Canon 8 Courtesy, Fairness, Candor a subpoena for their preliminary investigation, the Pros.

filed
estafa against said client. After which Chiong made an urgent
Towards Professional Colleagues motion to quash the warrant-with his filing for a civil
complaint and collection for a sum of money and damages
against Atty. Reyes, Xu (the complainant’s client) and the
Prosecutor. Upon their confrontation, no settlement was
reached. Chiong argues that there was no disrespect
1. ATTY. Bugarin v. Espanol- DIRECT impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil Case - no
CONTEMPT/3K-2K basis to conclude that the suit was groundless. He argues that
he impleaded the Prosecutor because the criminal
investigation had irregularities due to the action of the
Facts: An action for Annulment of Sale and Certificates of Prosecutor to file estafa case despite the pendency for his
Sale was filed and the trial court issued an order directing client’s motion for an opportunity to submit counter affidavit
ROD to annotate at the back of certain certificates of title a and evidence.
notice of lis... pendens but before it could comply with said
order, the defendant Spouses Alvaran filed a motion to ISSUE: Did respondent violate Canon 8 of the Code of
cancel lis pendens. Atty. Bugarin, the newly appointed Professional Responsibility?
counsel of Royal Bechtel Builders Inc., filed an opposition to
the motion to cancel lis pendens. A motion to cancel lis HELD: YES
pendens was granted by the court. Atty. Bugaring was making
manifestation to the effect that he was ready to mark his
Defendant’s purpose of filing for the collection suit with
documentary evidence pursuant to his Motion to cite (in
damages was to be able to obtain leverage against the estafa
contempt of court) the Deputy ROD Concepcion.
case of his client. Clearly there was no need to implead
The Court called the attention of said counsel who explained complainant and Pros. Salonga because they never had any
that he did not cause the appearance of the cameraman to take participation in the business transactions between Pan and Xu,
pictures, however, he admitted that they came from a function, clearly it was for the mere harassment of the two. Chiong was
and that was the reason why the said cameraman was in tow suspended for 2 years from the practice of law and was
with him and the plaintiffs. implemented immediately.

He was insisting that he be allowed to mark his documentary ----- ATTY. REYES v ATTY. CHIONG JR. – Chinese-
evidence and was raring to argue as in fact he was already Taiwanese; fishball factory-estafa case XU VS PAN-
perorating despite the fact that Atty. Barzaga has not yet SUSPENDED 2 YRS
finished with his manifestation. Thus, he was declared out of
order. He flared up and uttered words insulting the Court; such Facts: Atty. Reyes, counsel for Zonggi Xu. Atty. Chiong, Jr
as: `that he knows better than the latter as he has won all his. for Chia Pan. Xu, a Chinese-Taiwanese went into a business
He was declared in direct contempt and order the Court's venture with Pan. Pan was supposed to set up a Cebu-based
sheriff to arrest and place him under detention. - indeed fishball, tempura and seafood products factory. He did not
arrogant, at times impertinent, too argumentative, to the extent establish it, and so Xu asked that his money be returned. Xu
of being disrespectful,... annoying and sarcastic towards the then filed a case of estafa against Pan.Prosecutor Salanga then
court. issued a subpoena against Pan.
Issues: THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A
Atty. Reyes was allegedly impleaded because he allegedly
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE ASSAILED
connived with Xu in filing the estafa case which was baseless.
ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH TO
IBP recommended that Chiong be suspended for 2years.
PETITIONER'S SUBMISSIONS SMACKS OF
OPPRESSION AND ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, HENCE IT
Issue:W/N Chiong should be suspended.
COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR OF LAW IN ITS
QUESTIONED DECISION.
Held: Yes.
Ruling: NO
C8 COR provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with
Without due regard or deference to his fellow counsel who at courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional
the time he was making representations in behalf of the other colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
party, was rudely interrupted by the petitioner and was not counsel.
allowed to further put a word in edgewise... is violative of
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Refusal of the petitioner If Chiong believed that the two had conspired to act illegally,
to allow the ROD to exercise his right to be heard is against he could have instituted disbarment proceedings. As a lawyer,
Section 1 of Article III on the right to due process of law. The Chiong should have advised his client of the availability of
Court cannot therefore help but notice the sarcasm in the these remedies. Thus the filing of the cases had no
petitioner's use of the phrase "your honor please." justification. Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and
other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. Any undue ill
feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their
2. ATTY. Reyes v. ATTY. Chiong- esyafa; civil case conduct and demeanor toward each other.
impleaded- SUSPENDED 2 YRS

Facts: Atty. Reyes filed a case for disbarment against 3. DR. Mendoza v. ATTY. Gadon- Letter, 10 yrs
respondent Atty. Chiong because of the latter’s violation of case solve, insultSUSPENDED 3 MONTHS/
Canon 8 of CPR dealing with the idea that lawyers should STERN WARN
treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. Chiong’s
client did not appear upon the court when Pros. Salonga issued
 FACTS: • Mendoza, a dermatologist, holds her clinic Inclusion of derogatory statements actuated by his
under an arrangement with Ambulatory Health Care giving vent to ill-feelings stated in the pleading is
Institute, Inc. (AHCII), where she paid monthly rental not covered by the absolute immunity or privileged
fee for occupying a space in Clinica Manila. She treated communication.
a patient who had an allergic reaction to the medicine
she prescribed. The patient returned the next day to Facts: Atty. Torres and Mrs. Celestino charged Atty. Javier
complain, but was disappointed by the way Dr. Mendoza for malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an attorney
handled the situation. The patient filed a complaint with and/or violation of the lawyer’s oath for employing
Clinica Manila. AHCII suspended Dr. Mendoza from the statements and remarks on his pleadings which are false,
practice of her profession. She then alleges that it was unsubstantiated, with malicious imputation, abusive,
Atty. Gadon, the corp. secretary and VP of AHCII, who offensive and improper with the character of an attorney
suspended her without authorization from the BOD and as a quasi-judicial officer. Atty. Javier professes that he was
without just cause. AHCII allowed Dr. Mendoza to angry while he was preparing his pleadings considering that
resume the practice of dermatology in Clinica Manila his wife was included to the burglary exposed in the present
but under a reduced number of hours. She file a case. Also, he invokes that those statements he made are
privileged communication, it forming part of a judicial
complaint for disbarment-noted the very insulting
proceeding.
manner the letter was worded; such words were
“thoroughly unbecoming of a member of the bar to
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Javier is administratively liable
write.” - fabricated lies stating the AHCII stating that for the alleged offensive statements he made in his pleadings
AHCII had been dissolved to prevent her from
exercising her right to examine the corporate records. - HELD: YES.
intemperate language, and unbecoming statements that
displayed a lack of courtesy and candor towards his For reasons of public policy, utterances made in the course of
professional colleagues. judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions
and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they are
ISSUE/S & RATIO: W/N Atty. Gadon was guilty of pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or
violating Canon 1 and Canon 8 of CPR. malicious they may be. A matter, however, to which the
privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in
Held: YES. relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no
reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy or impropriety.
That matter alleged in a pleading need not be in every case
Atty. Gadon’s letter dated April 23, 2002 to Dr. material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It must,
Mendoza reads: “We are prepared to face any legal suits however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to
that would come out of this exercise, and assuming you the subject of the controversy that it may become the
may get a favorable result after 10 years, that is IF you subject of inquiry in the course of the trial.
will win, which is still a big question since we will not
also take this matter sitting down as we have a lot of In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s
resources to uses as well while in the meantime you language must be dignified and choice of language is
altogether forfeit your clinic practice.” important in the preparation of pleadings. In the assertion of
his client’s rights, a lawyer — even one gifted with superior
Atty. Gadon’s remarks about the slow justice system and intellect — is enjoined to rein up his temper.
insinuations that cases are won based on abundance of
resources, tramp the integrity and dignity of the legal Thus, the inclusion of the derogatory statements by respondent
profession and the judicial system. o Atty. Gadon should was actuated by his giving vent to his ill-feelings towards
Atty. Torres, a purpose to which the mantle of absolute
refrain from using abusive and intemperate language
immunity does not extend.
which displays arrogance towards the legal system and
his colleagues.

The language of Atty. Gadon in his rejoinder violated 5. CIR v. Asalus Corp.- counsel made use of
Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the CPR o The pertinent portion insulting words; Def. VAT liab- REVERSED, SET
in his rejoinder reads: “At the risk of being reprimanded ASIDE
by this Honorable Commission, respondent [cannot]
help and [cannot] resist expressing his thought that this "even to the uninitiated," "petitioner's habit of disregarding
is dumbest and the most stupid statement I have firmly established rules of procedure," "twist establish facts
encountered in my years of practice of law. In fact, to suit her ends," "just to indulge petitioner," and "she then
people who have read the statement nearly died of tried to calculate, on her own but without factual basis." It
laughing and also declared that it was the most stupid asserted that "[w]hile a lawyer has a complete discretion on
statement they have ever heard in their entire lives. They what legal strategy to employ in a case, the overzealousness
even commented that people responsible for writing this in protecting his client's interest does not warrant the use of
statement ought to commit suicide for being too insulting and profane language in his pleadings xxx." 
ignorant.”
FACTS: Asalus Corp. received a Notice of Informal
4. ATTY. Torres v. ATTY. Javier-OFFENSIVE Conference from Revenue District Office BIR. It was in
PLEADINGS- SUSPENDED 1 MONTH/S.WARN connection with the investigation conducted by Revenue
Officer Bañares on the VAT transactions of Asalus for the
taxable year 2007. Asalus quesitoned the basis of Bañares'
computation for its VAT liability. CIR issued the Prelim. 7. PAO Alcantara v. ATTY. Pefianco- Murder case;
Assessment Notice finding Asalus liable for deficiency VAT woman cried- FINE 1K
for 2007. Asalus filed its protest against the FAN. As a result,
it filed a petition for review before the CTA Division. The FACTS: Alcantara is the incumbent District Public Attorney
CTA Division ruled that the VAT assessment issued on
August 26, 2011 had prescribed and consequently deemed of the PAO. Atty. Salvani was conferring with a client in the
invalid. PAO, a woman approached them.  Alcantara saw the woman
in tears, whereupon he went to the group and suggested that
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT the CTA erred in the Atty. Salvani talk with her amicably as a hearing was taking
decision and that the petition be granted in favor of the place in another room. Atty. Pefianco stood up and shouted at
petitioner. Atty. Salvani and his client. Alcantara said he was surprised
at Pefianco’s outburst and asked him to cool off, but
HELD: YES
respondent continued to fulminate at Atty. Salvani.  As head
CTA erred in concluding that the assessment against Asalus of the Office, complainant approached respondent and asked
had prescribed. Internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within him to take it easy and leave Atty. Salvani to settle the
3 years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the
return, or where the return is filed beyond the period, from the matter.  Respondent at first listened, but shortly after he again
day the return was actually filed. started shouting at and scolding Atty. Salvani.  This caused a
commotion in the office. Respondent later explained and
The case is ordered REMANDED to the CTA for the
determination of the Value Added Tax liabilities of the Asalus said that he was moved by the plight of the woman whose
Corporation. husband had been murdered as she was pleading for the
settlement of her case because she needed the money.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Pefianco violated Canon 8

Rule 8.01 – No Abusive and Improper Language  of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional HELD: YES.

dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper. Respondent was imposed fine of 1k.

6. Dallong-Galicinao (CoC) v. ATTY. Castro- Not

counsel- 10k/WARNING Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves
Facts: Atty. Castro, a private practitioner, went to the office of with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao, the clerk of court of RTC, to inquire
lawyers.  Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the
whether the complete records of a civil case had already been
remanded to the court of origin. Atty. Castro was not the legal profession.  They must act honorably, fairly and candidly
counsel of record of either party in the said civil case. When toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without
denied such request, Atty. Castro hurled invectives at Atty. reproach at all times.
Dallong-Galicinao which caused the same to file a complaint-
affidavit against the former for unprofessional conduct. Due
to Atty. Castro’s public apology, Atty. Dallong-Galicinao Respondent ought to have realized that this sort of public
expressed her desire not to appear on the next hearing. behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the
public estimation and erode public respect for it.  Whatever
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Castro should be held moral righteousness respondent had was negated by the way
administratively liable. he chose to express his indignation.  An injustice cannot be
righted by another injustice.
Held: YES
8. ATTY. Barandos, Jr. v. ATTY. Ferrer-Drunck,
Not being the counsel of record and there being no many criminal case, libel,aol, sex.H-
authorization from either the parties to represent them, Atty. SUSPENDED 1 YR
Castro has no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.
Although the penalty should be tempered since Atty. Castro FACTS:  Atty. Barandon, Jr. filed disbarment
apologized and Atty. Dallong-Galicinao accepted it. This is case/suspension/disciplinary action against respondent Atty.
not to say that Atty. Castro should be absolved of his Ferrer for filing a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss
actuations. Atty. Castro is ordered fined in the amount of that contained abusive, offensive and improper language
P10K with a warning that any similar infractions shall be dealt which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified
with more severely. document in court. The said document purported to be a
notarized document executed at a date when Atty. Barandon
was not yet a lawyer.

Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon

saying, “Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang
lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa in order to prevent repetition of such kind of advice that
Camarines Norte, angabogadonarito ay mga taga-Camarines respondent gave to the complainant. In giving an advice, he
Sur, umuwina kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito” at should be able to distinguish between the grounds for legal
the MTC before the start of a hearing. separation and grounds for annulment of marriage. The
respondent was insisting in his answer that he had prepared a
The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case petition for legal separation, and that she had to pay more as
against repeating his unethical act; yet he faces a disbarment attorney's fees if she desired to have the action for annulment
charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of the was, therefore, beyond comprehension other than to serve as a
IBP Chapter; a related criminal case for acts of hallow afterthought to justify his claim.
lasciviousness; and criminal cases for libel and grave threats
that Atty. Barandon filed against him.

On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. 10. Belo-Henares v. ATTY. “Arces” Guevarra-
San Juan of the IBP-CBD submitted to this Court a Report, cosmetic surgery, Facebook- SUSPENDED 1
recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer. YR/WARNED

ISSUE: DID THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND

THE IBP INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER ERR IN
Facts: In 2002 and 2005, Ma. Belo-Henares, director of Belo
FINDING RESPONDENT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES
Medical Group corp., performed cosmetic surgery that
AGAINST HIM AND IF THE PENALTY IMPOSED
allegedly harmed a patient. Atty. Guevarra brought criminal
WAS JUSTIFIED?
complaints against the Complainant on behalf of the patient.
During the criminal actions, the Respondent engaged in a
HELD: NO
series of derogatory attacks directed at the Complainant and
her company on social media. Through his personal
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands
Facebook profile, the Respondent posted dozens of sexually-
all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and
charged insulting and abusive statements intended to discredit
candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing
the Complainant’s professional reputation. The Respondent,
tactics against opposing counsel.
who had some 2000 Facebook friends, threatened to
“paralyze” the company, which at the time had 300
Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The
employees, and also threatened the Complainant with criminal
evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the
conviction and sought to extort money from her.
falsification of an affidavit without evidence that the
document had indeed been falsified. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer
could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum CBP recom. suspended from practising law for one year. It
and without using offensive and abusive language against a rejected his argument that the complaint violated his
fellow lawyer. The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to constitutional right to privacy, asserting that his remarks were
use dignified language in their pleadings despite the only shared with his Facebook friends and did not include the
adversarial nature of our legal system. Complainant. He also referred to a libel action brought against
him by an employee of the Complainant’s company, which
Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 which enjoins had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal
profession at all times. Issue: W/N the Respondent was administratively liable
based on the Complainant’s allegations.

9. Sanchez v. ATTY. Aguilos- Annulement of Held:

marriage- acceptance fee. Withraw, refund- FINE
10L/REPRIMANDED
Even if the posts were only viewable by the Respondent’s
friends, there was no assurance that they would be
FACTS: Sanchez sought the legal services of Atty. Aguilos-
safeguarded within the confines of privacy, in part because
fixed the attorney’s fees. Sanchez had given him an initial
any Facebook friend of the Respondent could independently
amount but Aguilos said he would just start working the case
share the posts on their page. “[R]estricting the privacy of
upon full payment of the acceptance fee and that the amount
one’s Facebook posts to “Friends” does not guarantee absolute
he had given for acceptance fee was for legal separation, he
protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not
said he did not know that the complainant contemplated to file
belong to one’s circle of friends,” the Court concluded.
an annulment. Aguilos told her that she have to pay a higher
acceptance fee for the annulment of marriage. She
withdraw the case and requested for a refund of the amounts In this case, the Court found that the Facebook remarks
already paid. Respondent refused to do the same as he had “were ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and
already working on the case. This made her bring an tarnish the reputation of complainant and [her company].”
administrative complaint against Atty. Aguilos.
SC found the Respondent “in complete and utter violation” of
CPR. It accordingly imposed the original 1-year suspension
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Aguilos should be held and “sternly warned” the Respondent that he would face more
administratively liable for misconduct. severe consequences if he repeated the same or similar acts.

HELD: YES.
11. Canlapan v. ATTY. Balayo- young lawyer not
The SC fined Atty. Aguilos P10K and reprimanded him for party to labor case BSP
his use of offensive/improper language against his fellow
lawyer. Lawyers shall keep abreast of the legal developments Facts: Canlapant avers that at the mandatory conference held
and participate in continuing legal education program C5 CPR before Exec. LA Del Valle, in connection with a money claim
filed by complainant against the BSP- Mayon Council, Canon 8 of the CPR commands, to wit: CANON 8 - A lawyer
respondent arrogantly threw his arm toward the complainant shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
while menacingly saying: "Maski sampulo pang abogado towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
darhon mo, dai mo makua ang gusto mo!" ("Even if you tactics against opposing counsel.
bring ten lawyers here, you will not get what you want!")
Case law instructs that "[l]awyers should treat their opposing
Complainant was allegedly taken aback and felt humiliated by counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility.
respondent's actuation, which showed a blatant disrespect for A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the
the elderly considering that respondent was much younger. bar, depends upon their relations with their professional
He never imagined that, in his twilight years and in his quest brethren. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not
for justice, he would be publicly humiliated by a young influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each
lawyer actively participating in the conference, who was other.
neither a party to the labor case nor was authorized by the
Mayon Council to appear on its behalf. In this case, respondent's underhanded tactics against
complainant were in violation of Canon 8 of the CPR. Thus, it
Issue: WON respondent was improper and violated the appears that respondent's acts of repeatedly intimidating,
Code of Professional Responsibility. harassing, and blackmailing complainant with purported
administrative and criminal cases and prejudicial media
Held: YES exposures were performed as a tool to return the
inconvenience suffered by his client.
Lawyers must be model citizens and set the example of
obedience to law. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed Atty. Balbin is found guilty of violating Canon 8, Canon 11,
on lawyers who meet high standards of legal proficiency and Canon 12, Rule 12.03, Rule 12.04, Canon 19, and Rule 19.01
morality. Respondent's display of improper attitude and of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
arrogance toward an elderly constitute conduct unbecoming of SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 2 years and
a member of the legal profession and cannot be tolerated by STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
this court. acts will be dealt with more severely.

Respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity 13. ATTY. Bert Causing vs. Judge DELA ROSA-
and integrity of the legal profession at all times. admitted fault, rectified- CASE DISMISSED

Furthermore, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 requires a lawyer to Facts: Atty. Causing and his client, Mabasa (Complainants),
employ respectful and restrained language in keeping with charged respondent Judge Dela Rosa with gross ignorance of
the dignity of the legal profession.  Careless remarks such as the law, gross misconduct and gross incompetence for
this tend to create and promote distrust in the administration of reversing the dismissal of Criminal Case (Libel Cases),
justice, undermine the people's confidence in the legal wherein Mabasa was one of the accused.
profession, and erode public respect for it. "Things done
Complainants alleged that the Libel Cases were dismissed by
cannot be undone and words uttered cannot be taken back."
former Acting Presiding Judge Gamor B. Disalo on the ground
They cannot indulge in offensive personalities. They should
that the right of the accused to speedy trial had been
always be temperate, patient, and courteous both in speech and
violated.
conduct, not only towards the court but also towards adverse
parties and witnesses. Dela Rosa granted the prosecution's MR. They averred the
dismissal of a criminal case due to a violation of the
accused's right to speedy trial is equivalent to a dismissal.

12. ATTY. Roque v. ATTY. Balbin- defendant Complainants also criticized respondent Judge Dela Rosa's act
counsel lost- SUSPENDED 1 YR/STERNLY of referring to the IIBP, Atty. Causing's two (2) separate
WARNED posts on his Facebook and blogspot accounts about the
subject criminal cases.

Facts: Roque alleged that he was the plaintiff's counsel in a OCA recommended that the administrative complaint against
case entitled FELMAILEM, Inc. v. Felma Mailem Judge Dela Rosa be dismissed for lack of merit-in the absence
of any proof that respondent Judge Dela Rosa was ill-
Shortly after securing a favorable judgment for his client,... motivated in issuing Order and that he had, in fact, issued his
herein respondent-as counsel for the defendant, and on Resolution reversing himself, the charge of gross ignorance of
appeal-started intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and the law should be dismissed. Respondent Judge has already
maliciously threatening complainant into withdrawing the admitted that be made a mistake in issuing the said order
case filed by his client. Respondent would make various as this would have constituted a violation of the right of the
telephone calls and send text messages and e-mails not just to accused against double jeopardy. To rectify his error, he
him, but also to his friends and other clients, threatening to file granted the motion for reconsideration filed by the
disbarment and/or criminal suits against him. accused.
Further, and in view of complainant's "high profile" stature, The OCA found that the records of the case show that Judge
respondent also threatened to publicize such suits in order to Dela Rosa admitted that he had erred in issuing Order, but
besmirch and/or destroy complainant's name and reputation. that he had rectified such mistake.
Issues: W/N respondent should be administratively sanctioned Atty. Causing's act of posting matters pertaining to the
for the acts complained of. pending criminal case on the internet, the OCA disagreed with
Atty. Causing's argument that respondent Judge should have
Ruling: first required him to show cause for having done so.
A judge may also be administratively liable if shown to have
been motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption in
ignoring, contradicting or failing to apply settled law and
jurisprudence. Canon 9 Unauthorized Practice of
The Court agrees with the OCA that it would be absurd to Law
hold res. Judge liable for his November - nothing in the
records of the case suggests that Judge was motivated by bad
1. Spouses Suarez v. Salazar- INDIRECT
faith, fraud, corruption, dishonesty or egregious error in
CONNTEMPT 3 MONTHS\ ATTY. MANANGAN
rendering his decision.
AKA CULANAG- Counsel of Suarez
In fine, the administrative charge against respondent Judge
Dela Rosa should be, as it is hereby, dismissed. Considering respondents' "Motion to Expunge All
Pleadings Filed by Atty. Filemon A. Manangan with
Motion to Hold Him in Contempt of Court and to
Dismiss the Petition" and said Atty. Manangan's
Rule 8.02 – Not to Encroach on Professional Employment   admission at the hearing this morning, September 29, 1999,
that he is not a lawyer entitled to practice law in the
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or Philippines, and that he is the same "Filemon A.
indirectly, encroach upon the professional Manangan" who was found (Filemon Manangan v. CFI) to
employment of another lawyer, however, it is the be in reality Andres Culanag who is not a member of the
right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give Philippine Bar, but despite these facts he has continued to
proper advice and assistance to those seeking misrepresent himself to be an attorney-at-law and has
appeared as counsel for petitioners in this case, "Atty.
relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. Filemon A. Manangan, who is in reality Andres Culanag,
is hereby declared guilty of indirect contempt of this
14. ATTY. Camacho v. ATTY. Pangulayan- Counsel
Court. Wherefore, he is hereby sentenced to three (3)
of AMA- 4/9 Students ackd their guilt-
months imprisonment to be served at the Headquarters of
SUSPENDED 6 MONTHS
the National Bureau of Investigation, Taft Avenue, Manila,
Facts: 9 students from the AMA Computer College, all until further orders from this Court. 1âwphi1.nêt

members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE, allegedly

published certain objectionable features - the Student 2. Aguirre v. ATTY. Rana- not yet lawyer, rep as counsel
Disciplinary Tribunal found them guilty and the students were for Mayor candidate- pet. To not allowed to take
expelled- the 9 students appealed but were denied by the oathxxx not signxxx
AMACC President giving rise to a civil case calling for the
Issuance of a Writ of Prelim. Mandatory Injunction with Facts: Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar
Camacho as their counsel and Pangulayan and associates Exam, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a
representing the defendant, AMACC- while the case was candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal
pending, letters of apology and re-admission agreements Board of Election Canvassers and filed with the MBEC a
were separately executed by and/or in behalf of the pleading entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the
students by their parents- following this, the Pangulayan Canvassing of Votes in some Precincts for the Office of
Law Offices filed a Manifestation stating, among other things, Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent represented
that 4 of the students had acknowledged their guilt and himself as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty
agreed to terminate all proceedings- apparently, Pangulayan Candidate, George Bunan," and signed the pleading as
procured and effected the re-admission agreements through counsel for George Bunan. 1 day before the scheduled mass
negotiations with said students and their parents without oath-taking of successful bar examinees as members of the
communicating with Camacho. Philippine Bar, Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for
Denial of Admission to the Bar. On 22 May 2001, respondent
ISSUE: WON Pangulayan is guilty of disregarding was allowed to take the lawyer’s oath but was disallowed
professional ethics. from signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the
charges against him.
HELD: YES.
Canon 9 of CP Ethics which states: A lawyer should not in ISSUE: Whether or not respondent shall be denied
anyway communicate upon the subject of controversy with a Admission to the Bar.
party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake
to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should
RULING:
only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer
most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead
a party not represented by counsel and he should not Respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he
undertake to advise him as to law. appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed
various pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly
Respondent violated professional ethics and disregarded a supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law.
duty owing to his colleague- the Board of Governors of the Respondent called himself "counsel" knowing fully well
IBP passed a resolution suspending Pangulayan for 6 months that he was not a member of the Bar. Having held himself
and dismissed the case against the other respondents since out as "counsel" knowing that he had no authority to
they took no part in it- the court concurred with IBPs findings practice law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a
but reduced the suspension to 3 months. member of the Philippine Bar. Respondent should know that
two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be
performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by
this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
 law school. The basic distinction between the two levels
involve the minimum academic requirement the law student
3. Alawi v. Alauya-usurped the title ATTY. V. counsel0r has successfully completed: for Level 1 Certification – first-
SHARIA BAR MEMBERSxxxbar year law courses, while for Level 2 Certification – third-
year law courses.
Facts: Ashary Alauya transacted with Sophia Alawi to avail
of a contract for the purchase of one housing unit. Alauya
Section 4 enumerates the practice areas for law student
wrote to the company expressing his intent to render the
practitioners for both Level 1 and 2 Certifications. Section 5
contract void ab initio. Several correspondences ensued, all of
itemizes the certification application requirements, which
which were signed by Alauya as ATTY. ASHARY M.
include a duly-accomplished application form under oath in
ALAUYA. Alauya is a member of the Sharia Bar and for that
three copies accompanied by proof of payment of the
matter he is a counselor-at-law. Alauya claims that he does not
necessary legal and filing fees. It also distinguishes where
use the title of counselor-at-law for fear of being mistaken as a
each level certification is valid. Level 1 is valid before all
local legislator, i.e. councilor. Hence, he affixed the title of
courts, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies within the
attorney before his name. Alawi filed a verified complaint
judicial region where the law school is located, whereas
against Alauya, alleging, among others, that Alawi usurped
Level 2 is valid before all courts, quasi-judicial and
the title of an attorney which is reserved only for the
administrative bodies.
members of the Philippine Bar.

Issue: Whether or not Alauya's membership in the Sharia Once the law student is certified, the certificate number must
Bar endows him the title of an attorney be used in signing briefs, pleadings, letters, and other
similar documents produced under the direction of a
Held: No. supervising lawyer. (Section 7) The law student shall also
take the Law Student Practitioner’s Oath, a modified
Alauya is hereby reprimanded for usurping the title of an lawyer’s oath, under Section 8 before engaging in the limited
attorney reserved for those who, having obtained the necessary practice of law.
degree in the study of law and had successfully passed the bar
examinations, have been admitted ti the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing. The duties of law student practitioners, law schools, and
Persons who passed the Sharia Bar are not full-fledged supervising lawyers are also enumerated in Sections 6, 9, and
members of the Bar and may only practice law before a 11 respectively.
Sharia Court, Alauya's disinclination to use the title of
counselor-at-law does not warrant his use of the title of an
The Revised Rule also enumerates in Section 13 acts
attorney.
considered as unauthorized practice of law as well as the
corresponding sanctions, without prejudice to existing laws,
rules, regulations, and circulars. It stresses that “unauthorized
Exception: Rules of Court, Rule 138-A (Law Student practice of law shall be a ground for revocation of the law
Practice Rule)  student practitioner’s certification and/or disqualification
for a law student from taking the bar examinations for a
The Supreme Court en banc, on June 25, 2019, adopted and period to be determined by the Supreme Court.”
promulgated A.M. No. 19-03-24-SC Rule 138-A Law Student
Practice, otherwise known as the Revised Law Student
Practice Rule (Revised Rule). The Revised Rule is an
amendment to the existing provisions of Rule 138-A of the
Rules of Court. A salient feature of the Revised Rule is that a Rule 9.01 – Not to Delegate Work 
law student must now be certified to be able to engage in the
limited practice of law.
A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified
person the performance of any task which by
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5(5), Article VIII of the law may only be performed by a member of the
1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court used its power to adopt
and promulgate rules concerning legal assistance to the
bar in good standing.
underprivileged through the amendment of the provisions of
Rule 138-A. This amendment ensures access to justice of the
marginalized sectors, enhances learning opportunities of law 4. Campaliza v. ATTY. Cristal-Tenorio- illegal practice
students by instilling in them the value of legal professional of law by husband- SUSPENDED 6 MONTHS
social responsibility, and to prepare them for the practice of
law. The Supreme Court also addressed the need to Facts: Ana Marie Cambaliza, a former employee of Atty.
institutionalize clinical legal education program in all law Tenorio, charged the latter with deceit, grossly immoral
schools in order to enhance, improve, and streamline law
student practice, and regulate their limited practice of law. conduct, and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. -
The Revised Rule is now more comprehensive with 14 BUT LACKED clear and convincing evidence. She alleged
sections and shall take effect at the start of the Academic Year that Atty Tenorio cooperated in the illegal practice of law by
2020-2021 following its publication in two newspapers of
general circulation. her husband, who is not a member of PB and two other
allegations. The IBP found the respondent guilty of assisting
in unauthorized practice of law.
Under Section 3 of the Revised Rule, a law student shall
apply for and secure a Level 1 or 2 Certification, as the
case may be, in order to be permitted to engage in any of the ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Cristal-Tenorio violated the
activities under the Clinical Legal Education Program of a Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Espinas and Associates that the general membership of the
said Union had authorized a 20% contingent fee for the law
HELD: YES. firm based on whatever amount would be awarded the Union.
Atty. Jose C. Espinas, (the original counsel) established the
A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to award of 897 workers' claim. When Atty. Pineda appeared for
the Union in these cases, still an associate of the law firm, his
misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice law is guilty
appearance carried the firm name B.C. Pineda and
of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Associates," giving the impression that he was the principal
Professional Responsibility, which read as follows: lawyer in these cases.

The alleged retainer's contract between Atty. Pineda and the

Canon 9 – A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in Union appears anomalous and even illegal as well as unethical
the unauthorized practice of law. considering that-

1. The contract was executed only between Atty. Pineda and

Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified the officers of the Union chosen by about 125 members only.
person the performance of any task which by law may only be It was not a contract with the general membership.
performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. 2. The contingent fee of 30% for those who were still working
with Halili Transit and the 45% fee for those who were no
longer working worked to the prejudice of the latter group
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist who should and were entitled to more benefits. Thus, too,
in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public when the alleged retainer's contract was executed in 1967, the
interest and policy.  Public policy requires that the practice of Halili Transit had already stopped operations in Metro Manila.
By then, Atty. Pineda knew that all the workers would be out
law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in of work which would mean that the 45% contingent fee would
education and character. apply to all.

3. The contract which retroactively took effect on January 1,

1966, was executed when Atty. Espinas was still handling the
appeal of Halili Transit in the main case before the Supreme
Rule 9.02 – Not to Divide Legal Fees
Court.

 A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for 4. When Atty. Pineda filed his motion for approval of his
legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, attorney's lien with Arbiter Valenzuela on February 8, 1983,
except: he did not attach the retainer's contract.
5. The retainer's contract was not even notarized.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner A prospective buyer, the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery,
or associate that, upon the latter's death, money shall be Inc. objected in view of PD 1529 which requires no less than
paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to an order from a court of competent jurisdiction as authority to
persons specified in the agreement; or sell property in trust.

(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished Atty. Pineda, without authority from the Supreme Court but
relying on the earlier authority given him by the Ministry of
legal business of a deceased lawyer; or Labor, filed another urgent motion, praying that the Union
be authorized to sell the lot. The sale was finally
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer consummated, resulting in the execution of an escrow
agreement.
employees in a retirement plan even if the plan is based in
whole or in part, on a profit sharing agreement.
Issue:
a.Whether or not Atty. Pineda and Arbiter Valenzuela
5. Halili Transit v. CIR- overtime /500 bus should be held in contempt.
driver/conductor/Union ATTY PINDEA as counsel-
INDIRECT CONTEMPT/IMPRISONMENT/ b. Whether or not Atty. Pineda should be disbarred.
DISBARRED
Held:
Facts: The cases involve disputes regarding claims for
overtime of more than five hundred bus drivers and a. YES. Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority,
conductors of Halili Transit. Litigation initially commenced justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring
with the filing of a complaint for overtime with the CIR. The the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or
disputes were eventually settled when the contending parties to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses
reached an Agreement where the Administratrix would during litigation.
transfer to the employees the title to a tract of land in
Caloocan, Rizal. The parcel of land was eventually registered b. YES. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
in the name of the Union. Court which provides:

The Union, through Atty. Benjamin C. Pineda, filed an urgent Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court
motion with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) on what grounds.—A member of the bar may be removed or
requesting for authority to sell and dispose of the property. suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court
Union President Amado Lopez, in a letter, informed J.C. for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction agreement; or
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of
the oath which he is required to take before admission to b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
superior court, or for corrupt or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing
malpractice. arrangement.

The Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for any In finding the respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and
conduct on his part showing his unfitness for the 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
confidence and trust which characterize the attorney and Investigating Commissioner opined that:
client relations, and the practice of law before the courts,
or showing such a lack of personal honesty or of good Php70,000.00 legal fees is purely and solely for the
moral character as to render him unworthy of public recovery of the Php180,000.00 savings account of
confidence. complainant subsequent acts and events say otherwise, to
wit:
In the case, the expeditious manner by which Arbiter
Valenzuela granted Atty. Pineda's motion for such 1.) The Php70k legal fees for the recovery of a Php180k,
authority to sell the property make the entire transaction savings deposit is too high;UNREASONABLE
dubious and irregular. 2.) Respondent actively acted as complainant's lawyer to
effectuate the compromise agreement.
Significantly Atty. Pineda's act of filing a motion praying for
authority to sell was by itself an admission on his part that he By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other
did not possess the authority to sell the property. He could not individuals as commission/referral fees respondent
and did not even wait for valid authority but instead violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
previously obtained the same from the labor arbiter whom he Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not
knew was not empowered to so authorize. divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law. Worst, by luring
The 45% attorney's lien on the award of those union members complainant to participate in a compromise agreement with a
who were no longer working and the 30% lien on the benefits false and misleading assurance that complainant can still
of those who were still working as provided for in the alleged recover after Three (3) years her foreclosed property
retainer's contract are also very exorbitant and unconscionable. respondent violated Rule 1.01,

*Atty. Pineda is found guilty of indirect contempt of court for WHEREFORE, finding respondent responsible for aforestated
which he is sentenced to imprisonment and directed to show violations to protect the public and the legal profession from
cause why he should not be disbarred. his kind, it is recommended that he be suspended for Six (6)
months with a stern warning that similar acts in the future will
be severely dealt with.[5]
LAWYER shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
6. Lijuaico v. ATTY. Terrado- Atty’s fee 70k for
recovery of land w/ receipt- SUSPENDED 6
MONTHS/STERNLY WARN/ 70K RETURN

Facts: Lijauco filed admin. Complaint against Atty. Terrado

for gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of
an officer of the court when he neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him despite receipt of payment representing THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
attorney's fees. She engaged the services of Atty. sometime in
for P70k to assist in recovering her deposit with Planters Dev. Canon 10 Observe Candor, Fairness and
Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of P180k and the
release of her foreclosed house. Atty. failed to appear before Good Faith
the trial court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ of
Possession and did not protect her interests in the 1. Ting Dumali v. ATTY. Torres- purjery/ DISBARRED
Compromise Agreement which she subsequently entered FACTS: Isidra Ting-Dumali is one of the six children of the
into to end LRC Case. Atty. denied the accusations against late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting. According to
him. He averred that the P70k he received from complainant her, respondent Atty. Rolando Torres, being her brother-in-
was payment for legal services for the recovery of the law, took advantage of his relationship with her and her
deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not brothers and immorally used his profession when he
include LRC Case pending before RTC. participated in, consented to, and failed to advice against, the
perjury committed by his wife Felicisima and his sister-in-
law Miriam when the two made it appear that they were the
Rule 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee sole heirs of the late Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting.
for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law,
except:
ISSUE: WON respondent should be disbarred.
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a
partner or associate that, upon the latter's death, RULING:
money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time
to his estate or to the persons specified in the
Yes. Respondent’s acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws Ruling: This court finds that respondent violated Canons 1, 7,
and doubtless bring intolerable dishonor to the legal 10, and 17 of the CPR. The charge against respondent for
profession. The Court found respondent Atty. Rolando Torres violation of Canon 15 is dismissed. I By pretending to be
guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath, counsel for complainant. Respondent violated Canon 7, Rule
as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional 7.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 when she allowed the use of a
Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of continuing forged signature on a petition she prepared and notarized.
membership in the legal profession.
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith
to the court. RULE 10.01 -A lawyer shall not do any
2. Masinsin v. Albano falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall
he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
FACTS: Sps Masinsin instituted petition CPM etc. asking to Thus, respondent's act of allowing the use of a forged
order MTC to cease and desist from further proceeding the signature on a petition she prepared and notarized
demolition of the disputed property. Case emerged from an demonstrates a lack of moral fiber on her part. Other acts that
ejectment suit filed by PR against petitioners where the MTC this court has found violative of
ruled in favor of PR. Became final and exec. since no appeal
has been filed. Execution was filed. CA affirmed. Before the However, there is nothing on record to show that respondent
completion of the demolition a TRO was issued by RTC. was engaged as counsel by complainant. Hence, this court
Petitioners filed this case in the SC-MTC of Manila has lost its finds that respondent did not commit conflict of interest.
jurisdiction when the property in question was proclaimed an All in all, pretending to be counsel for a party in a case and
area for priority development by the NHA. using a forged signature in a pleading merit the penalty of
disbarment.

ISSUE: W/N
4. PRIV. PROS. Young v. ATTY. Batuegas
RULING: The resolution issued by the NHA specifically
excludes the disputed property from the area of priority FACTS: The Complainant - private prosecutor filed an
development for the project of NHA.  Moreover, there is an Affidavit-Complaint by for disbarment against Attys.
evident deliberate intent from the petitioners to delay the Batuegas, Nazareno, Llantino and Susa for allegedly
execution of a decision that has long been final and executory committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating the
by filing different pleadings on different courts.  They have lawyer’s oath. Complainant is the private prosecutor in
filed four times with the assistance of counsel to try and Criminal Case No. 00-187627 for Murder People vs.
Crisanto Arana, Jr., pending before RTC. Batuegas and
nullify the decision before different branches of court. 
Llantino, as counsel for accused, filed a Manifestation with
ANY ACT WHICH VISIBLY TENDS TO OBSTRUCT,
Motion for Bail, alleging that the accused has voluntarily
PERVERT, IMPEDE, AND DEGRADE THE
surrendered to a person in authority and is under detention.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY A LAWYER IS A
However, upon personal verification with NBI where Arana
CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION
allegedly surrendered, complainant learned that he surrendered
AND WARRANTING CONTEMPT. (EMPHASIS
only on December 14, 2000. The accused was in the custody
SUPPLIED)
of the NBI on December 13, 2000 was false. They craftily
concealed the truth by alleging that accused had voluntarily
Petition is dismissed and counsel is censured and warned that
surrendered to a person in authority and were under detention.
a similar act in the future will be dealt with most severely.
Respondent Susa, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of
Manila, Branch 27, calendared the motion on December
15, 2000 lack of notice of hearing to the private
complainant, violation of the three-day notice rule, and the
3. Vasco-Tamaray v. ATTY. Daquis- DISBARRED failure to attach the Certificate of Detention.

Facts: Complainant filed a complaint affidavit before IBP in ISSUE: W/N Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno
2007 alleging that respondent filed, on her behalf, a Petition V. Llantino and Franklin Q. Susa shall be disbarred for
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage without her consent allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court and
and forged her signature on the Petition. She also alleged that violating the lawyer’s oath.
the respondent signed the said Petition as “Counsel for the RULE: Respondents Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of
Petitioner,” referring to the complainant. The complainant deliberate falsehood. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth.
stated the respondent was not her counsel but that of her
husband, Leomarte Regala Tamaray. The CBD recommended Respondent clerk of court should not be made administratively
the dismissal of the Complaint because Vasco-Tamaray failed liable for including the Motion in the calendar of the trial
to prove her allegations- noted that Vasco-Tamaray should court, considering that it was authorized by the presiding
have questioned the Petition or informed the prosecutor that judge. However, he is reminded that his administrative
she never filed any petition, but she failed to do so. functions, although not involving the discretion or judgment of
a judge, are vital to the prompt and sound administration of
Issue: W/N respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis should be justice. Thus, he should not hesitate to inform the judge if he
held administratively liable for making it appear that she is should find any act or conduct on the part of lawyers which
counsel for complainant Cheryl VascoTamaray and for the are contrary to the established rules of procedure.
alleged use of a forged signature on the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
5. Insular Life Employees Co. v. Insular Life Association
FACTS: Petitioner Unions, while still members of the Indeed, the individual cases of dismissed officers and
Federation of Free Workers (FFW), entered into separate members of the striking unions do not indicate sufficient basis
CBAs with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and the FGU for dismissal.
Insurance Group (hereinafter referred to as the Companies).

Two of the lawyers of the Unions then were Felipe Enaje and 6. Accused Hipos, Sr. v. JUDGE Bay
Ramon Garcia; the latter was formerly the secretary-
treasurer of the FFW and acting president of the Insular Facts: 2 Informations for the crime of rape and acts of
Life/FGU unions and the Insular Life Building Employees lasciviousness were filed against petitioners Hipos, Corsiño,
Association. Garcia, as such acting president, in a circular Villaruel and two other. RTC presided by respondent Judge
The Companies hired Garcia in the latter part of 1956 as Bay. Informations were signed by Assistant City Prosecutor
assistant corporate secretary and legal assistant in their Ronald C. Torralba. Private complainants A nand B filed a
Legal Department. Enaje was hired as personnel manager of Motion for Reinvestigation asking Judge Bay to order the City
the Companies, and was likewise made chairman of the Prosecutor of QC to study if the proper Informations had been
negotiating panel for the Companies in the collective filed against petitioners and their co-accused. Petitioners
bargaining with the Unions. alleging there was no probable cause
Ass’t City Pros. de Vera, treating the Joint Memorandum to
Dismiss the Case. City Pros. filed a Motion to Withdraw Info
Unions jointly submitted proposals to the Companies; before Judge Bay. Judge Bay denied the Motion to Withdraw
negotiations were conducted on the Union’s proposals, but Informations
these were snagged by a deadlock on the issue of union shop,
as a result of which the Unions filed a notice of strike for Issues:
“deadlock on collective bargaining.” The issue was dropped CAN SC COMPEL JUDGE BAY TO DISMISS THE CASE
subsequently (in short, nagkasundo). But, the parties THROUGH A WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY VIRTUE OF
negotiated on the labor demands but with no satisfactory result THE RESOLUTION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROS
due to a stalemate on the matter of salary increases. OF QC FINDING NO PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THE
ACCUSED AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILING A MOTION
CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice TO WITHDRAW INFORMATION
against the Companies. The complaint specifically charged the Ruling:
Companies with (1) interfering with the members of the
Unions in the exercise of their right to concerted action, by While a judge refusing to act on a Motion to Withdraw
sending out individual letters to them urging them to abandon Informations... can be compelled by mandamus to act on the
their strike and return to work, with a promise of comfortable same, he cannot be compelled to act in a certain way, i.e., to
cots, free coffee and movies, and paid overtime, and, grant or deny such Motion
subsequently, by warning them that if they did not return to
work on or before June 2, 1958, they might be replaced; and Judge Bay did not refuse to act on the Motion to Withdraw
(2) discriminating against the members of the Unions as Informations; he had already acted on it... by denying the
regards readmission to work after the strike on the basis of same. Accordingly, mandamus is not available anymore. If
their union membership and degree of participation in the petitioners believed that Judge Bay committed grave abuse of
strike. discretion in the issuance of such Order denying the Motion to
Withdraw Informations, the proper remedy of petitioners
should have been to... file a Petition for Certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent company is guilty of ULP
A trial court commits... reversible error or even grave abuse of
discretion if it refuses/neglects to evaluate such
HELD: YES recommendation and simply insists on proceeding with the
trial on the mere pretext of having already acquired
jurisdiction over the criminal action.
The act of an employer in notifying absent employees
individually during a strike following unproductive efforts at There is indeed probable cause against the petitioners
collective bargaining that the plant would be operated the next sufficient to hold them for trial.
day and that their jobs were open for them should they want to
DISMISSED.
come in has been held to be an unfair labor practice, as an
active interference with the right of collective bargaining
through dealing with the employees individually instead of 7. Re: Letter of the U.P. Law Faculty, A.M. No. 10-10-4-
through their collective bargaining representatives. Indeed,
when the respondents offered reinstatement and attempted to
“bribe” the strikers with “comfortable cots,” “free coffee and Facts: Allegations of plagiarism were hurled by Atty. Harry
occasional movies,” “overtime” pay for “work performed in L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares against Justice
excess of eight hours,” and “arrangements” for their families, Mariano C. Del Castillo for his ponencia in the case of
so they would abandon the strike and return to work, they Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. In said case, the Court
were guilty of strike-breaking and/or union-busting and, denied the petition for certiorari filed by Filipino comfort
consequently, of unfair labor practice. It is equivalent to an women to compel certain officers of the executive dept. to
attempt to break a strike for an employer to offer reinstatement espouse their claims for reparation and demand apology
to striking employees individually, when they are represented from the Japanese government for the abuses committed
by a union, since the employees thus offered reinstatement are against them by the Japanese soldiers during World War II.
unable to determine what the consequences of returning to Attys. Roque and Bagares represent the comfort women in
work would be. Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, which is presently the subject
of a motion for reconsideration. 
UP Law Faculty 37 members of the faculty of the UP College can claim that its honesty, integrity and competence could be
of Law published a statement on the allegations of plagiarism eroded by an extraneous act of any person other than itself.
and misrepresentation relative to the Court’s decision in Either one is honest, has integrity, or is competent – or he is
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. Essentially, the faculty of the not. No one can undermine those qualities other than the one
UP College of Law, headed by its dean, Atty. Marvic M.V.F. in whom they inhere.
Leonen, calls for the resignation of Justice Del Castillo in the Even more important to keep in mind is the apparently
face of allegations of plagiarism in his work. redemptive intent of the UP Law Faculty when it issued its
statement. The statement is headlined by the phrase “Restoring
Integrity.” In the second paragraph, the Faculty says: “Given
Notably, while the statement was meant to reflect the
the Court’s recent history and the controversy that surrounded
educators’ opinion on the allegations of plagiarism against
it, it cannot allow the charges of such clear and obvious
Justice Del Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as an
plagiarism to pass without sanction, as this would only further
established fact, but a truth. In particular, they expressed
erode faith and confidence in the judicial system.” In the next
dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillo’s explanation on
paragraph, it says: “The Court cannot regain its credibility and
how he cited the primary sources of the quoted portions
maintain its moral authority without ensuring that its own
and yet arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the
conduct, whether collectively or through its members, is
authors of the articles supposedly plagiarized.The insult to
beyond reproach.” In the same paragraph, it further says: “It is
the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of
also a very crucial step in ensuring the position of the Supreme
deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its
Court as the final arbiter of all controversies: a position that
dismissal on the basis of “polluted sources,” the Court’s
requires competence and integrity completely above any and
alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners, as well as the
all reproach, in accordance with the exacting demands of
supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of the
judicial and professional ethics.”
Court for even the most basic values of decency and respect. 

Carpio Morales, J.
The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for
the faculty’s less than objective comments except to discredit
the Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s The Resolution demonstrates nothing but an abrasive flexing
honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion of the judicial muscle that could hardly be characterized as
for its reconsideration. As if the case on the comfort women’s judicious. This knee-jerk response from the Court stares back
claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would at its own face, since this judicial act is the one that is “totally
fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced
would not reverse the said decision. This runs contrary to their vigilance.” 
obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the
first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which
they owe fidelity according to the oath they have taken as
attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of
justice.  8. In the Matter of charges of Plagiarism against Assoc.
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo
Issue:
Facts: Petitioners Isabelita Vinuya, et al., all members of the
Malaya Lolas Org., seek recon. of the decision of the Court
Whether or not the UP Law Faculty’s actions constitute that dismissed their charges of plagiarism against Justice
violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 Mariano Del Castillo in connection with the decision he wrote
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  for the Court in Vinuya v. Romulo. Petitioners claim that the
Court has by its decision legalized or approved of the
commission of plagiarism in the Philippines.
Held:
Issue:
Issuance of show cause order resolution to the respondents
(UP Law Faculty) as to why they should not be disciplined as Whether or not respondent committed plagiarism and/or
members of the Bar per issues stated above. infringement by failing to cite his sources in a case he penned.

[case is ongoing] Ruling: NO.

Dissenting Opinion: There is a basic reason for individual judges of whatever level
of courts, including the SC, not to use original or unique
language when reinstating the laws involved in the cases
(1) Serreno, J. they decide. Their duty is to apply the laws as these are
written. But laws include, under the doctrine of stare decisis,
This Court, as complaining party, must state plainly how its judicial interpretations of such laws as are applied to specific
ability to view the motion for reconsideration of the Vinuya situations. Under this doctrine, Courts are “to stand by
decision can be affected in any way by the UP Law Faculty’s precedent and not to disturb settled point.” And because
statement. It must also state plainly how its ability to enforce judicial precedents are not always clearly delineated, they are
its future orders would be eroded by the release of the UP Law quite often entangled in apparent inconsistencies or even in
Faculty Statement. The milieu in which the Vinuya decision contradictions, prompting experts in the law to build up
was received by the public is well-known. It is not as if any regarding such matters a large body of commentaries or
outrage at the Vinuya decision was caused by the UP Law annotations that, in themselves, often become part of legal
Faculty Statement alone. It is also incredible how the Court writings upon which lawyers and judges draw materials for
their theories or solutions in particular cases. And, because of
the need to be precise and correct, judges and practitioners construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements.
alike, by practice and tradition, usually lift passages from such However, the question whether the Philippine government
precedents and writings, at times omitting, without malicious should espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign
intent, attributions to the originators. government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for
which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to
the courts but to the political branches.In this case, the
Notably, those foreign authors expressly attributed the
Executive Department has already decided that it is to the best
controversial passages found in their works to earlier
interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for
writings by others. The authors concerned were not
reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951.The
themselves the originators. As it happened, although the
wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to
ponencia of Justice Del Castillo accidentally deleted the
question.Neither could petitioners herein assail the said
attribution to them, there remained in the final draft of the
determination by the Executive Department via the instant
decision attributions of the same passages to the earlier
petition for certiorari.
writings from which those authors borrowed their ideas in the
first place. In short, with the remaining attributions after the
The Executive Department has determined that taking up
erroneous clean-up, the passages as it finally appeared in the
petitioners cause would be inimical to our country's foreign
Vinuya decision still showed on their face that the lifted ideas
policy interests, and could disrupt our relations withJapan,
did not belong to Justice Del Castillo but to others. He did not
thereby creating serious implications for stability in this
pass them off as his own.
region.For the Court to overturn the Executive Departments
determination would mean an assessment of the foreign policy
judgments by a coordinate political branch to which authority
9. Cf. Vinuya v. Executive Secretary to make that judgment has been constitutionally
committed. DISMISSED.
FACTS: Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA
LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit organization established for 10. In re Lozanos ang Quevedo- guilty-contempt of court
the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese
military forces in the Philippines during the Second World FACTS:
War.Petitioners narrate that during the Second World War, the
Sometime ago, the complaint of an attorney against a Judge of
Japanese army attacked villages and systematically raped the
women as part of the destruction of the village. Their First Instance was by resolution of this court referred to the
communities were bombed, houses were looted and burned, Attorney-General for investigation, report, and
and civilians were publicly tortured, mutilated, and recommendation. The Solicitor-General was designated to
slaughtered. Japanese soldiers forcibly seized the women and
held them in houses or cells, where they were repeatedly conduct the investigation of the charges, and pursuant to said
raped, beaten, and abused by Japanese soldiers. As a result of designation, proceeded to the municipality of Capiz, Province
the actions of their Japanese tormentors, the petitioners have of Capiz, to take the testimony of certain witnesses. The
spent their lives in misery, having endured physical injuries,
pain and disability, and mental and emotional suffering. investigation was conducted secretly, as is customary in cases
Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have approached the of this character. Notwithstanding, on April 29, 1930, El
Executive Department through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG, Pueblo, a newspaper published in Iloilo and edited by
requesting assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese
Severino Lozano, printed an account of the investigation
officials and military officers who ordered the establishment
of the comfort women stations in the Philippines. However, written by Anastacio Quevedo, said to be an employee in the
officials of the Executive Department declined to assist the office of the Judge under investigation.
petitioners, and took the position that the individual claims of The article purports to give an account of the evidence of the
the comfort women for compensation had already been fully
satisfied by Japans compliance with the Peace Treaty between different witnesses. Regarding this account, the complainant
the Philippines and Japan. attorney alleges that the facts therein contained are “false,
malicious, and untrue” and that “said report took sides with
ISSUE: Did respondents commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of discretion in refusing to the respondent judge . . . and expressed an opinion as to the
espouse their claims for the crimes against humanity and merits of the same, with the object undoubtedly, to influence
war crimes committed against them? the action of the investigator and the public in general and to
obstruct, embarrass or impede the course of the present
HELD: Political questions refer "to those questions which,
under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their investigation.” In the same connection, the Attorney-General
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary states that the newspaper report “does not contain a fair and
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive true account of the facts disclosed at the investigation, . . .
branch of the government. It is concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular creating a wrong impression in the mind of the public and
measure." Certain types of cases often have been found to tending to influence improperly the action of this court in the
present political questions.One such category involves said pending matter.” Under the circumstances, the
questions of foreign relations.It is well-established that "the
conduct of the foreign relations of our government is observations of the Attorney-General must necessarily be
committed by the Constitution to the executive and accepted as true.
legislative--'the political'--departments of the government, and
the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this
ISSUE:
political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision."
Whether or not Severino Lozano and Anastacio Quevedo are
Not all cases implicating foreign relations present political guilty of contempt of court.
questions, and courts certainly possess the authority to
HELD: assertive ... a quality of the lawyers (which) is not to be
condemned."
YES. Court ordered each to pay the court a nominal sum of
twenty pesos (P20) within fifteen (15) days.
It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a
layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the
RATIO: merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his
The rule is well established that the newspaper publications client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty
to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than
tending to impede, obstruct, embarass, or influence the
traverse the incontrovertible.
courts in administering justice in a pending suit or
proceeding constitute criminal contempt which is
summarily punishable by the courts. The rule is otherwise
after the cause is ended. It is also regarded as an interference Atty. Bolinas, upon his own admission, "entered his
with the work of the courts to publish any matters which their appearance in the case at bar about the time the CFI
dismissed the petitioners' Petition for Relief and even prior
policy requires should be kept private, as for example the to CA decision.
secrets of the jury room, or proceedings in camera.
Atty. Baizas claims that he "became petitioners' counsel
The liberty of the citizen must be preserved in all of its only in October, 1963 when he filed, with Atty. A.N.
Bolinao, Jr. Civil Case No. 55292 before the CFI
completeness. But license or abuse of liberty of the press and
of the citizen should not be confused with liberty in its true
sense. As important as is the maintenance of the Judiciary.
Respect for the Judiciary cannot be had if persons are Thus, the motion for partial recon. is denied. Attys.
privileged to scorn a resolution of the court adopted for good Crispin D. Baizas and A.N. Bolinao, Jr. shall pay jointly
purposes, and if such persons are to be permitted by and severally the treble costs assessed against the
petitioners.
subterranean means of diffuse inaccurate accounts of
confidential proceedings to the embarrassment of the parties
and the courts.

11. Cobb-Perez v. Judge Lantin

Facts: The herein movants, Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and

A. N. Bolinas, counsels for the petitioners, while
submitting to the judgment on the merits, seek recon. of the
decision in so far as it reflects adversely upon their
"professional conduct" and condemns them to pay the
treble costs adjudged against their clients.

After 1962 when CA rendered judgment sustaining

Damaso Perez' position with respect to the extent of the
levy, the subsequent proceedings interposed alternatingly
by the petitioner spouses were obviously quixotic
maneuvers expected to be overthrown by the courts but
calculated to delay an execution long overdue.

Had the petitioners and their counsels seriously believed

that the levied shares of stock were conjugal property, why
did they not adopt this position from the very start, or, at
the latest. His wife, Mercedez, Ruth Cobb-Perez, intruded
into the controversy and asked for an ex parte writ of
preliminary injunction in connection with civil case
knowing fully well that the basic civil case was decided by
CFI presided by the respondent Judge Lantin.

The petitioners incidentally had already availed of the

suggested remedy only in the sense that said civil cases
7532 and 55292 were apparently instituted to prove the
conjugal nature of the levied shares of stocks in question.

The movants further contend that "If there was delay, it was
because petitioners' counsel happened to be more