68. People vs.

Sandiganbayan
Facts:
• Petitioner wished to discharge Generoso Sansaet as state witness, an attorney who
served as counsel for one Paredes, provincial attorney of Agusan del Sur and then
governor
• Case against Paredes was for fraudulent misrepresentation in his application of free
patent over land at Rosario Public Land Subdivision Survey
o Violation of section 3(a) of RA 3019

• Pending such case for perjury and graft, taxpayer Teofilo Gelacio prayed 3 respondents
be investigated (inc. Honrado-clerk of court and acting stenographer of Municipal
Circuit Trial Court)
o Falsified documents making it appear that since perjury case had already been
dismissed, filing a graft case would constitute double jeopardy
o Sansaet testified that he was induced by Paredes

Issue: WON Sansaet’s projected testimony is barred by the attorney-client privilege

Held: NO, facts surrounding case constitute exception to the rule
Ratio:
• privileged confidentiality does not apply to crimes which the client intends to commit in
the future
• the communications made to him by physical acts and/or accompanying words of
Parades at the time he and Honrada, either with the active or passive participation of
Sansaet, were about to falsify, or in the process of falsifying, the documents which were
later filed in the Tanodbayan by Sansaet and culminated in the criminal charges now
pending in respondent Sandiganbayan
• Sansaet was himself a co-conspirator in the falsification
o Privilege will only attach if it is for a lawful purpose or lawful end

However, Sansaet was discharged as state witness because he has a co-conspirator to the
crime committed.

69. Regala vs. Sandiganbayan

Facts
Raul Roco and his colleagues from the ACCRA Law Office were charged together with Eduardo
Conjuangco for acquiring ill-gotten wealth. The PCGG based its charge from the refusal of the
law firm to divulge information as to who had been involved in PCGG Case No. 0033, despite
the nature of the services performed by ACCRA (e.g. the law firm knows the assets, personal
transactions, and business dealings of their clients).

Later, the PCGG amended the complaint, resulting in the exclusion of Roco from the list of
defendants. Such exclusion was based from the manifestation of Roco that he would identify
the persons and stockholders involved in the said PCGG case.

The law firm petitioned for the PCGG to grant them the same treatment as what had been
accorded to Roco. It was only at this point that the PCGG answered with a “set of requirements
and conditions for exclusion” which were:
1) disclosure of the identity of the clients

2) submission of documents purporting to the substantiation of the lawyer-client relationship

3) presentation of the deeds of assignments which the lawyers executed in favor of its clients,
covering the shareholdings of the latter

To bolster this set-up, the PCGG presented supposed proof to the effect that Roco had
complied with such conditions

The 1st Division of the Sandiganbayan denied the petition of ACCRA.

Issue/s
1) whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in not giving the law firm equal treatment as that
of Roco despite the fact that the confession of Roco did not really reveal the information
being asked by the PCGG

2) whether or not the Sandiganbayan strictly applied the concept of agency

3) whether or not the Sandiganbayan did not uphold the sanctity of the lawyer-client
relationship

Resolution
1) yes… violation of the equal protection clause
2) no
3) yes… violation of the confidentiality privilege

Rationale
1) the inclusion of the ACCRA lawyers was merely being used as a leverage to compel them to
name their clients… classifying persons as to those who can give valuable information
apart from those who cannot is not a valid classification espoused by the equal protection
clause

2) an attorney is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of
trust and confidence reposed on him by his client

3) as a general rule, the identity of the client should not be shrouded with mystery, as a
requirement of due process, except when :

a) revealing the name of a client would implicate the latter in the very activity for
which he sought the advice of the lawyer

b) the disclosure would expose the client to civil liability

c) the content of the client communication is relevant to the subject matter of the
legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance

✯ the case of the prosecution must be built upon evidence gathered by them from their own
sources, not from compelled testimony requiring them to reveal information prejudicial to
their client

✯ the confidentiality privilege extends even after the termination of the lawyer-client
relationship

70. Lantoria vs. Bunyi

Facts:
• Cesar Lantoria sought disciplinary action against Bunyi, counsel for Mrs. Constancia
Mascarinas in certain civil cases
• allegedly committed acts of "graft and corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming
of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and corruption of the judge
(Vicente Galicia of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur) and bribery
o in cases for ejectment of squatters in Mascarinas’ land, Bunyi allegedly was the
one who prepared the decisions and judge simply signed them

Issue: WON Bunyi is guilty of unethical conduct

Held: YES
Ratio:
• letters show that he indeed prepared draft decisions for the judge to sign
o does not matter if it was clearly shown that the judge consented to such act or
even asked for it
 • violated canon 3: attempts to exert personal influence on the court
• violated:
• CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.
• Rule 13.01 — A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor
seek opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with judges.

SUSPENDED FOR A YEAR.

71. Ombac vs. Rayos

Facts:

• petition for disbarment filed by Mrs. Irene Rayos-Ombac against her nephew, Atty.
Orlando A. Rayos, a legal practitioner in Metro Manila, for "his failure to adhere to the
standards of mental and moral fitness set up for members of the bar
• Atty. Rayos induced 85 year old Mrs. Ombac to withdraw all her bank deposits and
entrust them to him for safekeeping
o if she withdraws all her money in the bank, they will be excluded from the estate
of her deceased husband and his other heirs will be precluded from inheriting
part of it
o withdraw Php 588,000
o advised complainant to deposit the money with Union Bank where he was
working. He also urged her to deposit the money in his name to prevent the
other heirs of her husband from tracing the same
o offered to pay 2 second hand cars and Php 40,000

Issue: WON respondent violated Code of Professional responsibility

Held: Yes

Ratio:

• he deceived his 85-year old aunt into entrusting to him all her money, and later refused
to return the same despite demand
• aggravated by the series of unfounded suits he filed against complainant to compel her
to withdraw the disbarment case she filed against him

DISBARRED.

72. Daroy vs. Legaspi

Facts:

• Attorney Ramon Chaves was charged with malpractice for having misappropriated the
sum of four thousand pesos which he had collected for them. (from sale of coconut
land)
• prayed that the respondent be disbarred. 1
o (He was 59 years old in 1974. He passed the 1954 bar examinations with a
rating of 75.75%).
o Was hired to represent petitioners in the intestate proceeding for the settlement
of the estate of the spouses Aquilino Gonzaga and Paz Velez-Gonzaga

Issue: WON lawyer is guilty of wrongful conduct charged

Held: Yes
Ratio:

• respondent made it appear that the said sum of P4,000 was going to be withdrawn on
"December 8, 1969 at nine o'clock when in fact he already withdrew such amount
• guilty of deceit, malpractice and professional misconduct for having misappropriated
the funds of his clients

DISBARRED.

73. Licuanan vs. Melo

Facts:

• Atty. Manuel Melo for breach of professional ethics

o Was counsel for Licuanan in an ejectment case filed against her tenant
o Failed to turn over collected rentals
o Did not even report the receipt of such rentals
o Only returned such when Licuanan demanded it from him
o Defense: he wanted to surprise her of his success in collecting the rentals

Issue: WON Melo breached professional ethics

Held: Yes.

Ratio:

• violated:

11. DEALING WITH TRUST PROPERTY

The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or
gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his
client.

Money of the client or collected for the client of other trust property coming into
the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly,
and should not under any circumstance be commingled with his own or be used
by him. *

• Licuanan was then compelled to file groundless suits(moral turpitude) against her
tenant (Pineda). <new lawyer for Licuanan was Atty. Jacinto>

DISBARRED.

74. Navarro vs. Meneses

Navarro in behalf of and for Pan-Asia International Commodities Inc

Facts:

• Atty Meneses was charged with:

 • 1) malpractice and gross misconduct unbecoming a public defender;
• (2) dereliction of duty, by violating his oath to do everything within his power to protect
his client's interest;
• (3) willful abandonment; and
• (4) loss of trust and confidence, due to his continued failure to account for the amount
of P50,000.00 entrusted to him to be paid to a certain complainant for the amicable
settlement of a pending case
• received Php 50, 000 from Arthur Bretania to settle case with one Gleason but never
really appropriated such amount to the amicable settlement of the case

Issue: WON lawyer breach Code

Held: Yes

Ratio:

• RTC records did not show any motion to dismiss case despite claimed out-of-court-
settlement with money involved
• Amicable settlement was not settled and finalized
• Violated Rule 16.01 of canon 16: a lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from his client

DISBARRED.

75. Tanhuenco vs. de dumo

• de dumo allegedly violated Canons in his:

(a) refusal to remit to her money collected by him from debtors of the complainant; and
(b) refusal to return documents entrusted to him as counsel of complainant in certain
collection cases.

• borrowed different amounts from Tanhuenco on 3 separate occasions but didn’t pay for
them
• collected 12,500 from debtor Mañosca but didn’t remit it to Tanhueco
• defenses: denied having borrowed money, 12000 he retained as his attorney’s fees
with Tanhueco refused to pay him

Issue: WON he breached Canon

Held: Yes

Ratio:

• violated canon 11:

11. Dealing with trust property.

The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or
gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his
client.

Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into
the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and
should not under any circumstance be comingled with his own or be used by
him.
 • as for the contingent fees, it was shown that he had been collecting 60 percent instead
of 50
• no sufficient evidence as regards 2nd charge

SUSPENDED FOR 6 MONTHS AND WARNED

76. Quilban vs. Robinol (repeat case)

77. Cruz vs. Jacinto

Facts
A certain Concepcion Padilla requested a P285,000 loan from the Cruz spouses through Atty.
Ernesto Jacinto. The spouses, believing the representation of their lawyer that Padilla was a
good risk, authorized Jacinto to prepare the necessary documents for the registration of the
Real Estate Mortgage as a security of the loan in favor of the couple.

When the loan became due, Padilla was nowhere to be found. Later it was discovered that the
mortgage had for its object a fake TCT.

Estrella Palipada (secretary of Jacinto) testified that she was instructed by Jacinto to notarize
the mortgage by signing the name of Atty. Ricardo Neri. His housemaid Avegail Payos also
admitted that she simulated the signature of Emmanuel Gimarino (Deputy Register Of Deeds)
upon the command of her amo.

Issue/s
whether or not Jacinto committed malpractice

Resolution
malamang !!!… suspended from the practice of law for 6 months

Rationale
1) business transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and discouraged
by the policy of law… no presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is
considered in an attorney’s favor

2) a higher standard of good faith is required of a lawyer when he engages in business

dealings… this is because his position gives him an advantage which he might abuse

78. Rubias vs. Batiller

Facts:

• one Militante sold a piece of land to Atty. Rubias ( his counsel in a land registration case
involving the very same land sold here) when defendant, Batiller had better right over it
because of actual possession years before Militante sold such land

Decision:

• purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his client is categorically

prohibited by Article 1491, paragraph (5) of the Philippine Civil Code
 • plaintiff's purchase of the property in litigation from his client (assuming that his client
could sell the same since as already shown above, his client's claim to the property was
defeated and rejected) was void and could produce no legal effect, by virtue of Article
1409, paragraph (7) of our Civil Code which provides that contracts "expressly
prohibited or declared void by law' are "inexistent and that "(T)hese contracts cannot
be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived."

Sale to Rubias voided.

79. In re Ruste

Facts
Melchor Ruste appeared as counsel for the San Juan spouses in a cadastral proceeding. An
11/12 share of the estate was adjudged in her favor.

Ruste demanded for his fees. The couple did not have enough money to pay him, so he asked
them to execute in his favor a contract of sale of their share of Lot No. 3764, intending to apply
a portion of the would-be proceeds as payment for his fees. The spouses complied.

On 21 March 1931, the land was sold to Ong Chua. The P 375 payment of Chua through Ruste
never reached the hands of the San Juan couple.

Issue/s
whether or not Ruste committed malpractice

Resolution
yes… suspended from the practice of law for 1 year

Rationale
whether the deed of sale in question was executed at the instance of the spouses driven by
financial necessity (as contended by Ruste) or at their behest (as contended by the couple) is
immaterial
✯ in either case, the lawyer occupies a vantage position to press upon or dictate his terms to
a harrassed client

80. Go Beltran vs. Fernandez

Facts
Honorio Pajaron and Natividad Ypan-Pajaron conveyed two parcels of land to Gerardo Go
Beltran. The sellers maintain that Lot C was not part of the plan, but Go Beltran had already
attached a sketch to the plan which included Lot C. This misunderstanding as to the identity of
the lot became the cause of action of both parties in a series of civil and criminal cases they
filed against each other.

