1.

Canon 1-A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land,
and promote respect for law and legal processes Cases:

1. Erlinda Foster vs. Atty. Jaime V. Agtang (A.C. No. 10579, December 10, 2014)

Facts
A complaint filed by Erlinda Foster (complainant) against respondent for “unlawful, dishonest,
immoral and deceitful” acts as a lawyer.
Complainant engaged the legal services of respondent in connection with her legal problem
regarding a deed of absolute sale she entered into with Tierra Realty for the filing of the appropriate
case in court.
Respondent asked for the following to the complainant:
1. P20,000.00 as acceptance fee and P5,000.00 for incidental expenses.
2. a loan of P100,000.00, payable in sixty (60) days, for the repair of his car. A promissory note
evidenced the loan.
3. P150,000.00, as filing fee - cited the high value of the land and the sheriffs’ travel expenses and
accommodations in Manila, for the service of the summons to the defendant corporation.
4. P70,000.00 or P50,000.00 “in the moment of urgency or emergency.”
Complainant’s case was dismissed. Complainant decided to terminate the services of
respondent as her counsel and wrote him a letter of termination, after her friend gave her copies of
documents showing that respondent had been acquainted with Tierra Realty. Subsequently,
complainant wrote to respondent, requesting him to pay her the amounts he received from her less the
contract fee and the actual cost of the filing fees. Respondent never replied.

Respondent’s Position
1. He admitted the fact that he notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale subject of complainant’s case, but
he qualified that he was not paid his notarial fees.
2. He claimed to have received P10,000.00 as acceptance fee and P5,000.00
3. the loan of P100,000.00 – it was complainant who willingly offered the amount to him for his patience
in visiting them at home and for his services.
4. P150,000.00 he received for filing fees – that the said amount was suggested by the complainant
herself who was persistent in covering the incidental expenses in the handling of the case.
5. He denied having said that the sheriffs of the court would need the money for their hotel
accommodations.

Issue:
Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Ruling:
The Court sustains the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with respect to
respondent’s violation of Rules 1 and 16 of the CPR. The Court, however, modifies the conclusion on his
alleged violation of Rule 15, on representing conflicting interests. The Court also differs on the penalty.
 Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR, provides that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.” It is well-established that a lawyer’s conduct is “not confined to the
performance of his professional duties. 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 it renders him unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.”

In this case, respondent is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his
professional and private capacity. As a lawyer, he clearly misled complainant into believing that the filing
fees for her case were worth more than the prescribed amount in the rules, due to feigned reasons such
as the high value of the land involved and the extra expenses to be incurred by court employees. In
other words, he resorted to overpricing, an act customarily related to depravity and dishonesty.

His defense that it was complainant who suggested that amount deserves no iota of credence.
Assuming that the complainant was more than willing to shell out an exorbitant amount just to initiate
her complaint with the trial court, still, respondent should not have accepted the excessive amount. As a
lawyer, he is not only expected to be knowledgeable in the matter of filing fees, but he is likewise duty-
bound to disclose to his client the actual amount due, consistent with the values of honesty and good
faith expected of all members of the legal profession.

Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose but not used for the purpose should be
immediately returned. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his
client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the
trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.

WHEREFORE, finding the respondent, Atty. Jaime V. Agtang, GUILTY of gross misconduct in violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court hereby DISBARS him from the practice of law and
ORDERS him to pay the complainant, Erlinda Foster, the amounts of P127,590.00, P50,000.00 and
P2,500.00.

2. Romulo D. Festin vs. Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri (A.C. No. 11600, June 19, 2017)
Facts:
Complainant alleged that he was elected as Mayor of the Municipality of San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro in the May 2013 elections. His opponent, Jose Tapales Villarosa (Villarosa), filed an election
protest against him before the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 46 (RTC).
After deciding in favor of Villarosa, the RTC issued an Order, granting his motion for execution pending
appeal.

The Motion for Execution Pending Appeal is GRANTED

The OIC-Branch Clerk of Court [(COC)] is hereby directed to issue a Writ of Execution Pending
Appeal after the lapse of twenty (20) days, if no restraining order or status quo order is issued pursuant
to Section 11 (b),4 Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
 Complainant filed a petition for certiorari before the COMELEC, seeking a TRO against the
issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal.

The COMELEC issued a TRO, directing RTC Judge to cease and desist from enforcing the said
order, effective immediately. Accordingly, the RTC issued another Order directing the COC not to issue
the Writ of Execution.

Respondent, as counsel of Villarosa, filed five (5) manifestations addressed to the COC insisting
on the writ's issuance. Notably, he did not serve copies of these manifestations to the other party.
In these manifestations, respondent claimed that his client received the RTC's order, and counting from
said date, the twenty-day period ended. Since the COMELEC only issued the TRO, the TRO no longer had
any effect. Respondent further asserted that the TRO was addressed only to the RTC Judge, and not to
the COC; therefore, the COC is not bound by the TRO.

Complainant filed the disbarment complaint. In his complaint, complainant argued that
respondent violated his ethical duties when he misled and induced the COC to defy lawful orders -
particularly, the COMELEC's TRO and the. As a result, respondent allegedly violated Canons 1, 10, 15,
and 19 of the CPR.

The IBP's Report and Recommendation: respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
six (6) months.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

Ruling:
The Court agrees with the IBP that respondent should be held administratively liable for his
violations of the CPR. However, the Court finds it proper to impose a lower penalty.

