Garvida vs.

Sales

FACTS:

Petitioner Garvida applied for registration as member and voter of the Katipunan ng Kabataan of a certain
barangay. However the Board of election tellers denied her application on the ground that she is already 21 years
and 10 months old. She already exceeded the age limit for membership as laid down in Sec 3(b) of COMELEC
resolution no. 2824.

The municipal circuit trial court found her to be qualified and ordered her registration as member and voter in the
Katipunan ng Kabataan. The Board of Election Tellers appealed to the RTC, but the presiding judge inhibited
himself from acting on the appeal due to his close association with petitioner.

However, private respondent Sales a rival candidate, filed with the COMELEC en banc a “Petition of Denial and/or
Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy” against Garvida for falsely representing her age qualification in her
certificate of candidacy. He claimed that Garvida is disqualified to become a voter and a candidate for the SK for
the reason that she will be more than twenty-one (21) years of age on May 6, 1996; that she was born on June 11,
1974 as can be gleaned from her birth certificate.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Garvida can assume office as the elected SK official

RULING:

In the case at bar, petitioner was born on June 11, 1974. On March 16, 1996, the day she registered as voter for
the May 6, 1996 SK elections, petitioner was twenty-one (21) years and nine (9) months old. On the day of the
elections, she was 21 years, 11 months and 5 days old. When she assumed office on June 1, 1996, she was 21
years, 11 months and 20 days old and was merely ten (10) days away from turning 22 years old. Petitioner may
have qualified as a member of the Katipunan ng Kabataan but definitely, petitioner was over the age limit for
elective SK officials set by Section 428 of the Local Government Code and Sections 3 [b] and 6 of Comelec
Resolution No. 2824.

Thus, she is ineligible to run as candidate for the May 6, 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo
A.M. No. 7006

This administrative case stemmed from the events of the Criminal case proceeding originally raffled to the sala of
Judge Floripinas C. Buyser. Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused, declaring that the
evidence thus presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of
murder. The counsel of the defense filed a Motion to fix the amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty Bagabuyo,
then Senior state Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto mainly on the ground that
the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not subject of bail under the Rules of
Court.

Judge Buser inhibited himself from further trying the case because of the harsh insinuation of Senior Prosecutor
Rogelio Bagabuyo that he lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate, by allegedly suggesting the filing of
the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel for the accused.

Respondent appealed to the CA. Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies, respondent caused the
publication of an article regarding the Order granting to the accused in the issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily.
The article, entitled Senior prosecutor lambast Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out.

The RTC of Surigao City directed respondent and the writer of the article to appear in court to explain why they
should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of the article which degrade the court and its
presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentation.

Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the press conference, but refused to answer whether he made
the statement in the article until after he shall have filed a motion to dismiss. For his refusal to answer, the trial
court declared him in contempt of court pursuant to the Rules of Court.

ISSUE: WON Prosecutor Bagabuyo violated the canons and his oath as a lawyer?

Held: YES
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom
peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar
imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct
by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper
authorities only.

Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where
he made statements against the Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing the accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to
be released on bail.

Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in
the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out, which
appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondents statements in the article,
which were made while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which
states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
 public opinion for or against a party.

In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for redress of his grievances against
Judge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that
Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying the
law, and that he was a liar.

Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best
of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.

As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the example of observing and
maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. Montecillo v. Gica held:

It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his
duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken.
Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without such respect, would
be resting on a very shaky foundation.

Tiongco v. Aguilar Facts: 1. Atty. Jose Tiongco was charged for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He characterized the decision of respondent Judge as “having been crafted in order to fool the
winning party”; as a “hypocritical judgment in plaintiff’s favour”; one with “perfidious character.” 2. Tiongco
described respondent as a liar, perjurer or blasphemer

Ruling: 1. The duty contemplated in Canon 11 is closely entwined with his vow in the lawyer’s oath “to conduct
himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity to the courts,” his duty under Section 20(b) of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court “to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers,” and his duty under
the first canon “to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of temporary incumbent of
the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. 2. The use of unnecessary /offensive and
abusive/abrasive and offensive language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in
judicial administration or tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of the
members of the Court and to degrade the administration of justice by the Court. 3. Tiongco had exceeded the
bounds of decency and propriety in making the false and malicious insinuation against this Court. Such could only
come from anger, if not hate, after he was not given what he wanted. Anger or hate could only come from one
who seems to be of that frame of mind whereby he considers as in accordance with law and justice whatever he
believes to be right in his own opinion and as contrary to law and justice whatever does not accord with his views.
4. Tiongco was ordered to pay fine of Php 5,000 plus warning.