Ehile the criminal suit was pending appeal, Inocentes Fernandez (counsel for the spouses)
purchased Lot C.

Issue/s
whether or not Fernandez committed malpractice

Resolution
yes… suspended from the practice of law for 6 months
Rationale
Article 1459 Civil Code

81. Laig vs. Ca

facts:

• Galero was able to obtain land which he sold to one Mario Escuta becoz such alienation
allegedly violated section 118 of Public Land act
o Laig was lawyer for Galero
• Galero then sold land to Laig for Php1500 plus attorney’s fees
• When Laig died, wife noticed that tile to land was still not transferred to husband’s
name.filed for such transfer
• Pending such application, Galero however sold the land to Carmen verzon for 600 pesos

Decision:

• Mrs. Laig has better right over land for having acquired it in good faith
o Verzo was landlady of Atty. Laig when latter bought land from Galero
o Her sister witnessed said sale
o Baldomero Lapak was also in bad faith
 Knowing of the existence in his records of the original of OCT No. 1097,
Baldomero Lapak effected the issuance of the second duplicate of OCT
No. 1097 to Petre Galero in just four (4) days, dispensing with the
requirements of notice and hearing to interested parties

1. his son Jose was the notary public of sale between Verzo and Galero

Lapaks: disciplined. Not mentioned how.

82. Daroy vs. Abecia

Facts
Atty. Esteban Abecia, counsel for Regalado Daroy, was able to obtain a favorable judgement in
the ejectment case that they filed. To satisfy the monetary considerations of the judgement,
the sheriff auctioned a parcel of land belonging to one of the defendants, with Daroy as the
highest bidder.

Daroy claimed that the affixed signature on the Deed Of Sale that covered the said parcel of
land was forged by Abecia. Daroy avers that Abecia did this to have the land sold to Jose
Gangay, which the latter would then sell to Nena Abecia (his wife).

Abecia responded that it was Daroy who sold the land to Gangay, which the latter then
happened to sell to Nena.

Issue/s
whether or not Abecia is guilty of malpractice

Resolution
no… case for disnarment is dismissed

Rationale
1) the prohibition set forth by Article 1491 of the Civil Code does not apply to the sale of the
property of the client to his counsel if the property was not the subject of litigation

2) it is true that the NBI found the signature of Daroy to have been forged, but notary public
Erasmo Damasing affirmed that Daroy and his wife signed the document before him in his
presence
✯ Daroy had the burden of proving that the signature was not his

✯ even the NBI personnel who investigated the signatures was not presented before the
court to give their testimony

83. Cantiller vs. Potenciano

• Potenciano is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross
misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.
• Cantiller sisters impliedly contracted services or Potenciano after they lost in an
ejectment case
• Asked 2000 to give to a judge who could issue restraining order
• 10,000 to be deposited with treasurer as purchase price of apartment
• prepared a "[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed 3 petition
for annulment of judgment

Decision: GUILTY

• first duty was to file best pleading within his capability

• depended on his closeness to judge to get desired decision
• extorted 10,000 from client as deposit but deposit was not required and such was also
not made
• failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client’s interest
• 4 days before hearing of preliminary injunction, he already withdrew as counsel
(frequent attacks of pain due to hemorrhoids)
o did not find replacement, did not inform client

INDEFINITE SUSPENSION

84. People vs Ingco

Facts
Atty. Alfredo Barrios was appointed as counsel de officio for Gaudencio Ingco. The latter was
sentenced to death for the crime of rape with homicide.

The high tribunal, in a resolution concerning the said case, asks for an explanation from Barrios as
to why he incurred a 15-day delay in the filing of the motion for the extension for the filing of the
brief of his client.

Barrios answered that he was busy in the preaparation of the pleadings of another client, and that
his schedule was fully booked for appearances in different courts, mostly in the provinces.

Issue/s
whether the delay incurred by Barrios is tantamount to negligence which exposes him to the
disciplinary power of the court

Resolution
yes… severe reprimand

Rationale
The mere fact that the counsel de oficio has an extensive practice that required him to appear in
provincial courts does not lessen the degree of care required of him in defending an impoverished
litigant
85. Alisbo vs. Jalandoon
Facts:

• Jalandoon was former counsel for Alisbo spouses

o to recover his share of the estate of the deceased spouses Catalina Sales and
Restituto Gozuma which had been adjudicated to him
o complaint was dismissed but it was discovered that Jalandoon was former legal
counsel of Carlito Sales, adversary in the probate proceedings

Decision: suspension for 2 years

• betrayed his client Ramon Alisbo's trust and did not champion his cause with that
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion that a lawyer is obligated to give to every case
that he accepts from a client

1. He did not verify the real status of Ramon Alisbo before filing the case. Otherwise, his lack of
capacity to sue would not have been at issue.

2. He postponed the motion to revive judgment and gave way instead to a motion to resolve
pending incidents in Civil Case 4963. In doing so, he frittered away precious time.

3. He dropped Ramon Alisbo's co-plaintiffs and impleaded them as defendants. Otherwise, the
complaint would have been defective only in part.

• used his position as Alisbo's counsel precisely to favor his other client, Carlito Sales, by
delaying Alisbo's action to revive the judgment in his favor and thereby deprive him of
the fruits of his judgment which Attorney Jalandoon, as Sales' counsel, had vigorously
opposed
• did not immediately take action regarding Ramon’s insanity

86. Ngayan vs. Tugarde

Facts:

• violation of sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court of
the Philippines.

e. when the affidavit he prepared for complainants but subsequently crossed-out was
submitted as evidence against complainants in the motion for reinvestigation

f. when he sent a letter to the fiscal saying that his name was being adversely affected by
the false affidavits of complainants and for that reason, respondent was contemplating to
file a criminal and civil action for damages against them.

