1) Edgar Tago filed a complaint against attorney Lycel Castor-Tan for allegedly making false statements in a demand letter. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding that Castor-Tan acted in good faith in her representation of her client.
2) Victoria Sousa filed a complaint against attorney J. Albert Tinampay for failing to properly represent her in a case. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines suspended Tinampay from practice for 1 year for negligence. The Supreme Court affirmed the suspension.
3) Hernando Petelo filed a complaint against attorney Socrates Rivera, accusing him of malpractice. The details of the complaint and its resolution are not provided in the summary
1) Edgar Tago filed a complaint against attorney Lycel Castor-Tan for allegedly making false statements in a demand letter. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding that Castor-Tan acted in good faith in her representation of her client.
2) Victoria Sousa filed a complaint against attorney J. Albert Tinampay for failing to properly represent her in a case. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines suspended Tinampay from practice for 1 year for negligence. The Supreme Court affirmed the suspension.
3) Hernando Petelo filed a complaint against attorney Socrates Rivera, accusing him of malpractice. The details of the complaint and its resolution are not provided in the summary
1) Edgar Tago filed a complaint against attorney Lycel Castor-Tan for allegedly making false statements in a demand letter. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding that Castor-Tan acted in good faith in her representation of her client.
2) Victoria Sousa filed a complaint against attorney J. Albert Tinampay for failing to properly represent her in a case. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines suspended Tinampay from practice for 1 year for negligence. The Supreme Court affirmed the suspension.
3) Hernando Petelo filed a complaint against attorney Socrates Rivera, accusing him of malpractice. The details of the complaint and its resolution are not provided in the summary
what (case no. / date) vs. ATTY. LYCEL B. CASTOR-TAN, respondent. AC No. 9635 Jan. 20, 2020 Why and how Complainant (all the - That respondent signed a demand letter stating therein, among circumstances that others, that he was at the cockpit in the afternoon of June 25, lead to file a case) 2012 when in truth and in fact he was not; and the use of office supplies of DepEd for private purposes. - Complainant accuses respondent of peddling lies with malicious intent to destroy his good reputation. Respondent - Respondent denies the accusation against her. (defenses) - That she was hired as legal counsel by Isabela City Water District (ISAWAD) with whom complainant has an ongoing issue regarding the water installed in his house. - That she acted in accordance with attorney-client relationship assisting ISAWAD draft the letter of June 25, 2012. - That as lawyer of ISAWAD, she signed in her capacity as counsel for said entity a letter dated 18 July 2012, which states, among others, that on June 25, 2012, Santiago Palacay of ISAWAD found complainant in a cockpit in Barangay Isabela City, Basilan Province, wherein Palacay attempted to serve a letter but complainant refused to receive the letter instead scolded and humiliated Palacay in public view. - That on June 26, Palacay recorded into the police blotter the incident that transpired. What is the Complainant sought the help of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of recommendation of the Consolacion, Cebu, but respondent failed to attend the mediation. IBP-CBD? He then wrote a letter-complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Cebu Chapter, which then sent a letter to respondent and scheduled a conference. Respondent requested for a resetting of the conference, but she still failed to attend. What is the Administrator ( OCA) referred the same to the Office of the Bar recommendation of Confidant through a 1st Indorsement4 dated October 5, 2005. OCA? Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent Atty. Lycel Castor-Tan violated the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dispositive portion The respondent Atty. Lycel Castor-Tan acted in good faith when (final decision) she assisted ISAWAD, her client, in drafting and thereafter affixing her signature on the letter of June 25,2012.
The information acquired by the lawyer from the client in the
course of attorney-client relationship is privileged and the presumption of good faith applies to the attorney who relied thereon unless proof to the contrary is adduced.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby recommended that the complaint
against Atty. Lycel B. Castor-Tan be dismissed for lack of merit. What are the core Love for truth and respect for one’s reputation. moral values that were ignored? What are the virtues Honesty, good faith, and respect. that are missing? What are the vices that Malicious intentions, dishonesty, and misleading statements. the respondent got involved in? What are the lessons A lawyer must always stand for truth and justice and shall respect that I learned from this the reputation and integrity of the court, his client, and the legal case so that no case of profession. similar can be filed against me in the future?
LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS
Who (parties) and VICTORIA C. SOUSA, complainant what (case no. / date) vs. ATTY. J. ALBERT R. TINAMPAY, respondent. AC No. 7428 Nov. 25, 2019 Why and how Complainant (all the - That complainant was a co-defendant in a case for annulment circumstances that of sale which was raffled to the MTC of Dauis, Panglao, Bohol, lead to file a case) but was eventually dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but was later refiled with the RTC. - That complainant executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of respondent, naming, constituting, and appointing him to be her attorney-in-fact. - That respondent did not enter his appearance as her counsel in the proceedings before the MTC. - That during the pre-trial of the refiled case in the RTC, complainant was declared in default since neither she nor her former counsel appeared; and though respondent was present, he remained silent and did not submit any notice for his substitution as the new counsel of the complainant. - That respondent never admitted in open court that he is the legal counsel of complainant, but he continuously accepted payment from the complainant. Respondent - Respondent countered that he was never the counsel of (defenses) complainant. - He insisted that Atty. Teofisto Cabilan was the counsel of record of the complainant’s co-defendants. - That there was never any retainer agreement between him and complainant engaging him as counsel and was paid Php41,500.00 as referral fee. - What is the IBP-CBD found that respondent failed in his duty and recommendation of the responsibility in safeguarding the interest of complainant during IBP-CBD? the pre-trial. It recommended that respondent be reprimanded or censured on account of his actuations.
It found that respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and meted
out the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of 1 year. What is the n/a recommendation of OCA? Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dispositive portion The court finds that respondent was negligent and unmindful of (final decision) his own duties to complainant.
The court finds the suspension of 1 year sufficient for
respondent’s misconduct appropriate. Considering that this is his first administrative offense, such penalty, and not disbarment as prayed for by complainant, serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the public and the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, the court finds respondent Atty. J. Albert
Tinampay GUILTY of violating Canons 17, 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for 1 year effective immediately upon receipt of his decision. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely in the future. What are the core Love for truth and respect for one’s reputation. moral values that were ignored? What are the virtues Competence, diligence, and sense of responsibility. that are missing? What are the vices that Greed, unmindful, deceitfulness, and irresponsibility. the respondent got involved in? What are the lessons A lawyer must always be mindful of the trust and confidence that I learned from this reposed by his client in him. He must always serve his client with case so that no case of competence and diligence. He must also not neglect a legal similar can be filed matter entrusted to him, and must keep the client informed of the against me in the status of his case. future?
LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS
Who (parties) and HERNANDO PETELO, complainant what (case no. / date) vs. ATTY. SOCRATES RIVERA, respondent. AC No. 10408 OCT. 16, 2019 Why and how Complainant (all the - That there was a declaration that Fe Mojica Petelo, thru her circumstances that attorney-in-fact, complainant Hernando Petelo, engaged the lead to file a case) legal services of Atty. Rivera and that complainant himself caused the preparation of the complaint. - That upon discovery of the pendency of the complaint, Petelo filed a petition praying for the disbarment, suspension, or imposition of any disciplinary action against respondent for alleged commission of acts constituting malpractice of law, misconduct, and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. - Complainant narrated that sometime in 2011, his sister, Fe, who was based in the U.S., designated him as Attorney-in-Fact to enter into a joint venture agreement with Red Dragon Builders Corp. for the construction of a townhouse on the lot owned by Fe. - Complainant claimed that the owners of Red Dragon Builders Corp., inveigled him into surrendering to them the original copy of the TCT which they eventually used as collateral for the Php8 million loan they contracted with World Partners Bank without the knowledge and consent of complainant. - That the said owners superimposed the name of a certain Emmer B. Ramirez to make it appear that he was the duly constituted attorney-in-fact of Fe in the SPA instead of complainant. - That when the spouse owner failed to pay the monthly amortizations, World Partners Bank instituted foreclosure proceedings against the mortgage. - That when complainant leaned of the foregoing transactions, he instructed his daughter to secure the true copy of the TCT from the Register of Deeds. - That to complainant’s surprise, he learned that an entry of lis pendens for Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage, Promissory Note, Certificate of Sale and Foreclosure Proceedings in Connection with TCT No. 455311 with Damages before the RTC was annotated at the back of the title. - That complainant found out that the civil complaint was filed by respondent Atty. Rivera purportedly on complainant’s and Fe’s behalf. - That since complainant never engaged the services of respondent, he wrote the latter a letter seeking clarification/explanation as to how his services was engaged, but the same went unheeded. Respondent - That a person representing himself to be complainant Hernando (defenses) Petelo sought to engage his legal services regarding the filing of the civil suit. - That in effect, respondent admitted authorship of the complaint filed before the RTC of Makati City, which a certain Hernando Petelo supposedly caused to be prepared and filed thereat. - That even after being informed that it was not the real Hernando Petelo, respondent still saw nothing wrong in what he did and even prayed for the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit. - That he also informed the court that the RTC of Makati City already dismissed the civil case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the matter. - That RTC held that respondent lawyer who signed the complaint was not authorized by the real Hernando Petelo, the alleged attorney-in-fact of Fe Mojica Petelo who disowned knowing him, then, it was safely concluded that respondent lawyer violated Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. What is the The Investigating Commissioner submitted his report with recommendation of the recommendation that Atty. Rivera be suspended from the practice IBP-CBD? of law for at least 1 year with stern warning that repetition of a similar act would be dealt with more severely. The Investigating Commissioner gave credence to the version of Petelo finding the same in accord with normal human experience and straightforward, while he found the version of Atty. Rivera to have failed the test of factual consistency, common sense and logic. What is the recommendation n/a of OCA? Issues raised to the SC Whether or not violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dispositive portion SC adopts the findings and recommendation of the IPB there (final decision) being reasonable grounds to hold him administratively liable. Atty. Rivera’s act of allowing persons other than himself to use his signature in signing papers and pleadings, in effect, allowed non- lawyers to practice law.
Rivera failed to display or even manifest any zeal or eagerness to
unearth the truth behind the events which led to his involvement in the filing of the unauthorized civil suit, he openly admitted association with the disbarred lawyer and their ongoing agreement to allow the latter to use his signature and “details” in the preparation of pleadings.
Clearly, the foregoing acts constituted violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 9.01, Canon 9, Rule 1.10, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10.
He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 1 year
effective upon the finality of the Decision with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. What are the core Love for truth and respect for one’s dignity. moral values that were ignored? What are the virtues Honesty, Good faith, and Fairness. that are missing? What are the vices that Falsehood, misleading acts, dishonesty, and bad faith. the respondent got involved in? What are the lessons A lawyer must not assist in any unauthorized practice of law. He that I learned from this must not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of case so that no case of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the similar can be filed bar in good standing. against me in the future? A lawyer must not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled. LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS Who (parties) and NELITA S. SALAZAR, complainant what (case no. / date) vs. ATTY. FELINO R. QUIAMBAO, respondent. AC No. 12401 MAR. 12, 2019 Why and how Complainant (all the - That sometime in 2005, complainant entered into contracts of circumstances that sale involving 2 parcels of land. The subject lands were lead to file a case) covered by the transfer certificate of title previously owned by Lorenzo Diaz; and TCT previously owned by Domingo Urisantos, as presented by his attorney-in-fact, Danilo Urisantos. - That the sale of the subject lands was witnessed and assisted by respondent, who represented himself as a notary public and the sale was executed in respondent’s law office. - That complainant, Diaz and Urisantos agreed to engage the services of respondent to facilitate, notarize, process the sale and transfer of titles of the subject properties to complainant. - That they entrusted the owner’s duplicate copies of the 2 titles, tax declarations, deeds of absolute sale, and other documents to respondent. - That on July 6 & 13, 2006, complainant personally gave Php170,000.00 to respondent as payment for the processing, transfer of titles, and other related fees, including professional fees of respondent. The payments were evidenced by Receipts signed by respondent. - That on the same day, Urisantos also gave respondent the amount of Php271,748.35 for payment of the capital gains tax of the properties so that these can be transferred under complainant’s name. - That after 8 years, complainant had not received any document processed by respondent. - Complainant attempted to follow-up the transfer of her lands but respondent was always out of reach. Respondent - That a person representing himself to be complainant Hernando (defenses) Petelo sought to engage his legal services regarding the filing of the civil suit. - That in effect, respondent admitted authorship of the complaint filed before the RTC of Makati City, which a certain Hernando Petelo supposedly caused to be prepared and filed thereat. - That even after being informed that it was not the real Hernando Petelo, respondent still saw nothing wrong in what he did and even prayed for the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit. - That he also informed the court that the RTC of Makati City already dismissed the civil case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the matter. - That RTC held that respondent lawyer who signed the complaint was not authorized by the real Hernando Petelo, the alleged attorney-in-fact of Fe Mojica Petelo who disowned knowing him, then, it was safely concluded that respondent lawyer violated Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. What is the IBP Commission found that respondent indeed received several recommendation of the payments from complainant for the transfer of the subject IBP-CBD? properties but the former failed to comply with his terms of legal services engagement, violating his sworn duties as a lawyer.
His acts violated Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 3 years; to return the amount of Php170,000.00 to complainant; and to pay a fine of Php10,000.00 for disobeying the order of the IBP Commission. What is the recommendation n/a of OCA? Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent violated Canons 16, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dispositive portion SC adopts the findings and recommendation of the IBP (final decision) Commission and the recommendations of the IBP Board. Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession, and regular payment of membership fees to the IBP are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
The lawyer’s oath requires every lawyer to delay no man for
money or malice and to act according to the best of his or her knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his or her clients.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Felino R. Quiambao is GUILTY violating
Canons 16, 17 and 18, and Rules 16.01, 16.02, 16.03, and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 3 years with a STERN WARNING. What are the core Love for truth and respect for one’s dignity. moral values that were Respect for Authority. ignored? What are the virtues Honesty, Good faith, Respect for Authority, and Obedience. that are missing? What are the vices that Disobedience, dishonesty, irresponsibleness. the respondent got involved in? What are the lessons A lawyer must never delay any man for money or malice and to that I learned from this act according to the best of his or her knowledge and discretion, case so that no case of with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his or her clients. similar can be filed against me in the future?