s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
By:
r
a
B
s
e
l
CORAZON T. NEVADA v. ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA (A.C. No. 7591, March 20,
2012)
b
o
Question: Can a lawyer who entered into a contract of lease with a third person be held liable for
representing himself as the Administrator of his clients hotel without having a Special Power of
Attorney executed in his favor?
an
r
a
B
Answer: Yes. The lawyer can be held liable for gross misconduct. Gross misconduct is a
transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior
or gross negligence, or the corrupt or persistent violation of the law or disregard of well-known
legal rules.
h
C
s
e
l
The acts of misrepresenting himself to be authorized to enter into a contract of lease, and even
receiving the benefits of the said contract constitute gross misconduct. Therefore, the lawyer can
be found liable.
b
o
an
r
a
B
Question: Ms. Corazon Nevada delivered to Atty. Casuga pieces of jewelries worth more than
P300,000.00 in the course of her dealings with him. She asked him to sell them on her behalf.
However, despite repeated demands, Atty. Casuga failed to deliver back to Ms. Nevada the
jewelries or the proceeds of the sale.
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
Can Ms. Nevada file a disbarment case against her Atty. Casuga even if there is no lawyer-client
relationship between them?
Answer: Yes. Rule 16.03 of the CPR demands that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession. The lawyer was duty-bound to return
them upon demand. The absence of a lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Casuga and
Corazon does not exonerate the former. Both the CPR and case law penalize not only
malpractice and dishonesty in the profession, but also gross misconduct not connected with the
professional duties of the lawyer.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Therefore, Atty. Casuga can be held accountable for breach of his fiduciary duty.
n
a
VICTORIA C. HEENAN v. ATTY. ERLINA ESPEJO (A.C. NO. 10050, December 3, 2013)
h
C
Question: Can a lawyer be held administratively liable for issuing worthless checks?
Answer: Yes. Lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to
the courts and to their clients. The fact that the lawyer obtained the loan and issued the worthless
checks in her private capacity and not as an attorney of the complainant is of no moment.
Therefore, for issuing worthless checks, the lawyer may be held administratively accountable.
(Lawyer was suspended for three years. She died while serving her suspension.)
b
o
an
1|Page
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
Question: Can a lawyer borrow money from his client without crossing ethical boundaries?
Answer: No. As a general rule, a lawyer should not borrow money from his client. Canon 16.04
of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients
interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
s
e
l
b
o
Reason: The lawyers duty to society demands his uprightness in his dealings with third persons.
Thus, while the Court may not ordinarily discipline a lawyer for misconduct committed in his
non-professional or private capacity, the Court may be justified in suspending or removing him
as an attorney where his misconduct outside of the lawyers professional dealings is so gross in
character as to show him morally unfit and unworthy of the privilege which his license and the
law confer.
s
e
l
r
a
B
Question: What circumstances may warrant a more severe penalty upon a lawyer in disbarment
proceedings where the complaint includes a criminal offense committed by the lawyer against
the complainant?
b
o
Answer: The following circumstances may warrant a severe penalty in disbarment proceeding:
1. unjustified refusal to obey the orders of the IBP directing the lawyer to file an answer to
the complaint;
an
h
C
r
a
B
s
e
l
3. blatant refusal to heed the directives of the Quezon City Prosecutors Office for her to file
her counter-affidavit in a criminal case.
b
o
The above acts violate Canon 10.03: Failure to observe rules of procedure.
an
r
a
B
Question: Can a disbarment case be filed against the lawyer while a criminal case remains
pending which arose from the same commission of a deplorable act by the lawyer?
Ch
s
e
l
Answer: Yes. A disbarment case is sui generis in nature. Thus, a disbarment case can proceed
simultaneously with the criminal case instituted against the lawyer. To sustain a conviction in a
criminal case, the prosecution must establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt while in a
disbarment case, only preponderance of evidence is required.
b
o
LAWYER SHOULD NOT BORROW MONEY FROM HIS CLIENT (CANON 16.04)
an
r
a
B
SPS. AMADOR and ROSITA TEJADA v. ATTY. ANTONIUTTI K. PALAA (A.C. No.
7434, August 23, 2007)
h
C
s
e
l
Question: Atty. Palaa borrowed from Sps. Tejada the amount of P100K with interest of P70K
payable in three months to allow him to reconstitute the title of his real property.
b
o
After the lapse of three months without fulfilling his promise to pay the principal of his loan and
its interest, Sps. Amador asked Atty. Palaa to settle his obligation. The demands remain
unheeded. Can Atty. Palaa be held administratively liable for not settling his loan despite
persistent demand from the creditor-spouses?
n
a
Answer: Yes. The complainants could not have been defrauded without the representations of
respondent. A promise of a high interest convinced the complainants to give a loan of P100K to
respondent lawyer. He knew that his representations were false since the filing fee for a petition
for reconstitution and other expenses including the publication of the filing of the petition could
not have cost more than P20,000. It is clear that he employed deceit in convincing complainants
to part with their hard earned money; and the latter could not have been easily swayed to lend the
money were it not for his misrepresentations and failed promises as a member of the bar.
h
C
Therefore, Atty. Palaa is liable for not paying his just obligation.
2|Page
b
o
an
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
r
a
B
s
e
l
Answer: Yes. Lawyers in public service are keepers of public faith and are burdened with the
higher degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than their brethren in private practice.
Thus, a member of Congress can be found guilty of violating Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11
of the Code of Professional Responsibility if a disrespectful utterance is made against the court.
As a member of the Bar and officer of the court, like any other, a member of Congress is dutybound to uphold the dignity and authority of the Court and to maintain the respect due to the
bench.
b
o
an
h
C
r
a
B
ANTONIO CONLU v. ATTY. IRENEO AREDONIA, JR. (A.C. No. 4955, September 12,
2011)
s
e
l
Question: Can a client file an administrative complaint against a lawyer after the former
discovered that the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for non-filing of the appellants brief
within the reglamentary period?
b
o
an
r
a
B
Ch
Answer: Yes. The Court said that it must be remembered that a retained counsel is expected to
serve the client with competence and diligence. This duty includes not merely reviewing the
cases entrusted to the counsels care and giving the client sound legal advice, but also properly
representing the client in court, attending scheduled hearings, preparing and filing required
pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination
without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so. The lawyer should not be
sitting idly by and leave the rights of the client in a state of uncertainty. The failure to file a
brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. This default
translates to a violation of the injunction of Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
s
e
l
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Question: What is the liability of a lawyer who tried to mislead the court as to the date of actual
receipt of the decision?
n
a
Answer: By his act, the lawyer had indulged in deliberate falsehood, contrary to the selfexplanatory prescriptions of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01.
h
C
The lawyer should be penalized for his lack of candor to the court when he tried to mislead the
appellate court about the receipt of a copy of its decision. (The act was done to make it appear
that a timely appeal was filed.)
b
o
Question: What is the remedy of the Supreme Court when a lawyer continues to refuse its order
for him to comment on the disbarment case filed against him?
Answer: The Supreme Court may order the National Bureau of Investigation to arrest the defiant
lawyer at his last known address or in any other place where he may be found.
an
3|Page
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
Question: Can a lawyer be a subject of a disbarment proceeding for attempting to bribe a judge
to secure a favorable judgment?
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Question: What would be an appropriate remedy upon a lawyer who attempted to bribe a judge
in order to secure a favorable ruling?
Answer: Heeding the injunction against decreeing disbarment where a lesser sanction would
suffice to accomplish the desired end, a suspension for one year from the practice of law was
found to be appropriate in a case when the lawyer attempted to bribe a judge.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
ATTY. RICARDO M. SALOMON, JR. v. ATTY. JOSELITO FRIAL (A.C. No. 7820,
September 12, 2008)
Question: Atty. Frial was the counsel of Lucy Lo (complainant) in a case against Atty.
Salomon (defendant). A writ of attachment was issued in favor of Lo for Salomons Volvo and
Nissan Sentra. In a complaint for disbarment, Atty. Salomon alleged that the attaching sheriff of
Manila turned over the attached vehicles to Atty. Frial without any authority from the court.
Was the action of the sheriff proper?
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
Therefore, the sheriff can be a subject of an administrative case for violation of his duty.
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
Question: A lawyer assumed responsibility to take custody of two vehicles which were covered
by a court order. Unfortunately, one of the vehicles caught fire. The lawyer never informed the
court that one of the attached vehicles was now a total wreck. Can the lawyer be held liable for
this unfortunate incident?
b
o
n
a
Answer: Yes. He is guilty of grave misconduct arising from his violation of Canon 16 of the
CPR which provides that money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property
coming into the profession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and
should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him.
h
C
Therefore, he is guilty of violating his fiduciary duty. Fiduciary duty includes the task of
ensuring any property held in favor the client is adequately preserved.
Reason: A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. As such, he is expected to respect
the courts order and processes. He miserably fell short of his duties as such officer. He trifled
with the writ of attachment the court issued. He was remiss in his obligation of taking good care
of the attached cars. He also allowed the use of the Nissan Sentra car by persons who had no
business using it. He did not inform the court or at least the sheriff of the destruction of the
b
o
an
4|Page
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
Volvo car. What is worse is that he took custody of the attached vehicles without so much as
informing the court, let alone securing, its authority.
s
e
l
b
o
CORAZON T. NEVADA v. ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA (A.C. No. 7591, March 20,
2012)
Question: Can a lawyer notarize a document which bears his own signature as a stockholder of
the company which entered into a contract of lease with a tenant with the same company?
r
a
B
Answer: No. The notarial law disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if he or
she is a party to the instrument or document. When he notarized the same contract without
qualification that he signed it as a stockholder of the company, he went against the function of a
Notary Public to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangement.
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
Answer: Yes. Atty. Dimaano violated the 2004 Notarial Law. A Notary Public should refrain
from affixing his signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons who signed it
are the same individuals who executed and personally appeared before the notary public to
attest to the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually
executed the document in question, a notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of
the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the partys free
act or deed. The document requires that proper formalities be strictly observed.
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
Question: What are the formalities required before a Notary Public can affix his signature to a
notarial deed which requires acknowledgment?
an
Answer: The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice now requires a party to the instrument to present
h
C
r
a
B
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual; and
s
e
l
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document
or transaction who is personally known to the notary public; and who personally knows
the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the
notary public competent proof of identity.
b
o
n
a
The Notary Public must ascertain the identities of the affiant(s) and the witnesses to the
document. He must also ensure that all parties must sign on the left side margin of each and
every page of the document.
h
C
The details of the notarized document must be recorded in the notarial register (Notarial Book)
of the commissioned lawyer.
an
h
C
Question: Complainants are the accused in a criminal case wherein they were charged with
qualified theft of bus starters and different tools amounting to P187,000. Judge Nicasio
5|Page
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
b
o
s
e
l
r
a
B
Bartolome, the MTC judge presiding over the case, issued a warrant of arrest against them and
detained them in the provincial jail. Was the judge correct in assuming jurisdiction of the case?
s
e
l
b
o
DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES
Answer: No. The respondent judge should have not assumed jurisdiction because at the time
the case was instituted the amount involved is P187,000 which is beyond the jurisdiction of
a first level court. The respondent judge exhibited his unfamiliarity with the Rules on Criminal
Procedure. He is guilty of violating Sections 3 and 5, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. He also betrayed his lack of competence which is a constitutional qualification for a
member of the judiciary. He likewise violated Canon 6 of the Code of Judicial Conduct on
Competence and Diligence.
s
e
l
r
a
B
Question: Respondent judge took more than three (3) months to issue the Joint Resolution
ordering the return of the cases to the provincial prosecutor for further preliminary investigation.
The rule mandates that he should resolve this issue within a period of ten (10) days. Was the
action of the judge proper?
b
o
an
r
a
B
Answer: No. The Rules on Criminal Procedure requires a judge to submit his resolution of the
case within ten (10) days after the preliminary investigation and transmit the resolution of the
case to the provincial or city prosecutor. There is no question that the judge took inordinate delay
of three (3) months in submitting his resolution of the preliminary investigation. He violated
Canon 6 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires the qualities of competence and
diligence.
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
Question: Under the foregoing facts, what liability did the respondent judge incur?
Answer: The judge betrayed his gross ignorance of the law. When
a judge shows utter
unfamiliarity with fundamental rules and procedures, he contributes to the erosion of public
confidence in the judicial system. Ignorance of the law is a mainspring of injustice.
an
Ch
r
a
B
When judges show professional incompetence, and are ignorant of basic and fundamental rules,
they are guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedures. This is a serious charge under Sec.
8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
s
e
l
b
o
Sec. 11(A) of Rule 140 punishes the offense. He also violated Canon 6 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct on competence and diligence.
an
h
C
r
a
B
Question: An ejectment case was filed before the MTC. On its face, the allegations do not
constitute any ground for the court to take jurisdiction. What action must the judge take under
the premises?
s
e
l
b
o
Answer: The judge must dismiss the case. In ejectment cases, the first duty of a judge is to
examine the allegations in the complaint and the evidence appended to it, and to dismiss the case
outright on any of the grounds apparent in the allegations and order the dismissal of a civil
action.
n
a
If there is a ground for dismissal existing and apparent upon the filing of the complaint, and yet
the judge allowed the case to unnecessarily drag on, the judge is guilty of undue delay in
rendering a decision. (Canon 6 on Competence and Diligence, Code of Judicial Conduct)
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
an
h
C
QUESTION: What would be a reasonable penalty for the administrative offense of undue delay
in rendering judgment?
6|Page
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
r
a
B
ANSWER: A judge who allowed several and doubtless unnecessary postponements which
contributed to the delay in the resolution of what was otherwise a simple case may be subjected
to a monetary fine. The Court held that undue delay in rendering a decision or order constitutes a
less serious offense for which respondent judge is subjected to a fine. (Violation of Canon 6,
Competence and Diligence, Code of Judicial Conduct)
s
e
l
b
o
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Answer: Sec. 1 Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides for the ways on how to institute
administrative proceedings against judges. Under this rule, the three ways to initiate the
complaint are:
an
r
a
B
Second, upon verified complaint with affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the
facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations; or
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
The letter-complaint was signed by all the complaining employees but was not verified. Will
the case prosper?
