative (Cooperative) the salary
checks of court personnel with outstanding obligations with the Cooperative to pay for
their loans; that his salary check for the period of September 1 to 15, 2004 in the amount
of P4,280.00 was delivered by the COC to the Cooperative for that purpose; that when
he asked for the receipt corresponding to his payment, the Cooperative informed him
that his salary check had been "inadvertently surrendered" to Relacion after the latter
had harassed the Cooperative "to a point of violence" to release his (Relacion) own
check for that period; that Relacion did not return the salary check to the Cooperative
despite repeated demands; that when he confronted Relacion, the latter admitted taking
his salary check; that Relacion mauled him when he refused Relacions offer to pay his
salary check with Relacions Judicial Development Fund (JDF) check; and that it was
only after the Cooperative confronted Relacion that the latter paid his salary check.

Held: Respondent Relacion was guilty of Simple Misconduct. The Code of Conduct for
Court Personnel requires that the officials and employees of the Judiciary serve as
sentinels of justice, and declares that any act of impropriety on their part affects the
dignity of the Judiciary and the peoples faith in the Judiciary. Thus, the court personnel
must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of
their official duties, but also in their private dealings with their co-employees and with
the public. Their professional and personal conduct must be free from any whiff of
impropriety.

----------------

BIDES-ULASO VS. NOE- LACSAMANA

A.C. No. 7297, 20 September 2009
Ethics; Notarial Law

Facts: Ulaso initiated this proceeding against the respondent on March 2, 2005, praying
for the latters disbarment due to her act of signing the amended verification and affidavit of
non-forum shopping attached to the amended complaint of Bides and notarizing the
document sans the signature of Bides and despite the non-appearance of Bides before
her.
Held: The respondents notarizing the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum
shopping in the absence of Bides as the affiant constituted a clear breach of the notarial
protocol and was highly censurable.

Being a lawyer commissioned as a notary, the respondent was mandated to discharge

with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to her notarial office. Such duties being
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest, she could not disregard
the requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law. It was emphatically her primary
duty as a lawyer-notary to obey the laws of the land and to promote respect for the law
and legal processes. She was expected to be in the forefront in the observance and
maintenance of the rule of law. She ought to have remembered that a graver
responsibility was placed upon her shoulders by virtue of her being a lawyer.

----------------

TAN VS. HERNANDO

A.M. No. P-08-2501, 28 August 2009
Court personnel; Failure to pay debt

Facts: Complainant Tan charged respondent Hernando with dishonesty, moral

turpitude, and conduct unbecoming of a public officer. Complainant alleged that
respondent reneged in his obligation to pay his loan from complainant despite
respondents repeated demands.

Held: Respondent cannot escape administrative responsibility. The Court cannot

overstress the need for circumspect and proper behavior on the part of court employees.
While it may be just for an individual to incur indebtedness unrestrained by the fact
that he is a public officer or employee, caution should be taken to prevent the
occurrence of dubious circumstances that might inevitably impair the image of the
public office. Employees of the court should always keep in mind that the court is
regarded by the public with respect. Consequently, the conduct of each court personnel
should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of (sic) onus and must at all times be
characterized by, among other things, uprightness, propriety and decorum.

----------------

NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION VS. CASTILLO

G.R. No. 154124, 4 August 2010
Mistake of counsel
Facts: Petitioner National Tobacco Administration moved for reconsideration of the
decision of the CSC, ordering petitioner to reinstate respondent Castillo, but was denied
for lack of merit. Petitioner then filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the
CSC also denied because its rules allowed only one motion for reconsideration. Petitioner
persisted by filing a petition for admission of the second motion for reconsideration,
which the CSC also denied. Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for relief in the CSC,
arguing that it erroneously filed a second motion for reconsideration instead of an
appeal to the CA because of its former counsels numerous duties (in addition to being
the Deputy Administrator for Operations of petitioner), rendering the compliance with
the legal requirements of the case physically and mentally impossible for its counsel.

Held: A client is generally bound by the mistakes of his lawyer; otherwise, there would
never be an end to litigation as long as a new counsel could be employed, and who
could then allege and show that the preceding counsel had not been sufficiently diligent
or experienced or learned. The legal profession demands of a lawyer that degree of
vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family; such lawyer should adopt
the norm of practice expected of men of good intentions. Moreover, a lawyer owes it to
himself and to his clients to adopt an efficient and orderly system of keeping track of
the developments in his cases, and should be knowledgeable of the remedies
appropriate to his cases.

----------------

OLAGUER VS. AMPUAN

A.M. No. MTJ-10-1769, 6 October 2010
Speedy disposition of cases; Undue delay in rendering decisions

Facts: Complainant Olaguer charged Respondent Judge Ampuan with delay in

rendering a decision, gross inefficiency, and conduct unbecoming of a judge relative to
his handling of complainants case, which has been pending for eight years.
Complainant claims that respondent failed to render a decision despite the lapse of six
months, and to act on the last two motions complainant filed. Respondent explained
that he inherited the case from two predecessors and that the stenographers who had
taken the transcript of stenographic notes transferred to another court, causing delay in
the submission thereof.

Held: Respondent Judge failed in his duty to promptly and expeditiously dispose of
complainants case. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid reason
to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case was previously
heard by another judge not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall have the
full period of ninety (90) days for the completion of the transcripts within which to
decide the same. The respondent should have forthwith issued the order directing the
stenographers to submit the TSNs after the complainant had manifested that the
defendants had not filed their memorandum. A judge cannot by himself choose to
prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. Respondent Judge
could have easily sought additional time by requesting an extension from the Court.
Without an order of extension granted by the Court, his failure to decide within the
required period constituted gross inefficiency that merited administrative sanction.

----------------

RE: CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE JUDGE DAMASO A.

HERRERA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1924, 13 October 2010
Gross inefficiency; Undue delay

Facts: Then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., reported on the cases
submitted for decision before newly-retired Judge Herrera, some of which were already
beyond the reglementary period to decide. The report further indicated that Judge
Herrera failed to request the extension of his time to decide the cases. In his defense,
Judge Herrera cited his heavy workload, lack of sufficient time, health reasons, and the
physical impossibility of complying with the requirements in his explanation. He
mentioned that his court inherited about 1,000 cases, many of which included
voluminous records and some of which required the retaking of testimonies due to
unavailability of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSNs). He claimed that his
regular Branch Clerk of Court had been appointed an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor,
leaving him to do his work without any assistance.

Held: Judge Herreras failure to decide his cases with dispatch constituted gross
inefficiency and warranted the imposition of administrative sanctions upon him. Judge
Herreras plea of heavy workload, lack of sufficient time, poor health, and physical
impossibility could not excuse him. Such circumstances were not justifications for the
delay or non-performance, given that he could have easily requested the Court for the
extension of his time to resolve the cases. No judge can choose to prolong, on his own,
the period for deciding cases beyond the period authorized by the law. Without an
order of extension granted by the Court, a failure to decide even a single case within the
required period rightly constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative
sanction.

----------------
DE LEON VS. CASTELO
A.C. No. 8620, 12 January 2011
Dishonesty and Falsification; Reputation of a lawyer; Duty of Court to shield lawyers
from mindless assault

Facts: Petitioner De Leon, an intervenor in a civil case, accused respondent Atty.

Castelo, the counsel of defendants in said case, with serious administrative offenses of
dishonesty and falsification. Petitioner alleged respondent filed for defendants various
pleadings despite said defendants being already deceased at the time of filing.
Respondent, in his defense, alleged that: (1) it was the children of the defendants that
hired him; (2) he prepared the pleadings in the honest belief that the defendants are still
alive; and (3) the Office of the Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint of
falsification brought against him.

Held: To all attorneys, truthfulness and honesty have the highest value. A lawyer must
be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court and he shall conduct himself as a
lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as
well to the courts as to his clients. He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court
his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case
and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other
hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and
pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his clients rights
and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his clients cause, his conduct
must never be at the expense of truth.

A plain reading indicates that the respondent did not misrepresent that defendants
were still living. On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in the pleadings that
the defendants were already deceased. The fair fame of a lawyer, however innocent of
wrong, is at the mercy of the tongue of ignorance or malice. Reputation in such a calling
is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored. A lawyers
reputation is a very fragile object. The Court must shield such fragility from mindless
assault by the unscrupulous and the malicious. It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting
down any patently frivolous complaint against a lawyer; and, secondly, by demanding
good faith from whoever brings any accusation of unethical conduct. A Bar that is
insulated from intimidation and harassment is encouraged to be courageous and
fearless, which can then best contribute to the efficient delivery and proper
administration of justice.
----------------