1. A.C. No.

11256
FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA, Complainant RULING:
vs Yes.
ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, Respondent The Supreme Court upheld the IBP’s
recommendation of disbarment. Rivera
DOCTRINE: admitted to drafting the petition and simulating
A lawyer may be disbarred for deceit, the court decision and certificate of finality. His
malpractice, gross misconduct, or violation of excuse of acting upon the client’s insistence did
the Lawyer’s Oath. Falsifying or simulating the not absolve him from responsibility. Simulating
court papers amounted to deceit, malpractice or legal documents amounts to deceit and gross
misconduct in office, any of which was already a misconduct, reflecting moral turpitude. As an
ground sufficient for disbarment under Section officer of the court, Rivera was bound by ethical
27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. standards and the Lawyer’s Oath, which he
blatantly violated.
FACTS: The Court emphasized that falsifying
In November 2002, Flordeliza Madria court decisions and certificates is criminal, and
consulted respondent Atty. Carlos P. Rivera in Rivera's actions eroded public confidence in the
Tuguegarao City for the annulment of her legal profession. Given the severity of the
marriage. Rivera assured her that she had a offense, and Rivera’s prior suspension for
strong case and that his services would cost notarizing documents without authority, the
₱25,000. After paying the initial amount of Court ruled that he should be disbarred.
₱4,000, Madria was shown the petition for
annulment on November 19, 2002. She made
NOTE:
further payments to Rivera in December 2002.
Rivera assured her that there was no need to
The respondent directly contravened the letter
appear in court and that he would update her on
and spirit of Rules 1. 01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and
the proceedings.
Rule 15.07, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
In April 2003, Rivera informed Madria
Responsibility, to wit:
that her petition had been granted by Judge
Lyliha Abella Aquino of the Regional Trial Court CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL
(RTC), Branch 4, Tuguegarao City. He later UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
provided a "certificate of finality" dated OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
September 26, 2003. Madria used the purported AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
annulment decision to apply for passport LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
renewal. However, she became the subject of a
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) inquiry Rule 1.01 - A lawyer
when her former partner accused her of shall not engage in
fabricating the annulment decision. unlawful, dishonest,
Madria later discovered that the immoral or deceitful
annulment petition was dismissed on April 6, conduct.
2004, and that the documents given to her by
Rivera were forged. The RTC Clerk of Court Rule 1.02 - A lawyer
confirmed that no such decision existed in their shall not counsel or
records. abet activities aimed
In response, Rivera claimed that Madria at defiance of the law
had coerced him into simulating the annulment or at lessening
decision and assured him that the falsified confidence in the
documents would remain confidential. He legal system.
argued that he had filed the petition in April
2003, but she never attended hearings. The xxxx
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL
investigated the matter, recommending Rivera’s
OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS
suspension for two years. The IBP Board of
AND LOY AL TY IN ALL HIS
Governors later modified this to disbarment.
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS
WITH HIS CLIENTS.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Carlos P. Rivera should be Rule 15.07. - A lawyer
disbarred for falsifying court documents and
shall impress upon
violating the Lawyer’s Oath.
his client compliance

1|P a g e
 with the laws and the Artuz was unfit for the position as she failed to
principles of fairness. disclose multiple pending criminal and
administrative cases against her in her Personal
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Data Sheets (PDS).
a lawyer may be disbarred on any of the
following grounds, namely: (1) deceit; (2) In 2017, the Court found Atty. Artuz guilty of
malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification
grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a of Official Documents related to her failure to
crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of disclose these cases and dismissed her from the
the lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of any judiciary. Her retirement benefits were forfeited,
lawful order of a superior court; and (8)
and she was barred from future employment in
corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for
any government agency. The Court then ordered
a party to a case without authority so to do.
Atty. Artuz to explain why she should not be
disbarred for the same misconduct that led to
her dismissal.
2. [ A.C. No. 7253, February 18, 2020 ]
In response, Atty. Artuz denied the allegations in
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, COMPLAINANT,
the disbarment complaint, claiming that the
VS ATTY. OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ,*
omissions in her PDS were an honest error, as
RESPONDENT. [A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717
she believed she did not need to disclose the
(FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 07-1911-MTJ)]
pending cases due to a DOJ clearance. She sought
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, COMPLAINANT,
reconsideration of her dismissal and the
VS. JUDGE OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ, MUNICIPAL
penalties imposed, but the Court denied her
TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 5, ILOILO
motion in 2018. The Office of the Bar Confidant
CITY, ILOILO, RESPONDENT
(OBC) later recommended that Atty. Artuz be
Doctrine: A lawyer's misconduct, dishonesty, disbarred, citing her violations of the Code of
and use of offensive language in professional Professional Responsibility and the Rules of
conduct are grounds for disbarment. Court, as well as her misconduct and failure to
Membership in the Bar is a privilege, not a right, comply with court directives. Despite her filing
and lawyers are required to adhere strictly to of a second motion for reconsideration, asserting
ethical standards set by the Code of Professional she was denied due process, the Court remained
Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath. Violations, focused on her previous actions and the
such as dishonesty, falsification of documents, or sufficiency of grounds for disbarment.
disrespectful behavior toward others in the legal
Issue: Whether or not Judge Artuz should be
profession, degrade the integrity of the legal
disbarred
system and warrant disciplinary action,
including suspension or disbarment, to preserve Ruling:
public trust in the legal profession.
Yes.
Facts:
The Supreme Court applied several legal
Two disbarment complaints were filed against provisions to determine her administrative
Atty. Ofelia M. D. Artuz. The first complaint (A.C. liability. The Lawyer’s Oath mandates all
No. 7253) was filed by Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II in lawyers to uphold the law, demonstrate honesty,
2006, accusing Atty. Artuz of maliciously and act with integrity. Violations of this oath are
maligning him and his father in a comment grounds for disciplinary actions, including
related to a request for inhibition in a case. Nava disbarment. The Court also cited the Code of
II claimed that Artuz insulted and scorned them Professional Responsibility (CPR),
and falsely imputed a crime against him. He particularly Canon 1, which requires lawyers to
further alleged that Artuz filed malicious uphold the Constitution and avoid deceitful
criminal cases against him and others, intending conduct, as well as Canon 7, mandating the
to harass and humiliate them. In 2006, despite preservation of the integrity of the legal
these accusations, Atty. Artuz was appointed as profession. Furthermore, Canon 10 obliges
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in lawyers to act with fairness and candor, while
Iloilo City, a nomination which Nava II opposed, Canon 11 emphasizes maintaining respect
filing a complaint to nullify her appointment toward courts. Atty. Artuz’s falsification of
(A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717). He argued that Atty. documents and use of offensive language

2|P a g e
violated these provisions, specifically Rule 1.01 SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS
under Canon 1 and Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, which AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
forbids the use of abusive or improper language. o Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language
The Court also referenced Section 27, Rule 138
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
of the Rules of Court, which allows disbarment improper.
for gross misconduct and deceit. Given the o CANON 11 – A LAWYER SHALL
gravity of her violations, the Court found these OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
breaches sufficient to warrant her immediate RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO
disbarment from the practice of law. JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD
INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
Here, Atty. Artuz was found guilty of Grave OTHERS.
Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of o Rule 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from
Official Documents in an earlier decision. She scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
deliberately lied in her Personal Data Sheets
(PDS) to make it appear she was qualified for a FACTS:
judicial position by failing to disclose multiple Complainants Aurora R. Ladim, Angelito A.
pending cases. This dishonesty violates the Ardiente, and Danilo S. Dela Cruz, employees of
canons of professional responsibility and Lirio Apartments Condominium in Makati City,
constitutes grounds for disbarment under filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Perla
D. Ramirez following multiple incidents from
Section 27 of Rule 138. Moreover, in her defense
1990 to 2007. The incidents involved Atty.
against the disbarment charges, she failed to Ramirez’s rude and offensive behavior, including
show cause as to why she should not be asking personal questions, using offensive
disbarred, instead attacking the complainant's language, and entering units during repairs. Her
credibility. Her conduct violated various rules, behavior culminated in denying association dues
including using offensive language against Atty. from 2004. In 2007, the complainants filed the
initial disbarment complaint. The Integrated Bar
Nava II and his father, which was unprofessional
of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a
and unbecoming of a lawyer. Such behavior reprimand, which the Supreme Court upgraded
erodes public trust in the legal profession, and as to a six-month suspension.
a result, disbarment was warranted.
On April 21, 2016, Atty. Ramirez attempted to lift
The Supreme Court found that Atty. Artuz's her suspension by submitting a handwritten
actions were unbecoming of a lawyer and letter and service record but did not file a
violated ethical standards, leading to her required sworn statement. She questioned the
disbarment. requirements set by the Office of the Bar
Confidant. During a visit to the OBC on March 15,
2017, to follow up on her request, Atty. Ramirez
insulted Atty. Cristina B. Layusa, including
calling her offensive names. An incident report
3. [ AC. No. 10372, Feb 21, 2023 ] was filed, and Atty. Ramirez was required
multiple times to comment on it, which she
AURORA R. LADIM v. ATTY. PERLA ignored.
D. RAMIREZ
ISSUE:
DOCTRINE: Whether respondent should be disbarred from
o CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL the practice of law.
TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL RULING:
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE YES. This Court finds it proper to impose upon
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Atty. Ramirez the ultimate penalty of disbarment
o Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in based on the following grounds: First, Atty.
the conduct that adversely reflects on Ramirez brazenly insulted the Bar Confidant, an
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he official of this Court, in front of her staff in the
whether in public or private life, behave confines of this office. Second, she neither
in a scandalous manner to the discredit confirmed nor denied the charges against her,
of the legal profession. and ignored the two opportunities given her to
o CANON 8 – A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT answer the reports. Moreover, the records of this
HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS case are bereft of any manifestation of apology
AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS or remorse from Atty. Ramirez.Third, this is not
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND Atty. Ramirez's first offense.

3|P a g e
Despite the warning given to Atty. Ramirez, she Atty. Paña provided her with fraudulent
continues to show offensive behavior which documents, which ultimately led to the denial of
"evinces a serious flaw in her moral fiber her K-1 visa application in the U.S. This conduct
justifying the extreme penalty of disbarment" directly contradicts the Lawyer's Oath, which
(Domingo-Agaton v. Cruz, A.C. No. 11023, May 4, mandates integrity and honesty in the practice of
2021). To stress, "[p]osession of good moral law, and reflects a fundamental unworthiness to
character is not only a prerequisite to admission remain a member of the Bar.
to the bar, but also a continuing requirement to
the practice of law" (AAA v. De Los Reyes, 840 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Phil. 212, 230 , 2018). Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
investigated the claims and found substantial
In a disbarment proceeding, the object is not to evidence against Atty. Paña, concluding that his
punish the individual Attorney himself or actions displayed a gross lack of morality and
herself, but rather "to safeguard the integrity, fundamental principles outlined in the
administration of justice by protecting the Court Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
and the public from the misconduct of officers of
the Court." It is "intended to cleanse the ranks of The IBP CBD initially recommended a two-year
the legal profession of its undesirable members” suspension; however, upon further review, the
(AAA v. De Los Reyes, supra note 91), especially Board of Governors decided to escalate the
those who have disregarded their oath and have penalty to disbarment, emphasizing that the
proved to be "unfit to continue discharging the severity of Atty. Paña's misconduct—
trust reposed in them as members of the bar," particularly the falsification of judicial
(Bihag v. Era, supra note 83), just like Atty. documents—warrants a more stringent
Ramirez in this case. response.

ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds and declares Disbarment was deemed necessary not only as a
respondent Atty. Perla D. Ramirez GUILTY of punishment for Atty. Paña’s actions but also as a
violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 7.03 of safeguard for the integrity of the legal profession
Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, and Rule 11.03 of and the judicial system. The IBP Board
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional highlighted the responsibility lawyers hold in
Responsibility. She is DISBARRED from the ensuring the legitimacy of documents processed
practice of law and her name is in their practice.
ordered STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys,
effective immediately. By engaging in deceitful behavior and facilitating
forgery, Atty. Paña not only harmed his client but
also undermined the trust placed in legal
professionals. This case serves as a stark
4. A.C. No. 12353, February 06, reminder of the ethical obligations lawyers must
2024 MELODY H. SANTOS, uphold to maintain public confidence in the legal
COMPLAINANT VS. system.
ATTY. EMILIO S. PAÑA, JR., RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE:
Lawyers must uphold integrity, honesty, and ISSUE:
propriety in their professional conduct. Whether or not Atty. Emilio S. Paña, Jr. should be
Engaging in unlawful or deceitful actions, such as held administratively liable for violations of the
the falsification of court documents, not only Lawyer's Oath and the ethical rules.
violates these ethical obligations but also
undermines public confidence in the legal RULING:
system. The courts have consistently maintained The Court found him guilty of violating both the
that any breach of these standards, especially Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
involving moral turpitude, can result in severe Responsibility and Accountability.
disciplinary measures, including disbarment.
Under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR provides
FACTS: that lawyers should not engage in unlawful,
The case against Atty. Emilio S. Paña, Jr. dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Rule
highlights serious breaches of ethical standards 7.03, Canon 7 thereof also states that they should
within the legal profession, specifically involving not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
the falsification of court documents. Melody H. their fitness to practice law. Similarly, both the
Santos filed a complaint against Atty. Paña, Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the
alleging that he, along with a court interpreter, CPR mandate lawyers to not do any falsehood,
deceived her into believing she could obtain a nor consent to the doing of any in court.
quick annulment of her marriage.

4|P a g e
In this case, the Court underscored that lawyers complaint stemmed from an incident in which
are expected to maintain high ethical standards Atty. Ramon provided a fake decision to her
and strictly follow professional rules. Failing to client, Maria Rossan De Jesus, claiming that her
do so can lead to disciplinary action to uphold
cousin, Tirso Fajardo, had been acquitted in a
the integrity of the legal profession and the
justice system. criminal case. Ramon informed De Jesus that the
promulgation of the decision depended on the
The falsification of court documents is payment of a large sum of money. The decision
considered an act of high moral turpitude, was later discovered to be fraudulent, and Atty.
representing unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful Ramon was caught in an entrapment operation
conduct that erodes public trust in the legal receiving marked money in connection with the
system.
fake decision.
The Court found substantial evidence proving
that Atty. Paña knowingly facilitated the creation ISSUE: Whether Atty. Ramon's actions violated
of spurious legal documents and misled his her Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional
client. His defense—that he merely referred his Responsibility.
client to another party—was not credible.
RULING:
The ruling referenced previous cases where
lawyers were disbarred for similar offenses, Yes. The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Marie
reinforcing the principle that participation in the Frances E. Ramon for grave misconduct,
falsification of documents warrants severe
including creating a fake Court of Appeals
penalties.
decision and defrauding her clients by promising
Based on the gravity of the offenses and the an acquittal in exchange for money. She was
substantial evidence presented, the Court caught in an entrapment operation by the
disbarred Atty. Paña and ordered his name National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) while
struck from the Roll of Attorneys, effective receiving marked money for the fraudulent
immediately. decision. The Court ruled that Ramon violated
her Lawyer’s Oath and several canons of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, including
those requiring honesty, integrity, and respect
5. **A.C. No. 12415 (2018) - JUSTICE for the law. Her actions not only demonstrated
FERNANDA LAMPAS corruption and deceit but also discredited the
legal profession, making her unfit to practice
DOCTRINE: law, leading to her immediate disbarment.

The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyers

must conduct themselves with integrity, uphold
the rule of law, and maintain the dignity of the
legal profession. Any deliberate violation of 6. A.C. No. 12012. July 02, 2018
these duties, such as drafting a fake court Geronimo J. Jimeno, Jr. vs. Atty. Flordeliza M.
decision or defrauding clients for personal gain, Jimeno
constitutes grave misconduct and renders a
lawyer unfit to practice law. The Court also DOCTRINE:
reaffirmed that the practice of law is a privilege The Court reiterated that lawyers must observe
conditioned on adherence to ethical standards, honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in their
and serious breaches, like those committed by dealings, as mandated by the Lawyer's Oath and
Atty. Ramon, warrant the ultimate penalty of the CPR. Lawyers are bound to uphold the law
disbarment to protect the public and preserve and legal processes and must not engage in or
trust in the legal system. consent to falsehoods, employ dishonest or
deceitful conduct, or violate client confidences.
FACTS:
FACTS:
The case involves a disbarment complaint
This case stems from a complaint filed by
against Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon, filed by
Gerónimo J. Jimeno, Jr. (complainant) against
three Court of Appeals (CA) justices: Justice
his cousin, Atty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno
Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, Justice Stephen C.
(respondent), before the Integrated Bar of the
Cruz, and Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando. The

5|P a g e
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline admission as a bona fide member of the Law
(CBD) on July 10, 2012. The complainant Profession.
accused the respondent of unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, and deceitful conduct, particularly The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer not
falsification of a public document, and violation only to obey the laws of the land but also to
of client-confidences under the Code of refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of
Professional Responsibility (CPR). court or from consenting to the doing of any in
court, and to conduct himself according to the
The contention revolves around a Deed of best of his knowledge and discretion with all
Absolute Sale dated September 8, 2005, through good fidelity to the courts as well as to his
which the respondent, acting as the attorney-in- clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and
fact, purportedly sold a property belonging to has to observe and maintain the rule of law, as
the late spouses Geronimo P. Jimeno, Sr. and well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by
Perla de Jesus Jimeno, the complainant’s others.
parents. The complainant alleged the deed was
falsified due to the signature of his already In this case, while seemingly aware of the
deceased mother, incorrect marital status of his demise of Perla that rendered the Malindang
father, misrepresentation of property property a co-owned property of Geronimo Sr.
ownership, and inaccuracies in Geronimo Sr.’s and the Jimeno children, instead of advising the
residence and postal address. latter to settle the estate of Perla to enable the
proper registration of the property in their
The respondent defended her actions by names preliminary to the sale to Aquino, she
asserting her lack of involvement in the voluntarily signed the subject deed, as attorney-
document’s preparation and maintained that in-fact of Geronimo Sr., despite the patent
the sale was with consent from all Jimeno irregularities in its execution. These
children. The IBP-CBD initially recommended a irregularities are: (a) the fact that it bore the
reprimand, but upon the complainant’s motion signature of Perla, who was already deceased;
for reconsideration, escalated the penalty to a (b) the erroneous description of Geronimo Sr.
six-month suspension from legal practice, a as married to Perla despite the latter's demise
decision affirmed by the IBP Board of and as being the absolute owner in fee simple of
Governors and eventually the Supreme Court of the Malindang property which is a co-owned
the Philippines. property; and (c) the erroneous statement of
Geronimo Sr.'s residence and postal address.

ISSUE: As a lawyer, respondent is fully aware of the

Whether or not the respondent’s actions in requisites for the legality of a voluntary
relation to the falsified Deed of Absolute Sale conveyance of property, particularly, the scope
constitute violations of the CPR. of the rights, interests, and participation of the
parties/signatories to the deed of sale, and the
consequent transfer of title to the properties
involved, yet, she chose to disregard the patent
RULING: irregularities in the subject deed and
YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s voluntarily affixed her signature thereon.
findings and held the respondent’s actions in Notably, respondent did not specifically admit
relation to the falsified Deed of Absolute Sale nor deny knowledge of the demise of Perla, but
constitute violations of the CPR. her claim of such strong ties to complainant's
family bolsters knowledge thereof.
Fundamental is the rule that in his dealings with
his client and with the courts, every lawyer is All told, respondent is found guilty of violating
expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule
and trustworthy. These expectations, though 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19
high and demanding, are the professional and of the CPR by allowing herself to become a
ethical burdens of every member of the party to the subject deed which contained
Philippine Bar, for they have been given full falsehood and/or inaccuracies.
expression in the Lawyer's Oath that every
lawyer of this country has taken upon

6|P a g e
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Flordeliza M.
Jimeno (respondent) is found GUILTY of
violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon
1, Rule 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of RULING:
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Yes, Atty. Causing violated the CPR and the
Responsibility. Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED
Lawyer's Oath. The defenses of Atty. Causing
for six (6) months from the practice of law, with
are untenable. He cannot justify his infractions
a STERN WARNING that any repetition of the by hiding behind the rights of freedom of the
same or similar acts will be punished more press and freedom of expression under the
severely. Constitution as such are not absolute.

