CANON 10

FABROA v. PAGUINTO
(A.C. No. 6273, March 15, 2010)

FACTS:
Information for Estafa was filed against the complainant in a joint affidavit-
complaint. The trial court granted the Motion to Quash the Information filed by the
complainant because it did not indicate the involvement of complainant while the Motion
for Reconsideration of the quashal of the Information was denied. Six other complaints
were filed but the respondent filed a Motion to Withdraw them.
A Notice of Special General Assembly of General Mariano Alvarez Service
Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received by the complainant, about the removal of four
members of the Board of Directors including her. Then the current board Gerangco
declared himself as Chair, appointed the respondent as Board Secretary and others to
replace the positions. The respondent and his group took over the GEMASCO office. The
complainant filed a complaint for annulment of the proceedings and was declared null
and void for violating the GEMASCO’s By-Laws and the Cooperative Code of the
Philippines. Complainant filed against respondent for disbarment. The Court referred the
complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of respondent constitute violation of Canon 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility
Held:
Yes. Respondent is guilty of violating Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that xxx A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court. xxx

Both parties were ordered to submit position papers and despite grant on the
motion of extension the respondent did not file any position paper while the complainant
filed hers. Investigating Commissioner Lolita A. Quisumbing, in her Report and
Recommendation, suggested that the suspension should be for two years. The
respondent was already suspended for six months for violating the Lawyer’s Oath,
Canons 1, 8, 10 and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court held
that a more severe penalty should be given to the Respondent for violating the provisions
of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines, the GEMASCO By-Laws and the Lawyer’s
Oath for filing baseless criminal complaints against complainant and that he have
received an acceptance fee and misled the client into believing that he had filed a case for
her when he had not.

Hence, Atty. Paguinto is suspended for two years from the practice of law for
violation of Canons 1, 8, 10 and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Lawyer’s Oath.
 CANON 10

CONLU v. AREDONIA
(A.C. No. 4955, September 12, 2011)

FACTS:
Antonio Conlu filed a complaint for disbarment with a prayer for damages against
Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr. on grounds of gross negligence and dereliction of sworn duty.
Antonio was the defendant in Civil Case No. 1048. He engaged the services of Atty.
Ireneo to represent him in the case. The RTC rendered judgment adverse to Antonio.
Therefrom, Atty. Ireneo, for Antonio, appealed to the Court of Appeals whereat the
recourse. The CA, per its Resolution of February 10, 1997, , eventually dismissed the
appeal for non-filing of the appellant's brief within the reglementary period. When
confronted about the dismissal action, Atty. Ireneo promised to seek reconsideration,
which he did, but which the appellate court later denied for belated filing of the motion.
Antonio elevated his case to the Court on a petition for Certiorari but the Court would
later dismiss the petition and his subsequent motion to reconsider the denial.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Atty. Ireneo tried to mislead the appellate court about the receipt of a copy
of its February 10, 1997 Resolution dismissing the appeal. He denied personally receiving
such copy, but the CA found and declared that he himself received said copy. The CA
arrived at this conclusion thru the process of comparing Atty. Ireneo's signature
appearing in the pleadings with that in the registry return card. Both signatures belong
to one and the same person. Needless to stress, Atty. Ireneo had under the premises
indulged in deliberate falsehood, contrary to Canon 10, Rule 10.01 which provides that
xxx A lawyer shall not don 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. xxx
 CANON 10

DAGALA v. ATTY. QUESADA, JR. & ATTY. ADQUILEN

(A.C. No. 5044, December 2, 2013)

FACTS:
On November 8, 1994 complainant, assisted by Atty. Quesada, filed before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), for illegal dismissal, overtime pay,
separation pay, damages and attorney’s fees against Capitol Allied Trading & Transport
(Capitol).The said case was, however, dismissed without prejudice for failure of
complainant and Atty. Quesada to appear during the two (2) scheduled mandatory
conference hearings despite due notice. Thereafter, complainant engaged the services of
Atty. Adquilen, who re-filed his labor case. Similarly, the case was dismissed without
prejudice this time due to the parties' failure to submit their respective position papers.

Complainant and Atty. Adquilen re-filed the case for a third time on August 27,
1996. During its pendency, the representative of Capitol purportedly offered the amount
of P74,000.00 as settlement of complainant's claim, conditioned on the submission of the
latter’s position paper.

Atty. Adquilen, however, failed to submit one, resulting in the dismissal of the
complaint "for lack of interest and failure to prosecute.” Complainant, this time assisted
by Atty. Imelda L. Picar, filed a motion for reconsideration. However, the NLRC-NCR
dismissed the same in a Resolution for having been filed out of time, adding that the
negligence of counsel binds the client.

Due to the foregoing, Atty. Picar sent separate letters to respondents, informing
them that complainant is in the process of pursuing administrative cases against them
before the Court. Atty. Quesada undertook to compensate the damages sustained by
complainant in consideration of the non-filing of an administrative complaint against
him. Atty. Quesada, however, reneged on his promise.

In view of Atty. Adquilen's death prior to the promulgation of this Decision, the
Court dismissed the case against him. Hence, what is left for resolution is the complaint
against Atty. Quesada.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Quesada should be held administratively liable for gross
negligence in handling complainant’s labor case.

HELD:
Yes. The Court concurs with and affirms the findings of the IBP anent Atty.
Quesada’s administrative liability. In the present case, the Court finds Atty. Quesada to
have violated the foregoing Rules and Canons. Primarily, Atty, Quesada failed to exercise
the required diligence in handling complainant’s case by his failure to justify his absence
on the two (2) mandatory conference hearings in NLRC Case No. RAB-I-11-1123-94
despite due notice, which thus resulted in its dismissal. It bears stressing that a retained
counsel is expected to serve the client with competence and diligence and not to sit idly
by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty. To this end, he is oblige to
attend scheduled hearings or conferences, prepare and file the required pleadings,
prosecute the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urge their termination without
waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.

CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO

THE COURT. 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. x x x

In relation to canon 10, Atty. Quesada acted with less candor and good faith in the
proceedings before the IBP-CBD when he denied the existence of any lawyer-client
relationship between him and complainant, and claimed that the labor case was handled
by another lawyer,47 despite his previous admission48before the Court of having accepted
complainant's case. To add a perusal of the complaint49 dated November 8, 1994 in NLRC
Case No. RAB-I-11-1123-94 reveals that Atty. Quesada signed the same as counsel for
complainant.50

Under the premises, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that Atty. Quesada had
indulged in deliberate falsehood, contrary to the prescriptions under Rule 1.01, Canon 1
and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code.53

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating

Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is accordingly SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a stern
warning that a repitition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
 CANON 10

QUE v. ATTY. REVILLA, JR.

(A.C. No. 7054, December 4, 2009)

FACTS:
The respondent’s abuse courts remedies and processes by filing petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for annulment of title at the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for annulment of judgment in the RTC and lastly,
a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC (collectively, subject cases)to assail and
overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and RTC in the
unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondent clients.

The respondent also committed forum – shopping by filing the subject cases in
order to obstruct, impede, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own
personal gain and to defeat the right of the complainant and his siblings to execute the
MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical
infractions and professional misconduct, and the penalty these transgression should
carry.

HELD:
The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the
complainant that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the
late Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico) who is the previous counsel of the
respondent’s clients.

Atty. Revilla fabricated an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in open
court which allegedly denied the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said
case where the respondent asserted the falsehood. The complainant alleged that the
respondent did this to cover up his lack of preparation. Thus, the respondent also
deceived his clients (who were all squatters) in supporting the above falsehood.
Under the circumstances of abuse of court and processes, the respondent’s
repeated attempts go beyond the legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules
in defending the interests of his client. The respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a lawyer to
“observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.”
This violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tend to degrade the
administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure and add to the
congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
 The respondent continually argued and challenged the court for lack of
jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC even knowing – fully well that the competent courts
have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. The respondent committed violations
in the code of Professional Responsility and the Rules of Court.

The respondent’s also deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appeared in court

in the petition for annulment of judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom are already
deceased

Furthermore, the respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainant’s and his
siblings’ titles over the property subject of the unlawful detainer case.

The respondent willfully and fraudulently appeared in the second petition for
annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without being authorized
to do so.

Atty. Revilla was accused of representing fifty-two (52) litigants in Civil Case No.
Q-03-48762 when no such authority was ever given to him.
The respondent answered the complaint and mostly denied all the allegations.

Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical
infractions and professional misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should
carry.

The respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court when
he undertook the unauthorized appearances. The settled rule is that a lawyer may not
represent a litigant without authority from the latter or from the latter’s representative
or, in the absence thereof, without leave of court.

Due to Atty. Revilla's multiple violations on the Conduct of Professional

Responsibility, and is found liable for professional misconduct for violations of the
Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon
12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and Sections 20(d),
21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, we modify the penalty the IBP
imposed, and hold that the respondent should be DISBARRED from the practice of law.
 CANON 10

FRANCISCO VS. FLORES

(A.C. No. 10753, January 26, 2016)

FACTS:
Atty. Francisco alleged that he filed a Complaint for forcible entry against Rainier
Fineza and his mother, Teodora Fineza, (Finezas) before the Municipal Trial Court of
Binangonan, Rizal. The Finezas were represented by Atty. Flores.

The Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of the Finezas. Atty. Francisco filed an
appeal before the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal. However, the appeal was
denied.

Atty. Francisco filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was granted by the
Regional Trial Court in an Order dated January 23, 2009.

Respondent states his denial of the Motion for Reconsideration was received in his
office on April 3, 2009, respondent was in the United States of America (U.S.A.) for a 3-
month vacation from February 9, 2009 to May, 2009. He had given instructions to his staff
to furnish copies of all court processes to his clients and to refer all legal matters to either
Atty. Leonardo C. Aseoche or Atty. Baltazar O. Abasolo as collaborating counsels, both
practicing lawyers in Binangonan, Rizal.

Atty. Francisco contends that Atty. Flores was negligent when he "did not make
himself available" during that period when his clients could still question the trial court's
denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by filing a Petition for Review before the Court
of Appeals.

On July 8, 2009, the Finezas filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with
application for temporary restraining order and injunction. They also attached a Joint
Affidavit of Merit to the Petition. The Petition was signed by the Finezas and not by Atty.
Flores. Atty. Francisco claims that the Petition, while not signed by counsel, "was
ostensibly prepared by respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores" The Petition for Relief from
Judgment was docketed as SCA 09-015. Atty. Francisco claims that Atty. Flores knew
about the untruthful allegations and frivolous character of the Petition for Relief from
Judgment, yet he sought to pursue the Petition through the filing of a Motion to Admit
Supplemental Pleading

ISSUE:
Whether respondent Atty. Flores violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
HELD:
Yes. Respondent was not entirely truthful. He initially claimed that he was on
vacation from February 9, 2009 to May 2009. He subsequently claimed that his vacation
was from February 11, 2009 to June 2009. The glaring inconsistencies in respondent's
statements are sufficient to show that he is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility

Canon 10, 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.

Fundamental is the rule that in his dealings with his client and with the courts,
every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. These
expectations, though high and demanding, are the professional and ethical burdens of
every member of the Philippine Bar, for they have been given full expression in the
Lawyer's Oath that every lawyer of this country has taken upon admission as a bona fide
member of the Law Profession.

Also the court takes judicial notice that respondent was previously suspended
from the practice of law for two years in Serzo v. Atty. Flores because he notarized a Deed
of Absolute Sale when the vendor was already deceased. It is deplorable that respondent,
despite having been sanctioned by the court, once again violated his oath as a lawyer
 CANON 10

BALONGAG VS. ATTY. CABATOS

(AC. No. 11075)

FACTS:
A complaint against respondent Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos for violation of the rules
of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 10.03, Canon 10.
Complaint faults the lawyer for failure to comply with the order of the court to identify
the names of the plaintiffs. It was the reason for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 6921.

There were several plaintiffs in said case. The presiding Judge ordered the
amendment of the complaint to include all of them as indispensable parties. Respondent
amended the complaint but did not indicate therein the names of all the plaintiffs. He,
however, indicated that the plaintiffs are in the annexed Special Powers of Attorney.
Understandably, the move was to save time and space considering that Respondent was
using a typewriter to encode his pleadings.

This was viewed as failure to comply with the order of the court. Thus, the Civil
Case was dismissed

ISSUE:
Whether respondent Atty. Artemio Cabatos violated Canon10, Rule 10.03?

HELD:
No. Respondent did not follow to the letter, the order of the court to identify the
names of all the plaintiffs. However, the opinion of the Commission on Bar Discipline
states that there was substantial compliance when he indicated in the Amended
Complaint that the names of the plaintiffs are as stated in the Special Powers of Attorney
attached thereto. These other plaintiffs were already known when they annexed and
caused their SPA's to be attached to the Amended Complaint. Thus, we cannot place any
violation on the part of the Respondent.

Lastly, the knowledge that this is the second disbarment case he filed against his
previous lawyer does not help the cause of the plaintiff. It seems plaintiff has the
propensity of filing disbarment cases against his former lawyers whenever he feels
aggrieved by the result.
 CANON 10
BERNARDINO V. ATTY. SANTOS
(A.C. Nos. 10583, February 18, 2015)

FACTS:
In A.C. No. 10583, complainant Roberto C. Bernardino (Bernardino) filed a Letter-
Complaint against Atty. Victor Rey Santos (Atty. Santos) before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, praying that Atty. Santos be investigated and subjected to disciplinary
action.
Bernardino alleged that the death certificate of his aunt, Rufina de Castro Turla,
was falsified by Atty. Santos. Atty. Santos made it appear that Rufina Turla died in 1992,
when in fact, she died in 1990.
Atty. Santos used the falsified death certificate to support the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication executed by Mariano Turla, husband of Rufina Turla, stating in said
affidavit that he is the sole legal heir entitle to succeed to and inherit the said estate of
Rufina Turla.
During the cross-examination, Atty. Santos knew that Mariano Turla is not the sole
legal heir to inherit the estate of the deceased Rufina Turla. Santos’ wife, Lynn Batac, is
Mariano Turla’s niece. As part of the family, Atty. Santos knew that Rufina and Mariano
Turla has a daughter, Marilu Turla.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Respondent violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
also violated Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

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 mislead by any artifice.

As officers of the court, lawyers have the duty to uphold the rule of law. In doing
so, lawyers are expected to be honest in all their dealings. Unfortunately, respondent was
far from being honest. With full knowledge that Rufina Turla had another heir, he
acceded to Mariano Turla’s request to prepare the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.

Respondent failed to uphold his obligation as a member of the bar to be the

stewards of justice and protectors of what is just, legal and proper. Thus in failing to do
his duty and acting dishonestly, he violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
 CANON 10

VILLAMOR VS. SANTOS

(A.C. NO. 9868, April 22, 2015)

FACTS:
The complainant avers that the respondents initiated Civil Case No. 70251 for a
sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC Pasig) and used a
deceptive ploy to prevent the payment of the proper docket fees. Knowing that the
complaint was actually one for damages, the respondents allegedly disguised the
complaint as an action for specific performance and injunction (where the amount
involved is incapable of pecuniary estimation) and deliberately omitted to specify the
damages prayed for amounting to P68,000,000.00 in the prayer of the complaint in order
to avoid paying the proper docket fees.

In his Report and Recommendation dated October 29, 2008, IBP Commissioner
Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes found that the respondents did not commit any violation of the
code of professional ethics. In a resolution dated December 11, 2008, the Board of
Governors of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of
the IBP Commissioner after finding it to be fully supported by the evidence on record,
and by the applicable laws and rules.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

HELD:
No. The Court ruled that the respondent violated Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Court agreed with the findings and recommendations of
the IBP Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governor.

Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 of the Code of Professioal Responsibility
provide:
"CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court, nor shall he misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 — A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice."
 Contrary to the complainant's allegation that the respondents had defrauded the
court, the element of "deceitful conduct" or "deceit" was not present in this case.
First, the prayer in the complaint clearly showed that there was a clear and express
reference to paragraph 2.27 of the complaint, which listed and described in detail the date
of the checks, the check numbers, and their corresponding amounts.
Second, there was also an express mention in the prayer of the amount of P9.5 Million
representing the value of the checks that had already become due. Thus, we find
unmeritorious the complainant's claim that the respondents intentionally and
deceptively omitted to specify the amount of damages in the prayer.
Third, despite the complainant's move for the dismissal of Case No. 70251 on the ground
that the proper docket fees were not paid, the RTC Pasig Clerk of Court neither reassessed
the filing fees, nor required the plaintiff in that case to pay additional filing fees.
Fourth, even as of this date, the Court in Civil Case No. 70251 has not issued an order
requiring the reassessment, recomputation, and/or payment of additional docket fees,
signifying that the RTC Pasig Clerk of Court did not make any mistake in the assessment
of the docket fees.
Fifth, an examination of the allegations of the complaint and the prayer in Civil Case No.
70251 shows that the case is really an action for specific performance and injunction.

The Court was not convinced that the respondents violated Canon 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. The record of the case do not show that the respondents
had committed misconduct, dishonesty, falsehood, or had misused the rules of
procedure. In the absence of such proof, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer
remains and the complaint against him must be dismissed. Viewed in these lights, the
disbarment complaint against the respondents Attys. E. Hans A. Santos and Agnes H.
Maranan should be dismissed for lack of merit.|||

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the present petition for review for
lack of merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the IBP Governors' (1) Notice of Resolution No.
XVIII-2008-602 dated December 11, 2008; and (2) Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-09
dated January 3, 2013.
 CANON 10

TAMARAY V. DAQUIS
(AC no. 10868, January 26, 2016)

FACTS:
Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, alleging that respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis filed, on her behalf, a
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage without her consent and forged her
signature on the Petition. She also alleged that Atty. Daquis signed the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage as her counsel. Vasco-Tamaray stated that Atty.
Daquis was not her counsel but that of her husband, Leomarte Tamaray. Vasco-Tamaray
stated that she obtained a copy of the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage from
Branch 207 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City and was surprised to see that
the Petition was allegedly signed and filed by her. Vasco-Tamaray alleged that her
signature was forged by Atty. Daquis, and that her purported community tax certificate
appearing on the jurat was not hers because she never resided in Muntinlupa City. The
Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of the Complaint because
Vasco-Tamaray failed to prove her allegations and that she should have questioned the
Petition or informed the prosecutor that she never filed any petition, but she failed to do
so.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Daquis should be held administratively liable for alleged use
of forged signature on the Petition for Declaration Nullity of Marriage.

HELD:
Yes, the Court ruled that Atty. Daquis violated Canon 10 when she allowed the
use of forged signature in the petitioned that she prepared and notarized which was
tantamount to consenting to the commission of a falsehood before courts.
 CANON 10

RE: IN THE MATTERS OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINT

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO DEL CASTILLO
(AM 10-17-17-SC, February 8, 2011)

FACTS:
Petitioners Isabelita Vinuya, et al., seeks to annul the decision made by Justice
Mariano Del Castillo for alleged Plagiarism in Vinuya v Romulo. They charged Justice
Del Castillo of copying without acknowledging certain passages from three foreign
articles:
a. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale
Journal of International Law (2009);
b. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case Western
Reserve Journal of International Law (2006); and
c. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams, Cambridge University Press
(2005).

Petitioners claim that the integrity of the Court’s deliberations in the case has been
put into question by Justice Del Castillo’s fraud. The Court should thus address and
disclose to the public the truth about the manifest intellectual theft and outright
plagiarism that resulted in gross prejudice to the petitioners.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Justice Del Castillo committed Plagiarism.

HELD:
No, the Supreme Court ruled that Justice Del Castillo because of the need to be
precise and correct, judges and practitioners alike, by practice and tradition, usually lift
passages from such precedents and writings, at times omitting, without malicious intent,
attributions to the originators. Justice Del Castillo’s work was original. He explained why
the Court must reject some views in light of the peculiar facts of the case and applied
those that suit such facts, drew from his discussions of the facts and the law the right
solution to the dispute in the case. And according to the findings of the Ethics Committee,
the attribution to the three authors appeared in the beginning, a court-employed
researcher testified that she accidentally deleted it at the time she was cleaning up. And
although some attributions were deleted, it was found that these authors were not the
originators of the passages and there remained in the final draft of the decision
attributions of the same passages to the earlier writings from which those authors
borrowed their ideas in the first place. With the remaining attributions after the erroneous
clean-up, the passages still showed on their face that the lifted ideas did not belong to
Justice Del Castillo but to others. He did not pass them off as his own.
 CANON 11

ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS, ET AL. v.

CITY OF URDANETA, ET AL.
(G.R. No. 162525, September 23, 2008)

FACTS:
A complaint for annulment of contracts with prayer of preliminary prohibitory
injuction and temporary restraining order were filed by Waldo Castillo who alleged that
then Urdaneta City Mayor Rodolfo E. Parayno entered into five contracts for the
preliminary design, construction and management of a four-storey twin cinema
commercial center and hotel involving a massive expenditure of public funds amounting
to P250 million, funded by a loan from the Philippine National Bank. The contractor was
allegedly paid P95 million. Del Castillo claimed that all the contracts are void because the
object is outside the commerce of men. The object is a piece of land belonging to the public
domain and which remains devoted to a public purpose as a public elementary school.
Additionally, he claimed that the contracts, from the feasibility study to management and
lease of the future building, are also void because they were all awarded solely to the
Goco family. APP and APPCDC claimed that the contracts are valid. After pre trial, the
Lazaro Law Firm entered its appearance as counsel for Urdaneta City filed an Omnibus
Motion. The RTC denied reconsideration of the September 11, 2002 Order. It also granted
Capalads motion to expunge all pleadings filed by Atty. Sahagun in his behalf. Capalad
was dropped as defendant, and his complaint filed by Atty. Jorito C. Peralta was admitted
and consolidated with the complaints of Del Castillo and Urdaneta City. The RTC also
directed APP and APPCDC to answer Capalads complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Sahagun should be prohibited from representing Capalad

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Sahagun cannot represent totally conflicting interests. Thus, all
pleadings filed by Atty. Sahagun in behalf of Capalad should be expunged.
offensive language was used by Attys. Sahagun and Escalante in their pleadings. They
unfairly called the Court of Appeals a court of technicalities for validly dismissing their
defectively prepared petition. They also accused the Court of protecting an incompetent
judge. Hence Atty. Sahagun further indicted himself.
 CANON 11

VILLANUEVA v. ATTY. DELORIA

(A.C. No. 5018, January 26, 2007)

FACTS:
Respondent is the counsel of spouses De Gracia in the HLRB case entitled "Spouses
De Gracia v. Estate of Jaime Gonzales, et al.". Complainant avers that a decision in that
case was rendered by the Housing and Land Use Arbiter Atty. Alferez, whom Villanueva
succeeded, requiring the Estate of Jaime Gonzales to refund to the spouses De Gracia the
amount of Php 69,000 plus interest at the prevailing commercial interest rates.

Atty. Deloria claims that the Estate of Jaime Gonzales does not want to pay interest
based on commercial interest rates. However, Villanueva asserts that his allegation is
bellied by the two motions filed by the counsel of the other party and such
misrepresentation constitutes violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
particularly Canon 11.

On the other hand, respondent Atty. Deloria denies any wrongdoing and sought
the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of merit. He avers that the refusal of the Estate of
Jaime Gonzales to pay the interest stipulated in the decision is evident from the various
motions it has filed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Respondent violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides xxx A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. xxx In the case at bar,
respondent sought the substitution of a decision which he knew had already become final
and partially executed.
 CANON 11

JUDGE LACUROM v. ATTY. JACOBA & ATTY. VELASCO-JACOBA

(A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006)

FACTS:
The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Alejandro
R. Veneracion (Veneracion) in a civil case for unlawful detainer against
defendantFederico Barrientos (Barrientos). The Municipal Trial Court of Cabanatuan Ci
ty rendered judgment in favor of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the Regional
Trial Court. The case was raffled to Branch 30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting as
pairing judge.

On 29 June 2001, Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution (Resolution) reversing the

earlier judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion.

On 30 July 2001 motion prayed that (1) Judge Lacurom inhibit himself in order to
give plaintiff a fighting chance and (2) the Resolution be reconsidered and set aside. Atty.
Olivia Velasco-Jacoba (Velasco-Jacoba) signed the motion on behalf of the Jacoba-
Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm.
On 6 August 2001, Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear before his sala and
explain why she should not be held in contempt of court for the very disrespectful,
insulting and humiliating contents of the 30 July 2001 motion.

Velasco-Jacoba expressed willingness to apologize for whatever mistake [they]

may have committed in a moment of unguarded discretion when [they] may have
stepped on the line and gone out of bounds. She also agreed to have the allegedly
contemptuous phrases stricken off the record.
On 22 October 2001, Judge Lacurom filed the present complaint against respondents
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Respondents did not file an answer and neither did they appear at the hearing set
by IBP Commissioner Atty. Lydia A. Navarro (IBP Commissioner Navarro) despite
sufficient notice IBP Commissioner Navarro, in her Report and Recommendation of 10
October 2002, recommended the suspension of respondents from the practice of law for
six months. IBP Commissioner Navarro found that respondents were prone to us[ing]
offensive and derogatory remarks and phrases which amounted to discourtesy and
disrespect for authority. Although the remarks were not directed at
Judge Lacurom personally, they were aimed at his position as a judge, which is a smack
on the judiciary system as a whole

ISSUE:
 Whether or not ATTY. Ellis F. Jacoba and ATTY. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba are liable
for violation of Canon 11 for the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion.

HELD:
Rule 11.03.A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.

Rule 11.04.A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case.

No doubt, the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion greatly exceeded the
vigor required of Jacoba to defend ably his clients cause. We recall his use of the following
words and phrases: abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous
mistake, horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an anachronism in the judicial
process. Even Velasco-Jacoba acknowledged that the words created a cacophonic picture
of total and utter disrespect.

Respondents nonetheless try to exculpate themselves by saying that every remark

in the 30 July 2001 motion was warranted. We disagree.

Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be

dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of
unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and
trust in judicial administration.

WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the practice of law for two
(2) years effective upon finality of this Decision. We also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia Velasco-
Jacoba from the practice of law for two (2) months effective upon finality of this Decision.
We STERNLY WARN respondents that a repetition of the same or similar infraction
shall merit a more severe sanction.
 CANON 11

JUDGE PANTANOSAS, JR. v. ATTY. PAMATONG

(A.C. No. 7330, June 14, 2016)

FACTS:
On September 8, 2006, during the hearing of an application for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order (TRO) in Civil Case No. 2006-176, respondent Pamatong was
allegedly asked by complainant Pantanosas to remove his copia (a hat worn by Muslims)
in open court.5 Respondent Pamatong requested to be exempted allegedly due to
religious grounds and embarrassment towards his "bald pate".6 Complainant Pantanosas
thereafter obliged with a caveat that at the next hearing, he would no longer tolerate the
wearing of the copia inside the courtroom.

On September 18, 2006, complainant Pantanosas filed a Complaint for

Disbarment dated September 15, 2006 (Disbarment Complaint)11 before this Court against
respondent Pamatong on the following grounds: (i) violation of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR)12 for the language employed by respondent Pamatong
in the Motion for Inhibition, and (ii) violation of Canons 113 and 1114 of the CPR for
engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct by supposedly causing the publication of an
alleged bribe in a local newspaper and maliciously imputing motives to complainant
Pantanosas, thereby casting dishonor to and distrust in the judicial system.

On December 28, 2006, respondent Pamatong timely filed his Comment on the
Complaint for Disbarment and Counter-Complaint (Comment).

In the main, respondent Pamatong averred in his Comment that the actual
courtroom demeanor of complainant Pantanosas during the September 8, 2006 hearing
was overbearing, arrogant and derogatory, while also maintaining the truth of the bribery
allegations launched against complainant Pantanosas.22 By way of counter-complaint,
respondent Pamatong claimed that the alleged discriminatory conduct of complainant
Pantanosas violated Canons 1,23 2,24 and 325 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent
Pamatong alleged that in a meeting with complainant Pantanosas in his chambers two
(2) days before the September 8, 2006 hearing, the latter allegedly solicited from him One
Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in exchange for the issuance of a TRO in Civil Case No.
2006-176.26 Respondent Pamatong countered that during the TRO hearing on September
8, 2006, he was initially asked by the complainant-judge to approach the bench in order
to inquire about the alleged bribe.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty Pamatong’s remarks are considred violation of Canon 11 for
disrepecting the Judge.
HELD:
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.

