Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Additional Case for Legal Ethics

1. In re Arthur Castillo Reyes (1993)


2. Cayetano v. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 (1991)
3. In Re Adriano Hernandez (1993)
4. In Re Argosino 270 SCRA 26
5. Olbes v. Deciembre 457 SCRA 541
6. People v. Villanueva 14 SCRA 109
7. Spouses Santuyo v. Hidalgo 448 SCRA 282 (2005)
8. Sicat v. Ariola 456 SCRA 93 (2005)
9. Figueroa v. Barranco 276 SCRA 445(1997)
10. Cordova v. Cordova 179 Phil 680 (1989)
11. In re Gutierrez (1962)
12. Barrios v. Martinez 442 SCRA 324(2004)
13. Estrada v. SAndiganbaya 416 SCRA 465(2003)
14. In re Tagorda 53 Phil 37 (1929)
15. Khan v. Simbillo 409 SCRA 299(2003)
16. Ulep v. Legal Clinioc (1993)
17. Samonte v. Gatdula 303 SCRA 756 (1999)
18. DAcanay v. Baker and McKenzie 136 SCRA 348 (1985)
19. Cruz v. Salva 105 Phil 1151 (1959)
20. Misamin v. San Juan 72 SCRA 491 (1976)
21. Vitriolo v. Dasig 400 SCRA 172 (2003)
22. PCGG v. SAndiganbayan 455 SCRA 526 (2005)
23. In re: Election of the IBP 178 SCRA 398 (1989)
24. Zaguirre v. Castillo 398 SCRA 659 (2003)
25. Letter of Att.y Cecilio Arevalo 458 SCRA 209(2005)
26. Reyes v. Chiong Jr. 405 SCRA 212
27. Aguirre v. Rana 403 SCRa 342
28. Oca v. Ladanga 350 SCRa 326(2001)
29. US v. Ney (1907)
30. Cuaresma v. Daguis (1975)
31. Young v. Batuegas 403 SCRA 123 (2003)
32. Insular Life Employees co. v. Insular Life Association 37 SCRA 1 (1970)
33. Guerrero v. Villamor 179 SCRA 355 (1989)
34. In re: Soto 82 Phil 595 (1949)
35. MAceda v. Vasquez 221 SCRA 464 (1993)
36. In Re: Almacen 31 SCRA 1970
37. Malonzo v. Prinsipe 447 SCRA 1 (2004)
38. PNB v. Uy Teng PIao 57 Phil 337 (1932)
39. Nestle Phil. V. Sanches 154 SCRa 542 (1987)
40. In re: De Vera 385 SCRA 285 (2003)
41. MArtelino v. Alenjandro (1989)
42. Regala v. Sandiganbayan 262 SCRA 122(1996)
43. People v. SAndiganbayan 275 SCRa 505 (1996)
44. Hornilla v. SAlunat (2003)
45. Nakpil v. Valdez 286 SCRA 758 (1998)
46. Berbano v. Barcelno 410 SCRA 258 (2003)
47. Daroy v. Legaspi (1975)
48. Businos v. Ricafort 283 SCRA 40 (1997)
49. Quilban v. Robinol 171 SCRA 768 (1989)
50. Cantiller v. Potenciano 180 SCRA 246 (1968)
51. Alisbo v. Jalandoon 199 SCRA 321 (1991)
52. NGayan v. Tugade 193 779 (1991)
53. Barnachea v. Quicho 399 SCRA 1 (2003)
54. In reL Suspension from the practice of Law (435 SCRA 417 (2004)
55. Solatan v. Inocentes 466 SCRA 1 (2005)
56. Legarda v. CA 209 SCRA 722 (1992)
57. Metrobank v. CA 181 SCRA 367 (1981)
58. Quirante v. IAC 169 SCRA 769 (1989)
59. TAnhueco v. De Dumo 172 SCRA 760 (1989)
60. Albano v. Coloma 21 SCRA 411 (1967 )
61. Corpuz v. CA 98 SCRA 424 (1980)
62. Quingwa v. Puno, Admin. Case No. 398 Feb 28,1967
63. Amaya v. Tecson 450 SCRA 510
64. Aquino v. Mangoang 425 SCRA 572
65. In re: Ruste 70Phil 243
66. Munoz v. People 53 SCRA 190
67. Lantos v. Gan 196 SCRA 16
68. Munoz v. People 53 SCRA 190
69. Rheem of the Phil., Inc. v. Ferrer 20SCRA 441
70. Cui v. Cui 11 SCRA 755
71. In Re: ADriatico 17Phil 324
72. Prudential Bank v. BenjaminGrecia 192 WCRA 381
73. Yap Tan v. Sabandal 170 SCRa 207
74. In Re: Rusiana 56 SCRA 240
75. People v. Veneracion 249 SCRA 244
76. TAhil v. Eisma 64 SCRA 378 (1975)
77. Padilla v. ZAntua 237 SCRA 670 (1994)
78. Macalinta v. Teh 280 SCRA 623 (1997)
79. Talens-Dabon v. Arceo 259 SCRA 354 (1996)
80. MAsado v. Elizaga 155 SCRA 72 (1987)
81. Lorenzo v. Marquez (1988)
82. Saburnido v. MAdrono A.C> No. 4497 September 26,2001
83. Uy v. Mercado 154 SCRA 567
84. Aguilar v. Manila Banking Corp. G.R. No. 157911 September 19,2006
85. Bengeut Electrical Cooperative Inc. v. NEA G.R. No 93924, January 23,1991)
86. U.S. v. BAllena G.R. No. L-6294 February 10,1911)
87. People v. Boras G.R. No. 127497,Dec. 22,2000
88. De Bumanlag v. Bumanlag A.M. No. 188, November 29,1976
89. Dee v. CA GR No. 77439 August 24,1989
90. People v. Bernas GR No. 120420 April 21,1999
91. Om poc v. Judge Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-86-11 September 27,1989
92. Castillo v. Judge Juan 62 SCRA 124
93. Navarro v. Tornis AM No. MTJ-00-133 April 27,2004
94. Mataga v. Rosete AM No. MTJ-03-1488 October 13,2004)
95. Atty. Quinto v. Judge Vios AM no. MTJ-04-1551 May 21,2004
96. BAyaca v. Judge Ramos AM no. MTJ-07-1676 January 29,2009
97. Rino v. Jidge Cawaling AM no MTJ 02-1291 June 7,2004
98. Duduaco v. Laquindanum AM no. MTJ-05-1601 August 11,2005
99. Inoturan v. Limsiaco Jr. AM no. MTJ01-1362 February 22,2011

In re Arthur Castillo Reyes (1993)


FACTS: Petitioner graduated from UP College of Law in 1939;
passed the bar in 1939; inducted to and served in the US Armed
Forces in the Far East during WWII and thus became eligible for
citizenship under the 1990 US Immigration Act; became a
naturalized citizen of the US in 1993. His name was struck from
the Roll of Attorneys. Only Filipino citizens may practice law in
the Philippines. This requirement is prescribed by the
Constitution, XII 14, and the ROC, 2 Rule 138.

Cayetano v. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 (1991)


FACTS: Monsod after passing the bar, worked in his fathers
firm for one year, then worked as an operations officer in the
World Bank Group. He also worked with the Meralco Group upon
his return to the Philippines, and then became chief executive
officer of an investment bank, legal and economic consultant of
various companies, National Chairman of NAMFREL, member of
the 1986 Constitutional Commission, and then became a
member of the Davide Commission.
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of
the term practice of law, particularly the modern concept of
law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal
construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty.
Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a
lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyernegotiator
of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator verily more than
satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

Figueroa v. Barranco 276 SCRA 445(1997)


FACTS: Atty. Barranco was not disbarred despite the fact that
he had sexual congress with Patricia Figueroa with whom he
begot a child, promised that he would marry her after he passed
the bar but then married another woman.

Estrada v. SAndiganbayan 416 SCRA 465


FACTS: The SC indefinitely suspended Atty. Paguia for making
claims that the Justices of the Supreme Court have been
participating in partisan political activity and have prejudged a
case that will assail the legality of an act done by President
Arroyo, that Estrada v Arroyo is a patent mockery of justice and
due process, that three Justices of Sandiganbayan made their
bias manifest and are impartial against his client.

In re Tagorda 53 Phil 37 (1929)


Tagorda was suspended for soliciting business. Before
Tagordas election to the provincial board of Isabela, he used a
card offering services as an attorney and a notary public free.
The card also stated that he was a candidate for the provincial
board. After his election, he wrote a letter to the barrio
lieutenant informing him that he would continue his practice as
lawyer and asking that the lieutenant transmit this information
to the barrio.
Khan v. Simbillo 409 SCRA 299 (2003)
Atty. Simbillo advertised his services in a Philippine Daily
Inquirer ad which read Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-
433/521-2667. The Court held that the solicitation of legal
business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation
to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of simple signs stating the name or names of
the lawyers, the office, and the residence address and fields of
practice, as well as advertisements in legal periodicals bearing
the same brief data and the use of calling cards are permissible.
The publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent
with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief
biographical and informative data is likewise allowed.

Misamin v. San Juan 72 SCRA 491 (1976)


FACTS: Atty. San Juan, a captain of the MM Police force and a
member of the bar was charged with coercing an employee,
Misamin, to agree to drop charges filed against his employer Tan
Hua for violation of the Minimum Wage Law. The case was
dismissed for lack of evidence.

Vitriolo v. Dasig 400 SCRA 172 (2003)


FACTS: The SC disbarred Atty. Felina Dasig, the OIC of the
Legal Affairs Service of CHED, for making unlawful demands to
extort money from certain people who had pending applications
in her office for correction of names. Generally speaking, a
lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as
a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his
duties as government official. However, if said misconduct as a
government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of
the Bar.

Zaguirre v. Castillo 398 SCRA 659 (2003)


FACTS: Zaguirre and Castillo were officemates at the NBI.
Zaguirre said that Castillo represented himself to be single,
courted her and promised her marriage. Soon they had intimate
relations and Zaguirre became pregnant. During their affair,
Castillo was preparing for the bar exam which he passed. Only
after Castillo was admitted to the Bar did Zaguirre learn that he
was married. She presented an affidavit executed by Castillo,
who by now is a lawyer admitting his relationship with her and
recognizing the baby she was carrying as his. However, when she
gave birth, Castillo refused to recognize the child and to give her
any form of support. Castillo denied all her allegations and said
that what transpired between them was nothing but mutual lust
and desire. He admitted that he executed the affidavit but
explained that he only did so to save Zaguirre from
embarrassment. He sought understanding from the court by
pointing out that men by nature are polygamous. The SC
indefinitely suspended him from the practice of law for gross
immoral conduct.

Aguirre v. Rana 403 SCRa 342


FACTS: Edwin Rana passed the 2000 Bar Examinations but was
denied admission after it was found that he appeared as counsel
for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal
Board of Election Canvassers of Mandaon, Masbate where he
even filed a pleading representing himself as counsel for and in
behalf of Vice Mayoralty candidate George Bunan. All these he
did before signing the roll of attorneys.

Oca v. Ladanga 350 SCRa 326(2001)


FACTS: The SC sternly reprimanded Atty. Ladaga, Branch Clerk
of Court the RTC of Makati, for practicing law without prior
permission when he appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin.
Atty. Ladaga had actually requested the Court Administrator for authority to appear but nonetheless appeared before
authorization could be given.

Young v. Batuegas 403 SCRA 123 (2003)


FACTS: The Court suspended lawyers who filed a
Manifestation with Motion for Bail on Dec 13, 2000, alleging
that the accused voluntarily surrendered to a person in
authority. The truth is that the accused only surrendered on Dec
14, 2000, as shown by the Certificate of Detention of the NBI.
Respondents declared that on Dec 13, upon learning that a
warrant of arrest was issued for their client, they filed the
Manifestation with motion for bail with the trial court. Then
they immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and brought him
to the NBI to voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy
traffic, they arrived at the NBI at 2:00 am the next day; hence,
the certificate of detention indicated the accused surrendered
on Dec. 14

In re: Soto 82 Phil 595 (1949)


FACTS: Atty. Vicente Sotto, then a Senator of the Republic,
wrote his opinion in the Manila Times regarding the SCs
decision, In re Angel Parazo which was then pending
reconsideration. There the SC cited in contempt a reporter for
his refusal to divulge his source of news published in the paper.
Sotto claims that majority of the members of the Supreme
Court are incompetent and narrow-minded. He also said that
the members of the Court have deliberately committed blunders
and injustices during the past years. The SC cited Sotto in
contempt and required him to show cause why he should not be
disbarred.

MAceda v. Vasquez 221 SCRA 464 (1993)


This prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction is with regard
to whether the office of the ombudsman could entertain a
criminal complaint for the alleged falsification by Judge Maceda
of his certificate of service submitted to the SC, and assuming
that it can, whether a referral should be made first to the SC.

Nestle Phil. V. Sanches 154 SCRa 542 (1987)


FACTS: Two unions with pending cases before the SC had
intermittent pickets in front of the Padre Faura gate of the SC
building, obstructing access to and egress from the Courts
premises. They also constructed provisional shelters, set up a
kitchen, littered the area causing it to be unhygienic and
unsanitized, waved their red streamers and placards with
slogans, and harangued the court with the use of loudspeakers.
Two justices called the leaders of the unions and their counsel
to inform them that the pickets constitute direct contempt of
court, and that their petitions could not be heard until the
pickets stop. Arty Espinas, the counsel for the unions,
apologized and assured that the acts would not be repeated.
The SC dismissed the contempt charges against Atty. Espinas.

In re: De Vera 385 SCRA 285 (2003)


FACTS: Atty. De Vera made some remarks to the Philippine
Daily Inquirer regarding a pending case involving the
constitutionality of the Plunder Law. In one statement, he
asked the SC to dispel rumors that it would vote in favor of a
petition filed by Estradas lawyers to declare the plunder law
unconstitutional and that his group was greatly disturbed by
the rumors. In another statement, he said that a decision in
favor of the laws unconstitutionality would trigger mass actions
and the people would not just swallow any SC decision that is
basically wrong. Atty. De Vera admitted to making the
statements but that these were factually accurate and that
these are within his right to freedom of speech.

Nakpil v. Valdez 286 SCRA 758 (1998)


FACTS: Atty. Carlos Valdes was the lawyer and accountant of
the Nakpils. In 1965, Jose Nakpil wanted to buy a summer
residence in Baguio City but because of lack of funds, he agreed
that Valdes would keep the property in trust until the Nakpils
could buy it back. Valdes took out two loans to purchase the
property. In 1973, Jose Nakpil died. The ownership of the
Baguio property became an issue in the intestate proceedings as
Valdes excluded it from the inventory of Joses estate. In 1978,
Valdes transferred his title to the property to his company. The
estate filed an action for reconveyance and the adminstratix
filed an administrative case to disbar Valdes for (1) maliciously
appropriating the property in trust to his family corporation (2)
including in the claims against the estate the amounts of the two
loans which he claimed were Joses loans probably for the
purchase of a house and lot in Moran St., Baguio City and (3) for
conflict of interest, since his auditing firm prepared the list of
claims of creditors who were also represented by his law firm.
The SC suspended Valdes from the practice of law for one year

Daroy v. Legaspi (1975) Businos v. Ricafort 283 SCRA 40 (1997)


FACTS: The SC disbarred Atty. Legaspi who, without his
clients knowledge, received from the deputy provincial sheriff
P4, 000 as their share in the intestate proceeding of their
maternal grandparents. He misled his clients by informing them
that they could withdraw the money but later admitted that he
had withdrawn the money and spent it. The SC disbarred Atty.
Legaspi.

Businos v. Ricafort 283 SCRA 40 (1997)


FACTS: Atty. Ricafort, as counsel of Busios in a case Busios
won, received from the Clerk of Court of RTC Ligao, Albay, P25,
000 and from OAS Standard High School P5, 000. Busios waited
for the amounts to be deposited in her account. Atty. Ricafort
later informed her that he had spent the money but he
promised to pay her. Only after an estafa case was filed did
Atty. Ricafort pay P60,000 as settlement. Busios dropped the
estafa case but not the disbarment case.

Legarda v. CA 209 SCRA 722 (1992)


FACTS: Legarda was defendant in a complaint for specific
performance. Atty. Coronel, her counsel, failed to file an
answer within the period and Legarda was thus declared in
default. The lower court rendered a decision against Legarda.
Coronel failed to pose an appeal within the period. Thus, the
decision became final. The SC suspended Atty. Coronel for six
months.

Metrobank v. CA 181 SCRA 367 (1981)


FACTS: Lawyers filed verified motion to enter in the records
their charging lien. Attorneys liens were annotated on the
certificate of land titles. Consequently, the other partys
petition against sale of land was granted with prejudice and a
new certificate of title with his name was made wherein
attorneys liens were annotated. The Court held that the
lawyers were not entitled to the enforcement of charging lien
for payment of its attorney's fees and also held that a separate
civil suit is not necessary for the enforcement of such lien

Quirante v. IAC 169 SCRA 769 (1989)


FACTS: Atty Quirante filed a motion for confirmation of
attorneys fees in the trial court, presenting alleged agreement
between him and Casasola about said fee while the main case is
still pending. The case is being heard on appeal. The Court held
that Atty. Quirante cannot have a confirmation of attorneys
fees.

Corpuz v. CA 98 SCRA 424 (1980)


FACTS: Atty David and Corpuz were good friends. In Corpuzs
civil case, David became his counsel. Prior to rendering of final
judgment, Corpuz gave the lawyer a check which the latter
returned. After favorable decision was rendered, Atty. David
demanded attorneys fee which Corpuz refused to deliver
alleging that Davids services were offered gratuitously. The
Court decided that Atty. David should be paid attorneys fees.

Macalinta v. Teh 280 SCRA 623 (1997)


Facts: Atty. Macalintal related to the Court in a letter the
actuations of Judge Teh, relative to Election Case No. R-95-001.
Judge Teh issued a resolution adverse to the client of
complainant. He questioned the resolution via certiorari with
the COMELEC. While case was pending in the COMELEC, Teh
actively participated in the proceedings by filing his comment
on the petition, as well as an urgent manifestation.
Complainant filed a motion for inhibition but instead, Teh hired
his own lawyer and filed answer before the court with prayer.
The SC found that Judge Tehs actuations eroded public
confidence in the administration of justice.

MAsado v. Elizaga 155 SCRA 72 (1987)


FACTS: On May 4, 1987, Judge Masadao rendered a decision
finding the accused, Jaime Tadeo, guilty of estafa. Justice JBL
Reyes entered his appearance for the accused. Judge Masadao
issued an order inhibiting himself from further sitting in the
case on the ground that retired Justice Reyes has been among
those who had recommended him to the bench. A raffle was
conducted and the case was assigned to Judge Elizaga. Judge
Elizaga returned the records with a letter stating his refusal to
act and assailing the re-raffling of the case as uncalled for and
impractical.