CANON 8

CAMACHO V PANGULAYAN
VITUG; March 22, 2000
(kiyo miura)

NATURE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Violation of the Code of Professional Ethics

FACTS
- 9 students from the AMA Computer College (AMACC), all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE,
allegedly published certain objectionable features
- the Student Disciplinary Tribunal found them guilty and the students were expelled
- the 9 students appealed but were denied by the AMACC President giving rise to a civil case calling for the
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with Camacho as their counsel and Pangulayan and
associates representing the defendant, AMACC
- while the case was pending, letters of apology and re-admission agreements were separately executed
by and/or in behalf of the students by their parents
- following this, the Pangulayan Law Offices filed a Manifestation stating, among other things, that 4 of the
students had acknowledged their guilt and agreed to terminate all proceedings
- apparently, Pangulayan procured and effected the re-admission agreements through negotiations with
said students and their parents without communicating with Camacho

ISSUE
WON Pangulayan is guilty of disregarding professional ethics

HELD
YES, this action violates Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics which states:
A lawyer should not in anyway communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by
counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only
deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend
to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law.
- respondent violated professional ethics and disregarded a duty owing to his colleague
- the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a resolution suspending Pangulayan for 6 months and dismissed
the case against the other respondents since they took no part in it
- the court concurred with IBPs findings but reduced the suspension to 3 months

REYES v CHIONG JR. 405 SCRA 212

Facts:
Atty. Ramon Reyes counsel for Zonggi Xu.
Atty. Victoriano Chiong, Jr for Chia Hsien Pan.
Xu, a Chinese-Taiwanese went into a business venture with Pan. Pan was supposed to set up a Cebu-
based fishball, tempura and seafood products factory. He did not establish it, and so Xu asked that his
money be returned.
Xu then filed a case of estafa against Pan. Prosecutor Salanga then issued a subpoena against Pan.
Atty. Chiong then filed a motion to quash, but he also filed a civil complaint for the collection of a sum of
money and damages as well as for the dissolution of a business venture against Xu, Atty Reyes, and
Prosecutor Salanga.
He alleged that Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant because of the irregularities the
latter had committed in conducting the criminal investigation he still filed the complaint against Pan
in spite of Pansmotions.
Atty. Reyes was allegedly impleaded because he allegedly connived with Xu in filing the estafa case
which was baseless.
IBP recommended that Chiong be suspended for 2 years.

Issue:
W/N Chiong should be suspended.

Held:
Yes. Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, GanaLopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.
If Chiong believed that the two had conspired to act illegally, he could have instituted disbarment
proceedings.
As a lawyer, Chiong should have advised his client of the availability of these remedies. Thus the filing of
the cases had no justification.
Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility.
Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor
toward each other

[001] Laput vs. Remotigue

1
, 6 SCRA 45(A.M. No. 219, 29 September 1962)
LABRADOR,
J. (En Banc)
FACTS:
Petitioner ATTY.CASIANO U. LAPUT charge respondents ATTY. FRANCISCO E.F.REMOTIGUE and ATTY.
FORTUNATO P. PATALINGHUG with unprofessional and unethical conduct in soliciting cases and
intriguing against a brother lawyer. In May 1952, Nieves Rillas
Vda. de Barrera retained petitioner Atty. Laput to handle her "Testate Estate of Macario Barrera" case in
CFI-Cebu. By Jan. 1955, petitioner had prepared two pleadings: (1) closing of administration proceedings,
and (2) rendering of final accounting and partition of said estate .Mrs. Barrera did not countersign both
pleadings. Petitioner found out later that respondent Atty. Patalinghug had filed on 11 Jan. 1955 a written
appearance as the new counsel for Mrs. Barrera. On 5 Feb. 1955, petitioner voluntarily asked the court to
be relieved as Mrs. Barreras counsel. Petitioner alleged that: (1) respondents appearances
were unethical and improper; (2) they made Mrs. Barrera sign documents revoking the petitioners Power
of Attorney" purportedly to disauthorize him from further collecting and receiving dividends of the estate
from Mr. Macario Barreras corporations, and make him appear as a dishonest lawyer and no longer trusted
byhis client; and (3) Atty. Patalinghug entered his appearance without notice to petitioner. Respondent Atty.
Patalinghug answered that when he entered his appearance on 11
Jan.1955Mrs. Barrera had already lost confidence in her lawyer, and had already filed a pleading
discharging his services. The other respondent Atty. Remotigue answered that when he filed his
appearance on 7 Feb. 1955, the petitioner had already withdrawn as counsel. The SC referred the case to
the SolGen for investigation, report and recommendation. The latter recommended the complete
exoneration of respondents.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Remotigue and Atty Patalinghug are guilty of unprofessional and unethical conduct in
soliciting cases.

HELD:
No. The SC found no irregularity in the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug as counsel for Mrs. Barrera; and
there was no actual grabbing of a case from petitioner because
Atty.Patalinghug's professional services were contracted by the widow. Besides, the petitioner's voluntary
withdrawal on 5 Feb. 1955, and his filing almost simultaneously of a motion for the payment of his
attorney's fees, amounted to consent to the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug as counsel for the widow.
The SC also held that respondent Atty. Remotigue was also not guilty of unprofessionalconduct inasmuch
as he entered his appearance, dated 5 Feb. 1955, only on 7 February 1955,after Mrs. Barrera had
dispensed with petitioner's professional services, and after petitione rhad voluntarily withdrawn his
appearance. As to Atty. Patalinghugs preparation of documents revoking the petitioners power of
attorney, the SolGen found that the same does not appear to be prompted by malice or intended to hurt
petitioner's feelings, but purely to safeguard the interest of the administratrix. Case dismissed and closed
for no sufficient evidence submitted to sustain the charges