1. Panagsahan vs. Panagsahan , Oct.

1, 2019

A. The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the
duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. When a lawyer
collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose, he should promptly account to the
client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must
immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render an accounting or to return the money if the
intended purpose of the money does not materialize constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. 25

Thus, Atty. Panagsagan's failure to return Yoshimura's money despite repeated demands gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of, the
trust reposed in him by the client. It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional
ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.

B. We likewise cannot overlook Atty. Panagsagan's reprehensible conduct when he asked Yoshimura for the
amount of P40,000.00 as "under the table" allegedly to expedite the release of the yellow plates of the
bus units with plate numbers PHP-559 and RHP 568. Undoubtedly, this act of Atty. Panagsagan is
tantamount to grave misconduct. The act of demanding a sum of money from his client, purportedly to
be used as a bribe to expedite a transaction, is not only an abuse of his client's trust but an overt act of
undermining the trust and faith of the public in the legal profession. As officers of the court, lawyers owe
their utmost fidelity to public service and the administration of justice. In no way should a lawyer indulge
in any act that would damage the public's perception of the dispensation of justice.

C. Adding to Atty. Panagsagan's list of infractions was his violation of the notarial law. He notarized on June
10, 2009 the management contract between Yoshimura and Bernadette and Sta. Monica without all the
affiant's personal appearance. To reiterate, Yoshimura and Bernadette maintained that they have never
met Rhoel Correa. Thus, considering that both Yoshimura and Bernadette, and Rhoel Correa have never
met each other prior to June 2, 2010, it can be surmised that at the time of the notarization of the
contract on June 10, 2009, both or one of them did not appear before Atty. Panagsagan.
D. We also find deplorable his defiant stance against the IBP as demonstrated by his repetitive disregard of
the IBP's directives to file his comment on the complaint. He also has missed all scheduled hearings set by
the IBP. Due to his non-chalant attitude on the proceedings before the IBP, this case has dragged on for an
unnecessary length of time. There is, thus, no question that his failure or obstinate refusal without
justification or valid reason to comply with the IBP's indicates a lack of respect for the IBP's rules and
procedures. As an officer of the Court, Atty. Panagsagan is expected to know that said directives of the
IBP, as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers, is not a mere request
but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely.

As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer's duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The highest
form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer's obedience to court orders and processes.
Considering Atty. Panagsagan's propensity to disregard not only the laws of the land but also the lawful
orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor. He proved himself unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Indeed, Atty. Panagsagan is
unfit to discharge the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

2. Guevarra vs. Atty. Eala, Aug. 1, 2007

Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has been sufficiently proven
by more than clearly preponderant evidence — that evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and
credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the other  — which is the quantum of
evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.
 Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides that the grounds for disbarment or
suspension uses the phrase "grossly immoral conduct," not "under scandalous circumstances." Sexual intercourse
under scandalous circumstances is, an element of the crime of concubinage when a married man has sexual
intercourse with a woman elsewhere.
"Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should
be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on the surrounding circumstances."  The case at bar
involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial
whether the affair was carried out discreetly. The Family Code obligates the husband and the wife "to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support." 
Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful,dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon
7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law."
That the marriage between complainant and Irene was subsequently declared void ab initio is immaterial.
The acts complained of took place before the marriage was declared null and void.  As a lawyer, respondent should
be aware that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed, unless proven
otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. In carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene prior
to the judicial declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and despite respondent himself
being married, he showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be
a lawyer. 

3. Compare Noble vs. Ailes, Jan. 7, 2015

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.

Canon 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Rule 8.02 — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or
favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel.
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who meet high standards of legal proficiency and morality. It
is a special privilege burdened with conditions before the legal profession, the courts, their clients and the society
such that a lawyer has the duty to comport himself in a manner as to uphold integrity and promote the public's
faith in the profession. Consequently, a lawyer must at all times, whether in public or private life, act in a manner
beyond reproach especially when dealing with fellow lawyers.

Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting
the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the
dignity of the judicial forum. The Court treated a lawyer's use of the words "lousy," "inutile," "carabao English,"
"stupidity," and "satan" in a letter addressed to another colleague as defamatory and injurious which effectively
maligned his integrity. Similarly, the hurling of insulting language to describe the opposing counsel is considered
conduct unbecoming of the legal profession. 
Here, IBP found the text messages that Orlando sent to his brother Marcelo as casual communications
considering that they were conveyed privately. To the Court's mind, however, the tenor of the messages cannot
be treated lightly. The text messages were clearly intended to malign and annoy Maximino, as evident from the
use of the word "polpol" (stupid). Likewise, Orlando's insistence that Marcelo immediately terminate the
services of Maximino indicates Orlando's offensive conduct against his colleague, in violation of the above-
quoted rules. Moreover, Orlando's voluntary plea of guilty to the crime of unjust vexation in the criminal case
filed against him by Marcelo was, for all intents and purposes, an admission that he spoke ill, insulted, and
disrespected Maximino — a departure from the judicial decorum which exposes the lawyer to administrative
liability.

4. Belo vs. Guevarra, Dec. 1, 2016

In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his act of publicly insulting and
undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject Facebook posts are, therefore, in complete and
utter violation of the following provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility:
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.
Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 — A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives
of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact
that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He
overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm,
and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law,
and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and BMGI's
reputation.
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage who is exposed to
criticism  does not justify respondent's disrespectful language.
"Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their private capacity, as long as their
misconduct reflects their want of probity or good demeanor, a good character being an essential qualification for
the admission to the practice of law and for continuance of such privilege. When the Code of Professional
Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of conduct or misconduct, the reference is not confined to one's
behavior exhibited in connection with the performance of lawyers' professional duties, but also covers any
misconduct, which — albeit unrelated to the actual practice of their profession — would show them to be unfit
for the office and unworthy of the privileges which their license and the law invest in them." 

5. Compare Hierro vs. Nava II Jan. 24, 2020

A. We are not convinced by Atty. Nava's defense that he accepted the engagement by Annalyn because of
emergency, exigency and on temporary capacity only. As a lawyer, he should have used better
judgment to foresee the possibility of conflict of interest as that is what the society expects of him.
Besides, even if the filing of the TPO is an emergency which requires a swift response, he could have
easily recommended another competent lawyer in his place.

B. As for the gross immorality charge against Atty. Nava, a thorough review of the records would show
that there is merit to the said charge. In order to exculpate himself from any liability, he highlights the
dismissal of the complaint for adultery against him and Annalyn by the Office of the Prosecutor.
 However, it must be noted that administrative cases are sui generis and are not affected by the result of
any civil or criminal case. They do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, being neither purely civil nor
purely criminal, but rather involve investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers. 
Therefore, the instant case, being administrative in nature, may proceed independently and is not
bound by the outcome of any criminal and civil proceeding.
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, public interest is its primary objective, and the real question
for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed to practice law.

C. Immoral conduct, or immorality, is that which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show

indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. As a basis of
disciplinary action, such immoral conduct, or immorality must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute
a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. 
Time and again, the Court has pointed out that when the integrity or morality of a member of the bar is
challenged, it is not enough that he/she denies the charge, for he/she must meet the issue and
overcome the evidence presented on the charge. He/she must present proof that he/she still maintains
the degree of integrity and morality expected of him/her at all times.  Atty. Nava failed in this regard.

6. Parungao vs. Lacuanan, March 11, 2020

A. The prohibition against a lawyer representing conflicting interests is rooted in his duty to protect the
interest and confidence of his clients. A member of the bar vows in the Lawyer's Oath to conduct
himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the
courts as well as to his client. To ensure the fidelity of a lawyer to his clients, Canon 15.03 of
the CPR prescribes that "[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts[;]" while Canon 17 of the same Code mandates
that "[a] lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him." Section 20 (e) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court likewise enjoins a lawyer "[t]o maintain
inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client x x x."
A lawyer's duty to protect the interest and confidence of his client, together with the corollary
obligation not to represent interest in conflict or inconsistent with the same, extends even beyond the
end of his professional engagement with said client.

For there to be conflicting interests when a former client is involved, the following circumstances
must concur: (a) the lawyer is called upon in his present engagement to make use against a former
client confidential information which was acquired through their connection or previous
employment, and (b) the present engagement involves transactions that occurred during the lawyer's
employment with the former client and matters that the lawyer previously handled for the said
client.

B. Under Canon 21 of the CPR, "[a] lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even
after the attorney-client relation is terminated." It is settled that the mere relation of attorney and
client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. Proof must be presented that the client intended
the communication to be confidential

7. Compare Lapitan vs. Salgado, Feb. 18, 2020

Rule 10.01, Rule 10.03 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
RULE 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor
shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
RULE 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.
CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. (Emphasis supplied)
In the present case, Salgado clearly continues to disregard the lawful orders of the Court. Salgado remains a
fugitive from justice in both his Estafa case under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial
Court of Tagaytay City and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in the Municipal Trial Court of Tagaytay City.
Notably, Salgado has evaded both proceedings before the trial courts and the IBP-CBD. As a member of the legal
profession, Salgado has the duty to obey the orders and processes of the Court. The conduct of Salgado clearly
demonstrates the lack of respect for the Court and the Court's lawful procedures which cannot be tolerated by
the Court.

8. Martin-Ortega vs. Tadena, Jan. 29, 2020

In administrative proceedings, complainants bear the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by
substantial evidence  or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. In the present case, it cannot be denied that complainant Zenaida failed to discharge that
burden.
The Court is, however, one with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that Atty. Tadena must,
nonetheless, be admonished with warning that a repetition of the same acts will be dealt with more severely.
Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of truth and the
administration of justice. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding
execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest
of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client's right, they should not forget that they are, first and
foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. Their office does not permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. A lawyer's
responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by
ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal
profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. They advance the honor of their profession and
the best interests of their clients when they render service or give advice that meets the strictest principles of
moral law.

9. Palaban Carp Framers vs. de la Rosa, Aug. 14, 2019

Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of
behavior. It is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of
established rule are present. Otherwise, it is only simple.

The rule against conflict of interest is founded on the bedrock of lawyer-client relationship-it is a fiduciary
relationship. The prohibition against conflict of interest is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste.

A lawyer is prohibited from acting or continuing to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest, except when
there is a written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of facts.

The rule against conflict of interest requires a lawyer to decline a retainer from prospective client or withdraw
from a client’s ongoing matter.