Leopoldo G. Dacera, Jr. vs. Judge Teodoro A.

Dizon
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1573. August 2, 2000

Facts: Leopoldo Dacera, Jr. was the complainant in a prosecution for Qualified Theft filed with
Branch 37 of the RTC of General Santos City with Judge Teodoro Dizon presiding. The prosecutor
later filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Dacera had executed and signed an Affidavit
of Desistance from pursuing the prosecution. Dacera, however, opposed the Motion to Dismiss,
alleging that Judge Dizon had unduly influenced him to sign the Affidavit of Desistance and that
he had not been fully appraised of the consequences of his actions in doing so. The Supreme
Court assigned an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals to investigate into the matter.

Held: NOT GUILTY. The investigation did not find any conclusive evidence that Judge Dizon was
personally biased in favor of either party in the disposition of the case in question. It must be
noted that respondent judge did not actually dismiss the case upon motion of the prosecutor and
even voluntarily inhibited himself upon motion of Dacera to disqualify him. However, the
investigation did reveal that Judge Dizon had made telephone calls to Dacera and even had
discussions with him inside his chambers in order to verify the truth about the Affidavit of
Desistance. While there is no clear proof of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations,
the acts of respondent in calling and meeting with the complainant still leave much to be desired
and are deserving of reprimand. A judge is not only required to be impartial; he must also appear
to be impartial. Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance. Canon II of the Code of
Judicial Conduct basically provides that judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all activities and should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. It is clear that the acts of the respondent judge
have been less than circumspect. He should have kept himself free from any appearance of
impropriety and should have endeavored to distance himself from any act liable to create an
impression of indecorum. The complaint filed by Dacera against Judge Dizon, Jr., was dismissed
for lack of merit. However, respondent Judge was admonished to refrain from making calls to any
parties-litigant and/or counsel with cases pending in his sala and sternly warned that a repetition
of the same will be dealt with more severely.

Legaspi v Garrete
242 SCRA 679
Facts: This is an administrative complaint charging Judge Francisco A. Garrete (MCTC Judge) with
grave misconduct and abuse of authority, among others, for the termination of the services of his
Stenographic Reporters, Glenita Legaspi and Lanie Pama (complainants) which were temporarily
appointed in the said position. Glenita and Lanie were made to sign undated letters of
resignation and were also told to remain single if they wanted to extend their employment. The
respondent judge also utilized the services of court personnel outside his official station. He
designated Ranulfo Vargas, Court Process Server, as his driver although he was not his driver.

Issues:
1. Whether or not respondent judge has the power to terminate the services of his court
employees.
2. Whether or not respondent judge has violated Rules 3.08 and 3.09 of Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.

Held:
1. The respondent judges action in discontinuing the services of Glenita and Lanie and ensuring
that they would not have any place to work in the office clearly indicated his intention to silence
them and the other complainants. It was not only a harsh act but also unauthorized. While
Glenita and Lanie may hold temporay appointments, they are still entitled to remain in office
until the Supreme Court has pass upon the merits of respondents plea for the termination of
their employment. Respondents highhanded tactics are regretfully deplorable considering that
he knows fully well that the power to dismiss court personnel belongs exclusively to the Supreme
Court.
2. The designation of Ranulfo as his driver although he was not his driver plainly contravenes the
mandates of the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Rules 3.08 and 3.09. He has demonstrated
that he cannot maintain professional competence in court management, organize and supervise
court personnel for efficient dispatch of business, and observe unceasingly the high standards of
public service.

ATIENZA v. BRILLANTES, Jr.

March 29, 1995 (A.M. No. MTJ-92-706)

PARTIES:
Complainant: LUPO ALMODIEL ATIENZA
Respondent: JUDGE FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES, JR., Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila

FACTS:
This is a complaint by Lupo A. Atienza for Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety
against Judge Francisco Brillantes, Jr.

Complainant alleged that he has two children with Yolanda De Castro with whom respondent
Judge was cohabiting with. Complainant claimed that respondent is married to one Zenaida
Ongkiko with whom he has 5 children. Respondent alleges that while he and Ongkiko went
through a marriage ceremony (1965) before a Nueva Ecija town Mayor, the same was not a valid
marriage for lack of a marriage license. Upon request of the parents of Ongkiko, respondent went
through another marriage ceremony with her in Manila. Again, neither party applied for a
marriage license. Respondent claims that when he married De Castro in civil rites in Los Angeles,
California in 1991, he believed in all good faith and for all legal intents and purposes that he was
single because his first marriage was solemnized without a license. Respondent also argues that
the provision of Article 40 of the Family Code does not apply to him considering that his first
marriage took place in 1965 and was governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines; while the
second marriage took place in 1991 and governed by the Family Code.

ISSUE:
WON Article 40 of the Family Code is applicable to the case at bar.

HELD:
Yes. Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the Family Code on
August 3, 1988 regardless of the date of the first marriage. Besides, under Article 256 of the
Family Code, said Article is given retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. This is particularly
true with Article 40, which is a rule of procedure. Respondent has not shown any vested right
that was impaired by the application of Article 40 to his case.