 SAMONTE vs. ATTY. ABELLANA Legal Ethics: Rule 10.01, 11.02, 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
FACTS: On February 16, 1990, complainant Henry E. Samonte brought this administrative complaint against
respondent Atty. Gines N. Abellana who had represented him as the plaintiff in a civil case. In the administrative
complaint, Samonte enumerated the serious acts of professional misconduct by Atty. Abellana, to wit:
1. Falsification of documents, when Atty. Abellana made it appear that he had filed Civil Case No. CEB-6970 on
June 10, 1988, conformably with their agreement, although the complaint was actually filed on June 14, 1988; 2.
Dereliction of duty, when Atty. Abellana failed to: (a) file the reply vis--vis the answer with counterclaim, with his
omission having delayed the pre-trial of the case; (b) inform the trial court beforehand that Samonte could not be
available on a scheduled hearing, thereby incurring for the plaintiffs side an unexplained absence detrimental to
Samonte as the plaintiff; and (c) submit an exhibit required by the trial judge, only to eventually submit it three
months later; 3. Gross negligence and tardiness in attending the scheduled hearings; and 4. Dishonesty for not
issuing official receipts for every cash payments made by Samonte for his court appearances and his acceptance of
the case. In his comment dated April 6, 1990, Atty. Abellana denied the charge of falsification of documents,
clarifying that the actual filing of the complaint could be made only on June 14, 1988 instead of on June 10, 1988
because Samonte had not given enough money to cover the filing fees and other charges totaling P5,027.76; and
that Samonte shelled out only P5,000.00, contrary to their agreement in April 1988 on paying to him P10,000.00 as
the acceptance fee in addition to the filing fees. He asserted that the charge of dereliction of duty was baseless,
because he had filed the reply on December 2, 1988 after receiving the answer with counterclaim of the
defendants on August 2, 1988, anent his nonattendance at the hearings in Civil Case No. CEB-6970, he explained
that although he had informed the RTC of his having been either stranded in another province, or having attended
the arraignment of another client in another court, the presiding judge had opted not to await his arrival in the
courtroom. He blamed Samonte for his inability to submit the formal offer of exhibits on time, pointing out that
Samonte had failed to give the duplicate originals of the documentary exhibits despite his request because of the
latters absence from the country. He countered that it was Samonte who had been dishonest, because Samonte
had given only the filing fees plus at least P2,000.00 in contravention of their agreement on the amount of
P10,000.00 being his acceptance fees in addition to the filing fees; that the filing fees paid were covered by
receipts issued by the Clerk of Court; that no receipts were issued for the P200.00/appearance fee conformably
with the practice of most lawyers; and that Samonte had not also demanded any receipts. Atty. Abellana branded
as unethical Samontes submission of a motion to change counsel, stating that the latter did not thereby exhibit the
courtesy of informing him beforehand on the intention of not meeting his obligation to him as the counsel; that
Samonte had been forced to issue to him a check after the Branch Clerk of Court had told him that his motion to
change counsel would not be acted upon unless it carried Atty. Abellanas conformity as the counsel; and that he
had duly acknowledged the check.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Abellana was in contravention of his duties as a lawyer.

RULING: Yes. By the Lawyers Oath is every lawyer enjoined not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain
from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients.
Every lawyer is a servant of the Law, and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as well as be an exemplar
worthy of emulation by others. It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that honesty, integrity and
trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings. Rule
18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
to clients request for information.
Atty. Abellana abjectly failed the expectations of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness in his dealings with
Samonte as the client, and with the RTC as the trial court. He resorted to outright falsification by superimposing
"0" on "4" in order to mislead Samonte into believing that he had already filed the complaint in court on June
10,1988 as promised, instead of on June 14, 1988, the date when he had actually done so. His explanation that
Samonte was himself the cause of the belated filing on account of his inability to remit the correct amount of filing
fees and his acceptance fees by June 10, 1988, as agreed upon, did not excuse the falsification, because his
falsification was not rendered less dishonest and less corrupt by whatever reasons for filing at the later date. He
ought to remember that honesty and integrity were of far greater value for him as a member of the Law Profession
than his transactions with his client. The finding on Atty. Abellanas neglect in the handling of Samontes case was
entirely warranted. He admitted being tardy in attending the hearings of the civil case. He filed the formal offer of
evidence in behalf of his client way beyond the period to do so, a fact that he could not deny because the RTC
Judge had himself expressly noted the belated filing in the order issued in the case. Atty. Abellana was fortunate
that the RTC Judge exhibited some tolerance and liberality by still admitting the belated offer of evidence in the
interest of justice. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are designed to ensure that whoever is granted the
privilege to practice law in this country should remain faithful to the Lawyers Oath. Only thereby can lawyers
preserve their fitness to remain as members of the Law
Profession. Any resort to falsehood or deception, including adopting artifices to cover up ones misdeeds
committed against clients and the rest of the trusting public, evinces an unworthiness to continue enjoying the
privilege to practice law and highlights the unfitness to remain a member of the Law Profession. It deserves for the
guilty lawyer stern disciplinary sanctions. For Atty. Abellana, therefore, suspension from the practice of law for six
months with warning of a more severe sanction upon a repetition suffices.

