Assigned cases for Anna Marie Bergado Ethics Set 2

1.

In Re: Adriano Hernandez (1993)

Wla jud koy makita

2.

In Re: Argosino, 270 SCRA 26

FACTS:
Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but was denied of taking the Lawyers Oath and to
sign the Rolls of Attorneys due to his conviction of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide from a
hazing incident. Later in his sentence, he was granted probation by the court. He filed a petition to the
Supreme Court praying that he be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath and sign the Rolls of Attorneys. As a
proof of the required good moral character he now possess, he presented no less than fifteen (15)
certifications among others from: two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of
religious order. In addition, he, together with the others who were convicted, organized a scholarship
foundation in honor of their hazing victim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath, sign the Rolls of Attorneys,
and practice law.
HELD:
YES. Petition granted.
RATIO:
Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent proof that he possessed the required good moral
character as required before taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys, the Supreme
Court considered the premises that he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of the
doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally reminded that the Lawyers Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality
before the practice of law, and that the community assistance he had started is expected to continue in
serving the more unfortunate members of the society.

3. OLBES v DECIEMBRE
Facts:
Spouses Olbes (Franklin & Lourdes) were employees of the Central Post Office in Manila. They
filed this case for disbarment against Atty. Deciembre.
Lourdes, with the help of Deciembre, acquired a loan from Rodela Loans in the amount of P10K.
Lourdes then issued 5 PNB blank checks to respondent to serve as collateral.

Subsequently, Lourdes paid Deciembre the amount of the loan plus interest and surcharges.
Notwithstanding payment, Deciembre filled up the blank checks in the amount of P50k each.
Siyempre tumalbog yun mga cheke.
Deciembre then filed BP22 & estafa cases against the Olbes spouses.
Reklamo siyempre sila Olbes. They are even saying that some of their officemates suffered the
same fate under Deciembre.
Investigating officer: Deciembres version of the facts is highly doubtful. There are discrepancies
between his oral and written testimonies.

Issue:
W/N Deciembre should face disciplinary sanctions
Held:

Siyempre! He is in violation of Rule 7.03

He committed falsification when he filled up the blank checks even if this was not agreed upon
and despite knowledge that the loan had already been paid.
He even filed BP22 cases against the couple. This shows the vileness and wretchedness of his
soul. Franklin was even detained for 3 months because of the cases.
Deciembre is found to be lacking good moral character. Good moral character includes at least
common honesty.
The penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for 2 years is too mild. Deciembre is
suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.

4. MACEDA V VASQUEZ
NOCON; April 22, 1993
(edel cruz)
NATURE
Petition for Certiorari of the order of the ombudsman
FACTS
- This is a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order for the Office of the
Ombudsman to stop it from entertaining a criminal complaint regarding the alleged falsification of a
judges certification submitted to the SC.
- Petitioner Judge Maceda was accused of falsification of Certificate of Service, and now seeks to review
orders of the Ombudsman
- Napoleon Abiera of PAO alleged that the petitioner had falsified his Certificate of Service by certifying
that all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for decisions have been determined and
decided on or before Jan 31 1989 when in truth 15 cases were still to be determined. (Abiera alleges
Maceda lied that he finished the cases but he hasnt yet.)
ISSUES
1. WON Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case despite the Courts ruling in Orap v. Sandiganbayan
2. WON the investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SCs constitutional
duty of supervision over all the inferior courts

HELD
1. NO. There is nothing in Orap that would restrict it only to offenses committed by a judge unrelated to
his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of Service is administratively liable to the SC for
serious misconduct and inefficiency. And criminally liable to the state under the RPC for his felonious act.
2. YES. In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by this Court with regard to his
certificates of service, the investigation of the Ombudsman encroaches into the Courts power of
administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of
powers.
- ART VIII, sec 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests on the SC administrative supervision over all
courts and court personnel. The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers
granted to it by the Constitution for such a justification not only runs counter to the specific mandate of
the Constitution granting supervisory powers to the SC.
- The Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioners certificates of service to the SC for
determination of whether said certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load. (SO admin
case first before criminal.)
Disposition Petition granted. Ombudsman is directed to dismiss the complaint filed by the public
respondent.

5. Malonzo v. Prinsipe, 447 SCRA 1 (2004)

Wla koy makita
6. PNB V UY TENG PIAO
VICKERS; 1932
(romy ramirez)
NATURE
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila
FACTS
- Defendant-appellant, Uy Teng Piao, was sued by PNB for non payment of obligations at the CFI of
Manila and said court rendered judgment in favor of PNB on September 9, 1934 for the sum of
P17,232.42 with interest of seven percent per annum from June 1, 1924. The court ordered the defendant
appellant to deposit the money due with the clerk of the court within three months from the date of
judgment. In case of failure to pay, the mortgage properties should be sold at auction in accordance with
law and the proceeds to be applied to the payment of the judgment.
- The defendant failed to comply with the payment order and the properties were auctioned by the sheriff
of Manila for a total of P1,300 with PNB as the buyer.
- On February 11, 1925, PNB secured from defendant a waiver of the latters right to redeem one of the
properties described as TCT no. 8274 and thereafter sold the same to one Mariano Santos for P8,600.
- The other property, TCT No. 7264 was likewise resold and the proceeds was credited to the account of
Uy. The total amount generated with the resale of the lots amonted to P 11, 300.
- On August 1, 1930, PNB instituted another court action for the recover of the balance of the judgment
amounting to P11,574.38 with interest at seven percent per annum.
- The defendant claimed that in exchange for his waiver of his right to redeem the first property resold by
PNB, the bank would not collect from him the balance of the judgment.
- The CFI ruled that there was in fact a condonation made by the bank through one of its officer, a certain
Mr. Pecson.

- Hence this appeal

ISSUES
1. WON PNB condoned the balance of the judgment
2. WON a lawyer can appear as both counsel and witness in the same case
HELD
1. No. There was no evidence presented except the uncertain testimony of the defendant, that the bank did
in fact agree to the condonation. Even if the SC grants that Mr. Pecson did agree to the condonation, there
is not evidence presented that Mr. Pecson was authorized by the bank through its board of directors or
persons authorized by the said board to bind the bank to the agreement.
2. Yes (No). The SC held that the appearance of a lawyer as both counsel and witness in a trial is not
strictly prohibited. The SC however stated that it would be preferable if the lawyer in this case can appear
only as one or the other. In other words, if they are to testify as required by the case, they should
withdraw from the active management of the case. This is embodied in Canon 19 of the Code of Legal
Ethics.
Disposition The decision of the CFI is reversed and the defendant is ordered to pay PNB the sum of
P11,574.38 with interest thereon at the rate of seven percent per annum to be reckoned from August 1,
1930. Costs for the defendant.