CANON 10 BANTOLO vs. CASTILLON, JR. Adm. Case No.

6589; December 19, 2005 FACTS: Complainant Epifania Q. Bantolo is one of the plaintiffs in a case involving a parcel of land in Valderrama, Antique where one of the defendant is Attorney Egmedio B. Castillon, Jr. The case was decided in favor of complainant Bantolo and her coplaintiffs. However, amidst the issuance of a writ of execution and after being ejected from the property, Atty. Castillon, Jr. together with his co-defendants subsequently entered and planted palay in the said property. This prompted complainant Bantolo to move for the defendants to be declared in contempt of the court because of their open defiance and willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the court, which were abetted by the acts of Atty. EgmedioCastillon who is an officer of the court. The trial court as well as the Court of appeals declared the defendants respondent Castillon, Jr. guilty of indirect contempt of court. Through a letter-complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), complainant also charged respondent of violating the lawyers oath and section 20 of rule 138 of the rules of court.Respondent, through his Answer to Complaint denied the complainants allegations and avers that the complaint was a form of harassment. Hearings were thereafter scheduled and a hearing for the reception of complainants evidence was conducted. Although given notice for reception of his evidence was sent to respondent, it did not push through because the respondent failed to inform the IBP of his new office address thereby it was deemed that the right to present evidence was waived. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of indirect contempt of court which constitutes grave misconduct HELD: The Supreme Court recognizes as final and conclusive the factual findings of the lower courts

regarding the contumacious act of respondent and found him in violation of his sworn promise to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities. The respondents attempt to prevent the instant disbarment proceeding (1) by attempting to mislead the Commission on Bar Discipline as he stated that the proceeding relative to the contempt charge are still pending when they are in fact already terminated,(2) placing too much emphasis on the lack of personality of the complainant and (3)his failure to notify the Commissioner of the change in his address, was also noted. The Supreme Court also reiterated the lawyers duty to obey the court and judicial processes. Any act which tends visibly to obstruct, pervert or impede and degrade the administration of justice, as what happened in the case at bar, constitutes professional misconduct. It is further decreed that any willful disregard for this duty not only deserve punishment for contempt but also an exercise of disciplinary action. For respondents defiance of the writ of execution and his various attempt to delay and address issues insignificant to the disbarment proceedings, respondent Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon is found guilty of grave misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 month with a warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely. (DUTY to obey court orders)

FLORIDO vs. FLORIDO A.C. No. 5624. January 20, 2004

FACTS: While the case for annulment of the complainant and respondents marriage was pending in the court, respondent went to Tanjay City, Negros Occidental claiming that the court of appeals have issued a resolution granting him temporary child custody and demanded from complainant that they be surrendered to him. After calling and being informed by her lawyer that no

such motion for temporary child custody has been received by the latter and the respondent failing to give her the original copy of the resolution, she felt that there was something erroneous about the matter and so she refused his demand. Later,respondent came back with some armed men who he claims to be agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and once again demanded that she surrender to him the custody of their children otherwise he will forcefully take them. Complainant asked for the assistance of the police and they were escorted to the police station where responded caused to be entered in the police station that he and the agents of the NBI formally served the complainant the appellate courts resolution. The complainant agreed to let the children sleep with him for one night with a condition that he would not take them away from Tanjay City. However rushed back early in the morning the next day to get the children as she received information that a van came in the hotel where they are staying and they are to be taken to Bacolod City. That same morning, respondent filed with the regional trial court a verified petition for the issuance of habeas corpus asserting his right to the custody of the children on the basis of the alleged court resolution. This petition was later dismissed for Atty. James Florido not appearing on the scheduled hearing date. On the other hand, complainant verified the authenticity of the said resolution and later obtained a certification that no such resolution has been issued. Complainant thereby filed an instant complaint charging respondent with violating his lawyers oath by creating, using and attempting to enforce a bogus Court of Appeals Resolution in and outside a court of law. Respondent claims that he acted in good faith as he honestly believed the resolution in dispute to be authentic. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent can be held administratively liable for his reliance on and attempt to enforce a bogus Court of Appeals Resolution

HELD: As respondent used and presented the bogus resolution during his petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus and during the police blotter report, he is presumed to have participated in its fabrication. It was also proven that during his pleadings the respondent used offensive language in describing complainant and her relatives which is against the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer. Respondents actions which constitute violations of Rule 10.01 and 10.02, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility erode the public perception of the legal profession and constitute gross misconduct. The Supreme Court hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years.

