LEGAL ETHICS
Balageo to instead engage the services of
Lawyer and Client continuation
1. Daria O. Daging vs. Atty. Riz Tingalon
L. Davis
A.C. No. 9395, November 12, 2014
 Administrative and disbarment
case; Atty. Davis is suspended;
 Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis is found
GUILTY of violating Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is
hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of six (6)
months effective upon receipt of
this Resolution. He is warned that a
commission of the same or similar
offense in the future will result in the
imposition of a stiffer penalty.
SYLLABUS:
a. Legal ethics; Conflict of interests; A
lawyer may not, without being
guilty of professional misconduct,
act as counsel for a person whose
interest conflicts with that of his
present or former client.
The prohibition against representing
conflicting interests is absolute and the rule
applies even if the lawyer has acted in good
faith and with no intention to represent
conflicting interests. In Quiambao vs. Atty.
Bamba, Jr., 468 SCRA 320 (2006), the
Supreme Court (SC) held that lawyers are
expected not only to keep inviolate the
client’s confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing
for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which
is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.
In Hilado vs. Davis, 84 Phil. 569 (1949),
reiterated in Gonzales vs. Atty. Cabucana,
Jr., 479 SCRA 320 (2006), this Court held that
a lawyer who takes up the cause of the
adversary of the party who has engaged the
services of his law firm brings the law
profession into public disrepute and
suspicion and undermines the integrity of
justice. Thus, respondent’s argument that
he never took advantage of any information
acquired by his law firm in the course of its
professional dealings with the complainant,
even assuming it to be true, is of no
moment. Undeniably aware of the fact that
complainant is a client of his law firm,
respondent should have immediately
informed both the complainant and Balageo
that he, as well as the other members of his
law firm, cannot represent any of them in
their legal tussle; otherwise, they would be
representing conflicting interests and
violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Indeed, respondent could
have simply advised both complainant and
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 1
another lawyer.
The Case:
This administrative complaint for
disbarment arose from an Affidavit
Complaint filed by Daria O. Daging
(complainant) before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP), Benguet Chapter,
against Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis
(respondent).
Facts:
Complainant was the owner and operator of
Nashville Country Music Lounge. The bar is
in the building of Benjie Pinlac (Pinlac)
spaGe located at No. 22 Otek St., Baguio
City for said purpose/business.
Then complainant received a Retainer
Proposal from Davis & Sabling Law Office
signed by respondent and his partner Atty.
Amos Saganib Sabling (Atty. Sabling).
Which led to the complainant’s signing of a
Retainer Agreement with the respondent
and Atty. Sabling on March 7, 2005.
Because complainant was delinquent in
paying the monthly rentals, Pinlac
terminated the lease.
Together with Novie Balageo (Balageo) and
respondent, Pinlac went to complainant's
music bar, inventoried all the equipment
therein, and informed her that Balageo
would take over the operation of the bar.
Then according to complainant respondent
acted subsequently as business partner of
Balageo in operating the bar under her
business name, which they later renamed
Amarillo Music Bar.
In her added allegation complainant said
that she filed an ejectment case against
Pinlac and Balageo before the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1,
Baguio City. At that time, Davis & Sabling
Law Office was still her counsel as their
Retainer Agreement remained subsisting
and in force. However, respondent
appeared as counsel for Balageo in that
ejectment case and filed, on behalf of the
latter, an Answer with Opposition to the
Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction.
In his Comment, respondent denied
participation in the takeover or acting as a
business partner of Balageo in the
operation of the bar. He asserted that
Balageo is the sole proprietress of the
establishment. He insisted that it was
Atty. Sabling, his partner, who initiated the
proposal and was in fact the one who was
able to convince complainant to accept the
law office as her retainer.
Respondent also maintained that he never
obtained any knowledge or information
regarding the business of complainant who
used to consult only Atty. Sabling.
Respondent admitted though having
represented Balageo in the ejectment case,
but denied that he took advantage of the
Retainer Agreement between complainant
and Davis and Sabling Law Office. Thus:
SC ruling/Discussion
It is undisputed that complainant entered
into a Retainer Agreement dated March 7,
2005 with respondent's law firm. This
agreement was signed by the respondent
and attached to the rollo of this case. And
during the subsistence of said Retainer
Agreement, respondent represented and
defended Balageo, who was impleaded as
one of the defendants in the ejectment case
complainant filed before the MTCC of
Baguio City. In fact, respondent filed on
behalf of said Balageo an Answer with
Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of
a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated July
11, 2005. It was only on August 26, 2005
when respondent withdrew his appearance
for Balageo.
Based on the established facts, it is
indubitable that respondent transgressed
Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It provides:
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 2
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.
"A lawyer may not, without being guilty of
professional misconduct, act as counsel for a
person whose interest conflicts with that of
his present or former client."
Respondent argues that while complainant
is a client of Davis & Sabling Law office, her
case is actually handled only by his partner
Atty. Sabling. He was not privy to any
transaction between Atty. Sabling and
complainant and has no knowledge of any
information or legal matter complainant
entrusted or confided to his law partner. He
thus inveigles that he could not have taken
advantage of an information obtained by his
law firm by virtue of the Retainer
Agreement. We are not impressed.
The penalty for representing conflicting
interests may either be reprimand or
suspension from the practice of law ranging
from six months to two years. We thus
adopt the recommendation of the IBP Board
of Governors.
2. Helen Chang vs. Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo
A.C. No. 6934, April 6, 2016
 Administrative case; Atty. Hidalgo
was suspended;
  Respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo is
found guilty of violating Canon 17
and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
He is SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year,
with warning that repetition of the
same or similar acts will merit a
more severe penalty. Respondent is
also ORDERED to return to
complainant Helen Chang the
amount of P61,500.00, with interest
at 6% per annum from the date of
promulgation of this Resolution
until fully paid.
SYLLABUS:
a. Legal ethics; Withdrawal of counsel;
Respondent simply opted to
withdraw from the cases without
complying with the requirements
under the Rules of Court and in
complete disregard of his
obligations towards his client.
In Layos vs. Villanueva, 743 SCRA 334 (2014),
this court reiterated that a “lawyer must
constantly keep in mind that his [or her]
actions, omissions, or nonfeasance would be
binding upon his [or her] client.” Due to
respondent’s withdrawal as complainant’s
counsel for the cases, he did not anymore
attend any of the hearings. Since the
withdrawal was without the conformity of
complainant, new counsel was not engaged.
This necessarily resulted in the summary
dismissal of the collection of cases as
alleged by complainant. Complainant could
have obtained the services of another
lawyer to represent her and handle her
cases with the utmost zeal and diligence
expected from officers of the court.
b. The offensive attitude of a client is
not an excuse to just disappear and
withdraw from a case without notice
to the court and to the client,
especially when attorney’s fees have
already been paid.
Respondent admittedly withdrew from the
cases but he failed to provide any evidence
to show that complainant, his client, agreed
to the withdrawal or, at the very least, knew
about it.
The Case:
A lawyer cannot simply withdraw from a
case without notice to the client and
complying with the requirements in Rule
138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court.
Otherwise, the lawyer will be held liable for
violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Complainant Helen Chang (Chang) filed this
administrative Complaint1 before the Office
of the Bar Confidant of this Court on
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 3
November 7, 2005. Chang prayed that this
Court discipline respondent Atty. Jose R.
Hidalgo (Atty. Hidalgo) for being remiss in
his duties as her counsel and as an officer of
the court. She claimed that Atty. Hidalgo
failed to "handle [her] cases to the best of
his ability and to deal with [her] in all
honesty and candor."
Facts:
Complainant Chang alleged that she
engaged the services of Atty. Hidalgo as
legal counsel to represent her in several
collection cases pending in various courts.
Pursuant to the contract they executed,
Chang issued five (5) checks in favor of Atty.
Hidalgo totaling ₱52,000.00.
Atty. Hidalgo also collected ₱9,500.00 as
"hearing fee."
Chang claimed that despite receiving a total
of ₱61,500.00, Atty. Hidalgo did not attend
any of the hearings in the collection cases
and, instead, sent another lawyer without
her consent.
The other lawyer failed to attend all
hearings, which resulted in the dismissal
of the cases.
December 12, 2005, Atty. Hidalgo was
required to comment on the Complaint in
the Resolution10. The Notice of Resolution
sent to Atty. Hidalgo in the address
provided by Chang was returned unserved
with the notation that Atty. Hidalgo had
moved out from the address.
Chang was then ordered to submit Atty.
Hidalgo’s correct and present address. She
filed her Compliance and attached a
Certification from the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines stating Atty. Hidalgo’s known
address. This Court also ordered the Office
of the Bar Confidant to provide Atty.
Hidalgo’s address "as appearing in its
files[.]"
Still, notices of the Resolution dated
December 12, 2005 sent to these addresses
were returned unserved with the notation
that the addressee, Atty. Hildalgo, had
already moved out.
Finally, on October 31, 2007, Atty. Hidalgo
received the Notice of the Resolution
requiring him to comment. However, he
still failed to do so. Thus, in the Resolution
dated June 2, 2008, this Court considered
the submission of the comment as waived
and referred the case "to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines for investigation, report[,]
and recommendation[.]”
Issue: Whether or not respondent Atty. Jose
R. Hidalgo is guilty of gross misconduct for
failing to render legal services despite
receipt of payment of legal fees.
SC ruling/Discussion
Here, it is established that respondent was
engaged as counsel for complainant to
represent her in various collection cases and
that he received ₱61,500.00 from her as
attorney’s fees. Respondent also admitted
withdrawing from the cases allegedly due to
complainant’s uncooperative demeanor.
However, there is no showing that
complainant agreed to the withdrawal, or
that respondent filed the proper motion
before the courts where the cases were
pending.
Respondent failed to present proof that he
performed any act in relation to
complainant’s collection cases or attended
the hearings for the collection cases.
without any recourse, respondent advised
the complaint [sic] to seek the services of
another lawyer as he could no longer
perform adequately and this was done in
good faith. And the actuations of the
complainant apparently precipitated the
respondent to file the withdrawal as
counsel.
The Investigating Commissioner found that
respondent failed to refute complainant’s
allegations. Thus:
Prescinding from the foregoing, Atty.
Hidalgo acknowledged the special retainer
he had with Helen Chang. Atty. Hidalgo
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 4
failed to debunk claims of Helen Chang that
he failed to perform his bounden duty
despite receipt of the sixty-one thousand
five hundred pesos (₱61,500.00). Worse, the
cases were dismissed summarily.
We find respondent remiss of his duties as
complainant’s counsel.
Respondent’s acts constitute violations of
Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rule 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which state:
CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.
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.
Respondent simply opted to withdraw
from the cases without complying with
the requirements under the Rules of Court
and in complete disregard of his
obligations towards his client.
Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court
provides, in part:

RULE 138
Attorneys and Admission to Bar
....
SECTION 26. Change of attorneys. — An
attorney may retire at any time from any
action or special proceeding, by the written
consent of his client filed in court. He may
also retire at any time from an action or
special proceeding, without the consent of
his client, should the court, on notice to the
client and attorney, and on hearing,
determine that he ought to be allowed to
retire. In case of substitution, the name of
the attorney newly employed shall be
entered on the docket of the court in place
of the former one, and written notice of the
change shall be given to the adverse party.
In Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margallo:
The relationship between a lawyer and a
client is "imbued with utmost trust and
confidence." Lawyers are expected to
exercise the necessary diligence and
competence in managing cases entrusted to
them. They commit not only to review cases
or give legal advice, but also to represent
their clients to the best of their ability
without need to be reminded by either the
client or the court.
Similarly, in Nonato v. Fudolin, Jr.:
respondent to retain the professional fees
A lawyer is bound to protect his client’s paid by complainant for her collection cases
interests to the best of his ability and with when there was no showing that respondent
utmost diligence. He should serve his client performed any act in furtherance of these
in a conscientious, diligent, and efficient cases.
manner; and provide the quality of service at
least equal to that which he, himself, would 3. Josefina M. Aninon vs. Atty. Clemencio
expect from a competent lawyer in a similar Sabitsana, Jr.
situation. By consenting to be his client’s A.C. No. 5098, April 11, 2012
counsel, a lawyer impliedly represents that
he will exercise ordinary diligence or that  Administrative and disbarment
reasonable degree of care and skill case; Atty. Sabitsana was
demanded by his profession, and his client suspended.
may reasonably expect him to perform his  Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is
obligations diligently. The failure to meet found GUILTY of misconduct for
these standards warrants the imposition of representing conflicting interests in
disciplinary action. violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional
We sustain the Integrated Bar of the Responsibility. He is hereby
Philippines’ recommended penalty of SUSPENDED for one (1) year from
suspension from the practice of law for a the practice of law.
period of one (1) year.
SYLLABUS:
In several cases, this Court has imposed the
penalty of one (1) year suspension from the a. Attorney-Client relationships;
practice of law for violation of Canons 17 and Conflict of interests; The
18 of the Code of Professional relationship between a lawyer and
Responsibility. his/her client should ideally be
imbued with the highest level of
Further, restitution of acceptance fees to trust and confidence; Part of the
complainant is proper. Respondent failed to lawyer’s duty in this regard is to
present any evidence to show his alleged avoid representing conflicting
efforts for the cases. He failed to attend any interests, a matter covered by Rule
of the hearings before the Commission on 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Bar Discipline. There is no reason for Professional Responsibility.
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 5

The relationship between a lawyer and
his/her client should ideally be imbued
with the highest level of trust and
confidence. This is the standard of
confidentiality that must prevail to promote
a full disclosure of the client’s most
confidential information to his/her lawyer
for an unhampered exchange of information
between them. Needless to state, a client
can only entrust confidential information to
his/her lawyer based on an expectation from
the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion;
the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
dealings and transactions with the client.
Part of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to
avoid representing conflicting interests, a
matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
quoted below: 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.
b. Tests to determine whether there is
a conflict of interests is present.
“The proscription against representation of
conflicting interests applies to a situation
where the opposing parties are present
clients in the same action or in an unrelated
action.” The prohibition also applies even if
the “lawyer would not be called upon to
contend for one client that which the layer
has to opposes for the other client, or that
there would be no occasion to use the
confidential information acquired from one
to the disadvantage of the other as the two
actions are wholly unrelated.” To be held
accountable under this rule, it is “enough
that the opposing parties in one case, one of
whom would lose the suit, are present
clients and the nature or conditions of the
lawyer’s respective retainers with each of
them would affect the performance of the
duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.”
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in
determining whether a violation of the
above rule is present in a given case. One
test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to
fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one
client and, at the same time, to oppose
that claim for the other client. Thus, if a
lawyer’s argument for one client has to be
opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for
the other client, there is a violation of the
rule. Another test of inconsistency of
interests is whether the acceptance of a
new relation would prevent the full
discharge of the lawyer’s undivided
fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance of that duty.
Still another test is whether the lawyer
would be called upon in the new relation
to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through
their connection or previous employment.
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 6
The Case
This is a disbarment complaint against Atty.
Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. who is charged of:
(1) violating the lawyer’s duty to preserve
confidential information received from his
client; and (2) violating the prohibition on
representing conflicting interests.
Facts:
In her complaint, Josefina M. Anion
(complainant) related that she previously
engaged the legal services of Atty.
Sabitsana in the preparation and
execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale
over a parcel of land owned by her late
common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr.
Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her
confidence when he subsequently filed a
civil case against her for the annulment of
the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L.
Caete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr.
The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of
using the confidential information he
obtained from her in filing the civil case.
Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the
complainant in the preparation and
execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he
denied having received any confidential
information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that
the present disbarment complaint was
instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez,
Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint
who lost a court case against him (Atty.
Sabitsana) and had instigated the complaint
for this reason.
Issue: Whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of
misconduct for representing conflicting
interests.
SC ruling/Discussion
After a careful study of the records, we
agree with the findings and
recommendations of the IBP Commissioner
and the IBP Board of Governors.
On the basis of the attendant facts of the
case, we find substantial evidence to
support Atty. Sabitsanas violation of the
above rule, as established by the following
circumstances on record:
One, his legal services were initially engaged
by the complainant to protect her interest
over a certain property. The records show
that upon the legal advice of Atty.
Sabitsana, the Deed of Sale over the
property was prepared and executed in the
complainant’s favor.
Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida
Caete to discuss the latters legal interest
over the property subject of the Deed of
Sale. At that point, Atty. Sabitsana already
had knowledge that Zenaida Caetes interest
clashed with the complainant’s interests.
Three, despite the knowledge of the
clashing interests between his two clients,
Atty. Sabitsana accepted the engagement
from Zenaida Caete.
Four, Atty. Sabitsanas actual knowledge
of the conflicting interests between his
two clients was demonstrated by his own
actions: first, he filed a case against the
complainant in behalf of Zenaida Caete;
second, he impleaded the complainant as
the defendant in the case; and third, the
case he filed was for the annulment of the
Deed of Sale that he had previously
prepared and executed for the complainant.
By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana
agree to represent one client against
another client in the same action; he also
accepted a new engagement that entailed
him to contend and oppose the interest of
his other client in a property in which his
legal services had been previously
retained.
To be sure, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides an
exception to the above prohibition.
However, we find no reason to apply the
exception due to Atty. Sabitsanas failure to
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 7
comply with the requirements set forth
under the rule.
Atty. Sabitsana did not make a full
disclosure of facts to the complainant and to
Zenaida Caete before he accepted the new
engagement with Zenaida Caete. The
records likewise show that although Atty.
Sabitsana wrote a letter to the complainant
informing her of Zenaida Caetes adverse
claim to the property covered by the Deed
of Sale and, urging her to settle the adverse
claim; Atty. Sabitsana however did not
disclose to the complainant that he was also
being engaged as counsel by Zenaida Caete.
Moreover, the records show that Atty.
Sabitsana failed to obtain the written
consent of his two clients, as required by
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, we find as the IBP Board of
Governors did Atty. Sabitsana guilty of
misconduct for representing conflicting
interests. We likewise agree with the
penalty of suspension for one (1) year from
the practice of law recommended by the IBP
Board of Governors. This penalty is
consistent with existing jurisprudence on
the administrative offense of representing
conflicting interests.
4. Erlinda Foster vs. Atty. Jaime V. Agtang
A.C. No. 10579, December 10, 2014
  ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the
Supreme Court. Unlawful,
Dishonest, Immoral and Deceitful
Acts as a Lawyer.
 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.
SYLLABUS:
a. 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.
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. He
demanded the amount of P150,000.00 as
filing fee, when in truth, the same amounted
only to P22,410.00. His defense that it was
complainant who suggested that amount
deserves no iota of credence. For one, it is
highly improbable that complainant, who
was then plagued with the rigors of
litigation, would propose such amount that
would further burden her financial
resources. 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.
b. 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.
The “fiduciary nature of the relationship
between the counsel and his client imposes
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 8
on the lawyer the duty to account for the
money or property collected or received for
or from his client.” 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.
c. Somewhat showing a propensity to
demand excessive and unwarranted
amounts from his client, respondent
displayed a reprehensible conduct
when he asked for the amount of
P50,000.00 as “representation
expenses” allegedly for the benefit of
the judge handling the case, in
exchange for a favorable decision.
Somewhat showing a propensity to demand
excessive and unwarranted amounts from
his client, respondent displayed a
reprehensible conduct when he asked for
the amount of P50,000.00 as
“representation expenses” allegedly for the
benefit of the judge handling the case, in
exchange for a favorable decision.
Respondent himself signed a receipt
showing that he initially took the amount of
P25,000.00 and, worse, he subsequently
demanded and received the other half of the
amount at the time the case had already
been dismissed. Undoubtedly, this act is
tantamount to gross misconduct that
necessarily warrants the supreme penalty of
disbarment.
d. The act of demanding a sum of
money from his client, purportedly to
be used as a bribe to ensure a positive
outcome of a case, is not only an
abuse of his client’s trust but an overt
act of undermining the trust and
faith of the public in the legal
profession and the entire Judiciary.
This is the height of indecency.
The act of demanding a sum of money from
his client, purportedly to be used as a bribe
to ensure a positive outcome of a case, is
not only an abuse of his client’s trust but an
overt act of undermining the trust and faith
of the public in the legal profession and the
entire Judiciary. This is the height of
indecency. As officers of the court, lawyers
owe their utmost fidelity to public service
and the administration of justice. In no way
should a lawyer indulge in any act that
would damage the image of judges, lest the
public’s perception of the dispensation of
justice be overshadowed by iniquitous
doubts. The denial of respondent and his
claim that the amount was given
gratuitously would not excuse him from any
liability. The absence of proof that the said
amount was indeed used as a bribe is of no
moment. To tolerate respondent’s
actuations would seriously erode the
public’s trust in the courts.
e. A lawyer shall not borrow money
from his client unless the client’s
interests are fully protected by the
nature of the case or by independent
advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter
he is handling for the client.
Respondent’s unbecoming conduct towards
complainant did not stop here. Records
reveal that he likewise violated Rule 16.04,
Canon 16 of the CPR, which states that “[a]
lawyer shall not borrow money from his
client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer
lend money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is
handling for the client.”
f. Failure to Pay Just Debts; Time and
again, the Court has consistently
held that deliberate failure to pay just
debts constitutes gross misconduct,
for which a lawyer may be
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 9
sanctioned with suspension from the
practice of law.
Time and again, the Court has consistently
held that deliberate failure to pay just debts
constitutes gross misconduct, for which a
lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension
from the practice of law. Lawyers are
instruments for the administration of justice
and vanguards of our legal system. They are
expected to maintain not only legal
proficiency, but also a high standard of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing
so that the people’s faith and confidence in
the judicial system is ensured. They must, at
all times, faithfully perform their duties to
society, to the bar, the courts and their
clients, which include prompt payment of
financial obligations.
g. Conflict of Interests; Code of
Professional Responsibility; Rule
15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR),
provides that “[a] lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interest except
by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the
facts.”
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR, provides
that “[a] lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interest except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.” The relationship
between a lawyer and his/her client should
ideally be imbued with the highest level of
trust and confidence. This is the standard of
confidentiality that must prevail to promote
a full disclosure of the client’s most
confidential information to his/her lawyer
for an unhampered exchange of information
between them. Needless to state, a client
can only entrust confidential information to
his/her lawyer based on an expectation from
the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion;
the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
dealings and transactions with the client.
Part of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to
avoid representing conflicting interests.
Thus, even if lucrative fees offered by
prospective clients are at stake, a lawyer
must decline professional employment if the
same would trigger the violation of the
prohibition against conflict of interest. The
only exception provided in the rules is a
written consent from all the parties after full
disclosure.
h. The representation of conflicting
interests is prohibited not only
because the relation of attorney and
client is one of trust and confidence
of the highest degree, but also
because of the principles of public
policy and good taste.
The representation of conflicting interests is
prohibited “not only because the relation of
attorney and client is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree, but also
because of the principles of public policy and
good taste. An attorney has the duty to
deserve the fullest confidence of his client
and represent him with undivided loyalty.
Once this confidence is abused or violated
the entire profession suffers.”
i. Grounds by Which a Lawyer May be
Suspended or Disbarred.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be
disbarred or suspended on any of the
following grounds: (1) deceit; (2)
malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4)
conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s oath;
(6) willful disobedience of any lawful order
of a superior court; and (7) willful
appearance as an attorney for a party
without authority.
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for
misconduct, whether in his professional or
private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity
and good demeanor, or unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.
j. For taking advantage of the
unfortunate situation of the
complainant, for engaging in
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 10
dishonest and deceitful conduct, for
maligning the judge and the
Judiciary, for undermining the trust
and faith of the public in the legal
profession and the entire judiciary,
and for representing conflicting
interests, respondent deserves no
less than the penalty of disbarment.
For taking advantage of the unfortunate
situation of the complainant, for engaging in
dishonest and deceitful conduct, for
maligning the judge and the Judiciary, for
undermining the trust and faith of the public
in the legal profession and the entire
judiciary, and for representing conflicting
interests, respondent deserves no less than
the penalty of disbarment.
The Case:
This refers to the Resolution 1 of the Board of
Governors (BOG), Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), dated March 23, 2014,
affirming with modification the findings of
the Investigating Commissioner, who
recommended the suspension of
respondent Atty. Jaime V. Agtang
(respondent) from the practice of law for one
(1) year for ethical impropriety and ordered
the payment of his unpaid obligations to
complainant.
Facts:
1. IBP, thru its Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD), received a complaint, dated May 31,
2011, filed by Erlinda Foster (complainant)
against respondent for “unlawful, dishonest,
immoral and deceitful”3 acts as a lawyer.
2. In its July 1, 2011 Order, the IBP-CBD
directed respondent to file his Answer
within 15 days from receipt of the order.
Respondent failed to do so and complainant
sent a query as to the status of her
complaint. On October 10, 2011, the
Investigating Commissioner issued the
Order setting the case for mandatory
conference/hearing on November 16, 2011.
It was only on November 11, 2011, or five
(5) days before the scheduled conference
when respondent filed his verified Answer.
3. During the conference, only the
complainant together with her husband
appeared. She submitted a set of
documents contained in a folder, copies of
which were furnished the respondent. The
Investigating Commissioner indicated that
the said documents would be reviewed and
the parties would be informed if there was a
need for clarificatory questioning;
otherwise, the case would be submitted for
resolution based on the documents on file.
