PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

DECEMBER 2013

Title of the Case / Date of the Problem Areas Canons violated Penalty Imposed by the
Decision Court
People of the Philippines vs. The Hon. ● Applicability of the Code of Professional ● Code of Professional ●
Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., et al., Responsibility to lawyers in government service in Responsibility.
G.R. No. 208290 the discharge of their official tasks.
December 11, 2013 The Court reminded the lawyers in
● Private respondents were charged before the the BOC that the canons embodied
Court of Tax Appeals for violation of the Tariff and in the Code of Professional
Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended. Responsibility equally apply to
However, the CTA dismissed the case since the lawyers in government service in
prosecution failed to present certified true copies the discharge of their official tasks.
of the documentary evidence submitted contrary
to Section 7, Rule 130 and Section 127, Rule 132
of the Rules of Court. The Run After the
Smugglers (RATS) Group, Revenue Collection
Monitoring Group (RCMG), as counsel for the
BOC, filed a petition for certiorari but the petition
was filed beyond the reglementary period.
Conchita Baltazar,et al. v. Atty. Juan ●Champertous contract. ● Canon 16.04 of the Code of
B. Bañez, Jr., - It is an agreement whereby an attorney Professional Responsibility.
A.C. No. 9091 undertakes to pay the expenses of the
December 11, 2013 proceedings to enforce the client’s rights in “Lawyers shall not lend money to a
exchange for some bargain to have a part of the client, except when in the interest
thing in dispute. It is contrary to public policy. of justice, they have to advance
necessary expenses in a legal
matter they are handling for the
client.”
Nestor V. Felipe, et al. v. Atty. Ciriaco ●In a disbarment proceeding against Atty ●REPRIMANDED
A. Macapagal, Macapagal, he failed to file a comment and his
A.C. No. 4549 position paper despite his receipt of Notice, he
December 2, 2013 was reprimanded for failing to give due respect to
the Court and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.

1

Title of the Case / Date of the
Decision
Elpidio Sy, President, Systems Realty
Development Corporation v. Edgar
Esponilla, Legal Researcher and
Officer-in-Charge, et al., A.M. No. P-
06-2261, December 11, 2013.
Felipe C. Dagala v. Atty. Jose C.
Quesada, Jr. and Atty. Amado T.
Adquilen,
A.C. No. 5044.
December 2, 2013
Re: Verified Complaint of Tomas S.
Merdegia against Hon. Vicente S.E.
Veloso, etc./Re: Resolution dated
October 8, 2013 in OCA IPI No. 12-
205-CA-J against Atty. Homobono
Adaza II,
IPI No. 12-205-CA-J/A.C. No. 10300,
December 10, 2013.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
DECEMBER 2013
Problem Areas Canons violated Penalty Imposed by
the Court
● Disobedience to court directives ● Atty. Bayhon violated the ● SUSPENSION for six (6)
●Failure to explain, in good faith the circumstances Lawyer’s Oath and Canon 10, months from the
surrounding the filing of the Ex-Parte Motion which he Rule 10.01 of the Code of practice of law
himself filed, for proffering misleading claims in the Professional Responsibility
course of the subject administrative investigation, and for
not having shown and proved that he exerted his best
efforts to secure and submit a copy of the Ex-Parte
Motion – all in violation of the resolutions issued by the
Court.
●Gross negligence in handling the labor complaints of ●Canon 17 and Rule 18.03,
complainant. Canon 18 of the Code.
●Failure to attend the scheduled conference hearings,
despite due notice and without any proper justification,
exhibits his inexcusable lack of care and diligence in
managing his client’s cause
●Representing a client not within the bounds of law. ●
● The Supreme Court issued a Resolution dismissing the
administrative complaint of Tomas Merdegia against Court of
Appeals Justice Veloso. The Resolution directed Atty. Adaza II,
Merdegia’s counsel, to show cause why he should not be cited
for contempt. The Supreme Court held Atty. Adaza II guilty of
indirect contempt. Atty. Adaza prepared the administrative
complaint after Justice Veloso refused to inhibit himself from a
case he was handling. The complaint and the motion for
inhibition were both based on the same main cause: the alleged
partiality of Justice Veloso during the oral arguments of
Merdegia’s case. The resolution dismissing the motion for
inhibition should have disposed of the issue of Justice Veloso’s
bias. If they doubted the legality of the Resolution, they could
have filed a petition for certiorari.
2
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
DECEMBER 2013

Title of the Case / Date of the Problem Areas Canons violated Penalty Imposed by
Decision the Court
Victoria C. Heenan v. Atty. Erlinda ● Gross misconduct. ● ● SUSPENSION from the
Espejo, ● Failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless practice of law for two
A.C. No. 10050 checks (2) years.
December 3, 2013