You are on page 1of 4

Legal Ethics Complainant then filed a case for ejectment against respondent Canares.

In his Reply however, the


latter answered that the subject property was already sold by complainant to respondent
Rivera v Angeles Canares and notarized by respondent Atty. Crispulo Ducusin. Complainant, however, averred that
he never sold the property, signed any document nor received any money therefor, and he also
Facts: On March 25, 1983, complainants filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Sergio denied having appeared before respondent Ducusin who was the notary public for the Deed of
Angeles on the grounds of Deceit and Malpractice. Absolute Sale. Complainant discovered that respondent Villalon claimed that complainant’s father
allegedly gave the subject property to him (respondent Villalon) as evidenced by a document of
The affidavit-Complaint reads that on or before January 13, 1983, we learned that Mr. Rodolfo M. sale purportedly signed by complainant.
Silva, one of the defendants in said cases had already given Atty. Angeles a partial settlement of
the judgment in the amount of P42,999.00 (as evidenced by xerox copies of Partial Settlement of In his Comment,4 respondent Villalon denied that allegations of the complainant and in turn, he
Judgment dated September 21, 1982 and Receipt of Payment dated September 22, 1982, hereto alleged that the property was given voluntarily by Jose Ducat, Sr. to him out of close intimacy and
attached as Annexes "A" and "B", respectively), without our knowledge; and That Atty. Sergio for past legal services rendered. Thereafter, respondent Villalon, with the knowledge and consent
Angeles never informed the undersigned of the amount of P42,999.00 he received from Mr. Silva of Jose Ducat, Sr., allowed the subject property to be used by Andres Canares to start a piggery
nor remitted to them even a part of that amount. business without any monetary consideration.

In his Comment, respondent denied the accusations and stated that he has the right to retain the Jose Ducat, Jr. wrote5 to this Court and averred that he neither signed the Deed of Sale covering
said amount of P42,999.00 and to apply the same to professional fees due him under the the subject property nor did he appear before the notary public Crispulo Ducusin, who notarized
subsequent agreement first with complainant Teodoro Rivera and later with Mrs. Dely Dimson the same. He averred that respondents Villalon and Ducusin should be disbarred from the practice
Rivera as embodied in the Deed of Assignment. of law and respondent Villalon be imprisoned for forging his signature and selling the subject
property without his consent.
Complainants, in their Reply,3 vehemently denied the assignment of their rights to respondent.
The Office of the Solicitor General considered this case submitted for resolution on April 30, 1985 In his Rejoinder6 , respondent Villalon denied the allegations of complainant and maintained that
by declaring respondent's right to present evidence as considered waived due to the latter's failure he is a member of good standing of the Integrated Bar and that he has always preserved the high
to appear on the scheduled hearings. However, the records from said Office do not show any standards of the legal profession.
resolution.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued an Order requiring the parties to manifest whether or The IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution adopting and approving the report and
not they are still interested in prosecuting this case. Investigating Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo recommendation of its Investigating Commissioner who found respondent Atty. Villalon guilty, and
submitted his report on April 29, 1999 finding respondent Atty. Sergio Angeles guilty of violating recommended his suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years and likewise directed
the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Rule 1.01, Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 thereof and respondent Atty. Villalon to deliver to the complainant his TCT No. M-3023 within ten (10) days
recommends his indefinite suspension from the practice of law. from receipt of notice, otherwise, this will result in his disbarment.

