Legal and Judicial Ethics Case Digest

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
POINTS TO PONDER IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

BAR REVIEW 2017
Prof. Erickson H. Balmes1
TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ v. ATTY. TRINA DE VERA

A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015
LEONEN, J.
The issuance of bouncing checks by a lawyer is a ground for disciplinary action. It is

an act of serious misconduct which can result to suspension even if the lawyer claims that
when she issued the check she never intended for it to be deposited.
EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE v. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR.,

A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Verily, when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the
lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for
the intended purpose. Consequently, if the money was not used accordingly, the same must
be immediately returned to the client. A lawyers failure to return the money to his client
despite numerous demands is a violation of the trust reposed on him and is indicative of his
lack of integrity, as in this case.
CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO v. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO

A.C. No. 10695, March 18, 2015
LEONEN, J.
Respondent is administratively liable for his negligence in keeping and maintaining his
notarial register. Recording every notarial act in the notarial register is required under Rule
VI the Notarial Rules.
Hence, when respondent negligently failed to enter the details of the three (3)
documents on his notarial register, he cast doubt on the authenticity of complainants
documents. He also cast doubt on the credibility of the notarial register and the notarial
process. He violated not only the Notarial Rules but also the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires lawyers to promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rondents secretary cannot be blamed for the erroneous entries in the notarial
register. The notarial commission is a license held personally by the notary public. It cannot
be further delegated.
1Undersecretary, Department of Justice.

Member, Committee Answering the Bar Examinations in Commercial Law and Legal Ethics.
MCLE and Bar Review Lecturer in Legal and Judicial Ethics
2017 Points to Ponder in Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center by Usec. Erickson Balmes. All
rights reserved 2017 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly
prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the
Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 1 of 9
It is the notary public alone who is personally responsible for the correctness of the
entries in his or her notarial register. Respondents apparent remorse may assuage the injury
done privately, but it does not change the nature of the violation.
HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO v. ATTY. ROBERTO

E. EXAMEN
A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
There can be no prescription in bar discipline cases. It is the duty of this Court to
protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration of justice. No matter
how much time has elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complained of and
the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot
escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is aimed at
unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts which
violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers
Oath
A lawyers mandate includes thoroughly going over documents presented to them

typed or transcribed by their secretaries. The respondent did not only fail to uphold his duty
as a notary public but also failed to uphold his lawyers oath and ran afoul the provisions of
the CPR, it is proper that the court suspend the respondent for 2 years for practice of law as
well as disqualified from reappointment as a notary public for the same period from.
DR. ELMAR PEREZ v. ATTY. TRISTAN CATINDIG and ATTY. KAREN BAYDO
A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2016
PER CURIAM
Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a previous one amounts to a grossly

immoral conduct. The facts gathered from the evidence adduced by the parties, indeed
establish a pattern of conduct that is grossly immoral; it is not only corrupt and unprincipled,
but reprehensible to a high degree. The proper penalty in such cases is disbarment.
ANTONIO S. ASCAO, JR., et.al. v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR.

A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405, January 12, 2015
SERENO, CJ.
Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be
patient, dignified, and courteous when dealing with witnesses, among others, in an official
capacity. However, Judge Jacinto raised his voice and uttered abrasive and unnecessary
remarks to the petitioners witness during the 2 July 2012 hearing. He also made insulting
comments in open court. It is reprehensible for a judge to humiliate witnesses, and a judge
must at all times be temperate in his language.
JESSIE T. CAMPUGAN, et.al. v. ATTY. FEDERICO S. TOLENTINO, JR., et.al.

A.C NO. 8261 and A.C. No. 8725, MARCH 11, 2015
BERSAMIN, J.
Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a lawyer may be disciplined for
misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his
conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor,
or whether his conduct renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court.
Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all lawyers to

uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Lawyers are similarly
required under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the same Code not to engage in any unlawful,
dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. Failure to observe these tenets of the Code of
Professional Responsibility exposes the lawyer to disciplinary sanctions as provided in Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
BARTOLOME VS. BASILIO,

A.C. No. 10783, OCTOBER 14, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE,J.:
The act of notarization is impressed with public interest. As such, a notary public must
observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in the
performance of his duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of
the notarial system.
As the records bear out, Basilio affixed his official signature and seal on the notarial
certificate of the Joint Affidavit without properly identifying the person/s who signed the
same. It is sufficiently clear that Basilio had indeed affixed his official signature and seal on
an incomplete, if not false, notarial certificate.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. FREDELITO R. BALTAZAR