4. December 12, 2011, the complainant filed
her Reply to respondent’s Answer.
Complainant’s Position
From the records, it appears that
complainant was referred to respondent in
connection with her legal problem regarding
a deed of absolute sale she entered into with
Tierra Realty, which respondent had
notarized. After their discussion,
complainant agreed to engage his legal
services for the filing of the appropriate case
in court, for which they signed a contract.
Complainant paid respondent P20,000.00 as
acceptance fee and P5,000.00 for incidental
expenses.
5. September 28, 2009, respondent wrote a
letter to Tropical Villas Subdivision in
relation to the legal problem referred by
complainant. He then visited the latter in
her home and asked for a loan of
P100,000.00, payable in sixty (60) days, for
the repair of his car. Complainant, having
trust and confidence on respondent being
her lawyer, agreed to lend the amount
without interest. A promissory note
evidenced the loan.
6. November 2009, complainant became
aware that Tierra Realty was attempting to
transfer to its name a lot she had previously
purchased. She referred the matter to
respondent who recommended the
immediate filing of a case for reformation of
contract with damages.
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 11
7. November 8, 2009, respondent
requested and thereafter received from
complainant the amount of P150,000.00, as
filing fee. When asked about the exorbitant
amount, respondent 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. Later, complainant confirmed
that the fees paid for the filing of Civil Case
No. 14791-65, entitled Erlinda Foster v.
Tierra Realty and Development Corporation,
only amounted to P22,410.00 per trial court
records.
8. During a conversation with the Registrar
of Deeds, complainant also discovered that
respondent was the one who notarized the
document being questioned in the civil case
she filed. When asked about this,
respondent merely replied that he would
take a collaborating counsel to handle
complainant’s case. Upon reading a copy of
the complaint filed by respondent with the
trial court, complainant noticed that:
1] the major differences in the documents
issued by Tierra Realty were not alleged;
2] the contract to buy and sell and the deed
of conditional sale were not attached
thereto;
3] the complaint discussed the method of
payment which was not the point of
contention in the case; and
4] the very anomalies she complained of
were not mentioned. Respondent, however,
assured her that those matters could be
brought up during the hearings.
9. April 23, 2010, respondent wrote to
complainant, requesting that the latter
extend to him the amount of P70,000.00 or
P50,000.00 “in the moment of urgency or
emergency.” Complainant obliged the
request and gave respondent the sum of
P22,000.00.
10. August 31, 2010, respondent came to
complainant’s house and demanded the
sum of P50,000.00, purportedly to be given
to the judge in exchange for a favorable
ruling. Complainant expressed her
misgivings on this proposition but she
eventually gave the amount of P25,000.00
which was covered by a receipt, stating that
“it is understood that the balance of
P25,000.00 shall be paid later after
favorable judgment for plaintiff Erlinda
Foster.”
11. November 2, 2010, respondent insisted
that the remaining amount be given by
complainant prior to the next hearing of the
case, because the judge was allegedly
asking for the balance. Yet again,
complainant handed to respondent the
amount of P25,000.00.
12. September 29, 2010, complainant’s case
was dismissed. Not having been notified by
respondent, complainant learned of the
dismissal on December 14, 2010, when she
personally checked the status of the case
with the court. She went to the office of
respondent, but he was not there. Instead,
one of the office staff gave her a copy of the
order of dismissal.
13. December 15, 2010, respondent visited
complainant and gave her a copy of the
motion for reconsideration.
14. January 15, 2011, complainant went to
see respondent and requested him to
prepare a reply to the comment filed by
Tierra Realty on the motion for
reconsideration; to include additional facts
because the Land Registration Authority
would not accept the documents unless
these were amended; and to make the
additional averment that the defendant was
using false documents.
15. January 18, 2011, respondent’s driver
delivered to complainant a copy of the reply
with a message from him that the matters
she requested to be included were
mentioned therein. Upon reading the same,
however, complainant discovered that these
matters were not so included. On the same
occasion, the driver also asked for P2,500.00
on respondent’s directive for the
reimbursement of the value of a bottle of
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 12
wine given to the judge as a present.
Complainant was also told that oral
arguments on the case had been set the
following month.
16. February 2, 2011, 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 since
December 2007. 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
In his Answer, respondent alleged that he
was 72 years old and had been engaged in
the practice of law since March 1972, and
was President of the IBP Ilocos Norte
Chapter from 1998 to 1999. 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 therefor. He likewise admitted acting as
counsel for complainant for which he
claimed to have received P10,000.00 as
acceptance fee and P5,000.00 for incidental
fees. Anent the loan of P100,000.00,
respondent averred that it was complainant,
at the behest of her husband, who willingly
offered the amount to him for his patience
in visiting them at home and for his services.
The transaction was declared as “no loan”
and he was told not to worry about its
payment. As regards the amount of
P150,000.00 he received for filing fees,
respondent claimed that the said amount
was suggested by the complainant herself
who was persistent in covering the
incidental expenses in the handling of the
case. He denied having said that the sheriffs
of the court would need the money for their
hotel accommodations. Complainant’s
husband approved of the amount. In the
same vein, respondent denied having asked
for a loan of P50,000.00 and having received
P22,000.00 from complainant. He also
denied having told her that the case would
be discussed with the judge who would rule
in their favor at the very next hearing.
Instead, it was complainant who was
bothered by the possibility that the other
party would befriend the judge. He never
said that he would personally present a
bottle of wine to the judge.
Further, respondent belied the Registrar’s
comment as to his representation of Tierra
Realty in the past. Respondent saw nothing
wrong in this situation since complainant
was fully aware that another counsel was
assisting him in the handling of cases.
Having been fully informed of the nature of
her cause of action and the consequences of
the suit, complainant was aware of the
applicable law on reformation of contracts.
Finally, by way of counterclaim, respondent
demanded just compensation for the
services he had rendered in other cases for
the complainant.
Issue: Whether respondent violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
SC ruling/Discussion
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
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 13
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. He demanded the amount of
P150,000.00 as filing fee, when in truth, the
same amounted only to P22,410.00. His
defense that it was complainant who
suggested that amount deserves no iota of
credence. For one, it is highly improbable
that complainant, who was then plagued
with the rigors of litigation, would propose
such amount that would further burden her
financial resources. 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.
