Post on 01-Mar-2018
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
1/28
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
2/28
2
0. In -ecember, 0/13, respondent %tt. %(nar
staed at %mbassador 7otel "ith his "ife and
children; respondent never came to 8anila
e>cept in -ecember, 0/13; #pp. CA/,. tsn, Nov.
32, 0/11$;
3. 7e usuall slept "ith respondent evertime thelatter comes to 8anila #p. 0hs. ?%?, ?@?, ?@A0?
to ?@A:? pp. 90, 93, 99A9/, tsn, &une :,
0/19$;
>>> >>> >>>
On the other hand, respondent did not
bother to appear during the hearing. It is truethat he presented Edilberto !aban and
Oscar Salangsang "ho testified that
respondent usuall slept "ith them ever
time the latter came to 8anila, but their
testimon #sic$ is not much of help. None of
them mentioned during the hearing that the
staed and slept "ith respondent on
6ebruar 03 to 6ebruar 02, 0/1< at
%mbassador 7otel. ... ... ... 'esides,
Edilberto !aban testified that respondent
staed at %mbassador 7otel "ith his "ife
and children in -ecember, 0/13. The dates
in Duestion, ho"ever, are 6ebruar 03 to 02,
0/1
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
3/28
3
It is the dut of a la"er, "henever his moral character is put in
issue, to satisf this !ourt that he is a fit and proper person to
en+o continued membership in the 'ar. 7e cannot dispense
"ith nor do"ngrade the high and e>acting moral standards of
the la" profession #o v. !ando, 30 S!R% 2pected of him. ... In
the case of United States v. Tria,01 *hil.
pect
the State to perform it for him. If he fails to
meet the obligation "hich he o"es to
himself, "hen to meet it is the easiest of
eas things, he is hard indeed if he demand
and e>pect that same full and "ide
consideration "hich the State voluntaril
gives to those "ho b reasonable effort see)
to help themselves. This is particularl so
"hen he not onl declines to help himself but
activel conceals from the State the ver
means b "hich it ma assist him #Huing"a
S!R% 2acts from its members
the highest standard of moralit #Huing"a v. *uno, supra$.
Under Section 31, Rule 0
an infle>ible standard as to "hat is grosslimmoral conduct or to specif the moral
delinDuenc and obliDuit "hich render a
la"er un"orth of continuing as a member
of the bar. The rule implies that "hat appears
to be unconventional behavior to the
straightAlaced ma not be the immoral
conduct that "arrants disbarment.
Immoral conduct has been defined as that
"hich is "illful, flagrant, or shameless, and
"hich sho"s a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable
members of the communit #1 !.&.S. /9/$.
here an unmarried female d"arf
possessing the intellect of a child became
pregnant b reason of intimac "ith a
married la"er "ho "as the father of si>
children, disbarment of the attorne on the
ground of immoral conduct "as +ustified #In
re 7ic)s 3= *ac. 3nd C/:$.
In the present case, it "as highl immoral of respondent, a
married man "ith children, to have ta)en advantage of his
position as chairman of the college of medicine in as)ing
complainant, a student in said college, to go "ith him to 8anila
"here he had carnal )no"ledge of her under the threat that
she "ould flun) in all her sub+ects in case she refused.
7ERE6ORE, respondent &ose '. %(nar is hereb
-IS'%RRE- and his name is ordered stric)en off from the Roll
of %ttornes.
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
4/28
4
SO OR-ERE-.
SEOND DI#ISION
ROS%LIE -%LLONA%LI!IN%O v. %TT. 5IRIL R.
!%STRO, %.!. No. :planation that he "ill enter his appearance inthe case "hen its records "ere alread transmitted to the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn17/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
5/28
5
8!T! is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record andthere being no authori(ation from either the parties torepresent them, respondent had no right to impose his "ill onthe cler) of court.
Rule C.=3 of the !ode of *rofessional Responsibilit
states4
Rule C.=3% la"er shall not, directl
or indirectl, encroach upon the professionalemploment of another la"er; ho"ever, it isthe right of an la"er, "ithout fear or favor,to give proper advice and assistance tothose see)ing relief against unfaithful orneglectful counsel.
Through his acts of constantl chec)ing thetransmittal of the records of !ivil !ase No. 1C2, respondentdeliberatel encroached upon the legal functions of the counselof record of that case. It does not matter "hether he did so ingood faith.
8oreover, in the course of his Duestionable activities
relating to !ivil !ase No. 1C2, respondent acted rudelto"ards an officer of the court. 7e raised his voice at the cler)of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Notonl "as it illAmannered but also unbecoming considering thathe did all these to a "oman and in front of her subordinates.
%s held inAlcantara v. Att!. *efianco,F0:Grespondent
ought to have reali(ed that this sort of public behavior can onlbring do"n the legal profession in the public estimation anderode public respect for it.F01GThese acts violate Rule 1.=pelled students from
the %8% !omputer !ollege #?%8%!!?$, in an action for the
Issuance of a rit of *reliminar 8andator In+unction and for
-amages, doc)eted !ivil !ase No. HA/1A
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
6/28
6
compromise agreements #?ReA%dmission %greements?$ "ith
four of his clients in the aforementioned civil case "hich, in
effect, reDuired them to "aive all )inds of claims the might
have had against %8%!!, the principal defendant, and to
terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed
against it. !omplainant averred that such an act of
respondents "as unbecoming of an member of the legalprofession "arranting either disbarment or suspension from
the practice of la".
In his comment, %ttorne *angulaan ac)no"ledged that not
one of his coArespondents had ta)en part in the negotiation,
discussion, formulation, or e>ecution of the various ReA
%dmission %greements complained of and "ere, in fact, no
longer connected at the time "ith the *angulaan and
%ssociates La" Offices. The ReA%dmission %greements, he
claimed, had nothing to do "ith the dismissal of !ivil !ase HA
/1Aecuted b
andor in behalf of some of the e>pelled students, to "it4 Letter
of %polog, dated 31 8a 0//1, of Neil &ason Salcedo,
assisted b his mother, and ReA%dmission %greement of 33
&une 0//1 "ith the %8%!! *resident; letter of apolog, dated
plicitl contained the follo"ing stipulation; vi(4
?0.......%mong the nine #/$ signatories to the
complaint, four #2$ of "hom assisted b their
parentsguardian alread e>ecuted a ReA
%dmission %greement "ith %8%!!
*resident, %8%'LE R. %UILU 5ac)no"ledging guilt for violating the %8%
!O8*UTER !OLLEE 8%NU%L 6OR
-IS!I*LIN%R %!TIONS and agreed
among others to terminate all civil, criminal
and administrative proceedings "hich the
ma have against the %8%!! arising from
their previous dismissal. Esm
?> > >......> > >......> > >
?
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
7/28
7
+EREORE, respondent %tt. Luis 8einrado !. *angulaan
is ordered SUS*EN-E- from the practice of la" for a period
of T7REE # #01:$facult members of the Universit of the East complainantsagainst herein complainant %tt. Ireneo L. Torres, et al.,F
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
8/28
8
ith respect to the attornes fees case, respondentclaims that %tt. Torres did not in his %ns"er confront the issuesthereof but instead moc)FedG his "ife and fabricatFedG anddistortFedG realitiesF0:Gb including malicious, libelous andimpertinent statements and accusations against his "ife "hiche>asperated him.F01G% portion of %tt. Torres %ns"er in theattornes fees case reads4
> > > in her incumbenc as *resident of theUE6% for 03 ears #0/C1A0///$ she got onlabout *3.==hr !'% increase "hich too)effect onl FinG 0//2, "ith no other substantialimprovements of the teachers benefits, andet she spent for more than half a millionnegotiation e>penses from the UE6%s funds.7er 0//2A0/// !'% "as onl a carbon copof her old 0/C/A0//2 !'% "ith no substantialimprovements, "ith uncertain amount of here>penses, because she removedconcealedall the financial records of the UE6% during
her term. . . I and the other la"ersteachersdenounced her unla"ful deduction of 0=attornes fees from the small bac)"agesreceived b the teachers on %pril 3C, 0//pensesshe obtained onl *3Aincrease inunion members salar, etc. because of the
pendenc of the damage suit against him onthis score. 7e easil forgets the sad chapterof his life as a practitioner "hen he lost out to*rof. &avier in the petition for audit #!ase No.N!RAO-A8A/2=0A==2$ "hich he filed to gainpogi points prior to the UE6% election in 0//2.F3=G
> > >
To repeat, if respondent %tt. Torres has ancommon sense at all, he should stop ma)ingirrelevant, libelous and impertinent allegationsin his pleadings. This means changing hisstandard tactic of s)irting the main issues b
in+ecting a "eb or a ma(e of sham,immaterial, impertinent or scandalousmatters.F30G#Underscoring supplied$
Respondent adds that he merel "anted to bring to the'LRs attention that %tt. Torres had the habit of hurling baselessaccusations against his "ife to embarrass her, including one forun+ust ve>ation and another for collection and damages both of"hich "ere dismissed after trial on the merits, thus prompting
him to state that these dismissed cases indubitabl indicate %tt.Torres pattern of mental dishonest.F33G
Respondent further claims that in his %ns"er in the
same attornes fees case, %tt. Torres accused his client, *rof.8aguigad, of forging the signature of a notar public and ofdeliberatel usFingG a falsifiede>pired !ommunit Ta> !ertificate
in order to +ustif the dismissal of the case against him #%tt.Torres$;F3
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
9/28
9
falsification of public document reasoning outthat the made untruthful statements in thenarration of facts in the basic petition.
Respondent Torres is a member of
the *hilippine 'ar. 'ut "hat la" boo)s is hereadingJ
7e should )no" or ought to )no"
that the allegations in petitioners pleading areabsolutel privileged because the saidallegations or statements are relevant to theissues.F3:G#Underscoring supplied$
The Investigating !ommissioner of the Integrated 'ar of the*hilippines #I'*$ found respondent guilt of violating the !odeof *rofessional Responsibilit for using inappropriate andoffensive remar)s in his pleadings.The pertinent portions of the Investigating !ommissionersReport and Recommendation read4
Respondent admits that he "as
angr "hen he "rote the 8anifestationandalleges that !omplainant implicated his "ifein a burglar. 8oreover, Respondent allegesthat !omplainant has been engaged inintimidating and harassing his "ife.
It appears that herein !omplainant and hereinRespondents "ife have had a series ofcharges and counterAcharges filed againsteach other. 'oth parties being protagonists inthe intramurals "ithin the Universit of theEast 6acult %ssociation #UE6%$. 7erein!omplainant is the *resident of the UE6%"hereas Respondents "ife "as the former*resident of UE6%. Nevertheless, "e shalltreat this matter of charges and counterAcharges filed, "hich involved the UE6%, ase>traneous, peripheral, if not outrightirrelevant to the issue at hand.
> > >!learl, FrGespondents primordial
reason for the offensive remar) stated in hispleadings "as his emotional reaction in vie"of the fact that herein !omplainant "as in alegal dispute "ith his "ife. This e>cusecannot be sustained. Indeed, the remar)s
Duoted above are offensive and inappropriate.That the Respondent is representing his "ifeis not at all an e>cuse.F31G#Underscoringsupplied$
%ccordingl, the Investigating !ommissioner recommended thatrespondent be reprimanded.
The 'oard of overnors of the Integrated 'ar of the*hilippines #I'*$, b ResolutionF3CGof October 1, 3==2, adoptedand approved the Report and Recommendation of theInvestigating !ommissioner.
The Report of the I'* faulting respondent is "ellA
ta)en but not its recommendation to reprimand him.It is "ell entrenched in *hilippine +urisprudence that forreasons of public polic, utterances made in the course of
+udicial proceedings, including all )inds of pleadings, petitionsand motions, are absolutel privileged so long as theare pertinent and relevant to the sub+ect inDuir, ho"ever falseor malicious the ma be.F3/G
The reDuirements of materialit and relevanc are imposed sothat the protection given to individuals in the interest of anefficient administration of +ustice ma not be abused as a cloa)from beneath "hich private malice ma be gratified. F
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
10/28
10
point out that %tt. Torres erred in advancing such anargument, but personall attac)ed %tt. Torres mental fitnessb stating that the undersigned thin)s that even a dimA"ittedfirstAear la" student "ould not oblige "ith such a ver seriouscharge, and FrGespondent Torres is a member of the bar FbGut"hat la" boo)s is he reading.
In )eeping "ith the dignit of the legal profession, ala"ers language must be dignified and choice of language isimportant in the preparation of pleadings.Fpressions "hich are emphatic but respectful, convincing butnot derogator, illuminating but not offensive.F20G
%s to the reference b respondent to the unfortunate andcontemptible practice of notaries public basis of the last causeof action, "hile it ma detract from the dignit that should
characteri(e the legal profession and the solemnit of anotarial document, respondent, "ho +ustifies the same aslegitimate defense of his client "ho "as being accused b %tt.Torres of forger, ma, given the relevance of the statement tothe sub+ect matter of the pleading, be given the benefit of thedoubt.
Respecting the verified complaint %nne> E&A%F23Gto the!omment of respondent filed b his "ife, *rof. Eleonor R.&avier, against complainant %tt. Torres, the same cannot beconsolidated "ith the present administrative case since theparties and causes of action of such complaint are completeldifferent from those of the present complaint.+EREORE, for emploing offensive and improper languagein his pleadings, respondent %tt. &ose !. &avier ishereb S!SPENDED from the practice of la" for One #0$
8onth, effective upon receipt of this -ecision, and isSTERNLYARNED that an future infraction of a similar nature shall bedealt "ith more severel.Let copies of this -ecision be furnished the Office of the 'ar!onfidant, the Integrated 'ar of the *hilippines, and all courtsin the countr for their information and guidance. SOOR-ERE-.
IRST DI#ISION
PEDRO L. LINSANAN,%.!. No. ::13om75'-'-6,
*resent4
ATTY. NIOMEDES TOLENTINO,Re7o-e-6.*romulgated4
September2,3==/
R E S O L ! T I O NORONA, J."This is a complaint for disbarmentF0Gfiled b *edro Linsanganof the Linsangan Linsangan B Linsangan La" Office against
%tt. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients andencroachment of professional services.!omplainant allegedthat respondent, "ith the help of paralegal 6e 8arie Labiano,convinced his clientsF3Gto transfer legal representation.Respondent promised them financial assistanceFpeditious collection on their claims. F2GTo induce them to hirehis services, he persistentl called them and sent them te>tmessages.To support his allegations, complainant presented the s"ornaffidavitF9Gof &ames regorio attesting that Labiano tried toprevail upon him to sever his la"erAclient relations "ithcomplainant and utili(e respondents services instead, ine>change for a loan of *9=,===. !omplainant also attachedrespondents calling card4F:G
6ront
NI!O8E-ES TOLENTINO
L% O666I!E!ONSULT%N! B 8%RITI8E SER5I!ES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
6e 8arie L. Labiano*aralegal
0st 8I&I 8ansion, 3nd 6lr. Rm. 8A=0 Tel4 4 #:
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
11/28
11
respondent be reprimanded "ith a stern "arning that anrepetition "ould merit a heavier penalt.e adopt the findings of the I'* on the unethical conduct ofrespondent but "e modif the recommended penalt.The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion brespondent into complainants professional practice in violationof Rule C.=3 of the !*R. %nd the means emploed b
respondent in furtherance of the said misconduct themselvesconstituted distinct violations of ethical rules.!anons of the !*R are rules of conduct all la"ers mustadhere to, including the manner b "hich a la"ers servicesare to be made )no"n. Thus, !anon < of the !*R provides4
!%NON < A % L%ER IN 8%@IN @NON7IS LE%L SER5I!ES S7%LL USE ONLTRUE, 7ONEST, 6%IR, -INI6IE- %N-O'&E!TI5E IN6OR8%TION ORST%TE8ENT O6 6%!TS.
Time and time again, la"ers are reminded that the practice ofla" is a profession and not a business; la"ers should notadvertise their talents as merchants advertise their "ares. F0ed bLabiano and referred to respondents office$ to prove thatrespondent indeed solicited legal business as "ell as profitedfrom referrals suits.
%lthough respondent initiall denied )no"ing Labianoin his ans"er, he later admitted it during the mandatorhearing.
Through Labianos actions, respondents la" practice
"as benefited. 7apless seamen "ere enticed to transferrepresentation on the strength of Labianos "ord that
respondent could produce a more favorable result.'ased on the foregoing, respondent clearl solicitedemploment violating Rule 3.=penses in a legal matter he ishandling for the client.The rule is that a la"er shall not lend mone to his
client. The onl e>ception is, "hen in the interest of +ustice, hehas to advance necessar e>penses #such as filing fees,stenographers fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cashbond or premium for suret bond, etc.$ for a matter that he ishandling for the client.
The rule is intended to safeguard the la"ersindependence of mind so that the free e>ercise of his +udgmentma not be adversel affected.F33GIt see)s to ensure hisundivided attention to the case he is handling as "ell as hisentire devotion and fidelit to the clients cause. If the la"erlends mone to the client in connection "ith the clients case,the la"er in effect acDuires an interest in the sub+ect matter ofthe case or an additional sta)e in its outcome.F3ercise of the !ourtsdisciplinar po"ers. 5iolation of antiAsolicitation statutes"arrants serious sanctions for initiating contact "ith aprospective client for the purpose of obtaining emploment.F3:GThus, in this +urisdiction, "e adhere to the rule to protect thepublic from the 8achiavellian machinations of unscrupulousla"ers and to uphold the nobilit of the legal profession.
!onsidering the mriad infractions of respondent#including violation of the prohibition on lending mone toclients$, the sanction recommended b the I'*, a merereprimand, is a "imp slap on the "rist. The proposed penaltis grossl incommensurate to its findings.
% final "ord regarding the calling card presented in evidence
b petitioner. % la"ers best advertisement is a "ellAmeritedreputation for professional capacit and fidelit to trust basedon his character and conduct.F31G6or this reason, la"ers areonl allo"ed to announce their services b publication inreputable la" lists or use of simple professional cards.*rofessional calling cards ma onl contain the follo"ingdetails4
#a$ la"ers name;#b$ name of the la" firm "ith "hich he isconnected;#c$ address;#d$ telephone number and#e$ special branch of la" practiced.F3CG
Labianos calling card contained the phrase 6)0-'-('5 '6'-(e. The phrase "as clearl used to enticeclients #"ho alread had representation$ to change counsels"ith a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. 8one"as dangled to lure clients a"a from their original la"ers,thereb ta)ing advantage of their financial distress andemotional vulnerabilit. This crass commercialism degradedthe integrit of the bar and deserved no place in the legalprofession. 7o"ever, in the absence of substantial evidence to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn287/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
12/28
12
prove his culpabilit, the !ourt is not prepared to rule thatrespondent "as personall and directl responsible for theprinting and distribution of Labianos calling cards.
+EREORE, respondent %tt. Nicomedes Tolentino forviolating Rules 0.=
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
13/28
13
2. %tt. 'arandon presented noevidence in support of his allegations that
%tt. 6errer "as drun) on -ecember 0/,3=== and that he degraded the la"profession. The latter had received various
citations that spea) "ell of his character.
9. The cases of libel and gravethreats that %tt. 'arandon filed against
%tt. 6errer "ere still pending. Their merefiling did not ma)e the latter guilt of thecharges. %tt. 'arandon "as forum shopping"hen he filed this disbarment case since itreferred to the same libel and grave threatssub+ect of the criminal cases.
In his repl affidavit,F3G
%tt. 'arandon brought up a si>th groundfor disbarment. 7e alleged that on -ecember 3/, 3=== atabout 04i,it figured in a collision "ith a triccle, resulting in seriousin+uries to the triccles passengers.F
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
14/28
14
8oreover, %tt. 6errer could have aired his charge offalsification in a proper forum and "ithout using offensive andabusive language against a fello" la"er. To Duote portions of"hat he said in his repl "ith motion to dismiss4
1. T)'6 6)e '-er 0r'press his indignation.
!ontrar to %tt. 6errers allegation, the !ourt finds that he hasbeen accorded due process. The essence of due process is tobe found in the reasonable opportunit to be heard and submitan evidence one ma have in support of ones defense. F0CGSolong as the parties are given the opportunit to e>plain theirside, the reDuirements of due process are satisfactoril
complied "ith.F0/G7ere, the I'* Investigating !ommissionergave %tt. 6errer all the opportunities to file countlesspleadings and refute all the allegations of %tt. 'arandon.
%ll la"ers should ta)e heed that the are licensed officers ofthe courts "ho are mandated to maintain the dignit of thelegal profession, hence the must conduct themselveshonorabl and fairl.F3=G%tt. 6errers displa of improperattitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in theperformance of his duties both as a la"er and officer of thecourt, before the public and the court, "as a patenttransgression of the ver ethics that la"ers are s"orn touphold.
AORDINLY, the !ourt AIRMSthe 8a 33, 3==CResolution of the I'* 'oard of overnors in !'- !ase =0AC=/and ORDERSthe suspension of %tt. Ed"in . 6errer, Sr. fromthe practice of la" for one ear effective upon his receipt of this-ecision.
Let a cop of this -ecision be entered in%tt. 6errers personal record as an attorne "ith the Office ofthe 'ar !onfidant and a cop of the same be served to the I'*and to the Office of the !ourt %dministrator for circulation to all
the courts in the land.
SO ORDERED.
ANA MARIE AMBALIZA,
Am. 'e No. ;29%
5ersus ATTY. ANA L!Z B. RISTALTENORIO,Respondent. &ul 02, 3==2
RESOL!TION
DA#IDE, JR., C.J.4
In a verified complaint for disbarment filed "ith the!ommittee on 'ar -iscipline of the Integrated 'ar of the*hilippines #I'*$ on
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
15/28
15
On deceit, the complainant alleged that therespondent has been falsel representing herself to be marriedto 6elicisimo R. Tenorio, &r., "ho has a prior and subsistingmarriage "ith another "oman. 7o"ever, through spuriousmeans, the respondent and 6elicisimo R. Tenorio, &r., "ere
able to obtain a false marriage contract,F0G
"hich states thatthe "ere married on 0= 6ebruar 0/C= in8anila. !ertifications from the !ivil Registr of 8anila F3Gand theNational Statistics Office #NSO$Fists bet"een them. The false date and place ofmarriage bet"een the t"o are stated in the birth certificates oftheir t"o children, -onnabel Tenorio F2Gand 6elicisimo TenorioIII.F9G'ut in the birth certificates of their t"o other children,Oliver TenorioF:Gand &ohn !edric Tenorio, F1Ganother date andplace of marriage are indicated, namel, 03 6ebruar 0/C= in8alabala, 'u)idnon.
%s to grossl immoral conduct, the complainant
alleged that the respondent caused the dissemination to thepublic of a libelous affidavit derogator to 8a)ati !it !ouncilor-ivina %lora &acome. The respondent "ould often openl andsarcasticall declare to the complainant and her coAemploeesthe alleged immoralit of !ouncilor &acome.
On malpractice or other gross misconduct in office,the complainant alleged that the respondent #0$ cooperated inthe illegal practice of la" b her husband, "ho is not a memberof the *hilippine 'ar; #3$ converted her clients mone to hero"n use and benefit, "hich led to the filing of an estafa caseagainst her; and #
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
16/28
16
misunderstanding and misappreciation of facts. Thus, she is nolonger interested in pursuing the case. This motion "as notacted upon b the I'*.
In her Report and Recommendation dated
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
17/28
17
%t the hearing, the respondent admitted that theletterhead of Cristal-Tenorio aw )fficelisted 6elicisimo R.Tenorio, &r., erardo %. *anghulan, and 8aricris -. 'attung assenior partners. She admitted that the first t"o are not la"ersbut paralegals. The are listed in the letterhead of her la"office as senior partners because the have investments in herla" office.F3=GThat is a blatant misrepresentation.
The Sagip !ommunication Radio roup identificationcard is another proof that the respondent assisted 6elicisimoR. Tenorio, &r., in misrepresenting to the public that he is ala"er. Notabl, the identification card stating that he is %tt.6elicisimo Tenorio, &r., bears the signature of the respondentas !hairperson of the roup.
The la"ers dut to prevent, or at the ver least not toassist in, the unauthori(ed practice of la" is founded on publicinterest and polic. *ublic polic reDuires that the practice of
la" be limited to those individuals found dul Dualified ineducation and character. The permissive right conferred on thela"er is an individual and limited privilege sub+ect to"ithdra"al if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral andprofessional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, thecourt, the client, and the bar from the incompetence ordishonest of those unlicensed to practice la" and not sub+ectto the disciplinar control of the !ourt. It devolves upon ala"er to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canonsand ethics of the profession en+oin him not to permit hisprofessional services or his name to be used in aid of, or toma)e possible the unauthori(ed practice of la" b, an agenc,personal or corporate. %nd, the la" ma)es it a misbehavior onhis part, sub+ect to disciplinar action, to aid a laman in theunauthori(ed practice of la".F30G
+EREORE, for culpable violation of !anon / andRule /.=0 of the !ode of *rofessional Responsibilit,respondent %tt. %na Lu( '. !ristalATenorio ishereb S!SPENDED from the practice of la" for a period ofsi> #:$ months effective immediatel, "ith a "arning that arepetition of the same or similar act in the future "ill be dealt"ith more severel.
Let copies of this Resolution be attached torespondent !ristalATenorios record as attorne in this !ourt
and furnished to the I'* and the Office of the !ourt%dministrator for circulation to all courts.
SO ORDERED.
EN '%N!$B. M. No. 1%3;. J
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
18/28
18
ob+ected to the inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing. 7e
e>plains, ho"ever, that he did not sign the pleading as a
la"er or represented himself as an attorne in the pleading.
On his emploment as secretar of the Sangguniang
'aan, respondent claims that he submitted his resignation on
00 8a 3==0 "hich "as allegedl accepted on the same date.7e submitted a cop of the !ertification of Receipt of
Revocable Resignation dated 3C 8a 3==0 signed b 5iceA
8aor Napoleon Relo>. Respondent further claims that the
complaint is politicall motivated considering that complainant
is the daughter of Silvestre %guirre, the losing candidate for
maor of 8andaon, 8asbate. Respondent pras that the
complaint be dismissed for lac) of merit and that he be allo"ed
to sign the Roll of %ttornes.
On 33 &une 3==0, complainant filed her Repl to
respondents !omment and refuted the claim of respondent
that his appearance before the 8'E! "as onl to e>tend
specific assistance to 'unan. !omplainant alleges that on 0/
8a 3==0 Emil EstiponaA7ao #EstiponaA7ao$ filed a petition
for proclamation as the "inning candidate for maor.
Respondent signed as counsel for EstiponaA7ao in this
petition. hen respondent appeared as counsel before the
8'E!, complainant Duestioned his appearance on t"o
grounds4 #0$ respondent had not ta)en his oath as a la"er;
and #3$ he "as an emploee of the government.
Respondent filed a +epl! 4+e5 +epl! to +espondents
Comment6reiterating his claim that the instant administrative
case is motivated mainl b political vendetta.
On 01 &ul 3==0, the !ourt referred the case to the Office
of the 'ar !onfidant #O'!$ for evaluation, report and
recommendation.
O"Cs #eport and #ecommendation
The O'! found that respondent indeed appeared before
the 8'E! as counsel for 'unan in the 8a 3==0 elections.
The minutes of the 8'E! proceedings sho" that respondent
activel participated in the proceedings. The O'! li)e"ise
found that respondent appeared in the 8'E! proceedings
even before he too) the la"ers oath on 33 8a 3==0. The
O'! believes that respondents misconduct casts a serious
doubt on his moral fitness to be a member of the 'ar. The O'!
also believes that respondents unauthori(ed practice of la" is
a ground to den his admission to the practice of la". The O'!
therefore recommends that respondent be denied admission to
the *hilippine 'ar.
On the other charges, O'! stated that complainant failed
to cite a la" "hich respondent allegedl violated "hen he
appeared as counsel for 'unan "hile he "as a government
emploee. Respondent resigned as secretar and hisresignation "as accepted. Li)e"ise, respondent "as
authori(ed b 'unan to represent him before the 8'E!.
T!e Co$rts #$lin%
e agree "ith the findings and conclusions of the O'!
that respondent engaged in the unauthori(ed practice of la"
and thus does not deserve admission to the *hilippine 'ar.
Respondent too) his oath as la"er on 33 8a 3==0.
7o"ever, the records sho" that respondent appeared as
counsel for 'unan prior to 33 8a 3==0, before respondenttoo) the la"ers oath. In the pleading entitled Formal
)b2ection to t$e /nclusion in t$e Canvassing of 3otes in Some
*recincts for t$e )ffice of 3ice-Ma!ordated 0/ 8a 3==0,
respondent signed as co$nsel &or 'eor%e "$nan.In the first
paragraph of the same pleading respondent stated that he "as
the ()*ndersi%ned Co$nsel &or, and in +e!al& o& ice
a-oralt- Candidate, 'EO#'E T. ")NAN. 'unan himself
"rote the 8'E! on 02 8a 3==0 that he had authori(ed %tt.
Ed"in L. Rana as his counsel to represent him before the
8'E! and similar bodies.
On 02 8a 3==0, maoralt candidate Emil EstiponaA
7ao also retained respondent as her counsel. On the same
date, 02 8a 3==0, Erl -. 7ao informed the 8'E! that %tt.
Ed"in L. Rana has been authori(ed b RE6OR8% L8A**! as
the legal counsel of the part and the candidate of the said
part. Respondent himself "rote the 8'E! on 02 8a 3==0
that he "as entering his appearance as co$nsel &or
a-oralt- Candidate Emil- Estiponaao and &or t!e
#EFO#A L00C. On 0/ 8a 3==0, respondent signed as
counsel for EstiponaA7ao in the petition filed before the 8'E!
praing for the proclamation of EstiponaA7ao as the "inning
candidate for maor of 8andaon, 8asbate.
%ll these happened even before respondent too) thela"ers oath. !learl, respondent engaged in the practice of
la" "ithout being a member of the *hilippine 'ar.
In *hilippine La"ers %ssociation v. %grava, F0Gthe !ourt
elucidated that4
Thepractice of lawis not limited to the conduct of cases
or litigationin court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings
and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of
clients before +udges and courts, and in addition,
conveancing. In general, all advice to clients, and all action
ta)en for them in matters connected wit$ t$e law,incorporationservices, assessment and condemnation services
contemplating an appearance before a +udicial bod, the
foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditors claim in
ban)ruptc and insolvenc proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and
guardianship have been held to constitute la" practice, as do
the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, w$ere t$e
wor" done involves t$e determination b! t$e trained legal mind
of t$e legal effect of facts and conditions. #9 %m. &ur. p. 3:3,
3: > >
In Ca-etano v. onsod,F3Gthe !ourt held that practice of
la" means an activit, in or out of court, "hich reDuires the
application of la", legal procedure, )no"ledge, training and
e>perience. To engage in the practice of la" is to perform acts
"hich are usuall performed b members of the legal
profession. enerall, to practice la" is to render an )ind of
service "hich reDuires the use of legal )no"ledge or s)ill.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn27/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
19/28
19
5eril, respondent "as engaged in the practice of la"
"hen he appeared in the proceedings before the 8'E! and
filed various pleadings, "ithout license to do so. Evidence
clearl supports the charge of unauthori(ed practice of la".
Respondent called himself counsel )no"ing full "ell that he
"as not a member of the 'ar. 7aving held himself out as
counsel )no"ing that he had no authorit to practice la",respondent has sho"n moral unfitness to be a member of the
*hilippine 'ar.Fercise of this privilege presupposes
possession of integrit, legal )no"ledge, educational
attainment, and even public trustF2Gsince a la"er is an officer
of the court. % bar candidate does not acDuire the right to
practice la" simpl b passing the bar e>aminations. The
practice of la" is a privilege that can be "ithheld even from
one "ho has passed the bar e>aminations, if the personsee)ing admission had practiced la" "ithout a license. F9G
The regulation of the practice of la" is unDuestionabl
strict. In "eltran, Jr. v. A+ad,F:Ga candidate passed the bar
e>aminations but had not ta)en his oath and signed the Roll of
%ttornes. 7e "as held in contempt of court for practicing la"
even before his admission to the 'ar. Under Section < #e$ of
Rule 10 of the Rules of !ourt, a person "ho engages in the
unauthori(ed practice of la" is liable for indirect contempt of
court.F1G
True, respondent here passed the 3=== 'arE>aminations and too) the la"ers oath. 7o"ever, it is the
signing in the Roll of %ttornes that finall ma)es one a fullA
fledged la"er. The fact that respondent passed the bar
e>aminations is immaterial. *assing the bar is not the onl
Dualification to become an attorneAatAla".FCGRespondent
should )no" that t"o essential reDuisites for becoming a
la"er still had to be performed, namel4 his la"ers oath to be
administered b this !ourt and his signature in the Roll of
%ttornes.F/G
On the charge of violation of la", complainant contends
that the la" does not allo" respondent to act as counsel for a
private client in an court or administrative bod sincerespondent is the secretar of the Sangguniang 'aan.
Respondent tendered his resignation as secretar of the
Sangguniang 'aan prior to the acts complained of as
constituting unauthori(ed practice of la". In his letter dated 00
8a 3==0 addressed to Napoleon Relo>, viceA maor and
presiding officer of the Sangguniang 'aan, respondent stated
that he "as resigning effective upon our acceptance.F0=G5iceA
8aor Relo> accepted respondents resignation effective 00
8a 3==0.F00GThus, the evidence does not support the charge
that respondent acted as counsel for a client "hile serving as
secretar of the Sangguniang 'aan.
On the charge of grave misconduct and
misrepresentation, evidence sho"s that 'unan indeed
authori(ed respondent to represent him as his counsel before
the 8'E! and similar bodies. hile there "as no
misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had no authorit to
practice la".
+EREORE, respondent Ed"in L. Rana is -ENIE-
admission to the *hilippine 'ar.
SO ORDERED.
.R. No. L234;& M'r() 2&, 19;8
AMALAMATED LABORERSC ASSOIATION '-or
ELISBERTO M. JA#IER 0or )me50 '- ' e-er'5
Pree-6,
ATTY. JOSE!R. ARBONELL, ET AL.,petitioners,
vs.
+ON. O!RT O IND!STRIAL RELATIONS AND ATTY.
LEONARDO . ERNANDEZ,respondents.
Jose Ur. Carbonell for and in $is own be$alf as petitioner.
eonardo C. Fernande7 for and in $is own be$alf as
respondent.
SAN+EZ, J.1
!ontrovers over attornes fees for legal services
rendered in !IR !ase No. 1=AUL*A!ebu.
The bac)ground facts are as follo"s4
On 8a
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
20/28
20
reinstatements, minus "hat the have earned else"here in the
meantime? and that the eight seasonal "or)ers ?be readmitted
to their positions as seasonal "or)ers of respondent compan
#'iscom$, "ith bac) "ages as seasonal "or)ers from the time
the "ere not rehired at the start of the 0/99A0/9: milling
season on October 0, 0/99 up to the time the are actuall
reinstated, less the amount earned else"here during theperiod of their laAoff.?
Respondents 'iscom, &alandoni and uillen appealed
direct to this !ourt.< On 8arch 3C, 0/:cessive, unfair and illegal. This motion "as denied on %pril
3C, 0/:2 b !IR en banc.
On &une /, 0/:2, a motion for reconsideration of the
%pril 3C, 0/:2 resolution "as filed b %tt. !arbonell. This "as
amplified b a similar motion filed on &une 00, 0/:2.
On &une 39, 0/:2, t"o things happened4 6irst. !IR en
bancdenied the motion of &une 00, 0/:2. Second. On %tt.
6ernande( motion, &udge 8artine( authori(ed the !ashier of
the court to disburse to 6ernande( the amount of *0/,/
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
21/28
21
*etitioners herein, %tt. !arbonell, %malgamated
Laborers %ssociation, and the ten emploees, appealed from
the &une 39, 0/:2 resolution of !IR, direct to this !ourt.
0. *etitioners press upon this !ourt the vie" that !IR is
bereft of authorit to ad+udicate contractual disputes over
attornes fees. Their reasons4 #0$ a dispute arising fromcontracts for attornes fees is not a labor dispute and is not
one among the cases ruled to be "ithin !IRs authorit; and #3$
to consider such a dispute to be a mere incident to a case over
"hich !IR ma validl assume +urisdiction is to disregard the
special and limited nature of said courts +urisdiction.
These arguments are devoid of merit.
The present controvers over attornes fees is but an
epilogue or a tailAend feature of the main case, !IR No. 1=A
UL*A!ebu, "hich undoubtedl is "ithin !IRs +urisdiction. %nd,
it has been held that ?once the !ourt of Industrial Relations has
acDuired +urisdiction over a case under the la" of its creation, it
retains that +urisdiction until the case is completel
decided, including all t$e incidents related
t$ereto.?9 E>pressive of the rule on this point is this P
2. It is "ell settled that4
% grant of +urisdiction implies the
necessar and usual incidental po"ers
essential to effectuate it, and ever regularl
constituted court has po"er to do all things
reasonabl necessar for the administration
of +ustice "ithin the scope of its +urisdiction,and for the enforcement of its +udgments and
mandates, even t$oug$ t$e court ma! t$us
be called upon to decide matters w$ic$
would not be wit$in its cogni7ance as
original causes of action.
hile a court ma be e>pressl
granted the incidental po"ers necessar to
effectuate its +urisdiction, a grant of
+urisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive
legislation, implies the necessar and usual
incidental po"ers essential to effectuate it #In
re Stingers Estate, 3=0 *. :/isting la"s and constitutional provisions,
ever regularl constituted court has po"er
to do all things that are reasonabl
necessar for the administration of +ustice
"ithin the scope of its +urisdiction, and for the
enforcement of its +udgments and
mandates. So demands, matters, or
8uestions ancillar! or incidental to, or
growing out of, t$e main action, and coming
wit$in t$e above principles, ma! be ta"en
cogni7ance of b! t$e court and determined,
since suc$ 2urisdiction is in aid of its aut$orit!
over t$e principal matter, even t$oug$ t$e
Court ma! t$us be, called on to consider and
decide matters, w$ic$ as original causes of
action, would not be wit$in its
cogni7ance#'artholome" vs. Shipe, 390
S.. 0= the attornes fees is made before the
court "hich renders the +udgment. C%nd, it has been observed
that ?FaGn approved procedure, "here a charging lien has
attached to a +udgment or "here mone has been paid into
court, is for the attorne to file an intervening petition and have
the amount and e>tent of his lien +udiciall
determined.? /%ppropriatel to be recalled at this point, is the
recent ruling in Martine7 vs. Union de Ma8uinistas, 0/:1%
*hild. 023, 022, &anuar
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
22/28
22
noted, too, that petitioner %tt. !arbonell did not file an notice
of %ttornes Lien.
> > > > > > > >
Since then this !ourt has invariabl fi>edcounsel fees on a 8uantum meruit basis "henever the
fees stipulated appear e>cessive, unconscionable, or
unreasonable, because a la"er is primaril a court
officer charged "ith the dut of assisting the court in
administering impartial +ustice bet"een the parties,
and hence, the fees should be sub+ect to +udicial
control. Nor should it be ignored that sound public
polic demands that courts disregard stipulations for
counsel fees, "henever the appear to be a source of
speculative profit at the e>pense of the debtor or
mortgagor. See, 0orospe, et al. v. 0oc$angco, LA
031istence of an association bet"een
said attornes. The pleadings "ere filed under the name of
?6ernande( B !arbonell.? This imports a common effort of the
t"o. It cannot be denied though that most of those pleadings
up to +udgment "ere signed for 6ernande( B !arbonell b
respondent 6ernande(.
e note that a brea)Aup in the professional tieAup
bet"een %ttornes 6ernande( and !arbonell began "hen
petitioner %tt. !arbonell, on November 3:, 0/:3, complained
to !IR that respondent %tt. 6ernande( ?failed to communicate
"ith him nor to inform him about the incidents of this case.? 7e
there reDuested that he be furnished ?separatel copies of the
decision of the court and other pleadings and subseDuent
orders as "ell as motions in connection "ith the case.?
SubseDuent pleadings filed in the case unmista)abl
sho" the "idening rift in their professional relationship. Thus,
on 8a 3
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
23/28
23
the t"entAfive per cent #39$ attornes fees a"arded herein.
%s to ho" much, this is a function pertaining to !IR.
:. e note that !IRs cashier "as authori(ed on &une
39, 0/:2 to disburse to %tt. Leonardo !. 6ernande( the sum
of *0/,/it gate, assignment of
par)ing areas, and securit. 8r. %breu, the client of
complainant, %tt. *aguia, "as not a part to the contract since
the former did not agree "ith the terms concerning the par)ing
arrangements.
On 2 6ebruar 3=0=, %tt. *aguia filed a !omplaint for
-ishonest0"ith the I'* !ommission on 'ar -iscipline against
%tt. 8olina3for allegedl giving legal advice to the latterQs
clients to the effect that the Times SDuare *reamble "as
binding on 8r. %breu, "ho "as never a part to the contract.
In his %ns"er,onerating respondent or imposing such
sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon
petition of the complainant or other interested part filed "ith
the Supreme !ourt "ithin fifteen #09$ das from notice of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt117/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
24/28
24
'oardQs resolution, the Supreme !ourt orders other"ise.
#Underscoring supplied$
In this case, %tt. *aguia received notice of the 'oardQs
resolution on 30 8arch 3=0imino Noble III #8a>imino$ against respondent
%tt. Orlando O. %iles #Orlando$ before the Integrated 'ar ofthe *hilippines #I'*$.
T)e '(6
8a>imino alleged that on %ugust 0C, 3=0=, Orlando, a la"er,filed a complaint3for damages against his o"n brother,8arcelo O. %iles, &r. #8arcelo$, "hom 8a>imino represented,together "ith other defendants, therein. In the said complaint,Orlando stated the follo"ing data4 ?I'*A112=9CA12%&%9AH! >> > 8!LE !ompliance No. IIA===C:C/imino claimed that at the time of the filing of thesaid complaint, Orlandos I'* O.R. number should havealread reflected pament of his I'* annual dues for the ear3=0=, not 3==/, and that he should have finished his third8andator !ontinuing Legal Education #8!LE$ !ompliance,not +ust the second.
Sometime in -ecember 3=00, 8a>imino learned from 8arcelothat the latter had filed a separate case for grave threatsand estafa9against Orlando. hen 8a>imino "as furnished acop of the complaint, he discovered that, through te>tmessages, Orlando had been maligning him and dissuading8arcelo from retaining his services as counsel, claiming thathe "as incompetent and that he charged e>orbitant fees,
saing, among others4 ?> > > 'etter dismiss FourG hiAtrac)la"er "ho "ill impoverish FouG "ith his unconscionableFprofessionalG fee. 8a> Noble, as sho"n in court records, neverappeared even once, thats "h ou lost in the preAtrial stage, >> > get rid of FNobleG as FourG la"er. 7e is out to sDuee(e a lotof mone from FouG, > > > daig mo nga mismong abogadomong polpol.?:Records sho" that Orlando even prepared aNotice to Terminate Services of !ounsel1in the complaint fordamages, "hich stated that 8a>imino ?> > > has never doneanthing to protect the interests of the defendants in a mannernot befitting his representation as a seasoned la" practitionerand, aside from charging enormous amount of professionalfees and Duestionable e>penses, said counsels contractedservices reached as far onl in preparing and filing uncalled formotions to dismiss > > >? as "ell as a !ompromise
%greement,C
both of "hich he sent to 8arcelo for his signature.%ffronted, 8a>imino filed the instant complaint chargingOrlando "ith violation of Rule 1.=< of !anon 1, the entire!anon C of the !ode of *rofessional Responsibilit #!*R$, 'ar8atter #'8$ Nos. C9=/and 0/330=, and praed for thedisbarment of respondent as "ell as the a"ard of damages.
In his defense,00Orlando denied the charges against him andclaimed that his late submission of the third 8!LE complianceis not a ground for disbarment and that the Notice to TerminateServices of !ounsel and !ompromise %greement "ere allmade upon the reDuest of 8arcelo "hen the latter "asdeclared in default in the aforementioned civil case. 8oreover,he insisted that the allegedl offensive language in his te>tmessages sent to 8arcelo "as used in a ?brotherAtoAbrother
communication? and "ere uttered in goodfaith.03!hanRobles5irtuala"librar
8ean"hile, the criminal case for grave threats and estafa filedb 8arcelo against Orlando "as do"ngraded to un+ustve>ation0
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
25/28
25
IBP Re7or6 '- Re(omme-'6o-
In a Report and Recommendation09dated %pril imino nor intended to be published and )no"n b thirdpersons.
In a Resolution0:dated 8a 00, 3=0imino, as evident from the use of the "ord ?polpol?#stupid$. Li)e"ise, Orlandos insistence that 8arceloimmediatel terminate the services of 8a>imino indicatesOrlandos offensive conduct against his colleague, in violationof the aboveADuoted rules. 8oreover, Orlandos voluntar pleaof guilt to the crime of un+ust ve>ation in the criminal case filedagainst him b 8arcelo "as, for all intents and purposes, anadmission that he spo)e ill, insulted, and disrespected8a>imino A a departure from the +udicial decorum "hiche>poses the la"er to administrative liabilit.
On this score, it must be emphasi(ed that membership in the
bar is a privilege burdened "ith conditions such that a la"ers"ords and actions directl affect the publics opinion of thelegal profession. La"ers are e>pected to observe suchconduct of nobilit and uprightness "hich should remain "iththem, "hether in their public or private lives, and ma bedisciplined in the event their conduct falls short of thestandards imposed upon them.3:Thus, in this case, it isinconseDuential that the statements "ere merel relaed toOrlandos brother in private. %s a member of the bar, Orlandoshould have been more circumspect in his "ords, being fulla"are that the pertain to another la"er to "hom fairness as"ell as candor is o"ed. It "as highl improper for Orlando tointerfere and insult 8a>imino to his client.
Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of +udicialproceedings, as in this case, constitutes unprofessionalconduct "hich sub+ects a la"er to disciplinar action.31hilea la"er is entitled to present his case "ith vigor and courage,such enthusiasm does not +ustif the use of offensive andabusive language.3CThe !ourt has consistentl reminded themembers of the bar to abstain from all offensive personalitand to advance no fact pre+udicial to the honor and reputationof a part. !onsidering the circumstances, it is glaringl clearho" Orlando transgressed the !*R "hen he maligned8a>imino to his client.3/!hanRobles5irtuala"librar
ith regard to Orlandos alleged violation of '8 No. 0/33, the!ourt agrees "ith the I'* that his failure to disclose thereDuired information for 8!LE compliance in the complaint for
damages he had filed against his brother 8arcelo is not aground for disbarment. %t most, his violation shall onl because for the dismissal of the complaint as "ell as thee>punction thereof from therecords.
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
26/28
26
ARPIO, J."
T)e 'e
This administrative case arose from a !omplaint tiled b
Rodrigo E. Tapa #Tapa$ and %nthon &. Rustia #Rustia$, both
emploees of the Sugar Regulator %dministration, against%tt. !harlie L. 'ancolo #%tt. 'ancolo$ and %tt. &anus T.
larder #%tt. &arder$ for violation of the !anons of Ethics and
*rofessionalism, 6alsification of *ublic -ocument, ross
-ishonest, and 7arassment.
T)e '(6
Sometime in October 3==2, Tapa and Rustia received an
Order dated 02 October 3==2 from the Office of the
OmbudsmanA5isaas reDuiring them to file a counterAaffidavit
to a complaint for usurpation of authorit, falsification of public
document, and graft and corrupt practices filed against them bNehimias -ivinagracia, &r. #-ivinagracia$, a coAemploee in the
Sugar Regulator %dministration. The !omplaint0dated
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
27/28
27
manifested that the "ere submitting their disbarment
complaint based on the documents submitted to the I'*.
Respondents "ere also deemed to have "aived their right to
participate in the mandator conference. 6urther, both parties
"ere directed to submit their respective position papers. On 31
October 3==:, the I'* received complainants position paper
dated 0C October 3==: and respondents position paper dated3< October 3==:.
The I'*s Report and Recommendation
On 00 %pril 3==1, %tt. Lolita %. Huisumbing, the Investigating
!ommissioner of the !ommission on 'ar -iscipline of the I'*,
submitted her Report. %tt. Huisumbing found that %tt.
'ancolo violated Rule /.=0 of !anon / of the !ode of
*rofessional Responsibilit "hile %tt. &arder violated Rule
0.=0 of !anon 0 of the same !ode. The Investigating
!ommissioner recommended that %tt. 'ancolo be suspended
for t"o ears from the practice of la" and %tt. &arder be
admonished for his failure to e>ercise certain responsibilities in
their la" firm.
In her Report and Recommendation, the Investigating
!ommissioner opined4chanroblesvirtuala"librar
> > >. In his ans"er, respondent %tt. !harlie L. 'ancolo
admitted that his signature appearing in the complaint filed
against complainants Rodrigo E. Tapa and %nthon &. Rustia
"ith the Ombudsman "ere signed b the secretar. 7e did not
refute the findings that his signatures appearing in the various
documents released from his office "ere found not to be his.Such pattern of malpratice b respondent clearl breached his
obligation under Rule /.=0 of !anon /, for a la"er "ho allo"s
a nonAmember to represent him is guilt of violating the
aforementioned !anon. The fact that respondent "as bus
cannot serve as an e>cuse for him from signing personall.
%fter all respondent is a member of a la" firm composed of not
+ust one #0$ la"er. The Supreme !ourt has ruled that this
practice constitute negligence and undersigned finds the act a
sign of indolence and ineptitude. 8oreover, respondents
ignored the notices sent b undersigned. That sho"ed patent
lac) of respect to the Integrated 'ar of the *hilippines
!ommission on 'ar -iscipline and its proceedings. It betras
lac) of courtes and irresponsibilit as la"ers.
On the other hand, %tt. &anus T. &arder, a senior partner of the
la" firm &arder 'ancolo and %ssociates La" Office, failed to
e>ercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge
of his la" firm. %s a senior partnerF,G he failed to abide to the
principle of ?command responsibilit?. > > >.
> > >
Respondent %tt. &anus &arder after all is a seasoned
practitioner, having passed the bar in 0//9 and practicing la"
up to the present. 7e holds himself out to the public as a la"firm designated as &arder 'ancolo and %ssociates La" Office.
It behooves %tt. &anus T. &arder to e>ert ordinar diligence to
find out "hat is going on in his la" firm, to ensure that all
la"ers in his firm act in conformit to the !ode of *rofessional
Responsibilit. %s a partner, it is his responsibilit to provide
efficacious control of court pleadings and other documents that
carr the name of the la" firm. 7ad he done that, he could
have )no"n the unethical practice of his la" partner %tt.
!harlie L. 'ancolo. Respondent %tt. &anus T. &arder failed to
perform this tas) and is administrativel liable under !anon 0,
Rule 0.=0 of the !ode of *rofessional
Responsibilit.1chanroblesvirtuala"librar
On 0/ September 3==1, in Resolution No. M5IIIA3==1A/1, the
'oard of overnors of the I'* approved "ith modification theReport and Recommendation of the Investigating
!ommissioner. The Resolution
states4chanroblesvirtuala"librar
RESOL5E- to %-O*T and %**RO5E, as it is hereb
%-O*TE- and %**RO5E-, "ith modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating !ommissioner of the
aboveAentitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as
%nne> ?%?; and, finding the recommendation full supported b
the evidence on record and the applicable la"s and rules, and
considering Respondent %tt. 'ancolos violation of Rule /.=0,
!anon / of the !ode of *rofessional Responsibilit, %tt.
!harlie L. 'ancolo is hereb SUS*EN-E- from the practice of
la" for one #0$ ear.
7o"ever, "ith regard to the charge against %tt. &anus T.
&arder, the 'oard of overnors RESOL5E- as it is hereb
RESOL5E- to %8EN-, as it is hereb %8EN-E- the
Recommendation of the Investigating !ommissioner, and
%**RO5E the -IS8ISS%L of the case for lac) of
merit.Cchanroblesvirtuala"librar
Tapa and Rustia filed a 8otion for Reconsideration. Li)e"ise,
%tt. 'ancolo filed his 8otion for Reconsideration dated 33
-ecember 3==1. Thereafter, %tt. &arder filed his separate!onsolidated !ommentRepl to !omplainants 8otion for
Reconsideration and !omment 6iled b !omplainants dated
3/ &anuar 3==C.
In Resolution No. MMA3=03A019 dated / &une 3=03, the I'*
'oard of overnors denied both complainants and %tt.
'ancolos motions for reconsideration. The I'* 'oard found no
cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Investigating
!ommissioner and affirmed Resolution No. M5IIIA3==1A/1
dated 0/ September 3==1.
T)e o
7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015
28/28
28
This rule "as clearl e>plained in the case of !ambali(a v.
!ristalATenorio,/"here "e held4chanroblesvirtuala"librar
The la"ers dut to prevent, or at the ver least not to assist
in, the unauthori(ed practice of la" is founded on public
interest and polic. *ublic polic reDuires that the practice of
la" be limited to those individuals found dul Dualified ineducation and character. The permissive right conferred on the
la"er is an individual and limited privilege sub+ect to
"ithdra"al 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
dishonest of those unlicensed to practice la" and not sub+ect
to the disciplinar control of the !ourt. It devolves upon a
la"er to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons
and ethics of the profession en+oin him not to permit his
professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to
ma)e possible the unauthori(ed practice of la" b, an agenc,
personal or corporate. %nd, the la" ma)es it a misbehavior on
his part, sub+ect to disciplinar action, to aid a laman in theunauthori(ed practice of la".
In Republic v. @enric) -evelopment !orporation,0="e held that
the preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal "or)
involving the practice of la" "hich is reserved e>clusivel for
members of the legal profession. %tt. 'ancolos authorit and
dut to sign a pleading are personal to him. %lthough he ma
delegate the signing of a pleading to another la"er, he ma
not delegate it to a nonAla"er. 6urther, under the Rules of
!ourt, counsels signature serves as a certification that #0$ he
has read the pleading; #3$ to the best of his )no"ledge,
information and belief there is good ground to support it; and
#ing ones
signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone "ho has the
responsibilit to certif to these matters and give legal effect to
the document.
In his 8otion for Reconsideration dated 33 -ecember 3==1,
%tt. 'ancolo "ants us to believe that he "as a victim of
circumstances or of manipulated events because of his
unconditional trust and confidence in his former la" partner,
%tt. &arder. 7o"ever, %tt. 'ancolo did not ta)e an steps to
rectif the situation, save for the affidavit he gave to Rustia
dening his signature to the !omplaint filed before the Office of
the Ombudsman. %tt. 'ancolo had an opportunit to maintainhis innocence "hen he filed "ith the I'* his &oint %ns"er #"ith
%tt. &arder$ dated 3: &anuar 3==:. %tt. 'ancolo, ho"ever,
admitted that prior to the preparation of the &oint %ns"er, %tt.
&arder threatened to file a disbarment case against him if he
did not cooperate. Thus, he "as constrained to allo" %tt.
&arder to prepare the &oint %ns"er. %tt. 'ancolo simpl signed
the verification "ithout seeing the contents of the &oint %ns"er.
In the %ns"er, %tt. 'ancolo categoricall stated that becauseof some minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed
against Tapa and Rustia "ere signed b his secretar, albeit
"ith his tolerance. Undoubtedl, %tt. 'ancolo violated the
!ode of *rofessional Responsibilit b allo"ing a nonAla"er
to affi> his signature to a pleading. This violation Is an act of
falsehood "hich IS a ground for disciplinar action.
The complainants did not present an evidence that %tt.
&arder "as directl involved, had )no"ledge of, or even
participated in the "rongful practice of %tt. 'ancolo in allo"ing
or tolerating his secretar to sign pleadings for him. Thus, "e
agree "ith the finding of the I'* 'oard that %tt. &arder is not
administrativel liable.
In sum, "e find that the suspension of %tt. 'ancolo from the
practice of la" for one ear is "arranted. e also find proper
the dismissal of the case against %tt. larder.
7ERE6ORE, "e -IS8ISS the complaint against %tt. &anus
T. larder for lac) of merit.
e find respondent %tt. !harlie L. 'ancolo administrativel
liable for violating Rule /.=0 of !anon / of the !ode of
*rofessional Responsibilit. 7e is hereb SUS*EN-E- from
the practice of la" for one ear effective upon finalit of this-ecision. 7e is "arned that a repetition of the same or similar
acts in the future shall be dealt "ith more severel.
Let a cop of this -ecision be attached to respondent %tt.
!harlie L. 'ancolos record in this !ourt as attorne. 6urther,
let copies of this -ecision be furnished to the Integrated 'ar of
the *hilippines and the Office of the !ourt %dministrator, "hich
is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the countr for
their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt11