Scribd
Upload
58 views1 page

Edgardo Areola vs. Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza, AC No. 10135, January 15, 2014

Respondent, a public attorney, is found guilty of giving improper legal advice that violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. She advised clients to bribe judges to be released from drug charges. While this violated the rules, the court found suspension too extreme given a lack of ill intent and her role providing legal aid. The court issued a reprimand instead, warning of harsher penalties for future misconduct.

Uploaded by

jane
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views1 page

Edgardo Areola vs. Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza, AC No. 10135, January 15, 2014

Respondent, a public attorney, is found guilty of giving improper legal advice that violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. She advised clients to bribe judges to be released from drug charges. While this violated the rules, the court found suspension too extreme given a lack of ill intent and her role providing legal aid. The court issued a reprimand instead, warning of harsher penalties for future misconduct.

Uploaded by

jane
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Edgardo Areola vs. Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza, AC No.

10135, January 15, 2014

FACTS: An administrative complaint filed by Eguardo D. Areola against Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza, from the Public Attorney’s Office for the
violation of her attorney’s oath of office deceit, malpractice or other gross conduct in Office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised rule of
Court, and for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The letter-complaint stated that during respondent’s lecture, she stated the following: “O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o
pang- areglo ay maging praktikal sana kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya agad. Upang makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo ay sa
akin ninyo ibigay o ng kamag-anak ninyo ang pera at ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay Judge Martin at Fiscal banqui; at kayong mga detenidong
mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon."

The complainant also alleged that the respondent demanded money from his co-detainees.

ISSUE:
(a) Whether or not respondent is guilty of the violation of Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
(b) Whether or not the recommended suspension by the IBP will prosper

RULING: Yes, respondent is guilty of giving improper advice to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of the Professional
Responsibility.

Rule 1.02 mandates that “a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed to defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.”
While Rule 15.07 states that “a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.”

The respondent’s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our legal system. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or
influence from external forces or factors according to the merits of a case. It must be remembered that a lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorably, fair
and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical.

In spite of the forgoing, the Court deems the penalty of suspension as excessive and not commensurate to the respondent’s fraction. Disbarment
and suspension should be imposed with great caution and only in those cases where the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court and
member of the bar is established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. The Court notes hat Atty. Mendoza remark was inappropriate and
unbecoming; her comment is not disparaging and reproachful so as to cause dishonor and disgrace to the Judiciary.

In several administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors such as the
respondent’s length of service, respondent’s acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian
and equitable considerations, respondent’s advanced age, among other things, have had varying significance in the Court’s determination of the
imposable penalty. The Court takes note of the respondent’s lack of ill-motive in the instant case and her being a PAO lawyer as her main source of
livelihood. Furthermore, the complaint filed by Areola is clearly baseless and the only reason why this was ever given consideration was due to the
respondent’s own admission. For these reasons, the Court deems it just to modify and reduce the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of
Governors. The respondent is accordingly meted out the penalty of reprimand with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be
dealt with more severely.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy