CANON 6.

03 CASES

1. OLAZO v. Dante TINGA (AM No. 10-5-7-SC-12/7/2010)

 FACTS:
This is a disbarment case against retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga (respondent)
filed by Mr. Jovito S. Olazo (complainant). The respondent is charged of violating Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests.

The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02

In the complaint,the complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position as Congressman and as a
member of the Committee on Awards when he unduly interfered with the complainant’s sales application
because of his personal interest over the subject land.

The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03

The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas belonging to Manuel Olazo, the
complainant’s brother. The complainant alleged that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to
convey his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.

The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01

The complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct considering his knowledge that
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a qualified beneficiary under Memorandum No. 119. The complainant
averred that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the proclaimed areas and does not qualify
for an award.

The complainant also alleged that the respondent violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in the practice
of law, within the one-year prohibition period, when he appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards.

 ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent was engaged in the practice of law.
Whether or not respondent is liable under Rules 6.02, 6.03 and 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

 RULING:
(1) In Cayetano v. Monsod,we defined the practice of law as any activity, in and out of court, that
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Moreover, we
ruled that to engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the
profession; to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
“THE COMPLAINANT, TOO, FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISH THAT THE
RESPONDENT WAS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. AT FACE VALUE, THE LEGAL
SERVICE RENDERED BY THE RESPONDENT WAS LIMITED ONLY IN THE PREPARATION OF A
SINGLE DOCUMENT. IN BORJA, SR. V. SULYAP, INC.,WE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED PRIVATE
PRACTICE OF LAW AS ONE THAT CONTEMPLATES A SUCCESSION OF ACTS OF THE SAME
NATURE HABITUALLY OR CUSTOMARILY HOLDING ONE’S SELF TO THE PUBLIC AS A
LAWYER.

(2) All told, considering the serious consequences of the penalty of disbarment or suspension of a
member of the Bar, the burden rests on the complainant to present clear, convincing and satisfactory
proof for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers. The respondent generally is under no
 obligation to prove his/her defense, until the burden shifts to him/her because of what the
complainant has proven. Where no case has in the first place been proven, nothing has to be rebutted
in defense.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the administrative case for violation of Rule 6.02,
Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, filed against retired Supreme Court
Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.

2. Atty. Julito D. VITRIOLO et. ol vs. Atty. Felino DASIG (A.C No. 4984, April 1, 2003)

 FACTS:
This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an official of the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The charge involves gross misconduct of respondent in violation of
the Attorney’s Oath for having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity
and reputation of the CHED. Almost all complainants in the instant case are high-ranking officers of the CHED.
In their sworn Complaint-Affidavit filed with this Court on December 4, 1998, complainants allege that
respondent, while she was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for disbarment
under Section 27,2 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
She demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel Educational Center in
Novaliches, Quezon City, the amount of P5,000.00 for the facilitation of her application for correction of name
then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. she demanded from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student, the
amount of P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending
before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She demanded from Rocella G. Eje, a student, the amount of
P5,000.00 for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs
Service, CHED. She demanded from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a considerable amount which was
subsequently confirmed to be P15,000.00 and initial fee of P5,000.00 more or less for facilitation of her
application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED.

 ISSUE:
Whether the Respondent violated her Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility.

 HELD:
YES, respondent Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in violation
of the Attorney’s Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby ordered DISBARRED.
Respondent’s attempts to extort money from persons with applications or requests pending before her office are
violative of Rule 1.0118 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from
engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of
Rule 6.0219 of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests.
Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any
transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office.
Respondent’s conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers,
especially from one occupying a high public office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to
refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in
government, she must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high
standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the
public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in
private practice.
For her violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.03 of Canon 120 and Rule
6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly for acts of dishonesty as well as gross
misconduct as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, we find that respondent deserves not just the penalty of three years’
suspension from membership in the Bar as well as the practice of law, as recommended by the IBP Board of
Governors, but outright disbarment. Her name shall be stricken off the list of attorneys upon finality of this
decision.

3. Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya (176 SCRA 634, August 23, l989)

GONZALES AUSTRIA v. ABAYA

A.M. No. R-705-RTJ. August 23,
1989
178 SCRA 634
FACTS: Petitioners charged
respondent Judge Abaya for
Estafa through falsification of public
or official documents, Gross
dishonesty and corruption by
soliciting, demanding, receiving
bribed money in exchange for
favorable resolutions and
decisions from different litigants and
illegal exaction of portion of
the salaries of his subordinate
Edgardo Servando as part and
condition of his continued
employment. Based on the evidence
presented by the parties, CA
Justice Herrera finds the
respondents guilty of the charges
against them.
ISSUE: WON the CA decision was
committed with grave abuse
of discretion.
HELD: The office of a judge exists
for one solemn end — to
promote justice by administering
it fairly and impartially. The
judge is the visible representation of
the law and of justice. From
him, the people draw their will and
awareness to obey the law.
For him then to transgress the
highest ideals of justice and
public service for personal gain
is indeed a demoralizing
example constituting a valid cause
for disenchantment and loss
of confidence in the judiciary
as well as in the civil service
system. By these acts, Judge
Abaya has demonstrated his
unfitness and unworthiness of
the honor and perquisites
attached to his office. As he had
previously resigned, we hereby
order the forfeiture of his
retirement benefits, except
earned
leave credits, as recommended
by the investigating officer
Justice Herrera.
Generally speaking, a lawyer who
holds a government office
may not be disciplined as a member
of the bar for misconduct in
the discharge of his duties as a
government official. However, if
that misconduct as a government
official is of such a character
as to affect his qualification as
a lawyer or to show moral
delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar
on such ground
 DOCTRINE:
Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if that misconduct as a government official is
of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a
member of the bar on such ground.

 FACTS:
I. Complainants Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria (Atty. Austria), Leonila Fuertes (Fuertes), and Edgardo Servando
(Servando) have filed a case against Judge Emmanuel M. Abaya (Judge Abaya) of RTC Br. 51 of Puerto Princesa
City (MABUHAY! Hometown ko!) on the following grounds:
a. Estafa through falsification of public or official documents, by verifying official hours rendered by a
certain Anabelle Cardenas (Cardenas) who has never reported for duty, and by receiving salaries of said
Cardenas through the forgery of the Cardena’s signature, thus deceiving the government and defrauding the
gov’t of bug amount of money.
b. Gross dishonesty and corruption by soliciting, demanding, receiving bribed money in exchanged for
favorable resolutions and decisions from different litigations in Br. 52, where Abaya has been temporarily
assigned.
c. Illegal exaction of portion of the salaries of his subordinate Servando as part and condition of his continued
employment in Br. 51, where Abaya is the presiding judge.
II. Judge Abaya has denied all the accusations against him. He says that these accusations are in retaliation of Atty
Austria against (1) the administrative case that Judge Abaya has earlier filed against one of his accusers, Atty.
Austria, for dishonesty and grave misconduct in having forged Judge Abaya’s signature in a probation order in
a criminal casei which the latter presiding and (2) for the disbarment of said Atty Austria based on the same
alleged offense.
III. After Atty Austria files her comment, the court has consolidated the cases. The court has granted the MR of
complainants, which adjoins Cardenas as defendant, along with Judge Abaya, in this said case.
IV. The case is referred to Court of Appeals Justice Oscar M. Herrera (fiat!) for investigation, report and
recommendation. Justice Herrera find Judge Abaya and Cerdenas guilty of the charges against them and thereby
recommends:
a. FORFEITURE of retirement benefits of Judge Abaya except earned leave credits;
b. REMOVAL of Annabelle Cardenas from office as Court Stenographer;
c. ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION from office as Attorney of Atty. Austria.

 ISSUE/S:
(a) WON Judge Abaya is guilty of all the accusations imputed against him. Yes, only in respect to letters “a” and
“b”
(b) WON Atty Austria is guilty of dishonesty and misconduct. Assuming yes, is she disbarred

(a) First issue:

a.1 Estafa thru Falsification of public or official documents – the court finds that Cardenas, having allegedly
worked as Stenographic Reporter of Br. 51, is a ghost employee of the court who has never reported to work. Cardenas
has been working at a Travel Agency and studying in college during the periods where she allegedly has worked in court.
Based on the evidence presented, it shows that Cardenas is enrolled at Holy Trinity College during her tenure as Court
Stenographic. The school records show that Cardenas has attended her classes from 2:00 PM to 8:15 PM during the same
time that she has worked in court from 8am – 5pm.. Though she avers that one of her professors has permitted her to
attend her work first, school records reveal that she has been enrolled not only in one subject but also to several more.
Thus, the court finds that it is impossible for her to work in that said court with incurring no absences and tardiness’ while
having enrolled in college and having worked in a Travel Agency. Moreover, the court finds that Judge Abaya is really the
one who falsifies the daily time records and receives salaries of Cardenas with knowledge and consent of the latter.
However, no proof to support Atty Astria’s theory that Judge Abaya has appropriated the money for himself.

a.2 Gross dishonesty and corruption by soliciting, demanding, receiving bribed – Judge Abaya is, at that
time, temporarily assigned as the presiding judge of Br. 52 where he has successfully solicited, demanded and received a
bribe from Leonila Fuentes, a teacher, on his promise that he shall deny the bail of the accused who has killed her
(Fuentes) son. Judge Abaya is the one who has solicited and demanded the bride. At first, Fuentes is reluctant to accept the
offer. However, after having consulted her family and her city prosecutor friend, Fuentes has given in to the demands of
Judge Abaya by paying the latter a certain amount, which is actually lower than the agreed amount. Judge Abaya alleges
that Fuentes has only testified against him because of the brainwashing of Atty. Austria to Fuentes. The court affirms the
findings of Justice Herrera that Fuentes has no improper motive to impute such a serious offense against said judge; thus,
the court gives credence to the given testimonies of Fuentes.

a.3 Illegal exaction – It is alleged that Judge Abaya has exacted the portions of two employees (Servando is one
of the employees here) in Br. 51 of Puerto Princesa RTC as a condition for their continued employment. The court gives
respondent Judge Abaya the benefit of the doubt.

 HELD

 RULING of 1st issue: In summation, the court find Judge Abaya guilt of grave and serious misconduct affecting
his moral character which would have warranted his dismissal from the service had his resignation not been
accepted. The court forfeits all of his retirement benefits except earned leave credits. Annabelle Cardenas is
dimissed from office with prejudice to her reappointment to the Judiciary.
The judge is the visible representation of the law and of justice. From him, the people draw their will and awareness
to obey the law. For him then to transgress the highest ideals of justice and public service for personal gain is indeed a
demoralizing example constituting a valid cause for disenchantment and loss of confidence in the judiciary as well as in
the civil service system.
By these acts, Judge Abaya has demonstrated his unfitness and unworthiness of the honor and requisites attached to
his office.