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
A complainant must attest to his personal knowledge of the allegations embodied in his verified
letter-complaint.
an
*Question: Can the Court take cognizance of an anonymous letter-complaint against a judge?
h
C
r
a
B
Answer: Yes. In Sinsuat v. Hidalgo, the Court took cognizance of the unverified motion and
subsequent letters of complainants submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator since the
unverified complaint was properly considered as an anonymous complaint and the
material allegations were not only admitted by respondent judge but are also verifiable
from public records of indubitable integrity, i.e., records of the trial court, as aptly found by
the CA.
s
e
l
b
o
n
a
Question: Prosecutor Baculi filed information for qualified theft against Capacete but Judge
Belen dismissed the case. In the Motion for Reconsideration, Prosecutor Baculi stated: The
dismissal of the information by the court was motivated by hatred, ill-will, and prejudice
against Asst. State Prosecutor II Jorge Baculi, the Investigating Prosecutor at the
Preliminary Investigation.
h
C
Judge Belen found Baculi guilty of direct contempt and indirect contempt for the contemptuous
nature of the pleadings he filed.
b
o
an
Baculi filed an administrative case against Judge Belen because the judge did not allow him to
air his side for his alleged contemptuous conduct. Will the case prosper?
7|Page
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
Answer: NO, Judge Belen is not administratively liable. The complainant has not presented any
credible evidence to support his allegations. The fact that Judge Belen had initiated contempt
proceedings against him, and in fact convicted him in such contempt proceedings, does not by
itself amount to ill motives on the part of Judge Belen.
s
e
l
*N.B. The primary responsibility of a prosecutor is not to convict but to serve the ends of
justice.
b
o
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
Answer: No. Gross ignorance of the law on the part of a judge presupposes an appalling lack of
familiarity with simple rules of law or procedures and well-established jurisprudence which
tends to erode the public trust in the competence and fairness of the court which he
personifies.
an
r
a
B
Not to know the law as basic, almost elementary, as the Rules of Court, or acting in disregard of
established rule of law as if he were not aware of the same constitutes gross ignorance whence
no one is excused, especially an RTC judge.
h
C
s
e
l
However, the respondent judge, in granting provisional custody over Geoffrey, Jr. in favor of his
mother, Eltesa, did not disregard the res judicata rule nor was he impartial.
b
o
an
r
a
B
Question: Prior to his retirement, the OCA found Judge Quilatan liable for gross inefficiency for
failure to decide the 34 cases submitted for decision within the required period. The OCA
recommended that the erring judge be fined fifty thousand pesos (PhP 50,000). Is Judge
Quilatan is guilty of gross inefficiency?
Ch
s
e
l
Answer: Yes. The Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for judges to resolve their cases
with dispatch. Delay does not only constitute a serious violation of the parties constitutional
right to speedy disposition of cases, it also erodes the faith and confidence of the people in
the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute. Without doubt, Judge
Quilatan violated his mandate when he failed to decide 34 cases within three (3) months from
their submission, for which he should be administratively sanctioned. (Violation of Canon 6,
Competence and Diligence)
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
DISQUALIFICATION/INHIBITION OF JUDGES
r
a
B
b
o
Question: During the pendency of the criminal case, the prosecution on behalf of Go, wanted to
present certain witnesses to strengthen the case of the prosecution. However, the trial court felt
no need for the testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses. This prompted Go to file an
administrative complaint against Judge Nemesio Felix for partiality.
n
a
h
C
The CA dismissed the complaint of Go. Go failed to establish the partiality of the presiding
judge when it limited the number witnesses. It rationalized that Judge Felix had the discretion to
inhibit himself from the case unless the ground for his inhibition is that which calls for
mandatory inhibition of the same and in this case no such ground exists. Go insists that there is a
valid ground to inhibit the judge. Is his contention tenable?
b
o
Answer: None. There is no valid ground to inhibit the judge as there was no manifest partiality.
Indeed, the adverse rulings on the denial of the proposed testimonies of the prosecutions
witnesses are judicial in nature. Absent proof that the trial court judge had acted in a wanton,
whimsical or oppressive manner or for an illegal consideration, and similar reasons, in
giving undue advantage to respondent, inhibition is not a remedy to oust the judge from sitting
on the case.
an
8|Page
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
Second, the other two (2) grounds raised by petitioner are also baseless. It is an age old rule in
civil cases that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not
evidence.
s
e
l
b
o
Question: Complainant charged Judge Wacas of Impropriety and Partiality for not inhibiting
himself in the case alleging that he is Dagadags second cousin by affinity, the formers aunt is
married to an uncle of Dagadag.
r
a
B
Tiggangay made the allegation on the basis of "some reliable sources," not from his personal
knowledge. Judge Wacas maintained that Tiggangay never moved for his inhibition during the
entire proceedings. Should the judge inhibit himself under the foregoing facts cited by
complainant?
s
e
l
b
o
Answer: No. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the
acts complained of rests on the complainant. In the instant case, Tiggangay failed to present
substantial evidence to prove his allegations. One who alleges a fact has the burden of proof and
mere allegation is not evidence.
an
r
a
B
N.B. As a general rule, the objection for the judge to inhibit himself must be raised during the
trial and not after the judge had rendered an adverse ruling against the complainant.
h
C
s
e
l
Reason: Granting arguendo that the aunt of Judge Wacas is married to the uncle of respondent
Dagadag, such reality is not a ground for the mandatory inhibition of a Judge as required under
Sec. 1of Rule 137, Revised Rules of Procedure, since there is actually no relation of affinity
between Judge Wacas and Dagadag. Indeed, "there is no affinity between the blood relatives of
one spouse and the blood relatives of the other. A husband is related by affinity to his wifes
brother, but not to the wife of his wifes brother. There is no affinity between the husbands
brother and the wifes sister.
b
o
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Question: Complainant asked respondent sheriff not to execute an adverse decision since he has
not yet received a copy of the denial of the motion from the adverse judgment
an
r
a
B
Despite his plea, respondent sheriff still pushed through with the execution of the judgment and
in enforcing, allegedly uttered words degrading to the reputation of the complainant. The lawyer
filed a Complaint-Affidavit against the respondent sheriff for grave misconduct. Is the
respondent sheriff guilty of grave misconduct?
h
C
s
e
l
Answer: Yes, the respondent should be penalized for discourtesy in the performance of his
official duties. As a public officer and a trustee for the public, it is the ever existing responsibility
of respondent to demonstrate courtesy and civility in his official actuations with the public.
b
o
Public service requires integrity and discipline. At all times, employees of the judiciary are
expected to accord respect to the person and the rights of another, even a co-employee. Their
every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity.
n
a
h
C
b
o
an
Answer: Yes. However, respondents act can only be regarded as simple misconduct since it
has no direct relation to the performance of his official duties. Respondent committed
misconduct when he verbally abused his co-employees and appeared at his place of work drunk.
9|Page
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
Drinking during office hours may constitute misconduct and is prohibited under the Civil Service
Rules. Drinking undermines efficiency and is counter-productive. It generates an unwholesome
consequence on a public servant. And when the culprit is an employee of the court, the image of
the judiciary as a whole cannot but be affected.
s
e
l
b
o
In Re: Expiration of Fixed Term of Office of Atty. Saaduddin A. Alauya, Office of the
Jurisconsult, Zamboanga City (A.M. No. 11238-Ret, August 18, 2015)
r
a
B
Question: In a Resolution, the Court denied Atty. Alauyas request for a lifetime monthly
pension enjoyed by RTC judges. Alauya moved for reconsideration and argued that the Court en
banc conferred upon him the rank and privileges of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge effective
October 1996. Armed with this resolution, he claimed that he should enjoy the same retirement
benefits extended to judges. Is the legal argument of Alauya tenable?
s
e
l
b
o
Answer: Yes. Time and again, the Court has followed the practice of liberal treatment in passing
upon retirement issues and claims, particularly of judges and justices, obviously in keeping with
the beneficial intendment of retirement laws which is to reward satisfactory past services. At the
same time, these measures provide the retiree with the means to support himself and his family
in his remaining years. On several occasions, the Court has liberally interpreted retirement laws
in keeping with its purpose.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
Reason: In Government Service Insurance System v. De Leon: The Court held that retirement
laws, in particular, are liberally construed in favor of the retiree because their objective is to
provide for the retirees sustenance and, hopefully, even comfort, when he no longer has the
capability to earn a livelihood. The liberal approach aims to achieve the humanitarian purposes
of the law in order that efficiency, security, and well-being of government employees may be
enhanced.
b
o
an
r
a
B
Reason: Indeed, retirement laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of the
persons intended to be benefited, and all doubts are resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve
their humanitarian purpose. Upon the foregoing perspective, the term privileges of an RTC
judge and the conferment thereof must be considered as covering the retirement benefits under
RA 910, meaning a lump-sum payment of five years salary and a monthly pension until death
after the 5-year period.
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein;
n
a
h
C
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, neither
give aid nor consent to the same;
I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the
best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients;
and
an
Q. What are the sources of ethical standards for the members of the bench and bar?
A. (1) Constitution Article VIII The Judicial Department, Sec. 5(5),
Article VI The Legislative Department, Sec.14,
10 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
b
o
I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So help me God. (Rules of Court, Form 28)
s
e
l
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
r
a
B
s
e
l
(10) Legislations from Congress (creation and jurisdiction of appellate and other lower courts,
also the Lapid Law on legal aid service of lawyers);
b
o
an
r
a
B
A. The Four-fold duty of a lawyer - to Society, the Legal Profession, the Courts and Clients.
h
C
s
e
l
A. The practice of law is performing any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Paguia v. Office of the
President, 621 SCRA 600
b
o
A. The practice of law is a mere privilege and not a right. The admission of lawyers and the rules
governing the practice of law is a constitutional mandate given to the Supreme Court. Elements
of the legal profession are: organization, learning, and the spirit of public service. (Section 5 (5),
Article VIII, Constitution)
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
Cayetano v. Monsod (G. R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991, 201 SCRA 210): The practice of
law is not limited to appearances in court as a litigator but also the work of a corporate lawyer in
preparation of documents and the giving of legal advice.
b
o
Paguia v. Office of the President (621 SCRA 600): A lawyer suspended from the practice of law
is precluded from applying his knowledge of law in and out of court while undergoing his
suspension. A suspended lawyer cannot even appear on behalf of a relative as a friend because
he would inevitably apply his knowledge of the law.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
A. The practice of law includes: the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to
actions and special proceedings; conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds;
and the giving of all legal advice to clients.
b
o
n
a
h
C
A. The practice of law as a profession may only be exercised by natural persons, who are
lawyers, either as solo practitioners or in partnership with other lawyers.
b
o
an
Q. What are the primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business?
A. 1. The practice of law involves a duty of public service of which the emolument is a byproduct and one may obtain eminence without making much money.
11 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
2. The practice of law creates a relation as an officer of the court whose primary role is to assist
in the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability.
s
e
l
3. The practice of law creates a relation with clients with the highest fiduciary degree.
4. The practice of law creates a relation which other lawyers which requires candor, fairness and
decency avoiding any kind of encroachment upon others practice.
b
o
s
e
l
r
a
B
A. Petition For Authority To Continue Use Of The Firm Name "Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano,
HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO" AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME "OZAETA, ROMULO, DE
LEON, MABANTA & REYES." [G.R. NO. X92-1. JULY 30, 1979.]The Court held that: ". . . It
is of the essence of a profession that it is practiced in a spirit of public service. A trade . .
.aims primarily at personal gain; a profession at the exercise of powers beneficial to mankind.
x x x. But 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. x x x 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.
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
r
a
B
ADRIANO E. DACANAY v. BAKER & MCKENZIE, ADM. CASE NO. 2131 MAY 10, 1985.
The S.C. held that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the
Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). 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"
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
Q. A disbarment case was filed against Atty. Balauitan. The basis of the complaint was a Deed
of Sale executed between the lawyer and the complainant. Atty. Balauitan moved for the
dismissal of the case arguing that the matter does involve any lawyer-client relationship. Is his
legal argument tenable?
an
h
C
r
a
B
A. A lawyer cannot have a dichotomy between his private life and his professional responsibility
as a lawyer. He can be disbarred even if there is no lawyer-client relationship between him and a
complainant in a disbarment case and if the transaction involves his sale of a portion of his real
property. Gacias v. Balauitan (507 SCRA 8, 2006)
s
e
l
b
o
Q. Can an individual practicing before the Shaira court affix the prefix ATTY. before his
name?
n
a
A. No. While the Supreme Court administers the examinations for one to practice before the
Shari a courts, any one admitted is not allowed to use the prefix ATTY. unless he is also a
member of the Philippine bar. Shari a courts have limited jurisdiction particularly on matters
related to personal, family and property law consistent with the provisions of the Constitution
and national laws. Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P, February 24, 1997
h
C
b
o
an
12 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
Q. Mr. Roberto Lo was born in Australia of Filipino parents. After he completed his college
degree in Business Administration in Sydney, Australia, he enrolled in one of the universities
in Metro Manila to obtain his law degree. He successfully graduated with a Bachelor of Laws
degree and is now processing his documents to be able to take his bar examinations. Can he
qualify to take the bar examinations? Justify your answer.
s
e
l
b
o
A. Yes. Under the 1987 Constitution, Roberto Lo is considered a natural-born Filipino since both
his parents remain Filipino citizens at the time of his birth. He also completed his law degree
from a local school in Metro Manila.
r
a
B
Q. Can a Filipino citizen be allowed to take the bar when he obtained his law degree from
Columbia University in New York?
A. No. Every person intending to be admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines must meet
all the qualifications under Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138. (In Re: Application of Adriano M.
Hernandez, July 27, 1993)
s
e
l
b
o
Q. Christian San Juan passed the bar with a passing grade of 80.50%. He was not allowed to
take his oath because Cristina Garcia, his childhood sweetheart with whom he has a child
without benefit of marriage, filed a timely motion to exclude him from the oath taking
ceremonies. Was Cristina justified in preventing San Juan from taking his Attorneys Oath?
Why?
an
h
C
r
a
B
A. Yes, because San Juan does not possess good moral character which is a requirement for
admission to the bar.
s
e
l
Barba v. Pedro (61SCRA 484, 1974): A bar passer who sired a child with a public school
teacher was not allowed to take his oath for lack of good moral character but was allowed to do
so after 18 years based on testimonials of his reformation when he worked as a community social
development worker after passing the bar.
b
o
Q. Santiago Go was conditionally allowed to take the bar examinations because he indicated
in his application for admission that there are only two pending civil cases against him at that
time and no criminal charges were filed against him at the time of his application for
admission to the practice of law. Santiago Go successfully passed the bar examinations and
landed 5th in said examinations. Before taking his oath, Leticia Sia asked the Supreme Court
not to allow Go to take his oath because she actually filed a rape case against him which case
remains pending but which information Go withheld in his application. Will her request be
given due course?
