PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD

GOVERNMENT (PCGG), petitioner, vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division), Rule 6.03—A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear as daylight in stressing that the “drafting, enforcing or
interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract
principles of law” are acts which do not fall within the scope of the term “matter” and cannot
disqualify.
It is the second interpretation of the word “intervene”—which only includes an act of a person
who has the power to influence the subject proceedings, that is more appropriate under Rule
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in light of its history—in fine, the intervention
cannot be insubstantial and insignificant.

The Director of Religious Affairs,

complainant, vs. Estanislao R. Bayot,
respondent. Section 2§ of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant
advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his
profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or
offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with
mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The most
worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, * * * is the establishment
of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced
but must be the outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)

SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, complainant, vs.

ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO, When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in
respondent. protecting the latter’s right.

lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may come to his possession. As trustee
of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a
lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and processing of a case if not utilized, must
be returned immediately upon demand.

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal
proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing.

JOSELITO F. TEJANO, complainant, vs.

ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA,
respondent.
Lawyers have a “fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients,” and
must act “in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Once a lawyer’s services are engaged, he is duty-bound to serve his client with competence, and
to attend to his client’s cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free.

A lawyer — even one suspended from practicing the profession — owes it to his client to not
“sit idly by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty."
Lawyers, as the Supreme Court (SC) has previously emphasized, “are particularly called upon to
obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court
directives being themselves officers of the court.”

ADELINO H. LEDESMA, petitioner, vs.

HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, Presiding
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It could be that for some
Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City, lawyers, especially the neophytes in the profession, being appointed counsel de oficio is an
respondent. irksome chore. For those holding such belief, it may come as a surprise that counsel of repute
and of eminence welcome such an opportunity. It makes even more manifest that law is indeed
a profession dedicated to the ideal of service and not a mere trade. It is understandable then
why a high degree of fidelity to duty is required of one so designated.
JUN B. LUNA, complainant, vs. ATTY.
DWIGHT M. GALARRITA, respondent.

Lawyers should maintain, at all times, “a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four (4)-fold duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms embodied in
the Code [of Professional Responsibility] (CPR).”
The Rules of Court requires lawyers to secure special authority from their clients when entering
into a compromise agreement that dispenses with litigation.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Members of the bar must always conduct
themselves in a way that promotes “public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.”

The Supreme Court (SC) has held that “any money collected for the client or other trust
property coming into the lawyer’s possession should promptly be reported by him [or her].”
Lawyers are not entitled to unilaterally appropriate their clients’ money for themselves by the
mere fact that the clients owe them attorney’s fees.

No victim of gross ethical misconduct concerning the client’s funds or property should be
required to still litigate in another proceeding what the administrative proceeding has already
established as the respondent’s liability.

The elements required for full recognition of attorney’s lien are: “(1) lawyer-client relationship;
(2) lawful possession of the client’s funds, documents and papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim for
attorney’s fees.”

RAUL A. VILLEGAS, petitioner, vs.

ASSEMBLYMAN VALENTINO L. LEGASPI,
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, Appearance by members of the Batasan Pambansa before CFIs is allowed only in cases wherein
BRANCH II, said courts exercise appellate jurisdiction.
The objective of the prohibition, then and now, is clearly to remove any possibility of undue
influence upon the administration of justice, to eliminate the possible use of office for personal
gain, to ensure impartiality in trials and thus preserve the independence of the Judiciary. The
possible influence of an Assemblyman on a single Judge of the Court of First Instance, though
not entirely removed, is definitely diminished where the latter Court acts in the exercise of its
appellate instead of original jurisdiction

JESUS MA. CUI, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ANTONIO MA. CUI, defendant-appellant, The term "titulo de abogado" means not mere possession of the academic degree of Bachelor
ROMULO CUI, Intervenor-appellant. of Laws but membership in the bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one for the practice
of law.
Possession of law degree is not indispensable to qualify as lawyer.

Reinstatement to the roll of attorneys wipes out the restrictions and disabilities resulting from a
previous disbarment.

SOPHIA ALAWI, complainant, vs. ASHARY

M. ALAUYA, Clerk of Court VI, Shari’a
District Court, Marawi City, respondent.
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) inter
alia enunciates the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility
in the public service. Section 4 of the Code commands that “(p)ublic officials and employees **
at all times respect the rights of others, and ** refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good
morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.”

As a man of the law, he may not use language which is abusive, offensive, scandalous,
menacing, or otherwise improper.
The title of “attorney” is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the
study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing, and it is they only who are
authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.
JULIO D. ENRIQUEZ, SR., representing-
the law firm of ENRÍQUEZ & ENRÍQUEZ,
petitioner vs. HON. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ
in his capacity as AUDITOR GENERAL OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Under the provision of Sections 2241, 1682 and 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code the
provincial fiscal is the legal adviser of the mayor and council of the.various municipalities of a
province and it is his duty to represent the municipality in any court except when he is
disqualified by law. When he is disqualified to represent the municipality, the municipal council
may engage the services of a special attorney. The provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent in
court the municipality if and when original jurisdiction of the case involving the municipality is
vested in the Supreme Court; when the municipality is a party adverse to the provincial
government or to some other municipality in the same province; and when in the case involving
the municipality, he, or his wife, or child, is pecuniarily involved as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise.
The fact that the provincial fiscal entertains a hostile belief and attitude on the theory involved
in the litigation and, therefore, would not be in a position to prosecute the case of the
municipality with earnestness and vigor, could not justify the act of the municipal council in
engaging the services of a special counsel. Bias or prejudice and animosity or hostility on the
part of a fiscal not based on any of the conditions enumerated in the law and the Rules of Court
do not constitute a legal and valid excuse for inhibition or disqualification.

