1. Benicto Hornilla vs Atty.

Ernesto Salunat
A.C. NO. 5804, JULY 1, 2003

FACTS:
On November 21, 1997, Benedicto Hornilla and Federico D. Ricafort
filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, against respondent Atty. Ernesto S.
Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and conflict of interest. They alleged
that respondent is a member of the ASSA Law and Associates, which was the
retained counsel of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association
(PPSTA). Respondents brother, Aurelio S. Salunat, was a member of the
PPSTA Board which approved respondent’s engagement as retained counsel
of PPSTA.
Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board
members in the said cases. Complainants contend that respondent was guilty
of conflict of interest because he was engaged by the PPSTA, of which
complainants were members, and was being paid out of its corporate funds
where complainants have contributed. Despite being told by PPSTA members
of the said conflict of interest, respondent refused to withdraw his appearance
in the said cases.
Moreover, complainants aver that respondent violated Rule 15.06 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility when he appeared at the meeting of
the PPSTA Board and assured its members that he will win the PPSTA cases.
Respondent pointed out that his relationship to Aurelio S. Salunat was
immaterial; and that when he entered into the retainer contract with the
PPSTA Board, he did so, not in his individual capacity, but in representation of
the ASSA Law Firm. He denied that he ensured the victory of the PPSTA
Board in the case he was handling. He merely assured the Board that the
truth will come out and that the case before the Ombudsman will be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction, considering that respondents therein are not public
officials, but private employees. Anent the SEC case, respondent alleged that
the same was being handled by the law firm of Atty. Eduardo de Mesa, and
not ASSA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Salunat is violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
The pertinent rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
RULE 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except
by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf
of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his
duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this
argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This
rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been
confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be
used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer
will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first
client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge
acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of
interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney
from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client
or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance
thereof.
Respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of representing
conflicting interests and is ADMONISHED to observe a higher degree of
fidelity in the practice of his profession. He is further WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

2. LETICIA GONZALES VS MARCELINO CABUCANA

A. C. NO. 6836 - January 23, 2006
Facts:
 Before this Court is a complaint filed by Leticia Gonzales (Gonzales)
praying that Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, (respondent) be disbarred for
representing conflicting interests.
On January 8, 2004, Gonzales filed a petition before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that: she was the complainant in a case for
sum of money and damages filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC) of Santiago City, where she was represented by the law firm
CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE,
with Atty. Edmar Cabucana handling the case and herein respondent as an
associate/partner; on February 26, 2001, a decision was rendered in the civil
case ordering the losing party to pay Gonzales the amount of P17,310.00 with
interest and P6,000.00 as attorney's fees; Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to
fully implement the writ of execution issued in connection with the judgment
which prompted Gonzales to file a complaint against the said sheriff with this
Court; in September 2003, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of
Gonzales; they harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of
desistance regarding her complaint before this Court; Gonzales thereafter
filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave
oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation; notwithstanding the
pendency of Civil Case No. 1-567, where respondent's law firm was still
representing Gonzales, herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in the
cases filed by Gonzales against the said spouses; respondent should be
disbarred from the practice of law since respondent's acceptance of the cases
of the Gatchecos violates the lawyer-client relationship between complainant
and respondent's law firm and renders respondent liable under the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) particularly Rules
10.01, 13.01, 15.02, 15.03, 21.01 and 21.02.
In his Answer, respondent averred: He never appeared and
represented complainant in Civil Case No. 1-567 since it was his brother, Atty.
Edmar Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales in said case. He
admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the cases
filed against them but claimed that his appearance is pro bono and that the
spouses pleaded with him as no other counsel was willing to take their case.
He entered his appearance in good faith and opted to represent the spouses
rather than leave them defenseless. 

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
The court find respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded on principles of public
policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust
and confidence of the highest degree. Lawyers are expected not only to keep
inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery
and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.
One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance
of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness
or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies
to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same
action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that the lawyer would not
be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose
for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential
information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two
actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing parties in one
case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or
conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with each of them would affect
the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.
The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of interests in this
case, as the civil case handled by their law firm where Gonzales is the
complainant and the criminal cases filed by Gonzales against the Gatcheco
spouses are not related, has no merit. The representation of opposing clients
in said cases, though unrelated, constitutes conflict of interests or, at the very
least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which this Court cannot allow.
Respondent further argued that it was his brother who represented
Gonzales in the civil case and not him, thus, there could be no conflict of
interests. We do not agree. As respondent admitted, it was their law firm
which represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the case, the rule
against representing conflicting interests applies.
Thus, for violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and taking into consideration the aforementioned mitigating
circumstances, we impose the penalty of fine of P2,000.00 and Stern
Warning.
 3. DE GUZMAN VS DE DIOS
350 SCRA 320
(2001)

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Lourdes de Dios was the counsel of complainant

Diana de Guzman to form a corporation to have a hotel and restaurant
business in Olongapo City.

And with the assistance of Atty. De Dios, complainant registered

Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc. (SBHI) with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Complainant paid respondent a monthly retainer fee of P 5,000.00.

On December 15, 1997, the corporation required complainant to pay

her unpaid subscribed shares of stock amounting to two million two hundred
and thirty five thousand pesos on or before December 30, 1997.

On January 29, 1998, complainant received notice of the public auction

sale of her delinquent shares and a copy of a board resolution authorizing
such sale.

Complainant soon learned that her shares had been acquired by

Ramon del Rosario, one of the incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted
complainant from the corporation completely. While respondent rose to be
president of the corporation, complainant lost all her life's savings invested
therein.

Complainant alleged that she relied on the advice of Atty. de Dios and
believed that as the majority stockholder, Atty. de Dios would help her with the
management of the corporation.

Complainant pointed out that respondent appeared as her counsel and

signed pleadings in a case where complainant was one of the parties.

Respondent, however, explained that she only appeared because the

property involved belonged to SBHI. Respondent alleged that complainant
misunderstood the role of respondent as legal counsel of Suzuki Beach Hotel,
Inc. Respondent manifested that her appearance as counsel for complainant
Diana de Guzman was to protect the rights and interest of SBHI since the
latter was the real owner of the land in controversy.

Respondent further said that the land on which the resort was
established belonged to the Japanese incorporators, not to complainant.

Meantime, Mr. Del Rosario transferred one hundred (100) shares to

respondent in payment of legal services as evidenced by a Deed of Waiver
and Transfer of Corporate Shares of Stock.
 Thereafter, Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a resolution finding
that the acts of respondent were not motivated by ill will as she acted in the
best interest of her client, SBHI. The IBP found that complainant failed to
present convincing proof of her attorney-client relationship with respondent
other than the pleadings respondent filed in the trial court where complainant
was one of the parties.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests and of
Article 1491 in the Civil Code of the Philippines for acquiring property in
litigation.

RULING:
The Court disagreed with the findings of the IBP. The Court finds merit
on the complaint.
There are certain facts presented before us that created doubt on the
propriety of the declaration of delinquent shares and subsequent sale of
complainant's entire subscription. Complainant subscribed to 29,800 shares
equivalent to two million nine hundred and eighty thousand pesos
(P2,980,000.00). She was the majority stockholder. Out of the subscribed
shares, she paid up seven hundred forty-five thousand pesos (P745,000.00)
during the stage of incorporation.

How complainant got ousted from the corporation considering the

amount she had invested in it is beyond us. Granting that the sale of her
delinquent shares was valid, what happened to her original shares? This, at
least, should have been explained.

Respondent claims that there was no attorney-client relationship

between her and complainant. The claim has no merit. It was complainant
who retained respondent to form a corporation. She appeared as counsel in
behalf of complainant.

There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and

respondent. Indeed, the board of directors now included respondent as the
president, Ramon del Rosario as secretary, Hikoi Suzuki as chairman, Agnes
Rodriguez as treasurer and Takayuki Sato as director. The present situation
shows a clear case of conflict of interest of the respondent.

Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with

their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach.

Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition against representing

conflicting interests and engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
 As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or
consent to its commission and to conduct herself as a lawyer according to the
best of her knowledge and discretion. The lawyer's oath is a source of
obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or
other disciplinary action. The acts of respondent Atty. de Dios are clearly in
violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this Court will not tolerate.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent. Atty. Lourdes I. de Dios

remiss in her sworn duty to her client, and to the bar. The Court hereby
SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for six (6) months, with warning that
a repetition of the charges will be dealt with more severely.
 4. Perez vs. De La Torre

Rule 15.03 – Lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent.

Doctrine:
The nature of relationship between lawyer and client is one of trust
and confidence of the highest degree, so it behooves the lawyer (incumbent
upon him) not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid
the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing. Only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.

Facts:
Perez charged Atty. De La Torre with misconduct or conduct
unbecoming a lawyer for representing conflicting interests in a murder case.
Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila (among the suspects for murder and kidnap for
ransom) were apprehended and jailed by police. Respondent Atty. De La
Torre went inside the Municipal Building where the two were being detained
and told them that he could secure their freedom if they signed a prepared
extrajudicial confession. Said confession implicated complainant Perez
(barangay captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, CamSur). HOWEVEVER,
said attorney was representing the heirs of the murder victim (accused did not
know this at the time).
On the basis of extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against the
accused. The complainants was also implicated as the mastermind.
Respondent claims that accused Avila asked his help and that he assisted
him after informing Avila of his constitutional rights and advising him to consult
with his parents.
The Investigating Commissioner found that there was sufficient proof to
fins respondent guilty. Respondent represented the accused while also being
retained by the victims family.
This was testified by the victims daughter Vicky De Chavez who
admitted that she was there when respondent met with the victims.

Issue:
W/N Atty. De La Torre violated Rule 15.03?

Ruling:
Yes. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether on behalf of one
client, it is the lawyers duty to uphold one claim and actively oppose the other.
There are public policy considerations because the client-attorney
relationship is one of trust and good taste. There must be an avoidance of the
appearance of impropriety since client entrusts all facts and both strong and
weak points to his lawyer.
There is a representation of conflicting interest when the acceptance of
a new retainer will seriously injure the interest of the first client.
 In the case at bar:
Client was representing both the accused Avila and Ilo as well as the
family of the murder victim. Inviting the suspicion of double dealing and
infidelity.

*SUSPENDED for 3 years with WARNING.

.
 5. Heirs of Falame v Baguio
FACTS:

Complainants, heirs of the late Lydio Falame, allege that their father
engaged the services of respondent Atty. Baguio to represent him in an action
for forcible entry (in which Lydio and his brother Raleigh were one of the
defendants). As counsel, Atty. Baguio used and submitted evidence of: 1.) A
special power of attorney executed by Lydio in favor of his brother, Raleigh
Falame, appointing him as his attorney-in-fact; and 2.) affidavit of Raleigh
Falame, executed before the respondent, in which Raleigh stated that Lydio
owned the property subject of the case.
Complainants further allege that even after a favorable ruling for the
defendants in the said case, Lydio still retained the services of Atty. Baguio as
his legal adviser and counsel of his businesses until his death in 1996.
However, in October of 2000 Atty. Baguio, in representation of spouses
Raleigh and Noemi Falame, filed a compliant against the Complainants
involving the same property that was the subject matter in the first case. Said
complaint sought the declaration of nullity of the deed of sale, its registration
in the registry of deeds, TCT issued as a consequence of the registration of
the sale and the real estate mortgage.
Complainants in turn, filed an administrative case against Atty. Baguio
alleging that by acting as counsel for the spouses Falame in the second case,
wherein they were impleaded a defendants, respondent violated his oath of
office and duty as an attorney. They contend that the spouses Falame’s
interests are adverse to those of his former client, Lydio.
The IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and
approving Investigating Commissioner Winston Abuyuan’s report and
recommendation for the dismissal of this case.

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Baguio violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

HELD
Yes, he violated the rule. Rule 15.03 of the Canon of Professional
Responsibility provides: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act
as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or
former client.
The test is whether, on behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to
contest that which his duty another client requires him to oppose or when the
possibility of such situation will develop. The rule covers not only cases in
which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in
which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.
The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if that
representation will be directly adverse to any of his present or former clients.
The rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty.
 The termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a
lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former
client. The client’s confidence once reposed should not be divested by mere
expiration of professional employment. The protection given to a client is
perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it
affected by the party’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another,
or by any other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of
the client.
In the case at bar, respondent admitted having jointly represented
Lydio and Raleigh as defendants in the first civil case. Evidently, the attorney-
client relation between Lydio and respondent was established despite the fact
that it is immaterial whether such employment was paid, promised or charged
for.
As defense counsel in the first civil case respondent advocated the
stance that Lydio solely owned the property subject of the case. In the second
civil case involving the same property, respondent, as counsel for Raleigh and
his spouse, has pursued the inconsistent position that Raleigh owned the
same property in common with Lydio, with complainants, who inherited the
property, committing acts which debase respondent’s rights as co-owner. The
fact that the attorney-client relation had ceased by reason of Lydio’s death or
through the completion of the specific task for which respondent was
employed is not reason for respondent to advocate a position opposed to the
of Lydio. And while complainants have never been respondent’s clients, they
derive their rights to the property from Lydio’s ownership of it which
respondent maintained in the first civil case.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edgar J. Baguio is found GUILTY of

representing conflicting interests and meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND.
He is further admonished to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice
of his profession and to bear in mind that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely.
 6. JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CLEMENCIO
SABITSANA, JR., RESPONDENT.
669 SCRA 77
(2012)

Facts:
Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) had previously engaged the legal
services of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a
Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband,
Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when he
subsequently filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of
Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The
complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he
obtained from her in filing the civil case.

Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the

preparation and execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied having
received any confidential information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the
present disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez,
Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him
(Atty. Sabitsana) and had instigated the complaint for this reason.

In a resolution dated February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors

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 Respondent was suspended from the practice ot law for a period of one
year.

Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution, but the IBP
Board of Governors denied his motion.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests.

Ruling:
The SC agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IBP
Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors. The SC rules that the
relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with
the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality
that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client's most confidential
information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information
between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential
information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of
utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the
client. Part of the lawyer's duty in this regard is to avoid representing
conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of

the above rule is present in a given case.

One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim

in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other
client. Thus, if a lawyer's argument for one client has to be opposed by that
same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.

Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of

a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness
or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is whether
the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former
client any confidential information acquired through their connection or
previous employment

On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, substantial evidence

proved to support Atty. Sabitsana's violation of the above rule: first, he filed a
case against the complainant in behalf of Zenaida Cañete; second, he
impleaded the complainant as the defendant in the case; and third, the case
he filed was for the annulment of the Deed of Sale that he had previously
prepared and executed for the complainant.

By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client
against another client in the same action; he also accepted a new
engagement that entailed him to contend and oppose the interest of his other
client in a property in which his legal services had been previously retained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the

findings and recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found
GUILTY of misconduct for representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule
15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of
law.
 7. Nuique v. Sedillo

FACTS:
The respondent became the lawyer of Kimura in a case for
collection/recovery of overpayment against Amasula. he spouses Kimura
obtained a favorable decision in the trial court, but the case was still on appeal
with this Court at the time when the instant complaint was filed. The
respondent remained the counsel of record of the spouses Kimura until July
2007 when Kiyoshi terminated his services.

Kiyoshi and his wife had a falling out. Apparently, his wife and her
brother falsified Kiyoshi’s signature to make it appear that he loaned
P1,500,000.00 from the Development Bank of the Philippines and, as security
for the said loan, surreptitiously mortgaged a parcel of land he owned.

Kiyoshi engaged the services of the complainant. Kiyoshi, acting

through his representative Danilo and Kazuhiro, filed a complaint against
Estrelieta and Manuel for falsification. The respondent appeared as counsel of
Estrelieta and Manuel.

ISSUE:
Whether or not he violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR.

RULING:
Rule 15.03. – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

A test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new

relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided
fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance of that duty.

The respondent’s representation of Estrelieta and Manuel against Kiyoshi,

notwithstanding that he was still the counsel of Kiyoshi and Estrelieta in the
case against Amasula, creates a suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing
in the performance of his duty towards his clients. Under the circumstances,
the decent and ethical thing which the respondent should have done was to
advise Estrelieta and Manuel to engage the services of another lawyer.

The respondent should be reminded that lawyers are expected not only to
keep inviolate their client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is paramount in the administration
of justice.

The representation of opposing clients in said cases, even if unrelated, is

tantamount to representing conflicting interests or, at the very least, invites
suspicion of double-dealing which this Court cannot allow.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds Atty. Eduardo
Sedillo GUILTY of misconduct for representing conflicting interests in violation
of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months,
effective upon receipt of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a
commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the
imposition of a more severe penalty.
 8. REGALA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (262 SCRA 122)
Facts

PCGG raised a complaint before the Sandiganbayan (SB) against Eduardo M.

Cojuangco, Jr. and Teodoro Regala and his partners in the ACCRA law Firm,
for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, which includes shares of stocks in
the named corporations in PCGG Case No. 33 (Civil Case No. 0033), entitled
“Republic of the Philippines versus Eduardo Cojuangco, et al.”

ACCRA Law Firm performed legal services for the clients specifically
delivering client documents which substantiate the client’s equity holdings.
ACCRA lawyers assisted in the organization and acquisition of the companies
and acted as nominees-stockholders of the said corporations involved in
sequestration proceedings [2]

PCGG excluded Raul Roco, one of the partners of the in an agreement that
he will reveal the identity of the principal/s for whom he acted as
nominee/stockholder.

The other partners, requested their exclusion. PCGG set the following
conditions precedent for their exclusion:

(a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b) submission of documents
substantiating the lawyer-client relationship; and (c) the submission of the
deeds of assignments petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering their
respective shareholdings.

The other lawyers refused to comply. PCGG raised the complaint to SB,
which favored the PCGG. Hence, this petition.

Issue

Whether or not Sandganayan gravely abused its discretion in subjecting

petitioners ACCRA to reveal the confidential privilege client information –
identity of their clients, to the strict application of the law of agency.

Ruling

Yes, SB gravely abused its discretion. Rule 15.02 provides that “A lawyer
shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of matters
disclosed to him by a prospective client”

“Communications made to an attorney in the course of any personal

employment, relating to the subject thereof, and which may be supposed to
be drawn out in consequence of the relation in which the parties stand to each
other, are under the seal of confidence and entitled to protection as privileged
communication” liability for negligence on the former. The ethical duties owing
to the client, including confidentiality, loyalty, competence, diligence as well as
the responsibility to keep clients informed and protect their rights to make
decisions have been zealously sustained.

Accordngly, Sandiganbayan is ordered to annul its decision against the

petitioners.
 9. People vs. Sandiganbayan, (275 SCRA 505)

Facts

Paredes, was the Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur, then Governor of the
same province and is at present a Congressman. Atty. Sansaet is a practicing
attorney who served as counsel for Paredes in several instances. In 1976,
Paredes applied for a free patent over a piece of land and it was granted to
him. But later, the Director of Lands found out that Paredes obtained the
same through fraudulent misrepresentations in his application. A civil case
was filed and Sansaet served as counsel of Paredes. A criminal case for
perjury was subsequently filed against Paredes and Sansaet also served as
counsel.

Later, Teofilo Gelacio, a taxpayer, initiated perjury and graft charges against
Paredes and Sansaet, claiming that they acted in conspiracy, by not filing an
arraignment in the criminal case. To evade responsibility for his own
participation, he claimed that he did so upon the instigation and inducement of
Paredes, and to discharge himself as a government witness. The
Sandiganbayan claimed that there was an attorney-client privilege and
resolved to deny the discharge.

Issues

Whether or not the testimony of Atty. Sanset is barred by the attorney-client

privilege

Ruling

No. The testimony of Atty. Sanset is not barred by the attorney-client privilege.
The attorney-client privilege cannot be applied because the facts thereof and
the actuations of both respondents therein constitute an exception to the rule.

The privilege applies only if the information was relayed by the client to the
lawyer respecting a past crime. The reckoning point is when the
communication was given, not when the lawyer was made to testify.
Statements and communications regarding the commission of a crime already
committed, made by a party who committed it, to an attorney, consulted as
such, are privileged communications. However, the communication between
an attorney and client having to do with the client's contemplated criminal
acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof, are not covered by the cloak of privilege
ordinarily existing in reference to communications between an attorney and a
client. The falsification not having been committed yet, these communications
are outside the pale of the attorney client privilege.

Moreover, Sansaet himself was a conspirator in the commission of the

falsification. For the communication to be privileged, it must be for a lawful
purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an unlawful
purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.

10 Castillo v. Sandiganbayan

FACTS:
RP filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reconveyance, reversion,
accounting, restitution and damages against several persons, one of which is
Gregorio Castillo. The latter was accused of having acted as dummy,
nominee and/or agent of the Marcoses, et al. in establishing Hotel Properties,
Inc., in order to acquire beneficial interest and control, and conceal ownership,
of Silahis International Hotel.

Castillo later died, therefore, a motion to dismiss was subsequently filed on

the ground that the action did not survive the death of petitioner.
Sandiganbayan denied the motion, stating that the case is not only one for
recovery of money, debt or interest thereon, but one for recovery of real and
personal property and that the cause of action being inclusive of claim for
damages for tortuous misconduct.

In another motion to dismiss, petitioner contended that the complaint filed

against Castillo is violative of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege (since
Castillo is attorney-in-fact). But Sandiganbayan ruled that Castillo is sued as
principal defendant for being in conspiracy with other defendants in the
commission of the acts complained of.
Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the case may be dismissed on the ground of violation of the
lawyer-client confidentiality privilege.

RULING:
NO, the case may be dismissed. It is true that unlike in Regala, petitioner in
the present case is not being required to name his clients. However, the case
of Regala is still applicable to the present case because the two cases are the
same in more important aspects.The fact of the lawyer-client relationship
between petitioner and defendants Enriquezes and Panlilios was immediately
raised by petitioner as one of his affirmative defenses. In the same vein, in
Regala the professional relationship was raised merely as a defense by
defendant lawyers and was not yet proved during the trial. This
notwithstanding, this Court
struck out the complaint against the lawyers.

The respondent Republic argued in its Comment that:

Moreover, the rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-client relationship is not

a valid ground to dismiss a complaint against a party. It is merely a ground for
disqualification of a witness (Section 24, Rule 130, Rules of Court) and may
only be invoked at the appropriate time, such as, when a lawyer is under
compulsion to answer as witness, as when, having taken the witness stand,
he is questioned on such confidential communication or advice, or is being
otherwise judicially coerced to produce, through subpoena duces tecum to
otherwise, letters or other documents containing the same privileged matter.

But defendant is not being required to testify about or otherwise reveal any
confidential communication made by the client to him or his advice given
thereon. What is clear from the complaint is that defendant is being sued as
principal defendant for being in conspiracy with the other defendants in the
commission of the acts complained of.

Besides, the attorney-client privileged communication does not apply if the

confidence received by an
attorney is for the purpose of advancing a criminal or fraudulent purpose.
 11.DALISAY VS MAURICIO

FACTS: 

At bar is a motion for reconsideration of our Decision dated April 22, 2005
finding Atty. Melanio "Batas" Mauricio, Jr., respondent, guilty of malpractice
and gross misconduct and imposing upon him the penalty of suspension from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. 

Valeriana U. Dalisay engaged respondent’s services as counsel in Civil Case

No. 00-044. Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorney’s
fees, respondent never rendered legal services. As a result, she terminated
the attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money,
but respondent refused.
 
The Supreme Court in its Decision, found respondent guilty of malpractice
and gross misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for
a period of six months.
 
Upon learning of the Court’s decision, respondent verified the status of Civil
Case No. 00-044. He learned of the trial court’s decision holding that the tax
declarations and title submitted by complainant are not official
records.  Thereupon, respondent filed a Sworn Affidavit Complaint against
complainant alleging that complainant offered tampered evidence.

The respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration for the Supreme Court
decision and argued that complainant did not engage his services as counsel,
and that complainant offered tampered evidence in Civil Case No. 00-004,
prompting him to file falsification cases against her. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be granted?

RULING:
The respondent’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

The Court explained that once a lawyer accepts money from a client, an

attorney-client relationship is established. Assuming that complainant
indeed offered falsified documentary evidence, it will not be sufficient to
exonerate the respondent. 

Consistent with the mandate of Canon 19 that a lawyer shall represent

his client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law, Rule 19.02 of the
same Canon specifically provides that a lawyer who has received information
that his clients has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud
upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the
same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in
accordance with the Rules of Court. 

As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead of inaction, he

should have confronted complainant and asked her to rectify her fraudulent
representation. If complainant refuses, then he should terminate his
relationship with her
Understandably, respondent failed to follow the above-cited Rule. This is
because there is no truth to his claim that he did not render legal service to
complainant because she falsified the documentary evidence in Civil Case
No.00-044. This brings us to the second reason why we cannot sustain his
fourth argument. The pleadings show that he learned of the alleged
falsification long after complainant had terminated their attorney-client
relationship. It was a result of his active search for a justification of his
negligence in Civil Case No. 00-044. As a matter of fact, he admitted that he
verified the authenticity of complainant’s title only after the "news of his
suspension spread in the legal community." To our mind, there is absurdity in
invoking subsequent knowledge of a fact as justification for an act or omission
that is fait accompli.
12… DONALD DEE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AMELITO
MUTUC, respondents.
176 SCRA 651, G.R. No. 77439
August 24, 1989

Facts:

A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable compensation
for services rendered. A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and
reasonable compensation for services rendered at the special instance and
request of his client and as long as he is honestly and in good faith trying to
serve and represent the interests of his client, the latter is bound to pay his
just fees.

The Court of Appeals rendered a decision that the legal counsel's services,
Atty. Mutuc, are on a professional and not on gratis et amore, thus ordering
the petitioner to pay the balance of Php 50,000.00.

Dewey Dee, his father and a cousin, seeks the assistance of the private
counsel. Sometime in January 1981, due to Devey Dee's indebtedness to
Ceasar's Palace, a gambling casino located in Los Angeles, California they
are also afraid since rumor said that the said casino is related to a mafia. Atty.
Mutuc approved to look into the matter and his services were contracted for
Ph 100,000.00.

The lawyer called Ceasar's Palace several times, and flew to Las Vegas
where he found out that the debt was really for Ramon Sy, and Dewey Dee
merely signed the chits amounting to $1,000,000.00.

The lawyer informed the father, Mr. Donald Dee, of his findings whereafter he
made an arrangement with the President of the Cesar's Palace, and made
Ramon Sy acknowledge the responsibility of paying the debt instead of his
client.

Then after delivering the services, Atty. Mutuc demanded the full payment of
his services, but the client refused and claimed that they are family friend
which caused the service to be rendered, and the initial payment was a
pocket money.

Atty. Mutuc then filed a case to collect, he won and then the AC have decided
differently which was later changed after a motion of reconsideration.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Mutuc can render services for two contrary party.

Ruling:

Yes, on this case considering the conduct of Atty. Mutuc, he was able to serve
the interest of both of his clients.

Under Canon 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his clients. Thus, regularly a legal counsel are
prohibited to serve two contracting parties, to ensure that the strength and
weakness of the case of both parties will be protected.

On this case Donald Dee seek the assistance of Atty. Mutuc due to
indebtedness to Cesar's Palace, the legal counsel was able to prove that
Ramon Sy was the real debtor and not his client, which is not a conflict of
interest to Cesar's Palace and to that of Donald Dee in trying to save his son.

Wherefore, Atty. Mutuc acting in good faith and in accordance to the interest
of his clients did not violate Canon 15, petitioner on this case should pay the
legal counsel, the May 9, 1986 decision is hereby affirmed with cost against
petitioner.
 13…MERCADO VS SECURITY BANK
482 SCRA 501
(2006)

FACTS:

On December 12, 2003, Jose Teofilo T. Mercado and Ma.

Agnes R. Mercado, petitioners, filed with this Court a Petition for Review on
Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals (a) Decision dated May 27, 2003 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 71570 dismissing their petition for annulment of judgment;
and (b) its Resolution3 dated October 23, 2003 denying their motion for
reconsideration.

On January 12, 2004, we denied the petition because of petitioners'

failure to show that a reversible error had been committed by the Appellate
Court.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that the Court of

Appeals, in dismissing their petition for annulment of judgment, merely relied
on technical rules of procedure, thereby sacrificing the greater interest of
justice and equity; and that their former counsel's gross negligence constitutes
extrinsic fraud, a ground for annulling the trial court's judgment.

The Court then issued a Resolution granting the petitioners’ Motion for
Reconsideration and reinstating their petition. Likewise required Security Bank
Corporation, respondent, to comment on the petition.

In its comment, respondent averred that the issues raised in the

present petition are mere rehash of the issues petitioners raised before the
Appellate Court. As to the alleged negligence of their counsel, respondent
pointed out that the same cannot be considered an extrinsic fraud since
through the same counsel, they actively pursued and recovered moral
damages and attorney's fees. Furthermore, assuming that petitioners' counsel
refused to file a motion for reconsideration with the trial court, still, they had
the option to terminate his services and hire another; and that they should not
have waited for four (4) years before filing the petition for annulment of
judgment.

Petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration but was denied for
being prohibited.

On October 18, 2004, petitioner Mercado wrote Chief Justice Hilario G.

Davide. Some of the statement’s therein are:

- After receiving the resolution he immediately called his counsel.

according to Mercado’s counsel, Atty. Jose Villanueva, the ponente informed
him that he has to deny petition onthe same ground because of the
tremendous pressure fromthe Chief Justice to favor Security Bank
Corporation. Ponente are very close and long time friends to each other.
 - suspicious that after a few days after the conversation with Atty.
Villanueva, he and his family left for London, leaving his case to the care of
one of his Associates.

-Later on, the ponente herself left for the U.S.A. to visit her children.
Petitioner claimed: "Is this a coincidence? As the saying goes, when there is
smoke. there is fire."

- SBC sold their property to M. Miranda Development Corporation and

succeeded in getting a permit to demolish the 4 building erected in the
property from the Forbes Park Association, even if the case is still pending
and MFR with the Supreme Court wasn't filed yet.

The person who bought property from SBC for P120,000,000.00 while
having a drink with petitioner's nephew bragged that he just bought the
property of the Mercado's in Forbes Park.

Buyer said: Ipaid already the proper ty because SBC told me that they
already have the go-signal from the ponente tosell the property.

Further included in the said letter are the following contemptuous

remarks:

- Have you no conscience at all? Are you not bothered of the final
judgment after life? Is this the legacy you want to impart to your
children and all the Filipino people? What you did to my family and I is
unforgivable not only to God and to humanity. You have deprived us of our
precious possession without due process.

- If you, the Chief Justice, himself, are the first person to make a
mockery of our laws, no wonder why foreign investors do not want to
invest in our country because they said, there is no justice in our courts,
the Supreme Court in particular. This is in the highest degree of
injustice. You have deprived us of our basic fundamental rights in the
protection of our property without due process.

- There is no justice in our courts, the Supreme Court in

particular. Do you think I will bring my case to the Supreme Court by
mere question of facts?

- Please I beg of you, have a last hard look on our Petition and the two
(2) Motions for Reconsideration and let us focus and not evade on the real
issue on 'LACK OF JURISDICTION' on the part of the trial court and not
concentrate on negligence of counsel and other trivial reasons, etc. Or better
yet, please refrain from influencing the members of the Third Division.

- SBC's counsels are experts in fabrication of facts and in misleading

the courts. I have a feeling that they might as well have led you to believe
something, which is not true. Please don't be an instrument of their wicked
schemes, lest the Supreme Court itself becomes their means to perpetrate
injustice.

- Please enlighten us before we seek another forum to seek redress

the injustices, sleepless nights, humiliation and embarrassment we suffered. If
we are wrong about you, and I hope we really are wrong, please accept our
appeal for forgiveness and apologies. GOD is my witness, that what I have
told you is the truth.

After receiving the said letter, Chief Justice Davide required Mercado's
lawyer, Atty. Jose P. Villanueva, to comment on the letter and show cause
why he should not be held in contempt of court and the Court's Third Division
ordered Mercado to personally appear and show cause why he should not be
held in contempt of court.

On the scheduled date, Mercado, together with Atty. Pablo G.

Macapagal, his new counsel, appeared before the Third Division and swore to
the truth of the letter he wrote. He manifested that he only stated therein what
Atty. Villanueva told him - that his petition was denied for the second time
"because of the tremendous pressure from the Chief Justice." He further
manifested that during the wake of Atty. Villanueva's mother, he (Atty.
Villanueva) pointed to Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, bragging that she
is "a very very good, close and long time friend of his." However, while stating
this, Mercado referred to Justice Conchita Carpio Morales as Justice
Gutierrez.

Forthwith, the Third Division issued in open court a Resolution directing

Atty. Macapagal to submit a written explanation why Mercado should not be
held in contempt of Court.

For his part, Atty. Villanueva submitted a comment, strongly denying

Mercado's allegations in his letter. He denied having told petitioners that their
petition had to be denied again "because there was a tremendous pressure
from the Chief Justice in favor of Security Bank Corporation." He also
stressed that there was no correlation between the ponente's trip to the United
States and his trip to London.

While in Mercado’s explanation, he claimed that the contemptuous

statements in his letter merely reiterate the tenor of Atty. Villanueva's
statements. He offered an apology, explaining that he wrote the letter while he
was "under the impulse of personal stress" as he was losing his residential
house.

On January 26, 2005, the Third Division ordered both Mercado and
Atty. Villanueva to appear on February 21, 2005 to elucidate their respective
positions.
 Mercado testified that it was Atty. Villanueva who informed him that the
ponente is Justice Gutierrez. Atty. Villanueva even bragged that she is his
"very, very close friend."

For his part, Atty. Villanueva testified that it was Mercado who informed
him that Justice Gutierrez is the ponente. He also confirmed that she attended
the wake of his mother. But he denied Mercado's claim that he pointed to
Justice Gutierrez and said that she is his close friend.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, Atty. Villanueva who was the counsel of Mercado is
guilty of indirect contempt of the court and for violating Rule 15.06 of the CPR.

RULING:

The Court rule in affirmative. Atty. Villanueva is guilty of indirect

contempt of court and for violating Rule 15.06 of the CPR.

After a careful and conscientious examination of the evidence adduced

in the instant case, the undersigned investigator is fully convinced that it was
only through Atty. Villanueva that petitioner could have learned or known the
name of the ponente in the case.

As between petitioner and Atty. Villanueva, the undersigned

investigator in inclined to give more credence to the testimony of petitioner.
Not only was petitioner consistent, firm, and candid and detailed in his
testimony, but he was also able to corroborate his claims, by submitting his
diary which contained vital entries and by presenting the testimony of his
nephew. x x x

Moreover, it was admitted by Atty. Villanueva that he and Justice

Gutierrez have known each other since 1964 and that Justice Gutierrez was
in the wake of his mother. These admissions tend to strengthen the
allegations of petitioner that Atty. Villanueva was the one who told him the
name of the ponente; that Atty. Villanueva told him that he and the ponente
are very close; and that when petitioner attended the wake of Atty.
Villanueva's mother, he was told by Atty. Villanueva that Justice Gutierrez, the
ponente, was coming.

Rule 15.06 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

states that "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any
public official, tribunal or legislative body." Further, Rule 15.07 provides that "a
lawyer must impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness." Atty. Villanueva took the forbidden course. In informing
Mercado that he was "a very very good, close and long time friend" of the
ponente, Atty. Villanueva impressed upon the former that he can obtain a
favorable disposition of his case. However, when his petition was dismissed
twice, Mercado's expectation crumbled. This prompted him to hurl unfounded,
malicious, and disrespectful accusations against Chief Justice Davide and the
ponente.

We have repeatedly admonished lawyers from making bold

assurances to their clients. A lawyer who guarantees the successful outcome
of a litigation will exert heavy pressure and employ any means to win the case
at all costs. But when the case is lost, he will blame the courts, placing them
under a cloud of suspicion. As what happened in this case, Atty. Villanueva's
statements led Mercado, not only to suspect but also to believe, that the entire
Court, together with Chief Justice Davide and the ponente, could be
pressured or influenced,

Responsibility enjoins lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due

to courts and the judicial officers. Atty. Villanueva's conduct, no doubt,
degraded the integrity and dignity of Chief Justice Davide and the ponente
and this Court as well.

One last word. The reason for the inherent power of courts to punish
for contempt is that respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the
judicial institution. Without such guarantee, the institution would be resting on
a very shaky foundation. Thus, we must act to preserve its honor and integrity
from assaults of disrespect. One reason why respect of the public for the
Judiciary has diminished is because of unscrupulous lawyers who imply that
judges and justices can be influenced or bribed. Such conduct has no place in
the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, Jose Teofilo T. Mercado and Atty. Jose P. Villanueva

are declared GUILTY of indirect contempt of court. They are FINED
P50,000.00 each and WARNED that a repetition of similar acts will warrant a
more severe penalty.
 14. Cesar L. Lantoria vs. Atty. Irineo L. Bunyi
 
FACTS: 
Bunyi alleged that Mrs. Constancia M. Mascarinas of Manila was the owner of
d farm located in Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, and that herein
complainant Lantoria was the manager and supervisor of said farm, receiving
as such a monthly allowance. It appears that the complaint in Civil Case Nos.
81, 83 and 88 sought to eject the squatters from the
aforementioned farm.These cases were assigned to the Municipal Court of
Esperanza, Agusan del Bur, the acting municipal judge of which was the
Honorable Vicente Galicia (who was at the same time the regular judge of the
municipal court of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur). The defendants in the
mentioned civil cases were, in due course, declared in default. Three years
after, that is, on 11 April 1977, complainant filed with this Court the present
administrative case against respondent Bunyi, predicated mainly on the
above-quoted three (3) letters dated 04 March, 23 April and 01 June, 1974.
Complainant contends that respondent won the said three (3) cases because
to (respondent) was the one who unethically prepared
The decisions rendered therein, and that the preparation by respondent of
said decisions warranted disciplinary action against him. The said letter of
June 1, 1974, is self-explanatory and speaks for itself, that if ever the same
was written by the Respondent, it was due to the insistence of the
Complainant thru his several letters received, that the decisions in question be
drafted or prepared for Judge Galicia, who considered such preparation as a
big help to him, because he was at that time holding two (2) salas — one as
being the regular Municipal Judge of Bayugan and the other, as the acting
Judge of Esperanza, both of Agusan del Sur, with many pending cases and it
was to the benefit of the Complainant that the early disposition of the cases
involved would not suffer inconsiderable delay. But, the intention to draft or
prepare the decisions in question was never spawned by the Respondent.
Instead, it came from the under-standing between the Judge and the
complainant who, from his several letters, had demonstrated so much interest
to eject at once the squatters from the farm he was entrusted to manage.
Furthermore, the Complainant’s conclusion that the said decisions
were lutong macao is purely non-sense as it is without any factual or legal
basis. He himself knew that Judge Galicia asked for help in the drafting of
said decisions as at any rate they were judgments by default, the defendants
lost their standing in court when they were declared in default for failure to file
their answers and to appear at the place and time set for hearing.
 
ISSUE/S: WON there was an attempt from the lawyer to influence the court.
 
HELD: YES there was an attempt from the lawyer.
 
RATIO: e, the respondent himself 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 may have had on his duty as a lawyer.
With the admission by respondent of the existence of the letters upon which
the present administrative complaint is based, the remaining issue to be
resolved is the effect of the acts complained of on respondent’s duty both as a
lawyer and an officer of the Court.
We find merit in the recommendation of the Solicitor General that respondent,
by way of disciplinary action, deserves suspension from the practice of law.
The subject letters Indeed indicate that respondent had previous
communication with Judge Galicia regarding the preparation of the draft
decisions in Civil Case Nos. 81, 83, and 88, and which he in fact prepared.
Although nothing in the records would show that respondent got the trial court
judge’s consent to the said preparation for a favor or consideration, the acts of
respondent nevertheless amount to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and an
officer of the Court.
Clearly, respondent violated Canon No. 3 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics (which were enforced at the time respondent committed the acts
admitted by him), which provides as follows:
 
3.Attempts to exert personal influence on the court
Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer to a judge,
uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties, subject both the judge
and the lawyer to misconstructions of motive and should be avoided. 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. A self-
respecting independence in the discharge of professional duty, without denial
or diminution of the courtesy and respect due the judge’s station, is the only
proper foundation for cordial personal and official relations between bench
and bar.
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, which read:
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.
Therefore, this Court finds respondent guilty of unethical practice in
attempting to influence the court where he had pending civil case.