CANON 1

RE: FINANCIAL AUDIT OF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO

FACTS:
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) instituted an
administrative case against Atty Kho, a former clerk of court of an RTC,
after an audit by the former found that the latter failed to remit P60K
(confiscated cash bonds) and P5K(Special Allowance for the Judiciary
Fund). Atty Kho stated that these amounts were stored in the courts
safety vaults, as his usual practice. The audit team advised him that he
should deposit such amounts to the Judicial Development Fund account
and Atty Kho complied with the directives.
Subsequently, the ICA received a complaint that Atty Kho, along
with his common-law wife, a stenographer, was engaged with lending
out to court employees money in his possession as clerk of court,
personally deriving profit from the interest earned. The OCA found Atty
Kho liable of violating an OCA Circular because he kept the funds in a
safety vault for more than a year. The OCA then recommended that its
report be docketed as an A.C. and Kho be imposed a P10K fine.
ISSUE/S:
W/N Atty. Kho is liable.
HELD:
YES. OCA recommendations VALID.
RATIO:
Dishonesty Conduct
Kho failed to make a timely turn-over of cash deposited with
him. The failure to remit the funds in due time constitutes gross
dishonesty and gross misconduct. It diminishes the faith of the people in
the Judiciary. Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries
the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service even if committed for
the first time. His malfeasance prima facie contravenes Canon 1, Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
And although Kho had restituted all his cash accountabilities, he
was nevertheless liable for failing to immediately deposit the collections
for the judiciary funds.
Unlawful conduct
Lawyers should always keep in mind that, although upholding
the Constitution and obeying the law is an obligation imposed on every

citizen, a lawyers responsibilities under Canon 1 mean more than just

staying out of trouble with the law. The least a lawyer can do in
compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful conduct.
The presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in
order to bring his act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 which
specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful conduct.
CHUA V. MESINA
Facts:
Mesina was, for years, the Chua spouses legal counsel and
adviser upon whom they reposed trust and confidence. They were in
fact lessees of a building (Burgos Property) owned by Mesinas family,
and another property (Melencio Property), also owned by Mesinas
family where the Chua spouses constructed their house. These two
properties were mortgaged by the registered owner, Mesinas mother,
Mrs. Mesina, in favor of the Planters Development Bank to secure a loan
she obtained. As Mrs. Mesina failed to meet her obligation to the bank,
Atty. Mesina convinced the Chua spouses to help Mrs. Mesina to settle
her obligation in consideration for which the Melencio property would be
sold to them at P850.00/sq. m.
The spouses Chua and their business partner, Marcelina Hsia,
settled Mrs. Mesinas bank obligation in the amount of P983,125.40. A
Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 19, 1985 conveying the Melencio
property for P85,400.00 was thereafter executed by Mrs. Mesina, whose
name appears therein as Felicisima M. Melencio, in favor of
complainants. As complainants were later apprised of the amount of
capital gains tax they were to pay, they consulted respondent about it.
Respondent thus suggested to them that another Deed of Absolute Sale
should be executed, antedated to 1979 before the effectivity of the law
mandating the payment of capital gains tax. As suggested by
respondent, another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated February 9, 1979
was executed by Mrs. Mesina, whose name again appears therein as
Felicisima M. Melencio, in favor of complainants wherein the purchase
price was also indicated to be P85,400.00.
After liquidating the advances made by the Chua spouses in
the redemption of the MESINA properties, Mrs. Mesina was found to
have an existing balance due the spouses in the amount of
P400,000.00, on account of which they advised respondent about it.
Respondent, by Affidavit acknowledged such obligation to be his and
undertook to settle it within two years.
Complainants were subsequently issued on a title over the
Melencio property.

Not long after the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale or in

February 1986, one Tecson filed an Affidavit dated charging Mrs.
Mesina, the spouses Chua, Marcelina Hsia and the two witnesses to the
said Deed of Absolute Sale, for Falsification of Public Document and
violation of the Internal Revenue Code. In his complaint affidavit,
Tecson alleged that he was also a lessee of the Melencio property and
was, along with the Chua spouses, supposed to purchase it but that
contrary to their agreement, the property was sold only to complainant
and her co-complainant, to his exclusion. Tecson went on to relate that
the Deed of Absolute Sale did not reflect the true value of the Melencio
property and was antedated to evade payment of capital gains tax.
Tecson submitted documents showing that indeed the July 9, 1979 Deed
of Absolute Sale was antedated.
Respondent thereupon hatched a plan to dodge the falsification
charge against Mrs. Mesina et al. He proposed to complainants that
they would simulate a deed of sale of the Melencio property wherein
complainants would resell it to Mrs. Mesina.
Heeding the proposal of respondent, complainants executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1, 1986 conveying to Felicisima M.
Melencio the Melencio property for P85,400.00.A new title was
accordingly issued in the name of Felicisima M. Melencio, the owners
copy of which was entrusted to complainants. Tecson subsequently filed
an Affidavit of Desistance dated September 5, 1986 alleging that his
filing of the criminal complaint arose out of mere misunderstanding and
difference with herein complainants and their co-respondents and he
had no sufficient evidence against them.
Some years later, Mesina approached the Chua spouses and
told them that he would borrow the owners copy of Mrs. Mesinas title
with the undertaking that he would, in four months, let Mrs. Mesina
execute a deed of sale over the Melencio property in complainants
favor. In fact, respondent gave complainants a written undertaking
dated May 2, 1990.
In the meantime, Mrs. Mesina died in the early part of 1991.
Despite respondents repeated promises to effect the transfer of title in
complainants name, he failed to do so. Complainants were later
informed that the Melencio property was being offered for sale to the
public. The spouses Chua and complainant Marcelina Hsia thus filed a
complaint against Mesina for Declaration of Nullity of Sale and
Reconveyance of Real Property.
ISSUE
Whether or not Mesina is guilty of Gross Misconduct?

HELD
This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct.
First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of
Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains
taxes, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal
processes, and not to abet activities aimed at defiance of the law; That
respondent intended to, as he did defraud not a private party but the
government is aggravating.
Second, when respondent convinced complainants to execute
another document, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale wherein they
made it appear that complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to
his mother, he committed dishonesty.
Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent inveigled his own
clients, the Chua spouses, into turning over to him the owners copy of
his mothers title upon the misrepresentation that he would, in four
months, have a deed of sale executed by his mother in favor of
complainants, he likewise committed dishonesty.
As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but
the business transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and
good faith. The measure of good faith which an attorney is required to
exercise in his dealings with his client is a much higher standard that is
required in business dealings where the parties trade at arms length.
In fine, respondent violated his oath of office and, more
specifically, Canon 1, Rules. 1.01 and Rules 1.02.
SORIANO V. DIZON
Facts:
A taxi driver (Soriano) filed an action for the disbarment of Atty.
Dizon, on the grounds that Dizon was convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude, and violated Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Soriano allegedly fell victim to Dizon, who was found to have:
a. Driven his car under the influence of liquor;
b. Reacted violently and attempted assault for over a simple traffic
incident;
c. Shot at Soriano, who was unarmed and not in the position to
defend himself (treachery);
d. Denied his acts despite positive evidence against him
(dishonesty);
e. Guilty of dishonesty, claiming to be mauled by the victim
(Kawawang driver, binaril na nga, may lakas pa daw mag maul

f.

ng attorney na may baril. Hindi din tanga mag rason si Dizon

diba?);
Despite neing granted probation, he did not satisfy his civil
liabilities to the victim (Ano ba problema nito?!)

Issues:
(1) Is Dizons crime of Frustrated Homicide considered a crime
involving moral turpitude
(2) Does his guilt to such crime warrant disbarment?
Held:
(1) Yes.
Moral Turpitude is everything which is done contrary to justice,
modesty, or good morals
Dizon was obviously the aggressor for having pursued and shot
Soriano, not only because of his treachery, but also his intent to escape,
betrayed by his attempt to wipe off his prints from the gun. His inordinate
reaction to a simple traffic incident clearly indicates his non-fitness to be
a lawyer.
(2) Yes.
His illegal possession of fire-arms, and his unjust refusal to
satisfy his civil liabilities all justify disbarment. The court reminds him that
in oath and in the CPR, he is bound to obey the laws of the land. The
liabilities in question have been sitting for 4 years, unsatisfied, despite it
being the condition for his probation (you ungrateful person!)
Dizon displayed an utter lack of good moral character, which is
an essential qualification for the privilege to enter into the practice of law.
Good moral character includes at least common honesty.
Manuel Dizon, hereby disbarred.

