CANON 12

BERBANO V. BARCELONA

FACTS

Felicitas Berbano, heir of Rufino Hilapo appointed Atty. Daen as their atty-in-fact for
their pending casevwith the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems
(regarding their Ayala lot being claimed by Filinvest Dev. Corp.). Atty. Daen was
subsequently arrested by Muntinlupa police. The heirs of Hilapo looked for a lawyer
to secure the release of Atty. Daen. Berbano was recommended to Atty. Barcelona
(by a certain Naty Sibuya). After the first visit of Atty. Barcelona in Muntinlupa City
Jail, they learned that Atty. Daen had decided to engage the services of Atty.
Barcelona. Atty. Barcelona told Berbano that if they could produce P50K, he will
cause the release of Atty. Daen the next day. Since it was already late in the
evening, Berbano could only produce P15,700 by asking from relatives who were
with her.

There were several subsequent meetings between Berbano and Atty. Barcelona
regarding the “grease money” to be used to allegedly bribe an SC justice. Berbano
made another payment via a “pay-to-cash” check for P24,000; and, in another
occasion, went to the house of Atty. Barcelona to give him P10,000. Another
P15,000 was handed to Atty. Barcelona by Atty. Daen’s nephew while Berbano gave
him P1000 for gasoline expenses when Atty. Barcelona informed them that he could
not secure Atty. Daen’s because the check had not been encashed. By this time, the
total amount given to Atty. Barcelona reached P64,000.

For failure to deliver on his promise and due to his sudden disappearance, Berbano
filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Barcelona with the IBP. Commissioner
Bautista found Atty. Barcelona guilty of malpractice and serious breach of the Code
of Professional Responsibility recommending him to be disbarred and ordering him
to return the P64,000 (For failure to file an answer and to appear before the
Commissioner, the decision was rendered ex parte.). Board of Governors adopted
the Commissioner’s findings but reduced the penalty to suspension from the practice
of law for 6 years.

ISSUE

W/N Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred

HELD

Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred.

Disbarment proceedings are meant to safeguard the administration of justice by
protecting the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court and
remove from the profession of law persons whose disregard for their oath of office
have proved them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as
members of the bar.

Berbano’s Affidavit-Complaint and testimony was sufficient to support the finding that
respondent committed the acts complained of. The act of Atty. Barcelona in not filing
his answer and ignoring the hearings, despite due notice, emphasized his contempt
for legal proceedings. Hence, the Court finds no compelling reason to overturn the
Investigating Commissioner’s judgment.

Atty. Barcelona is guilty for violations of Canon 1, 7, 11, and 16 (Rule 16.01). Instead
of promoting respect for law and the legal processes, respondent callously
demeaned the legal profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of
having connections with a Member of the Court (to secure the release of Atty. Daen).
Also, this was not the first time Atty. Barcelona has been charged and found guilty of
conduct unbecoming a lawyer (The previous case also involved misrepresentation
and Atty. Barcelona also did not appear before the IBP despite due notice.).
Respondent has demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting to clients that he has
the proper connections to secure the relief they seek, and thereafter, ask for money,
which will allegedly be given to such connections (related to Canon 12).
 SEBASTIAN V. BAJAR

FACTS

Bajar was a lawyer or the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of the DAR who
represented Fernando Tanlioco in numerous cases which raised the same issues.
Tanlioco was an agricultural lessee of a land owned by Sebastian’s spouse and
sister-in-law (landowners). The landowners filed an Ejectment case
against Tanlioco on the basis of a conversion order of the land use from agricultural
to residential. The RTC rendered judgment ordering Tanlioco’s ejectment subject to
the payment of disturbance compensation. This was affirmed by the CA and SC.
Bajar, as counsel, filed another case for Specific Performance to produce the
conversion order. RTC dismissed this due to res judicata and lack of cause of action.
Bajar again filed another case for Maintenance of Possession with the DAR
Adjudication Board which raised the same issues of conversion and disturbance
compensation.

Manuel S. Sebastian filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Emily

A. Bajar (respondent) for “obstructing, disobeying, resisting, rebelling, and impeding
final decisions of Regional Trial Courts, the Court of Appeals and of the Honorable
Supreme Court, and also for submitting those final decisions for the review and
reversal of the DARAB, an administrative body, and for contemptuous acts and
dilatory tactics.”

The Court issued a resolution requiring Bajar to comment on the complaint lodged
against her. After a 2nd Motion for Extension, Bajar finally submitted her Comment
which was alleged to not confront the issues raised against her. The Court required
Bajar to submit a Rejoinder but failed, and was later ordered to show cause why she
should not be subjected to disciplinary action for such failure. The Court referred the
case to the IBP for hearing and decision. The IBP ruled that Bajar be “SUSPENDED
INDEFINITELY from the practice of law for Unethical Practices and attitude showing
her propensity and incorrigible character to violate the basic tenets and requirements
of the Code of Professional Responsibility rendering her unfit to continue in the
practice of law.” However, Bajar continued to practice law despite the decision
claiming that she did not receive a copy of the order.
ISSUE

Whether Bajar violated the Canon 12 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility

HELD

YES.

Respondent’s act of filing cases with identical issues in other venues despite
the final ruling which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is
beyond the bounds of the law. Respondent abused her right of recourse to the
courts. Respondent, acting as Tanlioco’s counsel, filed cases for Specific
Performance and Maintenance of Possession despite the finality of the decision in
the Ejectment case which involves the same issues. The Court held that “an
important factor in determining the existence of forum-shopping is the vexation
caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim
substantially the same reliefs.[72] Indeed, “while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client, it should not be at the expense of truth and administration of justice.” It is
evident from the records that respondent filed other cases to thwart the execution of
the final judgment in theEjectment case. In this case, respondent has shown her
great propensity to disregard court orders. Respondent’s acts of wantonly disobeying
her duties as an officer of the court show an utter disrespect for the Court and the
legal profession. However, the Court will not disbar a lawyer if it finds that a lesser
penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.

Bajar was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE
YEARS effective from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
 HEGNA V. PADERANGA

FACTS

Hegna was the lessee of a portion of land owned by the Baclayon spouses for 10
years but during this period the Panaguinip spouses by means of force, threat,
intimidation, stealth and strategy (FISTS) entered upon the vacant portion of the lot
and constructed a shop for which he filed a forcible entry case.

Hegna won and the Panaguinip spouses were sentenced to vacate the leased
premises and to pay complainant compensatory damages for illegal occupation.
When the MTCC of Cebu issued a writ of execution and the Sheriff levied certain
properties of the spouses they sent a letter dated Dec 2001 to Hegna for a possible
amicable settlement which he denied. Then Atty. Paderanga filed a Third Party
Complaint alleging that he bought the lot and the vehicle during November and
December of 2001 which caused the failure to levy the properties by the Sheriff.

Hegna then filed a letter complaint to the Office of the bar confidant for “deliberately
falsifying documents, causing delay and a possible denial of justice.” He also filed
criminal charges against Atty. Paderanga & Atty. Madarang (notary public) for
falsification of public documents and the Panaguinip spouses for false testimony and
perjury. His grounds were (1) the lot had no record of transfer with the Register of
Deeds, (2) the registration of the vehicle didn’t reflect any change of ownership & (3)
the Notarial Register Book showed tampering and erasures.

The City Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of prima facie evidence
of guilt but referred the administrative complaint to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Atty. Paderanga’s defense alleged that for
ESTATE PLANNING purposes, he intentionally left these properties in the name of
the previous owner and that he alleged discrepancies in the notarization were made
to correct mistakes so that entries will speak the truth.

The Investigating Commissioner found that the dismissal was improper in light of the
letter handwritten by Respondent’s clients, written in Cebuano, asking for mercy and
forgiveness in relation to the forcible entry case. Such letter was no longer necessary
if indeed there was a GENUINE transfer of ownership of properties. In addition, there
were several instances where Atty. Paderanga will meet with Hegna offering
settlement and it was only when he denied them that he received the Third Party
Complaint.

ISSUE

W/n there was indeed a genuine transfer of the lot and vehicle to Atty. Paderanga?

HELD

Commissioner is convinced that there was indeed an anomaly which constitutes a

violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility so given 1 year suspension.
His non-registration of the sale transaction so it would not appear in the records of
the BIR, the City Assessor or the Register of Deeds, on the Land Registration Office
so that he would not pay for the expenses of the sale and transfer twice, once he
decided to sell; or place them in his children’s name, and avoid paying estate and
inheritance taxes upon his death.

Art. 1491 A lawyer ought to have known that he cannot acquire the property of his
client which is in litigation.

violated Rule 1.01 which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

violated the Lawyer’s Oath, which mandates that he should support the Constitution,
obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein,
and do no falsehood or not consent to the doing of any in court. Further, he has also
failed to live up to the standard set by law that he should refrain from counseling or
abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system. The act of non-registration of the deeds of sale to avoid paying tax may not
be illegal per se; but, as a servant of the law, a lawyer should make himself an
exemplar for others to emulate.
 PLUS BUILDERS V. REVILLA

FACTS

In the case of PLUS BUILDERS, INC., and EDGARDO C. GARCIA vs. ATTY.
ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., , En Banc, A.C. No. 7056, February 11, 2009, the
respondent lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Philippine
Supreme Court, finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct for committing a willful
and intentional falsehood before the court, misusing court procedure and processes
to delay the execution of a judgment and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal
practice of law.

On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of

Cavite (PARAD) in favor of complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the
tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al., who were the clients of respondent
Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondent’s clients were mere
tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was
elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining
complainant’s rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his clients’ lost cause,
respondent was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court
processes with the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing
of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action
to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers
to engage in the unauthorized practice of law – holding themselves out as his
partners/associates in the law firm.

Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained of. The courses of
action he took were not meant to unduly delay the execution of the DARAB Decision
dated November 19, 1999, but were based on his serious study, research and
experience as a litigation lawyer for more than 20 years and on the facts given to him
by his clients in the DARAB case. He believes that the courses of action he took
were valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights and interests of
Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. He stresses that he was not the original lawyer in this
case. The lawyer-client relationship with the former lawyer was terminated because
Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their former counsel did not explain/argue their
position very well, refused to listen to them and, in fact, even castigated them. As the
new counsel, respondent candidly relied on what the tenants/farmers told him in the
course of his interview. They maintained that they had been in open, adverse,
continuous and notorious possession of the land in the concept of an owner for more
than 50 years. Thus, the filing of the action to quiet title was resorted to in order to
determine the rights of his clients respecting the subject property. He avers that he
merely exhausted all possible remedies and defenses to which his clients were
entitled under the law, considering that his clients were subjected to harassment and
threats of physical harm and summary eviction by the complainant. He posited that
he was only being protective of the interest of his clients as a good father would be
protective of his own family, and that his services to Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al
were almost pro bono.

HELD

It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is expected to give his full
attention, diligence, skill and competence to the case, regardless of its importance
and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer’s devotion to his client’s
cause not only requires but also entitles him to deploy every honorable means to
secure for the client what is justly due him or to present every defense provided by
law to enable the latter’s cause to succeed. In this case, respondent may not be
wanting in this regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that the respondent’s acts
complained of were committed out of his over-zealousness and misguided desire to
protect the interests of his clients who were poor and uneducated. We are not
unmindful of his dedication and conviction in defending the less fortunate. Taking the
cudgels from the former lawyer in this case is rather commendable, but respondent
should not forget his first and foremost responsibility as an officer of the court. In
support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy
or defense within the authority of the law. This obligation, however, is not to be
performed at the expense of truth and justice. This is the criterion that must be borne
in mind in every exertion a lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding
execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.

FIL-GARCIA, INC. V. HERNANDEZ

Fact
Filomeno Garcia, president of Fil-Garcia Inc., after losing his case in the CA
for a sum of money, secured the serviced of Atty. Fernando Hernandez, who
received the denied resolution for Garcia as counsel, and was given 15 days to
appeal.
 Instead of filing the appeal, Hernandez filed for a Motion for Extension the day
before the expiration of the period to file the appeal,, alleging that he was counsel for
a mayoralty candidate and a senatorial candidate, and he was also needed in the
canvassing of votes, so the urgency of the nature of his work will not allow him the
limited time to file the appeal, thus asked for 30 days extension.
30 days later, Hernandez again filed his 2nd Motion for Extension, this time,
because he fell ill, and his physical state will not allow him to file the appeal on time,
thus asking for 20 days extension.
20 days later, the 3rd Motion for Extension was filed, with the grand excuse
that because he fell ill the last time, his work load piled up, thus requiring him more
time to conclude on the work load he missed when he was ill, plus the appeal, hence
the request for 10 days extension, to which 10 days later, he did actually file the
appeal. (Finally!)
Of course, afterwards, Hernandez learned that all three Motions for
Extensions were denied by the court, and to his dismay, received a copy of the
resolution denying the appeal all together. However, instead of informing his client,
Fil-Garcia, he decides to forward the resolution of denial of the appeal some 7
months later, which greatly angered his client, pushing him to file for his disbarment.

Issue
Is Hernandez liable for malpractice, gross misconduct, tantamount to violation
of his oath as a lawyer, which warrant his disbarment?

Held
Yes, to gross negligence, but no to disbarment.
The filing of 3 motions for extension on the careless assumption that each
motion will be granted by the Court, and without taking care of informing himself of
the Court's action thereon, constitutes inexcusable negligence. Moreover,
respondent knowingly referred to Rule 65 in the petition he belatedly filed as an
afterthought in his desperate attempt to salvage the appeal.
Rule 12.04 enjoins a lawyer not to "unduly delay a case, impede the execution of
judgment or misuse court proceedings." While pressure of work or some other
unavoidable reasons may constrain a lawyer to file a motion for extension of time to
file pleadings, he should not presume that his motion for extension of time will be
granted. Motions for extension of time to file a pleading are not granted as a matter
of course but lie in the sound discretion of the court. It is thus incumbent on any
movant for extension to exercise due diligence to inform himself as soon as possible
of the Court's action on his motion, by timely inquiry from the Clerk of Court. Should
he neglect to do so, he runs the risk of time running out on him, for which he will
have nobody but himself to blame.
A lawyer who finds it impracticable to continue as counsel should inform the client
and ask that he be allowed to withdraw from the case to enable the client to engage
the services of another counsel who can study the situation and work out a solution.
To make matters worse, it took respondent 7 months from the time he received a
copy of the Court's resolution to inform complainant of the same.
He was merely suspended for 6 months, considering that respondent humbly
admitted his fault in not immediately informing complainant of the status of the case.
NESTOR B. FIGUERAS AND BIENVENIDO VICTORIA, JR., COMPLAINANTS,

VS.

ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ, RESPONDENT.

Facts:

Congressional Village Homeowner’s Association, Inc. is the entity in charge of the

affairs of the homeowners of Congressional Village in Quezon City. The Spouses
Federico and Victoria Santander filed a civil suit for damages against the Association
and Ely Mabanag before the RTC for building a concrete wall which abutted their
property and denied them of their right of way. The spouses Santander likewise
alleged that said concrete wall was built in violation of Quezon City Ordinance which
prohibits the closing, obstructing, preventing or otherwise refusing to the public or
vehicular traffic the use of or free access to any subdivision or community street. The
Law Firm of Gonzalez Sinense Jimenez and Associates was the legal counsel for
the Association, with respondent as the counsel of record and handling lawyer. After
trial and hearing, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the Spouses Santander.
The Association, represented by said law firm, appealed to the CA. The CA issued a
Resolution dismissing the appeal on the ground that the original period to file the
appellant’s brief had expired 95 days even before the first motion for extension of
time to file said brief was filed. The CA also stated that the grounds adduced for the
said motion as well as the six subsequent motions for extension of time to file brief
were not meritorious. The CA resolution became final.