It is clear that respondent failed to fulfill
this duty. As pointed out, he received
various amounts from complainant but he
could not account for all of them. Worse, he
could not deny the authenticity of the
receipts presented by complainant. Upon
demand, he failed to return the excess
money from the alleged filing fees and other
expenses. His possession gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it
for his own use to the prejudice of, and in
violation of the trust reposed in him by, the
client. When a lawyer receives money from
the client for a particular purpose, the
lawyer is bound to render an accounting to
the client showing that the money was
spent for the intended purpose.
Consequently, if the lawyer does not use the
money for the intended purpose, the lawyer
must immediately return the money to the
client.
The act of demanding a sum of money from
his client, purportedly to be used as a bribe
to ensure a positive outcome of a case, is
not only an abuse of his client’s trust but an
overt act of undermining the trust and faith
of the public in the legal profession and the
entire Judiciary. This is the height of
indecency. As officers of the court, lawyers
owe their utmost fidelity to public service
and the administration of justice. In no way
should a lawyer indulge in any act that
would damage the image of judges, lest the
public’s perception of the dispensation of
justice be overshadowed by iniquitous
doubts. The denial of respondent and his
claim that the amount was given
gratuitously would not excuse him from any
liability. The absence of proof that the said
amount was indeed used as a bribe is of no
moment. To tolerate respondent’s
actuations would seriously erode the
public’s trust in the courts.
As it turned out, complainant’s case was
dismissed as early as September 29, 2010.
At this juncture, respondent proved himself
to be negligent in his duty as he failed to
inform his client of the status of the case,
and left the client to personally inquire with
the court. Surely, respondent was not only
guilty of misconduct but was also remiss in
his duty to his client.
Respondent’s unbecoming conduct towards
complainant did not stop here. Records
reveal that he likewise violated Rule 16.04,
Canon 16 of the CPR, which states that “[a]
lawyer shall not borrow money from his
client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer
lend money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is
handling for the client.” In his private
capacity, he requested from his client, not
just one, but two loans of considerable
amounts. The first time, he visited his client
in her home and borrowed P100,000.00 for
the repair of his car; and the next time, he
implored her to extend to him a loan of
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 14
P70,000.00 or P50,000.00 “in the moment of
urgency or emergency” but was only given
P22,000.00 by complainant. These
transactions were evidenced by promissory
notes and receipts, the authenticity of which
was never questioned by respondent. These
acts were committed by respondent in his
private capacity, seemingly unrelated to his
relationship with complainant, but were
indubitably acquiesced to by complainant
because of the trust and confidence reposed
in him as a lawyer. Nowhere in the records,
particularly in the defenses raised by
respondent, was it implied that these loans
fell within the exceptions provided by the
rules. The loans of P100,000.00 and
P22,000.00 were surely not protected by the
nature of the case or by independent advice.
Respondent’s assertion that the amounts
were given to him out of the liberality of
complainant and were, thus, considered as
“no loan,” does not justify his inappropriate
behavior. The acts of requesting and
receiving money as loans from his client and
thereafter failing to pay the same are
indicative of his lack of integrity and sense
of fair dealing. Up to the present,
respondent has not yet paid his obligations
to complainant.
Time and again, the Court has consistently
held that deliberate failure to pay just debts
constitutes gross misconduct, for which a
lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension
from the practice of law. Lawyers are
instruments for the administration of justice
and vanguards of our legal system. They are
expected to maintain not only legal
proficiency, but also a high standard of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing
so that the people’s faith and confidence in
the judicial system is ensured. They must, at
all times, faithfully perform their duties to
society, to the bar, the courts and their
clients, which include prompt payment of
financial obligations.
Verily, when the Code or the Rules speaks of
“conduct” or “misconduct,” the reference is
not confined to one’s behavior exhibited in
connection with the performance of the
lawyer’s professional duties, but also covers
any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to
the actual practice of his profession, would
show him to be unfit for the office and
unworthy of the privileges which his license
and the law vest him with. Unfortunately,
respondent must be found guilty of
misconduct on both scores.
With respect to respondent’s alleged
representation of conflicting interests, the
Court finds it proper to modify the findings
of the Investigating Commissioner who
concluded that complainant presented
insufficient evidence of respondent’s
“lawyering” for the opposing party, Tierra
Realty.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR, provides
that “[a] lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interest except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.” The relationship
between a lawyer and his/her client should
ideally be imbued with the highest level of
trust and confidence. This is the standard of
confidentiality that must prevail to promote
a full disclosure of the client’s most
confidential information to his/her lawyer
for an unhampered exchange of information
between them. Needless to state, a client
can only entrust confidential information to
his/her lawyer based on an expectation from
the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion;
the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
dealings and transactions with the client.
Part of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to
avoid representing conflicting interests.”
Thus, even if lucrative fees offered by
prospective clients are at stake, a lawyer
must decline professional employment if the
same would trigger the violation of the
prohibition against conflict of interest. The
only exception provided in the rules is a
written consent from all the parties after full
disclosure.
The Court deviates from the findings of the
IBP. There is substantial evidence to hold
respondent liable for representing
conflicting interests in handling the case of
complainant against Tierra Realty, a
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 15
corporation to which he had rendered
services in the past. The Court cannot ignore
the fact that respondent admitted to having
notarized the deed of sale, which was the
very document being questioned in
complainant’s case. While the Investigating
Commissioner found that the complaint in
Civil Case No. 14791-65 did not question the
validity of the said contract, and that only
the intentions of the parties as to some
provisions thereof were challenged, the
Regardless of whether it was the validity of
the entire document or the intention of the
parties as to some of its provisions raised,
respondent fell short of prudence in action
when he accepted complainant’s case,
knowing fully that he was involved in the
execution of the very transaction under
question. Neither his unpaid notarial fees
nor the participation of a collaborating
counsel would excuse him from such
indiscretion. It is apparent that respondent
was retained by clients who had close
dealings with each other. More significantly,
there is no record of any written consent
from any of the parties involved.
Respondent demonstrated not just a
negligent disregard of his duties as a lawyer
but a wanton betrayal of the trust of his
client and, in general, the public.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the
suspension for three (3) months
recommended by the IBP-BOG is not
sufficient punishment for the unacceptable
acts and omissions of respondent. The acts
of the respondent constitute malpractice
and gross misconduct in his office as
attorney. His incompetence and appalling
indifference to his duty to his client, the
courts and society render him unfit to
continue discharging the trust reposed in
him as a member of the Bar.