The Court finds merit in the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Ruling: It has been established that the subject parcel of land, with an area of five (5) hectares
Respondent's act of deceit and malpractice indubitably demonstrated his failure to live up to his located in Barrio Pinugay, Antipolo, Rizal, is owned by and registered in the name of complainant
sworn duties as a lawyer. The Supreme Court repeatedly stressed the importance of integrity and herein, Jose Ducat, Jr. Respondent Villalon insists nonetheless that the property was orally given
good moral character as part of a lawyer's equipment in the practice of his profession. 4 For it to him by complainant’s father, Jose Ducat, Sr., allegedly with the complete knowledge of the fact
cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever that the subject property belonged to his son, Jose Ducat, Jr. It is basic law, however, that
a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence. conveyance or transfer of any titled real property must be in writing, signed by the registered
owner or at least by his attorney-in-fact by virtue of a proper special power of attorney and duly
The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has extended notarized. Respondent Villalon, as a lawyer, is presumed to know, or ought to know, this process.
to his client but such right should not be exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the Worse, when the transfer was first reduced in writing in October, 1991 per Deed of Sale of Parcel
money intended for his clients. There should never be an instance where the victor in litigation of Land,11 purportedly in favor of "Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr.," respondent
loses everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer. Villalon knew that it was Jose Ducat, Sr. who signed the said document of sale without any Special
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sergio Angeles, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) Power of Attorney from the registered owner thereof, Jose Ducat, Jr.; and that Jose Ducat, Sr. also
YEAR for having been found guilty of practicing deceit in dealing with his client. signed it for his wife, Maria Cabrido, under the word "Conforme". As regards the subsequent Deed
of Absolute Sale of Real Property dated December 5, 1991, covering the same property, this time
Ducat, Jr v Villalon, Jr purportedly in favor of Andres Canares, Jr. only, respondent Villalon admitted that there was in
fact no payment of P450,000.00 and that the said amount was placed in that document only to
Facts: Before us is a verified letter-complaint1 for disbarment against Attys. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr.; make it appear that the conveyance was for a consideration.
Andres Canares, Jr. and Crispulo Ducusin for deceit and gross misconduct in violation of the
lawyer’s oath. Investigation proceeded only against respondent Villalon because it was discovered All these taken together, coupled with complainant Jose Ducat, Jr.’s strong and credible denial that
that Andres Canares was not a lawyer while Atty. Crispulo Ducusin passed away on February 3, he allegedly sold the subject property to respondent Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr. and that
1996. he allegedly appeared before respondent notary public Ducusin, convince us that respondent
Villalon’s acts herein complained of which constitute gross misconduct were duly proven.
In the letter-complaint,3 complainant alleged that on October 29, 1991, respondent Villalon, as
counsel for the family of complainant, spoke to the father of complainant and asked that he be Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of
given the title over a property owned by complainant located in Antipolo, Rizal because he a member of the Bar.1âwphi1 Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in such a
allegedly had to verify the proper measurements of the subject property. However, complainant manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Members of
and his family were surprised when several people entered the subject property and were told that the Bar are expected to always live up to the standards of the legal profession as embodied in the
they were workers of Canares and were there to construct a piggery. Complainant complained to Code of Professional Responsibility inasmuch as the relationship between an attorney and his client
the barangay authorities in Pinugay and narrated the incident but respondent Canares did not is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.
appear before it and continued with the construction of the piggery in the presence of armed men
who were watching over the construction. Complainant then went to respondent Villalon to We find, however, the IBP’s recommended penalty of two (2) years suspension to be imposed
complain about the people of respondent Canares but nothing was done. upon respondent Atty. Villalon too severe in the light of the facts obtaining in the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR. is hereby found guilty of gross financial support from his parents. As agreed I sacrificed almost two years of painful
misconduct, and he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR with a seclusionalthough, I received constant communication from him as he likewise did from me. We
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. saw each other again in 1968 when he came to Manila for his review and participation in the bar
examinations. In November of the same year, however, he returned to his home province, leaving
Diao v Martinez me and the kid behind giving flimsy excuse the uncertainty of his passing in the exam." 1 The next
paragraph of such letter was worded thus: "He did flunk in the first exam and having decidedto
Facts: After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao take the next, he further requested me to stop communicating with him untilthe examination was
was admitted to the Bar. over. I wrote him several letters immediately after especially when I delivered our second baby
but I constantly faced a blank wall. This never put me off, though. Instead, my eagerness to hear
About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his from him kept on mounting until that eventful day came — the release of the results ofthe bar
application for such Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications. The matter examinations. He made the grade this time and I was no more glad than my folks. We sent him
was in due course referred to the Solicitor General who caused the charge to be investigated; and two congratulatory messages and again we were disappointed to hear no word from him." 2 This
later he submitted a report recommending that Diao's name be erased from the roll of attorneys, Court was likewise informed therein that they met accidentally, on which occasion she tried to
because contrary to the allegations in his petition for examination in this Court, he (Diao) had not convince him that they should live together but instead of agreeing, his proposal was just to get
completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed by the the two children to live with him and for them to separate for good. 3 She would plead then that
Department of Private Education, specially, in the following particulars: "he be barred from membership in the Philippine Bar."
(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and
(b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom — This Court, on April 16, 1970, resolved: "... (a) to note the contents of the telegram of Evangeline
which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination, Argañoza requesting that the oath-taking of Benito P. Tubaces be withheld on the ground of
and of his allegation therein of successful completion of the "required pre-legal education". immorality; (b) to require that a copyof the letter of Evangeline Argañoza be sent to Benito P.
Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo A. Diao, practically admits the first charge: Tubaces and (c) require respondent Tubaces to answer said letter-complaint, within 10 daysfrom
but he claims that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the notice hereof." 4 Instead of answering, respondent Benito P. Tubaces waited until August 26, 1970
U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is when he filed a petition alleging that complainantwas retracting or withdrawing her complaint and
equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the educational authorities that therefore he should be allowed to take the lawyer's oath. Enclosed in such petition is a letter
considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school. signedby Evangeline Argañoza where, after referring to the complaint filed by her against
respondent, there was this declaration of retraction or withdrawal. Thus: "Without pressure nor
We have serious doubts, about the validity of this claim, what with respondent's failure to exhibit influence exerted upon me, I voluntarily, irrevocably, and unconditionally retract or withdraw the
any certification to that effect (the equivalence) by the proper school officials. However, it is said complaint on theground that we have applied and was granted a marriage license having
unnecessary to dwell on this, since the second charge is clearly meritorious. Diao never obtained agreed to get married on December of this year. The marriage license was issued on the 21st day
his A.A. from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination represented him as an of August, 1970 by the Quezon City Civil Registrar."
A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such college. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the
Arellano University in April, 1949, he says he was erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a Both complainant and respondent were required by resolution of this Court of November 18, 1970
graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records. it on appear personally before it on December 16, 1970. Both complainant and respondent duly
appeared and informed the Court thatthey had settled their differences and were intending to get
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and married. Five dayslater, on December 21, 1970, in a pleading filed with this Court by
approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to respondent,there was an allegation of such marriage having taken place on December 18, 1970
prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. with City Judge Oscar A. Inocentes of Quezon City having performed the ceremony, a photostat
copy of the marriage contract accompanying such manifestation. To satisfy itself, this Court
This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the "error" or "confusion" was obviously of resolved, on January, 5, 1971, torequire that both complainant and respondent appear before it on
his own making. Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it Monday, February 22, 1971. At such a date, the parties appeared before this Court withthe
would also have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law additional information that they intended to get married in a religious ceremony, such a marriage
studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. to take place on March 1, 1971 in the Immaculate Concepcion Parish Church with Rev. Fr. Emilio
And then he would not have been permitted to take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and Castro officiating. A photostat copy of the marriage contract was submitted by complainant and
the applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law, respondent in an urgent joint motion praying that the respondent be allowed to take the oath of
he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education(A.A.) as attorney, filed with this Court on March 3, 1971. Included in such motion is a photostat copy of the
prescribed by the Department of Private Education," (emphasis on "previous"). marriage contract resulting from the religious ceremony.

Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his This Court takes due cognizance that respondent Benito P. Tubaces appears to have mended his
false representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to ways and that a satisfactorily long period had elapsed from the time the results of the 1969 bar
the Bar. Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby examinations were announced on March 5, 1970. Under the circumstances, it is of the opinion that
revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations his plea to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath may be favorably acted on. Respondent is
is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal admonished to be duly mindful of the standard of rectitude to which a memberof the bar is
study in the regular manner is equally essential. expected to live up to. The delay in his being duly admitted to the practice of his profession, a
matter traceable solely to his far-from-exemplary conduct, ought to admonish him to observe with
The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. fidelity itscanons of behavior. He must by this time be fully cognizant that a failure to do so would
And the latter is required to return his lawyer's diploma within thirty days. So ordered. be sufficient cause for the appropriate disciplinary action.
WHEREFORE, the urgent joint motion of March 3, 1971, praying that respondent Tubaces be
Arononza v Tubaces allowed to take the lawyer's oath, is granted.

Facts: Complainant Evangeline Argañoza sent a telegram to this Court on April 7, 1970 requesting
that "the oath-taking of Atty. Benito P. Tubaces be held in abeyance." It was therein further stated
that the reason relied upon was immorality and that a letter would follow. Subsequently, four days
later, a letter duly subscribed and sworn by the complainant was receivedby this Court. It was
therein alleged: "In 1966, I agreed to live with Benito who was then a sophomore student in Cebu
and we had a child. Per his request, I left with our kid in July 1967 so he can muster the usual
Yap v Paras recriminations between attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not
receive sympathy from this Court.13 Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, fairness,
ROSA YAP-PARAS, petitioner, candor and civility.
ATTY. JUSTO PARAS, respondent
All told, the Court deems a reprimand with warning as a sufficient sanction for Atty Paras' failure
Facts: Herein petitioner-movant filed a verified Petition praying for the disbarment of her to promptly comply with its directives. The imposition of this sanction in the present case would be
estranged husband respondent Atty. Justo J. Paras alleging acts of deceit, malpractice, grave more consistent with the avowed purpose of a disciplinary case, which is not so much to punish
misconduct, grossly immoral conduct and violation of oath as a lawyer committed by the latter. the individual attorney as to protect the dispensation of justice by sheltering the judiciary and the
On February 14, 2005, the Court issued a Resolution finding Atty. Paras guilty of committing a public from the misconduct or inefficiency of officers of the court.
falsehood in violation of his lawyer's oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, the
Court resolved to suspend Atty. Paras from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment is DENIED. However, Atty. Justo
warning that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of Paras is hereby REPRIMANDED for his failure to observe the respect due the Court in not
a more severe penalty. promptly complying with this Court's resolution, with WARNING that a more drastic punishment
will be imposed upon him for a repetition of the same act.
Per records, the aforesaid Resolution was received by Atty. Paras. Thereafter, he filed a Motion for
Reconsideration.
Javier v Cornejo
During the pendency of Atty. Paras' motion for reconsideration, complainant-movant filed with the
Court the instant Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment, alleging thereunder, inter alia, that Facts: The respondent Silverio Q. Cornejo, a practicing lawyer of Lipa, Batangas, is charged with
Atty. Paras violated the suspension order earlier issued by the Court with his continued practice of malpractice (a) for trying to collect from a brother attorney a sum of money by means of threat,
law. and (b) for having instigated Severina Paz Teodoro to file a complaint against the herein
complainant, Attorney Benedicto M. Javier, for malpractice (Administrative Case No. 757) knowing
The Court then issued a resolution denying Atty Paras’ motion for reconsideration and which fully well that the charges therein preferred were malicious, flimsy and unfounded.
suspended him from the practive of law for a period of 1 year. In the same resolution, the Court
required Atty. Paras to comment on petitioner-movant's Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment. The complainant in support of his charge refers to a letter dated December 2, 1935, in which
After more than a year, or on September 12, 2006 Atty. Paras filed with the Court a demand was made upon him by the respondent for the delivery of P195 representing the amount
Manifestation6 , stating that he had completely and faithfully served his one (1) year suspension. It collected and received by the said complainant by virtue of a judgment rendered in a certain case
appearing that Atty. Paras failed to file a comment on the Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal wherein Severina Paz Teodoro was the judgment creditor and
the Court issued another Resolution dated November 27, 2006 requiring Atty. Paras to show cause the herein complainant was her counsel. In the same letter the complainant was given ten days
why he should not be held in contempt of court for such failure and to comply with the said within which to turn over the said P195, otherwise a complaint would be filed against him in this
resolution within ten (10) days from receipt. court. He was furthermore urged to settle the matter in due time for the preservation not only of
his good name but also that of the legal profession.
Consequently, a Comment on Motion for Contempt and Explanation on Failure to Timely File
Required Comment7was filed by Atty. Paras denying all the allegations in petitioner-movant's We find nothing improper in this letter of the respondent to the complainant which would justify us
Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment. He likewise claimed that he had never done nor made in taking disciplinary action against the respondent. The letter was an extra-judicial demand for
any conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of the payment of a sum of money which Severina Paz Teodoro had represented to the respondent as
justice, nor undermine or put to naught or violate any of the pertinent causes enumerated in owing to her and which she sought to recover through his professional services. It was an honest
Section 3, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court. effort on the part of the respondent to serve the interest of his client. The lawyer owes entire
"devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and
Ruling: We find no sufficient basis to support petitioner-movant's allegation that Atty. Paras exertion of his utmost learning and ability", to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from
violated the Court's suspension order, what with the fact that Atty. Paras himself took the initiative him, save by the rules of law, legally applied (Code of Ethics, adopted by the American Bar
to inform the lower courts of his one- year suspension from law practice. Association and the Philippine Bar Association, No. 15; In re Tionko [1922], 43 Phil., 191, 194).
As to second ground, it is alleged that the respondent in connivance with one Gregorio Tapia,
It is clear, however, that all lawyers are expected to recognize the authority of the Supreme Court induced Severina Paz Teodoro to accuse the herein complainant before this court of malpractice. It
and obey its lawful processes and orders. Despite errors which one may impute on the orders of appears that herein complainant was respondent in Administrative Case No. 757 of this court upon
the Court, these must be respected, especially by the bar or the lawyers who are themselves a charge of unlawful conversion of a judgment fund amounting to P195 pertaining to his client,
officers of the courts. It is well to emphasize again that a resolution of the Supreme Court is not be Severina Paz Teodoro. This charge, however, was dismissed by resolution of this court on July 10,
construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or 1936. Now the complainant comes back against the herein respondent and charges him with
selectively.10 Court orders are to be respected not because the justices or judges who issue them having maliciously instigated the filing of the complaint in the aforesaid Administrative Case No.
should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the 757.
judicial branch of the government. This is absolutely essential if our government is to be a
government of laws and not of men. We find that Administrative Case No. 757 was instituted in this court on March 18, 1936 and that
respondent Silverio Q. Cornejo intervened as counsel for the complainant therein on December 2,
Here, Atty. Paras admitted that he had been less than prudent, and indeed fell short, of his 1935. But long before this dates, Severina Paz Teodoro and her son Feliciano Pateña had already
obligation to follow, obey and comply with the specific Order of the Honorable Supreme Court been demanding from the herein complainant the return of the amount alleged to be due them
contained in Its Resolution dated July 18, 2005 due to his deteriorating health condition which (Exhibit B and C). The last demand letter (Exhibit C) was made on March 23, 1931, and its receipt
required him to undergo a coronary angiogram and bypass graft 12 . He likewise expressed acknowledged by the herein complainant in the same month (Exhibit E). This letter demanded the
his profound and immeasurable sorrowness amidst regrets for his delayed compliance with the payment of the remaining balance of P166.50 from the sum which the herein complainant had
Court's order. collected and received as judgment fund of his erstwhile client Severina Paz Teodoro, and also
advised that upon his failure to remit the amount demanded, the matter would be brought to the
Given the above, the Court takes this opportunity to remind the parties in the instant case, as well attention of this court. The complainant in Administrative Case No. 757, therefore, already knew
petitioner-movant's counsels, to avoid further squabbles and unnecessary filing of administrative on March 23, 1931, long before the respondent Silverio Q. Cornejo entered the scene, where to
cases against each other. An examination of the records reveals a pervasive atmosphere of seek relief.
animosity between Atty. Paras and petitioner's counsels as evidenced by the number of
administrative cases between them. It is well to stress that mutual bickerings and unjustified
It should be observed, in this connection, that mutual bickerings and unjustifiable recrimination, to use only respectful and temperate language in the preparation of pleadings and to be more
between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any circumspect in dealing with their professional colleagues. They
sympathy from this court. are likewise STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.
The complaint against the respondent is dismissed for lack of merit. So ordered.
Director of Religious Affairs v Estanislao Bayot
The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche v Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta
Facts: The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice for having published
Facts: The circumstances, which led to the filing of this administrative complaint, occurred in an advertisement in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943, which reads as follows:
connection with Criminal Case No. Q-05-136678. The latter was a case for libel then pending
against Eliseo F. Soriano before Branch 218 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Marriage
license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if
Complainant acted as the legal counsel of Soriano in that case while respondents represented desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the
private complainant Michael M. Sandoval. poor. Everything confidential.

On 11 October 2005, lawyers from complainant law firm, led by Atty. Chavez, appeared before the Legal assistance service
RTC to seek the cancellation of Soriano's scheduled arraignment.5 During the hearing, Atty. 12 Escolta, Manila, Room, 105
Chavez informed the RTC that a Petition for Review had been filed before the Department of Tel. 2-41-60.
Justice (DOJ) on 10 October 2005. The Petition questioned the resolution of the Office of the City Appearing in his own behalf, respondent at first denied having published the said advertisement;
Prosecutor of Quezon City finding probable cause to indict Soriano for libel. Atty. Chavez presented but subsequently, thru his attorney, he admitted having caused its publication and prayed for "the
an extra copy of the Petition for Review before the RTC, and explained that the main copy of the indulgence and mercy" of the Court, promising "not to repeat such professional misconduct in the
Petition stamped received by the DOJ was still with the office messenger, who had personally filed future and to abide himself to the strict ethical rules of the law profession." In further mitigation
the pleading the day before. Citing the filing of the Petition for Review, Atty. Chavez moved for he alleged that the said advertisement was published only once in the Tribune and that he never
the suspension of the arraignment for a period of 60 days pursuant to Rule 116, Section 11 ( c) of had any case at law by reason thereof.
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The RTC, however, denied the motion and
proceeded with Soriano's arraignment. Upon that plea the case was submitted to the Court for decision.

The events that transpired during the arraignment led complainant to conclude that Presiding It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of
Judge Hilario Laqui of Branch 218 was biased against its client. the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of
Ruling: Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the
Respondents violated Canons 8 and purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares.
Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to
There being no cause for the dismissal of the instant case, the Court now proceeds to determine and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public.
whether respondents have indeed violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-
We note that the essential allegations of the Complaint-Affidavit have already been admitted by changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The most worth and effective advertisement
respondents. In the Comment they submitted to this Court, they even reproduced the pertinent possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for
portions37 of their pleadings that contained the allegations of antedating. professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of
character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)
Accordingly, the only question left for us to resolve is whether their conduct violates the ethical
code of the profession. After a thorough evaluation of the pleadings filed by the parties and the In In re Tagorda, 53 Phil., the respondent attorney was suspended from the practice of law for the
Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Limpingco, the Court finds respondents guilty of period of one month for advertising his services and soliciting work from the public by writing
violating Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. circular letters. That case, however, was more serious than this because there the solicitations
were repeatedly made and were more elaborate and insistent.
This Court has repeatedly urged lawyers to utilize only respectful and temperate language in the
preparation of pleadings, in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.40 Their arguments, Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the Court is of the
whether written or oral, should be gracious to both the court and the opposing counsel and should opinion and so decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded.
consist only of such words as may be properly addressed by one honorable
member of the bar to another.41 In this case, respondents twice accused complainant of
antedating a petition it had filed with the DOJ without any proof whatsoever. This allegation of
impropriety undoubtedly brought complainant and its lawyers into disrepute. The accusation also
tended to mislead the courts, as it was made without hesitation notwithstanding the absence of
any evidentiary support. The Court cannot condone this irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.

That the statements conveyed the perception by respondents of the events that transpired during
the scheduled arraignment and their "truthful belief regarding a perceived irregularity" in the filing
of the Petition is not an excuse.

We believe, though, that the use of intemperate and abusive language does not merit the ultimate
penalty of disbarment.45 Nonetheless, respondents should be disciplined for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility and sternly warned that the Court will deal with future similar conduct
more severely.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution dated 22 March 2014 issued by the IBP Board of
Governors is hereby SET ASIDE. Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta are hereby ADMONISHED

You might also like