CANON 1

GUARIN v. ATTY. LIMPIN

(A.C. No. 10576, January 14, 2015)

FACTS:
In 2004, Arcatomy Guarin was hired by Mr. Celso G. de los Angeles as
Chief Operating Officer and thereafter as President of OneCard Company,
Inc., a member of the Legacy Group of Companies. He resigned from his
post and transferred to St. Lukes Medical Center as the Vice President for
Finance. Atty. Limpin, the Corporate Secretary of Legacy Card, Inc. (LCI),
another corporation under the Legacy Group, filed with the SEC a GIS for
LCI for updating purposes. Mired with allegations of anomalous business
transactions and practices, LCI applied for voluntary dissolution with the
SEC. Guarin filed this complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Commission on Bar Discipline claiming that Atty. Limpin violated Canon 1
and Rule 1.01 of the CPR by knowingly listing him as a stockholder,
Chairman of the Board and President of LCI when she knew that he had
already resigned and had never held any share nor was he elected as
chairperson of the BOD or been President of LCI He has never accepted any
appointment as Chairman and President of LCI. Atty. Limpin admits that
she filed the same with the GSIS but argued among others that the GIS was
provisional to comply with SEC requirements and averred that she was
made and submitted in good faith and that her certification served to attest
to the information from the last BOD meeting held on March 3, 2008. To belie
the claim that LCI never held any board meeting, Atty. Limpin presented
Secretarys Certificates dated May 16, 2006, May 22, 20067, and June 13, 2007
bearing Guarins signature. She contends that Guarin failed to present
sufficient evidence to warrant disbarment. The IBP CBD found that she
violated said Canon and recommended that she be suspended.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Limpin is proper.

HELD:
Yes, there is no indication that Guarin held any share to the
corporation and that he is therefore ineligible to hold a seat in the BOD and
be the president of the company. It is undisputed that Atty. Limpin filed and
certified that Guarin was a stockholder of LCI in the GIS. While she posits
that she had made the same in good faith, her certification also contained a
stipulation that she made a due verification of the statements contained
therein. That Atty. Limpin believed that Guarin would sign a Deed of
Assignment is inconsequential: he never signed the instrument. There was
no submission which would support the allegation that Guarin was in fact a
stockholder. In the filing of the instrument that contained false information,
Atty. Limpin committed an infraction which did not conform to her oath as
a lawyer in accord with Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
 CANON 1

ACEJAS III v. PEOPLE

(G.R. No. 156643 & 156891, June 27, 2006)

FACTS:
On December 17, 1993, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation Agent
Vladimir Hernandez, together with a reporter went to the house of Takao
Aoyagi and Bethel Grace Aoyagi. His purpose was to serve Mission Order
No. 93-04-12 issued by BID Commissioner Zafiro Respicio against Takao
Aoyagi, a Japanese national. Hernandez told Takao Aoyagi, through his
wife, Bethel Grace, that there were complaints against him in Japan and that
he was suspected to be a Yakuza big boss, a drug dependent and an
overstaying alien. To prove that he had done nothing wrong, Takao Aoyagi
showed his passport to Hernandez and signed an undertaking issued by the
latter. Hernandez acknowledged receipt of the passport.

Bethel Grace called Expedito Perlas who is one of the accused and
informed him of the taking of her husbands passport. Perlas then referred
them to Atty. Lucenario. Following the advice of the lawyer, they did not
appear before the BID. On December 22, 1993, the Aoyagis met up with Atty
Acejas III, a partner in Lucenarios firm. He informed then that he would be
handling their case.

Several meetings ensued afterwards involving Acejas, Hernandez,

Pelingon, and the spouses Aoyagi regarding the return of the passport.
Eventually, there was allegedly a demand of P1 million made for the return
of Aoyagis passport. On January 11, 1994, on account of the alleged P1
million demand, Jun Pelingon called up Commissioner Respicio. The latter
referred him to Atty. Angelica Somera, an NBI Agent detailed at the BID
who then arranged an entrapment operation.

The Sandiganbayan ruled that the elements of direct bribery, as well

as conspiracy in the commission of the crime, had been proven. Hernandez
and Conanan demanded money; Perlas negotiated and dealt with the
complainants; and Acejas accepted the payoff and gave it to Perlas.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Acejas acted as a conspirator and violated provision
in the Code of the Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. As provided in Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
xxx A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes. xxx The Court reminds lawyers to follow
legal ethics when confronted by public officers who extort money. Lawyers
must decline and report the matter to the authorities. If the extortion is
directed at the client, they must advise the client not to perform any illegal
acts. As a lawyer, it was his duty to represent his clients in dealing with other
people. In the case at bar, Acejas failed to act for or represent the interests of
his clients. He knew of the payoff, but did nothing to assist or protect their
rights.

In addition, Rule 1.01 provides xxx A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. xxx. Without having to violate the
attorney-client privilege, they must report the matter to the authorities. They
must not participate in the illegal. Applying this in the case, Acejas acts
revealed that he was a conspirator. Even if he was not involved in the
entrapment operation, he received the money purporting to be payoff. Thus,
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is violated.


 CANON 1

SICAT v. ATTY. ARIOLA

(A.C. No. 5864, April 15, 2005)

FACTS:
Complainant Arturo L. Sicat, a Board Member of the Sangguniang
Panglalawigan of Rizal, charged respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, the
Municipal Administrator of Cainta, Rizal, with violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by committing fraud, deceit and falsehood in his
dealings, particularly the notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
purportedly executed by a one Juanito C. Benitez. According to complainant,
respondent made it appear that Benitez executed the said document on
January 4, 2001 when in fact the latter had already died on October 25, 2000.
Respondent clarified that, as ahead of schedule as May 12, 2000, Benitez had
effectively marked the SPA. He asserted that because of incident, it was just
on January 4, 2001 that he could authorize it. In any case, the SPA legally
approved by him on January 4, 2001 was not in the least vital on the grounds
that Benitez had marked a comparable SPA for Goco at some point before
his death, on May 12, 2000. Since it was no more drawn out important, the
SPA was drop that day he authorized it, henceforth, lawfully, there was no
open report that existed.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty Gregorio E. Ariola should be held responsible for
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Articles 171 of the
revised penal code.

HELD:
Yes, the court ruled that in the case at hand, the records show that
Benitez died on October 25, 2000. However, respondent notarized the SPA,
purportedly bearing the signature of Benitez, on January 4, 2001 or more
than two months after the latters death. The notarial acknowledgement of
respondent declared that Benitez appeared before him and acknowledged
that the instrument was his free and voluntary act. Clearly, respondent lied
and intentionally perpetuated an untruthful statement. Notarization is not
an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It converts a private document
into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the
necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. The
court disbarred him.
 CANON 1

CHU v. ATTY. GUICO, JR.

(A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015)

FACTS:
Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle the labor disputes
involving his company, CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC). Atty.
Guicos legal services included handling a complaint for illegal dismissal
brought against CVC

Atty. Guico asked him to prepare a substantial amount of money to be given

to the NLRC Commissioner handling the appeal to insure a favorable
decision. On June 10, 2007, Chu called Atty. Guico to inform him that he had
raised P300,000.00 for the purpose. Atty. Guico told him to proceed to his
office at Quezon City, and to give the money to his assistant, Reynaldo
Manahan. Chu complied, and later on called Atty. Guico to confirm that he
had delivered the money to Nardo. Subsequently, Atty. Guico instructed
Chu to meet him on July 5, 2007 at the UCC Coffee Shop on T. Morato Street,
Quezon City. He subsquently asked for more money.

The NLRC then decided adverse to CVC, this prompted Chu to file a
complaint for the lies of Atty. Guico.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty Guico violated the Code on Professional
Responsibility for demanding a sum of money for a favorable decision.

HELD:
The court ruled that Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the
law in appearing to counsel Chu to raise the large sums of money in order
to obtain a favorable decision in the labor case. He thus violated the law
against bribery and corruption. He compounded his violation by actually
using said illegality as his means of obtaining a huge sum from the client
that he soon appropriated for his own personal interest. His acts constituted
gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant breach of his ethical
commitments under the Lawyers Oath not to delay any man for money or
malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that
forbade him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. His deviant conduct eroded the faith of the people in him as an
individual lawyer as well as in the Legal Profession as a whole. In doing so,
he ceased to be a servant of the law. The court disbarred respondent.

 CANON 1

MICHAEL BARRIOS VS. ATTY. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

(A.C. No. 4585, November 12, 2004)

FACTS:
A petition for disbarment was filed against Atty. Francisco Martinez
for being convicted by final judgement of a crime involving moral turpitude
by Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City. Martinez was
found guilty for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 also known as an act
penalizing the making or drawing and issuance of a check without sufficient
funds or credit and for other purpose.

On September 11, 1997, Atty. Martinez was charged in another estafa

case involving the victims of Doa Paz Tragedy in 1987. It appeared that
Atty. Martinez offered his legal services to the victims for free and when the
plaintiff in the said civil case was issued a check for P90,000 by Sulpico Lines,
Atty. Martinez asked the plaintiff to endorse said check which was deposited
in his wife's account. When the victims claimed their money, they were only
able to recover a total of P30,000 and Atty. Martinez claimed the remaining
P60,0000 for his attorney's fees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Francisco Martinez violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Martinez violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility stating that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Supreme Court held
that in the case above, the respondent was found guilty for violation of B.P.
Blg. 22 involving moral turpitude. The court defined moral turpitude as
everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good
morals.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the act of a lawyer issuing a check
without sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes such willful
dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in
law and lawyers. Therefore, the conviction is a proof of Atty. Martinez
engaging himself in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct.

The SC then decided to have Atty. Martinez disbarred and his name
ordered to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
 CANON 1

ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON V. ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO

(A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012)

FACTS:
The complainant Engr. Tumbokon alleged that respondent Atty.
Pefianco has not lived up to the high moral standards required of his
profession for having abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado with whom
he has two children, and cohabited with Flor Galido, with whom he has four
children.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
Since the respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned
his legal family to cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four
children notwithstanding that his moral character as well as his moral fitness
to be retained in the Roll of Attorneys has been assailed. The steeled rule is
that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside
marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate
disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws. The Court finds no reason to disturb
the IBP's finding that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

Thus, respondent Atty. Pefianco is found guilty of violation of the

Lawyer's Oath, Rue 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and suspended from the active practice of law for 1 year effective upon
notice hereof.

 CANON 1

ADVINCULA v. MACABATA
(A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007)

FACTS:
Complainant Advincula, sometime on the first week of December
2004, seek the legal advice of the respondent regarding her collectibles from
Queensway Travel and Tours. As promised, he sent Deman Letter dated
December 11, 2004 to the concerned parties.

The complainant and respondent met to discuss the possibility of filing

the complaint for they did not settle their accounts as demanded. After
dinner, the respondent sent the complainant him and while she is about to
step out of the car, the respondent held her arm and kissed her cheek.

They met again on March 6, 2005 to finalize the draft of the complaint
to be filed in court. After the meeting, the respondent offered a ride which
he usually does. The complainant wandered why she felt sleepy even if she
just got out of bed a few hours ago. Suddenly, the respondent stopped his
car and forcefully holds her face and kissed her lips while the other was
holding his breast. Even in shock, the complainant succeeded in resisting his
criminal attempt and managed to get out of the car.

Later that afternoon, respondent was informed by the complainant

that she decided to refer the case to another lawyer and needs to get back the
case folder.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the canon 1, rule 1.01 of the
code of professional responsibility.

HELD:
No. The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
 Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession of good
moral character is a continuing condition to preserve their membership in
the Bar in good standing.

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 their good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity. They
may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any misconduct,
even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.

It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has

four ostensible purposes, namely: (1) to protect the public; (2) to protect the
public image of lawyers; (3) to protect prospective clients; and (4) to protect
errant lawyers from themselves.

In the case at bar, respondent admitted kissing the complainant on the

lips.

It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as

to what is grossly immoral conduct or to specify the moral delinquency
and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member
of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior
to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants
disbarment.

The court perceived that acts of kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks as

mere gestures of friendships and camaraderie, forms of greetings, casual and
customary. The acts of respondent, though, in turning the head of
complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips are distasteful.
However, such act, even if considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be
considered grossly immoral.

The court noted that the incident happened in place where there were
several people in the vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a major
jeepney route for 24 hours. If the respondent truly had malicious designs on
the complainant, he could have brought her to a private place or a more
remote place where he could freely accomplish the same.
 The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Ernesto
Macabata, for alleged immorality, is dismissed.
 CANON 1

DONTON v. TANSINGCO
(A.C. No. 6057, June 27, 2006)

FACTS:
Peter Doton, complainant, stated that he filed a criminal complaint for
estafa thru falsification of a public document against Duane Stier, Emelyn
Maggay and Atty. Emmanuel Tansingco, respondent, as the notary public
who notarized the Occupancy Agreement.

The disbarment complaint arose when respondent filed a counter-

charge for perjury against complainant. An occupancy agreement dated
September 11, 1995 was prepared and notarized by the respondent for Mr.
Stier who have been disqualified to own real property in his name. Mr. Stier
agreed to transfer the property to Mr. Donton, a Filipino.

The complainant averred that respondents act of preparing the

Occupancy Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier, being a foreign
national, is disqualified to own real property in his name, constitutes serious
misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code. Complainant prayed
that respondent be disbarred for advising Stier to do something in violation
of law and assisting Stier in carrying out a dishonest scheme.

The respondent claimed that complainant filed the disbarment case

against him upon the instigation of complainants counsel, Atty. Bonifacio
Alentajan, because respondent refused to act as complainants witness in the
criminal case against Stier and Maggay. Respondent admitted that he
prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreemenr and asserted its
genuineness and due execution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
The court found the respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and
Rule 1.02 of the Code.
 A lawyer should not render any service or given advice to any client
which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and
obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives
in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against
the lawyer.

The respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified

from owning real property. The respondent had sworn to uphold the
Constitution. thus, he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and
notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign
ownership of lands. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve
an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which
he may be suspended.

The court found respondent Atty. Emmanuel Tansingco guilty of

violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, the court suspended respondent Atty.
Emmanuel Tansingco from the practice of law for six months effective upon
finality of his decision.

 CANON 1

A-1 FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., VS. ATTY. LAARNI N. VALERIO

(A.C. No. 8390, July 2, 2010)

FACTS:
A-1 Financial Services, Inc., a financing corporation, granted the loan
application of Atty. Valerio amounting to P50,000.00. To secure the payment
of the loan obligation, Atty. Valerio issued a postdated check with the said
amount. However, upon presentation at the bank for payment on its
maturity date, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds. As of the
filing of the instant case, despite repeated demands to pay her obligation,
Atty. Valerio failed to pay the whole amount of her obligation.

Complainant filed a B.P. 22 case against Atty. Valerio. An arraignment

was scheduled, a warrant of arrest was issued, and a letter to Atty. Valerio
was issued calling her attention to the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest
against her. However, Atty. Valerio refused to abide despite court orders
and notices.

When respondents mother, explained that her daughter had been

diagnosed with schizophrenia and could not properly respond to the
complaint against her, the IBP-CBD directed Atty. Valerio to appear before
the mandatory conference,, which she failed to attend. IBP-CBD
recommended that Atty. Valerio be suspended from the practice of law for
a period of two (2) years, having found her guilty of gross misconduct. No
credence was given to the medical certificate submitted by Atty. Valerios
mother, in view of the latters failure to appear before the IBP-CBD hearings
to affirm the truthfulness thereof or present the physician who issued the
same.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 explicitly states that A lawyer shall
uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and for legal processes and A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

In the instant case, there is no denial of the existence of the loan

obligation despite respondents failure to cooperate before any proceedings
in relation to the complaint. The deliberate failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer
may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are
instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal
system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a
high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the
peoples faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They must at
all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and
to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They
must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms of
the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility

Therefore, Atty. Valerio shall be ordered suspended from the practice

of law for two (2) years because, aside from issuing worthless checks and
failing to pay her debts, she has also shown wanton disregard of the IBPs
and Court Orders in the course of the proceedings.
 CANON 1

ATTY. ORLANDO V. DIZON VS. ATTY. MARICHU C. LAMBINO

(A.C. No. 6968, August 9, 2006)

FACTS:
Sometime in December 1994, the chairperson of UP seeks the
assistance of the NBI for the killing during a rumble of a UP graduating
student. As two student-suspects in the killing, Francis
Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag, were at the time in the office of the
head of the UP Security force, Atty. Dizon, the Chief of the Special
Operations Group (SOG) of the NBI, requested to take them into his
custody. Atty. Marichu Lambino, Legal Counsel of UP Diliman, who
repaired to the Office of Col. Bentain, advised against Atty. Dizons move, he
not being armed with a warrant for their arrest.

Because of this incident, a complaint was filed by Atty. Dizon against

Atty. Lambino before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for
violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.1 to 1.3 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Atty. Lambino in turn charged Atty. Dizon before the IBP
with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon
1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03

ISSUES:
1. Whether the act of Atty. Lambino in refusing to turn over the
suspected students to the group of Atty. Dizon constitutes violation of
Code of Professional Responsibility.
2. Whether the act of Atty. Dizon in trying to arrest the student-suspects
constitutes violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
1. No, Atty. Lambino acted within her official duties as she safeguarded
the rights of the students in accordance with the schools substitute
parental authority and within the bounds of the law as the NBI agents
had no warrants of arrest.
 2. Yes, for the failure of the NBI agents to comply with the constitutional
and procedural requirements, their attempt to arrest the two student-
suspects without a warrant was illegal

By persisting in his attempt to arrest the suspected students without a

warrant, Atty. Dizon violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides Canon 1: A lawyer shall uphold
the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes. and Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.


 CANON 2

BENGCO v. BERNARDO
(A.C. No. 6362, June 13, 2012)

FACTS:
The respondent with the help and in connivance and collusion with a
certain Andres Magat illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to
defraud herein complainants. He used false pretenses and deceitful words
to the effect that he would expedite the titling of the land belonging to the
Miranda family who is an acquaintance of the complainants. The
complainants were convinced that if they will deliver the amount of Php
450,000 as advance money, the respondent would expedite the titling of the
land and misrepresent himself as lawyer of William Gatchalian, the
prospective buyer of the subject land. Further, the respondent illegally
misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said amount to his personal
use and benefit. Despite the demand upon him to return the said amount, he
failed and refused to do so. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
investigated the case and concluded that respondent is indeed guilty of
violating the attorneys oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating Canon 2 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court upholds the decision of the IBP. It cannot be
overstressed that lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As
vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal
proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair
dealing.

