Vina Bolilan Legal Ethics November 27, 2010

Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 7

Atty. Bonifacio Barandon, Jr vs Atty. Edwin Ferrer, Sr
(A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010) Facts: Atty. Barandon 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 actions against Atty. Ferrer. One of the grounds for the prayer for disbarment or other disciplinary actions against Ferrer was his conduct and the words he uttered at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court Daet before the start of hearing. Such conduct of Atty. Ferrer was confirmed by disinterested persons who witnessed the incident. In the said incident, Atty. Ferrer was drunk when he uttered the words: Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ferrer violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Held: Yes, Atty. Ferrer violated Canon 7, particularly rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Ferrer uttered the invectives against Barandon with intent to annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and discredit the former. A lawyers language should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Atty. Ferrer ought to have realized that such kind of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. The Supreme Court affirmed the suspension of Atty. Ferrer for one year as ordered by the IBP-CBD.

Wilfredo Catu vs Atty. Vicente Rellosa

(A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008) Facts: Respondent was the Punong Barangay of Barangay 723, Manila. Respondent, as punong barangay, presided over the conciliation proceedings between petitioner and Antonio Pastor as regards a contested property. The parties to the conciliation proceedings failed to arrive at an amicable settlement. Respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Regina Catu and Antonio Catu, the mother and brother of the complainant, filed a complaint for ejectment against Pastor before the Metropolitan Trial Court. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendant in that case. Issue: Whether or not respondent acted in contravention of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Held: Yes, respondent acted in contravention of the rules established by Canon 7, particularly rule 7.03, of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent violated the provision stated in Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules which prohibits public officer or employee from engaging directly in any private business, vocation or profession unless such public officer or employee is granted permission to engage in such activities by the head of the Department in which they belong. As punong barangay, respondent was not forbidden to practice his profession. However, respondent should have
Page 1

obtained the prior written permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government before he entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. A lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months.

Page 2