LEGAL ETHICS CASES (Case Digest)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #1 : Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SC A 210 Se!te"#e$ 1%%1

&a'ts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because a e!ed y Monsod does not posses required qua ification of ha"in! been en!a!ed in the practice of aw for at east ten years. #he $%&' constitution pro"ides in (ection $) Artic e *+-C, #here sha be a Commission on E ections composed of a Chairman and siCommissioners who sha be natura -born citizens of the Phi ippines and) at the time of their appointment) at east thirty-fi"e years of a!e) ho ders of a co e!e de!ree) and must not ha"e been candidates for any e ecti"e position in the immediate y precedin! e ections. .owe"er) a ma/ority thereof) inc udin! the Chairman) sha be members of the Phi ippine 0ar who ha"e been en!a!ed in the practice of aw for at east ten years. Iss(e: 1hether the respondent does not posses the required qua ification of ha"in! en!a!ed in the practice of aw for at east ten years. He)d: *n the case of Phi ippine Lawyers Association "s. A!ra"a) stated, #he practice of aw is not imited to the conduct of cases or iti!ation in court2 it embraces the preparation of p eadin!s and other papers incident to actions and specia proceedin!) the mana!ement of such actions and proceedin!s on beha f of c ients before /ud!es and courts) and in addition) con"eyin!. *n !enera ) a ad"ice to c ients) and a action ta3en for them in matters connected with the aw incorporation ser"ices) assessment and condemnation ser"ices) contemp atin! an appearance before /udicia body) the forec osure of mort!a!e) enforcement of a creditor4s c aim in ban3ruptcy and inso "ency proceedin!s) and conductin! proceedin!s in attachment) and in matters of estate and !uardianship ha"e been he d to constitute aw practice. Practice of aw means any acti"ity) in or out court) which requires the app ication of aw) e!a procedure) 3now ed!e) trainin! and e-perience. #he contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qua ification of ha"in! en!a!ed in the practice of aw for at east ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod4s past wor3 e-perience as a awyer-economist) a awyer-mana!er) a awyer-entrepreneur of industry) a awyer-ne!otiator of contracts) and a awyer- e!is ator of both rich and the poor 5 "eri y more than satisfy the constitutiona requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman) #he respondent has been en!a!ed in the practice of aw for at east ten years does *n the "iew of the fore!oin!) the petition is 6*(M*((E6. 777 #he (upreme Court he d that the appointment of Monsod is in accordance with the requirement of aw as ha"in! been en!a!ed in the practice of aw for at east ten years. Monsod4s past wor3 e-periences as a awyer-economist) a awyer-mana!er) a awyer-entrepreneur of industry) a awyer ne!otiator of contracts and a awyer- e!is ator of both the rich and the poor "eri y more than satisfy the constitutiona requirement that he has been en!a!ed in the practice of aw for at east ten years. A!ain) in the case of Phi ippine Lawyer4s Association "s. A!ra"a) the practice of aw is not imited to the conduct of cases and iti!ation in court2 it embraces the preparation of p eadin!s and other papers incident to actions and socia proceedin!s and other simi ar wor3 which in"o "es the determination by a e!a mind the e!a effects of facts and conditions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #2: *HILI**I+E LA,-E .S ASS/CIATI/+ 0S. CELED/+I/ AG A0A1 in 2is 'a!a'ity as Di$e'to$ o3 t2e *2i)i!!ines *atent /33i'e &ACTS: A petition was fi ed by the petitioner for prohibition and in/unction a!ainst Ce edonio A!ra"a) in his capacity as 6irector of the Phi ippines Patent Office. On May 8') $%9') respondent 6irector issued a circu ar announcin! that he had schedu ed for :une 8') $%9' an e-amination for the purpose of determinin! who are qua ified to practice as patent attorneys before the Phi ippines Patent Office. #he petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar e-aminations and is icensed by the (upreme Court to practice aw in the Phi ippines and who is in !ood standin!) is du y qua ified to practice before the Phi ippines Patent Office and that the respondent 6irector4s ho din! an e-amination for the purpose is in e-cess of his /urisdiction and is in "io ation of the aw. #he respondent) in rep y) maintains the prosecution of patent cases ; does not in"o "e entire y or pure y the practice of aw but inc udes the app ication of scientific and technica 3now ed!e and trainin! as a matter of actua practice so as to inc ude en!ineers and other indi"idua s who passed the e-amination can practice before the Patent office. <urthermore) he stressed that for the on! time he is ho din! tests) this is the first time that his ri!ht has been questioned forma y. ISS4E: 1hether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent app ication) etc.) constitutes or is inc uded in the practice of aw.

HELD: #he (upreme Court he d that the practice of aw inc udes such appearance before the Patent Office) the representation of app icants) oppositors) and other persons) and the prosecution of their app ications for patent) their opposition thereto) or the enforcement of their ri!hts in patent cases. Moreo"er) the practice before the patent Office in"o "es the interpretation and app ication of other aws and e!a princip es) as we as the e-istence of facts to be estab ished in accordance with the aw of e"idence and procedure. #he practice of aw is not imited to the conduct of cases or iti!ation in court but a so embraces a other matters connected with the aw and any wor3 in"o "in! the determination by the e!a mind of the e!a effects of facts and conditions. <urthermore) the aw pro"ides that any party may appea to the (upreme Court from any fina order or decision of the director. #hus) if the transactions of business in the Patent Office in"o "ed e-c usi"e y or most y technica and scientific 3now ed!e and trainin!) then o!ica y) the appea shou d be ta3en not to a court or /udicia body) but rather to a board of scientists) en!ineers or technica men) which is not the case. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #5: THE *E/*LE /& THE *HILI**I+ES1 !)ainti336a!!e))ee1 vs. SIM*LICI/ 0ILLA+4E0A1 de3endant6 a!!e))ant. G. . +o. L61%780 Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Magno T. Buese for defendant-appellant. Paredes) J., On (eptember =) $%9%) the Chief of Po ice of A aminos) La!una) char!ed (imp icio >i anue"a with the Crime of Ma icious Mischief before the :ustice of the Peace Court of said municipa ity. (aid accused was represented by counse de officio but ater on rep aced by counse de parte. #he comp ainant in the same case was represented by City Attorney Ariston <u e of (an Pab o City) ha"in! entered his appearance as pri"ate prosecutor) after securin! the permission of the (ecretary of :ustice. #he condition of his appearance as such) was that e"ery time he wou d appear at the tria of the case) he wou d be considered on officia ea"e of absence) and that he wou d not recei"e any payment for his ser"ices. #he appearance of City Attorney <u e as pri"ate prosecutor was questioned by the counse for the accused) in"o3in! the case of Aquino, et al. vs. Blanco, et al.) L-$9?8) @o". 8&) $%=') wherein it was ru ed that Awhen an attorney had been appointed to the position of Assistant Pro"incia <isca or City <isca and therein qua ified) by operation of aw) he ceased to en!a!e in pri"ate aw practice.A Counse then ar!ued that the :P Court in entertainin! the appearance of City Attorney <u e in the case is a "io ation of the abo"e ru in!. On 6ecember $') $%BC the :P issued an order sustainin! the e!a ity of the appearance of City Attorney <u e. Dnder date of :anuary =) $%B$) counse for the accused presented a AMotion to *nhibit <isca <u e from Actin! as Pri"ate Prosecutor in this Case)A this time in"o3in! (ection ?8) Ru e 8') now (ec. ?9) Ru e $?&) Re"ised Ru es of Court) which bars certain attorneys from practicin!. Counse c aims that City Attorney <u e fa s under this imitation. #he :P Court ru ed on the motion by upho din! the ri!ht of <u e to appear and further statin! that he E<u eF was not actua y en!a!ed in pri"ate aw practice. #his Order was appea ed to the C<* of La!una) presided by the .on. .i arion D. :arencio) which rendered /ud!ment on 6ecember 8C) $%B$) the pertinent portions of which read, #he present case is one for ma icious mischief. #here bein! no reser"ation by the offended party of the ci"i iabi ity) the ci"i action was deemed imp ied y instituted with the crimina action. #he offended party had) therefore) the ri!ht to inter"ene in the case and be represented by a e!a counse because of her interest in the ci"i iabi ity of the accused. (ec. ?$) Ru e $8' of the Ru es of Court pro"ides that in the court of a /ustice of the peace a party may conduct his iti!ation in person) with the aid of an a!ent or friend appointed by him for that purpose) or with the aid of an attorney. Assistant City Attorney <u e appeared in the :ustice of the Peace Court as an a!ent or friend of the offended party. *t does not appear that he was bein! paid for his ser"ices or that his appearance was in a professiona capacity. As Assistant City Attorney of (an Pab o he had no contro or inter"ention whatsoe"er in the prosecution of crimes committed in the municipa ity of A aminos) La!una) because the prosecution of crimina cases comin! from A aminos are hand ed by the Office of the Pro"incia <isca and not by the City Attorne" of (an Pab o. #here cou d be no possib e conf ict in the duties of Assistant City Attorney <u e as Assistant City Attorney of (an Pab o and as pri"ate prosecutor in this crimina case. On the other hand) as a ready pointed out) the offended party in this crimina case had a ri!ht to be represented by an a!ent or a friend to protect her ri!hts in the ci"i action which was imp ied y instituted to!ether with the crimina action. *n "iew of the fore!oin!) this Court ho ds that Asst. City Attorney Ariston 6. <u e may appear before the :ustice of the Peace Court of A aminos) La!una as pri"ate prosecutor in this crimina case as an a!ent or a friend of the offended party. 1.ERE<ORE) the appea from the order of the :ustice of the Peace Court of A aminos) La!una) a owin! the apprearance of Ariston 6. <u e as pri"ate prosecutor is dismissed) without costs.

#he abo"e decision is the sub/ect of the instant proceedin!. #he appea shou d be dismissed) for patent y bein! without merits. Aside from the considerations ad"anced by the earned tria /ud!e) heretofore reproduced) and which we consider p ausib e) the fa acy of the theory of defense counse ies in his confused interpretation of (ection ?8 of Ru e $8' Enow (ec. ?9) Ru e $?&) Re"ised Ru esF) which pro"ides that Ano /ud!e or other officia or emp oyee of the superior courts or of the office of the (o icitor Genera ) sha en!a!e in pri"ate practice as a member of the bar or !i"e professiona ad"ice to c ients.A .e c aims that City Attorney <u e) in appearin! as pri"ate prosecutor in the case was en!a!in! in pri"ate practice. 1e be ie"e that the iso ated appearance of City Attorney <u e did not constitute pri"ate practice within the meanin! and contemp ation of the Ru es. Practice is more than an iso ated appearance) for it consists in frequent or customary actions) a succession of acts of the same 3ind. *n other words) it is frequent habitua e-ercise E(tate "s. Cotner) $8') p. $) &' Han. &B=) =8 LRA) M.(. 'B&F. Practice of aw to fa within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customari y or habitua y ho din! oneIs se f out to the pub ic) as customari y and demandin! payment for such ser"ices E(tate "s. 0ryan) = (.E. 988) %& @.C. B==) B='F. #he appearance as counse on one occasion is not conc usi"e as determinati"e of en!a!ement in the pri"ate practice of aw. #he fo owin! obser"ation of the (o icitor Genera is noteworthy, Essentia y) the word pri"ate practice of aw imp ies that one must ha"e presented himse f to be in the acti"e and continued practice of the e!a profession and that his professiona ser"ices are a"ai ab e to the pub ic for a compensation) as a source of his i"e ihood or in consideration of his said ser"ices. <or one thin!) it has ne"er been refuted that City Attorney <u e had been !i"en permission by his immediate superior) the (ecretary of :ustice) to represent the comp ainant in the case at bar) who is a re ati"e. CO@<ORMA0LJ 1*#. ALL #.E <OREGO*@G) the decision appea ed from shou d be) as it is hereby affirmed) in a respects) with costs a!ainst appe ant hq+". *** The Supre e !ourt held that the isolate appearance of !it" Attorne" #ule did not constitute private practice $ithin the eaning and conte plation of the %ules. &ractice is ore than an isolated appearance, for it consists of frequents or custo ar" actions, a succession of facts of the sa e 'ind or frequent ha(itual e)ercise. &ractice of la$ to fall $ithin the prohi(ition of statute has (een interpreted as custo aril" or ha(ituall" holding one*s self out to the pu(lic, as custo aril" and de anding pa" ent for such services. The ere appearance as counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as deter inative of engage ent in the private practice of la$. +t is also $orth noted that, it has never (een refuted that !it" Attorne" #ule had (een given per ission (" his i ediate superior to represent the co plainant in the case at (ar, $ho is a relative. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #7: 9ES4S MA. C4I vs. A+T/+I/ MA. C4I1 /M4L/ C4IG. . +/. L61:;2;A4G4ST 511 1%<7 &ACTS:.ospicio is a charitab e institution estab ished by the spouses 6on Pedro Cui and 6oKa0eni!na Cui) now deceased) Afor the care and support) free of char!e) of indi!entin"a ids) and incapacitated and he p ess persons.A *t acquired corporate e-istence by e!is ation and endowed with e-tensi"e properties by the said spouses throu!h a series of donations) principa y the deed of donation.-(ection 8 of Act @o. ?8?% !a"e the initia mana!ement to the founders /oint y and) incase of their incapacity or death) to Asuch persons as they may nominate or desi!nate) inthe order prescribed to them.A-6on Pedro Cui died in $%8B) and his widow continued to administer the .ospicio unti her death in $%8%. #hereupon the administration passed to Mauricio Cui and 6ionisio :a3osa em who both died. 6r. #eodoro Cui) on y son of Mauricio Cui) became theadministrator.-P aintiff :esus Ma. Cui and defendant Antonio Ma. Cui are brothers) bein! the sons of Mariano Cui) one of the nephews of the spouses 6on Pedro Cui and 6oKa 0eni!na Cui.On 8' <ebruary $%BC the then incumbent administrator) 6r. #eodoro Cui) resi!ned infa"or of Antonio Ma. Cui pursuant to a Acon"enioA entered into between them andembodied in a notaria document. #he ne-t day) 8& <ebruary) Antonio Ma. Cui too3 hisoath of office. :esus Ma. Cui) howe"er) had no prior notice of either the Acon"enioA or of his brotherIs assumption of the position.-6r. #eodoro Cui died on Au!ust 8') $%BC2 on (ept 9) $%BC the p aintiff wrote a etter tothe defendant demandin! that the office be turned o"er to him2 and the demand notha"in! been comp ied with the p aintiff fi ed the comp aint in this case. Romu o Cui ateron inter"ened) c aimin! a ri!ht to the same office) bein! a !randson of >icente Cui)another one of the nephews mentioned by the founders of the .ospicio in their deed of donation. -As between :esus and Antonio the main issue turns upon their respecti"e qua ifications tothe position of administrator. :esus is the o der of the two and therefore under equa circumstances wou d be preferred pursuant to section 8 of the deed of donation. .owe"er)before the test of a!e may be) app ied the deed !i"es preference to the one) amon! the e!itimate descendants of the nephews therein named) Aque posea titu o de abo!ado) omedico) o in!eniero ci"i ) o farmaceutico) o a fa ta de estos titu os e que pa!ue a estadomayor impuesto o contribucion.A-#he specific point in dispute is the meanin! of the term Atitu o de abo!ado.A :esus Ma.Cui ho ds the de!ree of 0ache or of Laws from the Dni"ersity of (anto #omas EC ass$%8BF but is not a member of the 0ar) not ha"in! passed the e-aminations to qua ify himas one. Antonio Ma. Cui) on

the other hand) is a member of the 0ar and a thou!hdisbarred by this Court) he was reinstated by reso ution promu !ated on $C <ebruary$%BC) about two wee3s before he assumed the position of administrator of the .ospiciode 0ari i. - C o u r t a quo - decided in fa"or of the p aintiff) said that the phrase Atitu o de abo!ado)Ata3en a one) means that of a fu -f ed!ed awyer) but that has used in the deed of donationand considerin! the function or purpose of the administrator) it shou d not be !i"en astrict interpretation but a ibera one)A and therefore means a aw de!ree or dip oma of 0ache or of Laws. #his ru in! is assai ed as erroneous both by the defendant and by theinter"enor. ISS4E: 1O@ the p aintiff is not entit ed) as a!ainst the defendant) to the office of administrator. EJE(F

RA#*O, 1hether ta3en a one or in conte-t the term Atitu o de abo!adoA means not merepossession of the academic de!ree of 0ache or of Laws but membership in the 0ar after dueadmission thereto) qua ifyin! one for the practice of aw. A 0ache orIs de!ree a one)conferredby a aw schoo upon comp etion of certain academic requirements) does not entit e itsho derto e-ercise the e!a profession. #he En! ish equi"a ent of Aabo!adoA is awyer or attorney-at- aw. #his term has a fi-ed and !enera si!nification) and has reference to that c ass of personswho are by icense officers of the courts) empowered to appear) prosecute and defend) andupon whom pecu iar duties) responsibi ities and iabi ities are de"o "ed by aw as aconsequence.*n this /urisdiction admission to the 0ar and to the practice of aw is under the authority of the(upreme Court. Accordin! to Ru e $?& such admission requires passin! the 0are-aminations)ta3in! the awyerIs oath and recei"in! a certificate from the C er3 of Court) this certificatebein! his icense to practice the profession. #he academic de!ree of 0ache or of Laws initse f has itt e to do with admission to the 0ar) e-cept as e"idence of comp iance with therequirements that an app icant to the e-aminations has Asuccessfu y comp eted a theprescribed courses) in a aw schoo or uni"ersity) officia y appro"ed by the (ecretary of Education.A <or this purpose) howe"er) possession of the de!ree itse f is not indispensab e,comp etion of the prescribed courses may be shown in some other way. *ndeed there areinstances) particu ar y under the former Code of Ci"i Procedure) where persons who had not!one throu!h any forma e!a education in co e!e were a owed to ta3e the 0are-aminationsand to qua ify as awyers. E(ection $= of that code required possession of Athe necessaryqua ifications of earnin! abi ity.AF Jet certain y it wou d be incorrect to say that such personsdo not possess the Atitu o de abo!adoA because they ac3 the academic de!ree of 0ache orof Laws from some aw schoo or uni"ersity. #he founders of the .ospicio de (an :ose de 0ari i must ha"e estab ished the fore!oin! testad"ise y) and pro"ided in the deed of donation that if not a awyer) the administrator shou dbea doctor or a ci"i en!ineer or a pharmacist) in that order2 or fai in! a these) shou d be theonewho pays the hi!hest ta-es amon! those otherwise qua ified. A awyer) first of a ) because under Act @o. ?8?% the mana!ers or trustees of the .ospicio sha Ama3e re!u ations for the!o"ernment of said institution2 sha Aprescribe the conditions sub/ect to which in"a ids andincapacitated and destitute persons may be admitted to the instituteA2 sha see to it thattheru es and conditions promu !ated for admission are not in conf ict with the pro"isions of theAct2 and sha administer properties of considerab e "a ue L for a of which wor3) it is to bepresumed) a wor3in! 3now ed!e of the aw and a icense to practice the profession wou d beadistinct asset.Dnder this particu ar criterion we ho d that the p aintiff is not entit ed) as a!ainst thedefendant) to the office of administrator.As far as mora character is concerned) the standard required of one see3in! reinstatementtothe office of attorney cannot be ess e-actin! than that imp ied in para!raph ? of the deed of donation as a requisite for the office which is disputed in this case. 1hen the defendant wasrestored to the ro of awyers the restrictions and disabi ities resu tin! from his pre"iousdisbarment were wiped out.<or the c aim of inter"ener and appe ant Romu o Cui. #his party is a so a awyer) !randsonof >icente Cui) one of the nephews of the founders of the .ospicio mentioned by them in thedeed of donation. .e is further) in the ine of succession) than defendant Antonio Ma. Cui)who is a son of Mariano Cui) another one of the said nephews.0esides bein! a nearer descendant than Romu o Cui) Antonio Ma. Cui is o der than he andtherefore is preferred when the circumstances are otherwise equa . #he inter"enor contends that the intention of the founders was to confer the administration by ine and successi"e ytothe descendants of the nephews named in the deed) in the order they are named. #hus) hear!ues) since the ast administrator was 6r. #eodoro Cui) who be on!ed to the Mauricio Cui ine) the ne-t administrator must come from the ine of >icente Cui) to whom the inter"enorbe on!s. #his interpretation) howe"er) is not /ustified by the terms of the deed of donation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #8: +, T-. MATT.% O# &%.O!../+,GS #O% /+S!+&0+,A%1 A!T+O, AGA+,ST ATT-. 0I+CE+TE +o. L62;<87 &e#$(a$y 1:1 1%;0 A4L ALMACE+ G. .

&ACTS:0efore us is Atty. >icente Rau A macenIs APetition to (urrender LawyerIs Certificate of #it e)A fi ed on (eptember 89) $%B') in protest a!ainst what he therein asserts is Aa !reat in/ustice committed a!ainst his c ient by this (upreme Court.A .e indicts this Court) in his own phrase) as a tribuna Apeop ed by men who are ca oused to our p eas for /ustice) who i!nore without reasons their own app icab e decisions and commit cu pab e "io ations of the Constitution with impunity.A .is c ientIs he continues) who was deep y a!!rie"ed by this CourtIs Aun/ust /ud!ment)A has become Aone of the sacrificia "ictims before the a tar of hypocrisy.A *n the same breath that he a udes to the c assic symbo of /ustice) he ridicu es the members of this Court) sayin! Athat /ustice as administered by the present members of the (upreme Court is not on y b ind) but a so deaf and

dumb.A .e then "ows to ar!ue the cause of his c ient Ain the peop eIs forum)A so that Athe peop e may 3now of the si ent in/usticeIs committed by this Court)A and that Awhate"er mista3es) wron!s and in/ustices that were committed must ne"er be repeated.A .e ends his petition with a prayer that ... a reso ution issue orderin! the C er3 of Court to recei"e the certificate of the undersi!ned attorney and counse or-at- aw *@ #RD(# with reser"ation that at any time in the future and in the e"ent we re!ain our faith and confidence) we may retrie"e our tit e to assume the practice of the nob est profession. ISS4E: 1hether Atty. >icente Rau A macen must surrender his Lawyer4s Certificate of #it e. 4LI+G: ACCOR6*@GLJ) *# *( #.E (E@(E of the Court that Atty. >icente Rau A macen be) as he is hereby) suspended from the practice of aw unti further orders) the suspension to ta3e effect immediate y. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #<: I+ E: ATT-. &ELI=A D/ M. DE G4=MA+ 9an(a$y 211 1%;7

