You are on page 1of 2

CANON 8 CAMACHO V PANGULAYAN VITUG; March 22, 2000 (kiyo miura) NATURE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Violation of the Code of Professional Ethics FACTS - 9 students from the AMA Computer College (AMACC), all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE, allegedly published certain objectionable features - the Student Disciplinary Tribunal found them guilty and the students were expelled - the 9 students appealed but were denied by the AMACC President giving rise to a civil case calling for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with Camacho as their counsel and Pangulayan and associates representing the defendant, AMACC - while the case was pending, letters of apology and re-admission agreements were separately executed by and/or in behalf of the students by their parents - following this, the Pangulayan Law Offices filed a Manifestation stating, among other things, that 4 of the students had acknowledged their guilt and agreed to terminate all proceedings - apparently, Pangulayan procured and effected the re-admission agreements through negotiations with said students and their parents without communicating with Camacho ISSUE WON Pangulayan is guilty of disregarding professional ethics HELD YES, this action violates Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics which states: A lawyer should not in anyway communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should 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 undertake to advise him as to law. - respondent violated professional ethics and disregarded a duty owing to his colleague - the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a resolution suspending Pangulayan for 6 months and dismissed the case against the other respondents since they took no part in it - the court concurred with IBPs findings but reduced the suspension to 3 months REYES v CHIONG JR. 405 SCRA 212 Facts: Pan. -Taiwanese went into a business venture with Pan. Pan was supposed to set up a Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products factory. He did not establish it, and so Xu asked that his money be returned. fa against Pan. Prosecutor Salanga then issued a subpoena against Pan. and damages as well as for the dissolution of a business venture against Xu, Atty Reyes, and Prosecutor Salanga. committed in conducting the criminal investigation he still filed the complaint against Pan in spite of Pansmotions. baseless. years. Issue: W/N Chiong should be suspended. Held: Yes. Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, GanaLopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. his client of the availability of these remedies. Thus the filing of the cases had no justification. anor toward each other [001] Laput vs. Remotigue 1 , 6 SCRA 45(A.M. No. 219, 29 September 1962) LABRADOR, J. (En Banc) FACTS: Petitioner ATTY.CASIANO U. LAPUT charge respondents ATTY. FRANCISCO E.F.REMOTIGUE and ATTY. FORTUNATO P. PATALINGHUG with unprofessional and unethical conduct in soliciting cases and intriguing against a brother lawyer. In May 1952, Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera retained petitioner Atty. Laput to handle her "Testate Estate of Macario Barrera" case in CFI-Cebu. By Jan. 1955, petitioner had prepared two pleadings: (1) closing of administration proceedings, and (2) rendering of final accounting and partition of said estate .Mrs. Barrera did not countersign both pleadings. Petitioner found out later that respondent Atty. Patalinghug had filed on 11 Jan. 1955 a written appearance as the new counsel for Mrs. Barrera. On 5 Feb. 1955, petitioner voluntarily asked the court to be relieved as Mrs. Barreras counsel. Petitioner alleged that: (1) respondents appearances were unethical and improper; (2) they made Mrs. Barrera sign documents revoking the petitioners Power of Attorney" purportedly to disauthorize him from further collecting and receiving dividends of the estate from Mr. Macario Barreras corporations, and make him appear as a dishonest lawyer and no longer trusted byhis client; and (3) Atty. Patalinghug entered his appearance without notice to petitioner. Respondent Atty. Patalinghug answered that when he entered his appearance on 11 Jan.1955Mrs. Barrera had already lost confidence in her lawyer, and had already filed a pleading discharging his services. The other respondent Atty. Remotigue answered that when he filed his appearance on 7 Feb. 1955, the petitioner had already withdrawn as counsel. The SC referred the case to the SolGen for investigation, report and recommendation. The latter recommended the complete exoneration of respondents. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Remotigue and Atty Patalinghug are guilty of unprofessional and unethical conduct in soliciting cases. HELD: No. The SC found no irregularity in the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug as counsel for Mrs. Barrera; and there was no actual grabbing of a case from petitioner because Atty.Patalinghug's professional services were contracted by the widow. Besides, the petitioner's voluntary withdrawal on 5 Feb. 1955, and his filing almost simultaneously of a motion for the payment of his attorney's fees, amounted to consent to the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug as counsel for the widow. The SC also held that respondent Atty. Remotigue was also not guilty of unprofessionalconduct inasmuch as he entered his appearance, dated 5 Feb. 1955, only on 7 February 1955,after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed with petitioner's professional services, and after petitione rhad voluntarily withdrawn his appearance. As to Atty. Patalinghugs preparation of documents revoking the petitioners power of attorney, the SolGen found that the same does not appear to be prompted by malice or intended to hurt petitioner's feelings, but purely to safeguard the interest of the administratrix. Case dismissed and closed for no sufficient evidence submitted to sustain the charges

You might also like