A.M. NO. P-14-3209, OCTOBER 20, 2015
PER CURIAM
Administrative Circular No. 3-2000 dated June 15, 2000 requires that collections
for all funds must be deposited daily or if not possible at the end of each month to the
nearest depository bank.
OCA Circular No. 113-2004 requires the monthly submission of financial reports to
the Accounting Division, FMO, OCA. OCA Circular No. 22-94 requires that duplicate and
triplicate copies of court receipts be carbon reproductions in all respects of the original.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RET. JUDGE FILEMON A. T ANDINCO,

(MTCC), et. al.
A.M. No. MTJ-10-1760, NOVEMBER 16, 2015
BRION, J.
This Court has consistently impressed upon the members of the Bench the need to
decide cases promptly and expeditiously, on the time-honored principle that justice delayed is
justice denied. Respondents failure to decide these cases and to resolve the motions was
even aggravated by the summary nature of these proceedings. If he had known that he
could not decide the cases within the reglementary period, he should have requested
additional time to decide the cases.
His failure to decide several cases and to resolve the motions and incidents within the
reglementary period, without strong and justifiable reason, constitutes gross incompetence,
inefficiency, negligence, and dereliction of duty, warranting the imposition of administrative
sanctions.
FERNANDO W. CHU v. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR.
A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015
PER CURIAM
Grave misconduct is improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some

established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. There is no
question that any gross misconduct by an attorney in his professional or private capacity
renders him unfit to manage the affairs of others, and is a ground for the imposition of the
penalty of suspension or disbarment, because good moral character is an essential
qualification for the admission of an attorney and for the continuance of such privilege.
DAVAO IMPORT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. ATTY. JOHNNY LANDERO

A.C. No. 5116. April 13, 2015
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Canon 18 of the CPR requires every lawyer to serve his client with utmost dedication,
competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable.
As complainant's counsel, respondent is duty-bound to handle the same with zeal and
all due diligence. Hence, even assuming that there is truth to his allegation that he and
Pandili already agreed to abandon the case, he should have still attended the scheduled pre-
trial to formally move for its withdrawal.
CORAZON M. DALUPAN v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT

A.C. No. 5067, June 29, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is well-settled that attorneys fee is understood both in its ordinary and

extraordinary concept. In its ordinary sense, attorneys fee refers to the reasonable
compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. Meanwhile, in its
extraordinary concept, attorneys fee is awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be
paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages.
On the other hand, acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for
merely accepting the case. This is because once the lawyer agrees to represent a client, he is
precluded from handling cases of the opposing party based on the prohibition on conflict of
interest. Thus, the incurs an opportunity cost by merely accepting the case of the client
which is therefore indemnified by the payment of acceptance fee. Since the acceptance fee
only seeks to compensate the lawyer for the lost opportunity, it is not measured by the
nature and extent of the legal services rendered.
MAXIMINO NOBLE III v. ATTY. ORLANDO O. AILES

A. C. No. 10628, July, 1, 2015
SERENO, CJ.
It must be emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with

conditions such that a lawyer's words and actions directly affect the public's opinion of the
legal profession. Lawyers are expected to observe such conduct of nobility and uprightness
which should remain with them, whether in their public or private lives, and may be
disciplined in the event their conduct falls short of the standards imposed upon them.
DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR., v. ATTY. ISIDRO L. CARACOL

A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power to act as counsel for a person
without being retained nor may he appear in court without being employed unless by leave
of court. If an attorney appears on a clients behalf without a retainer or the requisite
authority neither the litigant whom he purports to represent nor the adverse party may be
bound or affected by his appearance unless the purported client ratifies or is estopped to
deny his assumed authority.
If a lawyer corruptly or willfully appears as an attorney for a party to a case without

authority, he may be disciplined or punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has
misbehaved in his official transaction. It must also take into consideration that even if a
lawyer is retained by a client, an attorney-client relationship terminates upon death of either
client or the lawyer.
TEODORO ENRIQUEZ v. ATTY. EDILBERTO LAVADIA, JR.

A.C. No. 5868, June 16, 2015
PER CURIAM
Atty. Lavadias propensity for filing motions for extension of time to file pleadings but
failing to file is a transgression of his duties as a lawyer, explicitly stated in Rule 12.03 of the
CPR.
He failed to file his clients position paper rendering his party in default. A lawyers
failure to file the position paper is a per se violation of Canon 18 of the CPR. When he filed a
notice of appeal and several motions for extension of time, all of which were granted by the
lower court, he neglected to file the appeal memorandum.
Receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services and failing to render services is
also a violation of the said Canon 18, which states that A lawyer shall serve his client
with competence and diligence.
REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ v. ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MARGALLO

A.C. 10537, February 03, 2015
LEONEN, J.
The relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust
and confidence, the relationship is regarded as highly fiduciary. In this light, clients are led
to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the
required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected 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.
MELANIO S. SALITA v. ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE
A.C. 8101, February 04, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or
immoral arrangements. By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed
of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. In doing so, Atty. Salve,
as borne from the records of this case, effectively proclaimed to the world that: (a) all the
parties therein personally appeared before him; (b) they are all personally known to him; (c)
they were the same persons who executed the instruments; (d) he inquired into the
voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and (e) they acknowledged personally before
him that they voluntarily and freely 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. Having failed in this regard, he must now accept the
commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. His act of certifying under oath
an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the personal appearance of the persons
executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a notary
public.
ALVIN S. FELICIANO v. ATTY. CARMELITA BAUTISTA-LOZADA

A.C NO. 7593, MARCH 11, 2015
PERALTA, J.
When this Court orders a lawyer suspended from the practice of law, as in the instant
case, the lawyer must desist from performing all functions requiring the application of legal
knowledge within the period of suspension.
Suffice it to say that practice of law embraces "any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience." It
includes "[performing] acts which are characteristics of the [legal] profession" or "[rendering
any kind of] service [which] requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
In the instant case, Atty. Lozada's guilt is undisputed. Based on the records, there is
no doubt that Atty. Lozada's actuations, that is, in appearing and signing as counsel for and
in behalf of her husband, conducting or offering stipulation/admission of facts, conducting
direct and cross-examination, all constitute practice of law.
Furthermore, the findings of the IBP would disclose that such actuations of Atty.
Lozada of actively engaging in the practice of law in June-July 2007 were done within the
period of her two (2)-year suspension considering that she was suspended from the practice
of law by this Court in May 4, 2006.
ARCATOMY S. GUARIN v. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C. LIMPIN

A.C. No. 10576 , January 14, 2015
VILLARAMA JR., J.
Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to comply with the rules of
procedure, rather than seek exceptions as loopholes. A lawyer who assists a client in a
dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies
disciplinary action against the lawyer.
DOMINIC PAUL D. LAZARETO v. ATTY. DENNIS N. ACORDA

A.C. NO. 9603, JUNE 16, 2105
The filing of the falsified documents by the respondent or by someone acting upon his
instructions was clearly a dishonest attempt to mitigate the adverse effect of his inaction or
negligence on the legal matter entrusted to him. Also, the respondent committed a violation
of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, cited in Lazaretos complaint. Rule
1.01, in particular, requires that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoins every lawyer to act with the highest
standards of truthfulness, fair play, and nobility in the course of his practice of law.
ARIEL MUHLACH v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA ACOMPAADO-ARROYO

A.M. No. RTJ-15-2439, August 26, 2015
PEREZ, J.
Although voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion
on the part of the judge, such should still comply with the provisions of the second
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules, that is, it should be based on just or valid
reasons. In the subject order, the reason for the inhibition of the judge was not stated.
Neither could it be determined from the motion of the Spouses Muhlach's counsel since the
motion was done orally, in violation of Section 213 of the same rule.
FIRE OFFICER I DARWIN S. SAPPAYANI v. ATTY. RENATO G. GASMEN

A.C. No. 7073, September 1, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Under Act No. 2103, one of the obligations of a notary public is to authenticate
documents acknowledged before him, certifying the truth thereof under his seal of office.
When acknowledging a document, it is required that the person who signed or

executed the same, appears in person before the notary public and represents to the latter
that the signature on the document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in
the document, declaring the same as his free and voluntary act and deed.
Thus, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of an affiant's personal
appearance and makes the failure to observe such rule punishable.
NOEL S. SORREDA v. ATTY. DAVID L. KHO

A.C. No. 10635, August 26, 2015
CARPIO, J.
The legal presumption is that an attorney is innocent of the charges against him until
the contrary is proved. The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings
always rests on the complainant, and the burden is not satisfied when complainant relies on
mere assumptions and suspicions as evidence.
Considering the serious consequences of disbarment and suspension, this Court has
consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of
administrative penalty.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALEXANDER BALUT

A.M. No. RTJ-15-2426, JUNE 16, 2015
PER CURIAM
The fact that Judge Balut fully paid his cash liabilities will not shield him from the
consequences of his wrongdoings. His unwarranted interference in the Court collections
deserves administrative sanction and not even the full payment of his accountabilities will
exempt him from liability.
SHIRLEY OLAYTA-CAMBA v. ATTY. OTILIO SY BONGON

A.C. No. 8826, March 25, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is
bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the
intended purpose. Consequently, if not used accordingly, the money must be returned
immediately to the client. As such, a lawyers failure to return the money to his client despite
numerous demands is a violation of the trust reposed on him and is indicative of his lack of
integrity.
ALFREDO OLVIDA v. ATTY. ARNEL GONZALES

A.C. No. 5732, June 16, 2015
PER CURIAM
In administrative complaints against lawyers, the Court has exercised its discretion on
what penalty to impose on the basis of the facts of the case. Thus, for a lawyer's failure to
file a brief or other pleading, the Court had imposed penalties ranging from reprimand,
warning with fine, suspension, and in aggravated cases, disbarment.
FELICISIMA MENDOZA VDA. DE ROBOSA v. ATTY. JUAN B. MENDOZA, et.al.

A.C. 6056; SEPTEMBER 9, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
It bears to stress that a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is
generally recognized as valid and binding but must be laid down in an express contract. The
validity of contingent fees depends, in large measure, upon the reasonableness of the
amount fixed as contingent fee under the circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, when it is
shown that a contract for a contingent fee was obtained by undue influence exercised by the
attorney upon his client or by any fraud or imposition, or that the compensation is clearly
excessive, the Court must, and will protect the aggrieved party.
ANTONINA S. SOSA v. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA
A.C. No. 8776, March 22, 2015
BRION, J.
Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or in his private capacity is a

ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment because good character
is an essential qualification for the admission to and continued practice of law. Any
wrongdoing, whether professional or non-professional, indicating unfitness for the profession
justifies disciplinary action.
They must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts
and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They must
conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
While it is true that there was no attorney-client relationship between respondent and
complainant, it is well-settled that an attorney may be removed or otherwise disciplined not
only for malpractice and dishonesty in the profession, but also for gross misconduct not
connected with his professional duties, showing him to be unfit for the office and unworthy
of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him.
----GOOD LUCK AND GOD BLESS!---

Legal and Judicial Ethics Case Digest

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Legal and Judicial Ethics Case Digest

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER

POINTS TO PONDER IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ v. ATTY. TRINA DE VERA

The issuance of bouncing checks by a lawyer is a ground for disciplinary action. It is

EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE v. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR.,

CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO v. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO

1Undersecretary, Department of Justice.

HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO v. ATTY. ROBERTO

A lawyers mandate includes thoroughly going over documents presented to them

Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a previous one amounts to a grossly

ANTONIO S. ASCAO, JR., et.al. v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR.

JESSIE T. CAMPUGAN, et.al. v. ATTY. FEDERICO S. TOLENTINO, JR., et.al.

Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all lawyers to

BARTOLOME VS. BASILIO,

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. FREDELITO R. BALTAZAR

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RET. JUDGE FILEMON A. T ANDINCO,

Grave misconduct is improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some

DAVAO IMPORT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. ATTY. JOHNNY LANDERO

CORAZON M. DALUPAN v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT

It is well-settled that attorneys fee is understood both in its ordinary and

MAXIMINO NOBLE III v. ATTY. ORLANDO O. AILES

It must be emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with

DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR., v. ATTY. ISIDRO L. CARACOL

If a lawyer corruptly or willfully appears as an attorney for a party to a case without

TEODORO ENRIQUEZ v. ATTY. EDILBERTO LAVADIA, JR.

REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ v. ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MARGALLO

As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, Atty. Salve is mandated to discharge

ALVIN S. FELICIANO v. ATTY. CARMELITA BAUTISTA-LOZADA

ARCATOMY S. GUARIN v. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C. LIMPIN

DOMINIC PAUL D. LAZARETO v. ATTY. DENNIS N. ACORDA

ARIEL MUHLACH v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA ACOMPAADO-ARROYO

FIRE OFFICER I DARWIN S. SAPPAYANI v. ATTY. RENATO G. GASMEN

When acknowledging a document, it is required that the person who signed or

NOEL S. SORREDA v. ATTY. DAVID L. KHO

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALEXANDER BALUT

SHIRLEY OLAYTA-CAMBA v. ATTY. OTILIO SY BONGON

ALFREDO OLVIDA v. ATTY. ARNEL GONZALES

FELICISIMA MENDOZA VDA. DE ROBOSA v. ATTY. JUAN B. MENDOZA, et.al.

Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or in his private capacity is a

----GOOD LUCK AND GOD BLESS!---

Anda mungkin juga menyukai