ALUMBRES v CAOIBES
Petitioners: Judge Florentino Alumbres
Respondents: Judge Jose Caoibes
Ponente: Melo, J.
January 23, 2002
DOCTRINE
Canon of Judicial Ethics: A judges official conduct should be free from the appearance of
impropriety and his personal behavior, not only on the bench and in the performance of judicial
duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach. Being the visible representation
of the law and the embodiment of the peoples sense of justice, he must be studiously careful
himself to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law, lest it be demoralizing example of
others.
FACTS
Judge Caoibes was appointed presiding judge of Branch 253, a newly created branch of RTC
Pasay City. He had the privilege of recommending to the Supreme Court the appointment of his
own choice. Judge Alumbres, who was then the executive judge of the court, took this as an
opportunity to secure employment for his son. Alumbres lent an executive table to Caoibes for
his temporary use.
The judges had lunch together and both agreed to the appointment of Alumbres son as process
server of Branch 253. Later on, Caoibes withdrew his earlier recommendation of Alumbres son
and instead, recommended someone else.
Alumbres sent his deputy sheriff to take back his table from Caiobes but he refused to return the
table until his office furniture was delivered by the SC. Alumbres then went to Caoibes chambers
to take back his table. Caoibes greeted Alumbres Hoy, ano ba ang atin? The latter replied in an
angry tone Joey, kukunin ko na ang table ko. Akin naman iyun, eh. In response, Caoibes put his
left arm around Alumbres shoulder, extended his right hand to shake that latters right hand,
saying Huwag naman. Halika, pagusapan natin dine. Despite the cordial gesture, Alumbres
held Caoibes right wrist and forcefully jerked it.
Incensed at the fierce reaction of Alumbres, Caoibes shouted Tarantado ito, ah and swung his
left arm towards Alumbres, hitting him on the right temple. Caoibes also delivered a right hook,
grazing Alumbres lower jaw. One of the deputy sheriffs place placed himself between the two.
Alumbres swung at Caoibes while the latter was being led away but the blow missed.
ISSUES/HELD
(1) WON Judge Caoibes deliberately inflicted fistic blows to complainant Judge Alumbres - YES

RATIO
(1) Judge Caoibes threw two punches at Judge Alumbres, the first hitting his right temple and the
second, the left side of his jaw.

Contrary to the claim of Alumbres, the punches of Caoibes were not severe as the injuries
sustained by Alumbres were mere superficial, the size of a pinhead similar to a mosquito bite.
BUT this does not detract from the gravity of the offense committed. Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct states that A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in all activities.

Rule 2.01 provides that A judge should behave at all times as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Courts are looked upon by the people with high respect and are regarded sacred places.
Misbehavior within and around their vicinity diminishes their sanctity and dignity. By fighting
within the court premises, the parties have failed, not only to observe proper decorum expected
of member of the judiciary, they have failed to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. More contemptible, the altercation arose out of a squabble involving
a mere table.

DECISION
Judge Caoibes is guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, with the fine of P20,000.00 with
a warning that a repetition in the future will be dealt with more severely.

SABITSANA V. VILLAMOR
Facts:
It was discovered that there were 87 cases undecided by respondent judge beyond the 90-day
reglementary period.
The dismal state of the Courthouse of the respondent judge which was described as bereft of any
dignity as a court of law
has been noted. Judge Villamor however shifts the blame on his clerk of court, Atty. Jocobo who
he claims was inefficient in
the management of the court records.
Also, in the case of theft by Lipango, Villamor designated Judge Pitao as acting judge of the
MCTC. Villamor warned
Pitao to acquit Lipango because the case was being backed up by someone powerful. He did this
by sending a letter to Pitao
through Lipangos wife. However, Pitao still convicted Lipango because the evidence of guilt was
strong. When Pitao was
away for some conference, he found out that Villamor revoked his designation and appointed
another as judge of the MCTC.
And finally, when the case was elevated to the RTC where Villamor was assigned he acquitted
Lipango.
Held:
Villamor violated Canon3 and Canon2
A judge sits not only to Judge litigated cases with the least possible delay but that his
responsibilities include being
an effective manager of the Court and its personnel. Canon 3, Rule 3.08, of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, provides: A judge
should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in
court management, and
facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel.
Also, under Rule 3.09 is that:
A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient
dispatch of business, and
require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.
Cardinal is the rule that a Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
all
activities. The Canons mince no words in mandating that a Judge shall refrain from influencing in
any manner the
outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another Court (Canon 2, Rule 2.04). Interference
by members of the
bench in-pending suits with the end in view of influencing the course or the result of litigation
does not only subvert
the independence of the judiciary but also undermines the people's faith in its integrity and
impartiality

ROAN I. LIBARIOS VS JUDGE ROSARITO F. DABALOS

A.M. NO. RTJ-89-286 July 11, 1991Topic: CANON 1 SECTION 4

FACTS: An administrative complaint was filed by Roan I. Libarios for and on behalf of his client
Mariano Corvera, Jr. againstrespondent Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos, for grave ignorance of the law,
grave abuse of discretion, gross misconduct andpartiality, relative to the issuance of a warrant of
arrest of the respondent judge against the accused Tranquilino Calo Jr.and Belarmino Alloco for
the crime of murder fixing their bail without any prior hearing.

