Basic Legal and Judicial Ethics

Cayetano vs Monsod
Legal Ethics | Practice of Law
Practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts,
and in addition, conveying.

Taking into consideration the modern definition of practice of law and the liberal
construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.

FACTS:
Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman
of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments.
Commission on Appointments confirmed Monsod’s nomination. Cayetano opposed and
challenged the nomination and the subsequent confirmation of the Commission because
allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Monsod possesses the required qualification for the position of Chairman of
COMELEC.

RULING:
Yes, Monsod possesses the required qualification for the position. The case of Philippine
Lawyers Association v. Agrava stated that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In
general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an
appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a
creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law
practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done
involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
conditions.”

Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term “practice of law”, particularly
the modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction
intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar,
having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with the grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues
paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. After passing the Bar, he worked in
his father’s law office. Monsod also worked as an operations officer for World Bank Group
(1963-1970). Upon his return to the Philippines, he worked as Chief Executive officer of
Meralco Group, and subsequently rendered service to various company either as legal and
economic consultant or as chief executive officer. He also served as former Secretary
General (1986), and National Chairman of NAMFREL (1987), as a member of the
Constitutional Commission (1986-1987) and Davide Commission (1990), and as Chairman of
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.

Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-

entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer- legislator of both
the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he
has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic Inc, Bar Matter 553, June 17, 1993

FACTS:
This is a petition praying for an order to the respondent to cease and desist from issuing
certain advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those
allowed by law.

The said advertisement of the Legal Clinic invites potential clients to inquire about secret
marriage and divorce in Guam and annulment, and the like. It also says that they are giving
free books on Guam Divorce.

Ulep claims that such advertisements are unethical and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of lawyers. He, being a member of the bar, is ashamed and
offended by the said advertisements. On the other hand, the respondent, while admitting of
the fact of the publication of the advertisements, claims that it is not engaged in the
practice of law but is merely rendering legal support services through paralegals. It also
contends that such advertisements should be allowed based on certain US cases decided.

ISSUE:
W/N the Legal Clinic Inc is engaged in the practice of law.
W/N the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements complained of.

RULING:
Yes, it constitutes practice of law. No, the ads should be enjoined.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to
give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill.

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes legal advice
and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contract by which legal rights are
secured, although such matter may or may not be pending in a court. When a person
participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of law. One
who confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to
an attorney and asks the latter to look after the case in court, is also practicing law. Giving
advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct
with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. The practice of law, therefore, covers a
wide range of activities in and out of court. And applying the criteria, respondent Legal Clinic
Inc. is, as advertised, engaged in the “practice of law”.

What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen
and lawyers. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to
the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to
be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements represent and
for the which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely
within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law."

The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A
lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession advertise his talents or skill as in
a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The only exceptions are when he
appears in a reputable law list and use of an ordinary, simple professional card.

The advertisements do not fall under these exceptions. To allow the publication of
advertisements of the kind used by respondent would only serve to aggravate what is
already a deteriorating public opinion of the legal profession whose integrity has
consistently been under attack. Hence, it should be enjoined.

Sonia Decena and Rey Decena v Judge Nilo Malanyaon, AM No. RTJ-10-2217, April
9, 2013
"A judge may not involve himself in any activity constituting private practice of law."

FACT:
During an administrative hearing involving Dr. Malanyaon, where she was represented by
her daughter, Atty. Ma. Kristina Malanyaon as her counsel, Judge Nilo Malanyaon sat down
beside Atty. Ma. Kristina, his daughter during the proceedings. On several occasions, Atty.
Ma. Kristina made manifestations while glancing on the paper handed by her father, Judge
Malanyaon. The counsel for the complainant questioned the propriety of Judge Malanyaon to
be sitting and assisting his daughter during the proceedings. Judge Malanyaon justified that
he was merely assisting his daughter who just recently passed the bar. The complainant
invoked that the actuation of the respondent is a conduct unbecoming of a judge in violation
of the New Code of Judicial Conduct where judges are prohibited from engaging in the
private practice of law or giving professional advise to the clients.

ISSUE:
Is the respondent guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge?

RULING:
It was held that the act of the respondent of sitting beside his daughter on a seat reserved
for lawyers during a hearing manifests the presumption and of his intention to exert
influence as a judge on the case. In addition, the respondent also admitted that he needs to
guide his daughter during the proceedings where he coached and advised her and also
admitted that it was his filial duty to be there for his wife and daughter. His conduct
constitutes private practice of a lawyer. The respondent should have restrained himself from
acting the same for these are not enough reasons for his to forsake the ethical conducted
expected of him as a judge.

The court also found that it was clear that the respondent engaged in a private practice of a
lawyer when he coached his daughter in open court in making manifestations, posing
motions, and preparing questions for his daughter to ask before the proceedings. He did so
willingly and deliberately and after announcing when questioned about his presence that he
is the counsel of his daughter.

It was also pointed out that a lawyer who accepts an appointment to the Bench must know
that their right to practice law as a member of the Philippine Bar is suspended and shall
continue throughout their tenure as a judge. Judges are subject to constant public scrutiny
thus they should willingly and freely accept the restrictions on their conduct.
The respondent was therefore guilty for conduct unbecoming of a judge.

Case Digest: AM No. 10-10-4-SC

OCTOBER 13, 2017 RAMBLINGAPPREHENSIONS

Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the
Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of
Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court.”

Facts:

SC
Allegations of plagiarism were hurled by Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares
against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for his ponencia in the case of Vinuya v. Executive
Secretary. In said case, the Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by Filipino comfort
women to compel certain officers of the executive department to espouse their claims for
reparation and demand apology from the Japanese government for the abuses committed
against them by the Japanese soldiers during World War II. Attys. Roque and Bagares
represent the comfort women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, which is presently the
subject of a motion for reconsideration.

UP Law Faculty
37 members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law published a
statement on the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to the Court’s
decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. Essentially, the faculty of the UP College of Law,
headed by its dean, Atty. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, calls for the resignation of Justice Del
Castillo in the face of allegations of plagiarism in his work.

Notably, while the statement was meant to reflect the educators’ opinion on the allegations
of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as an
established fact, but a truth. In particular, they expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del
Castillo’s explanation on how he cited the primary sources of the quoted portions and yet
arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the authors of the articles supposedly
plagiarized.
The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of deliberately
delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of “polluted sources,” the
Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners, as well as the supposed alarming
lack of concern of the members of the Court for even the most basic values of decency and
respect.

Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty’s less than objective
comments except to discredit the Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s
honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration. As if the
case on the comfort women’s claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would
fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that would not reverse the said
decision. This runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to
be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelity
according to the oath they have taken as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice.

Issue:

Whether or not the UP Law Faculty’s actions constitute violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13
and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:

Issuance of show cause order resolution to the respondents (UP Law Faculty) as to why they
should not be disciplined as members of the Bar per issues stated above.

[case is ongoing]

Dissenting Opinion:

(1) Serreno, J.

This Court, as complaining party, must state plainly how its ability to view the motion for
reconsideration of the Vinuya decision can be affected in any way by the UP Law Faculty’s
statement. It must also state plainly how its ability to enforce its future orders would be
eroded by the release of the UP Law Faculty Statement. The milieu in which the Vinuya
decision was received by the public is well-known. It is not as if any outrage at the Vinuya
decision was caused by the UP Law Faculty Statement alone. It is also incredible how the
Court can claim that its honesty, integrity and competence could be eroded by an
extraneous act of any person other than itself. Either one is honest, has integrity, or is
competent – or he is not. No one can undermine those qualities other than the one in whom
they inhere.
Even more important to keep in mind is the apparently redemptive intent of the UP Law
Faculty when it issued its statement. The statement is headlined by the phrase “Restoring
Integrity.” In the second paragraph, the Faculty says: “Given the Court’s recent history and
the controversy that surrounded it, it cannot allow the charges of such clear and obvious
plagiarism to pass without sanction, as this would only further erode faith and confidence in
the judicial system.” In the next paragraph, it says: “The Court cannot regain its credibility
and maintain its moral authority without ensuring that its own conduct, whether collectively
or through its members, is beyond reproach.” In the same paragraph, it further says: “It is
also a very crucial step in ensuring the position of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of
all controversies: a position that requires competence and integrity completely above any
and all reproach, in accordance with the exacting demands of judicial and professional
ethics.”

Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
Carpio Morales, J.

The Resolution demonstrates nothing but an abrasive flexing of the judicial muscle that
could hardly be characterized as judicious. This knee-jerk response from the Court stares
back at its own face, since this judicial act is the one that is “totally unnecessary, uncalled
for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance.”

ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE,v ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA

This resolves a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Socrates R. Rivera for absconding
with money entrusted to him and soliciting money to bribe a judge.

On May 13, 2014, complainant Adegoke R. Plumptre filed a complaint for disbarment1against
respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Complainant alleges that, he called
respondent and asked for help in his application for a work permit from the Bureau of
Immigration.They met a few days later, and complainant paid respondent P10,000.00 as
professional fee.

They met again, and complainant gave respondent another P10,000.00, together with his
passport. This was allegedly for the processing of his work permit.

They met for a third time since respondent asked complainant to submit ID photos.
Respondent asked complainant for another P10,000.00, but complainant refused as they
only agreed on the amount of P20,000.00.

Respondent also asked complainant for P8,000.00, allegedly for complainant's other case,
which respondent was also working on.7 He explained that P5,000.00 would be given to a
Las Piñas judge to reverse the motion for reconsideration against complainant, while
P3,000.00 would be used to process the motion for reconsideration. Complainant gave him
the P8,000.00.

Petioner:
after respondent received the money, he never received any updates on the status of his
work permit and pending court case.
whenever he called respondent to follow up on his work permit, respondent hurled
invectives at him and threatened him and his wife.
he would file complaints against respondent if he did not give back the money and
passport. That was the last time complainant heard from respondent.
After inquiring and researching on respondent's whereabouts,12complainant was able to
track down respondent and get back his passport, which respondent coursed through
complainant's aunt.13However, despite the return of complainant's passport, respondent still
refused to return the P28,000.00 earlier endorsed to him.

Complainant then decided to file a complaint against respondent before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines.

IBP:Respondent's violation of Canon 1, Canon 7, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Canon 17 and Rule
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, aggravated by his failure to file Answer and
to appear in the Mandatory Conference. Thus, Atty. Socrates R. Rivera is hereby DISBARRED
from the practice of law and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys and
Ordered to Return the Twenty Eight Thousand (P28,000.00) Pesos to Complainant.

ISSUE:WON respondent should be disbarred

HELD:respondent Arty. Socrates R. Rivera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)
year RATIO:ed By absconding with the money entrusted to him by his client and behaving in
a manner not befitting a member of the bar, respondent violated the following Canons of the
Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes. . . . .

CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
and support the activities of the integrated bar. . . . .

CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession. Rule 16.01. - A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client. . . . .

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him. . . . .

CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. . . . .
Rule 18.03. - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04. - A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information. As his client's
advocate, a lawyer is duty-bound to protect his client's interests and the degree of service
expected of him in this capacity is his "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm
zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning
and ability."26The lawyer also has a fiduciary duty, with the lawyer- client relationship
imbued with utmost trust and confidence.
Respondent failed to serve his client with fidelity, competence, and diligence. He not only
neglected the attorney- client relationship established between them; he also acted in a
reprehensible manner towards complainant,i.e., cussing and threatening complainant and
his family with bodily harm, hiding from complainant, and refusing without reason to return
the money entrusted to him for the processing of the work permit. Respondent's behavior
demonstrates his lack of integrity and moral soundness. A lawyer must, at no time, lack
probity and moral fiber, which are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the bar
but are likewise essential demands for his continued membership.

When complainant refused to give respondent any more money to process his work permit,
respondent persuaded complainant to give him an additional P8,000.00 purportedly to
ensure that a motion for reconsideration pending before a Las Piñas judge would be decided
in complainant's favor. However, after receiving P28,000.00 from complainant for the work
permit and ensuring the success of complainant's court case, respondent made himself
scarce and could no longer be contacted. Although nothing in the records showed whether
the court case was indeed decided in complainant's favor, respondent's act of soliciting
money to bribe a judge served to malign the judge and the judiciary by giving the
impression that court cases are won by the party with the deepest pockets and not on the
merits.

"A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system."33 Further, "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able
to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.

By implying that he can negotiate a favorable ruling for the sum of P8,000.00, respondent
trampled upon the integrity of the judicial system and eroded confidence on the judiciary.
This gross disrespect of the judicial system shows that he is wanting in moral fiber and
betrays the lack of integrity in his character. The practice of law is a privilege, and
respondent has repeatedly shown that he is unfit to exercise it.

[ A.C. No. 10164, March 10, 2014 ]

STEPHAN BRUNET AND VIRGINIA ROMANILLOS BRUNET, COMPLAINANTS, VS.

ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, RESPONDENT.

Facts:
Complainants alleged that they engaged the services of Atty. Guaren for the titling of a
residential lot they acquired in Bonbon, Nueva Caseres; that Atty. Guaren asked for a fee of
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) including expenses relative to its proceeding; that it was
agreed that full payment of the fee shall be made after the delivery of the title; that Atty.
Guaren asked for an advance fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) which they gave; that
Atty. Guaren took all the pertinent documents relative to the titling of their lot-certified true
copy of the tax declaration, original copy of the deed of exchange, sketch plan, deed of
donation, survey plan, and original copy of the waiver; that on March 10, 1997, Atty. Guaren
asked for additional payment of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) which they dutifully gave;
that from 1997 to 2001, they always reminded Atty. Guaren about the case and each time
he would say that the titling was in progress; that they became bothered by the slow
progress of the case so they demanded the return of the money they paid; and that
respondent agreed to return the same provided that the amount of Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00) be deducted to answer for his professional fees.

Complainants further alleged that despite the existence of an attorney-client relationship

between them, Atty. Guaren made a special appearance against them in a case pending
before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, Oslob, Cebu (MCTC).

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the code of professional responsibility

Ruling:

The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining
of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.

Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of P7,000.00 as
partial payment of his acceptance fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file
the case for the titling of complainants’ lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren
breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence when he neglected a
legal matter entrusted to him.

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OFTHE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.[
A.C. No. 12079, November 10, 2020 ]EDUARDO B. MANALANG, COMPLAINANT, VS.
ATTY. CRISTINA BENOSABUENDIA, RESPONDENT.
Before us is a disbarment complaint against Atty. Cristina Benosa Buendia (Atty.Buendia) for
allegedly deceiving complainant Eduardo B. Manalang (Manalang) in connection with the
latter's petition for nullity of his marriage.
FACTS: Sometime in 2011, Eduardo B. Manalang (Manalang) engaged the services of
Atty.Buendia for the declaration of nullity of his marriage. Atty. Buendia told Manalang
thatthe proceeding usually lasts from one (1) to two (2) years, but with her services, it can
be hastened to six (6) months to one (1) year. Manalang hesitated at first, but Atty.Buendia
assured him that everything was legal. Thus, an agreement was made where Manalang
would pay legal fees amounting to 275,000.00 plus documentation and out of pocket
expenses.
When Manalang followed up on the status of the case sometime in April 2012, Atty.Buendia
assured him that everything was going smoothly. On September 7, 2012, Atty.Buendia
agreed to meet Manalang in the office of one Atty. Neil Salazar (Atty. Salazar) located along
Visayas Avenue. During the meeting, Manalang learned from Atty.Buendia that Atty. Salazar
was actually the one handling his case. He also found out that his case was filed in
Ballesteros, Cagayan. Atty. Buendia explained that she andAtty. Salazar knew someone in
Cagayan who can help them, and that they will get results by November 6, 2012. She also
promised that she will update Manalang within15 days, but never did.
It was only on April 15, 2013 that Atty. Buendia messaged Manalang to say the annulment
case was finally resolved and the decision was already available. However, Manalang
remained doubtful of his case being filed because he was never furnished a copy of the
decision. Atty. Buendia initially refused, but when Manalang insisted, she hesitatingly gave
him a copy of a decision rendered by the 33rd Branch of the Regional Trial Court in
Ballesteros, Cagayan dated December 28, 2011.
Afterwards, Atty. Buendia demanded 50,000.00 for processing the registration of the nullity
with the National Statistics Office, an amount which Manalang deposited to Atty.Buendia's
BPI Account on May 10, 2013. By that time, Manalang already paid a total of 225,000.00.₱
When Manalang inspected the decision, he observed that it contained fabricated details
regarding his marriage, such as physical violence allegedly inflicted on him. He also
noticed that the facts therein were different from what he had narrated to Atty. Buendia.
These made him doubt the veracity of the documents
When Manalang inspected the decision, he observed that it contained fabricated details
regarding his marriage, such as physical violence allegedly inflicted on him. He also noticed
that the facts therein were different from what he had narrated to Atty. Buendia. These
made him doubt the veracity of the documents
This made Manalang grow even more suspicious which is why he took it upon himself to go
to Ballesteros, Cagayan to find out the status of his case.
There, he learned that there was "absolutely no case filed for the dissolution of [his]
marriage."
On June 27, 2014, Manalang filed a Complaint against Atty. Buendia before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines.
Atty. Buendia moved for reconsideration, but it was denied
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Buendia should be disbarred for her
misrepresentations and for deceiving her client?
RULING:YES.The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate
disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline its members is not only a right,
but a bounden duty as well.
This Court's authority to discipline the members of the legal profession arises from its
constitutional prerogative to regulate the practice of law.
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for disbarment or
suspension of lawyers:
SECTION 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. - A
member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for
any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for
a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
In dealing with clients, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a
lawyer shall uphold the law and promote respect for law and the legal processes. This Canon
is comprised of four (4) rules:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OFTHE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will
admit of a fair settlement.
The duty of a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote
respect for law and legal processes demands that he or she shall "not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Saladaga v. Astorga explains:
Any act or omission that is contrary to, prohibited or unauthorized by, in defiance of,
disobedient to, or disregards the law is "unlawful." "Unlawful" conduct does not necessarily
imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad enough to include such
element.
To be "dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be
untrustworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness and
straightforwardness. On the other hand, conduct that is "deceitful" means as follows:
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." As such, membership in the legal
profession is a privilege that is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law,
but are also known to possess good moral character. Lawyers must conduct themselves
beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at
large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the
imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.
This Court will not hesitate to mete out the grave penalty of disbarment if a lawyer is found
guilty of misrepresentation and deception of his or her client.
Here, it is clear that respondent violated her sworn duties under the Lawyer's Oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility when she deliberately misled and deceived her client by
fabricating a court decision.
Respondent denies that she was engaged as counsel for complainant's nullity case and
alleges she only acted as an intermediary. Yet, respondent failed to present any evidence to
support her argument that it was indeed Atty. Tabbu whose services were engaged.
As to the payment for the services, respondent argues that she only received such
payments, again, as an intermediary. However, the acknowledgement receipts did not show
that she received them on behalf of Atty. Tabbu.
Moreover, respondent never rebutted the assertion of complainant that no nullity case was
filed yet she claims to have updated complainant on its status as relayed by Atty. Tabbu.
Verily, respondent handled the case of complainant. Her denials, assertions, and
inconsistencies failed to support her case and overcome the substantial evidence presented
against her which shows how she failed to uphold the duties required from a lawyer.
Respondent was dishonest in the performance of her duties and in dealing with her client.
She claims that she took care of the client's case when, in truth, she never acted on it.
Worse, she deceived the client by saying that his nullity case was already resolved, handing
him a fabricated decision and Certificate of Finality. Clearly, she was the lawyer of the
complainant and her excuse of being an innocent intermediary appears to be a mere
afterthought.
Furthermore, respondent was negligent in handling the client's case. In many instances, she
deliberately failed to update complainant with the status of the case despite complainant’s
calls and text messages. She even asked that complainant put his trust and confidence in
her despite knowing that the nullity case was never filed.
When a lawyer fails to provide legal services to his or her client, such as failure to file the
case, the legal fees paid must be returned to the latter.
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("the Code") provides that a lawyer
shall account for all money or property collected for or from the client. Acceptance of money
from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity
to the client's cause. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing
fee, but not used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the client on
demand. Paguinto returned the money only after Pariñas filed this administrative case for
disbarment.
Thus, the respondent must return the total amount of 270,000.00 paid by the complainant.
For her failure to uphold the standards required in the legal profession, respondent no longer
deserves to be a member of the bar. Not only did she fail to observe the duties of
competence and diligence required from lawyers, she also continuously deceived her client
in utter disregard of the duties and obligations required from a member of the legal
profession
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Atty. Cristina Benosa Buendia GUILTY of violating
Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Sheis hereby
DISBARRED from the practice of law and her name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Respondent is ORDERED to return to complainant Eduardo B. Manalang, within 30 days from
notice, the sum of 270,000.00 with an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum
from the date of the promulgation of this Resolution until fully paid. Respondent is further
DIRECTED to submit to this Court proof of her payment within 10 days therefrom.
BENJAMIN Q. ONG v. ATTY. WILLIAM F. DELOS SANTOS, AC. No. 10179, 2014-03-04

Facts:

In January 2008, complainant Benjamin Ong was introduced to respondent Atty. William F.
Delos Santos by Sheriff Fernando Mercado of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. After
several calls and personal interactions between them, Ong and Atty. Delos Santos became...
friends.[1] In time, according to Ong, Atty. Delos Santos asked him to encash his postdated
check inasmuch as he was in dire need of cash. To reassure Ong that the check would be
funded upon maturity, Atty. Delos Santos bragged about his lucrative practice... and his
good paying clients. Convinced of Atty. Delos Santos' financial stability, Ong handed to Atty.
Delos Santos on January 29, 2008 the amount of P100,000.00 in exchange for the latter's
Metrobank Check No. 0110268 postdated February 29, 2008.[2]

However, the check was dishonored upon presentment for the reason that the account was
closed.[3] Ong relayed the matter of the dishonor to Atty. Delos Santos, and demanded
immediate payment, but the latter just ignored him.[4] When... efforts to collect remained
futile, Ong brought a criminal complaint for estafa and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22 against Atty. Delos Santos.[5] Ong also brought this disbarment complaint against Atty.
Delos Santos in the Integrated Bar of... the Philippines (IBP), which docketed the complaint
as CBD Case No. 11-2985.

In his Commissioner's Report,[6] IBP Bar Commissioner Jose I. Dela Rama, Jr.

recommended that Atty. Delos Santos be held liable for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and that the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for two years,... plus the return of the amount of
P100,000.00 to the complainant,

Issues:

By issuing the worthless check, did Atty. Delos Santos violate Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon
7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:

We agree with the findings of the IBP but modify the recommended penalty.

Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and responsibility to maintain his
good moral character. In this regard, good moral character is not only a condition precedent
relating to his admission into the practice of law, but is a continuing imposition in order... for
him to maintain his membership in the Philippine Bar.

Being a lawyer, Atty. Delos Santos was well aware of the objectives and coverage of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for the law
was penal in character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved
herein... knowingly violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and exhibited his indifference towards
the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and public order

He thereby swept aside his Lawyer's Oath that enjoined him to support the Constitution...
and obey the laws. He also took for granted the express commands of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03, viz:

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

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

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

That his act involved a private dealing with Ong did not matter. His being a lawyer invested
him whether he was acting as such or in a non-professional capacity with the obligation to
exhibit good faith, fairness and candor in his relationship with others. There is no question...
that a lawyer could be disciplined not only for a malpractice in his profession, but also for
any misconduct committed outside of his professional capacity.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court PRONOUNCES respondent ATTY. WILLIAM F. DELOS SANTOS

GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and, accordingly, SUSPENDS HIM FROM THE

PRACTICE OF LAW FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS EFFECTIVE FROM NOTICE, with a stern
warning that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to
Atty. Delos Santos' personal record as an attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;
and to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.
Gizale O. Tumbaga v. Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon A. C. No. 5573; November 21, 2017
Facts
• Complainant Tumbaga claimed that she had a relationship and a son with Atty. Teoxon.
She was assured by Atty. Teoxon that the latter was already married but it was a sham
because it was not registered.
•Atty. Teoxon claimed that Tumbaga merely wanted to extort money from him using the
child; that Tumbaga had done this the former governor of Albay.
•The signature in the Certificate of Live Birth of the child and the Affidavit of Support were
all forgeries.
ISSUE:

Was the atty. Teoxon guilty of gross immorality and gross misconduct
Ruling
• Atty. Teoxon was found to have committed gross immorality by maintaining an
extramarital affair with Tumbaga. • Violative of:
• Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
• CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
• Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.
Ruling

•There was a substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Atty. Teoxon failed live up to
the good moral conduct required of the members of the legal profession.

•One of the key pieces of evidence that the IBP considered in ruling against respondent is the
Decision dated May 8, 2006 of the MTCC of Naga City in Civil Case No. 11546 for replevin.

• The MTCC plainly disbelieved respondent's claim that he merely left his bag of clothing in
complainant's house before he left for his place of work in Metro Manila - a claim which he
likewise made in the present case. The trial court further posited that the pieces of furniture
sought to be recovered by respondent were indeed bought by him but the same were
intentionally given to complainant out of love. Clearly, the MTCC was convinced that
respondent and complainant were involved in an illicit relationship that eventually turned sour
and led to the filing of the replevin case.