Canon 1 of the CPR mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution and promote respect for the
legal processes.36 Additionally, Canon 8 and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the CPR require lawyers to conduct
themselves with fairness towards their professional colleagues, to observe procedural rules, and not to
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

He violated his professional obligations to respect and observe procedural rules, not to misuse
the rules to cause injustice, and to exhibit fairness towards his professional colleagues.

The fact that he submitted the manifestations directly to COC, instead of properly filing them
before the RTC, highlights his failure to exhibit fairness towards the other party by keeping the latter
completely unaware of his manifestations.

He attempts to justify his acts by arguing that he merely represented his client with competence
and diligence. However, respondent should be reminded that a lawyer is ethically bound not only to
serve his client but also the court, his colleagues, and society. His obligation to represent his client is not
without limits but must be "within the bounds of the law" pursuant to Canon of the CPR. Accordingly, he
is ethically bound to employ only fair and honest means to attain their clients' objectives.

As a final note, the Court stresses that a lawyer's primary duty is to assist the courts in the
administration of justice. Any conduct that tends to delay, impede, or obstruct the administration of
justice contravenes this obligation. Indeed, a lawyer must champion his client's cause with competence
and diligence, but he cannot invoke this as an excuse for his failure to exhibit courtesy and fairness to his
fellow lawyers and to respect legal processes designed to afford due process to all stakeholders.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri (respondent) is found GUILTY of violating

Canon 1, Canon 8, and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months effective from the finality of this Decision,
and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

3. Norberto S. Collantes vs. Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti (A.C. No. 9917, January 14,
2019)

Facts
Complainant alleged that; respondent notarized a document entitled "Memorandum of
Agreement" in the City of Manila. Upon verification, however, he discovered that respondent was not
commissioned as a notary public in the City of Manila.

In his Comment, respondent denied the allegations and claimed that the signature in the "Memorandum
of Agreement" is not his. He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of double jeopardy.
In this regard, he pointed out that the present case is based on the same cause of action subject of an
earlier complaint, filed by a certain Mina S. Bertillo before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for
which he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. In support
thereof, he attached a copy of the Commissioner's Report.

The IBP's Report and Recommendation

(a) perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a Notary Public since this is respondent's
second offense; (b) revocation of his notarial commission, if subsisting; and (c) suspension for two (2)
years from the practice of law.

Issue:
Whether or not the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.

Ruling:
The Court affirms the findings and adopts with modification the recommendations of the IBP Board of
Governors.

The Court has emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.
Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of
the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, said act does not only
constitute malpractice but also the crime of falsification of public documents, the offender may be
subjected to disciplinary action. A lawyer who performs a notarial act without such commission violates
the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Rules. This violation falls squarely
under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon 7 as well

After an examination of respondent's personal record, the resolution of the IBP in the said case has yet
to be forwarded to the Court for its approval. Pending approval by the Court, the findings and are only
recommendatory, and hence (1) fail to establish the fact that respondent has already been held liable
for a prior offense, and (2) cannot consequently serve to aggravate the penalty in this case.

Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti (respondent) GUILTY of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, effective
immediately, the Court: SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his
incumbent commission as a notary public, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a
notary public for one (1) year. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the
future shall be dealt with more severely

4. Larry C. Sevilla vs. Atty. Marcelo C. Millo (A.C. No. 10697, March 25, 2019)
Facts
Complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Marcelo C. Millo, charging the
latter of harassment, misconduct, obstruction of justice and ignorance of the law.

Complainant alleged that he is the publisher of Pampango Footprints, a provincial newspaper circulated
in Tarlac Province. Sometimes, he issued a statement of account in the amount of P33,120.00 to Sps.
Manalo as fee for the publication of the notice of auction sale relative to Sps. Manalo's petition for
foreclosure of mortgage, which was published in three (3) consecutive issues of Pampango. Claiming
that the publication fee was "exorbitant and shocking," respondent, as Sps. Manalo's counsel, refused to
settle the account, threatened complainant that he would petition for the disqualification of Pampango,
and thereafter, wrote an undated letter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City
in furtherance of such threat. Consequently, complainant filed this administrative complaint against
respondent.

During the pendency of this complaint, Sps. Manalo negotiated for a discount of fifty percent (50%), to
which complainant agreed. Yet, respondent intervened and forbade his clients to pay. For this reason,
complainant called respondent, but instead of explaining his side, respondent shouted, "I am busy I
don't want to talk to you!" and banged his cellphone.

For his part, respondent denied administrative liability, averring that he merely acted on behalf of his
clients, and that after the Executive Judge advised them to just settle the matter with complainant, he
withdrew as Sps. Manalo's counsel to give way to the said settlement.
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
Rrespondent administratively liable for violation of Rule 1.04,15 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), and accordingly, recommended the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) month to mere reprimand.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of.

Ruling:
The Court concurs and affirms the findings of the IBP Board of Governors with modification as to the
penalty.

Rule 1.04 of the CPR mandates lawyers to "encourage [their] clients to avoid, end, or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement."

Records reveal that respondent did not endeavor to initiate the settlement of the publication fee being
charged by complainant. Disagreeing with the statement of account, respondent chose not to pay and
immediately referred the matter to the Executive Judge, instead of negotiating and discussing the
matter with complainant. Respondent's obstinate refusal to settle culminated in forbidding his clients,
Sps. Manalo, to pay the reduced publication fee, which the latter secured for themselves. He even
shouted at and ignored complainant when the latter called him up in an effort to finally settle.
Ultimately, respondent's acts, which are violative of Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the CPR, prejudiced his clients
as they resulted in the non-completion of the foreclosure proceedings, since complainant did not issue
the affidavit of publication nor provide copies of the issues where the notice of auction sale was actually
printed.