Respondent violated Canon 16 when she obtained loans from a client.

The Court has repeatedly

emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and
confidence. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to
prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client. The rule presumes
that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on
his obligation. Suffice it to say, the borrowing of money or property from a client outside the
limits laid down in the CPR is an unethical act that warrants sanction.

A lawyer, once he takes up the cause of his client, has the duty to serve such client with competence,
and to attend to his client's cause with diligence, care and devotion, whether he accepts the
engagement for free or for a fee. Moreover, lawyers should refrain from obtaining loans from their
clients, in order to avoid the perils of abusing the trust and confidence reposed upon him by such client.

Lawyers must serve their clients with utmost zeal and competence. It is also an equally important
responsibility for them to properly separate and account for any money given to them by their clients,
and to resist the temptation to borrow money from their clients, in order to preserve the trust and
confidence reposed upon lawyers by every person requiring their legal advice and services.

LEGAL ETHICS> The Code of Professional Responsibility> To the clients

PELAGIO VICENCIO SORONGON, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. RAMON Y. GARGANTOS,1

SR., Respondent.
A.C. No. 11326 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4305), June 27, 2018
(Second Division)

FACTS: Complainant Pelagio Vicencio Sorongon, Jr. alleged that he gave Atty. Ramon Y. Gargantos,
Sr. (respondent) the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) as full payment of the
latter's legal services, which, s allegedly agreed upon, would cover the acceptance fee, appearance
fees, and other fees until the resolution of the cases.5 The complainant also alleged that respondent
did not give him a receipt nor did they execute a formal memorandum of agreement (MOA). In addition,
complainant narrated that they agreed that if there would be court hearings outside of Quezon City,
then complainant would provide respondent's plane ticket, meals, and hotel accommodation. However,
should the hearing be at the Sandiganbayan, they would just meet in the court.

On June 3, 2014, complainant called the respondent regarding the scheduled hearings at the
Sandiganbayan. The respondent instructed the complainant to pick him up at his residence in Quezon
City, otherwise he would not attend the hearing. The complainant complied and they attended the
hearing. After the hearing, respondent allegedly demanded "pocket money" from the complainant since
he would accompany his wife to the United States, otherwise, he would not appear in the hearing the
following day and he would no longer serve as complainant’s counsel. The next day, the complainant
went again to the respondent's residence to pick him up for the hearing. However, the respondent
allegedly demanded the “pocket money” a harsh voice. After this, the complainant, in his Affidavit
Complaint, prayed for the refund of a portion of the amount paid to respondent in order that he might
be able to hire a new counsel.

On June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2015-581,40 ordered the
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year and to return the entire
amount of P200,000.00 to the complainant.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent violated the the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR), particularly Canon 16, Rule 16.01.

HELD. Yes. As found by Commissioner Villamor, the respondent allegedly failed to return, despite
demand, the complainant's documents after he withdrew as his counsel42 in violation of Canon 16,
Rule 16.01 which provides that a lawyer shall account for and hold in trust the money or property from
the client. While the SC adopt the findings of Commissioner Villamor, note that this is respondent's first

99
offense, and we shall also take into consideration his advanced age (i.e., he stated that he was already
82 years old in his abovementioned handwritten letter dated November 6, 2014 addressed to Director
Solis). SC noted that, in several cases, the Court, in determining or tempering the penalty to be
imposed, has considered mitigating factors, such as the respondent's advanced age, health,
humanitarian and equitable considerations, as well as whether the act complained of was respondent's
first infraction. In the present case, in view of the respondent's advanced age and the fact that this is
his first offense, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and warned
that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent should also
return the legal fees paid to him by the complainant in the amount of P200,000.00, and the documents
in respondent's possession which pertain to the case of the complainant.

LEGAL ETHICS> The Code of Professional Responsibility>Lawyer’s Oath

JUDGE GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. ELLY L.

PAMATONG, Respondent.
A.C. No. 7330, June 14, 2016
(En Banc)

FACTS: Complainant Judge Pantanosas was the presiding judge of the RTC Cagayan De Oro
City. Respondent Atty. Pamatong was the counsel of plaintiffs in a Civil Case for injunction with
damages, which was then pending before the RTC. During the hearing of an application for the issuance
of a temporary restraining order (TRO), respondent Pamatong was allegedly asked by complainant
Pantanosas to remove his copia (a hat worn by Muslims) in open court. Respondent Pamatong
requested to be exempted allegedly due to religious grounds and embarrassment towards his “bald
pate.” Complainant Pantanosas thereafter obliged with a caveat that at the next hearing, he would no
longer tolerate the wearing of the copia inside the courtroom.

Respondent Pamatong filed an Extremely Urgent Motion/Demand for Inhibition or Recusal which
contained the following remarks:

1. Finally, in my thirty (30) years of law practice, I never encountered a Judge who appears to be as
corrupt as you are, thereby giving me the impression that you are a disgrace to the Judicial System
of this land who does not deserve (sic) to be a member of the Philippine Bar at all.

Complainant Pantanosas issued an Order refuting all allegations of abusive language and corruption
and denying the Motion for Inhibition for lack of basis while ordering respondent Pamatong to show
cause why he should not be cited in contempt of court.

Complainant Pantanosas then filed a Complaint for Disbarment dated September 15, 2006 (Disbarment
Complaint) before this Court against respondent Pamatong on the following grounds: (i) violation of
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for the language employed by respondent
Pamatong in the Motion for Inhibition, and (ii) violation of Canons 1 and 11 of the CPR for engaging in
dishonest and deceitful conduct by supposedly causing the publication of an alleged bribe in a local
newspaper and maliciously imputing motives to complainant Pantanosas, thereby casting dishonor to
and distrust in the judicial system.

ISSUE: Whether Respondent Pamatong violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of ethics
of the legal profession.

HELD: Yes. It cannot be overemphasized that it is the sworn duty of a lawyer to maintain towards the
Courts a respectful attitude, “not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for
the maintenance of its supreme importance.” It is precisely for this reason that the Lawyer’s Oath
enjoins all members of the bar to conduct themselves with good fidelity towards the courts in order not
to erode the faith and trust of the public in the judiciary.

100
It is not disputed that the Motion for Inhibition filed by respondent Pamatong contained blatant
accusations of corruption against complainant Pantanosas, and then some. As counsel for the plaintiffs
in Civil Case No. 2006-176, it was incumbent upon respondent Pamatong to observe and maintain
respect towards the judicial office then being occupied by complainant Pantanosas. Instead of insisting
on similar conduct from his clients, respondent Pamatong was the first to cast doubt on the impartiality
and independence of the court. Worth repeating below are the invectives directed by respondent
Pamatong against complainant Pantanosas: 6. Finally, in my thirty (30) years of law practice, I never
encountered a Judge who appears to be as corrupt as you are, thereby giving me the impression
that you are a disgrace to the Judicial System of this land who does not deserved (sic) to be a
member of the Philippine Bar at all. (Emphasis supplied) That the slanderous remarks cited above were
inserted in no less than a public record, i.e., Motion for Inhibition, makes matters even worse. Even
granting that the bribery charges were true, such personal attacks against the person of complainant
Pantanosas should have been reserved for a different forum and certainly not included in a motion filed
before a court of law. To be sure, a lawyer is obliged to abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language before the courts. As a supposed officer of the court, such behavior exhibited by respondent
Pamatong only serves to betray his utter lack of reverence towards the courts, which promotes nothing
but the degradation of the administration of justice.

We find it befitting to reiterate that lawyers have the right, both as an officer of the court and as a
citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and
judges. However, closely linked to such rule is the cardinal condition that criticisms, no matter how
truthful, shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. To that end, the duty of a lawyer to his
client’s success is wholly subordinate to the administration of justice. True, lawyers must always remain
vigilant against unscrupulous officers of the law. However, the purification of our justice system from
venal elements must not come at the expense of decency, and worse, the discrediting of the very
system that it seeks to protect.

HAIL TO THE CHIEFS!

101