CANON V

GONZALES VS. CABUCANA

Facts:
● Gonzales filed a petition before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that: she
was the complainant in a case for sum of money and damages... where she was represented
by the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW
OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar Cabucana handling the case and herein respondent... a decision
was rendered in the civil case ordering the losing... party to pay Gonzales the amount of
P17,310.00 with interest and P6,000.00 as attorney's fees;
● Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ of execution issued in connection
with the judgment which prompted Gonzales to file a complaint against the said sheriff
with... this Court; in September 2003, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of
Gonzales; they harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance
regarding her complaint before this Court; Gonzales thereafter filed against the Gatchecos
criminal cases for... trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust
vexation;... where respondent's law firm was still representing Gonzales, herein respondent
represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales... against the said spouses;
respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law since respondent's acceptance of the
cases of the Gatchecos violates the lawyer-client relationship between complainant and
respondent's law firm and renders respondent liable under the Code of

Professional Responsibility (CPR) particularly Rules 10.01, [1] 13.01, [2] 15.02, [3] 15.03, [4]
21.01 [5] and 21.02. [6]

In his Answer, respondent averred: He never appeared and represented complainant in Civil Case No.
1-567 since it was his brother, Atty. Edmar Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales in said
case. He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the... cases filed against
them but claimed that his appearance is pro bono and that the spouses pleaded with him as no other
counsel was willing to take their case. He entered his appearance in good faith and opted to represent
the spouses rather than leave them... defenseless. When the Gatchecos asked for his assistance, the
spouses said that the cases filed against them by Gonzales were merely instigated by a high ranking
official who wanted to get even with them for their refusal to testify in favor of the said official in
another case.

At first, respondent declined to serve as counsel of the spouses as he too did not want to incur the ire
of the high-ranking official, but after realizing that he would be abdicating a sworn duty to delay no
man for money or malice, respondent entered his appearance as defense... counsel of the spouses free
of any charge.
Issues:

let it be clarified that contrary to the report of Commissioner Reyes, respondent did not only
represent the Gatcheco spouses in the administrative case filed by Gonzales against them. As
respondent himself narrated in his Position Paper, he likewise... acted as their counsel in the criminal
cases filed by Gonzales against them. [23]

Ruling:

With that settled, we find respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, to wit: Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. It is well-settled
that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. [24] Such prohibition is founded on principles of
public policy and good taste as the... nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. [25] Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can...
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.

EDQUIBAL VS. FERRER

Facts:

Felix E. Edquibal filed a complaint against Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr. on January 8, 2002, alleging
professional misconduct and neglect of duty. Edquibal hired Ferrer to assist his mother, Ursula
Edquibal, in legal disputes over real property against his sister, Delia Edquibal-Garcia, in Masinloc,
Zambales. Ferrer successfully represented Ursula in four out of five cases; however, he faced an
unfavorable ruling in Civil Case No. RTC-1495-I. Ferrer advised Edquibal to appeal the decision,
initially estimating the appeal cost at P4,000 but later accepting P2,000 due to Edquibal's financial
constraints. In January 2001, Edquibal learned that the appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 65019) was
dismissed because Ferrer failed to file the required appellant's brief. Ferrer denied representing
Edquibal's mother and claimed he did not receive any payment. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) investigated and confirmed Ferrer was the counsel of record and failed to act diligently,
resulting in the appeal's dismissal.

Issue:

● Did Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr. engage in professional misconduct and neglect of duty by not
filing the appellant's brief and failing to inform the complainant about the appeal's status?
● What disciplinary action is warranted for Atty. Ferrer due to his failure to fulfill his legal
responsibilities?
Ruling:

The Supreme Court found Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr. guilty of professional misconduct and neglect of
duty. He was suspended from practicing law for three months and ordered to return the P2,000.00
received from Edquibal.

Ratio:

Atty. Ferrer had a responsibility as counsel of record to file the appellant's brief and keep his client
informed, which he neglected. His conduct violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which mandate lawyers to act diligently and maintain client trust. The Court
highlighted that the lawyer-client relationship is founded on trust, and negligence can inflict
significant harm on clients. The standard of diligence expected is ordinary, which Ferrer failed to
meet. Previous cases of similar negligence were referenced, underscoring the obligation of lawyers to
file necessary documents for their clients and the court. A three-month suspension was deemed
appropriate, with a caution that future violations would result in more severe penalties.

CANON VI

BENGCO VS. BERNARDO

Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Pablo S.
Bernardo. Allegations included fraudulent promises to expedite land titling in Tagaytay City between
April 15, 1997, and July 22, 1997. Atty. Bernardo, in collusion with Andres Magat, convinced the
complainants to advance P495,000.00. Atty. Bernardo misrepresented himself as the lawyer of
prospective buyer William Gatchalian and claimed connections in various government agencies. The
money was misappropriated, and Atty. Bernardo failed to return it despite demands.The Third
Municipal Circuit Trial Court and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause to
charge Atty. Bernardo and Magat with Estafa. Atty. Bernardo denied the allegations, blaming Magat
as the primary contact and recipient of the money. The case was investigated by the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP), which found Atty. Bernardo guilty of deceit and recommended a two-year
suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified the suspension to one year and ordered the
restitution of P200,000.00. Atty. Bernardo filed a motion for reconsideration, citing prescription and
denial of due process. The RTC convicted Atty. Bernardo and Magat of Estafa, sentencing them to
imprisonment. The Supreme Court adopted the IBP's findings, ordering Atty. Bernardo's suspension
and restitution.

Issue:

1. Did Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo commit deceit, malpractice, and conduct unbecoming of a
member of the Bar?
 2. Is the defense of prescription applicable in this case?
3. Was Atty. Bernardo denied due process during the IBP proceedings?

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo was found guilty of deceit, malpractice, and conduct unbecoming of a
member of the Bar. No, the defense of prescription is not applicable in this case. No, Atty. Bernardo
was not denied due process during the IBP proceedings.

Ratio:

The Supreme Court found that Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo committed deceit and malpractice by falsely
claiming he could expedite land titling and misappropriating the advanced money. The Court
emphasized that lawyers must uphold high standards of morality, honesty, and integrity. The defense
of prescription was dismissed as administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. Atty.
Bernardo's failure to respond and attend the mandatory conference demonstrated a disregard for court
processes. The Court highlighted that the practice of law serves public interest, not personal gain.
Atty. Bernardo’s criminal conviction for Estafa further highlighted his lack of moral fitness to
practice law. The Court ordered a one-year suspension from law practice and restitution of
P200,000.00, with a warning of further suspension for non-compliance.

ZAGUIRRE VS CASTILLO
Facts:

Case: Carmelita I. Zaguirre v. Atty. Alfredo Castillo (A.C. No. 4921)

Decision Date: March 6, 2003

Court: Philippine Supreme Court

Complaint: Carmelita Zaguirre filed for disbarment against Atty. Alfredo Castillo for gross immoral
conduct.

Background: Zaguirre and Castillo met in 1996 at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Castillo courted Zaguirre, promising marriage while misrepresenting himself as single.

Their intimate relationship lasted from 1996 to 1997. Castillo passed the bar exams and became a
lawyer on May 10, 1997. In early May 1997, Zaguirre discovered Castillo was married when
confronted by his wife. On September 10, 1997, Castillo acknowledged his relationship with
Zaguirre and recognized her unborn child as his. Zaguirre gave birth to Aletha Jessa on December 9,
1997. Castillo later refused to recognize the child or provide support. Castillo claimed their
relationship was based on mutual lust and denied courting Zaguirre, asserting she knew he was
married and questioning the child's paternity. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline: Found Castillo
guilty of gross immoral conduct and recommended indefinite suspension from law practice.

Issue:

● Did Atty. Alfredo Castillo engage in gross immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action?
● Is the defense of mutual consent and lack of deception by Castillo valid in absolving him of
gross immoral conduct?

Ruling:

➢ Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Alfredo Castillo guilty of gross immoral conduct. No, the
defense of mutual consent and lack of deception does not absolve Castillo of gross immoral
conduct.

Ratio:

Standards of Morality: Castillo's actions of engaging in an illicit relationship and fathering a child
with a woman other than his wife fell significantly below the moral standards required of a lawyer.
Lawyers' Conduct: Lawyers must uphold the highest moral standards in both public and private lives.

Notarized Statement: Castillo's attempt to renege on his notarized statement recognizing and
promising to support his child demonstrated unscrupulousness and was highly censurable.

Mutual Consent and Deception: The defense of mutual consent and lack of deception was deemed
immaterial. The proceedings aimed to protect the integrity of the legal profession and the public, not
to grant relief to the complainant.

Moral Character: Possession of good moral character is a continuing requirement for the practice of
law.

Penalty: Given Castillo's gross immoral conduct, the Court imposed the penalty of indefinite
suspension from the practice of law, lasting until Castillo could demonstrate a firm conviction of
maintaining moral integrity and uprightness.

FORTUN VS. QUINSAYAS

VILLALON, JR VS IAC

PLAZA VS. AMAMIO

IN RE: MAQUERA

TAN JR. VS GUMBA

BUNTAG VS. TOLEDO

DAYOS VS. BURI

FERNANDO VS. PALLUGNA

ARTATES VS. BELLO

SALUDARES VS. SALUDARES

QUINDOZA VS. DELOS SANTOS

MENDOZA VS SANTIAGO

OPP CAVITE VS MAS

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC VS RIVERA

RE: ORDER BRILLANTES

Make a survey of recent jurisprudence (2023-2024) relative to Canon 5 of the CPRA.

Choose 3 cases; and briefly summarize your valuable learnings (with emphasis on the ethical angle) from
each case.

JOHN KENG SENG A.K.A. JOHN SY, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARNEL LAPORE, respondent.
(John Keng Seng v. Lapore, A.C. No. 12189 (Notice), (30 August 2023))

RE: ORDER DATED OCTOBER 28, 2016 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 93140 ISSUED BY
PRESIDING JUDGE KELLY B. BELINO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BR. 1,
CABANATUAN CITY, petitioner, vs. ATTY. CESAR R. VILLAR, respondent.

People of the Philippines vs. Ruggie Maestre G.R. No. 265051. June 14, 2023.
ARLENE O. PARREÑO vs. ATTY. SAMUEL SM LEZAMA (Notice), (25 January 2023)
The instant administrative case stemmed from a complaint-Affidavit for disbursement filed against
Atty. Lezama before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violation of Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). There is conflict of interest if the
acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect
his or her first client in any matter in which he or she represents him or her and also whether he or she
will be called upon in his new relation to use against his or her first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection.
Learnings: This case highlights the necessity of giving attention and precision in legal representation,
irrespective of factors like payment or the complexity of the case. Lawyers need to exercise great care
in all client matters to prevent claims of preferential or inconsistent service. CANON V Section 4
emphasizes that layers should provide the same level of service to every client. If Atty. Lezama had
shown inconsistencies or errors in managing documents; it might have been viewed as a failure to
maintain consistent sieve standards. However, the final ruling found no significant evidence of
misconduct, indicating that he likely met acceptable standards overall.

John Keng Seng vs. Lapore, A.C. No. 12189 (Notice), (30 August 2023)
This administrative case arose from a verified Complaint-Affidavit dated March 7, 2018 filed by John
Keng Seng a.k.a. John Sy against the respondent Atty. Arnel Lapore prayed for the latter’s disbarment
for “racial discrimination” , professional misconduct, and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility. As to the claim of racial discrimination, the Court agrees with
the Investigating Commissioner that there also “no evidence” to show that respondents
characterization of complaints as "the Chinese guy” led to any act which indicates that he was
deprived of any remedy or was treated any differently by respondent in the given situation.
Learnings: CANON V Section 1. Non-Discrimination. A lawyer shall not decline to represent a
person solely on account of latter’s nationality or ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity,
religion, disability, age marital status, social or economic status, political beliefs, or such lawyer’s or
the public’s opinion regarding the guilt of said person, except for justifiable reasons. This case
illustrates the significance of upholding professional ethics and equality, especially when dealing with
delicate matters like alleged discrimination. In this case Atty. Lapore made sure the unofficial settlers
rights were respected and that they weren't denied access to basic utilities like electricity without
following the proper procedures. Upholding CANON V meant putting the equitable treatment and
maintaining an approach based on legal ethical standards.

HELEN A. PAEZ vs. ATTY. ALFONSO D. DEBUQUE A.C. No. 13628, (28 May 2024)
In the Report and Recommendation, dated May 5, 2014 of Investigating Commissioner Joel L.
Bodegon (Commissioner Bodegon) found Atty. Debuque liable for violation of Canon 1, Rule
1.01of the CPR. His acts of fabricating and presenting two different deeds of sale are indicative
of his intent to deceive, as they reflected two different purchase prices for Paez's subject realty.
Worse, when Rezano confronted him, he denied the existence of both deeds; instead, he showed
her the deed which Paez had sent. Even more telling is t he fact that both deeds falsely stated
that Paez received the full payment, only for Atty. Debuque to subsequently avouch that he paid
in installments. His actions and contradictory statements fell short of the standard imposed
upon him by the legal profession. For behaving in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and
deceitful manner, Atty. Debuque was recommended the penalty of one year suspension from the
practice of law.
Learnings: Lawyers are expected to exercise due diligence and offer fair and honest service,
regardless of payment or the client’s vulnerability. CANON V Section 2. Treatment of
vulnerable persons. - In dealing with a client who belongs to a vulnerable sector, a lawyer shall
be mindful and sensitive of, and consider the client's special circumstances, as well as the
applicable laws and rules. The lawyer shall observe a higher standard of service suited to the
particular needs of the vulnerable person and shall assert such person's right to meaningful
access to justice. It requires that a lawyer maintains a consistent level of service for all clients,
with a heightened standard for those who are vulnerable. Atty. Debeque did not uphold this
standard, as his actions negatively impacted his clients' interests, particularly since Helen was
incarcerated at the time and in a vulnerable situation.