Legal Ethics Case Digest (canon 4 - 9).docx

1.

Olazo v. Dante Tinga AM No. 10-5-7-SC-12/7/2010

FACTS: This is a disbarment case against retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga (respondent) filed by Mr. Jovito S. Olazo (complainant). The respondent is charged of violating Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02 In the complaint,the complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position as Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when he unduly interfered with the complainant’s sales application because of his personal interest over the subject land. The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03 The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainant’s brother. The complainant alleged that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01 The complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct considering his knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a qualified beneficiary under Memorandum No. 119. The complainant averred that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award. The complainant also alleged that the respondent violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in the practice of law, within the one-year prohibition period, when he appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent was engaged in the practice of law. Whether or not respondent is liable under Rules 6.02, 6.03 and 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING: In Cayetano v. Monsod,we defined the practice of law as any activity, in and out of court, that requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Moreover, we ruled that to engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession; to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. “THE COMPLAINANT, TOO, FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISH THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. AT FACE VALUE, THE LEGAL SERVICE RENDERED BY THE RESPONDENT WAS LIMITED ONLY IN THE PREPARATION OF A SINGLE DOCUMENT. IN BORJA, SR. V. SULYAP, INC.,WE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW AS ONE THAT CONTEMPLATES A SUCCESSION OF ACTS OF THE SAME NATURE HABITUALLY OR CUSTOMARILY HOLDING ONE’S SELF TO THE PUBLIC AS A LAWYER. All told, considering the serious consequences of the penalty of disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the burden rests on the complainant to present clear, convincing and satisfactory proof for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers. The respondent generally is under no obligation to prove his/her defense, until

the burden shifts to him/her because of what the complainant has proven. Where no case has in the first place been proven, nothing has to be rebutted in defense. WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the administrative case for violation of Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, filed against retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.

2.

VITRIOLO v. DASIG A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003

Facts: This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The charge involves gross misconduct of respondent in violation of the Attorney’s Oath for having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the CHED. Almost all complainants in the instant case are high-ranking officers of the CHED. In their sworn Complaint-Affidavit filed with this Court on December 4, 1998, complainants allege that respondent, while she was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for disbarment under Section 27,2 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit: She demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel Educational Center in Novaliches, Quezon City, the amount of P5,000.00 for the facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She demanded from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student, the amount of P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She demanded from Rocella G. Eje, a student, the amount of P5,000.00 for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She demanded from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a considerable amount which was subsequently confirmed to be P15,000.00 and initial fee of P5,000.00 more or less for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED.

Issue: Whether the Respondent violated her Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held: Yes, respondent Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby ordered DISBARRED. Respondent’s attempts to extort money from persons with applications or requests pending before her office are violative of Rule 1.0118 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.0219 of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests. Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office. Respondent’s conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers, specially from one occupying a high public office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice. For her violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.03 of Canon 120 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly for acts of dishonesty as well as gross misconduct as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, we find that respondent deserves not just the penalty of three years’ suspension from membership in the Bar as well as the practice of law, as recommended by the IBP Board of

Governors, but outright disbarment. Her name shall be stricken off the list of attorneys upon finality of this decision.

3.

