LEGAL ETHICS

1. A.C. NO. 9832 September 4, 2017

LOLITA MARTIN vs. ATTY JESUS DELA CRUZ

Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 18.03 and

18.04 of Canon 18 reminds that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client’s request for information. A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.

2. A.C. N.O. 11543 SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

SUSAN BASIYO AND ANDREW WILLIAM SIMMONS vs. ATTY.

JOSELITO C. ALISUAG

Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility; Rule 16.01. A

lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client. A lawyer is expected to uphold the confidence
of his client by not appropriating to himself the money entrusted to
him by his client. In the case at bar, Alisuag' s failure and inordinate
refusal to render an accounting and return the remaining money after
numerous demands raises a reasonable presumption that he had
converted it to his own use.

Same; Same; Rule 16.03. This rule provides that a lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. He
must make an accounting whenever necessary in order to assure that
all the money entrusted to him was used by him as ordered by the
client.

Same; Notarial Law; Duty of a Notary Public. A notary public has

duty to defend a client's cause within the bounds of law, a notary
public has the additional duty to preserve public trust and confidence
in his office by observing extra care and diligence in ensuring the
integrity of every document that comes under his notarial seal, and
seeing to it that only documents that he personally inspected and
whose signatories he personally identified are recorded in his notarial
books.

3. A.C. No. 11478 September 05, 2017

Spouses Chambon vs Atty. Christopher Ruiz

Legal Ethics; Notary Public; by law, a notary public is empowered to

perform the following acts: acknowledgements, oaths and
affirmations, jurat, signature witnessing, copy certification, among
others. The duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and
impressed with public interest. It is not meaningless ministerial act of
acknowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay
the fees for notarization

Same; Same; A notary public is personally accountable for all entries

in his notarial register. He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility
by passing the buck of his secretary. The act of recording such entries
in the Notarial Register is part and parcel of the duties of a notary
public. Keeping in mind the nature of the notary public responsibility,
the respondent should not have shifted such responsibility to his
office’s secretary and allowed her to make such pertinent entries.

4. AC. No. 11483 October 3, 2017

LUZVIMINDA S. CERILLA vs ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA

Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 5. A lawyer

shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing
legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in
law school as well as in the practical training of law students and
assist in disseminating information regarding the law and
jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic
legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they
may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their
obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become
susceptible to committing mistakes.

5. AC. No. 11836 November 21, 2017

CARLINA P. ROBIÑOL vs ATTY. EDILBERTO P. BASSIG

Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 11. A lawyer

shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Respondent’s attitude of refusing to obey the orders of the IBP
indicates his lack of respect for the IBP's rules and regulations, but
also towards the IBP as an institution.
TIJAM, J.:
A.C. NO. 9832 September 4, 2017
LOLITA MARTIN vs. ATTY JESUS DELA CRUZ

Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 18.03 and

18.04 of Canon 18 reminds that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client’s request for information. A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.

FACTS: The complainant, Lolita Martin, engaged the legal service of

the respondent, Atty. Jesus dela Cruz for the cases she filed before the
(a) the Professional Regulation Commission; (b) the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCP-QC); and (c) the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board. Complainant paid P60,000 to respondent as
acceptance fee evidenced by an official receipt. Complainant
repeatedly inquired the status of the case but to no avail. Due to
failure to take any action on her cases, she requested the return of the
acceptance fee. Respondent did not appear in the hearing of the
preliminary investigation claiming. It was rescheduled, however, the
respondent failed to appear again. He claimed that he mistakenly
thought the schedule was at 2 in the afternoon.
　 　 　 　 Martin wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman and to the
Presidential Action Center of the Office on the complaint and action
for disbarment of the respondent. The Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) recommended that respondent be suspended for the
practice of law for one year and ordered to return the acceptance fee
paid by the complainant due to violation of Code of Professional
Responsibility.
　　　　
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively
liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibilit

HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. As stated in Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18

of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him and he shall keep the client informed of
the status of case within a reasonable time to the client’s request for
information. A lawyer is bound to serve his client with competence
and diligence and should be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed upon him. The respondent alleged that he prepared pleadings
for the complainant, however, he failed to prove his claim. His defense
did not give weight to his escape on his negligent act.

　 　 　 　 The Supreme Court found Atty. Jesus Dela Cruz guilty of

violating Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR. The court
imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six
months and ordered the return of acceptance fee of P60,000 to the
complainant.

A.C. N.O. 11543 SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

SUSAN BASIYO AND ANDREW WILLIAM SIMMONS vs. ATTY.

JOSELITO C. ALISUAG

Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility; Rule 16.01. A

lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client. A lawyer is expected to uphold the confidence
of his client by not appropriating to himself the money entrusted to
him by his client. In the case at bar, Alisuag' s failure and inordinate
refusal to render an accounting and return the remaining money after
numerous demands raises a reasonable presumption that he had
converted it to his own use.
Same; Same; Rule 16.03. This rule provides that a lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. He
must make an accounting whenever necessary in order to assure that
all the money entrusted to him was used by him as ordered by the
client.

Same; Notarial Law; Duty of a Notary Public. A notary public has

duty to defend a client's cause within the bounds of law, a notary
public has the additional duty to preserve public trust and confidence
in his office by observing extra care and diligence in ensuring the
integrity of every document that comes under his notarial seal, and
seeing to it that only documents that he personally inspected and
whose signatories he personally identified are recorded in his notarial
books.

PERALTA, J.;

FACTS:
　　　　Petitioners in the present case are common-law husband and
wife who put up a pension house in Puerto Prinsesa, Palawan. They
stared looking for a piece of land since they needed a bigger place.
They met the respondent, Atty. Alisuag, who recommended a lot and
told the former that vendors of the said lot, Rogelio Garcia and
Rosalina Talorong, had full right to dispose it.
　　　　Atty. Alisuag prepared and notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale
covering the subject property. Basiyo signed the document as the
vendee. Previously, Atty. Alisuag also signed an Agreement executed
by the same parties for the same price. Said agreement, however, was
allegedly not duly notarized.
　 　 　 　 For brokering the sale, and preparing and notarizing the
documents, Alisuag received one percent (1%) of the total purchase
price. Petitioners likewise gave him some money for capital gains tax,
estate tax, publication, and for documentary stamp tax. Since
complainants were intending to use the property for business
purposes, Alisuag offered to make for them an Environmental Impact
Study for a Wildlife Permit, for the amount of P300,000.00, and to file
an application for said permit for another P300,000.00. Petitioners,
however, not only failed to get the title to the property, but were
likewise subjected to a criminal charge by Trinidad Ganzon, who
claimed real ownership over the land. Thus, petitioners gave Alisuag
some money for the filing of their counter-affidavit in said case and for
the filing of a civil case against Ganzon.
　 　 　 　 After several months and attempts to contact Alisuag,
complainants were still unable to acquire the title and fence the
purchased lot, the environmental study and wildlife permit remained
unaccomplished, and no case was filed against Ganzon. They then
decided to consult another laywer and told Atty. Alisuag’s wife that
they wanted an accounting of the expenses and return any remaining
money given in connection with the sale.
　 　 　 　 Atty. Alisuag denied the petitioner’s accusations. He
contended that he was not part of the group of brokers who convinced
Simmons to purchase the property.
　　　　Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of
the complaint against Atty. Alisuag due to lack of merit. However, the
IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution which reversed the
recommendation of the Commission. The Board found Atty. Alisuag
guilty of deceit and falsification and ordered his suspension from
practice of law for two years. Hence, this petition.
　　　　
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Alisuag violated various rules of the Code
of Professional Responsibilty.

HELD:
　　　　AFFIRMATIVE. The court ruled that a member of the bar may
be removed or suspended from his office for any deceit, malpractice
or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or
for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to the practice of law. Atty. Alisuag clearly violated his duty
in upholding the respect for law and protecting the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. He allowed and acknowledged a
document which was meant to circumvent laws and deprive the
government of the correct amount of taxes. Additionally, he
undoubtedly violated the some provisions of the CPR when he failed to
file the suit against Ganzon and secure the required environmental
permits, and when he refused to account for the amounts given to him
by complainants. Specifically, he violated rule 16.01 which provides
that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client; rule 16.03 which states that a lawyer
shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand. Alisuag’s failure and inordinate refusal to render an
accounting and return the money after some demands raises a
presumption that he had converted it to his own use.
　 　 　 　 The court futher ruled that Atty. Alisuag, as a notary public
has duty to defend a client's cause within the bounds of law, a notary
public has the additional duty to preserve public trust and confidence
in his office by observing extra care and diligence in ensuring the
integrity of every document that comes under his notarial seal, and
seeing to it that only documents that he personally inspected and
whose signatories he personally identified are recorded in his notarial
books.
A.C. No. 11478 September 05, 2017
Spouses Chambon vs Atty. Christopher Ruiz

Legal Ethics; Notary Public; by law, a notary public is empowered to

perform the following acts: acknowledgements, oaths and
affirmations, jurat, signature witnessing, copy certification, among
others. The duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and
impressed with public interest. It is not meaningless ministerial act of
acknowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay
the fees for notarization

Same; Same; A notary public is personally accountable for all entries

in his notarial register. He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility
by passing the buck of his secretary. The act of recording such entries
in the Notarial Register is part and parcel of the duties of a notary
public. Keeping in mind the nature of the notary public responsibility,
the respondent should not have shifted such responsibility to his
office’s secretary and allowed her to make such pertinent entries.

Facts: Spouses Chambon were creditors of Remoreras and to secure

the debt, they entered into a Real Estate Mortgage covering a parcel
of land with improvements. As Remoreras failed to pay her obligation
the spouses instituted an extra judicial foreclosure proceedings on the
subject property. However the counsel of Spouses Chambon learned
that an Order was issued for the issuance of a Duplicate Copy over the
property grounded on a Notarized Notice of Loss over the subject title
filed by Remoreras. Remoreras filed a complaint to enjoin the action
instituted against her on the basis of a Releases of Mortgage allegedly
executed by the spouses. They learned that the Notice of Loss and the
Release of Mortgage was notarized by herein respondent. The
petitioners also found some defects on the Notice making the
notarization questionable. In the jurat of said notice there was no
competent evidence of identity of the executor. Moreover, it was found
out that some informations required to be indicated in the notarial
book were lacking. These incidents prompted the Spouses to complain
against the respondent for violation of Rules on Notarial Practice. The
respondent denied the allegation but he imputed negligence on her
secretary.

Issue: Whether or Not Atty. Ruiz, respondent should be

administratively liable for unlawfully notarizing a document.

Held: Affirmative. A notary public is personally accountable for all

entries in his notarial register. He cannot relieve himself of this
responsibility by passing the buck of his secretary. The act of
recording such entries in the Notarial Register is part and parcel of
the duties of a notary public. It is undisputed that the required
informations to be entered in notarial register did not bear the details
provided under rule IV section 1 and 2 of rules on notarial practice.
There are violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. For one
the jurat was incomplete in that the competent proof of identity of the
executor was left in blank. The respondent affixed his signature and
seal on the notarial certificate without verifying the identity of the
executor’s identity. Such was inferred from the fact that it was
incomplete, is a clear violation of the Rules. Keeping in mind the
nature of the notary public responsibility, the respondent should not
have shifted such responsibility to his office’s secretary and allowed
her to make such pertinent entries. For notarization by a notary public
converts private document into a public document making the same
admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity thus a
notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its
face.
A notary public carries with him a duty imbued with public
interest. At all times a notary public must be wary of the duties
pertaining to his office thus those who are not qualified to live up with
the mandate of such office must in absolute terms be stripped off such
authority. The imposition of the penalty of revocation of notarial
commission and suspension from the practice of law for a period of
one year is considered as just and proper.
　　　　
AC. No. 11483 October 3, 2017
LUZVIMINDA S. CERILLA vs ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA

Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 5. A lawyer

shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing
legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in
law school as well as in the practical training of law students and
assist in disseminating information regarding the law and
jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic
legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they
may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their
obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become
susceptible to committing mistakes.

PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
Luzviminda S. Cerilla filed a complaint against Atty. Samuel SM.
Lezama with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for gross
misconduct. She stated that she was one of the co-owners of a parcel
of land in Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Sibulan, Negros
Oriental. Being such, she engaged the services of Atty. Lezama to file
an unlawful detainer case against Carmelita S. Garlito with the
Municipal Trial Court of Sibulan, Negros Oriental. Since she was
working at Camp Aguinaldo at that time, Cerilla executed a Special
Power of Attorney in favor the accused lawyer. According to Cerilla,
the SPA she executed was used by the accused lawyer in order to
enter into a compromise agreement with unlawful detainer for the
price of Php350,000 without her consent. Furthermore, the
complainant accused the Atty. Lezama of misrepresenting her in the
compromise agreement since she never agreed with the amount
stated in the Compromise Agreement. Atty. Lezama, in his defense,
contended that the SPA given to him was sufficient authority to enter
into the said compromise agreement and that the agreed price of the
said property was the same amount the complainant paid for the
purchase of the property from the Gringio family. According to him, he
entered into the agreement in under the honest and sincere belief that
it was the fairest and equitable arrangement.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar
Discipline held a mandatory conference and found that Atty. Lezama
was guilty of violating Canons 15 and 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended that the respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for two years. The IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved the report and the recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner. The respondent motioned for
recommendation which was denied by the IBP.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent should be administratively

disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint and evidence on
record.

HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The Supreme Court ruled that the

respondent’s act of entering into the Compromise Agreement based
on the SPA given to him is not meritorious for there was nowhere in
the SPA which stated that the respondent is authorized to compromise
on the sale of the property or to sell the property of the complainant.
He also argued that his action was based on the honest belief that he
was serving both his client and the policy of the law for amicable
settlement but his justification prejudiced his client since the property
she was not willing to sell was sold at a price the respondent decided
on his own. However, this was not given merit by the Supreme Court
by countering that it is imperative for a lawyer that they be
conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply
with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and
diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may
become susceptible to committing mistakes. He was therefore found
guilty of violating Canons 5, 15, and 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Being such, he was suspended from the practice of law
for a period of two years and sternly warned.
AC. No. 11836 November 21, 2017
CARLINA P. ROBIÑOL vs ATTY. EDILBERTO P. BASSIG
Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 11. A lawyer
shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Respondent’s attitude of refusing to obey the orders of the IBP
indicates his lack of respect for the IBP's rules and regulations, but
also towards the IBP as an institution.

TIJAM, J.:
FACTS:
Carlina Robiñol filed a disbarment case against Atty. Edilberto P.
Bassig for violation of Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Lawyer’s Oath. The complainant alleged that the respondent rented
ahouse from her In Brgy. Tanong, Marikina City with a monthly rental
of Php8,500. The lease was without any written contract and was for a
period of two years. Upon the agreement, Atty. Bassig agreed that he
will pay one-month advance and another month deposit but he did not
comply. Instead, he paid the monthly rental from June 13, 2010 to July
13, 2010. He then paid his rents belatedly from July 2010 to January
2012. After the said perios, he stopped making his payments. Robiñol
alleged that the las payment was in the amount of Php17,000 made in
July 2012. Atty. Bassige then promised that he will pay the remaining
unpaid rent and was then allowed to stay in the premises. When
Typhoon Habagat struck Marikina City, Atty. Bassig left without
informing Robiñol of his destination nor did he satisfy his unsettled
obligation. Robiñol found out that Atty. Bassig was staying with his
daughter and went there to demand for the payment. He executed a
promissory note in which he stated that he will pay half of the amount
due on August and the other half on September. However, he still did
not comply which prompted the complainant in instituting this case..
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued a Notice of
Mandatory Conference in which only Robiñol appeared. Likewise, the
Orders dated February 25, 201511 and March 25, 201512 issued by
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) reveals that only Robifiol appeared in the scheduled
mandatory conferences.The report and recommendation by the
Commissioner dated November 20, 2015, stated that Atty. Bassig be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years for his
failure to answer despite due notice and to appear on the scheduled
hearings which showed his resistance to lawful orders and his
despiciency for his oath of office as a lawyer. The IBP Board of
Governors then adopted the resolution and recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent should be administratively
disciplined for not complying with the orders of the IBP-CBD.
HELD: Affrimative. Canon 11 of PRC states that A lawyer shall
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Thus, He is
liable for violating the aforecited rule as he filed to abide by the
orders of the IBP which indicates his lack of respect for the IBP’s rule
and regulations and the IBP itself. The Supreme Court reiterated that
his attitude of refusing to obey the orders of the IBP indicates his lack
of respect for the IBP's rules and regulations22, but also towards the
IBP as an institution. Remarkably, the IBP is empowered by the
Supreme Court to conduct proceedings regarding the discipline of
lawyers. Hence, it is but proper for the respondet, Atty. Bassig to be
mindful of his duty as a member of the bar to maintain his respect
towards a duly constituted authority. In disregarding the orders of the
IBP, he exhibited a conduct which runs contrary to his sworn duty as
an officer of the court.He was now ordered to pay a fine of Php10,000
and being sternly warned.