complete 20 ethics 20 digests

8/12/2019 Complete 20 Ethics 20 Digests

1/29

L E G A L E T H I C SDIGESTS

ATENEOCENTRALBAROPERATIONS2001

A. LAWYER

1. Duty to the Court/Negligence of a Lawyer

In Re: Vicente Y. BayaniA.C. N. !"0#. A$%$&t '( 2000

Facts: Atty. Vicente Bayani was the lawyer for the appellant in a criminal case. He failed tosubmit his proof of service in his appellant's brief which subsequently caused the inability of theappellee to file his own brief. The B! was order to investi"ate on the matter and despiterepeated notices# Bayani failed to submit the proof of service and his answer to the B!'s query.Hence# this administrative complaint.

Held: $%&T. Atty. Bayani's failure to submit proof of service of appellant's brief and his failureto submit the required comment manifest willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the

(upreme )ourt# a clear violation of the canons of professional ethics. t appears that Atty.Bayani has fallen short of the circumspection required of a member of the Bar. A counsel mustalways remember that his actions or omissions are bindin" on his clients. A lawyer owes hisclient the e*ercise of utmost prudence and capability in that representation. Further# lawyers aree*pected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and le"al procedure and anyone who dealswith them has the ri"ht to e*pect not +ust a "ood amount of professional learnin" andcompetence but also a whole,hearted fealty to his client's cause. Havin" been remiss in his dutyto the )ourt and to the Bar# Atty. Bayani was suspended from the practice of law for - monthsand until the time he complies with the rder of the (upreme )ourt to submit the required proofof service.

2. Duty to Client/Accounting of Clients Money/Negligence

Te)$*+ B. Ba&a& ,&. Atty. -i%$e* I. IcaatA.C. N. /22. A$%$&t 2/( 2000

Facts: Atty. /i"uel cawat was the lawyer for Teodulfo Basas and some other laborers in theircomplaint a"ainst their employer. The 0&1) rendered an adverse decision. Basas and hisfellow wor2ers# however# insisted that they appeal the decision. Atty. cawat# however# failed tofile the required memorandum of appeal. Basas filed an administrative complaint# also alle"in"that Atty. cawat issued a receipt for an amount less than that which they had paid him.

Held: $%&T. 1espondent's failure to file the memorandum of appeal required by the 0&1)1ules of !rocedure reveals his poor "rasp of labor law. 1espondent practically admitted that he

did not file the memorandum. His failure to file the memorandum clearly pre+udiced the interestsof his clients. 1espondent manifestly fell short of the dili"ence required of his profession# inviolation of )anon 34 of the )ode of !rofessional 1esponsibility# which mandates that a lawyershall serve his client with competence and dili"ence. 1ule 34.5- further provides that a lawyershall not ne"lect a le"al matter entrusted to him# and his ne"li"ence in connection therewithshall render him liable. For his failure to issue the proper receipt for the money he received fromhis clients# respondent also violated 1ule 36.53 of the )ode of !rofessional 1esponsibility whichstates that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from theclient. The )ourt fined Atty. cawat in the amount of !h! 755# with a warnin" that a repetition ofthe same offense or a similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely.

3. Duty of Lawyer to Client/Proper Conuct

Te) R. Ri,ea ,&. Atty. Se%i An%e*e&A.C. N. 2!1'. A$%$&t 2'( 2000

Facts: Atty. (er"io An"eles was the le"al counsel of Teodoro 1ivera and 8 others in a civil case.1ivera and his 8 co,plaintiffs received a favorable decision. Atty. An"eles received almost !h!75#555 from one of the defendants in the case as partial fulfillment of the +ud"ement a"ainst thelatter. Atty. An"eles# however# never told his clients of the amount he had received and never

1


2/29



remitted the same to him# leavin" them to discover such fact on their own. 1ivera and his co,plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint for disbarment a"ainst Atty. An"eles.

Held: $%&T. Atty. An"eles was not disbarred but the )ourt ruled that his act amounted toserious misconduct. The )ourt has repeatedly stressed the importance of inte"rity and "oodmoral character as part of a lawyer9s equipment in the practice of his profession. For it cannotbe denied that the respect of liti"ants for the profession is ine*orably diminished whenever amember of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence. The )ourt is not oblivious of the ri"ht of alawyer to be paid for the le"al services he has e*tended to his client but such ri"ht should not bee*ercised whimsically by appropriatin" to himself the money intended for his clients. Thereshould never be an instance where the victor in liti"ation loses everythin" he won to the fees ofhis own lawyer. For deceit in dealin" with his client# Atty. An"eles was suspended from thepractice of law for 3 year.

A$i*in 3. Pi4ente*( 5. ,&. Atty&. Antni -. L*ente an) Li%aya P. Sa*ayn

A.C. N. /6'0. A$%$&t 2'( 2000

Facts: Attys. Antonio &lorente and &i"aya (alayon were election officers of the )/&) andheld the position of )hairman and Vice,)hairman respectively for the !asi" )ity Board of)andidates. The respondents helped conduct and oversee the 3;;7 elections. Then (enatorialcandidate Aquilino !imentel# or reducin" the number of votes of particular candidates in their (oV. !imentel filed anadministrative complaint for their disbarment. 1espondents ar"ued that the discrepancies weredue to honest mista2e# oversi"ht and fati"ue. 1espondents also ar"ued that the B! Board of$overnors had already e*onerated them from any offense and that the motion forreconsideration filed by !imentel was not filed in time.

Held: $%&T. 1espondents do not dispute the fact that massive irre"ularities attended thecanvassin" of the !asi" )ity election returns. The only e*planation they could offer for suchirre"ularities is that the same could be due to honest mista2e# human error# and?or fati"ue onthe part of the members of the canvassin" committees who prepared the (oVs. There is a limit#we believe# to what can be construed as an honest mista2e or oversi"ht due to fati"ue# in theperformance of official duty. The sheer ma"nitude of the error renders the defense of honestmista2e or oversi"ht due to fati"ue# as incredible and simply unacceptable. ndeed# what isinvolved here is not +ust a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per precinct asreflected in the election returns and the subsequent entry of the erroneous fi"ures in one or two(oVs but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at the e*penseof the petitioner in complete disre"ard of the tabulation in the election returns. A lawyer who

holds a "overnment position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct inthe dischar"e of his duties as a "overnment official. However# if the misconduct also constitutesa violation of the )ode of !rofessional 1esponsibility or the lawyer9s oath or is of such characteras to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part# such individualmay be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. Here# by certifyin" as true andcorrect the (oVs in question# respondents committed a breach of 1ule 3.53 of the )ode whichstipulates that a lawyer shall not en"a"e in @unlawful# dishonest# immoral or deceitful conduct.By e*press provision of )anon 6# this is made applicable to lawyers in the "overnment service.n addition# they li2ewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to @do no falsehood. The )ourtfound the respondents "uilty of misconduct and fined them !h! 35#555 each and issued a sternwarnin" that similar conduct in the future will be severely punished.

!. Misrepresentation an Non"pay#ent of $%P Dues

S*i4an -. Sant&( 5. ,. Atty. 7anci&c R. L*a4a&A.C. N. /#/'. 5an$ay 20( 2000

Facts: )omplaint for misrepresentation and non,payment of bar membership dues. t appearsthat Atty. &lamas# who for a number of years now# has not indicated the proper !T1 and B!1 0os. and data in his pleadin"s. f at all# he only indicated @B! 1ial 87;565 but he has

2


3/29



been usin" this for at least - years already. n the other hand# respondent# who is now of a"e#averred that he is only en"a"ed in a @limited practice of law and under 1A CD-8# as a seniorcitien# he is e*empted from payment of income ta*es and included in this e*emption is the

payment of membership dues.

Held: $%&T. 1ule 3-;,A requires that every member of the nte"rated Bar shall pay annualdues and default thereof for si* months shall warrant suspension of membership and ifnonpayment covers a period of 3,year# default shall be a "round for removal of the delinquent9sname from the 1oll of Attorneys. t does not matter whether or not respondent is only en"a"edin @limited practice of law. /oreover# the e*emption invo2ed by respondent does not includee*emption from payment of membership or association dues.

n addition# by indicatin" @B! 1ial 87;565 in his pleadin"s and therebymisprepresentin" to the public and the courts that he had paid his B! dues to the 1ial)hpater# respondent is "uilty of violatin" the )ode of !rofessional 1esponsibility whichprovides: 1ule 3.53 E A lawyer shall not en"a"e in unlawful# dishonest# immoral or deceitful

conduct. His act is also a violation of 1ule 35.53 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do anyfalsehood# nor consent to the doin" of any in court nor mislead or allow the court to be misledby any artifice.

&awyer was suspended for 3 year or until he has paid his B! dues# whichever is later.

B. 58DGES

3. &ross $gnorance of the Law

I499e I49&itin + te P$ni&4ent + Cnte49t

7*a,ian B. Cte& ,. 5$)%e 7e*ina Ban%a*anA.-. N. -T5;'#;112'. 5an$ay 1'( 2000

Facts: )omplainant was one of the co,accused in an adultery case filed before the sala ofrespondent


4/29



the due administration of +ustice# +ud"es# however# should e*ercise their contempt powers+udiciously and sparin"ly# with utmost restraint# and with the end in view of utiliin" theircontempt powers for correction and preservation not for retaliation or vindication.

Anent the char"e of "ross i"norance of the law in requirin" complainant to submit arecord on appeal# we find the respondent +ud"e's order to be not it accord with the establishedrule on the matter. )ontempt proceedin"s is not one of those instances where a record onappeal is required to perfect an appeal. Thus# when the law is elementary# so elementary# not to2now it constitutes "ross i"norance of the law.

Pay4ent + Dc. Gactt( 5.A.-. N. RT5;'';1!1". 5an$ay 1'( 2000

Facts: whom


5/29



Held: 0T $%&T. There was no denial of due process. t was not necessary to hold hearin"so that the prosecution could show that evidence of "uilt of the accused was stron" since a

preliminary investi"ation had been ordered by the court. At that point# bail was still a matter ofri"ht. 1espondent +ud"e# 2nowin" that bail was indeed a matter of ri"ht at that sta"e#nevertheless set the hearin" for the petition for bail four times. However# complainant failed toappear and present evidence to show that the "uilt of the accused was stron". t thus appearsthat complainant is actually the one who was remiss in the performance of his duties.)onsiderin" that the case was referred to the ffice of the !rovincial !rosecutor for preliminaryinvesti"ation# the accused could be considered as entitled to bail as a matter of ri"ht. Thus#respondent +ud"e9s decision "rantin" bail to the accused was proper and in accordance with lawand +urisprudence.

I&&$ance + an O)e + Re*ea&e

5e&$&a Santia% ,&. 5$)%e E)$a) 5,e**an&

-a%aita Sance? ,&. 5$)%e E)$a) 5,e**an&A.-. N. -T5;00;12'. A$%$&t 1( 2000

Facts:


6/29



and with intent to cause an in+ury to complainant. Thus# the instant complaint# char"in"respondent +ud"e with $ross "norance of the &aw and $rave Abuse of Iiscretion

Held: 0T $%&T. The () held that respondent +ud"e not "uilty of "ross i"norance of thelaw and "rave abuse of discretion.

As a rule# a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleadin" under (ection 3; of the1evised 1ule on (ummary !rocedure. This rule# however# applies only where the +ud"mentsou"ht to be reconsidered is one rendered on the merits. Here# the order of dismissal issued byrespondent +ud"e due to failure of a party to appear durin" the preliminary conference isobviously not a +ud"ment on the merits after trial of the case. Hence# a motion for thereconsideration of such order is not the prohibited pleadin" contemplated under (ection 3; =c>of the present 1ule on (ummary !rocedure. Thus# respondent +ud"e committed no "rave abuseof discretion# nor is she "uilty of i"norance of the law# in "ivin" due course to the motion forreconsideration sub+ect of the present

I49&itin + P9e Pena*ty

7e*ici)a) Da)i?n ,&. 5$)%e Anicet Lii&A.-. N. -T5;00;12'!. A$%$&t 1( 2000

Facts: Felicidad Iadion was the complainant in a prosecution for Falsification of a !ublicIocument =Art. 3C8# 1!)> which was tried and decided by miti"atin" circumstance =old a"e># which is merely anordinary miti"atin" circumstance. The imposition of a strai"ht penalty of seven =C> months byrespondent


7/29



complaint a"ainst and a fine not e*ceedin" !h! 755# if the threatis not sub+ect to a condition =Article 848>. /alicious mischief# on the other hand# is penaliedwith imprisonment of 8 months and 3 day to 6 months =arresto mayor in its medium andma*imum periods> if the value of the dama"e caused e*ceeds !h! 3#555 =Article -8;>. n thiscase# the alle"ed dama"e to complainant was estimated to be !h! 75#555. Thus# the sub+ectcriminal cases should have been tried under the 1evised 1ule on (ummary !rocedure#considerin" that such rule is applicable to criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by lawfor the offense char"ed is imprisonment not e*ceedin" 6 months or a fine not e*ceedin" !h!3#555 or both# irrespective of other imposable penalties# accessory or otherwise or of the civilliability arisin" therefrom K(ection 3 B=D># 1evised 1ule on (ummary !rocedureL. 1espondent

+ud"e# therefore# erred in applyin" the ordinary rules of procedure instead of the rules of

summary procedure. A +ud"e has a duty to e*hibit more than +ust a cursory acquaintance withthe statutes and procedural rules. n fact# the )ode of


8/29



Held: $%&T. The rule is that no application for probation shall be entertained or "ranted if thedefendant has perfected the appeal from the +ud"ment of conviction. At the time complainant

applied for probation# an appeal had already been perfected. Althou"h respondent


9/29



Antni Y$;A&en&i ,&. 5$)%e 7anci&c D. Vi**an$e,aA.-. N. -T5;00;12/!. 5an$ay 1'( 2000

Facts: )omplainant char"es sits not onlyto +ud"e liti"ated cases with the least possible delay but that his responsibilities include bein" aneffective mana"er of the court and its personnel. He is presumed to be co"niant of hisresponsibilities as a worthy minister of the law. At the very least# he is e*pected to 2eep abreastwith his doc2et.

)ertainly# a delay of three years in the transmission of court records to the appellatecourt# where only a period of -5 days is required# is ine*cusable.

Actin% 5$)%e Reyna*) B. Be**&i* ,. Dante )e*a C$? Ri,ea( Sei++ III( Banc "/(-et9*itan Tia* C$t( 3$e?n CityA.-. N. P;00;1/2/. Se9te4@e 2!( 2000Dante )e*a C$? Ri,ea( Sei++ III( Banc "/( -et9*itan Tia* C$t( 3$e?n City ,&.Actin% 5$)%e Reyna*) B. Be**&i*( Banc "/( -et9*itan Tia* C$t( 3$e?n City.A.-. N. -T5;00;1"16. Se9te4@e 2!( 2000

9


10/29



Facts: (heriff Iante 1ivera alle"edly falsified his !ersonal Iata (heet. For this# respondent. As a consequence# spinas used suchrit of !ossession a"ainst the herein complainants in order to e+ect them from their propertyand deprived them from the en+oyment of the same.

The cru* of this controversy therefore is the issuance of respondent


11/29



and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. A +ud"e should so behave at all times as topromote public confidence in the inte"rity and impartiality of the +udiciary. =1ule 8.53# )anon 8>.

Le9*) G. Dacea( 5. ,&. 5$)%e Te) A. Di?nA.-. N. RT5;00;1!#". A$%$&t 2( 2000

Facts: &eopoldo Iacera#


12/29



accused privately. 0o matter how noble her intentions may have been# it was improper forrespondent +ud"e to meet the accused without the presence of complainant. 1espondent


13/29


14/29



/ar"arita 8> complainant said she had to fly abroad that same day -> that for the parties to "oto another town for the marria"e would be e*pensive and would entail serious problems offindin" a solemniin" officer and another pair of witnesses or sponsors D> if they failed to "et

married on Au"ust 84# 3;;C# complainant would be out of the country for a lon" period and theirmarria"e license would lapse and necessitate another publication of notice 7> if the parties "obeyond their plans for the scheduled marria"e# complainant feared it would complicate heremployment abroad.

Held: $%&T. The authority of a +ud"e to solemnie marria"e is only limited to thosemunicipalities under his +urisdiction. )learly# )albayo" )ity is no lon"er within his area of

+urisdiction. Additionally# there are only three instances# as provided by Article 4 of the Family)ode# wherein a marria"e may be solemnied by a +ud"e outside his chamberKsL or at a placeother than his sala# and the circumstances of this case do not fall in any of these e*ceptions.

/oreover# as solemniin" officer# respondent as


15/29



should be aware of his duties as an arbiter of +ustice. %nder 1ule -.57 of the )ode of


16/29



(ultan ever requested for an e*tension of time within which to decide the cases submittedbefore him.

Held: $%&T. The )ourt reiterates that failure to decide cases within the required period isine*cusable and constitutes "ross inefficiency which is a "round for administrative sanctiona"ainst the defaultin" +ud"e# either by a fine or suspension from the service# dependin" onfactors that tend to a""ravate or miti"ate his liability. This is in accordance with the mandatethat the +ud"e shall dispose of the business of the court promptly and decide cases within theprescribed periods. )onformably# the rules require the courts to decide cases ready for decisionwithin - months from date of submission. The )ourt is not unmindful of the Herculean tas2 trial

+ud"es are faced with the perennial clo""ed doc2ets of the lower courts. However# this shouldnot be an e*cuse for them to abdicate their duty to dispense +ustice.


17/29



disposition of his case and will ultimately affect the ima"e of the +udiciary. A delay in thedisposition of cases amounts to a denial of +ustice# brin"s the court into disrepute and ultimatelyerodes public faith and confidence in the +udiciary.

R*an) S$**a ,. Hn. R)*+ C. Ra4&A.- N. -T5;00;1"1'. Se9te4@e 2#( 2000

Facts: Ir. 1olando A. (ulla char"in" respondent


18/29



conduct# official and otherwise# of the personnel who wor2 thereat# from the +ud"e to the lowestof its personnel. )ourt employees have been en+oined to adhere to the e*actin" standards ofmorality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the "ood

name and inte"rity of courts of +ustice.1espondents I(/((I from service.

58NE 1'';1'''

A. 58DGES

1. &oo aith in +enering Decisions

Atty. Antni T. G$ee ,. Hn. A)ian Vi**a4 2'6 SCRA

Facts: )arlos and his counsel# $uerrero# char"ed respondent with "ross i"norance of the law

and 2nowin"ly renderin" an un+ust +ud"ment after they lost a civil and a criminal case tried byrespondent. They were also thwarted on appeal. However# in the pleadin"s before the )A#they used abusive lan"ua"e in describin" the respondent9s acts# hence# respondent +ud"e citedthem for direct contempt# which was later set aside by the ().

Held: )ase dismissed. The order of direct contempt may only be considered as an error of+ud"ment. A +ud"e may not be administratively char"ed for mere errors of +ud"ment# in theabsence of showin" of any bad faith# malice or corrupt purpose. /oreover# +ud"es cannot beheld to account criminally# civilly# or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered by themin "ood faith.

I49atia*ity

Re: Ini@itin + 5$)%e E))ie R. R=a& 2'2 SCRA "06

Facts: Atty. 1o+as was appointed a +ud"e. ne of the criminal cases he inherited was one inwhich he acted as prosecutor. He e*plained that his delay in inhibitin" himself from presidin"on that case was because it was only after the belated transcription of the steno"raphic notesthat he remembered that he handled that case. He also says that the counsels did not ob+ectand he never held @full,blown hearin"s anyway.

Held:


19/29



Facts: A is a policeman char"ed with murder. Iurin" the trial# < ordered that he be representedby counsel de officio because A9s attorney was ill. A then char"ed < with i"norance of the law Poppression because the fact that the counsel de officio did not 2now the particulars of the case

meant that A would be denied due process.

Held: )omplaint dismissed. The )ode of


20/29



Facts: before retirin"# the fine is miti"ated.

Atty. Ra$*a A. Sance? ,. 5$)%e A$%$&tine A. Ve&ti* 2' SCRA 1

Facts: )omplainant char"ed 1T)


21/29



rules of procedure to defeat the ends of +ustice or unduly delay a case# impede the e*ecution ofa +ud"ment or misuse court processes. The facts and the law should advise them that a casesuch as this should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already con"ested +udicial

doc2ets. They do not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencin" liti"ations thatfor sheer lac2 of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts.

D$ty t Ptect C*ient& Intee&t

De,e*94ent Ban< + te Pi*i99ine& an) A&&et Pi,iti?atin T$&t ,. C$t + A99ea*&an) Cntinenta* Ce4ent C9atin "02 SCRA "62

Facts: ))) filed an in+unction suit to prevent the IB! and A!T from foreclosin" on itsmort"a"es. Iurin" trial# IB! P A!T were unable to appear for cross,e*aminin" )))9switnesses because the respective counsels were unprepared# unavailable or ill. The lower courtdecided this as a waiver# hence +ud"ment was rendered for ))). IB! P A!T filed this petitionalle"in" denial of due process.

Held: !etition denied. There can be no denial of due process where a party had the opportunityto participate in the proceedin"s but did not do so. )ounsel for A!T was absent on severaloccasions because of withdrawal of previous counsel# unreadiness to conduct the cross,e*aminations and serious illness. The withdrawal of A!T9s previous counsel in the thic2 of theproceedin"s would be a reasonable "round to see2 postponement of the hearin". However#such necessitates a duty on the part of the new counsel to prepare himself for the ne*tscheduled hearin". The e*cuse that it was due to the former counsel9s failure to turn over therecords of the case to A!T# shows the ne"li"ence of the new counsel to actively recover therecords of the case. )ounsel should have ta2en adequate steps to fully protect the interest ofhis client# rather than pass the blame on the previous counsel. A motion to postpone trial on the"round that counsel is unprepared for trial demonstrates indifference and disre"ard of his

client9s interest. A new counsel who appears in a case in midstream is presumed and obli"ed toacquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedin"s that have transpired prior tohis ta2eover. Also# even if counsel had been ill with den"ue# he chose not to notify his co,counsels who could have conducted the cross,e*amination.

2. alsehoo/oru#"shopping/Dilatory )actics

Ban H$a 8. 7*e& ,. Atty. Eni$e S. C$a "06 SCRA /6!

Facts: )hua was char"ed with many offenses. The evidence was found to support the char"esthat he notaried a for"ed deed of sale# that he caused to be published an advertisement of a() decision in order to brin" ridicule and shame upon a corporation# that he filed a civil case

2nowin" that the reliefs he prayed for were probably "ranted in the () case E thus belyin" hiscertification a"ainst forum shoppin". He has also been previously reprimanded for bribin" a+ud"e and for consistently usin" dilatory tactics to prolon" a liti"ation.

Held: I(BA11I. He has thus violated 1ules 35.53# 38.58# 38.5D =foistin" or commission offalsehood# forum,shoppin" and causin" in court proceedin"s># )anon 3; =failin" to resort tolawful means in representin" his client># 8C# -.53 and 3-.58 =causin" undue publication of apendin" action>. He had an active role in committin" fraud since he falsely stated that theperson ma2in" the deed of sale appeared before him and stated that the same was his free actand deed, when evidence shows the si"nature was for"ed also# he prolon"ed a family disputeby usin" dilatory tactics and placin" an advertisement in order to ridicule his opponents E inviolation of 1ule 3.5D that lawyers should encoura"e their clients to end a controversy by a fair

settlement. A lawyer must uphold the inte"rity of the profession. He brin"s honor to it by honestyand fair dealin" and by performin" his duties to society# the bar# the courts and his clients.

3. &oo Moral Character

T4a& Ca@$*i&an ,. 5$)%e A)ian N. Pa%a*i*a$an 2'# SCRA !'"

21


22/29



Facts: )abulisan filed an administrative complaint a"ainst respondent for "rave misconductcommitted as follows : =3> peepin" into the bathroom where /arilyn ). Iumayas# a public healthnurse# and dau"hter of the owner of the house where he was boardin"# was then ta2in" a bath

=8> havin" a mistress in the nei"hborin" town and =-> allowin" local practitioners to writedecisions for him.

Held: 1espondent filed for voyeurism# other char"es dismissed for lac2 of evidence. !eoplewho run the +udiciary# particularly +ustices and +ud"es# must not only be proficient in both thesubstantive and procedural aspects of the law# but more importantly# they must possess thehi"hest de"ree on inte"rity and probity and an unquestionable moral upri"htness both in theirpublic and private lives. By committin" the acts in question# respondent violated the trustreposed in him and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and ri"id standards of moralityrequired in the +udicial profession.15

Victian P. Re&$eccin ,. Atty. Ciiac C. Say&n "00 SCRA 12'

Facts: respondent was accused of havin" appropriated for his own benefit the amount of ! 8#7555.55 representin" the amount which was delivered by the 1esurreccion to the respondent ascompensation or settlement money of a case for homicide thru rec2less imprudence. (aysondid not turn over the amount to his client# the )omplainant in the criminal case# forcin"1esurreccion to pay the same amount a"ain. (ayson was later convicted for estafa.

Held: (ayson I(BA11I. $ood moral character is not only a condition precedent toadmission to the le"al profession# but it must also remain e*tant in order to maintain one9s"ood standin" in that e*clusive and honored fraternity. Acts of moral turpitude =i.e. donecontrary to +ustices# honesty P "ood morals> such as estafa or falsification render one unfitto be a member of the le"al proession. Also# (ayson9s acts of delayin" the hearin"s

before the ($ and the B! reinforce this view.

!. Abuse of Authority

R&a*ia Vi**a$e*( et a* ,. Ga9i*n( et a*: In te -atte + te Petitin t Re4,e Atty. 5&eA. Ga9i*n a& Pe&i)ent( IBP "02 SCRA 1"

Facts: $ was accused of 36 B! employees who sou"ht his removal as B! !resident for:mmorality# questionable disbursements of funds# dishonesty# failure to turn over B! donationsfrom private individuals# refusal to turn over records and money pertainin" to the mployees9&oan (avin"s Association# Appropriation of ffice !roperty# *tendin" loans to B! employees#oppression?harassment# appointment of unworthy employees and relatives and or"aniation of

a secret society. The issue re"ardin" le"al ethics is whether the () can assume +urisdiction orshould it be considered a labor dispute under the +urisdiction of the 0&1).

Held: )har"es dropped. All the accusations of the petitioners were either unsubstantiated orrefuted by controvertin" evidence. As to the issue of +urisdiction# the () has previouslyassumed administrative +urisdiction over the B! president. f the petitioners alle"e that the B!terminated them as an act of reprisal and with malice or bias# this would constitute "ross abuseof authority and serious misconduct E warrantin" the use of the ()9s supervisory powers overthe B!. &astly# even if there was no wron"ful act# $ is ordered to transfer the funds of thesavin"s and loan association to an account in their name to prevent the appearance andsuspicion of impropriety.

. &ross $gnorance of the Law

5e&$& Cn)$ct ,&. 5$)%e I*$4ina) C. -n?n 2'1 SCRA 61'

Facts: 1espondent +ud"e was char"ed with "ross i"norance of the law. He refused to suspendthe mayor due to criminal char"es a"ainst the latter for the crime of unlawful appointment. The

+ud"e opined that an official cannot be suspended for somethin" that has happened in aprevious term. (ettled +urisprudence says this only applies to administrative# not criminal cases.

22


23/29



Held: Fined for !7555. hile +ud"es should not be disciplined for inefficiency on accountmerely of occasional mista2es or errors of +ud"ment# it is imperative that they be conversant

with basic le"al principles. A +ud"e is called upon to e*hibit more than +ust cursoryacquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules it is imperative that he be conversant withthe basic le"al principles and aware of well,settled and authoritative doctrines. Also# if he didthe act deliberately# he violated )anon 34 of the )anons of


24/29



clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent9s character# his moral indifference to scandal in thecommunity# and his outri"ht defiance of established norms.

G&& -i&cn)$ctE*in)a A*nt;7ayna ,. 5$)%e A@)$*4a=i) A&ti "00 SCRA 1''

Facts: . Also# the tests "iven

by the )ourt physician contradict the dia"nosis "iven by his doctor.

Held: $uilty of "ross misconduct and abandonment of office# +ud"e dismissed.


25/29



+ustifiable e*cuse at all. The doctrine of res ipsa lo;uitor # that the )ourt may impose its authorityupon errin" +ud"es whose actuations# on their face# would show "ross incompetence# i"noranceof the law# or misconduct# is patently applicable to the instant case.

Re9$@*ic + te Pi*i99ine& ,&. C$t + A99ea*& 2'6 SCRA 1#1

Facts: !etitioner filed a case for recission a"ainst the Juetulios and Abadillas alle"in" that theformer sold the land that had already been e*propriated. The Juetulios did not file an answer#but at the hearin" on the motion for default# co,defendant Hernando was permitted by the +ud"eto appear as counsel for the defendants and file an answer.

Held: )ase reinstated. vidently# when respondent Hernando appeared before the trial courtand filed the Answer?/otion to dismiss# he was still under suspension from the practice of law.

A suspended lawyer# durin" his suspension# is certainly prohibited from en"a"in" in the practiceof law# and if he does so# he may be disbarred. The reason is that# his continuin" to practice the

profession durin" his suspension constitutes a "ross misconduct and a willful disre"ard of thesuspension order# which should be obeyed thou"h how erroneous it may be until set aside.

I499iety

7*a,ian B. Cte& ,. 5$)%e E4eit -. A%cai*i 2/' SCRA /2"

Facts: 1espondent was char"ed with impropriety and "ross i"norance of the law. n a case forille"al lo""in"# he dismissed the case and returned ille"ally cut timber to the defendantsbecause the search warrant was invalid. He was also seen in eatin" and drin2in" in thecompany of said defendants# and this supposedly influenced his decision.

Held: are not returned tothe possessor. He also violated )anon 8# 1ule 8.53 of the )ode of


26/29



everyday life should be free from the appearance of impropriety. mproper conduct erodes thepublic confidence in the +udiciary.

Ben=a4in Sia La ,&. Hn. 7e*i4n C. A@e*i*a III 2'! SCRA 26#

Facts: in a family dispute over a parcel of land# respondent +ud"e committed acts of forcibleentry# attempted to deny complainant of possession despite a lease in the latter9s favor. He also"ave firearms to his men in order to assault complainant9s wor2ers. 1espondent also fled frompolice when called in for questionin".

Held: 1espondent I(/((I. A +ud"e is the visible representation of the law and theembodiment of the people9s sense of +ustice and that# accordin"ly# he should constantly 2eephimself away from any act of impropriety# not only in the performance of his official duties butalso in his everyday actuations. 0o other position e*acts a "reater demand on moralri"hteousness and upri"htness of an individual than perhaps a seat in the +udiciary. A +ud"e

must be the first to abide by the law and to weave an e*ample for the others to follow.

S9$&e& Bene)ict R&e G)ine? ,. Hn. Antni A*an an) Sei++ A*@et Rica)A*an "0" SCRA 2!'

Facts: $ char"ed A with committin" irre"ularities in a civil case for sum of money. n said case#a writ of preliminary attachment was issued and the effects seied were 2ept in


27/29



is this 2ind of "ross and flauntin" misconduct# no matter how nominal the amount involved#which erodes the respect for the law and the courts.

Saa B. Ve)ana ,&. 5$)%e E$)a* B. Va*encia 2'! SCRA 1

Facts: )omplainant is the court interpreter and a relative of respondent +ud"e. (he claims thathe 2issed and fondled her when she went to his sala to inform him that the cases for the daywere ready for trial.

Held: 1espondent "uilty of violatin" )anons 8# - and 88 of the )ode of


28/29



Facts: As an incident in the main case# V appointed his counsel as attorney,in,fact to representhim at the pre,trial. )ounsel failed to appear# hence V was declared in default. The order ofdefault was received by counsel but no steps were ta2en to have it lifted or set aside.

Held: Bindin" on V. V was also "uilty of ne"li4"ence because after ma2in" the special power ofattorney# he went abroad and paid no further attention to the case until he received the decision.Thus# no FA/ which will warrant a liftin" of the order.

P9ety 8n)e Liti%atin

Re%a*a) Day ,&. E&te@an A@ecia

Facts: Iaroy was plaintiff in a forcible entry case. He hired Abecia as his lawyer and won. Tosatisfy the award for dama"es# a parcel of land of the defendant was sold to Iaroy at ane*ecution sale. The land was then sold to Iaroy9s relative# who then sold it to Abecia9s wife.He now claims that these sales are void because Abecia for"ed his si"nature on the deeds of

sale. B! disbarred Abecia.

Held: 1eversed. The evidence shows that Iaroy was a party to the sale at the time ot was

made and did not @discover it ; years later as he claimed. He was not defrauded Rreal issuethe parties thou"ht that because the land had been acquired at a public sale to satisfy a

+ud"ment in a case in which respondent was complainant9s counsel# the latter could not acquirethe land. The parties made this arran"ement to circumvent Art. 3D;3 of the )ivil )ode whichprevents lawyers from acquirin" property and ri"hts that may be the ob+ect of any liti"ation inwhich they may ta2e by virtue of their profession. The prohibition in Art. 3D;3 does not apply tothe sale of a parcel of land acquired by a client to satisfy a +ud"ment in his favor# to his attorneywas not the sub+ect of the liti"ation. hile +ud"es# prosecutin" attorneys# and others connectedwith the administration of +ustice are prohibited from acquirin" @property or ri"hts in liti"ation or

levied upon in e*ecution the prohibition with respect to attorneys in the case e*tends only to@property and ri"hts that may be the ob+ect of any liti"ation in which they may ta2e part by virtueof their profession.

3$a*i+icatin&

R$+et G$tiee? an) -aite&& Pa&&in ,&. 5$)%e E&tani&*a S. Be*an2'/ SCRA 1

Facts: )oncerned citiens of Binan &a"una char"ed respondent /T) +ud"e with conductpre+udicial to the best interest of the service. They claim he committed per+ury for failure todisclose a previous char"e for two criminal offenses in his written application to the


29/29



profession. ts basic ideal is to render public service and to secure +ustice for those who see2 itsaid. f it has to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal# lawyers should notonly master its tenets and principles but should also# by their lives# accord continuin" fidelity to

them. By e*tortin" money from his client throu"h deceit# &imon has sullied the inte"rity of hisbrethren in the law and has indirectly eroded the people9s confidence in the +udicial system. Heis disbarred for immoral# deceitful and unlawful conduct.

Vict N$n%a ,. Atty. Veanci Viay "06 SCRA /#

Facts: 0 accused V of notariin" documents without a commission. t appears that in 3;4C and3;;3 he notaried deeds of sale of property between the ban2 he wor2s for and his minor son.

At those times# he was not commissioned as a notary public.

Held: (%(!0II. 0otariation is invested with public interest because- it converts a privatedocument into a public one. 0otariin" without commission is a violation of the lawyer9s oath to

obey the laws =the 0otarial &aw> and by ma2in" it appear that he is so authoried is a deliberatefalsehood which violates the lawyer9s oath and 1ule 3.53 =)!1> that a lawyer shall not en"a"ein unlawful# dishonest# immoral or deceitful conduct.

Atty. P$)enci Pentic&te& ,. P&ec$t Di&)a) I@ae? "0/ SCRA 21

Facts: !ascual was sued for non,remittance of ((( benefits. (he "ave the contested amount torespondent# who was supposed to forward the same to the ((( and drop the char"es.1espondent did not forward the amount. He only remitted the amount after his complaint formisconduct was filed with the B!.

Held: 1!1/A0II. A hi"h sense of morality# honesty and fair dealin" is e*pected and

required of a member of the bar. 1ule 3.53 provides that a lawyer shall not en"a"e in unlawful#dishonest# immoral or deceitful conduct. hile !ascual may not strictly be considered a client ofrespondent# the rules relatin" to a lawyer9s handlin" of funds of a client is still applicable# thus#lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf oftheir clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. Also# even if he was actin"as a prosecutor# )anon 6 provides that these canons shall apply to lawyers in "overnmentservice in the dischar"e of their official tas2s.

Attney& 7ee&

Renat S. On% 7ancia N. On% ,. C$t + A99ea*&( In*an) Tai*ay&( Inc. Pi*tancSe,ice Ente9i&e( Inc. "01 SCRA "#

Facts: 1enato n" was in+ured durin" a vehicular collision. He was awarded dama"es by thetrial court. n appeal# the )A# the awards for actual dama"es# moral dama"es P attorney9sfees were reduced because =3> the cost P feasibility of corrective sur"ery had not been adducedin evidence# =8> the document relied upon to prove actual dama"es was not formally offered inevidence and =-> no evidence but the bare assertion of counsel was put forward to provedama"es for unearned income.

Held: Attorney9s fees is an indemnity for dama"es ordered by a court to be paid by the losin"party to the prevailin" party# based on any of the cases authoried by law. t is payable not tothe lawyer but to the client# unless the 8 have a"reed that the award shall pertain to the lawyeras additional compensation or as part thereof. The )ourt has established a set of standards infi*in" the amount of attorney9s fees. )ounsel9s performance# however# does not +ustify the

award of 87 percent attorney9s fees. The nature of the case was not e*ceptionally difficult# andhis handlin" of the case was sorely inadequate# as shown by his failure to follow elementarynorms of civil procedure P evidence. t is well,settled that such award is addressed to sound

+udicial discretion and sub+ect to +udicial control.

29

complete 20 ethics 20 digests

Documents