• asked respondent to prepare an affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint to be filed

against Mrs. Rowena Soriano and Robert Leonido as a consequence of the latter's
unauthorized entry into complainants' dwelling *Robert’s name was not included in first
document)

Decision: suspended for a year

• furnished the adverse parties in a certain criminal case with a copy of their discarded
affidavit, thus enabling them to use it as evidence against complainants
• was partial to the adverse parties as he even tried to dissuade complainants from filing
charges against Robert Leonido (lawyer is counsel for Roberto’s brother; also classmate
of adverse party’s lawyer)

87. Quilban vs. Robinol (repeat case)

88. Legarda vs. CA

Facts:

• Atty. Coronel was Victoria Legarda’s lawyer when new Cathay House filed an action for
specific performance and damages against her.
o To compel Legarda to sign a lease contract which Cathay intended to use for a
resto
o Lawyer failed to file an appeal therefrom within reglemetary period
o Did not make an appeal from CA decision
o When Cathay house sent notice to Legarda for her to vacate property in 3 days,
lawyer did not inform client

Decision: suspended for 6 months

• violated Canon 18: a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence
• violated rule 18.03: shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable
• By neglecting to file the answer to the complaint against petitioner, he set off the
events which resulted in the deprivation of petitioner's rights over her house and lot

Coronel is a dean of a law school. Hmm, which one?

89. Reontoy vs. Ibadlit

Facts:

• for having been negligent in handling her case for partition, accounting and
reconveyance then pending with the RTC-Br. 4, Kalibo, Aklan. 1
• filed notice of appeal only on July 17, 1989 when due date was July 4
• defense: Proculo Tomazar, complainant’s brother, was asked to inform complainant
about adverse decision and futility of any possible appeal

Decision: suspended for a year

• was shown that brother was not given authority to communicate with counsel about
case
• when complainant asked lawyer about status of case, he only told her period for appeal
was over and then returned records of case to her
• did not even consult client’s opinion if latter wants to make an appeal; no authority to
waive his client’s right to appeal

90. Sibagat vs. CA (sabi ni sir, if we can’t find the case, di na lang daw ididiscuss)
91. Wack Wack Golf and Country Club vs. CA
Facts:
• Balcoff, Poblador and Angel C. Cruz represented Wack-Wack in a case filed against it by
former employees (Arcangel and Bernardo) for:
o a money claim for overtime services rendered to said employer,
o for unenjoyed vacation leave,
o moral damages and
o attorney's fees
• Said lawyers did not appear in court on May 12 working on the assumption that they
had already been released by the Club and that office of Juan Chuidian was now
handling case (however, such substitution was only formally effected and recognized by
court on May 14, 1955).
• Because of such failure to appear in court, plaintiffs were allowed to present evidence
even without defendant.
• Suntay of Chuidian office appeared for old counsel to secure postponement.

Issue: WON there was excusable neglect on the part of both counsels to the extent of making
the action of the trial court, as well as the Court of Appeals in denying relief based thereon, an
abuse of discretion constituting reversible error.
Held: NO
Ratio:
• as of may 5, 1955, both firms knew of the Club’s desire to change lawyers.
o Should have then made the necessary arrangement for the protection of the
interest of their client
o Should have turned over files to Chuidian group for them to prepare a valid
defense
o Chuidian knew of trial’s date and he should have filed his appearance
opportunely and prepare for the trial on May 12
(yikes, tama ba?read the case)

92. Blanza vs. Arcangel

Facts:
• Atty. Arcangel volunteered to held Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion in their respective
pension claims in connection with the deaths of their husbands, both P.C. soldiers.
• Lawyer did not act on case for 6 years and refused to return documents turned over to
him by ‘clients’.
Issues:
1. WON he was legally entitled to recover fees for services rendered
Held: NO
 Ratio:
• volunteered to held them out
• but even so, there was attorney-client relationship which expected him to exercise due
diligence in the handling of the cases

However, there was insufficient evidence to warrant discimplinary action against lawyer.
1. delay was partly complaiants’ fault
• failed to deposit money to copy documents (photostating)
• lawyer has no obligation to shoulder such expenses
• no sufficient proof to establish that lawyer did not return documents

Court however counsels against his actuations as a member of the bar.

• he should not have prolonged case for 6 years

• should have terminated relationship with clients when latter refused to cooperate with
him in the preparation of necessary documents

93. Millare vs. Montero

Facts:
• Atty. Eustaquio Montero represented Elsa Dy Co in an ejectment case filed against her
by Millare’s mother.
• RTC decided in favor of Pacifica Mallare and Co, thru counsel, filed the following actions:
o Manifestation and Motion that RTC and MTC decisions were void for allowing
lessor to increase rentals by 300 percent for an old house
o Petition for Annulment of Decisions which was dismissed
o Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Motion for Reconsideration
for Oral Arguments of the CA decision, denied
o Petition for Review on Certiorari, denied
o Motion for the Issuance of a Prohibitory or Restraining Order
o Special civil action

Decision: VIOLATED CODE, suspended for a year

• Canon 19: a lawyer is required to represent his client "within the bounds of the law.
• to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client (Rule
19.01)
• warns him not to allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case (Rule
19.03
• unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process
• delayed the execution of judgment

94. Albano vs. Coloma

Facts:

• Perpetua Colomo was counsel for Angel Albano and Mother in a civil case.
• respondent failed to expedite the hearing and termination of the case, as a result of
which they had themselves represented by another lawyer
• respondent intervened in the case to collect her attorney's fees
o presented evidence that Albanos promised to pay her a contingent fee of 33-
1/3% of whatever could be recovered whether in land or damages
Issue: violated code? entitled to claimed fees?
Held: No Yes Case against Coloma dismissed
Ratio:
1. there was a written contract of professional services proven to be authentic
2. witness Sergio Manuel testified to the genuineness of the signatures in the contract
3. Felicidad Albano’s testimony showed that Angel Albano was authorized to give such
contingent fee
 4. bad faith could be on the part of the Albanos: took advantage of lawyer’s services and
then dismissed her right after she won the case for them

