You are on page 1of 2

Stanley Cabrera with misconduct in violation of the code of

Legal Ethics:
Professional Responsibility. The complainant, a fourth year law
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY,
student, appears in court in his own behalf as he instituted a case
FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL
against his neighbour who is represented by the respondent as
COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSINGTACTICS AGAINST
counsel. During a hearing, the respondent engulfed with anger in a
OPPOSING COUNSEL.
raising voice to the complainant saying “appear ka ng appear,
pumasa ka munsa”, wherein the manner, substance and the tone
JAVIER V. CORNEJO
of voice and how the words were uttered were totally with the
(A.C. No. 778, August 14, 1936)
intention to annoy, vex and humiliate, malign, ridicule, incriminate
(63 Phil 293)
and discredit complainant before the public. The respondent
FACTS: Atty. Javier was the lawyer of Severina Teodoro in a civil
uttered remarks that the complainant finds arrogant and
case where Severina won. The monetary award was delivered by
misconduct in the performance of his duties as a lawyer. The
the opposing party to Javier as Severina’s lawyer. Javier however
complaint was referred to the IBP commissioner who
failed to deliver said amount to her. Subsequently, Severina hired
recommended suspension of respondent in the practice of law
the services of another lawyer, Atty. Cornejo who sent a demand
which was annulled by a resolution of the IBP Board recommending
letter to Javier. Javeir failed to pay yet again so Atty. Cornejo
dismissal of the case for lack of merit.
assisted Severina in filing an administrative complaint against
ISSUE: Whether or not the manner of respondent may constitute
Javier. The administrative complaint against Javier was eventually
misconduct?
dismissed. After said dismissal, Javier filed an administrative case
HELD: NO. The Court of Appeals has opted to resolve the case in the
against Cornejo accusing the latter of threatening him and
interest of justice and speedy disposition of cases. The Court held
instigating Severina to file an administrative case against him.
that respondent’s outburst of “Appear ka ng appear, pumas aka
ISSUE: Whether or not the administrative complaint of Atty. Javier
muna” does not amount to violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of
has merit.
Professional Responsibility. The court ruled that although the
HELD: No. The language used in the demand letter is not
outburst of the respondent is uncalled for, it is not to such a
threatening. It was an honest effort on the part of Cornejo to serve
magnitude as to warrant his suspension in the practice of his
the interest of his client. The lawyer owes entire “devotion to the
profession. The court thereby dismissed the case due to lack of
interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of
merit.
his rights and exertion of his utmost learning and ability”, to the
end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by the
rules of law, legally applied. Cornejo could not have instigated Canon 8 Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
Severina to file the administrative complaint. Severina already encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer;
knew of what remedy to seek against Javier if he fails to deliver however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give
what’s due her even before she hired Cornejo. The Supreme Court proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against
also stated: “…mutual bickering and unjustifiable recrimination, unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal
profession and will not receive any sympathy from this court.” A lawyer should not steal the other lawyer’s client nor induce the
latter to retain him by promise of better service, good result or
reduced fees for his services. Neither should he disparage another,
Canon 8 Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,
make comparisons or publicize his talent as a means to further his
use language which is abusive,offensive or otherwise improper.
law practice. (Agpalo)
The fact that one of the lawyers conducts him/herself improperly
He may accept employment to handle a matter previously handled
does not relieve the other fromprofessional obligation in his
by another lawyer, provided that the other lawyer has been given
relation with him/her. (Agpalo)
notice of termination of service. Without such notice, he shall only
appear once he has obtained conformity or has, at the very least,
FOODSPHERE V. MAURICIO, SUPRA
given sufficient notice of contemplated substitution. A lawyer’s
HELD: To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has
appearance in the case without notice to the first lawyer amounts
tempted members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of
to an improper encroachment upon the professional employment
their duty to advance the interests of their clients. However, while
of the original counsel.
a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive
A lawyer should not, in the absence of the adverse party’s counsel,
language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to
interview the adverse party and question him as to the facts of the
be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory,
case even if the adverse party was willing to do so. Neither should
illuminating but not offensive. On many occasions, the Court has
he sanction the attempt of his client to settle a litigated matter with
reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive
the adverse party without the consent nor is knowledge of the
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and
latter counsel. (cf. Canon 9) (Agpalo)
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of