When Stemmerik asked when he could have the property

registered in his name, Atty Mas cant be found. He returned to the
Philippines, employed another lawyer, and to his horror, was informed
that aliens couldnt own Philippine Lands and that the property was also
inalienable. Stemmerik the filed a DISBARMENT case against Atty MAS
in the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP. The CBD ruled
that Atty Mas abused the trust and confidence of Stemmerik and
recommended that he be disbarred. The IBP Board of Governors
adopted such recommendations.
ISSUE/S:
W/N Atty Mas can be disbarred.
HELD:
YES! Disbarred.
RATIO:
Disobeyed the Laws and the Constitutional Prohibition
Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution prohibits foreigners from
buying Philippine Lands. Respondent, in giving advice that directly
contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy, showed disrespect for
the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared
spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal.
Deceitful Conduct
By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and
validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant
that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately deceived his
client. He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in
him by complainant.

STEMMERIK V. MAS
FACTS:
Stemmerik, a Danish citizen, wanted to buy Philippine property
due to its beauty. He consulted Atty Mas about his intention, to which the
latter advised him that he could legally buy such properties. Atty Mas
even suggested a big piece of property that he can buy, assuring that it
is alienable. Because of this, Stemmerik entrusted all of the necessary
requirements and made Atty Mas his attorney in fact as he went back to
Denmark. After some time, Atty Mas informed Stemmerik that he found
the owner of the big piece of property and stated the price of the
property is P3.8M. Stemmerik agreed, giving Atty Mas the money, and
the latter supposedly drawing up the necessary paperwork.

Illegal Conduct
By pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given by
complainant for the purchase of the property, respondent committed a
fraudulent act that was criminal in nature.
DE YSASI III V. NLRC
Facts:
Petitioner was employed by his father, herein private
respondent, as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao in Hinigaran,
Negros Occidental sometime in April, 1980. As farm administrator,
petitioner was responsible for the supervision of daily activities and

operations of the sugarcane farm and attending to such other tasks as

may be assigned to him by private respondent. For this purpose, he
lived on the farm, occupying the upper floor of the house there.
Following his marriage on June 6, 1982, petitioner moved to
Bacolod City with his wife and commuted to work daily. He suffered
various ailments and was hospitalized on two separate occasions in
June and August, 1982. In November, 1982, he underwent fistulectomy,
or the surgical removal of the fistula, a deep sinuous ulcer. His
recuperation lasted over four months. In June, 1983, he was confined for
acute gastroenteritis and, thereafter, for infectious hepatitis from
December, 1983 to January, 1984.
During the entire periods of petitioner's illnesses, private
respondent took care of his medical expenses and petitioner continued
to receive compensation. However, in April, 1984, without due notice,
private respondent ceased to pay the latter's salary. Petitioner made oral
and written demands for an explanation for the sudden withholding of his
salary. Both demands, however, were not acted upon.

whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He should

be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather than
a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation.
Both counsels herein fell short of what was expected of them,
despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. The records do not
show that they took pains to initiate steps geared toward effecting a
rapprochement between their clients. On the contrary, their acerbic and
protracted exchanges could not but have exacerbated the situation even
as they may have found favor in the equally hostile eyes of their
respective clients.
In the same manner, we find that the labor arbiter who handled
this regrettable case has been less than faithful to the letter and spirit of
the Labor Code mandating that a labor arbiter "shall exert all efforts
towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute within his
jurisdiction." If he ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the
copious records of the proceedings in this controversy are barren of any
reflection of the same.

Issues:
(1) whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed; (2)
whether or not he is entitled to reinstatement, payment of back wages,
thirteenth month pay and other benefits; and (3) whether or not he is
entitled to payment of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's
fees because of illegal dismissal.
Held:
The decision of NLRC is set aside. Private respondent is
ORDERED to pay petitioner back wages for a period not exceeding
three (3) years, without qualification or deduction, and, in lieu of
reinstatement, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month for every year
of service, a fraction of six (6) months being considered as one (1)
whole year.
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly
provides that "(a) lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle
the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement."
Counsels must be reminded that their ethical duty as lawyers to
represent their clients with zeal goes beyond merely presenting their
clients' respective causes in court. It is just as much their responsibility, if
not more importantly, to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal
conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in consideration of the
direct and immediate consanguineous ties between their clients. The
useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it

CORDON V. BALICANTA
FACTS:
Cordon, along with her daughter, inherited some properties from
her husband with the help of Atty Balicanta. Subsequently, Atty
Balicanta enticed them to form a corporation to develop the real
properties inherited. Such corp. was formed, and the properties were
registered in the corp.s name. Atty Balicanta was the one who singlehandedly ran the corp.s affairs, by being its Chairman, President,
General Manager, and treasurer. By being such officers, he made a
number of acts: 1) made Cordon sign a voting trust agreement; 2) made
Cordon sign a SPA to sell/mortgage properties; 3) transferred title of
some of the properties to other people. And by using spurious Board
resolutions, Atty Balicanta also made the following acts: 1) obtained a
loan from Land Bank using the properties as collateral; 2) Sold the
Corps right to redeem the properties to another person; 3) demolished
the ancestral home of the Cordons and sold the lot to another person. In
all of these, Atty Balicanta did not account for the proceeds coming the
sales and dispositions.
The Cordons made several demands for Atty Balicanta to give
back the properties and to account the proceeds of the loan. When such
demands were unheeded, The Cordons terminated Balicantas services
and filed a complaint for disbarment against the latter in the IBP. The
Commissioner, in its report, recommended for Balicantas disbarment as

well. The IBP Board of Governors resolved that Balicanta be suspended

for 5 years for such conduct.
ISSUE/S:
W/N Balicanta be disbarred1.

(such as free consultation, execution of deed of sale, etc.). He also

admits that he wrote a letter addressed to a lieutenant of a barrio if his
home municipality saying that he will continue his practice of law and for
the lieutenant to make known to the people of his desire to serve as
lawyer & notary public (including his services to handle land registration
cases for P3/every registration).

HELD: YES! Disbarred.

Issue:
RATIO:
Deceitful Conduct
The fraudulent acts he carried out against his client followed a
well thought of plan to misappropriate the corporate properties and
funds entrusted to him. He started his devious scheme by making
himself the President, Chairman of the Board, Director and Treasurer of
the corporation, although he knew he was prohibited from assuming the
position of President and Treasurer at the same time. He also entered
into dishonest transactions under the cloak of sham resolutions. His
misdemeanors reveal a deceitful scheme to use the corporation as a
means to convert for his own personal benefit properties left to him in
trust by complainant and her daughter.
Side Doctrine:
Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad
character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the
unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing
if it is wrong. This must be so because vast interests are committed to
his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals
with his clients property, reputation, his life, his all.
CANONS 2 & 3
IN RE: TAGORDA
Facts:
Luis Tagorda was a member of the provincial board of Isabela.
Previous to the last election, he admits that he made use of a card
written in Spanish containing the fact that he was a candidate for third
member of the Province of Isabela & offering services as notary public

1 By virtue of Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of

Court, this resolution is automatically elevated to the SC
for final action.

W/N acts of Tagorda constituted advertising

Held:
Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and is contrary
to the Canons of Professional Ethics. Solicitation of business by
circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or
interviews not warranted by personal relations is unprofessional. His
acts warrant disbarment, but because of the mitigating circumstance of
his youth and inexperience, he is therefore suspended.
The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not
seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so
would be unprofessional. It is also unprofessional for a lawyer to
volunteer advice to bring lawsuit. Lastly, solicitation of cases result in the
lowering of the confidence of the community and integrity of the
members of the bar (as it results in needless litigations and in incenting
to strife otherwise peaceful citizens).
ATTY. ISMAEL KHAN V. ATTY RIZALINO SIMBILLO
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 1year. 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 isnt served in any way by the prohibition.

City, he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a local

government official and as a practicing lawyer.

ISSUE
Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01.

Issue:
HELD

W/N Atty. Ortiz should be sanctioned?

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 lawyers name appears must be a
reputable law list only for that purpose --- a lawyer may not properly
publish in a daily paper, magazineetc., 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.

Held:
Yes. Atty. Ortiz is to be sanctioned, suspension for 1 month.
Atty. Ortiz violated Canons 18 and 22. Under Canon 18.03, a
lawyer owes fidelity to his clients cause and must always be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed to him. He owes his entire devotion to
the interest of the client. His negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable. Under Canon 18.04, the relationship of a lawyer-client
being one of confidence, there is an ever present need for the client to
be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and
should not be left in the dark. A lawyer cannot shift the blame to
complainant for failing to inquire the status about the case as this is one
of the lawyers duties.
The adoption of additional duties due to the election of Atty. Ortiz
as councilor does not exonerate him of his negligent behavior. The CPR
allows a lawyer to withdraw his legal service if the lawyer is elected or
appointed to a public office since councilors are not expressly prohibited
to exercise their legal profession.

CANOY V. ORTIZ
LINSANGAN V. TOLENTINO
Facts:
A complaint was filed on April 2001 by Canoy against Atty. Ortiz,
accusing him for misconduct and malpractice. It is alleged that Canoy
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Coca Cola Philippines. Atty.
Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy in this proceeding. Canoy
submitted all the documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation
of the position paper. Thereafter, he made several unfruitful visits to the
office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the process of the case. On April 2000,
Canoy was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually dismissed
way back in 1998 for failure to prosecute, the parties not having
submitted their position papers. Canoy alleged that Ortiz had never
communicated to him about the status of the case.
Atty. Ortiz informs the Court that he has mostly catered to
indigent and low-income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to
himself. Atty. Ortiz admits that the period within which to file the position
paper had already lapsed. He attributes his failure to timely file the
position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod

Facts:
A complaint of disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan of the
Linsangan, Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino for solicitation of clients & encroachment of professional
services. Linsangan alleges that Tolentino with the help of paralegal
Labiano convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by
promising financial assistance and expeditious collection of their claims.
To induce them, Tolentino allegedly texted and called them persistently.
To support his allegation, Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit of
James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail over him to sever
his client-atty relationship with Linsangan. Also, he attached
respondents calling card:
Front
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFFICE

CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES

W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01
Tel: 362-7820
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar
Fax: (632) 362-7821
Grace Park, Caloocan City
Cel.: (0926) 2701719
Back
SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
In his defense, Tolentino denies knowing Labiano and authorizing the
printing and circulating of said calling card.
Issue:
W/N Atty. Tolentino is guilty of advertising his services
Held:
Yes. Atty. Tolentino suspended for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03,
8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
With regard to Canon 3, the practice of law is a profession and
not a business. Thus, lawyers should not advertise their talents as
merchants advertise their wares. To allow lawyers to advertise their
talents/skill is a commercialization of the practice of law (degrading the
profession in the publics estimation).
With regard to Rule 2.03, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting
cases for purpose of gain, either personally or through an agent. In
relation to Rule 1.03, which proscribes ambulance chasing (involving
solicitation personally or through an agent/broker) as a measure to
protect community from barratry and champertry.
As a final note regarding the calling card presented as evidence
by Linsangan, a lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited.

reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his

character and conduct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to
announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of
simple professional cards.
Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:
(a) lawyers name;
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced.
Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial
assistance. The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already
had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to
finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from
their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress
and emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the
integrity of the bar and deserves no place in the legal profession.

CANONS 4, 5 & 6
SUAREZ V. PLATON
Facts:
Suarez was charged with sedition which was subsequently
dismissed. He in turn filed a case for arbitrary detention against
Lieutenant Orais. After the case was handed to Judge Platon following
several changes in trial judge and several refusals by fiscals to
prosecute the case.
Issue:
Should mandamus issue to compel the fiscal to reinstate the
case?
Held:
Yes. It is unquestionable that in the proper cases, the
prosecutors must reinvestigate in order to properly dispense justice. At
the same time, it must be kept in mind that a prosecutor is the
representative of a sovereignty; he is interested only in the fact that
justice is served, and this also includes his refusing to prosecute if the
innocence of the accused is quite clear. He is a servant of the law, and
his two-fold aim is not to let the guilty escape nor let the innocent suffer.

He is not at liberty to strike foul blows because it is his duty to refrain

from doing so as much as it is to use legitimate methods of prosecution.
RAMOS V. IMBANG
FACTS
In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of
respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions
against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. She gave
respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt
for P5,000 only.
The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her
cases against the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never allowed her to
enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would then
come out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been
cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and for each
appearance in court, respondent charged her P350.
After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became
suspicious. She personally inquired about the status of her cases in the
trial courts of Bian and San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked to learn
that respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that
he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).
HELD
Attorney Imbang is disbarred and his name stricken from the roll
of attorneys.
Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and
integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected
to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public
scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants
who owe utmost fidelity to public service.
Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely
to public service. For this reason, the private practice of profession is
prohibited. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees provides:
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to
acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in
the Constitution and existing laws, the following constitute prohibited
acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby
declared unlawful:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public
officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:

xxx

xxx
xxx
(1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not
conflict
with
their
official
function.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august200
7/6788.htm - _ftn26#_ftn26
Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private
cases for they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of
their respective offices.
In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the
complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still
connected with the PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes
an attorney-client relationship. Respondent's admission that he accepted
money from the complainant and the receipt confirmed the presence of
an attorney-client relationship between him and the complainant.
Moreover, the receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case
while he was still a government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the
prohibition on private practice of profession.
Aggravating respondent's wrongdoing was his receipt of
attorney's fees. The PAO was created for the purpose of providing free
legal assistance to indigent litigants. Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III,
Book V of the Revised Administrative Code provides:
Sec. 14. xxx
The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in
extending free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil,
labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.
As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted
attorney's fees from the complainant as this was inconsistent with the
office's mission. Respondent violated the prohibition against accepting
legal fees other than his salary.
Every
lawyer
is
obligated
to
uphold
the
law.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/67
88.htm - _ftn31#_ftn31 This undertaking includes the observance of
the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated by respondent when
he accepted the complainant's cases and received attorney's fees in
consideration of his legal services. Consequently, respondent's
acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility because the prohibition on the private
practice of profession disqualified him from acting as the complainant's
counsel.
Aside from disregarding the prohibitions against handling private
cases and accepting attorney's fees, respondent also surreptitiously
deceived the complainant. Not only did he fail to file a complaint against

the Jovellanoses (which in the first place he should not have done),
respondent also led the complainant to believe that he really filed an
action against the Jovellanoses. He even made it appear that the cases
were being tried and asked the complainant to pay his appearance
fees for hearings that never took place. These acts constituted
dishonesty, a violation of the lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood.
Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity and
good moral character required of all lawyers, specially one occupying a
public office. Lawyers in public office are expected not only to refrain
from any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence
of the citizenry in government but also uphold the dignity of the legal
profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing. A government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened
with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his brethren in
private practice.
There is, however, insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of
violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent did not hold the money for the benefit of the complainant
but accepted it as his attorney's fees. He neither held the amount in trust
for the complainant (such as an amount delivered by the sheriff in
satisfaction
of
a
judgment
obligation
in
favor
of
the
client)http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/
6788.htm - _ftn34#_ftn34 nor was it given to him for a specific
purpose (such as amounts given for filing fees and bail
bond). Nevertheless, respondent should return the P5,000 as he, a
government lawyer, was not entitled to attorney's fees and not allowed to
accept them.
CATU V. RELLOSA
FACTS
Catu co-owns a lot and building and contested the possession of
one of the units in the said building by Elizabeth (sister in law of Catu)
and Pastor, who ignored demands to vacate the place. The parties went
to the Lupon Tagapamayapa to try to settle the issue amicably.
Respodent Rellosa as Punong Barangay presided over the conciliation
proceedings. The parties failed to settle their case, and the petitioner
brought the case to court.
Surprisingly, Rellosa appeared in court as counsel for Elizabeth
and Pastor. This prompted Catu to file an administrative complaint
against Rellosa for his act of impropriety.

IBP committee on bar discipline, after investigation, ruled that

Rellosa violated Rule 6.032 and RA 67133.
The committee
recommended Rellosas suspension from practice for 1 month.
ISSUE
W/N Rellosa violated Rule 6.03
HELD
No.
Rule 6.03 applies only to a lawyer who has left government
service. Rellosa was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he
committed the act complained of.
As such incumbent, the proper law that governs him is RA
71604, which actually allows him to practice his profession. However,
being a public official, he is also governed by Revised Civil Service
Rules, which requires him first to obtain a written permission from his
department head who is the Sec. of DILG. This he failed to do.
SC ruled that Rellosa violated the lawyers oath (to uphold and
obey law), Rule 1.01 (lawyer shall not engage in unlawful conduct), and
Canon 7 (lawyer shall uphold integrity and dignity of the profession), for
a lawyer who disobeys law disgraces the dignity of the legal profession.
SC punished Rellosa with 6 months suspension and strongly
advised him to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word
delicadeza.
__________
Hofilena question: under RA 6713, are lawyers allowed to practice
their profession?
Answer: Yes, RA 6713 says if the constitution or law allows it Public
officers however are subject to Civil Service Rules which state that
should they engage in private practice of their profession, they should
first secure a written permission from their department head.
PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN

2 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,

accept engagement or employment in connection with
any matter in which he intervened while in service
3 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officers and Employees
4 Local Government Code of 1991

FACTS
General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered
financial difficulties. Later on, Central Bank issued a resolution declaring
GENBANK insolvent.
Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition with
the then Court of First Instance praying for the assistance and
supervision of the court in GENBANK's liquidation.
After EDSA 1, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG for the
purpose of recovering ill gotten wealth. The PCGG, on July 17, 1987,
filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for 'reversion, reconveyance,
restitution, accounting and damages against respondents Tan, et al. so
PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly
acquired by the above-named persons by taking advantage of their
close relationship and influence with former President Marcos. These
respondents were represented by Mendoza.
PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as
counsel for respondents. The motions alleged that respondent Mendoza,
as then Solicitor General and counsel to Central Bank, 'actively
intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK, which was subsequently
acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and became Allied Banking
Corporation.
The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former government
lawyers from accepting 'engagement or employment in connection with
any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
ISSUE
W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
applies to respondent Mendoza?
HELD
NO, IT DOES NOT APPLY. The matter or the act of respondent
Mendoza as Solicitor General involved in the case at bar is 'advising the
Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank's liquidation and
even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of . In fine, the Court
should resolve whether his act of advising the Central Bank on the legal

procedure to liquidate GENBANK is included within the concept of

'matter under Rule 6.03.
The 'matter where he got himself involved was in informing
Central Bank on the procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK
thru the courts and in filing the necessary petition. The subject 'matter of
Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore, is not the same nor is related to but is
different from the subject 'matter in Civil Case No. 0096 which is about
the sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al.
The jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution
and liquidation of banks. It goes without saying that Code 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent
Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in
Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter different from the
matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096.
Secondly, the supposed intervention of Mendoza in the
liquidation case is not significant and substantial. We note that the
petition filed merely seeks the assistance of the court in the liquidation of
GENBANK. The principal role of the court in this type of proceedings is
to assist the Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against the
GENBANK.
Also, The disqualification of respondent Mendoza has long been
a dead issue. For a fact, the recycled motion for disqualification in the
case at bar was filed more than four years after the filing of the
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with the Supreme Court
which were subsequently remanded to the Sandiganbayan. At the very
least, the circumstances under which the motion to disqualify in the case
at bar were refiled put petitioner's motive as highly suspect.
It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all
its strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers who 'switch sides. It is
claimed that 'switching sides' carries the danger that former government
employee may compromise confidential official information in the
process. But this concern does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. As
afore-discussed, the act of respondent Mendoza in informing the Central
Bank on the procedure how to liquidate GENBANK is a different matter
from the subject matter of Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the
sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank.
There is no switching sides for there were no sides.