Legprof-cpr-highlighted.docx

A. The Lawyer and Society SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION AND BLESILDA S. CONCEPCION v. ATTY. ELMER A. DELA ROSA Facts: This is an administrative case that stemmed from a Verified Complaint filed by complainants Spouses Henry A. Concepcion (Henry) and Blesilda S. Concepcion (Blesilda); collectively complainants) against respondent Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa (respondent), charging him with gross misconduct for violating, among others, Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Complainants alleged that from 1997 until August 2008, respondent served as their retained lawyer and counsel. In this capacity, respondent handled many of their cases and was consulted on various legal matters, among others, the prospect of opening a pawnshop business towards the end of 2005. Said business, however, failed to materialize. Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from their failed business venture, respondent, on March 23, 2006, called Henry to borrow money. The checks were personally encashed by respondent. Demanded the return of payment but failed to do so. Respondent denied borrowing P2,500,000.00 from complainants, insisting that Nault was the real debtor. He also claimed that complainants had been attempting to collect from Nault and that he was engaged for that specific purpose. In fine, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP concluded that respondent’s actions degraded the integrity of the legal profession and clearly violated Rule 16.04 and Canons 7 and 16 of the CPR. Respondent’s failure to appear during the mandatory conferences further showed his disrespect to the IBP-CBD. Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred and that he be ordered to return the P2,500,000.00 to complainants, with stipulated interest. Issue: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR. Held: The Court concurs with the IBP’s findings except as to its recommended penalty and its directive to return the amount of P2,500,000.00, with legal interest, to complainants. The complainants and incurring the same obligation. Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is prohibited from borrowing money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected: CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his clients that may come into his possession. Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.” The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this “trust and confidence” is prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client. The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation. A lawyer’s act of asking a client for a loan, as what respondent did, is very unethical. It comes within those acts considered as abuse of client’s confidence. The canon presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on her obligation. 1

As above-discussed, respondent borrowed money from complainants who were his clients and whose interests, by the lack of any security on the loan, were not fully protected. Owing to their trust and confidence in respondent, complainants relied solely on the former’s word that he will return the money plus interest within five (5) days. However, respondent abused the same and reneged on his obligation, giving his previous clients the runaround up to this day. Accordingly, there is no quibble that respondent violated Rule 16.04 of the CPR. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa is found guilty of violating Canon 7 and Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years effective upon finality of this Decision, with a stern warning that a commission of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE), Represented By Its President, Atty. Virginia Rafael v. Atty. Edna M. Alibutdan-Diaz, A.C. No. 10134, November 26, 2014 Facts: This is a complaint for suspension/disbarment by PACE against their former national treasurer Atty. Diaz. Served in the IBP. Diaz was entrusted with all the money matters of PACE during the 11th Convention/Seminar in Davao. Complainant alleged that the liquidation for the convention was submitted by Diaz only during the 12TH in Iloilo and NOT the 11TH. Diaz ran for the national treasurer seat but failed. The outgoing Board of Directors including Diaz made a resolution appropriating a term-end bonus for each official. Diaz did not submit a liquidation report for the 12th Convention. Diaz was called why she failed to liquidate the finances in Davao and Iloilo. She claims that she liquidated as audited by Agbayani. She also denies running for a re-election as the national treasurer since she filed her candidacy for Board Member for the 1st District of Ipil. She says that the resolution on the bonus did not rest on her alone. The case was sent to the IBP. It recommended the dismissal of the complaint since Diaz offered proof that she submitted the liquidation reports. IBP Commissioner Fernandez also believes that she should be sanctioned in accordance with the by-laws of PACE instead of a disbarment case. On reconsideration, the IBPBOG issued the Extended Resolution, dated June 21, 2013, granting the complainant’s motion for reconsideration. It reversed and set aside its earlier resolution and suspended Atty. Diaz from the practice of law for one (1) year. Issue: WON Atty. Diaz violated Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) - "A lawyer should not engage in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Ruling: This Court agrees with the IBP-BOG and adopts its June 21, 2013 Extended Resolution. Everyone should keep in mind that the practice of law is only a privilege. It is definitely not a right. In order to enjoy this privilege, one must show that he possesses, and continues to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of those requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Candor in all their dealings is the very essence of a practitioner's honorable membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are required to act with the highest standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the conduct of litigation and in their relations with their clients, the opposing parties, the other counsels and the courts. They are bound by their oath to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and their clients. Atty. Diaz' delay in the liquidation of the finances of PACE; her running for re-election, including her non-admission that she ran for said election as shown not by her certificate of 2

candidacy but by the affidavits of former PACE officers; and her involvement in the approval or passage of the questioned term-end bonus of PACE officers, including herself even though she was no longer working in the Judiciary, were definitely not the candor the Court speaks of. There was much to be desired in Atty. Diaz' actions/ inactions. WHEREFORE, Atty. Edna M. Alibutdan-Diaz is found GUILTY of violating Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.

Atty. Alonso v. Atty. Relamida, August 3, 2010 FACTS: In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines, Incorporated in the NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, stating that Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC which only affirmed the appealed decision. Ebanen filed for reconsideration but was denied. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. On February 17, 2005, the Court’s Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already become final and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued dismissing the petition and holding that there was no illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned. However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal against Servier. Thus, on October 13, 2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules on forum shopping and res judicata. Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. However, they opined that the dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for lack of due process since the motion for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital documents filed by the complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter. ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is ot a lawyer but the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the senior partner of A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer. Atty. Relamida reasoned out that as a courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to represent the latter. Moreover, he stressed that his client was denied of her right to due process due to the denial of her motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. He then argued that the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void; thus, there was no res judicata. He maintained that he did not violate the lawyer’s oath by serving the interest of his client. The IBPCBD recommended that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be suspended for 6 months for violating the rules on forum shopping and res judicata. The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the court’s processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor. The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of 3

the Code, as well as a lawyer’s mandate "to delay no man for money or malice." DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286, dated June 5, 2008, of the IBP, which found respondent Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res Judicata and Forum Shopping, is AFFIRMED. Atty. Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this Decision

Overgaard v. Valdez, Sept. 30, 2008 Facts: The complainant, engaged the services of respondent as his legal counsel in two cases filed by him and two cases filed against him. Despite the receipt of the full amount of legal fees, the respondent refused to perform any of his obligations under their contract for legal services, ignored the complainant’s request for a report of the status of the cases entrusted to his care, and rejected the complainant’s demands for the return of the money paid to him. Complainant Overgaard filed a complaint for disbarment against Valdez before the IBP. During the investigation, respondent Valdez did not participate despite due notice. He was declared in default for failure to submit an answer and attend the mandatory conference. He did not submit a position paper or attend the hearing. The Court held that respondent Valdez committed multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Issue: whether respondent’s abandonment of his client constitutes a violation of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility? Held: Yes, the court find that respondent’s disbarment should be upheld. From the facts of the case, and based on his own admissions, it is evident that he has committed multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In abruptly abandoning his law office without advising his client and without making sure that the cases he was handling for his client were properly attended to during his absence, and without making arrangements whereby he would receive important mail, the respondent is clearly guilty of gross negligence. A lawyer cannot simply disappear and abandon his clients and then rely on the convenient excuse that there were threats to his safety. Even assuming that there were serious threats to his person, this did not give him the permission to desert his client and leave the cases entrusted to his care hanging. He should have at least exercised reasonable and ordinary care and diligence by taking steps to ensure that the cases he was handling were attended to and that his client’s interest was safeguarded. If it was not possible for him to handle the cases entrusted to his care, he should have informed the complainant of his predicament and asked that he be allowed to withdraw from the case to enable the client to engage the services of another counsel who could properly represent him. Deplorably, the respondent just disappeared, deserted his client and forgot about the cases entrusted to his care, to the complainant’s damage and prejudice. The respondent’s disbarment is not anchored on his failure to do anything in relation the cases entrusted to his care, but on his abandonment of his client. He will not be absolved from liability on the basis alone of these inconsequential acts which he claims to have accomplished because the glaring fact remains that he has failed to perform his essential obligations to his client, to the courts and to society. As the complainant’s lawyer, the respondent is expected to serve his client with competence and diligence. This includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care and giving the complainant sound legal advice, but also properly representing his client in court, attending scheduled hearings, preparing and filing required pleadings, prosecuting the cases entrusted to his care with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for his client or the court to prod him to do so. He should not idly sit by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty. 4

Guevarra vs. Eala A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007 Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children. After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parent’s house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work. In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001 complainant went uninvited to Irene’s birthday celebration at which he saw her and the respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings. Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondent’s car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant. Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala. Held: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state. Respondent’s grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Donton v. Atty. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057, June 27, 2006 Facts: Peter Donton filed a complaint against Atty. Emmanuel Tansingco, as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy Agreement, and against others (Duane Stier, and Emelyn Manggay) for estafa thru falsification of public document. A disbarment complaint filed by petitioner on May 20, 2003 against respondent Atty. Emmanual O. Tansingco for serious misconduct and deliberate 5

violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility arose when respondent Atty. Tansingco filed a counter-charge of perjury against Donton. Atty. Tansingco in his complaint stated that he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement at the request of Mr. Stier, an owner and long-time resident of a real property located at Cubao, Quezon City. Since Mr. Stier is a U.S. Citizen and thereby disqualified to own real property in his name, he agreed that the property be transferred in the name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino. Donton averred that Atty. Tansingco’s act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier is a foreign national, constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code. Donton prayed that Atty. Tansingco be disbarred. Atty. Tansingco claimed that complainant Donton filed disbarment case against him upon the instigation of complainant’s counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Aletajan, because he refused to act witness in the criminal case against Stier and Manggay. In Resolution dated October 1, 2003, the court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation and for which the latter, through Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the IBP Commission of Discipline recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years and cancellation of his commission as Notary Public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted, with modification, the Report and recommended respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for six months. The report was then forwarded to SC as mandated under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. Issue: Whether or Not Atty. Tansingco is guilty of serious misconduct? Ruling: Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. The Court ruled that a lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer. Atty. Tansingco had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Atty. Tansingco used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended. As such, respondent is being suspended for six (6) months.

Rodic v. Lazaro, August 23, 2012 "The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindicative principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons." Facts: This is a disbarment complaint filed by Rodica against the respondent Atty. Lazaro on grounds of gross and serious misconduct, deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On May 5, 2011, William Strong was arrested and detained by the Bureau of Immigration for allegedly being involved in an international gang and conspiracy in Brazil on fraud involving the creation of hundreds of dollars in illegal securities. Strong requested his friend Philip Apostol to look for a lawyer. Apostol recommended the Lazaro Law Office represented by Atty. Manuel Lazaro and his associates who initially declined but later accepted to handle the deportation case. Strong initiated giving the information that his deportation case may be due to the complaint filed by his live-in partner Jasper Rodica before the RTC against the Hillview Marketing Corporation for recovery and possession and damages involving a property they have in Boracay which is represented by Atty. Tan. Rodica was represented by Atty. Ibutnande in this case. Apparently, Rodica claimed that Atty. Manuel met with Atty. Tan to discuss the settlement package on the 6

deportation case they filed against Strong on the condition that Rodica withdraws her complaint from the RTC of Cebu. On May 25, 2011 the Bureau of Immigration rendered a judgment deporting Strong to leave the country. On June 6, 2011 Rodica filed before the RTC a motion to withdraw her complaint against Hillview. Rodica now alleges that after Strong was deported and withdrawing the case before the RTC, she was deceived by Atty Manuel et al for over settlement of 7 million which was allegedly extorted from her after misrepresenting that the withdrawal of the case before the RTC is only a part of the settlement package. It appears on the record that Atty. Espejo, an associate of the Lazaro Law office helped in drafting the Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration after Rodica pleaded him to prepare the motion and was requested further to indicate the name of the Lazaro Law Office including the name of Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle to give more weight on the pleading. Rodica promised Atty. Espejo to talk to Atty. Manuel about it. The case before the RTC was actually dismissed on March 29, 2011 for failure to show cause of action but a motion for reconsideration was filed by Rodica. Issue: Whether or not the allegations of Rodica merit the disbarment of the respondents. Ruling The court ruled that Rodica failed to overcome the presumption of innocence of the respondents. As a general rule, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove the allegations made against them. The required quantum of proof is preponderance of evidence which is an evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. On Rodica's claim with regards to the settlement package, the court find it without merit because she withdrew her complaint only after the deportation of Strong. It was also evident on record that the said case was already dismissed even before the deportation case was filed only she filed a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, it cannot be said that her withdrawal of the complaint is a settlement consideration regarding the deportation case of Strong. Moreover, Strong is not a party to the case she filed before the RTC therefore there is no connection between these 2 cases. There was sufficient preponderance of evidence that was presented that the cause of her withdrawal of the complaint is to facilitate the sale of her property in Boracay. According to Atty. Espejo who helped Rodica draft the motion for withdrawal of the complaint, the said withdrawal is for the purpose of selling her property to Apostol. Apostol further corroborated that he told Rodica he is willing to purchase the property once it is free from any pending case. Rodica promised him to work on the termination of the pending case attached to the property to make the sale. On her claim to have paid 7 million to Atty. Manuel et al, she failed to substantiate such claim despite showing off withdrawals from her bank account certain amount of money after failing to prove that the said amount was paid to the respondents. Moreover, the court held that Rodica is not a client of Lazaro Law Office. They merely handled the deportation case of Strong. As for Atty. Espejo, the court found him to have aided Rodica for misrepresenting before the court that she was aided by the Lazaro Law Office when in fact she is not. Atty. Espejo explained that Rodica assured him to talk to Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle about including their name on the pleading but she did not do so. Atty. Espejo should have known better that Atty. Ibutnande was the counsel on record on the case before the RTC and therefore it is not his duty to prepare said pleading. He also should have known that all pleadings before the court are acted based on merit or the lack of it and not by the name of the law firm. However, the court give due recognition on the fact that Atty. Espejo expressed remorse on his conduct and made a sincere apology to the RTC for wrongly employing the name of the Lazaro Law Office and that he was newly admitted to the Bar in 2010, the court find it proper to give him a warning to become more prudent on his actuation in the practice of his profession. 7

The complaint for disbarment was dismissed.

Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent | A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012 Facts: Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat – willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the complainants. It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP 495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further committed misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the land. He also led complaints to believe that he has contracts at NAMRIA, DENR, CENRO and the Register of Deeds which representation he well knew were false, fraudulent and were only made to induce the complainants to give and deliver the said amount. Upon receipt of the money, he did not comply with his obligation to expedite the titling of the land but instead use the money for personal use. The complainants demanded the return of the money to no avail. Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Held: The Supreme Court held that the respondent committed the acts complained of. He, himself, admitted in his answer that his legal services were hired by the complainants through Magat regarding the purported titling of land supposedly purchase. He used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants into believing that he can expedite the titling of the subject properties. He never denied that he did not benefit from the money given by the complainants in the amount of PhP 495,000.00. The Supreme Court find the respondent in violation of the Rule 2.03, Canon 2 and Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from practice of law for one year and return the amount of PhP 200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco with 10 days upon receipt of decision. The respondent is required to submit to the Supreme Court proof of compliance.

ATTY. POLICARIO I. CATALAN, JR. vs. ATTY. JOSELITO M. SILVOSA A.C. No. 7360, 24 July 2012 FACTS: Atty. Silvosa was an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Bukidnon and a Prosecutor in Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. Atty. Silvosa appeared as counsel for the accused in the same case for which he previously appeared as prosecutor. Atty. Silvosa appeared as public prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 10256-00 (Esperon Case), for the complex crime of double frustrated murder and later on November 23, 2005, Atty. Silvosa, as private lawyer and as counsel for the accused, filed a motion to reinstate bail pending finality of judgement of the Esperon Case. Atty. Silvosa made an attempt to bribe Prosecutor Toribio for 30,000.00 php and failed. Prosecutor Toribio excuted her affidavit on June 14, 1999, a day after the failed bribery attempt, and had it notarized by Atty. Nemesio Beltran, then President of the IBP-Bukidnon Chapter. On May 18, 2006, the Sandiganbayan convicted Atty.Silvosa in Criminal Case. 27776 for direct bribery on an NBI set-up entrapment operation, wherein, Atty. Silvosa demanded 8

15,000.00 php from Lanticse for the dismissal of the case and for there lease of Cadinas who was in detention for more than two years. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether or not a delay of the filing for an administrative complaint exonerate a respondent. Whether or not crime involving moral turpitude can be a ground for disbarment. HELD: Yes, respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Silvosa's attempt to minimize his role in said case would be unavailing. The fact is that he is presumed to have acquainted himself with the facts of the said case. Such would constitute sufficient intervention in the case. Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states "A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service." The Court agree with Commissioner Funa's finding that Atty. Silvosa violated Rule 6.03, when he entered his appearance in the motion to Post Bail Pending Appeal, Atty. Silvosa conveniently forgot Rule 15.03 which provides that "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of concern given after a full disclosure of facts." Atty. Silvosa's representation of conflicting interests merit at least the penalty of suspension. No, delay of filing for an administrative complaint does not exonerate a respondent. There is certain difficulty to dissect a claim of bribery that occurred more than seven years ago. In this instance, the conflicting allegations are merely based on the word of one person against the word of another. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him. He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times expected of him. Atty. Silvosa failed in this respect. The Court says, mere delay in filing of an administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not automatically exonerate a respondent. Administrative offenses do not prescribe. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complaint of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring member of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. Atty. Silvosa's failed attempt at bribing Prosecutor Toribio also merit at least the penalty of suspension. Yes, crime involving moral turpitude can be a ground for disbarment. Moral turpitude is defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals. There is no doubt that the Sandiganbayans' judgement in Criminal Case No. 27776 is a matter of public record and is already final. Rule 138, Section 27 provides, A member of the bar may be disbarred by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The crime of direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude, as ruled, in Magno vs COMELEC. The practice of Law is a privilege, and Atty. Silvosa has proved himself unfit to exercise his privilege. Herefore, respondent Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa is hereby disbarred and his name ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. So ordered.

B. The Lawyer and the Legal Profession Tiong v. Florendo, December 12, 2011 Problem Areas in Legal Ethics – Pardon Does Not Bar Sanction Against an Erring Lawyer – Moral Depravity – Grossly Immoral Conduct FACTS: Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses Elpidio and Ma. Elena Tiong. Elpidio, a US citizen is often times away. For two years, he suspected that his wife and Atty. Florendo were having an affair. Finally in 1995, he was able to listen to a telephone conversation where he heard Atty. Florendo mention amorous words to Ma. Elena. Atty. Florendo confronted the two and both eventually admitted to their illicit relationship. Atty. Florendo and Ma. Elena 9

then executed and signed an affidavit, which was later notarized, stating that they admit of their illicit relationship; that they are seeking the forgiveness of their respective spouse. Elpidio forgave Florendo and Ma. Elena. But nevertheless, Elpidio filed a disbarment case against Florendo. Florendo said he can no longer be sanctioned because he was already pardoned. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florendo is correct. HELD: No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is a sui generis case. This class of cases is meant to protect the public and the courts of undesirable members of the legal profession. As such, pardon by the offended party of the act complained of does not operate to offset the ground for disbarment or suspension. Florendo’s act of having an affair with his client’s wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession. He violated the trust reposed upon him by his client (Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility). His illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others. It cannot be also said, as he claims, that their relationship is merely a moment of indiscretion considering that their affair went on for more than two years. Florendo was suspended for 6 months.

Antero J. Pobre vs. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009 PETITIONER Petitioner Antero Pobre made aware to the court the contents of Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago’s speech delivered on the senate floor. The following excerpts are the ones in question: x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x. According to Pobre, the words of the lady senator were disrespectful and requested that the latter be disbarred or be subjected to disciplinary action. RESPONDENT Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago argued that the statements she made were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity, being part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her duty as member of Congress or its committee. She claims to have made those comments to expose anomalies with regard to the selection process of the Judicial Bar Council for the next Chief Justice. The argument of the respondent is based on Article VI Section 11 which states that: "A Senator or Member of the House of Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof." 10

ISSUE WON Miriam Defensor-Santiago can be charged for her comments on the Judiciary SUPREME COURT: NO. The court ruled in favor of Defensor-Santiago in this case. The plea of Senator Santiago for the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is well taken. Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. Despite this, the court feels that the lady senator has gone beyond the limits of decency and good conduct for the statements made which were intemperate and highly improper in substance. The court is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary sanctions on her, but the factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deter the Court from doing so, even without any sign of remorse from her. Petition is DISMISSED

Noe-Lacsamana v. Bustamante November 23, 2011 Petitioner’s claim: Noe-Lacsamana alleged that she was the counsel for the plaintiff in a civil case while Busmente was the counsel for the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso (Ulaso). Noe-Lacsamana alleged that Ulaso’s deed of sale over the property subject of the said civil case was annulled, which resulted in the filing of an ejectment case where Busmente appeared as counsel. Another case for falsification was filed against Ulaso where Busmente also appeared as counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza Dela Rosa (Dela Rosa) would accompany Ulaso in court, projecting herself as Busmente’s collaborating counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that upon verification with this Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, she discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer and that she represented Ulaso as Busmente’scollaborating counsel which recommended Busmente’s suspension from the practice of law for not less than five years. The IBP Board of Governors, in its resolution, adopted and approved the recommendation of the IBPCBD Respondent’s claim: Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was his paralegal assistant for a few years. Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa’s employment with him ended in 2000 but Dela Rosa was able to continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer with the help of Regine Macasieb (Macasieb), Busmente’s former secretary. Busmente alleged that he did not represent Ulaso in Civil Case No. 9284 and that his signature in the Answer presented as proof by Noe-Lacsamana was forged. ISSUE: Whether or not Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of law that warrants his suspension from the practice of law RULING: YES. Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law. The counter-affidavit clearly showed that Busmente was the legal counsel in Civil Case No. 9284 and that he allowed Dela Rosa to give legal assistance to Ulaso. Hence, we agree with the findings of the IBP-CBD that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Busmente was guilty of violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We 11

agree with the recommendation of the IBP, modifying the recommendation of the IBP-CBD, that Busmente should be suspended from the practice of law for six months. Finally, Busmente claimed that he was totally unaware of Civil Case No. 9284 and he only came to know about the case when Ulaso went to his office to inquire about its status. Busmente’s allegation contradicted the Joint Counter-Affidavit. We just presumed that she has legal qualifications to represent us in our cases because Atty. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE allowed her to accompany us and attend our hearings in short, she gave us paralegal assistance

Khan Jr. v. Simbillo A.C No. 5299, August 19, 2003 FACTS: A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which reads:“Annulment of Marriage Specialist [contact number]”. Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme Court, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered. She claims that her husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve separation of property and custody of children. It appears that similar advertisements were also published. An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for investigation and recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend Atty. Simbillo for 1 year. Note that although the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in the advertisement, he admitted the acts imputed against him but argued that he should not be charged. He said that it was time to lift the absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of the public isn’t served in any wayby the prohibition. ISSUE: Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01. HELD: Yes!The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in which the primary duty is public service and money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while duty to public service and administration of justice should be primary. Lawyers should subordinate their primary interest. Worse, advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage specialist” he erodes and undermines the sanctity of an institution still considered as sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage bond. Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. Note that the law list where the lawyer’s name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose --- a lawyer may not properly publish in a daily paper, magazine…etc., nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published the contents of which are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.

Flora Narido vs Atty. Jaime Linsangan 157 Phil 87 FACTS: This case arose from a labor dispute where Atty. Rufino Risma represented Flora Narido, an indigent client against her employer Vergel De Dios, the client of Atty. Jaime Linsangan. During the proceedings in the trial court, Atty. Risma vehemently opposed the submission of a certain affidavit executed by De Dios because, in the belief of Risma, said affidavit is perjured. He threatened Atty. Linsangan that if said affidavit is submitted in court, they shall file a disbarment case against him. The affidavit was filed and so Risma and Narido filed an administrative case against Linsangan. Linsangan on the other hand filed a separate administrative case against Risma where he accused Risma of instigating his client to file an administrative case against him; that said administrative 12

case is groundless; that it was only filed to spite him and is just a mere scheme to threaten him and to ensure that Risma and Narido has an edge over the labor case. ISSUE: Whether or not both administrative cases should prosper. HELD: No. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Solicitor General where it was recommended that both administrative cases are not well merited. In the administrative case against Linsangan, it was found out that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that De Dios’ affidavit is perjured. Or if even so, there is no showing that Linsangan was in bad faith for it was not proven that he has the intention of misleading the court. In the administrative case against Risma, it was not proven that he instigated Narido. It was Risma’s zeal in protecting his client’s interest that made him to convince Narido to file an administrative case against Linsangan. There was no bad faith on the part of Risma. He even advanced the expenses because Narido is indigent. HOWEVER, it was found that Risma made an arrangement with Narido that he shall collect 15% from whatever amount they shall collect from De Dios as a result of the labor case. Risma was admonished for this; that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he’s only allowed to collect a maximum of 10%. He’s advised to keep abreast of said law.

13