 (b) second issue (dishonesty and misconduct/disbarment of Atty Austria) - The complaints for dishonesty and
grave misconduct and for disbarment against Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria, then Clerk of Court of Branch 52,
RTC Palawan, stem from her act of having allegedly forged the signature of Judge Abaya in a probation order in
Criminal Case entitled "People vs. Leonardo Cruz" for attempted homicide.
Atty Austria admits to having signed said probations orders but done with knowledge and consent of Judge Abaya.
Because of workload, Judge Abaya is not able to sign and promulgate the said order, which causes further delay for the
probational release of Cruz. Cruz has personally come to the courthouse of Judge Abaya to beg the latter to sign said
order, however, he has again forgotten to sign it.
Atty Austria, acting as clerk of court, is the one who promulgates said order. She justifies her action under the theory
of agency (Art 1881 of the Civil Code) in that having been granted full authority to promulgate the probation order, she
necessarily had the authority to sign the Judge's name if the need arose. She further maintains that as Judge Abaya never
complained about the alleged forgery, he is deemed to have ratified it and is now estopped from questioning her authority.
Lastly, she compares the probation order to a writ of execution which is usually done by the Clerk of Court. The court
affirms the findings of Justice Herrera that the duties of the clerk of court in the absence of any express direction of the
judge, is well defined under section 5, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court. Signing orders in the name of, and simulating the
signature of the judge is not included under said Rule.
Wherefore, the court ACCEPTS the resignation of Atty. Austria and DECLARES the forfeiture of her salaries
and SUSPENDS her as a member of the bar for one (1) year.
GONZALES AUSTRIA v. ABAYA
A.M. No. R-705-RTJ. August 23,
1989
178 SCRA 634
FACTS: Petitioners charged
respondent Judge Abaya for
Estafa through falsification of public
or official documents, Gross
dishonesty and corruption by
soliciting, demanding, receiving
bribed money in exchange for
favorable resolutions and
decisions from different litigants and
illegal exaction of portion of
the salaries of his subordinate
Edgardo Servando as part and
condition of his continued
employment. Based on the evidence
presented by the parties, CA
Justice Herrera finds the
respondents guilty of the charges
against them.
ISSUE: WON the CA decision was
committed with grave abuse
of discretion.
HELD: The office of a judge exists
for one solemn end — to
promote justice by administering
it fairly and impartially. The
judge is the visible representation of
the law and of justice. From
him, the people draw their will and
awareness to obey the law.
For him then to transgress the
highest ideals of justice and
public service for personal gain
is indeed a demoralizing
example constituting a valid cause
for disenchantment and loss
of confidence in the judiciary
as well as in the civil service
system. By these acts, Judge
Abaya has demonstrated his
unfitness and unworthiness of
the honor and perquisites
attached to his office. As he had
previously resigned, we hereby
order the forfeiture of his
retirement benefits, except
earned
leave credits, as recommended
by the investigating officer
Justice Herrera.
Generally speaking, a lawyer who
holds a government office
may not be disciplined as a member
of the bar for misconduct in
the discharge of his duties as a
government official. However, if
that misconduct as a government
official is of such a character
as to affect his qualification as
a lawyer or to show moral
delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar
on such ground
4. Dinsay vs. Cioco (264 SCRA 703, November 27, 1996)
i

 FACTS:
Planters Machinery Corporation (PLAMACO) mortgaged to Traders Royal Bank (the Bank) certain
properties as security for the payment of its loan. PLAMACO defaulted in the payment of the loan so the Bank
extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. At a foreclosure sale conducted by the sheriff, the property was sold to
the bank, who was the sole bidder. A certificate of Sheriff’s sale was executed by Atty. Cioco, then clerk of
Court and Ex-officio Sheriff.

Records disclose that page four of the said Certificate was surreptitiously substituted. The new page lowered
the bid price from the original amount of P3, 263, 182.67 to only P730,000. Cioco and the sheriff who
conducted the sale had previously been administratively charged and dismissed from service.

Now, Atty.Cioco is sought to be disbarred. He argues that there was res adjudicata due to the administrative
case, and that disbarment was deemed adjudicated therein, thus he may now longer be charged.

 ISSUE: W/N Cioco may be charged with disbarment (W/N res adjudicata appplies)

 HELD:
Cioco’s contention has no merit. Res adjudicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and
not to the exercise of the Court’s administrative powers, as in this case.
Disbarment has not been adjudicated in the previous case. Therein, Cioco was administratively proceeded
against as an erring Court personnel under the supervisory authority of the court. Herein, Cioco is sought to be
disciplined as a lawyer under the court’s plenary authority over members of the legal profession.

While Cioco is in effect being indicted twice for the same misconduct, there is no double jeopardy as both
proceedings are administrative in nature.
The general rule is that a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the
bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. The exception is , if that misconduct
affects his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency.

Cioco’s participation in changing the bid price in the Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale affects his fitness as a
member of the bar. He knows it is patently illegal to alter its contents after notarization, since it is already a
public document.
Cioco is disbarred.