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
A. Yes. If it can be established that the bar passer does not possess good moral character, he will
not be allowed to take his oath.
an
r
a
B
Zaguirre v. Castillo, (A.C. No. 4921, March 6, 2003): Good moral character is required for
admission to law and misrepresentation about his true legal status will be a ground for a bar
passer was suspended indefinitely upon passing the bar.
h
C
s
e
l
Q. Is possession of good moral character required only for admission to the practice of law?
b
o
A. Maintenance of good moral character is required to retain continued membership in the bar.
Mecaral v. Velasquez (A.C. No 8392 June 29, 2010): The Supreme Court disbarred a lawyer
who founded a religious cult and made his secretary a sex slave.
n
a
Cordon v. Balicanta (Adm. Case No. 2797, October 4, 2002, 390 SCRA 299 (2002): The S.C.
disbarred a lawyer who used his knowledge of the law to commit fraud against his client by
forming a corporation out of the estate of the deceased husband of the complainant. The lawyer
made himself the sole signatory of said company which allowed him to mortgage several
properties of the corporation which were eventually foreclosed by the creditor bank.
h
C
Arellano University, Inc. v. Mijares III, 605 SCRA 93, 2009: The S.C. disbarred a lawyer who
admitted in his Affidavit in the disbarment case against him that he asked for facilitation fee to
bribe the Vice Mayor of Manila in the course of his engagement as counsel. The S.C. referred the
case to the Ombudsman against the Vice Mayor and the lawyer for the crime of bribery. The
Court held that a lawyers professional fee does not include facilitation fee.
b
o
an
13 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
A. Public policy demands that any person seeking admission to the bar in the Philippines be
required to furnish satisfactory proof of his knowledge of the law and ethical standards and of his
possession of such degree of learning and proficiency in law as may be deemed necessary for the
due performance of the duties of lawyer.
r
a
B
Q. Candido completed his law degree in October 2015. He wanted to become a lawyer but he
realized that it was too late for him to take the November 2015 bar examinations. Can he file a
petition to the Supreme Court to be allowed to take his special bar examinations?
s
e
l
A. No. The Supreme Court administers the bar examinations only once a year.
b
o
Q. Fernando, a Filipino citizen, completed his study of law in Spain and was allowed to
practice law in Spain. He sought permission from the Supreme Court that he be allowed to be
admitted to Philippine bar. In his petition he invoked the provisions of the Treaty on
Academic Degrees and Professions between the Philippines and Spain. How will you rule on
the petition of Fernando?
an
h
C
r
a
B
A. I will deny Fernandos petition. Fernando has remained a Filipino citizen and he cannot
invoke the provisions of the treaty which is founded on reciprocity of the nationals of each
country and the grant of the privilege is always subject to the domestic laws of both countries. In
Re: Garcia, 2 SCRA 985
s
e
l
b
o
1. Attorneys-at Law: the class of persons who are by license, officers of the court, empowered to
appear, prosecute and defend, and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are
developed by law as a consequence. Cul v. Cul, 120 Phil. 729
an
Ch
r
a
B
s
e
l
3. Counsel de oficio: a counsel, appointed or assigned by the court, from among such members
of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability may adequately defend
the accused. The person need not be a member of the bar if no lawyer is available in a given
locality. (Sec. 7, Rule 116, Rules of Court)
b
o
an
r
a
B
h
C
4. Attorney Ad Hoc: a person named and appointed by the court to defend an absentee defendant
in a suit in which the appointment is made.
s
e
l
5. Attorney of Record: a member of the bar appointed by a client to represent in cause of a court
and upon whom service of papers may be made.
b
o
6. Of Counsel: a member of the bar who is associated with a law office but does not normally
appear as counsel of record of cases handled by the law office.
n
a
7. Lead Counsel: a member of the bar who charged with the principal management and direction
of a party-litigant.
h
C
8. House Counsel: a member of the bar who acts as attorney for a business company as an
employee of such company and renders legal advice on matters necessary in the ordinary course
of its business.
9. Amicus Curiae: a friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject
matter of the action. One who is considered as an experience and impartial attorney to help in the
disposition of issues submitted to the Court. (Sec. 36, Rule 138)
b
o
an
10. Amicus Curiae par Excellence: bar associations who appear in court as amici curiae or
friends of the court. Like an individual amicus curiae, amicus curiae par excellence do not
represent any party to the case but act as consultant in a doubtful issue for resolution of the court.
They do not receive any compensation for their legal services to the court.
14 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
11. Counsel de parte: a lawyer retained by a party litigant, usually, for a fee, to prosecute or
defend his cause in court. The term implies freedom of choice either on the part of the lawyer to
accept the employment or on the part of the litigant to continue or terminate the retainer at any
time.
s
e
l
12. Pro bono Counsel: a lawyer who renders legal services without charging any professional
fees but does not shoulder the costs of litigation on behalf of his client.
b
o
r
a
B
s
e
l
16. Proctor: In England , an attorney in in the admiralty and ecclesiastical courts whose duties
and business correspond exactly to those of an attorney-at-law or solicitor in a Chancery.
b
o
Q. What is barratry?
A. It is the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels in suits. It is frowned upon as it
is against public policy.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
A. This practice originated in New York, where through a lawyer or his agent, cases are literally
solicited in hospitals or in police precincts. The evils sought to be prevented by this practice are:
fomenting litigation; subornation of perjury; mulcting of innocent persons upon manufactured
causes of action; defrauding injured parties.
b
o
an
r
a
B
A. Law Student Practice Rule: Rule 138-A of the Rules of court allows a law student to
represent indigent clients provided one has successfully completed the 3rd year of a prescribed
four-year curriculum and enrolled in a recognized law schools clinical legal education program
Ch
s
e
l
> In Bar Matter No.730 dated June 10, 1998, the Supreme Court required that law student
practice before the Regional Trial Court must be under the direct supervision and control
of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
b
o
> Under Section 34 of the Rules of Court, a law student may appear before the first level
court as an agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
n
a
h
C
an
2. Persons who are not lawyers: Indirect Contempt (Sec. 3 (e), Rule 71)
h
C
Ciocon-Reer v. Lubao (674 SCRA 13): Karaan would always appear in court and he even files
pleadings without indicating any Roll of Attorney No., PTR, MCLE and IBP O.R.No. After
15 | P a g e
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
b
o
s
e
l
r
a
B
investigation, OCA found out that the 71 year old Karaan was not in fact a lawyer. He was found
guilty of indirect contempt of court and fined P10,000.00 without imprisonment.
s
e
l
b
o
A. Yes. CANON 6 of the CPR provides: These Canons shall apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their tasks.(Rules 6.01-6.03, Code of Professional
Responsibility).
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
Under Special Laws: Governors and Mayors (Local Government Code); Solicitors and trial
lawyers of the Office of the Solicitor General, lawyers of the Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel, Government prosecutors under the DOJ and the Office of the Ombudsman
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
A. With prior written authorization of the heads of office, some government lawyers may be
authorized to practice law provided they will not represent any party who has an adverse claim
against the government.
an
r
a
B
Lorenzana v. Fajardo ( 462 SCRA 1 (2005)): A lawyer is guilty of violating the Civil Service
rule on double compensation when he accepted an appointment as a lawyer of the Urban Affairs
Office of the City of Manila and a member of the PLEB of Quezon City.
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
A. The lawyers tasked to represent government: OSG, OGCC, lawyers in regular departments,
bureaus, offices, lawyers in the government financial institutions, lawyers in government owned
and controlled corporations, lawyers who serve the governments interest under special
contracts/or engagements, lawyers under the local government units.
an
Q. Who are the lawyers who represent the interest of the state in criminal cases?
h
C
r
a
B
A. Government lawyers tasked to prosecute and represent the interest of the state are the Public
Prosecutors from the DOJ and Office of the Ombudsman.
s
e
l
b
o
A. Lawyers who work with the Public Attorneys Office represent the indigent litigants.
Q. Can the Supreme Court motu propio discipline lawyers?
A. Yes.
n
a
People of the Philippines v. The Hon. Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 208290,
December 11, 2013.CTA in conformity with the Run After the Smugglers (RATS) Group of the
Revenue Collection Monitoring Group (RCMG) of the BOC tried the private respondents for
violation of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended. S.C. said that it could
not countenance the following patent violations of the government prosecutors: failure of the
prosecution failed to present certified true copies of the documentary evidence under Section 7,
Rule 130 and Section 127, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the petition for certiorari was filed
beyond the reglamentary period. This stance taken by the lawyers in government service rouses
the Courts vigilance against inefficiency in the administration of justice and the presumption
that the case was doomed by design from the start was doomed by design from the start. Verily,
the lawyers representing the offices under the executive branch should be reminded that they still
remain as officers of the court from whom a high sense of competence and fervor is expected.
The Court reminded the lawyers in the BOC that the canons embodied in the Code of
h
C
b
o
an
16 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
s
e
l
Q. May a labor arbiter apply a principle in Corporation Law to support his decision in a labor
dispute?
b
o
s
e
l
r
a
B
VI. Suspension, disbarment and discipline of lawyers (Rule 139-B, Rule of Court)
b
o
an
r
a
B
Bengco v. Bernardo, 672 SCRA 352 (2012): S.C. said that administrative cases against lawyers
do not prescribe. Despite the considerable lapse of time between the commission of the
infraction and the time of filing, there is need to determine the administrative liability of lawyers.
h
C
s
e
l
Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa, 677 SCRA 352(2012): A lawyer cannot escape the disciplining arm of
the Court despite any delay in the filing of an administrative case against a lawyer.
b
o
Initiation of a Complaint
an
Ch
Board of Governors
IBP Board of
Governors
s
e
l
Chairman, CBD
an
h
C
b
o
r
a
B
s
e
l
REPORT
r
a
B
Commissioner
b
o
n
a
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
Q. Describe the proceedings before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines.
A. Proceedings before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
an
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
ar
s
e
l
and
b
o
The Chairman of the CBD submits the report of the Investigating Commissioner to the
Board of Governors.
In a meeting called for the purpose, the Board of Governors evaluates the report and
renders its own resolution.
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Q. Can a lawyer move for dismissal of the disbarment case against him based on prejudicial
question?
an
r
a
B
A. No. A disbarment proceeding being sui generis can proceed independently of any criminal
action instituted against the lawyer.
h
C
s
e
l
ANTONINA S. SOSA v. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA, A.C. No. 8776, March 22, 2015, Brion,
J. This is a complaint for the disbarment/suspension of Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza)
filed on October 22, 2010 by Antonina S. Sosa (Ms. Sosa), for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility arising from non-payment of debt.
b
o
n
a
A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a
plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted
solely for the public welfare. For violation of Rule 1.01, the lawyer was suspended from the
practice of law for one year.
h
C
Q. Can a lawyer set up the defense of double jeopardy in a disbarment case against him?
b
o
an
18 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
are also required for the continued enjoyment of the privilege to practice and lack of
qualifications is a matter of public concern and S.C. may inquire into them.
s
e
l
Q. Can a lawyer move for dismissal of a disciplinary case against him on the ground that the
complainants are not the injured party to the case?
b
o
A. No because the practice of law is imbued with public interest and institution of complaints
against lawyers is not predicated on a lawyer-client relationship.
Nestor Figueras and Bienvenido Victoria, Jr. v. Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116,
March 12, 2014.The S.C. held that the complainants have personality to file the disbarment case.
In Heck v. Judge Santos, the Court held that [a]ny interested person or the court motu
proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings. The right to institute disbarment proceedings is
not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the
alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings being sui generis, the procedural requirement
observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit
will not apply.
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
A. Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa, 677 SCRA 352 (2012): A lawyer convicted of direct bribery can be a
subject of disbarment proceedings. Direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. The
defense that his conviction was not in his capacity as a lawyer but as a public officer betrays the
unmistakable lack of integrity in his character.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
In Re: Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin, 670 SCRA 366(2112): The conviction of Atty. Pactolin before
the Sandiganbayan for the crime of Falsification of Public Document is contrary to justice,
honesty and good morals. This is a crime involving moral turpitude. Even if the IBP
recommended dismissal of the case, S.C. disbarred him because disbarment is the appropriate
penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude.
b
o
Q. Can a judge who has been dismissed from the judiciary still be a subject of a disbarment
proceeding?
an
r
a
B
A. Yes. OCA v. Liangco, 662 SCRA 103 (2011): The dismissal of a judge from service will not
preclude the filing of a disbarment case against him before the IBP. The disbarment was based
on the same grounds for his dismissal: gross misconduct and inexcusable ignorance. He failed to
make a distinction between a Resolution and an Ordinance and that as judge, he cannot render
an Opinion but rather he must receive evidence and make a decision after termination of trial. It
will be the IBP who will investigate a judge who has retired from the judiciary and not the
Supreme Court.
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
A. PO1 JOSE B. CASPE v. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA, A.C. No. 10679, March 10,
2015, Villarama, J.: In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clear
preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability. As long as the evidence presented
by complainant or that taken judicial notice of by the Court is more convincing and worthy of
belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto, the imposition of disciplinary sanction is
justified.
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
A. No. Joven and Reynaldo C. Rasing v. Atty. Pablo R. Cruz and Frankie O. Magsalin
III, A.C. No. 7686, July 31, 2013. The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension
proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the complainant. The Court exercises its
disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the complaint by clearly preponderant
evidence that warrants the imposition of the harsh penalty.
n
a
h
C
Atty. Alan F. Paguia v. Atty. Manuel T. Molina, A.C. No. 9881, June 4, 2014.The S.C. said in
when it comes to administrative cases against lawyers, two things are to be considered: quantum
of proof, which requires clearly preponderant evidence; and burden of proof, which is on the
complainant. Here, the complaint was without factual basis. Even if Atty. Molina did provide his
clients legal advice, he still cannot be held administratively liable without any showing that his
act was attended with bad faith or malice. The default rule is presumption of good faith.
Q. What is the effect of the withdrawal of a disbarment case?
an
h
C
A. Adelia V. Quiachon v. Atty. Joseph Ador A. Ramos, A.C. No. 9317, June 4, 2014. The S.C.
held that the withdrawal of a disbarment case against a lawyer does not terminate or abate the
19 | P a g e
b
o
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
jurisdiction of the IBP and of the Court to continue an administrative proceeding against a
lawyer-respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar. The complainant in a disbarment case is
not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court.
s
e
l
b
o
A. Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court provides the following grounds: deceit or any gross
misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of crime involving moral turpitude, violation
of lawyers Oath, willful disobedience of any lawful order, or corruptly or willfully appearing as
an attorney for a party in a case without authority, malpractice which includes practice of
soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers..
r
a
B
Rose Bunagan-Bansig v. Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera, A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014. The
Court ordered Celera disbarred for contracting a second marriage when his first marriage with
Complainant was still subsisting. The Supreme Court held that for purposes of the disbarment
proceeding, the Marriage Certificates bearing the name of Atty. Celera are competent and
convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as a
member of the Bar. Atty. Celera exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required
of him as a member of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding
respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is
subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section
27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
s
e
l
b
o
an
h
C
r
a
B
Edgardo Areola v. Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza, A.C. No. 10135, January 15, 2014. This case
involves a PAO who advised her clients Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain
na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon.Thus, a complaint was lodged against her for violation of
the attorneys oath, deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in office under Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. S. C. held that Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible
advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Rule 15.07 states
that a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness. However, while her remark was inappropriate and unbecoming, her comment was not
disparaging and reproachful so as to cause dishonor and disgrace to the Judiciary. Thus, she
was only reprimanded and sternly warned.
s
e
l
b
o
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
An attorney-client relationship terminates upon death of either client or the lawyer. Thus, a
lawyer must be more circumspect in his demeanor and attitude towards the public in general
as agents of the judicial system.
n
a
TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ, v. ATTY. TRINA DE VERA, A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015,
Leonen, J. An administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension was filed by complainant
Teresita B. Enriquez against Atty. Trina De Vera. The Court found Atty. Trina De Vera
committed serious misconduct and should be held administratively liable for the issuance and
dishonor of several post-dated checks. She was suspended from the practice of law for one year
h
C
b
o
Q. What are the guidelines in lifting of the order of suspension of the lawyer?
A. MANIEGO v. DE DIOS, 617 SCRA 142 (2010). The Court held that after the period of
suspension, the resumption to practice is not automatic. The Court issued the following
guidelines:
an
1. After a finding that the respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the
Court shall render a decision rendering the penalty.
20 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
2. Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt
thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The
denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory.
s
e
l
3. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with
the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant that he or she has desisted from the practice
of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension;
b
o
4. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the local chapter of the IBP and to the
Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and
where he or she has appeared as counsel;
r
a
B
5. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents compliance with the order
of suspension; and
s
e
l
6. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the respondent under oath shall be a
ground for imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.
b
o
To summarize:
(i) File a Sworn Statement with the Office of the Bar confidant that the respondent lawyer has
served the period of suspension stating that he/she desisted from the practice of law and never
appeared in any court during the period of suspension.
an
r
a
B
(ii) Copies of the Sworn Statement must be furnished the chapter of which the respondent lawyer
is a member and the Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts and first level courts where
respondent lawyer has pending cases.
h
C
s
e
l
(iii) If satisfied, the Court will lift the order of suspension and reinstate the erring lawyer
b
o
Q. What is the effect of an adverse disciplinary action instituted abroad against a Filipino
lawyer?
A. A decision in a disciplinary action against a Filipino lawyer practicing abroad may also be a
basis for a disbarment proceeding against the same lawyer in the Philippines.
an
r
a
B
Velez v. De Vera, 496 SCRA 345 (2006): A finding of fact by the California State Bar can be a
basis of an administrative complaint against a Filipino lawyer before the IBP.
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
During her period of suspension she represented her husband where complainant Feliciano was
a party. The Supreme Court said it recognizes the fact that it is part of the Filipino culture that
amid an adversity, families will always look out and extend a helping hand to a family member,
more so, in this case, to a spouse. Thus, considering that Atty. Lozada's actuation was prompted
by her affection to her husband and that in essence, she was not representing a client but rather
a spouse, we deem it proper to mitigate the severeness of her penalty.
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
n
a
Q. Can a bar passer convicted of a homicide still be admitted to the practice of law?
h
C
A. Yes. IN RE: OATH TAKING OF ARGOSINO, B.M. 712, July 13, 1995 and En Banc
Resolution dated March 19, 1997. A lawyer who was involved in the fatal death of a neophyte in
the initiation rites of his fraternity was finally allowed to take his oath after he showed several
proofs of testimonial of good character.
b
o
an
MACARUBBO v. MACARUBBO, A.M. 6148, January 22, 2013. Macarubbo was disbarred for
contracting three marriages. While the disbarment case was pending, Macarrubo resorted to
filing separate civil actions to annul two of said marriages. Eight years after his disbarment, he
21 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
filed a Petition for Extraordinary Mercy for reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys. In granting
his Petition, the Court considered the following guidelines set forth in Re: Letter of Augustus C.
Diaz, MTC Branch 37, Appealing for Clemency (533 SCRA 534, 2010):
s
e
l
b
o
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited
to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the IBP, judges or judges
associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A
subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give
rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.
r
a
B
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of penalty to ensure a period of reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he has still productive years ahead
of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
s
e
l
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen
or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative
and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
b
o
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency
The Court concluded with a reminder that to enjoy continued member in the legal profession,
one must be a person of good moral character.
an
r
a
B
h
C
Requisites - Updating and full payment of all IBP membership dues; Payment of Professional
Tax; Completion of MCLE credit units; and Retaking of the Lawyers Oath
s
e
l
b
o
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
R.A. 9225 provides that if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines and
he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions (he shall apply with the proper
authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.
an
r
a
B
Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law of Benjamin M. Dacanay, 540 SCRA 424: To
reacquire, the authority to resume his practice of law, the repatriated Filipino must:
h
C
1. Update and pay in full his annual membership dues in the IBP;
2. Pay his professional tax;
s
e
l
3. Complete his 36 credit hours of MCLE to refresh him of his knowledge of Philippine laws,
rules of practice, recent jurisprudence and update him of recent legal developments (MCLE will
be from the time he was absent in the Philippines up to the time he resumes his practice);and
b
o
4. Retake his oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer
and as an officer of the Court, but also to renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines.
n
a
h
C
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes. (Rules 1.01-1.04)
an
A. The lawyer must at all times in the protection of the rights of client ensure compliance with
the law governing the issues of the pending case. FERNANDO W. CHU v. ATTY. JOSE C.
GUICO, JR., A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015, PER CURIAM: Fernando W. Chu invokes the
Courts disciplinary authority in resolving this disbarment complaint against his former lawyer,
22 | P a g e
b
o
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
respondent Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr., whom he has accused of gross misconduct. Atty. Guico was
disbarred for having had violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu which constituted an act of
extortion and misrepresentation that caused dishonor to and contempt for the legal profession.
s
e
l
b
o
A. MELVYN G. GARCIA v. ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREO, A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No.
10457, February 03, 2015, PER CURIAM: Two complaints for disbarment were filed by Dr.
Melvyn G. Garcia (Garcia) against Atty. Raul H. Sesbreo. The two cases, docketed as A.C. No.
7973 and A.C. No. 10457, were consolidated in the Courts Resolution dated 30 September
2014. The IBP-CBD consolidated A.C. No. 7973 with CBD Case No. 08-2273. The parties
agreed on the sole issue to be resolved: whether moral turpitude is involved in a conviction for
homicide. The Court held in the affirmative and ordered Sesbreno disbarred.
s
e
l
r
a
B
DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO,
A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015, PER CURIAM. Complainant charged the two lawyers with
gross immoral conduct. Atty. Catindig was disbarred for contracting a second marriage with the
complainant while his first marriage was still subsisting. The charge against Atty. Baydo was
dismissed for lack of evidence.
b
o
an
r
a
B
Tiong v. Florendo, 662 SCR A 1 (2011): The S.C. held that a lawyers act of having an affair
with his clients wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his
own marital vow of fidelity. His illicit relationship with the wife of his client showed that he
violated Canon 17 of the CPR for abuse of the trust and confidence reposed in him. An Affidavit
of Desistance or any other sworn statement with the same effect will not excuse the lawyer
because any disciplinary proceeding is clothed with public interest.
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
Garrido v. Garrido, 611 SCRA 508 (2010): A charge of immorality was brought before the
lawyer for having contracted three marriages. He left his first wife to pursue his study of law. He
contracted his second marriage upon misrepresentation that he is single. He engaged in an extra
marital affair with a lawyer whom he eventually married in Hongkong while his second
marriage was subsisting. Such conduct betrayed his moral depravity for which he was disbarred.
The lady lawyer was eventually disbarred for knowing that Garrido had other two subsisting
marriages when she had her romantic relationship with him even before she became a lawyer.
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
A. Brennisen v. Contawi, 670 SCRA 358(2012): The S.C. disbarred a lawyer who acted with
deceit when, through the use of a falsified document, he effected the unauthorized mortgage and
sale of his clients property for his personal benefit.
Bueno v. Raneses, 687 SCRA 711(2012): The S.C. disbarred a lawyer who practically asked the
client to sell everything for the sake of winning the case, only to end up not really doing
anything. By asking money from his client for a purportedly bribery to the judge to win a case,
the lawyer tarnished the image of the judiciary and put a black mark in the legal profession as
well.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
Natividad P. Navarro and Hilda S. Presbitero v. Atty. Ivan M. Solidum, Jr., A.C. No. 9872,
January 28, 2014.The Court held that Atty. Solidum, Jr. violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a
lawyers professional duties. 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. Atty. Solidum, Jr. was held guilty of engaging in dishonest and
deceitful conduct, both in his professional capacity with respect to his client. The fiduciary
nature of the relationship between the counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. Atty. Solidum, Jr.
failed to fulfill this duty.
b
o
n
a
h
C
CANON 2 - A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient
manner compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession.
(Rules 2.01-2.04
an
h
C
A. Lisangan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009: A lawyer who allowed his
paralegal/secretary to solicit the clients of a fellow lawyer with a promise of financial assistance
23 | P a g e
b
o
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
was suspended by the S.C. and reminded lawyers that their calling cards must only contain their
name, fields of practice, contact details and nothing more. The prohibition applies to the nonlegal staff in order to curb any abuse of the privilege of the law.
s
e
l
b
o
CANON 3 A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only the true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts. (Rules 3.01-3.04)
r
a
B
CANON 4 A lawyer shall participate in the development of the legal system by initiating or
supporting efforts in law reforms and in the improvement of the administration of justice.
A lawyer is encouraged to participate in the formulation of amendments in the Rules of Court to
improve the administration of justice.
s
e
l
A lawyer may attend congressional hearings involving changes in substantive laws; creation of
new courts; and redefining jurisdiction of trial and appellate courts.
b
o
CANON 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in disseminating the law and jurisprudence.
an
h
C
r
a
B
A lawyer is expected to comply with the requirements of the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education and to participate in the activities of the IBP and other legal professional
organizations.
s
e
l
b
o
A. The MCLE Board is composed of a retired justice of the Supreme Court is the Chairman, with
the following as members: an incumbent dean of a recognized law school, a representative from
a designated law center, the Chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy and the President of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
A. Coverage of the MCLE 36-unit requirement ( corresponding units: 6 for Legal Ethics; 6 for
prescribed courses as approved by the MCLE Board, 4 for trail and pre-trial techniques, 4 for
legal writing and oral advocacy, 5 for alternative dispute resolution, 2 for international law and
conventions and 9 for updates on substantive and procedural laws)
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
A. President, Vice President, Members of the Senate and House of Representatives, Members of
the Constitutional Commissions, Governors, Mayors, incumbent and retired members of the
judiciary, Cabinet Secretaries and their undersecretaries, OSG lawyers, OGCC lawyers,
Ombudsman and all Deputies of the Ombudsman, Professor and Reviewers of law for a period of
ten years.
b
o
n
a
A. Imposition of fines, pleadings may be expunge from records of the court, lawyer be can a
subject of suspension or disbarment.
B. Duty to the Legal Profession
h
C
an
A. In re: Petition of Atty. Medado to sign Roll of Attorneys, B.M. No. 2540, September 24,
2013: Petitioner Medado passed the bar examinations in 1979. He took the Attorneys Oath
thereafter, and was scheduled to sign the Roll of Attorneys, but failed to do so. It was only in
2005 that he realized that he did not sign the Roll after being asked his Roll number when he
attended his MCLE. Thirty (30) years after passing the bar, Medado filed a Petition to allow him
24 | P a g e
b
o
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. The Supreme Court held that while an honest mistake of fact
could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts as it negates malice or
evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is
presumed to know the law and its consequences. Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice
of law transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such Canon also applies
to law students and bar candidates. Medado was imposed a penalty akin to suspension by
allowing him to sign one (1) year after receipt of the Courts Resolution.
s
e
l
b
o
r
a
B
A. Purposes of the IBP: To elevate the standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more
effectively.
s
e
l
Elective Officers: President, Executive Vice President and concurrently a Governor of a Region
(chosen by the Board of Governors who will succeed the national President), Board of
Governors from: Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Greater Manila, Southern Luzon, Bicolandia,
Eastern Visayas, Western Visayas, Eastern Mindanao and Western Mindanao.
b
o
Other officers: The IBP shall have a Secretary, Treasurer and such other officers as well as
employees the President may appoint with the consent of the Board of Governors under such
terms and conditions specified in the appointment of each officer and/or employee.
an
r
a
B
Membership and Dues: Non-payment of dues may subject the lawyer to disciplinary action
including removal of the name of the delinquent lawyer from the Roll of Attorneys. (Sec. 9, Rule
139-A)LIFETIME DUE: P12, 500 and ANNUAL DUE: P1, 000
h
C
s
e
l
In the Matter of Brewing Controversies in the IBP Elections (A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC, A.C. No.
8292, April 2013): Lawyers seeking positions in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines must
respect the rotational rule. The rotational rule is adopted to allow equal opportunity for all
lawyers in different regions to have access to positions of leadership in the IBP. The S.C. also
reminded IBP officers that they should not use the Court as referee for their intramurals.
b
o
an
r
a
B
Ch
s
e
l
Legal services- any activity which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experiences which shall include, among others, legal advice and counsel, and the
preparation of instruments and contracts, including appearance before the administrative and
quasi-judicial offices, bodies and tribunals handling cases in court, and other similar services as
may be defined by the Supreme Court.
b
o
Section 4. Requirements for Availment. - For purposes of availing of the benefits and services as
envisioned in this Act, a lawyer or professional partnership shall secure a certification from the
Public Attorney's Office (PAO), the Department of Justice (DOJ) or accredited association of the
Supreme Court indicating that the said legal services to be provided are within the services
defined by the Supreme Court, and that the agencies cannot provide the legal services to be
provided by the private counsel.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
For purpose of determining the number of hours actually provided by the lawyer and/or
professional firm in the provision of legal services, the association and/or organization duly
accredited by the Supreme Court shall issue the necessary certification that said legal services
were actually undertaken.
n
a
Section 5. Incentives to Lawyers. - For purposes of this Act, a lawyer or professional partnerships
rendering actual free legal services, as defined by the Supreme Court, shall be entitled to an
allowable deduction from the gross income, the amount that could have been collected for the
actual free legal services rendered or up to ten percent (10%) of the gross income derived from
the actual performance of the legal profession, whichever is lower: Provided, That the actual free
legal services herein contemplated shall be exclusive of the minimum sixty (60)-hour mandatory
legal aid services rendered to indigent litigants as required under the Rule on Mandatory Legal
Aid Services for Practicing Lawyers, under Bar Matter No. 2012, issued by the Supreme Court
h
C
an
h
C
A. Promote, serve and protect public interest; to simplify, clarify and modernize the rules
governing notaries public; and to foster ethical conduct among notaries public.
25 | P a g e
b
o
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
Please take note the relevant provisions of the 2004 Notarial Rules: (Take particular
attention of the date when a document was notarized. A document notarized before the
effectivity of the 2004 Notarial Rules will be governed by the relevant provisions of the
Revised Administrative Code where the cedula will suffice as proof of identity.)
s
e
l
b
o
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
WILBERTO C. TALISIC v. ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN, A.C. No. 8761, February 12, 2014: A
lawyers notarial commission was revoked and he was not allowed to renew the same for one
year for failure to ascertain the identities of the parties who executed an Extra Judicial Partition
with Sale which allowed the transfer to Spouses Durante of a parcel of land. Notarization is not
an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
(3). Manner of Obtaining a Commission (Sections 2, 3, 4, 5,6,7,8, 9 and 10 Rule III); and
Renewal of Commission (Sections 13 and 14, Rule III)
(4). Powers and Limitations
Powers (Section 1, Rule IV; Sections 1-4, Rule VII)
Prohibitions (Section 2, Rule IV; Section 1, Rule XII)
Disqualifications (Section 4, Rule IV)
(5). Instances when a Notary Public may refuse to notarize, issue certification (Sections 4, 5
& 6, Rule IV)
(6). Jurisdiction and Period of Validity of Commission (Section 11, Rule III; Section9, Rule
IX)
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
January 21, 2015, MENDOZA, J.: A review of the records and evidence presented by
complainants shows that Atty. Siapno indeed maintained a law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan,
just beside the law office of one of the complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade. It was also proven
that Atty. Siapno notarized several instruments with an expired notarial commission outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice provides:
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
Jurisdiction and Term A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in
any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2)
years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made,
unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of
Court.
b
o
n
a
(7). Reportorial Requirement (Section 12, Rule III; Sections 1-6, Rule VI; and Sections 1-2,
Rule VIII)
h
C
b
o
an
26 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
A. No. Espinosa v. Atty. Julieta A.Omana, A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011: The S.C. revoked
the notarial commission of a lawyer and she was likewise suspended from the practice of law for
notarizing a document which effectively dissolved the marriage of the complainants.
r
a
B
Q. Is a lawyer required to recall the identity of the affiants after a lapse of five years?
s
e
l
A. No. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Arguelles, 679 SCRA 348 (2012): The S.C.
held that it is sufficient for the Notary Public to ascertain the identities of the affiants and the
witnesses at the time of the execution of the document. The Notary Public must rely on the
presumption that the proofs of identity of the parties were issued by the public agencies in the
regular course of the discharge of their responsibilities. It is also not practical for a notary
public to recall the affiants 12 years after they personally appeared before him.
b
o
an
r
a
B
h
C
s
e
l
A. No. Tenoso v. Echanez, A.C. No. 8384, 11 April 2013: By performing his duties without
renewing his notarial commission, the S.C. said that he committed acts of falsehood and must be
punished.
b
o
an
r
a
B
A. No. Jandoquile v. Revilla, A.C. No.9514, 10 April 2013: The Notarial Rules of 2004
disqualifies lawyers from notarizing documents of relatives up to the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity. The defense of Atty. Revilla that he notarized the Affidavit-Complaint
of his relative by his virtue of the fact that he was the counsel in the criminal case is not availing
according to the Court. The S.C. held that since he signed it with the details of his notarial
commission leads to no other conclusion that he signed it as a Notary Public and not as counsel.
The S.C. reiterated the rule that where the affiants are personally known to the Notary Public,
the jurat must state so, otherwise, parties must show proof of competent identity.
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
A. Yes. Virtusio v. Virtusio, 680 SCRA 1(2012): The IBP Investigating Commissioner
discovered in the course of the disciplinary proceeding against Virtusio that she failed to renew
her notarial commission in 2006 and 2007. While it was not a subject of the complaint, the S.C.
held that the infraction can be scrutinized in the investigation. The S.C. revoked the notarial
commission of the lawyer, did not allow her to renew the same and suspended her from the
practice of law for deliberate falsehood for holding out to the public that she has been properly
commissioned to notarized documents.
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
n
a
Q. What is the culpability of a lawyer for failure to ascertain the identity of an affiant?
h
C
A. Wilberto C. Talisic v. Atty. Primo R. Rinen, A.C. No. 8761, February 12, 2014: A lawyers
notarial commission was revoked and he was not allowed to renew the same for one year for
failure to ascertain the identities of the parties who executed an Extra Judicial Partition with
Sale which allowed the transfer to Spouses Durante of a parcel of land. Notarization is not an
empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only
those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
b
o
Carlito Ang v. Atty. James Joseph Gupana, A.C. No. 4545. February 5, 2014: The Supreme
Court held that Atty. Gupanas revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from
being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years and suspension from the
practice of law for one year are in order for failure to require the personal presence of the
affiant in an Affidavit of Loss purportedly executed in 1994.
an
27 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
s
e
l
b
o
r
a
B
Licerio Dizon v. Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr., A.C. No. 10185, March 12, 2014 . The S.C.
held that as a notary public, Atty. Cabucana, Jr. should not notarize a document unless the
person who signs it is the same person executing it and personally appearing before him to attest
to the truth of its contents. This is to enable him to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the partys free and voluntary act and
deed. Thus, Atty. Cabucana, Jr. was found violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and suspended from the practice of law for three months. His
notarial commission was revoked and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary
public for two years.
r
a
B
Q. What is the liability of a lawyer for notarizing a document when the affiant is already
dead?
s
e
l
A. Atty.Florita S. Linco v. Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebral, A.C. No. 7241, October 17, 2011: A notary
public who notarized a Deed of Donation of another lawyer one day after his death to the
detriment of the interests of the surviving lawyer-spouse, was suspended by the S.C.
b
o
Jurat (Section 6, Rule II) and Acknowledgment (Section1, Rule II), distinguished
an
r
a
B
h
C
JIMMY ANUDON AND JUANITA ANUDON v. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA, A.C. No. 5482.
February 10, 2015, Leonen, J. Without the ascertaining the personal presence of the affiants,
the Court imposed upon the errant lawyer the perpetual disqualification for notarial
commission, revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law. The
lawyer was found to have notarized a Deed of Sale of a property while the complainants were
abroad.
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
A. No. MELANIO S. SALITA, v. ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE. A.C. No. 8101, February 04,
2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: A notary public should not notarize a document unless the
persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. These acts of the
affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated therein are facts they have personal
knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their representatives names should
appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same. As a lawyer commissioned to
be a notary public, Atty. Salve is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with faithful
observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat.
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
Affirmation or Oath (Section 2, Rule II) and Signature Witnessing (Section 14, Rule II),
distinguished
h
C
s
e
l
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
and support the activities of the integrated bar. (Rules 7.01-7.03)
b
o
Q. What is the liability of a lawyer for failure to uphold the dignity of the legal profession?
A. The lawyer may be disbarred by the Supreme Court which he tarnishes the image of the legal
profession which tends to erode public trust in the administration of justice.
n
a
Keld Stemmerik v. Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, A.C. 8010, June 16, 2009: A lawyer was disbarred by
taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of Philippine laws by a foreigner. Atty. Mas drew up a
Deed of Sale of a property in Subic which is part of public domain and therefore outside the
commerce of man.
h
C
OCA v. Liangco, supra: S.C. said: We are appalled by the respondents ignorance of the basic
rules of procedure. His wanton use of court processes in this case without regard for the
repercussions on the rights and property of others clearly shows his unfitness to remain a
member of the bar.
b
o
an
In Re: Pactolin, supra: The S.C. ruled: As a rule, this Court exercises the power to disbar with
caution. x x yet this Court has also consistently pronounced that disbarment is the appropriate
penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. x xx His conduct
only exacerbates his offense and shows that he falls short of the exacting standards expected of
him as a vanguard of the legal profession.
28 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
s
e
l
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. (Rules 8.018.02)
b
o
A. No. As a general rule a lawyer is not allowed to his professional fees with a non-lawyer.
Villatuya v. Tabalingcos, 676 SCRA 37(2012): This disbarment case is hinged on the
complainants demand from respondent lawyer to settle money obligations out of their business
transactions. The first ground he raised involves non-payment of agreed fees for every Stay
Order obtained from the court and 10% commission from every referral; the second is that the
lawyer set up two financial companies as fronts to solicit legal services and committing two
counts of bigamy for having married two other women while his first marriage was still
subsisting.
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
On the first issue, the Court said that there is violation where a lawyer shares his fees with a
non-lawyer. In this case, complainant failed to proffer evidence. On the issue of solicitation, the
Court held that it would appear that there was an attempt to circumvent the prohibition on
advertising ones services, reprimand is the proper penalty because there is no evidence on the
prevalence to use the two financial companies to solicit. The Court reminded lawyer to be clear
as to what services they are rendering if they have multiple professions. On the issue of gross
immorality, the belated move of the lawyer to institute civil actions to annul his marriages will
not exculpate him. The Court held: x x x respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree
of morality required of him x x x. He made a mockery of marriage, x x x. His acts of committing
bigamy twice constituted gross immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section
27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of court.
an
h
C
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
CANON 9 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
(Rules 9.01-9.02)
Ch
s
e
l
A. Tapay et al v. Attys. Charlie L. Bancolo et al, A. C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013: A lawyer who
allowed his secretary to sign his pleading in the Office of the Ombudsman is guilty of violation of
Canon 9.Only lawyers are allowed to sign pleadings and the same cannot be delegated.
b
o
Atty. Edita Noe Lacsamana v. Atty. Yolando F. Bustamente (A.C. No. 7269, November
23, 2011: A lawyer who allowed a paralegal to attend court hearings on his behalf has violated
Canon 9 because only lawyers are allowed to undertake representation clients before the
regional trial courts.
an
h
C
r
a
B
TUMBOKON v. PEFIANCO, 678 SCRA 60 (2012): This case also deals with the lawyers
commitment to share a portion of his legal fees with a non-lawyer in a case for partition of estate
which complainant referred to Pefianco. The lawyer was found guilty of this violation by his
admission in a letter he wrote to the parties in the partition case. On the second charge of
abandoning his legal wife to cohabit with his mistress with whom he has four children, the Court
that it was a clear betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage
and is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity
of marriage and marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
C. Duty to the Courts
s
e
l
b
o
n
a
h
C
s
e
l
CANON 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. (Rules 10.01-10.02)
Read also Rule 138, Section 20(c) and (d), Rules of Court, Duties of Attorneys
Q. Can a Senator be exonerated from any liability for calling the Supreme Court as a court
of idiots?
b
o
an
A. Antero J. Pobre v. Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009. S.C.
exonerated the respondent for calling the S.C. justices as a court of idiots. She invoked
parliamentary immunity.
29 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
r
a
B
Q. Is a lawyer liable for resorting to a fraudulent order of the court to gain custody of his
minor children?
s
e
l
A. Yes. Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido v. Atty. James Benedict C. Florido, A.C. No. 5624,
Jan.20, 2004). S.C. suspended lawyer for resorting to a fraudulent order purportedly issued by
the Court of Appeals awarding custody of his children pending the annulment case filed by his
complainant-wife.
b
o
r
a
B
Q. Are professors of law considered engaged in the practice of profession and are therefore
subject to disciplinary action of the Supreme Court? De Castro, J.
s
e
l
A. Yes. Re: Letter of the U.P. Law Faculty on Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation of the S.C., A. M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011. The S.C. reminded the
faculty members of the U.P.College of Law to be more circumscribed with the filing of similar
complaint against the members of the judiciary. It noted that the concerned justice already
admitted the lapse and that it was not done with malice. His good faith relieved him from any
kind of administrative liability.
b
o
an
r
a
B
h
C
CANON 12 A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice. (Rules 12.01-12.08)
s
e
l
Read also Rule 138, Section 20(g) Rules of Court Duties of Attorneys; and
b
o
an
r
a
B
CANON 13 A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause refrain from any impropriety
which tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing court. (Rules 13.01- 13.03)
Ch
Q. Can a lawyer be held liable for drafting the decision on behalf of a judge in an effort to
help declog court dockets?
s
e
l
A. Yes. Lantoria v. Bunyi, A.M. Case No. 1769, June 8, 1992. A lawyer should not take it upon
himself to prepare a draft decision on behalf of a judge. Such an action of the counsel
undermines the competence of the judiciary and will tend to erode confidence in the judicial
system.
b
o
an
Q. Is it proper for a lawyer to make pronouncements in the media regarding a pending case?
r
a
B
A. No. Cruz v. Salva, G. R. 12871, July 25, 1959, 105 Phil. 115. The S.C. cautioned lawyers
from attracting media attention over a pending case.
h
C
s
e
l
A. Yes. In Re: Almacen G.R. No. L-27654, Feb. 18, 1970. Lawyers as part of free speech may
criticize decisions of the Court but such post litigation utterances must never be resorted in
order to malign the Court.
b
o
D. Duty to Clients
n
a
CANON 14 A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy. (Rules 14.01-14.04)
h
C
s
e
l
Read: Rule 138, Section 20, Rules of Court on Duties of Attorneys (h) and (i)
Rule 138, Section 31, Rules of Court on Attorneys for Destitute Litigant
b
o
an
Rule 117, Section 7, Rules of Court, Appointment of Counsel de oficio during trial
30 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
A. The following factors are considered: gravity of the offense, difficulty of the issues involved
and experience and ability of the appointee.
