Ethics Cases Doctrines
Ethics Cases Doctrines
1.
Carlos
Reyes,
et
al.
vs.
Atty.
Jeremias
Vitan
AC No. 5835, 6051, 6441, 6995
Promulgated:August 10, 2010
This refers to the undated Petition filed with the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) on July 28, 2009 byAtty. Jeremias R. Vitan, praying that
he be reinstated as member in good standing of the Philippine
Bar and be allowed to resume the practice of law, claiming that
he had already served the penalty of suspension imposed on
him, and that he is now reformed.
As background, four (4)
administrative cases were filed against Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan, in each of
which he was found guilty and meted the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law.
HELD:
The Court, in the recent case of Ligaya Maniago v. Atty. Lourdes I.
De Dios, issued the guidelines on the lifting of orders of suspension, and
has advised strict observance thereof. However, the Court will not
hesitate to withhold the privilege of the practice of law if it is shown that
respondent, as an officer of the Court, is still not worthy of the trust and
confidence of his clients and of the public.
Thus, applying the guidelines in Maniago, the Court Resolved to
GRANT Respondents Petition for Reinstatement, effective upon
his submission to the Court of a Sworn Statement attesting to
the fact:
1) that he has completely served the four (4) suspensions imposed on
him successively;
2) that he had desisted from the practice of law, and has not appeared as
counsel in any court during the periods of suspension, as follows:
(a) Six (6) months suspension in A.C. No. 5835 from May 13, 2005 to
November 13, 2005;
(b) One (1) year suspension in A.C. No. 6051 from April 18, 2007 to April
18, 2008;
(c) Six (6) months suspension in A.C. No. 6441 from November 12, 2004
to May 12, 2005; and
(d) Six (6) months suspension in A.C. No. 6955 from date of receipt of the
Resolution dated March 6, 2007 denying the Motion for Reconsideration
of the Decision dated July 27, 2006.
3) that he has returned the sums of money to the complainants as
ordered by the Court in the following cases, attaching proofs thereof:
(a) In A.C. No. 5835 the sum of P17,000 with interest of 12% per annum
from the date of promulgation of the Decision until the full amount shall
have been returned; and
(b) In A.C. No. 6441 the amount of P30,000.
Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is further directed to FURNISH copies of the
Sworn Statement to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and Executive
Judge(s), as mandated in Maniago.
Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the
Respondent under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more
severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.
2.Spouses
Olbes
vs.
AC-5365. April 27, 2005
Atty.
VICTOR
V.
DECIEMBRE
Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes
for security of a loan. After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty.
Deciembre filled up four of the five checks for P50, 000 with different
maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a
case for estafa against the spouses Olbes. This prompted the spouses
Olbes to file a disbarment case against Atty. Deciembre with the Office of
the Bar Confidant of this Court.In the report, Commissioner Dulay
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for two years for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened
with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned
in the law, but also known to possess good moral character. A lawyer is
an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed
by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the
advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which he has sworn to
be a fearless crusader. By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney
becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable
instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice. Lawyers
should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a
manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the publics faith in the
legal profession. It is also glaringly clear that the Code of Professional
Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his malevolent act of filling
up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed
upon at all and despite respondents full knowledge that the loan
supposed to be secured by the checks had already been paid. His was a
brazen act of falsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his
material gain.
Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable
practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic
moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal
laws.
Considering the depravity of the offense committed by
respondent, we find the penalty recommended by the IBP of
suspension for two years from the practice of law to be too mild.
BEFORE
NOTARY
FACTS:
Although the defendants know that they did not pass the bar
examination, they sought admission to the Bar under the Bar Flunkers
Act. They were subsequently notified of the resolution of the Supreme
Court denying their petitions. This notwithstanding, they took their oaths
as lawyers before a notary public and formally advised the Court, not
only of such fact, but, also that they will practice in all courts of the
Philippines.
HELD: The oath as lawyer is a prerequisite to the practice of law and
may be taken only before the Supreme Court by those authorized by the
latter to engage in such practice. The resolution of the Supreme
Court denying appellees' petition for admission to the Bar
implied, necessarily, a denial of the right to take said oath, as
well as prohibition of the taking thereof. By taking oaths before a
notary public, appellees expressed clearly their intent to, and did,
in fact, challenge and defy the authority of the Supreme Court to
pass upon and settle, in a final and conclusive manner, the issue whether
or not they should be admitted to the bar, as well as, embarrass, hinder
and obstruct the administration of justice and impair the respect
due to the courts of justice and the Supreme Court, in particular,
in violation of section 3, subdivision (b) of Rule 64 of the Rules
of Court. Such acts, therefore, constitute contempt of court.
4. Leslie Ui vs. Atty. Iris Bonifacio AC No. 3319 June 8, 2000
Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty.
IrisBonifacio on grounds of immoral conduct. Atty. Bonifacio allegedly is
having an illicit relationship with Carlos Ui, husband of Leslie Ui, whom
they begot two children. Accordingto petitioner, Carlos Ui admitted to
him about the relationship between them and Atty.Bonifacio. This led
Leslie Ui to confront said respondent to stop their illicit affair but of tono
avail. According however to respondent, she is a victim in the situation.
Whenrespondent met Carlos Ui, she had known him to be a bachelor but
withchildren to an estranged Chinese woman who is already in Amoy,
China.Moreover, the two got married in Hawaii, USA therefore legalizing
their relationship.When respondent knew of the real status of Carlos Ui,
she stopped their relationship.Respondent further claims that she and
Carlos Ui never lived together as the latter livedwith his children to allow
them to gradually accept the situation. Respondent howeverpresented a
misrepresented copy of her marriage contract.
Ruling:The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have
the right toenjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing
the bar examinations. It is aprivilege that can be revoked, subject to the
mandate of due process, once a lawyerviolates his oath and the dictates
of legal ethics. One of the conditions prior to admissionto 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 theenjoyment of the
privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for
therevocation of such privilege. A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly
immoral conduct, orby reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude". A member of the barshould have moral integrity in addition to
professional probity. In the case at bar, Atty.Bonifacio was not proven to
have conducted herself in a grossly immoral manner.Thus, the case is
dismissed. But she is reprimanded and given a stern warning with
regardsto the of her marriage contract with an inculcated date
5. Atty. Alan F. Paguia v. Atty. Manuel T. Molina, A.C. No. 9881, June 4,
2014.
Attorney; Quantum of proof in administrative cases. An administrative
complaint for dishonesty was filed against Atty. Molina for having advised
his clients to enforce a contract on complainants client who was never a
party to the agreement. The Supreme Court in dismissing the complaint
held that when it comes to administrative cases against lawyers, two
things are to be considered: quantum of proof, which requires clearly
preponderant evidence; and burden of proof, which is on the
complainant. Here, the complaint was without factual basis. The
allegation of giving legal advice was not substantiated in this case, either
in the complaint or in the corresponding hearings. Bare allegations are
not proof. Even if Atty. Molina did provide his clients legal advice, he still
cannot be held administratively liable without any showing that his act
was attended with bad faith or malice. The default rule is presumption of
good faith. Atty. Alan F. Paguia v. Atty. Manuel T. Molina, A.C. No. 9881,
June 4, 2014.
6. Office of the Court Administrator v. Sarah P. Ampong, etc., A.M. No. P13-3132, June 4, 2014.
Court personnel; Dishonesty. Ampong was dismissed from the Civil
Service Commission for dishonesty, however, remained employed in the
RTC. The Supreme Court has already held in its August 26, 2008 Decision
that Ampong was administratively liable for dishonesty in impersonating
and taking the November 1991 Civil Service Eligibility Examination for
Teachers on behalf of one Decir. Under section 58(a) of the Uniform Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), the penalty of
dismissal carries with it the following administrative disabilities: (a)
cancellation of civil service eligibility; (b) forfeiture of retirement benefits;
and (c) perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government
agency or instrumentality, including any government-owned and
controlled corporation or government financial institution. Ampong
should be made to similarly suffer the same. Every employee of the
Judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty.
Court personnel are enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of
morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to
preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice. Here,
Ampong failed to meet these stringent standards set for a judicial
employee and does not, therefore, deserve to remain with the
Judiciary. Office of the Court Administrator v. Sarah P. Ampong, etc., A.M.
No. P-13-3132, June 4, 2014.
7, Alberto Valdez v. Desiderio W. Macusi, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 25,
Tabuk, Kalinga, A.M. No. P-13-3123, June 10, 2014
W/N sheriff macusi is liable for simple neglect of duty and violation of
civil service law.