&ACTS:>icente < oro fi ed his Answer to the abo"e-mentioned Petition for re ief and he a e!ed that the decision of the City Court was based on an admission made in open court by petitioner La!rimas Lapatha on the basis of which the words AConfession of /ud!mentA were written on the Ae-pedienteA of the case and underneath were affi-ed the si!nature of said petitioner and that of Atty. <e izardo de Guzman2 that the a e!ed payments of La!rimas Lapatha were made after the rendition of the decision to foresta immediate e-ecution of the /ud!ment2 that when petitioner fi ed with the City Court a motion for reconsideration of the decision a e!in! fraud) the true circumstances attendin! the hearin! of @o"ember 8) $%B') were brou!ht out to the satisfaction of petitionerIs counse ) for which reason the City Court denied the motion for reconsideration2 that durin! the hearin! on petitionerIs motion for reconsideration Atty. de Guzman a!reed not to press for the e-ecution of the /ud!ment on the assurance of petitioner that she wou d "acate the premises by :anuary $9) $%B&) howe"er) petitioner did not comp y with her promise and instead fi ed the Petition for Re ief. ISS4E: 1hether the petition for re ief a!ainst the respondent who committed any deceit or misconduct in Ci"i Case @o. $B9$&' of the City Court of Mani a be appro"ed. 4LI+G: 1e a!ree with the (o icitor Genera that in the instant case Athe e"idence is wantin!A to sustain a findin! that respondent committed any deceit or misconduct in Ci"i Case @o. $B9$&' of the City Court of Mani a. *n Go "s. Candoy) $% this Court said, A*t is quite e ementary that in disbarment proceedin!s) the burden of proof rests upon the comp ainant. #o be made the basis for suspension or disbarment of a awyer) the char!e a!ainst him must be estab ished by con"incin! proof. #he record must disc ose as free from doubt a case which compe s the e-ercise by this Court of its discip inary powers. #he dubious character of the act done as we as of the moti"ation thereof must be c ear y demonstrated.A 1.ERE<ORE) this administrati"e comp aint is dismissed and respondent) Atty. <e izardo M. de Guzman) is e-onerated of the char!e. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #;: In t2e Matte$ o3 t2e *etition 3o$ Dis#a$"ent o3 Te)es3o$o A. Diao vs. Seve$ino G. Ma$tine> &a'ts: #e esforo A. 6iao too3 the aw e-aminations in $%9? and was admitted to the 0ar. #wo years ater) (e"erino Martinez char!ed 6iao of fa sifyin! the information in his app ication for such 0ar E-amination. Dpon further in"esti!ation) it was found that 6iao did not finish his hi!h schoo trainin!) and neither did he obtain his Associate in Arts EAAF de!ree from Muisumbin! Co e!e in $%=$. 6iao practica y admits first char!e) but c aims that he ser"ed the D( army) and too3 the Genera C assification #est which) accordin! to 6iao) is equi"a ent to a .i!h (choo 6ip oma) a thou!h he fai ed to submit certification for such c aim from any proper schoo officia s. #he c aim was doubt fu ) howe"er) the second char!e was c ear y meritorious) as 6iao did not obtain his AA de!ree from Muisumbin! Co e!e. 6iao c aims that he was erroneous y certified) and asserts that he obtained his AA from Are ano Dni"ersity in $%=%. #his c aim was sti unacceptab e) as records wou d ha"e shown that 6iao !raduated from the Dni"ersity in Apri $%=%) but he started his Law studies in October $%=& Esecond semester) AJ $%=&-$%=%F and he wou d not ha"e been permitted to ta3e the 0ar) as it is pro"ided in the Ru es) app icants under oath that ;&revious to the study of aw) he had successfu y and satisfactori y comp eted the required pre- e!a education EAAF as required by the 6epartment of Pri"ate EducationN Iss(e: 1hether #e esforo A 6iao shou d be 6isbarred. ()ing:#e esforo A. 6iao was not qua ified to ta3e the 0ar E-ams) but did by fa sifyin! information. Admission under fa se pretenses thus !i"e !rounds for re"o3in! his admission in the 0ar) as passin! the 0ar E-am is not the on y requirement to become an attorney at aw.

#hus) the name #e esforo A. 6iao is de eted from the ro of attorneys and he is required to return his aw dip oma within thirty days. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #:: Atty. Is"ae) G. ?2an 9$. vs. Atty. i>a)ino T. Si"#i))o &a'ts: (imbi o ad"ertised himse f as an ;Annu ment of Marria!e (pecia ist.N #hese ad"ertisements appeared in the :u y 9) 8CCC issue of the Phi ippine 6ai y *nquirer) and further research showed that simi ar ad"ertisements were pub ished in the Mani a 0u etin in Au!ust 8 and B) 8CCC and in the Phi ippine (tar in Au!ust 9) 8CCC. *n (eptember $) 8CCC) (imbi o was char!ed for improper ad"ertisin! and so icitation of e!a ser"ices) fi ed by Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of Pub ic *nformation Office) Atty. *smae G) Hhan. (imbi o4s ad"ertisement undermined the stabi ity and sanctity of marria!e) and "io ated ru es 8.C? and ?.C$ of the Code of Professiona Responsibi ity) and Ru e $?&) (ec. 8' of the Ru es of Court. (imbi o professed repentance and be! for the Court4s indu !ence) this rin!s ho ow as he a!ain ad"ertised his ser"ices in an issue of 0uy and (e <ree Ads @ewspaper in Au!ust $=) 8CC$) and a!ain in October 9) 8CC$. Iss(e: 1O@ Atty. Riza ino (imbi o is !ui ty of "io atin! Ru e 8.C? and Ru e ?.C$ of the Code of Professiona Responsibi ity and Ru e $?&) (ection 8' of theRu es of Court ()ings: Riza ino (imbi o was found to ha"e "io ated Ru es 8.C? and ?.C$ of the Code of Professiona Responsibi ty) and Ru e $?&) section 8' of the Ru es of Court) and therefore) suspended from the practice of Law for One year. Repetition of the same or simi ar offense wi be dea t with more se"ere y.
-eld2 &etitioner $as suspended fro the practice of la$ for one "ear and $as sternl" $arned that a repetition of the sa e or si ilar offense $ill (e dealt $ith ore severel" %atio2 The practice of la$ is not a (usiness. +t is a profession in $hich dut" to pu(lic service, not one" is the pri ar" consideration %easoning2 -%ule 3.45 - A la$"er shall not do or per it to (e done an" act designed pri aril" to solicit legal (usiness - %ule 5.46 - A la$"er shall not use or per it the use of an" false, fraudulent, isleading, deceptive, undignified, selflaudator" or unfair state ent orclai regarding his qualifications or legal services. - %ule 657, Sec 38 of the %ules of !ourt states2 /is(ar ent and suspension of attorne"s (" Supre e !ourt, grounds therefore.9 A e (er of the (ar a" (edis(arred or suspended fro his office as attorne" (" the Supre e !ourt for an" deceit, alpractice, or other gross isconduct in such office, grossl"i oral conduct or (" reason of his conviction of a cri e involving oral turpitude, or for an" violation of the oath $hich he is required to ta'e (efore thead ission to practice, or for a $illful diso(edience appearing as attorne" for a part" $ithout authorit" to do so. - The follo$ing ele ents distinguish legal profession fro (usiness2 6. A dut" of pu(lic service 3. A relation as an :officer of the court; to the ad inistration of <ustice involving thorough sincerit", integrit" and relia(ilit" 5. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciar" =. A relation to colleagues at the (ar characteri>ed (" candor, fairness, and un$illingness to resort to current (usiness ethods of advertising andencroach ent on their practice, or dealing directl" $ith their clients. - %espondent advertised hi self as an :Annul ent Specialist,; and (" this he under ined the sta(ilit" and sanctit" of arriage 9encouraging people $ho ight have other$ise (een disinclined and $ould have refrained for dissolving their arriage (onds, to do so. - Solicitation of legal (usiness is not altogether proscri(ed, ho$ever, for solicitation to (e proper, it ust (e co pati(le $ith the dignit" of the legalprofession.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #%: OA. C. @o. 9=&9. March $B) 8CC9P ELME $es!ondent. CA+/-1 'o"!)ainant1 vs. ATT-. 9/SE MA@ / TI=1

Canoy was amon! those ow-income c ients whom Atty. Ortiz dei!ned to represent. .e c aims ha"in! prepared the position paper of Canoy) but before he cou d submit the same) the Labor Arbiter had a ready issued the order dismissin! the case. Atty. Ortiz admits thou!h that the period within which to fi e the position paper had a ready apsed. .e attributes this fai ure to time y fi e the position paper to the fact that after his e ection as Counci or because he was too busy.N E"entua y) he withdrew from his other cases and his free e!a ser"ices. Comp ainant fi ed this comp aint but ater on withdrew . .e d, (D(PE@6E6, E$F month) with 1AR@*@G that a repetition of the same ne! i!ence wi be dea t with more se"ere y. (ti ) the se"erance of the re ation of attorney-c ient is not effecti"e unti a notice of dischar!e by the c ient or a