ISSUE: W/N Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING:Yes. A judge should endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law
unswayed by partisan or personalinterests, public opinion or fear of criticism. He should not have
allowed himself to be swayed into issuing an order fixingbail for the temporary release of the
accused charged with murder, without a hearing, which is contrary to establishedprinciples of
law. It has been an established legal principle or rule that in cases where a person is accused of a
capitaloffense, the trial court must conduct a hearing in a summary proceeding, to allow the
prosecution an opportunity topresent, within a reasonable time, all evidence it may desire to
produce to prove that the evidence of guilt against theaccused is strong, before resolving the
issue of bail for the temporary release of the accused. A judge should not only render a just,
correct and impartial decision but should do so in a manner as to be free from anysuspicion as to
his fairness, impartiality and integrity.The respondent judge is imposed of a FINE of TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) and WARNED to exercisemore care and diligence in the
performance of his duties as a judge, and that the same or similar offense in the future willbe
dealt with more severally.

Macariola Vs. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77

Facts:
On June 8, 1963, respondent Judge Elias Asuncion rendered a decision in Civil Case 3010 final for
lack of an appeal.

On October 16, 1963, a project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion. The project of
partition of lots was not signed by the parties themselves but only by the respective counsel of
plaintiffs and petitioner Bernardita R. Macariola. The Judge approved it in his order dated October
23, 1963.

One of the lots in the project of partition was Lot 1184, which was subdivided into 5 lots
denominated as Lot 1184 A E. Dr. Arcadio Galapon bought Lot 1184-E on July 31, 1964, who
was issued transfer of certificate of Title No, 2338 of the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City. On
March 6, 1965, Galapon sold a portion of the lot to Judge Asuncion and his wife.

On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and Galapon conveyed their respective shares and
interest inn Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing & Fishing Industries Inc. Judge Asuncion was
the President and his wife Victoria was the Secretary. The Asuncions and Galapons were also the
stockholder of the corporation.

Respondent Macariola charged Judge Asuncion with "Acts unbecoming a Judge" for violating the
following provisions: Article 1491, par. 5 of the New Civil Code, Article 14, par. 1 & 5 of the Code
of Commerce, Sec. 3 par H of RA 3019 also known as the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practice Act., Sec.
12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

On November 2, 1970 a certain Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno dismissed the complaints filed
against Asuncion.

Issue:
Whether or Not the respondent Judge violated the mentioned provisions.

Ruling:
No. Judge Asuncion did not violate the mentioned provisions constituting of "Acts unbecoming a
Judge" but was reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities.

Respondent Judge did not buy the lot 1184-E directly on the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but
from Dr. Galapon who earlier purchased the lot from 3 of the plaintiffs. When the Asuncion
bought the lot on March 6, 1965 from Dr. Galapon after the finality of the decision which he
rendered on June 8, 1963 in Civil Case No 3010 and his two orders dated October and November,
1963. The said property was no longer the subject of litigation.

In the case at bar, Article 14 of Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot
apply to the respondent. Upon the sovereignty from the Spain to the US and to the Republic of
the Philippines, Art. 14 of this Code of Commerce, which sourced from the Spanish Code of
Commerce, appears to have been abrogated because whenever there is a change in the
sovereignty, political laws of the former sovereign are automatically abrogated, unless they are
reenacted by Affirmative Act of the New Sovereign.

Asuncion cannot also be held liable under the par. H, Sec. 3 of RA 3019, citing that the public
officers cannot partake in any business in connection with this office, or intervened or take part
in his official capacity. The Judge and his wife had withdrawn on January 31, 1967 from the
corporation and sold their respective shares to 3rd parties, and it appears that the corporation
did not benefit in any case filed by or against it in court as there was no case filed in the different
branches of the Court of First Instance from the time of the drafting of the Articles of
Incorporation of the corporation on March 12, 1966 up to its incorporation on January 9, 1967.
The Judge realized early that their interest in the corporation contravenes against Canon 25.

ARBAN V BORJA
A.M. No R-281-RTJ
August 26, 1986

March 21, 1985, Ponciano A. Arban, District Engineer for Camarines Sur, Ministry of Public
Works and Highways, filed the instant administrative case for grave misconduct against Judge
Melecio B. Borja, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court, Naga City.
February 23, 1985, at about l:10 p.m., at the Cindy's Restaurant in downtown Naga City,
the said Judge, hit Arban with the pistol he was carrying on the left side of his head, sending him
sprawling to the floor and rendering him momentarily unconscious. Arban also suffered a black
eye inflicted by Borja
Borja also threatened with his said gun the companions of Arban.
Minutes before his pistol-whipping, Borja fired his gun in the balcony of the apartment he
is lodging in, from where he followed Arban to the said restaurant.
Because no judge in Naga City or Camarines Sur has ever been known to have resorted to
similar barbarous acts, it received much coverage by the print and broadcast media, in editorial
cartoon and news story of 'Handiong,' one of the most respected newspapers in the Bicol region,
June 19, 1985. Judge Borja appeared but without counsel. Borja moved for the resetting of
the case. The motion was granted.
Neither Arban nor his counsel appeared at the subsequent scheduled hearings. Instead,
Arban filed a Motion to Withdraw the Petition indicating that the petition was caused by a
misunderstanding by Arban of the motives of Borja. After the public apology by Borja, Arban
believes that the scandal caused on the public by the act of Borja has been duly appeased.
The SC issued a Resolution to (a) transfer the case to Justice Nathanael de Pano for further
investigation, report and recommendation, and (b) require counsel for petitioner to appear before
said Justice-Investigator for hearing of this case. In accordance with our Resolution, Justice de
Pano conducted further hearings of the case
February 23, 1985 the incident involving Judge Borja and the complainant generated
nationwide publicity. SC designated then Acting Court Administrator Arturo Buena to investigate
the matter
March 19, 1985 This Court also suspended Judge Melecio Borja effective immediately from
office until further orders.

HELD:
The fact that Arban filed a motion to withdraw his complaint and the fact that the public
apology of Judge Borja satisfied Arban as far as his personal interests in the case were concerned
is not very material nor controlling. The truth is what is important. Did the respondent Judge
commit an act of serious misconduct, one which degrades the integrity of the judicial office and
serves as a demoralizing example to the public?
Even a mere cursory reading of Judge Borja's "apology" in relation to the "petition" or
complaint clearly indicates that Judge Borja admits the commission of the act charged
Whatever the motive may have been, the violent action of Borja in a public place
constitutes serious misconduct and the resultant outrage of the community in Naga City is a blow
to the image of the entire judiciary. Judge Borja violated the established norm for judicial
behavior that "a judge's official conduct should be free from appearance of impropriety, and his
personal behavior not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in
his everyday life, should be beyond reproach (Sec. 3, Cannon of Judicial Ethics)
Judge Melecio B. Borja is found guilty of grave misconduct and is hereby ordered
DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits and with prejudice to
reinstatement in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities.
Dela Cruz v Concepcion
GR No. 172825, October 11, 2012

FACTS:
On March 25, 1996, petitioners entered into a Contract to Sell with respondent involving a house
and lot in Antipolo City for a 2 million consideration.

Respondent made the following payments, to wit:

(1) 500,000 by way of downpayment;
(2) 500,000 on May 30, 1996;
(3) 500,000 paid on January 22, 1997; and
(4) 500,000 bounced check dated June 30, 1997 which was replaced.
Thus, Respondent was able to pay the 2 million total obligation.

Before respondent issued the 500,000 replacement check, she told petitioners that based on the
computation of her accountant as of July 6, 1997, her unpaid obligation which includes interests
and penalties was only 200,000. Petitioners agreed with respondent. Despite repeated demands,
petitioners failed to collect the amounts they claimed. Hence, the complaint for sum of money
with damages filed with the RTC of Antipolo Rizal. In her answer with Compulsory counterclaim
and during the presentation of evidence, respondent presented a receipt purportedly indicating
payment of the remaining balance of 200,000 to Losloso who allegedly received the same on
behalf of petitioners.

On March 8, 2014, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the decision with modification by deleting the award of moral damages and attorney's
fees in favor of respondent. Aggrieved, petitioners come before the Court in this petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45.

ISSUE:
Whether it was proper to dismiss the complaint based on the ground that the defendant fully
paid the claims of plaintiff

HELD:
Yes.
When the issue is tried without the objection of the parties, it should be treated with all respects
as if it had been raised in the pleadings. On the other hand, when there is an objection, the
evidence may be admitted where its admission will not prejudice him.

Thus, while respondent judicially admitted in her answer that she only paid 2 million and that she
still owed petitioners 200,000, respondent claimed later and in fact, submitted an evidence to
show that she already paid the whole amount of her unpaid obligation. It is noteworthy what
when respondent presented evidence of payment, petitioners did not object thereto.

To be sure, petitioners were given ample opportunity to refute the fact of and present evidence
to prove payment.

Cordon vs Balicanta
A.C. No. 2797. October 4, 2002

Facts: Complainant Rosauro Cordon, the widow of Felixberto Jaldon, inherited properties which
amounted to 21 parcels of land. The lawyer who helped her settle the estate of her late husband
was respondent Atty. Jesus Balicanta.
Respondent enticed complainant and her daughter to organize a corporation that would develop
the said real properties into a high-scale commercial complex with a beautiful penthouse for
complainant, which led to the establishment of Rosaura Enterprises. Balicanta was
simultaneously the President/General Manager/Treasurer. He made them sign a document which
turned out to be a voting trust agreement plus an SPA to sell and mortgage some of the parcels
of land which he transferred the titles of to a certain Tion Suy Ong. Respondent never accounted
for the proceeds of said transfers. Using a spurious board resolution, he obtained a loan from
Land bank in the amount of 2.22M php secured by 9 of the parcels of land. The respondent
ostensibly intended to use the money to construct the Baliwasan Commercial Center (BCC, for
brevity). Complainant later on found out that the structure was made of poor materials such as
sawali, coco lumber and bamboo which could not have cost the corporation anything close to the
amount of the loan secured. He failed to pay a single installment on the loan and therefore LBP
foreclosed. He did not attempt to redeem, and sold the rights to redeem said property.
Complainants daughter discovered that their ancestral home had been demolished and that her
mother was detained in a small nipa hut. With the help of an attorney Lim she found her mother.
They terminated respondents services and threatened him with legal action.