Yes- dismissed from the service and forfeiture of retirement benefits
Conflict of interest exist when: the courts personel objective ability or
independence to perform official duties is impaired or may reasonably
appear to be impared.
8. Gershon N. Dulang v. Judge Mary Jocylen G. Regencia, MCTC, AsturiasBalamban, Cebu, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1841, June 2, 2014.
A judge shall dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases
within the required period.
15. Sebastian vs. Calis, A.C. No. 5118. September 9, 1999 In the light of
the foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
for violating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and
dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are
unacceptable practices. A lawyers relationship with others should be
characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and
candor. This is the essence of the lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is
not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be
upheld and keep inviolable. The nature of the office of an attorney
requires that he should be a person of good moral character.This
requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of
law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the
practice of law.We have sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a
lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his moral
character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit
to continue in the practice of law.
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.We
must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during good
behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained
and declared by judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to
be heard.
Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply
with the orders of the IBP and his total disregard of the summons issued
by the IBP are contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional
conduct. Thus, we find no hesitation in removing respondent Dorotheo
Calis from the Roll of Attorneys for his unethical, unscrupulous and
unconscionable conduct toward complainant.
16. In Re: Petition Of Al Argosino To Take The Lawyers Oath, B.M. No. 712,
March 19, 1997
Yes, after very careful evaluation of the case, the court resolve to allow
petitioner, Al Caparino Argosino to take the lawyers oath, sign the Roll
of Attorneys and practice the legal profession. The court recognizes that
Mr.Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber.
On the contrary, the various certification shows that he is a devout
catholic with genuine concern for civic duties and public service. The
court also persuaded that Mr.Argosino has extended all efforts to alone
for the death of Raul Camaligan.
The court also prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking
judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious
and uncalculating.
17. De Guzman vs. De Dios, A.C. No. 4943. January 26, 2001
As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or
consent to its commission and to conduct herself as a lawyer according
to the best of her knowledge and discretion. The lawyers oath is a
source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension,
disbarment, or other disciplinary action.
18. ULEP vs. Legal Clinic, Inc. Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The
permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and limited
privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of
moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the
court, the client and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of
those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary
control of the court.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making
known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information or statement of facts. He is not
supposed to 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. Nor shall he pay or give
something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation
of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business. Prior to the
adoption of the code of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of
Professional Ethics had also warned that lawyers should not resort to
indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing
or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be
published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been or is
engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of
the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all
other like self-laudation.
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the
ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The prescription against
advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the
fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession.
Exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation:
1. Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and
informative data. "Such data must not be misleading and may include
only a statement of the lawyer's name and the names of his professional
associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of
law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools
attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational
distinction; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal
authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar
associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and
legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the
names and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the
names of clients regularly represented."
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
the dignity or standing of the profession.
2. The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The
card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm
which he is connected with, address, telephone number and special
branch of law practiced.
3. The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm
or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address,
being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable.
4. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not
under a designation of special branch of law.
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local
government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or
employee of the national or local government is accused of an offense
committed in relation to his office;
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings
involving the local government unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the Government except when the
sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the
Government.
HELD: Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government
Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article
VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither the
statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and
authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local Government
Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of
conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the
discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their
profession, in those instances where the law allows it.
24. Frias vs. Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 6656, May 4, 2006
The court held that the defense of prescription does not lie in
administrative proceedings against lawyers. And in the 2004 case
of Heck v. Santos, we declared that an administrative complaint against
a member of the bar does not prescribe
If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to
disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact
that as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward,
they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever
administrative liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this
Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the
administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the
time of the commission of the act complained of and the time of the
institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot
escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement
is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them
from committing acts which violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers Oath.
Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior
courts by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a
law student. As succinctly clarified in Bar Matter No. 730, by virtue of
Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent or a friend
of a party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior
courts.
26. Re: Application for Admission to the Bar Vicente D. Ching, B.M. No.
914, October 1, 1999 **
C.A. No. 625 which was enacted pursuant to Section 1(3), Article IV
of the 1935 Constitution, prescribes the procedure that should be
followed in order to make a valid election of Philippine citizenship. Under
Section 1 thereof, legitimate children born of Filipino mothers may elect
Philippine citizenship by expressing such intention "in a statement to be
signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized
to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry. The
said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of
allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines."
The Court states that if such will be allowed, it would open the door of
harassment to the lawyers just by mere filing of numerous criminal
complaints against them. Criminal and civil cases are altogether different
from administrative matters, and each must be disposed of according to
the facts and the law applicable to it. In this case, since the crime of child
abuse is currently on appeal before the CA, the same has not yet
attained finality. As such, she still enjoys the constitutional presumption
of innocence.
56. Basa Air Base Savings and Loan Association, Inc. vs. Judge Gregorio
Pimentel, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-01-1648; August 22, 2002- Agree in the
Recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator stating that
respondent failed to observe Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct which mandates that a judge shall dispose of the courts
business promptly and resolve cases within ninety (90) days from the
submission of the last pleading required. Respondent admitted his failure
but pleads for compassion on the ground that he was a newly-appointed
judge and he merely inherited most of the cases pending before
him. Such cannot be a valid excuse. Judges burdened with heavy
caseloads should request the Court for an extension of the reglementary
period within which to decide their cases if they think that they cannot
comply with their judicial duty.
For partiality, gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment be dismissed for lack of merit, the respondent cannot be
held liable. A judges mere error in the interpretation or application of the
law per se will not warrant the imposition of an administrative sanction
against him for no one is infallible. Good faith and absence of malice,
corrupt motives or improper consideration are sufficient defenses that
will protect a judicial officer from the charge of rendering an unjust
decision. Complainant has not shown by clear and competent evidence
that respondent was moved by bad faith, corruption, vengeance or some
other ill-motive in acquitting the accused.
57. Ignacio E. Maylas, Jr. vs. Judge Manuel Sese, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2012;
August 4, 2006
60. Imelda R. Marcos vs. Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan, A.M. No. RTJ-072062; January 18, 2011
No, SSP Velasco is not liable for the commission of Indirect Contempt of
Court.
A charge of indirect contempt must be filed in the form of a verified
petition if it is not initiated directly by the court against which the
contemptuous act was committed. On previous occasions, we clarified
that such petition is in the nature of a special civil action. Certified true
copies of related documents must be submitted with the petition and
appropriate docket fees must be paid.
In the case at bar, though the language of the SSP Velasco are
irresponsible, such did not necessarily degrade the administration of
justice as to be considered contumacious. The salutary rule is that the
power to punish for contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not
vindictive principle, and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of
punishment. A lawyer's remarks explaining his position in a case under
consideration do not necessarily assume the level of contempt that
justifies the courts exercise of the power of contempt.
We note that SSP Velasco's statement was made in support of his
argument for the imposition of preventive suspension, i.e., to prevent the
respondent from using her current position to alter the course of the
investigation and the disposition of the appealed criminal cases.
SECOND ISSUE-NO, the decision of the RTC convicting the respondent
Judge for criminal complaint is not a ground for her suspension.
67. Prosecutor Visbal v. Judge Buban, 443 Phil. 705, 708 (2003)
69. AC No. 5581 January 14, 2014
Bunagan-Bansig v. Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera
70. A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016
PATRICK A. CARONAN v. RICHARD A. CARONAN A.K.A. ATTY. PATRICK A.
CARONAN, RESPONDENT.
HELD:The SC ruled that respondent, whose real name is Richard A.
Caronan be barred from admission to the Bar and that the name Patrick
A. Caronan be stricken off from the roll of attorneys as the real Patrick
Caronan never took the Bar and whose name was falsely used by
respondent. Under Sec. 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for
the Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had pursued and
satisfactorily completed a pre-law course. SC pointed out that respondent
never finished college and that the practice of law is a privilege limited to
citizens of good moral character. Respondent exhibited his dishonesty
and utter lack of moral fitness to be a member of the Bar when he
assumed the name, identity, and school records of his own brother.
Section 6. Pre-Law No applicant for admission to the bar examination
shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied
71.
G.R.
No.
91958
January
24,
1991
WILFREDO D. LICUDAN and CRISTINA LICUDAN-CAMPOS, petitioners,
vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ATTY. TEODORO O.
DOMALANTA,
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN RESOLVING WHETHER OR NOT A
LAWYERS FEES ARE REASONABLE AND FAIR:
whether
18,
2015
09-2555]
Complainant,
Respondent.
10584
10-2827]
Complainant,