Unlike a practicing lawyer who has the right to decline employment, a fiscal cannot refuse the
performance of his functions on grounds not provided for by law without violating his oath of
office, where he swore, among others, "that he will well and faithfully discharge to the best of
his ability the duties of the office or position upon which he is about to enter
Instead of engaging the services of a special attorney, the municipal council should have
requested the Secretary of Justice to appoint an acting provincial fiscal in place of the provincial
fiscal who had declined to handle and prosecute its case in court pursuant to Section 1679 of
the Revised Administrative Code.

PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION,

petitioner, vs. CELEDONIO AGRAVA, in
his capacity as Director of the Philippines
Patent Office, respondent. Practice of law in the Philippines includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the
representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their
applications for patent, their oppositions thereto or the enforcement of their rights in patent
cases. A member of the bar, because of his legal knowledge and training should be allowed to
practice before the Patent Office, without further examination or other qualification.
Under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the Supreme Court to
practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, for
the reason that much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and
determination of the scope and application of the patent law and other laws applicable as well
as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved. That part of the functions of the
Patent Director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and
decision are under the law taken to the Supreme Court.

SANTA PANGAN, complainant, vs. ATTY.

DIONISIO RAMOS, respondent.
The attorney’s roll or register is the official record containing the names and signatures of those
who are authorized to practice law. A lawyer is not authorized to use a name other than the one
inscribed in the Roll of Attorneys in his practice of law.

The official oath obliges the attorney solemnly to swear that he “will do no falsehood”. As an
officer in the temple of justice, an attorney has irrefragable obligations of “truthfulness, candor
and frankness”. Indeed, candor and frankness should characterize the conduct of the lawyer at
every stage. This has to be so because the court has the right to rely upon him in ascertaining
the truth.
His high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case, and to
aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusions. He violates his oath of office when he
resorts to deception, or permits his client to do so.”
FELIPE SALCEDO petitioner and
appellant, vs. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ
respondent and appellee. In re contempt
proceedings against Attorney VICENTE J.
FRANCISCO A member of the bar and an officer of this court, is duty bound to uphold its dignity and
authority and to defend its integrity, not only because it has conferred upon him the high
privilege, not a right, of being what he now is: a priest of justice, but also because in so doing he
neither creates nor promotes distrust in the administration of justice, and he prevents anybody
from harboring and encouraging discontent, which in many cases, is the source of disorder, thus
undermining the foundation on which rests the bulwark called judicial power to which those
who are aggrieved turn for protection and relief.
It is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights of his client, should
do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is capable, but it is not, and will never be so for
him to exercise said right by resorting to intimidation or proceeding without the propriety and
respect which the dignity of the courts require. The reason for this is that respect of the courts
guarantees the stability of their institution. Without such guaranty said institution would be
resting on a very shaky foundation.
It is a well settled rule in all places where the same conditions and practice as those in this
jurisdiction obtain, that want of intention is no excuse from liability. Neither is the fact that the
phrases employed are justified by the facts a valid defense.

LESLIE UI, complainant, vs. ATTY. IRIS

BONIFACIO, respondent.
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral
character. More importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a
requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a
ground for the revocation of such privilege.

Lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility
and thus must handle their personal affairs with greater caution. Respondent would not have
found herself in such a compromising situation had she exercised prudence and been more
vigilant.
For such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral,” that is, it
must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.
A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships x x x but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
AURORA SORIANO DELES, complainant,
vs. VICENTE E. ARAGONA, JR.,
respondent
Besides being relevant, pertinent or material to the subject-matter of the said cases, relevant
statements made in judicial proceedings are privileged, thereby precluding any liability on the
part of the respondent. The privilege is not affected by factual or legal inaccuracies in the
utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings. In fact, even when the statements are
found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is
made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual. The
privitege is not defeated by the mere fact that the communication is made in intemperate
terms. A privileged communication should not be subjected to microscopic examination to
discover grounds of malice or falsity. Such excessive scrutiny would defeat the protection which
the law throws over privileged communications.
The purpose of privilege is that members of the legislature, judges of courts, jurors, lawyers,
and witnesses may speak their minds freely and exercise their respective functions without
incurring the risk of a criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery of damages.
The object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to punish the individual attorney himself,
as to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and the public from the
misconduct of officers of the court, and to remove from the profession of law persons whose
disregard for their oath of office have proved them unfit to continue discharging the trust
reposed in them as members of the bar.

OLEGARIA BLANZA and MARIA PASION,

complainants, vs. ATTY.AGUSTIN A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the community than merely complying with
ARCANGEL, respondent. the minimal technicalities of the statute. As a man of law, he is necessarily a leader of the
community, looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence,
especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers his professional services.

MELANIO L. ZORETA, complainant, vs.

ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G.
SIMPLICIANO, respondent.
The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that
they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of
such privilege; An attorney may be disbarred, or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his
duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically any
misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The
protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act
must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in
general. It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further
proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties.

The lawyer’s act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission therefor is
reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also the crime of falsification of
public documents

A-1 FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,

complainant, vs. ATTY. LAARNI N.
VALERIO, respondent. 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.
A lawyer’s failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at the
investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate
his despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
[B.M. No. 1222. February 4, 2004]
Re: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS