Acejas III v.

People CANON 1

FACTS:

On December 17, 1993, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation Agent Vladimir

Hernandez, together with a reporter went to the house of Takao Aoyagi and Bethel Grace
Aoyagi. His purpose was to serve Mission Order No. 93-04-12 issued by BID Commissioner
Zafiro Respicio against Takao Aoyagi, a Japanese national. Hernandez told Takao Aoyagi,
through his wife, Bethel Grace, that there were complaints against him in Japan and that he was
suspected to be a Yakuza big boss, a drug dependent and an overstaying alien.

To prove that he had done nothing wrong, Takao Aoyagi showed his passport to
Hernandez and signed an undertaking issued by the latter. The undertaking stated that Takao
Aoyagi promised to appear in an investigation at the BID on December 20, 1993, and that as a
guarantee for his appearance, he was entrusting his passport to Hernandez. Hernandez
acknowledged receipt of the passport.

Bethel Grace called Expedito Perlas (one of the accused) and informed him of the taking
of her husbands passport. Perlas then referred them to Atty. Lucenario. They discussed the
problem with said attorney and, following the advice of the latter, they did not appear before the
BID.

Meanwhile, Hernandez prepared a Progress Report recommending that Aoyagi be placed

under custodial investigation, due to reportedly being a drug dependant and a Yakuza.

On December 22, 1993, the Aoyagis met up with Atty Acejas III (a partner in
Lucenarios firm). He informed then that he would be handling their case.

On December 24, during a family reunion, Bethel Grace informed her brother Jun
Pelingon, Jr., about her husbands passport.

On January 2, 1994, Jun Pelingon talked to BID Commissioner Respicio in Davao and
told him of Aoyagis problem with the BID. Respicio, in turn, gave him his calling card and told
him to call him up in his office.

Several meetings ensued afterwards involving Acejas, Hernandez, Pelingon, and the
spouses Aoyagi regarding the return of the passport. Eventually, there was allegedly a demand of
P1 million made for the return of Aoyagis passport.

On January 11, 1994, on account of the alleged P1 million demand, Jun Pelingon called
up Commissioner Respicio. The latter referred him to Atty. Angelica Somera, an NBI Agent
detailed at the BID who then arranged an entrapment operation.

On January 12, 1994, Hernandez returned the passport to Takao Aoyagi at the Coffee
Shop of the Diamond Hotel. The NBI Team arrested Dick Perlas, Atty. Acejas and Jose
Victoriano after the latter picked up the brown envelope containing marked money representing
the amount being allegedly demanded.

The Sandiganbayan ruled that the elements of direct bribery, as well as conspiracy in the
commission of the crime, had been proven. Hernandez and Conanan demanded money; Perlas
negotiated and dealt with the complainants; and Acejas accepted the payoff and gave it to Perlas.

Re: National Committee on Legal Aid CANON 4

RE: REQUEST OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AID TO EXEMPT LEGAL AID

CLIENTS FROM PAYING FILING, DOCKET ANDOTHER FEES. A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC
Facts:
The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) promulgated
Resolution No. 24, series of 2008. The resolution requested the IBPs National Committee on
Legal Aid (NCLA) to ask for the exemption from the payment of filing, docket and other fees of
clients of the legal aid offices in the various IBP chapters.

Issue:
Should indigent litigant be exempted from paying docket fees?

Ruling:
Yes. The Constitution guarantees the rights of the poor to free access to the courts and to
adequate legal assistance. Recipients of the service of the NCLA and legal aid offices of IBP
chapters may enjoy free access to courts by exempting them from the payment of fees assessed
in connection with the filing of a complaint or action in court. With these twin initiatives, the
guarantee of Section 11, Article III of Constitution is advanced and access to justice is increased
by bridging a significant gap and removing a major roadblock. Where there is a right, there must
be a remedy. The remedy must not only be effective and efficient, but also readily accessible.
For a remedy that is inaccessible is no remedy at al

Huyssen v. Gutierrez CANON 6

Office of the Court Administrator v. Ladaga CANON 9

FACTS:

Atty. Ladaga, an RTC Branch Clerk of Court, acted as pro bono counsel for a relative in a
criminal case, without the previous authority from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as
required by the Administrative Code. An administrative complaint was filed against Atty.
Ladaga for practicing law without permission from the Department Head (CJ) as required by
law. Atty. Ladaga justified his appearance as he merely gave a free legal assistance to a relative
and that he was on an approved leave of absence during his appearances as such counsel.
Moreover, the presiding judge of the court to which he is assigned knew his appearances as such
counsel.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Ladagas appearances as a pro bono counsel for a relative constitutes
practice of law as prohibited by the Administrative Code.

HELD:

No. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of the statute should be customarily or
habitually holding ones self to the public as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services.
It does not pertain to isolated court appearances as in this case. Nevertheless, for his failure to
obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department (CJ) as required by law, respondent
was reprimanded

Atty. Bonifacio Barandon, Jr. v. Atty. Edwin CANON 11

Facts: Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint with the IBP seeking the
disbarment,suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary action
againstrespondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for series of offenses, such as; falsification of
publicdocuments, abusive, offensive, improper language, sexual harassment and acts of
lasciviousness. The Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBDsubmitted
to the Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer.The
Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrersviolation of
Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Boardof Governors
however, passed Resolution adopting and approving the InvestigatingCommissioners
recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year. Atty. Ferrer filed a
motion for reconsideration but the Board denied. Nonetheless, the Courtresolved to treat Atty.
Ferrers comment as a petition for review under Rule 139 of theRevised Rules of Cou

--
On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-
affidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or
imposition of appropriate disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Edwin Z.
Ferrer, Sr. for filing a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained
abusive, offensive and improper language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon
presented a falsified document in court. The said document purported to be a
notarized document executed at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer.

Moreover, on December 19, 2000, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty.
Barandon saying, Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng
pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte,
angabogadonarito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwina kayo sa Camarines Sur,
hindi kayo taga-rito at the Municipal Trial Court in Daet before the start of a hearing.

The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his
unethical act; yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office
secretary of the IBP Chapter in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of
lasciviousness; and criminal cases for libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon
filed against him.

On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-
CBD submitted to this Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two years
of Atty. Ferrer. The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to
prove Atty. Ferrers violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He attributed to Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the
falsification of the plaintiffs affidavit despite the absence of evidence that the
document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon was a party to it. The
Investigating Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the threatening
remarks imputed to him in the presence of other counsels, court personnel, and
litigants before the start of hearing. On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors
passed Resolution adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioners
recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year.

WHETHER OR NOT THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND THE IBP

INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER ERRED IN FINDING RESPONDENT GUILTY
OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND IF THE PENALTY IMPOSED WAS
JUSTIFIED.
The Supreme Court examined the records of this case and finds no reason to
disagree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and
the Investigating Commissioner.

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of
legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer
to administrative liability.

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to

conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers
and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Atty. Ferrers actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he
imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of an affidavit without evidence that the
document had indeed been falsified. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his
charge of falsification in a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive
language against a fellow lawyer. The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use
dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal
system.

Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all
times. Several disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrers drunken invectives at
Atty. Barandon shortly before the start of a court hearing and Atty. Ferrer failed to
show convincing evidence denying the said charge against him.

All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are
mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct
themselves honorably and fairly. Atty. Ferrers display of improper attitude,
arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a
lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court, was a patent
transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold. Consequently, the
penalty of suspension of one from the practice of law is deemed just and proper
Blanza & Pasion v. Atty. Arcangel CANON 14

Nick: Volunteer / Photostat

Facts: Complainants Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion ask this Court to take disciplinary action against
respondent Atty. Agustin Arcangel, who volunteered to be their counsel to file pension claims, for
professional non-feasance for (1) his failure to attend to complainants' pension claims for six years; (2)
his failure to immediately return the documents despite repeated demands upon him, and (3) his failure
to return to complainant Pasion, allegedly, all of her documents. Respondent contended that the
complainants failed to cooperate and pay for photostat services, and explained that there were no
agreement for his compensation as their counsel.

Issue: WON respondent can be held liable.

Held: No. x x x complainants themselves are partly to blame for the delay in filing their respective claims
for their failure to cooperate and pay for the photostat services. But while we are constrained to dismiss
the charges against respondent for being legally insufficient, yet we cannot but counsel against his
actuations as a member of the bar. A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the community
than merely complying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. As a man of law, he is necessarily a
leader of the community, looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence,
especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers his professional services. Respondent here has not
lived up to that ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have complainants wait, and hope, for six long
years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to co-operate, respondent should have forthwith
terminated their professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging indefinitely. x x x let this be a
reminder to Atty. Arcangel of what the high standards of his chosen profession require of him.
Accordingly, the case against respondent is dismissed. So ordered.

RE: Atty. Maquera CANON 16

Facts:
In a Letter dated August 20, 1996, the District Court of Guam informed this Court of the suspension of Atty.
Leon G. Maquera (Maquera) from the practice of law in Guam. He was suspended from the practice of law in Guam
for misconduct, as he acquired his client's property as payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a
consequence obtained an unreasonably high fee for handling his client's case.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Philippine Bar in a foreign jurisdiction, where he has also been admitted as an attorney, is also a ground for his
disbarment or suspension in this realm, provided the foreign court's action is by reason of an act or omission
constituting deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a violation of the lawyer's
oath.
The case was referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation report and
recommendation. In its decision, the Superior Court of Guam stated that Maquera was the counsel of a certain
Castro. Benavente the creditor Castro, obtained a judgement against Castro, thus Castro;s property was to be sold at
a public auction in satisfaction of his obligation to Benavente. However, Castro retains the right of redemption.
 In consideration of Maqueras legal services, Castro entered into an oral agreement with Maquera and
assigned his right of redemption in favor of the latter. On January 8, 1988, Maquera exercised Castro's right of
redemption by paying Benavente US$525.00 in satisfaction of the judgment debt. Thereafter, Maquera had the title to
the property transferred in his name.And after, sold the property to C.S. Chang and C.C. Chang for Three Hundred
Twenty Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$320,000.00).
The Guam Bar Ethics Committee filed a Petition in the Superior Court of Guam praying that Maquera be
sanctioned for violations of Rules 1.5 and 1.8(a) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) in force in
Guam. In its Petition, the Committee claimed that Maquera obtained an unreasonably high fee for his services. The
Committee further alleged that Maquera himself admitted his failure to comply with the requirement in Rule 1.8 (a) of
the Model Rules that a lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire a
pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless the transaction and the terms governing the lawyer's acquisition of such
interest are fair and reasonable to the client, and are fully disclosed to, and understood by the client and reduced in
writing.
On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam, the IBP concluded that although the said court
found Maquera liable for misconduct, "there is no evidence to establish that Maquera committed a breach of ethics in
the Philippines."However, the IBP still resolved to suspend him indefinitely for his failure to pay his annual dues as a
member of the IBP since 1977, which failure is, in turn, a ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member
from the Roll of Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of Court.

Issue:
Whether or not Maquera, who was suspended from the practice of law in Guam, be suspended as member of the
Philippine Bar on the same ground of his suspension in Guam.
Ruling:
The power of the Court to disbar or suspend a lawyer for acts or omissions committed in a foreign
jurisdiction is found in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended by Supreme
Court Resolution dated February 13, 1992, which states:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.A member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for
his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of
the ground for disbarment or suspension
In the case at bar such transaction made by Maquera falls squarely under Article 1492 in relation to Article
1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Paragraph 5 of Article 1491 prohibits the lawyer's acquisition
by assignment of the client's property which is the subject of the litigation handled by the lawyer. Under Article
1492, the prohibition extends to sales in legal redemption. This is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his
office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client30 and unduly enrich himself
at the expense of his client.
 Such acts are violative of a lawyer's sworn duty to act with fidelity toward his clients. They are also violative
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically, Canon 17 which states that "[a] lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of his client and shall be mindful the trust and confidence reposed in him;" and Rule 1.01 which prohibits
lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The requirement of good moral character
is not only a condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing requirement to maintain
one's good's standing in the legal profession.
The Court notes that Maquera has not yet been able to adduce evidence on his behalf regarding the
charges of unethical behavior in Guam against him, as it is not certain that he did receive the Notice of
Hearing earlier sent by the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline. Thus, there is a need to ascertain Maquera's current
and correct address in Guam in order that another notice, this time specifically informing him of the charges against
him and requiring him to explain why he should not be suspended or disbarred on those grounds (through
this Resolution), may be sent to him.
Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the IBP that Maquera should be suspended from the practice of law for non-
payment of his IBP membership dues from 1977 up to the present. Under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised
Rules of Court, non-payment of membership dues for six (6) months shall warrant suspension of membership in the
IBP, and default in such payment for one year shall be ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member
from the Roll of Attorneys.

Tolentino v. COMELEC CANON 19

FACTS:

Rolando P. Tolentino, the petitioner, and Henry Manalo, the respondent

ISSUE:

HELD:

Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: xxx A lawyer shall
represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. xxx particularly Rule 19.01 : xxx A
lawyer shall employ fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall
not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. xxx

In the case at bar, Atty. Ramon D. Facun already knew of that the MTCC refused to
enforce the writ of execution pending the appeal after having lost jurisdiction over the case., yet
to advance the interests of his client, he threatened an election officer with the filing of a baseless
contempt charge in violation of Canon 19.

While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the
defense of their clients right, they should not forget that first and foremost, they are officers of
the court bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
 Thus, Atty. Ramon D. Facun is warned that his threatening action in this case
dangerously lies at the margins of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and did
not spill over into a violation of this Rule because of the liberality of this Court.

Rosa Mercado v. Atty. Julito Vitriolo CANON 21

Facts: Rosa Mercado is seeking for the disbarment of Atty. Julito Vitriolo as he allegedly
maliciously filed a criminal case for falsification of public documents against her thereby
violating the attoyrney client privilege. It appears that Vitriolo filed a case against complainant
as she apparently made false entries in the certificate of live birth of her children. More
specifically she allegedly indicated that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez when in
fact her real husband is Ruben Mercado. Mercado claims that by filing the complaint the attorney
client privilege has been violated. Mercado filed a case for Vitriolos disbarment.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between
attorney-client when he filed the criminal case for falsification

Held: No. The evidence on record fails to substantiate complainants allegations. Complainant
did not even specify the alleged communication disclosed by the respondents. All her claims
were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. Indeed the complaint failed to attend
the hearings at the IBP. Without any testimony from the complainant as to the
specific confidential information allegedly divulged by respondent without her consent, it would
be difficult if not impossible to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged
communication. Such information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on
privileged communication between attorney and client. It is not enough to merely assert the
attorney client privilege. The burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party
asserting the privilege