1
negligence would merit no less than his suspension from settlement; (b) she would only be incurring enormous
the practice of the law profession, were it not for his expense if she consulted a new lawyer; (c) respondent
candor, at the hearing of this incident, in owning his was assisting her anyway; (d) she had nothing to worry
mistake and the apology he made to this Court. It is the about the documents foisted upon her to sign; (e)
sense of this Court, however, that he must be as he is complainant need not come to court afterwards to save
hereby severely censured. Atty. Soriano is further likewise her time; and in any event respondent already took care
warned that any future similar act will be met with of everything;
heavier disciplinary sanction. * Complainant had been prevented from exhibiting fully
Atty. Soriano is hereby ordered, in the present case, to her case by means of fraud, deception and some other
forthwith withdraw the appearance that he has entered form of mendacity practiced on her by respondent;
as chief counsel of record for the respondents Marcelino * Finally, respondent fraudulently or without authority
Tiburcio, et al. assumed to represent complainant and connived in her
defeat;
2
Camacho vs. Pangulayan (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose, Antique, a
(328 SCRA 631, March 22, 2000) woman approached them. Complainant suggested Atty.
Salvani to talk with her when respondent Atty. Mariano
Facts: Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, the hired counsel of Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted
some expelled students from the AMA Computer at Atty. Salvani and his client. Atty Pefianco was asked to
College, filed a complaint against the lawyers of calm down but he did not refrain from his outburst. This
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices (Atty. caused a commotion in the office wherein respondent
Pangulayan, et al.) for having procured and effected on tried to attack complainant and even shouted at him,
separate occasions, without his knowledge, compromise "You’re stupid!" Complainant also submitted the affidavits
agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with four of his of Atty. Ramon Salvani III, Felizardo Del Rosario, Atty.
clients which, in effect, required them to waive all kinds of Pepin Joey Marfil, Robert Minguez, Herbert Ysulat and
claims they might have had against AMACC, the Ramon Quintayo to corroborate his allegations.
principal defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal
and administrative proceedings filed against it. In his Comment and Counter-Complaint, respondent
Complainant averred that such an act of respondents Pefianco said that the sight of the crying woman, whose
was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession husband had been murdered, moved him and
warranting either disbarment or suspension from the prompted him to take up her defense. He also averred
practice of law. that it was Alcantara who punched him and called him
stupid.
The students, members of the Editorial Board of the school
paper, were expelled by the school as recommended by
the Student Disciplinary tribunal for publishing some
objectionable features or articles. They were found guilty ISSUE:
of using indecent language and unauthorized use of
student publication funds. Atty. Pangulayan admits that Whether or not respondent’s act violate the Code of
he only participated in the formulation and execution of Professional Responsibility.
the various Re-Admission agreements complained of and
alleges that the agreements had nothing to do with the
civil case but were purely administrative.
HELD:
Issue: WON Atty. Pagulayan act in accordance with YES. Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of
ethical standards for procuring said agreements. Professional Responsibility: CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL
CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND
Held: No, the IBP found that Atty. Pangulayan was aware CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND
that when the letters of apology and Re-Admission SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING
agreements were formalized, the complainant was COUNSEL.
already the counsel for the students in the civil
case. However, he still proceeded to negotiate with the
students and their parents without communicating the
matter to their lawyer. His failure is an inexcusable Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal
violation of the canons of professional responsibility and profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly
an utter disregard of the duty he owes to his toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves
colleague. His defense that the agreements were purely without reproach at all times. In this case, respondent’s
administrative does not hold because the manifestation meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so
stated that the students shall drop all civil, criminal and caused the untoward incident. Though he thought that
administrative proceedings against AMA. The IBP this is righteous, his public behaviorcan only bring down
recommended a 6-month suspension but the SC found it the legal profession in the eyes of the public and erode
too harsh and ruled only a 3-month suspension. respect for it. An injustice cannot be righted by another
injustice.
ALCANTARA v PEFIANCO
A. C. No. 5398. December 3, 2002
Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and,
FACTS: considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FINED in
the amount of P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a
This is a complaint against Atty. Mariano Pefianco for warning that similar action in the future will be sanctioned
conduct unbecoming a member of the bar for using more severely.
improper and offensive language and threatening and
attempting to assault complainant. The complainant,
Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the incumbent District Public
Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office in San Jose,
Antique. He alleged that while Atty. Ramon Salvani III was
conferring with a client in the Public Attorney’s Office
3
ATTY. REYES v. ATTY. CHIONG JR. Torres had a motive to burglarize the office of UEFA to get
(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003) certain documents.
Second, Torres alleges that Javier used language that
FACTS: was clearly abusive, offensive, and improper, inconsistent
with the character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial
Complainant Atty. Reyes filed a case for officer. This was with regard to Javier’s “Reply to
disbarment against respondent Atty. Chiong because of Respondents Answer/Comment” in the “attorney’s fees
the latter’s violation of Canon 8 of the Code of case” where Javier made a comment on the intellectual
Professional Responsibility dealing with the idea that capacity of Torres.
lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity Third, Torres finds fault in Javier’s statement that implies
and civility. Chiong’s client did not appear upon the that it is normal for notaries public to let their relatives
court when Prosecutor Salonga issued a subpoena for sign the documents for them. Torres says that this
their preliminary investigation, the Prosecutor filed a statement is demeaning to the legal profession and the
criminal complaint for estafa against said client. After notarial service.
which Chiong made an urgent motion to quash the IBP found Javier guilty and reprimanded him.
warrant concomitant with his filing for a civil complaint
and collection for a sum of money and damages against Issue:
Atty. Reyes, Xu (the complainant’s client) and the W/n Javier should be held liable for his acts.
Prosecutor. Upon their confrontation, no settlement was
reached. Held:
Chiong argues that there was no disrespect impleading SC says only as regards the second cause of action. The
Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil Case No. 4884 and court made mention that it is well entrenched in
no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless. He Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy,
argues that he impleaded the Prosecutor because the utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings,
criminal investigation had irregularities due to the action including all kinds of pleadings, petitions and motions, are
of the Prosecutor to file estafa case despite the absolutely privileged so long as they are pertinent and
pendency for his client’s motion for an opportunity to relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or malicious
submit counter affidavit and evidence. they may be.
4
ATTY. DALLONG- GALICINAO V. ATTY. CASTRO Foodsphere, Inc. (complainant under the brand name
AC 6396 October 25, 2005 “CDO after a certain Alberto Cordero purportedly
bought a can of CDO Liver spread discovering a colony
FACTS: of worms in it. He filed a lawsuit and asked CDO to pay
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Php150,000 on a conciliation done by BFAD but CDO
Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and VP of IBP- refused and instead offered to pay the actual medical
Nueva Vizcaya. Respondent went to complainant’s and incidental expenses of Mr. Cordero. He brought the
office to inquire whether the records of Civil Case No. 784 matter to the media where Atty Mauricio threatened
had already been remanded to the MCTC. Respondent CDO that he would publish and air in his TV and Radio
was not the counsel of either party in that case. programs the re the said issue. After a KASUNDUAN was
Complainant replied that the record had not yet made between Atty Maurcio as witness and the
been transmitted since a certified true copy of the CA Corderos of a money settlement of Php 50,000 including
decision should first be presented. To this respondent placing paid advertisements in the tabloids and television
retorted, “You mean to say, I would have to go to Manila program where Atty. Mauricio is working, respondent
to get a copy?” Complainant replied that respondent (Mauricio) still not satisfied with the offer threatened to
may show instead the copy sent to the party he proceed with the publication of the articles/columns. He
represents. Respondent then replied that complainant then made several libellous write ups and comments
should’ve notified him. Complainant explained that it is about CDO. Complainant thus filed criminal complaints
not her duty to notify the respondent of such duty. against respondent for Libel and Threatening to Publish
Angered, respondent yelled stuff in Ilocano and left the Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal
office, banging the door so loud. He then returned to the Code. The complaints were pending at the time of the
office and shouted, “Ukinnam nga babai!” (“Vulva of filing of the present administrative complaint but Atty
your mother, you woman!”) Mauticio didn’t stop from making write ups and
Later, complainant filed a manifestation that she comments about the matter and questioned the integrity
won’t appear in the hearing of the case in view of the of the prosecutor’s office using coarse languages.
respondent’s public apology, and that the latter was
forgiven already. ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Mauricio has violated:
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating 1. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
the Code of Professional Responsibility? Responsibility which provides: “A lawyer [s]hall [o]bserve
and [m]aintain [t]he [re]spect [d]ue [t]o [t]he [c]ourts
[a]nd [t]o [j]udicial [o]fficers [a]nd [s]hould [i]nsist [o]n
RULING: [s]imilar [c]onduct [b]y [o]thers.”
Respondent is fined the amount of 10,000 with a warning.
Respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case 2. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
No. 784. His explanation that he will enter his appearance dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
in the case when its records were already transmitted to
the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of 3. Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public
record respondent had no right to impose his will on the statements in the media regarding a pending case
clerk of court. He violated Rule 8.02, because this was an tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
act of encroachment. It matters not that he did so in
good faith.
His act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar 4. CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with
invectives to the clerk of court was not only ill-mannered courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
but also unbecoming considering that he did these in colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
front of the complainant’s subordinates. For these, he opposing counsel.
violated Rules 7.03 and 8.01 and Canon 8. The penalty
was tempered because respondent apologized to the 5. Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his professional
complainant and the latter accepted it. This is not to dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
say, however, that respondent should be absolved from otherwise improper,
his actuations. People are accountable for the
consequences of the things they say and do even if they 6. CANON 7 - A Lawyer shall at all times uphold the
repent afterwards. integrity and dignity of the legal profession
RULING:
Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. Melencio L. Mauricio, Jr. A.C. Yes Atty. Melanio Mauricio violated the lawyer’s oath and
No. 7199, has committed a breach of ethics of the legal profession
July 22, 2009 as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility
mentioned above and is therefore SUSPENDED from the
FACTS: practice of law for three years effective upon his receipt
This is a disbarment case against Atty. Melanio L. of this Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of the
Mauricio, Jr., popularly known as “Batas Mauricio” by same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
5
HELD:
ATTY. BARANDON, JR v. ATTY. FERRER, SR. No, there was no reason to disagree with the
(A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010) findings of the IBP because it can be seen that there was
an appropriate and tedious investigation set upon him for
administrative purposes and it can be inferred that the
FACTS: decision went through a rigorous process.
ISSUES:
1. Did the IBP err in finding Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges
set against him?
2. In the affirmative, was the penalty imposed on him
justified?