95. Quirante vs. IAC

Facts:
• Atty John Quirante represented Dr. Indalecio Casasola in a case which the latter filed
against Guerero who failed to comply with his obligations as the building contractor.
• Trial court ruled in favor of Casasola
• Nov. 16, 1981: Dr. Guerrero died and subsequently, Quirante filed a motion in trial court
for the confirmation of his fees pending adverse party’s filing of a petition for review on
certiorari
o That he and the doctor had an oral agreement regarding said fees and such was
confirmed in writing by the wife
o In case of recovery of the P120,000.00 surety bond, the attorney's fees of the
undersigned counsel (Atty. Quirante) shall be P30,000.00.
o In case the Honorable Court awards damages in excess of the P120,000.00
bond, it shall be divided equally between the Heirs of I. Casasola, Atty. John C.
Quirante and Atty. Dante Cruz.
Issue: WON Quirante could claim attorney’s fees
Held: NO
Ratio:
• petition for review on certiorari was still pending in court
o an attorney's fee cannot be determined until after the main litigation has been
decided and the subject of recovery is at the disposition of the court
o even if there was supposedly a contract, the provisions thereof were made to
depend on the outcome of the case i.e. if 120,000 surety bond would be
recovered
• even if heirs allegedly confirmed contract, court would still be in better position to
determine basis of fees

issue on attorney’s fees held in abeyance until after final decision of case.

96. supra

97. supra

98. Zulueta vs. Pan-Am

Facts: (persons case to so we shud now this)
• Court ruled in favor of the Zulueta’s and ordered Pan-am, among other things, to pay
for attorney’s fees together with the award for exemplary damages
• Pan-am opposed the P75, 000 attorney’s fees accorded to Zulueta’s lawyer, Alfredo
Benipayo and deemed it to be excessive.
Issue: WON fee was excessive
Held: NO
Ratio:
• fee was only a little over 10 percent of the damages collectible by the Zuluetas
• other factors were considered:
o quantity and quality of the services rendered
o nature of the case and the amount involved therein
o his prestige as one of the most distinguished members of the legal profession in
the Philippines

99. Sison vs. Suntay

Facts:
• Atty. Teofilo Sison claimed 400thou for attorney’s fees for services rendered as counsel
for Federico Suntay Suntay in intestate estate proceedings (Jose Suntay’s estate).
 • Federico claims that Sison had already received 67thou and such was sufficient
compensation.
Issue: WON 400thou was reasonable
Held: YES plus additional 75thou
Ratio:
1. determination of what would be reasonable compensation for the attorney for an
administrator or executor of the intestate estate should consider:
• the size and value of the decedent's estate (estate was worth 4 million, lawyer entitled to 10
percent)

• the services performed by counsel

2. mere approximation, oral evidence sufficient to establish value of estate

100. Metropolitan Bank vs. CA

Facts:

• Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company was ordered to pay its attorneys, Arturo Alafriz
and Associates, movant therein, the amount of P936,000.00 as attorney's fees on a
quantum meruit basis.
• Cases handled were all for the declaration of nullity of certain deeds of sale, with
damages.

Issues:

(1) whether or not private respondent is entitled to the enforcement of its charging lien for
payment of its attorney's fees;

Held: NO

Ratio:

• all civil cases were dismissed upon plaintiff’s initiative "in view of the frill satisfaction of
their claims."
• No money judgment or monetary award was provided
o Section 7, rule 138 provides that a lawyer is entitled to the enforcement of its
charging lien for payment of it’s attorney’s fees only when money judgment or
monetary award is provided for by court (di ko ‘to naintindihan)

(2) whether or not a separate civil suit is necessary for the enforcement of such lien and

Held: Not necessary. Court trying main case will determine attorney’s fees

(3) whether or not private respondent is entitled to twenty-five (25%) of the actual and
current market values of the litigated properties on a quantum meruit basis.

Held: court refused to resolve issue but gave the elements to be considered in fixing a
reasonable compensation for the services rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum
meruit

These are:

(1) the importance of the subject matter in controversy,

(2) the extent of the services rendered, and
(3) the professional standing of the lawyer
order of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, without prejudice to such
appropriate proceedings as may be brought by private respondent to establish its right to
attorney's fees and the amount thereof.

101. Rilloraza vs. ETPI

Facts:
• Petitioner was awarded attorney’s fees worth P26,350,779.91
• handled the case for its client Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. filed with
the Regional Trial Court, Makati, though its services were terminated in midstream and
the client directly compromised the case with the adverse party.
o Petitioner was a partner of San Juan, Africa, Gonzales and San Agustin (SAGA)
 Handled case from the very beginning till 1988
• SAGA was later dissolved and Rilloraza, Africa, De Ocampo & Africa (RADA) was formed
o RADA was retained as counsel but such retainer agreement was subsequently
terminated
• ETPI entered into a compromise agreement when it ended the services of petitioner and
through the effort of ETPI's new lawyers, the law firm Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura,
Sayoc and De los Angeles.
Issue: WON RADA was entitled to amount they were claiming for services rendered
Held: NO, but they were entitled to attorney’s fees nevertheless
Ratio:
• attorney-client relationship between petitioner and respondent no longer existed during
its culmination by amicable agreement
• To award the attorneys' fees amounting to 15% of the sum of One Hundred Twenty Five
Million Six Hundred Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Six Pesos and Four
Centavos (P125,671,886.04) plus Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) paid by PLDT to
ETPI would be too unconscionable.
• "In any case, whether there is an agreement or not, the courts shall fix a reasonable
compensation which lawyers may receive for their professional services. "

REMANDS the case to the court of origin for the determination of the amount of attorney's fees
to which petitioner is entitled.

Recovery of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is authorized when

(1) there is no express contract for payment of attorney's fees agreed upon between the
lawyer and the client;
(2) when although there is a formal contract for attorney's fees, the fees stipulated are found
unconscionable or unreasonable by the court; and
(3) when the contract for attorney's fee's is void due to purely formal defects of execution;
(4) when the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its conclusion;
(5) when lawyer and client disregard the contract for attorney's
fees

102. Bautista vs. Gonzales

Facts:
• Ramon Gonzales was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation
of lawyer's oath
Issue: WON Gonzales committed alleged acts of misconduct
• specifically in entering into a contingent fee contract with the Fortunados
o We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided, you
[respondent Ramon Gonzales] defray all expenses, for the suit, including court
fees.

Held: Yes
Ratio:
 • contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer
may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. [See also
Rule 16.04, Code of Professional Responsibility
• lawyer may advance expenses but subject to reimbursement: this was not provided for
in the contract
suspended for 6 months.

103. Research and Services Realty vs. CA

Facts:

• Atty. Manuel Fonacier was hired by petitioner when the Carreons and a certain Patricio
C. Sarile instituted before the RTC of Makati City an action against the petitioner for
rescission of the Joint Venture Agreement which provided that:
o petitioner shall undertake to develop, subdivide, administer, and promote the
sale of the parcels of land owned by the Carreons
o The proceeds of the sale of the lots were to be paid to the Philippine National
Bank (PNB) for the landowner's mortgage obligation,
o and the net profits to be shared by the contracting parties on a 50-50 basis.
• While case was pending, the petitioner, without the knowledge of the private
respondent, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 5 with another land
developer, Filstream International, Inc. (hereinafter Filstream). Under this MOA, the
former assigned its rights and obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement in favor of
the latter for a consideration of P28 million, payable within twenty-four months.
• March 31, 1993: petitioner terminated services of Fonacier
• Petitioner had already received 7 million from Filstream
• Upon knowing the existence of the MOA, Fonacier filed an action to recover the sum of
P700,000.00 as his contingent fee in the case even if he had no participation in the
negotiation and preparation thereof.

Issue: proper fee?

Held: No, excessive and unreasonable
Ratio:
• P600,000.00 attorney's fees, whether on contingent basis or quantum meruit, is
excessive and unreasonable.
o Lawyer’s contribution was merely to ask for suspension or postponement of
proceedings

104. Corpuz vs. CA

Facts:

• Juan David sought to recover attorneys fees for professional services rendered by the
plaintiff, to Mariano Corpus.
o Administrative case filed against Corpus by several employee of the Central
Bank Export Department of which the defendant is the director
o Initially Corpus was represented by Atty. Alavarez. They lost the case.
o Father of Corpus then asked David to handle case because he thought former
lawyer wanted to give up the case.
o Alleged that David offered services gratuitously

Issue: WON David was entitled to attorney’s fees

Held: YES

Ratio:
 1. There was an implied understanding between the petitioner and private respondent
that the former will pay the latter attorney's fees when a final decision shall have been
rendered in favor of the petitioner reinstating him to -his former position in the Central
Bank and paying his back salaries.
2. Corpus gave David 2thou and even mentioned that he wished he could give more:
implied promise to pay
3. procedure in filing claim proper: when Corpus was re-instated, David made a written
demand on April 19, 1965 upon petitioner Corpus for the payment of his attorney's fees
in an amount equivalent to 50% of what was paid as back salaries
4. absence of written contract regarding fees: excusable based on close relationship of
parties
5. 20thou was reasonable compensation; basis were:
a. Corpus received P150,158.50 as back salaries and emoluments after deducting
taxes as well as retirement and life insurance premiums due to the GSIS
b. Extent of services rendered (4 years as collaborating counsel)

David was held in contempt though:

• filed on or about September 13, 1978 a motion with the court a quo for the issuance of
a writ of execution to enforce its decision in Civil Case No 61802, subject of the present
petition, knowing fully well that it was then still pending appeal before this Court
•

105. Narido vs. Linsangan

Facts:
• Flora Narido charged Atty. Linsangan with a violation of his lawyer’s oath by submitting
a perjured statement
• Counsel for Narido was Risma.
o Linsangan claimed that Risma instigated his client to file a false and malicious
complaint resulting in what respondent Linsangan called "embarrassment,
humiliation and defamation" of a brother in a profession
• In such action against Linsangan, Risma sought to collect fifteen per cent of the
recovery obtained by his client, contrary to the explicit provision in the Workmen's
Compensation Act allowing only a maximum of ten per cent and that only where the
case is appealed

Decision:
1. case against Linsangan was dismissed for lack of merit
2. Risma is exculpated from the charge of having instigated the filing of an unfounded suit
• However, admonished to exercise greater care in ascertaining how much under our law
he could recover by way of attorney's fees
• Admonished only because he had made no effort to collect on the same and had even
advanced expenses for a poor client

106. Perez vs. Scottish Union

Facts:
• Petitioner sought to recover:
(1) P6,000. as attorney's fees in a criminal case for arson against the defendant Miguel H. Mitre

who, in a written contract, had covenanted to pay the same out of the proceeds of a fire insurance

policy for P12,000, issued in his favor by the defendant Scottish Union and National Insurance Co.,

and
(2) P1,485, unpaid balance of attorney's fees owing by the defendant Miguel H. Mitre in four
other cases

Decision: entitled to 6000. Fees claimed in number 2 were not supported by sufficient
evidence
1. validity of contract upheld
• A contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the
court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
• Contract was binding: obvious that complainant respected services of lawyer coz he
even retained services of counsel even after conviction by trial court

2. lawyer properly defended client which led to an acquittal

• fee was valid for being contingent upon acquittal

Claim that lawyer’s present income should also be considered in deciding amount of fee was not

given attention by court:

* The income of a lawyer is not a safe criterion of his professional ability.

107. Sato vs. Rallos

Facts:

• for the collection of attorney's fees by plaintiff Primitivo Sato, against Simeon Rallos in
his capacity as administrator and distributor of the Testate Estate of Numeriana Rallos
and the Intestate Estate of Victoria Rallos
Issue: WON lawyer was entitled to fees.
Held: YES, Court fixed sum of 12, 500
Ratio:
• estates and distribute thereof were greatly benefited (Colloector of Internal revenue effected
a revised assessment which was the basis for the payment of P22,545.47 as taxes, as against
the original amount of P130,076.43
Issue: WON procedure for filing claim was sufficient
Held: No, more than the legal procedural requirements
Ratio:
• complaint was not only filed against the administrator as such and as a distributee but also
against the other distributes
• would have been enough for counsel to request the administrator to make payment and
file an action against him in his personal capacity and not as an administrator should he
fail to pay or
• attorney also may, instead of bringing such action, file a petition in the Testate or
Intestate Proceeding asking that the Court, after notice to all persons interested, allow
his claim and direct the administrator to pay it as an expense of administration

Figueroa vs. Barranco, 276 SCRA 445

Nature: Administrative Matter in the SC. Disbarment.

Facts:
• That Barranco should be denied admission to the legal profession.
• He passed 1970 bar exams but failed 1966-1968 exams.
• She and Barranco had a child out of wedlock and that Barranco did not fulfill his promise to marry her.
• 1971: she learned that he married another woman.
• Charge: gross immorality
Issue: WON grounds invoked were sufficient to grant a petition for disbarment
Held: No
Ratio:
• acts suggest a doubtful moral character but not grossly immoral conduct

“ A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree.”

“It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members
of the community.”

*took his oath at 62!!!!

Leslie Ui vs. Bonifacio, 333 SCRA 38

Nature: Administrative Matter in the SC. Disbarment

Facts:
• Atty. Iris Bonifacio allegedly carried on an immoral relationship with Carlos Ui, husband of Leslie Ui.
• Had a daughter out of that illicit relationship
• Lived together in Ayala Alabang Village.
• Respondent was admitted to the bar in 1982.

Issue: WON act constituted gross immorality

Held: No
Ratio:

Even if the following occurred:

• should have exercised prudence and had been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos Ui’s personal
background
• did not exert effort to find out if indeed Carlos and the Chinese woman were unmarried
• despite marriage, she and Carlos never lived together even after they had first child.

• Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and opinion of good and
respectful members of community.
• To warrant disciplinary action, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled
as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
• In fairness, she distanced herself from Carlos after learning of his true civil status.

Vda. De Mijares vs. Villaluz, 274 SCRA 1

Nature: Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court. Gross Immorality and Grave Misconduct.

Facts:
• Judge Priscilla Vda. De Mijares charged a retired justice of the CA, Onofre Villaluz, with gross immorality
and grave misconduct.

Villaluz married Mijares knowing fully well that the annulment of his marriage to his first wife, Librada Peña, had
not yet attained finality.

After breaking up with Mijares, he proceeded to marry Lydia Geraldez, after making a false statement in his
application for marriage license that his previous marriage had been annulled.

Suspension for 2 years with severe warning that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit the
same or similar offense hereafter. Guilty of immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
Melendres vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 663 (1989)

Nature: Administrative case in the SC. Malpractice and Breach of Trust

Acts constituted deception and dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.
Contrary to justice, honesty, modesty and good morals.

1. making it appear on the real estate mortgage that the amount loaned was 5,000
instead of 4,000
2. exacting usurious interest
3. making it appear that amount had escalated to 10 thousand
4. failing to inform complainants of the import of the documents
5. failing to demand from complainants before effecting extrajudicial foreclosure of the
mortgaged property
6. failing to inform then that mortgage had been foreclosed and that they had right to
redeem property within a period of time.

In the estafa case against Reynaldo Pineda:

“Lawyers cannot without special authority, compromise their clients’ litigation or receive
anything in discharge of a client’s claim but the full amount in cash.”

Gross misconduct on the part of a lawyer, although not related to the discharge of his
professional duties as a member of the Bar, which puts his moral character in serious doubt,
renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.

DISBARRED.

Delos Reyes vs. Aznar, 179 SCRA 653 (1989)

Nature: Administrative Case in the SC. Disbarment.

Facts:
• Atty Jose B. Aznar, then chairman of Southwestern University, had carnal knowledge
with second year med student, Rosario de los Reyes. He did so several times by
threatening her that she would fail in her Pathology subject if she would not submit to
his desires. When she became pregnant, he forced her to undergo abortion under Dr.
Gil Ramas.
• DISBARRED. Took advantage of his position. Conduct unbecoming of a member of the
Bar.

Cordova vs. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680 (1989)

Nature: Administrative Case in the SC. Immorality.

Facts:
• Salvacion Delizo charged her husband, Atty. Laurence D. Cordova, with immorality and
acts unbecoming a member of the Bar.
• He maintained for about 2 years an adulterous relationship with a married woman, Fely
Holgado.
• Refused to support family.
• After promising to be a reformed man, went on to have another mistress, Luisita
Magallanes

SUSPENDED.

People vs. Tuanda, 181 SCRA 692 (1989)

Nature: Administrative Case in the SC. Motion to Lift Order of Suspension

Facts:
 • Atty. Fe Tuanda issued bouncing checks to Ms. Marquez (sale on commission basis of
several pieces of jewelry).
• Traders Royal Bank

DENIED. Crimes of which respondent was convicted also import deceit and violation of her
attorney’s oath and the CPR under both of which she was bound to obey the laws of the land.

Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case, violation of
BP Blg. 22) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer, however, it certainly relates to
and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense.

Sebastian vs. Calis, 314 SCRA 1

Nature: Administrative case in the SC. Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral or Deceitful Conduct and
Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath
Facts:
• Atty Dorotheo Calis exacted 150,000 from Marilou Sebastian as payment for his service.
Process documents for her trip to USA.
• Issued documents informing complainant that she will be assuming the name Lizette
Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer.
• Complainant was apprehended at the Singapore Internationla Airport
DISBARRED. Violated Canon I, Rule 101. deceived complainant all for material gain

C13: In re Terrel, 2 Phil 266 (1903)

Nature: In the matter of the suspension of Howard D. Terrel from practice of law

Facts:
• Terrel assisted in the organization of Centro Bellas Artes Club, created for the
purpose of evading the law then in force in said city

SUSPENDED.
Code of Civil Procedure sec 21:
The promoting of orgs, with knowledge of their objects, for the purpose of
violating or evading the laws against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part of
the attorney, an officer of the court, as amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in
his office, and for which he may be removed or suspended.

C14: Castaneda vs. Ago, 65 SCRA 505 (1975)

Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the CA
Facts:
• Atty. Jose M. Luison maneuvered for 14 years to resist execution of the
judgment thru manifold tactics in and from one court to another (5 times in the
SC).
• Allowed himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator of
conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a
virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation

C15: Ledesma vs. Climaco

Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari
Facts:
• question the order of Judge Climaco denying a motion filed by petitioner to be
allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio
• his appointment as ER of COMELEC: he was not in the position to devote full
time to the defense of accused
Denied:
• it is the responsibility of a member of the bar to act as counsel de oficio
 • right to counsel could in effect be rendered nugatory if withdrawal was allowed

C16: In re tagorda, 53 Phil 37 (1929)

Nature: Original Action in the SC. Malpractice
Facts:
• Luis Tagorda advertised his profession on a card. Offered legall services like
execution of deed of sale for lands, affidavits, etc.
• Also wrote to a lieutenant of barrio informing him that despite of his
membership to the provincial board, which hold sessions in Ilagan, he would
still keep his residence in Echague where he would be performing legal services
on Sundays.

SUSPENDED FOR A MONTH.

SEC 21 of Code of Civil Procedure amd by Act No. 2828: “The practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice

* disbarment sana but mitigated by his intimation that he as unaware of the

impropriety of his acts, 2nd: his youth and inexperience, and 3rd: promised not to make
the same mistake in the future.

C17: Director of Religious Affairs vs. Bayot

Nature: Original Action in the SC. Malpractice.
Facts:
• published an advertisement in the Sunday Tribune on June 13, 1943
“marriage license promptly secured thru assistance and the annoyance of delay or publicity
avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free
for the poor. Everything confidential. Legal assistance service.”
Violated section 25 of Rule 127: The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice

REPRIMANDED. Plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct

C18: Firm name cases

Nature: Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name
Facts:
• Petitioners prayed that they be allowed to continue using, in the names of their
firms, the names of partners who had passed away
• Died: Atty. Alexander Sycip of Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano,Hernandez, and Castillo
• Died: Atty. Herminio Ozaeta of Ozaeta, Romulo, de Leon, Mabanta and Reyes

Denied.
• 1815: names in a firm name of a partnership must either be those of living
partners and in case of non-partners, should be living persons who can be
subjected to liability
• 1825: prohibits a 3rd person from including his name in the firm name under the
pain of assuming liability of a partner
 • a professional partnership depends on the personal qualifications of its
members
• a partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity but a mere relationship
for a particular purpose
• no local custom in the Phils. Permits or allows the continued use of a deceased
partner’s name: otherwise, there is the possibility of deception

C19: Dacanay vs. Baker and Mckenzie

Nature: Administrative case in the SC
Facts:
• Dacanay sought to enjoin Juan Collas and nine other lawyers from practicing
law under the name Baker and McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois

Yes. Baker and McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the
Philippines (Sec 1, Rule 138, ROC)

C20: In re IBP

C21: Macoco vs. Diaz, 70 Phil 97 (1940)

Nature: Original Action in the SC. Malpractice.
Facts:
• Atty. Esteban Diaz misappropriated 300 pesos from Sagutan who also failed to
return the money to Marcelino Macoco.
DISBARRED.
• breach of trust
• his being a deputy fiscal aggravated his crime
• want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who
holds a responsible public office
C22: Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210
Nature: Petition to review the decision of the COA
Facts: Cayetano questioned the appointment of Monsod as chairman of the COMELEC;
did not engage in the practice of law for 10 years

PETITION DISMISSED.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience.

Lawyer-manager/entrepreneur/legislator

C24: People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748 (1967)

Nature: Original Action in the SC. Certiorari with preliminary injunction.
Facts: Teofilo Mendoza and Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza and their 3 children were
killed by respondents.

Tomas Narbasa
Tambac Alindo
Rufino Borres

Respondent judge denied motion for recon by city fiscal and insisted that there should
only be one case filed rather than five.
 • Court held that fiscal’s five information were valid.
• When various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate
and distinct crimes.
• A prosecution attorney shall file a particular information if he is convinced that
he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof.
When prosecution may be enjoined:
1. for the orderly administration of justice
2. to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive
manner
3. to avoid multiplicity of actions
4. to afford adequate protection to constitutional rights
5. in proper cases, because the statue relied upon is unconstitutional or was held
invalid

C25: de la Cruz vs. Paras, 69 Phil 556 (1940)

Nature: Petition for certiorari and/or mandamus from an order of the CFI, Bulacan
Facts:

C26: Penticostes vs. Ibañez, 304 SCRA 281

Nature: Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court. Misappropriation of SSS
Contribution
Facts:
• 1989: Encarnacion Pascual, sis-in-law of Atty. Prudencio Penticostes was sued
for non-remittance of SSS payments.
• Complaint assigned to Prosecutor Diosdado Ibañez
• Pascual gave 1, 804 to respondent as payment of her SSS contributions on
arrears. Respondent did not remit amount to system.
• Penticostes filed complaint. respondent remitted money.

GUILTY of professional misconduct.

 • duties of a prosecutor do not include receiving money from persons with official
transactions with his office
• a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct
• Canon 6: These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their official tasks.
• IBP committee that drafted code: A lawyer does not shed his professional
obligations upon assuming public office.

Reprimanded with stern warning

C27: Misamin vs. San Juan, 72 SCRA 491 (1976)

Nature: Resolution
Facts: Miguel San Juan: captain of MM Police force
• member of the bar
• legal representative of certain establishments owned by Filipinos of Chinese
descent
• coerced Jose Misamin to drop charges the latter filed against Tan Hua,
employer and owner of New Cesar’s Bakery
• charge was violation of the Minimum wage Law

Dismissed for not having been duly proved

* should refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and misgiving as to his
fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also for membership in the bar
In re 1989 Elections of the IBP, 178 SCRA 398 (1998)
Facts:
Responding to reports from lawyers and publishers about intensive
electioneering and overspending by the candidates, SC en banc, exercising its power
of supervision over the Integrated bar, resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP
officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports.

Specifically, candidates Viola Drilon, Nisce, and Paculdo were investigated.

Candidates for the presidency
Issue/Held/Ratio: WON candidates violated section 14 of the IBP by laws
Yes. Section 14 enumerates 5 prohibited acts relative to IBP elections.
Basta maraming specific acts. basahin na lang.labo sobrang helpful na digest to.basta
parang namigay ng plane tickets, nagsolicit ng votes, ginamit ang helicopter ng PNB
para magcampaign. bastos noh?

• also violated the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as
a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws,
the duty to promote respect for law and legal processes and to abstain from
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system. (rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility)
• The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the
association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession.

Decision:
1. IBP elections were annulled.
2. other modifications were added (wow, helpful)