CRUZ, Asher Grace M.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (PALE)

3D ​ ssistant Solicitor General Marissa B. dela Cruz-Galandines
A

1
YOUNG v. BATUEGAS
09 May 2003
Ynares-Santiago, J.

Facts:
Young is the private prosecutor in a criminal case entitled “People of the Philippines v.
Crisanto Arana, Jr.”. On December 13, 2000, Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for the accused
Arana, filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail, alleging that the “accused has voluntarily
surrendered to a person in authority. As such, he is now under detention.” Upon personal
verification with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where Arana allegedly surrendered,
Young learned that Arana surrendered only on December 14, 2000.

Issue:
Whether or not Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of deliberate falsehood

Ruling:
Evidently, Batuegas and Llantino fell short of the duties and responsibilities expected
from them as members of the bar. Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the
court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, they craftily concealed
the truth by alleging that the accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and
was under detention. Obviously, such artifice was a deliberate ruse to mislead the court and
thereby contribute to injustice. To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is
a contemptuous conduct that the Court strongly condemns. They violated their oath when they
resorted to deception.

2
TIONG v. FLORENDO
12 December 2011
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

Facts:
Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong and his wife, Ma. Elena T. Tiong (Elena), are real estate
lessors. They are likewise engaged in the assembly and repair of motor vehicles. In 1991,
spouses Tiong engaged the services of Florendo as legal counsel and as administrator of their
businesses whenever complainant would leave for the Unites States of America (USA).
Sometime in 1993, complainant began to suspect that Florendo and Elena were having an
illicit affair. His suspicion was confirmed when, in their residence, he chanced upon a telephone

Date Submitted: 26 May 2020

CRUZ, Asher Grace M. Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (PALE)
3D ​ ssistant Solicitor General Marissa B. dela Cruz-Galandines
A

conversation between the two. Listening through the extension phone, he heard Florendo utter
the words “I love you, I’ll call you later”. When confronted, both Florendo and Elena admitted
the relationship.
Florendo and Elena executed and signed an affidavit attesting to their illicit relationship
and seeking their respective spouses’ forgiveness. The same affidavit states, among others, that:
This document consists of four (4) typewritten copies and each party has been
furnished a copy and this document shall have no validity unless signed by all the parties.
It likewise bears the signature of all the parties concerned: (1) complainant’s; (2) Elena’s; (3)
respondent Florendo’s; and (4) respondent’s wife, Elizabeth’s.

Issue:
Whether the pardon extended by complainant in the affidavit is sufficient to warrant the
dismissal of the present disbarment case against Florendo for gross immoral conduct

Ruling:
Florendo’s act of having an affair with his client’s wife manifested his disrespect for the
laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral
depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession. Likewise, he violated the trust and
confidence reposed on him by the complainant which in itself is prohibited under Canon 17 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Undeniably, therefore, his illicit relationship with
Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action from
the Court.
A case of suspension or disbarment is ​sui generis ​and not meant to grant relief to a
complainant as in a civil case but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its
undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. It is not an investigation into
the acts of Florendo as a husband but on his conduct as an officer of the Court and his fitness to
continue as a member of the Bar. Hence, the affidavit cannot have the effect of abating the
instant proceedings.

3
SANCHEZ v. AGUILOS
16 March 2016
Bersamin, J.

Facts:
Sanchez avers that she sought the legal services of Aguilos to represent her in the
annulment of her marriage with her estranged husband; that Aguilos accepted the engagement,
fixing his fee at P150,000.00, plus the appearance fee of P5,000.00/hearing; that she then gave to

Date Submitted: 26 May 2020

CRUZ, Asher Grace M. Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (PALE)
3D ​ ssistant Solicitor General Marissa B. dela Cruz-Galandines
A

him the initial amount of P90,000.00; that she had gone to his residence in May 2005 to inquire
on the developments in her case, but he told her that he would only start working on the case
upon her full payment of the acceptance fee; that she had only learned then that what he had
contemplated to file for her was a petition for legal separation, not one for the annulment of her
marriage; and that she subsequently withdrew the case from him, and requested the refund of the
amounts already paid, but he refused to do the same as he had already started working on the
case.

Issues:
1. Whether or not Aguilos should be held administratively liable for misconduct; and
2. Whether or not Aguilos should be ordered to return the attorney’s fees paid

Ruling:
1. Clearly, Aguilos misrepresented his professional competence and skill to Sanchez. He did
not know the distinction between the grounds for legal separation and for annulment of
marriage. Such knowledge would have been basic and expected of him as a lawyer
accepting a professional engagement for either causes of action.
As such, Aguilos failed to live up to the standards imposed on him as an attorney.
He thus transgressed Canon 18, and Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the CPR, to wit:

Canon 18​ - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he

knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may
render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as
collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to

him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

2. The Court cannot see how Aguilos deserved any compensation because he did not really
begin to perform the contemplated tasks if, even based on his version, he would prepare
the petition for legal separation instead of the petition for annulment of marriage. The
attorney who fails to accomplish the tasks he should naturally and expectedly perform

Date Submitted: 26 May 2020

CRUZ, Asher Grace M. Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (PALE)
3D ​ ssistant Solicitor General Marissa B. dela Cruz-Galandines
A

during his professional engagement does not discharge his professional responsibility and
ethical duty toward his client.
Accordingly, Aguilos shall be fined in the amount of P10,000.00 for his
misrepresentation of his professional competence, and he is further to be ordered to return
the entire amount of P70,000.00 received from his client, plus legal interest of 6% per
annum reckoned from the date of this decision until full payment.

4
MAPALAD v. ECHANEZ
6 June 2017
Tijam, J.

Facts:
In several pleadings filed by Echanez for his clients in a civil case involving Mapalad as
one of the plaintiffs, Echanez indicated his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
compliance number without indicating the date of issue thereof.
Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, Mapalad discovered that Echanez had no MCLE
compliance yet.

Issue:
Whether or not Echanez’s act of deliberately and unlawfully misleading the courts,
parties, and counsels concerned into believing that he had complied with the MCLE
requirements when in truth he had not, is a serious malpractice and grave misconduct

Ruling:
Echanez’s act of filing pleadings that he fully knew to contain false information is a
mockery of the courts. The Lawyer’s Oath in Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires
commitment to obeying laws and legal orders, doing no falsehood, and acting with fidelity to
both court and client, among others.
In using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, Echanez also put his own
clients at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to the client’s cause as pleadings with
false information produce no legal effect. In so doing, Echanez violated his duty to his clients.
Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR provide:

Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed upon him.

Canon 18​ - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Date Submitted: 26 May 2020

CRUZ, Asher Grace M. Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (PALE)
3D ​ ssistant Solicitor General Marissa B. dela Cruz-Galandines
A

5
CAMACHO v. PANGULAYAN
22 March 2000
Vitug, J.

Facts:
Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the Pangulayan and
Associates Law Offices. He charged that the said lawyers, counsels of the parties adverse to his
clients, procured and effected on separate occasions, without his knowledge, compromise
agreements with four of his clients which, in effect, required them to waive all kinds of claims
they might have against AMA Computer College (AMACC), the principal defendant, and to
terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent lawyer Pangulayan is guilty of violation of the CPR

Ruling:
Pangulayan had full knowledge of the fact that Camacho was the retained counsel for
plaintiff students in the civil case. Although aware that the students were represented by counsel,
Pangulayan proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without at the very
least communicating the matter to Camacho. This failure of Pangulayan, whether by design or
because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter
disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Pangulayan fell short of the demands required of him as
a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.

Date Submitted: 26 May 2020