CANON11 ADORIO vs. BERSAMIN G.R. No. 120074. June 10, 1997 FACTS: Atty. Leah P. Adorio was the counsel for Philip See who was the complainant in a criminal case involving violations of B.P. blg. 22. The said criminal case was pending before the sala of Judge Bersamin, herein respondent. Unknown to Atty. Adorio, the counsel for the accused (Atty. Rivera) filed several requests for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum requiring bank officials to bring before the court microfilm copies of various checks on the date set for hearing. On the date of the prosecutions presentation of evidence, Atty. Adorio was surprised by the presence of the bank officials. When the case was called, arguments took place wherein Atty. Adorio stated before the Judge her surprise upon seeing the bank officials because according to her, she must have been informed with whatever request that the opposing counsel may file; she also stated events which insinuated that the accused has control over the court, and the court procedure. This incident prompted the Judge to say that Atty. Adorio must file a Request for Inhibition to

disqualify him (Judge Bersamin). The Judge also said that, he did not like the accusation that was being imputed to him. Atty. Adorio filed his Motion for Inhibition and for Re-Raffle of cases, she alleged that the issuance of the subpoena by the Court for Bank Officials to testify at the instance of the defendant, without informing them, showed that the Court is biased , and under the control of the accused. Petitioner prayed that (1) the judge inhibit himself from hearing the criminal cases; (2) said cases be reraffled to another court; and (3) the hearing of said cases be suspended pending the resolution of the Motion for Inhibition. This Motion was granted by the Trial Court in an Order, and in that same Order, the Court declared the Petitioner in direct contempt. Thus, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court on certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not the Petitioners are guilty for direct contempt. HELD: The Court ruled that contrary to petitioners allegations, there was nothing irregular in the issuance of the subpoenas duces tecum. Requests by a party for the issuance of subpoenas do not require notice to other parties to the action. Rule 119, Section 3 of the Rules of Court which prescribes the order of trial in criminal cases does not preclude the defense from procuring subpoenas duces tecum during the time of the prosecutions presentation of evidence. The order of trial was not in any way altered; counsel for the accused did not even attempt to call any of the bank officials to the stand. Under these circumstances, the resulting delay cannot be considered unreasonable nor irregular. Petitioners allegation that the proceedings before the trial court were irregular therefore lacks basis. Such statement, when read with petitioners remark that the so called irregularities show the accuseds control over the court and court procedure, is nothing short of contemptuous. The latter statement is particularly alarming for it implies that court proceedings are a mere farce,

and the court a mere stooge, a puppet subject to the manipulation of the opposing party. It suggests that the judge was moved by considerations other than his sense of justice and fair play thereby calling into question the integrity and independence of the court. Such statement tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect and constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically: CANON 11 (Rule 11.03 Rule 11.04 ) Wherefore, the Petitioners are found guilty of direct contempt.

JORGE MONTECILLO and QUIRICO DEL MAR vs. FRANCISCO M. GICA, MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, JOSE N. LEUTERIO, and RAMON G. GAVIOLA, Justices of the Court of Appeals, respondents. In Re Quirico del Mar, For Disciplinary action as member of the Philippine Bar G.R. No. L-36800 October 21, 1974 FACTS: Atty. Quirico del Mar was the counsel of Jorge Montecillo, who was charged of slander by Francisco Gica. Montecillo was claimed to have called Gica stupid, or a fool. The case was decided in favor of Montecillo, until it reached the Court of Appeals. It was from this point when the trouble began for Atty. Del Mar, he made a veiled threat to the Justices who rendered decision in favor of Gica by citing article of the RPC on "Knowingly rendering unjust judgment" and "judgment rendered through negligence", and the implication that the Court of Appeals allowed itself to be deceived. In denying the motion for reconsideration, the Appellate Court observed the terminology used by Atty. del Mar, and admonished him to remember that the threats and abusive language cannot compel any court of justice to grant reconsideration. Atty. del Mar persisted and filed his second motion, again, he made another threat that his next appeal would be to His Excellency, the President of the Philippines. The Appellate Court, now noticed that despite the admonition given to Atty. del Mar to refrain from abusive language and threats, he still

