LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS

Who (parties) and JOSELITO C. CABALLERO, complainant

what (case no. / date)
vs.
ATTY. ARLENE G. PILAPIL, respondent.
AC No. 7075 Jan. 22, 2020
Why and how
Complainant (all the - Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of
circumstances that
respondent to prepare a Deed of Sale for the purchase of a 258
lead to file a case)
sq. m. lot with improvements, in Consolacion, Cebu, registered
in the names of the spouses Alexander Ardenete and Adelia
Hermosa;
- respondent did prepare the document but it had to be amended
to include the names of his two sisters as vendees;
- respondent agreed to amend the deed of sale and had also
taken the original copy of TCT No. 64507 as well as the original
sketch plan and tax declaration of the lot;
- respondent asked for and was given the total amount of
P53,500.00 for the alleged payment of the capital gains tax,
real estate tax and her legal fees for the transfer of title.
Respondent Respondent then sent a letter-reply, claiming:
(defenses)
(1) that she had talked with complainant's sister,
Rowena, who was a high school friend, regarding the
latter's need for the transfer of properties;
(2) that she told Rowena that she could not make
personal follow-ups on the transaction, but she could help
her find a fixer and to prepare the documents;
(3) that she later informed Rowena that the expenses
for the transfer of property would cost P40,000.00 to
P45,000.00, excluding the documentation of the same;
(4) that Rowena, through complainant, gave her
P40,000.00 for the taxes and P5,000.00 for her
documentation;
(5) that she had prepared several documents for their
properties; and that the money she got from the
complainant, together with the documents, were all given
 to a fixer friend by the name of Wilmer Esmero, who later
just left the documents to a common friend and
disappeared. Rowena contacted her again for the
preparation of documents for another property that she
and her siblings bought;
(6) that she contacted another fixer friend, Raul Isoto,
to facilitate the transfer of complainant and his sisters' two
properties in their names and gave him the money and all
the documents, however, the money and documents had
not been returned to her despite several demands.

What is the Complainant sought the help of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of

recommendation of the Consolacion, Cebu, but respondent failed to attend the mediation.
IBP-CBD? He then wrote a letter-complaint to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Cebu Chapter, which then sent a letter to
respondent and scheduled a conference. Respondent requested
for a resetting of the conference, but she still failed to attend.
What is the Administrator ( OCA) referred the same to the Office of the Bar
recommendation of Confidant through a 1st Indorsement4 dated October 5, 2005.
OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent Atty. Arlene G. Pilapil liable for gross
misconduct, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR).
Dispositive portion Respondent failed to comply with the court’s several Resolutions
(final decision) requiring her to file a Comment on the instant Complaint as well
as to pay the fine of P.1,000.00 imposed on her in the Resolution.
Her stubborn disregard of the Court's Orders and Resolutions
resulted in unduly delaying the disposition of the case and a
violation of her oath to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of
the duly constituted authorities. Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer is required to
observe and maintain due respect to the court and its judicial
officers.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Arlene G. Pilapil is hereby

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years for
violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, Canon 17 as well as
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, effective
from notice. She is ORDERED to RETURN to the complainant the
sum of Php 53,500.00, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per
annum reckoned from the date of the receipt of this Decision until
full payment. She is further ORDERED to RETURN to the
complainant the original copy of TCT No. 64507, the sketch plan
and tax declaration which she took from complainant.
Respondent is also ORDERED to PAY the fine oflll,000.00
imposed on her in our Resolution dated October 18, 2010 within
 ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision, otherwise a more
severe penalty will be imposed against her.
What are the core
moral values that were
ignored?
What are the virtues Obedience, faithfulness, good faith to the court, respect.
that are missing?
What are the vices that Disobedience
the respondent got
involved in?
What are the lessons A lawyer must observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
that I learned from this and to judicial officers. He must, as he swore in the oath,
case so that no case of
similar can be filed
against me in the
future?

LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS

Who (parties) and ATTY. PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, complainant
what (case no. / date)
vs.
 ATTY. CRISPIN T. REYES, respondent.
AC No. 4355 Jan. 08, 2020
Why and how
Complainant (all the Atty. Aguirre essentially stated:
circumstances that
- Atty. Reyes violated Rule 3.01 by making false claims in his
lead to file a case)
memo dated Dec. 20, 1993 addressed to the Board of Directors
of Banco Filipino.
- These false statements amounted to “false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services.”
- Atty. Reyes violated Rule 8.01 in relation to Rule 19.01 when
he drafted confidential/restricted memo, and amended
complaint dated May 10, 1994, writing the same on behalf of
the minority stockholders of Banco Filipino and addressed it to
all concerned individuals at Tala Realty Corp.
- The statements in the amended complaint were “abusive,
offensive, or otherwise improper”.
- Respondent violated Rule 19.01 because he presented
“unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding”.
Respondent -Oct. 6, 1993, his legal services were engaged to intervene
(defenses) specifically through a derivative suit purposely to protect the
interest of BF Homes, which was being plundered by billions of
pesos worth of assets.
-That the measures he took in SEC case were brought to the
attention of BF Homes’ directors and management officers, yet
he was viciously subjected to all sorts of blame, ridicule, and
aspersion.
-Dec. 13, 1993, BF Homes V-Pres. Issued a defamatory memo
against him, promoting him, in turn, to issue a retaliatory memo.
-The memo was in defense of his good name, integrity and honor
as a man and as a professional.
-That he was being blamed for the company’s water shortage and
the withdrawal of Balgos and Perez as counsel.
-That the language he used in his memo and amended complaint
was not abusive nor offensive. The words were apt, vivid,
picturesque, proper, and elegant.
-That he did not initiate unfounded criminal charges to gain
improper advantage. The criminal charge was an aspect of the
efforts to recover 18 major Banco Filipino branches from Tala
Realty Services Corp.
 -That he pursued the complaints for estafa and for falsification of
public documents on his client’s instructions.
-That complainant should be the one disbarred for gross violation
of the CPR.
What is the IBP-CBD recommended the dismissal of both the complainant
recommendation of the and the counter-claimant by reason of the death of Atty. Aguirre
IBP-CBD? and for failure of Atty. Reyes to substantiate his charge against
the former who, as stated, had already died.
What is the n/a
recommendation of
OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Reyes
should still proceed despite the death of complainant.
Dispositive portion A disbarment case is sui generis, which means the court may
(final decision) proceed despite a complainant’s desistance or failure to
prosecute. Atty. Reyes is liable to violation of Rule 8.01 of the
CPR.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Crispin T. Reyes is found

guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT for using intemperate language
in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
required to pay a fine of Php 2,000.00 within 5 days from notice
thereof. For this purpose, he is DIRECTED to formally inform the
Court of the exact date when he shall have received the decision.

Atty. Reyes is ABSOLVED of the charges of forum-shopping and

violations of Rule 19.01, and Rule 10.03 in relation to Rule 12.02.
What are the core
moral values that were
ignored?
What are the virtues Honesty, faithfulness, candor, fairness, courtesy.
that are missing?
What are the vices that Falsification, dishonesty, misleading statement, abusive/offensive
the respondent got language.
involved in?
What are the lessons A lawyer must use only true, honest, dignified and objective
that I learned from this information or statement of facts. He must not use or permit the
case so that no case of use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified,
similar can be filed self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim.
against me in the
future? A lawyer must conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor.
He must not use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.

LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS

Who (parties) and VALENTIN C. MIRANDA, complainant
what (case no. / date)
vs.
ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO, respondent.
AC No. 6281 Jan. 15, 2020
Why and how
Complainant (all the - That Complainant is one of the owners of a parcel of land
circumstances that consisting of 1,890 sq.m.
lead to file a case) - That complainant initiated Land Registration Commission for
the registration of the aforesaid property.
- That during the course of the proceedings, complainant
engaged the services of respondent as counsel in the said
case when his original counsel figured in a vehicular accident.
- That paid respondent the amounts due him, as evidenced by
receipts duly signed by the latter. During the last hearing of the
case, respondent demanded the additional PhP10,000.00 for
the preparation of a memorandum, which he said would further
strengthen complainant's position in the case, plus 20% of the
total area of the subject property as additional fees for his
services.
- That on April 3, 2000, complainant went to the Register of
Deeds to get the owner's duplicate of the Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) and was surprised to discover that the same had
already been claimed by and released to respondent on March
29, 2000.
- Complainant talked to respondent on the phone and asked him
to turn over the owner's duplicate of the OCT, which he had
claimed without complainant's knowledge, consent and
authority.
- That respondent insisted that complainant first pay him the
PhP10,000.00 and the 20% share in the property equivalent to
378 square meters, in exchange for which, respondent would
deliver the owner's duplicate of the OCT.

Respondent - Respondent attached a copy of his last letter stating that he was
(defenses) always ready to return the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 0-94.
- That it was complainant who failed to claim the said title form
respondent.
- He reasoned that he cannot release the said title to anyone but
only to the complainant in the interest of security.
- That his advance age was also the reason of his inability to
personally deliver the said title.
- He argued that he cannot return the owner’s duplicate of OCT
No. 0-94 since it was not complainant who gave it to him.
- That he received the said copy as proof of his success in
handling LRC Case as complainant’s counsel.
- He reiterated complainant’s failure to personally claim the said
copy of the OCT from him.
- He argued that he was only forced to accept a case without first
having his suspension lifted by the court because of financial
necessity, and that he firmly believed that his suspension was
automatically lifted.
-
What is the The OBC recommended that the respondent’s motion to lift order
recommendation of the of suspension be denied, and to impose a more severe penalty
IBP-CBD? due to the continuing failure of respondent to comply with the
 Court’s Decision dated September 26, 2011.
What is the recommendation n/a
of OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent is in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Dispositive portion Respondent’s actuations are violative of the oath he took before
(final decision) admission to the practice of law. As an officer of the court, it is a
lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court.
Respondent cannot escape the fact that he disobeyed the order of
the court by reasoning that it was complainant’s fault for not
personally claiming the copy of the OCT from him.

Necessity is not a valid excuse to disregard the order of

suspension as meted against respondent. Jurisprudence is
replete with cases where the court held that “the lifting of a
lawyer’s suspension is not automatic upon the end of the period
stated in the court’s decision, and an order from the court lifting
the suspension at the end of the period is necessary in order to
enable him to resume the practice of his profession.”

WHEREFORE, respondent’s motion to lift the order of suspension

is hereby DENIED. Atty. Macario D. Carpio is further
SUSPENDED from practice of law for another 6 months.

He is likewise DIRECTED to RETURN the owner’s duplicate copy

of the OCT No. 0-94 to the complainant. He is again hereby
warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt
with more severely.
What are the core
moral values that were
ignored?
What are the virtues Faithfulness to client, fairness,
that are missing?
What are the vices that Greed, charging unfair and unreasonable fees, deception,
the respondent got
involved in?
What are the lessons Practice of law is not a money making business. A lawyer must
that I learned from this always be faithful, honest and fair. He must not charge unfair and
case so that no case of unreasonable fees; he must hold in trust all moneys and
similar can be filed properties of his client; and he must deliver the funds and
against me in the properties due to his client.
future?
A lawyer must not delay no man for money or malice.