FACTS:

Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged before the

Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the case.
Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to
investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court,
acting on the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez
directing him to temporarily restrain from investigating and filing
informations against Zaldivar.
Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal
informations against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview
where he proudly claims that he scored one on the Supreme Court; that
the Supreme Courts issuance of the TRO is a manifestation theta the
rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme
Court, [while] it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be
given due course.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme
Court then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the
statements in the newspapers were true; that he was only exercising his
freedom of speech; that he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court,
to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He also
said, even attaching notes, that not less than six justices of the Supreme
Court have approached him to ask him to go slow on Zaldivar and to
not embarrass the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.
HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly
constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority
of the Supreme Court. His statements necessarily imply that the justices
of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. Such statements
constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such
statements very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court and,
through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice in the
country.
Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What
Gonzalez seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression,
like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of

PINEDAPCGRNMAN2015
Page

Enrique Zaldivar vs Raul Gonzalez

166 SCRA 316 Legal Ethics Contemptuous Language Duty of
a Lawyer

LEGAL ETHICS

expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with

the requirements of equally important public interests. One of these
fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and
orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no antinomy
between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering
justice.
Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a
Special Prosecutor who owes duties of fidelity and respect to the
Republic and to the Supreme Court as the embodiment and the
repository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic. The
responsibility of Gonzalez to uphold the dignity and authority of the
Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in the administration of
justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer.
Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his
criticisms must be bona fide. In the case at bar, his statements,
particularly the one where he alleged that members of the Supreme
Court approached him, are of no relation to the Zaldivar case.
The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the
practice of law.
SANTUYO V HIDALGO
CORONA; January 17, 2005
NATURE
Administrative case in SC for Serious Misconduct and Dishonesty
FACTS
- Petitioners Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo accused respondent
Atty. Edwin Hidalgo of serious misconduct and dishonesty for breach of
his lawyers oath and notarial law
- In Dec 1991, couple purchased parcel of land covered by deed of sale
- It was allegedly notarized by Hidalgo and entered in his notarial register
- Six years later, couple had dispute with Danilo German over ownership
of said land; German presented an affidavit executed by Hidalgo denying
authenticity of his signature on deed of sale
Petitioners' Claim
- Hidalgo overlooked the fact that deed of sale contained ALL the legal
formalities of a duly notarized document (including impression of his
notarial dry seal)
- Santuyos could not have forged the signature, not being learned in
technicalities surrounding notarial act
- They had no access to his notarial seal and notarial register, and they
could not have made any imprint of his seal or signature.

Intelligentia et Scientia
Semper Mea

ISSUES
1. WON the signature of respondent on the deed of sale was forged
2. WON respondent is guilty of negligence
HELD
1. Yes.
Ratio:
The alleged forged signature was different from Hidalgos
signatures in other documents submitted during the investigation.
Reasoning: Santuyos did not state that they personally appeared before
respondent. They were also not sure if he signed the document; only that
his signature appeared on it. They had no personal knowledge as to who
actually affixed the signature.
2. Yes.
Ratio He was negligent for having wholly entrusted the preparation and
other mechanics of the document for notarization to the office
secretaries, including safekeeping of dry seal and making entries in
notarial register.
Reasoning: Responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive, and
respondent should have been more discreet and cautious.
Disposition: Atty. Hidalgo is suspended from his commission as
notary public for two (2) years for negligence in the
performance of duties as notary public.
SICAT V ARIOLA, JR.
PER CURIAM; April 15, 2005
NATURE

PINEDAPCGRNMAN2015
Page

Respondents' Comments
- He denied having notarized any deed of sale for disputed property.
- He once worked as junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law
Office; and admitted that he notarized several documents in that office.
- As a matter of procedure, documents were scrutinized by senior
lawyers, and only with their approval could notarization be done.
- In some occasions, secretaries (by themselves) would affix dry seal of
junior associates on documents relating to cases handled by the law firm.
- He normally required parties to exhibit community tax certificates and
to personally acknowledge documents before him as notary public.
- He knew Editha, but only met Benjamin in Nov 1997 (Meeting was
arranged by Editha so as to personally acknowledge another document)
- His alleged signature on deed of sale was forged (strokes of a lady)
- At time it was supposedly notarized, he was on vacation.