All told, in the exercise of its disciplinary
powers, “the Court merely calls upon a
member of the Bar to account for his
actuations as an officer of the Court with the
end in view of preserving the purity of the
legal profession.” The Court likewise aims to
ensure the proper and honest
administration of justice by “purging the
profession of members who, by their
misconduct, have proven themselves no
longer worthy to be entrusted with the
duties and responsibilities of an attorney.”
5. Atty. Oscar L. Embido vs. Atty. Salvador
N. Pe, Jr.
A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013
 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the
Supreme Court. Disbarment.
 The Court FINDS AND
PRONOUNCES ASST.
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
SALVADOR N. PE, JR. guilty of
violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1,
and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and DISBARS him
effective upon receipt of this
decision.
 The Court DIRECTS the Bar
Confidant to remove the name
of ASST. PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N.
PE, JR. from the Roll of
Attorneys.
SYLLABUS:
a. Legal Ethics; Code of Professional
Responsibility; Lawyers are required
by Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility not to
engage in any unlawful, dishonest
and immoral or deceitful conduct.
In light of the established circumstances, the
respondent was guilty of grave misconduct
for having authored the falsification of the
decision in a non-existent court proceeding.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility demands that all lawyers
should uphold at all times the dignity and
integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03
of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he
whether in public or private life, behave in a
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 16
scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.” Lawyers are further
required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility not to engage in
any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or
deceitful conduct.
b. Gross immorality, conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or
fraudulent transactions can justify a
lawyer’s disbarment or suspension
from the practice of law.
Gross immorality, conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent
transactions can justify a lawyer’s
disbarment or suspension from the practice
of law. Specifically, the deliberate
falsification of the court decision by the
respondent was an act that reflected a high
degree of moral turpitude on his part.
Worse, the act made a mockery of the
administration of justice in this country,
given the purpose of the falsification, which
was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the
personal status of a person. He thereby
became unworthy of continuing as a
member of the Bar.
The Case
A lawyer who forges a court decision and
represents it as that of a court of law is
guilty of the gravest misconduct and
deserves the supreme penalty of
disbarment.

Before this Court is the complaint for
disbarment against Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr.
(respondent) of San Jose, Antique for his
having allegedly falsified an inexistent
decision of Branch 64 of the Regional Trial
Court stationed in Bugasong, Antique (RTC)
instituted by the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), Western Visayas
Regional Office, represented by Regional
Director Atty. Oscar L. Embido.
Facts:
1. July 7, 2004, Atty. Ronel F. Sustituya,
Clerk of Court of the RTC, received a written
communication from Mr. Ballam Delaney
Hunt, a Solicitor in the United Kingdom
(UK). The letter requested a copy of the
decision dated February 12, 1997 rendered
by Judge Rafael O. Penuela in Special
Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the
Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive
Death of Rey Laserna, whose petitioner was
one Shirley Quioyo.
On September 9, 2004, the RTC received
another letter from Mr. Hunt, reiterating the
request for a copy of the decision in Special
Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the
Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive
Death of Rey Laserna.
Judge Penuela instructed the civil docket
clerk to retrieve the records of Special
Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the
Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive
Death of Rey Laserna. It was then
discovered that the RTC had no record of
Special Proceedings No. 084 wherein Shirley
Quioyo was the petitioner. Instead, the
court files revealed that Judge Penuela had
decided Special Proceedings No. 084
entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of
Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria,
whose petitioner was one Serena Catin
Austria.
Informed that the requested decision and
case records did not exist,3 Mr. Hunt sent a
letter dated October 12, 2004 attaching a
machine copy of the purported decision in
Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the
Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive
Death of Rey Laserna that had been
presented by Shirley Quioyo in court
proceedings in the UK.
After comparing the two documents and
ascertaining that the document attached to
the October 12, 2004 letter was a falsified
court document, Judge Penuela wrote Mr.
Hunt to apprise him of the situation.
The discovery of the falsified decision
prompted the Clerk of Court to
communicate on the situation in writing to
the NBI, triggering the investigation of the
falsification.
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 17
In the meanwhile, Dy Quioyo, a brother of
Shirley Quioyo, executed an affidavit on
March 4, 2005, wherein he stated that it was
the respondent who had facilitated the
issuance of the falsified decision in Special
Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter
of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of
Rey Laserna for a fee of ₱60,000.00. The
allegations against the respondent were
substantially corroborated by Mary Rose
Quioyo, a sister of Shirley Quioyo, in an
affidavit dated March 20, 2005.
The NBI invited the respondent to explain
his side, but he invoked his constitutional
right to remain silent. The NBI also issued
subpoenas to Shirley Quioyo and Dy Quioyo
but only the latter appeared and gave his
sworn statement.
After conducting its investigation, the NBI
forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman
for Visayas the records of the investigation,
with a recommendation that the respondent
be prosecuted for falsification of public
document under Article 171, 1 and 2, of the
Revised Penal Code, and for violation of
Section 3(a) of Republic Act 3019 (The Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).10 The NBI
likewise recommended to the Office of the
Court Administrator that disbarment
proceedings be commenced against the
respondent. Then Court Administrator
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (now a Member of
the Court) officially endorsed the
recommendation to the Office of the Bar
Confidant.
Upon being required by the Court, the
respondent submitted his counter-
affidavit,13 whereby he denied any
participation in the falsification. He insisted
that Dy Quioyo had sought his opinion on
Shirley’s petition for the annulment of her
marriage; that he had given advice on the
pertinent laws involved and the different
grounds for the annulment of marriage; that
in June 2004, Dy Quioyo had gone back to
him to present a copy of what appeared to
be a court decision; that Dy Quioyo had then
admitted to him that he had caused the
falsification of the decision; that he had
advised Dy Quioyo that the falsified decision
would not hold up in an investigation; that
Dy Quioyo, an overseas Filipino worker
(OFW), had previously resorted to people on
Recto Avenue in Manila to solve his
documentation problems as an OFW; and
that he had also learned from Atty. Angeles
Orquia, Jr. that one Mrs. Florencia Jalipa, a
resident of Igbalangao, Bugasong, Antique,
had executed a sworn statement before
Police Investigator Herminio Dayrit with the
assistance of Atty. Orquia, Jr. to the effect
that her late husband, Manuel Jalipa, had
been responsible for making the falsified
document at the instance of Dy Quioyo.
Thereafter, the Court issued its resolution16
treating the respondent’s counter-affidavit
as his comment, and referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
In a report and recommendation dated June
14, 2006,17 Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing, the
IBP Investigating Commissioner, found the
respondent guilty of serious misconduct and
violations of the Attorney’s Oath and Code
of Professional Responsibility, and
recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for one year. She concluded
that the respondent had forged the
purported decision of Judge Penuela by
making it appear that Special Proceedings
No. 084 concerned a petition for declaration
of presumptive death of Rey Laserna, with
Shirley Quioyo as the petitioner, when in
truth and in fact the proceedings related to
the petition for declaration of presumptive
death of Rolando Austria, with Serena Catin
Austria as the petitioner; and that the
respondent had received ₱60,000.00 from
Dy Quioyo for the falsified decision. She
rationalized her conclusions thusly:
Respondent’s denials are not worthy of
merit. Respondent contends that it was one
Manuel Jalipa (deceased) who facilitated the
issuance and as proof thereof, he presented
the sworn statement of the widow of
Florencia Jalipa (sic). Such a contention is
hard to believe. In the first place, if the
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 18
decision was obtained in Recto, Manila, why
was it an almost verbatim reproduction of
the authentic decision on file in Judge
Penuela’s branch except for the names and
dates? Respondent failed to explain this.
Secondly, respondent did not attend the
NBI investigation and merely invoked his
right to remain silent. If his side of the story
were true, he should have made this known
in the investigation. His story therefore
appears to have been a mere afterthought.
Finally, there is no plausible reason why Dy
Quioyo and his sister, Mary Rose Quioyo
would falsely implicate him in this incident.
In its Resolution No. XVII-2007-063 dated
February 1, 200,20 the IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved, with
modification, the report and
recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner by suspending the
respondent from the practice of law for six
years.
On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of
Governors passed Resolution No. XVIII-
2008-70921 denying the respondent’s
motion for reconsideration and affirming
Resolution No. XVII-2007-063. The IBP
Board of Governors then forwarded the case
to the Court in accordance with Section
12(b), Rule 139-B22 of the Rules of Court.
On January 11, 2011, the Court resolved: (1)
to treat the respondent’s
comment/opposition as his appeal by
petition for review; (2) to consider the
complainant’s reply as his comment on the
petition for review; (3) to require the
respondent to file a reply to the
complainant’s comment within 10 days from
notice; and (4) to direct the IBP to transmit
the original records of the case within 15
days from notice.
Ruling
We affirm the findings of the IBP Board of
Governors. Indeed, the respondent was
guilty of grave misconduct for falsifying a
court decision in consideration of a sum of
money.
The respondent’s main defense consisted in
blanket denial of the imputation. He insisted
that he had had no hand in the falsification,
and claimed that the falsification had been
the handiwork of Dy Quioyo. He implied
that Dy Quioyo had resorted to the shady
characters in Recto Avenue in Manila to
resolve the problems he had encountered as
an OFW, hinting that Dy Quioyo had a
history of employing unscrupulous means to
achieve his ends.
However, the respondent’s denial and his
implication against Dy Quioyo in the illicit
generation of the falsified decision are not
persuasive. Dy Quioyo’s categorical
declaration on the respondent’s personal
responsibility for the falsified decision,
which by nature was positive evidence, was
not overcome by the respondent’s blanket
denial, which by nature was negative
evidence.
Also, the imputation of wrongdoing against
Dy Quioyo lacked credible specifics and did
not command credence.1âwphi1 It is worthy
to note, too, that the respondent filed his
counter-affidavit only after the Court,
through the en banc resolution of May 10,
2005, had required him to comment. The
belatedness of his response exposed his
blanket denial as nothing more than an after
thought.
The respondent relied on the sworn
statement supposedly executed by Mrs.
Jalipa that declared that her deceased
husband had been instrumental in the
falsification of the forged decision. But such
reliance was outrightly worthless, for the
sworn statement of the wife was rendered
unreliable due to its patently hearsay
character. In addition, the unworthiness of
the sworn statement as proof of authorship
of the falsification by the husband is
immediately exposed and betrayed by the
falsified decision being an almost verbatim
reproduction of the authentic decision
penned by Judge Penuela in the real Special
Proceedings Case No. 084.
In light of the established circumstances, the
respondent was guilty of grave misconduct
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 19
for having authored the falsification of the
decision in a non-existent court proceeding.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility demands that all lawyers
should uphold at all times the dignity and
integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that "a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor shall he whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal
profession." Lawyers are further required by
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility not to engage in any
unlawful, dishonest and immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Gross immorality, conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent
transactions can justify a lawyer’s
disbarment or suspension from the practice
of law.25 Specifically, the deliberate
falsification of the court decision by the
respondent was an act that reflected a high
degree of moral turpitude on his part.
Worse, the act made a mockery of the
administration of justice in this country,
given the purpose of the falsification, which
was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the
personal status of a person. He thereby
became unworthy of continuing as a
member of the Bar.
It then becomes timely to remind all
members of the Philippine Bar that they
should do nothing that may in any way or
degree lessen the confidence of the public in
their professional fidelity and integrity. The
Court will not hesitate to wield its heavy
hand of discipline on those among them
who wittingly and willingly fail to meet the
enduring demands of their Attorney’s Oath
for them to:
x x x support the Constitution and obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; xxx do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; x x x not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue on groundless, false or
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same; x x x delay no man for money or
malice, and x x x conduct themselves as
lawyers according to the best of their
knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to their
clients x x x.
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the
verity that the practice of the legal
profession is always a privilege that the
Court extends only to the deserving, and
that the Court may withdraw or deny the
privilege to him who fails to observe and
respect the Lawyer’s Oath and the canons of
ethical conduct in his professional and
private capacities. He may be disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law not only
for acts and omissions of malpractice and
for dishonesty in his professional dealings,
but also for gross misconduct not directly
connected with his professional duties that
reveal his unfitness for the office and his
unworthiness of the principles that the
privilege to practice law confers upon him.
Verily, no lawyer is immune from the
disciplinary authority of the Court whose
duty and obligation are to investigate and
punish lawyer misconduct committed either
in a professional or private capacity. The
test is whether the conduct shows the
lawyer to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity, and good demeanor, and
whether the conduct renders the lawyer
unworthy to continue as an officer of the
Court. WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND
PRONOUNCES ASST. PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE, JR. guilty
of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, and Rule
7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and DISBARS him effective
upon receipt of this decision.
LEGAL ETHICS Midterm Cases Digests Continuation 3 rd Set Page | 20