NEW CASES

FOR PROBLEM
AREAS IN
LEGAL ETHICS

Page 1 of 55
1. A.C. No. 10952, January 26, Salvado that he would not place
2016 – ENGEL PAUL ACA, his reputation as a lawyer on the
Complainant, v. ATTY. line, complainant made an initial
RONALDO P. SALVADO, investment in his business. This
Respondent.: initial investment yielded an
amount corresponding to the
SYLLABUS: Lawyers have a duty
principal plus the promised
not to engage in activities, which
interest. On various dates from
are dishonest, grossly immoral,
2010 to 2011, complainant
and for committing violations of
claimed that he was again
law. The Dishonesty, gross
induced by Atty. Salvado to invest
immorality and violation of law
with promises of high rates of
need not be committed in relation
return.
to his professional duties; the
lawyers may be sanctioned for As consideration for these
acts committed in his private investments, Atty. Salvado issued
affairs. several post-dated checks in the
total amount of P6,107,000.00,
Facts of the Case: complainant
representing the principal amount
alleged, among others, that
plus interests. the
sometime in 2010, he met Atty.
aforementioned checks were
Salvado through Atty. Samuel
dishonored as these were drawn
Divina (Atty. Divina), his
from insufficient funds or a closed
childhood friend; that Atty.
account.
Salvado introduced himself as a
lawyer and a businessman Complainant made several verbal
engaged in several businesses and written demands upon Atty.
including but not limited to the Salvado, who at first, openly
lending business; that on the communicated with him, assuring
same occasion, Atty. Salvado him that he would not abscond
enticed the complainant to invest from his obligations and that he
in his business with a guarantee was just having difficulty
that he would be given a high liquidating his assets and
interest rate of 5% to 6% every collecting from his own creditors.
month; and that he was assured Complainant was even informed
of a profitable investment due by by Atty. Salvado that he owned
Atty. Salvado as the latter had real properties that could serve as
various clients and investors. payment for his obligations. As
time went by, however, Atty.
Because of these representations
Salvado began to avoid
coupled by the assurance of Atty.
Page 2 of 55
complainant’s calls and text confronted him as he was about
messages. Attempts to meet up to enter the gate of the house.
with him through common friends Obviously startled, Atty. Salvado
also proved futile. This prompted told him that he had not forgotten
complainant to refer the matter to his debt and invited complainant
his lawyer Atty. Divina, for to enter the house so they could
appropriate legal action. talk. Complainant refused the
invitation and instead told Atty.
On December 26, 2011, Atty.
Salvado that they should talk
Divina personally served the
inside his vehicle where his
Notice of Dishonor on Atty.
companions were. During this
Salvado, directing him to settle
conversation, Atty. Salvado
his total obligation in the amount
assured complainant that he was
of P747,000.00, corresponding to
working on “something” to pay
the cash value of the first two (2)
his obligations. He still refused to
PSBank checks, within seven (7)
personally receive or, at the least,
days from receipt of the said
read the demand letter.
notice.6 Nevertheless, Atty.
Salvado refused to receive the Despite his promises, Atty.
said notice when Atty. Divina’s Salvado failed to settle his
messenger attempted to serve it obligations.
on him.
For complainant, Atty. Salvado’s
Sometime in April 2012, act of issuing worthless checks
complainant yet again engaged not only constituted a violation of
the services of Atty. Divina, who, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P.
with his filing clerk and the 22) or the “Anti-Bouncing Checks
complainant’s family, went to Law,” but also reflected his
Atty. Salvado’s house to depraved character as a lawyer.
personally serve the demand Atty. Salvado not only refused to
letter. A certain “Mark” who comply with his obligation, but
opened the gate told the filing also used his knowledge of the
clerk that Atty. Salvado was no law to evade criminal prosecution.
longer residing there and had He had obviously instructed his
been staying in the province household staff to lie as to his
already whereabouts and to reject any
correspondence sent to him. This
As they were about to leave, a
resort to deceitful ways showed
red vehicle arrived bearing Atty.
that Atty. Salvado was not fit to
Salvado. Complainant quickly
remain as a member of the Bar.
alighted from his vehicle and
Page 3 of 55
 act of making and issuing a
worthless check; that is, a check
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty.
that is dishonored upon its
Salvado violated Canons 1 rule
presentation for payment. The
1.01 and Canons 7 Rule 7.03
thrust of the law is to prohibit,
Ruling: Yes, The Court held that under pain of penal sanctions, the
Atty. Salvado is indeed guilty of making and circulation of
the violation of the Code of worthless checks. Because of its
professional responsibility. The deleterious effects on the public
public is, indeed, inclined to rely interest, the practice is proscribed
on representations made by by the law. Hence, the excuse of
lawyers. As a man of law, a “gullibility and inadvertence”
lawyer is necessarily a leader of deserves scant consideration.
the community, looked up to as a Surely, Atty. Salvado is aware
model citizen. A man, learned in that promoting obedience to the
the law like Atty. Salvado, is Constitution and the laws of the
expected to make truthful land is the primary obligation of
representations when dealing lawyers. When he issued the
with persons, clients or otherwise. worthless checks, he discredited
The Court finds it hard to believe the legal profession and created
that a person like the complainant the public impression that laws
would not find the profession of were mere tools of convenience
the person on whose businesses that could be used, bended and
he would invest as important to abused to satisfy personal whims
consider. Simply put, Atty. and desires.
Salvado’s stature as a member of
The Court cannot overlook Atty.
the Bar had, in one way or
Salvado’s deceiving attempts to
another, influenced complainant’s
evade payment of his obligations.
decision to invest.
Instead of displaying a committed
Secondly, it must be pointed out attitude to his creditor, Atty.
that the denials proffered by Atty. Salvado refused to answer
Salvado cannot belie the dishonor complainant’s demands. He even
of the checks. His strained tried to make the complainant
explanation that the checks were believe that he was no longer
mere securities cannot be residing at his given address.
countenanced. Of all people, These acts demonstrate lack of
lawyers are expected to fully moral character to satisfy the
comprehend the legal import of responsibilities and duties
bouncing checks. B.P. 22 is the imposed on lawyers as
Page 4 of 55
professionals and as officers of complainant made several
the court. The subsequent offers payments to the respondent,
he had made and the eventual including P70,000 on November
sale of his properties to the 23, 2013, P50,000 on December
complainant, unfortunately 4, 2013, P200,000 on January 7,
cannot overturn his acts 2014, and P100,000 on February
unbecoming of a member of the 4, 2014, totaling P420,000. When
Bar. the complainant asked for an
update on the case, the
FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Court
respondent became angry and
finds Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado
made derogatory remarks. The
GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01,
respondent failed to deliver the
Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of the
requested NSO documents and
Code of Professional
stopped going to his office and
Responsibility. Accordingly, the
ignoring the complainant's calls.
Court SUSPENDS him from the
The complainant received a call
practice of law for a period of two
from the respondent asking for
(2) years.
one week to return the amount
received, but the respondent
never contacted him again.
2. Asuncion v. Salvado, A.C. The complainant submitted
No. 13242, July 5, 2022. receipts issued by the
respondent, a Memorandum of
FACTS:
Agreement (MOA) between the
On November 23, 2013, the complainant's mother and the
complainant sought legal respondent, and screenshots of
assistance from the respondent their text messages as evidence.
regarding the annulment of his
The case proceeded to the
mother's previous marriage. The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
respondent charged a total legal
(IBP) for investigation. The IBP
fee of P700,000. They agreed
Board of Governors ordered the
that the complainant would pay
respondent to file an answer, but
50% upfront, amounting to
the respondent did not comply.
P350,000. The respondent
The Investigating Commissioner
promised to contact officials from
sent notices of mandatory
the National Statistics Office
conferences to both parties, but
(NSO) to prepare the necessary
the respondent failed to appear
documents and secure a favorable
on multiple occasions.
judgment within two months. The

Page 5 of 55
Ultimately, neither party filed a In the Resolution dated
position paper, and the September 7, 2019, the IBP
proceedings were terminated due Board of Governors adopted the
to the parties' non-compliance. Commissioner's Report and
Recommendation and suspended
In the Report and
the respondent from the practice
Recommendation dated May 29,
of law for five years.
2017, the IBP Investigating
Commissioner recommended that The respondent filed a motion for
the respondent be found guilty of reconsideration on December 9,
violating Canon 17 and Rules 2019, stating that he did not
18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of receive the orders and notices in
the Code of Professional the present case due to an
Responsibility (CPR) due to his incorrect address. He argued that
infidelity and negligence in he did not receive the balance of
handling his client's concerns. The P350,000, and he questioned the
Commissioner further authenticity of the screenshots of
recommended that the text messages as evidence. He
respondent be suspended from also mentioned that he had
the practice of law for five years. settled his obligations in the
Ereneta case and claimed that the
The Commissioner found that the
dishonor in the Aca case was
respondent failed to deliver the
unintentional and due to failed
requested documents despite
lending transactions. Lastly, he
receiving an aggregate amount of
stated that the complainant was
P350,000. The respondent
no longer interested in pursuing
claimed that the complainant
the case.
failed to pay the full amount, but
the text conversation between the In the Resolution dated March 27,
parties indicated that the balance 2021, the IBP Board of Governors
was indeed received by the denied the respondent's motion
respondent on February 4, 2014. for reconsideration, stating that
there were no new reasons or
The Commissioner also noted that
arguments presented to reverse
the respondent had been involved
the previous resolution.
in similar cases before, such as
the Ereneta case and Aca case,
where he was found guilty of
ISSUE:
violating the CPR.
1. Whether or not Atty. Ronaldo P.
Salvado should be disbarred from

Page 6 of 55
the practice of law due to his revealed Atty. Salvado's promise
violations of the Lawyer's Oath to deliver a favorable judgment
and the Code of Professional annulling a marriage through his
Responsibility (CPR). connections within two months. It
was clear that Atty. Salvado
2. Whether or not the text
planned to use his connections
messages exchanged between
instead of relying on his legal
Atty. Salvado and Mr. Asuncion
skills, thus violating the
were admissible as evidence.
prohibition against influence
peddling.
RULING: Additionally, Atty. Salvado failed
to deliver the promised
1. Yes, The Court found Atty.
decree/decision of annulment,
Salvado guilty of violating several
kept the complainant uninformed
provisions of the CPR, including
about the status of the case, and
the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1
issued a check that was
(upholding the Constitution and
dishonored due to insufficient
obeying the laws), Rules 1.01 and
funds. These actions
1.02 (prohibiting unlawful,
demonstrated his lack of fidelity,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
competence, and diligence
conduct), Canon 13 (relying on
towards his client.
the merits of a cause and
refraining from impropriety that Considering the gravity of the
influences the court), Rule 15.06 violations and Atty. Salvado's past
(prohibiting lawyers from stating disciplinary records, the Court
or implying influence over public imposed the penalty of
officials or tribunals), Canons 17 disbarment. Atty. Salvado's name
and 18 (duty of fidelity, was ordered to be stricken from
competence, and diligence the Roll of Attorneys, effective
towards clients), and Rule 18.04 immediately. He was also directed
(keeping clients informed of case to return the amount paid by the
status and promptly responding complainant within 10 days, with
to requests for information). interest, and provide proof of
payment.
The Court's decision was based
on various pieces of evidence, The decision in Asuncion v.
including text messages Salvado serves as a reminder that
exchanged between Atty. Salvado lawyers must uphold the Lawyer's
and the complainant, Roger D. Oath, abide by the laws and
Asuncion. These text messages ethical standards, and faithfully
Page 7 of 55
serve their clients with 3. JOCELYN G. BARTOLOME
competence and diligence. Failure VS. ATTY. REMIGIO P.
to do so can result in severe ROJASA.C. No. 13226. October
disciplinary consequences, such 04, 2022
as disbarment.
FACTS: According to the
2. Yes, the Court held that the complainant Bartolome, she met
text messages were admissible as with Atty. Rojas, the respondent
evidence under the "best herein, sometime in 2010 wherein
evidence rule." The Court Bartolome shared with Atty. Rojas
explained that the rule requires her brother’s intention to file an
the production of the original annulment case in order to
writing or recording whenever the resolve her marriage. Then
contents of a writing or recording Atty. Rojas introduced to
are sought to be proved. Bartolome that he has a relative
However, the rule allows for the in Cotabato who happened to be
admission of secondary evidence, a presiding judge and might be
such as copies, if the original is able to expedite the case for a fee
lost or destroyed, or if it is in the of 150k. In February 2012, Atty.
custody or control of the adverse Rojas handed to Bartolome a
party. photocopy of the “final decision of
the annulment case. But when
In this case, the text messages
the latter asked for the original
were not the original writings, but
copy, she was informed that it
they were copies of the messages
would be mailed to her and in
stored in the cellular phones of
Iloilo City where her brother got
both parties. The Court held that
married. In January 2013, Atty.
the copies of the text messages
Rojas updated Bartolome that the
were admissible as evidence
National Statistics Office was
because the original messages
about to receive the “Annotation
were not available and the copies
of Marriage.” By april of the same
were in the custody and control of
year, Bartolome requested from
the parties. The Court noted that
the NSO an “Advisory on Marriage
the authenticity of the messages
Document” pertaining to the
was not disputed and that they
dissolved marriage of her brother.
were relevant to the issues in the
However, to her surprise, the NSO
case.
had no record of such annulment
and that her brother was still
lawfully married to his wife. As a
result, Bartolome attempted to
Page 8 of 55
confront Atty. Rojas, but to no disbarment complaint was on
avail. She then sought legal his way. Bartolome’s lawyer (a
assistance from her cousin who cousin), Atty. Balayan, on her
happened to be a lawyer and behalf, met with Atty. Rojas. Atty.
found out that the decision Balayan informed them that they
handed to her was not genuine. are filing against him unless he
Bartolome was fortunately able to pays themP1 Million pesos. Atty.
recover the “paunang bayad” Rojas decided not to accede to
which supposedly was intended the demand of paying P1Million.
for the judge through a demand Atty. Rijas admitted, however,
letter. But the whole ordeal having transgressed the sanctity
caused Bartolome and her brother of the legal profession and
undue stress and anxiety. On apologized but maintained that he
the contrary, according to did so out of his good intention of
the respondent herein Atty. helping Bartolome.
Rojas, the factual narrations
The Investigating Commissioner
of Bartolome were inaccurate.
recommended that Atty. Rojas be
He claimed that he was
meted with the ultimate penalty
scammed or defrauded by a
of disbarment. The IBP Board of
particular Santo who processed
Governors adopted the same
and lodged the annulment
finding of the Investigating
case before the Judge, Indar.
Commissioner but modified the
Upon the rendering of the
penalty of suspension from the
decision of the annulment case
practice of law for 5 years instead
and upon the receipt thereof, he
of disbarment.
was surprised that it was issued
by Judge Alzate and not Judge ISSUE:
Indar that he supposedly
WON Atty. Rojas should be
expected. Atty. Rojas then
disbarred for violating the lawyers
handed the “decision” to
oath and the Code of Professional
Bartolome without disclosing
Responsibility.
to the latter that the
judgment was fabricated and RULING:
explained to her that it would
Yes, Atty. Rojas should be
take time before the “decision” be
disbarred for violating the lawyers
passed to the NSO since it was
oath and the Code of Professional
still being registered before the
Responsibility. Canon 1, Rule 1.01
Local Civil Registry. Later on, Atty
provides that a lawyer shall not
Rojas was informed that a
engage in unlawful, dishonest,

Page 9 of 55
immoral or deceitful conduct. 4. Atty. Herminio Harry
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 also Roque, Jr. vs. Atty. Rizal P.
provides that a lawyer shall not Balbin (A.C. No. 7088,
do any falsehood, nor consent to December 4, 2018)
the doing of any in Court; nor
shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice. FACTS: Complainant alleged that
he was the plaintiff's counsel in a
Applying the laws from the case
case entitled FELMAILEM, Inc. v.
at bar, the fabrication of a judicial
Felma Mailem, docketed as Civil
decision or perpetuation of acts
Case No. 2004-307 before the
leading to such, undeniably
Metropolitan Trial Court of
comes within the prohibited acts
Parañaque City, Branch 77
set by the Code of Professional
(MeTC).
Responsibility. Atty. Rojas actively
and knowingly participated in the Shortly after securing a favorable
procurement of a fake decision in judgment for his client, herein
annulment case and had respondent-as counsel for the
therefore and undoubtedly defendant, and on appeal-started
violated the CPR. He also intimidating, harassing,
committed an unlawful act and blackmailing, and maliciously
disrespected the law and the legal threatening complainant into
processes. He deprived the withdrawing the case filed by his
judiciary of a rightful resolution of client.
the case for annulment and has
According to complainant,
done so in defiance of truth,
respondent would make various
honor, and of the law. Such act
telephone calls and send text
besmirched the legal profession
messages and e-mails not just to
to the highest degree, by making
him, but also to his friends and
mockery of the judicial system.
other clients, threatening to file
He simply violated his sworn oath
disbarment and/or criminal suits
to be honest, to obey the law and
against him. Further, and in view
the Constitution. Therefore, Atty.
of complainant's "high profile"
Rojas should be disbarred for
stature, respondent also
violating the lawyers oath and the
threatened to publicize such suits
Code of Professional
in order to besmirch and/or
Responsibility.
destroy complainant's name and
reputation.

Page 10 of 55
Even after requesting for Case law instructs that "[l]awyers
extension of time, respondent should treat their opposing
failed to file his comment despite counsels and other lawyers with
multiple notices, prompting the courtesy, dignity[,] and civility. A
Court to repeatedly fine him and great part of their comfort, as
even order his arrest.6 To date, well as of their success at the bar,
the orders for respondent's arrest depends upon their relations with
remain unserved and are still their professional brethren. Since
standing. they deal constantly with each
other, they must treat one
another with trust and respect.
ISSUES: Should the verified Any undue ill feeling between
complaint/affidavit dated March clients should not influence
1, 2006 filed before the Court by counsels in their conduct and
complainant Atty. Herminio Harry demeanor toward each other.
L. Roque, Jr. (complainant) Mutual bickering, unjustified
against respondent Atty. Rizal P. recriminations[,] and offensive
Balbin (respondent) praying that behavior among lawyers not only
the latter be subjected to detract from the dignity of the
disciplinary action for his alleged legal profession, but also
unprofessional conduct be constitute highly unprofessional
granted? conduct subject to disciplinary
action."
Whether or not respondent should
be administratively sanctioned for He also violated Canon 19 and
the acts complained of. Rule 19.01 of the CPR. In Aguilar-
Dyquiangco v. Arellano,17 the
Court held:
HELD: Yes.
Canon 19 of the Code of
Canon 8 of the CPR commands, Professional Responsibility states
to wit: that "a lawyer shall represent his
client with zeal within the bounds
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct
of the law," reminding legal
himself with courtesy, fairness
practitioners that a lawyer's duty
and candor towards his
is not to his client but to the
professional colleagues, and shall
administration of justice; to that
avoid harassing tactics against
end, his client's success is wholly
opposing counsel.
subordinate; and his conduct
ought to and must always be

Page 11 of 55
scrupulously observant of law and CANON 11 - A lawyer shall
ethics. In particular, Rule 19.01 observe and maintain the respect
commands that a "lawyer shall due to the courts and to judicial
employ only fair and honest officers and should insist on
means to attain the lawful similar conduct by others.
objectives of his client and shall
not pr sent, participate in
presenting or threaten to present xxxx
unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding." Under CANON 12 - A lawyer shall exert
this Rule, a lawyer should not file every effort and consider it his
or threaten to file any unfounded duty to assist in the speedy and
or baseless criminal case or cases efficient administration of justice.
against the adversaries of his
client designed to secure a
leverage to compel the xxxx
adversaries to yield or withdraw
their own cases against the
lawyer's client. (Emphasis and Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not,
underscoring supplied) after obtaining extensions of time
to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse
To aggravate further respondent's without submitting the same or
administrative liability, the Court offering an explanation for his
notes that respondent initially failure to do so.
moved for an extension of time to
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not
tile comment but did not file the
unduly delay a case, impede the
same) prompting the Court to
execution of a judgment or
repeatedly fine him and order his
misuse Court processes.
arrest. Such audacity on the part
of respondent - which caused DISPOSITIVE: Atty. Rizal P. Balbin
undue delay in the resolution of is found guilty of violating Canon
this administrative case - is a 8, Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule
violation of Canon 11, Canon 12, 12.03, Rule 12.04, Canon 19, and
Rule 12.03, and Rule 12.04 of the Rule 19.01 of the Code of
CPR, which respectively read: Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of

Page 12 of 55
law for a period of two (2) years, child, Billy John, in 2000.
effective immediately upon his Gradually, Atty. Teoxon failed to
receipt of this Decision. He is provide suppport for Timbaga and
STERNLY WARNED their chld, leading to disputes.
Until complainant seeks legal
assistance from city authorities in
5. November 21, 2017s March 2001 due to lack of
A.C. No. 5573 / GIZALE O. financial support and eventually
TUMBAGA, Complainant left the apartment. One day,
vs. ATTY. MANUEL P. TEOXON, respondent together with his wife
Respondent and SWAT went to complainant’s
house claming his personal
belongngs from the apartment
DOCTRINE:
and threatening Tumbaga. The
The ruling reinforces that lawyers altercation was recorded in a
must maintain a high standard of police blotter.
moral conduct, highlighting the
consequences of immoral
behavior relative to their The IBP Commission on Bar
profession's integrity. Discipline issues a
recommendation for a two-year
suspension in November 2008.
FACTS: The IBP Board of Governors
Complainant Gizale O. Tumbaga increases the suspension
meets Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon in recommendation to three years
September 1999 for legal advice on February 19, 2009. The
while he was serving as the City Supreme Court renders its
Legal Officer. The relationship decision on November 21, 2017.
evolves with Teoxon visiting
complainant regularly and
ISSUE:
expressing interest in her family,
ans assuring the compainant that WON Atty. Teoxon guilty of gross
his marriage with his wife is a immorality.
sham.

RULING:
Complainant moves into Puncia
YES. Teoxon is guilty of gross
Apartment with Teoxon on
immorality. The Court references
December 19, 1999 and they had

Page 13 of 55
Advincula v. Advincula, or suspension, including grossly
emphasizing that good moral immoral conduct.
character must be maintained by
lawyers throughout their careers:
It was established that Atty.
Teoxon failed to prove his defense
The good moral conduct or successfully. He could not provide
character must be possessed by proof to support his assertions
lawyers at the time of their that the complainant was
application for admission to the extorting money from him. The
Bar, and must be maintained until Court concluded that Atty. Teoxon
retirement from the practice of was liable for having illicit
law. In this regard, the Code of relations with the complainant.
Professional Responsibility states: However, the evidence was
insufficient to establish whether
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
he was the father of the
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
complainant's second child, Billy
immoral or deceitful conduct.
John.
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all
times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and The Court's previous rulings, such
support the activities of the as in Samaniego v. Ferrer,
Integrated Bar. classified illicit relations as
disgraceful and subject to
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not
disciplinary action. The Court
engage in conduct that adversely
noted that penalties could range
reflects on his fitness to practice
from disbarment to suspension.
law, nor should he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the
In Ferancullo v.Ferancullo, Jr., a
discredit of the legal profession.
two-year suspension was deemed
adequate for a lawyer guilty of
gross immorality without
The Court stresses that every
aggravating circumstances. The
lawyer is expected to exemplify
Court now discussed the reasons
good moral character in both
for imposing a stricter penalty on
public and private life. Section 27,
Atty. Teoxon. Here the Court took
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
into account Atty. Teoxon's
outlines grounds for disbarment
attempts to deceive the courts

Page 14 of 55
and the Integrated Bar of the along with Randy Simbulan and
Philippines (IBP) concerning his Ramil Vendibil, was charged with
relationship with the complainant, highway robbery and multiple
leading to their decision for a rape. The complainant, Corazon
three-year suspension. Hernandez, was robbed of ₱60.00
and raped by the accused.
Liwanag was represented by
WHEREFORE, the Court finds
counsel de officio – Atty. William
respondent Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon
T. Uy of the PAO. In the middle of
GUILTY of gross immorality and is
the trial, Liwanag retained the
hereby SUSPENDED from the
services of counsel de parte Atty.
practice of law for a period of
Bienvenio R. Brioso replacing
three (3) years effective upon
Atty. Uy. After the trial court
notice hereof, with a STERN
conviction, Atty Brioso filed the
WARNING that a repetition of the
Notice of Appeal but Atty Brioso
same or similar offense shall be
failed to file the appellant’s brief
punished with a more severe
because of the refusal of
penalty.
Liwanag’s mother to transmit the
entire records of the case to him.
Upon Liwanag’s failure to reply as
6. G.R. No. 120468. August
to whether he still desire to be
15, 2001.
represented by Atty Brioso, Atty
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Francis Ed Lim was appointed
plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOPE counsel de officio.
LIWANAG y BUENAVENTURA,
The trial court found Liwanag
SANDY SIMBULAN y GARCIA
guilty.
and RAMIL VENDIBIL y
CASTRO, accused. LOPE Liwanag argues among others
LIWANAG y BUENAVENTURA, that his right to be heard thru his
accused-appellant. counsel means that he should be
effectively assisted by counsel
Doctrine: The proper measure of
throughout the proceedings, from
attorney performance remains
the time he was arrested up to
simply reasonableness under
the time the judgement is
prevailing professional norms.
rendered. He claims that the
Facts: assistance extended to him by his
former counsel was ineffective
On April 27, 1992, in Parañaque,
such that:
Metro Manila, Lope Liwanag,

Page 15 of 55
he was arrested without warrant, provisions of the Rules of Court,
thus his right against the Code of Professional
unreasonable searches and Responsibility and the Canons of
seizure was violated – counsel de Professional Ethics. In Philippine
officio should have contested this judicial setting, a counsel
assisting an accused is presumed
he was deprived of his right to
to be providing all the necessary
preliminary investigation, that
legal defense which are
had his counsel de officio been
reasonable under the
effective, he should have filed the
circumstances in accordance with
proper motion on his behalf
said norms.
he was deprived of his right to
Section 20 of Rule 138 of the
bail, that had his counsel de
Rules of Court:
officio been effective, he would
have filed the proper motion Sec. 20. Duties of attorneys.—It
is the duty of an attorney: x x x
the private complainant, as well
xxx xxx
as prosecution witnesses SPO1
Armando P. Sevilla and Editha (c)To counsel or maintain such
Hernandez, were hardly cross- actions or proceedings only as
examined, while Dra. Louella appear to him to be just, and
Nario was not cross-examined at such defenses only as he believes
all. to be honestly debatable under
the law;
Issue:
(d)To employ, for the purpose of
Whether or not Liwanag was
maintaining the causes confided
deprived of his right to be heard
to him, such means only as are
thru his counsel.
consistent with truth and honor,
Ruling: and never seek to mislead the
judge or any judicial officer by an
No.
artifice or false statement of fact
While fairness is likewise the or law;
object of Article III, Section 14
xxx xxx xxx
(2) of the Philippine Constitution,
the assistance afforded by (h)Never to reject, for any
counsel to an accused in light of consideration personal to himself,
the Philippine constitutional the cause of the defenseless or
requirement need only be in oppressed;
accordance with the pertinent

Page 16 of 55
(i)In the defense of a person A lawyer may be disbarred for
accused of crime, by all fair and gross misconduct, including
honorable means, regardless of influence-peddling, dishonest
his personal opinion as to the handling of client funds, and
guilt of the accused, to present engaging in deceitful conduct.
every defense that the law The existence of an attorney-
permits, to the end that no client relationship is not
person may be deprived of life or contingent upon a formal retainer
liberty, but by due process of law. agreement but can be established
through actions and behavior.
The proper measure of attorney
Lawyers are bound by the Code of
performance remains simply
Professional Responsibility (CPR)
reasonableness under prevailing
to act with honesty, integrity, and
professional norms.
accountability, and any failure to
In this case, the alleged failures uphold these ethical standards
of the counsel to safeguard his can result in disbarment.
rights from the time he was
Facts:
arrested up to the time he was
sentenced and the alleged Atty. Carlo Marco Bautista was
inadequacies in the direct and the subject of a disbarment
cross-examinations of prosecution complaint filed by Mr. Ryan Lim.
witnesses were ultimately Lim alleged that Bautista received
inconsequential to the eventual substantial sums of money from
outcome of the case. If at all, the him under the pretense of
outcome was the result of the providing legal services. Lim
strength of the prosecution issued two checks to Bautista—
evidence rather than the failures one for ₱13,500,000.00 and
and inadequacies in the conduct another for ₱200,000.00.
of the defense. According to Lim, the payments
were made to secure favorable
resolutions in legal cases through
7. A.C. No. 13468 (Formerly bribes to prosecutors and judges.
CBD Case No. 17-5379).
Bautista denied the existence of
February 21, 2023 RYAN
an attorney-client relationship,
ANTHONY O. LIM, VS. ATTY.
claiming that the money was
CARLO MARCO BAUTISTA
entrusted to him merely for
Doctrine: safekeeping. He argued that the
checks were issued for
safekeeping and that no legal
Page 17 of 55
services were rendered. Bautista Yes.
admitted to handling personal
The Code of Professional
legal matters for Lim, such as
Responsibility provides under
giving legal advice regarding
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, lawyers
Lim's personal and family legal
shall not engage in unlawful,
concerns, but contended that
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
these interactions did not
conduct; Rule 16.01 of Canon
constitute a formal attorney-client
16, lawyers shall account for all
relationship.
money or property collected from
Lim, however, contended that clients and Rule 16.04 of Canon
Bautista had acted as his legal 16, lawyers shall not borrow
counsel on numerous occasions. money from their clients unless
He also presented evidence, the client's interests are fully
including the issuance of checks protected.
payable to Bautista, which
Here, Atty. Bautista's disbarment
indicated that Bautista had
was based on his violations of the
solicited money from him under
said provisions. Under Rule 1.01,
the guise of providing legal
Canon 1, lawyers are prohibited
assistance, particularly to bribe
from engaging in unlawful,
public officials.
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
The Integrated Bar of the conduct, which Atty. Bautista
Philippines (IBP), through its breached by mishandling funds
Investigating Commissioner and entrusted to him by his client.
Board of Governors (BOG), found Rule 16.01, Canon 16 requires
Bautista administratively liable, lawyers to account for all money
recommending indefinite collected from clients, and Atty.
suspension. Hence, this Bautista’s failure to properly
administrative case. account for the ₱13,500,000
given to him by his client further
Issue:
violated this duty. Additionally,
Whether Atty. Carlo Marco under Rule 16.04, Canon 16,
Bautista should be disbarred for lawyers are prohibited from
engaging in dishonest conduct, borrowing money from clients
mishandling client funds, and unless the client's interests are
violating the Code of Professional fully protected, which Atty.
Responsibility Bautista failed to do when he
borrowed ₱300,000 from his
Ruling:
client without any form of written

Page 18 of 55
security or agreement. His they are dealing with their clients
actions reflected dishonesty, a or the public at large, and a
lack of integrity, and unethical violation of the high moral
conduct, all of which breached his standards of the legal profession
obligations under the CPR. As justifies the imposition of the
such, the Supreme Court found appropriate penalty, including
his misconduct sufficiently serious suspension and disbarment.
to warrant the penalty of
disbarment as his actions
demonstrated a complete FACTS:
disregard for the moral and
Manalang engaged the services of
ethical standards expected of a
Atty. Buendia for the declaration
lawyer.
of nullity of his marriage. Atty.
Buendia promised that he can
hastened the proceedings.
8. MANALANG V. BUENDIA,
Manalang hesitated at first, but
A.C. No. 12079, November 10,
Atty. Buendia assured him that
2020
everything was legal. Thus, an
agreement was made. However,
when Manalang followed up on
DOCTRINE:
the status of the case, there were
As members of the legal problems in expediting the
profession, lawyers are bound to resolution of the case. Manalang
respect and uphold the law at all tried to contact Atty. Buendia to
times. follow-up his case but she never
answered his calls. Manalang also
Rule 1.01 of the Code of
visited Atty. Buendia's office three
Professional Responsibility states
times but she was always
that "a lawyer shall not engage in
unavailable.
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct." As such, Then again, Manalang tried to
membership in the legal contact Atty. Buendia but to no
profession is a privilege that is avail. Atty. Buendia messaged
bestowed upon individuals who Manalang to say the annulment
are not only learned in law, but case was finally resolved and the
are also known to possess good decision was already available.
moral character. Lawyers must However, Manalang remained
conduct themselves beyond doubtful of his case being filed
reproach at all times, whether

Page 19 of 55
because he was never furnished a Any act or omission that is
copy of the decision. contrary to, prohibited or
unauthorized by, in defiance of,
When Manalang inspected the
disobedient to, or disregards the
decision, he observed that it
law is "unlawful." "Unlawful"
contained fabricated details
conduct does not necessarily
regarding his marriage, such as
imply the element of criminality
physical violence allegedly
although the concept is broad
inflicted on him. He also noticed
enough to include such element.
that the facts therein were
different from what he had To be "dishonest" means the
narrated to Atty. Buendia. These disposition to lie, cheat, deceive,
made him doubt the veracity of defraud or betray; be
the documents. This made untrustworthy; lacking in
Manalang go to Ballesteros, integrity, honesty, probity,
Cagayan to find out the status of integrity in principle, fairness and
his case. There, he learned that straightforwardness. On the other
there was "absolutely no case hand, conduct that is "deceitful"
filed for the dissolution of his means as follows: “Having the
marriage." proclivity for fraudulent and
deceptive misrepresentation,
artifice or device that is used
ISSUE: upon another who is ignorant of
the true facts, to the prejudice
Whether respondent shall be
and damage of the party imposed
disbarred.
upon. In order to be deceitful, the
person must either have
knowledge of the falsity or acted
RULING:
in reckless and conscious
Yes. Respondent found guilty. ignorance thereof, especially if
the parties are not on equal
terms, and was done with the
In dealing with clients, Canon 1 of intent that the aggrieved party
the Code of Professional act thereon, and the latter indeed
Responsibility states that a lawyer acted in reliance of the false
shall uphold the law and promote statement or deed in the manner
respect for law and the legal contemplated to his injury.”
processes.
As members of the legal
profession, lawyers are bound to

Page 20 of 55
respect and uphold the law at all illegitimate children with
times. They must be honest with them
their dealings, especially with o He failed to give regular
respect to their clients. support to complainant
and their children, thus
forcing complainant to
9. A.C. No. work abroad to provide
6486 September 22, for their children’s needs
2004 • Emma pointed out that these
EMMA T. DANTES, complainant, acts of respondent constitute a
vs. ATTY. CRISPIN G. violation of his lawyer’s oath
DANTES, respondent and his moral and legal
obligation to be a role model to
In this jurisdiction too, good the community.
moral character is not only a • Crispin in his defense alleged
condition precedent to the that:
practice of law, but an unending o they have mutually
requirement for all the members agreed to separate
of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer eighteen (18) years
is found guilty of grossly immoral before, after Emma had
conduct, he may be suspended or abandoned him in their
disbarred residence
FACTS o When Emma returned
after eighteen years, she
• June 6, 2001 Emma T. Dantes, insisted that she be
sought the disbarment of her accommodated in the
husband, Atty. Crispin G. place where he and their
Dantes children were residing.
o on the ground of Thus, he was forced to
immorality, live alone in a rented
abandonment, and apartment.
violation of professional o He sent their children to
ethics and law the best school he could
• Emma alleged that Crispin is: afford and provided for
o a philander, that he’s their needs. He even
engaged in illicit bought two lots in
relationships with two Pampanga for his sons,
women, one after the Dandelo and Dante, and
other, and had gave complainant

Page 21 of 55
 adequate financial unlawful, dishonest,
support even after she immoral or deceitful
had abandoned him conduct. Immoral conduct has
o asserted that Emma filed been defined as that conduct
this case in order to force which is so willful, flagrant,
him to remit seventy or shameless as to show
percent (70%) of his indifference to the opinion
monthly salary to her. of good and respectable
• IBP conducted its investigation members of the
and hearings on the complaint community. To be the basis of
• Emma presented disciplinary action, the lawyer’s
documentary evidence conduct must not only be
consisting of the birth immoral, but grossly immoral.
certificates of Ray Darwin, That is, it must be so corrupt
Darling, and Christian Dave, all as to constitute a criminal act
surnamed Dantes, and the or so unprincipled as to be
affidavits of respondent and reprehensible to a high
his paramour to prove the fact degree or committed under
that respondent sired three such scandalous or revolting
illegitimate children out of his circumstances as to shock the
illicit affairs with two different common sense of decency.
women. Letters of • It should be noted that the
complainant’s legitimate requirement of good moral
children likewise support the character has three
allegation that respondent is a ostensible purposes,
womanizer. namely:
• IBP recommended that the o (i) to protect the public;
respondent be suspended o (ii) to protect the public
indefinitely from the practice of image of lawyers; and
law. o (iii) to protect
prospective clients.
ISSUE
o A writer added a fourth:
• WON Atty. Crispin violates to protect errant lawyers
Professional Ethics and Law from themselves.
• Undoubtedly, respondent’s
HELD/RULING
acts of engaging in illicit
• The Code of Professional relationships with two
Responsibility forbids different women during the
lawyers from engaging in subsistence of his marriage

Page 22 of 55
 to the complainant MARIA LOURDES P. A.
constitutes grossly immoral SERENO, RESPONDENT.
conduct warranting the
imposition appropriate
sanctions. Complainant’s DOCTRINE:
testimony, taken in conjunction
“Proven integrity” is an essential
with the documentary
qualification for membership in
evidence, sufficiently
the Judiciary, and failure to
established respondent’s
comply with the requirement of
commission of marital infidelity
filing SALNs can be a ground to
and immorality. Evidently,
challenge the validity of an
respondent had breached
appointment.
the high and exacting moral
standards set for members
of the law profession. He
FACTS:
has made a mockery of
marriage which is a sacred Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno was
institution demanding appointed Chief Justice of the
respect and dignity Supreme Court of the Philippines
• In the present case, the by then-President Benigno S.
seriousness of the offense Aquino III in 2012. Prior to her
compels the Court to wield its appointment to the Supreme
power to disbar as it appears Court, Sereno served as a faculty
to be the most appropriate member of the University of the
penalty. WHEREFORE, in view Philippines College of Law and as
of the foregoing Atty. Crispin legal counsel in various
G. Dantes is government agencies, including
hereby DISBARRED and his serving as legal counsel for the
name is ORDERED Republic in international
STRICKEN from the Roll of arbitrations.
Attorneys
The Republic of the Philippines,
represented by Solicitor General
Jose C. Calida, filed a quo
10. [ G.R. No. 237428, May 11,
warranto petition before the
2018]
Supreme Court seeking to declare
REPUBLIC OF THE the appointment of Sereno as
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED Chief Justice void. The basis for
BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE the petition was the alleged
C. CALIDA, PETITIONER, VS. failure of Sereno to file her

Page 23 of 55
Statements of Assets, Liabilities, Constitutional qualification of
and Net Worth (SALNs) required integrity.
for government positions. These
filings were for the period when
she was a professor at the UP RULING:
College of Law and while
NO. The filing a SALN is an
employed as legal counsel for the
essential requirement to one's
government.
assumption of a public post. It
The Solicitor General argued that has Constitutional, legal and
Sereno’s failure to file and submit jurisprudential bases.
her SALNs demonstrated a lack of
To recapitulate, Section 7, Article
integrity, making her ineligible to
VIII of the Constitution requires
hold the position of Chief Justice.
that a member of the Judiciary
The petition was anchored on the
must be of proven integrity. To be
notion that “proven integrity” is
of proven integrity means that
an indispensable requirement for
the applicant must have
appointment to the Judiciary as
established a steadfast adherence
mandated by the Constitution of
to moral and ethical principles.
the Philippines.
The necessity of having integrity
Sereno countered that, as an
among the members of the
impeachable officer, she can only
judiciary is clearly discussed in
be removed through the
the Commentary on the
impeachment process provided by
Bangalore Principles of Judicial
the Constitution, and that the
Conduct:
remedy of quo warranto is
inapplicable. Integrity is the attribute of
rectitude and righteousness. The
The case that led to the ouster of
components of integrity are
Sereno from the position of Chief
honesty and judicial morality. A
Justice involved a series of legal
judge should always, not only in
maneuverings initiated by the
the discharge of official duties,
Office of the Solicitor General.
act honourably and in a manner
befitting the judicial office; be
free from fraud, deceit and
ISSUE:
falsehood; and be good and
Whether or not the filing of SALNs virtuous in behaviour and in
bear no relation to the character. There are no degrees
of integrity as so defined.

Page 24 of 55
Integrity is absolute. In the must comply and not offer
judiciary, integrity is more than a excuses. When a public officer is
virtue; it is a necessity. unable or unwilling to comply, he
or she must not assume office in
Failure to file the SALN is clearly a
the first place, or if already
violation of the law. The offense is
holding one, he or she must
penal in character and is a clear
vacate that public office because
breach of the ethical standards
it is the correct and honorable
set for public officials and
thing to do. A public officer who
employees. It disregards the
ignores, trivializes or disrespects
requirement of transparency as a
Constitutional and legal
deterrent to graft and corruption.
provisions, as well as the canons
For these reasons, a public official
of ethical standards, forfeits his or
who has failed to comply with the
her right to hold and continue in
requirement of filing the SALN
that office.
cannot be said to be of proven
integrity and the Court may WHEREFORE, the Petition
consider him/her disqualified from for Quo Warranto is GRANTED.
holding public office. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A.
Sereno is
In this case, it was found that
found DISQUALIFIED from and
respondent is ineligible to hold
is hereby adjudged GUILTY of
the Chief Justice of the Supreme
UNLAWFULLY HOLDING
Court position for lack of integrity
and EXERCISING the OFFICE
on account of her failure to file a
OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
substantial number of SALNs and
Accordingly, Respondent Maria
also, her failure to submit the
Lourdes P. A. Sereno
required SALNs to the JBC during
is OUSTED and EXCLUDED there
her application for the position.
from.

Again, one of the Constitutional

11. A.C. No. 12883 (2021)
duties of a public officer is to
submit a declaration under oath ENRICO R. VELASCO,
of his or her assets, liabilities, and COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
net worth upon assumption of BERTENI C. CAUSING,
office and as often thereafter as RESPONDENT.
may be required by law. When
FACTS:
the Constitution and the law
exact obedience, public officers

Page 25 of 55
Enrico Velasco filed a disbarment breaching the confidentiality of
complaint against Atty. Berteni family court proceedings and
Causing, who represented using offensive language in his
Velasco's estranged wife in a Facebook posts regarding a
nullity of marriage case. Atty. pending nullity case. The Court
Causing posted defamatory held that while lawyers have the
comments on Facebook, calling right to free speech, it is not
Velasco a "polygamous" husband absolute and must be exercised
and revealing confidential details within the bounds of their ethical
from the nullity case, including a duties. Atty. Causing's actions,
copy of Velasco's petition. The which included publishing
post was shared widely, eliciting confidential information and
negative public reactions against derogatory statements about the
Velasco. Atty. Causing defended complainant, violated his
his actions by claiming his right to professional obligations.
free speech as a "journalist- Consequently, he was suspended
blogger" and a spokesperson for from the practice of law for one
his client. The Integrated Bar of year and sternly warned that any
the Philippines found that Atty. similar future misconduct would
Causing violated ethical rules, result in harsher penalties.
leading to his suspension from
practicing law for one year.
12. [ A.C. No. 12883 (Formerly
ISSUE:
CBD Case No. 16-5016), March
Whether Atty. Causing should be 02, 2021 ]
held administratively liable for
ENRICO R. VELASCO,
publishing the subject post and
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
photographs of complainant's
BERTENI C. CAUSING,
petition in the nullity case in his
RESPONDENT.
Facebook accounts.

Facts:
RULING:
Complainant Enrico R. Velasco
(Enrico) files a verifed complaint
The Supreme Court ruled that for disbarment against Atty.
Atty. Berteni Causing was guilty Berteni C. Causing (Atty.
of violating the Code of Causing), counsel of Nina Ricci
Professional Responsibility by Narvaez Laudato (Nina) in a

Page 26 of 55
declaration of nullity case against Issue:
the complainant, before the IBP
Whether or not Atty. Causing
for violation of the Code of
should be held administratively
Professional
liable for publishing the subject
Responsibility(CPR).The
post and photographs of
Complaint stemmed from a
complainant's petition in the
Facebook post authored by Atty.
nullity case in his Facebook
Causing titled "WISE
accounts.
POLYGAMOUS HUSBAND?” of
which he shared not only to a
public Facebook Group containing
Held:
3,500 members but also to the
complainant’s son Jomel. Said Yes, Atty. Causing is
post is reported to have contained administratively liable.
details about the aforementioned
declaration of nullity case which is
still pending and very much A lawyer is not allowed to divide
confidential, as well as verbal jabs his personality as an attorney at
against the complainant wherein one time and a mere citizen at
he used such terms as another. Regardless of whether a
“polygamous”, “criminal”, lawyer is representing his client in
“dishonest”, “arrogance”, court, acting as a supposed
“disgusting”, and “cheater”, spokesperson outside of it, or is
among others. In his defense, merely practicing his right to
while hypothetically admitting press freedom as a "journalist-
that he indeed published the blogger, “his duties to the society
subject post with photographs of and his ethical obligations as a
complainant's petition in the member of the bar remain
nullity case in Facebook and unchanged.
thereafter sent a link of the post
to complainant’s son. In his
defense, Atty. Causing invokes his In particular, the CPR provides:
rights to freedom of expression
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall
and of the press and argues that
uphold the constitution, obey the
he was merely acting as a
laws of the land :md promote
"spokesman- lawyer" and a
respect for law and legal
"journalist-blogger" when he
processes.
published the subject post.
xxxx

Page 27 of 55
Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, manner, of the records of Family
in his professional dealings, use Court cases. This is, in itself, a
language which is abusive, breach of his duties under Canon
offensive or otherwise improper. 1 as well as Canon 13 and Rule
13.02 of the CPR as the subject
xxxx
post not only disclosed
CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely confidential information regarding
upon the merits of his cause and the nullity case, but also included
refrain from any impropriety his own, strongly-worded opinion
which tends to influence, or gives regarding complainant's character
the appearance of influencing the and the circumstances
court. surrounding the case. He also
violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR
Rule 13.02 — A lawyer shall not
through his use of undignifed and
make public statements in the
disrespectful language.
media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion
for or against a party.
Atty. Berteni C. Causing is
xxxx found guilty of violating Canon 1,
Rule 8.01, Canon 13, Rule 13.02,
CANON 19 — A lawyer shall
Canon 19, and Rule 19.01 of the
represent his client with zeal
Code of Professional
within the bounds of the law.
Responsibility. Thus, the Court
Rule 19.01 — A lawyer shall deems it proper to suspend Atty.
employ only fair and honest Causing from the practice of law
means to attain the lawful for a period of one (1) year with a
objectives of his client and shall stem warning that a repetition of
not present, participate in the same or similar act shall be
presenting or threaten to present dealt with more severely.
unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding. 13. A.C. No. 10498 (2018)
JUDGE ARIEL FLORENTINO R.
DUMLAO, JR., COMPLAINANT,
Here, Atty. Causing had clearly
VS. ATTY. MANUEL N.
violated Sec. 1221 of Republic Act
CAMACHO, RESPONDENT.
No. 8369, or the Family Courts
Act of 1997, which prohibits the
publication or disclosure, in any
DOCTRINE

Page 28 of 55
All lawyers are bound to uphold Leonen were his colleagues and
the dignity and authority of the close friends.
courts, and to promote
RTC granted Pathways’ motion for
confidence in the fair
summary judgment. Defendants
administration of justice. It is the
in that case filed a notice of
respect for the courts that
appeal before the RTC.
guarantees the stability of the
judicial institution; elsewise, the Respondent then started to call
institution would be resting on a complainant and even promised
very shaky foundation. Hence, no to share a portion of his
matter how passionate a lawyer is attorney’s fees with complainant
towards defending his client's in exchange for the denial of the
cause, he must not forget to notice of appeal and the issuance
display the appropriate decorum of the writ of execution. He also
expected of him, being a member threatened complainant that if the
of the legal profession, and to offer is refused, he will file a
continue to afford proper and disbarment case against
utmost respect due to the courts. complainant. Respondent
declared that the case of
FACTS
Pathways was closely monitored
Complainant is the Presiding by the named SC Justices and he
Judge of RTC Dagupan where the insisted that a portion of the
case Pathways v. Univet judgment would be donated to
Agricultural Products was the UP Law Center. He also stated
pending. Respondent is Pathways’ that then President Aquino would
counsel. supposedly appoint him as a
Presidential Legal Consultant.
Complainant alleged that while
the case was pending, respondent RTC denied defendants’ notice of
attempted to fraternize him. appeal. RTC issued a Certificate of
Respondent mentioned his Finality and a Writ of Execution.
closeness to Justices of the SC. On the very same morning that
He also tried to impress the writ of execution was issued,
complainant with his influence by respondent went to the RTC
dropping names of notables and together with the representatives
his connection with UP Law, of Pathways. He demanded Court
where he served as a professor. Sheriff Nabua to go with them
Respondent told him that then CJ and serve the writ of execution at
Sereno and Associate Justice the office of defendants.

Page 29 of 55
On May 22, 2014, at around 8:30 hindi niya pipirmahan ito,
in the morning, respondent tutuluyan ko dismissal nito."
barged into complainant's
Complainant received several text
chambers and demanded that he
messages from respondent: (1)
order the court sheriff to sign the
Judge call me you will be involved
Garnishment Order, which
in the in some of sheriff. He says
respondent himself prepared.
its all your idea. (2) You are guilty
Complainant, who was preparing
as your sheriff of antigraft. Call
for his scheduled hearings for the
me I explain (3) Ok don’t blame
day, peremptorily dismissed
me (4) On Monday you will
respondent and told him to talk
receive two pleading 1 for
instead to Sheriff Nabua.
supreme court 2 for antigraft.
Consequently, Sheriff Nabua
IBP Commissioner found
justifiably refused to sign the
recommended respondent the
document prepared by
ultimate penalty of disbarment
respondent. He explained that
because it was not his first
since defendants offered their
infraction. IBP Board reduced the
personal property for satisfaction
penalty to suspension from the
of the writ of execution, the
practice of law for 6 months.
enforcement of the notice of
garnishment must be held in ISSUES
abeyance pursuant to the
1. WON respondent is guilty of
prescribed procedure under
influence peddling and
Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of
attempted bribery.
Court. Thereafter, respondent
said the following statements to 2. WON respondent is guilty of
Sheriff Nabua: "Kapag hindi mo threatening court officers
pipirmahan ito, papatanggal kita," and disrespecting court
"Alam ng nasa itaas ito," "Alam processes.
ng dalawang Justices ito." As
RULING
respondent was making a scene,
complainant went out of his 1. YES.
chamber and tried to pacify him.
A lawyer is duty-bound to actively
He told respondent to just leave
avoid any act that tends to
the document he prepared and let
influence, or may be seen to
Sheriff Nabua review the same.
influence, the outcome of an
Respondent agreed to leave the
ongoing case, lest the people’s
document and uttered, "Kung
faith in the judicial process is

Page 30 of 55
diluted. The primary duty of Pathways was closely monitored
lawyers is not to their clients but by the said Supreme Court
to the administration of justice. Justices. He also stated that then
To that end, their clients’ success President Aquino III would
is wholly subordinate. Any means, supposedly appoint him as the
not honorable, fair and honest Presidential Legal Consultant.
which is resorted to by the Verily, respondent consistently
lawyer, even in the pursuit of his applied his influence peddling
devotion to his client's cause, is scheme in order to persuade
condemnable and unethical. complainant to rule in favor of
his client.
A lawyer that approaches a judge
to try to gain influence and He also related to complainant
receive a favorable outcome for that he would share a portion of
his or her client violates Canon his attorney's fees with
13. Rule 13.01 provides that, a complainant in exchange for the
lawyer shall not extend issuance of the writ of execution
extraordinary attention or and the denial of the notice of
hospitality to, nor seek appeal filed by defendants. He
opportunity for cultivating also insisted that a portion of the
familiarity with Judges. judgment would be donated to
the U.P. Law Center. Evidently,
On the other hand, bribery is
this constitutes attempted bribery
classified as a serious charge that
or corruption of public officers on
constitutes malfeasance in office.
the part of respondent as he
A lawyer who commits attempted
offered monetary consideration in
bribery, or corruption of public
exchange for a favorable ruling.
offcials, against a judge or a court
personnel, violates Canon 10 and Likewise, respondent barged in
Rule 10.01. the chamber of complainant and
required Sheriff Nabua to sign the
In this case, respondent
garnishment order he prepared,
fraternized with complainant and
he again gave an impression that
gave an impression that he was
he would be able to dismiss
an inuence peddler. He tried to
Sheriff Nabua because of his
impress complainant with his
inuence with the higher
inuence by dropping names of
authorities.
two Justices of the Supreme
Court, who were supposedly his Respondent also sent several text
colleagues and close friends. He messages to complainant stating
declared that the case of that the latter and Sheriff Nabua
Page 31 of 55
are guilty of graft and that they In this case, while defendants'
will receive pleadings from the notice of appeal was pending
Supreme Court. before the sala of complainant,
respondent called him.
By implying that he can inuence
Respondent said that if the notice
Supreme Court Justices to
of appeal is not denied, he would
advocate for his cause,
file a disbarment case against
respondent trampled upon the
complainant and insinuated that,
integrity of the judicial system
through his connections with the
and eroded confidence in the
Court, the complainant was sure
judiciary. As such, respondent
to be disbarred. Then, on May 22,
violated Canon 13, Rule 13.01,
2014, respondent barged into
Canon 10, and Canon 10.01.
complainant's chambers, fully
2. YES. aware that he had a pending case
before complainant's sala, and
Under Canon 19 and Rule 19.01,
demanded he order the court
a lawyer should not file or
sheriff to sign the garnishment
threaten to file any unfounded
order, which respondent himself
or baseless criminal case or cases
prepared.
against the adversaries of his
client designed to secure leverage Instead of respecting the court
to compel the adversaries to yield processes, respondent blatantly
or withdraw their own cases seized for himself the execution
against the lawyer's client. of the judgment by drafting his
own version of the order of
Further, all lawyers are bound to
garnishment and demanded that
uphold the dignity and authority
Sheriff Nabua sign it.
of the courts, and to promote
confidence in the fair Furthermore, Respondent was
administration of justice. Also, a given several opportunities to
lawyer must not disrespect the refute the charges against him
officers of the court. Disrespect to but he neither submitted his
judicial incumbents is disrespect comment before the Court,
to that branch of the government despite due notice, nor attended
to which they belong, as well as the mandatory conference in the
to the State which has instituted IBP.
the judicial system. A lawyer who
As such, the acts of respondent
disrespects the court and its
are palpably irregular and
officers violates Canon 11 and
disrespectful to the court and its
Canon 11.03.
officers. Respondent had the gall
Page 32 of 55
to barge into the chambers of a The Investigating Commissioner
judge and threaten his court found Atty. Diño guilty of violating
personnel. For his wanton Canon 1, Rule 1.017 of the Code
disregard of the good conduct of Professional Responsibility by
expected from lawyers before the issuing in favor of Lehnert
courts, respondent violated Rules postdated checks, which were
11.03 and 19.01 and Canons 11 subsequently dishonored.
and 19 of the Code. Moreover, the Investigating
Commissioner noted that
Respondent is thus suspended
although Atty. Diño had not yet
from the practice of law for 2
been convicted of the crime
years.
charged, his acts of evading
arrest and failing to participate in
14. A.C. No. 12174 Lehnert vs the administrative proceedings
Atty Diño August 28, 2018 before the Commission on Bar
Discipline further gave the
FACTS:
impression that he was probably
Complainant filed an Information guilty. Thus, she recommended
against Atty. Diño with Branch 34, that Atty. Diño be suspended
Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon from the practice of law for two
City, charging him with two (2) (2) years. The IBP Board of
counts of violation of Batas Governors adapted the findings
Pambansa Blg. 22. A Warrant of and recommendation of the
Arrest was then issued for Atty. Investigating Commissioner.
Diño’s arrest. Members of the
ISSUE:
Philippine National Police and
National Bureau of Investigation Whether Atty Dino be suspended
attempted to serve the warrant from the practice of law.
on Atty. Diño. However, despite
their exhaustive efforts, they
were unable to locate him at his RULING
residential addresses in Bulacan,
Yes. The Court agrees with the
Quezon City, San Lazaro, and Sta.
findings of the Board of
Cruz, or even at his office address
Governors and sustains its
in Intramuros, Manila.3 Thus,
recommended penalty.
considering that Atty. Diño was
hiding to evade arrest, Lehnert The Court continues to state that
prayed for his immediate the issuance of worthless checks
disbarment. constitutes gross misconduct and

Page 33 of 55
violates Canon 1 of the Code of dismissal of charges against the
Professional Responsibility, which respondent.
mandates all members of the bar
“to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law.” FACTS:
Issuance of worthless checks also
Enrique Javier de Zuzuarregui
violates Rule 1.01 of the Code,
(complainant) filed a complaint
which mandates that “[a] lawyer
against his nephew Anthony de
shall not engage in unlawful,
Zuzuarregui (respondent), who
dishonest, immoral or deceitful
was a bar applicant for the 2013
conduct.
Bar Examinations, before the
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).
Dennis L. Diño In his complaint, Enrique alleged
is SUSPENDED from the practice that Anthony had questionable
of law for two (2) years. He is moral character due to four
likewise WARNED that a repetition pending criminal charges against
of similar acts shall be dealt with him before the Office of the City
more severely. Prosecutor:
1. Estafa
16. ENRIQUE JAVIER DE
2. Estafa through Falsification of
ZUZUARREGUI, complainant, v.
Public Documents under Art. 315
ANTHONY DE ZUZUARREGUI,
of the RPC
respondent.
3. Falsification of Public
B.M. No. 2796, February 11, 2020
Documents & Use of Falsified
Inting, J. Documents under Art. 172 of the
RPC
DOCTRINE:
4. Falsification of Public
Admission to the bar requires that
Documents under Art. 172 of the
the applicant possess both
RPC
intellectual qualifications and
good moral character. A pending Respondent disclosed these
criminal case does not criminal cases in his Petition to
automatically disqualify an Take the 2013 Bar Examinations.
applicant from becoming a lawyer The Court provisionally allowed
if the case appears to be frivolous him to take the examinations,
or meant to harass, as stipulating that if he passed, he
demonstrated by the successive would not be allowed to take the

Page 34 of 55
Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Roll of Attorneys, notifying the
Attorneys until he was cleared of Court of the dismissal of all
the charges. previous criminal charges. He
expressed concern that fabricated
After passing the Bar, Anthony
complaints would continue to be
filed a petition to take the
filed against him to hinder his
Lawyer’s Oath before the OBC,
admission to the Bar.
claiming that the criminal cases
against him had been dismissed Report and Recommendation of
as evidenced by the Orders of the OBC:
Dismissal. He also submitted
The OBC recommended granting
certifications of good moral
Anthony's request for admission
character. The Court required him
to the Philippine Bar, allowing him
to explain why he failed to
to take the Lawyer’s Oath and
disclose a specific pending case
sign the Roll of Attorneys.
(Falsification of Public Documents
However, just before the
and Use of Falsified Documents
scheduled oath-taking, the Court
under Article 172 of the RPC) and
received a letter of complaint
to submit a certification regarding
citing objections to his admission
its status.
based on 10 pending criminal
In his Verified Compliance, cases. The Court suspended the
Anthony explained that he was scheduled oath-taking.
unaware of the case at the time
In response, Anthony explained
of filing his Petition to Take the
that nine of the ten cases
Bar Examinations, as he received
mentioned in the complaint had
a subpoena for it only after his
been dismissed for lack of
application was submitted. The
probable cause, while the tenth
Court then required additional
case was recently filed in 2019.
documents and referred his
He asserted that this new case
Second Verified Compliance to the
was filed by his uncle to further
OBC for evaluation. The OBC
delay his admission.
recommended that his Petition to
Take the Lawyer’s Oath be held in
abeyance due to the pending
ISSUE:
criminal charges, which the Court
adopted. Whether or not Anthony de
Zuzuarregui should be allowed to
Three years later, Anthony filed a
take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign
Verified Second Motion to take
the Roll of Attorneys despite the
the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the
Page 35 of 55
pending criminal cases filed Anthony, who had demonstrated
against him. both intellectual and moral
qualifications.
Therefore, after nearly six years
RULING:
of waiting, the Court granted
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in Anthony's request for admission
favor of allowing Anthony de to the Philippine Bar.
Zuzuarregui to take the Lawyer’s
Oath and sign the Roll of
16. A.C. 10699 Caballero vs
Attorneys. The Court referenced
Atty Sampana, Oct, 6, 2020
Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court, which mandates that
applicants for admission to the
bar must be of good moral
character and that no charges
involving moral turpitude should 17. A.C. No. 5808 May
be pending against them. 4, 2005
The Court noted that all prior OSCAR M.
criminal charges against Anthony ESPIRITU, complainant,
had been dismissed except for vs.
the most recent one. The timing ATTY. JAIME C.
of this recent case was ULEP, respondent.
suspicious, as it was filed shortly
CORONA, J.:
after the dismissal of previous
charges, indicating that the
complainant intended to harass
DOCTRINE:
Anthony and prevent his
admission to the Bar. Lawyers who misappropriate the
funds entrusted to them are in
Given the dismissals and the
gross violation of professional
certifications of good moral
ethics and are guilty of betrayal of
character, the Court concluded
public confidence in the legal
that Anthony possessed the
profession. Those who are guilty
necessary moral qualifications to
of such infraction may be
practice law. While recognizing
disbarred or suspended
that the practice of law is a
indefinitely from the practice of
privilege, the Court determined
law.
that it would not unjustifiably
withhold this privilege from

Page 36 of 55
FACTS: reached. The respondent failed to
appear. IBP Nueva Ecija Chapter
In a letter addressed to the
formally endorsed the verified
president of the Integrated Bar of
letter-complaint to the IBP – CBD
the Philippines (IBP), Nueva Ecija
which ordered respondent to file
Chapter, complainant Oscar M.
his answer to the complaint.
Espiritu sought assistance to
Respondent complied with the
enable him to talk to respondent
order by filing an affidavit. Both
Atty. Jaime C. Ulep who had
parties failed to appear on the
allegedly been avoiding him for
scheduled hearing. In the next
more than a year. He wanted a
scheduled hearing, only
meeting with respondent lawyer
complainant
for the following reasons:
appeared.Respondednt requested
for cancellations and failed to
appear succcessively in all
(1) respondent failed to turn-over
scheduled hearings and so the
to his client, Mr. Ricardo Maon,
Commission proceeded to conduct
the amount of P50,000 given to
a hearing and the case was
him by complainant on December
submissted for a decision.
22, 1997 as settlement of Civil
Case No. 1028, Municipal Trial
Court (MTC), Rizal, Nueva Ecija,
ISSUE:
and
WON Ulep is guilty of the violation
(2) respondent refused to give
of Canon 16.
complainant the amount
of P30,000 plus interest and
expenses as balance for a deed of
RULING:
absolute sale dated December 22,
1997 which the respondent YES. We agree with the IBP Board
brokered and notarized. of Governors that respondent was
guilty of violating Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional
In 1999, the IBP Commission on Responsibility.
Bar Discipline (CBD), through
Commissioner J.V. Bautista
invited respondent to a meeting The Code of Professional
at IBP Cabanatuan to determine if Responsibility mandates every
amicable settlement of the lawyer to hold in trust all money
impending complaint could be and properties of his client that

Page 37 of 55
may come into his the legal profession and deserves
possession. Accordingly, he shall punishment.
account for all money or property
collected or received for or from
the client. Even more specific is Lawyers who misappropriate the
the Canon of Professional Ethics: funds entrusted to them are in
gross violation of professional
ethics and are guilty of betrayal of
The lawyer should refrain from public confidence in the legal
any action whereby for his profession. Those who are guilty
personal benefit or gain he of such infraction may be
abuses or takes advantage of the disbarred or suspended
confidence reposed in him by his indefinitely from the practice of
client. law.

Money of the client or collected Here, it was established that

for the client or other trust respondent lawyer received for
property coming into the his client Ricardo Maon the
possession of the lawyer should amount of P50,000 as settlement
be reported and accounted for of Civil Case No. 1028 and that
promptly and should not under he did not deliver the same upon
any circumstances be demand.
commingled with his own or be
used by him.
His failure to appear on five
consecutive, scheduled hearing
Consequently, a lawyer's failure dates — requesting the
to return upon demand the funds cancellation and resetting of three
or property held by him on behalf and absolutely ignoring two —
of his client gives rise to the showed an evasive attitude
presumption that he has towards the resolution of the
appropriated the same for his administrative case filed against
own use to the prejudice of, and him and of which he himself
in violation of the trust reposed in sought a formal hearing. Aside
him by, his client. It is a gross from his patent lack of respect for
violation of general morality as the Commission and its
well as of professional ethics; it proceedings, his repeated and
impairs the public confidence in obviously deliberate failure to

Page 38 of 55
appear in the scheduled hearings 18. Adm. Case No. 200. March
revealed an attempt to wiggle 31, 1962.
away from having to explain and
FERMIN U. IMBUIDO,
ventilate his side. Worse, he did
petitioner, vs. ATTY. FIDEL
not file an answer to controvert
SOR. MANGONON,
the allegations in the complaint.
respondent.
Instead, he filed a counter-
affidavit he had earlier submitted Facts:
in a criminal case which, upon
On June 14, 1948, Imbuido sold
scrutiny, referred only to a
10 parcels of land, with option to
transaction involving what
repurchase, to Mrs. Gonzales.
appeared to be a sale of real
According to the deed of sale, the
property documentedof the
lands would be repurchased on or
complainant.
before Dec 31, 1948 but
unfortunately, Imbuido failed to
exercise this right to repurchase
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty.
and so Mrs. Gonzales
Jaime C. Ulep is hereby found
consolidated her ownership over
GUILTY of violating Canon 16 of
them and a new certificate of title
the Code of Professional
was issued in her name.
Responsibility and is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of In December 1949, Imbuido
law for a period of six months engaged the services of Atty.
from notice, with a STERN Mangonon in an effort to
WARNING that a repetition of the negotiate the redemption of lands
same or similar act will be dealt which commission Atty Mangonon
with more severely. accepted altho no mention was
made regarding his atty’s fees.
Atty. Mangonon succeeded in
Respondent is further ordered to
negotiating with Mrs. Gonzales for
restitute to his client Ricardo
the repurchase of lands but
Maon, in cash within 30 days
Imbuido discovered that the lands
from notice, the amount
were in the name of Atty.
of P50,000 with interest at the
Mangonon, in disregard of his
legal rate, computed from
instruction and done so without
December 22, 1997 to the date of
his knowledge and consent. After
delivery.
Atty Mangonon secured a transfer
certificate of title in his favor and
he disposed the lands thereby

Page 39 of 55
depriving Imbuido of the 3 letter in his capacity as lawyer of
parcels of land which were not Imbuido for it not only contains a
previously encumbered. veiled threat that the transaction
concerning the sale of land was
Atty Mangonon denied having
usurious but because it contains a
been engaged by Imbuido and he
warning that if the request is not
avers that those who engaged his
allowed, the corresponding action
services to effect the redemption
would be taken in the proper
were the persons to whom
court for the reconveyance of the
Imbuido had previously
property.
encumbered the lands.
The Court found respondent guilty
Issue:
of professional misconduct and so
Whether or not Atty Mangonon hereby suspends him as member
should be held liable for his acts. of the bar for a period of one (1)
year from receipt of this decision.
Ruling:
Yes.
19. Fernandez vs Grecia, A.C.
The vendor of the lands was the
3694 June 17, 1993
petitioner and common sense
dictates, as respondent should Doctrine:
know, that the reconveyance
A lawyer may be disbarred for
should be made in the name of
any misconduct, whether in
said vendor. Neither is respondent
professional or private life, that
justified in keeping two parcels of
demonstrates a lack of moral
land in payment of his attorney's
character, honesty, probity, or
fees for there is nothing in the
good demeanor. This is especially
evidence that may justify such
true for conduct that undermines
claim. Hence, these two parcels
the public's trust in the legal
of land should be returned to
profession. Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
petitioner without prejudice to
and Canon 7 of the Code of
determining later the amount of
Professional Responsibility require
professional fees respondent is
that a lawyer must always uphold
entitled to in an appropriate
the integrity and dignity of the
action.
profession and must not engage
In this case, the letter Atty in unlawful, dishonest, immoral,
Magonon sent to Imbuido relative or deceitful conduct.
to the redemption readily shows
Facts:
that the former has written such

Page 40 of 55
A disbarment complaint was filed judge, the stolen pages were
against Attorney Benjamin M. retrieved from the driver. Despite
Grecia by Doctors Alberto Grecia's denial and efforts to
Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, implicate the defense counsel, the
Achilles Bartolome, and St. Luke's court found the testimonies of
Medical Center. The complaint Robles, Sandico, and the police
alleged that Grecia stole two investigator more credible.
pages from the medical records of
Grecia had been previously
Fe Linda Aves, which were being
disbarred in 1987 for an "unholy
used as material evidence in a
alliance" with a judge in a scheme
damage suit against St. Luke's
to defraud banks but was
and its doctors.
reinstated in 1990. However,
Fe Linda Aves, seven months eight months after his
pregnant, was admitted to St. reinstatement, he was again
Luke's on December 20, 1990, for charged with serious misconduct.
dizziness, hypertension, and
Issue:
abdominal pain. After being
diagnosed with mild pre- Whether Attorney Benjamin M.
eclampsia, she was discharged on Grecia violate the Code of
December 25, 1990, only to be Professional Responsibility by
readmitted the following day. On engaging in dishonest, unlawful,
December 27, 1990, she and her and unethical conduct
unborn child died. Her husband,
Ruling:
Attorney Damaso B. Aves, filed a
suit for damages against the Yes.
hospital and the attending
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
physicians, with Grecia as his
Professional Responsibility
counsel.
provides that a lawyer shall not
During a hearing in the case, engage in unlawful, dishonest,
Grecia was seen by court immoral, or deceitful conduct."
employees Avelina Robles (Acting Moreover, Canon 7 provides that
Branch Clerk of Court) and Maria "A lawyer shall at all times uphold
Arnie Sandico (court clerk) the integrity and dignity of the
surreptitiously tearing out pages legal profession."
72 and 73 from Mrs. Aves'
In this case, the court found
medical records. He crumpled the
Grecia guilty of dishonesty and
pages and passed them to his
grave misconduct by stealing two
driver. Upon confrontation by the
pages from the medical chart,

Page 41 of 55
which was material evidence in a Topic: Canon 10 – A lawyer owes
pending case. This act was candor, fairness, and good faith to
witnessed by credible court the court.
employees, who had no motive to
Petitioner: Enrique A. Zaldivar
lie. Grecia’s actions violated Rule
1.01, which prohibits unlawful Respondent: The Honorable
and deceitful conduct, as well as Sandiganbayan and the
Canon 7, which requires a lawyer Honorable Raul M. Gonzales,
to uphold the dignity and integrity claiming to be and acting as
of the profession. Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under
the 1987 Constitution
Grecia’s prior disbarment for
dishonesty, followed by Facts:
reinstatement, was considered by
• Petitioner Enrique Zaldivar,
the court in determining the
governor of Antique, was
penalty. The fact that he
one of the several
committed another serious
defendants in Criminal
violation so soon after being
Cases for violation of the
reinstated indicated that he was
Anti-Graft and Corrupt
unfit to continue practicing law.
Practices Act pending before
His actions brought dishonor to
the Sandiganbayan.
the legal profession,
demonstrating a lack of moral • Petitioner filed a case
character and integrity required against both the
of members of the bar. Sandiganbayan and
respondent Hon. Raul M.
As a result, the court imposed the
Gonzalez acting as
ultimate penalty of disbarment,
Tanodbayan-Ombudsman.
revoking Grecia’s license to
Petitioner alleged that the
practice law and ordering his
latter, as Tanodbayan was
name to be removed from the
no longer vested with power
Roll of Attorneys.
and authority independently
to investigate and to
institute criminal cases for
20. Zaldivar vs.
graft and corruption against
Sandiganbayan
public officials and
G.R. No, 79690-707 – October 7, employees, under the 1987
1988 Constitution, hence the
cases filed were all null and
Per Curiam
void.

Page 42 of 55
• The Court then issued a communications and fair
TRO ordering respondents criticism in the public
Gonzalez and interest.
Sandiganbayan to cease
Issue: W/N respondent Gonzales
and desist in further
is guilty of contempt
investigating and arrest of
the petitioner. Held: YES
• However, Gonzales • The Court has inherent
continued filing a case power to punish for
against Zaldivar and also contempt the conduct of
issued allegedly ministerial officers of the
contemptuous statements Court including lawyers and
to the media in the all other persons connected
November 30, 1987 issue of in any manner with a case
the “Philippine Daily Globe,” before the Court. This
explicitly stating that SC is power is necessary for its
favoring rich and the own protection against an
influential persons over the improper interference with
ordinary litigant. The latter the due administration of
also said, that while the justice, and not dependent
President had been upon the complaint of any
prodding him to prosecute of the parties litigant.
graft cases, even if they
• A lawyer is not merely a
involve the high and mighty,
professional but also an
the SC had been restraining
officer of the court and as
him to do his official duties.
such, he shares the
This prompted Zaldivar to
responsibility of dispensing
file a motion for contempt
justice and resolving
to Gonzales.
disputes in society. Any act
• SC ordered Gonzales to on his part which visibly
explain himself. The tends to obstruct,
principal defense of pervert, or impede and
respondent Gonzalez is that degrade the
he was merely exercising administration of justice
his constitutional right of constitutes both
free speech. He also invokes professional misconduct
the related doctrines of calling for the exercise of
qualified privileged disciplinary action against

Page 43 of 55
 him, and contumacious betrayed their oath of office,
conduct warranting constitute the grossest kind
application of the of disrespect for the Court.
contempt power of the Such statements very
court. clearly debase and degrade
the Supreme Court and,
• With regard to respondent
through the Court, the
Gonzalez’ contention of free
entire system of
speech, he is entitled to this
administration of justice in
constitutional guarantee and
the country.
no one seeks to deny him
that right, least of all this • Respondent’s statements
Court. However, this which accuse the Court of
freedom is not absolute, dismissing judges
and needs, on occasion, to without rhyme or reason
be adjusted to and and disbarring lawyers
accommodated with the without due process, are
requirements of equally also completely baseless
important public interests. and unfounded.
One of these fundamental
o Had respondent
public interests is the
undertaken to
maintenance of the integrity
examine the records
and orderly functioning of
of the two (2) judges
the administration of
and the attorney he
justice.
later identified, he
• The Court is compelled to would have discovered
hold that the statements that the respondents
made by Gonzalez clearly in those administrative
constitute contempt and call cases had ample
for the exercise of the opportunity to explain
disciplinary authority of the their side and submit
Supreme Court. evidence in support
Respondent’s statements, thereof.
especially the charge that
o Due process as a
the Court deliberately
constitutional precept
rendered an erroneous
does not, always and
and unjust decision,
in all situations,
necessarily implying that
require the trial-type
the justices of the Court
proceeding, that the
Page 44 of 55
 essence of due bonafide and shall not spill
process is to be found over the walls of decency
in the reasonable and propriety. A wide chasm
opportunity to be exists between fair criticism,
heard and to submit on the one hand, and abuse
any evidence one may and slander of courts and
have in support of the judges thereof, on the
one's defense. "To be other. Intemperate and
heard" does not only unfair criticism is a gross
mean verbal violation of the duty of
arguments in court; respect to courts. It is
one may be heard also such a misconduct that
through pleadings. subjects a lawyer to
Where opportunity to disciplinary action.
be heard, either
through oral
arguments or Ruling: Respondent Gonzalez is
pleadings, is accorded, guilty both of contempt of court in
there is no denial of facie curiae and of gross
procedural due misconduct as an officer of the
process. court and member of the Bar.
Accordingly, the Court Resolved
• Lastly, the statements
to SUSPEND Atty. Raul M.
issued in the Philippine Daily
Gonzalez from the practice of law
Globe asserting that the
indefinitely and until further
Court was preventing him
orders from this Court, the
from prosecuting rich and
suspension to take effect
powerful persons, can only
immediately.
be regarded as calculated to
present the Court in an
extremely bad light.
21. In Re Felipe Del Rosario
• His accusations constitute a
Facts:
violation of Canon 10, which
states that a lawyer owes Felipe Del Rosario was a
candor, fairness, and candidate in the bar examination
good faith to the court. In who failed for the second time in
re: Almacen, the cardinal 1925. He presented himself for the
condition of all such succeeding bar examination in
criticism that it shall be 1926 and again was unable to

Page 45 of 55
obtain the required rating. Then on sound discretion. The standard of
29 March 1927, he authorized the the legal profession are not
filing of a motion for the revision satisfied by conduct which merely
of his papers for 1925 based on enables one to escape the
alleged mistake in the penalties of the criminal law. It
computation of his grades. The would be a disgrace to the
Court granted this motion and judiciary to receive one whose
admitted him to the bar. integrity is questionable as an
office of the court, to clothe him
HOWEVER, a subsequent
with all the prestige of its
investigation by the city fiscal
confidence, and then to permit
uncovered that Del Rosario,
him to hold himself out as a duly
together with one Juan Villaflor, a
authorized member of the bar.
former employee of the Supreme
Court, falsified some documents to
make it appear that Del Rosario
22. Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty.
actually passed the 1925 bar
Melanio Mauricio A.C. No.
exams. The two were
7199 July 22, 2009
subsequently charged with
falsification. Villaflor was convicted
as he pleaded guilty but Del
DOCTRINE:
Rosario was acquitted for lack of
evidence. The fiscal however This case reiterates several
recommended Del Rosario to doctrines related to the ethical
surrender his certificate of standards of the legal profession,
attorney. including the prohibition against
engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
Issue:
immoral, or deceitful conduct
Whether or not Felipe Del (Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Rosario can be stripped off of his Professional Responsibility); the
certificate of attorney. mandate to uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession
(Canon 7); and the lawyer’s duty
Held: to refrain from making public
statements that tend to influence
Yes. The practice of law is
the outcome of a pending case
not an absolute right to be granted
(Rule 13.02).
everyone who demands it, but is a
privilege to be extended or
withheld in the exercise of the
FACTS:

Page 46 of 55
Foodsphere, Inc. (complainant), a Complainant filed criminal
corporation engaged in the complaints against respondent
business of meat processing and and several others for Libel and
manufacture and distribution of Threatening to Publish Libel under
canned goods and grocery Articles 353 and 356 of the
products under the brand name Revised Penal Code before the
"CDO". Alberto Cordero (Cordero) Office of the City Prosecutor of
purportedly bought from a Quezon City and Valenzuela
grocery in Valenzuela City canned City. The complaints were
goods including a can of CDO pending at the time of the filing of
Liver spread. As Cordero and his the present administrative
relatives were eating bread with complaint. Despite the pendency
the CDO Liver spread, they found of the civil case against him and
the spread to be sour and soon the issuance of a status quo order
discovered a colony of worms restraining/enjoining further
inside the can. They filed a publishing, televising and
complained before the BFAD. A broadcasting of any matter
complaint was filed with the relative to the complaint of CDO,
BFAD, which held a conciliation respondent continued with his
hearing where the Corderos attacks against complainant and
demanded PHP 150,000 from its products.
Foodsphere, Inc., which the latter
refused. After conciliation
meetings between Cordero and ISSUE:
the petitioner, the Corderos
Whether or not the respondent
eventually forged
violated the Code of Professional
a KASUNDUAN seeking the
Responsibility.
withdrawal of their complaint
before the BFAD. The BFAD thus
dismissed the
HELD:
complaint. Respondent, Atty.
Mauricio, Jr., who affixed his YES. Respondent suspended for
signature to the KASUNDUAN as a three (3) years from the practice
witness, later wrote in one of his of law. He warned that a
articles/columns in a tabloid that repetition of the same or similar
he prepared the document. acts will be dealt with more
severely.

Page 47 of 55
By the above-recited acts, of the Code of Professional
respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Responsibility, which mandates
the Code of Professional lawyers to "uphold the
Responsibility which mandates Constitution, obey the laws of the
lawyers to refrain from engaging land and promote respect for law
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or and legal processes." For he
deceitful conduct. For, as the IBP defied said status quo order,
found, he engaged in deceitful despite his (respondent’s) oath as
conduct by, inter alia, taking a member of the legal profession
advantage of the complaint to "obey the laws as well as the
against CDO to advance his legal orders of the duly
interest – to obtain funds for his constituted authorities."
Batas Foundation and seek
sponsorships and advertisements
for the tabloids and his television However, while a lawyer is
program. entitled to present his case with
vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the
He also violated Rule 13.02 of the use of offensive and abusive
Code of Professional language. Language abounds with
Responsibility, which mandates: A countless possibilities for one to
lawyer shall not make public be emphatic but respectful,
statements in the media convincing but not derogatory,
regarding a pending case tending illuminating but not offensive. By
to arouse public opinion for or failing to live up to his oath and
against a party. to comply with the exacting
standards of the legal profession,
respondent also violated Canon 7
For despite the pendency of the of the Code of Professional
civil case against him and the Responsibility, which directs a
issuance of a status quo order lawyer to "at all times uphold the
restraining/enjoining further integrity and the dignity of the
publishing, televising and legal profession.
broadcasting of any matter
relative to the complaint of CDO,
respondent continued with his 23. People vs Godoy 243
attacks against complainant and SCRA 64
its products. At the same time,
Facts:
respondent violated Canon 1 also
Danny Godoy was charged with

Page 48 of 55
rape and kidnapping with serious 2. Whether the allegations of
illegal detention in two separate kidnapping with serious illegal
informations by the Regional Trial detention were substantiated by
Court for Palawan and Puerto the evidence.
Princesa City. The accused, a 3. The admissibility and weight of
teacher, allegedly raped Mia Taha the defense’s evidence, including
by means of force, threat, and the letters alleged to be written
intimidation on January 21, 1994, by Taha to Godoy.
and subsequently detained her 4. The impact of the affidavits of
against her will for five days. desistance and the offered
compromise on the accused’s
During the trial, Taha claimed that
guilt.
Godoy, her Physics teacher,
5. The application of the death
attacked her in a boarding house,
penalty in light of the facts and
threatened her with a knife, and
the law.
forcibly had carnal knowledge of
her. The next day, under the RULING:
pretext of soliciting funds for a The Supreme Court reversed the
school contest, Godoy allegedly trial court’s decision, acquitting
kidnapped Taha, and during their Danny Godoy of both charges.
confinement, raped her multiple The Court found significant issues
times. with the credibility of the
complainant’s testimony,
The defense presented a contrary
discrepancies, and the lack of
narrative, asserting that Taha and
corroborative evidence to support
Godoy were in a consensual
the claims of rape and
relationship marked by intimate
kidnapping. The Court also gave
letters from Taha to Godoy,
credence to the defense’s
challenging the accusations. The
narrative of a consensual
trial court, however, found Godoy
relationship between Godoy and
guilty, sentencing him to the
Taha, highlighted by the letters
death penalty in both charges.
purportedly penned by Taha,
The decision was automatically
expressing affection and
reviewed by the Supreme Court
contrition towards Godoy, leading
due to the imposition of death
to doubts about the allegations.
penalties.
Doctrine:
ISSUE:
The presumption of innocence
1. Whether the elements of rape
must prevail unless the guilt of
were proven beyond reasonable
the accused is proven beyond
doubt.
Page 49 of 55
reasonable doubt. In criminal political activity by attending the
cases, especially those involving ‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by authorizing
grave charges such as rape and the assumption of Vice-President
kidnapping, the evidence must be Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the
clear and convincing. Offers of Presidency in violation of the
compromise are not outright 1987 Constitution. Petitioner
admissions of guilt and must be contends that the justices have
evaluated in context. thereby prejudged a case that
would assail the legality of the act
taken by President Arroyo. Atty.
24. Estrada vs Sandiganbayan Paguia has ever since been vocal
about this opinion to the public.
G.R. No. 159486-
88 November 25, Sandiganbayan issued an order
2003 denying the foregoing motion, as
well as the motion to dismiss, and
PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO
the latter motion for
ESTRADA, petitioner,
reconsideration, filed by
vs.
petitioner. Hence, this petition for
THE HONORABLE
certiorari.
SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL
DIVISION], HON. MINITA
CHICO-NAZARIO, HON.
ISSUE:
EDILBERTO SANDOVAL, HON.
TERESITA LEONARDO-DE 1. Whether or not the act of the
CASTRO, and THE PEOPLE OF Chief Justice in swearing into
THE office PGMA in EDSA a partisan
PHILIPPINES, respondents. political activity.
2. Whether or not Atty. Paguia
should be held administratively
FACTS:
liable.
Atty. Alan F. Paguia, speaking for
petitioner, Joseph Ejercito Estrada
claims of political partisanship RULING:
against the members of the
1. No. The claim of the petitioner
Court, asserting that the justices
is of no merit.
have violated Rule 5.10 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct which
prohibits justices or judges from
participating in any partisan

Page 50 of 55
It should be clear that the phrase succeeded in seeking to impede,
“partisan political activities,” in its obstruct and pervert the
statutory context, relates to acts dispensation of justice.
designed to cause the success or
The attention of Atty. Paguia has
the defeat of a particular
also been called to the mandate
candidate or candidates who have
of Rule 13.02 of the Code of
filed certificates of candidacy to a
Professional Responsibility
public office in an election. The
prohibiting a member of the bar
taking of an oath of office by any
from making such public
incoming President of the
statements on a case that may
Republic before the Chief Justice
tend to arouse public opinion for
of the Philippines is a traditional
or against a party. Regrettably,
official function of the Highest
Atty. Paguia has persisted in
Magistrate. The assailed presence
ignoring the Court’s well-meant
of other justices of the Court at
admonition. Atty. Paguia has
such an event could be no
continued to make public
different from their appearance in
statements claiming
such other official functions as
unconstitutionality of the acts of
attending the Annual State of the
the Supreme Court justices.
Nation Address by the President
of the Philippines before the
Legislative Department.
The Court has already warned
Atty. Paguia, on pain of
disciplinary sanction, to become
2. Yes.
mindful of his grave
responsibilities as a lawyer and as
an officer of the Court.
Canon 11 of the Code of
Apparently, he has chosen not to
Professional Responsibility
at all take heed. WHEREFORE,
mandates that the lawyer should
Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby
observe and maintain the respect
indefinitely suspended from the
due to the courts and judicial
practice of law, effective upon his
officers and, indeed, should insist
receipt hereof, for conduct
on similar conduct by others. In
unbecoming a lawyer and an
liberally imputing sinister and
officer of the Court.
devious motives and questioning
the impartiality, integrity, and
authority of the members of the
25. A.M. No. 21-06-20-SC -
Court, Atty. Paguia has only
RE: DISTURBING SOCIAL

Page 51 of 55
MEDIA POSTS OF attracted to the lawyers, further
LAWYERS/LAW PROFESSORS degrading the conversation.
When called to explain, the
lawyers expressed deep remorse
Facts: On June 29, 2021, the
and issued public apologies. Atty.
Supreme Court, motu proprio,
Antay, Jr. admitted shame over
required several lawyers—Atty.
the incident, explaining that he
Noel V. Antay, Jr., Atty. Ernesto A.
could not recall the posts until he
Tabujara III, Atty. Israel P.
saw circulating screenshots, as
Calderon, Atty. Morgan Nicanor,
his social media profile was set to
and Atty. Joseph Marion Peña
private. He claimed his references
Navarrete—to show cause why no
to the LGBTQIA+ community
administrative charges should be
were descriptive, not intended to
filed against them for derogatory
disparage. Other lawyers, like
Facebook posts. These posts
Atty. Nicanor and Atty. Navarrete,
involved inappropriate remarks
explained their comments were
targeting the LGBTQIA+
meant as playful banter and did
community and certain judges in
not intend to offend or disrespect
Taguig City. The exchange of
the Judiciary or the LGBTQIA+
comments included references to
community. Atty. Tabujara
a judge's effeminate demeanor
highlighted his decades of
and insinuations about members
practice without any previous
of the LGBTQIA+ community,
incidents and affirmed his respect
framed in a joking and degrading
for LGBTQIA+ individuals, noting
manner.
his professional and personal
Atty. Antay, Jr. posted about connections with the community.
prosecuting a member of the
By a resolution dated June 21,
LGBTQIA+ community for estafa,
2022, the Court referred the
noting the convict accused him of
matter to the Office of the Bar
being a bigot and referencing a
Confidant (OBC) for investigation.
judge's effeminate behavior.
The OBC’s report, dated August
Other lawyers, including Atty.
31, 2022, found the comments
Tabujara and Atty. Calderon,
degrading to both the Judiciary
engaged in similar derogatory
and the LGBTQIA+ community,
banter, making crude jokes about
despite not mentioning specific
judges and members of the
names. The OBC emphasized that
LGBTQIA+ community. Some
lawyers, as officers of the court,
comments implied that the
must uphold high standards of
LGBTQIA+ individuals were
Page 52 of 55
propriety and decorum, refraining reasonable. On this score, Belo-
from remarks that undermine Henares is clear: there can be no
public respect for the courts and reasonable expectation of privacy
target marginalized communities. as regards social media postings,
However, considering the lawyers' regardless if the same are
apologies and their apparent "locked," precisely because the
remorse, the OBC recommended access restriction settings in
that the lawyers be admonished social media platforms do not
rather than face harsher absolutely bar other users from
disciplinary action. obtaining access to the same
Issue: Consequently, before one can
have an expectation of privacy in
1) Can the erring lawyers invoke
his or her online social networking
their right to privacy as a shield
activity - in this case, Facebook -
against administrative liability, if
it is first necessary that said user
any?
manifests the intention to keep
2) What are the respective certain posts private, through the
violations, if any, of the Code of employment of measures to
Professional Responsibility (CPR) prevent access thereto or to limit
committed by Attys. Antay, Jr., its visibility. This intention can
Tabujara III, Calderon, Nicanor materialize in cyberspace through
and Navarrete? the utilization of Facebook's
privacy tools. In other words,
Ruling:
utilization of these privacy tools is
1. NO. the manifestation, in the cyber
world, of the user's invocation of
The lawyers' right to privacy,
his or her right to informational
especially when it comes to their
privacy.
social media account, is limited.
They cannot use this right as a Restricting the privacy of one's
shield against any liability. At Facebook posts to "Friends" does
best, the right to privacy has not guarantee absolute protection
limited application to online from the prying eyes of another
activities of lawyers. user who does not belong to
one's circle of friends. The user's
A two-part test: (1) whether, by a
own Facebook friend can share
person's conduct, such individual
said content or tag his or her own
has exhibited an expectation of
Facebook friend thereto,
privacy; and (2) this expectation
regardless of whether the user
is one that society recognizes as

Page 53 of 55
tagged by the latter is Facebook responsibility and, hence, must
friends or not with the former. handle their personal affairs with
Also, when the post is shared or great caution.
when a person is tagged, the
respective Facebook friends of the
person who shared the post or Lawyers may be disciplined even
who was tagged can view the for any conduct committed in
post, the privacy setting of which their private capacity, as long as
was set at "Friends." Under the their misconduct reflects their
circumstances, therefore, want of probity or good
respondent's claim of violation of demeanor, a good character being
right to privacy is negated. an essential qualification for the
admission to the practice of law
The Court cannot give credence
and for continuance of such
to Atty. Antay, Jr.'s invocation of
privilege. When the Code of
his right to privacy. His excuse -
Professional Responsibility or the
that his social media account is
Rules of Court speaks of conduct
locked and the contents thereof
or misconduct, the reference is
cannot be accessed by outsiders
not confined to one's behavior
– is a mere allegation at best.
exhibited in connection with the
Allegations are not proof. Further,
performance of lawyers'
the fact that the exchanges
professional duties, but also
leaked means that his social
covers any misconduct, which—
media account is not locked as he
albeit unrelated to the actual
claims or that there is a rat
practice of their profession—
amidst them.
would show them to be unfit for
2. They violated rule Rule the office and unworthy of the
7.03 of CPR privileges which their license and
the law invest in them.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice
In this case, respondent's
law, nor shall he whether in public
remarks against complainant'
or private life, behave in a
breached the said walls, for which
scandalous manner to the
reason the former must be
discredit of the legal profession.
administratively sanctioned. The
Indeed, lawyers, as keepers of comments made by Atty. Antay,
public faith, are burdened with a Jr., Atty. Tabujara III, and others
high degree of social reflected homophobic undertones

Page 54 of 55
and unfounded insinuations
regarding the sexual orientation
and mental fitness of judges,
violating the dignity of the legal
profession and undermining
public confidence in the judiciary.
As a result, the court
reprimanded all involved lawyers,
imposing penalties that included
stern warnings and fines, with
Atty. Tabujara III facing a PHP
25,000 fine due to the severity of
his remarks and lack of remorse.
The ruling emphasized the need
for lawyers to adhere to ethical
standards and avoid language
that perpetuates harmful
stereotypes, particularly against
the LGBTQIA+ community.

Page 55 of 55