LEGAL ETHICS

Administrative case in the Supreme Court. Violation of the Code of

Professional Responsibility
FACTS
- In an affidavit-complaint, complainat Arturo Sicat, a Board Member of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal, charged respondent Atty.
Gregorio Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, Rizal with violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing fraud, deceit
and falsehood in his dealings, particularly the notarization of a Special
Power of Attorney(SPA) purportedly executed by one Juanito C. Benitez
According to complainant, respondent made it appear that Benitez
executed the said document on January 4, 2001 when in fact the latter
had already died on October 25, 2000.
- He alleged that prior to notarization, the Municipality of Cainta had
entered into a contract with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical
Management, represented by Benitez, for the construction of low-cost
houses(project worth=11M). For the services of the consultants, the
Municipality of Cainta issued a check dated January 10, 2001 in the
amount of 3.7M, payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and Technical
Management and/or Cesar Goco. The check was received and cashed by
the the latter by virtue of the SPA notarized by Ariola.
Respondents' Comments
- Respondent explained that as early as May 12, 2000, Benitez had
already signed the SPA. He claimed that due to inadvertence, it was only
on January 4, 2001 that he was able to notarize it. Nevertheless, the SPA
notarized by him on January 4, 2001 was not at all necessary because
Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco sometime before his
death, on May 12, 2000. Therefore, the SPA was cancelled the same day
he notarized it.
- Moreover, the suit should be dismissed for forum shopping since similar
charges had been filed with the Civil Service Commission and the Office
of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Which complaints were dismissed
because the assailed act referred to violation of the IRR of the
Commission on Audit.
- The Court, in its resolution dated March 12, 2003, referred the
complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report
and recommendation. The IBP recommended that respondent's notarial
commission be revoked and that he be suspended from the practice of
law for one year.
ISSUES
WON acts of respondent amounted to a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Intelligentia et Scientia
Semper Mea

Disposition WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr.,

is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby DISBARRED
from the practice of law. Let copies of this Resolution be
furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and entered in the
records of respondent, and brought to the immediate attention
of the Ombudsman.
UI V BONIFACIO
DE LEON; June 8, 2000
NATURE
Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
FACTS
Mrs. Ui filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Bonifacio on the ground of immorality, for allegedly carrying on an illicit
relationship with her husband Mr. Ui. In the proceeding before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Bonifacio attached a photocopy of a
marriage certificate that said that she and Mr. Ui got married in 1985, but
according to the certificate of marriage obtained from the Hawaii State
Department of Health, they were married in 1987. She claims that she
entered the relationship with Mr. Ui in good faith and that her conduct
cannot be considered as willful, flagrant, or shameless, nor can it suggest
moral indifference. She fell in love with Mr. Ui whom she believed to be
single, and, that upon her discovery of his true civil status, she parted
ways with him.

Page

HELD
Ratio: The act was a serious breach of the sacred obligation imposed by
the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1,
which prohibits engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct..
Reasoning: The undisputed facts show that Benitez died on October 25,
2000. The notarial acknowledgment of respondent declared that Benitez
appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument was his
clear and voluntary act. Clearly respondent lied and intentionally
perpetuated an untruthful statement.
- Neither will respondent's defense that the SPA in question was
superfluous and unnecessary, and prejudiced no one, exonerate him of
accountability. His assertion of falsehood in a public document
contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and
potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act.

PINEDAPCGRNMAN2015

LEGAL ETHICS

ISSUE
WON Atty. Bonifacio conducted herself in an immoral manner for which
she deserves to be barred from the practice of law
HELD
- No. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the
right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the
bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the
mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates
of legal ethics. One of the conditions prior to the admission to the bar is
that an applicant must possess good moral character. More importantly,
possession of good character must be continuous as a requirement to
the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice. Otherwise, the loss
thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.
- A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, which has been
defined as the conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community. Lawyers, as keepers of the public faith, are
burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus must
handle their affairs with great caution. Atty. Bonifacio was imprudent in
managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
relationship with Mr. Ui, clothed as it was with what she believed was a
valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. Immorality connotes
conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society. Moreover,
for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be
grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute
a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
- A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to
refrain from adulterous relationships but must also behave himself so as
to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting
those moral standards. Atty. Bonifacios act of immediately distancing
herself from Mr. Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that
alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of
flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. On
the matter of the falsified certificate of marriage, it is contrary to human
experience and highly improbable that she did not know the year of her
marriage or that she failed to check that the information in the document
which she attached to her Answer were correct. Lawyers are called upon
to safeguard the integrity of the bar, free from misdeeds and acts of
malpractice.
FIGUEROA V BARRANCO, JR.
ROMERO; July 31, 1997

Intelligentia et Scientia
Semper Mea

ISSUE
WON the facts constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent
exclusion of Barranco from the legal profession
HELD
No. To justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not
only be immoral, but grossly immoral. 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 acts which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of respectable members of the community.
- Barrancos engaging in premarital sexual relations with Figueroa and
promises to marry suggest a doubtful moral character on his part but it
does not constitute grossly immoral conduct.
- Barranco and Figueroa were sweethearts whose sexual relations were
evidently consensual.
- Respondent, at the time of this decision, is already 62.

Page

FACTS
- In 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that Simeon Barranco, Jr. be denied
admission to the legal profession. Barranco passed the 1970 bar exams
on the fourth attempt.
- Figueroa avers that she and Barranco had been sweethearts, that a
child was born to them out of wedlock and that respondent did not fulfill
his repeated promises to marry her.
- Figueroa and Barranco were townmates in Janiuay, Iloilo and were
steadies since 1953. Figueroa first acceded to sexual congress in 1960. A
son, Rafael Barranco, was born on Dec 11, 1964. Barranco promised to
marry Figueroa after he passes the bar exams. Their relationship
continued, with more than 20 or 30 promises of marriage. Barranco gave
only P10 for the child on Rafaels birthdays. In 1971, Figueroa learned
Barranco married another woman.
- From 1972 to 1988, several motions to dismiss and comments were
filed.
- On Sept 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for
failure of complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period
of time and to allow Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyers oath.
- Nov 17, 1988, the Court, in response to Figueroas opposition, resolved
to cancel Barrancos scheduled oath-taking.
- June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the IBP. On May 17, 1997,
IBP recommended the dismissal of the case and that respondent be
allowed to take the lawyers oath

PINEDAPCGRNMAN2015

LEGAL ETHICS

Disposition:
Petition is dismissed. Simeon Barranco, Jr. is
allowed to take his oath as a lawyer upon payment of proper
fees.

BARRIOS V MARTINEZ
PER CURIAM; November 12, 2004
FACTS
- Atty. Martinez was convicted of a violation of BP 22
- Complainant submitted Resolution dated March 13, 1996, and the Entry
of judgment dated March 20, 1996 in an action for disbarment against
Martinez
- July 3, 1996 the Court required respondent to comment on said
petition within 10 days from notice
- February 17, 1997 a second resolution was issued requiring
respondent to show cause why no disciplinary action should be imposed
on him for failure to comply with the earlier Resolution and to submit
Comment
- July 7, 1997 the Court imposed a fine of P1000 for respondents failure
to comply with previous resolution within 10 days
- April 27, 1998 the Court fined the respondent an additional P2000 and
required him to comply with the resolution under pain of imprisonment
and arrest for a period of 5 days or until his compliance
- February 3, 1999 the Court declared respondent Martinez guilty of
Contempt under Rule 71, Sec 3(b) of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
and ordered his imprisonment until he complied with the aforesaid
resolution
- April 5, 1999 NBI reported that respondent was arrested in Tacloban
City on March 26, 1999 but was subsequently released after having
shown proof of compliance with the resolutions of February 17, 1997 and
April 27, 1998 by remitting the amount of P2000 and submitting his
overdue Comment:
1.
He failed to respond to the Resolution dated February 17, 1997
as he was at that time undergoing medical treatment at Camp Ruperto
Kangleon in Palo, Leyte
2.
Complainant passed away sometime in June 1997
3.
Said administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case which
was decided in respondents favor. Respondent avers that as a result of
his moving for the execution of judgment in his favor and the eviction of
the family of complainant, the latter filed the present administrative case