ROSARIO MECARAL v. ATTY. DANILO VELASQUEZ

DOCTRINE: CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the state upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. When a lawyer’s moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys. FACTS: Rosario T. Mecaral (complainant) charged Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD)[1] with Gross Misconduct and Gross Immoral Conduct which she detailed in her Position Paper[2] as follows: • After respondent hired her as his secretary in 2002, she became his lover and common-law wife. In October 2007, respondent brought her to the mountainous Upper San Agustin in Caibiran, Biliran where he left her with a religious group known as the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines, of which he was the leader. Although he visited her daily, his visits became scarce in November to December 2007, prompting her to return home to Naval, Biliran. Furious, respondent brought her back to San Agustin where, on his instruction, his followers tortured, brainwashed and injected her with drugs. When she tried to escape on December 24, 2007, the members of the group tied her spread-eagled to a bed. Made to wear only a T-shirt and diapers and fed stale food, she was guarded 24 hours a day by the women members including a certain Bernardita Tadeo. • Her mother, Delia Tambis Vda. De Mecaral (Delia), having received information that she was weak, pale and walking barefoot along the streets in the mountainous area of Caibiran, sought the help of the Provincial Social Welfare Department which immediately dispatched two women volunteers to rescue her. The religious group refused to release her, however, without the instruction of respondent. It took PO3 Delan G. Lee (PO3 Lee) and PO1 Arnel S. Robedillo (PO1 Robedillo) to rescue and reunite her with her mother. • Hence, the present disbarment complaint against respondent. Additionally, complainant charges respondent with bigamy for contracting a second marriage to Leny H. Azur on August 2, 1996, despite the subsistence of his marriage to his first wife, Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Velasquez is administratively liable RULING: Investigating Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III of the CBD, in his Report and Recommendation, found that: [respondents] acts of converting his secretary into a mistress; contracting two marriages with Shirley and Leny, are grossly immoral which no civilized society in the world can countenance. The subsequent detention and torture of the complainant is gross misconduct [which] only a beast may be able to do. Certainly, the respondent had violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which reads:

CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. xxxx In the long line of cases, the Supreme Court has consistently imposed severe penalty for grossly immoral conduct of a lawyer like the case at bar. In the celebrated case of Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Manuel Eala, the [Court] ordered the disbarment of the respondent for maintaining extra-marital relations with a married woman, and having a child with her. In the instant case, not only did the respondent commit bigamy for contracting marriages with Shirley Yunzal in 1990 and Leny Azur in 1996, but the respondent also made his secretary (complainant) his mistress and subsequently, tortured her to the point of death. All these circumstances showed the moral fiber respondent is made of, which [leave] the undersigned with no choice but to recommend the disbarment of Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez. The IBP Board of Governors of Pasig City, by Resolution[14] dated December 11, 2008, ADOPTED the Investigating Commissioners findings and APPROVED the recommendation for the disbarment of respondent. As did the IBP Board of Governors, the Court finds the IBP Commissioners evaluation and recommendation well taken. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the state upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[15] When a lawyers moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys.[16] Respondent has not discharged the burden. He never attended the hearings before the IBP to rebut the charges brought against him, suggesting that they are true.[17]Despite his letter dated March 28, 2008 manifesting that he would come up with his defense in a verified pleading, he never did. Aside then from the IBPs finding that respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he also violated the Lawyers Oath and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the same Code reading: Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. The April 30, 2008 Resolution[18] of the Provincial Prosecutor on complainants charge against respondent and Bernardita Tadeo for Serious Illegal Detention bears special noting, viz: [T]he counter-affidavit of x x x Bernardita C. Tadeo (co-accused in the complaint) has the effect of strengthening the allegations against Atty. Danilo Velasquez. Indeed, it is clear now that there was really physical restraint employed by Atty. Velasquez upon the person of Rosario Mecaral. Even as he claimed that on the day private complainant was fetched by the two women and police officers, complainant was already freely roaming around the place and thus, could not have been physically detained. However, it is not really necessary that Rosario be physically kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion. In fact, she was always accompanied wherever she would wander, that it could be impossible for her to escape especially considering the remoteness and the distance between Upper San Agustin, Caibiran, Biliran to Naval, Biliran where she is a resident. The people from the Faith Healers Association had the express and implied orders coming from respondent Atty. Danilo Velasquez to keep guarding Rosario Mecaral and not to let her go freely. That can be gleaned from the affidavit of co-respondent Bernardita Tadeo. The latter being reprimanded whenever Atty. Velasquez would learn that complainant had untangled the cloth tied on her wrists and feet.[19] (emphasis and underscoring supplied) That, as reflected in the immediately-quoted Resolution in the criminal complaint against respondent, his therein co-respondent corroborated the testimonies of complainants witnesses, and that the allegations against him

remain unrebutted, sufficiently prove the charges against him by clearly preponderant evidence, the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.[20] In fine, by engaging himself in acts which are grossly immoral and acts which constitute gross misconduct, respondent has ceased to possess the qualifications of a lawyer.[21] WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, is DISBARRED, and his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. This Decision is immediately executory and ordered to be part of the records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines. SO ORDERED.

4.

EUGENIA MENDOZA vs. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE A.C. No. 5338 February 23, 2009

(en banc) **Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his profession shall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority for there is perhaps no profession after that of the sacred ministry in which a high-toned morality is more imperative than that of law. FACTS: Complainant Augenia Mendoza, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, borrowed from Rodela Loans, Inc., through respondent Atty. Victor Deciembre, the amount of P20,000.00 payable in six months at 20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks, with numbers 47253, 47256 to 47266, drawn against the Postal Bank. Although she was unable to faithfully pay her obligations on their due dates, she made remittances, however, to respondent’s Metrobank account from November 11, 1998 to March 15, 1999 in the total sum of P12,910.00. Claiming that the amounts remitted were not enough to cover the penalties, interests and other charges, respondent warned complainant that he would deposit Postal Check No. 47253 filled up by him on March 30, 1999 in the amount of P16,000.00. Afraid that respondent might sue her in court, complainant made good said check and respondent was able to encash the same on March 30, 1999. Thereafter, complainant made subsequent payments to the Metrobank account of respondent from April 13, 1999 to October 15, 1999, thereby paying respondent the total sum of P35,690.00. Respondent filled up two of the postal checks she issued in blank, Check Nos. 47261 and 47262 with the amount of P50,000.00 each and with the dates January 15, 2000 and January 20, 2000 respectively, which respondent claims was in exchange for the P100,000.00 cash that complainant received on November 15, 1999. Complainant insisted however that she never borrowed P100,000.00 from respondent and that it was unlikely that respondent would lend her such amount. Complainant also claimed that respondent victimized other employees of the Postal Office by filling up, without authorization, blank checks issued to him as condition for loans. Respondent averred that his dealings with complainant were done in his private capacity and not as a lawyer, and that when he filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. Blg.) 22 against complainant, he was only vindicating his rights as a private citizen. He alleged further that: it was complainant who deliberately deceived him by not honoring her commitment to their November 15, 1999 transaction involving P100,000.00 and covered by two checks which bounced for the reason “account closed”; the October 13, 1999 transaction was a separate and distinct transaction; complainant filed the disbarment case against him to get even with him for filing the estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 case against the former; complainant’s claim that respondent filled up the blank checks issued by complainant is a complete lie; the truth was that the checks referred to were already filled up when complainant affixed her signature thereto; it was unbelievable that complainant would issue blank checks, and that she was a mere low-salaried employee, since she was able to maintain several checking accounts; and if he really intended to defraud complainant, he would have written a higher amount on the checks instead of only P50,000.00. ISSUE: whether or not Atty. Victor Deciembre is guilty of guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and therefore should be disbarred from the practice of law.

HELD: The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. A high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of members of the bar. They must conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times. The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability. A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. Indeed, there is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer’s private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. In this case, evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards required of members of the legal profession. Specifically, respondent has transgressed provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit: CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar. Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. As manifested [in the Olbes and Acosta] cases, respondent’s offenses are manifold. First, he demands excessive payments from his borrowers; then he fills up his borrowers’ blank checks with fictitious amounts, falsifying commercial documents for his material gain; and then he uses said checks as bases for filing unfounded criminal suits against his borrowers in order to harass them. Such acts manifest respondent’s perversity of character, meriting his severance from the legal profession. While the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld whenever a lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired, the seriousness of respondent’s offense compels the Court to wield its supreme power of disbarment. Indeed, the Court will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it. This is because in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court, with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. As respondent’s misconduct brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession, the severance of his privilege to practice law for life is in order.

5.

Office of the Court Administrator vs Judge Indar AM NO. RTJ-10-2332, 4/10/2012

Facts: This case was originated from reports by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that they have received an alarming number of decisions, resolutions, and orders on annulment of marriage cases allegedly issued by Judge Indar in his capacity as Presiding Judge in RTC-Shariff Aguak and as acting Presiding Judge in RTC Cotabato. It was alleged that Judge Indar made it appear that the annulment cases underwent trial, when the records show no judicial proceedings occurred. To

verify the allegations against Judge Indar, the OCA conducted a judicial audit in RTC-Shariff Aguak, where the Audit Team found that the list of cases submitted by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City do not appear in the records of cases received, pending or disposed by RTC-Shariff Aguak. Likewise, the annulment decisions did not exist in the records of RTC-Cotabato. The Audit Team further observed that the case numbers in the list submitted by the Local Civil Registrars are not within the series of case numbers recorded in the docket books of either RTC-Shariff Aguak or RTC-Cotabato. Moreover the judicial audit teamalso found out that Judge Indar affirmed in writing before the Australian Embassy the validity of a decision he allegedly rendered, when in fact that case does not appear in the court’s records. Issue: Whether Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty. Held: Public office is a public trust This constitutional principle requires a judge, like any other public servant and more so because of his exalted position in the Judiciary, to exhibit at all times the highest degree of honesty and integrity As the visible representation of the law tasked with dispensing justice, a judge should conduct himself at all times in a manner that would merit the respect and confidence of the people. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, the Court explained the difference between simple misconduct and grave misconduct, thus: The Court defines misconduct as “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behaviour or gross negligence by a public officer.” The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. The Court condemns Judge Indar’s reprehensible act of issuing Decisions that voided maritalunions, without conducting any judicial proceedings. Such malfeasance not only makes a mockery of marriage and its lifechanging consequences but likewise grossly violates the basic norms of truth, justice, and due process. Not only that, Judge Indar’s gross misconduct greatly undermines the people’s faith in the judiciary and betrays public trust and confidence in the courts. Judge Indar’s utter lack of moral fitness has no place in the Judiciary. Judge Indar deserves nothing less than dismissal from the service. The Court defines dishonesty as: “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betrayal”. In this case, Judge Indar issued Decisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases when in fact he did not conduct any judicial proceedings on the cases. Not even the filing of the petitions occurred. Judge Indar made it appear in his Decisions that the annulment cases complied with the stringent requirements of the Rules of Court and the strict statutory and jurisprudential conditions for voiding marriages, when quite the contrary is true, violating Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judge “perform official duties honestly.” WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Cader P. Indar, Al Haj, guilty of Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty for which he is DISMISSED from the service.

6.

BARANDON V FERRER A.C. NO. 5768 MARCH 25, 2010

FACTS: On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for filing a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive, offensive and improper language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court. The said document purported to be a notarized document executed at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer. Moreover, on December 19, 2000, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying, “Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, angabogadonarito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwina kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito” at the Municipal Trial Court in Daet before the start of a hearing.

The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his unethical act; yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of the IBP Chapter in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness; and criminal cases for libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against him. On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD submitted to this Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer. The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrer’s violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He attributed to Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the falsification of the plaintiff’s affidavit despite the absence of evidence that the document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon was a party to it. The Investigating Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the threatening remarks imputed to him in the presence of other counsels, court personnel, and litigants before the start of hearing. On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year.

ISSUE: DID THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND THE IBP INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER ERR IN FINDING RESPONDENT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND IF THE PENALTY IMPOSED WAS JUSTIFIED?

HELD: The Supreme Court examined the records of this case and finds no reason to disagree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and the Investigating Commissioner. The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of an affidavit without evidence that the document had indeed been falsified. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system. Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Several disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrer’s drunken invectives at Atty. Barandon shortly before the start of a court hearing and Atty. Ferrer failed to show convincing evidence denying the said charge against him. All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Atty. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold. Consequently, the penalty of suspension of one from the practice of law is deemed just and proper.

7.

FOODSPHERE V MAURICIO AC NO. 7199 7/22/2009

FACTS: [A] certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. As Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with the

CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside the can. This was complained before the BFAD. After conciliation meetings between Cordero and the petitioner, the Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint. Respondent, Atty. Mauricio, Jr., who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the document. Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The complaints were pending at the time of the filing of the present administrative complaint. Despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and its products.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the practice of law.

The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Professional Responsibility which reads: “A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.” The language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the Office of the City Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly assailed the impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it and did not even design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The use by respondent of the above-quoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon 11 and the fundamental Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to “uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” Respondent defied said status quo order, despite his (respondent’s) oath as a member of the legal profession to “obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.” Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandate, and by failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legal profession, respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to “at all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.”

8.

ENGR. TUMBOKON v. ATTY. PEFIANCO AC NO. 6116 8/1/2012

Facts: According to the complainant, respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the attorney’s fees, the latter would receive in representing Spouses Yap whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the spouses’ relative. Their agreement was reflected in a letter dated 11 August 1995. However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed commission notwithstanding receipt of attorney’s fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or about PhP 40 million. Instead, the complainant was informed through a letter dated 16 July 1997 that Spouses Yap assumed to pay the same after the respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney’s fees from 25% to 17%. He then demanded the payment of his commission which the respondent ignored. Complainant further alleged that the respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards required of his profession for having abandoned his legal wife with whom he has two children, and cohabited with another with whom he has four children. He also accused the respondent of engaging in money-lending business without the required authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

In his defense, the respondent disputed the 11 August 1995 letter for being a forgery and claimed that the Spouses Yap assumed to pay.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Pefianco is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Lawyer’s Oath.

Held: Respondent’s defense that forgery of the 11 August 1995 letter was belied by his 16 July 1997 admitting to have undertaken the payment of the complaint’s commission but passing on the responsibility to the Spouses Yap. Clearly, the respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar. Furthermore, the respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children. The Supreme Court found credence to IBP’s findings that the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. The respondent was found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath; Rule 1.01, Canon 1; and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from active practice of law for one year.

9.

Ang vs. Atty. Gupana A.C. No. 4545, February 5, 2014

FACTS: Complainant Carlito Ang alleged that he and the other heirs of Candelaria Magpayo executed an Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition involving Lot No. 2066-B-2-B covered by TCT No. T-22409. He was given his share of 2,003 square meters but when he tried to secure a TCT, he found that the original TCT was already cancelled. He said that Atty. Gupana, respondent, had a direct participation in the commission of forgeries and falsifications because he was the one who prepared and notarized the Affidavit of Loss and Deed of Absolute Sale which led to the transfer and issuance of new TCTs. He said that the Absolute Sale was antedated and the late Magpayo’s signature was forged and as for the Affidavit of Loss, Ang said it could not have been executed by Magpayo as she died three years prior to the execution. Further, Ang alleged that respondent made himself the attorney-in-fact of William Magpayo, Antonio Diamente, Patricia Diamante, Lolita Canque, Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero and pursuant to the Special Power of Attorney in his favor executed a Deed of Sale selling the lot to Lim Kim so Mercantile Co.

ISSUE: Whether or not Gupana is administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD: The Court found Gupana administratively liable on violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he delegated his notarial functions to the clerical staff of their office which may have been the reason for the forged signatures of the parties in the questioned document in the civil case. Gupana failed to require the personal presence of Magpayo when he notarized the Affidavit of Loss which Magpayo allegedly executed. The respondent’s failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. With this, Gupana violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 when he relied on his clerical staff to determine the completeness of documents brought to him for notarization, limiting his participation in the notarization process to simply inquiring about the identities of the persons appearing before him and in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead person.