RULE 138 Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds.

— A member of
the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he
is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

Violations of Lawyer's Oath

I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support
the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the
same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the
best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and
I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So help me God.

Canon 19: A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of law.

Rule 19.01: A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting
or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain
an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007

[Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1565] PENA vs ATTY. APARICIO

Penalty: Reprimand
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall
represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law," reminding legal
practitioners that a lawyer's duty is not to his client but to the administration of
justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought
to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. In particular, Rule
19.01 commands that a "lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding." Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file
any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client
designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their
own cases against the lawyer's client.7

Adm. Case No. 2417 February 6, 2002 ALEX ONG vs. ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO

Facts: Respondent Lawyer on behalf of his client sent the following letters to the
complainant:
FIRST DEMAND LETTER
"Dear Mr. Ong:

This is in connection with the claim of support of Miss Nemesia Garganian (my client) from
you for your only child, Anson Garganian, with her (Miss Nemesia Garganian) and other
claims which Miss Garganian is demanding from you. It is now about two months that you
have abandoned your legal and moral obligations to support your only child with her (Miss
Nemesia Garganian) and up to this moment you have not given said financial support.

I am doing this as a preliminary basis to a possible amicable settlement, if you desire so, so
that you will not be dragged unnecessarily to a court proceeding in connection with
your legal and moral obligations to your son with Miss Garganian.

May I advise you that within three (3) days from your receipt of this letter, you should return
to her house her television and betamax which you got from her house during her absence
and without her knowledge and consent. Your failure to comply with this demand, this
office will be constrained to file the proper action in court against you.

I hope within three (3) days from your receipt of this letter you may come to my Law Office
at the above address or you may send your lawyer and/or representative to discuss with me
about the preliminary matters in connection with all the claims of Miss Garganian against
you.

I hope that you will not fail us, so that we can thresh out this matter smoothly, otherwise
your intentional failure or refusal to discuss these claims amicably with our office might be
construed as your absolute refusal really.

Expecting you then.

Very truly yours,

ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO

Counsel for Miss Nemesia Garganian
Dumaguete City

WITH MY CONSENT:

NEMESIA GARGANIAN"

SECOND DEMAND LETTER

"These are the demands which my client would want to be complied (with):

1. ₱1,500.00 monthly – For the sustenance of Mr. Ong’s son. x x x (Note: That this amount
of P1,500.00 should be up to the completion of Mr. Ong’s son in the elementary course and
this is subject to adjustment when the son is already in the secondary course or up to his
college course).
2. ₱50,000.00 - This amount should be given to Miss Garganian as her starting capital for
her planned business venture to give her a source of her living since she cannot anymore be
a teacher in any government position because of her status, having a child without being
lawfully wedded. x x x.

3. The TV and the Betamax should be returned and delivered to the house of Miss
Garganian, without the presence of Mr. Alex Ong x x x.

4. The amount of ₱5,000.00 as my attorney’s fees should be given or paid to me

tomorrow before noon in my Law Office, through my cousin, Dr. Jose Bueno.

Criminal, civil and administrative actions that I am contemplating to file against Mr.
Alex Ong will be withheld pending the compliance by Mr. Ong of these compromise
agreements.

Gaw, if not of (sic) your representation I believe that one-week time as grace period
for Mr. Ong is too long a time.

Thank you very much.

Very truly yours,

ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO

Counsel for Miss Nemesia Garganian"

HELD: The relevant rule to the case at bar is Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds
of the law. Rule 19.01 further commands that "a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case
or proceeding."

Considering the facts of this case, we find that respondent has not exercised the good faith
required of a lawyer in handling the legal affairs of his client. It is evident from the records
that he tried to coerce the complainant to comply with his letter-demand by threatening to
file various charges against the latter. When the complainant did not heed his warning, he
made good his threat and filed a string of criminal and administrative cases against the
complainant. We find the respondent’s action to be malicious as the cases he instituted
against the complainant did not have any bearing or connection to the cause of his client,
Ms. Garganian. Clearly, the respondent has violated the proscription in Canon 19, Rule
19.01. His behavior is inexcusable.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO is hereby declared guilty

of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of five (5) months and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar
act will be dealt with more severely.