Intelligentia et Scientia
Semper Mea

ISSUE
WON the crime respondent was convicted of is one involving moral
turpitude
HELD

PINEDAPCGRNMAN2015
Page

- September 11, 1997 Robert Visbal of the Provincial Prosecution Office

of Tacloban City submitted a letter to the First Division Clerk of Court
alleging that respondent Martinez also stood charged in another estafa
case before the RTC of Tacloban City, as well as a civil case involving the
victims of the Dona Paz tragedy in 1987 for which the RTC of Basey,
Samar rendered a decision against him, his appeal thereto having been
dismissed by the CA.
- June 16, 1999 the Court referred the present case to the IBP for
investigation, report, and recommendation
- The report of IBP stated:
1.
Respondent filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the
ground that the complainant died and that dismissal is warranted
because the case filed by him does not survive due to his demise as a
matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his death. The IBP disagrees,
pursuant to Section 1 Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, the SC or
the IBP may initiate the proceedings when they perceive acts of lawyers
which deserve sanctions or when their attention is called by any one and
a probable cause exists that an act has been perpetrated by a lawyer
which requires disciplinary sanctions.
2.
Propensity to disregard orders of the SC, as shown by
respondent, is an utter lack of good moral character
3.
Respondents conviction of a crime of moral turpitude clearly
shows his unfitness to protect the administration of justice and therefore
justifies the imposition of sanctions against him
4.
It is recommended that respondent be disbarred and his name
stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys immediately
- September 27, 2003 the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution
adopting and approving the report and recommendation of its
Investigating Commissioner
- December 3, 2003 Atty. Martinez filed a Motion for Reconsideration
and/or Reinvestigation
- January 14, 2004 the Court required the complainant to file a
comment within 10 days
- February 16, 2004 complainants daughter sent a Manifestation and
Motion alleging they have not been furnished with a copy of respondents
Motion

LEGAL ETHICS

Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to

justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
It involves an act of
baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes
his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
- The argument of respondent that to disbar him now is tantamount to a
deprivation of property without due process of law is also untenable. The
practice of law is a privilege.
The purpose of a proceeding for
disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that
those who exercise this important function shall be competent,
honorable and reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose
confidence.
- Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no
redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted
solely for the public welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts of
justice from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice them.
- The court is also disinclined to take respondents old age and the fact
that he served in the judiciary in various capacities in his favor. If at all,
the respondent was held to a higher standard for it, for a judge should be
the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence, and his
conduct should be above reproach.
- The Court based the determination of the penalty from previously
decided cases, holding that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for
conviction by final judgment for a crime of moral turpitude.
Disposition: Respondent was disbarred and his name stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys.

REBECCA MARIE
ROBERTO L. UY,
A.C. No. 9115

UY

YUPANGCO-NAKPIL,

versus

ATTY.

