A.C. No.

10573 January 13, 2015

FERNANDO W. CHU, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., Respondent.

Facts:

Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle the labor disputes involving his company, CVC San
Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC). Atty. Guico’s legal services included handling a complaint for illegal dismissal
brought against CVC. Chu alleged that Atty. Guico asked him to prepare a substantial amount of money to be
given to the NLRC Commissioner handling the appeal to insure a favorable decision. Chu complied, and later
on called Atty. Guico to confirm that he had delivered P300,000.00 to Nardo, Atty. Guico’s assistant.
Subsequently, Atty. Guico met Chu in a coffee shop, wherein Atty. Guico handed Chu a copy of an alleged
draft decision of the NLRC in favor of CVC. The draft decision6was printed on the dorsal portion of used paper
apparently emanating from the office of Atty. Guico. On that occasion, the latter told Chu to raise another
₱300,000.00 to encourage the NLRC Commissioner to issue the decision. But Chu could only produce
₱280,000.00, which he brought to Atty. Guico’s office.

Subsequently, the NLRC promulgated a decision adverse to CVC. Chu confronted Atty. Guico, who in
turn referred Chu to Nardo for the filing of a motion for reconsideration. After the denial of the motion for
reconsideration, Atty. Guico caused the preparation and filing of an appeal in the Court of Appeals. Finally,
Chu terminated Atty. Guico as legal counsel.

Issue

Did Atty. Guico violate the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for demanding and receiving ₱580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a favorable decision from the
NLRC?

Ruling of the Court

Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in advising Chu to raise the large sums of money in
order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor case. He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption.
His acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant breach of his ethical commitments under
the Lawyer’s Oath not to delay any man for money or malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility that forbade him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His deviant
conduct eroded the faith of the people in him as an individual lawyer as well as in the Legal Profession as a
whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.

Any gross misconduct by an attorney in his professional or private capacity renders him unfit to manage
the affairs of others, and is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment, because
good moral character is an essential qualification for the admission of an attorney and for the continuance of
such privilege.

The Court found the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to suspend him from the practice
of law for three (3) years would be too soft a penalty. Instead, he should be disbarred, for he exhibited his
unworthiness of retaining his membership in the legal profession. ACCORDINGLY, the Court declared
respondent ATTY. JOSE S. GUICO, JR. GUILTY of the violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, and Rules 1.01 and 1.02,
Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and disbarred him from membership in the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines.

A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016

NENITA D. SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS, Respondent.

Facts:

Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez sought the legal services of the respondent to represent her in the
annulment of her marriage with her estranged husband. The respondent accepted the engagement, fixing his
fee at P150,000.00, plus the appearance fee of P5,000.00/hearing. Complainant paid the respondent the initial
amount of P90,000.00.
When complainant went to respondent’s residence in May 2005 to inquire on the developments in her
case, he told her that he would only start working on the case upon her full payment of the acceptance fee.
She also learned then that what he had contemplated to file for her was a petition for legal separation, not
one for the annulment of her marriage. He further told her that she would have to pay a higher acceptance
fee for the annulment of her marriage. She subsequently withdrew the case from him, and requested the
refund of the amounts already paid, but he refused to do the same as he had already started working on the
case. She sent him a letter, through her new lawyer, to demand the return of her payment less whatever
amount corresponded to the legal services he had already performed but that the respondent did not heed
her demand letter despite his not having rendered any appreciable legal services to her.

Issues

(a) whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for misconduct; and

(b) whether or not he should be ordered to return the attorney's fees paid.

Ruling of the Court

Respondent was liable for misconduct, and he should be ordered to return the entire amount received from the
client

The respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the complainant. He did not know the
distinction between the grounds for legal separation and for annulment of marriage. Such knowledge would
have been basic and expected of him as a lawyer accepting a professional engagement for either causes of
action. As such, the respondent failed to live up to the standards imposed on him as an attorney. He thus
transgressed Canon 18, and Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provide that A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Accordingly, the respondent shall be fined in the amount of P10,000.00 for his misrepresentation of his
professional competence, and he is further to be ordered to return the entire amount of P70,000.00 received
from the client, plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of the decision until full payment.

The Court also found that Respondent did not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleague. Canon 8 provides: "A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel." The
respondent's statement in his answer that the demand from Atty. Martinez should be treated "as a mere scrap
of paper or should have been addressed by her counsel x x x to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may
service its rightful purpose" constituted simple misconduct that the Court cannot tolerate. The Court
REPRIMANDed him for his use of offensive and improper language towards his fellow attorney, with the stern
warning that a repetition of the offense shall be severely punished.

[A.M. No. P-99-1292. February 26, 1999]

JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO R. GATDULA, Branch Clerk of
Court, respondent.

RESOLUTION
FACTS:

Complainant charged Rolando R. Gatdula, with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in
the private practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as Branch Clerk of Court. She alleged
that she is the authorized representative of her sister Flor Borromeo de Leon, the plaintiff in an ejectment case
filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. A decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff who
subsequently filed a motion for execution. Complainant however, was surprised to receive a temporary
restraining order signed by Judge Prudencio Castillo of Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City, where Atty. Rolando
Gatdula is the Branch Clerk of Court, enjoining the execution of the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Complainant further alleged that when she went to Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City, to inquire about the
reason for the issuance of the temporary restraining order, respondent Atty. Rolando Gatdula, told her that if
she wanted the execution to proceed, she should change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent
at the same time giving his calling card with the name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera".

Issue:
Did Atty. Gatdula violate any law for engaging in private practice while serving as Clerk of Court?
Ruling:
Yes. Respondent’s explanation is an admission that it is his name which appears on the calling card, a
permissible form of advertising or solicitation of legal services. Respondent does not claim that the calling card
was printed without his knowledge or consent and the calling card carries his name primarily and the name of
"Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera with address at 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao,
Quezon City" in the left comer. The card clearly gives the impression that he is connected with the said law
firm. The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates
Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees" which declares it unlawful for a public official or employee to,
among others:

"(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that
such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions."

The Court reiterated the rule that the conduct and behavior of every one connected with an office
charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk should be circumscribed
with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times must not only be characterized by proprietor
and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion. Accordingly, the Court reprimanded Atty. Gatdula
for engaging in the private practice of law with the warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt
with more severely. He is further ordered to cause the exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office
engaged in the private practice of law.

A.C. No. 10676 September 8, 2015

ATTY. ROY B. ECRAELA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. IAN RAYMOND A. PANGALANGAN, Respondent.

Facts:

Complainant and respondent were best friends and both graduated from the University of the
Philippines (UP) College of Law in 1990. Respondent was formerly married to Sheila P. Jardiolin (Jardiolin) with
whom he has three (3) children. Complainant avers that while married to Jardiolin, respondent had a series of
adulterous and illicit relations with married and unmarried women between the years 1990 to 2007.

Aside from these illicit affairs, complainant avers that sometime during the period of 1998 to 2000, respondent,
as a lawyer of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), represented the interest of Manila
International Airport Authority (MIAA) in cancellation proceedings filed by MIAA against Kendrick Development
Corporation (KOC). However, despite being a public officer and a government counsel, respondent conspired
with Atty. Abraham Espejo, legal counsel of KDC, and assisted KDC in its case, thereby sabotaging MIAA's case,
and, in effect, that of the Philippine Government.

Issue

Whether the respondent committed gross immoral conduct, which would warrant his disbarment.

Ruling:

The Court agrees with the Board of Governors' resolution finding that Atty. Pangalangan's grossly immoral
conduct was fully supported by the evidences offered.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 1 - A LA WYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT
FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

xxxx

CANON 7 - A LA WYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life. behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

The practice of law is a privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for
the profession.44 Good moral character is not only required for admission to the Bar, but must also be retained in
order to maintain one's good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity. 45
The Court ruled that the IBP Report was correct when it found that respondent violated Article XV, Section 2 of
the 1987 Constitution. In engaging in such illicit relationships, Respondent disregarded the sanctity of marriage
and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws, which as a lawyer he swore
under oath to protect. The 1987 Constitution, specifically A1iicle XV, Section 2 thereof clearly provides that
marriage, an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

Aside from respondent's illicit relations, the Court also held that respondent violated Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as well as Rule I 0.01 and Rule 10.03 thereof, which provide that A LAWYER OWES
CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

In denying complainant's allegations, respondent had no other intention but to mislead the IBP, which intention
was more so established because complainant was able to submit supporting documents in the form of
certified true copies of the Senate Report, the Ombudsman's Resolution, and Information.

In all, Atty. Pangalangan displayed deplorable arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of
marriage, and taking advantage of his legal skills by attacking the Petition through technicalities and refusing
to participate in the proceedings. His actions showed that he lacked the degree of morality required of him as
a member of the bar, thus warranting the penalty of disbarment.

No. 8560, September 06, 2016

CARRIE-ANNE SHALEEN CARLYLE S. REYES, Complainant, v. ATTY. RAMON F. NIEVA, Respondent.

Facts:

Complainant alleged that she has been working at the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP)
as an Administrative Aide on a Job Order basis since October 2004 and was reassigned at the CAAP Office of
the Board Secretary under the supervision of respondent, who was then acting as CAAP Acting Board
Secretary. Complainant averred that whenever respondent got close to her, he would hold her hand and
would sometimes give it a kiss. Respondent also offered her a cellular phone together with the necessary load
to serve as means for their private communication, but she refused the said offer.

Complainant also narrated that on April 2, 2009, respondent asked complainant to encode a memorandum he
was about to dictate. Suddenly, respondent placed his hand on complainant's waist area near her breast and
started caressing the latter's torso. Complainant immediately moved away from respondent. Instead of asking
for an apology, respondent told complainant he was willing to give her P2,000.00 a month from his own pocket
and even gave her a note stating "just bet (between) you and me, x x x kahit na si mommy," referring to
complainant's mother who was also working at CAAP. At around past 11 o'clock in the morning of the same
day, while complainant and respondent were left alone in the office, respondent suddenly closed the door,
grabbed complainant's arm, and uttered "let's seal it with a kiss," then attempted to kiss complainant. This
prompted complainant to thwart respondent's advances, raised her voice in order to invite help. After
respondent let her go, complainant immediately left the office to ask assistance from her former supervisor who
advised her to file an administrative case4 against respondent before the CAAP Committee on Decorum and
Investigation (CODI).

The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The Court's Ruling

Yes. The Court found respondent Atty. Ramon F. Nieva GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03,
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and SUSPENDED him from the practice of law for a period of
two (2) years, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.

Good moral character is a trait that every practicing lawyer is required to possess. It may be defined as "what a
person really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him, or the
estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective
term but one which corresponds to objective reality." 24 Such requirement has four (4) ostensible purposes,
namely: (a) to protect the public; (b) to protect the public image of lawyers; (c) to protect prospective clients;
and (d) to protect errant lawyers from themselves.25

Transcript proves that there was indeed a period of time where complainant and respondent were left alone in
the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary which gave respondent a window of opportunity to carry out his acts
constituting sexual harassment against complainant.

In addition, it has been established that respondent habitually watches pornographic materials in his office-
issued laptop while inside the office premises, during office hours, and with the knowledge and full view of his
staff. The Court cannot countenance such audacious display of depravity on respondent's part not only
because his obscene habit tarnishes the reputation of the government agency he works for but also because it
shrouds the legal profession in a negative light. As a lawyer in the government service, respondent is expected
to perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence, and
skill, and with utmost devotion and dedication to duty.