Q. What is the rule of the designation of Counsel de officio before an appellate court?
r
a
B
A. Rule 124, Section 2, Rules of Court: Conditions for appointment: accused is in prison, there is
no counsel de parte on appeal and accused signed notice of appeal himself.
s
e
l
b
o
an
h
C
r
a
B
CANON 21 A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the
attorney-client relation is terminated.
s
e
l
(i) Confidentiality rule: Rule will cover partners in legal profession and non-legal
working for the lawyer.
b
o
staff
(iii) Conflict of interest: Disclose matters that would give rise to representation of two
adverse interests. Conflict of Interest, concept; when lawyer may lawyer may held
accountable; liability
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
A. Pacana v. Pascual-Lpez, A.C. No. 8243, July 24, 2009. A lawyer who acted as a retained
counsel of a company was disbarred for also rendering advice to the creditors of the company.
The S.C. reminded lawyers to avoid at all times any occasion where they will represent two
adverse interests.
b
o
Notes on Issue of Conflict of Interest: The nature of lawyer and client relationship is one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree.
an
r
a
B
1. A lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his
present or former clients.
h
C
s
e
l
2. A lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially
related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former client
consents to it after consultation.
b
o
3. Throughout the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts
connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case.
Knowledge and information gathered in the course of the relationship must be treated as
sacred and guarded with care and to avoid the appearance of treachery and doubledealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,
which is paramount in the administration of justice.
n
a
h
C
s
e
l
3. Candid and honest advice to clients: Give a fair assessment of the case referral.
CANON 15 A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients. (Rules 15.01-15.08)
When lawyer-client relationship commences: no formal contract is needed, it is sufficient that
the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any manner pertinent to his
profession.
b
o
an
Ferdinand A. Samson v. Atty. Edgardo O. Era, A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013. S.C. said that the
termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest
adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The spirit behind this rule is that the
31 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
r
a
B
clients confidence once given should not be stripped by the mere expiration of the professional
employment. As a general rule, the ban on disclosure of clients confidences is perpetual. Thus,
Atty. Era was found guilty of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 and Canon 17 of the CPR and was
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years
s
e
l
b
o
r
a
B
s
e
l
(i)Fiduciary relationship
b
o
(ii) Co-mingling of funds: A lawyer must not co-mingle his personal funds with those of his
client.
(iii) Delivery of funds: A lawyer must promptly surrender to his client and/ or account for
any money received by way of a money judgment or proceeds from a transaction he
handled in the course of his engagement.
an
r
a
B
(iv) Borrowing or lending: A lawyer must refrain from borrowing money from his client.
h
C
s
e
l
Please note: Article 1491(5), New Civil Code which covers the prohibition against
lawyers to participate in any public or judicial auction of a property or rights where his
professional services were engaged.
b
o
Q. Is it proper for a lawyer to ask from her client for an advance for her professional fees and
thereafter not render any kind of legal service to the client? A.
A. No. Victoria C. Heenan v. Atty. Erlinda Espejo, A.C. No. 10050, December 3, 2013. S.C.
found Atty. Espejo guilty of gross misconduct for failure pay a personal loan to her client which
she initially asked as an advance for her professional fees. The deliberate failure to pay just
debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct. A lawyer may be
disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession but also for gross
misconduct outside of his professional capacity. Thus, Atty. Espejo was suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years.
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
CECILIA AGNO VS. ATTY. MARCIANO J. CAGATAN [558 SCRA 1, December 7, 2010] A
lawyer who paid another with a personal check from a bank account which he knew has already
been closed exhibited an extremely low regard to his commitment to the oath he took when he
joined his peers, thereby seriously tarnishing the image of the profession which he should hold in
high esteem.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
A. Bayonla et al v. Atty. Purita A. Reyes, A. C. No. 4808, November 22, 2011. For her failure to
turn over to her clients the just compensation in an expropriation case, S.C. disbarred the
respondent lawyer.
b
o
Freeman v. Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes, A. C. No. 6246, November 15, 2011. S.C. disbarred
respondent-lawyer for employing deceit to personally gain from the proceeds of the insurance
claims and retirement benefits of the deceased British spouse of the complainant.
n
a
h
C
(1). Lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received in the course
of his engagement as counsel.
(2). Even if a lawyer has a lien for fees, he is bound to turnover any property or money
received on behalf of his client.
(3). The turnover of money or property to his client is subject to lawyers lien.
an
h
C
CANON 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him.
32 | P a g e
b
o
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
s
e
l
r
a
B
Notes on Issue of Conflict of Interest: The nature of lawyer and client relationship is one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree.
b
o
4. A lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his
present or former clients.
an
h
C
r
a
B
5. A lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially
related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former client
consents to it after consultation.
s
e
l
6. Throughout the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts
connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case.
Knowledge and information gathered in the course of the relationship must be treated as
sacred and guarded with care and to avoid the appearance of treachery and doubledealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,
which is paramount in the administration of justice.
b
o
an
r
a
B
(iv) Duty to apprise client: The lawyer must inform the client of the status of the case.
Ch
CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. (Rules 18.0118.04)
s
e
l
Q. What characterizes the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence?
b
o
A. Felipe C. Dagala v. Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. and Atty. Amado T. Adquilen, A.C. No. 5044,
December 2, 2013. S.C. reiterated the need for lawyers to be ever mindful of the cause of their
clients and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. For
his part, the lawyer is required to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and
to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and
whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He is expected to act with honesty in all his dealings,
especially with the courts. These principles are embodied in Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of
Canon 10, Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR. Atty. Quesadas failure to attend
the scheduled conference hearings, despite due notice and without any proper justification,
exhibits his inexcusable lack of care and diligence in managing his clients cause in violation of
Canon 17 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Stephan Brunet and Virginia Romanillo Brunet v. Atty. Ronald L. Guaren, A.C. No. 10164,
March 10, 2014. For having violated Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR, Atty. Guaren was suspended
from the practice of law for six months. Despite acceptance of the amount of P7,000.00 for the
titling of complainants lot, he failed to perform his obligation and allowing 5 years to elapse
without any progress on the referral. S.C. reiterated that the practice of law is not a business and
it reminded lawyers that 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. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits
n
a
h
C
b
o
Julian Penilla v. Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr., A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013: The Court held
that Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he filed a criminal case for estafa when the facts of the case would have
warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract; when the case was dismissed he
committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages
before the RTC, when he should have filed it with the MTC; and he did not also apprise
an
33 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
complainant of the status of the cases. Atty. Alcid, Jr. is not only guilty of incompetence in
handling the cases. His lack of professionalism in dealing with complainant is gross and
inexcusable. The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a
lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the protection of the clients
interest.
s
e
l
b
o
Carlito P. Carandang v. Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina, A. C. No. 7813, Apr. 21, 2009.In a June 3,
2013 case, S.C. reiterated that the Attorneys negligence to file an appellate brief and his failure
to inform the client that the case was dismissed because of his negligence is guilty of violating
Canon 18. Similarly, a lawyer who falsifies the date of receipt of the decision to make it appear
that the time was filed within the prescriptive period is also guilty of negligence and was slapped
with a monetary fine.
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
To summarize:
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
(i) Adequate protection: A lawyer must ensure the appropriate legal reliefs for his client.
b
o
(iii) Collaborating Counsel: With the consent of the client, a collaborating counsel may
participate in an on-going case
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
A. Re: Verified Complaint of Tomas S. Merdegia against Hon. Vicente S.E. Veloso, etc. /Re:
Resolution dated October 8, 2013 in OCA IPI No. 12-205-CA-J against Atty. Homobono
Adaza II, IPI No. 12-205-CA-J/A.C. No. 10300, December 10, 2013. S.C. held administrative
complaints against justices cannot and should not substitute for appeal and other judicial
remedies against an assailed decision or ruling. While a lawyer has a duty to represent his client
with zeal, he must do so within the bounds provided by law. It found Atty. Adaza guilty of
indirect contempt for his failure to impress upon his client the features of the Philippine
adversarial system, the substance of the law on ethics and respect for the judicial system, and his
own failure to heed what his duties as a professional and as an officer of the Court demand of
him in acting for his client before the courts.
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
(i) Use of fair and honest means: A lawyer must only employ such legal strategy allowed by
the circumstances.
b
o
(ii) Clients fraud: A lawyer must not condone any illegal acts of his client.
(iii) Procedure in handling the case: The lawyers acceptance and the limits of the
engagement of his services must be made clear at the commencement of the lawyer-client
relationship.
n
a
CANON 19 A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
h
C
Q. When will the lawyer be held accountable for violation of the responsibility to serve his
client with zeal within the bounds of law?
Dimagiba v. Montalvo, Jr. Adm. Case No. 1424, October 15, 1991. Lawyer was disbarred for
stretching for almost 49 years a case involving a probate of a will from which more than other
ten criminal and civil suits were instituted.
an
h
C
Czarina T. Malvar v. Kraft Foods Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 183952, September 9, 2011: The
case stemmed from the execution of a final decision with the C.A. in a labor litigation. Petitioner
34 | P a g e
b
o
Ong v. Unto, Adm. Case No. 2417, February 6, 2003. S.C. suspended a lawyer for six months for
using harassing tactics to harass a party from him his client wanted to obtain child support.
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
Malvar, however, entered into a compromise agreement with the respondents pending appeal
without informing her counsel. Malvars counsel filed a Motion to Intervene to Protect
Attorneys Rights.
s
e
l
b
o
r
a
B
Attorneys fees: (i) Acceptance fees; (ii) Contingency fee arrangements; (iii) Attorneys
liens; (iv) Fees and controversies with clients; (v) Concepts of attorneys fees - (a) ordinary
concept and (b) extraordinary concept.
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
Q. What is champerty?
r
a
B
A. A champertous contract may result where a lawyer assumes all expenses for litigation and
reimbursement is contingent on the outcome of the case. This is strictly prohibited under Rule
16-04 of the CPR.
h
C
s
e
l
Champerty is different from a contingent fee contract because in the latter the lawyer gets
reimbursed for the advances made for the client in the course of representation, whether he
wins the suit or not; only the amount of professional fees is contingent upon winning.
Q. May a lawyer have a lien on a judgment to protect his professional fees?
b
o
n
a
A. Yes. Conchita Baltazar, et al. v. Atty. Juan B. Baez, Jr., A.C. No. 9091, December 11,
2013.
h
C
Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court allows an attorney to intervene in a case to protect his
rights concerning the payment of his compensation. The court, may at its discretion, allow the
lawyer to have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money rendered in a case in which
his services have been retained by the client. In this case, however, the contract for legal
services is in the nature of a champertous contract an agreement whereby an attorney
undertakes to pay the expenses of the proceedings to enforce the clients rights in exchange for
some bargain to have a part of the thing in dispute. Such contracts are prohibited under Canon
16.04 of the CPR, which states that lawyers shall not lend money to a client, except when in the
interest of justice, they have to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter they are handling
for the client.
b
o
an
35 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
s
e
l
r
a
B
8. Preservation of clients confidences: (i) Prohibited disclosures and use; (ii) Disclosures,
when allowed: The disclosures made a client to a lawyer are covered by the privileged
communications rule. The lawyer may, however, disclose information relayed to him by a
client when the latter is about to commit a crime or when there is a dispute between the lawyer
and his client and the information is vital in the defense of the lawyer.
b
o
an
r
a
B
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
CANON 22 A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances.
an
Ch
r
a
B
s
e
l
b
o
an
r
a
B
1. Members of the Supreme Court and lower appellate courts: Section 7(1), Article VIII,
1987 Constitution mandates that a Justice of the Supreme Court and all collegiate appellate
courts must be a natural born Filipino.
h
C
s
e
l
Qualifications of SC Justice: natural born Filipino, at least be 40 years old, must have been for
15 years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
b
o
2. Members of the lower courts (regional trial courts and first level courts): Section 7(2),
article VIII, 1987 Constitution provides that Congress shall provide for qualifications but one
must be citizen of the Philippines and member of the Philippine Bar.
3. Common qualification for all members of the judiciary, Section 7(3), Article VIII, 1987
Constitution provides: A member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence,
integrity, probity and independence.
n
a
h
C
4. Term of Office: Section 11, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution provides that members of the
judiciary shall hold office during good behavior until they reach 70 years old or they become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.
5. Manner of Selection and Appointment (Read Section 8, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution
for the composition, powers and term of office of members of the Judicial and Bar Council)
Chavez v. JBC, et al., G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012: Congress is entitled only to one seat in
the JBC and not one for each house.
an
h
C
Villanueva v. JBC (2015): A first level trial court must await a 5-year period before he can be
promoted as RTC judge. The Court sustained the power of the JBC to prescribe rules in the
36 | P a g e
b
o
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
screening of qualified candidates to the judiciary to ensure that only men of proven competence,
integrity, probity and independence will be appointed to the bench.
s
e
l
Jardeleza vs. Chief Justice Sereno and JBC (2015): Having been denied due process, Jardeleza
should be included in the list of nominees to be appointed as justice of the Supreme Court. An
issue about his integrity was raised in the selection process but Jardeleza was never given the
opportunity to be heard to overturn the allegation against him.
b
o
Law
Appointments made by the President in the judiciary do not need any confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. (Section 9. Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
r
a
B
Any vacancy in the Supreme Court must be filled within 90 days from the occurrence
thereof. (Section 4(1), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
s
e
l
For lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within 90 days from the
submission of the list. (Section 9, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
b
o
1. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly, the facts and law on which it is based. (Section 14, Article VIII, 1987
Constitution)
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
3. Members of the judiciary shall not be designated to any agency performing quasijudicial or administrative functions. (Section12, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
b
o
4. SALN Requirement
Members of the Supreme Court shall not only report all their assets, liabilities, and
net worth upon assumption to duty but they must disclose such to the PUBLIC in
the manner provided by law. (Section 17, Article XI, 1987 Constitution)
an
r
a
B
5. Allegiance to the Philippine Government. Any public officer owes allegiance to the
Philippine government and its Constitution and a public officer who seeks to change
citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his
tenure shall be dealt with by law.(Section 18, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
III. Qualities (Commit this MEMORY AS THIS REPRESENTS THE SIX CANONS OF
JUDICIAL CONDUCT: I.I.I. PECd):
Canon 1: Independence
Canon 2: Integrity
Canon 3: Impartiality
Canon 4: Propriety
Canon 5: Equality
Canon 6: Competence and diligence
A. Uphold the Dignity and Independence of the Court
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
CANON 1 A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary. (Sections 17)
n
a
h
C
In Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco, 664 SCRA 465 (2012): A complaint
against justices of the Court of Appeals must be dismissed if the same is baseless and the
recourse of the party is to seek judicial relief from an adverse decision.
In Re: S.C. Resolution dated 28April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 146817 and 145822, (Atty. Pena) 669
SCRA 530(2012): A motion to inhibit the ponente in a pending case before the S.C. based on
suspicion of bribery in the form of a brand new Mercedes Benz and collusion with another senior
associate justice of S.C. cannot be given due course. Counsel must show proof that a connection
and direct correlation exists between his failure to receive a copy of its Motion for Clarification
of the other party. He alleged that the incident did not allow him to refute the allegations therein.
The Court said that such imputation is completely untenable and irresponsible.
b
o
an
37 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
Talens-Dabon v. Arceo, A.M. 1. No. RTJ-96-1336, July 25, 1996: A judge was dismissed from
service for gross misconduct for sexually harassing his Clerk of Court.
s
e
l
Go v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992, 206 SCRA 165. The Court held
that the complainant was not deprived of due process when the charge against him was
upgraded from grave serious injuries to homicide. It said that when the death occurred after the
filing of the first information the same can be amended as a matter of course.
b
o
B. Avoid Impropriety: CANON 2 A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all activities. (Sections 1-3)
r
a
B
Rex M. Tupal v. Judge Remegio V. Rojo, etc., A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842. February 24, 2014.The
Court held Judge Rojo guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and Circular No. 1
90, and of gross ignorance of the law. He was suspended for six months for having notarized
affidavits of cohabitation, which were documents not connected with the exercise of his official
functions and duties as solemnizing officer. He also notarized affidavits of cohabitation without
certifying that lawyers or notaries public were lacking in his courts territorial jurisdiction. As a
solemnizing officer, the judges only duty involving the affidavit of cohabitation is to examine
whether the parties have indeed lived together for at least five years without legal impediment to
marry. The Guidelines does not state that the judge can notarize the parties affidavit of
cohabitation. Notarizing affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent with the duty to examine the
parties requirements for marriage. Circular No. 190 dated February 26, 1990. Circular No.
190 allows municipal trial court judges to act as notaries public ex officio and notarize
documents only if connected with their official functions and duties.
s
e
l
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
Samson v. Judge Caballero, A. M. No. RT J-08- 213, 595 SCRA 423. The newly appointed
judge was not allowed to assume his post as RTC judge of Cabanatuan City for his material
misrepresentation in his application form. Caballero did not disclose that a graft and corruption
charge was filed against him before the Office of the Ombudsman when he served as a
prosecutor.
b
o
an
r
a
B
Suarez v. Judge Dilag, A. M. No. RT J-06-2014, March 4, 2009, 580 SCRA 491. A judge was
dismissed from service due to gross misconduct. The judge was found to have officiated several
marriage rites in a short span of time without having resolved the numerous cases pending
before his court.
Ch
s
e
l
Santos v. Judge Arcaya- Chua, A. M. No. MT J-07-20093, February 17, 2009. A judge was
suspended by the Court for having accepted money to intercede on behalf of her husbands
relative in a pending case before the Supreme Court where she was previously employed.
b
o
Inonog v. Judge Ibay, A. M. No. RT J-09-2175, July 28, 2009, 594 SCRA 168. A judge was fined
by the Court for oppressive conduct for citing a driver in contempt of court for having parked
the car of his employer in the parking slot assigned to the judge. The judge imposed upon the
driver a monetary fine.
an
h
C
r
a
B
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Edwin C. Larida, Jr., RTC, Branch 18, Tagaytay
City, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2151, March 11, 2014. The Court held that Judge Larida, Jr. committed
several lapses, specifically the non-submission to the Court of the required inventory of locallyfunded employees, and his allowing Marticio to draft court orders. Such lapses manifested a
wrong attitude towards administrative rules and regulations issued for the governance and
administration of the lower courts, to the extent of disregarding them, as well as a laxity in the
control of his Branch and in the supervision of its functioning staff. The omission to submit the
inventory should not be blamed on Atty. Calma as the Branch Clerk of Court. Although it was
very likely that Judge Larida, Jr. had tasked Atty. Calma to do and submit the inventory in his
behalf, Judge Larida, Jr. as the Presiding Judge himself remained to be the officer directly
burdened with the responsibility for doing so. Further, for knowingly allowing detailed
employees to solicit commissions from bonding companies, Judge Larida, Jr. contravened the
Code of Judicial Conduct, which imposed on him the duty to take or initiate appropriate
disciplinary measures against court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which he would
have become aware.
s
e
l
b
o
n
a
h
C
b
o
Antonio M. Lorenzana v. Judge Ma. Cecilia I. Austria, RTC, Br. 2, Batangas City, A.M. No.
RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014. The Court held the conduct of Judge Austria of and posting a
picture with indecent attire for the publics consumption in her Frendster account is
inappropriate. The Court held that she was guilty of impropriety. While judges are not
prohibited from becoming members of and from taking part in social networking activities,
they do not shed off their status as judges. They carry with them in cyberspace the same ethical
an
38 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
responsibilities and duties that every judge is expected to follow in his/her everyday activities.
Judge Austria was guilty of impropriety when she posted her pictures in a manner viewable by
the public. Joining Friendster per se does not violate the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The
Court said Judge Austria disregarded the propriety and appearance of propriety required of her
when she posted Friendster photos of herself wearing an off-shouldered suggestive dress and
made this available for public viewing. .
s
e
l
b
o
C. Maintain Impartiality
CANON 3 A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and
diligence. (Sections 1-6)
r
a
B
Paco v. Quilala, et. Al., A. M. No. RT J-02-1699, 413 SCRA 364. A judge together with the Clerk
of Court and the court stenographer assigned to his court were also sanctioned by the S.C. The
Court said that except for clarificatory questions, the judge may not be allowed to ask questions
that would elicit answers to favor one of the parties to the case. It is not also proper for the judge
to allow the Clerk of Court to conduct any proceeding in the absence of the judge and for the
stenographer to transcribe such proceedings.
s
e
l
b
o
Complaint against Chief Justice Corona dated Sept. 14, 2011 filed by Inter-Petal Recreational
Corp., A.M. No. 12-6-10 SC, June 13, 2012. The complaint raised the issue on the capacity of
then Chief Justice to decide on a pending case without any bias. The S.C. dismissed the
complaint because the same has become moot and academic with the impeachment and eventual
removal of Chief Justice Corona from office.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
Villaluz v. Mijares, A. M. No. RT J-98-1402, April 3, 1998, 288 SCRA 594. This case was filed
by Justice Villaluz, the former spouse of Pasay City RTC Judge Mijares, against her. The S.C.
called the attention of Mijares that the Rules of Court prohibit judges from hearing cases
involving relatives up to the sixth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. In the same fashion a
member of the bench may not hear cases where a counsel is a relative up to the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity.
b
o
an
r
a
B
CANON 4: A judge may, with due regard to official duties, engage in activities to improve the
law, the legal system and the administration of justice. (Sections 1-15)
Ch
s
e
l
Albos v. Alaba, A.M.No. MTJ-91517, March 11, 1994. A judge who failed to sign the order
granting bail to the accused and who left for an out of town was found to have been remised of
his responsibility as a judge.
b
o
Danilo E. Lubaton v. Judge Mary Josephine P. Lazaro, Regional Trial Court, Br. 74,
Antipolo, Rizal, A.M. RTJ-12-2320, September 2, 2013. The S.C. held that the 90-day period
within which a sitting trial Judge should decide a case or resolve a pending matter is mandatory.
The rule, albeit mandatory, is to be implemented with an awareness of the limitations that may
prevent a Judge from being efficient. Under the circumstances specific to this case, it would be
unkind and inconsiderate on the part of the Court to disregard Judge Lazaros limitations and
exact a rigid and literal compliance with the rule. With her undeniably heavy inherited docket
and the large volume of her official workload, she most probably failed to note the need for her
to apply for the extension of the 90-day period to resolve the Motion to Dismiss. .
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon. Teofilo D. Baluma, Former Judge, Branch 1,
Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2355, September 2, 2013.For
his failure to sufficiently explain why he failed to act on the twenty-three (23) cases submitted for
decision/resolution, the S.C. imposed upon him administrative sanctions. Every judge should
decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of
his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in
the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.
n
a
h
C
Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Santiago E. Soriano, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1683,
September 11, 2013.
The S.C. held that Judge Soriano has been remiss in the performance of his judicial duties for his
failure to decide thirty-six (36) cases submitted for decision in MTC and MTCC, which were all
due for decision at the time he compulsorily retired. Such unreasonable delay in deciding cases
and resolving incidents and motions, and his failure to decide the remaining cases before his
compulsory retirement constitutes gross inefficiency.
b
o
an
39 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
Re: Failure of Former Judge Antonio A. Carbonell to Decide Cases Submitted for Decision
and Resolve Pending Motions in the RTC, Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union, A.M. No. 085-305-RTC, July 9, 2013.
s
e
l
b
o
The S. C. said that Carbonells failure to decide cases within the reglamentary 90-day period
without any justifiable and credible reasons constitutes gross inefficiency. The reiterated that as
a frontline official of the Judiciary, a trial judge should always act with efficiency and probity.
He is duty-bound not only to be faithful to the law, but also to maintain professional competence.
The pursuit of excellence ought always to be his guiding principle.
r
a
B
s
e
l
Re. Conviction of Judge Angeles, A. M. No. RT J-06-9-5215, 543 SCRA. The Court held that a
judge cannot be suspended in the discharge of her responsibilities until after conviction of a
criminal offense she allegedly committed has become final and executory.
b
o
Guanzon v. Judge Rufon, 537 SCRA 38. The Court reminded the family court judge to avoid
using vulgar language in the course of the trial. Use of vulgar language insults a witness and
may also diminish the respect of the litigants towards the court because court proceedings are
held in public.
an
r
a
B
Sy v. Judge Fineza, A. M. RT J-03-1808, October 15, 2003, 413 SCRA 374. The Court will not
condone the acts of judges of accepting money from a litigant with a pending case before his
court nor should a judge be seen dining with a litigant facing a criminal case before his court.
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
Narciso G. Dulalia v. Judge Afable E. Cajigal, RTC, Br. 96, Quezon City, A.M. No. OCA IPI
No. 10-3492-RTJ, December 4, 2013. S.C. said that as a matter of public policy, a judge cannot
be subjected to liability for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts
in good faith. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called
upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible
in his judgment. The Court reminded parties that resort to judicial remedies must be exercised to
question the decision of the trial judge. Bad faith on the part of the trial judge should never be
imputed unless the same can be supported by evidence.
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Biggel v. Judge Pamintuan, A. M. No. RT J- 08-2101, 559 SCRA 344. The apparent bias
exhibited by the judge shown in the delay in the legal procedure cannot be condoned. S.C. held
reminded judges of their pivotal role in the administration of justice.
an
r
a
B
Bayaca v. Judge Ramos, A. M. No. MT J-07-1676, 577 SCRA 93. S.C. held that gross
misconduct and serious lapses in the conduct of the affairs of the court merit dismissal from the
judiciary except for reasons of compassion, the Court awarded the retirement benefits of the
judge who died during the pendency of this administrative case.
h
C
s
e
l
Ma. Liza M. Jorda, City Prosecutors Office, Tacloban City v. Judge Crisologo S. Bitas, RTC,
Branch 7, Tacloban City; Prosecutor Leo C. Tabao v. Judge Crisologo S. Bitas, RTC, Branch
7, Tacloban City,A.M. No. RTJ-14-2376/A.M. No. RTJ-14-2377. March 5, 2014. The Court held
Judge Bitas judge liable for gross ignorance of the law when he deviated from the requirement of
a hearing where there is an application for bail and aggravated his offense when he also granted
bail to Miralles without neither conducting a hearing nor a motion for application for bail When
an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference of bad faith.
b
o
n
a
h
C
Antonio M. Lorenzana v. Judge Ma. Cecilia I. Austria, RTC, Br. 2, Batangas City, A.M. No.
RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014. The Court reiterated the rule that in administrative cases and
disbarment proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of proving the averments of his
complaint by substantial evidence. In this case, the allegations of grave abuse of authority,
irregularity in the performance of duty, grave bias and partiality, and lack of circumspection are
devoid of merit because the complainant failed to establish Judge Austrias bad faith, malice or
ill will. The complainant merely pointed to circumstances based on mere conjectures and
suppositions. These, by themselves, however, are not sufficient to prove the accusations. Even
granting that the judge erred in the exercise of her judicial functions, these are legal errors
correctible not by a disciplinary action, but by judicial remedies that are readily available to the
complainant. An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or
b
o
an
40 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available, such as a
motion for reconsideration or an appeal.
s
e
l
b
o
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
All matters pending with the Supreme Court must be resolved with 24 months;
Twelve (12) months for all collegiate appellate courts; and
Three (3) months for all other lower courts. (Section 15(1), 1987 Constitution)
B. Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges: may be voluntary or involuntary: There
are two rules governing the qualification and voluntary inhibition of judges: Section 1,
Rule 137 of the Rules of Court; and Rule 3. 12 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary. Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court provides:
Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he,
or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise , or in
which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or
to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or
in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which
he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review,
without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the
record.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in
case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. (ex. If judge served as
wedding sponsor to one of the litigants or litigant is his kasambahay.)
b
o
Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary states:
an
r
a
B
Rule 3.12. A Judge should take no part in proceeding where the judges impartially
might
reasonably be questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings
where:
h
C
s
e
l
The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding;
b
o
The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustees or lawyer in the case or
matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their
association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;
n
a
The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree
or to co-counsel within the fourth degree;
h
C
The judge knows that his spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor,
fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of
the proceeding.
b
o
1. Voluntary Inhibition: When voluntary inhibition be done: A judge is allowed under the
second paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, supra, to voluntary
inhibit from a case for just or valid reasons other than those grounds of disqualification.
an
h
C
Re: Complaint filed by Lucena B. Rallos against Justices Gabriel T. Ingles, Pamela Ann
Maxino, and Carmelita S. Manahan, IPI No. 12-203-CA-J/A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA, December
10, 2013. Complainant charged Justice Hernando with manifest bias because he voluntarily
41 | P a g e
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
s
e
l
b
o
r
a
B
inhibited himself in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 only after the promulgation of the March
28, 2012 and April 13, 2012 resolutions. Complainant alleged that she should have been
informed of the voluntary inhibition. The Court, however, said that under the internal rules
of the C.A., the same was not necessary. In the spirit of transparency, the Court held that
henceforth all the parties in any action or proceedings should be immediately notified of any
mandatory disqualification or voluntary inhibition of the Justice who has participated in any
action of the court, stating the reason for the mandatory disqualification or voluntary
inhibition. The requirement of notice is a measure to ensure that the disqualification or
inhibition has not been resorted to in order to cause injustice to or to prejudice any party or
cause.
r
a
B
How voluntary inhibition is effected: A judge may motu proprio or on motion of a party
voluntarily recluse from a case if he has good or valid reasons which render him incapable of
acting objectively on the case.
s
e
l
When a judge should not inhibit himself: Absent any ground for disqualification, a judge should
not inhibit and if a motion to that effect is filed, he should deny it if, despite the circumstances
cited by the movant, he honestly believes that he can act on the case objectively.
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
How remittal is effected: This process is allowed under Section 6 of the same Canon which
provides:
A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose
on the record the basis of disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers,
independently of the judges participation, all agree in writing that the reason for inhibition is
immaterial or unsubstantial; the judge may then participate in the proceeding. The Agreement,
signed by all the parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings.
b
o
an
r
a
B
Ch
s
e
l
In re: Undated letter of Mr. Louis C. Biraogo, A.M. No. 09-2-19, S.C. The Court fined a
retired justice of the Supreme Court with P500, 000.00 and indefinite suspension for premature
release of a decision involving the citizenship requirement of a member of the House of
Representatives.
b
o
In Re: Letter Complaint of Atty. Pena against Justices Carpio and Sereno, A.M. No. 12-6-11SC. The Court dismissed the complaint for failure of Atty. Pena to substantiate his allegations
and that the same are purely conjectures which cannot be a subject of judicial review.
an
h
C
r
a
B
B. Discipline of Appellate Justices and Lower Court Judges: Read Section 11, Article VIII,
1987 Constitution
1. Jurisdiction over disciplinary cases: The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline appellate justices and lower court judges.
2. Vote required dismissing a member of the judiciary: A majority vote of all justices who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
3. Grounds for disciplinary action over appellate and trial judges
4. Sanctions: fines, suspension, dismissal from office, forfeiture of benefits and disbarment
s
e
l
b
o
n
a
Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Daniel R. Liangco (A.C. No.5355, December 11,
2011). A trial court judge was dismissed from service for gross misconduct and gross ignorance
of the law. He allowed a local government unit to take possession and awarded ownership of a
private property without any expropriation proceedings having been filed by the government. As
a defense, the judge said that what he rendered was not a decision but only an opinion. After his
dismissal, the Court initiated disbarment proceedings against him before the IBP. The IBP
recommended his disbarment which the Court affirmed.
h
C
b
o
VI. Administrative Aspects over Court Matters, Responsibilities and Discipline of Court
Personnel
A. Powers and Duties of Courts and Judicial Officers (Rule 135)
h
C
B. Court Records and General Duties of Clerks and Stenographer (Rule 136)
42 | P a g e
an
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
C. Legal Fees (Rule 141): Manner of payment: legal tender; principles of Negotiable
Instruments Law will apply; fees in lien; and persons authorized to collect legal fees
s
e
l
D. Costs: Recovery of costs (Rule 142): a) Prevailing party; b) Dismissed appeal or action
c) Frivolous appeal; d) False allegations; and e) Non-appearance of witness
b
o
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
De Castro, J. Angelito R. Marquez, et al. v. Judge Venancio M. Ovejera, etc., et al., A.M. No.
P-11-2903, February 5, 2014.In finding the sheriff guilty, the Court cited Section 8 of RA 6713
which requires all public officials and employees to accomplish and submit declarations under
oath of their assets and liabilities. The requirement of SALN submission is aimed at curtailing
and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption, as well as at maintaining a standard of
honesty in the public service. With such disclosure, the public would, to a reasonable extent, be
able to monitor the affluence of public officials, and, in such manner, provides a check and
balance mechanism to verify their undisclosed properties and/or sources of income. S.C. held
that based on Section 8 of RA 6713, all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in
banks, stocks, bonds, and the like, should be declared by the public official in his or her SALN.
In this case, however, it was established that she only declared the original amount of her time
deposits in her SALN for the years 2004 and 2005, and did not disclose the interests which had
eventually accrued on the same.
b
o
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Veronica F. Galindez v. Zosima Susbilla-De Vera, A.M. No. P-13-3126, February 4, 2014. The
Court found respondent guilty of grave misconduct Vera for soliciting money to supposedly
facilitate a legal proceeding in court. She was dismissed from service for violating Section 2,
Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel has enjoined all court personnel from
soliciting or accepting any gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit understanding that such
gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
The Court further said that to deserve the trust and confidence of the people, Susbilla-De Vera
was expected to have her dealings with the public to be always sincere and above board. She
should not lead others to believe that despite her status as a minor court employee she had the
capacity to influence the outcomes of judicial matters. Her acts did not live up to the expectation,
for the records unquestionably showed how she had deliberately and fraudulently
misrepresented her ability to assist the complainant in the adoption of her niece and nephew.
b
o
n
a
Concerned Citizen v. Nonita v. Catena, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Br. 50, Puerto Princesa,
Palawan, A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1321-P, July 16, 2013.Respondent stenographer was dismissed
from service for gross dishonesty in connection with her Civil Service eligibility where she was
accused of causing another person to take the Civil Service Eligibility Examination in her stead.
Before the Decision was imposed, however, respondent resigned but the Court said that despite
this, it did not lose jurisdiction over the complaint and that it did not warrant the dismissal of the
same. The Court emphasized that cessation from office by virtue of her intervening resignation
did not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint against her, for the act complained
of had been committed when she was still in the service. Nor did such cessation from office
render the administrative case moot and academic. Otherwise, exacting responsibility for
administrative liabilities incurred would be easily avoided or evaded. The Court therefore also
ordered her eligibility to be cancelled, her retirement benefits to be forfeited, and her
disqualification from re-employment in the government service to be perpetual. Her intervening
h
C
b
o
an
43 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
resignation necessarily means that the penalty of dismissal could no longer be implemented
against her. Instead, fine is imposed, the determination of the amount of which is subject to the
sound discretion of the Court.
s
e
l
b
o
Office of the Court Administrator v. Noel R. Ong, Deputy Sheriff, Br. 49, et al., A.M. No. P-092690. . The Court held that respondents acts of using the levied car for personal errands and
losing it while under their safekeeping constitute grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.
The Court said misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or
wrong behavior. A misconduct is grave or gross if it is out of all measure; beyond
allowance; flagrant; shameful or such conduct as is not to be excused. Such flagrant and
shameful acts and should not be countenanced. Respondents acts warrant the penalty of
dismissal as provided in Rule 10, Section 46 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service. As for respondent Buencamino, his death is not a ground for the dismissal of the
Complaint against him. Respondent Buencaminos acts take away the publics faith in the
judiciary, and these acts should be sanctioned despite his death.
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Sheriffs are reminded that they are repositories of public trust and are under obligation to
perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their abilities. Being
frontline officials of the justice system, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs must always strive to
maintain public trust in the performance of their duties.
an
h
C
r
a
B
Development Bank of the Philippines, etc. Vs. Damvin V. Famero, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br. 43,
P. ___________: For the respondents lapses in the
Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, A.M. No.
procedures in the implementation of the writ of execution, he was found guilty of simple neglect
of duty, defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to the task expected of him. Under
Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple
neglect of duty is a less grave . Section 53 of the same Rules allows the disciplining authority to
consider mitigating circumstances in favor of the respondent. The court considered his length of
service in the Judiciary, acknowledgment of infractions, remorse and other family
circumstances, among others, in determining the proper penalty. He was also found to be
entitled to the following mitigating circumstances: (1) his more than 24 years of service in the
Judiciary; (2) a clear record other than for the present infraction which is his first offense, (3)
the resistance of the informal settlers to leave the property; (4) fear for his life; and (5) his wellgrounded recognition that he could not undertake any demolition without the appropriate court
order. After considering the attendant facts and the mitigating circumstances, the court also
considered that the efficiency of court operations may ensue if the respondents work were to be
left unattended by reason of his suspension. Thus, he was imposed the penalty of fine instead of
suspension from service.
s
e
l
b
o
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
r
a
B
Anacleto O. Villahermosa, Sr., et al. v. Victor Sacia, Executive Assistant IV and Efren R.
Rivamonte, etc., A.M. No. CA-14-28-P, February 11, 2014. The Court held that the act of
soliciting or receiving money from litigants constitutes grave misconduct. The S.C. reiterated
that The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel requires that court personnel avoid conflicts of
interest in performing official duties. It mandates that court personnel should not receive tips or
other remunerations for assisting or attending to parties engaged in transactions or involved in
actions or proceedings with the judiciary. Further, court personnel cannot take advantage of the
vulnerability of partylitigants. In this case, respondents were found guilty of grave misconduct
and thus, dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual
disqualification from holding public office in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including governmentowned or controlled corporations.
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
n
a
h
C
Office of the Court Administrator v. Donabel M. Savadera, et al., A.M. No. P-04-1903,
September 10, 2013. The S.C. once again called the attention of court personnel that no position
demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than a judicial office.
Those connected with the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowliest clerk,
carry a heavy burden of responsibility. As frontliners in the administration of justice, they should
live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity. They must bear in mind that the image
of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and
women who work there.
b
o
an
The respondent court employees were meted out with penalties because the audit team of the
Court discovered cash shortages in the books of accounts of the Office of the Clerk of Court,
RTC, Lipa City. As clerk of court, Atty. Apusen is primarily accountable for all funds collected
44 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
for the court, whether personally received by him or by a duly appointed cashier who is under
his supervision and control. As custodian of court funds, revenues, records, properties and
premises, he is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of said funds and
properties. Being a cash clerk, Savadera is an accountable officer entrusted with the great
responsibility of collecting money belonging to the funds of the court. Clearly, she miserably
failed in such responsibility upon the occurrence of the shortages.
s
e
l
b
o
Atty. Rhea R. Alcantara-Aquino v. Mylene H. Dela Cruz, etc., A.M. No. P-13-3141. January
21, 2014. The Court held that in this case, Dela Cruz failed to live up to these exacting
standards. The inculpatory acts committed by Dela Cruz are so grave as to call for the most
severe administrative penalty. Dishonesty and grave misconduct, both being in the nature of a
grave offense, carry the extreme penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement
benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the
government service. This penalty is in accordance with Sections 52 and 58 of the Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Mona Lisa A. Buencamino, etc., et al. /Re: Report
on the financial audit conducted in the Metropolitan Trial Court etc., A.M. No. P-052051/A.M. No. 05-4-118-MeTC. January 21, 2014. The Supreme Court held that the admission
of Mapue of her liability does not exculpate Atty. Buencamino from her own negligence. A clerk
of court has general administrative supervision over all the personnel of the court. The
administrative functions of a clerk of court are as vital to the prompt and proper administration
of justice as his judicial duties. As custodian of court funds and revenues, the clerk of court is
primarily accountable for all funds that are collected for the court, whether personally received
by him or by a duly appointed cashier who is under his supervision and control. Atty.
Buencamino was remiss in the performance of her duties as clerk of court. Atty. Buencamino
failed to supervise Mapue and to properly manage the court funds entrusted to her,
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Alberto Valdez v. Desiderio W. Macusi, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 25, Tabuk, Kalinga, A.M.
No. P-13-3123, June 10, 2014. Sheriff Macusi was held to be remiss in his duties and thus liable
for simple neglect of duty which is the failure to give attention to a task, or the disregard of a
duty due to carelessness or indifference. The Court held that the 30-day period imposed for the
execution of the writ after the judgment has been received by the sheriff, as well as the periodic
report every 30 days, is mandatory. A return which Macusi referred to as his Partial Report is
not acceptable because the court issues a writ, it is incumbent upon the sheriff to enforce it.
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
Office of the Court Administrator v. Sarah P. Ampong, etc., A.M. No. P-13-3132, June 4, 2014.
The Court dismissed from service Ampong for being liable for dishonesty in impersonating and
taking the November 1991 Civil Service Eligibility Examination for Teachers on behalf of one
Decir. Under section 58(a) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(URACCS), the penalty of dismissal carries with it the following administrative disabilities: (a)
cancellation of civil service eligibility; (b) forfeiture of retirement benefits; and (c) perpetual
disqualification from re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality, including any
government-owned and controlled corporation or government financial institution. Ampong
should be made to similarly suffer the same. Every employee of the Judiciary should be an
example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty. Court personnel are enjoined to adhere to the
exacting standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to
preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice.
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
Atty. Virgilio P. Alconera v. Alfredo T. Pallanan, A.M. No. P-12-3069, January 20, 2014. The
Court said that absent a TRO, an order of quashal, or compliance with Sec. 19, Rule 70 of the
Rules of Court, respondent sheriff has no alternative but to enforce the writ. The S.C. did not find
the sheriff guilty of the charge of grave misconduct. He did not enforce the writ of execution
because there was still a pending Motion for Reconsideration before the trial court. S.C. said
that misconduct has been defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The
misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to
violate the law, or to disregard established rules, all of which must be established by substantial
evidence, and must necessarily be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. In this case, there
was no element of misconduct established against the accused.
n
a
h
C
b
o
an
The sheriffs duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial; he is to execute the order of the
court strictly to the letter. He has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. When the
writ is placed in his hands, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to
proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement it in accordance with its
45 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
s
e
l
r
a
B
mandate. It is only by doing so could he ensure that the order is executed without undue delay.
This holds especially true herein where the nature of the case requires immediate execution.
s
e
l
b
o
Elpidio Sy, President, Systems Realty Development Corporation v. Edgar Esponilla, Legal
Researcher and Officer-in-Charge, et al., A.M. No. P-06-2261, December 11, 2013. Respondent
Esponilla, Legal Researcher and then Officer-In-Charge of Br. 54 of RTC Manila, and Atty.
Buendia, clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff of RTC Manila were charged with Gross
Misconduct, Negligence and Dishonesty for the irregular withdrawal of deposits for monthly
rentals in a civil case based on a purported Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Rental Deposits filed
by Atty. Bayhon in the civil case. S.C. held that Atty. Bayhon violated the Lawyers Oath and
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to explain, in good
faith the circumstances surrounding the filing of the Ex-Parte Motion which he himself filed, for
proffering misleading claims in the course of the subject administrative investigation, and for not
having shown and proved that he exerted his best efforts to secure and submit a copy of the ExParte Motion all in violation of the resolutions issued by the Court. Atty. Bayhon was
suspended for six (6) months from the practice of law.
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
Ch
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
an
h
C
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
n
a
h
C
s
e
l
b
o
an
46 | P a g e
h
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph