Problem Areas on Legal Ethics (PALE)

Group 2 Compiled Case Problems

1. Bantilan, Gladys
2. Cagatin, Kristelle May
3. Dalian, Ada Hyasmin
4. Dela Peña, Clarisse
5. Fernandez, Analyn
6. Guinzon, Bai Hasnaira
7. Hermino, Jonathan
8. Moncano, Iris
9. Puertos, Leo Artemio
10. Salveron, Ione
11. Yap, RolanKlyde
CASE PROBLEM 1:

Covid Rose filed a complaint against Atty. Covid Bryant for disbarment before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for gross immorality and gross misconduct. Commissioner
Juan Dela Cruz directed respondent Atty. Bryant to submit an answer within ten days from
notice. However, Atty. Bryant failed to file an answer. Thereafter, relying solely on the allegations
in the complaint without conducting further investigations, Commissioner Dela Cruz submitted
to the IBP a report recommending the indefinite suspension of Atty. Bryant.

Is the action of Commissioner Dela Cruz proper?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The action of Commissioner Dela Cruz is not proper.

A violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the
appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment. However, the said penalties are
imposed with great caution, because they are the most severe forms of disciplinary action and
their consequences are beyond repair. Hence, an administrative charge against a lawyer must be
established with convincing proof.

In consonance with Section 8, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, which provides that the
investigation shall proceed ex parte upon failure of the respondent to file an answer or to appear
in the proceedings. Implicit is the need for further investigation, for nothing in the Rules of Court
authorizes the IBP to treat respondents silence as an admission of the complainant’s allegations.

CASE PROBLEM 2:

A Counter-Complaint1 was filed by complainant (Ret.) Judge Virgilio Alpajora

(Complainant) against respondent Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan (Respondent), which
originated from an administrative complaint filed by the latter against the former before the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for ignorance of the law and/or issuance of undue order.
The administrative complaint against Judge Alpajora was dismissed by the Court in a Resolution,
dated March 2, 2009, on the ground that the matters raised therein were judicial in nature.

In his Comment/Opposition with Counter-Complaint to Discipline Complainant,

complainant charged respondent with (a) filing a malicious and harassment administrative case,
(b) propensity for dishonesty in the allegations in his pleadings, (c) misquoting provisions of law,
and (d) misrepresentation of facts. Complainant prayed for respondent's disbarment and
cancellation of his license as a lawyer.
 The administrative case against complainant was dismissed. The Court, however, referred
the comment/opposition with counter-complaint filed by complainant in the administrative case
against him to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action.

The OBC deemed it proper to re-docket the counter-complaint as a regular administrative

case against respondent. Thus, in a Resolution, dated June 3, 2009, upon recommendation of the
OBC, the Court resolved to require respondent to submit his comment on the counter-complaint.

In its Resolution, dated September 9, 2009, the Court noted respondent's comment and
referred the administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation. After a mandatory conference before the IBP, both parties were
directed to submit their respective verified position papers.

Based on the findings, the Investigating Commissioner ultimately concluded:

As a party directly involved in the subject intra-corporate controversy,

it is duly noted that Respondent was emotionally affected by the ongoing case.
His direct interest in the proceedings apparently clouded his judgment, on
account of which he failed to act with circumspect in his choice of words and
legal remedies. Such facts and circumstances mitigate Respondent's liability.
Hence, it is hereby recommended that Respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years.

Is the contention of Respondent correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, SEC. 12 of Rule 139B expressly provides:

(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent
should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth
its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall
forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.

There can be no denial of due process in this case.

SEC. 5 of Rule 139 of the Rules of Court is satisfied. The said rule provides:. – “If the complaint
appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the
respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service”.
 In the case at bar, a Resolution, dated June 3, 2009, upon recommendation of the OBC,
the Court resolved to require respondent to submit his comment on the counter-complaint. Also,
the IBP directed Respondent to submit their respective verified position papers. Hence, the
Respondent has ample opportunity to be heard.

CASE PROBLEM 3:

Miya an Estafa case Atty. Guision for failure to return a sum of money intended for a
purchase of land that did not materialized. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty.
Agleron administratively liable and recommended that he be meted the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for one (1) year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
recommendation and issued a resolution. One year after the issuance of the resolution, Atty
Guision filed an Urgent Motion for the Immediate Lifting of the Order of Suspension, claiming
that he already served his one (1) year suspension from the date of the Resolution.

Should the motion of Atty Guision be granted?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The IBP's Notice of Resolution which suspended Atty. Agleron from the practice of
law does not imply the approval of the same. The Court is yet to finally resolve first the merit of
this administrative case. Thus, the effectivity of the order of suspension has not actually
commenced and it is erroneous on Atty. Guision's part to claim in his Motion that he has already
served his suspension.

As provided for in Section 12 of Rule 139-B, the Supreme Court has the final action on the
imposition of sanctions to be imposed on errant members of both bench and bar.

CASE PROBLEM 4:

Respondent Atty. Mandurugas was complained by Sansa Marupok (complainant) on the

ground of Gross Immoral Conduct.

In January 3, 2020, respondent courted complainant and promised to marry her while
representing himself to be single. As a result of their intimate relationship, Sansa Marupok was
impregnated by Atty. Mandurugas. It was only around the first week of March2020 that
complainant first learned that respondent was already married when his wife went to her
apartment.
 After the respondent filed his answer, the Court referred this case to the IBP for
investigation, report and recommendation within ninety days from notice. Subsequently,
the IBP recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of merit. The Court noted the resolution
of the IBPand it considered the case closed and terminated. Complainant filed an appeal before
this Court by claiming that there was a denial of substantive and procedural due process as there
was no formal investigation that had been conducted by the IBP.

Whether or not the absence of formal investigation by the IBP prior the issuance of
Resolution is a denial of substantive and procedural due process?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

YES. As held in Cottam vs. Atty. Laysa (326 SCRA 614) and Baldomar vs. Atty. Paras (348
SCRA 212), the Court outlined the procedure for disciplinary action against a member of the
Bar.

"Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If, at
the outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly dismisses the
case. If, however, the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such as when
the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral is made
to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which the parties are accorded an
opportunity to be heard. An ex parte investigation may only be conducted when respondent fails
to appear despite reasonable notice.

Pertinent provisions of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on this matter must be strictly
observed particularly on duties of the National Grievance Investigator (section 3), service or
dismissal (Section 5) and investigation (Section 8). The procedures outlined by the Rules are
meant to ensure that the innocents are spared from wrongful condemnation and that only the
guilty are meted their just due. Obviously, these requirements cannot be taken lightly.

CASE PROBLEM 5:

Atty. Silo charged Hasny P10, 000.00 for filing fees pertaining to the complaint filed in
court. He actually spent only P1, 000.00. He did not account for the balance. A disbarment case
was filed by Hasny against Atty. Silo. The complaint was assigned by the IBP Boards of
Governors to an investigator for appropriate action. However, supported by affidavits of persons
having personal knowledge of the circumstances, the IBP Board of Governors, as recommended
by the investigator, decided to dismiss the disbarment case against Atty. Silo.

May the IBP Board of Governors dismiss the disbarment case referred by the Supreme Court?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, In an order entitled Bar Matter No. 1645 approved last Oct. 13, 2015, the Supreme
Court removed the power of the IBP to dismiss complaints against erring member of the Bar.
Previously, the IBP-BOG may dismiss any complaint against a lawyer upon the recommendation
of the investigator. Sec. 5 of the Bar Matter No. 1645 now only grants the IBP recommendatory
powers, “if the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the
Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the Investigator will recommend to the Board
of Governors the dismissal of the complaint.”

Under the new rules, only the SC can order the dismissal of any complaint against
a lawyer.

CASE PROBLEM 6:

After passing the Philippine Bar in 1996, Corona Vee practice law until 2004 when he
migrated to California where he subsequently became an American citizen in 2008. As he kept
abreast of legal developments, petitioner learned about the Citizenship retention and Re-
acquisition Act of 2003 (RA 9225), pursuant to which he reacquired his Philippine citizenship in
2006. He took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen at the Philippine embassy of Los Angeles,
California. Jaded by the laid back life in the outback, he returned to the Philippines in December
2018. After the holidays, he established his own law office and resumed his practice of law.
Months later, a concerned woman who had secured copies of Atty. Corona’s naturalization
papers with consular authentication, filed with the Supreme Court an anonymous complaint
against him for illegal practice of law.

May the Supreme Court act upon the complaint filed by an anonymous person? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. The Supreme Court may act upon the complaint filed by an anonymous complainant,
because the basis of the complaint consists of documents with consular authentications which can
be verified being public records. There is no need to identify the complainant when the evidence
is documented and verifiable.

Besides, the Supreme Court or the IBP may initiate disbarment proceedings motu propio.

CASE PROBLEM 7:
 Bella administratively charged her former lawyer, Atty. Boom-boom, with gross
misconduct and gross ignorance of the law for the latter's inadequate legal representation of her
in her suit against her neighbor. Midway during the investigation, Beth decided to migrate to
Australia. Learning about her plans, Atty. Boom-boom approached her and pleaded for her
understanding. He was able to persuade her to execute an affidavit of desistance in respect of her
administrative complaint. When such was submitted, respondent moved to dismiss the charge
against him.

If you were to decide the case, will you grant or deny the motion? Explain your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I would still deny the motion to dismiss. The general rule is that "no investigation shall be
interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution,
withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same unless the Supreme
Court motu proprio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors determines that
there is no compelling reason to continue with the proceedings. An administrative investigation
of a lawyer is sui generis, neither a civil nor criminal proceeding. An affidavit of desistance has
no place in it.

CASE PROBLEM 8:

Atty. Yap entered into a MOA with a Japanese National, Mr. Koguro Mori, the husband
of herein complainant, Rai Mendoza Mori concerning the joint ownership and operation of
Starnex Recruitment Agency (SRA). However, a Complaint for disbarment was filed with the IBP
by the complainant against Atty. Yap claiming that the latter used fraud, deceit and
misrepresentation, in enticing her husband, Koguro, to join SRA and invest therein the amount
of P500, 000.00 and that although the Atty. Yap received the amount, the complainant learned
from her inquiries with the SEC and POEA that the respondent failed to comply with the terms
of the Memorandum of Agreement. The IBP ruled in favor of the complainant. On appeal, the
Atty. Yap contended that complainant has no legal standing for not being a party-in-interest
in the agreement between respondent and Mr. Koguro Mori. Is Atty. Yap correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 No, Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that proceedings for
disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu
proprio, or by the IBP upon the verified complaint of any person. Further, in Agno vs Cagatan,
the court held that the right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is
it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing.
Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for judgment is the proof
or failure of proof of the charges.

CASE PROBLEM 9:

What was the basis for the amendment in Bar Matter No. 1645 approved last October 13, 2015 to
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The high tribunal cited Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution, which confers
upon the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice
of law, in approving the amendments.

Previously, the IBP-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) may dismiss any complaint against a
lawyer upon the recommendation of the investigator. Under the new rules, only the Supreme
Court can order the dismissal of any complaint against a lawyer. The amendments also include
the procedure, which the IBP-BOG shall follow if they recommend to the Supreme Court the
dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action against the respondent-lawyer.

However, the investigation and recommendation of the IBP and the IBP-BOG shall still be
given great weight. Failure to comply with this shall be considered as denial of substantial and
procedural due process.

CASE PROBLEM 10:

A case for disbarment was filed by Mr. Locke Dawnne, petitioner, against certain Atty.
Sauchalle Distaunce, respondent, for allegedly gross immorality, malpractice, and gross
misconduct.

The Investigating Commissioner’s Consolidated Report and Recommendation ended that

the charges against Respondent Atty. Sauchalle Distaunce should be suspended from the practice
of law for the period of three (3) years from receipt of the order with a warning that similar offense
in the future will be dealt with more severely.

The IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution adopting and approving the Investigating
Commissioner’s Consolidated Report and Recommendation.

Atty. Sauchalle Distaunce filed with the Court a Petition for Review, which questioned
the IBP resolutions.

Is the recourse of Atty. Sauchalle Distaunce correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the procedure made by Atty. Sauchalle Distaunce for filing his petition for review
was in accordance with the law.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that, it is the Supreme Court, not the
IBP, which has the constitutionally mandated duty to discipline lawyers. The factual findings of
the IBP can only be recommendatory. It is the Supreme Court and not IBP who will decide on the
appropriate action for the case.

Therefore, Atty. Sauchalle Distaunce’s action to file a motion for reviews directly with the
Supreme Court with regard the investigation conducted by the IBP was in accordance with the
rules.