Issue: Whether respondent should be disbarred

Held: Yes. Respondent committed grave and serious misconduct that casts dishonor on the legal
profession. His misdemeanors reveal a deceitful scheme to use the corporation as a means to
convert for his own personal benefit properties left to him in trust by complainant and her
daughter.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates upon each lawyer, as his duty to society, the
obligation to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Specifically, he is forbidden to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. If
the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal, those enrolled
in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord
continuing fidelity to them. Thus, the requirement of good moral character is of much greater
import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Lawyers
are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also
throughout their legal career, in order to maintain ones good standing in that exclusive and
honored fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character. Such
character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to
do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so because vast interests are committed to his
care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his clients property,
reputation, his life, his all.
Good moral standing is manifested in the duty of the lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession. He is bound to account for all money
or property collected or received for or from the client. The relation between an attorney and his
client is highly fiduciary in nature. Thus, lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or
property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional
misconduct.

WELLINGTON REYES, complainant, vs.ATTY.

SALVADOR M. GAA, respondent.
FACTS: Complainant reported to the NBI that he had been the victim of extortion by
respondent. An entrapment was set up by the NBI. Respondent was caught in flagrante delicto in
the act of receiving the marked money from complainant, which resulted in his arrest and the
subsequent filing of administrative and criminal cases against him. In his defense, respondent
merely denied the charge of extortion and retorted that the marked money was planted by
complainant.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated his oath as an attorney.
RULING: Yes. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he
denies the charges against him, he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him.
He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times
is expected of him. The extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct as a public
official, which also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer's oath, imposes
upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source
of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action

DINSAY v CIOCO

Facts:

Planters Machinery Corporation (PLAMACO) mortgaged to Traders Royal Bank (the Bank)
certain properties as security for the payment of its loan. PLAMACO defaulted in the payment of
the loan so the Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. At a foreclosure sale conducted by
the sheriff, the property was sold to the bank, who was the sole bidder. A certificate of Sheriffs
sale was executed by Atty. Cioco, then clerk of Court and Ex-officio Sheriff.
Records disclose that page four of the said Certificate was surreptitiously substituted. The
new page lowered the bid price from the original amount of P3, 263, 182.67 to only P730,000.
Cioco and the sheriff who conducted the sale had previously been administratively charged and
dismissed from service.
Now, Atty.Cioco is sought to be disbarred. He argues that there was res adjudicata due to
the administrative case, and that disbarment was deemed adjudicated therein, thus he may now
longer be charged.

Issue: W/N Cioco may be charged with disbarment (W/N res adjudicata appplies)

Held:
Ciocos contention has no merit. Res adjudicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings and not to the exercise of the Courts administrative powers, as in this case.
Disbarment has not been adjudicated in the previous case. Therein, Cioco was
administratively proceeded against as an erring Court personnel under the supervisory authority
of the court. Herein, Cioco is sought to be disciplined as a lawyer under the courts plenary
authority over members of the legal profession.
While Cioco is in effect being indicted twice for the same misconduct, there is no double
jeopardy as both proceedings are administrative in nature.

IGOY v SORIANO
FACTS:
Igoy is one of the petitioners in the case of Heirs of Gavino Igoy, et al. vs. Mactan
Shangrila Hotel.
Eng. William Redoblado introduced Atty. Soriano to Igoy as a Justice of the CA.
According to Igoys friend, Atty. Soriano will be able to help him in his case which is
pending in the CA
Atty. Soriano demanded from Igoy P20,000 but the former reminded the latter the he will
only be able to help in the case as soon as the case was lifted to the SC
Igoys case received an unfavorable decision in the CA and Atty. Soriano offered to prepare
the Petition for Review to be filed in the SC.
Atty. Soriano asked for an additional P20,000
Igoy send the amount by courier to the address of Atty. Soriano which was received by his
son.
SC denied the petition for review of Igoy with finality
Igoy later found out that Atty. Soriano is not a CA Justice and filed this complaint against
Igoy in the SC
Arguments of Atty. Soriano:
o It is unnatural for a person to give money to someone whom he does not know well and
whom he met only for the first time
o The money was offered gratuitously by Igoy
o it is impossible the Igoy handed the money to him on the SC parking lot for many
employees were passing in that place
o it is not Eng. Redoblado who introduced him to Igoy but Mr. Taneo
o if the SC finds that he is guilty, he will retire from the service
Atty. Soriano filed his letter of resignation/retirement under RA 1616
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Soriano violated Canon 6, Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
Yes! Atty. Soriano was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits
and is suspended from the practice of law.
Atty. Sorianos offer to resign was obviously an attempt to evade whatever penalty may be
imposed on him. However, resignation will not extricate him form the consequences of his acts
Resignation should not be used either as an escape or an easy way out to evade
administrative liability by court personnel facing administrative sanctions
To accept the claim of Soriano that the money was offered gratuitously will open the
floodgates to fraud or graft and corruption.
Government lawyers who are public servants owe utmost fidelity to the public service for
public service is a public trust. Government lawyers should be more sensitive to their
professional obligations as their reputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public
eye.
The nature and responsibilities of public officers enshrined in the Constitution are not mere
rhetorical words to be taken lightly as idealistic sentiments but as working standards and
attainable goals that should e matched with actual deeds.

People of the Philippines vs Pablo Esquivel

82 Phil 453 Legal Ethics Duty of a Prosecutor in the Government Service

In 1946, a group of armed men robbed two jeepney drivers and divested them of the jeepneys
they were driving. They also killed the two drivers. Five of the malefactors were arrested: Amado
Dizon, Pablo Esquivel, Ben Pascual, Simplico Navarro and Gorgonio Rivera. The last two later on
became state witnesses. On the strength of these twos testimonies, Dizon, Esquivel, and Pascual
were convicted. Only Dizon and Esquivel appealed the conviction.
Their appeal is grounded on the fact that Navarros and Riveras testimonies were conflicting.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction is correct.

HELD: No, but only as to the conviction of Esquivel the conviction of Dizon is sustained. It was
found by the Supreme Court that in both testimonies sworn by Navarro and Rivera, that Esquivel
played no active hand in the commission of the crime. The testimonies of the two as to the
participation of Esquivel is likewise conflicting as when Rivera testified that it was Esquivel who
suggested the killing of the drivers while on the other hand Navarro testified that it was someone
else. This was never clarified by the prosecution therefore, Esquivels conviction is based on
shaky grounds.

The case for the prosecution was not presented with the care and thoroughness which the
gravity of the offense demanded. There is absolute necessity for a government prosecutor to lay
before the court the pertinent facts at their disposal with methodical and meticulous attention,
clarifying contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in their evidence, to the end that the
courts mind may not be tortured by doubts, that the innocent may not suffer and the guilty not
escape unpunished. Obvious to all, this is the prosecutions prime duty to the court, to the
accused, and to the state.

Generoso Trieste, Sr. vs Sandiganbayan

145 SCRA 508 Legal Ethics Prosecutor Must Recommend Dismissal of Case If There is No
Ground To Sustain It

Trieste was the mayor of Numancia, Aklan. In 1980, during his term, the Municipality of
Numancia purchased construction materials from Trigen Agro-Industrial Development
Corporation. Trieste was allegedly the president of said corporation. Trieste was then sued for
allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act particularly for willfully and unlawfully
having financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction in connection with
which said accused intervened or took part in his official capacity and in which he is prohibited
by law from having any interest.

Trieste, in defense, said that he already divested his interest from the corporation when he took
his office as mayor; that he sold his shares to his sister; he presented evidence to that effect. The
Solicitor General doubted said sale because it was not registered in the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Further, the advertisement of Trigen in the local rotary club shows that Trieste is the
president of the corporation.

In time, the old Sol-Gen was replaced by a new one. The new Sol-Gen gave credit to the
arguments presented by Trieste as it recommended the dismissal of the case on the ground that
Trieste did divest his interest from the corporation by virtue of his selling his shares to his sister;
that said sale cannot be doubted simply because it was not reported to the SEC; that sales of
stocks are not required to be reported in the SEC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the recommendation of the Solicitor General is correct.

HELD: Yes. The Solicitor General is well within his rights to make such recommendation. A public
prosecutor should not hesitate to recommend to the court the accuseds acquittal if the evidence
in his possession shows that the accused is innocent. If on appeal by the accused from a
conviction by the trial court he finds no legal basis to sustain the conviction, he should not also
hesitate to recommend that the accused be acquitted.

Yared v. Ilarde
FACTS: Estrella Yared, substituted by Carmen Tiongco because the former is now dead, and Jose
Tiongco were opposing parties to a property in litigation. Carmen directly filed a Motion for
Reconsideration to the Supreme Court because Judge Ilarde of the RTC ordered the cancellation
of annotation of notices of lis pendens. The Supreme Court noticed and
commented that Carmen has failed to comply with the principle of judicial hierarchy and that she
should have filed the petition in the CA first.
However, the Supreme Court also noticed the improper and unethical language employed by Jose
Tiangco, who was also a counsel for the private respondents, in his pleadings and motions filed
both in SC and lower court. He described the counsel of the petitioner, Atty. Marciana Deguma,
a rambunctious wreastler-type female of 52 who does not
wear a dress which is not red, and who stampedes into the court room like a mad fury and who
speaks slang English to conceal her faulty grammar.
Jose Tiongco alleged that Atty. Deguma does that to please and tenderize and sweeten towards
her own self the readily available Carmelo Tiongco, an unmarried mestizo who lives with
Carmen. He further described Atty. Deguma as an unmarried maiden of certain age and a
love-crazed female Apache who is ready to skin the defendant
alive for not being a bastard and a horned spinster and man-hungry virago and female bull of
an Amazon. He also stated that Atty. Deguma is using PAO as a marriage bureau for her own
benefit.