The slanderous remarks “Finally, in my thirty (30) years of law practice, I never
encountered a Judge who appears to be as corrupt as you are, thereby giving me the
impression that you are a disgrace to the Judicial System of this land who does not
deserved (sic) to be a member of the Philippine Bar at all”were inserted in no less than a
public record, i.e., Motion for Inhibition, makes matters even worse.

To be sure, a lawyer is obliged to abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing

language before the courts. As a supposed officer of the court, such behavior exhibited
by respondent Pamatong only serves to betray his utter lack of reverence towards the
courts, which promotes nothing but the degradation of the administration of justice.

In closing, we find it befitting to reiterate that lawyers have the right, both as an
officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through
legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. However, closely linked to such rule is
the cardinal condition that criticisms, no matter how truthful, shall not spill over the walls
of decency and propriety.57 To that end, the duty of a lawyer to his client's success is
wholly subordinate to the administration of justice.

True, lawyers must always remain vigilant against unscrupulous officers of the
law. However, the purification of our justice system from venal elements must not come
at the expense of decency, and worse, the discrediting of the very system that it seeks to
protect.

WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Elly L. Pamatong from the practice of law for
two (2) years effective upon finality of this Decision. We STERNLY WARN the
respondent that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall merit a more severe
sanction.
 CANON 11

JUDGE BACULI VS. ATTY. BATTUNG

(AC. No. 8920)

FACTS:
Judge Baculi claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the hearing on the motion for
reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting while arguing his
motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his voice but instead, the respondent
shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that he would be cited for direct contempt,
the respondent shouted, "Then cite me!" Judge Baculi cited him for direct contempt and
imposed a fine of P100.00. The respondent then left.

While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and
shouted, "Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!" Judge
Baculi ordered the sheriff to escort the respondent out of the courtroom and cited him for
direct contempt of court for the second time.

After his hearings, Judge Baculi went out and saw the respondent at the hall of the
courthouse, apparently waiting for him. The respondent again shouted in a threatening
tone, "Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!" He kept on
shouting, "I am not afraid of you!" and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and lawyers
escorted him out of the building.

ISSUE:
Did Atty. Melchor Battung violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 11.03 thereof?

HELD:
Yes. Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their position and
avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and disrespect
a judge, and the court that he represents. The Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:
Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due
the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latter's
role, stature and position in our justice system. When the respondent publicly berated
and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi that he would file a case for gross ignorance of the
law against the latter, the respondent effectively acted in a manner tending to erode the
public confidence in Judge Baculi's competence and in his ability to decide cases.
 CANON 11

DONGGA-AS VS. ATTY. CRUZ-ANGELES

(AC. No. 11113)

FACTS:
Complainant alleged that sometime in May 2004, he engaged the law firm of
respondents to handle the annulment of his marriage with his wife, Mutya Filipinas
Puno-Dongga-as (Mutya). In his meeting with Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler,
complainant was told that: (a) the case would cost him P300,000.00, with the first
P100,000.00 payable immediately and the remaining P200,000.00 payable after the final
hearing of the case; (b) respondents will start working on the case upon receipt of
P100,000.00, which will cover the acceptance fee, psychologist fee, and filing fees; and (c)
the time-frame for the resolution of the case will be around three (3) to four (4) months
from filing. Accordingly, complainant paid respondents P100, 000.00 which was duly
received by Atty. Cruz-Angeles.

From then on, complainant constantly followed-up his case with Attys. Cruz-
Angeles and Paler. However, despite his constant prodding, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and
Paler could not present any petition and instead, offered excuses for the delay, saying
that: (a) they still had to look for a psychologist to examine Mutya; (b) they were still
looking for a "friendly" court and public prosecutor; and (c) they were still deliberating
where to file the case. 3 They promised that the petition would be filed on or before the
end of June 2004, but such date passed without any petition being filed. As an excuse,
they reasoned out that the petition could not be filed since they have yet to talk to the
judge who they insinuated will favorably resolve complainant's petition.

ISSUE:
Did Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler, violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

HELD:
Yes. As members of the Bar, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler should not perform
acts that would tend to undermine and/or denigrate the integrity of the courts, such as
insinuating that they can find a "friendly" court and judge that will ensure a favourable
ruling in complainant's annulment case. It is their sworn duty as lawyers and officers of
the court to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. Respect for the courts
guarantees the stability of the judicial institution. Without this guarantee, the institution
would be resting on very shaky foundations. This is the very thrust of Canon 11 of the
CPR, which provides 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." Hence,
lawyers who are remiss in performing such sworn duty violate the aforesaid Canon 11,
and as such, should be held administratively liable and penalized accordingly, as in this
case.
Canon 11

RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO BAGABUYO

(A.C. No. 7006, October 9, 2007)

FACTS:
Crim. Case No. 5144 was originally raffled to the sala of Judge Floripinas C.
Buyser, RTC of Surigao City, Branch 30. In an Order dated March 14, 2002, Judge Buyser
denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused, declaring that the evidence thus
presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide and not the
charge of murder. Consequently, the counsel for the defense filed a Motion to Fix the
Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, then Senior State
Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto mainly on the
ground that the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not
subject to bail under Sec. 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
In an Order dated August 30, 2002, Judge Buyser inhibited himself from further trying
the case because of the "harsh insinuation" of Senior Prosecutor Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo that
he "lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate," by allegedly suggesting the filing
of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel for the accused.

The case was transferred to Branch 29 of the RTC of Surigao City, presided by
Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan. In an Order dated November 12, 2002, Judge Tan favorably
resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond, and fixed the amount of the bond at
P40,000.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated November 12,
2002, which motion was denied for lack of merit in an Order dated February 10, 2003. In
October, 2003, respondent appealed from the Orders dated November 12, 2002 and
February 10, 2003, to the Court of Appeals (CA).

Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies, respondent caused the

publication of an article regarding the Order granting bail to the accused in the August
18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily.

Despite the citation of indirect contempt, respondent presented himself to the

media for interviews in Radio Station DXKS, and again attacked the integrity of Judge
Tan and the trial court's disposition in the proceedings of Crim. Case No. 5144.

In an Order dated October 20, 2003, the RTC of Surigao City, Branch 29, required
respondent to explain and to show cause within five days from receipt thereof why he
should not be held in contempt for his media interviews that degraded the court and the
presiding judge, and why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 and
Rule 13.02 of Canon 13.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
Yes. The Cout ruled that the respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he
admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where he made statements against
the Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing the accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be
released on bail.

Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was
displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge
for allowing murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the
Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondent's statements in the article, which were made
while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon
13, which states that "a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party."

In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule
11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the
proper authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also
violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that Judge
Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong
instead of studying the law, and that he was a liar.
 CANON 11

RIVERA V. CABALAN
(A.C. No. 10941)

FACTS:
For the purpose of annulling his marriage, complainant Romel Rivera sought the
legal advice of Atty. Mark Nolan Cabalan. After being partially paid (an amount of
P18,000) of his legal fees, respondent failed to act on his client’s case. Rivera attempted to
contact Cabalan but the latter did not answer his texts or calls. At times that they would
agree to meet, Cabalan would fail to show up with the (always eventually unfulfilled)
promise to reschedule. When complainant requested for the return of the money he paid,
Cabalan would not reply. This continued on for 9 months. On June 2012, Rivera filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Cabalan before the IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter
for allegedly violating Canons 15-18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On June 2012, IBP’s Committee on Ethics formally notified Cabalan of the

complaint and was invited to a conciliation conference. The latter neither replied nor
attended.

For his unjustified failure to obey the orders of the IBP directing him to file an
answer to the complaint and to appear at the scheduled mandatory conference, IBP
Commissioner Antiquiera considered Cabalan to have violated Canon 11 and
recommended that he be suspended for a year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Cabalan was in violation of Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
In addition to violating Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Atty. Cabalan was also guilty of violating 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.”

This was because of his disregard of the IBP’s orders to reply to the complaint filed
against him and to appear in the conciliation conferences.

As a result, Atty. Cabalan was suspended from the practice of law for one year
with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
severely. He was also ordered to return to the complainant the full amount of P18,000
within 30 days from the notice of Resolution.
 CANON 11

PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID VS ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA.

(A.C. 7474, September 9, 2014)

FACTS:
Complainant, Presiding Judge Jose L. Madrid, has had enough of, respondent,
Atty. Juan S. Dealca's practice of filing frivolous administrative cases against judges and
court personnel. This was brought on by respondent's appearance in the Criminal Case
No. 2006-6795, in which complainant was presiding. Respondent sought to replace Atty.
Vicente Judar, and filed a motion to re-raffle the case to another Branch of the RTC citing
"adverse incidents between the incumbent Presiding Judge and the undersigned" where
"he does not appear before the incumbent Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also
hear cases handled by the undersigned." The Motion to re-raffle was denied by
Complainant through an order issued on February 14, 2007. Consequently, Judge Dealca
filed a letter of complaint in the Office of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines citing
Respondents unethical practice of entering his appearance and then moving for the
inhibition of the Complainant on the pretext of previous adverse incidents between them.
Respondent's Comment on the matter was that Complainant exhibited bias in failing to
act on the motion to lift and set aside the warrant of arrest issued against the accused;
and that it should be Judge Madrid himself who should be disbarred and accordingly
dismissed from the Judiciary for gross ignorance of the law. On July 17, 2007, the court
referred the matter to the IBP and the IBP Commissioner Salvador B Hababag
recommended that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year
because his motion to inhibit Complainant was devoid of factual or legal basis, and was
grounded on purely personal whims. Resolution XVIII-2008-41 dismissed the complaint
on lack of merit. Prompting Complainant to seek a motion of reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Respondent’s averment that Complainant did not hear cases being handled
by him directly insinuated that judges could choose the cases they heard, and could
refuse to hear the cases in which hostility existed between the judges and the litigants or
their counsel. Canon 11 expressly states that “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,” and Rule 11.04 indicates, “a lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.” The statements made by
respondent, if true at all, should have been assiduously substantiated by him because it
put in bad light not only the complainant but all judges in general. Yet, there was no
inclusion of any particulars that could have validated the statements. Nor did respondent
attach any document to support it.
CANON 11

ANTONINO MONTICALBO vs JUDGE CRESCENTE F. MARAYA, JR.

(A.M. No. RTJ-09-2197, April 13, 2011)

FACTS:
Complainant, Antonino Monticalbo, charged Respondent, Judge Crescente F.
Maraya Jr. of gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence and grave abuse of
authority thru false representation. Complainant claims that Civil Case No. CN-89, in
which Complainant was a defendant, was dismissed by the Respondent was due to
Respondent's grave misconduct and bribery. Complainant avers that the respondent
erred in ruling that Civil Case No. CN-89 is covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, considering that the total claim of the plaintiff in the said case exceeded Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10, 000.00). Complainant stated that the respondent's "knowledge fell
so short" and that he was remiss in his obligations to be familiar with the law which
"even law students these days know such….”

ISSUE:
Whether or not the insinuation of Complainant Monticalbo violates Canon 11 of
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Complainant's use of insulting language and unfair criticism is a violation of
his duty as a lawyer to accord due respect to the courts. Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility requires that "a lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial ofcers and should insist on similar conduct by
others." In regard to the CN-89 being covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure,
complainant is the one that erred. As amended by A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC, effective
November 25, 2002, has placed the ceiling at One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00). The complainant has no basis to derogate the Respondent's knowledge
on the law.
 CANON 12

SAA v. INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

(G.R. No. 132826, September 3, 2009)

FACTS:
Petitioner filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent because of
oppressive and constituted unethical practice. However, despite receipt of a copy of the
complaint, Atty. Venida still did not file his complete comment within 10 days as required
in the February 17, 992 resolution. When he did finally file, it was just a mere reiteration
of his partial comment. The IBP decided to dismiss the case for lack of merit. The
complainant now questions the resolution of the IBP.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violation of Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Respondent is guilty of violation of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that xxx A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration if justice. xxx also Rule 12.04: xxx A
lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court
processes. xxx

As a lawyer, he had the responsibility to follow legal orders and processes. Yet, he
disregarded this very important canon of legal ethics directed to do so in the February
1992 resolution. He filed his complete comment only a little over three years after due
date. In both cases, he managed to delay the resolution of the case. Hence, for violation
of Canons 1 and 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Atty. Freddie A. Venida is suspended from practice of law for 1 year. He must not be
allowed to evade accountability for his omissions.
 CANON 12
BALAIS-MABANAG & MABANAG v.
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, ET AL.
(G.R. No. 153142, March 29, 2010)

FACTS:
In 1985, The Coronels executed a document entitled receipt of down payment, where
stipulated that they received money through respondent Concepcion D. Alcaraz from
respondent Ramona Patricia Alcaraz a total of Php 50, 000 as down payment for their
inherited house and lot. Property was originally owned by Coronels’ father and was
transferred to the Coronels. Then the Coronels sold the property. They rescinded their
contract with Ramona after they sold the property for a higher price and the petitioner
then delivered P300,000. Concepcion filed a complaint for specific performance and
damages in her own name against the Coronels and cause the annotation of a notice of lis
pendens. The petitioner had a notice of adverse claim annotated in the Registry of Deeds.
The RTC rendered a decision ordering defendant to execute a deed of absolute sale in
favor of plaintiffs. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The decision of the RTC
became final and executory.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the registration by the Registrar of
Deeds of the deed of absolute sale
HELD:
No. The CA did not err in sustaining the registration by the Registrar of Deeds of
the deed of absolute sale. The time for assailing the capacity of the winning party to
acquire the land was during the trial and not during the execution of a final decision.
Because of the uniform result of sustaining the right of Ramona to acquire the property
Atty. Guerrero was found resorting to forum shopping, which lead to his suspension
from the practice of law for two years. Such result fully affirms that the petitioner's
objection is now barred by res judicata.
In A.C. No. 5469, the respondent violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. He also violated Rule
12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyer's mandate "to delay no man for
money or malice."
In this case, the petitioner filed multiple petitions which constitutes abuse of the
Court’s processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the
administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. The effects of forum
shopping was applied to the petitioner as the client and Atty. Guerrero as the counsel.
Multiple petitions that delays the execution of a final and executory judgement makes a
lawyer subject to disciplinary action for incompetence or for willful violation of his duties
as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions
as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor. The petitioner and
the council was warned if they will attempt to reuse the issue of Ramona’s lack of
qualification to own the land.
CANON 12

ATTY. VAFLOR-FABROA v. ATTY. PAGUINTO

(A.C. No. 6273, March 15, 2010)

FACTS:
An Information for Estafa was filed on June 21, 2001 against Atty. Iluminada M.
Vaflor-Fabroa (complainant) along with others based on a joint affidavit-complaint which
Atty. Oscar Paguinto (respondent) prepared and notarized. As the joint affidavit-
complaint did not indicate the involvement of complainant, the complaint was quashed
by the court upon the motion of the complainant.

On October 10, 2001, complainant, who was Chairperson of the General Mariano
Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a Notice of Special General
Assembly of GEMASCO on October 14, 2001 to consider the removal of four members of
the Board of Directors (the Board), including her and the General Manager. The notice
was signed by respondent.

At the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly presided by respondent and
PNP Sr. Supt. Angelito L. Gerangco (Gerangco), who were not members of the then
current Board,[6] Gerango, complainant's predecessor, as Chair of the GEMASCO board,
declared himself Chair, appointed others to replace the removed directors, and appointed
respondent as Board Secretary.

On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took over the GEMASCO office
and its premises, the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations. On even date,
respondent sent letter-notices to complainant and the four removed directors informing
them of their removal from the Board and as members of GEMASCO, and advising them
to cease and desist from further discharging the duties of their positions.

The complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent for violating the
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Despite the Court's grant, on respondent's motion, of extension of time to file

Comment, respondent never filed any comment. The Court thus required him to show
cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with, but just the same he failed to
comply.

The Court referred the Case to the IBP for investigation. Noting that respondent
had already been previously suspended for six months, the Investigating Commissioner
of the IBP recommended that respondent be suspended for two years.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, on the basis of the allegations of the complaint, misconduct was
committed by respondent.

HELD:
The Court finds that by conniving with Gerangco in taking over the Board of
Directors and the GEMASCO facilities, respondent violated the provisions of the
Cooperative Code of the Philippines and the GEMASCO By-Laws. He also violated the
Lawyer’s Oath, which provides that a lawyer shall support the Constitution and obey the
laws.

When respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints against

complainant, he violated the Lawyer’s Oath that a lawyer shall “not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the
same.”

When, after obtaining an extension of time to file comment on the complaint,

respondent failed to file any and ignored this Court’s subsequent show cause order, he
violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that “A
lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs,
let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure
to do so.”

The Court notes that respondent had previously been suspended from the practice
of law for six months for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he having
been found to have received an acceptance fee and misled the client into believing that
he had filed a case for her when he had not. It appears, however, that respondent has not
reformed his ways. A more severe penalty this time is thus called for.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, is SUSPENDED for two years

from the practice of law for violation of Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, effective immediately.
 CANON 12

SANTIAGO v. ATTY. RAFANAN

(A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004)

FACTS:
Complainant Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology,lodged a disbarment
complaint against respondent Atty. Edison Rafanan before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines alleging, inter alia,that Atty. Rafanan violated Rule 12.07 and Rule 12.08
of Canon 12of the Code of Professional Responsibility when the latter executed an
affidavit in favour of his clientand offered the same as evidence in a case where he is
actively representing his client. The complaintalso alleged that after the hearing of
the case, respondent accompanied by several persons waited for

Complainant and after confronting

t h e l a t t e r d i s a r m e d h i m o f h i s s i d e a r m a n d t h e r e a f t e r u t t e r e d insulti
ng words and veiled threats.In his answer, respondent denied having disarmed the
complainant and uttered insulting wordsnor veiled threats against the latter. He however
admitted that he executed an affidavit in favour of hisc l i e n t a n d o f f e r e d t h e s a m e
as evidence in a case where he is actively representing his client
b u t interposed the defense that lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients
"on substantial matters, in cases where [their] testimony is essential to the
ends of justice." Complainant charged respondent’sclients with attempted
murder. Respondent averred that since they were in his house when the allegedcrime
occurred, "his testimony is very essential to the ends of justice.”The IBP, while finding
that administrative offense was committed by respondent for violatingthe notarial law,
recommended the dismissal of the complaint for alleged violation of
Rule 12.07 andRule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for insufficiency of evidence.Hence, the present action was
commenced.

ISSUE:
May a lawyer testify on substantial matters relative to the cause of the party which
he is activelyrepresenting in a case without violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

HELD: YES.
Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a
witness, excepto n l y i n c e r t a i n c a s e s p e r t a i n i n g t o privileged
communication arising from an attorneyclientrelationship.
The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed
u p o n l a w y e r s b y t h e t a s k o f dissociating their relation to their clients as
witnesses from that as advocates. Witnesses are expected totell the facts as they recall
them. In contradistinction, advocates are partisans -- those who actively plead
and defend the cause of others. It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and
impartiality of adisinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate. The
question is one of propriety rather than of competency of the lawyers who testify
for their clients.Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers from being
witnesses and at the same timecounsels for a cause, the preference is for them
to refrain from testifying as witnesses, unless theyabsolutely have to; and should
they do so, to withdraw from active management of the case. Notwithstanding this
guideline and the existence of the Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan infavor of his
clients, we cannot hastily make him administratively liable for the following
reasons:First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that
is authorized by law for the benefit of the client, especially in a criminal action in which
the latter’s life and libertyare at stake. Having undertaken the defense of the
accused, respondent, as defense counsel, was thusexpected to spare no effort to
save his clients from a wrong conviction. The Affidavit executed by Atty.Rafanan was
clearly necessary for the defense of his clients, since it pointed out the fact that
on thealleged date and time of the incident, his clients were at his residence
and could not have possiblycommitted the crime charged against them. Notably, in
his Affidavit, complainant does not dispute thestatements of respondent or suggest the
falsity of its contents.S e c o n d , p a r a g r a p h ( b ) o f R u l e 1 2 . 0 8 c o n t e m p l a t e s a
situation in which lawyers give their testimonies during the trial.

In this instance, the Affidavit was submitted during the prelim

i n a r y investigation which, as such, was merely inquisitorial. Not being a trial
of the case on the merits, a preliminary investigation has the oft-repeated
purposes of securing innocent persons against hasty,malicious and oppressive
prosecutions; protecting them from open and public accusations of crime andfrom the
trouble as well as expense and anxiety of a public trial; and protecting the State from
uselessa n d e x p e n s i v e p r o s e c u t i o n s .

The investigation is advisedly called preliminary, as it is yet

t o b e followed by the trial proper. Nonetheless, we deem it important to stress
and remind respondent to refrain from acceptingemployment in any matter in
which he knows or has reason to believe that he may be an essentialwitness
for the prospective client. Furthermore, in future cases in which his testimony
may becomeessential to serve the "ends of justice," the canons of the profession require
him to withdraw from theactive prosecution of these cases.
 CANON 12

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JUDGE ISMAEL

(A.M. No. RTJ-07-2045)

FACTS:
On April 25 to May 14, 2005, a judicial audit was conducted in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 22, presided over by respondent
Judge Harun B. Ismael.

The judicial audit resulted in the issuance of a memorandum dated June 9, 2005
by the Office of Court Administrator (OCA) directing respondent to explain his failure to
decide and act on current and inherited cases, as well as to resolve incidents in various
cases pending before him, within the reglementary period provided by law

ISSUE:
Did Judge Ismael violated Canon 12, rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

HELD:
Yes. It is settled that failure to decide or resolve cases within the reglementary
period constitutes gross inefficiency and is not excusable.
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall exert
every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice” and Rule 12.04 “A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution
of a judgment or misuse court processes”.
 Canon 12
DEE C. CHUAN & SONS, INC., VS. JUDGE PERALTA
(A.M. No. RTJ-05-1917)

FACTS:
Complainant alleges that on September 13, 2002, the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Manila, Branch 6 rendered a decision in the unlawful detainer case ordering
defendants Tek Hua Enterprising Corporation (represented by its president Manuel C.
Tiong) and So Ping Bun to vacate the leased premises and to jointly pay the cost of suit,
attorney's fees and rentals for the reasonable use and occupation of the premises
beginning June 1991.

An appeal was filed in RTC Manila and the case was raffled to Branch 50 wherein
respondent was presiding judge. On March 18, 2003, DCCSI filed a "motion to dismiss
appeal and for issuance of writ of execution" for failure of the appellants to post the
required bond and to pay the rentals due in accordance with the decision of the MeTC.
Acting on the motion, respondent issued an order dated March 21, 2003 requiring the
appellants to file their comment thereto. Consequently, three motions to resolve were
filed by DCCSI dated August 11, 2003, October 20, 2003 and December 3, 2003
respectively. However, despite the lapse of more than one year, respondent failed and
refused to resolve the pending motions, prompting complainant to file this complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether respondent Judge William Simon P. Peralta violated Canon 12 and Rule
12.04 of the Code for Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
Yes. Respondent's delay runs counter to Canon 12 and Rule 12.04 of the CPR which
provides:
CANON 12 — A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Rule 12.04 — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Delay derails the administration of justice. It postpones the rectification of wrong
and the vindication of the unjustly prosecuted. It crowds the dockets of the courts, and
increasing the costs for all litigants.

Also, The Constitution mandates that all cases or matters filed before all lower
courts shall be decided or resolved within 90 days from the time the case is submitted for
decision. Failure to comply within the mandated period constitutes a serious violation of
the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. Considering
that the subject case was an unlawful detainer case, its prompt resolution was a matter of
public policy as it was subject to summary procedure. It is disappointing that it was the
respondent himself who caused the delay.
CANON 12

DELA VICTORIA V. ORIG-MALOLOY-ON

(A.M. P-07-2343)

FACTS:
The clients of the complainant former judge Atty. Dela Victoria, were detained by
virtue of warrantless arrest. Pursuant to Rule 114, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, a
motion to set bail shall be filed first before his clients could be temporarily released.
Respondent Atty. Orig-Maloloy-On, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
refused to accept the cash bond offered because there was no order from the Executive
Judge granting motion to post bail.

Dela Victoria filed a complaint for her refusal to accept the cash bond tendered by
his clients. The former judge argued that he already made an arrangement with the
executive judge and Maloloy-On’s refusal constituted to gross ignorance of the law.

The complaint against Maloloy-On was dismissed for lack of merit and Dela
Victoria was ordered to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him
for filing a baseless complaint against Maloloy-On.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Dela Victoria filed an unfounded complaint against Atty. Maloloy-
On.

HELD:
Canon 12 provides that lawyers must exert every effort and consider it their duty
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. As a former judge and
practicing lawyer, Dela Victoria shall be aware of the requirements before invoking Rule
114, Section 17. Maloloy-On was within her authority in her refusal to accept the cash
bonds.

For filing such a frivolous complaint, Dela Victoria was meted a fine of P2,000 with
a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.
 CANON 12

SALADAGA V. ATTY. ASTORGA

(A.C. Nos. 4697 & 4728, November 25, 2014)

FACTS:
On December 2, 1981, respondent Atty. Arturo B. Astorga sold (with right of
repurchase) to complainant Florencio A. Salagada a parcel of coconut land located in
Leyte covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-662 for P15,000.00. Respondent
failed to exercise his right of repurchase within the two-year period provided in the deed.

TCT No. T-662 was cancelled by TCT no. T-3211 in the name of Philippine National
Bank (PNB). TCT no. T-3211 was cancelled by TCT No. T-7235 in the names of respondent
and his wife on January 4, 1982 pursuant to a deed of sale between PNB and respondent.

On March 14, 1984, respondent mortgaged the subject property to the Rural Bank
of Albuera, Inc. (RBAI). Sometime in December 1989, complainant received letters from
RBAI informing him that the property was mortgaged by respondent to RBAI, that the
bank had subsequently foreclosed on the property, and that complainant should
therefore vacate the property. Complainant was subsequently dispossessed of the
property by RBAI.

Complainant instituted administrative cases against respondent by filing an

Affidavit-Complaint and Supplemental Complaint. The Court required respondent to
comment on both complaints but no such comment was submitted despite the several
extensions of time granted to him.

The cases were then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and during
the proceedings, respondent was again required several times to submit his consolidated
answer. Compliance by the respondent was done only after six years after the Court
originally required him to do so. Respondent also did not file any position paper.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:
Yes. Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically
Canon 12, Rule 12.03 and Rule 12.04.
 Respondent’s disregard of the directives of the Court and of the Investigating
Commissioner, which caused undue delay in the administrative cases, contravenes the
following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Rule 12. 03 – A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering
an explanation for his failure to do so.

Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse court processes.

Respondent’s infractions are aggravated by the fact that he has already been
imposed a disciplinary sanction before for which he was held liable for conduct
unbecoming an attorney and fined P2,000.00.
 CANON 12

RE: ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OF ATTY. MARILYN B. JOYAS.

(A.M. No. 06-5-286-RTC, August 2, 2007)

FACTS:
Atty. Marilyn Joyas, clerk of Court V in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
Branch 16. Atty. Joyas Daily Time Record (DTR)/Bundy Card for November 2004
showed that she was on unauthorized leave from the 15th to the 30th of that month. By
going on AWOL, Atty. Joyas grossly disregarded and neglected the duties of her ofce.
She failed to adhere to the high standards of public accountability imposed on all those
in government service.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Joyas violated Canon 12.

HELD:
Yes. Canon 12 states that, "A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND
CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE." A lawyer is an officer of the court. It is his duty to
promote the objectives of courts — the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and
inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. He
should not only help achieve these ends but should also avoid any unethical or improper
practice that will impede, obstruct or prevent their realization as he is charged with the
primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient dispensation of justice. This Atty.
Joyas failed to do when she went on prolonged unauthorized leave and effectively
abandoned her office.
 CANON 12

RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL

CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, JIMENEZ-SINACABAN, MISAMIS
OCCIDENTAL/JUDGE PRISCILLA HERNANDEZ
(A.M. No. 03-170-MCTC, July 14, 2009)

FACTS:
Several Judicial Audits were conducted on different Trial Courts that Judge
Priscilla Hernandez has presided over from 2003 to 2005. It was found that she had failed
to decide, within the reglementary period, more than 60% of the total case load. It was
also found that she also failed to report to the courts during the mornings, and that none
of the documents are arranged in an organized fashion. It was recommended that she be
removed from the MCTCs and that she be dismissed and made to comply to the
directives of the Court. Respondent filed a motion of reconsideration in 2007 stating the
workload as the cause of the slow turnaround of the decisions. It was denied in 2008.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 12.

HELD:
Yes. Canon 12 states "A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice," while Rule 12.04 states "A
lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court
processes." The Constitution mandates that all cases or matters led before all lower courts
shall be decided or resolved within 90 days from the time they are submitted for decision.
Respondent repeatedly ignored this mandate. Failure to comply within the mandated
period constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy
disposition of their cases. The Court has always considered a judge's delay in deciding
cases within the prescribed period of three months as gross inefficiency. It undermines
the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to
disrepute. Undue delay cannot be countenanced at a time when the clogging of the court
dockets is still the bane of the judiciary. The raison d' etre of courts lies not only in
properly dispensing justice but also in being able to do so seasonably. Respondent failed
to do that.
 CANON 13

NG v. ALAR
(A.C. No. 7252, November 22, 2006)

FACTS:
Atty. Benjamin Alar is the counsel for the complainants in a labor case filed with
the Labor Arbiter which dismissed the complaint, which was filed when employees of
the Ng Company alleged that they did not receive their service incentives because the Ng
Company refused to pay because a strike was conducted on company premises
hampering entrance and exit into the area. On appeal, NLRC’s First Division upheld the
dismissal. In his Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI), Atty. Alar
used improper and abusive language full of diatribes castigating the Labor Arbiter and
the ponente of the NLRC decision. Johnny Ng, one of the respondents, filed a disbarment
case against Alar before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for such misbehavior.

The respondent contends that the Rules of Court/Code of Professional

Responsibility applies only suppletorily at the NLRC when the NLRC Rules of Procedure
has no provision on disciplinary matters for litigants and lawyers appearing before it and
that Rule X of the NLRC Rules of Procedure provides for adequate sanctions against
misbehaving lawyers and litigants appearing in cases before it. Finally, he asserted that
the Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility does not apply to lawyers
practicing at the NLRC, the latter not being a court and that LAs and NLRC
Commissioners are neither judges nor justices and the Code of Judicial Conduct similarly
do not apply to them, not being part of the judiciary.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Rule 13.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD:
No. Respondent violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attacking
both its moral and intellectual integrity, replete with implied accusations of partiality,
impropriety and lack of diligence. Respondent used improper and offensive language in
his pleadings that does not admit any justification.
 CANON 13

BAUTISTA v. GONZALES
(A.M. No. 1625, February 12, 1990)

FACTS:
A verified complained was filed by Angel Bautista against Atty. Ramon Gonzales
for malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath. Bautista accused
Gonzales, among others of having induced Bautista who was his former client, to enter
into a contract with him on for the development into a residential subdivision of the land
involved in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he
acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as attorney's fees from the Fortunados, while
knowing fully well that the said property was already sold at a public auction on June 30,
19715 he also submitted to the CFI falsified documents purporting to be true copies of
"Addendum to the Land Development Agreement dated August 30, 1971" and
submitting the same document to the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City, in connection with
the complaint for Estafa filed by respondent against complainant designated as I.S. No.
7512936. Gonzales denied said accusations. The Solicitor General recommended the
suspension of Gonzales for 6 months.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Gonzales committed acts of misconduct alleged by Bautista.

HELD:
Yes, Even assuming that the certificate of sale was annotated at the back of TCT
No. T-1929, the fact remains that respondent failed to inform the complainant of the sale
of the land to Samauna during the negotiations for the land development agreement. In
so doing, respondent failed to live up to the rigorous standards of ethics of the law
profession which place a premium on honesty and condemn duplicitous conduct. The
fact that complainant was not a former client of respondent does not exempt respondent
from his duty to inform complainant of an important fact pertaining to the land which is
subject of their negotiation. Since he was a party to the land development agreement,
respondent should have warned the complainant of the sale of the land at a public auction
so that the latter could make a proper assessment of the viability of the project they were
jointly undertaking. This Court has held that a lawyer should observe honesty and
fairness even in his private dealings and failure to do so is a ground for disciplinary action
against him.
 CANON 13

LANTORIA v. ATTY. BUNYI

(A.C. No. 1769, June 8, 1992)

FACTS:
An administrative complaint was filed by Lantoria against Bunyi, a member of the
Philippine Bar, on the ground that Bunyi committed acts of graft and corruption,
dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the IBP, and corruption of the judge
and bribery

This is in relation to Bunyi’s handling of a civil case wherein Bunyi was counsel of
Mrs. Mascarinas. The latter was the owner of the farm and Lantoria is the supervisor and
manager of the said farm. The 3 civil cases presided by Judge Galicia involved an
ejectment suit of squatters in the said farm. The defendants in the said cases were
declared in default.

Correspondences between Lantoria and Bunyi showed that Bunyi initially

enclosed a letter in an envelope addressed to Judge Galicia in a confidential and private
manner. Judge Galicia thru the mediation of Lantoria informed Bunyi that he is willing
to let Bunyi write the decisions for th 3 civil cases. Lantoria informed the same to Bunyi
which later delivered the 3 decisions thru Lantoria.

Three years later, Lantoria file the present case against Bunyi alleging that they
won the said cases because Bunyi wrote the decisions in those cases.

Bunyi contends that Lantoria had knowledge of the request of Judge Galicia to
Bunyi as the said judge had two salas before him. Also, Bunyi contends that the drafting
of the decision was not an idea spawned by him. Furthermore, he contends that his
participation is merely on revision.

The solicitor general investigated the matters and found that Bunyi prepared the
draft of the decisions and that he had previous communications with the judge regarding
drafting the same. Moreover, Bunyi admitted that he prepared the said decisions and
that the subject letters do exist.
The Solicitor General found Bunyi guilty of highly unethical and unprofessional
conduct for failure to perform his duty, as an officer of the court, to help promote the
independence of the judiciary and to refrain from engaging in acts which would influence
judicial determination of a litigation in which he is counsel. The Solicitor General
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one
(1) year.
Lantoria did not attend hearing of the case and later filed his withdrawal of the same.
Bunyi gave an apology but he denied the allegations of offering a gift to judge Galicia.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bunyi violated the code of professional responsibility for lawyers?

HELD:
YES. The determination of the merits of the instant case should proceed
notwithstanding withdrawal of complaint due to the Bunyi having admitted that the
letters in question truly exist, and that he even asked for an apology from the Court, for
whatever effects such letters had on his duty as a lawyer.

Clearly, respondent violated Canon No. 3 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on

attempts to exert personal influence on the court - A lawyer should not communicate or
argue privately with the judge as to the merits of a pending cause and deserves rebuke
and denunciation for any device or attempt to gain from a judge special personal
consideration or favor.

In the new Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer's attempt to influence the

court is rebuked, as shown in Canon No. 13 and Rule 13.01. CANON 13 — A lawyer
shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court. Rule 13.01 — A lawyer shall
not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for, cultivating
familiarity with judges.

Court finds Bunyi guilty of unethical practice in attempting to influence the court
where he had pending civil case. Suspended for 1 year.
 CANON 13

MAGLASANG v. PEOPLE
(G.R. No. 90083, October 4, 1990)

FACTS:
Khalyxto Maglasang was convicted in the court in San Carlos, Negros Occidental.
His counsel, Atty. Castellano, filed for a petition for certiorari through registered mail.
Due to non-compliance with the requirements, the court dismissed the petition and a
motion for reconsideration. Atty. Castellano then sent a complaint to the Office of the
President where he accused the five justices of the 2nd division, with biases and
ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments. He accused the court of
sabotaging the Aquino administration for being Marcos appointees, and robbing the
Filipino people genuine justice and democracy. He also said that the SC is doing this to
protect the judge who was impleaded in the petition and for money reasons. He alleges
further that the court is too expensive to be reached by ordinary men. The court is also
inconsiderate and overly strict and meticulous. When asked to show cause why he should
not be cited in contempt, Castellano said that the complaint was constructive criticism
intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and very strict practices of the justices
concerned. He also said that the justices have no jurisdiction over his act and that they
should just answer the complaint. The SC found him guilty ofcontempt and improper
conduct and ordered to pay P1, 000 or imprisonment of 15 days, and to suffer six months
suspension.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Atty. Castellano’s acts constitute a violation of the provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. The court found his comments scurrilous and contumacious. He went beyond
the bounds of constructive criticism. What he said are not relevant to the cause of his
client. They cast aspersion on the Court’s integrity as a neutral and final arbiter of all
justiciable controversies before it.
 The explanation of Castellano in his negligence in the filing of the petition for
certiorari did not render his negligence excusable. It is clear that the case was lost not by
the alleged injustices Castellanoirresponsibly ascribed to the members of the Court, but
his inexcusable negligence and incompetence.

As an officer of the court, he should have known better than to smear the honor
and integrity of the Court just to keep the confidence of his client.

Also, with the complaint he filed, the most basic tenet of the system of government
– separation of power - has been lost. He should know that not even the President of the
Philippines can pass judgment on any of the Court’s acts.
 CANON 13

RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE

PROSECUTOR
(A.C. No. 7006, October 09, 2007)

FACTS:
This administrative case stemmed from the events of the proceedings in Crim.
Case No. 5144, entitled People v. Luis BucalonPlaza, heard before the sala of Presiding
Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City, Branch 29.

Crim. Case No. 5144 was originally raffled to the sala of Judge Floripinas C.
Buyser, RTC of Surigao City, Branch 30. Judge Buyser inhibited himself from further
trying the case because of the "harsh insinuation" of Senior Prosecutor Rogelio Z.
Bagabuyo that he "lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate," by allegedly
suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel for the
accused.

The case was transferred to Branch 29 of the RTC of Surigao City wherein an order
dated November 12, 2002 was issued. It was resolved in the order through a motion to
fix the amount of bail bond which is P40,000
The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on the said order but was denied due
to lack of merit.

Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies, respondent caused the

publication of an article regarding the Order granting bail to the accused in the August
18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The article, entitled "Senior prosecutor
lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out,"||

The respondent was then ordered to appear in court to explain why he should not
be held in contempt of court for the publication of the said article which degraded the
court and the presiding judge.

On the scheduled hearing the wirter disclosed that the respondent said that stated
in a press conference that the crime murder is non-bailable and that he printed those lies
only because his source was the respondent alone which the respondent denied.
Respondent was ordered to be arrested if he does not put up a bond of P100,000 because
of the fact that the respondent refused to explain why he should not be held in contempt
for the said publication of the article. Atty. Bagabuyo again resorted to the media, after
he was ordered arrested and put up a bail of P100,000.00 this time at Radio Station DXKS.
He attacked once again Judge Tan and his disposition on the proceedings of People v.
Luis Bucalon Plaza.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo has violated the Code of professional conduct.

HELD:
Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating the code of professional conduct Canon
13, Rule 13.02 which states that “a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.” That
instead of resorting to the available judicial remedies before him, Atty. Bagabuyo has
degraded the dignity and authority of the court and the presiding judge, as well as
promoted distrust in the administration of justice when he resorted to media and
declared his complaints there. Atty. Bagabuyo is also cited for violation of Canon 11,
when he disrespected the courts and the judicial officers and Rule 11.05 when he did not
submit grievances against a judge to proper authorities only.
 CANON 13
FOODSPHERE, INC. v. ATTY. MAURICIO, JR.
(A.C. No. 7199, July 22, 2009)

FACTS:
Foodsphere, a corportation engaged in the business of meat processing and
manufacture of canned goods of “CDO” filed an administrative complaint against
Atty.Melanio Mauricio, Jr. for violation of the code of professional responsibility.
Alberto Cordero and his relatives discovered a colony of worms on a CDO liver
spread product that they were eating. Cordero’s wife filed a complaint to the Bureau of
Food and Drugs.
Pursuant to Joint DTI-DOH-DA Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, the
BFAD conducted a conciliation hearing on July 27, 2004 during which the spouses
Cordero demanded P150,000 as damages from complainant. Complainant refused to
heed the demand, however, as being in contravention of company policy and, in any
event, "outrageous".
Complainant instead offered to return actual medical and incidental expenses
incurred by the Corderos as long as they were supported by receipts, but the offer was
turned down. And the Corderos threatened to bring the matter to the attention of the
media. Respondent also threatened the company to publish articles in tabloid
newspapers and to a radio station that degrade the company’s products if they did not
adhere to the demand of the Corderos of payment of P150,000 for damages.
The respondent and compalaonant came in to an agreement however respondent was
not satisfied with the response of the complainant and instead published in his columns
articles and also featured the CDO’s products in a television segment in UNTV as well as
in a session in radio station DZBB that put the company and it’s products in bad light.
Complainant thus filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others
for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal
Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The
complaints were pending at he * time of the filing of the present administrative complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, Atty. Mauricio has violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Mauricio has violated the code of professional responsibility. His
recourse to the Media, even after being told to desist from such was a clear violation of
Rule 13.03 of Canon 13, “A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party”. His
action has put not only the company Foodsphere and CDO in a bad light, but has also
degraded the dignity and authority of the legal system. Besides the above, he has also
violated Canon 1.01 by engaging in deceitful conduct taking advantage of the complaint
against CDO to advance his own interests, and Canon 8, when he used abusive and
offensive language in his dealings
 CANON 13

ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
In the petition for certiorari filed by Joseph Ejercito Estrada, through his counsel
Attorney Allan F. Paguia, which was dismissed by this Honorable Court, the Court ruled
that Atty. Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of his client's case within
the judicial forum; indeed, he has repeated his assault on the Court in both broadcast and
print media. Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a member of
the bar from making such public statements on any pending case tending to arouse public
opinion for or against a party. By his acts, Atty. Paguia may have stoked the fires of public
dissension and posed a potentially dangerous threat to the administration ofj ustice.
Thus, the Court ordered Atty. Paguia to show cause, within ten days from notice, why he
should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
In his compliance, Atty. Paguia, in an obstinate display of defiance, repeated his earlier
claim of political partisanship against the members of the Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Paguia violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that Atty. Paguia violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The attention of Atty. Paguia has also been called to the
mandate of Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member
of the bar from making such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public
opinion for or against a party. Regrettably, Atty. Paguia has persisted in ignoring the
Court’s well-meant admonition.

On the 7th September 2003 issue of the Daily Tribune, Atty. Paguia wrote to say
—
"What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada's right to due process of
law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo unconstitutional and void. The
rudiments of fair play were not observed. There was no fair play since it appears that
when President Estrada filed his petition, Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices had
already committed to the other party — GMA — with a judgment already made and
waiting to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a formal
hearing. After the justices had authorized the proclamation of GMA as president, can
they be expected to voluntarily admit the unconstitutionality of their own act?"

Unrelentingly, Atty. Paguia has continued to make public statements of like

nature.
 The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to
become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court.
Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.

WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely suspended from the

practice of law, effective upon his receipt hereof, for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and
an officer of the Court.
 CANON 13
IN RE: USE BY ATTY. RENERIO G. PAAS AS AN OFFICE IN HIS PRIVATE
PRACTICE OF HIS PROFESSION THE OFFICE OF HIS WIFE, PASAY CITY METC
JUDGE ESTRELLITA M. PAAS
(A.M. No. 01-12-02-SC, April 4, 2003)

FACTS:
In a case for inhibition of Judge Paas in a criminal case, it was revealed that Judge
Paas’ husband, private practitioner Atty. Paas, was using his wife’s office as his office
address in his law practice, in support which were submitted copies of a Notice of Appeal
signed by Atty. Paas, notices from Pasay City RTC Branch 109 and from the Supreme
Court with respect to the case of People vs. Louie Manabat, et al. which indicated Atty.
Paas’ address to be Room 203, Hall of Justice, Pasay City, the office assigned to Pasay City
MeTC, Branch 44.
Atty. Paas denied the charge that he was using Room 203 of the Pasay City Hall of
Justice as his office address; that he never used the court in the practice of his profession.
He claimed that he actually holds office at 410 Natividad Building, Escolta, Manila.
Judge Paas admitted that Atty. Paas did use her office as his return address for
notices and orders with respect to the case of People vs. Louie Manabat, et al., but only
to ensure and facilitate delivery of those notices, but after the cases were terminated, all
notices were sent to his office address in Escolta.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Held:
Yes. Respondent violated Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

CANON 13 – A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from
any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing
the court.

Atty. Paas was guilty of using a fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive address
that had no purpose other than to try to impress either the court in which his cases are
lodged, or his client, that he has close ties to a member of the judiciary, in violation of the
Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The need for relying on the merits of a lawyer’s case, instead of banking on his
relationship with a member of the bench which tends to influencing the court, cannot be
overemphasized. It is unprofessional and dishonorable, to say the least, to misuse a
public office to enhance a lawyer’s prestige.
 CANON 13

BAN HUA U. FLORES VS ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

(A.C. 4500, April 30, 1999)

FACTS:
Complainant, Ban Hua U. Flores seeks the disbarment of Respondent Atty.
Enrique S. Chua, for various offences one of which was for "MISPRESENTATION AND
UNLAWFUL ADVERTISEMENT THROUGH THE PREMATURE PUBLICATION OF
PORTION OF A QUESTIONABLE DECISION WHICH IS PENDING APPEAL."

This was due to the publication and advertisement of a portion of the SEC decision
in a newspaper of general and wide circulation in the province relating to the SEC Case
No. 3328 holding complainant and other liable for P68 million. The decision as published
included, among others, the cancellation of titles of SK Realty, Inc. and New Challenge
Resources, Inc.
The respondent, who was not the counsel of petitioners in the proceedings, caused
damage and embarrassment to the [sic] them when said respondent instigated and
initiated the publication in a newspaper of general and wide circulation with the caption
"BUSINESSMEN ORDERED TO PAY P68 MILLION PESOS BY THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION".

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 13.

HELD:
Yes. Rule 13.02 of Canon 13 states, "A lawyer shall not make public statements in
the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party." Respondent Chua did not act as counsel for any of the parties in the SEC case. It
is likewise undenied that the decision of the SEC hearing officer in Case No. 3328 was
favorable to respondent Chua's clients. Respondent Chua, being a lawyer, should have
known that the said decision was appealable. When he published the decision, he courted
a possible sanction for contempt. By his publication, respondent has violated the 13.02 of
Canon 13.
 CANON 13

DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G. VIZCONDE VS. ATTY. FELISBERTO L.

VERANO, JR.
(A.C. 8108, July 15, 2014)

FACTS:
During the Congressional Hearings of the House Committee on Illegal Drugs
regarding the "Alabang Boys," it was found that the respondent, Atty. Felisberto L.
Verano, Jr who represented the Alabang Boys, prepared their release order using the
letterhead of the DOJ and the stationary of then Secretary Raul Gonzales.

Jimenez and Viconde, Complainants, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers

Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) aver that respondent had no right to use the
Letterhead and should be penalized. Respondent declares that he was overzealous, and
had sheer faith in the innocence of his clients, and drafted the release order on the
letterhead, and that since the secretary had not signed it, it had no effect. Although he
had mentioned in his Comment that he drafted the release order specifically fot the
signature of the DOJ Secretary.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 13.

HELD:
Yes. The act of "feeding" the draft order to the DOJ Secretary is highly irregular, as
it tende to influence a public official. Canon 13 states that "a lawyer shall rely upon the
merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives
the appearance of influencing the court." The primary duty of lawyers is not to their
clients but to the administration of justice. To that end, their clients' success is wholly
subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest
which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause,
is condemnable and unethical.