manifestation c ear y indicatin! that purpose is fi ed with the court or tribuna ) and a copy thereof ser"ed upon the ad"erse party) and unti then) the awyer continues to be counse in the case. Assumin! that Atty. Ortiz was /ustified in terminatin! his ser"ices) he) howe"er) cannot /ust do so and ea"e comp ainant in the co d unprotected. *ndeed) Ru e 88.C8 requires that a awyer who withdraws or is dischar!ed sha ) sub/ect to a ien) immediate y turn o"er a papers and property to which the c ient is entit ed) and sha cooperate with his successor in the order y transfer of the matter. Atty. Ortiz c aims that the reason why he too3 no further action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy had acquired the ser"ices of another counse . Assumin! that were true) there was no apparent coordination between Atty. Ortiz and this new counse . ;#here are no !ood reasons that wou d /ustify a awyer "irtua y abandonin! the cause of the c ient in the midst of iti!ation without e"en informin! the c ient of the fact or cause of desertion. #hat the awyer forsoo3 his e!a practice on account of what mi!ht be percei"ed as a hi!her ca in!) e ection to pub ic office) does not miti!ate the dere iction of professiona duty. (uspension from the practice is the usua pena ty) and there is no reason to de"iate from the norm in this case.N --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #10: Ao$Ba1 S$. vs. S()ya!1 In'. 5%% SC A <01 (2005) /O!T%+,.2 ?&rivate practice? of a profession, specificall" the la$ profession does not pertain to an isolated court appearance@ rather, it conte plates a succession of acts of the sa e nature ha(ituall" or custo aril" holding ones self to the pu(lic as a la$"er. &ACTS:0asi io 0or/a) (r. as essor) and (u yap) *nc.) as essee) entered into a contract of ease in"o "in! a onestorey office bui din! owned by 0or/a ocated at @ew Mani a)Muezon City. Pursuant to the ease) (u yap) *nc. paid) amon! others) ad"ance renta s)association dues and deposit for e ectrica and te ephone e-penses. Dpon the e-piration of their ease contract) (u yap demanded the return of the said ad"ance renta s) dues and deposit but 0or/a refused to do so. #hus) (u yap fi ed with the R#C of MC a comp aint for sum of money a!ainst 0or/a. (ubsequent y) the parties entered into and submitted to the tria court a ;Compromise A!reementN statin! that 0or/a is bound to pay the amounts P?C)9'9 and P9C)CCC and in case any amount due is not paid within the period stated in this a!reement sha earn 8Q interest per month unti fu y paid p us 89Q attorney4s fees of the amount co ectib e and that writ of e-ecution sha be issued as a matter of ri!ht. Petitioner) howe"er) fai ed to pay the amounts stated in the /udicia compromise. (u yapfi ed a writ of e-ecution a!ainst 0or/a. #he #ria Court !ranted the writ. 0or/a motioned to quash the writ by statin! that his fai ure to pay the amounts within the a!reed period was due to (u yap4s fau t2 therefore) the pena ty c ause shou d not be imposed. 0or/a fi ed another motion prayin! for the quasha of the writ of e-ecution and modification of the decision. #his time) he contended that there was fraud in the e-ecution of the compromise a!reement. .e c aimed that ? sets of compromise a!reement were submitted for his appro"a . Amon! them) he a e!ed y chose and si!ned the compromise a!reement which contained no stipu ation as to the payment of 8Q month y interest and 89Q attorney4s fees in case of defau t in payment. .e a e!ed that his former counse ) Atty. Leonardo Cruz) who assisted him in enterin! into the said a!reement) remo"ed the pa!e of the !enuine compromise a!reement where he affi-ed his si!nature and fraudu ent y attached the same to the compromise a!reement submitted to the court in order to ma3e it appear that he a!reed to the pena ty c ause embodied therein. (u yap presented Atty. Cruz as witness) who dec ared that the petitioner !a"e his consent to the inc usion of the pena ty c ause of 8Q month y interest and 89Q attorney4s fees in the compromise a!reement. .e added that the compromise a!reement appro"ed by the court was in fact si!ned by the petitioner inside the courtroom before the same was submitted for appro"a . Atty. Cruz stressed that the pena ty c ause of 8Q interest per month unti fu payment of the amount due) p us 89Q thereof as attorney4s fees) in case of defau t in payment) was actua y chosen by the petitioner. #he tria court ru ed in fa"our of (u yap because it !a"e credence to the testimony of Atty. Cruz and e"en noted that it was more than one year from receipt of the /ud!ment on compromise on October 89) $%%9) when he questioned the inc usion of the pena ty c ause in the appro"ed compromise a!reement despite se"era opportunities to raise said ob/ection. ISS4E: 1hether 0or/a is bound by the pena ty c ause in the compromise a!reement. HELD: JE(. 1hi e a /udicia compromise may be annu ed or modified on the !round of"itiated consent or for!ery) we find that the testimony of the petitioner fai ed to estab ish the attendance of fraud in the instant case. @o e"idence was presented by petitioner other than his bare a e!ation that his former counse fraudu ent y attached the pa!e of the !enuine compromise a!reement where he affi-ed his si!nature to the compromise a!reement submitted to the court. Petitioner cannot fei!n i!norance of the e-istence of the pena ty c ause in the compromise a!reement appro"ed by the court. 1hen he recei"ed the /ud!ment reproducin! the fu te-t of the compromise a!reement) to <ebruary $%) $%%') he ne"er raised the issue of the fraudu ent inc usion of the pena ty c ause in their a!reement. 1e note that petitioner is a doctor of medicine. .e must ha"e read and understood the contents of

the /ud!ment on compromise. *n fact) on @o"ember $?) $%%9) he fi ed) without the assistance of counse ) a motion prayin! that the amounts of P9C)CCC.CC and ?')9'9.CC be withhe d from his tota ob i!ation and instead be app ied to the e-penses for the repair of the eased premises which was a e!ed y "anda ized by the pri"ate respondent E"en assumin! that Atty. Leonardo Cruz e-ceeded his authority in insertin! the pena ty c ause) the status of the said c ause is not "oid but mere y "oidab e) i.e.) capab e of bein! ratified.$' *ndeed) petitioner4s fai ure to question the inc usion of the 8Q month y interest and 89Q attorney4s fees in the /udicia compromise despite se"era opportunities to do so was tantamount to ratification. .ence) he is estopped from assai in! the "a idity thereof. <ina y) we find no merit in petitionerIs contention that the compromise a!reement shou d be annu ed because Atty. Cruz) who assisted him in enterin! into such a!reement) was then an emp oyee of the Muezon City !o"ernment) and is thus prohibited from en!a!in! in the pri"ate practice of his profession. (uffice it to state that the iso ated assistance pro"ided by Atty. Cruz to the petitioner in enterin! into a compromise a!reement does not constitute a prohibited Apri"ate practiceA of aw by a pub ic officia . APri"ate practiceA of a profession) specifica y the aw profession does not pertain to an iso ated court appearance2 rather) it contemp ates a succession of acts of the same nature habitua y or customari y ho din! ones se f to the pub ic as a awyer. (uch was ne"er estab ished in the instant case. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #11: OA.C. @o. =8$%. 6ecember &) 8CC?P L/THA &L/ ES1 $es!ondent. SCH4L=1 'o"!)ainant1 vs. ATT-. MA CEL/ G.

&ACTS: Atty. < ores 3new too itt e of the pro"isions and app ication of P6 @o. $9C& which mandates that a disputes) e-cept those specifica y cited Ethe dispute between Lothar (chu z and 1i son On! not inc udedF) between and amon! residents of the same city or municipa ity shou d be brou!ht first under the system of baran!ay conci iation before recourse to the court can be a owed. 0ecause of respondent4s trans!ressions) his c ient was ha ed to court as part-defendant. Respondent a so refused to return petitioner4s money in spite of his mea!er ser"ice. .e d, GD*L#J of ne! i!ence and incompetence. (D(PE@6E6 for EBF months. RE#DR@ the money of comp ainant with interest. (#ER@LJ 1AR@E6 that a commission of the same or simi ar act in the future wi be dea t with more se"ere y. #he breach of respondent4s sworn duty as a awyer and of the ethica standards he was strict y to honor and obser"e has been sufficient y estab ished. Respondent has fa en short of the competence and di i!ence required of e"ery member of the 0ar. *****
CANON 17. A A 0AB1.% OB.S #+/.0+T1 TO T-. !ACS. O# -+S !0+.,T A,/ -. S-A00 B. M+,/#C0 O# T-. T%CST A,/ !O,#+/.,!. %.&OS./ +, -+M. CANON 18. A A 0AB1.% S-A00 S.%D. -+S !0+.,T B+T- !OM&.T.,!. A,/ /+0+G.,!. Rule 18.03 A A la$"er shall not neglect a legal shall render hi lia(le. atter entrusted to hi and his negligence in connection there$ith

%espondent erred in not returning co plainant*s one" despite de ands after his failure to file the case and his devious act of co pelling co plainant to sign a docu ent stating that he has no financial o(ligation to co plainant in e)change of the return of co plainant*s papers. This conduct violated the follo$ing !anon2 CANON 15. A A 0AB1.% S-A00 OBS.%D. !A,/O%, #A+%,.SS, A,/ 0O1A0T1 +, A00 -+S /.A0+,GS A,/ T%A,SA!T+O,S B+T- -+S !0+.,T. Rule 16.03. A A la$"er shall deliver the funds and propert" of client $hen due or upon de and. The failure of an attorne" to return the client*s one" upon de and gives rise to the presu ption that he has isappropriated it for his o$n use to the pre<udice and violation of the trust reposed in hi (" the client. +t is not onl" a gross violation of the general oralit" as $ell as of professional ethics@ it also i pairs pu(lic confidence in the legal profession and deserves punish ent. +n short, it is settled that the un<ustified $ithholding of one" (elonging to his client, as in this case, $arrants the i position of disciplinar" action. A la$"er ust conduct hi self, especiall" in his dealings $ith his clients, $ith integrit" in a anner that is (e"ond reproach. -is relationship $ith his clients should (e characteri>ed (" the highest degree of good faith and fairness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #12: Ade)ino H. Ledes"a vs Hon. a3ae) C. C)i"a'oEGR @o. L-8?&$9) :une 8&) $%'=F

&a'ts: Petitioner) on October $?) $%B=) was appointed E ection Re!istrar for the Municipa ity of Cadiz) Pro"ince of @e!ros Occidenta . #hen and there) he commenced to dischar!e its duties. As he was counse de parte for one of the accused in a case pendin! in the sa a of respondent :ud!e) he fi ed a motion to withdraw as such. @ot on y did respondent :ud!e deny such motion) but he a so appointed him counse de oficio for the two defendants. (ubsequent y) on @o"ember ?) $%B=) petitioner fi ed an ur!ent motion to be a owed to withdraw as counse de oficio) premised on the po icy of the Commission on E ections to require fu time ser"ice as we as on the "o ume or pressure of wor3 of petitioner) which cou d pre"ent him from hand in! adequate y the defense. Respondent :ud!e) in the cha en!ed order of @o"ember B) $%B=) denied said motion. A motion for reconsideration ha"in! pro"ed futi e) he instituted this certiorari proceedin!. #he (C found the petition without merit. As stated in the assai ed order of the respondent /ud!e) e"en before the petitioner accepted the appointment to the Come ec) he 3new that the case was !oin! to resume on that day) that the case has been de ayed ei!ht times at the instance of the petitioner) and that hiswor3 as an e ection re!istrar wi not be in conf ict with his ser"in! as counse de oficio for the said accused. #he hi!h court described the petitioner as unmindfu of his wor3 as counse de oficio and reminded him that membership in the bar is a pri"i e!e burdened with conditions inc udin! that of bein! appointed counse de oficio which ma3es e"en more manifest that aw is indeed a profession dedicated to the idea of ser"ice and not a mere trade. *n the end) the Court cha en!ed the petitioner to ;e-ert himse f sufficient y to perform his tas3 as defense counse with competence) if not with zea ) if on y toerase doubts as to his fitness to remain a member of the profession in !ood standin!N and added that ;the admonition is e"er time y for those enro ed in theran3s of e!a practitioners that there are times) and this is one of them) when duty to court and to c ient ta3es precedence o"er the promptin!s of se f-interest.N --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #15:
CARLO( REJE( "s. A##J. :EREM*A( R. >*#A@ CEL*A ARROJO-PO(*6*O "s A##J. :EREM*A( R. >*#A@ >*OLE#A #A.A1 "s. A##J. :EREM*A( R. >*#A@ MAR JD(O@ A##J. :EREM*A( R. >*#A@ Present, CORO@A) !.J., CARP*O) CARP*O-MORALE() >ELA(CO) :R.)7 @AC.DRA) LEO@AR6O-6E CA(#RO) 0R*O@) PERAL#A) 0ER(AM*@) Promu !ated, Au!ust $C) 8C$C 6EL CA(#*LLO) A0A6) >*LLARAMA) :R.) PERER) and ME@6ORA) JJ. A.C. A.C. A.C. A.C. @o. @o. @o. @o. 9&?9 BC9$ B==$ B%99

ES/L4TI/+

+ACH4 A1 J.: #his refers to the undated Petition fi ed with the Office of the 0ar Confidant EO0CF on :u y 8&) 8CC% by Atty. :eremias R. >itan) prayin! that he be reinstated as member in !ood standin! of the Phi ippine 0ar and be a owed to resume the practice of aw) c aimin! that he had a ready ser"ed the pena ty of suspension imposed on him) and that he is now reformed. As bac3!round) four E=F administrati"e cases were fi ed a!ainst Atty. :eremias R. >itan) in each of which he was found !ui ty and meted the pena ty of suspension from the practice of aw. *n the first case) A.C. @o. B==$, EDioleta %. Taha$ v. Att". Jere ias %. DitanF) promu !ated on October 8$) 8CC=)O$P Atty. >itan was suspended for si- EBFmonths) effecti"e immediate y upon receipt of the 6ecision. .e was further ordered to return the amount of P?C)CCC to comp ainant for e!a ser"ices he did not render. #he records disc ose that respondent recei"ed the 6ecision on @o"ember $8) 8CC= and the period of suspension wou d ha"e ended on May $8) 8CC9. *n A.C. @o. 9&?9) E!arlos B. %e"es v. Att". Jere ias %. DitanF) promu !ated on Apri $9) 8CC9)O8P Atty. >itan was suspended for si- EBF months2 and ordered to pay comp ainant P$')CCC.CC with interest of $8Q per annum from the date of the promu !ation of the 6ecision unti the fu amount sha ha"e been returned. Per records) the Court4s decision was recei"ed by him on May $?) 8CC9) and his suspension wou d ha"e ended on @o"ember $?) 8CC9. *n A.C. @o. B%99 EMar 1uson v. Att". Jere ias %. DitanF) promu !ated on :u y 8') 8CCB)O?P respondent was found iab e for his fai ure to pay a /ust debt in the amount of P$CC)CCC.CC. Dpon in"esti!ation) the *nte!rated 0ar of the Phi ippines E*0PF imposed the pena ty of (uspension for two E8F years. #his was modified by the Court after findin! that there was partia payment of the oan) and the pena ty was reduced to si- EBF months

suspension with warnin!) effecti"e upon receipt of the 6ecision. *n a Motion to Lift Order of (uspension) respondent mo"ed for the reconsideration of the decision) assertin! that there was fu payment of the oan. #he motion was denied in the Reso ution dated March B) 8CC'. *n this connection) the O0C noted respondent4s shrewdness by mo"in! out of his !i"en address to e"ade receipt of the copy of the decisionSreso utions of the Court. After di i!ent efforts at searchin! for respondent4s correct address pro"ed una"ai in!) the Court in its Reso ution dated :u y $') 8CC') considered the March B) 8CC' Reso ution as ha"in! been ser"ed on respondent. *n the decision in the fourth case) A.C. @o. BC9$) E!elia Arro"o-&esidio v. Att". Jere ias %. DitanF) promu !ated on Apri 8) 8CC')O=P respondent was found to ha"e fai ed to render the e!a ser"ices sou!ht after he had recei"ed the amount of P$CC)CCC) and was once a!ain) suspended for one E$F year) with stern warnin!. #he 6ecision was recei"ed on Apri $&) 8CC') so the suspension period shou d ha"e apsed on Apri $&) 8CC&. Dpon the recommendation of the O0C) the four administrati"e cases were conso idated. O9P *n a Report dated <ebruary 8?) 8C$C) the O0C noted that respondent has been repeated y suspended from the practice of aw) for an a!!re!ate period of ?C months or 8 T years. Accordin! y) respondent shou d ha"e ser"ed the orders of suspension successi"e y pursuant to the Court4s reso ution in A.M. @o. R#:-C=-$&9') entit ed ;Ga(riel de la &a> v. Judge Santos B. Adiong)N where the Court c ear y stated that ;in case of two or more suspensions) the same sha be ser"ed successi"e y by the errin! respondent.NOBP *t is) therefore) incumbent upon respondent to show to the Court that he has desisted from the practice of aw for a period of at east 8 T years. #he Court) in the recent case of 0iga"a Maniago v. Att". 0ourdes +. /e /ios,[7] issued the !uide ines on the iftin! of orders of suspension) and has ad"ised strict obser"ance thereof. .owe"er) the Court wi not hesitate to withho d the pri"i e!e of the practice of aw if it is shown that respondent) as an officer of the Court) is sti not worthy of the trust and confidence of his c ients and of the pub ic. #hus) app yin! the !uide ines in Maniago, the Court Reso "ed to G A+T Respondent4s Petition for Reinstatement) effecti"e upon his submission to the Court of a (worn (tatement attestin! to the fact, $F that he has comp ete y ser"ed the four E=F suspensions imposed on him successi"e y2 8F that he had desisted from the practice of aw) and has not appeared as counse in any court durin! the periods of suspension) as fo ows, EaF (i- EBF months suspension in A.C. @o. 9&?9 from May $?) 8CC9 to @o"ember $?) 8CC92 EbF One E$F year suspension in A.C. @o. BC9$ from Apri $&) 8CC' to Apri $&) 8CC&2 EcF (i- EBF months suspension in A.C. @o. B==$ from @o"ember $8) 8CC= to May $8) 8CC92 and EdF (i- EBF months suspension in A.C. @o. B%99 from date of receipt of the Reso ution dated March B) 8CC' denyin! the Motion for Reconsideration of the 6ecision dated :u y 8') 8CCB. ?F that he has returned the sums of money to the comp ainants as ordered by the Court in the fo owin! cases) attachin! proofs thereof, EaF *n A.C. @o. 9&?9 5 the sum of P$')CCC with interest of $8Q per annum from the date of promu !ation of the 6ecision unti the fu amount sha ha"e been returned2 and EbF *n A.C. @o. B==$ 5 the amount of P?C)CCC. Atty. :eremias R. >itan is further directed to &4 +ISH copies of the (worn (tatement to the *nte!rated 0ar of the Phi ippines and E-ecuti"e :ud!eEsF) as mandated in Maniago. Any findin! or report contrary to the statements made by the Respondent under oath sha be a !round for the imposition of a more se"ere punishment) or disbarment) as may be warranted. S/ / DE ED. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #17: S!o(ses /LAES 0S. Atty. 0ICT/ 0. DECIEMA E AC-9?B9. Apri 8') 8CC9

&a'ts: Atty. >ictor >. 6eciembre was !i"en fi"e b an3 chec3s by (pouses O bes for security of a oan. After the oan was paid and a receipt issued) Atty. 6eciembre fi ed up four of the fi"e chec3s for P9C) CCC with different maturity date. A chec3s were dishonored. #hus) Atty. 6eciembre f ed a case for estafa a!ainst the spouses O bes. #his prompted the spouses O bes to fi e a disbarment case a!ainst Atty. 6eciembre with the Office of the 0ar Confidant of this Court. *n the report) Commissioner 6u ay recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of aw for two years for "io atin! Ru e $.C$ of the Code of Professiona Responsibi ity. Iss(e: 1hether or not the suspension of Atty. 6eciembre was in accord with his fau t. He)d: Membership in the e!a profession is a specia pri"i e!e burdened with conditions. *t is bestowed upon

indi"idua s who are not on y earned in the aw) but a so 3nown to possess !ood mora character. ;A awyer is an oath-bound ser"ant of society whose conduct is c ear y circumscribed by inf e-ib e norms of aw and ethics) and whose primary duty is the ad"ancement of the quest for truth and /ustice) for which he has sworn to be a fear ess crusader.N 0y ta3in! the awyer4s oath) an attorney becomes a !uardian of truth and the ru e of aw) and an indispensab e instrument in the fair and impartia administration of /ustice. Lawyers shou d act and comport themse "es with honesty and inte!rity in a manner beyond reproach) in order to promote the pub ic4s faith in the e!a profession. *t is a so ! arin! y c ear that the Code of Professiona Responsibi ity was serious y trans!ressed by his ma e"o ent act of fi in! up the b an3 chec3s by indicatin! amounts that had not been a!reed upon at a and despite respondent4s fu 3now ed!e that the oan supposed to be secured by the chec3s had a ready been paid. .is was a brazen act of fa sification of a commercia document) resorted to for his materia !ain. 6eception and other fraudu ent acts are not mere y unacceptab e practices that are dis!racefu and dishonorab e2 they re"ea a basic mora f aw. #he standards of the e!a profession are not satisfied by conduct that mere y enab es one to escape the pena ties of crimina aws. Considerin! the depra"ity of the offense committed by respondent) we find the pena ty recommended by the *0P of suspension for two years from the practice of aw to be too mi d. .is propensity for emp oyin! deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensib e. .is misuse of the fi ed-up chec3s that ed to the detention of one petitioner is oathsome. #hus) he is sentenced suspended indefinite y from the practice of aw effecti"e immediate y. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #18: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #1<: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #1;: *eo!)e vs de )(na et a) G 1025<67: Generoso .. .ubi a. Emi io P. :ardinico) :r. An!e o #. Lopez. Eustacio de Luna. :aime P. Marco. (antos L. Parina. < orencio P. (u!aro ) and Maria >e ez y Estre as pass the bar e-ams. Esa notary pub ic pa /udF

Oreste Are ano y Rodri!uez. Pedro 0. Ayuda. A awadin *. 0andon. Roque :. 0riones. Abraham C. Ca a!uas. 0a bino P. <a/ardo. C aro C. Gofredo. Este a R. Gordo. -too3 an oath as a awyer e"en thou!h they did not

4LI+G: *t appearin! that the persons mentioned) e-cept Capitu o) Gefredo) and (u!aro ) ha"e not passed the e-aminations) it was reso "ed, A. #o refer the matter to the <isca ) City of Mani a for in"esti!ation and appropriate action in connection with (ection ? EeF) Ru e B=2 0. As Pedro Ayuda has assumed to be an attorney without authority) he is !i"en $C days from notice thereof) within which to e-p ain why he shou d not be dea t with for contempt of the Court2 C. #he notary pub ic Anato io A. A coba) member of the 0ar) who has i e!a y administered the oath to the said persons in disre!ard of this CourtIs reso ution denyin! them admission to the 0ar Ee-cept Capitu o) Gofredo and (u!aro F) is hereby !i"en ten days to show cause why he shou d not be disbarred or suspended from the pratice of aw2 6. #he c er3 of Court is directed to furnish copy of this reso ution to the Court of Appea s and to a courts of first instance) the Court of *ndustria Re ations) the Pub ic (er"ice Commission) and the 6epartment of :ustice2 E. As to Capitu o) Gofredo and (u!aro ) proper action wi be ta3en ater in their respecti"e cases. Epp. ?B-?') rec.) G.R. @o. L-$C8=9.F *t is c ear) from the fore!oin! reso ution) that this Court did not intend to e-ercise its concurrent /urisdiction o"er the acts of a e!ed contempt committed by appe ees herein and that we preferred that the correspondin! action be ta3en by the City <isca of Mani a in the Court of <irst *nstance of Mani a. *n fine) the atter had no /urisdiction o"er the cases at the bar. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1::

Les)ie 4i vs. Atty. I$is Aoni3a'io AC#551% 9(ne :1 2000

&a'ts: Les ie Di and Car os Di were married on :anuary $%'$. On :une $%&&) Les ieconfronted the respondent Atty. *ris 0onifacio for the i icit affair . Respondentadmitted the re ationship and said that she wi cut off the said re ationship. On6ecember $%&& Car os and *ris had a second chi d. On March $%&% comp ainantp eaded to respondent to stop their i icit re ationship.On Atty *ris4 side) she asserts that she had no 3now ed!e of Car os4 pre"iousmarria!e. Car os Di was the one who represented himse f as sin! e durin! theircourtship. (he submitted her Certificate of marria!e dated Oct. $%&9 to court. Dponthe court4s in"esti!ation it was found out that the marria!e was in fact on Oct $%&'. *n the case at bar) it is the c aim of respondent Atty. 0onifacio that when shemet Car os Di) she 3new and be ie"ed him to be sin! e. Respondent fe in o"e withhim and they !ot married and as a resu t of such marria!e) she !a"e birth to two E8Fchi dren. Dpon her 3now ed!e of the true ci"i status of Car os Di) she eft him ISS4E, 1hether or not Atty *ris 0onifacio is !ui ty of !ross immora conduct as a!round for disbarment 4LI+G: RE(OL>E6 to A6OP# and APPRO>E) as it is hereby A6OP#E6 and APPRO>E6)the Report and Recommendation of the *n"esti!atin! Commissioner in the abo"e-entit ed case) herein made part of thisReso utionS6ecision as Anne- AAA) and) findin! the recommendation fu y supportedby the e"idence on record and the app icab e aws and ru es) the comp aint forGross *mmora ity a!ainst Respondent is 6*(M*((E6 for ac3 of merit. Atty. *ris0onifacio is REPR*MA@6E6 for 3nowin! y and wi fu yattachin! to her Answer a fa sified Certificate of Marria!e with a stern warnin! thata repetition of the same wi merit a more se"ere pena ty. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #1%: E)"e$ Canoy1 complainant v. Atty. 9ose MaC /$ti>1 re pon!ent 2008 A.C. +o. 87:8 Ma$'2 1<1