Canon 2, Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reads xxx

A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business. xxx In the case at bar, the respondent himself admitted in his answer
that his legal services were hired by the complainants through Magat
regarding the purported titling of the land supposedly purchased. He never
denied that he did not benefit from the money given by the complainants as
advanced payment.

Further, the Court contends that the practice of law is not a business,
for it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration. The gaining of a livelihood should only be a
secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers,
who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves.
 CANON 2

THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS v. ATTY. BAYOT

(Adm. Case No. 1117, March 20, 1944)

FACTS:
The respondent was charged with malpractice because of a published
advertisement in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943. At first, the
respondent denied publishing the advertisement, but later on admitted the
publication. He prayed for the Courts indulgence and mercy, promised not
to repeat the misconduct in the future and to abide him to the strict ethical
rules of the law profession. He alleged that the said advertisement was
published only once in the Tribune. The case was submitted to the Court for
decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated a provision in the Code of
Professional Responsibility which prohibits solicitation of legal business

HELD:
Yes. The Court held that the advertisement was a flagrant violation for
it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Rule 2.03, Canon 2
of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides xxx A lawyer shall not do
or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. xxx In the
case at bar, the respondent admitted the publication of the advertisement.
Advertising the talents or skill of an attorney is unethical because law is a
profession not a trade. Adopting the practices of mercantilism by advertising
his services and offering his services to the public degrades the lawyer and
his profession.

Thus, the Court decided that the respondent should be reprimanded

because of the plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat his
misconduct.

 CANON 2

RAYOS v. ATTY. HERNANDEZ

(G.R. No. 169079, February 12, 2007)

FACTS:
The case is about a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ponciano
Hernandez. Respondent used to be the counsel of petitioner against
NAPOCOR for opening a glood gates that resulted to the loss of lives of
petitioners relatives. The complaint was subsequently dismissed. Upon
appeal, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in favor or Rayos.

Upon delivery of the checks for payment of damages, the petitioner

alleged that respondent does not have the capacity to receive such checks for
he is no longer the counsel of the petitioner. Respondent argued that he only
received the checks to ensure the payment of the Attys fees.

Petitioner then filed for a writ of execution, resulting the RTC to issue
an order for the respondent to return the money. Upon failure to do so, the
instant case was promulgated.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Ponciano Hernandez should be held liable for retaining
the amount awarded to petitioner for payment of his fees.

HELD:
The court ruled that a lawyer must always deliver the fund and
property of his client upon demand. That a lawyer must not unilaterally
appropriate his clients money for himself even if the client owes him for the
payment of his fees.

Furthermore, the court argued that the relationship of an attorney and

a client has always been rightly regarded as one of special trust and
confidence and must always therefore act with utmost good faith.
 CANON 2

PACAN, JR. v. ATTY. PASCUAL-LOPEZ

(A.C. No. 8243, July 24, 2009)

FACTS:
Rolando Pacana Jr. was the Operations Director for Multitel
Communications Corporation MCC is an affiliate company of Multitel
International Holdings Corporation (Multitel). Sometime in July 2002, MCC
changed its name to Precedent Communications Corporation.

According to complainant, in mid-2002, Multitel was besieged by

demand letters from its members and investors because of the failure of its
investment schemes

Distraught, complainant sought the advice of respondent who also

happened to be a member of the Couples for Christ. From then on,
complainant and respondent constantly communicated, with the former
disclosing all his involvement and interests in Precedent and Precedents
relation with Multitel. Respondent gave legal advice to complainant and
even helped him prepare standard quitclaims for creditors. In sum,
complainant avers thata lawyer-client relationship was established between
him and respondent although no formal document was executed by them at
that time.

Complainant found the proposed fees to be prohibitive and not within

his means. Hence, the retainer agreement remained unsigned. Both parties
continued to communicate and exchange information regarding the
persistent demands made by Multitel investors against complainant. On
these occasions, respondent impressed upon complainant that she can
closely work with officials of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC),
the Department of Justice (DOJ), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportations (BID), and the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to resolve complainants problems.

Respondent also asked money from complainant allegedly for

safekeeping to be used only for his case whenever necessary. Complainant
agreed and gave her an initial amount of P900,000.00 which was received by
respondent herself.

Sometime thereafter, complainant again gave respondent

P1,000,000.00.

Said amounts were all part of Precedents collections and sales

proceeds which complainant held as assignee of the companys properties.
Complainant decided to file an affidavit-complaint against respondent
before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment of respondent.

In her Answer-Affidavit, she alleged that she was merely helping

complainant win.

ISSUE:
Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
The court ruled that yes she did, respondent must have known that
her act of constantly and actively communicating with complainant, who, at
that time, was beleaguered with demands from investors of Multitel,
eventually led to the establishment of a lawyer-client relationship which is
contrary to Rule 2.02 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

Given the situation, the most rightful and ethical thing which
respondent should have done was either to advise complainant to engage
the services of another lawyer since she was already representing the
opposing parties, or to desist from acting as representative of Multitel
investors and stand as counsel for complainant. She cannot be permitted to
do both because that would amount to double-dealing and violate our
ethical rules on conflict of interest.

 CANON 2

IN RE: LUIS B. TAGORDA

(G.R. No. 32329, March 23, 1929)

FACTS:
Respondent, Luis Tagorda is a practising Attorney and a member of
the provincial board of Isabela, admitted that during the elections he made
use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano stating that he is (1) a lawyer,
(2) a candidate for third member for the Province of Isabela, and that he can
(3) execute a deed of sale for the purchase of land, (4) renew lost documents
of animals, (5) help in the collection of loans or any complaints. Lastly he
indicated that his town is Echague, Isabela and that he offers free
consultation.

Atty. Tagorda also admitted to his letter to a lieutenant of barrio in his

home municipality that he will have his residence in Echague and will attend
the session of the Board in Ilagan but will come back home to live and serve
as a lawyer and notary public in Echague. He lastly reiterated that if the
people in the said locality have not yet contracted the services of other
lawyers in connection with the registration of their land titles, he would be
willing to work in court and would only charge three pesos per registration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Tagorda violated Rule 2.03 of Canon 2 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that in the application of the law and the
Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics (and applying Rule 2.03 of Canon 2
of the Code of Professional Responsibility - A lawyer shall not do or permit
to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business), Atty.
Tagorda is guilty of soliciting cases. The court held that it becomes their duty
to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases by
lawyers as it is destroys the honor of the profession and lowers the
standards of it. Henceforth, Atty. Luis B. Tagoda was suspended for a period
of one month.
 Canon 2

RODICA V. LAZARO
(A.C. No. 9259, August 23, 2012)

FACTS:
On May 5, 2011, William Strong (Strong), an American, was arrested
and detained by the operatives of the Bureau of Immigration. Strong sought
the assistance to a friend who referred him to Atty. Manuel, who is a partner
at the M.M. Lazaro and Associates Law Office (Lazaro Law Office).

Atty. Manuel initially declined because his law office only handles
cases of its retained clients and those known to him or any of the associate
lawyers. However, he was eventually prevailed upon by Apostol who
would consider it as a special favor if Atty. Manuel would handle Strong's
case. Hence, Atty. Manuel, together with Atty. Almario and Atty. Espejo,
senior and junior associates, respectively, at the Lazaro Law Office, agreed
to meet Strong at the Taguig Detention Center of the Bureau of
Immigration. ATcaHS

Rodica alleged that after the deportation of Strong and the withdrawal
of the RTC case, she heard nothing from the Lazaro Law Office. She also
claimed that contrary to her expectations, there was no "simultaneous over-
all settlement of [her] grievances . . . [with] the defendants [in the RTC]
case. Thinking that she was deceived, Rodica filed the instant administrative
case claiming that.

(e.)they even submitted concocted stories (re Mr. Apostol's purchase

bid for the Boracay villa of complainant; Atty. Espejo's attempt to cover-up
for Lolong Lazaro and accept sole responsibility for signing the questioned
manifestation and withdrawal documents last May 24, 2011, and many
others) with the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo (Branch VI) just so that they
can hide the truth, hide their crimes and go scot free.

Atty. Espejo claimed that he drafted and signed the pleading just to
extend assistance to Rodica deserves scant consideration. It is true that under
Rules 2.01 and 2.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless
or the oppressed, and in such cases, even if he does not accept a case, shall
not refuse to render legal advise to the person concerned if only to the extent
necessary to safeguard the latter's right. However, in this case, Rodica cannot
be considered as defenseless or oppressed considering that she is properly
represented by counsel in the RTC case. Needless to state, her rights are
amply safeguarded. It would have been different had Rodica not been
represented by any lawyer, which, however, is not the case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents violated Canon 2 of Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
As a member of the bar, Atty. Espejo ought to know that motions and
pleadings filed in courts are acted upon in accordance with their merit or
lack of it, and not on the reputation of the law firm or the lawyer filing the
same. More importantly, he should have thought that in so doing, he was
actually assisting Rodica in misrepresenting before the RTC that she was
being represented by the said law firm and lawyers, when in truth she was
not.It is well to remind Atty. Espejo that before being a friend to Rodica, he
is first and foremost an officer of the court. Hence, he is expected to maintain
a high standard of honesty and fair dealings and must conduct himself
beyond reproach at all times. He must likewise ensure that he acts within
the bounds of reason and common sense, always aware that he is an
instrument of truth and justice. As shown by his actuations, Atty. Espejo fell
short of what is expected of him. Under the circumstances, Atty. Espejo
should have exercised prudence by first diligently studying the soundness
of Rodica's pleas and the repercussions of his acts. We note that on August
5, 2011, or even before the filing of the disbarment complaint, Atty. Espejo
already caused the filing of his Motion to Withdraw Appearance before the
RTC. Therein, Atty. Espejo already expressed remorse and sincere apologies
to the RTC for wrongly employing the name of the Lazaro Law Office.
Considering that Atty. Espejo is newly admitted to the Bar (2010), we deem
it proper to warn him to be more circumspect and prudent in his actuations.

 CANON 2

BURBE VS. ATTY. MAGULTA

(A.C. no. 5713, June 10, 2002)

FACTS:
Atty. Alberto Magulta wrote a demand letter for money claim and
some other legal papers for which services was paid by respondent Burbe.
Atty. Magulta suggested that he file the necessary complaint which the
respondent drafted with which the filing fee amounts to Twenty-Five
Thousand Pesos (P25,000).

In need to legally recover from the parties, Burbe deposited the

amount of P25,000 to Atty. Magulta upon the instruction that the complaint
must be filed immediately.

Later that evening, respondent was informed that the complaint had
already been filed in court and should receive notice of its progress. But
months after, there seemed to be no progress in his case.

After sensing that Atty. Magulta was giving him a run-around, Burbe
decided to go to the Office of the Clerk or Court with his draft to verify the
progress. But he found out that such no case was filed.

The complainant confronted Atty. Magulta but he continued to lie

with the excuse that the delay was being caused by the court personnel. Only
when the certification was shown, he admitted that he did not file the
complaint and spent the filing fee for his own purpose. Atty. Magulta offered
to reimburse by issuing two checks, both postdated.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Magulta violated the Canon 2 of Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Respondent claims that complainant did not give him the filing fee for
the Regwill complaint; hence, the formers failure to file the complaint in
court. Also, the respondent alleges that the amount delivered by the
complainant to his office was for attorneys fee and not for the filing fee.

Lawyers must exert their best efforts and ability in the prosecution or
the defense of the clients cause. Members of the bar must do nothing that
may tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
the honesty and integrity of the profession.

A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first

moment complainant asked respondent for legal advice regarding the
formers business. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential
that the client employed the attorney professionally on any previous
occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged;
neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle
the case for which his services had been sought.

The IBP Report correctly noted that it was quite incredible for the office
personnel of a law firm to be prevailed upon by a client to issue a receipt
erroneously indicating payment for something else. Moreover, upon
discovering the "mistake" if indeed it was one respondent should have
immediately taken steps to correct the error. He should have lost no time in
calling complainant's attention to the matter and should have issued another
receipt indicating the correct purpose of the payment.
 CANON 2

KHAN, JR. VS. SIMBILLO

(A.C. no. 5299, August 19, 2003)

FACTS:
Ma. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office of the
Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number and pretended
to be an interested party. She spoked to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed her
husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulment cases
and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, provided the
case will not involve separation of property or custody of children. Mrs.
Simbillo also informed her that her husband charges a fee of P48,000, half of
which is payable at the time of filing of the case and the other half after a
decision thereon has been rendered.

After further research, similar advertisements were also published in

Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star. Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity
as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office,
filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for
improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of
Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule
138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

In his answer, the respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but
argued that advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts. He
prayed that he be exonerated from all the charges against him and that the
Court promulgate a ruling that advertisement of legal services offered by a
lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and public order as long as it is
dignified.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, report and recommendation. IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-306, finding respondent guilty of
violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, and suspended him from the
practice of law for one (1) year with the warning that a repetition of similar
acts would be dealt with more severely. The IBP Resolution was noted by
this Court on November 11, 2002.

The parties were required to manifest whether or not they were willing
to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings. Complainant
filed his Manifestation on April 25, 2003, stating that he is not submitting
any additional pleading or evidence and is submitting the case for its early
resolution on the basis of pleadings and records thereof. Respondent, on the
other hand, filed a Supplemental Memorandum.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 2, Rule 2.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.
It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The
gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to
public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or
what they owe to themselves.

The use of simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the
office and residence address and fields of practice, as well as advertisement
in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use
of calling cards is now acceptable.

Stated in Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., the law list must be a reputable law
list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental
feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published
principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly
publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper,
magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his
name to be published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of
which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to
lower dignity or standing of the profession.
 CANON 2

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN VS. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO

(A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)

FACTS:
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe
Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation.
Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection
on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called
them and sent them text messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn

affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him
to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondents
services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000. Complainant also
attached respondents calling card.

Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing

the printing and circulation of the said calling card.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 2 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes, the means employed by respondent in furtherance of the said
misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.
Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to,
including the manner by which a lawyers services are to be made known.
Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.

Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation
constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
 Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which
provides that a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause
This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any
kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in order
to gain employment)1[17] as a measure to protect the community from
barratry and champerty.

 CANON 2

PEOPLE VS. LIWANAG y BUENAVENTURA

(G.R. No. 120468, August 15, 2001)

FACTS:
Accused-appellant Lope Liwanag y Buenaventura, and his co-accused
Randy Simbulan and Ramil Vendibil, were charged with the crime of
highway robbery with multiple rape in an Information where the Court
finds accused Lope Liwanag y Buenaventura GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt. Aggrieved by the trial courts decision, petitioner claims that the trial
court erred in convicting accused-appellant notwithstanding the fact that he
was deprived of his constitutional right to effective and competent counsel.
The records show that at the start of the proceedings before the trial court,
accused-appellant was represented by counsel de officio, Atty. William T. Uy
of the Public Attorneys Office. In the middle of the trial, accused-appellant
retained the services of counsel de parte Atty. Bienvenido R. Brioso, replacing
Atty. Uy. After the trial court rendered the judgment of conviction, Atty.
Brioso filed the Notice of Appeal on behalf of accused-appellant. Atty.
Brioso, however, failed to file the appellants brief because of the refusal of
accused-appellants mother to transmit the entire records of the case to him.
Thus, accused-appellant was required to manifest whether he still desired to
be represented by Atty. Brioso in this appeal. Upon accused-appellants
failure to reply, Atty. Francis Ed. Lim was appointed counsel de officio.

Petitioner claims that he was deprived of his constitutional right to

effective and competent counsel. He claims that the assistance extended to
him by his former counsel was ineffective to the extent that private
complainant, as well as prosecution witnesses were hardly cross-examined,
while Dra. Louella Nario was not cross-examined at all. . He argues that his
right to be heard through his counsel means that he should be effectively
assisted by counsel throughout the proceedings, from the time he was
arrested up to the time judgment is rendered.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the assistance of the counsel is insufficient and be
rendered as a violation of the Code of Professional Responsbility.
HELD:
No. The assistance extended by Attorney Uy of the Public Attorneys
Office was sufficiently effective. The assistance afforded by counsel to an
accused in light of the Philippine constitutional requirement need only be in
accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court, the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics. In
Philippine judicial setting, a counsel assisting an accused is presumed to be
providing all the necessary legal defense which are reasonable under the
circumstances in accordance with said norms.

A counsel assisting an accused is guided by Canons 2, 12, 17, 18, and

19. Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that A
lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient
manner compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the
profession. These are more than adequate to guide a counsels conduct in
the performance of his duty to assist a client in an effective manner as
required by Article III, Section 14 (2). Said constitutional provision is
patterned after the Sixth Amendment of the American Constitution. The
Sixth Amendment refers simply to counsel, not specifying particular
requirements of effective assistance.

Coupled with the presumption that counsels performance was

reasonable under the circumstances, as long as the trial was fair in that the
accused was accorded due process by means of an effective assistance of
counsel, then the constitutional requirement that an accused shall have the
right to be heard by himself and counsel is satisfied. In this case, accused-
appellants right to due process has been observed and the trial was
conducted in a fair manner. Corollarily, this Court sees no reason to doubt
or overcome the presumption that counsel de officio reasonably assisted
accused-appellant in accordance with the prevailing norms of professional
conduct and his sworn duties as an officer of the court.

 CANON 3

CANOY v. ATTY. ORTIZ

(A.C. No. 5485, March 16, 2005)

FACTS:
Atty. Jose Max Ortiz's services were engaged by Elmer Canoy, who
was illegally dismissed by his employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines. The
latter submitted all important files necessary for the establishment of the
case. After the filing thereof, Canoy made several trips to Atty. Ortiz's office
to no avail. His last trip prompted him to follow the case up with the NLRC
by himself. He was aghast to discover that the case was already dismissed
two years before.

In his defense, Atty. ORTIZ commented that he had the intention of

filing a motion to enter a compromise agreement. Unfortunately, he was not
able to do so because of his tight schedule, being a newly-elected Councilor
of Bacolod City.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ortiz Violated Rule 3.03 of Canon 3 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
No, because what is indicated in Rule 3.03 is a private law firm Rule
3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the
firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law
allows him to practice law currently. Whereas atty. Ortiz was working for
a public law firm.
 CANON 3

B.R. SEBASTIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. No. L-41862, February 7, 1992)

FACTS:
Eulogio Reyes filed an action for damages against the Director of
Public Works, the Republic of the Philippines and petitioner B. R. Sebastian
Enterprises, Inc. The trial court rendered a decision finding petitioner liable.
Petitioner appealed thru its counsel the law firm of Baizas, Alberto and
Associates During the pendency of the appeal, Eulogio Reyes died, he was
then substituted by his heirs who are now the private respondents.
Petitioner failed to file the brief required hence the respondent court issued
a resolution requiring said counsel to show the cause why the appeal should
not be dismissed. The petioner thru the Biazas Law Office, filed a motion for
reconsideration which the respondent court denied. Petitioner filed
prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for preliminary injunction with the
Supreme Court to Court of Appeals denial of petitioners motion. On May
1976, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that it was
deprived the right to appeal without fault on their part.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the counsel was negligent.

HELD:
Yes, the rule is settled that negligence of counsel binds the client. The
"confusion" in the office of the law firm following the death of Atty. Crispin
Baizas is not a valid justification for its failure to file the Brief. With Baizas'
death, the responsibility of Atty. Alberto and his Associates to the petitioner
as counsel remained until withdrawal by the former of their appearance in
the manner provided by the Rules of Court. This is so because it was the law
firm which handled the case for petitioner before both the trial and appellate
courts. That Atty. Espiritu, an associate who was designated to handle the
case, later left the office after the death of Atty. Baizas is of no moment since
others in the firm could have replaced him. Upon receipt of the notice to file
Brief, the law firm should have re-assigned the case to another associate or,
it could have withdrawn as counsel in the manner provided by the Rules of
Court so that the petitioner could contract the services of a new lawyer.
 CANON 3

MALONSO v. ATTY. PRINCIPE

(A.C. No. 6289, December 16, 2004)

FACTS:
The case is about a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Principle.
Petitoner claimed that respondent, without authority or capacity, entered his
appearance as Malonsos counsel in the expropriation proceedings by
NAPOCOR. Petitioner also contended that after illegally representing him
in the case, respondent also claimed 40% of the selling price of the value of
his lot as part of his Attys fees.

Respondent replied that there was a mutual agreement and showed

proof of the agreement in the said case.

ISSUE:
Whether there was a valid representation by Atty. Principe

HELD:
The court ruled that during the review of the records shows that
respondents believe that he can intervene and claim from the individual
landowners. Given that the SANDAMA firm was incorporated for the easier
promotion of landowners rights.

Moreover, respondent relied on the representation of Elfa, who he

entered his legal services with. Given that Elfa has the authority to give
authority, the authority vested to him came from Elfa.

Lastly, the 40% of the land for the payment of Attys fees was seen as
valid for it was the same that was assumed as part of the contract or mutual
agreement made by the parties.

The court dismissed the case.

 CANON 3

JUDGE PAAS v. ALMARVEZ

(A.M. P-03-1690, April 4, 2003)

FACTS:
Judge Paas charged Almarvez, a court utility worker with discourtesy,
disrespect among others for violation of the Civil Service Law. Petitioner
alleged that he was discourteous to his co employees, failed to maintain
cleanliness in the court, neglected is duty by repeated absences and for
soliciting monetary consideration.

Almarvez denied allegations and contended that petitoner was only

filing a case against him because she suspected hi for helping her husband
with his marital problems. It was also revealed that Atty. Paas was using his
wifes office as his law office.

ISSUE:
Whether Judge Paas should be held liable for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
The court ruled that given that it was by her own admission, that her
husband, Atty Paas, was in fact using her office as his own address, the court
recognized this as a means towards giving undue influence of gives the
appearance of influencing the court.

This interpretation by the court was given emphasis by using a public

office to enhance a lawyers prestige. That, by such means, public confidence
in law and lawyers may be eroded by such improper conduct made by Judge
Paas and her husband, Atty. Paas.

The court ruled by giving Judge Paas a fine and Atty. Paas suspended
from practice of law for a period of 3 months.

 CANON 3

MAURICIO ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

(B.M. No. 553, A.C. No. L-553, June 17, 1993)

FACTS:
Petitioner, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed in the court an order to cease and
desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of
Annexes 'A' and 'B' and to prohibit said persons or entities from making
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than
those allowed.

Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA

Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce
through
The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office
hours.

Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems,

Visa Ext.
Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of
Absence.
Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the
Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.

THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.

LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232521-7251
522-2041; 521-0767
 In their answer to the petition, The Legal Clinic, Inc. admits the fact
of publication but claims to be not engaged in the practice of law, instead
they are rendering "legal support services" through paralegals with the use
of modern computers and electronic machines.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Legal Clinic violated Canon 3 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, the Legal Clinic violated Canon 3 of the said code stating that a
lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The Supreme
Court reiterated that a lawyer is not to use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he pay for
representatives of mass media for publicity to attract legal business.

Due to the above circumstances, Atty. Rogelio Nogales, who is the

prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic,
Inc. was reprimanded, with a warning that repetition of said acts will be
dealt with more severely.
 CANON 3

CABARRUS, JR. V. BERNAS

(A.C. No. 4634, September 24, 1997)

FACTS:
On August 30, 1996, Mr. Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed an administrative
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas for alleged
violations of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and Canon 1, Rules 1.01,
1.02, Canon 3, Rule 3.01 and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. In his complaint, Mr. Cabarrus alleged that herein
respondent had instigated, abetted and facilitated the perversion and
subversion of truth by conspiring and confabulating with his client, Ramon
B. Pascual, to attest in the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping in Civil Case No. 65646 that Mr. Pascual has not commenced any
other action or proceeding in any courts, including the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency. The truth of the matter, as
alleged by the complainant, was that herein respondent already filed a
written criminal complaint in the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
three (3) days before the filing of the civil case. The core issue to be resolved
in this case is whether herein respondent transgressed Circular No. 28-91,
Revised Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94.

The Supreme Court ruled that the administrative complaint was bereft
of merit and should be dismissed. The courts, tribunals or agencies referred
to under Circular No. 28-91, Revised Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative
Circular No. 04-94 are those vested with judicial powers or quasi-judicial
powers and those who not only hear and determine controversies between
adverse parties but to make binding orders on judgments. Definitely, the
NBI, which is not performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions, cannot
therefore be among those forums contemplated by the aforesaid Circulars.
Hence, there was no forum shopping to speak of. In view of the foregoing,
the Supreme Court dismissed the instant case.

The complainant alleged that Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas should be

disbarred for having instigated, abetted and facilitated the perversion and
subversion of truth in the said verification and certification of non-forum
shopping. Contrary to Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, Canon 10 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 3 of Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
No. After a careful scrutiny of the records, we find the administrative
complaint bereft of merit and should be dismissed.

There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion

in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or
certiorari) in another. Therefore, a party to a case resorts to forum shopping
because "by filing another petition involving the same essential facts and
circumstances, . . . respondents approached two different fora in order to
increase their chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action. 4 In this
case, there is no forum shopping to speak of. Atty. Bernas, as counsel of Mr.
Pascual, Jr., merely requested the assistance of the NBI to investigate the
alleged fraud and forgery committed by Mr. Jesus Cabarrus. 5 The filing of
a civil case for reconveyance and damages before the Regional Trial Court
of Pasig City does not preclude respondent to institute a criminal action. The
rule allows the filing of a civil case independently with the criminal case
without violating the circulars on forum shopping. It is scarcely necessary to
add that Circular No. 28-91 must be so interpreted and applied as to achieve
the purposes projected by the Supreme Court when it promulgated that
Circular. Circular No. 28-91 was designed to serve as an instrument to
promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not
be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate
and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure which is to
achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.
 CANON 3

DACANAY VS. BAKER & MCKENZIE

(A.C. no. 2131, May 10, 1985)

FACTS:
Lawyer Adriano Dacanay sought to enjoin Juan Collas, Jr. and nine
other lawyers from practicing law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a
law firm organized in Illinois.

Respondent Vicente Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie,

which contains the names of the ten lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the
release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a
client.

Atty. Dacanay denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He

requested that he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker &
McKenzie and if not, what is your purpose in using the letterhead of
another law office. Not having received any reply, he filed the instant
complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 3 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
The court held that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot
practice law in the Philippines. As admitted by the respondents in their
memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in
1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members of the Philippine bar, practicing
under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of
Baker & McKenzie.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents use of the firm

name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated
with the firm they could render legal services of the highest quality to
multination business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and
investment. It is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to
practice law here.
 CANON 3

BENGCO VS. ATTY. BERNARDO

(A.C. no. 6368, June 13, 2012)

FACTS:
Sometime in 1997, Atty. Pablo Bernardo with the help and in
connivance and collusion with a certain Andres Magat and illegally
committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud complainants Fidela Bengco
and Teresita Bengco by using false pretenses, deceitful words to the effect
that he would expedite the titling of the land belonging to the Miranda
family of Tagaytay City. He is the one handling William Gatchalians
business transaction and that he has contracts at NAMERA, DENR, CENRO
and REGISTER OF DEEDS which representation he well knew were false,
fraudulent and were only made to induce that complainants to give and
deliver the said amount (P495,000). Once in possession of said amount, far
from complying with his obligation to expedite and cause the titling of the
subject land, unlawfully and illegally misappropriated, misapplied and
converted the said amount to his personal use and benefit and despite
demand upon him to return the said amount, he failed and refused to do so,
which acts constitute deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of
the Bar and Violation of Duties and Oath as a lawyer.

The respondent was required to file his Comment. He stated that he

had not deceived both complainants for purposes of getting from them the
amount of P 495,000. It was Andy Magat whom they contracted and who in
turn sought the legal services of the respondent. It was Andy Magat who
received the said money from them. He also commented that there was no
connivance made and entered into by Andy Magat and respondent. The
arrangement for titling of the land was made by Teresita Bengco and Andy
Magat with no participation of respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The respondent admitted in his answer that his legal services were
hired by the complainants through Magat regarding the purported titling of
land supposedly purchased.

The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to

public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not
primarily meant to be a moneymaking venture, and law advocacy is not a
capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be
a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers,
who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves.

 CANON 3

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN VS. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO

(A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)

FACTS:
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe
Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation.
Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection
on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called
them and sent them text messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn

affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him
to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondents
services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000. Complainant also
attached respondents calling card.

Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing

the printing and circulation of the said calling card.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 3 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes, the means employed by respondent in furtherance of the said
misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.
Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to, including
the manner by which a lawyers services are to be made known. Thus, Canon
3 of the CPR provides:

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL

SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR,
DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
 Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is
a profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as
merchants advertise their wares. To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or
skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the
publics estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high
character of service to which every member of the bar is called.
 CANON 3

ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR. VS . ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO

(A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003)

FACTS:
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information
Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number in
Philippine Daily Inquirer which reads: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE
Specialist and pretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs.
Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an
expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within
four to six months, provided the case will not involve separation of property
or custody of children.

Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public
Information Office revealed that similar advertisements were published in
the Manila Bulletin and The Philippine Star.

Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator

and Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation
of his legal services

Respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that

advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the rationale
behind the decades-old prohibition on lawyer advertising should be
abandoned.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 3 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reads:
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
 It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.
It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The
gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to
public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or
what they owe to themselves

What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in advertising

himself as a self-styled Annulment of Marriage Specialist, he wittingly or
unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the
sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the
contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in assuring
prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in four to six months
from the time of the filing of the case, he in fact encourages people, who
might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained from
dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.

Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether

proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible
with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and
decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the
bar. Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers,
the office and residence address and fields of practice, as well as
advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are
permissible. Even the use of calling cards is now acceptable. Publication in
reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and informative data is likewise
allowable.