DR. ULPIANO P.

SARMIENTO III
Dean

ATTY. CARLO D. BUSMENTE

Vice Dean

ATTY. MARIA ELIZA CAMILLE B. YAMAMOTO-SANTOS

Prefect of Student Affairs

ATTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.

Administrative Officer

ATTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.

ATTY. PAULINO Q. UNGOS III
Advisers

SAMUEL JOSHUA CRUZ

Overall Chairperson

REX ROLAND REGIO DIAZMEAN KYLA SOTELO

Chairperson, Academics Chairperson, Recruitment & Membership

MAEIA MIKAELA MAYUGA BRYAN AREVALO

Chairperson, ALD Chairperson, Partnership & External
Relations
PIA MONICA DIMAGUILA
Chairperson, Bar Matters THERESE JEANNE BELARMINO
Chairperson, Operations & Logistics
ANDREA JOSES TAN
Chairperson, Communications ROSANNA NAIG
Chairperson, EDP

MIGERN ESTABILLO MA. LOLITA KIM PALENCIA

Chairperson, Secretariat
Chairperson, Bar Mentoring Program

MARIA LOURDES MENDOZA

Chairperson, Finance

1
 DR. ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III
Dean

ATTY. CARLO D. BUSMENTE

Vice Dean

ATTY. MARIA ELIZA CAMILLE B. YAMAMOTO-SANTOS

Prefect of Student Affairs

ATTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.

Administrative Officer

ATTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.

ATTY. PAULINO Q. UNGOS III
Advisers

SAMUEL JOSHUA CRUZ

Overall Chairperson

REX ROLAND REGIO MARIA LOURDES MENDOZA

Chairperson, Academics Chairperson, Finance

MAEIA MIKHAELA MAYUGA DIAZMEAN KYLA SOTELO

Chairperson, Assessment, Learning & Chairperson, Recruitment & Membership
Development
BRYAN AREVALO
PIA MONICA DIMAGUILA Chairperson, Partnership & External
Chairperson, Bar Matters Relations

ANDREA JOSES TAN THERESE JEANNE BELARMINO

Chairperson, Communications Chairperson, Operations & Logistics

MIGERN COLE ESTABILLO ROSANNA NAIG

Chairperson, Secretariat Chairperson, EDP

MA. LOLITA KIM PALENCIA

Chairperson, Bar Mentoring Program
ZYRREL DAVE NAVELA JUSTINE VINCENT PASCUAL
MARK COLOCADO JOEL REMENTILLA
Deputy Chairpersons, Operations & Deputy Chairpersons, Academics
Logistics
GISELLE MARIE DIAZ
Deputy Chairperson, Communications
ANTONINA CONCEPCION
MIER DELA CRUZ JILL QUIMSON
Deputy Chairperson, Membership
MARIEL ARAGON
Deputy Chairpersons, ALD
ARAMAINE BALON
MICHAEL DOMINIQUE ISIDRO JASMINE JAGUNAP
Deputy Chairpersons, Finance
Deputy Chairperson, Bar Matters

ANGEL ROSE CINCO AARON FRANCISCO

MA. REGINA SANTIAGO RHIANA NAVARRO
AUBREY ANGELI TAN Deputy Chairpersons, Bar Mentoring
ZAMANTHA JOSH ALCAZAR Program
DOMSKI CANDOLITA
Deputy Chairpersons, EDP LAARMIE GOCE
ERIKA PACA
KATHERINE ANNE LABAYO Deputy Chairpersons, Secretariat
Deputy Chairperson, Ex Parte

HANZ CHRISTIAN MIRAFLOR

Commercial Law KIMBERLY JOY NAPARAN
Political Law
ISABELA SOFIA ELEAZAR
Legal Ethics ANTHONY JOHN RODRIGUEZ
Taxation Law
LANCE LIZOR PUNZALAN
Remedial Law
LOUISE ATHENA MONSERRAT
Civil Law
FELICE LEONAJOY HERNANDEZ
Criminal Law
ERYL AMRHEIN AGUSTIN
Labor Law
QUENNIE SERENO ENRIC ALCAIDE
Commercial Law Political Law

SOFIA REGINA YASAY ROSCH MANUEL

Legal Ethics Taxation Law

NALA ANOVER HILLARY SANTILLAN

Remedial Law Civil Law

JANNAH ODTUHAN BIANCA VELASCO

Criminal Law Labor Law

JANELLE IVY ADALIM

DANIELLE ADAMS
MAXINE ISOBEL VALESSER
MICHAEL DAVE VINLUAN
This work is the intellectual property of the SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG
SCHOOL OF LAW and SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG CENTRALIZED BAR
OPERATIONS 2024. It is intended solely for the use of the individuals to
which it is addressed – the Bedan community.

Publication, reproduction, dissemination, and distribution, or copying of

the document without the prior consent of the SAN BEDA COLLEGE
ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS ACADEMICS
COMMITTEE 2024 is strictly prohibited.

Material includes both cases penned by Justice Hernando and recent

landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court.

COPYRIGHT © 2024
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR
OPERATIONS 2024
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHORS

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LEGAL ETHICS............................................................................................................................ 7
Basic Concepts on Admission to Practice............................................................................... 7
The Revised Lawyer’s Oath...............................................................................................7
YUSAY-CORDERO v. AMIHAN, JR............................................................................. 7
Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC)................... 9
QUITAZOL vs CAPELA................................................................................................9
Canon 1 – Independence; Merit-Based Practice – Section 2.......................................... 11
RIVERA vs. DALANGIN............................................................................................. 11
Canon III- Fidelity: Duty to Call Client to Rectify Fraudulent Act......................................14
TIONGSON v. FLORES............................................................................................. 14
Canon III - Fidelity............................................................................................................16
ROSALINA TAGHOY, ET. AL. VS. ATTY. CONSTANTINE TECSON III.................... 16
Canon III - Fidelity............................................................................................................18
JOELA A. PILAR VS. ATTY. CLARENCE T. BALLICUD............................................18
Canon III - Fidelity............................................................................................................20
SALVACION C. ROMO VS. ATTY. ORHEM T. FERRER........................................... 20
Canon III - Fidelity; Attorney's Fees.................................................................................22
SALAZAR vs. DURAN............................................................................................... 22
Canon III - Fidelity............................................................................................................25
CONSTENOBLE v. ALVAREZ, JR............................................................................. 25
Canon IV – Competence and Diligence...........................................................................27
SANCHEZ vs PEREZ................................................................................................ 27
Canon VI – Accountability................................................................................................30
BUKIDNON COOPERATIVE BANK v. ARNADO.......................................................30
Canon III-Fidelity: Quantum and burden of proof – Section 32........................................33
CAPINPIN v. ESPIRITU............................................................................................. 33
Canon VI – Accountability; Prohibition against employment of disbarred or suspended
lawyer (Section 52).......................................................................................................... 35
IN RE: ORDER DATED OCTOBER 27, 2016 ISSUED BY BRANCH 137, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, MAKATI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14-765 vs. RAMON................... 35
The New Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary......................................................... 37
The New Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary....................................................37
BRASALES vs BORJA.............................................................................................. 37

6
 LEGAL ETHICS

Basic Concepts on Admission to Practice

The Revised Lawyer’s Oath

YUSAY-CORDERO v. AMIHAN, JR.

LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C. No. 12709 | September 8, 2020

DOCTRINE
Performing a notarial act without such commission is a violation of the lawyer's
oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making
it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents
and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath
similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

FACTS
In 1976, Spouses Hector Cordero (Hector) and Lilia Yusay-Cordero (Lilia)
executed a special power of attorney authorizing Lilia's father, Quirico Yusay Sr.
(Quirico, Sr.), to sell and mortgage a land registered under TCT No. T-102992. On
January 22, 2004, Hector passed away. In 2015, Lilia finished paying the loan
and received back the certificate of title from the bank. However, Lilia noticed
that there is an annotation on the title pertaining to a "Deed of Portion Sale"
between her, as seller, represented by her father Quirico Sr., and Quirico Y. Yusar,
Jr. and Alberto Y. Yusay, as buyers. The deed was notarized on December 11,
2003 by Atty. Juanito S. Amihan, Jr. (Atty. Amihan, Jr.). Upon verification, Lilia
discovered that Atty. Amihan, Jr. is not a commissioned notary public in 2003
and that no copy of the deed was recorded with the Office of the Clerk of Court
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

Accordingly, Lilia filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Amihan, Jr.

before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violation of the Lawyer's
Oath and the Canons of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

7
Atty. Amihan, Jr. claimed that he was authorized to notarize documents in 2003.
Atty. Amihan, Jr. presented imprints of his rubber stamps indicating the details
of his notarial commission for the year 2003, the recommendation letter stating
that his appointment expired on December 31, 2003, and the oath of office and
appointment as notary public in 2004.

The Commission on Bar Discipline found that Atty. Amihan, Jr. is not a
commissioned notary public in 2003, absent a certificate of authority and
notarial reports/register for that year. As such, Atty. Amihan, Jr. committed
deliberate falsehood in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01 of the CPR.

ISSUE
Was Amihan Jr. 's acts as a notary public in 2003 in violation of the Lawyer’s
Oath.

RULING
YES. Amihan Jr, who notarized a document without the required commission is
guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and is deemed to engage in deliberate
falsehood.

Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine

Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender
may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial act
without such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws,
more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is
duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes,
indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath similarly proscribes.
These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

Here, it is undisputed that Atty. Amihan, Jr. notarized the deed in 2003. However,
the office of the clerk of court certified that Atty. Amihan, Jr. was not a
commissioned notary public in that year and that no copy of the deed was filed.
The investigating commissioner likewise confirmed with the RTC that Atty.
Amihan, Jr. has no notarial commission in 2003. The prevailing law at the time of
notarization in 2003 was the Revised Administrative Code which provides that
the oath of office of a notary public and his commission shall be filed and
recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC. A certification issued by
the clerk of court stating that a lawyer has no notarial commission is sufficient
to establish that fact. Indeed, Atty. Amihan, Jr. was unable to submit a copy of
his certificate of authority for 2003 and his notarial reports and register for that
year.

8
 Code of Professional Responsibility and
Accountability (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC)
QUITAZOL vs CAPELA
LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C. No. 12072 (Resolution) | December 9, 2020

DOCTRINE
A lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him constitutes inexcusable
negligence for which he must be held administratively liable.

FACTS
Napoleon S. Quitazol (Napoleon) engaged the services of Atty. Henry S. Capela
(Atty. Capela) in a civil case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). As
acceptance fee, Napoleon agreed to deliver to Atty. Capela the possession of
his Toyota Corolla GLI model. Atty. Capela entered his appearance and filed an
answer before the RTC. On February 12, 2014, a preliminary conference was held
and the opposing counsel manifested the possibility of a compromise
agreement, however, Atty. Capela was not present. The agreement was then set
to be heard on March 26, May 7, and August 6, 2014, but Atty. Capela failed to
appear. Left without a lawyer, Napoleon was constrained to agree to the
Compromise Agreement, which was approved by the RTC on August 19, 2014.
Napoleon felt short changed with Atty. Capela's non-appearance, thus, he
demanded the return of the motor vehicle and P38,000.00, but Atty. Capela did
not yield.

Consequently, Napoleon instituted a Complaint before the IBP Commission on

Bar Discipline against Atty. Capela for violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

On June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution that adopted
and approved the findings of administrative liability, but modified the
recommended penalty of suspension, from six months, to three years.

9
Atty. Capela then filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration, denying that he
served as counsel to Napoleon. Atty. Capela admitted that a retainer agreement
with Napoleon was drafted, but claimed that he did not receive a signed copy of
the agreement nor any motor vehicle as payment for his legal services.
Moreover, the complaint has no longer a leg to stand on, since Napoleon,
through his substitute, issued an affidavit withdrawing the administrative case.
Anent the finding that he was guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer, Atty.
Capela claimed that he was unaware of the complaint against him because he
was no longer holding office at Makati City, where all the notices were sent. He
was only apprised of the complaint when one Pacita Cala informed him of the
assailed IBP Resolution.

The IBP Board of Governors denied Atty. Capela's motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE
Did Atty. Capela's failure to attend hearings constitute negligence.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Capela‘s failure to attend hearings constitute negligence.

The Supreme Court declared that, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted
to him constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held
administratively liable. Furthermore, whenever lawyers take on their client's
causes, they pledge to exercise due diligence in protecting the client's rights.
Their failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a
good father of a family makes them unworthy of the trust reposed in them by
their client and make them answerable to their client, the courts and society.

Here, Atty. Capela failed to exercise the required diligence in handling his
client's cause. His failure to attend, despite notice, the four scheduled hearings
constitutes inexcusable negligence. As the complainant's counsel of record, Atty.
Capela is responsible for the conduct of the case in all its stages. His duty of
competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the case, and giving
the client sound legal advice, but also properly representing the client in court,
attending scheduled hearings, preparing and filing required pleadings, and
prosecuting the case with reasonable dispatch, without waiting for the client, or
the court to prod him to do so. A lawyer should not sit idly by, and leave the
rights of his client in a state of uncertainty. Clearly, Atty. Capela was
unjustifiably remiss in his duty as legal counsel to Napoleon.

Based on these reasons, Atty. Capela was suspended from the practice of law
for 6 months, received stern warning, and was also fined.

10
 Canon 1 – Independence; Merit-Based Practice – Section 2

RIVERA vs. DALANGIN

LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C. NO. 12724 | July 28, 2020

DOCTRINE
The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly mandates the obedience of
every lawyer to laws and legal processes. To the best of his ability, a lawyer is
expected to respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any act or omission
that is contrary thereto. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only
speaks of his character but it also inspires respect and obedience to the law, on
the part of the public.

FACTS
Sylvia Rivera (Sylvia), complainant, filed a complaint for the annulment of the
affidavit of self-adjudication with sale against Spouses Wy, Nicasio, and Emily
and the cancellation of a Certificate of Title before the RTC. Spouses Wy
attached in their Answer a Deed of Absolute Sale notarized by Atty. Dalangin.
However, Sylvia claimed that the deed was antedated to prevent the
consignment. Moreover, Atty. Dalangin was aware that Sylvia had an interest in
the property of her late husband.

Thus, Sylvia filed a Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Dalangin on grounds
of deceit and dishonesty before the IBP. As supporting evidence, Sylvia
submitted a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court that Atty.
Dalangin did not submit his notarial reports.

On the other hand, Atty. Dalangin denied that Sylvia was his client and argued
that it was Nicasio who hired his services. Atty. Dalangin explained that the
disputed property was previously registered solely in the name of Teofilo Rivera.
He has no knowledge that Sylvia is the lawful wife of the late Teofilo. Further,
Atty. Dalangin maintained that the deed of absolute sale in favor of Spouses Wy
was not antedated. As proof, he presented a page from his notarial register
showing that the deed was executed on May 28, 2009. Finally, Atty. Dalangin
countered that he submitted his notarial reports.

11
The IBP CBD reported that Atty. Dalangin violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice. It found that Atty. Dalangin
previously acted as Sylvia's counsel and that the notarization of the deed of
absolute sale was anomalous. The IBP recommended the suspension of Atty.
Dalangin in the practice of law for two years, immediate revocation of his
notarial commission, and disqualification from being appointed as notary for
two years. Then, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commission's
findings. Atty. Dalangin moved for a reconsideration then the IBP partly granted
the motion and removed the penalty of suspension.

ISSUE
Did Atty. Dalangin violate the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules
on Notarial Practice.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Dalangin violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Rules on Notarial Practice.

Under the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

1. Canon 1 provides that “a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.”
2. Rule 1.01 provides that “a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.”
3. Rule 1.02 provides that “a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at delance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.”
4. Canon 7 provides that “a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the integrated
bar.”

Under Rule 4, Section 4 on the Rules of Notarial Practice, it states that "a notary
public shall not perform any notarial act described in these Rules for any person
requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these
Rules if: (a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act
or transaction is unlawful or immoral."

The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly mandates the obedience of

every lawyer to laws and legal processes. To the best of his ability, a lawyer is
expected to respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any act or omission
that is contrary thereto. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only
speaks of his character but it also inspires respect and obedience to the law, on
the part of the public.

12
In this case, Atty. Dalangin exhibited dishonesty in feigning that he did not
represent Sylvia. Foremost the captions in the cases are entitled "Sylvia Reyes
Rivera & Nicasio Rivera v. Felipe Pecache and the Register of Deeds of Nueva
Ecija." Verily, there is no way Atty. Dalangin could forget that Sylvia is his client.
Moreover, we find that Atty. Dalangin did not timely submit his notarial reports.
Admittedly, he submitted the certified copies of his notarial register 43 months
late from the date of his commission as notary public. However, there is no proof
that Atty. Dalangin antedated the deed of absolute sale. In this case, he
presented a page from the notarial register showing that the deed was
executed before the affidavit of self-adjudication. Taken together, Atty.
Dalangin acted short of the standards expected of a lawyer in upholding the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

Therefore, Atty. Dalangin is found guilty of violations of Canons 1 and 7 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 4, Rule IV and Section 2 (h),
Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

13
 Canon III- Fidelity: Duty to Call Client to Rectify Fraudulent Act

TIONGSON v. FLORES
LOPEZ, M., J.
AC No. 11058 (Resolution) | September 1, 2020

DOCTRINE
In no case shall an attorney allow a client to perpetrate fraud upon a person or
commit any act which shall prejudice the administration of justice. The lawyer
must employ fair, honest, and honorable means to advance their interest.

FACTS
A disbarment complaint was filed by Herminia Tiongson against Atty. Vincent
Michael Flores for gross misconduct, malpractice, and deceit for falsification of
court documents. Vincent Michael Flores (Atty. Flores), a former court employee,
gave his client a falsified court order that stated Civil Case No. 1445-13, a case
of segregation survey against Maria Herminia Tionsgson, in favor of Jacinta
Tenorio’s heirs. Flores knew of the falsification of the court order and still shared
it with his client, Arthur Tenorio.

Arthur then presented a falsified court order to the caretaker of Herminia,

Rogelio Lira, and told him to stop cultivating the land because Herminia no
longer owned it. Upon verification, Herminia discovered that Civil Case. 1445-13
did not exist in the court’s records thus prompting her to file a criminal
complaint for falsification—another criminal complaint against Atty. Flores was
filed by Leonard Sena alleging that it was Atty. Flores handed the falsified court
order to Arthur. Atty. Flores, in his counter-affidavit, stated that the falsified
documents were merely shared with his client, Arthur and he did not give Arthur
instructions to use it. The public prosecutor found probable cause and three
counts of falsification of public documents and grave coercion were filed before
the MTC.

Herminia filed a case disbarment complaint against Atty. Flores for gross
misconduct, malpractice, and deceit for falsification. Atty. Flores failed to file an
answer and did not appear in the mandatory conference. IBP, in its
investigation, found Atty. Flores guilty of falsification of judicial order and
recommended disbarment of Atty. Flores.

14
ISSUE
Did the actions of Atty. Flores violate his duty to report dishonest, deceitful, or
misleading conduct.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Flores’ actions violated his duty. The Court held that although the facts
are insufficient to prove that Atty. Flores was directly or indirectly involved in
the falsification of the court order, it bears stressing that his admission to his
possession of a spurious document and knowledge of the falsity, is sufficient for
him to be penalized for his carelessness in entrusting a forged document in the
hands of his client.

A lawyer and a client alike must only employ fair, honest and honorable means
to advance his interest. Rule 19.02 of the CPR outlined:

Rule 19.02 — A lawyer who has received information that his clients has, in the
course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal,
shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall
terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.

Atty. Flores should have immediately alerted the trial court or reported the
matter to the authorities, instead, he remained indifferent and did not confront
Arthur to rectify his fraudulent representation. Therefore, Atty. Flores violated
his duty to report dishonest, deceitful, or misleading conduct and is suspended
from the practice of law for one year.

15
 Canon III - Fidelity

ROSALINA TAGHOY, ET. AL. VS. ATTY. CONSTANTINE

TECSON III
LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C. No. 12446 | November 16, 2020

DOCTRINE
Lawyers are not obliged to advocate for every person who requests to be their
client. However, once they agree to take up the client's cause, they owe fidelity
to such a cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on
them. Lawyers who undertake an action are expected to attend to their client's
cause until it becomes final and executory.

FACTS
Rosalinda Taghoy, et. al. (Taghoy, et. al.), complainants, filed a disbarment case
against Atty. Constantine Tecson III (Atty. Tecson III), respondent. Taghoy, et.
al. engaged the legal services of Atty. Tecson III in an ejectment case filed
against them by a certain Rayos. They paid him P5,000.00 to file a motion for
reconsideration and P71,000.00 as partial payment of the professional fees to
file a separate case to annul Rayos’ TCT, after Atty. Tecson III advised that said
TCT was questionable. Atty. Tecson III assured them, however, he did not file
the appeal memorandum for the ejectment case causing its dismissal and the
pleadings for the annulment of TCT. He also refused to refund the amount.

Atty. Tecson III manifested that he already returned the amount and that his
professional service was limited to the filing of the annulment of the TCT. He
only represented Taghoy, et. al. in the ejectment case because they need help
during those times. He claimed that his failure to file the pleadings and attend
the hearing was due to his workload and personal problems.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that Atty. Tecson III disregarded
his duty to his client and suspended him from practice of law for one (1) year to
two (2) years. This was reduced by the IBP Board of Governors to one (1) year.

16
ISSUE
Did Atty. Tecson III’s failure to file the position papers and appeal
memorandum constitute a violation of the fidelity a lawyer owes to his client.

RULING
Yes, Atty. Tecson III’s failure to file his clients’ position paper and appeal
memorandum violated his concomitant duty provided in Canon 17 which
provides that “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”

Here, Atty. Tecson III did not exert any effort to ensure that his clients’ cause
will not be prejudiced. His claim that he had personal problems and a heavy
workload is a lame excuse that cannot justify his infractions. He could have
taken available remedies to ensure that the position paper and the appeal
memorandum were filed. He could have recommended the hiring of a
collaborating counsel or could have requested for more time to file the
pleadings if available. His failure to do so led to the dismissal of his clients'
appeal. Furthermore, Atty. Tecson violated his duty when he did not file the
annulment of title case on the excuse that he did not receive the P71,000.00 and
that he was tricked by a certain Joseph Bermoy in signing documents
acknowledging receipt of the initial payment of his professional fees. Aside from
lacking in support, his bare allegation cannot be credited because he is a lawyer
who must be aware of the importance of signatures in documents.

Hence, Atty. Tecson III violated his duty of fidelity to his clients.

17
 Canon III - Fidelity

JOELA A. PILAR VS. ATTY. CLARENCE T. BALLICUD

LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C. No.12792 | November 16, 2020

DOCTRINE
The nature of a lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence of the
highest degree. Necessity and public interest require that it be so to encourage
the client to entrust his case to his lawyer. To preserve this fiduciary relationship
and protect the public's trust in the legal system, a lawyer is prohibited from
representing conflicting interests. (Note: Conflict of interest is under Canon III
in CPRA)

FACTS
Joel A. Pilar (Pilar), complainant, filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Clarence T. Ballicud (Atty. Ballicud), respondent, for violating the trust and
confidence reposed by Kalen born Weartech Philippines’ (KWP) in Atty. Ballicud.
Pilar was KWP’s Vice President for Technical and Sales. Atty. Ballicud
established a competing company, Engel Anlagen Technik Phils., Inc. (EAT) while
serving as KWP’s legal counsel. KWP lost several project bids to EAT that
resulted in loss of clients and business opportunities on their part.

Pilar claimed that Atty. Ballicud used KWP’s confidential information to build up
EAT and acted as dummy for the KWP’s former President and the Corporate
Secretary (Spouses Gabriel) to circumvent KWP’s policy of non-compete and
non-pirating.

Atty. Ballicud argued that his duty as KWP’s counsel was limited to contracts
and documents review; thus, he did not know any confidential information
about KWP’s operations. He insisted that he started EAT after the termination of
his engagement with KWP.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Ballicud guilty and
recommended his suspension for one (1) year. The IBP Board of Governors
adopted said recommendation and denied Atty. Ballicud’s motion for
reconsideration.

18
ISSUE
Was Atty. Ballicud’s establishment of EAT in direct competition with KWP
constitutes a violation of the latter’s trust and confidence in him.

RULING
Yes, Atty. Ballicud’s acts violated the trust and confidence reposed in him by
KWP.

In Quiambao vs. Atty. Bamba, it was emphasized that an actual case or

controversy is not required for the proscription against representation of
conflicting interests to apply. The important criterion is the probability, and not
the certainty, of conflict. In the same cited case, the fact that the respondent
therein occupied the highest position in SESSI, one cannot help entertaining
doubt on his loyalty to his client. This kind of situation passes the second test of
conflict of interest, that is, whether acceptance of the new relation will prevent a
lawyer from fulfilling his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that
duty.

Thus, Atty. Ballicud's contentions that he never handled a case for, or against
KWP and that he has no knowledge of any confidential information relating to
KWP's business operations are of no moment. Further, whether Atty. Ballicud is
the Spouses Gabriel's dummy, or that he has confidential information about
KWP's business operations, the fact that his actions invited suspicion of
unfaithfulness, or double-dealing remains.

Hence, Atty. Ballicud’s acts constituted violation of the trust and confidence
reposed in him by KWP.