Eight years later or on April 11, 2007, complainants Nestor Figueras and Bienvenido
Victoria, Jr., as members of the Association, filed a Complaint for Disbarment against
respondent before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) for violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 12.03, Canon 12; Canon 17;
and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 thereof for his negligence in handling the appeal and
willful violation of his duties as an officer of the court.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the code of professional responsibility

Ruling:
 A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of
protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellant’s
brief on behalf of his client, respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel
as set forth in Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which exhorts every member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exert every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the same Code also states that:

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.

An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and with
utmost diligence. (Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 159) A failure to file
brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. (People
vs. Villar, 46 SCRA 107) The respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in
the duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to
aid in the speedy administration of justice. (Canons 21 and 22, Canons of
Professional Ethics; People vs. Daban, 43 SCRA 185; People vs. Estocada, 43
SCRA 515).
SOLEDAD NUÑEZ VS. ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT
A.C. NO. 5054. MAY 29, 2002

Facts:
Sometime in October 1982 petitioner authorized respondent attorney to sell her two
parcels of land located in Legazpi City for P40,000. She agreed to give respondent
10 percent of the price as commission. Respondent succeeded in selling the lots, but
despite complainant’s repeated demands, he did not turn over to her the proceeds of
the sale. This forced complainant to file against respondent and his wife an action for
a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
Respondent was declared in default and judgment was rendered in favor of
petitioner. Respondent appealed said decision to the Court of Appeals but the same
was dismissed for failure to pay the docket fee within the required period.
A writ of execution was issued, it appeared however that only a partial amount has
been paid by the lawyer. Four postdated checks were subsequently issued to cover
the balance. Said checks however, upon presentment were dishonored because the
account against which they were drawn was closed. Demands to make good the
checks were to no avail so a case for violation of BP 22 was filed by petitioner.
The lawyer denied the allegations and filed several motions for extension of time to
file comment. Complainant filed a motion to cite lawyer for contempt for his alleged
delaying tactics unbecoming of a lawyer and a law dean.

Issue:
What is the liability of the lawyer?

Held:
Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of grave misconduct in his dealings with complainant.
Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that
“A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct”.
Respondent had no intention to “honor” the money judgment against him in as can
be gleaned from his (1) issuance of postdated checks; (2) closing of the account
against which said checks were drawn; and (3) continued failure to make good the
amounts of the checks.

JONAR SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. EDISON V. RAFANAN

 A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004

PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:
Complainant Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management
and Penology, lodged a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Edison
Rafanan before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleging, inter alia, that Atty.
Rafanan violated Rule 12.07 and Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility when the latter executed an affidavit in favour of his
client and offered the same as evidence in a case where he is actively representing
his client. The complaint also alleged that after the hearing of the case, respondent
accompanied by several persons waited for Complainant and after confronting the
latter disarmed him of his sidearm and thereafter uttered insulting words and veiled
threats.
In his answer, respondent denied having disarmed the complainant and
uttered insulting words nor veiled threats against the latter. He however admitted that
he executed an affidavit in favour of his client and offered the same as evidence in a
case where he is actively representing his client but interposed the defense that
lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients "on substantial matters, in cases where
[their] testimony is essential to the ends of justice." Complainant charged
respondent’s clients with attempted murder. Respondent averred that since they
were in his house when the alleged crime occurred, "his testimony is very essential
to the ends of justice.”
The IBP, while finding that administrative offense was committed by
respondent for violating the notarial law, recommended the dismissal of the
complaint for alleged violation of Rule 12.07 and Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for insufficiency of evidence. Hence, the present
action was commenced.

ISSUE:
May a lawyer testify on substantial matters relative to the cause of the party
which he is actively representing in a case without violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

HELD:
YES. Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a
witness, except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged communication arising
from an attorney-client relationship. The reason behind such rule is the difficulty
posed upon lawyers by the task of dissociating their relation to their clients as
witnesses from that as advocates. Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they
recall them. In contradistinction, advocates are partisans -- those who actively plead
and defend the cause of others. It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and
impartiality of a disinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate. The question is
one of propriety rather than of competency of the lawyers who testify for their clients.
Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and at
the same time counsels for a cause, the preference is for them to refrain from
testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to
withdraw from active management of the case.
Notwithstanding this guideline and the existence of the Affidavit executed by
Atty. Rafanan in favor of his clients, we cannot hastily make him administratively
liable for the following reasons:
First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and defense
that is authorized by law for the benefit of the client, especially in a criminal action in
which the latter’s life and liberty are at stake. Having undertaken the defense of the
accused, respondent, as defense counsel, was thus expected to spare no effort to
save his clients from a wrong conviction. The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan
was clearly necessary for the defense of his clients, since it pointed out the fact that
on the alleged date and time of the incident, his clients were at his residence and
could not have possibly committed the crime charged against them. Notably, in his
Affidavit, complainant does not dispute the statements of respondent or suggest the
falsity of its contents.
Second, paragraph (b) of Rule 12.08 contemplates a situation in which
lawyers give their testimonies during the trial. In this instance, the Affidavit was
submitted during the preliminary investigation which, as such, was merely
inquisitorial. Not being a trial of the case on the merits, a preliminary investigation
has the oft-repeated purposes of securing innocent persons against hasty, malicious
and oppressive prosecutions; protecting them from open and public accusations of
crime and from the trouble as well as expense and anxiety of a public trial; and
protecting the State from useless and expensive prosecutions. The investigation is
advisedly called preliminary, as it is yet to be followed by the trial proper.
Nonetheless, we deem it important to stress and remind respondent to refrain
from accepting employment in any matter in which he knows or has reason to
believe that he may be an essential witness for the prospective client. Furthermore,
in future cases in which his testimony may become essential to serve the "ends of
justice," the canons of the profession require him to withdraw from the active
prosecution of these cases.
Judge Rene B. Baculi, Complainant, vs. Atty. Melchor A. Battung, Respondent
Facts:

Judge Baculi, Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2,

Tuguegarao City, filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Battung. He claimed
that on July 24, 2008, during the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of Civil
Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting while arguing his motion. Judge Baculi
advised him to tone down his voice but instead, the respondent shouted at the top of
his voice. When warned that he would be cited for direct contempt, the respondent
shouted, “Then cite me!”Judge Baculi cited him for direct contempt and imposed a
fine of P100.00. The respondent then left.

While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and
shouted, “Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!” Judge
Baculi ocited him for direct contempt of court for the second time.

After his hearings, respondent again shouted in a threatening tone, “Judge, I will file
gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!” He kept on shouting, “I am not
afraid of you!” and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and lawyers escorted him out
of the building.

Judge Baculi later found out that after the respondent left the courtroom, Atty.
Battung continued shouting and punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of Court.

Issue:
Did Atty. Battung violate Cannons 11 and 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

Ruling:
IBP Commissioner found that the respondent failed to observe Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility that requires a lawyer to observe and maintain
respect due the courts and judicial officers. The respondent also violated Rule 11.03
of Canon 11 that provides that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the courts. The respondent’s argument that
Judge Baculi provoked him to shout should not be given due consideration since the
respondent should not have shouted at the presiding judge; by doing so, he created
the impression that disrespect of a judge could be tolerated. De la Rama
recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6)
months.
The Supreme Court held that litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of
their position and avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule,
demean and disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents.

A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latter’s
role, stature and position in our justice system. When the respondent publicly
berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi that he would file a case for gross
ignorance of the law against the latter, the respondent effectively acted in a manner
tending to erode the public confidence in Judge Baculi’s competence and in his
ability to decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be handled
with sensitivity in the manner provided under the Rules of Court; an objecting or
complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and
bring the justice system into disrepute.