Banogon vs. Zerna154 SCRA 593

–
Legal Ethics
–
Speedy and Proper Administration of Justice
F A C T S :

In 1926, a judgment favorable to Zerna was issued by a cadastral court. In 1957 or thirty one yearslater, Banogon filed a motion to amend
the 1926 decisions. An opposition was filed by Zerna in the
same year. Banogon’s counsel repeatedly failed to set for hearing and in 1971 or fourteen years
later, Zerna filed for a motion to dismiss which was granted by reason of B
anogon’s filing being out
of time.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Banogon’s suit should prosper.

HELD:
No. He slept on his rights hence laches had set in. The Supreme Court also took time to remindlawyers to judiciously study facts and
laws so as to avoid the filing of improper cases such as thiscase where the filing of motions and pleadings was way out of time.
One reason why there is adegree of public distrust for lawyers is the way some of them misinterpret the law to the point ofdistortion in a
cunning effort to achieve their purposes. As officers of the court, lawyers have aresponsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice.
They do not discharge this duty by filingpointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary. Lawyers do not advance the causeof
law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deserve theattention of the courts

Medina vs Yan

Javellana vs Lutero

Achacoso vs CA

RENERIO SAMBAJON, et al. vs. ATTY. JOSE A. SUING 26 September, 2006

A.C. No. 7062 Third Division / Carpio Morales, J :

Facts: Complainants sought the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing on the grounds of deceit, malpractice,
violation of Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainants were the complainants in NLRC Case Microplast Inc. vs Ardan, et al., for Unfair
Labor Practice (ULP), Illegal Dismissal and Illegal Strike, while Atty. Suing was the counsel for the
respondents.

Said case was dismissed by Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos and the respondent employer
was declared guilty of ULP. The employer was directed to reinstate all the complainants to their former
position with full back wages. The decision having become final and executory, the Labor Arbiter issued a
Writ of Execution.
 In the meantime, on the basis of individual Release Waiver and Quitclaims purportedly signed
and sworn to by seven (7) of the complainants in the ULP and Illegal Dismissal case before Labor Arbiter,
in the presence of the respondent, the Labor Arbiter dismissed said case insofar as the seven (7)
complainants were concerned.

Four (4) of the seven (7) complainants who purportedly executed the Release Waiver and
Quitclaims, denied having signed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having
received the considerations therefor. Hence, spawned the administrative complaint at bar, alleging that
respondent, acting in collusion with his clients, “frustrated” the implementation of the Writ of Execution by
presenting before the Labor Arbiter the spurious documents.

In a related move, complainants also filed a criminal complaint for Falsification against
respondent together with his clients.

In his Report and Recommendation, IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag, who conducted an
investigation of the administrative complaint at bar, recommended that respondent be faulted for
negligence and that he be reprimanded therefor with warning.

The Board of Governors of the IBP approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation of
Commissioner Hababag.

The Court notes the attempt of respondent to influence the answers of his client Manuel Rodil
when the latter testified before Commissioner Manuel Hababag.

Issues: 1) May respondent, Atty. Jose A. Suing, be disbarred for his alleged manipulation of four (4)
alleged RELEASE WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM by herein complainants who subsequently disclaimed the
same as bogus and falsified?
2) Was respondent guilty of coaching his client in the latter’s testimony before Commissioner
Hababag?

Law: Canon 12

Case History: Investigated by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) through IBP Commissioner
Salvador B. Hababag on 27 September, 2015.

