Part IV.

Duty of the Lawyer to His Profession

A. Duty to Maintain the Dignity of the Profession

B.M. No. 139, 28 March 1983, 121 SCRA 217;

Leda v. Tabang, A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992;

Guevarra v. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007;

Bansig v. Celera, AC 5581, Jan. 14, 2014;

Nuezca v. Villa Garcia, A.C. No. 8210, Aug. 8, 2016

Facts: In their verified complaint, complainants averred that respondent sent them a demand letter dated February 15,
2009, copy furnished to various offices and persons, which contained not only threatening but also libelous utterances.
Allegedly, the demand letter seriously maligned and ridiculed complainants to its recipients. Complainants likewise
posited that several news clippings that were attached to the demand letter were intended to sow tear in them, and
claimed that the circulation thereof caused them sleepless nights, wounded feelings, and besmirched reputation. Thus,
they maintained that respondent should be held administratively liable therefor.

Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified
complaint.

Held: Yes. Indeed, respondent could have simply stated the ultimate facts relative to the alleged indebtedness of
complainants to his client, made the demand for settlement thereof, and refrained from the imputation of criminal
offenses against them, especially considering that there is a proper forum therefor and they have yet to be found
criminally liable by a court of proper jurisdiction. Respondent's use of demeaning and immoderate language put
complainants in shame and disgrace. Moreover, it is important to consider that several other persons had been copy
furnished with the demand letter. As such, respondent could have besmirched complainants' reputation to its recipients.

WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month, effective
upon his receipt of this Resolution, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely.  

B. Duty of Courtesy towards Fellow Lawyers

Saberon v. Larong, A.C. No. 6567, Apr. 16, 2008;

Gimeno v. Zaide, AC 10303, April 21, 2015;

Facts: Gimeno alleged that even before Atty. Zaide's admission  to the Bar and receipt  of his notarial commission, he had
4 5

notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale and maintained  different notarial registers in
separate notarial offices.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Zaide violated the Notarial Practice Rules and the CPR

Atty. Zaide should have been acutely aware of the requirements of his notarial commission. His flagrant violation of
Section 1, Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules (A notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any given
time.) is not merely a simple and excusable negligence. It amounts to a clear violation of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer [should] uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes."

Noble v. Ailes, AC 10628, July 1, 2015;

FACTS: Maximino Noble III filed a disbarment case against Orlando Ailes for maligning him and dissuading Marcelo
Ailes, Jr. from retaining his services as counsel, claiming that he was incompetent and that he charged exorbitant fees.
The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case on the ground that the communication between Orlando and Marcelo,
who are brothers, was done privately nor intended to be published and known by third persons.

ISSUE: W/N the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Orlando.

RULING: NO. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions such that a lawyer's words and actions
directly affect the public's opinion of the legal profession. Lawyers are expected to observe such conduct of nobility and
uprightness which should remain with them, whether in their public or private lives, and may be disciplined in the event
their conduct falls short of the standards imposed upon them. Thus, in this case, it is inconsequential that the statements
were merely relayed to Orlando's brother in private.

Malabed v. De la Pena, A.C. No. 7594, Feb. 9, 2016

Facts: Atty. De la Pena was charged with dishonesty and gross misconduct for misrepresenting that
he submitted a certificate to file action when there was none, conflict of interest for notarizing a deed
of donation executed by complainant's family when eventually he is a counsel for those opposing
parties in a case where complainant’s family is involved, and for violation of prohibition in employment
in government office after his dismissal as a judge. In his pleadings before the IBP, Atty. Dela Pena
called the counsel of the complainant a “silahis by nature and complexion” andalso accused
complainant of “cohabiting with a married man before the wife of that married man died.” The IBP
found that Atty. De la Pena is guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct.

Held: Yes. Respondent committed gross misconduct for (1) misrepresenting that he submitted a
certificate to file action issued by the Lupon Tagapamayapa when in fact there was none; (2) using
improper language in his pleadings; and (3) defying willfully the Court's prohibition on reemployment
in any government office as accessory penalty of his dismissal as a judge. Gross misconduct is
defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not
a mere error in judgment."

C. Duty to be Fair to Fellow Lawyers

Binay-an v. Addog, AC 10449, July 28, 2014

Facts: Respondent communicated with the Palos, complainants in the aforesaid civil case, and convinced them to
execute their affidavits of desistance in the civil case in exchange for monetary consideration. This respondent did without
informing Atty. Selmo, the representative of complainants. Hence, a complaint for misconduct was instituted. 

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct?

Held: YES. Canon 8,  Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: 

A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the
right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel. 

In this case, the respondent knew that Paul and Bienvenido were represented by counsel, Atty. Selmo. His act of
preparing the affidavit of desistance, even assuming that it was only the joint affidavit of Paul, Isabela Daniel, and
Romana which he drafted and notarized was true, nonetheless encroached upon the legal functions of Atty. Selmo.

D. Duty to Prevent Unauthorized Practice of Law

Tapay v. Bancolo, AC 9604, Mar. 20, 2013;

Tapay and Rustia filed a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and his partner, Atty. Jarder. They alleged that they were subjected
to a harassment Complaint filed before the OMB with the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo. They attached a report of the PNP
Crime Lab which report concluded that the questioned signatures in the letter-complaints and the submitted standard
signatures of Atty. Bancolo were not written by one and the same person. 

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Bancolo should be held administratively liable

YES Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in
his name by a secretary of his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides: Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

Angeles v. Baggay, AC 8103, Dec. 3, 2014

Facts: 18 documents were “notarized “ by Atty. Bagay’s secretary while he was out of the country. 

Issue/s: Whether the notarization of documents by the secretary of respondent while he was out of the country
constituted negligence.

Held: Yes. Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the
unauthorized practice of law. Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as notary public, he
allowed an unauthorized person to practice law.
Respondent cannot take refuge in his claim that it was his secretary’s act which he did not authorize. He is responsible for
the acts of the secretary which he employed. He left his office open to the public while leaving his secretary in charge. He
kept his notarial seal and register within the reach of his secretary, fully aware that his secretary could use these items to
notarize documents and copy his signature. Such blatant negligence cannot be countenanced by this Court and it is far
from being a simple negligence.

Part V. Duty of the Lawyer to the Courts

A. Duty of Candor

Umaguing v. De Vera, A.C. No. 10451, Feb. 4, 2015

Facts:

Atty de Vera falsified the signatures of two material witnesses to the election protest case filed by
petitioners by allowing the witnesses’ nearest kins to sign on their behalf even without the
authorization from the material witnesses. 

Issue:

Whether Atty de Vera should be held administratively liable

Held:

Yes. Atty de Vera should be held liable for violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. In this case,
Atty de Vera sanctioned the submission of a falsified affidavit by allowing unauthorized persons to
sign the affidavits. Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: 

“a lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.”

B. Duty of Respect

Nestle Phils. V. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542;

Facts: Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Labor Union Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-
Olalia, intensified the intermittent pickets they had been conducting in front of the Padre Faura gate of the Supreme Court
building. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees, had been called in order that the pickets might
be informed that the demonstration must cease immediately for the same constitutes direct contempt of court and that the
Court would not entertain their petitions for as long as the pickets were maintained. The Court en banc issued a resolution
giving the said unions the opportunity to withdraw graciously and requiring their counsels and other individuals to appear
before the Court and then and there to show cause why they should not then held in contempt of court. Atty. Jose C.
Espinas was further required to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be administratively dealt with.

Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders concerned, apologized to the Court for the above described
acts, together with an assurance that they will not be repeated

Issue: Whether or not the respondents should be held in contempt

Held: No. The Court accepted the apologies offered by the respondents and at this time, forego the imposition of the
sanction warranted by the contemptuous acts described earlie r.||

Maglucot-Aw v. Maglucot, 295 SCRA 78;

Facts: this Court takes notice of the language utilized by counsel for petitioners (ATTY. LEO B. DIOCOS)   in their petition
for review on certiorari. Thrice in the petition, counsel for petitioners made reference to the researcher of the CA. First, he
alluded to the lack of scrutiny of the records and lack of study of the law "by the researcher." Second, he cited the
researcher of the CA as having "sweepingly stated without reference to the record" that "[w]e have scanned the records on
hand and found no evidence of any partition." Finally, counsel for petitioners assailed the CA decision, stating that "this
will only show that there was no proper study of the case by the researcher."

Issue:  whether it was proper for petitioner’s counsel to use such words in the petition?

No.  It is highly improper and unethical for counsel for petitioners to berate the researcher in his appeal. Counsel for
petitioner should be reminded of the elementary rules of the legal profession regarding respect for the courts by the use of
proper language in its pleadings and admonished for his improper references to the researcher of the CA in his petition.
A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the courts. 

Habawel v. CTA, G.R. No. 174759, Sep. 7, 2011;

This is a tax-related case. CTA ruled adversely against petitioners. The CTA First Division further
required them to explain within five days from receipt why they should not be liable for indirect contempt or be
made subject to disciplinary action for language the petitioners employed in the motion for
reconsideration.

The petitioners submitted a compliance... in which they appeared to apologize but nonetheless justified their
language as, among others, "necessary to bluntly call the Honorable Court's attention to the grievousness of the
error by... calling a spade by spade."... The CTA First Division found the petitioners' apology wanting in
sincerity and humility, observing that they chose words that were "so strong, which brings disrepute the Court's
honor and integrity" for brazenly pointing to "the Court's alleged... ignorance and grave abuse of discretion,"

ISSUE: Guilty of direct contempt?

HELD: Yes. A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court xxx including disrespect toward the court
xxx may be summarily adjudged in contempt.

In re Kapunan, A.M. No. 13-11-09 SC, Aug. 12, 2014;

Kapunan made unwarranted remarks which tended to erode public trust and
confidence in the judiciary, saying there are judges and justices who can be paid
off or bribed.

Can Atty Kapunan be held in contempt?

Referred for further investigation. These rules of courteous demeanor must,

according to the Court, be observed not only in open court, but also out of
court. While it appears that, at the moment, there is no solid basis to proceed
against her, the Court is not disposed to shelve the matter in the meantime.
Justice Brion, thus, suggests as an alternative that the matter be referred for
further investigation.

In his Reflections, he said, that the Court should "proactively react to the smoke
that Atty. Kapunan has raised" as a fire must have existed somewhere behind
her statements which, according to him, should not be left unattended to.

Enriquez v. Lavadia, A.C. No. 5686, June 16, 2015

Disbarment complaint was received by the OBC against Atty. Lavadia. Enriquez alleged that in failing to file the
necessary pleadings before the court, Atty. Lavadia caused them great damage and prejudice. This constituted
gross negligence and inefficiency in the performance of his professional duties as a lawyer. Enriquez thus
prayed that Atty. Lavadia be disbarred.

Issue: WON Atty. Lavadia should be disbarred

Held: Yes.
           While this Court is not unsympathetic to the plight of Atty. Lavadia, the court cannot countenance his act
of repeatedly pleading for extensions of time and yet not submitting anything to the Court. This reflects his
willful disregard for Court orders putting in question his suitability to discharge his duties and functions as a
lawyer. Under Canon 11 of the CPR a lawyer is required to observe and maintain due respect to the court and
its judicial officers. We read this provision in relation to Rules 10.03 and 12.03 of the CPR for this rule does not
merely affect the client but the judicial process.

C. Duty to Assist in the Admin of Justice

Crisostomo v. Nazareno, A.C. No. 6677, June 10, 2014;

De los Santos v. Barbosa, AC 6681, July 17, 2015;

Floran v. Ediza, A.C. No. 5325, Feb. 9, 2016

D. Duty to Refrain from Impropriety

In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 532; In re Bagabuyo, A.C. No. 7006, Oct. 9, 2007