23

Legal Ethics for Justice Hofilena by Jason Arteche

Royong vs Oblena
Facts
In a verified complaint, complainant Josefina Royong charged the respondent Ariston J. Oblena, a member of
the Philippine Bar, with rape allegedly committed on her person
*The gist of the story is Atty. Oblena maintained a common-law relationship with Angeles. Later, he also maintained a
relationship with his common-law wife's niece, Royong.
Issue
Whether or not the illicit relations with Royong and open cohabitation with Angeles are sufficient grounds to
disbar Oblena.
Held
The illicit relations are sufficient grounds.
It is an admitted and uncontroverted fact that the respondent had sexual relations with the complainant several times,
and as a consequence she bore him a child; and that he likewise continuously cohabited with Briccia Angeles, in an
adulterous manner.
It is true that respondent has not been convicted of rape, seduction, or adultery and that the grounds upon which the
disbarment proceeding is based are not among those enumerated by the Rules of Court for which a lawyer may be
disbarred. But it has already been held that this enumeration is not exclusive and that the power of the courts to
exclude unfit and unworthy members of the profession is inherent. A member of the bar may be removed or suspended
from office as a lawyer for other than statutory grounds. Indeed, the rule is so phrased as to be broad enough to cover
practically any misconduct of a lawyer.
Here, the moral depravity of the respondent is most apparent. His pretension that before complainant completed her
eighteenth birthday, he refrained from having sexual intercourse with her, so as not to incur criminal liability, as he
himself declared and that he limited himself merely to kissing and embracing her and sucking her tongue, indicates
a scheming mind, which together with his knowledge of the law, he took advantage of, for his lurid purpose.
Moreover, his act becomes more despicable considering that the complainant was the niece of his common-law wife
and that he enjoyed a moral ascendancy over her who looked up to him as her uncle.
Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no way directly bearing on his profession, has nevertheless
rendered him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer.
Next, one's own approximation of himself is not a gauge to his moral character. Moral character is not a subjective
term, but one that corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what a person really is, and not what he or other
people think he is. Respondent did not possess a good moral character at the time he applied for admission to the bar.
He lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the fact that people who knew him seemed to have acquiesced to
his status, did not render him a person of good moral character. It is of no moment that his immoral state was
discovered then or now, as he is clearly not fit to remain a member of the bar.

Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

14 - St. Louis University v. Dela Cruz (2006) disbarment, immoral conduct

Doctrine:

Immoral conduct is that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference
to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community and what is grossly immoral, that is, it
must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree.

The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct
that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court. Disbarment should never
be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desire.

Facts:
This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint Louis University-Laboratory
High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS, predicated on the following
grounds:
1. Gross Misconduct: (a) pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly committed by him against a high
school student; (b) pending administrative case for his alleged unprofessional and unethical acts of
misappropriating money supposedly for the teachers; and (c) pending labor case on alleged illegal deduction
of salary by respondent.
2. Grossly Immoral Conduct: In contracting a second marriage (with Mary Jane Pascua) despite the existence of
his first marriage (with Teresita Rivera); and
3. Malpractice: In notarizing (14) documents from 1988 to 1997 despite the expiration of his notarial
commission on December 31, 1987.
Issue:
1. W/N Dela Cruz should be disbarred?
Held/Ratio:
1. NO. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is rather an investigation
by the court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not
determinative of an administrative case against him, or if an affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does not
affect its course, then neither will the judgment of annulment of respondents second marriage also exonerate him
from a wrongdoing actually committed. So long as the quantum of proof - clear preponderance of evidence - in
disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is met, then liability attaches.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court cites grossly immoral conduct as a ground for disbarment.
Undoubtedly, respondents act constitutes immoral conduct. But is it so gross as to warrant his disbarment?
Indeed, he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In
particular, he made a mockery of marriage, which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
Respondent was already a member of the Bar when he contracted the bigamous second marriage in 1989, having
been admitted to the Bar in 1985. As such, he cannot feign ignorance of the mandate of the law that before a
second marriage may be validly contracted, the first and subsisting marriage must first be annulled by the
appropriate court.
Moreover, notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantive
public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. A notarial
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe
with the utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. It must be understood that the purpose of

17!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

suspending or disbarring someone as an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has
proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney and, thus, to
protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney.
However, in this case, the Court held that respondents act was not grossly immoral as to warrant his
disbarment. From the recommendation and observation of the IBP investigator, the respondent had no intention
to flaunt the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession as shown by the following: (a) after his first
failed marriage and prior to his second marriage (for 7 years), he has not been romantically involved with any
woman; (b) his second marriage was a show of his noble intentions and total love for his wife; (c) he never
absconded from his obligations to support his wife and child; (d) he never disclaimed paternity over the child and
husbandry with relation to his wife; (e) since up to now, he remained celibate.
The Court found the imposition of disbarment upon him to be unduly harsh.
Decision: Dela Cruz is found guilty of immoral conduct. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years, and another two (2) years for notarizing documents despite the expiration of his
commission or a total of four (4) years of suspension.1

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1.

Pending cases before the proper forums do not constitute facts that determines the existence of gross misconduct. At such stages, the
presumption of innocence still prevails in favor of the respondent.

18!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

15 - Maelotisea S. Garrido v. Attys. Angel E. Garrido and Romana P. Valencia (2010)

[I suggest you read the original of this. Very interesting !]
Doctrine

Possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant
admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal profession. Admission to the practice only creates the
rebuttable presumption that the applicant has all the qualifications to become a lawyer.

Facts:
Maelotisea Sipin Garrido filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for disbarment against Atty.
Garrido and Atty. Valencia
According to Maelotisea, She and Atty. Garrido were married back in 1962. Subsequently, she found out that the
two lawyers got married in Hong Kong in 1978, while she and Garrido were still married. She also found out that the two
had a daughter. In 1993, Atty. Garrido left the conjugal home and joined Atty. Valencia at their residence. Since he left
the conjugal home, he stopped giving Maelotisea and his family the needed financial support.
In his Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Garrido denied Maelotiseas charges and imputations. He alleged that Maelotisea
was not his legal wife, as he was already married to Constancia David when he married Maelotisea. As he and Maelotisea
grew apart over the years due to financial problems, Atty. Garrido met Atty. Valencia. He became close to Atty. Valencia
to whom he confided his difficulties. Together, they resolved his personal problems and his financial difficulties. He
denied that he failed to give financial support to his children with Maelotisea. Atty. Garrido emphasized that all his
marriages were contracted before he became a member of the bar, with the third marriage contracted after the death of
Constancia. Also, Atty Garrido argues that the offenses charged have prescribed under the IBP rules.
Maelotisea filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaints she filed arguing that she wanted to maintain
friendly relations with Atty. Garrido.
Issues:
1. W/N the disbarment case against Atty. Garrido would prosper
2. W/N the disbarment case against Atty. Valencia would prosper
3. W/N the offenses charged have prescribed
4. W/N Maelotiseas motion for the dismissal of the complaints she filed against the respondents will prosper
Held/Ratio:
1. YES
He did not possess the good moral character required of a lawyer at the time of his admission to the Bar. As a
lawyer, he violated his lawyers oath,Section 20(a) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, all of which commonly require him to obey the laws of the land. In marrying
Maelotisea, he committed the crime of bigamy.
He violated ethical rules of the profession, specifically, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which commands that he shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct; Canon 7 of
the same Code, which demands that [a] lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession; Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that, [a] lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
2. YES
Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as her behavior
demeaned the dignity of and discredited the legal profession. Her actions were so corrupt as to approximate a

19!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

criminal act, for she married a man who, in all appearances, was married to another and with whom he has a
family. Her actions were also unprincipled and reprehensible to a high degree; as the confidante of Atty. Garrido,
she preyed on his vulnerability and engaged in a romantic relationship with him during the subsistence of his two
previous marriages.
3. NO
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure do not apply in the determination of a lawyers
qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar because admission to the practice of law is a component of
the administration of justice and is a matter of public interest.
4. NO
In light of the public service character of the practice of law, Maelotisea is considered more of a witness than a
complainant in these proceedings. She filed her affidavits of withdrawal only after she had presented her
evidence; her evidence are now available for the Courts examination and consideration, and their merits are not
affected by her desistance.

20!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

Vitug&vs.&Rongcal&
&
CATHERINE&JOIE&P.&VITUG,&complainant,&vs.&
ATTY.&DIOSDADO&M.&RONGCAL,&respondent.&
A.C.&No.&6313&
September&7,&2006&
&
TINGA,&J.:&
&
FACTS:&
&
Catherine&Joie&P.&Vitug&sought&the&service&of&respondent&Atty.&Diosdado&M.&Rongcal&
who&was&introduced&to&her&by&a&common&friend.&Complainant&asked&Atty.&Rongcal&to&
represent&her&in&the&support&case&she&was&going&to&file&against&her&former&lover,&
Arnulfo&Aquino.&Soon&after,&herein&complainant&and&respondent&started&having&
sexual&relationship&with&each&other.&According&to&Vitug,&respondent&also&gave&her&
sweet&inducements&such&as&the&promise&of&a&job,&financial&security&for&her&daughter,&
and&his&services&as&counsel&for&the&prospective&claim&for&support&against&Aquino.&
&
On&9&February&2001,&respondent&allegedly&convinced&complainant&to&sign&an&
Affidavit&of&Disclaimer&which&the&latter&signed&without&reading&the&said&affidavit.&It&
was&said&that&Aquino&will&give&complainant&a&lump&sum&provided&she&would&execute&
an&affidavit&to&the&effect&that&Aquino&is&not&the&father&of&her&daughter.&&
Complainant&argues&that&respondent's&acts&constitute&a&violation&of&his&oath&as&a&
lawyer.&She&filed&an&administrative&case&against&Rongcal&which&was&referred&to&the&
Integrated&Bar&of&the&Philippines&which&recommended&the&suspension&of&Rongcal&
from&the&practice&of&law.&The&same&was&approved&by&the&IBP&Board&of&Governors.&
Respondent&then&filed&a&Motion&for&Reconsideration&with&Motion&to&Set&Case&for&
Clarificatory&Questioning&with&the&IBP&and&a&Motion&to&Reopen/Remand&Case&for&
Clarificatory&Questioning&with&the&Supreme&Court.&
&
ISSUE:&WON&respondent&be&disbarred&for&immorality.&
&
RULING:&&
&
One&of&the&conditions&prior&to&admission&to&the&bar&is&that&an&applicant&must&possess&
good&moral&character.&Said&requirement&persists&as&a&continuing&condition&for&the&
enjoyment&of&the&privilege&of&law&practice,&otherwise,&the&loss&thereof&is&a&ground&for&
the&revocation&of&such&privilege.&
&
ON&SEXUAL&RELATION&AND&ON&RESPONDENTS&SUBSEQUENT&MARRIAGE:&
By&his&own&admission,&respondent&is&obviously&guilty&of&immorality&in&violation&of&
Rule&1.01&of&the&Code&which&states&that&a&lawyer&shall&not&engage&in&unlawful,&
dishonest,&immoral&or&deceitful&conduct.&
&

We&find&credence&in&respondent's&assertion&that&it&was&impossible&for&her&not&to&
have&known&of&his&subsisting&marriage.&
&
We&believe&that&complainants&allegations&of&deceit&were&not&established&by&clear&
preponderant&evidence&required&in&disbarment&cases.&We&are&left&with&the&most&
logical&conclusion&that&she&freely&and&wittingly&entered&into&an&illicit&and&immoral&
relationship&with&respondent&sans&any&misrepresentation&or&deceit&on&his&part.&
&
ON&THE&AFFIDAVIT&SIGNED:&
Complainant&does&not&deny&being&a&college&graduate&or&that&she&knows&and&
understands&English.&The&Affidavit&is&written&in&short&and&simple&sentences&that&are&
understandable&even&to&a&layman.&The&inevitable&conclusion&is&that&she&signed&the&
Affidavit&voluntarily&and&without&any&coercion&whatsoever&on&the&part&of&
respondent.&
&
It&was&not&unlawful&for&respondent&to&assist&his&client&in&entering&into&a&settlement&
with&Aquino&after&explaining&all&available&options&to&her.&The&law&encourages&the&
amicable&settlement&not&only&of&pending&cases&but&also&of&disputes&which&might&
otherwise&be&filed&in&court.&
This&court&finds&Atty.&Diosdado&M.&Rongcal&GUILTY&of&immorality&and&imposes&on&
him&a&FINE&of&P15,000.00&with&a&stern&warning&that&a&repetition&of&the&same&or&
similar&acts&in&the&future&will&be&dealt&with&more&severely.&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&

25

Legal Ethics for Justice Hofilena by Jason Arteche

Tomas P. Tan vs Atty. Haide V. Gumba

Facts
Complainant narrated that respondent asked to borrow 350,000.00. Respondent assured him that she would pay the
principal plus interest after one year. She likewise offered by way of security a parcel of land registered in her fathers
name, showing an SPA for the purpose. Thus, complainant agreed to lend money to respondent. With the help of Atty.
Payte, respondent executed in complainants favor an open Deed of Absolute Sale over the said parcel of land.
Complainant was made to believe that if respondent fails to pay the full amount of the loan with interest on due date,
the deed of sale may be registered. Accordingly, he gave the amount of 350,000.00 to respondent.
Respondent, however, defaulted on her loan obligation and failed to pay the same despite complainants repeated
demands. Left with no recourse, complainant went to the Register of Deeds to register the sale, only to find out that
respondent deceived him since the SPA did not give respondent the power to sell the property but only empowered
respondent to mortgage the property solely to banks.
Issue
Whether or not Gumbas action of deceiving Tan into thinking the former had proper authority to encumber
the property is a ground for disciplinary action.
Held
Such action is a ground for disciplinary action.
A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is
whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it
renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
Here, respondents actions clearly show that she deceived complainant into lending money to her through the use of
documents and false representations and taking advantage of her education and complainants ignorance in legal
matters. As manifested by complainant, he would have never granted the loan to respondent were it not for
respondents misrepresentation that she was authorized to sell the property and if respondent had not led him to
believe that he could register the open deed of sale if she fails to pay the loan. By her misdeed, respondent has
eroded not only complainants perception of the legal profession but the publics perception as well.
Further, after filing a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading, respondent wantonly disregarded
the lawful orders of the IBP-CBD to file her answer and to appear for the mandatory conferences despite due notice.
Respondent should bear in mind that she must acknowledge the orders of the IBP-CBD in deference to its authority
over her as a member of the IBP.

Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it

PAGUIA&vs.&MOLINA&=&WALA&TALAGA&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&

27

Legal Ethics for Justice Hofilena by Jason Arteche

Rodrigo Tapay vs Atty. Bancolo

Facts
Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr. (Divinagracia) charged both Tapay and Rustia before the Ombudsman. Bancolo of the
Jarder Bancolo Law Office allegedly signed the Complaint on behalf of Divinagracia. However, Atty. Bancolo denied
that he represented Divinagracia since he had yet to meet Divinagracia in person. Atty. Bancolo declared that the
signature naming him as counsel for Divinagracia was not his. Atty. Bancolo signed an affidavit denying his supposed
signature appearing on the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. Using Atty. Bancolos affidavit and
other documentary evidence, Tapay and Rustia filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsifying the
signature of his alleged counsel, Atty. Bancolo.
The Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the Complaint and ordered that separate cases for Falsification
of Public Document and Dishonesty be filed against Divinagracia, with Rustia and Atty. Bancolo as complainants.
Thereafter, Divinagracia denied that he falsified the signature of Bancolo. Divinagracia presented as evidence an
affidavit by Richard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted
Divinagracias case and the office secretary per Atty. Bancolos instructions signed that the Complaint filed with the
Office of the Ombudsman.
Tapay and Rustia filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty.
Jarder, Atty. Bancolos law partner.
Issue
Whether or not Bancolos actions of allowing his secretary to sign his name in the pleadings is a ground for
disciplinary action.
Held
Such action is a ground for disciplinary action.
Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before a secretary of his law office signed the
Office of the Ombudsman in his name. Clearly, this is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides:
CANON 9
A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be
performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
The lawyers duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public
interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified
in education and character. The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving the practice of
law that is reserved exclusively for members of the legal profession. Atty. Bancolos authority and duty to sign a
pleading are personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer, he may not
delegate it to a non-lawyer.
In the Answer, Atty. Bancolo categorically stated that because of some minor lapses, his secretary signed the
communications and pleadings filed against Tapay and Rustia, albeit with his tolerance. Undoubtedly, Atty. Bancolo
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a pleading.

Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

39 - Camacho v. Pangulayan (2000)

Doctrine:

Canon 9 provides that A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party
represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but
should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may
tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law.

Facts:
Atty. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers of the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices (Attys.
Pangulayan, Balmores, Laurel, Bustos). Camacho, counsel of some expelled students from the AMA Computer College
(AMACC), charged that the Pangulayan lawyers, as counsel for AMACC, procured separate occasions, without his
knowledge, compromise agreements (Re-Admission Agreements) with 4 of his clients which, in effect, required them to
waive all kinds of claims they might have had against AMACC, terminating all civil, criminal and administrative
proceedings filed against it.
The students were all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE and caused to be published some
objectionable features or articles in the paper. The 3-member Student Disciplinary Tribunal was immediately convened
found the students guilty of the use of indecent language and unauthorized use of the student publication funds. The erring
students were then expelled.
Atty. Pangulayan stated that none of his co-respondents had taken part in the various Re-Admission Agreements
and were, in fact, no longer connected at the time with the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices. The Re-Admission
Agreements had nothing to do with the dismissal of the civil case and were executed for the sole purpose of effecting the
settlement of an administrative case involving the 9 students of AMACC who were expelled.
After being furnished with execution of the letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements, Judge Lopez
dismissed the case.
Issue:
1. W/N Atty. Pangulayan acted in accordance with ethical standards for procuring said agreements
Held/Ratio:
1. NO. It would appear that when the individual letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were formalized,
Camacho was by then already the retained counsel for the students in the civil case. Although aware that the
students were represented by counsel, Pangulayan proceeded to negotiate with them and their parents without at
the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer who was counsel of record. The failure of Pangulayan,
whether by design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in
utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. He fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a
member of the Bar.
The Court concurred with the IBP Investigating Commission and the IBP Board of Governors in their findings but
found the recommended 6-month suspension too harsh a penalty and shortened it to 3-months. The case against
the other respondents is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

46!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

Held/Ratio:
1. NO. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (see doctrine) instructs that Atty. Javiers arguments in
his pleadings should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly
addressed by one gentleman to another. The language vehicle does not run short of expressions which are
emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. (So since he violated
Canon 8 of the CPR, Atty. Javier should not only be reprimanded but must suspended for one month and warned
that any future infraction of similar nature shall be dealt with more severely)

41 - Linsangan v. Tolentino (2009) (stealing clients)

Doctrines:

A lawyer should not steal another lawyers client, nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services.

Facts:
Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a disbarment complaint against Atty.
Tolentino. He alleged that Tolentino is guilty of solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
Linsangan claimed that Tolentino and his paralegal, Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation.
Linsangan said that Tolentino promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. Tolentino
apparently called and texted Linsangans clients.
To support his allegations, Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried
to convince him to sever his association with Linsangan and employ Tolentinos services and even be able to get a loan of
P50,000. Linsangan also presented Labianos calling card which specifically states, w/ financial assistance.
Tolentino denied knowing Labiano and the printing and circulation of the said calling cared in his answer.
However, he later admitted that he knew her during the mandatory hearing.
The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP found that Tolentino encroached on the professional
practice of Linsangan, violating Rule 8.02. He also contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain. The CBD
recommended that Tolentino be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier penalty.
Issues:
1. W/N the Tolentino should be disbarred?
Held/Ratio:
1. NO. HOWEVER, the SC held that he should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and is
sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Rule 8.02 requires that A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer. Tolentino violated such canon. The means employed by Tolentino in furtherance of such
misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules. A lawyer should not steal another lawyers
client, nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his
services. Tolentino never denied having Linsangans clients in his own client list. He also did not deny Labianos
connection to his office. Hence, Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep in anothers legal practice.
The SC also noted that Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, 16.04 and Canon 3 of the CPR, and Section 27, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court. The SC also reminded lawyers what professional cards should contain: (1) lawyers
name, (2) name of firm with which he is connected, (3) address, (4) telephone number, and (5) special branch of
law practiced.
!

48!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

Legal Ethics for Justice Hofilena by Jason Arteche

B.M. 2540
Facts
Medado graduated from UP with Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and passed the bar exams the same year. In 1980, he took
the Attorneys Oath at the PICC and was scheduled to sign the Roll of Attorneys but failed to do so because he
misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. He mistakenly thought the attendance record at the PICC was the
Roll of Attorneys. Several years later, Medado found the Notice and only then did he realize he had not signed the roll.
During this time, Medado was already working as a lawyer and he didnt think signing in the Roll was important.
Later, in an MCLE seminar in 2005, he was required to provide his roll number but couldnt provide any. In 2012,
Medado filed this petition to be allowed to sign in the Roll.
Issue
Whether or not Medados petition should be granted despite the long years of neglect to sign in the Roll.
Held
Medados petition is granted.
Medado has demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he filed the instant petition. He himself called
attention to his omission, although only after more than 30 years. Further, he hasnt been subject to any action for
disqualification from the practice of law. Also, he appears to be a competent and able legal practitioner.
However, Medado cant be fully exculpated for his years of inaction. Several years after taking the oath, he realized he
didnt sign the Roll of Attorneys. Notwithstanding this, he continued to practice law and consequently, engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law. Further, he doesnt have any justifiable reason for delaying the signing in the Roll of
Attorneys. His only excuse being apprehension and fear of what might happen. Unauthorized practice of law
constitutes indirect contempt of court and violates Canon 9 of the CPR.
However, Medado is suspended for 1 year and fined for delinquent IBP dues.

Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it

AGOT&vs.&RIVERA&=&WALA&TALAGA&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&

Alcantara&vs.&de&Vera&
&
FACTS:&
Atty.&Eduardo&De&Vera&won&a&case&for&Rosario&Mercado.&De&Vera&garnished&the&bank&
account&of&the&opposing&party&but&he&did&not&remit&the&same&to&Mercado,&instead&he&
claimed&that&he&used&the&same&to&pay&off&the&judge&and&whats&left&was&for&his&
attorneys&fees.&Mercado&filed&an&administrative&complaint&and&eventually&De&Vera&
was&suspended&from&the&practice&of&law&for&one&year.&In&obvious&retaliation,&he&filed&
various&complaints&against&Mercado&and&her&family,&the&IBP&officers&who&suspended&
and&several&others.&He&attempted&to&recopen&the&case&of&her&client&in&an&attempt&to&
collect&more&attorneys&fees.&He&also&instigated&the&opposing&party&in&the&case&he&
won&for&Mercado&to&file&lawsuits&against&Mercado.&The&complaints&were&dismissed&
but&he&recfiled&them&nonetheless.&
&
ISSUE:&Whether&or&not&De&Vera&should&be&disbarred.&
&
HELD:&&
Yes.&What&he&did&is&grossly&unethical&and&filled&with&illcmotive.&It&is&the&duty&of&the&
Supreme&Court&to&remove&from&the&profession&a&person&whose&misconduct&has&
proved&him&unfit&to&be&entrusted&with&the&duties&and&responsibilities&belonging&to&an&
office&of&an&attorney,&and&thus&to&protect&the&public&and&those&charged&with&the&
administration&of&justice,&rather&than&to&punish&the&attorney.&
Further,&De&Vera&is&in&violation&of&Canon&21&of&the&Code&of&Professional&
Responsibility.&In&filing&cases&against&Mercado,&De&Vera&used&matters&and&
information&acquired&by&him&when&he&was&still&the&counsel&for&Mercado.&A&lawyer&
owes&loyalty&and&fidelity&to&his&client&even&if&&the&lawyercclient&relationship&has&
already&terminated.&A&lawyer&shall&preserve&the&confidence&and&secrets&of&his&client&
even&after&the&attorneycclient&relation&is&terminated.&

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

21 - In re Luis B. Tagorda (1929) (card and letter)

Doctrine:

The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother
lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.

Facts:
Luis B. Tagorda was an attorney who was elected as the third member of the provincial board of Isabela. He
admits that prior to his election, he made use of a card2 written in Spanish and Ilocano, which contains a list of tasks he
may undertake as a notary public, and a lawyer, as well as a general invitation to consult with him for free. Tagorda also
admits that after he was elected into office, he wrote a letter3 to one of his hometowns barrio lieutenants. The letter
basically informed the recipient of Tagordas intention to continue residing in Echague, despite having to attend board
sessions in Ilagan, in order that he may continue to serve his hometown as a notary public and lawyer. The letter subtly
offered information regarding Tagordas office hours, together with an express request that the recipient spread the word
as to his willingness to accept land registration cases for a fee of P3.00 per title.
The government, through the provincial fiscal of Isabela, together with the Attorney-General, brought this matter
to the attention of the Court.
Issue:
1. W/N Tagordas actions constitute malpractice
Held/Ratio:
1. YES.
Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2828 expressly provides that the practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally, or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice. This is in accord with the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the Philippine Bar Association in
1917. Canon 27 of the said document provides that a well-merited reputation serves as a lawyers most effective
form of advertisement.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2.

The card, translated in English, reads:

LUIS B. TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public
CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
Province of Isabela
(NOTE. As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required by the cadastral office; can renew lost
documents of your animals; can make your application and final requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit. As a
lawyer, he can help you collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or against you. Come or write to him in his
town, Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is willing to help and serve the poor.)

3.

Pertinent portions of the letter, translated in English, are as follows:

...
Despite my election as member of the Provincial Board, I will exercise my legal profession as a lawyer and notary public. In case you cannot
see me at home on any week day, I assure you that you can always find me there on every Sunday. I also inform you that I will receive any
work regarding preparations of documents of contract of sales and affidavits to be sworn to before me as notary public even on Sundays.
...
I would request you kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio people in any of your meetings or social gatherings so that they may
be informed of my desire to live and to serve with you in my capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people in your locality have not as yet
contracted the services of other lawyers in connection with the registration of their land titles, I would be willing to handle the work in court
and would charge only three pesos for every registration.

28!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

While the circulation of business cards is not per se improper, solicitation through such business cards, as well as
through personal communications is unprofessional. The law is a profession and not a business. Thus, a lawyer
may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others.
Due to Tagordas claim of ignorance and remorse, the Court merely ordered that he be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one month. It is worth noting that Justice Ostrand dissented, believing that a
reprimand would have been sufficient.

22 - Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc. (1993) (Advertising, divorce/foreign marriage)

Doctrines:

A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar
to a merchant advertising his goods. The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal
business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession.

Facts:
The Legal Clinic, Inc. had published the advertisements in annexes A and B shown below.
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THEN Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am 6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg.,
UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE.
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to
Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special
Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232; 5217251; 522-2041; 521-0767
Ulep, as a member of the bar, seeks to prevent The Legal Clinic, Inc. from publishing any more of these
advertisements. Ulep asserts that such advertisements are unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of
the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. On the other hand, The Legal Clinic claims
that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of legal support services through paralegals with the use
of modern computers and electronic machines and should not therefore be banned from advertising its services.
Issues:
1. W/N The Legal Clinic, Inc. is engaged in the practice of law
2. W/N its activities can properly be the subject of advertisements

29!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

INTRODUCTION
01 - Religious Affairs v. Bayot (1955) (advertisement)
Doctrines:

Law is a profession and not a trade.

Section 25 of Rule 127 provides that the practice of soliciting cases at law for purpose of gain, either
personally or thru paid agents of brokers, constitutes malpractice.

Facts:
Attorney Estanislao Bayot is charged with malpractice for publishing an advertisement in the Sunday Tribune on
June 13, 2943. It states that he provides the service of securing marriage licenses and performing marriage ceremonies.
Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay publicity avoided
if desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the
poor. Everything confidential.
Legal assistance service
12 Escolta, Manila, Room, 105
Tel. 2-41-60.
Initially, he appeared in his own behalf and denied having the advertisement published. Subsequently, he
admitted, through his attorney, that he caused its publication. He asked for the indulgence and mercy of the Court,
promising not to repeat such professional misconduct in the future and to abide himself to the strict ethical rules of the
law profession. He added that it was only published once and that he never had any case by reason of the advertisement.
Issues:
1. W/N the advertisement is a violation of legal ethics.
Held/Ratio:
1. YES.
Section 25 of Rule 127 provides that the practice of soliciting cases at law for purpose of gain, either personally
or thru paid agents of brokers, constitutes malpractice. It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his
talents as a merchant advertises his wares. By advertising his services, the lawyer degrades himself and his
profession. The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, ... is the
establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but
must be the outcome of character and conduct. (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)
In the Tagorda case, the attorney involved repeatedly made solicitations. As a result, he was suspended from the
practice of law. This case is less serious in nature. Considering Bayots plea for leniency and his promise to not
repeat his actions, the Court merely reprimanded Bayot.

1!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

Legal Ethics for Justice Hofilena by Jason Arteche

Director of Religious Affairs vs Bayot

Facts
The respondent, who is an attorney at law, is charged with malpractice for having published an advertisement in the
Sunday Tribune that reads as follows:
Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage
arrange to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor. Everything confidential.
Legal assistance service 12 Escolta, Manila, Room 105

Issue
Whether or not the disputed advertisement violates the ethical standards of the law profession.
Held
Violates ethical standards.
It's undeniable that the advertisement was a flagrant violation by Bayot of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen
solicitation of business from the public. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a
profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of
mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public. The most worthy and effective advertisement
possible, even for a young lawyer, *** is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct.

Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

23 - Khan v. Simbillo (2003) (annulment specialist)

Facts:
In the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, this ad appeared: ANNULMENT OF
MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667. Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta called the number with Mrs. Simbillo
answering and claiming that her husband is an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within
four to six months, provided the case will not involve separation of property or custody of children and that he charges
P48, 000. Moreover, this was not the first time that the respondent used this advertisement.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the
Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising
and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. This was referred to the IBP and they decided to suspended him from the
practice of law for one (1) year with the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The
IBP Resolution was noted by this Court on November 11, 2002.
Issues:
1. W/N the suspension by the IBP is proper.
Held/Ratio:
1. YES.
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.12 It is a profession in which duty to
public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a
secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. The
following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:
a. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making much money;
b. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity
and reliability;
c. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
d. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current
business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.
The respondent clearly admitted to the acts. More so, what adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in
advertising himself as a self-styled Annulment of Marriage Specialist, he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and
undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the
contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society.
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper,
it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession and must not be misleading. If it is made in a modest
and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.

31!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

While the circulation of business cards is not per se improper, solicitation through such business cards, as well as
through personal communications is unprofessional. The law is a profession and not a business. Thus, a lawyer
may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others.
Due to Tagordas claim of ignorance and remorse, the Court merely ordered that he be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one month. It is worth noting that Justice Ostrand dissented, believing that a
reprimand would have been sufficient.

22 - Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc. (1993) (Advertising, divorce/foreign marriage)

Doctrines:

A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar
to a merchant advertising his goods. The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal
business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession.

Facts:
The Legal Clinic, Inc. had published the advertisements in annexes A and B shown below.
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THEN Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am 6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg.,
UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE.
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to
Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special
Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232; 5217251; 522-2041; 521-0767
Ulep, as a member of the bar, seeks to prevent The Legal Clinic, Inc. from publishing any more of these
advertisements. Ulep asserts that such advertisements are unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of
the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. On the other hand, The Legal Clinic claims
that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of legal support services through paralegals with the use
of modern computers and electronic machines and should not therefore be banned from advertising its services.
Issues:
1. W/N The Legal Clinic, Inc. is engaged in the practice of law
2. W/N its activities can properly be the subject of advertisements

29!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

Held/Ratio:
1. YES, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedures,
knowledge, training and experience. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that
involves legal knowledge or skill. The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities. While some of
the services being offered by The Legal Clinic merely involve mechanical and technical knowhow, such as the
installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management of law offices, or the
computerization of research aids and materials, it is clear that it nonetheless gives out legal information to laymen
and lawyers. In providing information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption with its
attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and
advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken.
2. NO, the advertisements are not allowed
As for the allowability (is this a word? hehe) of the advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statement of facts. He is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,
without violating the ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a
merchant advertising his goods. The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal
business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession.
Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc., was
reprimanded by the Court, with a warning that running more advertisements similar to the ones above will be
dealt with more severely. The Legal Clinic is prohibited from further advertising its services.
(There is a lengthy discussion on advertisements in this case but it is 95% similar to what was written in the book.)

30!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

32

Legal Ethics for Justice Hofilena by Jason Arteche

Ulep vs Legal Clinic

Facts
Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing advertisements and to perpetually
prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than
those allowed by law.
(See case for actual advertisement)
Issue
Whether or not the complained advertisements violate the code of professional responsibility and degrade the
lawyering profession.
Held
The advertisements violate the CPR and degrade the bar.
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without
violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods. The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental
postulate that the practice of law is a profession.
The canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention.
That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service that is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs
no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal
by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda.
However, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of the profession enumerate exceptions
to the rule against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be undertaken. The exceptions
are of two broad categories, namely, those that are expressly allowed and those that are necessarily implied from the
restrictions.
The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data. The law list must be a reputable law list
published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or
periodical which is published principally for other purposes. The second is the use of an ordinary simple professional
card.

Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

62 - Foodsphere, Inc. v. Mauricio (2009) (CDO Liver Spread, Rule 13.02)

Doctrine:

Rule 13.02 provides that a lawyer should refrain from making public statements in the media regarding a pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

Facts: (medyo mahaba sya pero maganda basahin! Enjoy)

Foodsphere is a meat processing company under the brand name CDO. One day, a certain Cordero purportedly
bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City food items, which include a can of CDO Liver spread. However, while eating,
they found the CDO Liver spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside the can. So, they filed a
complaint with BFAD.
The BFAD conducted a hearing where the spouses Cordero demanded P150,000 as damages from Foodsphere.
Foodsphere refused the demand, but instead, counter-offered to pay the actual medical expenses incurred by the Corderos
as long as they were supported by receipts. However, the offer was turned down. The Corderos then threatened to bring
the matter to the attention of the media.
Later, Atty. Mauricio, a writer/columnist in tabloids and host of TV and radio programs, sent Foodsphere a copy
of the front page of the would-be issue of one tabloid, which contains words discrediting Foodsphere and its products.
Mauricio threatened to publish the articles unless Foodsphere gave in to the demand of the Corderos, but still, no
agreement was made between the parties.
Then, Mauricio proposed to settle the matter for P50,000, P15,000 will go to the Corderos and P 35,000 to his
Batas Foundation. He also directed Foodsphere to place paid advertisements in tabloids and television program where he
is a columnist and host. The parties eventually agreed to the settlement proposed by Mauricio so the BFAD dismissed the
complaint.
Mauricio then sent Foodsphere an Advertising Contract asking Foodsphere to advertise in the tabloid Balitang
Patas BATAS for its next 24 weekly issues, and a Program Profile of his television program asking Foodsphere to place
spot advertisements. However, Foodsphere offered to buy only three full-page advertisements in the tabloid, and three
spots of TV commercials in the television program. Mauricio relayed to Foodsphere that he was disappointed with the
offer and threatened to proceed with the publication of the columns.
Later, Mauricio announced in his radio program that whoever answers his question of which liver spread product
has worms in it shall win a prize. (see Annex A) Moreover, Mauricio wrote articles in his columns which put Foodsphere
in bad light. Also, in several episodes of his television program, Mauricio repeatedly complained many things against
Foodsphere.
Foodsphere thus filed criminal complaints against Mauricio for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. In his Entry of Appearance with Highly Urgent
Motion to Elevate These Cases to the Department of Justice (Annex B) and Motion to Dismiss (Annex C), Mauricio
used words which were disrespectful to the Office of the City Prosecutor and to the court. Foodsphere also filed a civil
case against Mauricio before the Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City.
Despite the issuance of a status quo order, Mauricio continued to publish articles against Foodsphere and to
criticize Foodsphere through his television shows.
On the administrative complaint filed before the IBP, the IBP held that Mauricio should be suspended for 2 years
for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issue:
1. W/N Mauricio violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
Held/Ratio:
1. Yes. Mauricio violated the following Canons/Rule:

75!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to refrain from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. - He engaged in deceitful conduct by taking advantage of the
complaint against CDO to advance his interest to obtain funds for his Batas Foundation and seek sponsorships
and advertisements for the tabloids and his television program.
Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates a lawyer to refrain from making public
statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. - He
continued with his attacks against Foodsphere despite the pendency of the civil case and the issuance of a status
quo order against him.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. - He defied the said status quo order.
Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to conduct himself
with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel, and that a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper, by using intemperate language.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity
and the dignity of the legal profession. - He failed to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting
standards of the legal profession.
Annex A
OK, at meron akong pa-contest, total magpapasko na o ha, meron pa-contest si Batas Mauricio ang Batas ng Bayan. Ito
yung ating pa-contest, hulaan ninyo, tatawag kayo sa telepono, 433-7549 at 433-7553. Ang mga premyo babanggitin po
natin sa susunod pero ito muna ang contest, o, aling liver spread ang may uod? Yan kita ninyo yan, ayan malalaman
ninyo yan. Pagka-nahulaan yan ah, at sasagot kayo sa akin, aling liver spread ang may uod at anong companya ang
gumagawa nyan? Itawag po ninyo sa 433-7549 st 433-7553. Open po an[g] contest na ito sa lahat ng ating tagapakinig.
Pipiliin natin ang mananalo, kung tama ang inyong sagot. Ang tanong, aling liver spread sa Pilipinas an[g] may uod?
Annex B
Mauricios Entry of Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases to the Department of Justice alleges:
...
2.N. The question here is this: What gives, Honorable (???) Prosecutors of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela
City?
...
2.R. Can an ordinary person like Villarez simply be tossed around, waiting for miracles to happen?
2.S. Why? How much miracle is needed to happen here before this Office would ever act on his complaint?
...
8. With a City Prosecutor acting the way he did in the case filed by Villarez, and with an investigating prosecutor
virtually kowtowing to the wishes of his boss, the Chief Prosecutor, can Respondents expect justice to be meted to
them?
9. With utmost due respect, Respondents have reason to believe that justice would elude them in this Office of the
City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, not because of the injustice of their cause, but, more importantly, because of
the injustice of the system;
10. Couple all of these with reports that many a government office in Valenzuela City had been the willing recipient
of too many generosities in the past of the Foodsphere, and also with reports that a top official of the City had

76!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

campaigned for his much coveted position in the past distributing products of the Foodsphere, what would one
expect the Respondents to think?
11. Of course, not to be lost sight of here is the attitude and behavior displayed even by mere staff and underlings of
this Office to people who dare complain against the Foodsphere in their respective turfs. Perhaps, top officials of
this Office should investigate and ask their associates and relatives incognito to file, even if on a pakunwari basis
only, complaints against the Foodsphere, and they would surely be given the same rough and insulting treatment
that Respondent Villarez got when he filed his kidnapping charge here;
Annex C
In Mauricios Motion to Dismiss, he alleged:
...
5. If the Foodsphere or its lawyer merely used even a little of whatever is inside their thick skulls, they would
have clearly deduced that this Office has no jurisdiction over this action. (Emphasis supplied)

77!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

24 - In Re: Sycip (1979)

Doctrines:

The continued use of a firm name after the death of one or more of the partners designated by it is proper only
where sustained by local custom and not where by custom this purports to Identify the active members.

Facts:
Two separate Petitions were filed before this Court 1) by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip, and 2)
by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, praying that they be allowed to continue using, in the names of
their firms, the names of partners who had passed away.
Petitioners base their petitions on the following arguments:
1. A partnership is not prohibited from continuing its business under a firm name which includes the name
of a deceased partner as under Art 1840 of the Civil Code.
2. In regulating other professions, such as accountancy and engineering, the legislature has authorized the
adoption of firm names without any restriction as to the use, in such firm name, of the name of a deceased
partner
3. The Canons of Professional Ethics are not transgressed by the continued use of the name of a deceased
partner in the firm name of a law partnership. Canon 33: The continued use of the name of a deceased or
former partner when permissible by local custom, is not unethical but care should be taken that no
imposition or deception is practiced through this use
4. No possibility of imposition or deception because the deaths of their respective deceased partners were
well-publicized in all newspapers of general circulation for several days
5. No local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partners name in a professional firms name
6. Continued use of a deceased partners name in the firm name of law partnerships has been consistently
allowed by U.S. Courts
Issues:
1. Whether the firms may continue to use of the partnership name despite the death of a partner
Held/Ratio:
1. No. The public relations value of the use of an old firm name can tend to create undue advantages and
disadvantages in the practice of the profession. An able lawyer without connections will have to make a name
for himself starting from scratch. Another able lawyer, who can join an old firm, can initially ride on that old
firms reputation established by deceased partners.
Secondly, Article 1840 treats more of a commercial partnership with a good will to protect rather than of a
professional partnership.
A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other professionals or
for business. The difference between the practice of law from those pertaining to business is that the law is a
profession.
Canon 33 does not consider as unethical the continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner in the firm
name of a law partnership when such a practice is permissible by local custom but the Canon warns that care
should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. However, in the Philippines, no
local custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased or former partners name in the firm names
of law partnerships. Firm names, under our custom, identify the more active and/or more senior members or
partners of the law firm.

32!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS

!

ALS2014B

JUSTICE HOFILENA

The possibility of deception upon the public, real or consequential, where the name of a deceased partner
continues to be used cannot be ruled out. A person in search of legal counsel might be guided by the familiar ring
of a distinguished name appearing in a firm title.
As for decisions in the United States, there is a custom allowing such. Many firms in the city use the names of
deceased members with the approval of other attorneys, bar associations and the courts.
A local custom as a source of right cannot be considered by a court of justice unless such custom is properly
established by competent evidence like any other fact. There is no proof of the existence of a local custom, and
of the elements requisite to constitute the same in the Philippines.
The member of a profession does not regard himself as in competition with his professional
brethren. He is not bartering his services as is the artisan nor exchanging the products of his skill
and learning as the farmer sells wheat or corn. There should be no such thing as a lawyers or
physicians strike. The best service of the professional man is often rendered for no equivalent or
for a trifling equivalent and it is his pride to do what he does in a way worthy of his profession
even if done with no expectation of reward, This spirit of public service in which the profession
of law is and ought to be exercised is a prerequisite of sound administration of justice according
to law. The other two elements of a profession, namely, organization and pursuit of a learned art
have their justification in that they secure and maintain that spirit.
Petitioners desire to preserve the Identity of their firms in the eyes of the public must bow to legal and ethical
impediment.
Justice Aquino dissent: petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the two firms
(as the case may be) that Alexander Sycip, former Justice Ozaeta and Herminio Ozaeta are dead or the period when they
served as partners should be stated therein.
Obviously, the purpose of the two firms in continuing the use of the names of their deceased founders is to retain the
clients who had customarily sought the legal services of Attorneys Sycip and Ozaeta and to benefit from the goodwill
attached to the names of those respected and esteemed law practitioners. That is a legitimate motivation.
This is consistent with p. 16 of Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code and Rule 3.02, as found in p. 129 of
Agpalo book.

33!of!176!

ALS2014B
sof!

35

Legal Ethics for Justice Hofilena by Jason Arteche

Dacanay vs Baker McKenzie

Facts
Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in 1954, in his 1980 verified complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G.
Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practicing law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized in
Illinois.
In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which
contains the names of the ten lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products
International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client.
Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that
he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie "and if not, what is your purpose in using the
letterhead of another law office." Not having received any reply, he filed the instant complaint.
Issue
Whether or not Respondents can continue practicing under the name of a foreign law firm.
Held
Respondents cant continue such practice.
We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines. As admitted by the
respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago,
Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the
Philippine bar, practicing under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.
As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a
representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality to
multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment". This is unethical because
Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law here.

Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it

Pangan%vs.%Ramos%
!
FACTS:!
Atty.!Eduardo!De!Vera!won!a!case!for!Rosario!Mercado.!De!Vera!garnished!the!bank!account!of!
the!opposing!party!but!he!did!not!remit!the!same!to!Mercado,!instead!he!claimed!that!he!used!
the!same!to!pay!off!the!judge!and!whats!left!was!for!his!attorneys!fees.!Mercado!filed!an!
administrative!complaint!and!eventually!De!Vera!was!suspended!from!the!practice!of!law!for!
one!year.!In!obvious!retaliation,!he!filed!various!complaints!against!Mercado!and!her!family,!
the!IBP!officers!who!suspended!and!several!others.!He!attempted!to!reKopen!the!case!of!her!
client!in!an!attempt!to!collect!more!attorneys!fees.!He!also!instigated!the!opposing!party!in!the!
case!he!won!for!Mercado!to!file!lawsuits!against!Mercado.!The!complaints!were!dismissed!but!
he!reKfiled!them!nonetheless.!
!
ISSUE:!Whether!or!not!De!Vera!should!be!disbarred.!
!
HELD:!!
Yes.!What!he!did!is!grossly!unethical!and!filled!with!illKmotive.!It!is!the!duty!of!the!Supreme!
Court!to!remove!from!the!profession!a!person!whose!misconduct!has!proved!him!unfit!to!be!
entrusted!with!the!duties!and!responsibilities!belonging!to!an!office!of!an!attorney,!and!thus!to!
protect!the!public!and!those!charged!with!the!administration!of!justice,!rather!than!to!punish!
the!attorney.!
Further,!De!Vera!is!in!violation!of!Canon!21!of!the!Code!of!Professional!Responsibility.!In!filing!
cases!against!Mercado,!De!Vera!used!matters!and!information!acquired!by!him!when!he!was!
still!the!counsel!for!Mercado.!A!lawyer!owes!loyalty!and!fidelity!to!his!client!even!if!!the!lawyerK
client!relationship!has!already!terminated.!A!lawyer!shall!preserve!the!confidence!and!secrets!
of!his!client!even!after!the!attorneyKclient!relation!is!terminated.!