the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of
A client’s proffer of assistance of additional counsel should not be
the legal profession, a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must
regarded as evidence of want of confidence but the matter should
be dignified.
be left to the determination of the client. The 2nd lawyer should
communicate with the 1st before making an appearance. Should
CRUZ V. ATTY. CABRERA
the 1st lawyer object, he should decline association but if the 1st
(AC No. 5737, October 25, 2004)
lawyer is relieved, he may come into the case. (Agpalo)
FACTS: An administrative complaint filed by Ferdinand A. Cruz
charges respondent Atty.
When there is conflict of opinions between two lawyers jointly ATTY. DELA ROSA V. CA
associated in a case, the client should decide. The decision should (A.M. No. CA 03-35, July 24, 2003)
be accepted unless the nature of the difference makes it FACTS: In a criminal case, the Court of Appeals issued a TRO
impracticable for the lawyer whose judgment has been overruled directing the trial court and the City Prosecutor to refrain from
to cooperate effectively. In this event, it is his/her duty to ask client conducting any further proceedings until further orders. The Court
to relieve him/her. (Agpalo) of Appeals further directed complainant to file his comment to the
petition for review. Instead of filing the required comment,
REYES V. CHIONG complainant filed a motion to quash the TRO. The three accused
(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003) through their respective counsels filed written oppositions to the
FACTS: Atty. Ramon Reyes is the counsel for Xu. Atty. Victoriano motion. Complainant then filed the instant administrative
Chiong, Jr. is the counsel for Pan. Xu went into a business venture complaint against respondent Justices for ignorance of the law and
with Pan. Pan was supposed to set up a Cebu-based fish ball, inexcusable negligence when they issued the TRO without basis.
tempura and seafood products factory. He did not establish it, and Complainant in his pleadings to the three respondent lawyers
so Xu asked that his money be returned. Xu then filed a case of described them as “brilliant lawyers”, “legal supermen” or “sages,”
estafa against Pan. Prosecutor Salanga then issued a subpoena which amounted to sarcasm. This statement the Court did not
against Pan. Atty. Chiong then filed a motion to quash, but he also countenance and consider it to be an act unbecoming of a lawyer.
filed a civil complaint for the collection of a sum of money and ISSUES: Whether or not Atty. Dela Rosa is guilty of act unbecoming
damages against Xu and Atty. Reyes. Atty. Reyes was allegedly of a lawyer.
impleaded because he allegedly connived with Xu in filing the HELD: YES. It is the duty of a lawyer to conduct himself with
estafa case which was baseless. IBP recommended that Chiong be courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues.
suspended for 2 years. As officers of the court, lawyers are mandated to conduct
ISSUE: Whether or not Chiong should be suspended. themselves honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other.
Held: YES. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it
provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of
and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid the legal profession. Obviously, complainant’s use of sarcasm in
harassing tactics against opposing counsel. If Chiong believed that calling the three respondent lawyers “brilliant lawyers”, “legal
the two had conspired to act illegally, he could have instituted supermen” and “sages” fell short of this mandate. It served no
disbarment proceedings. As a lawyer, Chiong should have advised useful purpose. The use of intemperate language and unkind
his client of the availability of these remedies. Thus the filing of the ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Civility
caseshad no justification. Lawyers should treat their opposing among members of the legal profession is a treasured tradition that
counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. Any must at no time be lost to it.
undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in
their conduct and demeanor toward each other.

ANTONIO A. ALCANTARA V. ATTY. MARIANO PEFIANCO


(A.C. No. 5938, December 3, 2002)
FACTS: While Atty. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a client in
the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose,
Antique, a woman approached them. Atty. Alcantara saw the
woman in tears, whereupon he went to the group and suggested
that Atty. Salvani talk with her amicably as a hearing was taking
place in another room. At this point, Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who
was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and his
client, saying, “Nga-a gina-areglo mo ina, ipapreso ang imo nga
kliyente para mahibal-an naanang sala.” (“Why do you settle that
case? Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize his
mistake.”)

ISSUE: did atty. Pefianco violate canon 8 of the Code of Professional


Responsibility?
HELD: YES. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness
and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to
uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably,
fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct
themselves without reproach at all times. In this case, respondent’s
meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so cause the
untoward incident. He had no right to demand an explanation from
Atty. Salvani why the case of the woman had not or could not be
settled. Even so, Atty. Salvani in fact tried to explain the matter to
respondent, but the latter insisted on his view about the case.

You might also like