LEGAL ETHICS scheduled mandatory conference.

Complainant is a citizen and resident of

Respondent in fact abandoned his last known Denmark. He was introduced to the
Lawyer and the Legal Profession address, which was his law office in Olongapo respondent lawyer in one of his trips to the
City, after he committed the embezzlement. Philippines. In one of the complainant’s visit
1. Keld Stemmerick vs. Atty. Leonuel N. Respondent should not be allowed to benefit in the country he was caught in awe of the
Mas from his disappearing act. Thus, service of beauty of the Philippines thereby expressing
A.C. No. 8010, June 16, 2009 the complaint and other orders and such by wanting to own a real property in the
processes on respondent’s office was country. He consulted the respondent about
 Disbarment case; respondent was sufficient notice to him. this intent. The respondent in return advised
disbarred him that he could legally acquire a property in
 The Clerk of Court is directed to b. Lawyers must update their records the country. In fact, the respondent offered
immediately strike out the name of with the Integrated Bar of the to the complainant a 86, 998 sq. m. property
respondent from the Roll of Philippines (IBP) by informing the IBP in Subic, Zamabales assuring the latter that
Attorneys. National Office or their respective said property is inalienable.
 Respondent is hereby ORDERED to chapters of any change in office or
return to complainant Keld residential address and other contact Trusting respondent, complainant agreed to
Stemmerik the total amount of P4.2 details. purchase the said lot with the former as his
million with interest at 12% per representative. He also engaged the services
annum from the date of c. Lawyers as members of the noble of the respondent in the preparation of the
promulgation of this resolution until profession, have the duty to promote necessary documents (with the respondent
full payment. Respondent is further respect for the law and uphold the demanding and receiving P400, 000.00).
DIRECTED to submit to the Court integrity of the bar (exacting
proof of payment of the amount standards of the legal profession has Because he believed that respondent would
within ten days from payment. been found wanting on respondent). make good what is tasked upon him,
complainant returned to Denmark and
SYLLABUS: As men and women entrusted with the law, leaving respondent to process the necessary
they must ensure that the law functions to paperwork.
a. Respondent cannot defeat the protect liberty and not as an instrument of
Court’s jurisdiction over him as a oppression or deception. Respondent has Respondent then prepared a contract to sell
member of the bar nor evade been weighed by the exacting standards of the property between complainant and one
administrative liability by the mere the legal profession and has been found Bonifacio de Mesa, the supposed owner of
ruse of concealing his whereabouts. wanting. the property. Respondent also prepared and
notarized a deed of sale in which de Mesa
The respondent did not file any answer or FACTS: sold and conveyed the property to a certain
position paper, nor did he appear during the Ailyn Gonzales for P3.8 million. Respondent
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 1 | P a g e
also drafted and notarized an agreement Discipline (CBD) of the IBP. Respondent on LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW
between complainant and Gonzales that it his behalf failed to file his answer and AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
was complainant who provided the funds for position paper despite service of notice at his
the purchase of the property. Complainant last known address. It was found out that he  Respondent, in giving advice that
then gave respondent the full amount of the left his office right after his transaction with directly contradicted a fundamental
purchase price of P3.8M for which the complainant. constitutional policy, showed
respondent issued an acknowledgment disrespect for the Constitution and
receipt. SC Discussion: gross ignorance of basic law. Worse,
Respondent’s Administrative Infractions he prepared spurious documents that
After the various contracts and agreements and his Liability Thereafter he knew were void and illegal.
were executed complainant tried to get in
touch with respondent to inquire about when Respondent committed a serious breach of  By making it appear that de Mesa
the property could be registered under his his oath as a lawyer. He is also guilty of undertook to sell the property to
name. However, respondent suddenly culpable violation of the Code of Professional complainant and that de Mesa
became scarce and refused to answer Responsibility, the Code of Ethics of the legal thereafter sold the property to
complainant’s calls and email messages. profession. Gonzales who made the purchase for
and in behalf of complainant, he
Then when complainant came back to the  All lawyers take an oath to support falsified public documents and
Philippines in 2005, he sought the services of the Constitution, to obey the laws knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy
another law firm so to ascertain the status of and to do no falsehood. That oath is Law.
the property he bought. It was during this neither mere formal ceremony nor
that he found out that aliens like him are bar hollow words. It is a sacred trust that Respondent spun an intricate web of lies. In
by Philippine laws from owning lands in the should be upheld and kept inviolable the process, he committed unethical act after
Philippines. Added to this he also found out at all times. unethical act, wantonly violating laws and
that the property he supposed to buy is professional standards.
inalienable since it is located within the  Lawyers are servants of the law and
former US Military Reservation and that said the law is their master. They should For all this, respondent violated not only the
property is not subject for disposition and not simply obey the laws, they should lawyer’s oath and Canon 1 of the Code of
alienation by virtue of RA 141. also inspire respect for and Professional Responsibility. He also
obedience thereto by serving as transgressed the following provisions of the
Complainant took efforts to locating exemplars worthy of emulation. Code of Professional Responsibility:
respondent but to no avail since he had Indeed, that is the first precept of the
already abandoned his office in Olongapo Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 1.01; Rule 1.02; Canon 7, 15, 16 and 17.
City. He then filed a disbarment case against CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
respondent lawyer in the Commission of Bar CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 2 | P a g e
 A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes a. Legal ethics; Gross immoral conduct; gross when it is so corrupt as to
to circumvent the law and uses his legal Disbarment; Suspension; Section 27, constitute a criminal act, or so
knowledge to further his selfish ends to the Rule 138 of the Rules of Court unprincipled as to be reprehensible to
great prejudice of others, poses a clear and provides that a lawyer may be a high degree, or when committed
present danger to the rule of law and to the removed or suspended from the under such scandalous or revolting
legal system. He does not only tarnish the practice of law, inter alia, for grossly circumstances as to shock the
image of the bar and degrade the integrity immoral conduct. Thus: Section 27. community’s sense of decency.
and dignity of the legal profession, he also Attorneys removed or suspended by
betrays everything that the legal profession Supreme Court on what grounds. – A “A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for
stands for. member of the bar may be removed any misconduct showing any fault or
or suspended from his office as deficiency in his moral character, honesty,
attorney by the Supreme Court for probity or good demeanor.” Immoral conduct
2. Dr. Elmar O. Perez vs. Atty. Tristan A. any deceit, malpractice, or other involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or
Catindig and Atty. Karene E. Baydo gross misconduct in such office, shameless, and that show a moral
A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015 grossly immoral conduct, or by indifference to the opinion of the upright and
reason of his conviction of a crime respectable members of the community. The
 Disbarment case; Atty. Catindig is involving moral turpitude, or for any court makes these distinctions, as the
disbarred; violation of the oath which he is supreme penalty of disbarment arising from
 The Court resolves to ADOPT the required to take before the admission conduct requires grossly immoral, not simply
recommendations of the to practice, or for a willful immoral conduct.
Commission on Bar Discipline of the disobedience of any lawful order of a
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. superior court, or for corruptly or Facts:
Atty. Tristan A. Catindig is found willful appearing as an attorney for a
GUILTY of gross immorality and of party to a case without authority to Dr. Perez and respondent Atty. Catindig were
violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule do so. The practice of soliciting cases friends during their college days in the
1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the at law for the purpose of gain, University of the Philippines. Their ways got
Code of Professional Responsibility personally or through paid agents or separated but was reconnected sometime in
and is hereby DISBARRED from the brokers, constitutes malpractice. 1983. During this reconnection Atty. Catindig
practice of law; courted Dr. Perez while admitting all the
 The charge of gross immorality b. Immoral conduct involves acts that while that he was married to a Lily Corazon
against Atty. Karen E. Baydo is are willful, flagrant or shameless, and Gomez.
hereby DISMISSED for lack of that show a moral indifference to the
evidence. opinion of the upright and According to Atty. Catindig his marriage to
SYLLABUS: respectable members of the Lily is caused by the latter getting pregnant,
community. Immoral conduct is and that he got scared of the possibility of
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 3 | P a g e
Lily making a scandal that would jeopardized later, she came upon a love letter written and
his scholarship in the Harvard Law School if signed by Atty. Catindig for Atty. Baydo For her part, Atty. Baydo denied that she had
he will not marry her. He also added that he dated April 25, 2001. In the said letter, Atty. an affair with Atty. Catindig. She claimed that
is on the process of getting a divorce in a Catindig professed his love to Atty. Baydo, Atty. Catindig began courting her while she
foreign country to dissolve his marriage with promising to marry her once his "impediment was employed in his firm. She however
Lily so he could then marry her. is removed." Apparently, five months into rejected Atty. Catindig’s romantic overtures;
their relationship, Atty. Baydo requested she told him that she could not reciprocate
Sometime in 1984, Atty. Catindig and Lily got Atty. Catindig to put a halt to their affair until his feelings since he was married and that he
a divorce decree from the Dominican such time that he is able to obtain the was too old for her. She said that despite
Republic. And that Atty. Catindig assured annulment of his marriage. On August 13, being turned down, Atty. Catindig still
her, Dr. Perez, that the said divorce decree 2001, Atty. Catindig filed a petition to declare pursued her, which was the reason why she
was lawful and valid and therefore allows the nullity of his marriage to Gomez. resigned from his law firm.
them to get married. By July 14, 1984 Atty. Following this on October 31, 2001, Atty.
Catindig and Dr. Perez got married in the Catindig abandoned Dr. Perez and their son; Issue: Whether the respondents committed
State of Virginia, USA. he moved to an upscale condominium in gross immorality, which would warrant their
Salcedo Village, Makati City where Atty. disbarment.
Then Dr. Perez came to know that her Baydo was frequently seen.
marriage to Atty. Catindig is a nullity since SC Ruling and Discussion:
the divorce decree that was obtained from On his part, Atty. Catindig claimed that Dr.
the Dominican Republic by the latter and Perez knew that their marriage was not valid After a thorough perusal of the respective
Gomez is not recognized by Philippine laws. since his previous marriage to Gomez was allegations of the parties and the
Atty. Catindig subsequently assured Dr. still subsisting, and that he only married Dr. circumstances of this case, the Court agrees
Perez that he would legalize their union once Perez because he loved her and that he was with the findings and recommendations of
he obtains a declaration of nullity of his afraid of losing her if he did not. He merely the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP
marriage to Gomez under the laws of the desired to lend a modicum of legitimacy to Board of Governors.
Philippines. Sometime in 1997, Dr. Perez their relationship. He denied that Atty. Baydo
reminded Atty. Catindig of his promise to was the reason that he left Dr. Perez, The Code of Professional Responsibility
legalize their union by filing a petition to claiming that his relationship with Dr. Perez provides:
nullify his marriage to Gomez. Atty. Catindig started to fall apart as early as 1997. He
told her that he would still have to get the asserted that Atty. Baydo joined his law firm Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in
consent of Gomez to the said petition. only in September 1999; and that while he unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
Then in 2001, Dr. Perez alleged that she was attracted to her, Atty. Baydo did not conduct.
received an anonymous letter9 in the mail reciprocate and in fact rejected him. He
informing her of Atty. Catindig’s scandalous likewise pointed out that Atty. Baydo Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold
affair with Atty. Baydo, and that sometime resigned from his firm in January 2001. the integrity and dignity of the legal
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 4 | P a g e
profession and support the activities of the The foregoing circumstances seriously taint
Integrated Bar. Contracting a marriage during the Atty. Catindig’s sense of social propriety
subsistence of a previous one amounts to a and moral values. It is a blatant and
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in grossly immoral conduct. purposeful disregard of our laws on
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness marriage.
to practice law, nor should he, whether in The facts gathered from the evidence
public or private life, behave in a scandalous adduced by the parties and, ironically, from It has also not escaped the attention of the
manner to the discredit of the legal Atty. Catindig’s own admission, indeed Court that Atty. Catindig married Dr. Perez in
profession. establish a pattern of conduct that is grossly the USA. Considering that Atty. Catindig
immoral; it is not only corrupt and knew that his previous marriage remained
In Arnobit v. Atty. Arnobit, the Court held: unprincipled, but reprehensible to a high valid, the logical conclusion is that he wanted
degree. to marry Dr. Perez in the USA for the added
[T]he requirement of good moral character security of avoiding any charge of bigamy by
is of much greater import, as far as the Atty. Catindig was validly married to Gomez entering into the subsequent marriage
general public is concerned, than the twice – a wedding in the Central Methodist outside Philippine jurisdiction.
possession of legal learning. Good moral Church in 1968, which was then followed by a
character is not only a condition precedent Catholic wedding. In 1983, Atty. Catindig Moreover, assuming arguendo that Atty.
for admission to the legal profession, but it started pursuing Dr. Perez when their paths Catindig’s claim is true, it matters not that Dr.
must also remain intact in order to crossed again. Curiously, 15 years into his first Perez knew that their marriage is a nullity.
maintain one’s good standing in that marriage and four children after, Atty. The fact still remains that he resorted to
exclusive and honored fraternity. Good Catindig claimed that his first marriage was various legal strategies in order to render a
moral character is more than just the absence then already falling apart due to Gomez’ façade of validity to his otherwise invalid
of bad character. Such character expresses serious intimacy problems. marriage to Dr. Perez. Such act is, at the
itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it very least, so unprincipled that it is
is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant From his own admission, Atty. Catindig knew reprehensible to the highest degree.
thing if it is wrong. This must be so because that the divorce decree he obtained from the
"vast interests are committed to his care; he court in the Dominican Republic was not While the fact that Atty. Catindig decided to
is the recipient of unbounded trust and recognized in our jurisdiction as he and separate from Dr. Perez to pursue Atty.
confidence; he deals with his client’s Gomez were both Filipino citizens at that Baydo, in itself, cannot be considered a
property, reputation, his life, his all." time. He knew that he was still validly grossly immoral conduct, such fact forms
married to Gomez; that he cannot marry part of the pattern showing his propensity
In this regard, Section 27, Rule 138 of the anew unless his previous marriage be towards immoral conduct. Lest it be
Rules of Court provides that a lawyer may be properly declared a nullity. Otherwise, his misunderstood, the Court’s finding of gross
removed or suspended from the practice of subsequent marriage would be void. This immoral conduct is hinged not on Atty.
law, inter alia, for grossly immoral conduct. notwithstanding, he still married Dr. Perez. Catindig’s desertion of Dr. Perez, but on his
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 5 | P a g e
contracting of a subsequent marriage during personal to him. Although he may delegate
the subsistence of his previous marriage to  Administrative case; Atty. Bancolo, the signing to another lawyer, he may not
Gomez. suspended; delegate it to a non-lawyer. Thus, by affixing
 Respondent Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo one’s signature to a pleading, it is counsel
"The moral delinquency that affects the administratively liable for violating alone who has the responsibility to certify to
fitness of a member of the bar to continue Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of these matters and give legal effect to the
as such includes conduct that outrages the Professional Responsibility. He is document.
generally accepted moral standards of the hereby SUSPENDED from the
community, conduct for instance, which practice of law for one year effective Facts:
makes ‘a mockery of the inviolable social upon finality of this Decision. He is
institution of marriage." In various cases, the warned that a repetition of the same Complainants Tapay and Rustia received
Court has held that disbarment is warranted or similar acts in the future shall be sometime in October, 2004 an order from the
when a lawyer abandons his lawful wife and dealt with more severely. Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas requiring
maintains an illicit relationship with another  SC DISMISS the complaint against them to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint
woman who has borne him a child. Atty. Janus T. larder for lack of merit. filed against them charging them of
usurpation of authority, falsification of public
The Court is not unmindful of the rule that SYLLABUS: document and graft and corruption practices.
the power to disbar must be exercised with These charges were filed by Nehimias
great caution, and only in a clear case of a. Under the Rules of Court, counsel’s Divinagracia, Jr. who is their co-employee in
misconduct that seriously affects the signature serves as a certification the Sugar Regulatory Administration.
standing and character of the lawyer as an that:
officer of the Court and as a member of the The said complaint was allegedly signed on
bar. Where a lesser penalty, such as 1. He has read the pleading; behalf of Divinagracia by Atty. Charlie L.
temporary suspension, could accomplish the 2. To the best of his knowledge, Bancolo of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office
end desired, disbarment should never be information and belief there is good based in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.
decreed. Nevertheless, in this case, the ground to support it; and
seriousness of the offense compels the 3. It is not interposed for delay. When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally
Court to wield its power to disbar, as it chanced upon each other, the latter informed
appears to be the most appropriate In Republic v. Kendrick Development Atty. Bancolo of the case filed against them
penalty. Corporation, 498 SCRA 220 (2006), we held before the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty.
that the preparation and signing of a Bancolo denied that he represented
3. Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia pleading constitute legal work involving the Divinagracia since he had yet to meet
vs. Atty. Charlie > Bancolo and Atty. Janus practice of law which is reserved exclusively Divinagracia in person. When Rustia showed
T. Jarder for the legal profession. Atty. Bancolo’s him the Complaint, Atty. Bancolo declared
A.C. No.9604, March 20, 2013 authority and duty to sign a pleading are that the signature appearing above his name
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 6 | P a g e
as counsel for Divinagracia was not his. Thus, office secretary per Atty. Bancolo’s dated 1 July 2005 by the Philippine National
Rustia convinced Atty. Bancolo to sign an instructions. Divinagracia asked that the Police Crime Laboratory 6 which examined
affidavit to attest to such fact. On 9 Office of the Ombudsman dismiss the cases three other letter-complaints signed by Atty.
December 2004, Atty. Bancolo signed an for falsification of public document and Bancolo for other clients, allegedly close
affidavit denying his supposed signature dishonesty filed against him by Rustia and friends of Atty. Jarder. The report concluded
appearing on the Complaint filed with the Atty. Bancolo and to revive the original that the questioned signatures in the
Office of the Ombudsman and submitted six Complaint for various offenses that he filed letter-complaints and the submitted
specimen signatures for comparison. Using against Tapay and Rustia. standard signatures of Atty. Bancolo were
Atty. Bancolo’s affidavit and other not written by one and the same person.
documentary evidence, Tapay and Rustia n a Resolution dated 19 September 2005, the Thus, complainants maintained that not only
filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the were respondents engaging in unprofessional
of falsifying the signature of his alleged criminal case for falsification of public and unethical practices, they were also
counsel, Atty. Bancolo. document (OMB-V-C-05-0207-E) for involved in falsification of documents used to
insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive harass and persecute innocent people.
In a Resolution dated 28 March 2005, the portion states:
Office of the Ombudsman provisionally On 9 January 2006, complainants filed a
dismissed the Complaint since the WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby Supplement to the Disbarment Complaint
falsification of the counsel’s signature posed DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence, Due to Additional Information. They alleged
a prejudicial question to the Complaint’s without prejudice to the re-filing by that a certain Mary Jane Gentugao, the
validity. Also, the Office of the Ombudsman Divinagracia, Jr. of a proper complaint for secretary of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office,
ordered that separate cases for Falsification violation of RA 3019 and other offenses forged the signature of Atty. Bancolo.
of Public Document2 and Dishonesty be filed against Rustia and Tapay.
against Divinagracia, with Rustia and Atty. In their Answer dated 26 January 2006 to the
Bancolo as complainants. On 29 November 2005, Tapay and Rustia disbarment complaint, respondents
filed with the Integrated Bar of the admitted that the criminal and
Thereafter, Divinagracia filed his Counter- Philippines (IBP) a complaint5 to disbar Atty. administrative cases filed by Divinagracia
Affidavit dated 1 August 2005 denying that Bancolo and Atty. Jarder, Atty. Bancolo’s law against complainants before the Office of
he falsified the signature of his former partner. The complainants alleged that the Ombudsman were accepted by the
lawyer, Atty. Bancolo. Divinagracia they were subjected to a harassment Jarder Bancolo Law Office. The cases were
presented as evidence an affidavit dated 1 Complaint filed before the Office of the assigned to Atty. Bancolo. Atty. Bancolo
August 2005 by Richard A. Cordero, the legal Ombudsman with the forged signature of alleged that after being informed of the
assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the Jarder Atty. Bancolo. Complainants stated further assignment of the cases, he ordered his
Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracia’s that the signature of Atty. Bancolo in the staff to prepare and draft all the necessary
case and that the Complaint filed with the Complaint was not the only one that was pleadings and documents. However, due to
Office of the Ombudsman was signed by the forged. Complainants attached a Report some minor lapses, Atty. Bancolo
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 7 | P a g e
permitted that the pleadings and task which by law may only be performed by against Tapay and Rustia were signed by his
communications be signed in his name by a member of the Bar in good standing. secretary, albeit with his tolerance.
the secretary of the law office. Respondents Undoubtedly, Atty. Bancolo violated the
added that complainants filed the This rule was clearly explained in the case of Code of Professional Responsibility by
disbarment complaint to retaliate against Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, where we held: allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature
them since the cases filed before the Office of to a pleading. This violation Is an act of
the Ombudsman were meritorious and The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very falsehood which IS a ground for disciplinary
strongly supported by testimonial and least not to assist in, the unauthorized action.
documentary evidence. Respondents also practice of law is founded on public interest
denied that Mary Jane Gentugao was and policy. Public policy requires that the Lawyer and the Courts
employed as secretary of their law office. practice of law be limited to those individuals
found duly qualified in education and 4. Spouses Willie and Amelia Umaguing vs.
SC Ruling/Discussion character. The permissive right conferred Atty. Wallen R. de Vera
on the lawyer is an individual and limited A.C. No. 10451, February 4, 2015
After a careful review of the records of the privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to
case, we agree with the findings and maintain proper standards of moral and  Administrative case; Atty. De Vera
recommendation of the IBP Board and find professional conduct. The purpose is to was suspended;
reasonable grounds to hold respondent protect the public, the court, the client, and  Respondent Atty. Wallen R. De Vera
Atty. Bancolo administratively liable. the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty (respondent) is found GUILTY of
of those unlicensed to practice law and not violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule
Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint subject to the disciplinary control of the 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of
he filed for a former client before the Office Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that Professional Responsibility.
of the Ombudsman was signed in his name this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED for
by a secretary of his law office. Clearly, this ethics of the profession enjoin him not to six (6) months from the practice of
is a violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the permit his professional services or his name law, effective upon receipt of this
Code of Professional Responsibility, which to be used in aid of, or to make possible the Decision, with a stern warning that
provides: unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, any repetition of the same or similar
personal or corporate. And, the law makes it acts will be punished more severely.
CANON 9 a misbehavior on his part, subject to  Respondent is ORDERED to return to
A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the complainants Spouses Willie and
INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE unauthorized practice of law. Amelia Umaguing the amount of
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW. P60,000.00 which he admittedly
In the Answer, Atty. Bancolo categorically received from the latter as fees
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any stated that because of some minor lapses, intrinsically linked to his professional
unqualified person the performance of any the communications and pleadings filed engagement within ninety (90) days
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 8 | P a g e
 from the finality of this Decision. November 8, 2008 was closing in. Atty. De
Failure to comply with the foregoing Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has Vera then rushed the preparation of the
directive will warrant the imposition to observe and maintain the rule of law as necessary documents and attachments for
of further administrative penalties. well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation the election protest.
by others. It is by no means a coincidence,
SYLLABUS: therefore, that the core values of honesty, Two (2) of these attachments are the
integrity, and trustworthiness are Affidavits of material witnesses Mark
a. Legal ethics; Fundamental is the rule emphatically reiterated by the Code of Anthony Lachica (Lachica) and Angela
that in his dealings with his client and Professional Responsibility. In this light, Rule Almera (Almera), which was personally
with the courts, every lawyer is 1.01, canon 10 of the Code of Professional prepared by Atty. De Vera. At the time that
expected to be honest, imbued with Responsibility provides that “a lawyer shall the aforesaid affidavits were needed to be
integrity, and trustworthy. not do any falsehood, nor consent to the signed by Lachica and Almera, they were
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or unfortunately unavailable. To remedy this,
Fundamental is the rule that in his dealings allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Atty. De Vera allegedly instructed Abeth
with his client and with the courts, every Lalong-Isip (Lalong-Isip) and Hendricson
lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with Fielding (Fielding) to look for the nearest
integrity, and trustworthy. These Facts: kin or relatives of Lachica and Almera and
expectations, though high and demanding, ask them to sign over the names.
are the professional and ethical burdens of Sometime in 2007 complaint, Umaguing ran
every member of the Philippine Bar, for they for the position of SK Chairman in the SK The signing over of Lachica’s and Almera’s
have been given full expression in the Elections of 2007. Unfortunately, she lost to names were done by Christina Papin (Papin)
Lawyer’s Oath that every lawyer of this her rival Jose Gabriel Bungag by one (1) vote. and Elsa Almera-Almacen, respectively. Atty.
country has taken upon admission as a bona Because of this, complainants lodged an De Vera then had all the documents
fide member of the Law Profession. election protest and enlisted the services of notarized before one Atty. Donato Manguiat
Atty. De Vera. On November 7, 2007, (Atty. Manguiat).
b. Lawyer’s oath; The Lawyer’s Oath complainants were asked by Atty. De Vera to
enjoins every lawyer not only to obey pay his acceptance fee of P30,000.00, plus But it was discovered by witness Lachica the
the laws of the land but also to various court appearance fees and falsification of his signature and immediately
refrain from doing any falsehood in miscellaneous expenses in the amount of disowned the signature affixed in the affidavit
or out of court or from consenting to P30,000.00. and submitted his own Affidavit, declaring
the doing of any in court, and to that he did not authorize Papin to sign the
conduct himself according to the best According to the complainants, Atty. De Vera document on his behalf.
of knowledge and discretion with all had more than enough time to prepare and
good fidelity to the courts as well as file the case but the former moved at a glacial Lachica’s affidavit was presented to the
to his clients. pace and only took action when the MeTC and drew the ire of Presiding Judge
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 9 | P a g e
Edgardo Belosillo (Judge Belosillo), who ruled in turn, give to Judge Belosillo to secure a Formal Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel,
that the affidavits filed by Atty. De Vera were favorable decision for Umaguing. complainants executed a document entitled
falsified. Judge Belosillo pointed out that “Release Waiver & Discharge,” which, to him,
while Atty. De Vera filed a pleading to rectify On December 12, 2007, for lack of trust and discharges him and his law firm from all
this error (i.e., an Answer to Counterclaim confidence in the integrity and competency causes of action that complainants may have
with Omnibus Motion, seeking, among of Atty. De Vera, as well as his breach of against him, including the instant
others, the withdrawal of Lachica’s and fiduciary relations, the complainants asked administrative case.
Almera’s affidavits), it was observed that the former to withdraw as their counsel and
such was a mere flimsy excuse since Atty. to reimburse them the P60,000.00 in Issue: Whether or not Atty. De Vera should
De Vera had ample amount of time to have excessive fees he collected from them, be held administratively liable.
the affidavits personally signed by the considering that he only appeared twice for
affiants but still hastily filed the election the case.
protest with full knowledge that the SC Ruling/Discussion
affidavits at hand were falsified. In his Counter-Affidavit, Atty. De Vera
In further breach of his oath as a lawyer, the vehemently denied all the accusations lodged The Court adopts and approves the findings
complainants pointed out that Atty. De Vera against him by complainants. He averred of the IBP, as the same were duly
did not appear before the MeTC, although that he merely prepared the essential substantiated by the records. However, the
promptly notified, for a certain December 11, documents for election protest based on Court finds it apt to increase the period of
2007 hearing; and did not offer any the statements of his clients. suspension to six (6) months.
explanation as to why he was not able to
attend. Atty. De Vera then explained that the signing Fundamental is the rule that in his dealings
of Lachica’s falsified Affidavit was done with his client and with the courts, every
The complainants then confronted Atty. De without his knowledge and likewise stated lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued
Vera and asked for an explanation regarding that it was Christina Papin who should be with integrity, and trustworthy. These
his non-appearance in the court. Atty. De indicted and charged with the corresponding expectations, though high and demanding,
Vera explained that he was hesitant in criminal offense. He added that he actually are the professional and ethical burdens of
handling the particular case because of the sought to rectify his mistakes by filing the every member of the Philippine Bar, for
alleged favoritism of Judge Belosillo. aforementioned Answer to Counterclaim they have been given full expression in the
According to Atty. De Vera, Judge Belosillo with Omnibus Motion in order to withdraw Lawyer’s Oath that every lawyer of this
received P60,000.00 from the defense the affidavits of Lachica and Almera. As he country has taken upon admission as a bona
counsel, Atty. Carmelo Culvera, in order to supposedly felt that he could no longer serve fide member of the Law Profession.
acquire a favorable decision for his client. complainants with his loyalty and devotion in
Atty. De Vera averred that he would only view of the aforementioned signing incident, The assertion that Atty. De Vera authorized
appear for the case if the complainants Atty. De Vera then withdrew from the case. the falsification of Almera’s affidavit is
would give him P80,000.00, which he would To add, he pointed out that along with his rendered more believable by the absence of
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 10 | P a g e
Atty. De Vera’s comment on the same. In submitted to the court when his administration of persons unfit to practice in
fact, in his Motion for Reconsideration of the professional duty requires him to represent them. The attorney is called to answer to the
IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution dated his client with zeal and within the bounds court for his conduct as an officer of the
December 14, 2012, no specific denial was of the law. Likewise, he is prohibited from court. The complainant or the person who
proffered by Atty. De Vera on this score. handling any legal matter without adequate called the attention of the court to the
Instead, he only asserted that he was not the preparation or allow his client to dictate the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a
one who notarized the subject affidavits but procedure in handling the case. party, and has generally no interest in the
another notary public, who he does not even outcome except as all good citizens may have
know or has seen in his entire life, and that he On a related point, the Court deems it apt to in the proper administration of justice.
had no knowledge of the falsification of the clarify that the document captioned “Release
impugned documents, much less of the Waiver & Discharge” which Atty. De Vera, in As a final word, the Court echoes its
participation in using the same. his Counter-Affidavit, claimed to have unwavering exhortation in Samonte:
Unfortunately for Atty. De Vera, the Court discharged him from all causes of action that
views the same to be a mere general denial complainants may have against him, such as Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
which cannot overcome Elsa Almera- the present case, would not deny the Court are designed to ensure that whoever is
Almacen’s positive testimony that he indeed its power to sanction him administratively. It granted the privilege to practice law in this
participated in the procurement of her was held in Ylaya v. Gacott that: country should remain faithful to the
signature and the signing of the affidavit, all Lawyer’s Oath. Only thereby can lawyers
in support of the claim of falsification. A case of suspension or disbarment may preserve their fitness to remain as members
proceed regardless of interest or lack of of the Law Profession. Any resort to
The final lining to it all – for which the IBP interest of the complainant. What matters falsehood or deception, including adopting
Board of Governors rendered its is whether, on the basis of the facts borne artifices to cover up one’s misdeeds
recommendation – is that Almera’s out by the record, the charge of deceit and committed against clients and the rest of the
affidavit was submitted to the MeTC in the grossly immoral conduct has been proven. trusting public, evinces an unworthiness to
election protest case. The belated retraction This rule is premised on the nature of continue enjoying the privilege to practice
of the questioned affidavits, through the disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for law and highlights the unfitness to remain a
Answer to Counterclaim with Omnibus suspension or disbarment is not a civil action member of the Law Profession. It deserves
Motion, does not, for this Court, merit where the complainant is a plaintiff and the for the guilty lawyer stern disciplinary
significant consideration as its submission respondent lawyer is a defendant. sanctions.
appears to be a mere afterthought, Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
prompted only by the discovery of the interest and afford no redress for private 5. Atty. Carmen Leonor M. Alcantara vs.
falsification. Truth be told, it is highly grievance. They are undertaken and Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera
improbable for Atty. De Vera to have prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They A.C. No. 5859, November 23, 2010
remained in the dark about the are undertaken for the purpose of preserving
authenticity of the documents he himself courts of justice from the official
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 11 | P a g e
  Disbarment case; Atty. De Vera is act of filing a barrage of cases appears to be custody and handling of clients funds and
disbarred; an act of revenge and hate driven by anger recommending to the Court his one-year
 Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera is hereby and frustration against his former client who suspension from the practice of law.
DISBARRED from the practice of law filed the disciplinary complaint against him
effective immediately upon his for infidelity in the custody of a client’s funds. Following the release of the aforesaid IBP
receipt of this Resolution. Resolution, the respondent filed a series of
lawsuits against the Mercado family except
SYLLABUS: George Mercado.
Facts:
a. Filing of numerous cases in different The respondent also instituted cases against
for a, in this case, when deemed to be The respondent is a member of the Bar and the family corporation, the corporation’s
an act of revenge and hate. was the former counsel of Rosario P. accountant and the judge who ruled against
Mercado in a civil case filed in 1984 with the the reopening of the case where respondent
There is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer Regional Trial Court of Davao City and an tried to collect the balance of his alleged fee
who files numerous cases in different fora, as administrative case filed before the Securities from Rosario.
long as he does so in good faith, in and Exchange Commission, Davao City
accordance with the Rules, and without any Extension Office. Later on, the respondent also filed cases
ill-motive or purpose other than to achieve against the chairman and members of the
justice and fairness. In the present case, Pursuant to a favorable decision, a writ of IBP Board of Governors who voted to
however, we find that the barrage of cases execution pending appeal was issued in favor recommend his suspension from the practice
filed by the respondent against his former of Rosario P. Mercado. Herein respondent, as of law for one year.
client and others close to her was meant to her legal counsel, garnished the bank
overwhelm said client and to show her that deposits of the defendant, but did not turn Complainants allege that the respondent
the respondent does not fold easily after he over the proceeds to Rosario. Rosario committed barratry, forum shopping,
was meted a penalty of one-year suspension demanded that the respondent turn over the exploitation of family problems, and use of
from the practice of law. The nature of the proceeds of the garnishment, but the latter intemperate language when he filed
cases filed by the respondent, the fact of re- refused claiming that he had paid part of the several frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits
filing them after being dismissed, the timing money to the judge while the balance was against the complainants and their family
of the filing of cases, the fact that the his, as attorney’s fees. Such refusal prompted members, their lawyers, and the family
respondent was in conspiracy of a renegade Rosario to file an administrative case for corporation. They maintain that the primary
member of the complainant’s family, the disbarment against the respondent. purpose of the cases is to harass and to exact
defendants named in the cases and the foul revenge for the one-year suspension from
language used in the pleadings and motions On March 23, 1993, the IBP Board of the practice of law meted out by the IBP
all indicate that the respondent was acting Governors promulgated a Resolution holding against the respondent. Thus, they pray that
beyond the desire for justice and fairness. His the respondent guilty of infidelity in the the respondent be disbarred for malpractice
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 12 | P a g e
and gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule him of extorting from Rosario shocking and duties and responsibilities belonging to an
138 of the Rules of Court. unconscionable attorney’s fees. office of an attorney, and thus to protect the
public and those charged with the
In his defense the respondent basically offers SC Ruling/Discussion administration of justice, rather than to
a denial of the charges against him. punish the attorney.
He denies he has committed barratry by After careful consideration of the records of
instigating or stirring up George Mercado to this case and the parties’ submissions, we In Maligsa v. Cabanting, we explained that
file lawsuits against the complainants. He find ourselves in agreement with the findings the bar should maintain a high standard of
insists that the lawsuits that he and George and recommendation of the IBP Board of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair
filed against the complainants were not Governors. dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal
harassment suits but were in fact filed in profession by faithfully performing his duties
good faith and were based on strong facts. It is worth stressing that the practice of law is to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his
not a right but a privilege bestowed by the clients. To this end a member of the legal
Also, the respondent denies that he has State upon those who show that they profession should refrain from doing any act
engaged in forum shopping. He argues that possess, and continue to possess, the which might lessen in any degree the
he was merely exhausting the remedies qualifications required by law for the confidence and trust reposed by the public in
allowed by law and that he was merely conferment of such privilege. the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal
constrained to seek relief elsewhere by profession. An attorney may be disbarred or
reason of the denial of the trial court to Membership in the bar is a privilege suspended for any violation of his oath or of
reopen the civil case so he could justify his burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the his duties as an attorney and counselor,
attorney’s fees. privilege and right to practice law only during which include statutory grounds enumerated
good behavior and can only be deprived of it in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Further, he denies that he had exploited the for misconduct ascertained and declared by
problems of his client’s family. He argues that judgment of the court after opportunity to be In the present case, the respondent
the case that he and George Mercado filed heard has been afforded him. Without committed professional malpractice and
against the complainants arose from their invading any constitutional privilege or right, gross misconduct particularly in his acts
perception of unlawful transgressions an attorney’s right to practice law may be against his former clients after the issuance
committed by the latter for which they must resolved by a proceeding to suspend or disbar of the IBP Resolution suspending him from
be held accountable for the public interest. him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to the practice of law for one year. In summary,
hold a license or to exercise the duties and the respondent filed against his former client,
Finally, the respondent denies using any responsibilities of an attorney. It must be her family members, the family corporation
intemperate, vulgar, or unprofessional understood that the purpose of suspending of his former client, the Chairman and
language. On the contrary, he asserts that it or disbarring an attorney is to remove from members of the Board of Governors of the
was the complainants who resorted to the profession a person whose misconduct IBP who issued the said Resolution, the
intemperate and vulgar language in accusing has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the Regional Trial Court Judge in the case where
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 13 | P a g e
his former client received a favorable prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A 6. Teresita D. Santeco vs Atty. Luna B.
judgment, and the present counsel of his lawyer should not only help attain these Avance
former client, a total of twelve (12) different objectives but should likewise avoid any A.C. No. 5834, February 22, 2011
cases in various fora which included the unethical or improper practices that impede,
Securities and Exchange Commission; the obstruct or prevent their realization, charged  Administrative and disbarment case;
Provincial Prosecutors Office of Tagum, as he is with the primary task of assisting in  Respondent ATTY. LUNA B.
Davao; the Davao City Prosecutors Office; the speedy and efficient administration of AVANCE is hereby DISBARRED for
the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline; the justice. Canon 12 of the Code of gross misconduct and willful
Department of Agrarian Reform; and the Professional Responsibility promulgated on disobedience of lawful orders of a
Supreme Court. 21 June 1988 is very explicit that lawyers superior court. Her name is
must exert every effort and consider it their ORDERED STRICKEN OFF from the
In the case of Prieto v. Corpuz, the Court duty to assist in the speedy and efficient Roll of Attorneys.
pronounced that it is professionally administration of justice.
irresponsible for a lawyer to file frivolous SYLLABUS:
lawsuits. Thus, we stated in Prieto, Further, the respondent not only filed
frivolous and unfounded lawsuits that a. Administrative Law; Attorneys; The
Atty. Marcos V. Prieto must be sanctioned violated his duties as an officer of the court in highest form of respect for judicial
for filing this unfounded complaint. aiding in the proper administration of justice, authority is shown by a lawyer’s
Although no person should be penalized for but he did so against a former client to whom obedience to court orders and
the exercise of the right to litigate, he owes loyalty and fidelity. Canon 21 and processes.
however, this right must be exercised in Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional
good faith. Responsibility provides: As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer’s duty
to uphold the dignity and authority of the
As officers of the court, lawyers have a CANON 21 - A lawyer shall preserve the court. The highest form of respect for judicial
responsibility to assist in the proper confidence and secrets of his client even after authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to
administration of justice. They do not the attorney-client relation is terminated. court orders and processes. Here,
discharge this duty by filing frivolous respondent’s conduct evidently fell short of
petitions that only add to the workload of Rule 21.02 A lawyer shall not, to the what is expected of her as an officer of the
the judiciary. disadvantage of his client, use information court as she obviously possesses a habit of
acquired in the course of employment, nor defying this Court’s orders. She willfully
A lawyer is part of the machinery in the shall he use the same to his own advantage disobeyed this Court when she continued her
administration of justice. Like the court or that of a third person, unless the client law practice despite the 5-year suspension
itself, he is an instrument to advance its ends with full knowledge of the circumstances order against her and even misrepresented
the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and consents thereto. herself to be another person in order to
inexpensive adjudication of cases and the evade said penalty. Thereafter, when she was
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 14 | P a g e
twice ordered to comment on her continued disobedience of any lawful order of a superior period of five years, and was likewise
law practice while still suspended, nothing court. directed to return to complainant, within ten
was heard from her despite receipt of two (10) days from notice, the amount of
Resolutions from this Court. Neither did she c. Disbarment; Respondent is unfit to P3,900.00 which complainant paid her for the
pay the P30, 000.00 fine imposed in the discharge the duties of an officer of filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court
September 29, 2009 Resolution. the court and deserves the ultimate of Appeals (CA), which she never filed.
penalty of disbarment.
b. Failure to comply with Court Respondent moved to reconsider the
directives constitutes gross In repeatedly disobeying this Court’s orders, decision but her motion was denied in a
misconduct, insubordination or respondent proved herself unworthy of Resolution dated February 24, 2004.
disrespect which merits a lawyer’s membership in the Philippine bar. Worse, she
suspension or even disbarment. remains indifferent to the need to reform Subsequently, while respondents five-year
herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the suspension from the practice of law was
We have held that failure to comply with duties of an officer of the court and deserves still in effect, Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar,
Court directives constitutes gross the ultimate penalty of disbarment. Presiding Judge of the RTC of Iba,
misconduct, insubordination or disrespect Zambales, Branch 71, sent a letter-report
which merits a lawyer’s suspension or even Facts: dated November 12, 2007 to then Court
disbarment. Sebastian v Bajar, 532 SCRA 435 Administrator Christopher O. Lock
(2007), teaches Respondent’s cavalier The case originated from an administrative informing the latter that respondent had
attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of complaint filed by Teresita D. Santeco appeared and actively participated in three
the SC constitutes utter disrespect to the against respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance cases wherein she misrepresented herself
judicial institution. A Court’s Resolution is for mishandling Civil Case No. 97-275, an as Atty. Liezl Tanglao. When her opposing
“not to be construed as a mere request, nor action to declare a deed of absolute sale null counsels confronted her and showed to the
should it be complied with partially, and void and for reconveyance and damages, court a certification regarding her
inadequately, or selectively. Respondent’s which complainant had filed before the suspension, respondent admitted and
obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. conceded that she is Atty. Luna B. Avance,
orders not “only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in but qualified that she was only suspended for
her character; it also underscores her In an En Banc Decision dated December 11, three years and that her suspension has
disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders which 2003, the Court found respondent guilty of already been lifted. Judge Amog-Bocar
is only too deserving of reproof.” Under gross misconduct for, among others, further stated that respondent nonetheless
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a abandoning her clients cause in bad faith withdrew her appearance from all the cases.
member of the bar may be disbarred or and persistent refusal to comply with lawful Attached to the letter-report were copies of
suspended from office as an attorney for orders directed at her without any several pertinent orders from her court
gross misconduct and/or for a willful explanation for doing so. She was ordered confirming the report.
suspended from the practice of law for a
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 15 | P a g e
Acting on Judge Amog-Bocars letter-report, Hermoso Mesa, Jr. and duly received by one
the Court, in a Resolution dated April 9, Lota Cadete on October 29, 2009, per
2008, required respondent to comment certification dated February 3, 2011 by
within ten (10) days from notice. Postmaster Rufino C. Robles of the Marikina
Respondent, however, failed to file the Central Post Office.
required comment. On June 10, 2009, the
Court reiterated the directive to comment; Despite due notice, however, respondent
otherwise the case would be deemed failed to pay the fine imposed in the
submitted for resolution based on available September 29, 2009 Resolution based on a
records on file with the Court. Still, certification issued by Araceli C. Bayuga,
respondent failed to comply despite notice. Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Cash
Accordingly, this Court issued a Resolution Collection and Disbursement Division,
on September 29, 2009 finding respondent Fiscal Management and Budget Office. The
guilty of indirect contempt. The dispositive said certification reads:
portion of the Resolution reads:
This is to certify that as per records of the
ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby found Cashier Division, there is no record of
guilty of indirect contempt and is hereby payment made by one ATTY. LUNA B.
FINED in the amount of Thirty Thousand AVANCE in the amount of Thirty Thousand
Pesos (P30,000.00) and STERNLY WARNED Pesos (P30,000.00) as payment for COURT
that a repetition of the same or similar FINE imposed in the resolution dated 29
infractions will be dealt with more severely. Sept. 2009 Re: Adm. Case No. 5834.

Let all courts, through the Office of the Court In view of the foregoing, the Court finds
Administrator, as well as the Integrated Bar respondent unfit to continue as a member
of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar of the bar.
Confidant, be notified of this Resolution, and
be it duly recorded in the personal file of As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer’s
respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance. duty to uphold the dignity and authority of
the court. The highest form of respect for
A copy of the September 29, 2009 Resolution judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s
was sent to respondent’s address of record at obedience to court orders and processes.
26-B Korea Ave., Ph. 4, Greenheights Subd.,
Nangka, Marikina City by registered mail.
The same was delivered by Postman
Legal ETHICS MIDTERM January 28, 2019 CASES 16 | P a g e