ISSUE/S: W/N Jose Tiongco, being also one of the counsels of the defendants, violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD: Yes. With the language that he employed, he obviously violated Canon 8-A Rule 8.01 which
states that a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use languages which is abusive,
offensive, or otherwise improper. He also violated Rule 11.03 which says that a lawyer shall
abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language before the
courts. The SC also cited Romero vs Valle, although allowed some latitude of remarks or
comment in furtherance of the cause he upholds, his arguments, both written or oral, should be
gracious to both court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly addressed
by one gentleman to another. Jose Tiongco was merely warned.
Note: In the first part of the case, even the title of the case, it was not mentioned whether Jose
Tiongco is a lawyer or not. Then, theres one sentence which addressed him Atty. Jose Tiongco.

Atty. Casiano Laput vs Atty. Francisco Remotigue

Legal Ethics Attorneys Lien

Laput used to be the counsel for Nieves Barrera until the latter discharged her because she lost
trust and confidence in him due to dubious transactions that Laput handled while representing
her in a testate proceeding. One of the lawyers retained by Barrera to replace Laput was
Remotigue. In September 1957, Remotigue, without notice to Laput, asked the court to direct
Laput to turn over certain documents and titles to Barrera so that the latter may properly
disposed some estate properties. The court granted the same. But Laput stubbornly kept the said
documents as he claimed that said estate properties are subject to his lien and that he needs to
be paid first.

ISSUE: Whether or not Laput has the right to keep said documents.

HELD: No. It turns out that Laputs attorneys fees were already significantly paid while he was
still the counsel for Barrera (as backed by evidence presented by Remotigue) hence he no longer
has a lien to the properties of the estate. Therefore, he cannot retain the certificates of title in
question. On another note, he cannot now charge Remotigue with malice and bad faith when the
latter filed without notice of Laput motions to direct Laput to surrender said certificates because
as records proved, even though no notice was sent to him, he had regularly checked on the
record of this case hence he would have come across the same.

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ENRIQUE ENTILA &

VICTORIANO TENEZA
vs.
BINALBANGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS &
QUINTIN MUNING

The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo, entitled, "PAFLU, et
al, vs. Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations rendered a
decision, on 29 March 1961, ordering the reinstatement with backwages of complainants Enrique
Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision became final On 18 October 1963, Cipriano Cid &
Associates, counsel of record for the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's hen
equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. On 22 November 1963, Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a
similar notice for a reasonable amount. Complainants Entila and Tenazas, on 3 December 1963,
filed a manifestation indicating their non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their
backwages, and, on the same day, Quintin Muning filed a "Petition for Award of Services
Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages. Muning's petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid
& Associates on the ground that he is not a lawyer. The award of 10% to Quintin Muning, who is
not a lawyer according to the order, is sought to be voided in the present petition.

Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle enunciated in Amalgamated Laborers' Association,
et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L-23467, 27 March 1968, that an agreement
providing for the division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union president is allowed to
share in said fees with lawyers, is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral and
cannot be justified. An award by a court of attorney's fees is no less immoral in the absence of a
contract, as in the present case. The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should
not be violated; that acting as an attorney without authority constitutes contempt of court, which
is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, and the law will not assist a person to reap the
fruits or benefit of an unlawful act or an act done in violation of law; and that if fees were to be
allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in
case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from the fact that non-
lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures. The weight of the reasons heretofore stated
why a non-lawyer may not be awarded attorney's fees should suffice to refute the possible
argument that appearances by non-lawyers before the Court of Industrial Relations should be
excepted on the ground that said court is a court of special jurisdiction; such special jurisdiction
does not outweigh the aforesaid reasons and cannot justify an exception. WHEREFORE, the
orders under review are hereby set aside insofar as they awarded 10% of the backwages as
attorney's fees for respondent Quintin Muning. Said orders are affirmed in all other respects.
Costs against respondent Muning.

Jose Guballa vs. The Hon. Eduardo P. Caguioa, et. al., G.R. No. L-46537 July 29, 1977

FACTS: Guballa is an operator of a public utility vehicle which was involved in an accident
resulting to injuries by Domingo Forteza, Jr. As a consequence, a complaint for damages was filed
by Forteza against Guballa with the Court of First Instance in Bulacan. An answer was filed on
behalf of Guballa by Irineo W. Vida Jr., of the law firm Vida, Enriquez,
Mercado & Associates.
Because Guballa and counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial conference, despite due notice,
Guballa was treated as in default and Forteza Jr. was allowed to present his evidence ex parte. A
decision was thereafter rendered by the trial court in favor of Forteza Jr. A Motion for
Reconsideration was then filed by Guballa seeking the lifting of the order of default, the
reopening of the case for the presentation of his evidence and the setting aside of the decision.
Said Motion for Reconsideration was signed by Ponciano Mercado, another member of the law
firm. Case was appealed, although CA affirmed the decision in toto. Motion for Reconsideration
was filed and was denied. After the motion was denied, Guballa, through Atty. Isabelo V.L. Santos
II, filed a petition for Relief from Judgment on ground that Irineo W. Vida, Jr.,
who prepared his Answer to the Complaint in the lower court, is not a member of the Philippine
Bar. Guballa alleged that his rights had not been adequately protected and his properties are in
danger of being confiscated and/or levied upon without due process of law. Judge Caguioa denied
petition and said that it is a dilatory tactic by Guballa
and his counsel.

ISSUE/S: WON Judge Caguioa properly denied petition for declatory relief of Guballa

HELD: Yes. Judge Caguioa properly denied petition for declatory relief of Guballa.
RATIO: Judge Caguioas forthright denial of the Petition for Relief to frustrate a dilatory maneuver
is well-taken; and this Petition must be denied for lack of merit. The alleged fact that the person
who represented Guballa at the initial stage of the litigation, i.e., the filing of an Answer and the
pretrial proceedings, turned out to be not a member of the Bar did not amount to a denial of
petitioner's day in court. Guballa was duly represented by bona fide members of the Bar in
seeking a reversal of the judgment for being contrary to law and jurisprudence and the existence
of valid, legal and justifiable defenses. Guballa's rights had been amply protected in the
proceedings before the trial and appellate courts as he was subsequently assisted by counsel.
Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

. Five J Taxi vs NLRC

Facts:
- Private Respondent Maldigan and Sabsalon was hired by the Petitioner Company as taxi
drivers. The contract was composed of a 24-hour shifting sched on 4 days. They had to make a
boundary from 450 (non aircon) and 700 (aircon), adding to that are car washing expense and
deposit for any deficiency in the boundary
- Petitioner learned Maldigan has been working for another taxi company, while Sabsalon
was held up by armed passengers.
- Sabsalon went back to work but failed to report on several occasions, even leaving his
taxi, and failing to remit his boundary mark
- Respondents requested for the reimbursements of their respective deposits, but petitioner
refused because of the repairs incurred by their vehicles.
- Respondent now files complaint for illegal dismissal and deduction
Issue:
- W/N deductions were illegal.
Held:
- Yes, the deposits made were illegal
- Article 114 of the Labor Code provides as follows:
Deposits for loss or damage. No employer shall require his worker to make deposits from
which deductions shall be made for the reimbursement of loss of or damage to tools, materials,
or equipment supplied by the employer, except when the employer is engaged in such trades,
occupations or business where the practice of making deposits is a recognized one, or is
necessary or desirable as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate rules and
regulations.

MONTEREY VS ARAYATA
FACTS: Atty. Arayata drew up in his favor deed of sale of a land, stating therein that the person
who executed the document and sold the land to him was his father who is already dead. He
appears to Notary public Montoya to legalize said document. However, in the course of
investigation, he alleged that it was his uncle who signed the deed of transfer and ratified it
before Montoya.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Arayatas acts constitute malpractice and unprofessional conduct meriting for
him a disciplinary action.

RULING: The acts committed by Atty. Arayata relative to the deed of sale and his statements to
notary Montoya with regards to said document, constitute malpractice and unprofessional
conduct, meriting for him a disciplinary action mitigated by the circumstance the he was the heir
and complainant has no direct interest. He was suspended for one month.

ORDONIO VS EDUARTE
FACTS: Antonia Ulibari filed with RTC for annulment of a document against her children. The case
was handled by Atty. Henerido Eduarte. However, Atty. Henerido Eduarte was appointed as RTC
judge. The case of Ulibari was then transferred to Atty, Josephine Eduarte, wife of Atty. Henerido
Eduarte. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Antonia Ulibari. Only one of the children,
Dominga Ordonio, appealed to CA. While the appeal was pending in the CA, Antonia conveyed
some parcels of her land to her children in the form of deeds of absolute sale, prepared and
notarized by Atty. Josephine Eduarte. Antonia also conveyed 20 hectares of land to Atty.
Josephine and Atty. Henerido as their attorneys fees. All the titles and lands subject to the deeds
of absolute sale and deeds of conveyance were in the name of Antonia. Subsequently, Dominga
filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Josephine on the basis of an affidavit executed by her
mother, Antonia, stating that she never conveyed parcel of land to Atty. Josephine as attorneys
fees and she had no knowledge of the deeds of absolute sale executed in favor of her children.
The IBPCBD recommended one-year suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON Antonia was defrauded into signing the Deed of Conveyance
2. WON Atty. Josephine violated any law in preparing and notarizing the deeds of absolute sale in
making it appear that there were considerations therefor, when in truth there were none so
received by the seller

HELD
1. Yes. It is clear from Antonias affidavit and deposition that she never conveyed the said land to
her lawyer as attorneys fees. Granting for the sake of argument that Antonio did convey the land
as attorneys fee, Atty. Josephine should have not caused the execution of the deed since a case
was still pending before CA covering the same land. She violated Art 1491 of the Civil Code which
prohibits lawyers from acquiring assignment property and rights which may be subject of any
litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. The prohibition applies when a
lawyer has not paid money for it and the property was merely assigned to him in consideration of
legal services rendered at a
time when the property is still subject of a pending case.
2. Yes. Atty. Josephine admitted that Antonia did not actually sell parcels of land to her children
and that she utilized the form of deed of sale because it was the most convenient and
appropriate document to effect transfer of parcels of land. She violated part of her oath as a
lawyer that she shall not do any falsehood. She violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Overall holding: Suspension of 6 months for having violated Art 1491 of the Civil Code another 6
months for violation of lawyers oath and Rule 10.01. Total of one year suspension.