Atty. Battung was ordered suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year with a
warning that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
CONRADO QUE vs ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR.
Facts:
In a complaint for disbarment Conrado Que (complainant) accused Atty. Anastacio
RevillaJr. (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on
Bar Discipline(IBP Committee on Bar Discipline or CBD) of committing the following
violations of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138
of the Rules of Court.Complainant alleged the respondent’s commission of forum-
shopping by filing the subject cases in order to impede, obstruct, and frustrate the
efficient administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat the right of
the complainant and his siblings to execute theMeTC and RTC judgments in the
unlawful detainer case. In his Answer, the respondent declared that he is a member
of the Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC) that handlespro bono cases for the
underprivileged, the less fortunate, the homeless and those marginalized sector in
Metro Manila. He agreed to take over the cases formerly handled by other KDC
members. Investigating Commissioner ruled that the act of the respondent infiling
two petitions for annulment of title, a petition for annulment of judgment and later on
apetition for declaratory relief were all done to prevent the execution of the final
judgment inthe unlawful detainer case and constituted prohibited forum-shopping.

Issue:Whether or not respondent is guilty of forum shopping

Held:YES. Respondent is guilty of forum shopping. Respondent violated Rule 12.02

and Rule12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the
rule agains torum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple
actions to attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court
processes they tend to degrade the administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly
judicial procedure; and add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the
courts.While the filing of a petition for certiorari to question the lower courts’
jurisdiction may be a procedurally legitimate (but substantially erroneous) move, the
respondent’s subsequent petitions involving the same property and the same parties
not only demonstrate his attempts to secure favorable ruling using different for a, but
his obvious objective as well of preventing the execution of MeTC and RTC
decisions in the unlawful detainer case against his clients. This intent is most
obvious with respect to the petitions for annulment of judgment and declaratory relief
, both geared towards preventing the execution of the unlawful detainer decision,
long after this decision had become final. Hence, Atty. Anastacio Revilla,Jr. is found
liable for professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons of
Professional Responsibility and should be disbarred from the practice of law
REPORT ON CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
25. Taking technical advantage of opposite counsel; agreement with him

A lawyer should not ignore known customs or practice of the bar or of a particular court,
even when the law permits, without giving timely notice to the opposite counsel. As far as
possible, important agreements, affecting the rights of clients, should be reduced to writing,
but it is dishonorable to avoid performance of an agreement fairly made because it is not
reduced to writing, as required by the Rules of Court.

26. Professional advocacy other than before courts

A lawyer openly, and in his true character may render professional services before
legislative or other bodies, regarding proposed legislation and in advocacy of claims before
departments of government upon the same principles of ethics which justify his appearance
before courts; but it is unprofessional for a lawyer so engaged, to conceal his attorneyship,
or to employ secret personal solicitations, or to use means other than those addressed to
reason and understanding, to influence action.

27. Advertising, direct or indirect It is unprofessional to solicit professional employment by

circulars, advertisements, through touters, or by personal communications or interviews not
warranted by personal relations. Indirect advertisements for professional employment such
as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published
in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the
manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the
lawyer's position, and all other like-laudation, offend the traditions and lower the tone of our
profession and are reprehensible; but the customary use of simple professional cards is not
improper.
Publication in reputable law lists in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by those canons of brief biographical and informative data is permissible. Such
data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer's name and the
names of his professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses;
branches of the profession practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar;
schools attended; with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational distinctions;
public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal authorship; legal teaching positions;
memberships and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific
societies and legal fraternities; the fact of references; and, with their written consent, the
names of clients regularly represented. A certificate of compliance with the Rules and
Standards issued by the Special Committee on Law Lists may be treated as evidence that
such list is reputable.

28. Stirring up litigation, directly or through agents

It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases
where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and
litigation is not only unprofessional, but it is indictable at common law. It is disreputable to
hunt up defects in titles or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to be employed
to bring suit or collect judgment, or to breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for
personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as
clients, or to employ agents or runners for like purposes, or to pay or reward, directly or
indirectly, those who bring or influence the bringing of such cases to his office, or to
remunerate policemen, court or prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who
may succeed under the guise of giving disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the
criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant or others, to seek his professional services. A
duty to the public and to the profession devolves upon every member of the bar having
knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform thereof,
to the end that the offender may be disbarred.

29. Upholding the honor of the profession

Lawyers should expose without fear or favor before the proper tribunal corrupt or dishonest
conduct in the profession, and should accept without hesitation employment against a
member of the bar who has wronged his client. The counsel upon the trial of a cause in
which perjury has been committed owe it to the profession and to the public to bring the
matter to the knowledge of the prosecuting authorities. The lawyer should aid in guarding the
bar against admission to the profession of candidates unfit or unqualified because deficient
in either moral character or education. He should strive at all times to uphold the honor and
to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law but the
administration of justice.

30. Justifiable and unjustifiable litigations The lawyer must decline to conduct a civil cause
or to make a defense when convicted that it is intended merely to harass or to injure the
opposite party or to work oppression or wrong. But otherwise it is right, and having accepted
retainer, it becomes his duty to insist upon the judgment of the court as to the legal merits of
his client's claim. His appearance in court should be deemed equivalent to an assertion on
his honor that in his opinion his client's case is one proper for judicial determination.

31. Responsibility for litigation No lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for
every person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline
employment.Every lawyer upon his own responsibility must decide what employment he will
accept as counsel, what causes he will bring into court for plaintiffs, what case he will
contest in court for defendants. The responsibility for advising as to questionable defenses is
the lawyer's responsibility. He cannot escape it but urging as an excuse that he is only
following his client's instructions.

32. The lawyer's duty in its last analysis

No client corporate or individual, however, powerful nor any cause, civil or political, however
important, is entitled to receive nor should any lawyer render any service or advice involving
disloyalty to the laws whose ministers we are, or disrespect of the judicial office, which we
are bound to uphold, or corruption of any person or persons exercising a public office or
private trust, or deception or betrayal of the public. When rendering any such improper
service or advice, the lawyer invites and merits stern and just condemnation.
Correspondingly, he advances the honor of his profession and the best interests of his client
when he renders service or gives advice tending to impress upon the client and his
undertaking exact compliance with the strictest principles of moral law. He must also
observe and advice his client to observe the statute law, though until a statute shall have
been construed and interpreted by competent adjudication he is free and is entitled to advise
as to its validity and as to what he conscientiously believes to be its just meaning and extent.
But above all a lawyer will find his highest honor in a deserved reputation for fidelity to
private trust and to public duty, as an honest man and as a patriotic and loyal citizen.

33. Partnership - names

Partnerships among lawyers for the practice of their profession are very common and are
not to be condemned. In the formation of partnerships and the use of partnership names,
care should be taken not to violate any law, custom, or rule of court locally applicable.
Where partnerships are formed between lawyers who are not all admitted to practice in the
courts of the state, care should be taken to avoid any misleading name or representation
which would create a false impression as to the professional position or privilege of the
member not locally admitted.
In the formation of partnerships for the practice of law no person should be admitted or held
out as practitioner or member who is not a member of the legal profession duly authorized to
practice, and amenable to professional discipline. In the selection and use of a firm name,
no false, misleading, assumed or trade name should be used. The continued use of the
name of a deceased or former partner, when permissible by local custom, is not unethical,
but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. When
a member of the firm, on becoming a judge, is precluded from practicing law, his name
should not be continued in the firm name.
Partnership between lawyers and members of other professions or non-professional persons
should not be formed or permitted where any part of the partnership's employment consists
of the practice of law.

34. Division of fee

No division of fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, based upon a
division of service or responsibility.
35. Intermediaries
The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any lay
agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A lawyer's
responsibilities and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations which direct
the performance of his duties by or in the interest of such intermediary. A lawyer's relation to
his client should be personal, and his responsibility should be direct to the client. Charitable
societies rendering aid to the indigents are not deemed such intermediaries.
A lawyer may accept employment from any organization, such as an association, club or
trade organization, to render legal services in any matter in which the organization, as an
entity, is interested, but this employment should not include the rendering of legal services to
the members of such an organization in respect to their individual affairs.

36. Retirement from judicial position or public employment

A lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate in any matter upon the merits of
which he has previously acted in a judicial capacity. l
A lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public employ should not, after
his retirement, accept employment in connection with any matter he has investigated or
passed upon while in such office or employ.