CANON 1

A-1 Financial Services, Inc. v. Atty. Laarni N. Valerio

FACTS:
A-1 Financial Services, Inc. filed a complaint against Atty. Laarni N. Valerio for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and non-payment of debt. Atty. Valerio failed to
appear to her arraignment despite due notice. She, moreover, refused to abide in
posting bail after receiving a Warrant of Arrest. The complainant filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Valerio before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines which required her to file an answer, but failed to do so. However,
respondent's mother, Gorgonia N. Valerio, explained that her daughter had been
diagnosed with schizophrenia, thus, could not respond to the complaint against her.
Furthermore, Mrs. Valerio undertook to personally settle her daughter's obligation.
IBP-CBD directed Atty. Valerio to appear before the mandatory conference but failed to
do so. IBP also ordered the parties to submit their position papers yet no position
paper was submitted by the respondent.
IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Valerio be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of 2 years, having found her guilty of gross misconduct. The respondent's
failure to obey court processes showed her lack of respect for authority and, thus,
rendered her morally unfit to be a member of the bar.
On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with
modification the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD. Atty. Valerio was instead
ordered suspended for the practice of law for a period of one year.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Valerio should be held administratively liable for conviction for
violation of BP 22.
RULING:
The Court affirms the sanction imposed by the IBP-CBD,i.e., Atty. Valerio was ordered
suspended from the practice of law for two years because aside from issuing worthless
checks and failing to pay her debts, she has also shown wanton disregard of the IBP's
and Court Orders in the course of the proceedings.
According to Canon 1 and Rule 1.01,

Canon 1- A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Roberto Soriano v. Atty. Manuel Dizon
FACTS:
Roberto Soriano filed a complaint for disbarment of Atty. Manuel Dizon with the IBPCBD resulting from the conviction of respondent for a crime involving moral turpitude
which violates Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
constitutes sufficient ground for his disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. The trial court granted probation requested by Atty. Dizon upon the
fulfillment of the civil liabilities imposed by the court in favor of the offended party,
Roberto Soriano. Commissioner Herbosa recommended that respondent be disbarred
from the practice of law for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
and exhibiting an obvious lack of good moral character. The Supreme Court received
for its final action the IBP Resolution adopting the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent's guilt warrants disbarment.
RULING:
The Court affirms the findings and recommendations of Commissioner Herbosa.
Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or
suspension. By such conviction, a lawyer is deemed to have become unfit to uphold
the administration of justice and to be no longer possessed of good moral character. In
the instant case, respondent has been found guilty; and he stands convicted, by final
judgment, of frustrated homicide. The respondent seriously transgressed Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility through his illegal possession of an unlicensed
firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities.
Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may relate, not to the exercise of the
profession of lawyers, but certainly to their good moral character. The respondent
displayed dishonest and duplicitous behavior. No moral qualification for bar
membership is more important than truthfulness.

The Court stress that membership in the legal profession is a privilege demanding a
high degree of good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to admission,
but also as a continuing requirement for the practice of law.
Wherefore, respondent Manuel Dizon is hereby DISBARRED, and his name is
ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

CANON 2
Ruel Tuano Y Hernandez v. People of the Philippines
FACTS:
Accused Ruel Tuano y Hernandez was convicted for having in his possesion one heatsealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu. The accused filed before the Supreme
Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari questioning the Court of Appeals' Resolution.
The Supreme Court sustained the conviction of accused. The accused moved for
reconsideration, questioning the Supreme Court's unsigned Resolution and praying for
his acquittal. On February 25, 2015, this Court required respondent People of the
Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, to file a comment on accused's
Motion for Reconsideration. Accused, through the Public Attorney's Office, filed a
Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply dated September 16, 2015 and a Reply on
September 22, 2015. On June 27, 2016, this Court issued the Resolution
reconsidering unsigned Resolution. This Court acquitted accused for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court received
from the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections a letter informing this Court
that the accused died on March 1, 2015, prior to the issuance of the resolution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the counsels of the accused have violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RULING:
Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly states that
"a lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner
compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession."

In the case, counsels for accused have shown inefficiency in the performance of their
duties. Relying on their representations in their pleadings, this Court was led to
believe that the criminal action against accused subsisted. Moreover, had counsels for
accused informed the Court earlier of the death of their client, the Court would have
not issued a resolution. Likewise, the parties need not have filed the pleadings calling
for the resolution of accused's Motion fo Reconsideration.
Wherefore, the Court resolves to set aside its resolution and dismiss the criminal case
on account of the death of the accused Ruel Tuano y Hernandez.
Counsels for accused, however, are directed to show cause, within 5 days of receipt of
this Resolution, why no disciplinary action should be taken against them for failing to
inform this Court of accused's death.
The Director of Religious Affairs v. Estanislao R. Bayot
FACTS:
The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice for having
published an advertisement in the Sunday Tribune. Respondent admitted having
caused its publication and prayed for "the indulgence and mercy" of the Court,
promising "not to repeat such professional misconduct in the future and to abide
himself to the strict ethical rules of the law profession." In further mitigation he
alleged that the said advertisement was published only once in the Tribune and that
he never had any case at law by reason thereof.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court should consider the respondent's plea.
RULING:
It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the
respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business
from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that
"the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney
to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession
and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and
adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the
public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary
activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah.

In In re Tagorda, 53 Phil., 37, the respondent attorney was suspended from the
practice of law for the period of one month for advertising his services and soliciting
work from the public by writing circular letters. That case, however, was more serious
than this because there the solicitations were repeatedly made and were more
elaborate and insistent.
Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the
Court is of the opinion and so decides that the respondent should be, as he hereby is,
reprimanded.

CANON 3
Yu Kimteng v. Young
Petitioners ask that Young Revilla Gambol & Magat law firm, counsel for liquidator, be
cited in contempt on the ground that Revilla, who was already disbarred in 2009,
appears under the said firm name. Respondent stated that the firm opted to retain
Revilla's name in the firm name even after he had been disbarred, with the retention
serving as an act of charity. Judge Calo stated that Atty. Young could still appear for
the liquidator as long as his appearance was under the Young Law Firm and not under
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat. Young Law Firm does not exist.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat should be cited
in contempt.
RULING:
In this case, respondents committed acts that are considered indirect contempt under
Section 3 of Rule 71. In addition, respondents disregarded the Code of Professional
Responsibility when they retained the name of respondent Revilla in their firm name.
Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states:

Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall
be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided
that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.
Respondents Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are found in
contempt of court for using a disbarred lawyer's name in their firm name and are
meted a fine of P30,000 each.

Villatuya v. Tabalingcos
FACTS:
Manuel G. Villatuya charges Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos with unlawful solicitation of
cases, violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for nonpayment of fees to
complainant, and gross immorality for marrying two other women while respondent's
first marriage was subsisting.
As to the charge of unlawful solicitation, respondent denied committing any. He
contended that his law firm had an agreement with Jesi and Jane Management, Inc.,
whereby the firm would handle the legal aspect of the corporate rehabilitation case;
and that the latter would attend to the financial aspect of the case'.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING:

Complainant submitted documentary evidence to prove that Jesi & Jane Management,
Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc. were owned and used as fronts by respondent
to advertise the latter's legal services and to solicit clients. A review of the records
reveals that respondent indeed used the business entities mentioned in the report to
solicit clients and to advertise his legal services, purporting to be specialized in
corporate rehabilitation cases.
Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this
practice by respondent, we affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for
illegal advertisement and solicitation.

CANON 4
Re: Request of National Committee on Legal Aid to Exempt Legal Aid Clients
from Paying Filing, Docket and Other Fees
FACTS:
The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
promulgated Resolution No. 24, series of 2008. The resolution requested the IBP's
National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) to ask for the exemption from the payment of
filing, docket and other fees of clients of the legal aid offices in the various IBP
chapters.
In a Comment, IBP stated that they laud Misamis Oriental Chapter for its effort to
help improve the administration of justice, particularly, the access to justice by the

poor. In promulgating Resolution No. 24, the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP has
effectively performed its duty to "participate in the development of the legal system by
initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the administration of justice" as
provided in Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the request has merits.
RULING:
The Court recognizes the right of access to justice as the most important pillar of legal
empowerment of the marginalized sectors of our society. Among others, it has
exercised its power to "promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights" to open the doors of justice to the underprivileged and to allow to
them to step inside the courts to be heard of their plaints.
Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium. Where
there is a right, there must be a remedy. The remedy must not only be effective and
efficient, but also readily accessible. For a remedy that is inaccessible is no remedy at
all.
Wherefore, the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP is hereby COMMENDED for
helping increase the access to justice by the poor. The request of the said chapter for
the exemption from the payment of filing, docket and other fees of the clients of the
legal aid offices of the various IBP chapters is GRANTED.

In the Matter of Attorney Lope E. Adriano, Member of the Philippine Bar.People

of the Philippines vs Remigio Estebia
FACTS:
Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance of Samar and was
sentenced to suffer the capital punishment. Lope Adriano was appointed as Estebias
counsel de oficio when his case came up before the Supreme Court on review. Adriano
was required to prepare and file his brief within 30 days from notice. On January
19,1967, Adriano sought a 30-day extention to file appellants brief in mimeograph

form. On February 18, Adriano again moved for a 20-day extension. A third
extensionwas filed on March 8 for 15 days. On March 27 Adriano filed for another 15day extension and on April 11 he moved for a last extension of ten days. However, on
April 21 he sought a special extension of five days. All of these motions for extension
were granted by the Court and the brief was due on April 26, 1967. However, no brief
was filed. For failing to comply, the Supreme Court resolved to impose upon Adriano a
fine of P500 with a warning that a more drastic disciplinary action will be taken
against him upon further non-compliance. On December 5, 1968, Adriano was
ordered to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for
gross misconduct and violation of his oath of office as attorney.

A resolution was

personally served upon him on December 18, 1968 however Adriano ignored the said
resolution.
Whether or not the conduct of Atty Lope E. Adriano as member of the bar deserve
disciplinary action.
RULING:
Yes, by specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney to render professional aid
to a destitute appellant in a criminal case who is unable to employ an attorney.
Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so assigned "to render the
required service." A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an indigent prisoner", our
Canons of Professional Ethics demand, "should always exert his best efforts" in the
indigent's behalf. No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of appellant's
brief. And yet, between December 20, 1966, when he received notice of his
appointment, and December 5, 1968, when the last show cause order was issued by
this Court, more than sufficient time was afforded counsel to prepare and file his brief
de oficio. In the face of the fact that no brief has ever been filed, counsel's statements
in his motions for extension have gone down to the level of empty and meaningless
words; at best, have dubious claim to veracity. Adrianos pattern of conduct reveals a
propensity to benumb appreciation of his obligation as counsel de oficio and of the
courtesy and respect that should be accorded this Court. For the reasons given
Attorney Lope E. Adriano was suspended from the practice of law throughout the
Philippines for a period of one (1) year.