As a member of the Bar, Atty. Causing ought to

know that Facebook--or any other social
medium, for that matter-is not the proper
forum to air out his grievances, for a lawyer
7. JACKIYA LAO, Complainant, vs.
who uses extra-legal fora is a lawyer who
ATTY. BERTENI CAUSING, Respondent weakens the rule of law. In this case, Atty.
Causing knew that the proper forum for his
EN BANC A.C. NO. 13453 | October 4, 2022 complaint is the Office of the ombudsman.
PER CURIAM Atty. Causing also violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR
FACTS: and the Lawyer's Oath when he accused Lao
and the other respondents of stealing funds
January 2019, Atty. Causing published in his intended for evacuees. Rule 8.01 provides:
Facebook account a draft and yet to be filed
copy of his Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder, Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his
accusing Lao and other persons of the crime of professional dealings, use language which is
Plunder. Atty. Causing's publication in his abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Facebook account of such defamatory XXXXX
accusation of Plunder subjected Lao to public
hate, contempt and ridicule. Lawyer's Oath provides:

Atty. Causing named and referfed to Lao as the Xxx; I will delay no man for money or malice,
"Chairperson of the Bids and Awards and will condued ge and discretiony, ta a ging
Committee (BAC) of the DSWD Regional Office feity a best to the courts as to my clients;xxx
No. XII and the one that handled the bidding
Such oath mandates lawyers to conduct
that ended up in the awarding of these food
themselves in a manner which would keep the
packs to Tacurong Fit Mart, Inc.,"5 which
integrity of the legal profession intact.
allegation, per Lao's submission in her
complaint, is completely and absolutely wrong. Considering that Atty. Causing was already
Lao insisted that Atty. Causing made false suspended for one year with a stern warning
imputations against her in the final copy of the that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
complaint-affidavit he filed before the Office of be dealt with more severely, this Court believes
the Ombudsman. that the appropriate penalty to be imposed
herein is the ultimate penalty of disbarmen:
Atty. Causing submitted that the Facebook posts
are an exercise of his freedom of the press and The Court finds Atty. Causing GUILTY of
his freedom of expression. violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
Thus, this Complaint filed by Jackiya Lao
DISBARRED from the practice of law. The Office
charging Atty. Causing with violation of the
of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to remove the
Lawyer's Oath as well as the Code of
name of Berteni Causing from the Roll of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Attorneys.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. Causing violated
PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINE:
the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath when he posted
his Complaint for Plunder on his Facebook Lawyer's Oath: 1, do solemnly swear that I will
account to the detriment of the complainant. maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, I will support the Constitution and
obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein;

7|P a g e
I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing San Jose, Antique, which was forwarded to the
of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Antique.
promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit. or give aid nor consent to the On April 13, 2010, Prosecutor Marilou R.
same; I will delay no man for money or malice, Garachico-Fabila found probable cause to file a
and will conduct myself as a lawyer according case against Randy for violating Section 5(e)(2)
of R.A. 9262. Randy Segura filed an
to the best of my knowledge and discretion,
administrative complaint against Fabila,
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to accusing her of bias and partiality for inquiring
my clients; and 1 impose upon myself these into his employment even before issuing a
voluntary obligations without any mental subpoena. He also alleged that Fabila ignored the
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me evidence he submitted, proving he supported his
God. nie ethicanda the of truth funes, fair play family. He claimed this violated the Lawyer’s
and hobilay ters toourse of this practice of law. Oath and Canon 6.01 of the Code of Professional
A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for Responsibility, which states that the duty of a
any neen into a lawyer motioned by ate public prosecutor is to ensure that justice is
esponsie ai served, not merely to convict.

improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, Fabila, in her defense, stated that she was merely
every lawyer should act and comport himself in trying to serve the second subpoena and denied
such a manner that would promote public any bias. She asserted that the evidence Randy
confidence in the integrity of the legal provided was insufficient.
profession. IBP Investigation: Upon referral of the case to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
the Investigating Commissioner Erwin L.
Aguilera recommended dismissing the
complaint. The IBP found that Fabila was acting
within her discretion as a public prosecutor and
had taken steps to ensure that Randy was given
8. A.C. No. 9837 (September 2, 2019): The
the opportunity to respond to the complaint
court addressed issues of promoting or suing
against him.
in groundless, false, or unlawful suits,
emphasizing the ethical obligations of
On June 29, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors
lawyers not to consent to such actions
adopted the findings and dismissed the
complaint
Doctrine: In administrative cases against
government lawyers, particularly those
Issue: Whether the IBP has jurisdiction over
involving acts performed in the discharge of
administrative complaints against government
their official functions, jurisdiction lies with the
lawyers related to their official duties.
Office of the Ombudsman or the government
lawyer’s superior (e.g., the Secretary of Justice),
Ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed the
not with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
administrative complaint for lack of
(IBP). This principle is based on Republic Act No.
jurisdiction. It held that the Integrated Bar of
6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), which
the Philippines (IBP) has no authority to
empowers the Ombudsman to investigate and
investigate government lawyers, like public
prosecute public officials for misconduct or any
prosecutors, for actions related to their official
improper acts in the performance of their duties.
functions. Jurisdiction over such matters belongs
to the Office of the Ombudsman or the superior
The doctrine differentiates between the
of the government lawyer, in this case, the
accountability of government lawyers as public
Secretary of Justice.
officials and their accountability as members of
the Philippine Bar. While the IBP handles ethical
In the case of Alicias vs. Atty. Macatangay, et
violations of lawyers as members of the Bar, it
al.,[12] the Court pronounced that jurisdiction
lacks jurisdiction over acts committed by
over administrative cases against government
government lawyers in their official capacities.
lawyers relating to acts committed in the
performance of their official functions, lies with
Facts: In March 2008, Maria Erna A. Segura filed
the Ombudsman which exercises administrative
a complaint against her husband, Randy N.
supervision over them;thus:
Segura, for violating Section 5(e)(2) and (4) of
R.A. No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-
Republic Act No. 6770 (sic) (R.A. No. 6770),
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of
of 2004. This was dismissed in June 2008.
1989," prescribes the jurisdiction of the Office of
Dissatisfied, Maria Erna filed another complaint,
the Ombudsman. Section 15, paragraph 1 of R.A.
this time with the Philippine National Police in
No. 6770 provides:

8|P a g e
Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. — The In the years 1998 and 1999, Atty. Marapao
Office of the Ombudsman shall have the represented Gertrudes' husband, Venancio Ang
following powers, functions and duties: (Venancio), in the various criminal cases filed by
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on Venancio against Gertrudes for bigamy, adultery,
complaint by any person, any act or omission of concubinage, perjury, libel, numerous counts of
any public officer or employee, office or agency, violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142, and
when such act or omission appears to be illegal, several counts of falsification of public and
unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary commercial documents. The cases were
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the eventually dismissed as Gertrudes and Venancio
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his reconciled, paving the way for Gertrudes to hire
primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any Atty. Marapao as her lawyer in the two cases of
stage, from any investigatory agency of Estafa which she filed against Rosita Mawili
Government, the investigation of such cases. (Rosita) and Genera Legetimas (Genera) on 3
December 2001 and 10 December 2001,
In this case, complainant imputes to respondent respectively
manifest bias and partiality in the conduct of the
preliminary investigation and issuance of the Eight years later, Gertrudes was entangled in
Resolution which recommended the filing of a another court litigation. This time, she was sued
criminal case against him. The acts complained by Eufronia Estaca Guitan and Victoria Huan. As
of arose from respondent's performance or it happened, Gertrudes discovered that Atty.
discharge of official duties as a public Marapao appeared as counsel for Eufronia and
prosecutor. Hence, the authority to investigate Victoria in the said civil case. Meanwhile, from
and discipline respondent exclusively pertains 2009 to 2011, Atty. Marapao continued to render
to her superior, the Secretary of JusticeThe legal services in favor of Eufronia and the latter's
authority may also pertain to the Office of the niece, Rosario Galao Leyson (Rosario). More
Ombudsman which similarly exercises tellingly, Atty. Marapao had assisted Eufronia
disciplinary jurisdiction over public prosecutors and Rosario in lodging more than thirty (30)
as public officials pursuant to Section 15, criminal cases against Gertrudes – again for
paragraph 1, of R.A. No. 6770.Indeed, various crimes involving falsification of public
respondent's accountability as an official and private documents, perjury, violation of the
performing or discharging her official duties is "Anti-Alias Law," and violation of the National
always to be differentiated from her Building Code.
accountability as a member of the Philippine
Bar.[ For this reason, the IBP has no jurisdiction Dismayed, Gertrudes denounced Atty. Marapao's
to investigate respondent as such government propensity of filing frivolous suits. She accused
lawyer. him of violating the Lawyer's Oath, decrying that
his act of representing Eufronia, Victoria, and
Rosario in the cases filed against her
transgressed the ethical injunction which
prohibits lawyers from engaging in any conflict
of interest given that she was a former client of
9.GERTRUDES MAHUNOT ANG @ Atty. Marapao. Gertrudes bemoaned Atty.
GERTRUDES Marapao's failure to preserve the confidence and
M. SIMONETTI VS. ATTY. LORD M. MARAPAO secrets of a client when he used privileged
[A.C. No. 10297. March 09, 2022 information to file cases against her eight years
later. She vehemently characterized the filing of
DOCTRINE: Civil Case No. 7688 as a form of harassment,
made possible by the complicity of Atty.
Lawyers are equally bound to advise a client, Marapao, as a means to coerce her and Venancio
ordinarily a layman, on the intricacies and to give up their rights and interests in the parcels
vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of land which are subject of the said case
of a person's case. If the lawyer finds that his or
her client's cause is defenseless, then it is the ISSUE:
lawyer's bounden duty to advise the client to
acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the Whether the defendant Atty Lord Marapao has
incontrovertible. Lawyers must resist the failed to exhibit the degree of ethical
whims and caprices of their clients and to temperament in filing civil and criminal case
temper their propensities to litigate. against complainant.

FACTS:
RULING:

9|P a g e
 Yes, Atty Lord Marapao has failed to
exhibit the degree of ethical temperant in filing DOCTRINE:
civil and criminal cases against Gertrudes. A lawyer who misrepresents themselves
as having the authority to practice law or
The Lawyer's Oath commands that deceives the public into believing they are
lawyers should maintain the nobility of the legal authorized to provide legal services, despite
profession by not "wittingly or willingly
being previously disbarred, violates the Code of
promot[ing] or su[ing] any groundless, false or
Professional Responsibility and is guilty of grave
unlawful suit, or [by not] giv[ing] aid nor
consenting] to the same." This deterrence misconduct.
against lawyer's proclivity to stir up litigation,
whether borne by an ardent quest for justice or FACTS:
lured only by the promise of profit, finds The case stems from a complaint filed by
articulation in Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the CPR, Myriam Tan-Te Seng against Atty. Dennis C.
which states that: "A lawyer shall not, for any Pangan, alleging that he continued to engage in
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or the practice of law despite being disbarred by
proceeding or delay any [person's] cause." the Supreme Court in 2008.
Complainant Tan-Te Seng claimed that
In this case, the Court punctiliously Pangan had offered legal services to her and her
observed that Atty. Marapao failed to exhibit that
husband. They were introduced to Pangan by his
degree of ethical temperament in the manner by
wife, who presented him as a practicing lawyer.
which he facilitated the bombardment of civil
and criminal cases against Gertrudes. The Believing that he was authorized to provide legal
criminal cases filed by Atty. Marapao even services, the complainant engaged his services in
involved several counts for the same crime. As drafting contracts, handling legal documents,
borne by the records, he assisted Eufronia and and providing legal advice.
Rosario in filing 30 criminal cases against The complainant eventually discovered
Gertrudes on top of at least 50 criminal cases that Pangan had been disbarred and filed a
filed by Venencio against Gertrudes from 1998 complaint before the Integrated Bar of the
to 1999. While admittedly, a number of the Philippines (IBP), claiming that Pangan violated
criminal cases proceeded to court, a finding of the rule that only members in good standing of
probable cause in some of the criminal charges the Philippine Bar are authorized to practice law.
will not justify Atty. Marapao's propensity to be In his defense, Pangan claimed that he
litigious. A lawyer's duty to uphold the cause of
had merely assisted the complainant as a
justice is superior to his duty to his or her client.
"paralegal," arguing that his actions did not
Besides, a lawyer must not take advantage of the
strong emotions that his or her client has constitute the practice of law.
towards the latter's adversaries. A lawyer, in Lower Court and IBP Proceedings: The IBP
assisting his client, must take into consideration Investigating Commissioner found Pangan guilty
the additional expenses, the amount of time, and of unauthorized practice of law and
the effort that clients spend in pursuing their recommended the imposition of a penalty. The
contemplated action. The sheer number of cases IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and
filed by Atty. Marapao against his clients' recommended that Pangan be fined for his
adversaries unfortunately bordered on continued practice of law despite being
harassment and power play. disbarred.
Pangan appealed the recommendation,
maintaining that his actions were merely
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISQUISITION,
advisory in nature.
petitioner Atty. Lord M. Marapao is hereby
ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the
performance of his duties as an officer of the ISSUE:
Court. He is STERNLY WARNED that a similar Whether Atty. Dennis C. Pangan engaged
infraction in the future shall be dealt with more in the unauthorized practice of law after his
severely disbarment.

RULING:
10. [ A.C. No. 12829 [Formerly CBD Case No. The Supreme Court found Pangan guilty
15- 4821], September 16, 2020 ] of unauthorized practice of law and held that his
MYRIAM TAN-TE SENG, COMPLAINANT, V. actions clearly constituted the practice of law.
ATTY. DENNIS C. PANGAN, RESPONDENT. The Court reiterated that drafting legal
documents, providing legal advice, and
representing oneself as a lawyer are all acts that
require a valid and active license to practice law.

10 | P a g e
 The Court emphasized that Pangan’s allegedly never paid the remaining amount nor
claim of merely acting as a paralegal was a weak returned the original titles. He suggested that the
defense. His continuous engagement in legal Deed of Absolute Sale may have been forged,
work and presenting himself as a lawyer misled especially since the signature of one of the
the public, violating the rules of the legal sellers, Fatima Toribio, was present despite her
profession. having passed away. Following an investigation,
In view of the gravity of the offense, the
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Supreme Court imposed a fine of ₱40,000.00 on
recommended dismissing the complaint due to
Pangan. Additionally, the Court reiterated that
lack of merit.
disbarred lawyers are not allowed to engage in
any activity that involves the practice of law, Issue:Whether Atty. Freddie B. Feir violate
even in an indirect manner. Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 of the Code of
The Court warned that further Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's
infractions could lead to more severe penalties,
Oath, warranting disbarment
including imprisonment for contempt of court.
Ruling:

No, Atty. Freddie B. Feir did not violate Canon 19

and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility or the Lawyer's Oath.
11. POTENCIANO R. MALVAR, COMPLAINANT,
VS. ATTY. FREDDIE B. FEIR, RESPONDENT. According to Canon 19 and Rule 19.01, a lawyer
must represent their client with zeal and employ
Doctrine:
only fair means to achieve lawful objectives,
A lawyer may be disbarred for violating the
refraining from presenting unfounded criminal
Lawyer’s Oath or the Code of Professional
charges.
Responsibility, specifically regarding the misuse
of legal threats to extort or blackmail an In this case, Feir's demand letters were not
adversary. However, demands made in good unfounded; they were based on legitimate
faith based on legitimate claims do not constitute concerns regarding the alleged failure of Malvar
grounds for disbarment, as lawyers have a duty to pay the remaining balance for the properties
to protect their clients' interests within the sold by his client, Amurao. The letters sought to
bounds of the law. clarify the status of the sale and protect
Amurao's rights, indicating a valid legal basis
Facts:
rather than an intention to extort. Thus, the
On February 13, 2015, Potenciano R. Malvar filed
Court found that Feir was acting within his rights
a disbarment complaint against Atty. Freddie B.
as a lawyer, leading to the dismissal of the
Feir, alleging that Feir sent him threatening
disbarment petition against him.
letters demanding ₱18,000,000.00 to settle
claims involving Malvar's purchase of real estate
from Feir’s client, Rogelio M. Amurao. The letters
implied that failure to pay would lead to criminal
charges for Falsification of Public Documents 12. JACKIYA A. LAO, COMPLAINANT, VS.
and Estafa, as well as a civil complaint for ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT.
Annulment of a Transfer Certificate of Title, Doctrine: lawyers must conduct themselves
which Malvar contended amounted to blackmail with the utmost integrity, both in their
or extortion. Malvar supported his complaint professional duties and personal conduct, as
with affidavits from his staff and Amurao, their actions directly affect public confidence in
asserting the legitimacy of the Deed of Absolute the legal profession. The freedoms of speech and
Sale concerning the properties involved. Feir expression, while constitutionally protected, are
responded by claiming that his letters were not absolute and must be exercised with
intended to prompt Malvar to explain how the responsibility, particularly by legal practitioners
properties were registered in his name without who have sworn an oath to uphold justice and
a legitimate sale and to recover the unpaid truth. Further, any unlawful, dishonest, or
balance of the purchase price. Feir detailed a immoral conduct, including defamatory
2008 transaction wherein Malvar had initially statements made through social media, can lead
paid ₱3,200,000.00 for the properties but to severe disciplinary measures, including
disbarment, especially when such actions reflect

11 | P a g e
a pattern of misconduct. It reminds lawyers that Rule 7.03. The Court determined that there was
their ethical obligations extend beyond legal substantial evidence supporting Lao's claims,
practice to their interactions with the public and including documentation of public ridicule and
the media. negative comments directed at her resulting
from Atty. Causing's posts. Although Atty.
Facts:
Causing sought to defend his actions by invoking
Jackiya A. Lao filed a complaint against Atty. his rights to freedom of expression, the Court
Berteni C. Causing, alleging violations of the noted that such freedoms are not absolute and
Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional must be exercised responsibly, particularly by
Responsibility (CPR) due to Atty. Causing's lawyers who are obligated to uphold the
social media posts. On January 18, 2019, Atty. integrity of their profession. His behavior on
Causing published a draft Complaint-Affidavit social media was deemed intentionally
for Plunder on Facebook, accusing Lao and provocative, aimed at eliciting negative public
others of the crime without having filed the reactions against Lao, further violating Rule
complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. 8.01, which prohibits the use of abusive or
This publication was purportedly aimed at improper language in professional dealings.
promoting his sister's political campaign and
The Court also considered Atty. Causing's
resulted in significant public backlash against
previous misconduct, including a prior
Lao, damaging her reputation. Atty. Causing
suspension for similar violations, which
repeated these allegations on January 31, 2019,
influenced its decision to impose the severe
claiming he had filed the complaint. In his
penalty of disbarment. It emphasized that repeat
defense, he acknowledged authorship of the
offenders necessitate harsher penalties to
posts, arguing they were based on investigative
maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
reports and were an exercise of his freedom of
Ultimately, Atty. Causing was found guilty of
expression. Following a conference and
violating the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR, leading
investigation, the Integrated Bar of the
to his disbarment from the practice of law.
Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a six-
month suspension. However, this was later
modified to a reprimand, as the IBP Board of
Governors determined that Atty. Causing
ultimately filed the complaint through
appropriate legal channels. 12.A.C. No. 13453 (Formerly CBD Case
No. 19- 5956). October 04, 2022
Issue: Whether Atty. Causing violated the CPR JACKIYA A. LAO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
and the Lawyer's Oath when he posted his BERTENI C. CAUSING, Respondent.
Complaint for Plunder on his Facebook account
to the detriment of herein complainant DOCTRINE:
o Lawyer’s oath
Ruling:
o Rule 8.01 of the CPR: A lawyer shall not,
Yes. in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or
Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional otherwise improper.
Responsibility prohibits lawyers from engaging o Freedom of Expression Limits:
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful Constitutional rights must yield where
conduct, as well as conduct that adversely injustice occurs, particularly in
reflects on their fitness to practice law. professional ethical conduct; Lawyers
Additionally, the Lawyer's Oath mandates that must retain integrity and not misuse
lawyers maintain integrity, act with justice, and public platforms to air grievances.
refrain from any form of deceit or malice. o Escalation for Repeat Offender:
In this case, Atty. Causing admitted to posting a Repetition of infractions leads logically
draft of the Complaint for Plunder against Lao on to heightened disciplinary actions,
Facebook while the complaint was unfiled at that culminating in disbarment if continued
time. This act was characterized as unlawful and violations are evident.
immoral, violating Rule 1.01, and it was found to
adversely affect his professional integrity under FACTS:

12 | P a g e
Atty. Causing allegedly resorted to the use of Rule 8.01 provides that “A lawyer shall not, in his
social media to make his sister, Lyndale Causing, professional dealings, use language which is
one of the candidates for Representative of the abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.” The
2nd District of South Cotabato, known to the Lawyer's Oath provides that: “…and will
public. Atty. Causing's publication in his conduct myself as a lawyer according to the
Facebook account of such defamatory accusation best of my knowledge and discretion…”
of Plunder subjected Lao to public hate,
contempt and ridicule. The case at hand show that Atty. Causing has the
propensity to divulge sensitive information in
Atty. Causing named and referred to Lao as the online platforms, such as Facebook, to the
"Chairperson of the Bids and Awards Committee detriment of the people involved in the said
(BAC) of the DSWD Regional Office No. XII and cases. Thus, considering that Atty. Causing was
the one that handled the bidding that ended up already suspended for one (1) year with a stem
in the awarding of these food packs to Tacurong warning that a repetition of the same or similar
Fit Mart, Inc.," which allegation, per Lao's acts will be dealt with more severely, We believe
submission in her complaint, is completely and that the appropriate penalty to be imposed
absolutely wrong. herein is the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

In his Answer-Affidavit Atty. Causing did not Well-settled is the rule in our jurisdiction that
deny that he is the author of the questioned disbarment ought to be meted out only in clear
Facebook posts. He admitted that his main basis cases of misconduct that seriously affect the
in filing the Plunder case was the investigative standing and character of the lawyer as an officer
reports from the Philippine Center for of the court and that the Court will not disbar a
Investigative Journalism (PCIJ). The fact that the lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice to
instant complaint for Plunder is supported by accomplish the desired end. The Court,
evidence, as cited in his Answer-Affidavit, was however, does not hesitate to impose the
already a sufficient justification to dismiss the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party
administrative complaint. He submitted that the has become a repeat offender.
Facebook posts are an exercise of the freedom of
the press and freedom of expression. As a final note, while freedom of expression is
guaranteed by the Constitution, the lawyer's
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) oath and his duties and responsibilities
recommended that Atty. Causing be suspended ultimately serve as a limit thereto.
from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months. In a resolution, the IBP Board of WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Berteni C.
Governors resolved to modify the Report and Causing GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath
Recommendation and instead, imposed the and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
penalty of REPRIMAND. is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.

Atty. Causing admitted in his Answer-Affidavit

that he posted the complaint for Plunder on his
Facebook account. In his defense, he invokes his
rights to freedom of expression and of the press. 13.A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, February 08, 2011

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF

ISSUE:
PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE
Whether Atty. Causing violated the CPR and the JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO.
Lawyer's Oath when he posted his Complaint for
Plunder on his Facebook account to the
detriment of herein complainant. DOCTRINE:

RULING: Judges are tasked with resolving disputes and

YES. Atty. Causing also violated Rule 8.01 of the providing justice rather than producing original
CPR and the lawyer’s oath when he accused Lao scholarly works. The legal framework
emphasizes that while plagiarism is a serious
and the other respondents of stealing around
offense in academic contexts, the judiciary
P226 Million intended for evacuees.
operates under the doctrine of stare decisis,

13 | P a g e
which encourages the citation of precedents and malicious intent typically associated with
established legal opinions without necessarily plagiarism.
attributing every borrowed idea. The focus is on
Under the Judicial Opinion Writing Handbook by
the fairness and correctness of judicial decisions
rather than their originality. Joyce C. George, whom Justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno cites in her dissenting opinion, a judge
writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or
appellate, is exempted from a charge of
FACTS:
plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from
Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya and other a law review article, novel thoughts published in
members of the Malaya Lolas Organization a legal periodical or language from a party's brief
sought reconsideration of the Supreme Court's are used without giving attribution. Thus judges
October 12, 2010 decision, which dismissed are free to use whatever sources they deem
their allegations of plagiarism and gross neglect appropriate to resolve the matter before them,
against Justice Mariano Del Castillo related to his without fear of reprisal. This exemption applies
ruling in Vinuya v. Romulo. to judicial writings intended to decide cases for
two reasons: the judge is not writing a literary
They argued that the Court's dismissal work and, more importantly, the purpose of the
effectively legalized plagiarism in the writing is to resolve a dispute. As a result, judges
Philippines, a claim the Court deemed absurd adjudicating cases are not subject to a claim of
since it unequivocally condemns such acts. legal plagiarism.
The concept of plagiarism is commonly In this case, the omissions in attribution were
understood as the malicious appropriation of attributed to an accidental deletion during the
another's work, defined by various dictionaries final drafting process.
as a deliberate act of presenting someone else's
ideas as one's own. The Court underscored the distinction between
academic writing and judicial decision-making,
The Court emphasized that for an act to qualify noting that judges are not expected to produce
as plagiarism, it must involve intent to deceive, original scholarship. Their primary role is to
distinguishing it from accidental or good faith apply established laws and precedents, adhering
errors in attribution. Such intent is crucial in to the doctrine of stare decisis. In this context,
determining the nature of the misconduct decisions are meant to resolve disputes rather
alleged against judges. than showcase literary originality.
Furthermore, the Court noted that while some The ruling stressed that judicial writings should
educational institutions may have different serve the public interest by providing fair and
definitions that do not consider intent, this just resolutions to conflicts. Thus, the lack of
perspective does not apply to legal standards for attribution, while regrettable, did not meet the
judges. threshold for misconduct. The Court affirmed
that the judiciary has historically not regarded
The ruling clarified that unintentional mistakes
such omissions as plagiarism and reiterated that
do not constitute plagiarism, thereby setting a
judges should not be penalized for unintentional
higher threshold for disciplinary actions against
errors in their work.
judicial figures. This approach ensures that only
those who engage in fraudulent conduct face Thus, the Court denied the petitioners' motion
consequences, reinforcing the integrity of the for reconsideration, concluding that Justice Del
judicial system. Castillo's work was honest and fell within the
accepted norms of judicial writing, reinforcing
the principle that justice should not be delayed
ISSUE: for personal or trivial disputes.

Whether or not Justice Mariano Del Castillo's

actions constituted plagiarism, gross neglect, or
misconduct sufficient to warrant disciplinary
action. 14. **G.R. Nos. 236177-210 JOAN V.
ALARILLA, PETITIONER
RULING:

The Court rejected the petitioners' claims of DOCTRINE:

plagiarism against Justice Mariano Del Castillo, Although delay is not to be determined solely
highlighting that his actions did not exhibit the from the length of time taken for the conduct of

14 | P a g e
the preliminary investigation, a long delay is investigation violated Alarilla’s right to the
inordinate unless the Office of the Ombudsman speedy disposition of cases. The Court
suitably justifies it. The lapse of almost nine (9) emphasized that malicious prosecution can
years to conduct a preliminary investigation indeed be a ground for dismissal, in line with the
does not, by itself, immediately equate to a legal principle that no party should be subjected
violation of a person's right to speedy to undue delay for reasons of malice. The Court
disposition of cases. However, courts must take cited the case of Cagang v. Sandiganbayan,
such unusually long periods into careful explaining that when delays are politically
consideration when determining whether motivated or filed with insufficient evidence,
inordinate delay exists. Otherwise, the such delays are deemed malicious. The
Constitutionally guaranteed right to speedy prosecution has the burden to justify such
disposition of cases would be reduced to nothing delays, but in Alarilla’s case, they failed to
but an illusory promise. provide a valid justification for the extended
delay. As a result, the Court found that the delay
FACTS: was unjustified, amounting to a denial of
Joan V. Alarilla, former mayor of Meycauayan, Alarilla's right, and ordered the dismissal of the
Bulacan, faced charges of malversation of public criminal charges against her.
funds through falsification and violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
The case was filed after a complaint by Rolando
Lorenzo, who alleged that Alarilla and her late 15.[ G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018 ]
husband, former mayor Eduardo Alarilla, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
misappropriated over ₱5 million of public funds. REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE
C. CALIDA, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA LOURDES
The funds were taken through the issuance of 43
P. A. SERENO, RESPONDENT.
checks for goods and services that were never
delivered. DOCTRINE:
“Proven integrity” is an essential qualification for
The complaint was filed in 2008, and after a joint membership in the Judiciary, and failure to comply
counter-affidavit was submitted by Alarilla and with the requirement of filing SALNs can be a
her husband, the Ombudsman took nearly nine ground to challenge the validity of an
appointment.
years to issue a resolution finding probable
cause. Alarilla filed motions claiming that this FACTS:
delay violated her right to a speedy disposition Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno was appointed Chief
of the case. Despite the delay, the Ombudsman Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
proceeded to file 33 charges of malversation and by then-President Benigno S. Aquino III in 2012.
one charge of graft against her. Alarilla’s motions Prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court,
to dismiss based on inordinate delay were Sereno served as a faculty member of the
University of the Philippines College of Law and
denied by the Sandiganbayan, leading her to file
as legal counsel in various government agencies,
a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court including serving as legal counsel for the
Republic in international arbitrations.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Ombudsman’s delay The Republic of the Philippines, represented by
of nearly nine years in conducting the Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, filed a quo
warranto petition before the Supreme Court
preliminary investigation against Joan V.
seeking to declare the appointment of Sereno as
Alarilla amounted to a violation of her Chief Justice void. The basis for the petition was
constitutional right to the speedy the alleged failure of Sereno to file her
disposition of cases Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth
2. Whether or not this delay constitutes (SALNs) required for government positions.
malicious prosecution that can be These filings were for the period when she was a
grounds for the dismissal of the charges. professor at the UP College of Law and while
employed as legal counsel for the government.

The Solicitor General argued that Sereno’s

RULING: failure to file and submit her SALNs
demonstrated a lack of integrity, making her
The Supreme Court ruled that the inordinate ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice.
delay in the Ombudsman’s preliminary The petition was anchored on the notion that

15 | P a g e
“proven integrity” is an indispensable In this case, it was found that respondent is
requirement for appointment to the Judiciary as ineligible to hold the Chief Justice of the Supreme
mandated by the Constitution of the Philippines. Court position for lack of integrity on account of
her failure to file a substantial number of SALNs
Sereno countered that, as an impeachable and also, her failure to submit the required
officer, she can only be removed through the SALNs to the JBC during her application for the
impeachment process provided by the position.
Constitution, and that the remedy of quo
warranto is inapplicable. Again, one of the Constitutional duties of a public
officer is to submit a declaration under oath of
The case that led to the ouster of Sereno from the his or her assets, liabilities, and net worth upon
position of Chief Justice involved a series of legal assumption of office and as often thereafter as
maneuverings initiated by the Office of the may be required by law. When the Constitution
Solicitor General. and the law exact obedience, public officers must
comply and not offer excuses. When a public
ISSUE: officer is unable or unwilling to comply, he or she
Whether or not the filing of SALNs bear no must not assume office in the first place, or if
relation to the Constitutional qualification of already holding one, he or she must vacate that
integrity. public office because it is the correct and
honorable thing to do. A public officer who
RULING: ignores, trivializes or disrespects Constitutional
NO. The filing a SALN is an essential requirement and legal provisions, as well as the canons of
to one's assumption of a public post. It has ethical standards, forfeits his or her right to hold
Constitutional, legal and jurisprudential bases. and continue in that office.

To recapitulate, Section 7, Article VIII of the WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo
Constitution requires that a member of the Warranto is GRANTED. Respondent Maria
Judiciary must be of proven integrity. To be of Lourdes P.A. Sereno is
proven integrity means that the applicant must found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby
have established a steadfast adherence to moral adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING
and ethical principles. and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF
JUSTICE. Accordingly, Respondent Maria
The necessity of having integrity among the Lourdes P. A. Sereno
members of the judiciary is clearly discussed in is OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom.
the Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of
Judicial Conduct:

Integrity is the attribute of rectitude and

16.ANGELITA C. ORCINO, Complainant, v.
righteousness. The components of
ATTY. JOSUE GASPAR, Respondent.
integrity are honesty and judicial
morality. A judge should always, not only A.C. No. 3773. September 24, 1997, Puno, J.
in the discharge of official duties, act (Second Division)
honourably and in a manner befitting the
judicial office; be free from fraud, deceit FACTS
and falsehood; and be good and virtuous
in behaviour and in character. There are Angelita Orcino filed a letter-complaint praying
no degrees of integrity as so defined. for disciplinary sanctions against Atty. Josue
Integrity is absolute. In the judiciary, Gaspar, her former counsel, for abandoning his
integrity is more than a virtue; it is a duties and for failing to return the legal fees she
necessity. fully paid for his Services. The complainant
engaged Atty. Gaspar to prosecute a criminal
Failure to file the SALN is clearly a violation of case she intended to file against several
the law. The offense is penal in character and is a suspects in the slaying of her husband. Several
clear breach of the ethical standards set for payments for Atty. Gaspar’s legal fees were
public officials and employees. It disregards the
already given by Angelita and their agreement
requirement of transparency as a deterrent to
graft and corruption. For these reasons, a public was embodied in a contract executed on
official who has failed to comply with the February 22, 1991. As such, Atty. Gaspar
requirement of filing the SALN cannot be said to entered into his duties. He interviewed
be of proven integrity and the Court may witnesses and gathered evidence to build a case
consider him/her disqualified from holding against the suspects. He drew up the necessary
public office. sworn statements and dutifully attended the
preliminary investigation. The case was
thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court,

16 | P a g e
Branch 37, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. As Canon 22 provides that – A lawyer shall
private prosecutor, respondent religiously withdraw his services only for good cause and
attended the bail hearings for the accused upon notice
although these hearings were postponed on appropriate in the circumstances. The valid
motion of the accused's counsel. Respondent reasons for withdrawal are stated in Rule 22.01.
however failed to attend the hearing scheduled
in August 1991. It was at this hearing that the In the given case, Atty. Gaspar’s reasons was
court, over complainant's objections, granted "there no longer existed the xxx confidence"
bail to all the accused. After the hearing, between
complainant immediately went to respondent's them and that there had been "serious
residence and confronted him with his absence. differences between them relating to the manner
Respondent explained that he did not receive of private
formal notice of the hearing. Complainant
prosecution”. The said reason was evidently not
became belligerent and started accusing him of
valid grounds under Rule 22.01. Neither can this
jeopardizing the case by his absence.
be
Respondent said that her suspicions were based
on rumors and intrigues fed to her by her considered analogous to the grounds
relatives. Complainant, however, continued enumerated. Assuming, nevertheless, that
accusing him belligerently. She asked for the respondent was
records of the case saying that she could refer justified in terminating his services, he, however,
them to another lawyer. Stung by her words, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the
respondent gave her the records. cold
Complainant never returned the records nor unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume
did she see respondent. On September 18, 1991, that his petition for withdrawal will be granted
by the
respondent filed before the trial court a "Motion
to Withdraw as Counsel." The motion did not court. Until his withdrawal shall have been
bear the approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record
who is
consent of complainant. On October 23, 1991,
the court issued an order directing respondent expected by his client as well as by the court to
to secure do what the interests of his client require. He
must still
complainant's consent to the motion "and his
appear on the date of hearing for the attorney-
appearance as private prosecutor shall continue
client relation does not terminate formally until
until he there is
has secured this consent." Complainant refused a withdrawal of record.
to sign her conformity to respondent's
withdrawal.

Meanwhile, the hearings in the criminal case 17. **SC Finds Lawyer Guilty of Misconduct
continued. Respondent did not appear at the for Sponsoring Trips of IBP Officers**: This
hearings nor case highlights a violation of ethical conduct
as a lawyer, resulting in disciplinary action
did he contact complainant. Complainant was
under the Code of Professional
thus compelled to engage the services of Responsibility.
another

lawyer. Hence, the letter-complaint. The case arises from an Anonymous Letter
dated March 24, 2023, filed against Atty. Nilo T.
ISSUE Divina, alleging his involvement in illegal
campaigning activities concerning the election
Whether Atty. Gaspar violated Canon 22 of for the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
the Code of Professional Responsibility for (IBP)-Central Luzon Region Governor. The
letter claims that Atty. Divina harbors ambitions
abandoning his duties to ascend to the position of IBP-Central Luzon
HELD Governor, intending to use it as a stepping stone
to eventually become the IBP National
YES. Atty. Gaspar violated Canon 22 of the President.
Code of Professional Responsibility. The Anonymous Letter details several purported
instances of prohibited campaign activities
allegedly conducted by Atty. Divina, including:

17 | P a g e
 1. Balesin Island Trip (Summer 2022): profession consistent with the high standards of
Atty. Divina allegedly hosted IBP-Central ethical behavior.
Luzon Officers at the Balesin Island SECTION 1. Proper conduct. - A lawyer shall not
Club in Quezon, purportedly using this engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
trip to cultivate support. deceitful conduct.
2. Cash and Gift Checks (December SECTION 2. Dignified conduct. A lawyer shall
2022): The letter claims that Atty. respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other
Divina distributed cash and gift checks government agencies, their officials, employees,
amounting to hundreds of thousands of and processes, and act with courtesy, civility,
pesos to the IBP-Central Luzon Officers fairness, and candor towards fellow members of
as part of his campaign strategy. the bar. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
3. Bali Trip (February 2023): It is alleged adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice
that Atty. Divina organized a trip for the law, nor behave in a scandalous manner,
IBP-Central Luzon Officers to Bali, whether in public or private life, to the discredit
Indonesia. The letter identifies several of the legal profession.
officers who were present during this
trip, including Winston Ginez, Buko Thus, if an individual is willing to contribute,
dela Cruz, Peng dela Rama, and Jade donate, or volunteer to further the efforts of the
Molo. IBP, it must be tempered by the nature and
In response to the allegations, various parties, purpose of the activity. The support should be in
including Atty. Clemente, Atty. Maglalang (the furtherance of the goals and. objectives of the
incumbent Governor), and others, submitted IBP and for the direct benefit of its members and
comments disputing the claims. Atty. Clemente should not solely be for the interest, usie, and
characterized the Balesin trip as a legitimate enjoyment of its officers.
team-building activity and provided context on
the traditional election process for IBP officers. In the present case, Atty. Divina does not deny
Atty. Maglalang confirmed that Atty. Divina's that he sponsored the trips of the IBP-Central
activities were aimed at supporting the region Luzon Officers to Bale~in Island Club and Bali,
and clarified that the trips were not intended to Indonesia. These "gifts" are undoubtedly not of
influence votes. insignificant or nominal value. Atty. Divina
characterizes these as acts of generosity to
Atty. Divina himself denied any wrongdoing, support the IBP and its role in the legal
asserting that his sponsorship of IBP activities profession. Atty. Divinq may claim that these do
was a gesture of goodwill and that he was not not come with strings attached, but this ''gift':
actively campaigning for any position at the time necessarily creates a sense of obligation on the
of the accusations. He highlighted his ongoing recipient to repay his gratitude in the future.
contributions to the legal community and Notably however, these activities sponsored by
expressed his concerns about the demands of the Atty. Divina were primarily and solely for the
Governor's role conflicting with his benefit of the officers of IBP-Central Luzon. It
responsibilities as Dean of the University of does not support a particular activity of the IBP
Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law. for the benefit of its constituent members, nor
does it further a purpose or objective of the IBP.
Due to the pending investigation and to prevent Although Atty. Divina claims his intentions in
disenfranchisement of IBP-Central Luzon, the supporting the IBP and its activities are out of
election for Governor originally scheduled for generosity; the sponsorship of the trips of the
May 5, 2023, was suspended. Atty. Maria Imelda IBP-Central I " Luzon Officers to Balesin Island
Quiambao-Tuazon was appointed as Officer-in- Club and to Bali, Indonesia crossed the borders
Charge to manage the region's representation in on excessive and overstepped the line of
the interim. propriety.

Issue: W/N Atty. Nilo T. Divina GUILTY of

Simple Misconduct in violation of Canon II,
Section 1 and Section 2 of the Code of 18.ANGELITA C. ORCINO, COMPLAINANT,
Professional Responsibility and VS. ATTY. JOSUE GASPAR, RESPONDENT.
Accountability. A.C. No. 3773, September 24, 1997

Ruling: Yes.
DOCTRINE:
CANON II PROPRIETY. A lawyer shall, at all
times, act with propriety and maintain the The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the
appearance of propriety in personal and absolute right to terminate the attorney-client
professional dealings, observe honesty, respect
and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the

18 | P a g e
relation at any time with or without cause. The
right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the ISSUE:
relation other than for sufficient cause is,
however, considerably restricted. Among the Whether the respondent withdrawal from the
fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that case valid.
an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action
impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion.
He is not at liberty to abandon it without RULING:
reasonable cause. A lawyer's right to withdraw No, a lawyer must secure the consent of his client
from a case before its final adjudication arises in withdrawing from the case. A lawyer may
only from the client's written consent or from a retire at any time from any action or special
good cause. proceeding with the written consent of his client
filed in court and copy thereof served upon the
FACTS: adverse party. Should the client refuse to give his
consent, the lawyer must file an application with
On June 14, 1992, complainant Angelita C. Orcino the court. The court, on notice to the client and
filed with this Court a letter-complaint dated adverse party, shall determine whether he ought
December 10, 1991 against respondent Atty. to be allowed to retire. The application for
Josue Gaspar, her former counsel. Complainant withdrawal must be based on a good cause
prayed that this Court impose disciplinary
sanctions on respondent for abandoning his In the instant case, complainant did not give her
duties and for failing to return the legal fees she written consent to respondent's withdrawal.
fully paid for his services. The court thus ordered respondent to secure
this consent. Respondent allegedly informed the
As private prosecutor, respondent religiously court that complainant had become hostile and
attended the bail hearings for the accused refused to sign his motion. He, however, did not
although these hearings were postponed on file an application with the court for it to
motion of the accused's counsel. Respondent determine whether he should be allowed to
however failed to attend the hearing scheduled withdraw.
in August 1991. It was at this hearing that the
court, over complainant's objections, granted IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent is admonished
bail to all the accused. After the hearing, to exercise more prudence and judiciousness in
complainant immediately went to respondent's dealing with his clients. He is also ordered to
residence and confronted him with his absence. return to complainant within fifteen (15) days
from notice the amount of ten thousand pesos
Respondent explained that he did not receive (P10,000.00) representing a portion of his legal
formal notice of the hearing. [7] Complainant fees received from the latter with a warning that
became belligerent and started accusing him of failure on his part to do so will result in the
jeopardizing the case by his absence. imposition of stiffer disciplinary action
Respondent said that her suspicions were based
on rumors and intrigues fed to her by her
relatives. [8] Complainant, however, continued
accusing him belligerently. She asked for the
19.[ A.C. NO. 6424, March 04, 2005 ]
records of the case saying that she could refer
CONSORCIA S. ROLLON, COMPLAINANT, VS.
them to another lawyer. Stung by her words,
respondent gave her the records ATTY. CAMILO NARAVAL, RESPONDENT.

Complainant never returned the records nor did DOCTRINE:

she see respondent. On September 18, 1991, Lawyers owe fidelity to their clients. The
respondent filed before the trial court a "Motion money or other property coming into their
to Withdraw as Counsel." The motion did not possession must be deemed to be held in trust
bear the consent of complainant. On October 23, and should not be commingled with the lawyer’s
1991, the court issued an order directing personal funds or used for personal purposes.
respondent to secure complainant's consent to Failure to observe these ethical principles
the motion "and his appearance as private constitutes professional misconduct and
prosecutor shall continue until he has secured justifies the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
this consent." Complainant refused to sign her
conformity to respondent's withdrawal.
Meanwhile, the hearings in the criminal case FACTS:
continued. Respondent did not appear at the Consorcia S. Rollon filed a letter-
hearings nor did he contact complainant. complaint against Atty. Camilo Naraval before
Complainant was thus compelled to engage the the Davao City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of
services of another lawyer. Hence, the letter- the Philippines (IBP) on November 29, 2001.
complaint. Rollon alleged that she sought Naraval's legal

19 | P a g e
services in a case filed against her for the
collection of a sum of money (Julaton vs. Rollon) CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with
before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities competence and diligence.
(MTCC), Branch 6, Davao City. Rollon paid Atty.
Naraval P8,000 as a filing and partial service fee Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
on October 18, 2000. Despite this, Atty. Naraval matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
failed to act on her case, citing that he was busy. connection therewith shall render him liable.
After several follow-ups and more than a year of
inaction, Rollon sought the return of the P8,000 Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep his client
and her case documents, but Atty. Naraval informed of the status of his case and shall
refused, claiming he had no money and that the respond within a reasonable time to the client’s
documents were at his home. request for information.
Due to Atty. Naraval’s continued failure Hence, practising lawyers may accept only as
to return the payment and documents, Rollon many cases as they can efficiently handle.[13]
filed a complaint with the IBP. Despite being Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced.
directed to respond by the IBP Commission on Once lawyers agree to handle a case, they should
Bar Discipline (CBD) on multiple occasions, Atty. undertake the task with dedication and care. If
Naraval did not file an answer. The investigation they do any less, then they fail their lawyer’s
proceeded ex parte, and Rollon submitted her oath.
position paper. The Investigating Commissioner
recommended Naraval’s suspension from the Rule 15.05 of the Code of Professional
practice of law for one year due to his neglect of Responsibility requires that lawyers give their
duty and violation of Canons 15 and 18 of the candid and best opinion to their clients on the
Code of Professional Responsibility. merit or lack of merit of the case, neither
The IBP Board of Governors upheld the overstating nor understating their evaluation
recommendation but increased the suspension thereof. Knowing whether a case would have
period to two years. It also ordered the some prospect of success is not only a function,
restitution of the P8,000 to Rollon. but also an obligation on the part of lawyers.[15]
If they find that their client’s cause is
ISSUE: defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to
Whether Atty. Camilo Naraval violated advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather
his ethical duties under the Code of Professional than to traverse the incontrovertible.[16] The
Responsibility by neglecting his client's case and failure of respondent to fulfill this basic
failing to return the entrusted funds. undertaking constitutes a violation of his duty
to “observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
RULING: his dealings and transactions with his
The Supreme Court found Atty. Naraval clients.”[17]
guilty of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17,
and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It upheld the IBP's
recommendation to suspend him from the 20. A.C. No. 6672 September 4, 2009
practice of law for two years and ordered him to PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant, vs.
return the P8,000 with interest. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.
The Court ruled that Naraval’s failure to
act on the case and to return the money despite
Doctrine:
repeated demands showed a lack of fidelity to his
lawyers have an ethical obligation to conduct
client. His actions demonstrated a cavalier
attitude and disregard for the duties and themselves with integrity, honesty, and fairness,
obligations of a lawyer. Furthermore, lawyers as enshrined in the Code of Professional
are deemed to hold client funds in trust, and the Responsibility (CPR). Soliciting clients through
failure to return such funds upon demand deceitful means or enticing them with promises
constitutes professional misconduct and a of financial assistance constitutes a violation of
betrayal of the client’s trust. ethical rules, specifically Rule 2.03, which
prohibits soliciting legal business for personal
gain. Additionally, the independence of the legal
NOTE: profession should be maintained and clients
CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause should be protected from potential exploitation,
of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust emphasizing that any misconduct leading to the
and confidence reposed in him.
solicitation of clients, particularly through

20 | P a g e
inducements, can result in serious disciplinary Rule 1.03 of the CPR prohibits lawyers from
actions. encouraging litigation for corrupt motives, while
Rule 2.03 expressly forbids soliciting legal
Facts: business through improper means, including
The complaint for disbarment was initiated by direct solicitation or through agents. Rule 8.02
Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & further emphasizes that a lawyer must not
Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes interfere with another lawyer's client
Tolentino. Linsangan alleged that Tolentino, in relationships, reinforcing the principle of
conjunction with paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, respecting established attorney-client bonds.
actively solicited his clients to switch their legal Additionally, Rule 16.04 outlines that lawyers
representation to his office. Complainant should not borrow money from clients unless
claimed that Tolentino promised clients their interests are adequately protected,
financial assistance and expedited collection of ensuring that their judgment and independence
claims, making persistent phone calls and remain intact. These rules uphold the integrity of
sending text messages to induce them into hiring the legal profession by mandating ethical
his services. Supporting his allegations, behavior, discouraging practices that could
Linsangan presented a sworn affidavit from exploit vulnerable clients, and promoting a
James Gregorio, who attested that Labiano standard of conduct that fosters trust in legal
pressured him to terminate his attorney-client representation.
relationship with Linsangan and transfer his
In this case, the evidence presented, including
legal representation to Tolentino in exchange for
the sworn affidavit and the content of
a loan of ₱50,000. The complaint was
Tolentino's calling card, demonstrated that he
substantiated with evidence, including a calling
solicited clients unlawfully by promising
card that prominently featured Tolentino's
financial assistance and inducing them to switch
name and law office, advertising consultancy
representation. The Court emphasized that such
and maritime services with financial assistance.
actions constitute malpractice, warranting
In response, Tolentino denied any affiliation
disciplinary measures to protect the integrity of
with Labiano and the distribution of the calling
the legal profession. As a result, Tolentino was
card. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines' (IBP)
suspended from practicing law for one year and
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
received a stern warning against future
investigated the complaint, which revealed that
violations.
Tolentino had indeed encroached upon
Linsangan’s professional practice and violated
several rules of the CPR, specifically Rule 8.02
regarding client solicitation.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino engage in
unethical conduct by soliciting clients from
another lawyer and violate the ethical standards
set forth in the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino engaged in

unethical conduct by violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically
Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02, and 16.04, along with
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The
law clearly prohibits lawyers from soliciting
clients for personal gain, either directly or
through agents, and from encroaching upon
another lawyer's practice.

21 | P a g e
 NEW CASES
FOR PROBLEM
AREAS IN
LEGAL ETHICS

Page 1 of 55
1. A.C. No. 10952, January 26, Salvado that he would not place
2016 – ENGEL PAUL ACA, his reputation as a lawyer on the
Complainant, v. ATTY. line, complainant made an initial
RONALDO P. SALVADO, investment in his business. This
Respondent.: initial investment yielded an
amount corresponding to the
SYLLABUS: Lawyers have a duty
principal plus the promised
not to engage in activities, which
interest. On various dates from
are dishonest, grossly immoral,
2010 to 2011, complainant
and for committing violations of
claimed that he was again
law. The Dishonesty, gross
induced by Atty. Salvado to invest
immorality and violation of law
with promises of high rates of
need not be committed in relation
return.
to his professional duties; the
lawyers may be sanctioned for As consideration for these
acts committed in his private investments, Atty. Salvado issued
affairs. several post-dated checks in the
total amount of P6,107,000.00,
Facts of the Case: complainant
representing the principal amount
alleged, among others, that
plus interests. the
sometime in 2010, he met Atty.
aforementioned checks were
Salvado through Atty. Samuel
dishonored as these were drawn
Divina (Atty. Divina), his
from insufficient funds or a closed
childhood friend; that Atty.
account.
Salvado introduced himself as a
lawyer and a businessman Complainant made several verbal
engaged in several businesses and written demands upon Atty.
including but not limited to the Salvado, who at first, openly
lending business; that on the communicated with him, assuring
same occasion, Atty. Salvado him that he would not abscond
enticed the complainant to invest from his obligations and that he
in his business with a guarantee was just having difficulty
that he would be given a high liquidating his assets and
interest rate of 5% to 6% every collecting from his own creditors.
month; and that he was assured Complainant was even informed
of a profitable investment due by by Atty. Salvado that he owned
Atty. Salvado as the latter had real properties that could serve as
various clients and investors. payment for his obligations. As
time went by, however, Atty.
Because of these representations
Salvado began to avoid
coupled by the assurance of Atty.
Page 2 of 55
complainant’s calls and text confronted him as he was about
messages. Attempts to meet up to enter the gate of the house.
with him through common friends Obviously startled, Atty. Salvado
also proved futile. This prompted told him that he had not forgotten
complainant to refer the matter to his debt and invited complainant
his lawyer Atty. Divina, for to enter the house so they could
appropriate legal action. talk. Complainant refused the
invitation and instead told Atty.
On December 26, 2011, Atty.
Salvado that they should talk
Divina personally served the
inside his vehicle where his
Notice of Dishonor on Atty.
companions were. During this
Salvado, directing him to settle
conversation, Atty. Salvado
his total obligation in the amount
assured complainant that he was
of P747,000.00, corresponding to
working on “something” to pay
the cash value of the first two (2)
his obligations. He still refused to
PSBank checks, within seven (7)
personally receive or, at the least,
days from receipt of the said
read the demand letter.
notice.6 Nevertheless, Atty.
Salvado refused to receive the Despite his promises, Atty.
said notice when Atty. Divina’s Salvado failed to settle his
messenger attempted to serve it obligations.
on him.
For complainant, Atty. Salvado’s
Sometime in April 2012, act of issuing worthless checks
complainant yet again engaged not only constituted a violation of
the services of Atty. Divina, who, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P.
with his filing clerk and the 22) or the “Anti-Bouncing Checks
complainant’s family, went to Law,” but also reflected his
Atty. Salvado’s house to depraved character as a lawyer.
personally serve the demand Atty. Salvado not only refused to
letter. A certain “Mark” who comply with his obligation, but
opened the gate told the filing also used his knowledge of the
clerk that Atty. Salvado was no law to evade criminal prosecution.
longer residing there and had He had obviously instructed his
been staying in the province household staff to lie as to his
already whereabouts and to reject any
correspondence sent to him. This
As they were about to leave, a
resort to deceitful ways showed
red vehicle arrived bearing Atty.
that Atty. Salvado was not fit to
Salvado. Complainant quickly
remain as a member of the Bar.
alighted from his vehicle and
Page 3 of 55
 act of making and issuing a
worthless check; that is, a check
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty.
that is dishonored upon its
Salvado violated Canons 1 rule
presentation for payment. The
1.01 and Canons 7 Rule 7.03
thrust of the law is to prohibit,
Ruling: Yes, The Court held that under pain of penal sanctions, the
Atty. Salvado is indeed guilty of making and circulation of
the violation of the Code of worthless checks. Because of its
professional responsibility. The deleterious effects on the public
public is, indeed, inclined to rely interest, the practice is proscribed
on representations made by by the law. Hence, the excuse of
lawyers. As a man of law, a “gullibility and inadvertence”
lawyer is necessarily a leader of deserves scant consideration.
the community, looked up to as a Surely, Atty. Salvado is aware
model citizen. A man, learned in that promoting obedience to the
the law like Atty. Salvado, is Constitution and the laws of the
expected to make truthful land is the primary obligation of
representations when dealing lawyers. When he issued the
with persons, clients or otherwise. worthless checks, he discredited
The Court finds it hard to believe the legal profession and created
that a person like the complainant the public impression that laws
would not find the profession of were mere tools of convenience
the person on whose businesses that could be used, bended and
he would invest as important to abused to satisfy personal whims
consider. Simply put, Atty. and desires.
Salvado’s stature as a member of
The Court cannot overlook Atty.
the Bar had, in one way or
Salvado’s deceiving attempts to
another, influenced complainant’s
evade payment of his obligations.
decision to invest.
Instead of displaying a committed
Secondly, it must be pointed out attitude to his creditor, Atty.
that the denials proffered by Atty. Salvado refused to answer
Salvado cannot belie the dishonor complainant’s demands. He even
of the checks. His strained tried to make the complainant
explanation that the checks were believe that he was no longer
mere securities cannot be residing at his given address.
countenanced. Of all people, These acts demonstrate lack of
lawyers are expected to fully moral character to satisfy the
comprehend the legal import of responsibilities and duties
bouncing checks. B.P. 22 is the imposed on lawyers as
Page 4 of 55
professionals and as officers of complainant made several
the court. The subsequent offers payments to the respondent,
he had made and the eventual including P70,000 on November
sale of his properties to the 23, 2013, P50,000 on December
complainant, unfortunately 4, 2013, P200,000 on January 7,
cannot overturn his acts 2014, and P100,000 on February
unbecoming of a member of the 4, 2014, totaling P420,000. When
Bar. the complainant asked for an
update on the case, the
FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Court
respondent became angry and
finds Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado
made derogatory remarks. The
GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01,
respondent failed to deliver the
Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of the
requested NSO documents and
Code of Professional
stopped going to his office and
Responsibility. Accordingly, the
ignoring the complainant's calls.
Court SUSPENDS him from the
The complainant received a call
practice of law for a period of two
from the respondent asking for
(2) years.
one week to return the amount
received, but the respondent
never contacted him again.
2. Asuncion v. Salvado, A.C. The complainant submitted
No. 13242, July 5, 2022. receipts issued by the
respondent, a Memorandum of
FACTS:
Agreement (MOA) between the
On November 23, 2013, the complainant's mother and the
complainant sought legal respondent, and screenshots of
assistance from the respondent their text messages as evidence.
regarding the annulment of his
The case proceeded to the
mother's previous marriage. The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
respondent charged a total legal
(IBP) for investigation. The IBP
fee of P700,000. They agreed
Board of Governors ordered the
that the complainant would pay
respondent to file an answer, but
50% upfront, amounting to
the respondent did not comply.
P350,000. The respondent
The Investigating Commissioner
promised to contact officials from
sent notices of mandatory
the National Statistics Office
conferences to both parties, but
(NSO) to prepare the necessary
the respondent failed to appear
documents and secure a favorable
on multiple occasions.
judgment within two months. The

Page 5 of 55
Ultimately, neither party filed a In the Resolution dated
position paper, and the September 7, 2019, the IBP
proceedings were terminated due Board of Governors adopted the
to the parties' non-compliance. Commissioner's Report and
Recommendation and suspended
In the Report and
the respondent from the practice
Recommendation dated May 29,
of law for five years.
2017, the IBP Investigating
Commissioner recommended that The respondent filed a motion for
the respondent be found guilty of reconsideration on December 9,
violating Canon 17 and Rules 2019, stating that he did not
18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of receive the orders and notices in
the Code of Professional the present case due to an
Responsibility (CPR) due to his incorrect address. He argued that
infidelity and negligence in he did not receive the balance of
handling his client's concerns. The P350,000, and he questioned the
Commissioner further authenticity of the screenshots of
recommended that the text messages as evidence. He
respondent be suspended from also mentioned that he had
the practice of law for five years. settled his obligations in the
Ereneta case and claimed that the
The Commissioner found that the
dishonor in the Aca case was
respondent failed to deliver the
unintentional and due to failed
requested documents despite
lending transactions. Lastly, he
receiving an aggregate amount of
stated that the complainant was
P350,000. The respondent
no longer interested in pursuing
claimed that the complainant
the case.
failed to pay the full amount, but
the text conversation between the In the Resolution dated March 27,
parties indicated that the balance 2021, the IBP Board of Governors
was indeed received by the denied the respondent's motion
respondent on February 4, 2014. for reconsideration, stating that
there were no new reasons or
The Commissioner also noted that
arguments presented to reverse
the respondent had been involved
the previous resolution.
in similar cases before, such as
the Ereneta case and Aca case,
where he was found guilty of
ISSUE:
violating the CPR.
1. Whether or not Atty. Ronaldo P.
Salvado should be disbarred from

Page 6 of 55
the practice of law due to his revealed Atty. Salvado's promise
violations of the Lawyer's Oath to deliver a favorable judgment
and the Code of Professional annulling a marriage through his
Responsibility (CPR). connections within two months. It
was clear that Atty. Salvado
2. Whether or not the text
planned to use his connections
messages exchanged between
instead of relying on his legal
Atty. Salvado and Mr. Asuncion
skills, thus violating the
were admissible as evidence.
prohibition against influence
peddling.
RULING: Additionally, Atty. Salvado failed
to deliver the promised
1. Yes, The Court found Atty.
decree/decision of annulment,
Salvado guilty of violating several
kept the complainant uninformed
provisions of the CPR, including
about the status of the case, and
the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1
issued a check that was
(upholding the Constitution and
dishonored due to insufficient
obeying the laws), Rules 1.01 and
funds. These actions
1.02 (prohibiting unlawful,
demonstrated his lack of fidelity,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
competence, and diligence
conduct), Canon 13 (relying on
towards his client.
the merits of a cause and
refraining from impropriety that Considering the gravity of the
influences the court), Rule 15.06 violations and Atty. Salvado's past
(prohibiting lawyers from stating disciplinary records, the Court
or implying influence over public imposed the penalty of
officials or tribunals), Canons 17 disbarment. Atty. Salvado's name
and 18 (duty of fidelity, was ordered to be stricken from
competence, and diligence the Roll of Attorneys, effective
towards clients), and Rule 18.04 immediately. He was also directed
(keeping clients informed of case to return the amount paid by the
status and promptly responding complainant within 10 days, with
to requests for information). interest, and provide proof of
payment.
The Court's decision was based
on various pieces of evidence, The decision in Asuncion v.
including text messages Salvado serves as a reminder that
exchanged between Atty. Salvado lawyers must uphold the Lawyer's
and the complainant, Roger D. Oath, abide by the laws and
Asuncion. These text messages ethical standards, and faithfully
Page 7 of 55
serve their clients with 3. JOCELYN G. BARTOLOME
competence and diligence. Failure VS. ATTY. REMIGIO P.
to do so can result in severe ROJASA.C. No. 13226. October
disciplinary consequences, such 04, 2022
as disbarment.
FACTS: According to the
2. Yes, the Court held that the complainant Bartolome, she met
text messages were admissible as with Atty. Rojas, the respondent
evidence under the "best herein, sometime in 2010 wherein
evidence rule." The Court Bartolome shared with Atty. Rojas
explained that the rule requires her brother’s intention to file an
the production of the original annulment case in order to
writing or recording whenever the resolve her marriage. Then
contents of a writing or recording Atty. Rojas introduced to
are sought to be proved. Bartolome that he has a relative
However, the rule allows for the in Cotabato who happened to be
admission of secondary evidence, a presiding judge and might be
such as copies, if the original is able to expedite the case for a fee
lost or destroyed, or if it is in the of 150k. In February 2012, Atty.
custody or control of the adverse Rojas handed to Bartolome a
party. photocopy of the “final decision of
the annulment case. But when
In this case, the text messages
the latter asked for the original
were not the original writings, but
copy, she was informed that it
they were copies of the messages
would be mailed to her and in
stored in the cellular phones of
Iloilo City where her brother got
both parties. The Court held that
married. In January 2013, Atty.
the copies of the text messages
Rojas updated Bartolome that the
were admissible as evidence
National Statistics Office was
because the original messages
about to receive the “Annotation
were not available and the copies
of Marriage.” By april of the same
were in the custody and control of
year, Bartolome requested from
the parties. The Court noted that
the NSO an “Advisory on Marriage
the authenticity of the messages
Document” pertaining to the
was not disputed and that they
dissolved marriage of her brother.
were relevant to the issues in the
However, to her surprise, the NSO
case.
had no record of such annulment
and that her brother was still
lawfully married to his wife. As a
result, Bartolome attempted to
Page 8 of 55
confront Atty. Rojas, but to no disbarment complaint was on
avail. She then sought legal his way. Bartolome’s lawyer (a
assistance from her cousin who cousin), Atty. Balayan, on her
happened to be a lawyer and behalf, met with Atty. Rojas. Atty.
found out that the decision Balayan informed them that they
handed to her was not genuine. are filing against him unless he
Bartolome was fortunately able to pays themP1 Million pesos. Atty.
recover the “paunang bayad” Rojas decided not to accede to
which supposedly was intended the demand of paying P1Million.
for the judge through a demand Atty. Rijas admitted, however,
letter. But the whole ordeal having transgressed the sanctity
caused Bartolome and her brother of the legal profession and
undue stress and anxiety. On apologized but maintained that he
the contrary, according to did so out of his good intention of
the respondent herein Atty. helping Bartolome.
Rojas, the factual narrations
The Investigating Commissioner
of Bartolome were inaccurate.
recommended that Atty. Rojas be
He claimed that he was
meted with the ultimate penalty
scammed or defrauded by a
of disbarment. The IBP Board of
particular Santo who processed
Governors adopted the same
and lodged the annulment
finding of the Investigating
case before the Judge, Indar.
Commissioner but modified the
Upon the rendering of the
penalty of suspension from the
decision of the annulment case
practice of law for 5 years instead
and upon the receipt thereof, he
of disbarment.
was surprised that it was issued
by Judge Alzate and not Judge ISSUE:
Indar that he supposedly
WON Atty. Rojas should be
expected. Atty. Rojas then
disbarred for violating the lawyers
handed the “decision” to
oath and the Code of Professional
Bartolome without disclosing
Responsibility.
to the latter that the
judgment was fabricated and RULING:
explained to her that it would
Yes, Atty. Rojas should be
take time before the “decision” be
disbarred for violating the lawyers
passed to the NSO since it was
oath and the Code of Professional
still being registered before the
Responsibility. Canon 1, Rule 1.01
Local Civil Registry. Later on, Atty
provides that a lawyer shall not
Rojas was informed that a
engage in unlawful, dishonest,

Page 9 of 55
immoral or deceitful conduct. 4. Atty. Herminio Harry
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 also Roque, Jr. vs. Atty. Rizal P.
provides that a lawyer shall not Balbin (A.C. No. 7088,
do any falsehood, nor consent to December 4, 2018)
the doing of any in Court; nor
shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice. FACTS: Complainant alleged that
he was the plaintiff's counsel in a
Applying the laws from the case
case entitled FELMAILEM, Inc. v.
at bar, the fabrication of a judicial
Felma Mailem, docketed as Civil
decision or perpetuation of acts
Case No. 2004-307 before the
leading to such, undeniably
Metropolitan Trial Court of
comes within the prohibited acts
Parañaque City, Branch 77
set by the Code of Professional
(MeTC).
Responsibility. Atty. Rojas actively
and knowingly participated in the Shortly after securing a favorable
procurement of a fake decision in judgment for his client, herein
annulment case and had respondent-as counsel for the
therefore and undoubtedly defendant, and on appeal-started
violated the CPR. He also intimidating, harassing,
committed an unlawful act and blackmailing, and maliciously
disrespected the law and the legal threatening complainant into
processes. He deprived the withdrawing the case filed by his
judiciary of a rightful resolution of client.
the case for annulment and has
According to complainant,
done so in defiance of truth,
respondent would make various
honor, and of the law. Such act
telephone calls and send text
besmirched the legal profession
messages and e-mails not just to
to the highest degree, by making
him, but also to his friends and
mockery of the judicial system.
other clients, threatening to file
He simply violated his sworn oath
disbarment and/or criminal suits
to be honest, to obey the law and
against him. Further, and in view
the Constitution. Therefore, Atty.
of complainant's "high profile"
Rojas should be disbarred for
stature, respondent also
violating the lawyers oath and the
threatened to publicize such suits
Code of Professional
in order to besmirch and/or
Responsibility.
destroy complainant's name and
reputation.

Page 10 of 55
Even after requesting for Case law instructs that "[l]awyers
extension of time, respondent should treat their opposing
failed to file his comment despite counsels and other lawyers with
multiple notices, prompting the courtesy, dignity[,] and civility. A
Court to repeatedly fine him and great part of their comfort, as
even order his arrest.6 To date, well as of their success at the bar,
the orders for respondent's arrest depends upon their relations with
remain unserved and are still their professional brethren. Since
standing. they deal constantly with each
other, they must treat one
another with trust and respect.
ISSUES: Should the verified Any undue ill feeling between
complaint/affidavit dated March clients should not influence
1, 2006 filed before the Court by counsels in their conduct and
complainant Atty. Herminio Harry demeanor toward each other.
L. Roque, Jr. (complainant) Mutual bickering, unjustified
against respondent Atty. Rizal P. recriminations[,] and offensive
Balbin (respondent) praying that behavior among lawyers not only
the latter be subjected to detract from the dignity of the
disciplinary action for his alleged legal profession, but also
unprofessional conduct be constitute highly unprofessional
granted? conduct subject to disciplinary
action."
Whether or not respondent should
be administratively sanctioned for He also violated Canon 19 and
the acts complained of. Rule 19.01 of the CPR. In Aguilar-
Dyquiangco v. Arellano,17 the
Court held:
HELD: Yes.
Canon 19 of the Code of
Canon 8 of the CPR commands, Professional Responsibility states
to wit: that "a lawyer shall represent his
client with zeal within the bounds
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct
of the law," reminding legal
himself with courtesy, fairness
practitioners that a lawyer's duty
and candor towards his
is not to his client but to the
professional colleagues, and shall
administration of justice; to that
avoid harassing tactics against
end, his client's success is wholly
opposing counsel.
subordinate; and his conduct
ought to and must always be

Page 11 of 55
scrupulously observant of law and CANON 11 - A lawyer shall
ethics. In particular, Rule 19.01 observe and maintain the respect
commands that a "lawyer shall due to the courts and to judicial
employ only fair and honest officers and should insist on
means to attain the lawful similar conduct by others.
objectives of his client and shall
not pr sent, participate in
presenting or threaten to present xxxx
unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding." Under CANON 12 - A lawyer shall exert
this Rule, a lawyer should not file every effort and consider it his
or threaten to file any unfounded duty to assist in the speedy and
or baseless criminal case or cases efficient administration of justice.
against the adversaries of his
client designed to secure a
leverage to compel the xxxx
adversaries to yield or withdraw
their own cases against the
lawyer's client. (Emphasis and Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not,
underscoring supplied) after obtaining extensions of time
to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse
To aggravate further respondent's without submitting the same or
administrative liability, the Court offering an explanation for his
notes that respondent initially failure to do so.
moved for an extension of time to
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not
tile comment but did not file the
unduly delay a case, impede the
same) prompting the Court to
execution of a judgment or
repeatedly fine him and order his
misuse Court processes.
arrest. Such audacity on the part
of respondent - which caused DISPOSITIVE: Atty. Rizal P. Balbin
undue delay in the resolution of is found guilty of violating Canon
this administrative case - is a 8, Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule
violation of Canon 11, Canon 12, 12.03, Rule 12.04, Canon 19, and
Rule 12.03, and Rule 12.04 of the Rule 19.01 of the Code of
CPR, which respectively read: Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of

Page 12 of 55
law for a period of two (2) years, child, Billy John, in 2000.
effective immediately upon his Gradually, Atty. Teoxon failed to
receipt of this Decision. He is provide suppport for Timbaga and
STERNLY WARNED their chld, leading to disputes.
Until complainant seeks legal
assistance from city authorities in
5. November 21, 2017s March 2001 due to lack of
A.C. No. 5573 / GIZALE O. financial support and eventually
TUMBAGA, Complainant left the apartment. One day,
vs. ATTY. MANUEL P. TEOXON, respondent together with his wife
Respondent and SWAT went to complainant’s
house claming his personal
belongngs from the apartment
DOCTRINE:
and threatening Tumbaga. The
The ruling reinforces that lawyers altercation was recorded in a
must maintain a high standard of police blotter.
moral conduct, highlighting the
consequences of immoral
behavior relative to their The IBP Commission on Bar
profession's integrity. Discipline issues a
recommendation for a two-year
suspension in November 2008.
FACTS: The IBP Board of Governors
Complainant Gizale O. Tumbaga increases the suspension
meets Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon in recommendation to three years
September 1999 for legal advice on February 19, 2009. The
while he was serving as the City Supreme Court renders its
Legal Officer. The relationship decision on November 21, 2017.
evolves with Teoxon visiting
complainant regularly and
ISSUE:
expressing interest in her family,
ans assuring the compainant that WON Atty. Teoxon guilty of gross
his marriage with his wife is a immorality.
sham.

RULING:
Complainant moves into Puncia
YES. Teoxon is guilty of gross
Apartment with Teoxon on
immorality. The Court references
December 19, 1999 and they had

Page 13 of 55
Advincula v. Advincula, or suspension, including grossly
emphasizing that good moral immoral conduct.
character must be maintained by
lawyers throughout their careers:
It was established that Atty.
Teoxon failed to prove his defense
The good moral conduct or successfully. He could not provide
character must be possessed by proof to support his assertions
lawyers at the time of their that the complainant was
application for admission to the extorting money from him. The
Bar, and must be maintained until Court concluded that Atty. Teoxon
retirement from the practice of was liable for having illicit
law. In this regard, the Code of relations with the complainant.
Professional Responsibility states: However, the evidence was
insufficient to establish whether
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
he was the father of the
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
complainant's second child, Billy
immoral or deceitful conduct.
John.
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all
times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and The Court's previous rulings, such
support the activities of the as in Samaniego v. Ferrer,
Integrated Bar. classified illicit relations as
disgraceful and subject to
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not
disciplinary action. The Court
engage in conduct that adversely
noted that penalties could range
reflects on his fitness to practice
from disbarment to suspension.
law, nor should he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the
In Ferancullo v.Ferancullo, Jr., a
discredit of the legal profession.
two-year suspension was deemed
adequate for a lawyer guilty of
gross immorality without
The Court stresses that every
aggravating circumstances. The
lawyer is expected to exemplify
Court now discussed the reasons
good moral character in both
for imposing a stricter penalty on
public and private life. Section 27,
Atty. Teoxon. Here the Court took
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
into account Atty. Teoxon's
outlines grounds for disbarment
attempts to deceive the courts

Page 14 of 55
and the Integrated Bar of the along with Randy Simbulan and
Philippines (IBP) concerning his Ramil Vendibil, was charged with
relationship with the complainant, highway robbery and multiple
leading to their decision for a rape. The complainant, Corazon
three-year suspension. Hernandez, was robbed of ₱60.00
and raped by the accused.
Liwanag was represented by
WHEREFORE, the Court finds
counsel de officio – Atty. William
respondent Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon
T. Uy of the PAO. In the middle of
GUILTY of gross immorality and is
the trial, Liwanag retained the
hereby SUSPENDED from the
services of counsel de parte Atty.
practice of law for a period of
Bienvenio R. Brioso replacing
three (3) years effective upon
Atty. Uy. After the trial court
notice hereof, with a STERN
conviction, Atty Brioso filed the
WARNING that a repetition of the
Notice of Appeal but Atty Brioso
same or similar offense shall be
failed to file the appellant’s brief
punished with a more severe
because of the refusal of
penalty.
Liwanag’s mother to transmit the
entire records of the case to him.
Upon Liwanag’s failure to reply as
6. G.R. No. 120468. August
to whether he still desire to be
15, 2001.
represented by Atty Brioso, Atty
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Francis Ed Lim was appointed
plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOPE counsel de officio.
LIWANAG y BUENAVENTURA,
The trial court found Liwanag
SANDY SIMBULAN y GARCIA
guilty.
and RAMIL VENDIBIL y
CASTRO, accused. LOPE Liwanag argues among others
LIWANAG y BUENAVENTURA, that his right to be heard thru his
accused-appellant. counsel means that he should be
effectively assisted by counsel
Doctrine: The proper measure of
throughout the proceedings, from
attorney performance remains
the time he was arrested up to
simply reasonableness under
the time the judgement is
prevailing professional norms.
rendered. He claims that the
Facts: assistance extended to him by his
former counsel was ineffective
On April 27, 1992, in Parañaque,
such that:
Metro Manila, Lope Liwanag,

Page 15 of 55
he was arrested without warrant, provisions of the Rules of Court,
thus his right against the Code of Professional
unreasonable searches and Responsibility and the Canons of
seizure was violated – counsel de Professional Ethics. In Philippine
officio should have contested this judicial setting, a counsel
assisting an accused is presumed
he was deprived of his right to
to be providing all the necessary
preliminary investigation, that
legal defense which are
had his counsel de officio been
reasonable under the
effective, he should have filed the
circumstances in accordance with
proper motion on his behalf
said norms.
he was deprived of his right to
Section 20 of Rule 138 of the
bail, that had his counsel de
Rules of Court:
officio been effective, he would
have filed the proper motion Sec. 20. Duties of attorneys.—It
is the duty of an attorney: x x x
the private complainant, as well
xxx xxx
as prosecution witnesses SPO1
Armando P. Sevilla and Editha (c)To counsel or maintain such
Hernandez, were hardly cross- actions or proceedings only as
examined, while Dra. Louella appear to him to be just, and
Nario was not cross-examined at such defenses only as he believes
all. to be honestly debatable under
the law;
Issue:
(d)To employ, for the purpose of
Whether or not Liwanag was
maintaining the causes confided
deprived of his right to be heard
to him, such means only as are
thru his counsel.
consistent with truth and honor,
Ruling: and never seek to mislead the
judge or any judicial officer by an
No.
artifice or false statement of fact
While fairness is likewise the or law;
object of Article III, Section 14
xxx xxx xxx
(2) of the Philippine Constitution,
the assistance afforded by (h)Never to reject, for any
counsel to an accused in light of consideration personal to himself,
the Philippine constitutional the cause of the defenseless or
requirement need only be in oppressed;
accordance with the pertinent

Page 16 of 55
(i)In the defense of a person A lawyer may be disbarred for
accused of crime, by all fair and gross misconduct, including
honorable means, regardless of influence-peddling, dishonest
his personal opinion as to the handling of client funds, and
guilt of the accused, to present engaging in deceitful conduct.
every defense that the law The existence of an attorney-
permits, to the end that no client relationship is not
person may be deprived of life or contingent upon a formal retainer
liberty, but by due process of law. agreement but can be established
through actions and behavior.
The proper measure of attorney
Lawyers are bound by the Code of
performance remains simply
Professional Responsibility (CPR)
reasonableness under prevailing
to act with honesty, integrity, and
professional norms.
accountability, and any failure to
In this case, the alleged failures uphold these ethical standards
of the counsel to safeguard his can result in disbarment.
rights from the time he was
Facts:
arrested up to the time he was
sentenced and the alleged Atty. Carlo Marco Bautista was
inadequacies in the direct and the subject of a disbarment
cross-examinations of prosecution complaint filed by Mr. Ryan Lim.
witnesses were ultimately Lim alleged that Bautista received
inconsequential to the eventual substantial sums of money from
outcome of the case. If at all, the him under the pretense of
outcome was the result of the providing legal services. Lim
strength of the prosecution issued two checks to Bautista—
evidence rather than the failures one for ₱13,500,000.00 and
and inadequacies in the conduct another for ₱200,000.00.
of the defense. According to Lim, the payments
were made to secure favorable
resolutions in legal cases through
7. A.C. No. 13468 (Formerly bribes to prosecutors and judges.
CBD Case No. 17-5379).
Bautista denied the existence of
February 21, 2023 RYAN
an attorney-client relationship,
ANTHONY O. LIM, VS. ATTY.
claiming that the money was
CARLO MARCO BAUTISTA
entrusted to him merely for
Doctrine: safekeeping. He argued that the
checks were issued for
safekeeping and that no legal
Page 17 of 55
services were rendered. Bautista Yes.
admitted to handling personal
The Code of Professional
legal matters for Lim, such as
Responsibility provides under
giving legal advice regarding
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, lawyers
Lim's personal and family legal
shall not engage in unlawful,
concerns, but contended that
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
these interactions did not
conduct; Rule 16.01 of Canon
constitute a formal attorney-client
16, lawyers shall account for all
relationship.
money or property collected from
Lim, however, contended that clients and Rule 16.04 of Canon
Bautista had acted as his legal 16, lawyers shall not borrow
counsel on numerous occasions. money from their clients unless
He also presented evidence, the client's interests are fully
including the issuance of checks protected.
payable to Bautista, which
Here, Atty. Bautista's disbarment
indicated that Bautista had
was based on his violations of the
solicited money from him under
said provisions. Under Rule 1.01,
the guise of providing legal
Canon 1, lawyers are prohibited
assistance, particularly to bribe
from engaging in unlawful,
public officials.
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
The Integrated Bar of the conduct, which Atty. Bautista
Philippines (IBP), through its breached by mishandling funds
Investigating Commissioner and entrusted to him by his client.
Board of Governors (BOG), found Rule 16.01, Canon 16 requires
Bautista administratively liable, lawyers to account for all money
recommending indefinite collected from clients, and Atty.
suspension. Hence, this Bautista’s failure to properly
administrative case. account for the ₱13,500,000
given to him by his client further
Issue:
violated this duty. Additionally,
Whether Atty. Carlo Marco under Rule 16.04, Canon 16,
Bautista should be disbarred for lawyers are prohibited from
engaging in dishonest conduct, borrowing money from clients
mishandling client funds, and unless the client's interests are
violating the Code of Professional fully protected, which Atty.
Responsibility Bautista failed to do when he
borrowed ₱300,000 from his
Ruling:
client without any form of written

Page 18 of 55
security or agreement. His they are dealing with their clients
actions reflected dishonesty, a or the public at large, and a
lack of integrity, and unethical violation of the high moral
conduct, all of which breached his standards of the legal profession
obligations under the CPR. As justifies the imposition of the
such, the Supreme Court found appropriate penalty, including
his misconduct sufficiently serious suspension and disbarment.
to warrant the penalty of
disbarment as his actions
demonstrated a complete FACTS:
disregard for the moral and
Manalang engaged the services of
ethical standards expected of a
Atty. Buendia for the declaration
lawyer.
of nullity of his marriage. Atty.
Buendia promised that he can
hastened the proceedings.
8. MANALANG V. BUENDIA,
Manalang hesitated at first, but
A.C. No. 12079, November 10,
Atty. Buendia assured him that
2020
everything was legal. Thus, an
agreement was made. However,
when Manalang followed up on
DOCTRINE:
the status of the case, there were
As members of the legal problems in expediting the
profession, lawyers are bound to resolution of the case. Manalang
respect and uphold the law at all tried to contact Atty. Buendia to
times. follow-up his case but she never
answered his calls. Manalang also
Rule 1.01 of the Code of
visited Atty. Buendia's office three
Professional Responsibility states
times but she was always
that "a lawyer shall not engage in
unavailable.
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct." As such, Then again, Manalang tried to
membership in the legal contact Atty. Buendia but to no
profession is a privilege that is avail. Atty. Buendia messaged
bestowed upon individuals who Manalang to say the annulment
are not only learned in law, but case was finally resolved and the
are also known to possess good decision was already available.
moral character. Lawyers must However, Manalang remained
conduct themselves beyond doubtful of his case being filed
reproach at all times, whether

Page 19 of 55
because he was never furnished a Any act or omission that is
copy of the decision. contrary to, prohibited or
unauthorized by, in defiance of,
When Manalang inspected the
disobedient to, or disregards the
decision, he observed that it
law is "unlawful." "Unlawful"
contained fabricated details
conduct does not necessarily
regarding his marriage, such as
imply the element of criminality
physical violence allegedly
although the concept is broad
inflicted on him. He also noticed
enough to include such element.
that the facts therein were
different from what he had To be "dishonest" means the
narrated to Atty. Buendia. These disposition to lie, cheat, deceive,
made him doubt the veracity of defraud or betray; be
the documents. This made untrustworthy; lacking in
Manalang go to Ballesteros, integrity, honesty, probity,
Cagayan to find out the status of integrity in principle, fairness and
his case. There, he learned that straightforwardness. On the other
there was "absolutely no case hand, conduct that is "deceitful"
filed for the dissolution of his means as follows: “Having the
marriage." proclivity for fraudulent and
deceptive misrepresentation,
artifice or device that is used
ISSUE: upon another who is ignorant of
the true facts, to the prejudice
Whether respondent shall be
and damage of the party imposed
disbarred.
upon. In order to be deceitful, the
person must either have
knowledge of the falsity or acted
RULING:
in reckless and conscious
Yes. Respondent found guilty. ignorance thereof, especially if
the parties are not on equal
terms, and was done with the
In dealing with clients, Canon 1 of intent that the aggrieved party
the Code of Professional act thereon, and the latter indeed
Responsibility states that a lawyer acted in reliance of the false
shall uphold the law and promote statement or deed in the manner
respect for law and the legal contemplated to his injury.”
processes.
As members of the legal
profession, lawyers are bound to

Page 20 of 55
respect and uphold the law at all illegitimate children with
times. They must be honest with them
their dealings, especially with o He failed to give regular
respect to their clients. support to complainant
and their children, thus
forcing complainant to
9. A.C. No. work abroad to provide
6486 September 22, for their children’s needs
2004 • Emma pointed out that these
EMMA T. DANTES, complainant, acts of respondent constitute a
vs. ATTY. CRISPIN G. violation of his lawyer’s oath
DANTES, respondent and his moral and legal
obligation to be a role model to
In this jurisdiction too, good the community.
moral character is not only a • Crispin in his defense alleged
condition precedent to the that:
practice of law, but an unending o they have mutually
requirement for all the members agreed to separate
of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer eighteen (18) years
is found guilty of grossly immoral before, after Emma had
conduct, he may be suspended or abandoned him in their
disbarred residence
FACTS o When Emma returned
after eighteen years, she
• June 6, 2001 Emma T. Dantes, insisted that she be
sought the disbarment of her accommodated in the
husband, Atty. Crispin G. place where he and their
Dantes children were residing.
o on the ground of Thus, he was forced to
immorality, live alone in a rented
abandonment, and apartment.
violation of professional o He sent their children to
ethics and law the best school he could
• Emma alleged that Crispin is: afford and provided for
o a philander, that he’s their needs. He even
engaged in illicit bought two lots in
relationships with two Pampanga for his sons,
women, one after the Dandelo and Dante, and
other, and had gave complainant

Page 21 of 55
 adequate financial unlawful, dishonest,
support even after she immoral or deceitful
had abandoned him conduct. Immoral conduct has
o asserted that Emma filed been defined as that conduct
this case in order to force which is so willful, flagrant,
him to remit seventy or shameless as to show
percent (70%) of his indifference to the opinion
monthly salary to her. of good and respectable
• IBP conducted its investigation members of the
and hearings on the complaint community. To be the basis of
• Emma presented disciplinary action, the lawyer’s
documentary evidence conduct must not only be
consisting of the birth immoral, but grossly immoral.
certificates of Ray Darwin, That is, it must be so corrupt
Darling, and Christian Dave, all as to constitute a criminal act
surnamed Dantes, and the or so unprincipled as to be
affidavits of respondent and reprehensible to a high
his paramour to prove the fact degree or committed under
that respondent sired three such scandalous or revolting
illegitimate children out of his circumstances as to shock the
illicit affairs with two different common sense of decency.
women. Letters of • It should be noted that the
complainant’s legitimate requirement of good moral
children likewise support the character has three
allegation that respondent is a ostensible purposes,
womanizer. namely:
• IBP recommended that the o (i) to protect the public;
respondent be suspended o (ii) to protect the public
indefinitely from the practice of image of lawyers; and
law. o (iii) to protect
prospective clients.
ISSUE
o A writer added a fourth:
• WON Atty. Crispin violates to protect errant lawyers
Professional Ethics and Law from themselves.
• Undoubtedly, respondent’s
HELD/RULING
acts of engaging in illicit
• The Code of Professional relationships with two
Responsibility forbids different women during the
lawyers from engaging in subsistence of his marriage

Page 22 of 55
 to the complainant MARIA LOURDES P. A.
constitutes grossly immoral SERENO, RESPONDENT.
conduct warranting the
imposition appropriate
sanctions. Complainant’s DOCTRINE:
testimony, taken in conjunction
“Proven integrity” is an essential
with the documentary
qualification for membership in
evidence, sufficiently
the Judiciary, and failure to
established respondent’s
comply with the requirement of
commission of marital infidelity
filing SALNs can be a ground to
and immorality. Evidently,
challenge the validity of an
respondent had breached
appointment.
the high and exacting moral
standards set for members
of the law profession. He
FACTS:
has made a mockery of
marriage which is a sacred Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno was
institution demanding appointed Chief Justice of the
respect and dignity Supreme Court of the Philippines
• In the present case, the by then-President Benigno S.
seriousness of the offense Aquino III in 2012. Prior to her
compels the Court to wield its appointment to the Supreme
power to disbar as it appears Court, Sereno served as a faculty
to be the most appropriate member of the University of the
penalty. WHEREFORE, in view Philippines College of Law and as
of the foregoing Atty. Crispin legal counsel in various
G. Dantes is government agencies, including
hereby DISBARRED and his serving as legal counsel for the
name is ORDERED Republic in international
STRICKEN from the Roll of arbitrations.
Attorneys
The Republic of the Philippines,
represented by Solicitor General
Jose C. Calida, filed a quo
10. [ G.R. No. 237428, May 11,
warranto petition before the
2018]
Supreme Court seeking to declare
REPUBLIC OF THE the appointment of Sereno as
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED Chief Justice void. The basis for
BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE the petition was the alleged
C. CALIDA, PETITIONER, VS. failure of Sereno to file her

Page 23 of 55
Statements of Assets, Liabilities, Constitutional qualification of
and Net Worth (SALNs) required integrity.
for government positions. These
filings were for the period when
she was a professor at the UP RULING:
College of Law and while
NO. The filing a SALN is an
employed as legal counsel for the
essential requirement to one's
government.
assumption of a public post. It
The Solicitor General argued that has Constitutional, legal and
Sereno’s failure to file and submit jurisprudential bases.
her SALNs demonstrated a lack of
To recapitulate, Section 7, Article
integrity, making her ineligible to
VIII of the Constitution requires
hold the position of Chief Justice.
that a member of the Judiciary
The petition was anchored on the
must be of proven integrity. To be
notion that “proven integrity” is
of proven integrity means that
an indispensable requirement for
the applicant must have
appointment to the Judiciary as
established a steadfast adherence
mandated by the Constitution of
to moral and ethical principles.
the Philippines.
The necessity of having integrity
Sereno countered that, as an
among the members of the
impeachable officer, she can only
judiciary is clearly discussed in
be removed through the
the Commentary on the
impeachment process provided by
Bangalore Principles of Judicial
the Constitution, and that the
Conduct:
remedy of quo warranto is
inapplicable. Integrity is the attribute of
rectitude and righteousness. The
The case that led to the ouster of
components of integrity are
Sereno from the position of Chief
honesty and judicial morality. A
Justice involved a series of legal
judge should always, not only in
maneuverings initiated by the
the discharge of official duties,
Office of the Solicitor General.
act honourably and in a manner
befitting the judicial office; be
free from fraud, deceit and
ISSUE:
falsehood; and be good and
Whether or not the filing of SALNs virtuous in behaviour and in
bear no relation to the character. There are no degrees
of integrity as so defined.

Page 24 of 55
Integrity is absolute. In the must comply and not offer
judiciary, integrity is more than a excuses. When a public officer is
virtue; it is a necessity. unable or unwilling to comply, he
or she must not assume office in
Failure to file the SALN is clearly a
the first place, or if already
violation of the law. The offense is
holding one, he or she must
penal in character and is a clear
vacate that public office because
breach of the ethical standards
it is the correct and honorable
set for public officials and
thing to do. A public officer who
employees. It disregards the
ignores, trivializes or disrespects
requirement of transparency as a
Constitutional and legal
deterrent to graft and corruption.
provisions, as well as the canons
For these reasons, a public official
of ethical standards, forfeits his or
who has failed to comply with the
her right to hold and continue in
requirement of filing the SALN
that office.
cannot be said to be of proven
integrity and the Court may WHEREFORE, the Petition
consider him/her disqualified from for Quo Warranto is GRANTED.
holding public office. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A.
Sereno is
In this case, it was found that
found DISQUALIFIED from and
respondent is ineligible to hold
is hereby adjudged GUILTY of
the Chief Justice of the Supreme
UNLAWFULLY HOLDING
Court position for lack of integrity
and EXERCISING the OFFICE
on account of her failure to file a
OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
substantial number of SALNs and
Accordingly, Respondent Maria
also, her failure to submit the
Lourdes P. A. Sereno
required SALNs to the JBC during
is OUSTED and EXCLUDED there
her application for the position.
from.

Again, one of the Constitutional

11. A.C. No. 12883 (2021)
duties of a public officer is to
submit a declaration under oath ENRICO R. VELASCO,
of his or her assets, liabilities, and COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
net worth upon assumption of BERTENI C. CAUSING,
office and as often thereafter as RESPONDENT.
may be required by law. When
FACTS:
the Constitution and the law
exact obedience, public officers

Page 25 of 55
Enrico Velasco filed a disbarment breaching the confidentiality of
complaint against Atty. Berteni family court proceedings and
Causing, who represented using offensive language in his
Velasco's estranged wife in a Facebook posts regarding a
nullity of marriage case. Atty. pending nullity case. The Court
Causing posted defamatory held that while lawyers have the
comments on Facebook, calling right to free speech, it is not
Velasco a "polygamous" husband absolute and must be exercised
and revealing confidential details within the bounds of their ethical
from the nullity case, including a duties. Atty. Causing's actions,
copy of Velasco's petition. The which included publishing
post was shared widely, eliciting confidential information and
negative public reactions against derogatory statements about the
Velasco. Atty. Causing defended complainant, violated his
his actions by claiming his right to professional obligations.
free speech as a "journalist- Consequently, he was suspended
blogger" and a spokesperson for from the practice of law for one
his client. The Integrated Bar of year and sternly warned that any
the Philippines found that Atty. similar future misconduct would
Causing violated ethical rules, result in harsher penalties.
leading to his suspension from
practicing law for one year.
12. [ A.C. No. 12883 (Formerly
ISSUE:
CBD Case No. 16-5016), March
Whether Atty. Causing should be 02, 2021 ]
held administratively liable for
ENRICO R. VELASCO,
publishing the subject post and
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
photographs of complainant's
BERTENI C. CAUSING,
petition in the nullity case in his
RESPONDENT.
Facebook accounts.

Facts:
RULING:
Complainant Enrico R. Velasco
(Enrico) files a verifed complaint
The Supreme Court ruled that for disbarment against Atty.
Atty. Berteni Causing was guilty Berteni C. Causing (Atty.
of violating the Code of Causing), counsel of Nina Ricci
Professional Responsibility by Narvaez Laudato (Nina) in a

Page 26 of 55
declaration of nullity case against Issue:
the complainant, before the IBP
Whether or not Atty. Causing
for violation of the Code of
should be held administratively
Professional
liable for publishing the subject
Responsibility(CPR).The
post and photographs of
Complaint stemmed from a
complainant's petition in the
Facebook post authored by Atty.
nullity case in his Facebook
Causing titled "WISE
accounts.
POLYGAMOUS HUSBAND?” of
which he shared not only to a
public Facebook Group containing
Held:
3,500 members but also to the
complainant’s son Jomel. Said Yes, Atty. Causing is
post is reported to have contained administratively liable.
details about the aforementioned
declaration of nullity case which is
still pending and very much A lawyer is not allowed to divide
confidential, as well as verbal jabs his personality as an attorney at
against the complainant wherein one time and a mere citizen at
he used such terms as another. Regardless of whether a
“polygamous”, “criminal”, lawyer is representing his client in
“dishonest”, “arrogance”, court, acting as a supposed
“disgusting”, and “cheater”, spokesperson outside of it, or is
among others. In his defense, merely practicing his right to
while hypothetically admitting press freedom as a "journalist-
that he indeed published the blogger, “his duties to the society
subject post with photographs of and his ethical obligations as a
complainant's petition in the member of the bar remain
nullity case in Facebook and unchanged.
thereafter sent a link of the post
to complainant’s son. In his
defense, Atty. Causing invokes his In particular, the CPR provides:
rights to freedom of expression
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall
and of the press and argues that
uphold the constitution, obey the
he was merely acting as a
laws of the land :md promote
"spokesman- lawyer" and a
respect for law and legal
"journalist-blogger" when he
processes.
published the subject post.
xxxx

Page 27 of 55
Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, manner, of the records of Family
in his professional dealings, use Court cases. This is, in itself, a
language which is abusive, breach of his duties under Canon
offensive or otherwise improper. 1 as well as Canon 13 and Rule
13.02 of the CPR as the subject
xxxx
post not only disclosed
CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely confidential information regarding
upon the merits of his cause and the nullity case, but also included
refrain from any impropriety his own, strongly-worded opinion
which tends to influence, or gives regarding complainant's character
the appearance of influencing the and the circumstances
court. surrounding the case. He also
violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR
Rule 13.02 — A lawyer shall not
through his use of undignifed and
make public statements in the
disrespectful language.
media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion
for or against a party.
Atty. Berteni C. Causing is
xxxx found guilty of violating Canon 1,
Rule 8.01, Canon 13, Rule 13.02,
CANON 19 — A lawyer shall
Canon 19, and Rule 19.01 of the
represent his client with zeal
Code of Professional
within the bounds of the law.
Responsibility. Thus, the Court
Rule 19.01 — A lawyer shall deems it proper to suspend Atty.
employ only fair and honest Causing from the practice of law
means to attain the lawful for a period of one (1) year with a
objectives of his client and shall stem warning that a repetition of
not present, participate in the same or similar act shall be
presenting or threaten to present dealt with more severely.
unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding. 13. A.C. No. 10498 (2018)
JUDGE ARIEL FLORENTINO R.
DUMLAO, JR., COMPLAINANT,
Here, Atty. Causing had clearly
VS. ATTY. MANUEL N.
violated Sec. 1221 of Republic Act
CAMACHO, RESPONDENT.
No. 8369, or the Family Courts
Act of 1997, which prohibits the
publication or disclosure, in any
DOCTRINE

Page 28 of 55
All lawyers are bound to uphold Leonen were his colleagues and
the dignity and authority of the close friends.
courts, and to promote
RTC granted Pathways’ motion for
confidence in the fair
summary judgment. Defendants
administration of justice. It is the
in that case filed a notice of
respect for the courts that
appeal before the RTC.
guarantees the stability of the
judicial institution; elsewise, the Respondent then started to call
institution would be resting on a complainant and even promised
very shaky foundation. Hence, no to share a portion of his
matter how passionate a lawyer is attorney’s fees with complainant
towards defending his client's in exchange for the denial of the
cause, he must not forget to notice of appeal and the issuance
display the appropriate decorum of the writ of execution. He also
expected of him, being a member threatened complainant that if the
of the legal profession, and to offer is refused, he will file a
continue to afford proper and disbarment case against
utmost respect due to the courts. complainant. Respondent
declared that the case of
FACTS
Pathways was closely monitored
Complainant is the Presiding by the named SC Justices and he
Judge of RTC Dagupan where the insisted that a portion of the
case Pathways v. Univet judgment would be donated to
Agricultural Products was the UP Law Center. He also stated
pending. Respondent is Pathways’ that then President Aquino would
counsel. supposedly appoint him as a
Presidential Legal Consultant.
Complainant alleged that while
the case was pending, respondent RTC denied defendants’ notice of
attempted to fraternize him. appeal. RTC issued a Certificate of
Respondent mentioned his Finality and a Writ of Execution.
closeness to Justices of the SC. On the very same morning that
He also tried to impress the writ of execution was issued,
complainant with his influence by respondent went to the RTC
dropping names of notables and together with the representatives
his connection with UP Law, of Pathways. He demanded Court
where he served as a professor. Sheriff Nabua to go with them
Respondent told him that then CJ and serve the writ of execution at
Sereno and Associate Justice the office of defendants.

Page 29 of 55
On May 22, 2014, at around 8:30 hindi niya pipirmahan ito,
in the morning, respondent tutuluyan ko dismissal nito."
barged into complainant's
Complainant received several text
chambers and demanded that he
messages from respondent: (1)
order the court sheriff to sign the
Judge call me you will be involved
Garnishment Order, which
in the in some of sheriff. He says
respondent himself prepared.
its all your idea. (2) You are guilty
Complainant, who was preparing
as your sheriff of antigraft. Call
for his scheduled hearings for the
me I explain (3) Ok don’t blame
day, peremptorily dismissed
me (4) On Monday you will
respondent and told him to talk
receive two pleading 1 for
instead to Sheriff Nabua.
supreme court 2 for antigraft.
Consequently, Sheriff Nabua
IBP Commissioner found
justifiably refused to sign the
recommended respondent the
document prepared by
ultimate penalty of disbarment
respondent. He explained that
because it was not his first
since defendants offered their
infraction. IBP Board reduced the
personal property for satisfaction
penalty to suspension from the
of the writ of execution, the
practice of law for 6 months.
enforcement of the notice of
garnishment must be held in ISSUES
abeyance pursuant to the
1. WON respondent is guilty of
prescribed procedure under
influence peddling and
Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of
attempted bribery.
Court. Thereafter, respondent
said the following statements to 2. WON respondent is guilty of
Sheriff Nabua: "Kapag hindi mo threatening court officers
pipirmahan ito, papatanggal kita," and disrespecting court
"Alam ng nasa itaas ito," "Alam processes.
ng dalawang Justices ito." As
RULING
respondent was making a scene,
complainant went out of his 1. YES.
chamber and tried to pacify him.
A lawyer is duty-bound to actively
He told respondent to just leave
avoid any act that tends to
the document he prepared and let
influence, or may be seen to
Sheriff Nabua review the same.
influence, the outcome of an
Respondent agreed to leave the
ongoing case, lest the people’s
document and uttered, "Kung
faith in the judicial process is

Page 30 of 55
diluted. The primary duty of Pathways was closely monitored
lawyers is not to their clients but by the said Supreme Court
to the administration of justice. Justices. He also stated that then
To that end, their clients’ success President Aquino III would
is wholly subordinate. Any means, supposedly appoint him as the
not honorable, fair and honest Presidential Legal Consultant.
which is resorted to by the Verily, respondent consistently
lawyer, even in the pursuit of his applied his influence peddling
devotion to his client's cause, is scheme in order to persuade
condemnable and unethical. complainant to rule in favor of
his client.
A lawyer that approaches a judge
to try to gain influence and He also related to complainant
receive a favorable outcome for that he would share a portion of
his or her client violates Canon his attorney's fees with
13. Rule 13.01 provides that, a complainant in exchange for the
lawyer shall not extend issuance of the writ of execution
extraordinary attention or and the denial of the notice of
hospitality to, nor seek appeal filed by defendants. He
opportunity for cultivating also insisted that a portion of the
familiarity with Judges. judgment would be donated to
the U.P. Law Center. Evidently,
On the other hand, bribery is
this constitutes attempted bribery
classified as a serious charge that
or corruption of public officers on
constitutes malfeasance in office.
the part of respondent as he
A lawyer who commits attempted
offered monetary consideration in
bribery, or corruption of public
exchange for a favorable ruling.
offcials, against a judge or a court
personnel, violates Canon 10 and Likewise, respondent barged in
Rule 10.01. the chamber of complainant and
required Sheriff Nabua to sign the
In this case, respondent
garnishment order he prepared,
fraternized with complainant and
he again gave an impression that
gave an impression that he was
he would be able to dismiss
an inuence peddler. He tried to
Sheriff Nabua because of his
impress complainant with his
inuence with the higher
inuence by dropping names of
authorities.
two Justices of the Supreme
Court, who were supposedly his Respondent also sent several text
colleagues and close friends. He messages to complainant stating
declared that the case of that the latter and Sheriff Nabua
Page 31 of 55
are guilty of graft and that they In this case, while defendants'
will receive pleadings from the notice of appeal was pending
Supreme Court. before the sala of complainant,
respondent called him.
By implying that he can inuence
Respondent said that if the notice
Supreme Court Justices to
of appeal is not denied, he would
advocate for his cause,
file a disbarment case against
respondent trampled upon the
complainant and insinuated that,
integrity of the judicial system
through his connections with the
and eroded confidence in the
Court, the complainant was sure
judiciary. As such, respondent
to be disbarred. Then, on May 22,
violated Canon 13, Rule 13.01,
2014, respondent barged into
Canon 10, and Canon 10.01.
complainant's chambers, fully
2. YES. aware that he had a pending case
before complainant's sala, and
Under Canon 19 and Rule 19.01,
demanded he order the court
a lawyer should not file or
sheriff to sign the garnishment
threaten to file any unfounded
order, which respondent himself
or baseless criminal case or cases
prepared.
against the adversaries of his
client designed to secure leverage Instead of respecting the court
to compel the adversaries to yield processes, respondent blatantly
or withdraw their own cases seized for himself the execution
against the lawyer's client. of the judgment by drafting his
own version of the order of
Further, all lawyers are bound to
garnishment and demanded that
uphold the dignity and authority
Sheriff Nabua sign it.
of the courts, and to promote
confidence in the fair Furthermore, Respondent was
administration of justice. Also, a given several opportunities to
lawyer must not disrespect the refute the charges against him
officers of the court. Disrespect to but he neither submitted his
judicial incumbents is disrespect comment before the Court,
to that branch of the government despite due notice, nor attended
to which they belong, as well as the mandatory conference in the
to the State which has instituted IBP.
the judicial system. A lawyer who
As such, the acts of respondent
disrespects the court and its
are palpably irregular and
officers violates Canon 11 and
disrespectful to the court and its
Canon 11.03.
officers. Respondent had the gall
Page 32 of 55
to barge into the chambers of a The Investigating Commissioner
judge and threaten his court found Atty. Diño guilty of violating
personnel. For his wanton Canon 1, Rule 1.017 of the Code
disregard of the good conduct of Professional Responsibility by
expected from lawyers before the issuing in favor of Lehnert
courts, respondent violated Rules postdated checks, which were
11.03 and 19.01 and Canons 11 subsequently dishonored.
and 19 of the Code. Moreover, the Investigating
Commissioner noted that
Respondent is thus suspended
although Atty. Diño had not yet
from the practice of law for 2
been convicted of the crime
years.
charged, his acts of evading
arrest and failing to participate in
14. A.C. No. 12174 Lehnert vs the administrative proceedings
Atty Diño August 28, 2018 before the Commission on Bar
Discipline further gave the
FACTS:
impression that he was probably
Complainant filed an Information guilty. Thus, she recommended
against Atty. Diño with Branch 34, that Atty. Diño be suspended
Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon from the practice of law for two
City, charging him with two (2) (2) years. The IBP Board of
counts of violation of Batas Governors adapted the findings
Pambansa Blg. 22. A Warrant of and recommendation of the
Arrest was then issued for Atty. Investigating Commissioner.
Diño’s arrest. Members of the
ISSUE:
Philippine National Police and
National Bureau of Investigation Whether Atty Dino be suspended
attempted to serve the warrant from the practice of law.
on Atty. Diño. However, despite
their exhaustive efforts, they
were unable to locate him at his RULING
residential addresses in Bulacan,
Yes. The Court agrees with the
Quezon City, San Lazaro, and Sta.
findings of the Board of
Cruz, or even at his office address
Governors and sustains its
in Intramuros, Manila.3 Thus,
recommended penalty.
considering that Atty. Diño was
hiding to evade arrest, Lehnert The Court continues to state that
prayed for his immediate the issuance of worthless checks
disbarment. constitutes gross misconduct and

Page 33 of 55
violates Canon 1 of the Code of dismissal of charges against the
Professional Responsibility, which respondent.
mandates all members of the bar
“to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law.” FACTS:
Issuance of worthless checks also
Enrique Javier de Zuzuarregui
violates Rule 1.01 of the Code,
(complainant) filed a complaint
which mandates that “[a] lawyer
against his nephew Anthony de
shall not engage in unlawful,
Zuzuarregui (respondent), who
dishonest, immoral or deceitful
was a bar applicant for the 2013
conduct.
Bar Examinations, before the
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).
Dennis L. Diño In his complaint, Enrique alleged
is SUSPENDED from the practice that Anthony had questionable
of law for two (2) years. He is moral character due to four
likewise WARNED that a repetition pending criminal charges against
of similar acts shall be dealt with him before the Office of the City
more severely. Prosecutor:
1. Estafa
16. ENRIQUE JAVIER DE
2. Estafa through Falsification of
ZUZUARREGUI, complainant, v.
Public Documents under Art. 315
ANTHONY DE ZUZUARREGUI,
of the RPC
respondent.
3. Falsification of Public
B.M. No. 2796, February 11, 2020
Documents & Use of Falsified
Inting, J. Documents under Art. 172 of the
RPC
DOCTRINE:
4. Falsification of Public
Admission to the bar requires that
Documents under Art. 172 of the
the applicant possess both
RPC
intellectual qualifications and
good moral character. A pending Respondent disclosed these
criminal case does not criminal cases in his Petition to
automatically disqualify an Take the 2013 Bar Examinations.
applicant from becoming a lawyer The Court provisionally allowed
if the case appears to be frivolous him to take the examinations,
or meant to harass, as stipulating that if he passed, he
demonstrated by the successive would not be allowed to take the

Page 34 of 55
Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Roll of Attorneys, notifying the
Attorneys until he was cleared of Court of the dismissal of all
the charges. previous criminal charges. He
expressed concern that fabricated
After passing the Bar, Anthony
complaints would continue to be
filed a petition to take the
filed against him to hinder his
Lawyer’s Oath before the OBC,
admission to the Bar.
claiming that the criminal cases
against him had been dismissed Report and Recommendation of
as evidenced by the Orders of the OBC:
Dismissal. He also submitted
The OBC recommended granting
certifications of good moral
Anthony's request for admission
character. The Court required him
to the Philippine Bar, allowing him
to explain why he failed to
to take the Lawyer’s Oath and
disclose a specific pending case
sign the Roll of Attorneys.
(Falsification of Public Documents
However, just before the
and Use of Falsified Documents
scheduled oath-taking, the Court
under Article 172 of the RPC) and
received a letter of complaint
to submit a certification regarding
citing objections to his admission
its status.
based on 10 pending criminal
In his Verified Compliance, cases. The Court suspended the
Anthony explained that he was scheduled oath-taking.
unaware of the case at the time
In response, Anthony explained
of filing his Petition to Take the
that nine of the ten cases
Bar Examinations, as he received
mentioned in the complaint had
a subpoena for it only after his
been dismissed for lack of
application was submitted. The
probable cause, while the tenth
Court then required additional
case was recently filed in 2019.
documents and referred his
He asserted that this new case
Second Verified Compliance to the
was filed by his uncle to further
OBC for evaluation. The OBC
delay his admission.
recommended that his Petition to
Take the Lawyer’s Oath be held in
abeyance due to the pending
ISSUE:
criminal charges, which the Court
adopted. Whether or not Anthony de
Zuzuarregui should be allowed to
Three years later, Anthony filed a
take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign
Verified Second Motion to take
the Roll of Attorneys despite the
the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the
Page 35 of 55
pending criminal cases filed Anthony, who had demonstrated
against him. both intellectual and moral
qualifications.
Therefore, after nearly six years
RULING:
of waiting, the Court granted
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in Anthony's request for admission
favor of allowing Anthony de to the Philippine Bar.
Zuzuarregui to take the Lawyer’s
Oath and sign the Roll of
16. A.C. 10699 Caballero vs
Attorneys. The Court referenced
Atty Sampana, Oct, 6, 2020
Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court, which mandates that
applicants for admission to the
bar must be of good moral
character and that no charges
involving moral turpitude should 17. A.C. No. 5808 May
be pending against them. 4, 2005
The Court noted that all prior OSCAR M.
criminal charges against Anthony ESPIRITU, complainant,
had been dismissed except for vs.
the most recent one. The timing ATTY. JAIME C.
of this recent case was ULEP, respondent.
suspicious, as it was filed shortly
CORONA, J.:
after the dismissal of previous
charges, indicating that the
complainant intended to harass
DOCTRINE:
Anthony and prevent his
admission to the Bar. Lawyers who misappropriate the
funds entrusted to them are in
Given the dismissals and the
gross violation of professional
certifications of good moral
ethics and are guilty of betrayal of
character, the Court concluded
public confidence in the legal
that Anthony possessed the
profession. Those who are guilty
necessary moral qualifications to
of such infraction may be
practice law. While recognizing
disbarred or suspended
that the practice of law is a
indefinitely from the practice of
privilege, the Court determined
law.
that it would not unjustifiably
withhold this privilege from

Page 36 of 55
FACTS: reached. The respondent failed to
appear. IBP Nueva Ecija Chapter
In a letter addressed to the
formally endorsed the verified
president of the Integrated Bar of
letter-complaint to the IBP – CBD
the Philippines (IBP), Nueva Ecija
which ordered respondent to file
Chapter, complainant Oscar M.
his answer to the complaint.
Espiritu sought assistance to
Respondent complied with the
enable him to talk to respondent
order by filing an affidavit. Both
Atty. Jaime C. Ulep who had
parties failed to appear on the
allegedly been avoiding him for
scheduled hearing. In the next
more than a year. He wanted a
scheduled hearing, only
meeting with respondent lawyer
complainant
for the following reasons:
appeared.Respondednt requested
for cancellations and failed to
appear succcessively in all
(1) respondent failed to turn-over
scheduled hearings and so the
to his client, Mr. Ricardo Maon,
Commission proceeded to conduct
the amount of P50,000 given to
a hearing and the case was
him by complainant on December
submissted for a decision.
22, 1997 as settlement of Civil
Case No. 1028, Municipal Trial
Court (MTC), Rizal, Nueva Ecija,
ISSUE:
and
WON Ulep is guilty of the violation
(2) respondent refused to give
of Canon 16.
complainant the amount
of P30,000 plus interest and
expenses as balance for a deed of
RULING:
absolute sale dated December 22,
1997 which the respondent YES. We agree with the IBP Board
brokered and notarized. of Governors that respondent was
guilty of violating Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional
In 1999, the IBP Commission on Responsibility.
Bar Discipline (CBD), through
Commissioner J.V. Bautista
invited respondent to a meeting The Code of Professional
at IBP Cabanatuan to determine if Responsibility mandates every
amicable settlement of the lawyer to hold in trust all money
impending complaint could be and properties of his client that

Page 37 of 55
may come into his the legal profession and deserves
possession. Accordingly, he shall punishment.
account for all money or property
collected or received for or from
the client. Even more specific is Lawyers who misappropriate the
the Canon of Professional Ethics: funds entrusted to them are in
gross violation of professional
ethics and are guilty of betrayal of
The lawyer should refrain from public confidence in the legal
any action whereby for his profession. Those who are guilty
personal benefit or gain he of such infraction may be
abuses or takes advantage of the disbarred or suspended
confidence reposed in him by his indefinitely from the practice of
client. law.

Money of the client or collected Here, it was established that

for the client or other trust respondent lawyer received for
property coming into the his client Ricardo Maon the
possession of the lawyer should amount of P50,000 as settlement
be reported and accounted for of Civil Case No. 1028 and that
promptly and should not under he did not deliver the same upon
any circumstances be demand.
commingled with his own or be
used by him.
His failure to appear on five
consecutive, scheduled hearing
Consequently, a lawyer's failure dates — requesting the
to return upon demand the funds cancellation and resetting of three
or property held by him on behalf and absolutely ignoring two —
of his client gives rise to the showed an evasive attitude
presumption that he has towards the resolution of the
appropriated the same for his administrative case filed against
own use to the prejudice of, and him and of which he himself
in violation of the trust reposed in sought a formal hearing. Aside
him by, his client. It is a gross from his patent lack of respect for
violation of general morality as the Commission and its
well as of professional ethics; it proceedings, his repeated and
impairs the public confidence in obviously deliberate failure to

Page 38 of 55
appear in the scheduled hearings 18. Adm. Case No. 200. March
revealed an attempt to wiggle 31, 1962.
away from having to explain and
FERMIN U. IMBUIDO,
ventilate his side. Worse, he did
petitioner, vs. ATTY. FIDEL
not file an answer to controvert
SOR. MANGONON,
the allegations in the complaint.
respondent.
Instead, he filed a counter-
affidavit he had earlier submitted Facts:
in a criminal case which, upon
On June 14, 1948, Imbuido sold
scrutiny, referred only to a
10 parcels of land, with option to
transaction involving what
repurchase, to Mrs. Gonzales.
appeared to be a sale of real
According to the deed of sale, the
property documentedof the
lands would be repurchased on or
complainant.
before Dec 31, 1948 but
unfortunately, Imbuido failed to
exercise this right to repurchase
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty.
and so Mrs. Gonzales
Jaime C. Ulep is hereby found
consolidated her ownership over
GUILTY of violating Canon 16 of
them and a new certificate of title
the Code of Professional
was issued in her name.
Responsibility and is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of In December 1949, Imbuido
law for a period of six months engaged the services of Atty.
from notice, with a STERN Mangonon in an effort to
WARNING that a repetition of the negotiate the redemption of lands
same or similar act will be dealt which commission Atty Mangonon
with more severely. accepted altho no mention was
made regarding his atty’s fees.
Atty. Mangonon succeeded in
Respondent is further ordered to
negotiating with Mrs. Gonzales for
restitute to his client Ricardo
the repurchase of lands but
Maon, in cash within 30 days
Imbuido discovered that the lands
from notice, the amount
were in the name of Atty.
of P50,000 with interest at the
Mangonon, in disregard of his
legal rate, computed from
instruction and done so without
December 22, 1997 to the date of
his knowledge and consent. After
delivery.
Atty Mangonon secured a transfer
certificate of title in his favor and
he disposed the lands thereby

Page 39 of 55
depriving Imbuido of the 3 letter in his capacity as lawyer of
parcels of land which were not Imbuido for it not only contains a
previously encumbered. veiled threat that the transaction
concerning the sale of land was
Atty Mangonon denied having
usurious but because it contains a
been engaged by Imbuido and he
warning that if the request is not
avers that those who engaged his
allowed, the corresponding action
services to effect the redemption
would be taken in the proper
were the persons to whom
court for the reconveyance of the
Imbuido had previously
property.
encumbered the lands.
The Court found respondent guilty
Issue:
of professional misconduct and so
Whether or not Atty Mangonon hereby suspends him as member
should be held liable for his acts. of the bar for a period of one (1)
year from receipt of this decision.
Ruling:
Yes.
19. Fernandez vs Grecia, A.C.
The vendor of the lands was the
3694 June 17, 1993
petitioner and common sense
dictates, as respondent should Doctrine:
know, that the reconveyance
A lawyer may be disbarred for
should be made in the name of
any misconduct, whether in
said vendor. Neither is respondent
professional or private life, that
justified in keeping two parcels of
demonstrates a lack of moral
land in payment of his attorney's
character, honesty, probity, or
fees for there is nothing in the
good demeanor. This is especially
evidence that may justify such
true for conduct that undermines
claim. Hence, these two parcels
the public's trust in the legal
of land should be returned to
profession. Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
petitioner without prejudice to
and Canon 7 of the Code of
determining later the amount of
Professional Responsibility require
professional fees respondent is
that a lawyer must always uphold
entitled to in an appropriate
the integrity and dignity of the
action.
profession and must not engage
In this case, the letter Atty in unlawful, dishonest, immoral,
Magonon sent to Imbuido relative or deceitful conduct.
to the redemption readily shows
Facts:
that the former has written such

Page 40 of 55
A disbarment complaint was filed judge, the stolen pages were
against Attorney Benjamin M. retrieved from the driver. Despite
Grecia by Doctors Alberto Grecia's denial and efforts to
Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, implicate the defense counsel, the
Achilles Bartolome, and St. Luke's court found the testimonies of
Medical Center. The complaint Robles, Sandico, and the police
alleged that Grecia stole two investigator more credible.
pages from the medical records of
Grecia had been previously
Fe Linda Aves, which were being
disbarred in 1987 for an "unholy
used as material evidence in a
alliance" with a judge in a scheme
damage suit against St. Luke's
to defraud banks but was
and its doctors.
reinstated in 1990. However,
Fe Linda Aves, seven months eight months after his
pregnant, was admitted to St. reinstatement, he was again
Luke's on December 20, 1990, for charged with serious misconduct.
dizziness, hypertension, and
Issue:
abdominal pain. After being
diagnosed with mild pre- Whether Attorney Benjamin M.
eclampsia, she was discharged on Grecia violate the Code of
December 25, 1990, only to be Professional Responsibility by
readmitted the following day. On engaging in dishonest, unlawful,
December 27, 1990, she and her and unethical conduct
unborn child died. Her husband,
Ruling:
Attorney Damaso B. Aves, filed a
suit for damages against the Yes.
hospital and the attending
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
physicians, with Grecia as his
Professional Responsibility
counsel.
provides that a lawyer shall not
During a hearing in the case, engage in unlawful, dishonest,
Grecia was seen by court immoral, or deceitful conduct."
employees Avelina Robles (Acting Moreover, Canon 7 provides that
Branch Clerk of Court) and Maria "A lawyer shall at all times uphold
Arnie Sandico (court clerk) the integrity and dignity of the
surreptitiously tearing out pages legal profession."
72 and 73 from Mrs. Aves'
In this case, the court found
medical records. He crumpled the
Grecia guilty of dishonesty and
pages and passed them to his
grave misconduct by stealing two
driver. Upon confrontation by the
pages from the medical chart,

Page 41 of 55
which was material evidence in a Topic: Canon 10 – A lawyer owes
pending case. This act was candor, fairness, and good faith to
witnessed by credible court the court.
employees, who had no motive to
Petitioner: Enrique A. Zaldivar
lie. Grecia’s actions violated Rule
1.01, which prohibits unlawful Respondent: The Honorable
and deceitful conduct, as well as Sandiganbayan and the
Canon 7, which requires a lawyer Honorable Raul M. Gonzales,
to uphold the dignity and integrity claiming to be and acting as
of the profession. Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under
the 1987 Constitution
Grecia’s prior disbarment for
dishonesty, followed by Facts:
reinstatement, was considered by
• Petitioner Enrique Zaldivar,
the court in determining the
governor of Antique, was
penalty. The fact that he
one of the several
committed another serious
defendants in Criminal
violation so soon after being
Cases for violation of the
reinstated indicated that he was
Anti-Graft and Corrupt
unfit to continue practicing law.
Practices Act pending before
His actions brought dishonor to
the Sandiganbayan.
the legal profession,
demonstrating a lack of moral • Petitioner filed a case
character and integrity required against both the
of members of the bar. Sandiganbayan and
respondent Hon. Raul M.
As a result, the court imposed the
Gonzalez acting as
ultimate penalty of disbarment,
Tanodbayan-Ombudsman.
revoking Grecia’s license to
Petitioner alleged that the
practice law and ordering his
latter, as Tanodbayan was
name to be removed from the
no longer vested with power
Roll of Attorneys.
and authority independently
to investigate and to
institute criminal cases for
20. Zaldivar vs.
graft and corruption against
Sandiganbayan
public officials and
G.R. No, 79690-707 – October 7, employees, under the 1987
1988 Constitution, hence the
cases filed were all null and
Per Curiam
void.

Page 42 of 55
• The Court then issued a communications and fair
TRO ordering respondents criticism in the public
Gonzalez and interest.
Sandiganbayan to cease
Issue: W/N respondent Gonzales
and desist in further
is guilty of contempt
investigating and arrest of
the petitioner. Held: YES
• However, Gonzales • The Court has inherent
continued filing a case power to punish for
against Zaldivar and also contempt the conduct of
issued allegedly ministerial officers of the
contemptuous statements Court including lawyers and
to the media in the all other persons connected
November 30, 1987 issue of in any manner with a case
the “Philippine Daily Globe,” before the Court. This
explicitly stating that SC is power is necessary for its
favoring rich and the own protection against an
influential persons over the improper interference with
ordinary litigant. The latter the due administration of
also said, that while the justice, and not dependent
President had been upon the complaint of any
prodding him to prosecute of the parties litigant.
graft cases, even if they
• A lawyer is not merely a
involve the high and mighty,
professional but also an
the SC had been restraining
officer of the court and as
him to do his official duties.
such, he shares the
This prompted Zaldivar to
responsibility of dispensing
file a motion for contempt
justice and resolving
to Gonzales.
disputes in society. Any act
• SC ordered Gonzales to on his part which visibly
explain himself. The tends to obstruct,
principal defense of pervert, or impede and
respondent Gonzalez is that degrade the
he was merely exercising administration of justice
his constitutional right of constitutes both
free speech. He also invokes professional misconduct
the related doctrines of calling for the exercise of
qualified privileged disciplinary action against

Page 43 of 55
 him, and contumacious betrayed their oath of office,
conduct warranting constitute the grossest kind
application of the of disrespect for the Court.
contempt power of the Such statements very
court. clearly debase and degrade
the Supreme Court and,
• With regard to respondent
through the Court, the
Gonzalez’ contention of free
entire system of
speech, he is entitled to this
administration of justice in
constitutional guarantee and
the country.
no one seeks to deny him
that right, least of all this • Respondent’s statements
Court. However, this which accuse the Court of
freedom is not absolute, dismissing judges
and needs, on occasion, to without rhyme or reason
be adjusted to and and disbarring lawyers
accommodated with the without due process, are
requirements of equally also completely baseless
important public interests. and unfounded.
One of these fundamental
o Had respondent
public interests is the
undertaken to
maintenance of the integrity
examine the records
and orderly functioning of
of the two (2) judges
the administration of
and the attorney he
justice.
later identified, he
• The Court is compelled to would have discovered
hold that the statements that the respondents
made by Gonzalez clearly in those administrative
constitute contempt and call cases had ample
for the exercise of the opportunity to explain
disciplinary authority of the their side and submit
Supreme Court. evidence in support
Respondent’s statements, thereof.
especially the charge that
o Due process as a
the Court deliberately
constitutional precept
rendered an erroneous
does not, always and
and unjust decision,
in all situations,
necessarily implying that
require the trial-type
the justices of the Court
proceeding, that the
Page 44 of 55
 essence of due bonafide and shall not spill
process is to be found over the walls of decency
in the reasonable and propriety. A wide chasm
opportunity to be exists between fair criticism,
heard and to submit on the one hand, and abuse
any evidence one may and slander of courts and
have in support of the judges thereof, on the
one's defense. "To be other. Intemperate and
heard" does not only unfair criticism is a gross
mean verbal violation of the duty of
arguments in court; respect to courts. It is
one may be heard also such a misconduct that
through pleadings. subjects a lawyer to
Where opportunity to disciplinary action.
be heard, either
through oral
arguments or Ruling: Respondent Gonzalez is
pleadings, is accorded, guilty both of contempt of court in
there is no denial of facie curiae and of gross
procedural due misconduct as an officer of the
process. court and member of the Bar.
Accordingly, the Court Resolved
• Lastly, the statements
to SUSPEND Atty. Raul M.
issued in the Philippine Daily
Gonzalez from the practice of law
Globe asserting that the
indefinitely and until further
Court was preventing him
orders from this Court, the
from prosecuting rich and
suspension to take effect
powerful persons, can only
immediately.
be regarded as calculated to
present the Court in an
extremely bad light.
21. In Re Felipe Del Rosario
• His accusations constitute a
Facts:
violation of Canon 10, which
states that a lawyer owes Felipe Del Rosario was a
candor, fairness, and candidate in the bar examination
good faith to the court. In who failed for the second time in
re: Almacen, the cardinal 1925. He presented himself for the
condition of all such succeeding bar examination in
criticism that it shall be 1926 and again was unable to

Page 45 of 55
obtain the required rating. Then on sound discretion. The standard of
29 March 1927, he authorized the the legal profession are not
filing of a motion for the revision satisfied by conduct which merely
of his papers for 1925 based on enables one to escape the
alleged mistake in the penalties of the criminal law. It
computation of his grades. The would be a disgrace to the
Court granted this motion and judiciary to receive one whose
admitted him to the bar. integrity is questionable as an
office of the court, to clothe him
HOWEVER, a subsequent
with all the prestige of its
investigation by the city fiscal
confidence, and then to permit
uncovered that Del Rosario,
him to hold himself out as a duly
together with one Juan Villaflor, a
authorized member of the bar.
former employee of the Supreme
Court, falsified some documents to
make it appear that Del Rosario
22. Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty.
actually passed the 1925 bar
Melanio Mauricio A.C. No.
exams. The two were
7199 July 22, 2009
subsequently charged with
falsification. Villaflor was convicted
as he pleaded guilty but Del
DOCTRINE:
Rosario was acquitted for lack of
evidence. The fiscal however This case reiterates several
recommended Del Rosario to doctrines related to the ethical
surrender his certificate of standards of the legal profession,
attorney. including the prohibition against
engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
Issue:
immoral, or deceitful conduct
Whether or not Felipe Del (Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Rosario can be stripped off of his Professional Responsibility); the
certificate of attorney. mandate to uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession
(Canon 7); and the lawyer’s duty
Held: to refrain from making public
statements that tend to influence
Yes. The practice of law is
the outcome of a pending case
not an absolute right to be granted
(Rule 13.02).
everyone who demands it, but is a
privilege to be extended or
withheld in the exercise of the
FACTS:

Page 46 of 55
Foodsphere, Inc. (complainant), a Complainant filed criminal
corporation engaged in the complaints against respondent
business of meat processing and and several others for Libel and
manufacture and distribution of Threatening to Publish Libel under
canned goods and grocery Articles 353 and 356 of the
products under the brand name Revised Penal Code before the
"CDO". Alberto Cordero (Cordero) Office of the City Prosecutor of
purportedly bought from a Quezon City and Valenzuela
grocery in Valenzuela City canned City. The complaints were
goods including a can of CDO pending at the time of the filing of
Liver spread. As Cordero and his the present administrative
relatives were eating bread with complaint. Despite the pendency
the CDO Liver spread, they found of the civil case against him and
the spread to be sour and soon the issuance of a status quo order
discovered a colony of worms restraining/enjoining further
inside the can. They filed a publishing, televising and
complained before the BFAD. A broadcasting of any matter
complaint was filed with the relative to the complaint of CDO,
BFAD, which held a conciliation respondent continued with his
hearing where the Corderos attacks against complainant and
demanded PHP 150,000 from its products.
Foodsphere, Inc., which the latter
refused. After conciliation
meetings between Cordero and ISSUE:
the petitioner, the Corderos
Whether or not the respondent
eventually forged
violated the Code of Professional
a KASUNDUAN seeking the
Responsibility.
withdrawal of their complaint
before the BFAD. The BFAD thus
dismissed the
HELD:
complaint. Respondent, Atty.
Mauricio, Jr., who affixed his YES. Respondent suspended for
signature to the KASUNDUAN as a three (3) years from the practice
witness, later wrote in one of his of law. He warned that a
articles/columns in a tabloid that repetition of the same or similar
he prepared the document. acts will be dealt with more
severely.

Page 47 of 55
By the above-recited acts, of the Code of Professional
respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Responsibility, which mandates
the Code of Professional lawyers to "uphold the
Responsibility which mandates Constitution, obey the laws of the
lawyers to refrain from engaging land and promote respect for law
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or and legal processes." For he
deceitful conduct. For, as the IBP defied said status quo order,
found, he engaged in deceitful despite his (respondent’s) oath as
conduct by, inter alia, taking a member of the legal profession
advantage of the complaint to "obey the laws as well as the
against CDO to advance his legal orders of the duly
interest – to obtain funds for his constituted authorities."
Batas Foundation and seek
sponsorships and advertisements
for the tabloids and his television However, while a lawyer is
program. entitled to present his case with
vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the
He also violated Rule 13.02 of the use of offensive and abusive
Code of Professional language. Language abounds with
Responsibility, which mandates: A countless possibilities for one to
lawyer shall not make public be emphatic but respectful,
statements in the media convincing but not derogatory,
regarding a pending case tending illuminating but not offensive. By
to arouse public opinion for or failing to live up to his oath and
against a party. to comply with the exacting
standards of the legal profession,
respondent also violated Canon 7
For despite the pendency of the of the Code of Professional
civil case against him and the Responsibility, which directs a
issuance of a status quo order lawyer to "at all times uphold the
restraining/enjoining further integrity and the dignity of the
publishing, televising and legal profession.
broadcasting of any matter
relative to the complaint of CDO,
respondent continued with his 23. People vs Godoy 243
attacks against complainant and SCRA 64
its products. At the same time,
Facts:
respondent violated Canon 1 also
Danny Godoy was charged with

Page 48 of 55
rape and kidnapping with serious 2. Whether the allegations of
illegal detention in two separate kidnapping with serious illegal
informations by the Regional Trial detention were substantiated by
Court for Palawan and Puerto the evidence.
Princesa City. The accused, a 3. The admissibility and weight of
teacher, allegedly raped Mia Taha the defense’s evidence, including
by means of force, threat, and the letters alleged to be written
intimidation on January 21, 1994, by Taha to Godoy.
and subsequently detained her 4. The impact of the affidavits of
against her will for five days. desistance and the offered
compromise on the accused’s
During the trial, Taha claimed that
guilt.
Godoy, her Physics teacher,
5. The application of the death
attacked her in a boarding house,
penalty in light of the facts and
threatened her with a knife, and
the law.
forcibly had carnal knowledge of
her. The next day, under the RULING:
pretext of soliciting funds for a The Supreme Court reversed the
school contest, Godoy allegedly trial court’s decision, acquitting
kidnapped Taha, and during their Danny Godoy of both charges.
confinement, raped her multiple The Court found significant issues
times. with the credibility of the
complainant’s testimony,
The defense presented a contrary
discrepancies, and the lack of
narrative, asserting that Taha and
corroborative evidence to support
Godoy were in a consensual
the claims of rape and
relationship marked by intimate
kidnapping. The Court also gave
letters from Taha to Godoy,
credence to the defense’s
challenging the accusations. The
narrative of a consensual
trial court, however, found Godoy
relationship between Godoy and
guilty, sentencing him to the
Taha, highlighted by the letters
death penalty in both charges.
purportedly penned by Taha,
The decision was automatically
expressing affection and
reviewed by the Supreme Court
contrition towards Godoy, leading
due to the imposition of death
to doubts about the allegations.
penalties.
Doctrine:
ISSUE:
The presumption of innocence
1. Whether the elements of rape
must prevail unless the guilt of
were proven beyond reasonable
the accused is proven beyond
doubt.
Page 49 of 55
reasonable doubt. In criminal political activity by attending the
cases, especially those involving ‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by authorizing
grave charges such as rape and the assumption of Vice-President
kidnapping, the evidence must be Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the
clear and convincing. Offers of Presidency in violation of the
compromise are not outright 1987 Constitution. Petitioner
admissions of guilt and must be contends that the justices have
evaluated in context. thereby prejudged a case that
would assail the legality of the act
taken by President Arroyo. Atty.
24. Estrada vs Sandiganbayan Paguia has ever since been vocal
about this opinion to the public.
G.R. No. 159486-
88 November 25, Sandiganbayan issued an order
2003 denying the foregoing motion, as
well as the motion to dismiss, and
PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO
the latter motion for
ESTRADA, petitioner,
reconsideration, filed by
vs.
petitioner. Hence, this petition for
THE HONORABLE
certiorari.
SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL
DIVISION], HON. MINITA
CHICO-NAZARIO, HON.
ISSUE:
EDILBERTO SANDOVAL, HON.
TERESITA LEONARDO-DE 1. Whether or not the act of the
CASTRO, and THE PEOPLE OF Chief Justice in swearing into
THE office PGMA in EDSA a partisan
PHILIPPINES, respondents. political activity.
2. Whether or not Atty. Paguia
should be held administratively
FACTS:
liable.
Atty. Alan F. Paguia, speaking for
petitioner, Joseph Ejercito Estrada
claims of political partisanship RULING:
against the members of the
1. No. The claim of the petitioner
Court, asserting that the justices
is of no merit.
have violated Rule 5.10 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct which
prohibits justices or judges from
participating in any partisan

Page 50 of 55
It should be clear that the phrase succeeded in seeking to impede,
“partisan political activities,” in its obstruct and pervert the
statutory context, relates to acts dispensation of justice.
designed to cause the success or
The attention of Atty. Paguia has
the defeat of a particular
also been called to the mandate
candidate or candidates who have
of Rule 13.02 of the Code of
filed certificates of candidacy to a
Professional Responsibility
public office in an election. The
prohibiting a member of the bar
taking of an oath of office by any
from making such public
incoming President of the
statements on a case that may
Republic before the Chief Justice
tend to arouse public opinion for
of the Philippines is a traditional
or against a party. Regrettably,
official function of the Highest
Atty. Paguia has persisted in
Magistrate. The assailed presence
ignoring the Court’s well-meant
of other justices of the Court at
admonition. Atty. Paguia has
such an event could be no
continued to make public
different from their appearance in
statements claiming
such other official functions as
unconstitutionality of the acts of
attending the Annual State of the
the Supreme Court justices.
Nation Address by the President
of the Philippines before the
Legislative Department.
The Court has already warned
Atty. Paguia, on pain of
disciplinary sanction, to become
2. Yes.
mindful of his grave
responsibilities as a lawyer and as
an officer of the Court.
Canon 11 of the Code of
Apparently, he has chosen not to
Professional Responsibility
at all take heed. WHEREFORE,
mandates that the lawyer should
Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby
observe and maintain the respect
indefinitely suspended from the
due to the courts and judicial
practice of law, effective upon his
officers and, indeed, should insist
receipt hereof, for conduct
on similar conduct by others. In
unbecoming a lawyer and an
liberally imputing sinister and
officer of the Court.
devious motives and questioning
the impartiality, integrity, and
authority of the members of the
25. A.M. No. 21-06-20-SC -
Court, Atty. Paguia has only
RE: DISTURBING SOCIAL

Page 51 of 55
MEDIA POSTS OF attracted to the lawyers, further
LAWYERS/LAW PROFESSORS degrading the conversation.
When called to explain, the
lawyers expressed deep remorse
Facts: On June 29, 2021, the
and issued public apologies. Atty.
Supreme Court, motu proprio,
Antay, Jr. admitted shame over
required several lawyers—Atty.
the incident, explaining that he
Noel V. Antay, Jr., Atty. Ernesto A.
could not recall the posts until he
Tabujara III, Atty. Israel P.
saw circulating screenshots, as
Calderon, Atty. Morgan Nicanor,
his social media profile was set to
and Atty. Joseph Marion Peña
private. He claimed his references
Navarrete—to show cause why no
to the LGBTQIA+ community
administrative charges should be
were descriptive, not intended to
filed against them for derogatory
disparage. Other lawyers, like
Facebook posts. These posts
Atty. Nicanor and Atty. Navarrete,
involved inappropriate remarks
explained their comments were
targeting the LGBTQIA+
meant as playful banter and did
community and certain judges in
not intend to offend or disrespect
Taguig City. The exchange of
the Judiciary or the LGBTQIA+
comments included references to
community. Atty. Tabujara
a judge's effeminate demeanor
highlighted his decades of
and insinuations about members
practice without any previous
of the LGBTQIA+ community,
incidents and affirmed his respect
framed in a joking and degrading
for LGBTQIA+ individuals, noting
manner.
his professional and personal
Atty. Antay, Jr. posted about connections with the community.
prosecuting a member of the
By a resolution dated June 21,
LGBTQIA+ community for estafa,
2022, the Court referred the
noting the convict accused him of
matter to the Office of the Bar
being a bigot and referencing a
Confidant (OBC) for investigation.
judge's effeminate behavior.
The OBC’s report, dated August
Other lawyers, including Atty.
31, 2022, found the comments
Tabujara and Atty. Calderon,
degrading to both the Judiciary
engaged in similar derogatory
and the LGBTQIA+ community,
banter, making crude jokes about
despite not mentioning specific
judges and members of the
names. The OBC emphasized that
LGBTQIA+ community. Some
lawyers, as officers of the court,
comments implied that the
must uphold high standards of
LGBTQIA+ individuals were
Page 52 of 55
propriety and decorum, refraining reasonable. On this score, Belo-
from remarks that undermine Henares is clear: there can be no
public respect for the courts and reasonable expectation of privacy
target marginalized communities. as regards social media postings,
However, considering the lawyers' regardless if the same are
apologies and their apparent "locked," precisely because the
remorse, the OBC recommended access restriction settings in
that the lawyers be admonished social media platforms do not
rather than face harsher absolutely bar other users from
disciplinary action. obtaining access to the same
Issue: Consequently, before one can
have an expectation of privacy in
1) Can the erring lawyers invoke
his or her online social networking
their right to privacy as a shield
activity - in this case, Facebook -
against administrative liability, if
it is first necessary that said user
any?
manifests the intention to keep
2) What are the respective certain posts private, through the
violations, if any, of the Code of employment of measures to
Professional Responsibility (CPR) prevent access thereto or to limit
committed by Attys. Antay, Jr., its visibility. This intention can
Tabujara III, Calderon, Nicanor materialize in cyberspace through
and Navarrete? the utilization of Facebook's
privacy tools. In other words,
Ruling:
utilization of these privacy tools is
1. NO. the manifestation, in the cyber
world, of the user's invocation of
The lawyers' right to privacy,
his or her right to informational
especially when it comes to their
privacy.
social media account, is limited.
They cannot use this right as a Restricting the privacy of one's
shield against any liability. At Facebook posts to "Friends" does
best, the right to privacy has not guarantee absolute protection
limited application to online from the prying eyes of another
activities of lawyers. user who does not belong to
one's circle of friends. The user's
A two-part test: (1) whether, by a
own Facebook friend can share
person's conduct, such individual
said content or tag his or her own
has exhibited an expectation of
Facebook friend thereto,
privacy; and (2) this expectation
regardless of whether the user
is one that society recognizes as

Page 53 of 55
tagged by the latter is Facebook responsibility and, hence, must
friends or not with the former. handle their personal affairs with
Also, when the post is shared or great caution.
when a person is tagged, the
respective Facebook friends of the
person who shared the post or Lawyers may be disciplined even
who was tagged can view the for any conduct committed in
post, the privacy setting of which their private capacity, as long as
was set at "Friends." Under the their misconduct reflects their
circumstances, therefore, want of probity or good
respondent's claim of violation of demeanor, a good character being
right to privacy is negated. an essential qualification for the
admission to the practice of law
The Court cannot give credence
and for continuance of such
to Atty. Antay, Jr.'s invocation of
privilege. When the Code of
his right to privacy. His excuse -
Professional Responsibility or the
that his social media account is
Rules of Court speaks of conduct
locked and the contents thereof
or misconduct, the reference is
cannot be accessed by outsiders
not confined to one's behavior
– is a mere allegation at best.
exhibited in connection with the
Allegations are not proof. Further,
performance of lawyers'
the fact that the exchanges
professional duties, but also
leaked means that his social
covers any misconduct, which—
media account is not locked as he
albeit unrelated to the actual
claims or that there is a rat
practice of their profession—
amidst them.
would show them to be unfit for
2. They violated rule Rule the office and unworthy of the
7.03 of CPR privileges which their license and
the law invest in them.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice
In this case, respondent's
law, nor shall he whether in public
remarks against complainant'
or private life, behave in a
breached the said walls, for which
scandalous manner to the
reason the former must be
discredit of the legal profession.
administratively sanctioned. The
Indeed, lawyers, as keepers of comments made by Atty. Antay,
public faith, are burdened with a Jr., Atty. Tabujara III, and others
high degree of social reflected homophobic undertones

Page 54 of 55
and unfounded insinuations
regarding the sexual orientation
and mental fitness of judges,
violating the dignity of the legal
profession and undermining
public confidence in the judiciary.
As a result, the court
reprimanded all involved lawyers,
imposing penalties that included
stern warnings and fines, with
Atty. Tabujara III facing a PHP
25,000 fine due to the severity of
his remarks and lack of remorse.
The ruling emphasized the need
for lawyers to adhere to ethical
standards and avoid language
that perpetuates harmful
stereotypes, particularly against
the LGBTQIA+ community.

Page 55 of 55