Ruling: 1) Disbarment is not in order. Instead, the respondent is found guilty of negligence and gross
misconduct. The Court says that a lawyer serves his client with diligence by adopting that norm of
practice expected of men of good intentions. Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a
given situation and is the opposite of negligence.
2) Yes, respondent was guilty of coaching his client in the latter’s testimony before Commissioner
Hababag. Not only did respondent try to coach his client or influence him to answer questions in an
apparent attempt not to incriminate him (respondent).
Any act on the lawyer’s part that tends to obstruct, perverts or impedes the administration of
justice constitutes misconduct. While the Commission on Bar Discipline is not a court, the proceedings
therein are nonetheless part of a judicial proceeding, a disciplinary action being in reality an investigation
by the Court into the misconduct of its officers or an examination into his character.
The respondent is likewise suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with
warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Villafuerte v Cortez

Facts:
  Complainant Arsenio Villafuerte seeks for the disbarment of Atty. Dante H. Cortez because he perceived that the
respondent, Atty. Dante H. Cortez neglected the handling of his cases despite receiving P 1,750.00 acceptance and
retainers fee.
 Complainant went to the office of respondent lawyer to discuss his case for "reconveyance".
 During their initial meeting, complainant reconstructed the incidents of the case merely from memory so the respondent
lawyer asked him to return another day with the records.
 Complainant again saw respondent but still sans the records.
 Complainant requested respondent to accept the case, paying the sum of P1,750.00 representing the acceptance fee of
P1,500.00 and P250.00 retainer fee.
 Respondent averred that he accepted the money reluctance and only upon the condition that complainant would get the
records of the case as well as secure the withdrawal of appearance of Atty. Jose Dizon, the former counsel of
complainant.
 Allegedly, Complainant never showed up thereafter until he went to the office of respondent but only to leave a copy of a
writ of execution in the civil case, a case for ejectment, which, according to respondent, was never priorly mentioned to
him by complainant. Respondent said he had never entered his appearance in the case.
 IBP-CBD concluded that the facts established would just the same indicate sufficiently a case of neglect of duty on the
part of respondent. The CBD rejected the excuse by respondent that the non-receipt of the records of the case justified
his failure to represent complainant.
 The IBP-CBD recommended to the IBP Board of Governors the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for
three months with a warning
 .IBP Board of Governors approved the decision of the IBP-CBD.
 Both respondent lawyer and complainant filed with the IBP-CBD their respective motions for the reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether or not Respondent Lawyer should be suspended from the practice of law? Yes.

Held:

The Court is convinced that a lawyer-client relationship has already arisen between respondent and complainant. His
acceptance of the payment effectively bars him from altogether disclaiming the existence of an attorney-client relationship between
them. It would not matter really whether the money has been intended to pertain only to Civil Case No. 83-18877 or to include Civil
Case No. 062160-CV, there being no showing, in any event, that respondent lawyer has attended to either of said cases. It would
seem that he hardly has exerted any effort to find out what might have happened to his client's cases. A lawyer's fidelity to the cause
of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best
efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interests of his client. The Code of Professional Responsibility has stated that a
"lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence” decreeing further that he "shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him."

Complainant, nevertheless, is not entirely without fault himself. He cannot expect his case to be properly and intelligently
handled without listening to his own counsel and extending full cooperation to him. It is not right for complainant to wait for almost
two years and to deal with his lawyer only after receiving an adverse decision.

All considered, the Court deems it proper to reduce the recommended period of suspension of the IBP from three months to
one month.

ENDAYA v OCA
Facts:

A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his wife. An
answer was prepared by a Mr.Ramirez for the spouses.

At the beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses appeared without counsel.

Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorney’s Office. Atty. Oca was assigned to
handle the case.
At the continuation of the prelim conference, Oca filed motion for amendment of answer.
Motion was denied.

The judge then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. The
court also said that 30 daysafter the submission of the last paper or upon expiration of
the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered onthe case.

Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper.

Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because those who
filed the case were not reallparties-in-interest.

The case was appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again. RTC reversed the
MTC decision. Spouseswere ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount
for rentals.

Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not receive
anything. Upon checking with theclerk of court, Oca did indeed receive a copy of the
decision (liar!).

Hence this administrative complaint.Issue:

W/N Oca committed professional misconductHeld:

Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.

Facts to show may problema talaga to si Atty. Oca:

o
In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC
because it would justbe a repetition of the answer. Endaya filed his reply which just
reiterated what he put in his complaint.
o
SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder. Guess what, Oca once again failed to file anything.
Oca explained thathe failed to file a rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it
was no longer necessary.
o
In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything.

Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses
thereafter.

The facts show that Oca failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance
the cause of his client. Forintentionally failing to submit the pleadings required by the
court, respondent practically closed the door to thepossibility of putting up a fair fight for
his client.

Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a counsel
of record until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated.

Oca’s story shows his appalling indifference to his clients’ cause, deplorable lack of
respect for the courts and abrazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer.

Bakit hindi disbarred?

o
Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when in
fact it wasprepared by a lawyer
o
Endaya assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case. Endaya never
gave anything toOca to support their claim.
o
The PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload.