Legal Ethics

Case Digests
2010-2015

2015
Heirs of Pedro Allilano vs. Atty. Examen
A.C.No.10132
March 24, 2015
*Notarial Practice
Q:

Atty. E notarized a document wherein one of the parties were his

brother. He was charged for violation of notarial law since a notary
public is prohibited from notarizing a document when one of the
parties is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or
affinity within the second civil degree. It is also alleged that Atty. E
notarized the documents knowing that the cedula or residence
certificate number used by his brother was not actually his but the
residence certificate number of another.
In his defense, Atty. E pointed out that there was no longer any
prohibition under the Revised Administrative Code for a notary public
to notarize a document where one of the parties is related to him by
consanguinity and affinity. With regard to the use of another residence
certificate, Atty. E said that he was in good faith and that it was office
practice that the secretary type details without him personally
examining the output. W/N Atty. E violated the notarial code.

A:

YES. At the time of notarization, the prevailing law governing

notarization was Sections 231-259, Chapter 11 of the Revised
Administrative Code and there was no prohibition on a notary public
from notarizing a document when one of the interested parties is
related to the notary public within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or second degree of affinity. Atty. E was not incompetent
to act as a notary public was not incompetent to notarize the
document even if one of the parties to the deed was a relative, his
brother.
It is clear that the residence certificate number used and as notarized
by Atty. E in the document was not in fact the residence certificate of
his brother. Atty. E interposes that he was in good faith in that it was
office practice to have his secretary type up the details of the
documents and requirements without him checking the correctness of
same.

A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are
impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. Good faith
cannot be a mitigating circumstance in situations since the
duty to function as a notary public is personal. The error could
have been prevented had Atty. E diligently performed his
functions: personally checked the correctness of the
documents. To say that it was his secretarys fault reflects
disregard and unfitness to discharge the functions of a notary
public for it is he who personally acknowledges the document.
He was behooved under Section 251, Chapter 11 of the
Revised Administrative Code to check if the proper cedulas
were presented and inspect if the documents to be
acknowledged by him reflected the correct details.
Perez vs Catindig
A.C. No . 5816
March 10, 2015
*Gross Immorality
Q:

Atty. Catindig knew that his first marriage with wife G was still existing
when he contracted his second marriage. Wife R knew of this fact. It
was alleged that he left R and had an affair with Atty. Baydo which was
denied by the latter. Does Atty. Catindig committed gross immorality?

A:

YES. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawyer
may be removed or suspended from the practice of law, inter alia, for
grossly immoral conduct. The Supreme Courts (SCs) finding of gross
immoral conduct is hinged not on Atty. Catindigs desertion of Dr.
Perez, the second wife, but on his contracting of a subsequent
marriage during the subsistence of his previous marriage to Gomez.

Garcia vs. Sesbreno

A.C. No. 7973 & A.C. No. 10457
February 3, 2015
Q:

Atty. S is practicing law despite his previous conviction for homicide

and despite the facts that he is only on parole and that he has not fully
served his sentence. Garcia alleged that S violated Section 27, Rule 13
of the Rules of Court by continuing to engage in the practice of law
despite his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Whether
conviction for the crime of homicide involves moral turpitude.

A:

Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the

degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal

act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation of

statute, BUT WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR CONVICTION INVOLVES
MORAL TURPITUDE MAY BE A QUESTION OF FACT AND FREQUENTLY
DEPENDS ON ALL THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. While x x x
generally but not always, crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude,
while crimes mala prohibita do not, it cannot always be ascertained
whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by classifying a crime
as mala in se or as mala prohibita. Moral turpitude is somewhat a
vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to the
process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached.

2014
Jardeleza vs. Sereno
G. R. No. 213181
August 19, 2014
*JBC Rules
Q:

JBC received a letter nominating Jardeleza, incumbent Solicitor

General. Upon acceptance of the nomination, Jardeleza was
interviewed by the JBC. However, he was informed through a telephone
call that Chief Justice and JBC ex officio Chairperson, Sereno,
manifested that she would be invoking Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC 009
against him. Sereno questioned Jardelezas ability to discharge the
duties of his office as shown in a confidential legal memorandum over
his handling of an international arbitration case for the government.
Jardeleza was then directed to make himself available before the JBC
on June 30, 2014, during which he would be informed of the objections
to his integrity.
1.1 Is a faulty legal strategy by an applicant for a vacant seat for
Justice of the Supreme Court reflect doubtful integrity?
1.2 Sec.2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 states that: Votes required when
integrity of a qualified applicant is challenged In every case
where the integrity of an applicant who is not otherwise
disqualified for nomination is raised or challenged, the
affirmative vote of all the Members of the Council must be
obtained for the favorable consideration of his nomination.
Are issues concerning extra-marital affairs and insider trading
valid questions on integrity?

A:
1.1

NO. WITHOUT A CLEAR SHOWING OF GROSS NEGLECT,

INIQUITY, OR IMMORAL PURPOSE, A STRATEGY OF A LEGAL
MIND REMAINS A LEGAL TACTIC ACCEPTABLE TO SOME
AND DEPLORABLE TO OTHERS. It has no direct bearing on
his moral choices.

1.2

YES. A lawyer who engages in extra-marital affairs is

deemed to have failed to adhere to the exacting standards
of morality and decency which every member of the
Judiciary is expected to observe. Moral character is not a
subjective term but one that corresponds to objective
reality.
The element of willingness to linger in indelicate
relationships imputes a weakness in ones values, selfcontrol and on the whole, sense of honor, not only because
it is a bold disregard of the sanctity of marriage and of the
law, but because it erodes the publics confidence in the
Judiciary.
Insider trading involves the trading of securities based on
knowledge of material information not disclosed to the
public at the time. Clearly, an allegation of insider trading
involves the propensity of a person to engage in fraudulent
activities that may speak of his moral character.

Dizon vs Cabucana
A.C. No. 10185
March 12, 2014
*Notarial Practice
Q:

Complainant Dizon filed a disbarment case against Atty.

Cabucana for falsification of public document. A compromise
agreement was executed by the parties and notarized before
Atty. Cabucana on the same date it was signed at the MTCC.
However, at the hearing conducted regarding the due execution
and the veracity of the compromise agreement, the signatories
therein testified that they signed the instrument in the court
room of MTCC but not in the presence of Atty. Cabucana as
Notary Public. Can a notary public notarize a document without
the presence of all the signatories/affiants?

A:

NO. Under Sec. 1, RA No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial

Law, as a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a
document unless the person who signs it is the same person
executing it and personally appearing before him to attest to the
truth of its contents. This is to enable him to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the partys free and voluntary act
and deed.

Talisic vs Rinen
A.C. No. 8761
February 12, 2014
Q:

Complainant Talisic filed a case against Atty. Rinen, charging the

latter with falsification of an Extra Judicial Partition with Sale
which allowed the transfer of a parcel of land. Atty. Rinen did not
deny his failure to personally verify the identity of all parties who
purportedly signed the subject document and whom, as he
claimed, appeared before him. Such failure was further shown by
the fact that the pertinent details of the community tax
certificates of Talisic and his sister, as proof of their
identity, remained unspecified in the subject deeds
acknowledgment portion. Can a notary public notarize a
document without the presence of all the signatories/affiants?

A:

NO. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons
who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and
personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of
what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed will
enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of
the affiant.

4gbj

2013
Chavez v. JBC, et al.,
G.R. No. 202242
July 17, 2013
*Judicial and Bar Council
Q:
A:

What composes the Judicial Bar Council?

Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a
representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative
of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the
Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

THE CONGRESS NEEDS ONLY ONE REPRESENTATIVE, EITHER FROM THE

SENATE OR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THE PRACTICE OF
HAVING TWO (2) REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH HOUSE OF CONGRESS
WITH ONE (1) VOTE EACH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Only one representative from the Congress is needed because...
1. They are not performing legislative functions
2. There is no interaction between the Senate and HR in JBC
3. Two (2) representatives from the Legislative Dept. will be against
the equality of powers
4. One (1) representative represents the whole Congress
The composition of the JBC reflects the Commission's desire to have in
the Council a representation for the major elements of the community.
Tapay vs Bancolo
A.C. No. 9604
March 20, 2013
*No Assistance in Unauthorized Practice of Law
Q:

Atty. Bs forged signature was found in different documents and

communications for his client. He permitted that the pleadings and
communications be signed in his name by the secretary of the law
office due to some lapses. Did Atty. B violate canon 9 of CPR?

A:

Yes, the lawyers duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in,
the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and
policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. Atty. B act
of permitting a non-lawyer to perform a lawyers duty such as signing
pleading is a clear violation of this rule.

2012
Metrobank vs Arguelles
G.R. No. 176984
August 29, 2012
*Notarial Practice
Q:

Can the presumption of regularity of a public document be destroyed

when the notary public cannot remember the faces of the person
presented before him during the acknowledgement of the document?

A:

No, it is too much to expect a notary public who had but a brief time
with the persons presented to him during the notarial ceremony to
remember their faces especially of there is a long lapse of time. What
matters is that the notary publics testimony respecting the ritual of
notarization that he invariably followed. If he gave unbending
assurance that he ascertained the identities of the parties to
documents who appeared before him, by requiring them to show
documentary proofs of the same and to sign the documents in his
presence.

Memo of Judge Yu
A.M. No. P-12-3033
August 15, 2012
Q:
A:

What is Simple Neglect of Duty?

Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give attention to a
task or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference.

Q:
A:

How is Simple Neglect of Duty constituted by a court personnel?

Mistakes or errors in the contents of the orders, subpoenas, and
Minutes of the Hearing could be attributed to the lack of attention or
focus on the task at hand. These can easily be avoided by exercising
greater care and diligence in the performance of duties. (Memo of
Judge Yu, A.M. No. P-12-3033, 15 August 2012)

OCA v. Musngi
A.M. No. P-11-3024
17 July 2012
Q:
A:

What is Grave Misconduct?

It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behavior as well as gross negligence by a
public officer. It is this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct on the
part of those who are charged with the responsibility of administering
the law and rendering justice that so quickly and surely corrodes the
respect for law and the courts without which the government cannot
continue and that tears apart the very bonds of our polity. Hence, the
act undertaken by a court personnel in her authority to get the cash
money for her personal use is a clear case of Grave Misconduct.

Villatuya v. Tabalingcos
A.C. No. 6622

July 10, 2012

*Advertisement and Solicitation
Q:

Is the use of business entities to solicit clients and to advertise his legal
services, purporting to be specialized in corporate rehabilitation cases
violative of the ethical standards of lawyers?

A:

Yes. Such practice circumvents Rule 2.03 which prohibits lawyers from
soliciting cases for the purpose of profit. A lawyer is not prohibited from
engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises
when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner
as to be inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a member of the bar.
This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily
lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for the
lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the
lawyers behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be
regarded as the practice of law. Business entities such as a financial
and legal consultant, may be used as a vehicle to procure professional
employment.

Concion-Reer vs Lumbao
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 093210RTJ
June 20, 2012
*Indirect Contempt
Q:

When is a person guilty of indirect contempt?

A:

Under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a

person [a]ssuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court,
and acting as such without authority, is liable for indirect
contempt of court. Under Section 7 of the same rules, a respondent
adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial
Court or a court of equivalent orhigher rank may be punished by a
fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months, or both. If a respondent is adjudged guilty
of contempt committed against a lower court, he may be punished by
a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding one (1) month, or both.

OCA v. Araya
A.M. No. P-12-3053
April 11, 2012
Q:

When can a court personnel be held for habitual absenteeism?

A:

An officer or employee in the government shall be considered

habitually absent only if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding
the allowable 2/5 days monthly leave credit under the Civil Service
Rules for at least three months in a semester or at least
three consecutive months during the year.

Q:
How does a court deal with absenteeism and tardiness of court
personnel?
A:
According to A.C. No. 02-2007, even if they do not qualify as habitual
and frequent under the Civil Service rules and regulations shall be
dealt with severely and any falsification of the daily time record to
cover up such absenteeism and/or tardiness shall constitute gross
dishonesty or serious misconduct. (OCA v. Araya,supra)
Q:

Can court personnel be held liable for falsification in the

keeping of time records even if done in without malice or
intent to mislead?

A:
Yes, every official and employee of each court shall accomplish
the Daily Time Record, indicating therein truthfully and accurately
the time of arrival in and departure from the office. It is a personal
act of the holder and should not be delegated to anyone else.
Falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records
constitute dishonesty, which is a grave offense punishable by
dismissal from the service. The basis of liability is the Omnibus Civil
Service Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V of Executive
Order No. 292. (OCA v. De Lemos, A.M. No. P-11-2953, 7 September
2011; Dayaon v. De Leon, A.M. No. P-11-2926, 1 February 2012)

2011
Tiong vs. Florendo
662 SCRA 1 I A.C. No. 4428
December 12, 2011
Q:

Atty. Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses Tiong for their
various business dealings. The husband suspected that his wife and
Atty. Florendo were having an affair. Finally he was able to listen to a
telephone conversation where he heard Atty. Florendo mention
amorous words his wife. The husband confronted the two and both
eventually admitted to their illicit relationship. They 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. Did Atty. Florendo violate the CPR?

A:

Yes. Good moral character is not only a condition for admission to the
Bar but is a continuing requirement to maintain one's good standing in
the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of law practitioners to
observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the
integrity of the Bar. Atty. 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.

Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Liangco

A.C. No. 5355
December 11, 2011
*Grounds for discipline of Judges
Q:
Are judges allowed to issue legal opinions outside the context
of judicial proceedings?
A:

NO. Judges do not, and are not allowed, to issue legal

opinions. Their opinions are always in the context of judicial
decisions, or concurring and dissenting opinions in the case of
collegiate courts, and always in the context of contested
proceedings.

Q:
Does the issuance of a legal opinion by a judge constitute a
violation of judicial conduct?
A:

YES. Issuance of a legal opinion without due notice and

hearing to all parties concerned projects the image of
partiality. Canon 3, particularly Section 2 of the new code, exhorts
judges not only to be impartial in deciding the cases before them, but
also to project the image of impartiality.
Also, it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Displaying an utter lack
of familiarity with the rules, he in effect erodes the publics confidence
in the competence of our courts. Moreover, he demonstrates his
ignorance of the power and responsibility that attach to the processes
and issuances of a judge, and that he as a member of the bar should
know. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Liangco, supra)

Lacsamana vs Bustamante
A.C. No. 7269
November 23, 2011
Q:

Atty. B has let DR non-lawyer to act as her collaborating counsel in a

case, to the extent that DR signed the minutes of the court
proceedings. Did Atty. B violate canon 9 of CPR?

A:

Yes. Atty. B misrepresented DR who is not a member of the Bar, as her

collaborating counsel in her case, it clear that she violates rule 9,
because it is an unauthorized practice of law for DR has no right to
practice law.

Espinosa vs. Omana

A.C. No. 9081
October 12, 2011
Q:

Atty. O notarized an affidavit allowing for a spouse to extrajudicially

terminate their marriage and dissolve their CPG. Atty. O alleged that it
was her staff that notarized such affidavit without her approval. Is Atty.
liable for a violation for her CPR?

A:

Yes, she violated rule 1.01 of Canon 1, for notarizing an affidavit that
has no legal effect and is against public policy. Morever even if it were
true that it was her part time staff that notarized the contract, it only
showed Atty. O negligence in doing her notarial duties. A notary public
is personally responsible for the entries in his notarial register and he
could not relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the blame on
his secretaries or any member of his staff.

Q:
Are there any aggravating circumstances in administrative
cases?
A:
Yes, the administrative officer of the daily time records, has a greater
responsibility and is personally accountable for any irregularities of
those who are under his administrative control and supervision. (OCA
v. De Lemos, A.M. No. P-11-2953, 7 September 2011)
Q:
A:

Is Corruption an element of Grave Misconduct?

YES. Corruption consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who
unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some
benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the
rights of others. (Re: Theft of the Used GI Sheets in the SC
Compound, A.M. No. 2008-15-SC, 31 May 2011)

Santeco vs. Avance

A.C. No. 5834
February 22, 2011
*Grounds for Disbarment. Gross Misconduct

Q:

Atty. A was guilty of gross misconduct for abandoning her clients

cause in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with the lawful
orders directed at her without any explanation for doing so. She was
suspended for five years. While the suspension was still in effect, she
appeared in three cases and misrepresented herself to be another
person. She was found by the Court unfit to continue as a member of
the Bar.
W/N the disbarment is proper?

A:

YES. As an officer of the court, it is a lawyers duty to uphold the

dignity and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for
judicial authority is shown by a lawyers obedience to court orders and
processes. She willfully disobeyed the Court when she continued her
law practice despite the suspension order and even misrepresented
herself to be another person. When she was twice ordered to comment
on her continued law practice while still suspended, nothing was heard
from her despite receipt of two Resolutions from this Court. Neither did
she pay the P30,000.00 fine imposed. It has been held that failure to
comply with Court directives constitutes gross misconduct,
insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyers suspension or
even disbarment.

(In Re Justice del Castillo (2011))

Q:

When a justice fails to attribute a quotation to its author without

malicious intent, is that plagiarism?

A:

No. Never in the judiciarys more than 100 years of history has
the lack of attribution been regarded and demeaned as
plagiarism (Bernas The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A
Comprehensive Reviewer, 2012 Supplement).
On occasions judges and justices have mistakenly cited the wrong
sources, failed to use quotation marks, inadvertently omitted
necessary information from footnotes or endnotes. But these do not, in
every case, amount to misconduct. Only errors that are tainted with
fraud, corruption, or malice are subject of disciplinary action.

2010
Sanga v. Alcantara and Bisnar
A.M. No. P -09-2657

January 25, 2010

Q:

A decision, in favor of complainants parents was rendered, which

ordered the other party to vacate the premises of the subject property
and to deliver the possession thereof to the plaintiffs. Subsequently, a
Writ of Demolition was issued, and the same was directed to sheriff
Alcantara. As per Alcantara the amount of P45,000.00 was needed to
execute the writ. However, the same did not push through since Sanga
failed to raise the amount needed to implement the writ. Sanga gave
Alcantara P5,000.00 instead. Due to his eagerness to fully implement
the Writ of Demolition, Sanga obtained even a usurious loan to be able
to raise the balance, which he gave to Alcantara .No official receipts
were issued for the money received. Instead, Alcantara issued a
handwritten receipt. However, as of the filing of the instant complaint,
Alcantara failed to deliver to Sanga the lawful possession of the subject
property. Disappointed with Alcantaras failure to implement the writ,
Sanga sought the assistance of Bisnar. However, Sanga claimed that
Bisnar, likewise, demanded from him money for the implementation of
the writ. Sanga gave Bisnar money as evidenced by a handwritten
acknowledgment receipt duly signed by the latter.
The demolition was scheduled several times however, as of the filing
of the complaint, the writ remained unimplemented.
1. 1 What are the rules to be followed by Sheriffs?
1. 2 Are sheriffs allowed to take voluntary payments from parties in
the course of the performance of their duties?

A:

1.1 (1) Prepare an estimate of expenses to be incurred in

executing the writ, for which he must seek the courts
approval (2) render an accounting and (3) issue an official
receipt for the total amount he received from the judgment
debtor.
1.2 NO. To do so would be inimical to the best interests of the service,
because even assuming arguendo that the payments were indeed
given and received in good faith, this fact alone would not dispel the
suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes.
Corollary to this point, a sheriff cannot just unilaterally demand sums
of money from a party litigant without observing the proper procedural
steps otherwise, such act would amount to dishonesty or extortion.