19
 Canon III - Fidelity

SALVACION C. ROMO VS. ATTY. ORHEM T. FERRER

LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C. No.12833 | November 10, 2020

DOCTRINE
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and
prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary
nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the
money or property collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's
failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives
rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in
violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.

FACTS
Romo engaged the legal services of Atty. Ferrer in prosecuting an action for
violation of B.P. 22 against Amada Yu. Yu settled the case and gave a total
amount of P375,000.00 but Atty. Ferrer remitted only P80,000.00 to Romo.

Romo alleged that upon demand, Atty. Ferrer agreed to pay the balance of
P295,000.00 and promised to deliver a land title as collateral. However, the latter
did not comply with his undertakings and ignored the final demand sent.

Atty. Ferrer countered that he remitted P120,000.00, the other payments given
to Romo’s daughter. He argued that the acknowledgement receipts showing
various amounts he received from Yu were fabricated and that he signed a
memorandum of agreement with Romo because he was threatened with a
disbarment suit.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that Atty. Ferrer abused his clients’
confidence, with evident intent to misappropriate the funds, thereby, violating
Canon 17, among others.

ISSUE
Did Atty. Ferrer’s failure to return the money collected constitute a breach of the
client’s trust.

20
RULING
Yes, Atty. Ferrer breached Romo’s trust when he failed to render an account of
her funds upon demand.

A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client and failure to do so upon demand, amounts to misappropriation
which is a ground for disciplinary action not to mention the possible criminal
prosecution.

Here, convincing evidence exists that Atty. Ferrer represented Romo in a

criminal case and that he received funds for her in the total amount of
P375,000.00. However, Atty. Ferrer remitted only P80,000.00 and unjustifiably
refused to return the balance of P295,000.00, despite repeated demands. Atty.
Ferrer did not disprove the evidence presented but merely argued that he gave
the amounts to Romo's daughter. This, he failed to substantiate. At any rate,
Atty. Ferrer admitted his obligation and promised to return the funds on a
specific date. Romo’s supposed threat to file a disbarment case to enforce her
legal claim does not vitiate his consent to the agreement.

Thus, Atty. Ferrer’s failure to return the money collected constitutes a breach of
his client’s trust.

21
 Canon III - Fidelity; Attorney's Fees

SALAZAR vs. DURAN

LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C. NO. 7035 | July 13, 2020

DOCTRINE
In all his dealings with his client and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to
be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. Every lawyer is enjoined to
obey the laws of the land, to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court
or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to
the courts and to his clients. These expectations, though high and demanding,
are basic professional and ethical burdens of every member of the Philippine
Bar, for they have been given full expression in the Lawyer's Oath that every
lawyer of this country has taken upon admission as a bona fide member of the
Law Profession.

FACTS
This is an administrative complaint filed by Pedro Salazar (Pedro), complainant,
against Atty. Armand Duran (Atty. Duran), respondent, for unethical conduct,
dishonesty, false testimony, violation of the lawyer's oath, and for acts inimical
to his client.

In his Complaint-Affidavit, Pedro alleged that he engaged the services of Atty.

Duran in a partition case involving the estate of Pedro’s parents. Thereafter,
Pedro and Atty. Duran executed two contracts for attorney's fees: (1) a contract
on contingent basis wherein 20% of any and all proceeds of the partition case
will be paid to Atty. Duran; and (2) a contract wherein the attorney's fees and
acceptance fee were set at P50,000.00 each, subject to certain conditions.

22
In Atty. Duran's Comment, he averred that the attorney's fees he received from
Pedro were reasonable and that he was the victim who was betrayed by his
client. He narrated that Pedro was one of the heirs of Soledad F. Salazar. Since
the heirs, except for Pedro, had already appropriated for themselves substantial
portions of the estate, Pedro sought assistance from him to obtain his rightful
share. However, Pedro could not afford the expenses of litigation. Thus, Atty.
Duran agreed to advance all litigation expenses on the condition that the
attorney's fees will be on a contingent basis equivalent to 20% of the value of
Pedro's share in the estate.

The Supreme Court referred the administrative complaint to the IBP for
investigation, report, and recommendation. The IBP Board of Governors passed
a Resolution dismissing the charges of dishonesty, false testimony, and violation
of the lawyer's oath against Atty. Duran, but reprimanded him for unethical
conduct. Thereafter, the case was transmitted to this Court for review.

ISSUE
Should Atty. Duran be held administratively liable for unethical conduct,
dishonesty, false testimony, violation of the lawyer's oath, and acts inimical to
his client.

RULING
No, Atty. Duran should not be administratively liable for dishonesty, false
testimony, violation of the lawyer's oath, and acts inimical to his client. However,
he is reprimanded for unethical conduct.

In all his dealings with his client and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to
be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. Every lawyer is enjoined to
obey the laws of the land, to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court
or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to
the courts and to his clients. These expectations, though high and demanding,
are basic professional and ethical burdens of every member of the Philippine
Bar, for they have been given full expression in the Lawyer's Oath that every
lawyer of this country has taken upon admission as a bona fide member of the
Law Profession.

23
In the present case, Atty. Duran had been untruthful when he testified during
the hearing on the motion to segregate 20% of complainant's share in the just
compensation. At first, he claimed that his signature appearing at the back of
the check was only as a witness and not an endorsee. Further, he feigned
unawareness of the account number appearing below his own signature at the
back of the check. On cross-examination, however, Atty. Duran recanted his
testimony. He clarified that he deposited the check in his own account with
Allied Bank after reaching an agreement with the complainant that he will be
paid for the litigation expenses that he advanced with the value of the check.
Clearly, Atty. Duran did not disclose his true participation in the check right
away. Nevertheless, he corrected himself after realizing the erroneous
statement he made. To be sure, during the mandatory conference before the
IBP-CBD, he reiterated that the check was indorsed to him by the complainant.

Therefore, Atty. Duran is reprimanded for breach of his duties as a lawyer under
the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

24
 Canon III - Fidelity

CONSTENOBLE v. ALVAREZ, JR.

LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C. No. 11058 | September 1, 2020

DOCTRINE
Ingrained in this professional duty is the obligation of the lawyer to hold in trust
and account all money and properties of his client that may come into his
possession. A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on
behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the
money for his own. Such an act is a gross violation of general morality as well as
of professional ethics.

FACTS
This is a complaint filed by Rita P. Costenoble (Costenoble) against Atty. Jose L.
Alvarez, Jr. (Atty. Alvarez, Jr.) for committing fraudulent acts. Costenoble
narrated that she hired Atty. Alvarez, Jr. to register two parcels of land. She
gave Atty. Alvarez, Jr. a check for P115,000.00 to cover fees and expenses. She
also entrusted Atty. Alvarez, Jr. with the certificates of title of her real
properties. In turn, Atty. Alvarez, Jr. issued an acknowledgment receipt, and
assured Costenoble that the transfer of titles will be completed by September
2011.

After several months, Costenoble tried to contact Atty. Alvarez, Jr., but failed. In
a visit to Atty. Alvarez, Jr.'s office, Costenoble was able to talk to Atty. Jose
Alvarez, Sr., who assured her that he will take care of her case on behalf of his
son. However, when Costenoble's secretary inquired with Atty. Alvarez, Sr., the
latter got angry and said, "saan ako magnanakaw ng P115,000.00?" Thereafter,
Costenoble sought assistance from the Office of the Barangay in San Vicente,
San Pedro, Laguna, however Atty. Alvarez, Jr. never appeared despite notice. On
October 9, 2012, Costenoble sent Atty. Alvarez, Jr. a demand letter, asking for
the return of the certificates of title and the sum of P115,000.00 previously paid
to him.

25
In the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
-Commission on Bar Discipline, Costenoble sought the disbarment of Atty.
Alvarez, Jr. for his dishonest and fraudulent acts, and unprofessional conduct.
The investigating commissioner rendered his Report and Recommendation,
recommending Atty. Alvarez, Jr.'s suspension from the practice of law for one
year. The IBP Board of Governors then issued a Resolution adopting and
approving the commissioner's report and recommendation, with modification in
that Atty. Alvarez, Jr.'s period of suspension was increased to three years.

ISSUE
Was Atty. Alvarez Jr. administratively liable for neglect of duty, and failure to
return the money and documents given to him by Costenoble.

RULING
Yes. Atty. Alvarez, Jr. is administratively liable for neglect of duty, and failure to
return the money and documents given to him by Costenoble.

A lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him/her constitutes

inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable. From
the perspective of ethics in the legal profession, a lawyer's lethargy in carrying
out his duties is both unprofessional and unethical. It betrays his avowed fidelity
and renders him unworthy of the client's trust and confidence. Ingrained in this
professional duty is the obligation of the lawyer to hold in trust and account all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. A
lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his
client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the money for his
own. Such an act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
professional ethics.

Atty. Alvarez, Jr. failed to perform his engagement to register the properties of
Costenoble. Despite repeated follow-ups by Costenoble, Atty. Alvarez, Jr. did not
respond and even refused to meet with her. Atty. Alvarez, Jr. neglected to
perform his duties and failed to return Costenoble's money including the
documents he received despite demand. These acts of Atty. Alvarez, Jr.
constitutes a clear violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

26
 Canon IV – Competence and Diligence

SANCHEZ vs PEREZ
LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C. No. 12835 (Resolution) | February 3, 2021

DOCTRINE
A lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action.
While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the
Court has consistently held that the lawyer's mere failure to perform the
obligations due his client is per se a violation. Case law explains that a lawyer's
duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases
entrusted to the counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of
properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending
scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings,
prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their
termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do
so.

FACTS
In 2002, Danilo, through his counsel, Atty. Perez (respondent), filed against Peter
Lim a complaint for annulment of contract, recovery of possession of real
property, and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Thereafter, Danilo
went back to the United States of America where he resides. On December 10,
2003, the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure of Atty. Perez to appear during
the pre-trial conference scheduled on the same day. Atty. Perez sought
reconsideration and the RTC rescheduled the pre-trial two times. However, Atty.
Perez still failed to attend. Once more, the RTC dismissed the complaint.

Meanwhile, Danilo requested Atty. Perez for updates on the status of the
proceedings. Yet, Danilo did not get a response. In October 2008, Danilo's
cousin, Leonidas, came across Atty. Perez and asked about the case. However,
Leonidas failed to get a clear answer. Thus, Danilo and Leonidas inquired from
the RTC and learned that the case had been dismissed. This prompted Danilo to
file a disbarment complaint against Atty. Perez with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP).

Atty. Perez denied the accusation and argued that he had been diligent in
handling the case. In addition, Atty. Perez claimed that he had informed Danilo
of his desire to withdraw as counsel. Atty. Perez even signed notices of
withdrawal and sent them with the records of the case to Danilo so he can
facilitate the hiring of new counsel.

27
In 2012, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP recommended the
suspension of Atty. Perez from the practice of law for a period of six months for
his negligence in failing to attend the pre-trial hearings resulting in the dismissal
of the case.

ISSUE
Did Atty. Perez failed to exercise the required diligence in handling his client's
case.

RULING
Yes, convincing evidence exists that Atty. Perez failed to exercise the required
diligence in handling his client's case.

The Supreme Court declared that, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times
a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and
competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it
for a fee or for free. Case law further explains that a lawyer's duty of
competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to
the counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly
representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled
hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings,
prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their
termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do
so.

The records show that Atty. Perez did not attend the pre-trial on December 10,
2003, resulting in the dismissal of the case. Atty. Perez exhibited carelessness in
handling his client's cause; he should have been more circumspect to send a
substitute counsel to appear on his behalf instead of leaving the proceedings
unattended in view of its adverse consequence, i.e., the dismissal of the case. In
addition, when Atty. Perez did not inform his client of the status of the case,
Danilo had to inquire from the RTC to learn about the dismissal of the complaint.
Hence, the Supreme Court declared that, a lawyer need not wait for his clients
to ask for information but must advise them without delay about matters
essential for them to avail of legal remedies.

Lastly, Atty. Perez's argument that he had informed Danilo of his desire to
withdraw as counsel does not excuse him from his negligence. The Supreme
Court declared that an attorney may only retire from the case either by a
written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and
hearing. An attorney should see to it that the name of the new lawyer is
recorded in the case. Here, Atty. Perez betrayed this procedure. Atty. Perez did
not file a notice of withdrawal as counsel before the RTC. Danilo did not even
consent to Atty. Perez's supposed withdrawal. As such, Atty. Perez remained the
counsel of record who is expected to perform what the interests of his client
require.

28
Based on these reasons, Atty. Perez was suspended for six months from the
practice of law, and he also received a warning.

29
 Canon VI – Accountability

BUKIDNON COOPERATIVE BANK v. ARNADO

LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C No. 12734 | July 28, 2020

DOCTRINE
Even if there be no intent to deceive, therefore, a lawyer whose conduct, as in
this case, betrays inattention or carelessness should not be allowed to free
himself from a charge thereafter instituted against him by the mere plea that
his conduct was not willful and that he has not consented to the doing of the
falsity.

FACTS
Bukidnon Cooperative Bank engaged in the services of travel agency Asiatique
International Travel & Tours Services Co. for their trip to Singapore. A day
before the trip, Mr Encabo, the owner of the travel agency informed the board
of Bukidnon Cooperative that their accommodation was not confirmed and
advised them to postpone. Bukidnon Cooperative canceled the trip and
demanded a refund. Mr. Encabo did not heed the demand.

Bukidnon Cooperative filed for an action of sum of money against Mr. Encabo.
Mr. Encabo then explained to his counsel, Atty Jose Vincente Arnado (Atty.
Arnado) that the tickets for the trip were non-refundable and blamed Bukidnon
Cooperative for canceling after the purchase of the plane tickets.

At the pre-trial conference, another lawyer appeared on behalf of Atty. Arnado

and pre-marked four electronic tickets. These tickets were later found to have
the logo of the travel agency with no booking reference number but were
marked as Exhibits 8, 9, 10, and 11. Bukidnon Cooperative learned that there
was no mention of the electronic tickets as documentary evidence by Mr.
Encabo. A subpoena was then filed by Bukidnon Cooperative to verify the
genuineness of the tickets as evidence. During the trial, it was found that the
tickets were not genuine and that what was submitted was for a different flight,
from a different airline, with a different set of passengers.

30
Bukidnon Cooperative filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Arnado for his
failure to examine the authenticity of evidence before submitting it to court.
Atty. Arnado claimed good faith, and that he did not know the alteration as he
was not present during the printing of the tickets. Bukidnon Cooperative
withdrew the administrative case. The IBP ruled on the dismissal of the case
and held that Atty. Arnando did not know of the alteration.

ISSUE
1. Does the dismissal of the administrative case relieve Atty. Arnando from
accountability.
2. Does Atty Arnado’s failure to examine the authenticity of the evidence
before submitting it to court makes him liable.

RULING
1. No, the dismissal of an administrative case against a lawyer does not
unilaterally absolve the lawyer from liability.

Dismissal of the administrative case cannot be dependent on the

unilateral decision of a complainant who is considered merely as a
witness especially if the records could establish the liability of the erring
lawyer. The Court emphasized in the case of Berengeur v. Caranza that
even if there be no intent to deceive, a lawyer whose conduct betrays
inattention or carelessness should not be allowed to free himself from a
charge thereafter instituted against him by the mere plea that his
conduct was not willful and that he has not consented to the doing of the
falsity.

2. Yes, Arnado’s failure to examine the authenticity of the evidence before

submitting it to court makes him liable.

Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a

lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court." Specifically,
Rule 10.01 states that "a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be
misled by an artifice."

31
In this case, Atty. Arnando cannot rely solely on his client’s narrations
without inquiry when the circumstances call him to be more meticulous.
The lawyer must diligently familiarize himself with the nature of the cases
they represent and must advise their clients of their candid and honest
opinion on the merits and the probable results. Although a judicial
affidavit of Mr. Encabo clarified that Atty. Arnando did not participate in
the preparation and printing of the documents, this does not absolve Atty.
Arnando from liability brought about his carelessness. Further, lawyers
are to remember that they are officers of the court and that while they
owe their clients the duty of complete fidelity and the utmost diligence,
they are bound to hold strict liability insofar as candor and honesty
towards the Court is concerned.

Therefore, Atty. Arnando is not relieved from accountability and is

reprimanded and sternly warned.

32
 Canon III-Fidelity: Quantum and burden of proof – Section 32

CAPINPIN v. ESPIRITU
LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C. No. 12537 | September 3, 2020

DOCTRINE
The complainant must then prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his
complaint. Basic is the rule that mere allegation is not evidence and is not
equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise
cannot be given credence. It is likewise well to remember that, in suspension or
disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence.

FACTS
Leolenie R. Capinpin (Capinpin) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Rio T. Espiritu (Espiritu) for using and taking advantage of his legal knowledge
to achieve his malicious, evil and unlawful purpose. Capinpin narrated that Atty.
Espiritu served as her legal adviser and retained counsel. Sometime in 1993,
Capinpin approached Atty. Espiritu with regard to a mortgage she obtained
from Banco de Oro (BDO). Allegedly, Atty. Espiritu advised Capinpin to execute
a Deed of Sale in his favor, so that the former can transact directly with BDO.

Later on, Atty. Espiritu made Capinpin execute a Special Power of Attorney as
she will be leaving for Germany. While Capinpin was in Germany, she entrusted
to Atty. Espiritu her Toyota Lite Ace, which she was selling. In January 1994,
Capinpin arrived in the Philippines and found out that Atty. Espiritu was able to
transfer the land and vehicle in his name. Capinpin talked to Atty. Espiritu, who
promised to return her properties, but this promise was not heeded.

Atty. Espiritu countered that Capinpin's complaint is malicious and full of

perjured statements. He denied receiving money from Capinpin, as well as
serving as her legal counsel since he was a lawyer of the Quezon City District
Office of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO-QC) from 1990 to 1994. Atty. Espiritu
validly acquired Capinpin's properties, when the latter offered them for sale as
she was contemplating on settling down in Germany. They negotiated and
agreed on a reasonable price.

The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) rendered a report, recommending the
dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The Board of Governors of the IBP
resolved to adopt the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.

33
ISSUE
Did Capinpin prove by substantial evidence the allegations in her complaint
against Atty. Espiritu.

RULING
No. Capinpin failed to discharge her burden of presenting substantial evidence
to prove that Atty. Espiritu took advantage of his legal knowledge and
profession to deceive her and appropriate her properties to himself.

Jurisprudence is replete with cases reiterating that in disbarment proceedings,

the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In the case of Reyes v. Atty.
Nieva, the Court En Banc clarified that the proper evidentiary threshold in
disbarment cases is substantial evidence, to wit:

The evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence — as opposed to

preponderance of evidence — is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of
and essential considerations attending this type of cases. As case law
elucidates, "disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither
purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit,
but rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers.
Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be
initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and
the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit
person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account
for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving
the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of
justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have
proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there
can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor."

Capinpin's allegation that Atty. Espiritu urged her to simulate the sale of her
property is unsubstantiated. Thus, it cannot be established that Atty. Espiritu
engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct by falsifying the deed of sale for his
benefit.

34
Canon VI – Accountability; Prohibition against employment of disbarred
or suspended lawyer (Section 52)

IN RE: ORDER DATED OCTOBER 27, 2016 ISSUED BY

BRANCH 137, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14-765 vs. RAMON
LOPEZ, M., J.
A.C. NO. 12456 | September 8, 2020

DOCTRINE
In cases where a suspension has been imposed on a lawyer, and yet he
continues to practice law, the Supreme Court has been clear that such act
constitutes malpractice and Gross Misconduct.

FACTS
On October 27, 2016, the RTC Branch 137 of Makati City (RTC of Makati),
complainant, issued an Order putting on record that Atty. Marie Frances Ramon
(Atty. Ramon), respondent, appeared as private prosecutor in Criminal Case No.
14-765 despite her suspension from the practice of law.

The IBP docketed the Order as an administrative complaint against Atty.

Ramon. Despite due notice, Atty. Ramon did not file an answer and did not
attend the mandatory conference. On March 27, 2018, the IBP Commission on
Bar Discipline reported that Atty. Ramon violated the suspension order and is
guilty of unauthorized practice of law which warrants the penalty of disbarment.
The Commission likewise noted that the NBI arrested Atty. Ramon after she
falsified a Decision of the CA.

Further examination of related incidents relative to the same respondent shows

that she was complicit in an elaborate scheme to sell fake CA Decisions. Last
March of 2016, she was arrested by the NBI for allegedly selling fake decisions
of the CA.

Then it was recommended that a penalty of disbarment from the practice of law
be meted against Atty. Ramon for her deceitful conduct, disrespect to the IBP,
and to the SC and violations of Canons 1, 1.02, and 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The IBP also recommended that the illegal sale of
fake decisions of the CA should also be investigated. On June 28, 2018, the IBP
Board of Governors modified the penalty from disbarment to indefinite
suspension from the practice of law.

35
ISSUE
Should Atty. Ramon be suspended from the practice of law.

RULING
Yes, Atty. Ramon should be suspended from the practice of law with
modifications.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, it states that a member of the
bar may be disbarred 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 admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of
a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party
to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice. Aside from this, case law consistently provides an
additional suspension of six (6) months on instances involving unauthorized
practice of law. In Molina v. Magat, Lingan v. Calubaquib, Feliciano v.
Bautista-Lozada, Ibana-Andrade v. Paita-Moya, Paras v. Paras, and Valmonte v.
Quesada, Jr., the respondents were suspended for a period of six (6) months for
practicing law despite the previous order of suspension.

However, the court noted that Atty. Ramon had already been disbarred. In
Lampas-Peralta v. Ramon, the Court removed Atty. Ramon's name from the Roll
of Attorneys after it was proven that she drafted a fake decision of the CA and
exacted exorbitant fees from her clients. On this score, the additional penalty
can no longer be imposed upon Atty. Ramon, because of her previous
disbarment. We do not have double or multiple disbarment in our laws or
jurisprudence. Once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be
imposed regarding their privilege to practice law.

Therefore, Atty. Ramon is guilty of unauthorized practice of law in violation of

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and is suspended from the practice of
law for a period of six (6) months. However, this penalty can no longer be
imposed considering that she has already been disbarred.

36
 The New Code of Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary

The New Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary

BRASALES vs BORJA
LOPEZ, M., J.
A.M. No. P0-21-024 | June 16, 2021

DOCTRINE
The clerk of court may approve applications for leave of absence of lower court
personnel only with prior written authorization from the presiding judge.
Unawareness of a circular is not an excuse for noncompliance. Besides, a clerk
of court is regarded as a role model for all court employees under her
supervision, and must, at all times, be accountable to the public for all her
actions. Any conduct, act, or omission that violates the norm of public
accountability, or diminishes, or tends to diminish the faith of the people in the
judiciary will not be tolerated, condoned, or countenanced.

FACTS
In 2017, Court Stenographer II Rachel Dadivas (Rachel) noticed that her two (2)
leave applications were not signed by Judge Brasales. Thus, in order to remedy
the situation and not be the reason for the possible delay in the release of the
salaries of all office staff, Rachel asked Clerk of Court IV Maxima Borja
(respondent) to sign another set of leave applications for the month of March
2017 which the latter acceded to.

Now, Maxima is being charged with Abuse of Authority and Malfeasance for
approving without authority the leave of absence applications of Rachel.
Allegedly, Maxima defied Judge Brasales' verbal instruction and Supreme Court
Administrative Circular (A.C.) No. 08-2017 requiring that applications for leave of
absence of lower court personnel should bear the recommendation for approval
or disapproval of the Presiding Judge, or the Clerk of Court, as delegated by the
Presiding Judge, in writing.

ISSUE
Is Borja guilty of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.

37
RULING
Yes, Borja was guilty of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.

The Supreme Court declared that A.C. No. 08-2017 is explicit that the clerk of
court may approve applications for leave of absence of lower court personnel
only with prior written authorization from the presiding judge.

It is undisputed that Judge Brasales did not authorize Maxima to approve

Rachel's leave applications. Yet, Maxima signed the two (2) leave applications,
and attempted to excuse herself by blaming her duties as clerk of court, and her
belated receipt of a copy of A.C. No. 08-2017. Although Maxima only acted upon
Rachel's plea for her to sign the subject applications so that their salaries will
not be withheld, the Supreme Court said that it cannot turn a blind eye on
Maxima's infraction. The Supreme Court observed that the provision of A.C. No.
08-2017 on the approval process was lifted verbatim from Item IV of A.C. No.
08-2009 dated February 3, 2009 of this Court. Thus, even before receiving a
copy of A.C. No. 08-2017, Maxima is expected to know that she cannot approve
or disapprove applications for leave of absence without a written delegation
from Judge Brasales. Furthermore, the Supreme Court declared that
unawareness of a circular is not an excuse for non-compliance. Besides, a clerk
of court is regarded as a role model for all court employees under her
supervision, and must, at all times, be accountable to the public for all her
actions. Any conduct, act, or omission that violates the norm of public
accountability, or diminishes, or tends to diminish the faith of the people in the
judiciary will not be tolerated, condoned, or countenanced.

Based on these reasons, Maxima was correctly found guilty of violating

reasonable office rules and regulations (A.C. No. 08-201). She was reprimanded
and was given a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense
will warrant a more severe penalty.

38