&a'ts: #his is a case wherein comp ainant E mer Canoy accused his former counse ) Atty. :ose Ma- Ortiz of misconduct and ma practice. *n $%%&) Canoy fi ed a comp aint for i e!a dismissa a!ainst his former emp oyer) Coca Co a 0ott ers Phi ippines) and was represented in said case by Atty. Ortiz. Canoy) e-p ained Ortiz) was one of his indi!ent c ients) in that it was the atter4s practice since commencin! his practice of aw to cater to indi!ent and aw-income c ients. *n the abor case a!ainst CC0P fi ed with the @ationa Labor Re ations Commission) the abor arbiter ordered the parties to submit their respecti"e petition papers. Canoy submitted a the necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. Canoy made se"era fo ow-ups with the office of his attorney) said "isits were unfruitfu unti it came to his 3now ed!e on 8CCC) upon inquirin! with the @LRC itse f) that his comp aint was a ready dismissed way bac3 in $%%& for fai ure to prosecute because the parties did not submit their position papers. Atty. Canoy further c aimed that Atty. Ortiz ne"er informed him about the status of his case nor of the fact that he fai ed to submit the position paper. *n his !o ent) Atty. Ortiz admitted to not bein! ab e to submit the position paper because the period within which to fi e it apsed a ready) with arbiter a ready dismissin! the case) but reasoned out that his e ection as a Counci or of 0aco od City made him "ery preoccupied with his functions. .is duties as a pub ic ser"ant and a awyer are ;beyond physica imitationN) said Atty. Ortiz) so he had to withdraw from his other cases. .e a so c aimed of not bein! ab e to remember whether he immediate y informed Canoy of the dismissa of the case) but reca ed of Canoy con"eyin! that he a ready has a awyer to hand e the case. .ence) his office did not insist on refi in! the case. Atty Ortiz a so pointed out that the dismissa of Canoy4s comp aint was without pre/udice. Iss(e: 1hether or not Atty. Ortiz is !ui ty of misconduct and ma practice ()ing:Dpon in"esti!ation of the case) the *nte!rated 0ar of the Phi ippinesconc uded that c ear y ;Atty. Ortiz fai ed to e-ercise the de!ree of competence and di i!ence required of him in prosecutin! his c ientN and recommended that Atty. Ortiz be reprimanded. #he (upreme Court) howe"er) finds the recommended pena ty of the *0P too enent and instead suspended Atty. Ortize from the practice of aw for one month) in ieu of the admonition or reprimand. Accordin! to the Court) Atty Ortiz se"era canons and ru es in the Code of Professiona Responsibi ity. (pecifica y) Atty. Ortiz was !ui ty of "io atin! Ru e $&.C? of the Code) which states) ;A awyer sha not ne! ect a e!a matter entrusted to him) and his ne! i!ence in connection therewith sha render him iab e)N on account of his fai ure to fi e the position paper on time) tantamount to ne! ectin! a e!a mater entrusted to him. #hat the case was dismissed without pre/udice does not miti!ate his iabi ity. <urther) Ortiz a so "io ated Ru e 88.C8) which states);A aywer sha withdraw his ser"ices on y for !ood cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.N #herefore) e"en if Atty. Ortiz was /ustified in terminatin! his ser"ices due to his e ecti"e position) he shou d ha"e coordinated with the new counci of Canoy and turned o"er to the atter a papers and property which the C ient is entit ed and shou d ha"e cooperated with his successor in the order y transfer of the matter) as per Ru e 88.C8.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #20: La!(t vs. e"otig(e 1 9. (En Aan') < SC A 78(A.M. +o. 21%1 2% Se!te"#e$ 1%<2) LAA AD/ 1

&ACTS: Petitioner ATT-. CASIA+/ 4. LA*4T char!e respondents ATT-. & A+CISC/ E.&. EM/TIG4E and ATT-. &/ T4+AT/ *. *ATALI+GH4G with unprofessiona and unethica conduct in so icitin! cases and intri!uin! a!ainst a brother awyer. *n May $%98) @ie"es Ri as> d a . d e 0 a r r e r a r e t a i n e d p e t i t i o n e r A t t y . L a p u t t o h a n d e h e r A # e s t a t e E s t a t e o f M a c a r i o 0arreraA case in C<*-Cebu. 0y :an. $%99) petitioner had prepared two p eadin!s, (1) c osin! of administration proceedin!s) and E8F renderin! of fina accountin! and partition of said estate.Mrs. 0arrera did not countersi!n both p eadin!s. Petitioner found out ater that respondentAtty. Pata in!hu! had fi ed on $$ :an. $%99 a written appearance as the new counse for Mrs.0arrera. On 9 <eb. $%99) petitioner "o untari y as3ed the court to be re ie"ed as Mrs. 0arrera4scounse .Petitioner a e!ed that, (1) respondents4 appearances were unethica and improper2 (2) theymade Mrs. 0arrera si!n documents re"o3in! the petitioner4s ;Power of AttorneyA purported y todisauthorize him from further co ectin! and recei"in! di"idends of the estate from Mr. Macario0arrera4s corporations) and ma3e him appear as a dishonest awyer and no on!er trusted byhis c ient2 and (5) Atty. Pata in!hu! entered his appearance without notice to petitioner. Respondent Atty. Pata in!hu! answered that when he entered his appearance on $$ :an. $%99Mrs. 0arrera had a ready ost confidence in her awyer) and had a ready fi ed a p eadin! dischar!in! his ser"ices. #he other respondent Atty. Remoti!ue answered that when he fi edhis appearance on ' <eb. $%99) the petitioner had a ready withdrawn as counse . #he (C referred the case to the (o Gen for in"esti!ation) report and recommendation. #he atter recommended the comp ete e-oneration of respondents. ISS4E: 1hether or not Atty. Remoti!ue and Atty Pata in!hu! are !ui ty of unprofessiona andunethica conduct in so icitin! cases. 4LI+G: +o. T2e SC 3o(nd no i$$eg()a$ity in t2e a!!ea$an'e o3 Atty. *ata)ing2(g as 'o(nse)3o$ M$s. 0arrera2 and there was no actua !rabbin! of a case from petitioner because Atty.Pata in!hu!Is professiona ser"ices were contracted by the widow. 0esides) the petitionerIs"o untary withdrawa on 9 <eb. $%99) and his fi in! a most simu taneous y of a motion for thepayment of his attorneyIs fees) amounted to consent to the appearance of Atty. Pata in!hu! ascounse for the widow. #he ( C a s o h e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t A t t y . R e m o t i ! u e w a s a s o n o t ! u i t y o f u n p r o f e s s i o n a cond uct in as much as he entered his appearance) dated 9 <eb. $%99) on y on ' <ebruary $%99)after Mrs. 0arrera had dispensed with petitionerIs professiona ser"ices) and after petitionerhad "o untari y withdrawn his appearance.As to Atty. Pata in!hu!4s preparation of documents re"o3in! the petitioner4s power of attorney)the (o Gen found that the same does not appear to be prompted by ma ice or intended to hurtpetitionerIs fee in!s) but pure y to safe!uard the interest of the administratri-.Case dismissed and c osed for no sufficient e"idence submitted to sustain the char!es. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------