FACTS:
Rebecca is the natural niece and adopted daughter of the late Dra. Pacita
Uy. She was adjudged as the sole and exclusive legal heir of Pacita by
virtue of an Order dated August 10, 1999 issued by the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 34. Pacita was a stockholder in several
corporations primarily engaged in acquiring, developing, and leasing real
properties (one of these companies is Uy Realty Company, Inc., [URCI]).
Rebecca, through her attorney in fact, Bella, averred that respondent,
continuously failed and refused to comply with the court order declaring

Intelligentia et Scientia
Semper Mea

RATIO:
The Court finds that respondent committed some form of misconduct by,
as admitted, mortgaging the subject property, notwithstanding the
apparent dispute over the same. Regardless of the merits of his own
claim, respondent should have exhibited prudent restraint becoming of a
legal exemplar. He should not have exposed himself even to the slightest
risk of committing a property violation nor an action which would
endanger the Bars reputation. Verily, members of the Bare are expected
at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of
the legal profession. By no insignificant measure, respondent blemished
not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also that of the legal
profession. In other words, his conduct fell short of the exacting
standards expected of him as a guardian of law and justice.

PINEDAPCGRNMAN2015
Page

her as the successor-in-interest to all of Pacitas properties, as well as her

requests for the accounting and delivery of the dividends and other
proceeds or benefits coming from Pacitas stockholdings in the
corporations. She added that respondent mortgaged a commercial
despite an existing Trust Agreement wherein respondent, in his capacity
as President of URCI, already recognized her to be the true and beneficial
owner of the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for
violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
Respondent Atty. Roberto L. Uy is found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

LEGAL ETHICS

In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the

constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of lands by preparing
said documents.
Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his
oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy
Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands.
Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end.
Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be
suspended.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
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.

A.C. 6057, June 27, 2006

PETER DONTON vs. ATTY. E. TANSINGCO
By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was
disqualified from owning real property. Yet, in his motion for
reconsideration, [12] respondent admitted that he caused the transfer of
ownership to the parcel of land to Stier.
Respondent, however, aware of the prohibition, quickly rectified his act
and transferred the title in complainants name. But respondent provided
some safeguards by preparing several documents, including the
Occupancy Agreement that would guarantee Stiers recognition as the
actual owner of the property despite its transfer in complainants name.

Intelligentia et Scientia
Semper Mea

Facts: Atty. Paguia is the counsel of Joseph Estrada in the case of Estrada
vs. Arroyo. Atty. Paguia asserts that the members of the Supreme Court
should inhibit themselves from hearing the petition because of Rule 5.10
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from participating
in partisan political activities. According the Atty. Paguia, the justices
have violated the rule by participating in the EDSA 2 rally and
authorizing the assumption of office by President Arroyo.
The Sandiganbayan denied the petition and motion for
reconsideration of Atty. Paguia to dismiss all the criminal cases against
Estrada. Atty. Paguia attacked the decision of the Court in the case of
Estrada vs. Arroyo by saying: similar in the decisions involving admin.
agencies, if the act of the justices is lawful, it is the act of the Supreme
Court, and if the act of the judges is not lawful, it is not the act of the
Supreme Court. As such, Atty. Paguia asserts that the decision in Estrada
vs. Arroyo being unlawful in view of Rule 5.10 of Code of Judicial Conduct,
is not the act of the SC.
Atty. Paguia repeated his assault on the court in both broadcast
and print media. For that reason, the court asked him to show cause why
he should not be sanctioned.
Issue: W/N Atty. Paguia should be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming.
Held: Atty. Paguia is sanctioned. He is indefinitely suspended from
practice of law.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates
the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
and judicial officers. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives
and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members
of the court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded seeking to impede, obstruct
and pervert the dispensation of justice.
Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar
from making such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse
public opinion for or against a party.
SABURNIDO VS. MADRONO
Facts: Spouses Venustiano and Rosalia Saburnido filed an administrative
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Florante Madro Complainants
allege that respondent has been harassing them by filing numerous

PINEDAPCGRNMAN2015
Page

ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN

LEGAL ETHICS

complaints against them, in addition to committing acts of dishonesty.

The cases filed were:
1. Adm. Case No. 90-0755, for serious irregularity, filed by respondent
against Venustiano Saburnido.
2. Adm. Case No. 90-0758, for falsification, filed by respondent against
Venustiano Saburnido and two others.
3. Crim. Case No. 93-67, for evasion through negligence under Article
224 of the Revised Penal Code, filed by respondent against Venustiano
Saburnido.
4. Adm. Case No. 95-33, filed by respondent against Rosalia
Saburnido for violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
Previous to this case, complainants (spouses Saburnido) also filed 3
separate administrative cases against respondent, which led to the
latters dismissal from the judiciary and forfeiture of his
retirementbenefits.
SC referred this case to the IBP, the latter concluded hat complainants
submitted convincing proof that respondent indeed committed acts
constituting gross misconduct that warrant theimposition of
administrative sanction. The IBP recommends that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Madronos act of filling multiple complaints
constitute gross misconduct that will warrant theimposition of
administrative sanctions.
Held: YES. A lawyer may be disciplined for any conduct, in his
professional or private capacity, that renders him unfit to continue to be
an officer of the court. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
commands all lawyers to at all times uphold the dignity and integrity of
the legal profession. Clearly, respondents act of filing multiple
complaints against herein complainants reflects on his fitness to be a
member of the legal profession. His act evinces vindictiveness, a
decidedly undesirable trait whether in a lawyer or another individual, as
complainants were instrumental in respondents dismissal from the
judiciary. We see in respondents tenacity in pursuing several cases
against complainants not the persistence of one who has been grievously
wronged but the obstinacy of one who is trying to exact revenge.

Intelligentia et Scientia
Semper Mea

We find that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to discipline

respondent. The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in
clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. While we will not
hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of
lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will also not disbar him where
a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. In this case,
we find suspension to be a sufficient sanction against respondent.
Suspension, we may add, is not primarily intended as a punishment, but
as a means to protect the public and the legal profession.

LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO

Facts:
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty.
Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of
professional services. According to the complainant, that respondent with
the help of his paralegal Fe Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer to
Tolentino and promised them financial assistance and expeditious
collection on their claims. Tolentino persistently called and sent
Linsangans clients. A calling card of Tolentino visibly states that his law
office rendered financial assistance to his clients specializing in maritime
cases for seafarers.
ISSUE: Did Atty. Tolentino encroached the professional practice of
complainant?
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Tolentino had encroached
complanants professional practice and constituted violations of ethical
rules. , lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and
not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants
advertise their wares.To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to
commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the publics
estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character

Page

Respondents action erodes rather than enhances public perception of

the legal profession. It constitutes gross misconduct for which he may be
suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

PINEDAPCGRNMAN2015

LEGAL ETHICS

of service to which every member of the bar is called. Rule 2.03 of the
CPR provides that a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of
gain. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment
A lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and
conduct.27 For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their
services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional
cards.
This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved
no place in the legal profession.
DE YSASI III v NLRC
FACTS
This is a case filed by a son against his father
Father employed Son as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao
Son suffered various ailments and was hospitalized on 2 separate
occasions, June and August 1982
Father took care of medical expenses while son continued to receive
compensation
However, in April 1984, Father ceased to pay Sons salary
Son filed an action in NLRC for illegal dismissal with prayer for
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of full back
wages
NLRC dismissed case stating that Son has abandoned his work and
termination is for a valid cause though ordered Father to pay P5,000 as
penalty for failure to serve notice of said termination to son
ISSUE

W/N SON WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

HELD

YES

RATIO
Article 282 of Labor Code enumerates causes for which an employer may
valid terminate an employment
Father banks on the fact that Son has abandoned his work
However, to constitute abandonment there must be a clear, deliberate
and justified refusal to resume employment and not mere absence
In the case at bar, the reason for the Sons absence was due to his
illness of which Father was aware of since he paid hospital and medical
bills

Intelligentia et Scientia
Semper Mea

ISSUE W/N COUNSELS OF EACH PARTY ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
HELD

NO

RATIO
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Responsibility explicitly provides a lawyer shall
encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit
of a fair settlement
In the case at bar, records do not show that counsel of both parties took
pains to initiate steps geared toward a rapprochment between their
clients
In the same manner, the labor arbiter has been less than faithful to the
spirit of the Labor Code as he did not exert all efforts towards the
amicable settlement of the labor dispute
CASTANEDA V AGO
CASTRO; July 30, 1975
NATURE
- Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
FACTS
- 1955 Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the
CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries.
-1957 judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson
- 1961 SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution;
Agos motion denied, levy was made on Agos house and lots; sheriff
advertised the sale, Ago moved to stop the auction; CA dismissed the
petition; SC affirmed dismissal
- Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain
sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied
- 1963 sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago
failed to redeem
- 1964 sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ of possession
to the properties
- 1964 Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him
in the replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife
share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy
made; CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining
Castaneda the Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the

PINEDAPCGRNMAN2015
Page

Father is ordered to pay Son backwages in lieu of reinstatement and

separation pay equivalent to 1 month for every year of service

LEGAL ETHICS

final deed of sale; the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the
restraining order continued
- 1966 Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin
sheriff from enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed it; Agos filed a
similar petition with the CA which also dismissed the petition; Agos
appealed to SC which dismissed the petition
- Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA
which gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary
injunction.
ISSUE
WON the Agos lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy
HELD
- No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the
annulment of the sheriffs sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long
denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy
them, for, the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison,
have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to
thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the
petitioners.
- Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted
position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has 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 instead of a true exponent of the
primacy of truth and moral justice.
- A counsels assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his
clients cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what the
SC does not and cannot countenance is a lawyers insistence despite the
patent futility of his clients position.
It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his
case. If he finds his clients cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to
advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the
incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his
client, and temper his clients propensity to litigate.
SANTIAGO v RAFANAN
Santiago vs. Rafanan Lopez
Facts:
This administrative complaint was brought by Jonar Santiago against
Atty. Edison Rafanan, a notary public, because of the latters failure to (a)
make the proper notation regarding the community tax certificate of the
affiants; (b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial

Intelligentia et Scientia
Semper Mea

Issue:
W/n Rafanans acts were contrary to law.
Held:
SC says yes. It is mandated by the Notarial Law that a notary public
should enter the number, place of issue and date of the Community Tax
Certificate of the affiant in his affidavit. The law also says that a notary
public should keep a notarial register to record all affidavits they have
notarized. They are required to enter the number of the register and the
page where a particular affidavit has been recorded. These requirements
are mandatory due to the degree of importance and evidentiary weight

PINEDAPCGRNMAN2015

Page

register; and (c) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR
and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized, all in violation of
the Revised Administrative Code.
Santiago also points out that Rafanan made an affidavit in favor of his
(Rafanan) client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein
he (Rafanan) was actively representing his client.
The IBP found Rafanan guilty of violating the requirements of the Notarial
Law and imposed a fine of 3,000.

10

LEGAL ETHICS

attached to notarized documents. Having violated these requirements,

Rafanan should be fined.
As to the affidavit executed by Rafanan in favor of his client, the SC says
that this is in violation of Rule 12.08 of Canon 12, which says that a
lawyer should avoid testifying in behalf of his own client. The SC
explained that appearing both as counsel and witness of a client will
provoke unkind criticism and leave many people to suspect the
truthfulness of the lawyer because they cannot believe the lawyer as
disinterested. Obviously, if a lawyer appears as client and counsel,
people would automatically think that his testimony as a witness is
biased in favor of his client.
Despite of this, Rafanan cannot be made administratively liable. First,
the SC considered that it is the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy
and defense for the benefit of the client. Thus, in defense of his client,
Rafanan is supposed to do everything in his power. Since, he is a witness
to the crime, his affidavit is essential to the defense of his client. What
he should have done though was to exempt himself from being counsel.
This would ensure his credibility as a witness.
In the end, because of his violation of the Notarial Laws and Canon 5 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rafanan is fined 3,000.

Intelligentia et Scientia
Semper Mea