PEOPLE v.

GACOTT
G.R. No. 116049 13 July 1995

FACTS: For failure to check citations of the prosecutions, the order of respondent RTC Judge Eustaquio
Gacott Jr dismissing a criminal case was annulled by the Supreme Court. The respondent judge was also
sanctioned with a reprimand and a fine of PHP 10k for gross ignorance of law. The judgment was made
by the Second Division of the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Second Division of the Supreme Court has the competence to administratively
discipline respondent judge?

HELD: To require the entire court to deliberate upon and participate in all administrative matter or cases
regardless of the sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in a congested docket and undue delay
in the adjudication of cases in the Court, especially in administrative matters, since even cases involving
the penalty of reprimand would require action by the Court En Banc.

LEA P. PAYOD v. ATTY. ROMEO P. METILA

528 SCRA 227

FACTS: Atty. Metila failed to submit important documents to the Court of Appeals (CA) and the serious
consequences brought by such act became prejudicial to the case of Lea Payod. Payod said they made
sufficient follow ups with Atty. Metila but the latter failed to show up in appointed meetings at the Court.
Pagod thereafter charged Atty. Romeo P. Metila for willful neglect and gross misconduct in the discharge
of her duties.

Atty. Metila denied the charges and insisted that there was no attorney-client relationship between him
and Payod for there was no Special Power of Attorney authorizing Payod’s mother to hire him as a lawyer.

After investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline, to which the
complaint was referred, found Atty. Metila guilty of simple negligence and recommended that he be
seriously admonished. The IBP Board of Directors adopted the report and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner that Atty. Metila be seriously admonished.

ISSUE: Whether the failure of Atty. Metila to submit documents to the CA constitute gross negligence

HELD: The circumstances attendant to Atty. Metila’s initial handle of Payod’s case do not warrant a finding
of gross negligence, or sheer absence of real effort on his part to defend her cause.

Atty. Metila accepted Payod’s case upon her mother’s insistence, with only six days for him to file a
petition for review before this Court, and without her furnishing him with complete records, not to
mention money, for the reproduction of the needed documents. Despite these constraints, Atty. Metila
exerted efforts, albeit lacking in care, to defend his client’s cause by filing two motions for extension of
time to file petition. And he in fact filed the petition within the time he requested, thus complying with
the guideline of this Court that lawyers should at least file their pleadings within the extended period
requested should their motions for extension of time to file a pleading be not acted upon.
Neither do the circumstances warrant a finding that Atty. Metila was motivated by ill-will. In the absence
of proof to the contrary, a lawyer enjoys a presumption of good faith in his favor.

COLLANTES v. RENOMERON
A.C. No. 3056. August 16, 1991

FACTS: Complainant, house counsel for V&G, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Vincent
Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, for the latter’s irregular actuations with regards to the
application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma. Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its
subdivision.

ISSUE: Whether respondent should be disbarred.

HELD: Yes. The acts of dishonesty and oppression which respondent committed as a public official have
demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble calling of the law.

PIMENTEL v. LLORENTE
Adm. Case No. 4680, August 29, 2000

FACTS: Complainant was then a candidate during the May 8, 1995 elections. He filed this complaint against
respondent Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon, in their capacity as members of the Pasig
City Board of Canvassers, for gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation of the lawyer’s oath.
Complainant alleges that respondents tampered with the votes received by him, with the result that, as
shown in the Statements of Votes (SoVs) and Certificate of Canvass (CoC), other senatorial candidates
were credited with votes which were above the number of votes they actually received while, on the other
hand, petitioner’s votes were reduced. Respondents denied the allegations, claiming that the errors
pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake, oversight, and/or fatigue.

ISSUE: Whether respondents are guilty of misconduct.

HELD: Considering the facts, the Supreme Court held that respondents are guilty of misconduct.

Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, despite the fact that the discrepancies,
especially the double recording of the returns from 22 precincts and the variation in the tabulation of
votes as reflected in the SoVs and CoC were apparent on the face of the documents and that the variation
involves substantial number of votes, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which
stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” By
express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition,
they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to “do no falsehood.”
BERENGUER v. FLORIN
A.C. No. 5119

FACTS: Petitioner Berenguers are the registered owners of a 58.0649-hectare land in Bibingcahan,
Sorsogon, Sorsogon. The Berenguers applied for the exclusion of their land with the DAR and for a notice
to lift coverage. The DAR Secretary, without acting on the application for exclusion, cancelled the
Berenguers’ certificates of title on the land and issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in
favor of the members of the Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative (BARIBAG).

While the case was pending appeal, BARIBAG filed a petition for the implementation of the Order before
the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD). This was granted by Florin, as RARAD. Florin directed
the issuance and implementation of the Writ of Possession. The Berenguers filed a motion for
reconsideration, but Florin denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, prompting the
Berenguers to move for her inhibition on ground of partiality. Florin issued on a Writ of Possession in favor
of BARIBAG. Florin directed the full implementation of the writ of possession in spite of the Berenguers’
protestations. Hence, this petition for the disbarment of respondents Florin, Jornales, in his capacity as
Assistant Regional Director for DAR, and Vega, in his capacity as DAR Legal Officer V.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioners are guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Yes. Respondent ATTY.ISABEL E. FLORIN is found guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, she is penalized with SUSPENSION from the practice of law for three (3)
months effective upon notice hereof. The complaint against Atty. Marcelino Jornales and Atty. Pedro Vega
is DISMISSED for lack of sufficient evidence. Judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance,
bad faith or deliberate intent to do injustice will be administratively sanctioned. In this case, it appears,
however, that this is the first time that Florin has been made administratively liable. Although there is no
showing that malice or bad faith attended the commission of the acts complained of, the same does not
negate the fact that Florin executed an act that would cause an injustice to the Berenguers. To SC justices
mind, the act of issuing the writ of execution and writ of possession is not simply an honest error in
judgment but an obstinate disregard of the applicable laws and jurisprudence.

RAMOS v. IMBANG
A.C. No. 6788, August 23, 2007

FACTS: In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang
in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. She gave respondent
P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only.
The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses. Oddly,
respondent never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would then
come out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled. This
happened six times and for each “appearance” in court, respondent charged her P350.
After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became suspicious. She personally inquired about
the status of her cases in the trial courts of Biñan and San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked to learn that
respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the Public
Attorney's Office (PAO).
HELD: Attorney Imbang is disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. More specifically, lawyers in
government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public
scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public
service.

HUYSSEN v. GUTIERREZ
A.C. No. 6707, March 24, 2006

FACTS: Respondent Atty. Gutierrez, a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation officer, received US$20,000
from complainant Huyssen. Accused of falsely representing that it was needed in complainant’s
application for visa and failing to return the same, respondent denied misappropriating the said amount,
claiming that he gave it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who assisted complainant and children in their
application for visa. He failed however to substantiate such denial.

Atty. Gutierrez had many alibis on why the money could not immediately be returned to the complainant,
and promised her several times that he would repay her out of his personal funds. He even issued personal
post-dated checks on this, but which later bounced.

ISSUE: Whether respondent’s conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and merits the
penalty of disbarment?

HELD: Yes, the respondent should be disbarred.

Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task have more restrictions than lawyers
in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a
responsible public office.

Considering that respondent was able to perpetrate the fraud by taking advantage of his position with the
Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, makes it more reprehensible as it
has caused damage to the reputation and integrity of said office. It is submitted that respondent has
violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which reads:

"A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties."

Also, the act of issuing a bouncing check shows moral turpitude. Respondent's acts are more despicable,
for not only did he misappropriate the money of complainant; worse, he had the gall to prepare receipts
with the letterhead of the BID and issued checks to cover up his misdeeds.

Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble profession. It is a special privilege
bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally.

A lawyer must at all times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients and the public at large,
with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. More importantly, possession of good moral
character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice;
otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.

As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands
and high standards of the legal profession. Section 27 Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates
that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for, among other acts, gross misconduct in office.

MISAMIN v. SAN JUAN

A.C. No. 1418, August 31, 10976

FACTS: Herein respondent admits having appeared as counsel for the New Cesar’s Bakery in the
proceeding before the NLRC while he held office as captain in the Manila Metropolitan Police. Respondent
contends that the law did not prohibit him from such isolated exercise of his profession. He contends that
his appearance as counsel while holding a government position is not among the grounds provided
by the Rules of Court for the suspension or removal of attorneys.

ISSUE: Whether the administrative case against the defendant should prosper.

HELD: The court ruled in the negative. The court ruled that the matter is to be decided in an
administrative proceeding as noted in the recommendation of the Solicitor General. Nonetheless,
the court held that while the charges have to be dismissed, still it would not be inappropriate for
respondent member of the bar to avoid all appearances of impropriety. Certainly, the fact that the
suspicion could be entertained that far from living true to the concept of a public office being a public
trust, he did make use, not so much of whatever legal knowledge he possessed, but the influence that
laymen could assume was inherent in the office held not only to frustrate the beneficent
statutory scheme that labor be justly compensated but also to be at the beck and call of what the
complainant called alien interest, is a matter that should not pass unnoticed. Respondent, in his future
actuations as a member of the bar should refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and
misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also for membership in
the bar. He is not worthy of membership in an honorable profession who does not even take care that his
honor remains unsullied.

LAHM v. MAYOR
A.C. No. 7430; 15 February 2012

FACTS: On 5 September 2006, a certain David Edward Toze filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before
the Labor Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission against the members of the
Board of Trustees of the International School, Manila. The case was raffled to the sala of the respondent,
Labor Arbiter Jovencio Ll. Mayor, Jr. During the proceedings, Toze filed a Verified Motion for the Issuance
of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, to which the complainants, Martin Lahm
III and James P. Concepcion, opposed. Thereafter, the respondent issued an Order directing the parties in
the said case to maintain the status quo ante, which consequently reinstated Toze to his former position
as superintendent of the International School Manila. Despite the complainants’ motion for an early
resolution of their motion to dismiss the said case, respondent maintained his Order. Thus, the complaint
praying for the respondent’s disbarment for alleged gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath.

ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty for the gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath?

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court concurred with the conclusion of the Investigating Commissioner of the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline that respondent guilty for the gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s
oath. Gross misconduct is any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person
concerned with the administration of justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the
right determination of the cause. The motive behind this conduct is generally a premeditated, obstinate
or intentional purpose.

Under the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the labor arbiters no longer have the authority to issue
writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining orders. However, the respondent, in violation
of the said rule, vehemently insist that he has the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or
temporary restraining order.

Further, the unfounded insistence of the respondent on his supposed authority to issue writs of
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, taken together with the delay in the resolution
of the said motion for reconsideration, would clearly show that the respondent deliberately intended to
cause prejudice to the complainants.

In stubbornly insisting that he has the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary
restraining order contrary to the clear import of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the respondent
violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.