I.

NEWS INVOLVING A LAWYER

Lawyer Represents 2 Parties In Same Case, Suspended

Mylen P. Manto (The Freeman) - July 17, 2019 - 12:00am
CEBU, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has approved the suspension a trial lawyer for one year
effective immediately for alleged violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility after she allegedly
represented both the husband and the wife mired in a legal separation case.

Lawyer Gloria Lastimosa-Dalawampu was found guilty of violating Canon 15, Rules 15.01 and 15.03.

“The court hereby adopts and approves with modification the resolution dated January 31, 2015 rendered
by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, finding Atty. Gloria Lastimosa-
Dalawampu guilty of Canon 15, Rules 15.01 and 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,” read the
notice.

This stemmed from a complaint filed by Atty. Elsa Wilson, who allegedly hired Dalawampu for her legal
separation case she had filed with the Regional Trial Court Branch 9 in Cebu City against her husband,
Claude Wilson.

Elsa and Dalawampu had a lawyer-client relationship.

However, the investigating commissioner observed that Dalawampu also made her representation as
counsel for Claude in the legal separation case, as well as in a case for declaration of nullity of marriage
that he filed against Elsa in the same court.

This prompted Elsa to file on August 31, 2000 a motion with the RTC to disqualify Dalawampu from
representing Claude in court on the ground of conflict of interest, which was eventually granted by the
Court of Appeals in its decision in 2004.

The SC second division, in its notice, stated: “Lawyers are duty-bound to maintain undivided allegiance to
their clients and avoid any conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises when a lawyer discharges
inconsistent duties or represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties.”

The SC also sternly warned Dalawampu that a repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with
more severely. (FREEMAN)

Link: https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/cebu-news/2019/07/17/1935352/lawyer-represents-2-
parties-same-case-suspended

Discussion:
A trial lawyer was suspended for representing the two parties of a legal separation case, as well as in
a case for declaration of nullity of marriage case. This incident poses the importance of ethics in the
practice of legal profession. Lawyers must, at all times uphold the values, integrity, trust and confidence
that the legal profession puts upon their shoulders. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that:

A Lawyer Shall Observe Candor, Fairness And Loyalty In All His Dealings And Transactions With
His Clients.

Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if
so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.

xxx

Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

xxx

Lawyer Gloria Lastimosa-Dalawampu violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and was found
guilty of violating Canon 15, Rules 15.01 and 15.03. Representing two parties of the same case would allow
the possibility of conflict of interest and would lead to the possibility of bias involving the opposing parties
of the same case. This is contrary to the duties and obligations imposed upon lawyers and in violation of
the oath that lawyers took upon admitting themselves to the bar.

The lawyer in the case at bar, should have first disclosed that fact to her other client, before
representing her in the case, that she is also representing the opposing party of said case in order for the
conflict of interest to be avoided. She should have first acquired their consent, but it being a case of legal
separation, she must have inhibited entirely from representing the other.

II. WHAT SETS CAROLINIAN LAWYERS APART FROM OTHER LAWYERS

Carolinian lawyers were once a Carolinian students. Carolinian students who embodies the four
secrets to succeed in law school, bar and on practice. Hard work, faith in God, faith in oneself
and faith in USC law family. With these four secrets, I believe this is what keeps us apart from
other lawyers. Hard work, from the moment we started our journey towards becoming a lawyer
we are already advise that we should always be one step or more ahead for our everyday
discussion. We are advised that in order to succeed, we need to work hard to know not only
the better answer but the best answer we could provide for our teacher in law school, to
examiner on bar exams and to give the best remedy to our clients. Faith in God and to oneself,
we were given wisdoms that how are going to let other people believe from what we are talking
if we ourselves cannot do it in the first place. Wisdoms to always be pray and thank God for
all the blessing he has given to us. Lastly, Faith in USC law family, for whatever happens, might
you be their students or colleagues as you passed the bar exam, they will always be there for
you and the second family who is going to believe and support you all through your life.

III. OPINION ON THE STATE OF LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE COUNTRY

The legal profession in the Philippines has contributed a lot of positive outcome to our country
especially in achieving the justice, peace, order and security of the people. But this does not
mean that the current legal profession is perfect in where there is no room for mistake and
improvement. One of the legal profession that needs to be improved is the strong sense of
ethic in where the lawyers should exercise their profession with caution of knowing and
invoking what is right or wrong (e.g.”gapangan”) by practicing the value of independence .
Second is they must improve the sense of accountability, which mean they should accept the
result of and any fallout of their work. Lawyers must own up to their mistakes and ensure that
they are not repeated. They must not resort to cheating just in order to win the case. Lastly
trustworthiness and reliability should be improve. Most of the lawyers today are easily tempted
with money especially if big corporation are involve. We strongly believe that trustworthiness
and reliability are the most important qualities of being a best lawyer since most of the time
we deal with confidential matter of which it is our job to ensure that this matters remain secure
and this is our the key in achieving justice, peace, order and security of the people.

IV. HOW TO PREPARE ONESELF ETHICS-WISE FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION

A career as a lawyer is a very noble profession. It has been a hallmark of prestige. Studying
law is being considered as one of the most impressive degrees, lawyers are known to have
generous salaries, and are placed in an elite circle of professionals, and one of the most
respected professions in the society who embody the definition of success, but most
importantly, it is an extraordinary calling because being a lawyer comes with the great
responsibility for siding with the right side of justice and a commitment to help others, that is
why so many people dream of becoming one.

However, studying law requires enormous undertaking in terms of time, commitment, passion
and financial investment. Moreover, studying law is one of the most intellectually challenging
paths for it sharpens your problem solving, reasoning, analytical and critical thinking skills. As
a law student, it is important to develop these abilities to further broaden one’s perspective in
different circumstances, and when being confronted by complex cases, as well as to develop
the competence and intellect in the pursuit of a career in the legal profession.

“How to act like a professional in law school at any given point in law school?” You have
probably heard someone tell you this or have read it somewhere already. But what does it
mean? Why do you need to “act professional” if you are not working in a law firm yet? Well,
professionalism is about much more than job interviews and office etiquette, it is a philosophy
that applies to you at every stage of your legal career, even if you are still a student of law. If
 approached from this angle, between interacting with your peers and faculty, you will be well
trained in how to be professional as an attorney.

Preparation is everything if you’re starting law school, or continuing law school, you might
want to take some time to reflect on what it means to be a lawyer, and what it means to be
excellent. You might try to develop yourself into an olympic-quality lawyer, by doing what the
athletes do: learn the best ways to play your game, innovate to find even better ways, and
practice. Preparation is everything.

Furthermore, being legally compliant means doing the right thing when someone is watching,
whereas being ethical means doing the right thing when no-one is watching, and this virtue is
what every person who aspires to be in the legal profession must keep in mind.

Dealing with challenges in the legal profession appropriately requires sound judgement and
significant wisdom. Judgement and wisdom are required to navigate these challenges and
balance the interest of the client with the greater public good. Another important thing a
student of law must remember is that the legal profession is not a business but a profession.
It has been created by the state for the public good. As a law student, one must keep in mind
that being a lawyer, comes with a great responsibility to embody the true call of the profession.
One shall practice to have the social responsibility and dignity of the legal profession and high
standard of integrity and efficient service to his client as well as for public welfare.

V. CASES ON BAR INTEGRATION

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP
Administrative Case No. MDD-1)
A.M. No. 1928
August 3, 1978

FACTS:

On November 29, 1975, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP for short) Board of Governors
unanimously adopted Resolution No. 75-65 in Administrative Case No. MDD-1 (In the Matter of the
Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon) recommending to the Court the removal of the
name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for "stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues" to
the IBP since the latter's constitution notwithstanding due.

On January 21, 1976, the IBP, through its then President Liliano B. Neri, submitted the said
resolution to the Court for consideration and approval, pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of
the By-Laws of the IBP.

At the threshold, a painstaking scrutiny of the respondent's pleadings would show that the propriety
and necessity of the integration of the Bar of the Philippines are in essence conceded. The respondent,
however, objects to particular features of Rule of Court 139-A (hereinafter referred to as the Court Rule) 1
- in accordance with which the Bar of the Philippines was integrated - and to the provisions of par. 2,
Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws.

ISSUES:

I. WON the IBP Board of Governors has the authority to recommend to the Supreme Court the
removal of a delinquent member's name from the Roll of Attorneys
II. WON there is an invasion of his constitutional rights in the payment of the corresponding dues in
maintaining the membership to the IBP

RULING:

I.

The authority of the IBP Board of Governors to recommend to the Supreme Court the removal of
a delinquent member's name from the Roll of Attorneys is found in par. 2 Section 24, Article Ill of the IBP
By-Laws (supra), whereas the authority of the Court to issue the order applied for is found in Section 10 of
the Court Rule, which reads:

SEC. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule,
default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in
 the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of
the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

The all-encompassing, all-inclusive scope of membership in the IBP is stated in these words of the Court
Rule:

SECTION 1. Organization. - There is hereby organized an official national body to be known as the
'Integrated Bar of the Philippines,' composed of all persons whose names now appear or may
hereafter be included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

II.

An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must belong, as distinguished
from bar associations organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership in which is voluntary.
Integration of the Bar is essentially a process by which every member of the Bar is afforded an opportunity
to do his share in carrying out the objectives of the Bar as well as obliged to bear his portion of its
responsibilities. Organized by or under the direction of the State, an integrated Bar is an official national
body of which all lawyers are required to be members. They are, therefore, subject to all the rules
prescribed for the governance of the Bar, including the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee
for the effective discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a code of professional ethics or
professional responsibility breach of which constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar and,
upon proper cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the offending member.

The most compelling argument sustaining the constitutionality and validity of Bar integration in the
Philippines is the explicit unequivocal grant of precise power to the Supreme Court by Section 5 (5) of
Article X of the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, which reads:

Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and pro. procedure in all courts, and the
admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Bar ...,

and Section 1 of Republic Act No. 6397, which reads:

SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of
Court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise
the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge
its public responsibility more effectively.

Hence, the practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, 13 and as such must bow
to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities.
By this, the provisions of Rule of Court 139-A and of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
complained of are neither unconstitutional nor illegal.

TOMAS P. TAN, JR. vs. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA

A.C. No. 9000
January 10, 2018

FACTS:

In August 1999, respondent obtained from him a ₱350,000.00 loan with 12% interest per annum.
Incidental thereto, respondent executed in favor of complainant an undated Deed of Absolute Sale over a
105- square meter lot located in Naga City. Respondent failed to pay her loan when it fell due. Despite
repeated demands, she failed to settle her obligation. Complainant argued that respondent committed
dishonesty, and used her skill as a lawyer and her moral ascendancy over him in securing the loan. Thus,
he prayed that respondent be sanctioned for her infraction.

In his Commissioner's Report dated February 9, 2009; Commissioner Jose I. de la Rama, Jr.
(Commissioner de la Rama) faulted respondent for failing to file an answer, and participate in the mandatory
conference, He further declared that the SPA specifically authorized respondent to mortgage the property
with a bank. He stressed that for selling the property, and not just mortgaging it to complainant, who was
not even a bank, respondent acted beyond her authority. Having done so, she committed gross violation
of the Lawyer's Oath as well as Canon 19 Rule 1.01,10 and Canon 711 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. As such, he recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one
year.

ISSUE:
WON the respondent is administratively liable for engaging in the practice of law during the period of her
suspension and prior to an order of the Court lifting such suspension

RULING:

It is common sense that when the Court orders the suspension of a lawyer from the practice of
law, the lawyer must desist from performing all functions which require the application of legal knowledge
witl1in the period of his or her suspension. To stress, by practice of law, we refer to "any activity, in or out
of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. It
includes performing acts which are characteristic of the legal profession, or rendering any kind of service
which requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.'' In fine, it will amount to unauthorized
practice, and a violation of a lawful order of the Court if a suspended lawyer engages in the practice of law
during the pendency of his or her suspension. Moreover, the lifting of a suspension order is not automatic.
It is necessary that there is an order from the Court lifting the suspension of a lawyer to practice law. To
note, in Maniago, the Court explicitly stated that a suspended lawyer shall, upon the expiration of one’s
suspension, file a sworn statement with the Court, and that such statement shall be considered proof of
the lawyer's compliance with the order of suspension.

LIGAYA MANIAGO vs. ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS

A.C. No. 7472
March 30, 2010

FACTS:

The instant case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint dated April 2, 2007 filed by Ligaya Maniago,
seeking the disbarment of Atty. Lourdes I. de Dios for engaging in the practice of law despite having been
suspended by the Court.

Complainant alleged that she filed a criminal case against Hiroshi Miyata, a Japanese national,
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Olongapo City, for violation of Presidential Decree No. 603. The
accused was represented by Atty. De Dios. Complainant then learned from the RTC staff that Atty. De Dios
had an outstanding suspension order from the Supreme Court since 2001, and was, therefore, prohibited
from appearing in court. Complainant further alleges that there is a civil case (Civil Case No. 355-0-2005)
and another case (Special Proceeding No. M-6153) filed against Miyata before the RTC, Makati City, Branch
134, where Atty. De Dios appeared as his counsel. Complainant averred that Atty. De Dios ought to be
disbarred from the practice of law for her flagrant violation and deliberate disobedience of a lawful order
of the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

WON the a lawyer’s suspension is automatic upon the end of the period stated in the Court’s decision

RULING:

It must be remembered that the practice of law is not a right but a mere privilege and, as such,
must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Supreme Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s
public responsibilities. Whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and
confidence of his clients and of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Supreme
Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to
withdraw that privilege. However, as much as the Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer, it
should, at the same time, also ensure that a lawyer may not be deprived of the freedom and right to
exercise his profession unreasonably.

The following guidelines are observed in the matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer
from the practice of law:

1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court
shall render a decision imposing the penalty;

2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof,
respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said
motion shall render the decision final and executory;
 3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with
the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from
the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension;

4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the
Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or
where he or she has appeared as counsel;

5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent’s compliance with the order of
suspension;

6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a
ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.

VI. CASE WHERE A LAWYER WAS REPRIMANDED

VII. Spouses Bueno v. Atty. Abenes
VIII. A.C. No. 12016

Facts:

The Court reprimanded Atty. Servillano A. Abenes, Jr., who denied a lawyer-client relationship
existed between him and Spouses Steve and Jacqueline Bueno even as he admitted that he was
consulted by Jacqueline. A note dated February 18, 2011 and signed by Atty. Abenes showed
that Jacqueline sought his advice and assistance in the eventual transfer of three parcels of land
registered under the name of Northwest Investors Incorporated. Thereafter, on the first week
of June 2011, Atty. Abenes was retained by Rhodora Sevilla to represent a company in a case.
Rhodora wanted to file a petition for issuance of a lost title in behalf of Northwest Investors
Incorporated, and she asked Atty. Abenes to notarize an Affidavit of Loss. Atty. Abenes notarized
the Affidavit of Loss. Later, he realized that the subject lots for the Affidavit were the same
parcels of land over which he was consulted by Jacqueline.

In his defense, Atty. Abenes said that had he recalled Jacqueline’s consultation in February
2011, he would not have notarized the same, and argued his lapse in memory had no badges
of bad faith and that he never intended to violate lawyer-client privilege.

Issue:

WON Attorney Abenes should be reprimanded.

Ruling:

The SC, adopted the IBP Investigating Commissioner’s finding that it is sufficient that the advice
and assistance of an attorney is sought and is received in any matter pertaining to his profession,
citing Hilado v. David (84 Phil. 569) and Dee v. Court of Appeals (257 Phil. 661), regarding the
charge of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice “by notarizing a document that he
knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is a falsehood and a
fraudulent misrepresentation of facts which he personally knew to be otherwise,” thus,
revocation of the notarial commission, not necessarily disbarment, may ensue.

Since this was only the first offense of Atty. Abenes, the SC reduced the penalty recommended
by the IBP-BOG to a reprimand. It also disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary
public for three months, and revoked his of his notarial commission, “if still existing.”

VII. CASE WHERE A LAWYER WAS SUSPENDED

FRANCIA v. SAGARIO
A.C. No. 10938
October 8, 2019

FACTS:
Complainant contracted the services of Atty. Sagario for the annulment of her marriage to
her husband, Jose Francia. Respondent agreed to represent her for a total fee of P70,000. Upon
payment of P57,000, Atty. Sagario avoided phone calls and limited only his communication
through text messages. Despite several demand of the complainant, respondent did not file the
petition.

After lapse of several months, the complainant demanded her payment because of the inaction
back but despite several demands respondent failed to return the money. Consequently,
complainant filed a claim case against respondent before MeTC of Quezon City. The trial court
ruled in favor of the complainant and directed respondent to pay P50,000 with interest.
Notwithstanding the decision, the respondent has yet to pay complainant the amount adjudged.
Complainant was compelled to bring the matter before the IBP. The latter moved to suspend
the respondent from the practice of law for 2 years.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be suspended from practice of law for 2 years for
violating Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.02, Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
The court adopts the findings and recommendation of the IBP which finds the respondent
guilty of professional misconduct for violating Canon 16,17 and 18.

Once a lawyer agrees to represent a client, he is duty-bound to exert his/her best effort and to
serve the latter with utmost diligence and competence. A lawyer owes fidelity to his/her client's
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him/her. A lawyer's
neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him/her by his/her client constitutes inexcusable
negligence for which he/she must be held administratively liable.

In this case, respondent breached his duties when he failed to exercise due diligence in the
handling of the annulment case of the complainant and also when he failed to return the amount
of P57,000. Moreover, respondent did not bother to respond to the complaint before MeTC and
worse did not appear during the scheduled mandatory hearings.

The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for 2 years effective immediately
with stern warning that repetition of the act will be dealt more severely.

VIII. CASE WHERE A LAWYER WAS DISBARRED

BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO V. ALEJANDRO
A.C. No. 4265
February 13, 2004

FACTS:
Complainant alleged that the respondent Atty, Alejandro, is her husband. Their marriage
was evidenced by their Marriage Contract. She bore 3 sons as evidenced by their respective
Certificates of Live Birth. Later on, the respondent abandoned them and live with his mistress,
respondent Atty Villarin. Since then, the respondents publicly represent themselves as husband
and wife and even bore a son. Complainant filed this administrative case to insists that
respondent is not fit to be nominated as a regional trial court judge and do not even possess
the basic integrity to remain as member of the Philippine Bar.

This case was referred to IBP for investigation, report and recommendation which later
on recommended that both respondents be disbarred.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents should be disbarred for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING:
The court reiterated that good moral character is not only condition precedent to admission
to the bar but for continued membership therein. No distinction whether the misconduct was
committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life. In the instant case,
sufficient evidence was presented to show that respondent Atty. Alejandro carried on an illicit
relationship. Court have already held that disbarment proceedings is warranted in this situation.
However, the same penalty cannot be imposed on respondent Atty. Villarin since full opportunity
upon reasonable notice must be given first to answer the charge and present evidence in her
behalf. The Resolution that required comment was never deemed served upon her, in the same
way upon Atty. Alejandro.
The court ruled that Atty Alejandro is disbarred from the practice of law to take effect
immediately upon receipt of this decision. While the complaint against Atty. Villarin was referred
back to the IBP for further appropriate proceedings.