CASE DIGEST FOR LEGAL ETHICS

Chapter 3- The Lawyer and The Courts

Case #1 [ A.C. No. 5246, March 20, 2003 ] EDGAR O. PEREA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RUBEN
ALMADRO, RESPONDENT

PEREA v. ALMADRO

Facts

• A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty Ruben Almadro for failure to file demurrer to
evidence in the case of the complainant, Edgar Perea where he is being charged with the crime of
Frustrated Homicide.

• The complainant thought that the respondent filed said demurrer and the case against him was
dismissed but later on the trial court ordered the herein complainant to present evidence in his
defense and a warrant was issued for his arrest prompting him to surrender to the court and post
bail.

• Atty Almadro, who is in solo practice, said in his defense that he had finished the draft of the
motion and the accompanying pleading which he stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended
for editing prior to its submission in court; a few days before the deadline, herein respondent tried to
retrieve the draft from the diskette but said drafts were nowhere to be found despite efforts to
retrieve them; this led him to believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions
accordingly filed since it is his practice to expunge from the diskette drafts that were already
finalized and acted upon.

Issue:

• W/N the respondent be subjected for disciplinary action for neglect to his duties as a lawyer but
more gravely his open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents.

Ruling:

• The respondent was held liable for violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and 18.04

• It is plain from the records that the respondent lawyer failed to submit a demurrer to evidence for
which he had earlier asked permission from the trial court and which his client, herein complainant,
was relying on. More than that, he failed to contact his client and to apprise the latter about the
developments of the case leaving complainant completely surprised and without any protection
when years later, he received summons from the trial court asking him to present evidence in his
defense and, not long after, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest.

1
• The respondent claims he is in solo practice. How then can he honestly claim that when he could
not find the draft of his demurrer in the magnetic computer diskette where he allegedly stored it, he
was led "to believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions thereof
accordingly filed." As a solo practitioner like this representation, we can only surmise that logically,
nothing happens or "goes down" in Mr. Almadro’s office without his knowledge and indispensable
participation. If so, how could he have been led to believe anything? No one else could have signed
that demurrer.

• Respondent’s negligence is compounded by his attempt to have this tribunal believe the story of
how his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette, mysteriously disappeared and how the absence of such
file in his diskette led him to believe that the same was already filed in court. In his Answer, he even
tried to depict himself as a conscientious lawyer by stating that he was actually mulling on the
procedural steps he would undertake regarding the complainant's case when instead he received a
copy of this complaint for disbarment. Such a story, as observed by the IBP, is not only outrageous
but is contemptuous as it makes a mockery of the Court.

• The respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and FINED for Ten
Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos

3. Mariano Macias v. Atty. Alanixon Selda

Facts:

- Judge Mariano Macias filed a petition for Administrative Discipline against Atty.
Selda.

- Atty. Selda withdrew as counsel of Norma Lim due to overschedule and extreme
workload. Judge Macias granted his motion.

2
 - However, Atty. Selda disavowed his earlier reasons for the withdrawal alleging
the pre-judgment of Judge Macias in the case. Judge Macias allegedly insinuated
that Atty. Selda would lose in the case and withdrawal was his best option. It was
found out that there was no valid and reasonable cause for the accusation to the
Judge.

- IBP then recommended the suspension of Atty. Selda due to serious deceit,
malpractice, gross misconduct as a lawyer and in utter violation of the lawyer's oath.

Issue:

- WON Atty. Selda violated the lawyer’s oath and Canon 10 of the RPC on grounds
of serious deceit, falsehood representation, and malpractice by making it appear that
Judge Macias is impartial on his judgement.

Ruling:

- IBP recommendation affirmed with modification.

- All members of the legal profession made a solemn oath to, inter alia, "do no
falsehood" and "conduct [themselves] as [lawyers] according to the best of [their]
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [their]
clients."

- He misled the court in clear violation of his oath as lawyer and failed to abide by
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 10 and Rule 10.01.

- Selda is suspended for 1 year and sternly warned for similar acts.

Case #4 [A.C. No. 5624, January 20, 2004 ] NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO, COMPLAINANT,
VS. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C. FLORIDO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

• An administrative complaint was filed for the disbarment of Atty. James Florido for allegedly
violating his oath as a lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious and bogus Court of
Appeals Resolution/Order.

• The complainant, Natasha Florido is the legitimate spouse of respondent Atty. James Florido, but
that they are estranged and living separately from each other. They have two children, both of whom
are in complainant’s custody.

3
• The respondent went to the complainant's residence and demanded that the custody of their two
minor children be surrendered to him. He showed the complainant a photocopy of an alleged
Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals, which supposedly granted his motion for temporary child
custody. However, she refused to give custody of their children to the respondent.

• In another attempt, while the complainant was with her children in the ABC Learning Center in
Tanjay City, the respondent, accompanied by armed men, suddenly arrived and demanded that she
surrender to him the custody of their children. He threatened to forcefully take them away with the
help of his companions, whom he claimed to be agents of the National Bureau of Investigation.

• They went to Tanjun Police Station to clarify and settle the issue peacefully. The complainant then
agreed to allow the children to sleep with the respondent for one night on condition that he would
not take them away from Tanjay City.

• On the same day, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, a verified
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus asserting his right to custody of the children
based on the alleged Court of Appeals resolution. In the meantime, complainant verified the
authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a certification from the Court of Appeals stating that no
such resolution-ordering complainant to surrender custody of his or her children to respondent had
been issued.

ISSUE:

W/N the respondent can be held administratively liable for his reliance on and attempt to enforce a
spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals

RULING:

• Atty. James Benedict C. Florido is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years for gross misconduct

• The respondent claims that he acted in good faith in invoking the Court of Appeals Resolution,
which he honestly believed to be authentic. However, the time that will have to be devoted just to the
task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined, and the respondent failed to
do so.

• Moreover, the records show that the respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in
describing the complainant and her relatives. By calling complainant, a sly manipulator of truth as
well as a vindictive congenital prevaricator, hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of
a lawyer.

4
 Case #5 ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BR. 79, MORONG, RIZAL, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, MORONG,
RIZAL, REGISTER OF DEEDS, QUEZON CITY, AND AGUEDO EUGENIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS:

· The instant case originated from a petition for reconstitution of title over a
parcel of land.

· Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, counsel for petitioner Adez Realty, Inc., was
accused for intercalating a material fact in the judgment of the court thereby
altering and modifying its factual findings with the apparent purpose of
misleading this Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment and thus failing to
live up to the standards expected of a member of the Bar.

· In his explanation, Atty. Dacanay, humbly prostrates himself before the

Honorable Court and throws himself at its mercy and that it was his secretary
who committed the mistake.

· In the case at bar, he did instruct his secretary, Alicia Castro, to copy the
corresponding pages in the decision of the Court of Appeals.

5
 · Attached to his explanation is an affidavit of his Secretary, stating that when she
copied the particular pages of the decision of CA as instructed by Atty. Dacanay, it was only
after our office received the copy of the decision of the Supreme Court, Atty. Dacanay
confronted and asked her where she got that portion which was added to the particular
paragraph noted by the Supreme Court, that it was only then that she realized the mistake
she committed.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Dacanay is guilty of intercalating a material
fact in a judicial Decision thereby altering its factual findings with the apparent purpose,
and of misleading the Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment.

HELD:

· Yes. The distortion of facts committed by counsel, with the willing assistance of
his secretary, is a grave offense and should not be treated lightly not only because it
may set a dangerous precedent but, rather, because it is a clear and serious
violation of one’s oath as a member of the Bar.

· The counsel violated Rule 10.02 of the CPR ---" [a] lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a
provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved"

· The Court observed the "passing-the-buck" stance of counsel - "Making the law
office secretary, clerk or messenger the scapegoat or patsy for the delay in the filing
of pleadings, motions and other papers and for the lawyer’s dereliction of duty is a
common alibi of practising lawyers. Like the alibi of the accused in criminal cases,
counsel’s shifting of the blame to his office employee is usually a concoction utilized
to cover up his own negligence, incompetence, indolence and ineptitude."

· It is the bounden duty of lawyers to check, review and recheck the allegations in
their pleadings, more particularly the quoted portions, and ensure that the
statements therein are accurate and the reproductions faithful, down to the last
word and even punctuation mark.

· Indeed, counsel has demonstrated his wanton disregard for truth and fairplay
even before the Highest Court of the land. Worse, he compounded his
unprofessional mischief by laying the blame on his hapless secretary whose duty it
was simply to obey him.

· Atty. Dacanay is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.

CASE #8 :(A.C. No. 8920) September 28, 2011

JUDGE RENE B. BACULI vs.ATTY. MELCHOR A. BATTUNG

6
Facts:

Ø Judge Baculi, Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City,
filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Battung.

Ø Judge Baculi claimed that on 24 July 2008, during the hearing on the motion for
reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting while arguing his motion.
Said Judge advised him to tone down his voice but instead, the respondent shouted at the top
of his voice. And even when warned that He would be cited for direct contempt, Atty. Battung
responded with “Then cite me!”.

Ø Judge Baculi cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of P100.00. The respondent
then left.

Ø While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and shouted,
“Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!” Judge Baculi cited him
for direct contempt of court for the second time. After his hearings, respondent again shouted
in a threatening tone, “Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!” He
kept on shouting, “I am not afraid of you!” and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and lawyers
escorted him out of the building. Judge Baculi later found out that after the respondent left the
courtroom, Atty. Battung continued shouting and punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of
Court.

Ø According to Judge Baculi, the respondent even filed dilatory pleadings in Civil Case No.
2640, an ejectment case. After the modified decision in the said civil case became final and
executory , and the branch clerk of court issued a certificate of finality, the respondent filed a
motion to quash the previously issued writ of execution, raising as a ground the motion to
dismiss filed by the defendant for lack of jurisdiction even when the respondent knew as a
lawyer that it is really under said Court’s jurisdiction. And it was merely delaying the speedy
and efficient administration of justice.

Issue:

WON Atty. Battung can be administratively liable for his acts.

Ruling:

Ø The respondent was guilty of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

7
 Ø IBP Commissioner found that the respondent failed to observe Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility that requires a lawyer to observe and maintain respect due the
courts and judicial officers.

Ø The respondent also violated Rule 11.03 of CPR that provides that a lawyer shall abstain
from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the courts. The
respondent’s argument that Judge Baculi provoked him to shout should not be given due
consideration since the respondent should not have shouted at the presiding judge; by doing
so, he created the impression that disrespect of a judge could be tolerated.

Ø The Supreme Court held that litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their
position and avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and
disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents.

Ø A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latter’s role,
stature and position in our justice system. When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly
threatened Judge Baculi that he would file a case for gross ignorance of the law against the
latter, the respondent effectively acted in a manner tending to erode the public confidence in
Judge Baculi’s competence and in his ability to decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that,
even if true, must be handled with sensitivity in the manner provided under the Rules of Court;
an objecting or complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light
and bring the justice system into disrepute.

Ø SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year with a WARNING that a repetition of a
similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Case # 9 [THE SPOUSES JOSE B. TIONGCO and LETICIA M. TIONGCO, petitioners, vs.HON. SEVERIANO
C. AGUILAR, Judge, RTC, Branch 35, Iloilo City, and the Spouses WILFREDO and LORENA AGUIRRE,
respondents.]

Facts: Atty Tiongco, as counsel of the petitioners, insinuated that the Court did not read the petition of the
case and the respondent court had committed a grave abuse of discretion

While he tried to justify his claim, he also used intemperate language by describing the respondent judge
as a “liar”, “thief”, “perfidious”, and “blasphemer”.

In addition, he also called the respondent judge a ‘robber’, ‘rotten manipulator’, ‘abettor’ and ‘cross-eyed’
when the Court’s enumeration of the intemperate words or phrases is incomplete.

Issue: W/N Atty. Tiongco should be dealt administratively for violation of Canon 11 of the CPR

8
Held: Yes. Canon 11 of the CPR provides that ‘A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR
CONDUCT BY OTHERS.”

By falsely and maliciously insinuating that the Court did not read the petition of his case, Atty. Tiongco
not only exhibited his gross disrespect to and contempt for the Court and exposed his plot to discredit the
Members of the First Division of the Court and put them to public contempt and ridicule.

As well as charged them with the violation of their solemn duty to render justice, thereby creating or
promoting distrust in judicial administration.

Wherefore, for such violation, Atty. Jose B. Tiongco is hereby ordered to pay P5,000.00 and WARNED that
the commission of the same acts in the future shall be dealt with more money.

Case #10 [A.C. NO. 5921, March 10, 2006 ] JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM, PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CABANATUAN CITY, BRANCH 29 AND PAIRING JUDGE, BRANCH 30,
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ELLIS F. JACOBA AND ATTY. OLIVIA VELASCO-JACOBA,
RESPONDENTS.]

FACTS:

The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Alejandro R. Veneracion in a civil case
for unlawful detainer against defendant Federico Barrientos. The MTC of Cabanatuan City rendered
judgment in favor of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the RTC. The case was raffled where
Judge Lacurom was sitting as a pairing judge who issued a Resolution reversing the earlier
judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion. Veneracion’s counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration
that uses sardonic, strident and hard-striking adjectives. Some parts of the motion are: abhorrent
nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake, horrible error,... boner, and an insult to the judiciary
and an anachronism in the judicial process

JUDGE CONTENTION: Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear before his sala and
explain why she should not be held in contempt of court for the very disrespectful, insulting and
humiliating contents of the motion.

RESPONDENTS COMMENTS: Velasco-Jacoba claimed that her husband who prepared the subject
Motion and she did not actually or actively participate in this case based on records. It was her
husband who handled the Veneracion case. Atty Olivia moved for reconsideration of the order and
recounted in one afternoon O, pirmahan mo na ito kasi last day na, baka mahuli. She signed the
pleading handed to her without reading it because of mutual trust in which it turned out that it was
the pleading that Atty. Jacoba drafted but could not sign because of his then suspension from the
practice of law.

Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of contempt and penalized her with imprisonment for
five days and a fine of P1,000.

9
Atty. Olivia accused Judge Lacurom of harboring a personal vendetta, ordering her imprisonment
despite her status as senior lady lawyer of the IBP Nueva Ecija Chapter. And Judge Lacurom should
have inhibited himself from the case out of delicadeza because the Veneracion had already filed
criminal cases against him before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City and before
the Ombudsman.

Issues:

Whether the respondents' use of sardonic, strident and hard-striking adjectives is in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling: YES.

Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in
properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. However,
even the most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by the motion on
Judge Lacurom’s Resolution. On its face, the Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided
the case according to supporting law and jurisprudence.

Velasco-Jacobas responsibility as counsel is governed by Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 3. Signature and address. Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel
representing him x x x.

By Velasco-Jacobas own admission, therefore, she violated Section 3 of Rule 7. This violation
is an act of falsehood before the courts, which in itself is a ground for subjecting her to
disciplinary action, independent of any other ground arising from the contents of the 30 July
2001 motion.

DOCTRINE: The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 11.03.—A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the Courts.

Rule 11.04.—A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.

RATIONALE: Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of unnecessary
language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial
administration. In maintaining the respect due to the courts, a lawyer is not merely
enjoined to use dignified language but also to pursue the client’s cause through fair and
honest means.

Rule 19.01.—A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

RATIONALE: In maintaining the respect due to the courts, a lawyer is not merely enjoined to
use dignified language but also to pursue the client’s cause through fair and honest means.

10
Shortly after the filing of the motion but before its resolution, Jacoba assisted his client in instituting
two administrative cases against Judge Lacurom which raise the suspicion that the cases were
intended as leverage against Judge Lacurom.

PENALTY IMPOSED:

Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba-2 years suspension from the practice of law .

Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba- 2 months suspension from the practice of law

Case #11 [PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON
CITY, Complainant, v. ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA, Respondent.]

Facts: Atty. Dealca, had engaged in the unethical practice of filing frivolous administrative and criminal
cases against judges and personnel of the courts whenever decisions, orders or processes were issued
adversely to him and his clients.

He asserted that Judge Madrid’s issuance order unconstitutionally and unlawfully deprived the accused
of high to counsel, to due process, and to fair and impartial trial; that Judge Madrid exhibited bias in
failing to act on the motion to lift and set aside the warrant of arrest issued against the accused; and that
it should be Judge Madrid himself who should be disbarred and accordingly dismissed from the Judiciary
for gross ignorance of the law.

Hence, Judge Madrid has initiated this complaint for the disbarment of respondent on the ground of
gross misconduct and gross violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue/s: W/N Atty. Dealca file frivolous administrative and criminal complaints against Judges and court
personnel in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR.

W/N Atty. Dealca guilty of unethical practice in seeking the inhibition of Judge Madrid in a criminal case.

Held: Yes. The oath exhorts upon the members of the Bar not to “wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit”. The duty has also been expressly embodied in Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of
the CPR

His bringing of charges against judges, court personnel and even his colleagues in the law profession
stemmed from decisions or rulings being adverse to his clients or his side. He disregarded his mission
because of his filing of the unfounded complaints, including one against Judge Madrid. Atty. Dealca’s
bringing of the numerous administrative and criminal complaints against judges, court personnel and his
fellow lawyers did not evince good faith on his part, considering that he made allegations against them
therein that he could not substantially prove, and are rightfully deemed frivolous and unworthy of the
Court’s precious time and serious consideration.

Canon 11, Rule 11.04 of the CPR

11
Atty. Dealca’s averment that Judge Madrid did not hear cases being handled by him directly insinuated
that judges could choose the cases they heard, and could refute to hear the cases in which hostility
existed between the judges and the litigants or their counsel. He did not establish clear and convincing
evidence of the ground of bias and prejudice in order to disqualify Judge Martin from participating in a
particular trial In which Atty. Dealca was participating as a counsel. Such averment, if true at all, should
have assiduously substantiated by him because it put bad light not only on Judge Madrid but all judges in
general.

Accordingly, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent Atty Juan S. Dealca guilty of violating canon 1,
Rule 1.03 & Canon 11, Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and SUSPENDS him from the
practice of law for 1 year effective from notice of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that any similar
infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely

Case #12 [G.R. No. 90083, October 04, 1990 ] KHALYXTO PEREZ MAGLASANG, ACCUSED-
PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PRESIDING JUDGE ERNESTO B. TEMPLADO (SAN
CARLOS CITY COURT), NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENTS.]

FACTS:

A petition for certiorari entitled Maglasang vs . People was filed with the Court. Due to non-
compliance with the requirements with the requirements of Circular No. 1-88 of the Court,
specifically the non- payment legal fees and the non-attachment of with the requirements of the
Court, specifically the non- payment legal fees and the non-attachment of the copies of the
questioned decision, the Court dismissed the petition. Atty. Castellano, as counsel of the copies of
the questioned decision, the Court dismissed the petition.

Atty. Castellano, as counsel of the petitioner, moved for a reconsideration of the resolution
dismissing the petition. However, the motion for reconsideration was denied “with FINALITY.”

The Court received from Atty. Castellano received a copy of a complaint filed with the Office of the
President whereby Maglasang, through his lawyer, Atty. Castellano, as complainant, accused all the
five Justices of the Court’s Second Division with “biases and/or ignorance of the law or knowingly
rendering unjust judgments or resolution.

By reason of the strong and intemperate language of the complaint and its improper filing with the
Office of the President, which, as he should know as a lawyer, has no jurisdiction to discipline, much
more, remove, Justices of the Supreme Court, Atty. Castellano was required to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt or administratively dealt with for improper conduct.

ATTY. CASTELLANO CONTENTION: He claimed that the complaint “was a constructive criticism
intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and very strict practices of the Justices concerned
and he disputed the authority and jurisdiction of the Court in issuing the Resolution requiring him to
show cause because they are already the respondents in the case they no more have jurisdiction to
give such order.

COMPLAINT EXCERPTS: the justices were called scalawags (Marcos Appointees and Loyalists),
fallables , being bias, playing ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering unjust Resolutions,
whose common intention is to sabotage the Aquino Administration and to rob from innocent Filipino
people the genuine Justice and Democracy,

12
 RespondentsJustices, were so strict or inhumane and so inconsiderate that their dispensation
(sic) of genuine justice was too far and beyond the reaction of the Accused Appellant, as a
common tao, as proved by records of both cases mentioned above.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Castellano violated the CPR and should be punished for contempt.

RULING:

Yes, notwithstanding his claim that the complaint was a “constructive criticism,” the Court finds the
various statements made by Atty. Castellano in the complaint scurrilous and contumacious. It went
beyond the bounds of “constructive criticism.” They are not relevant to the cause of his client. On the
contrary, they cast aspersion on the Court’s integrity as a neutral and final arbiter of all justiciable
controversies brought before it.

DOCTRINE:

CANON 11-A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE
COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
OTHERS.

RULE 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the courts.

RULE 11.04 — A lawyer should not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or have
materiality to the case.

RATIONALE: Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to
courts. Atty. Castellano should know that the Court in resolving complaints yields only to the
records before it and not to any extraneous influence as he disparagingly intimates. To be sure,
the Court does not pretend to be immune from criticisms. After all, it is composed of fallible
mortals, hopes to correct whatever mistake it may have unwittingly committed. But then again, it
is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety.

Rule 13.03—A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of the
government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.

RATIONALE: The court held that no other department or agency but the Judiciary may
pass upon its judgments or declare them unjust,” not even the President of the Philippines
as Chief Executive may pass judgment on any of the Court's acts. The observance of the
separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches

PENALTY IMPOSED:

·Atty. Marceliano L. Castellano is found guilty of CONTEMPT OF COURT and IMPROPER

CONDUCT as a member of the Bar and an officer of the Court

·Ordered to PAY One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos within fifteen (15) days from and after
the finality of this Resolution, or SUFFER ten (10) days imprisonment in the municipal jail of
Calatrava, Negros Occidental in case he fails to pay the fine seasonably,

·SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months as soon as this Resolution
becomes final with stern WARNING that a repetition of any misconduct

13
CASE # 14: [ G.R. No. 120654, September 11, 1996 ]

MARIA LOURDES PAREDESGARCIA VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND HON.

ESCOLASTICO M. CRUZ, JR.

FACTS:

Ø This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to set
aside the decision of 19 June 1995 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
37081 dismissing the petitioner's special civil action for certiorari to annul the order
of respondent Judge Escolastico M. Cruz, Jr., which cited the petitioner for contempt
and ordered her to pay a fine of P100.00.

Ø The petitioner is an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal, deputized at the

Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City and assigned at the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 58, Makati City where the respondent is the presiding judge.

Ø At 8:30 a.m. of 11 April 1995, the respondent Judge commenced the session of
his court. When Criminal Cases Nos. 93-7434 to 39 (People of the Philippines vs.
Ofelia Baja) was called, the petitioner, who was the prosecutor assigned to the said
case, was not yet around. She arrived ten minutes later, just when the second case
in the calendar was on its first call. The respondent Judge forthwith ordered the
petitioner to explain within seventy-two hours her failure to come to court on time.

Ø Before the "finalization of the aforesaid open court order," the petitioner filed her
Explanation. She alleged therein that she actually reported to her office at 8:00
a.m., as shown by a copy of a page of the Prosecutor's logbook, and that she went
to the respondent Judge's court. However, she returned to her office to attend to
some matters prior to the hearing and then was late for 10 minutes.

Ø She asserted further that she had never been late in any of the hearings of the
court nor previously fined or ordered to explain for tardiness in any hearing, which is
the respondent Judge's usual practice for lawyers and litigants who come late.

Ø However, Judge Cruz said if only she will examine her conscience, she would
know that paragraph 5 of her "Explanation" is a falsity. The only reason why the
court never ordered her to explain her tardiness before is because of PAKIKISAMA.

Ø Petitioner filed a motion for a reconsideration after she was cited in CONTEMPT
of Court but was denied by the respondent Judge.

Ø Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, the petitioner instituted with the Court of
Appeals a special civil action for certiorari.

Ø The Court of Appeals limited the issues to whether the petitioner was tardy and
whether she committed falsehood in her explanation.

14
 Ø In its decision of 19 June 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed CA-G.R. SP No.
37081.

ISSUE:

WON the petition for review to set aside the decision of the CA dismissing the
petitioner's special civil action for certiorari to annul the order of respondent Judge
Escolastico M. Cruz, Jr., which cited the petitioner for contempt be granted.

HELD:

Ø The instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged decision of 19 June 1995 of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37081 and the challenged orders of
respondent Judge Escolastico M. Cruz, Jr., of 12 April 1995 and 20 April
1995 in Criminal Cases Nos. 93-7434 to 39 are SET ASIDE.

Ø The Department of Justice and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal
are requested to recall the designation of the petitioner to Branch 58 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City and to detail her to other courts if these
have not been done yet.

Ø The petitioner and the respondent Judge have resorted to personal attacks
against each other in this case. They failed to limit themselves to the issues
and even exchanged tirades on their competence and physical being.

· In relation to Rule 11.02 of the CPR (A lawyer shall punctually appear

at Court hearings):

In the case at bar, it has been said that the pronouncements mentioned
should not be understood as absolving the petitioner from any liability for
her tardiness or from her solemn duty as an officer of the court. As a
lawyer, she is bound by her oath to conduct herself as a lawyer according
to the best of her knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to her client. She should never forget that punctuality is not
only a practice mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Canons of Professional Ethics, it is a virtue which must be faithfully
maintained as part of her contribution in the task of ensuring a speedy,
efficient, and effective administration of justice. If the petitioner then had
committed a breach of her duty to the court she could accordingly be
dealt with but in accordance with established procedure. The right to do
so is hereby reserved to the respondent Judge.

15
16. Rodolfo Millare v. Atty. Eustaqio Z. Montero

Facts:

- This is a disbarment case against Atty. Montero for malpractice.

- Complainant’s mother is a petitioner in a civil case where respondent is the

opposing counsel.

- Aggrieved by his lost, respondent filed multiple appeals and motions before the
courts which indicated similar contentions in the same litigation proceedings in the
civil case.

- Respondent alleged that the order granting the writ of execution was issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction since a petition to annul
the decisions (CA-G.R. SP No. 11690) was still pending with the CA.

- IBP recommended his suspension for his guilt in the malpractice of the law
profession and constant disregard of court decisions.

Issue: WON Atty. Montero be liable for violation of Canon 12 of the CPR by filing
multiple actions from the same cause and delaying the execution of judgement by the
courts.

Ruling:

- The court affirmed the findings of the IBP.

- the lawyer is not allowed to knowingly advance a claim or defense that is

unwarranted under existing law. He cannot prosecute patently frivolous and
meritless appeals or institute clearly groundless actions.

- Under Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is required

to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. He violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04.

- It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, like the
filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole
purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of a judgment

- Judging from the number of actions filed by respondent to forestall the execution
of the same judgment, respondent is also guilty of forum shopping.

- Respondent is suspended for 1 year.

Case #18 CORNELIO P. PELAEZ VS. ATTY. ROBERTO B. AWID

FACTS:

16
 · The present disbarment case originated from a complaint by Petitioner Pelaez
before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) Atty. Awid with violation of Rules of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

· Pelaez claimed that an incident happened one morning. He had already

parked his car at the parking lot of the Quezon City Hall Compound when
another car driven by Atty. Awid suddenly hit it, causing damage to its right
front fender and bumper. The latter apologized, and undertook to pay the
damages in a handwritten note which indicated his address.

· When Pelaez was claiming payment, Atty. Awid allegedly ignored his calls
and text messages, prompting him to file a complaint for reckless imprudence
resulting in damage to property.

· Atty. Awid failed to appear at the scheduled preliminary investigation and to

file his counter-affidavit. He sought to re-open the case. He moved for the postponement
of the hearing citing the same reasons.

· Verification with said court, however, showed that Atty. Awid had no
scheduled hearing on said dates.

· Atty. Awid stressed that it was Pelaez who bumped the rear bumper and rear
tail light of his parked car. He claimed that Pelaez made him write the note promising to
shoulder the expenses for the damage to his car.

· the Investigating IBP Commissioner meriting suspension from the active

practice of law for three (3) months.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Awid deserves to be sanctioned for violation of Rule 12.03 and
12.04 of CPR for failing to file a counter-affidavit before lapse of time and for falsely
representing that he had prior commitments in another case in order to secure
several postponements of the preliminary investigation.

HELD:

· Yes. Records show that Atty. Awid moved to re-open the preliminary
investigation of the reckless imprudence case against him in order to file his counter-
affidavit and evidence, but failed to do so despite the lapse of a long period of time in
violation of Rule 12.03 of the CPR.

· The fact that he falsely represented that he had prior commitments in

another case in order to secure several postponements of the preliminary
investigation of his own case cannot be negated by the tenuous claim of "honest
mistake”.

· Having violated Rule 12.04 of the CPR for unduly delaying said preliminary
investigation before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office.

Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3) MONTHS.

17
 Case #20 [A.C. No. 1372, June 27, 2002 ] SPOUSES LIRIO U. RABANAL AND CAYETANO D.
RABANAL, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. FAUSTINO F. TUGADE, RESPONDENT.

DECISION:

ATTY. FAUSTINO F. TUGADE should be disciplined for violating RULE 12.03. — A

lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his
failure to do so and be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months
effective upon finality hereof with WARNING that a repetition of the same negligent act
charged in this complaint will be dealt with even more severely.

FACTS:

This is an administrative complaint filed by complainant spouses Cayetano and Lirio

Rabanal against Atty. Faustino F. Tugade. As counsel for complainant Cayetano
Rabanal, did not file the appellant’s brief in the Court of Appeals, as a result of which
the appeal filed by Cayetano was dismissed and the decision of the then Circuit
Criminal Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan became final and executory.

Complainant Cayetano Rabanal was one of the accused-appellants found guilty of

homicide and the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals. Complainant terminated
the services of his previous counsel and engaged the services of respondent Atty.
Faustino F. Tugade. However, despite the extension of time granted to him totalling 60
days, Atty. Tugade failed to file the appellant’s brief, resulting in the dismissal of the
appeal. Cayetano filed a motion for reconsideration, but his motion was denied.
Complainants alleged that they paid P1,000.00 to respondent as attorney’s fees and, in
addition, the amount of P1,400.00 for the preparation of the appellant’s brief.

Respondent said he did not want to accept the complainant's case due to his busy
schedule, but since they were his "kababayan," he signed the appellant’s brief to be
filed in the case.

Respondent claims that he was not the counsel of complainant Cayetano Rabanal prior
to the filing of a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals and he could not
be held responsible for the dismissal of complainant’s appeal for failure of counsel to file
the appellant’s brief. We disagree.

18
ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Tugade should be a discipline.

RULINGS:

The absence of a written contract does not preclude a finding that there was a
professional relationship which merits attorney’s fees for professional services
rendered. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an
attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession.

In this case, complainant sought and received legal advice from respondent Tugade,
who admitted that he agreed to sign the appellant’s brief to be filed and that he received
P600.00 from complainant spouses. It is therefore clear that a lawyer-client relationship
existed between the two. It is immaterial that respondent Tugade assisted Cayetano in
the case as a mere friend or "kababayan" of the latter.

In this case, Cayetano consulted respondent Tugade in his professional capacity in

order to obtain advice concerning his appeal. Respondent agreed, as shown by his
acceptance of the payment to him, his receipt of the TSNs of the case, and the fact that
he signed the appellant’s brief. His claim that he merely accepted payment but that he
asked another lawyer to prepare the brief is an obvious subterfuge. Moreover, the fact
that the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration after the dismissal of the appeal
only confirms that he was indeed Cayetano’s lawyer.

The records clearly show that respondent Atty. Faustino F. Tugade was absent in the
performance of his duties as counsel of complainant Cayetano Rabanal. He was given
by the Court of Appeals an extension of time totalling 60 days within which to file the
appellant’s brief, but he failed to file the same. He thus violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides:

19
RULE 12.03. — A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.

RULE 18.03. — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Indeed, a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client. He should be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him, remembering always that his actions or omissions
are binding on his clients. In this case, the failure of respondent to file the appellant’s
brief resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. As a consequence, the decision in the trial
court finding the complainant guilty of homicide became final and executory and he was
sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. As has been held:

An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and with
utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable
negligence on his part. The respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the
duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in
the speedy administration of justice.

21. JONAR SANTIAGO v. Atty. EDISON V. RAFANAN

FACTS:

- Complainant charged respondent’s clients with attempted murder. Respondent averred that
since they were in his house when the alleged crime occurred, "his testimony is very
essential to the ends of justice."

ISSUE:

- Whether or not Atty. Rafanan can stand as witness in favor of his clients?

RULING:

- Yes, a lawyer can stand as witness of a client.

Rule 12.08 – A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:

a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument and the like;

b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which
event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel."

Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in
certain cases pertaining to privileged communication arising from an attorney-client relationship.

20
The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task of dissociating their
relation to their clients as witnesses from that as advocates.

22. Cesar Lantoria v. Atty. Irineo Bunyi

Facts:

- This is an administrative complaint filed by Cesar L. Lantoria, seeking disciplinary

action against respondent Irineo L. Bunyi, for allegedly committing acts of "graft and
corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, and corruption of the judge and bribery.

- Complainant and Respondent exchanged letters in connection with the Civil Case
filed. Complainant filed complaint due to the content of the letter sent by Bunyi.

- The solicitor general found that the letters sent by Bunyi that the letters of
respondent Bunyi addressed to complainant, showed that respondent had indeed
prepared the draft of the decisions in Civil Case Nos. 81, 83 and 88 of the Municipal
Court of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, b) that those letters indicated that respondent
had previous communications with Judge Galicia regarding the preparation of the
decisions; c) that the testimony of complainant to the effect that he had lost the
original of said letters, and complainant's withdrawal of the complaint in the case at
bar are of no moment, as respondent Bunyi, and his motion to dismiss filed with the
Supreme Court, admitted that he prepared the draft of the decisions in the said civil
cases, and be affirmed the existence of the letters.

- The Solicitor General found that respondent is guilty of highly unethical and
unprofessional conduct for failure to perform his duty, as an officer of the court. A
suspension for 1 year was recommended.

Issue: WON Respondent is liable committing acts of "graft and corruption, dishonesty
and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
corruption of the judge and bribery from the sent letters.

Ruling:

- There is merit in the findings of the Solicitor General.

- The subject letters indeed indicate that respondent had previous communication
with Judge Galicia regarding the preparation of the draft decisions in Civil Case Nos.
81, 83, and 88.

21
 - Respondent violated Canon 13 and Rule 13.01 of the CPR.

- The Court finds respondent guilty of unethical practice in attempting to influence

the court where he had pending civil case

- Atty. Irineo L. Bunyi is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of one (1) year.

Case #24 G.R. No. 159486-88, November 25, 2003 ] PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA,
PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL DIVISION], HON. MINITA CHICO-
NAZARIO, HON. EDILBERTO SANDOVAL, HON. TERESITA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, AND THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS

FACTS:

SHORT VERSION

Atty. Allan Paguia, serving as counsel for the deposed President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada, submitted a number of motions before the Supreme Court seeking the
dismissal of all pending criminal cases against his client and assailing the unfavorable
resolutions of the Sandiganbayan among others;

That Atty. Paguia’s behavior during the course of hearing his petitions and motions, is
perceived to be unpleasant, unprofessional and unbecoming of a lawyer and officer of
the Court. That despite calling his attention to Canon 11 and Rule 13.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Atty. Paguia has persisted in his boorish behavior and was
unrelenting in making adversarial public statements;

From the forgoing, the Supreme Court ordered that Atty. Paguia be suspended
indefinitely from the practice of law for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of
the Court.

LONG VERSION

Atty. Allan Paguia, the legal counsel for the deposed president Joseph Ejercito Estrada,
filed a Petition for Certiorari seeking the following relief:

1. That Chief Justice Davide and the rest of the members of the Honorable Court
disqualify themselves from hearing and deciding the submitted petition;

2. That the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be vacated and set aside; and

3. That Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 pending before the
Sandiganbayan be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

22
Atty. Paguia first made his appearance for petitioner when he filed an Omnibus Motion
on 19 May 2003, before the Sandiganbayan and further asked that all criminal cases
against his client be dismissed. On 2 July 2003, the Sandiganbayan issued an order
denying the motion, as well as the motion to dismiss. Forthwith, petitioner filed a
‘Mosyong Pangrekonsiderasyon’ of the foregoing order to which the Sandiganbayan
DENIED for lack of merit;

Atty. Paguia, in the relation to the foregoing motions, have not limited his discussions to
the merits of his client’s case within the judicial forum and is said to have repeatedly
assaulted the Court in both broadcast and print media;

Exhibiting other similar conduct towards the Court, the latter has strongly warned Atty.
Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to desist from further making, directly or
indirectly, similar submissions to the Court or to its Members. Despite the warning, Atty.
Paguia persisted in his behavior which prompted the Court to order Atty. Paguia to
SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and
an officer of the Court. On 10 October 2003, Atty. Paguia submitted his compliance with
the show-cause order. In a three-page pleading, Atty. Paguia, in an obstinate display of
defiance, repeated his earlier claim of political partisanship against the members of the
Court;

The attention of Atty. Paguia has been called to the mandate of Canon 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which mandates that the lawyer should observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. Further, Rule 13.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar from making such
public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a
party. Regrettably, Atty. Paguia has persisted in ignoring the Court’s well-meant
admonition and has continued to make damaging public statements despite the earlier
warning;

The Supreme Court ordered that Atty. Paguia be suspended indefinitely from the
practice of law for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

ISSUE:

WON Atty. Paguia violated Canon 11 and Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

LEGAL PRINCIPLE:

Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates that the lawyer
should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and,
indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others.

23
Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a member of the bar
from making public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion for or
against a party.

APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE:

In the present case, Atty. Paguia, in the relation to the petitions and motions he
submitted before the Court, have not limited his discussions to the merits of his client’s
case within the judicial forum and is said to have repeatedly assaulted the Court in both
broadcast and print media. By his acts, Attorney Paguia may have stoked the fires of
public dissension and posed a potentially dangerous threat to the administration of
justice.

Further, in liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the
impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only
succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.

CONCLUSION:

The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, in pain of disciplinary sanction, to become
mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court.
Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed. WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia
is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt
hereof, for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

24