continued making those, so the Appellate Court asserted its authority by ordering Atty. del Mar to file an explanation regarding his conduct. The explanation, however, was unsatisfactory because he just continued making veiled threats instead of giving arguments, so the Court of Appeals suspended Atty. del Mar. Not contented with the decision of the Court of Appeals and the wrong that he had done against the Associate Justices, Atty. del Mar, filed his motion before the Supreme Court, and upon denial of the motion, he turned against the Supreme Court. He requested the names of the Justices who took cognizance of the case,( those who favored and those who did not), and again made veiled threats about filing criminal and civil cases against the Justices. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. del Mar violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: Yes, Atty. del Mar violated Canon 11, Rule 11. 03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.) When he gave veiled threats aimed at the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court, he showed that he had scant respect for the two highest Courts of the land. He manifested this disrespect when he challenged the integrity of the Courts by alleging that they knowingly rendered unjust judgment. His claim was perceived by the Court as an assumption by Atty. del Mar that his perception of justice is superior to that of the Courts. This pretense will most likely to erode the faith of the people to the courts of justice and in the administration of justice. Atty. del Mars actions showed that he could not accept that what to him may appear as correct may be wrong for the others. What is of paramount qualification for someone who is in the practice of law is broad-mindedness and tolerance, coupled with keen perception and a sound sense of proportion in evaluating events and circumstances. To those who are in the practice of law and those who in the future will choose to enter this profession, the Court wished to point to this case as a reminder for them to imprint in their hearts and minds that an attorney owes it to himself to respect the courts of justice and its officers as a fealty for the stability of our democratic institutions. Atty. del Mar is suspended, indefinitely.

CANON 12 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. ISMAEL A.M. RTJ-07-2045; January 19, 2010 FACTS: A judicial audit was conducted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 22, presided over by respondent Judge Harun B. Ismael. The judicial audit resulted in the issuance of a memorandum dated June 9, 2005 1 by the Office of Court Administrator (OCA) directing respondent to explain his failure to decide and act on current and inherited cases, as well as to resolve incidents in various cases pending before him, within the reglementary period provided by law. Respondent was likewise directed to inform the OCA if cases already submitted for decision or resolution had in fact been decided or resolved within the reglementary period. Consequently, respondent was ordered to immediately cease hearing cases in his sala and confine himself to deciding or resolving cases submitted for decision or resolution. In respondents stead, Judge Edilberto G. Absin was directed to handle active cases, other than cases submitted for decision, until respondent could comply with the directives or until he retired. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent acted properly in resolving his issue with the OCA in failing to decide on his cases HELD: A judges foremost consideration is the administration of justice. Thus, he should follow the time limit set for deciding cases. Failure to comply within the mandated period constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. It also undermines the peoples faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute. Decision making, among other duties, is the most important duty of a member of the bench. The court has rendered respondent Judge Harun B. Ismael guilty of gross inefficiency and violation of Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary for which he is fined in the amount of P20,000. The Respondent is likewise found guilty of violation of Canons 1 and 12 as well as Rules 1.03, 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for which he is fined in the amount of P10,000.

CONLU vs. AREDONIA JR. A.C. No. 4955; September 12, 2011 FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment with a prayer for damages instituted by Antonio Conlu (Antonio) against Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr. (Atty. Ireneo) on grounds of gross negligence and dereliction of sworn duty. The Suit of Antonio as a defendant was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court. Atty. Ireneo thereafter filed and appeal with the Court of Appeals, however, the said appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals due to non-filing of the appellants brief within the allowed reglementary period. The same petition was personally filed by Antonio but was dismissed by the Court. Antonio then filed an administrative case for disbarment againt Atty. Ireneo with prayer for damages for repeated failure to submit , as ordered, his comment , a number of extensions of time given. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent has truly committed violation of Canon 12 of the Code of Judicial Responsibility HELD: In this case, Atty. Ireneo should be called to task for the interplay of the following: his inexcusable negligence that resulted in the dismissal of Antonios appeal, coupled by his lack of candor in not apprising Antonio of the status of his appealed case; his attempt to mislead the CA in a vain bid to evade the consequence of the belated filing of a motion for reconsideration; and, last but not least, his cavalier disregard of the Courts directives primarily issued to resolve the charges brought against him by Antonio. We deem it fitting that Atty. Ireneo be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, up from the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. This should serve as a constant reminder of his duty to respect courts of justice and to observe that degree of diligence required by the practice of the legal profession. His being a first offender dictates to large degree this leniency. The Court declared the respondent guilty of inexcusable negligence, attempting to mislead the appellate court, misuse of Court processes, and willful disobedience to lawful orders of the Court. He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective upon his receipt of the Resolution issued by the court, with warning that a

repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

SAMBAJON et al. vs. SUING A.C. No. 7062, September 26, 2006 FACTS: Complainants were among the complainants in an NLRC Case for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) and Illegal Dismissal, while respondent was the counsel for the respondents. That case was consolidated with another NLRC Case for Illegal Strike. Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos dismissed the Illegal Strike case, and declared the employer-clients of respondent guilty of ULP. The decision having become final and executory, the Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution. On the basis of individual Release Waiver and Quitclaims purportedly signed and sworn to by seven of the complainants in the ULP and Illegal Dismissal case before Labor Arbiter Santos in the presence of respondent, the Labor Arbiter dismissed said case insofar as the seven complainants were concerned. Four of the seven who purportedly executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims, denied having signed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the considerations therefor. Hence, spawned the administrative complaint at bar, alleging that respondent, acting in collusion with his clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil, "frustrated" the implementation of the Writ of Execution by presenting before the Labor Arbiter the spurious documents. Complainants also filed a criminal complaint for Falsification against respondent, together with his clients. Respondent attempted to influence the answers of his client Manuel Rodil when the latter testified before IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag, who conducted an investigation of the administrative complaint at bar. Not only did respondent try to coach his client or influence him to answer questions in an apparent attempt not to incriminate him (respondent), his client also contradicted respondent's claim that the

Release Waiver and Quitclaim which he (respondent) prepared was not the one presented at the Arbiter's Office, as well as his implied claim that he was not involved in releasing to the complainants the money for and in consideration of the execution of the documents. The IBP Commissioner recommended that respondent be faulted for negligence and that he be reprimanded therefor with warning. The Board of Governors of the IBP approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Hababag. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent, in attempting to influence the answers of his client, violated Rule 12.05 under Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called upon to assist in the administration of justice. He is an instrument to advance its cause. Any act on his part that tends to obstruct, perverts or impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct. While the disbarment of respondent is, under the facts and circumstances attendant to the case, not reasonable, neither is reprimand as recommended by the IBP. The Court finds that respondent's suspension from the practice of law for six months is in order. Respondent, Atty. Jose A. Suing, is found GUILTY of negligence and gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Six (6) Months, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

SANTIAGO vs. RAFANAN A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004 FACTS: Complaint was filed by Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), for the disbarment of Atty. Edison V. Rafanan. The Complaint was filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). It charged respondent with deceit; malpractice or other gross

misconduct in office under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; and violation of Canons 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03, Canon 5, and Canons 12.07 and 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Complainant alleged, among others, that respondent in notarizing several documents on different dates violated the notarial provisions of the Revised Administrative Code. Complainant likewise alleged that respondent executed an Affidavit in favor of his client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein he was actively representing his client. Complainant finally alleges that on a certain date, respondent accompanied by several persons waited for complainant after the hearing and after confronting the latter disarmed him of his sidearm and thereafter uttered insulting words and veiled threats. As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of the CPR, respondent argued that lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients "on substantial matters, in cases where [their] testimony is essential to the ends of justice." Complainant charged respondents clients with attempted murder. Respondent averred that since they were in his house when the alleged crime occurred, "his testimony is very essential to the ends of justice." Respondent alleged that it was complainant who had threatened and harassed his clients after the hearing of their case by the provincial prosecutor. Respondent requested the assistance of the Cabanatuan City Police the following day which was the next scheduled hearing, to avoid a repetition of the incident and to allay the fears of his clients. In support of his allegations, he submitted Certifications from the Cabanatuan City Police and the Joint Affidavit of the two police officers who had assisted them. He contended that the case had been initiated for no other purpose than to harass him, because he was the counsel of Barangay Captain Ernesto Ramos in the cases filed by the latter before the ombudsman and the BJMP against complainant. The IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution approving and adopting the Investigating Commissioners Report that respondent had violated specific requirements of the Notarial Law and dismissing other charges which included violation of Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; and Canons 1.01 to 1.03, 12.07 and 12.08 of the CPR for insufficiency of evidence. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Canons 12.07 and 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: The Court agrees with the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged communication arising from an attorneyclient relationship. Although the law does not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and at the same time counsels for a cause, the preference is for them to refrain from testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to withdraw from active management of the case. The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan was clearly necessary for the defense of his clients, since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged date and time of the incident, his clients were at his residence and could not have possibly committed the crime charged against them. Notably, in his Affidavit, complainant does not dispute the statements of respondent or suggest the falsity of its contents. The charge that respondent harassed complainant and uttered insulting words and veiled threats is not supported by evidence. Allegation is never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability. It is not the self-serving claim of complainant but the version of respondent that is more credible, considering that the latters allegations are corroborated by the Affidavits of the police officers and the Certifications of the Cabanatuan City Police. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan is found guilty of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby FINED P3, 000 with a warning that similar infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely. CANON 13 FOOD SPHERE, INC. vs. MAURICIO A.C. No. 7199; July 22, 2009 FACTS: Food Sphere, Inc., more popularly known for its brand name CDO, filed a Verified Complaint for disbarment before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Mauricio, a writer/columnist of several tabloids and host of a television program, for (1) grossly immoral conduct;

(2) violation of lawyers oath and (3) disrespect to the courts and to investigating prosecutors. Atty. Mauricio represented a certain Alverto Cordero who bought a liver spread CDO canned good and found it sour and to have a colony of worm inside. Respondent sent complaint a copy of the front page of the would-be issue of Balitang Patas BATAS, which complainant found to contain articles maligning, discrediting and imputing vices and defects to it and its products, and threatened to publish the articles unless the Corderos receive the damages they demanded amounting to P150,000. The spouses eventually forged a KASUNDUAN, withdrawing their complaint before BFAD and said complaint was dismissed after respondent proposed to settle the matter; P15,000 would go to the Cordero spouses and 35,000 to respondents Batas Foundation. Respondent then sent complainant an Advertising Contract asking the latter to advertise in the tabloid and a Program Profile of the television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS asking to place spot advertisements. When complainants offer was lower than what the respondent wanted, the latter threatened to proceed with the publication of the articles. In his radio program, respondent announced a contest where listeners would guess which liver spread and which company that produces it has worms in their goods. Respondent then wrote several articles in his columns and spoke in his television program which placed the complainant in a bad light, and continued to do so even after the latter had already filed among others this administrative complaint. The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP contained in his report and recommendation inter alia that despite respondents receipt of the TRO from further publishing, television and/or broadcasting the imputation of vices and/or defects of the complainant and its products, he continued to come out with articles on the prohibited subject matter in his column. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Maurico violated inter alia Rule 13.02 of Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: The Court found merit in the findings/evaluation of IBP. Respondent continued to further publish, televise and broadcast on the topic related to the CDO complaint despite the issuance of the temporary restraining order imposed on him on that matter. The Court found that he violated the Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. As held in Saberon vs Larong the use of strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance their interest of their clients xxx [it] does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. xxx In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyers language even in his pleadings must be dignified. He was suspended from the practice of law for three years. LANTORIA vs. BUNYI A.M. No. 1769 ;June 8, 1992 FACTS: This is an administrative case filed by Lantoria seeking disciplinary action against Atty. Bunyi on the ground that the latter committed acts of graft and corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the IBP, and corruption of the judge and bribery, in connection with how the respondent, as counsel of one of the parties, handled the aforementioned civil cases. Complainant was the manager and supervisor of a farm in Agusan del Sur owned by the client of respondent. The certain civil cases involved in this administrative complaint sought to eject squatters from the aforementioned farm. The defendants in the civil cases were, in due course, declared in default. In a letter, respondent attached the three Decisions and requested for complainant to tell presiding Judge Garcia that if said Decisions werent satisfactory, he will accept his suggestion to modify them for the better. Records show that prior to the aforementioned letter that respondent sent a letter to complainant asking him, in a strictly personal and confidential manner, to deliver to

Judge Galicia the Decisions and Orders as if he had no knowledge and havent opened it. Hence, this administrative complaint. He contends that respondent won the three cases because respondent unethically prepared the decision rendered therein. The Solicitor General submitted in his report that of the three scheduled hearings, complainant was only able to attend one and that a sworn letter of complainant prayed that the complaint be considered withdrawn on the ground that he could not substantiate his claims as he was no longer in possession of the original letter attached to his basic complaint. He found that the letters sent by respondent showed that the latter had indeed prepared the draft of the Decisions of the civil cases and that the loss of the original letters and withdrawal of the complaint was countered by the admission of the respondent of drafting the decisions and the existence of the letters. He found respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct and recommended suspension from practice of law of one year. Respondent admitted in Court that although he prepared the drafts of the decisions, he didnt offer Judge Galicia any gift or consideration to influence the latter in allowing him to prepare them. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of graft and corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the IBP, and corruption of the judge and bribery. HELD The Court found that the letter indicate that respondent had previous communication with Judge Galicia with regards to the drafting of the decisions of the civil cases. Acts of respondent amounted to an unbecoming conduct of a lawyer and an officer of the Court and thus, violating Canon 3 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rule 13.01 of Canon 13 of the new Code of Professional Responsibility which states that A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with judges. The Court sustained the Solicitor Generals recommendation of a year suspension from the practice of law.