JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™

2015 PRE WEEK IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Prof. ERICKSON H. BALMES

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

THE 2015 CASES ATBP.
PREPARED BY:
P ROF . E RICKSON H . B ALM ES 
THESE NOTES ARE MEANT TO BE SHARED
SHARING THEM IS A GOOD KARMA WAITING TO HAPPEN!

Praise the LORD!

I will praise the Lord with my whole heart,

In the assembly of the upright and in the congregation.
The works of the Lord are great,
 Studied by all who have pleasure in them.
His work is honorable and glorious,
 And His righteousness endures forever.
He has made His wonderful works to be remembered;

The Lord is gracious and full of compassion.
He has given food to those who fear Him;

He will ever be mindful of His covenant.
He has declared to His people the power of His works,

 In giving them the heritage of the nations.
The works of His hands are verity and justice;

 All His precepts are SURE.
They stand fast forever and ever,

And are done in truth and uprightness.
He has sent redemption to His people;

He has commanded His covenant forever:

Holy and awesome is His name.
The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom;

A good understanding have all those who do His commandments.

 His praise endures forever.
(Psalm 111)

 MCLE and Bar Reviewer in Legal Ethics and Commercial Law - Jurists Bar Review Center, Cosmopolitan Review
Center, CPRS Bar Review Center, Luminous Bar Review, Dagupan, Powerhaus Review Center, Chan Robles Internet
Review, PCU Bar Review, Albano Review Center, the Magnificus Review Center and the UP LAW Center.
 Member, Select Committee Answering the Bar Examination Questions in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS , UP
Law Center.
 The compiler wishes to acknowledge the valuable contribution of his research assistant, Clarizza Grace Napa in
researching the cases involved in this compilation.

2015 Pre-week Notes in Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center™ by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.

Page 1 of 8
 JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™
2015 PRE WEEK IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Prof. ERICKSON H. BALMES

PART I. MEMORY AID GALORE:

Advocate
A person who champions the cause of another in a court of law. It usually refers to a legal counselor or attorney-at-
law.

Bangalore Draft
The draft, agreed to by world jurists in a judicial conference held in Bangalore, India, and adopted as the model by the
Supreme Court of the Philippines in promulgating the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and
the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, both of which took effect on June 1, 2004. A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27,
2004.

Case at Bar VS Case at Bench

Case at Bar is the case being tried by the trial court in the exercise of its jurisdiction, i.e., the case that is currently the
subject of a particular trial or judicial proceeding WHILE Case at Bench is the case being heard before an appellate
court.

Consent Judgment
A compromise agreement between the parties to end further litigation by having a court of competent jurisdiction
approve the compromise as having the same force and effect as a judgment by the court. Thus, once approved, it has
the force of res judicata with respect to the contentious issues in the case. Such a judgment, as a rule, is immediately
executory. Del Rosario vs. Madayag and Leviste, 247 SCRA 767; Central Bank vs. CA, 61 SCRA 348; Pasay City vs.
Manila, 132 SCRA 156.

De Minimis
A Latin adjective for describing something that is too insignificant or trifling for the courts to bother with.

Hurried justice
Such promptness as is not sobered with prudence and wisdom in the final disposition of cases frequently resulting in
speedy injustice.

Judge’s Family
Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge’s family includes his spouse and children, as well as children-in-
law, and any other relative by consanguinity or affinity\within the sixth civil degree, or person who is a companion or
employee of the judge and who lives in the judge’s household.

Juris Consult
A lawyer who is recognized as an expert in a specialized branch of the law, e.g., international law, constitutional law,
Shari’a or Islamic law. A juris consult is an existing position in the judiciary under Shari’a law in our country.

Justice
A title RESERVED by law and Court rules in reference to incumbent and retired members of the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals only. It may NOT be used by other officials from
whichever branch of government even if said officials are given the rank of justice. JBC No 001, En Banc Resolution,
Feb. 14, 1989.

Liberty and Prosperity Doctrine

A judicial philosophy espoused by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban which advances the view that “in cases
involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government, and in favor of the poor, the
oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed, and the weak; but in conflicts primarily concerned with economic
policies, courts must be deferential to the political branches of government, namely, the Presidency and Congress;
hence, as a rule, courts will not pass upon the merits or wisdom of economic policies, for these matters have been left
by the people to the President and Congress to evaluate and decide.” Bayan Muna vs. Ermita, GR No. 169838, April
25, 2006; La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1.

2015 Pre-week Notes in Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center™ by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.

Page 2 of 8
 JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™
2015 PRE WEEK IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Prof. ERICKSON H. BALMES
Malpractice
The failure of a lawyer to exercise on behalf of his client, the knowledge, skill and ability ordinarily possessed by
members of the Bar whereby an actual loss is caused the client (7 Am Jur 2d Attys., sec. 167, et seq)

Notatu Dignum
A Latin term which refers to the presumption of regularity in the performance of a judge’s functions, hence, bias,
prejudice and even undue interest cannot be presumed, especially when weighed against a judge’s sacred obligation
under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to any person and do equal right to the poor and the rich.
Mamerto Maniquiz Foundation vs. Pizarro, 448 SCRA 140.

Pairing Judge
A judge who is designated to cover for another judge in the latter’s court or sala in the event of one or the other’s
absence due to resignation, dismissal, retirement, death, suspension, or prolonged absence. He takes cognizance of all
cases in the paired sala as acting judge therein until the return of the regular incumbent judge or assumption of duty of
a new judge.

Pro Bono
A Latin term which means “for the public good.” It usually refers to a lawyer’s services which are extended for free,
usually for a good cause or for an indigent litigant.

Pro Se
A Latin term which denotes “on his own behalf.” It is usually used in connection with the representation of one’s self
in a court of law without the assistance of an attorney.

Quantum Meruit
Literally, it means “As much as he deserves”. In determining attorney’s fees, it means that the attorney will be paid for
his services as much as he should deserve, when the services are prematurely terminated by the act of either of the
parties, or by reason of death, disability or operation of law, considering the importance of the subject matter of the
controversy, the extent of the services rendered and the professional standing of the lawyer.

Subjudice
A legal principle expressed in Latin which means that a certain matter is under judicial or court consideration whose
result or consequence is still undetermined and, therefore may not be an appropriate subject to comment on publicly as
to its possible outcome. Any such comment may subject the commentator to contempt of court.

PART II. JURISPRUDENCE

ANTONIO S. ASCAÑO, JR., et. al. VS. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR.
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405, January 12, 2015
SERENO C.J.

FACTS:
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro’s Mayor, Jose Villarosa, allegedly wanted to demolish the public market to use
its space to erect the new “San Jose Commercial Complex”. As herein complainants were the alleged section leaders of
the lessees of market stalls in the said public market, they filed a Petition for Prohibition with urgent application for the
issuance of TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) against the municipality and the Mayor.

During the first hearing, only 12 out of more than 500 members supporting the complainants were allowed to
enter; while the entire entourage of the Mayor, none of whom were parties to the case, were all allowed inside. Further,
all complainants were escorted outside except for one who will give her testimony. At the next hearing, when the
Mayor exited through the door used by the Judge and the employees, Judge Jacinto, Jr. was the one who explained the
Mayor’s excuse.

Moreover, complainants claimed that Judge Jacinto, Jr. “argued, berated, accused, scolded, confused and
admonished” them without basis or justification. The latter also asked them confusing and misleading questions geared
towards their damage and favorable to their adversary. According to complainants, it is common knowledge to the

2015 Pre-week Notes in Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center™ by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.

Page 3 of 8
 JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™
2015 PRE WEEK IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Prof. ERICKSON H. BALMES
entire community that Judge Jacinto, Jr. is beholden to the Mayor and its allies.

As stated by the report of investigating justice, of which the Court adopted the findings and recommendation,
Judge Jacinto, Jr. failed to submit the transcript of notes for the second hearing without plausible reason. While in the
first hearing, it was found that apart from the judge raising his voice when addressing the witness and uttering abrasive
and unnecessary statements, he also made insulting and, sometimes, needlessly lengthy declarations.

ISSUE:

Whether Judge Jacinto, Jr. seriously violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Ethics and the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

HELD:

YES. Although the other charges of Judge Jacinto, Jr.’s partiality were not proven by clear and convincing
evidence on the basis of his Order to lift the TRO or on the mere fact that he did not allow the “more than 500
members” to enter the courtroom, the Court found petitioner’s claim that Judge Jacinto, Jr. “berated, scolded, confused
and admonished” their witnesses without basis or justification to be noteworthy. As he also raised his voice and uttered
abrasive and unnecessary remarks, it only shows that he failed to conduct himself in accordance to Sec. 6, Canon 6 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which mandates the Judge to maintain order and
decorum in all proceedings. He should also be considerate, courteous and civil to all persons in his court.

He further violated Sec. 1 of Canon 2 and Sec. 1 of Canon 4, enjoining judges not only from committing acts
of impropriety, but also acts that have the appearance of impropriety. By appearing to be the Mayor’s advocate in
explaining why the mayor left the courtroom, when not even the latter’s own lawyers knew that, he undoubtedly
diminished public confidence and public trust in him as a judge. He gave petitioners reason to doubt his integrity and
impartiality. Thus, he also violated Sec. 2 of Canon 3, which mandates judges to ensure that their conduct maintains
the confidence of the public, both in and out of the court. From the foregoing, Judge Jacinto, Jr. was found guilty of
unbecoming conduct.

MARILEN G. SOLIMAN VS. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY

A.C. No. 10568, January 13, 2015
REYES J.
FACTS:

Soliman engaged the services of Atty. Amboy in a partition case substantiated by a Retainer Agreement for
which Soliman agreed to pay P50,000.00 as acceptance fee. Later on, Atty. Amboy was advised to no longer institute a
partition case. She instead just facilitated the issuance of the titles to the subject property from the co-owners to the
individual owners. Thereafter, Atty. Amboy told Soliman of the delay in the issuance of titles due to the failure of the
other co-owners to submit certain documents. She then told Soliman that someone from the Register of Deeds (RD)
can help expedite the issuance for a fee of P50,000.00. After depositing the payment for the real property tax, Soliman
also deposited the P50,000.00 to Atty. Amboy’s bank account as payment for her contact in the RD. However, Atty.
Amboy failed to deliver the respective certificates of title of Soliman and her co-owners.

She then kept on asking Atty. Amboy for any updates, but the latter was unresponsive. Thereafter, Soliman
asked Atty. Marasigan, Deputy RD of Manila, if he received the P50,000.00. He answered in the negative, and claimed
that Atty. Amboy’s failure to file certain documents was the reason the release of the titles could not be processed.

The recommendation of the Investigating Commisioner suggesting Atty. Amboy of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) by failing to observe due diligence in dealing with Soliman was approved and
adopted. It further stated that she failed to inform her client of the status of the proceedings for the issuance of the said
titles.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Amboy violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

2015 Pre-week Notes in Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center™ by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.

Page 4 of 8
 JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™
2015 PRE WEEK IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Prof. ERICKSON H. BALMES

HELD:

YES. The circumstances of this case clearly show that Atty. Amboy, after receiving 25,000.00 as payment for
her professional services, failed to submit material documents relative to the issuance of separate certificates of title to
the individual owners of the property. It was her negligence that caused the delay in the issuance of the certificates of
title, which is contrary to the CPR mandating lawyers like her to never neglect a legal matter entrusted to them; and to
keep their clients informed of the status of their case and respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for
information. Furthermore, she encouraged to resort to an illegal act when she asked from Soliman P50,000.00 as
payment for her “contact” in the RD, but still failed to issue the certificates of title. Clearly, Atty. Amboy’s acts
undermined the legal proceses, which she swore to uphold and defend.

Moreover, Atty. Amboy violated Canon 16 of the CPR, particularly Rule 16.03, when she failed to return the
money to Soliman even after a demand was made. It is settled that the unjustified withholding of money belonging to a
client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action. Thus, she is suspended from the practice of law for two years.

FERNANDO W. CHU VS. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR.

A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015
PER CURIAM
FACTS:

Atty. Guico handled a complaint for illegal dismissal against CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC), the
company of his client named Fernando Chu. The former then filed an appeal in behalf of CVC. Meanwhile, Atty.
Guico asked Chu to prepare a substantial amount of money to be given to the NLRC Commissioner to insure a
favorable decision. Chu called and gave the money amounting to P300,000.00 to Atty. Guico’s assistant, Nardo.
Subsequently, Atty. Guico handed Chu a copy of an alleged draft decision of the NLRC in favor of CVC, which was
printed on the dorsal portion of used paper apparently emanating from Atty. Guico’s office. He also told Chu to raise
another P300,000.00 to encourage the NLRC Commissioner to issue the decision. Chu then brought P280,000.00 to
Atty. Guico’s office, which was received by Nardo without issuing any receipt.

Chu followed up on the status of the CVC case, but Nardo said that he would only know it after Christmas. On
Jan. 11, 2008, Chu asked Nardo if the NLRC Commissioner had accepted the money. Nardo assured him that the
money was still with Atty. Guico who would return it if the NLRC Commissioner did not accept the same. Meanwhile,
on Jan. 19, 2009, the NLRC promulgated a decision adverse to CVC.

The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Guico had violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the CPR,
and recommended the disbarment of the latter for his act of extortion and misrepresentation causing dishonor to the
legal profession.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Guico violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a favorable decision.

HELD:

YES. Despite denying that the draft decision came from him, Atty. Guico’s participation in the generation of
the draft was undeniable. In order to deflect the imputation, he stated that Chu’s witnesses in a criminal case that he
handled for him could have easily taken the used paper containing the draft decision from his office. Atty. Guico’s
attempt to downplay the sourcing of used paper from his office was futile because he did not expressly contradict the
statement of Chu. In the Court’s view, Atty. Guico made the implied admission because he was fully aware that the
used paper had unquestionably come from his office. This testimony of Chu and his witnesses sufficed to confirm that
he had committed the imputed gross misconduct by demanding and receving P580,000.00 from Chu to obtain a
favorable decision. He violated the law against bribery and corruption. He compounded his violation by using said
illegality to obtain a huge sum from his client and appropriated the same for his own personal interest.

2015 Pre-week Notes in Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center™ by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.

Page 5 of 8
 JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™
2015 PRE WEEK IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Prof. ERICKSON H. BALMES
For breaching his ethical commitments under the Lawyer’s Oath not to delay any man for money or malice;
and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct, Atty. Guico ceased to be a servant of the law. Thus, he is disbarred from membership in
the IBP.

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

A.C. No. 10576,, January 14, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR. J.

FACTS:

Mr. Celso G. de los (Mr. Celso) Angeles hired Guarin as Chief Operating Officer and thereafter as President of
OneCard Company Inc., a member of the Legacy Group of Companies. He eventually resigned on Aug. 11, 2008.
Meanwhile, on Nov. 2008, Atty. Limpin, the Corporate Secretary of Legacy Card, Inc. (LCI), also under the Legacy
Group, filed with the SEC a General Information Sheet (GIS) for LCI. The GIS identified Guarin as Chairman of the
Board of Directors (BOD) and President. On Dec. 2008, LCI voluntarily dissolved with the SEC. Guarin then filed a
complaint against Atty. Limpin attesting that he was never a stockholder, chairman and president of LCI, but the latter
still listed him as such even though he knew otherwise. Moreover, the Secretary’s Certificates presented by Atty.
Limpin, which shows three board meetings bearing Guarin’s signature, only manifest that Guarin was a mere signatory
of LCI’s bank accounts. Also noting that despite knowing the irregularity of Mr. Celso’s procedure of having the
power to appoint or designate directors or officers of Legacy, Atty. Limpin still accede to his doing.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commission on Bar Discipline’s Report which found that Atty.
Limpin violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Limpin should be held administratively liable for the acts committed.

HELD:

YES. There is no indication that Guarin held any share to the corporation, making him ineligible to hold a seat
in the BOD and be the president of the company. Thus, the Court finds that in filing a GIS that contained false
information, Atty. Limpin committed an infraction which did not conform to her oath as a lawyer in accord with
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR. Furthermore, in allowing herself to be swayed by the business practice of having
Mr. Celso appoint the members of the BOD and officers despite the rules enunciated in the Corporation Code with
respect to the election of such officers, Atty. Limpim has transgressed Rule 1.02 of the CPR.
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. Thus, the Court suspends Atty. Limpin from the
practice of law for six months.

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

A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR. J.

FACTS:

The subject land, OCT No. 433, was a homestead patent granted to Micael Babela. 33, 296 square meters of
the land was then given to Efren as his legal heir. Due to the enactment of the agrarian reform law, the emancipation
patents and titles were issued to Hermogena and Danilo, who sold the land to Raymunda Villahermosa. Thereafter, the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) ordered the cancellation of the emancipation patents
and Transfer Certificates of Title derived from OCT No. 433 because it was not covered by the agrarian reform law.
Subsequently, Atty. Caracol, as “Add’l Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Movant,” filed a motion for execution to fully
implement the said order. He also filed a “Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition” as
counsel for Efren. However, Villahermosa alleged that Atty. Caracol had no authority to file the motions since Efren

2015 Pre-week Notes in Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center™ by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.

Page 6 of 8
 JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™
2015 PRE WEEK IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Prof. ERICKSON H. BALMES
could not have authorized Atty. Caracol because Efren had already been dead; and his real client was Ernesto Aguirre,
who had allegedly bought the subject parcel of land.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD that found Atty.
Caracol’s commission of deceitful acts and misconduct, which is in violation of his oath as a lawyer.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Caracol should be held administratively liable for deceit, gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s
oath.

HELD:

YES. 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. Also, an attorney-client relationship terminates upon death of
either client or the lawyer. In this case, Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had already passed away at the time he filed the
second motion. As an honest, prudent and conscientious lawyer, he should have informed the Court of his client’s
passing and presented authority that he was retained by the client’s successors-in-interest and thus the parties may have
been substituted. But, Atty. Caracol instead used underhanded means to attain his purpose. His disregard of his duties
as a lawyer cannot be countenanced. Hence, in contravening his lawyer’s oath and in violating Canons 8 and 10 and
Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is then suspended from the practice of law for one year.

HENRY ONG LAY HIN VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GABRIEL T. INGLES, and the PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015
LEONEN J.

FACTS:

Ong and Obsioma, Jr. were convicted of estafa. The Court of Appeals (CA) then issued an Entry of Judgment
declaring their case as final and executory on May 15, 2003. Based on the registry return card, Ong’s former counsel,
Zosa & Quijano Law Offices, received the CA’s Resolution on April 29, 2003. Thus, the trial court, presided by Judge
Ingles, ordered the arrest of Ong. Only after six years did he get arrested and is serving his sentence at the New Bilibid
Prison. Thereafter, Ong filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with application for issuance of
preliminary injunction. He alleged that his counsel never received a copy of the CA Resolution. Assuming that the
latter did received the same, Ong argues that his counsel was grossly negligent in failing to appeal the CA Resolution,
thus depriving him of due process.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in issuing the entry of judgment.

2. Whether or not the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest and commitment order
against Ong.

3. Whether or not Ong’s former counsel was grossly negligent.

HELD:

1. No. Ong’s counsel had notice that the CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration as early as April 21, 2004.
As he failed to rebut this presumption, it is presumed that his counsel received the CA Resolution on April 29, 2003 as
indicated in the registry return card. Since he did not file an Appeal within 15 days, Under Rule 51, Sec. 10 of the
Rules of Court on “Judgment”, the Decision became final and executory on May 15, 2003.

2. No. Since the Court of Appeals had already issued the Entry of Judgment and had remanded to the trial
courts the original records of the case, it became the trial court’s duty to execute the judgement.

2015 Pre-week Notes in Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center™ by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.

Page 7 of 8
 JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™
2015 PRE WEEK IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Prof. ERICKSON H. BALMES

3. Yes. However, the negligence of his counsel binds him. The only exception to the rule is when the reckless
or gross negligence of the counsel deprives him of due process of law. In this case, he took almost seven years from
the issuance of the CA Resolution to file a Petition before the Court. He ought to have been sooner alerted of the
“unreasonably long time” the CA was taking in resolving his appeal. His failure to know or to find out the real status
of his appeal rendered him undeserving of any sympathy from the Court vis-à-vis the negligence of his former counsel.

MELVYN G. GARCIA VS. ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO

A.C. No. 7973 and 10457, February 3, 2015
PER CURIAM

FACTS:
Atty. Sesbreño, pro bono counsel for Garcia’s daughters, filed a Second Amended Complaint against him.
Garcia then filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Sesbreño for continuing in practicing law despite being
convicted, and just on parole, for the crime of homicide, which is a crime against moral turpitude. Atty. Sesbreño
answered that the disqualification applies only during the term of sentence. He further alleged that homicide does not
involve moral turpitude.

ISSUE:

Whether conviction for the crime of homicide involves moral turpitude.

HELD:

YES. Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension under Sec.
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, but homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of
the crime. It may be a question of fact. The Court then reviewed the Decision in People v. Sesbreño and agreed that the
circumstances show the presence of moral turpitude.

The Court also noted that the executive clemency granted to Atty. Sesbreño was not absolute and
unconditional and did not restore his full civil and political rights. His executive clemency only mentioned a
commutation, which is a mere reduction of penalty, only partially extinguishing his criminal liability. The penalty for
Sesbreño was never wiped out. It must be noted then that a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession
justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty against a lawyer, which in this case, is the ultimate penalty of
disbarment.
AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM!
#AMDG+

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

NOVEMBER 23, 2015
Batangas City

LANI AND EULO

Thank you for the Unconditional Love, Inspiration and
Support

FOR WHEN WE ARE AT OUR WEAKEST

HE IS AT HIS STRONGEST!
LET GO AND LET GOD!

Sali na Po!
LIBRE PO!
THE 2015 SEN. KOKO PIMENTEL FREE LAST MINUTE BAR LECTURE SERIES
senkokobar@yahoo.com.ph

2015 Pre-week Notes in Legal and Judicial Ethics for Jurists Bar Review Center™ by Prof. Erickson H. Balmes.

Page 8 of 8