CPD Seminar: Ethics, Professional Skills and Practice Management for Lawyers
ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
-
Upload
onlineonrandomdays -
Category
Documents
-
view
224 -
download
0
Transcript of ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
1/32
Infuence Peddling
EN BANC
SPOUSES MANUEL C.RAFOLS, JR. and LOLITAB. RAFOLS, Complainants,-versus-
ATTY. RICARDO . BARRIOS,JR., Respondent.
A.C. N!. "#$%Promulgated:March 15, 2010
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM&
The primary o!ecti"e o#administrati"e cases against la$yers is notonly to punish and discipline the erringindi"idual la$yers ut also to sa#eguard theadministration o# !ustice y protecting thecourts and the pulic #rom the misconducto# la$yers, and to remo"e #rom the legalpro#ession persons $hose utter disregard o#their la$yers oath has pro"en them un%t tocontinue discharging the trust reposed inthem as memers o# the ar& ' la$yer maye disarred or suspended #or misconduct,$hether in his pro#essional or pri"atecapacity, $hich sho$s him to e $anting inmoral character, honesty, proity and gooddemeanor or un$orthy to continue as ano(cer o# the court&
Rivera v. Corral, '&C& )o& *5+, uly +, 2002, *+
.CR' 1&
/y its /oard Resolution )o& 1 dated March , 1,
the .outh Cotaato-.arangani-eneral .antos City
3.4C.'R)6 Chapter o# the 7ntegrated /ar o# the Philippines
37/P6 resol"ed to re#er to the 7/P /oard o# o"ernors in Manila,
#or appropriate action and in"estigation, the purported
anomaly in"ol"ing udge Teodoro 8i9on r& and 'tty& Ricardo &
/arrios, r&1;Thus, on March 2+, 1,
'tty& oe o# Court
and /ar Con%dant, re#erred #or appropriate action a copy o#
the letter and a(da"its to then Court 'dministrator 'l#redo
=& /enipayo&
7n turn, then .enior 8eputy Court 'dministrator
Reynaldo =& .uare9 %led $ith the Court an 'dministrati"e
Matter #or 'genda, recommending in relation to 'tty& /arrios,
r&, as #ollo$s:
xxx5& The 4(ce o# the /ar
Con%dant e DR)7.@8 $ith a copy o# theletter-note and its attachments so that itmay conduct its o$n in"estigation in thematter $ith respect to the actuations o#'tty& Ricardo /arrios, r&;
xxx
7n the resolution dated 4ctoer 21, 1, the Court
appro"ed the recommendations,;and directed the 4(ce o#
the /ar Con%dant to in"estigate the actuations o# the
respondent, and to render its report and recommendation
thereon&
P)!ceeding( !* '+e OBC
4nly the respondent appeared during the hearing e#ore the
4/C& 8enying the charges against him, he sought the
dismissal o# the complaint and re-a(rmed the contents o# his
comment& 8espite notice, the complainants did not appear
e#ore the 4/C& @o$e"er, the complainants and the
respondent had testi%ed during the administrati"e hearing
in"ol"ing udge 8i9on, r& e#ore Court o# 'ppeals 'ssociate
ustice ose .aio r& as the 7n"estigating ustice& 'lso
testi#ying thereat $ere the complainants $itnesses, namely:
'llan Ra#ols, 8aisy Ra#ols and =arry .e"illa&
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn1 -
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
2/32
A. Eidenc
e *!) '+e
C!-lainan'(
The complainants $ere the plainti
#or 8itas Ra#ols, 'llans $i#e, $ho o accounts, and $ent ac> to the hotel $ith the cash&
There, they sa$ the !udge and his dri"er, $ho ec>oned to
them to go to$ards the !udges )issan pic>-up then par>ed
along the high$ay in #ront o# the hotel& Manuel alighted #rom
his car and approached the !udge& Manuel personally handed
the money to the !udge, $ho told Manuel a#ter as>ing aout
the amount that it $as not enough& Therea#ter, Manuel
entered the hotels co-
up until some$here inside the 8oa .oledad
state, spina, eneral .antos City& There, the !udge alighted
and approached the complainants and shoo> their hands& 't
that point, Manuel handed P*0,000&00 to the !udge& The !udge
then told Manuel that the RTC !udge in 7loilo City e#ore $hom
the perpetuation o# the testimony o# .oledad le"encionado-
Pro"ido $as made should still testi#y as a $itness during the
trial in his salain order #or the complainants to $in& The !udge
persuaded the complainants to gi"e money also to that !udgeA
other$ise, they should not lame him #or the outcome o# the
case&
The complainants $ere #orced to gi"e money to the
!udge, ecause they #eared that the !udge $ould e iased
against them unless they ga"e in to his demands& /ut $hen
they ultimately sensed that they $ere eing #ooled aout their
case, they consulted =arry .e"illa, their mediamen #riend, and
narrated to .e"illa all the #acts and circumstances surrounding
the case& They agreed that the details should e released to
the media& The expos$as pulished in the$e%s#a&er, a
local ne$spaper&
Therea#ter, the respondent and udge 8i9on, r& made
se"eral attempts to appease the complainants y sending
gi#ts and o
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
3/32
'ccording to the complainants, the respondent
demanded P25,000&00 as his expenses in securing the
testimony o# .oledad le"encionado-Pro"ido in 7loilo City to e
used as e"idence in their ci"il case& 7n addition, the
respondent reEuested the complainants to
orro$ P?0,000&00 #rom the an> ecause he $anted to
redeem his #oreclosed 7su9u l#, and ecause he needed to
gi"e P11,000&00 to his nephe$ $ho $as due to lea"e #or $or>
aroad&
B. Eidence *!)
'+e Re(!nden'
7n his "eri%ed comment dated March 22, 200?,10;the
respondent con%rmed that the complainants engaged him as
their counsel in Ci"il Case )o& ?20& @is "ersion #ollo$s&
4n 8ecemer 22, 1, the respondent introduced
Manuel to udge 8i9on, r& inside the ast Royal @otels coed $hat the money $as #or, Manuel replied
that it $as in appreciation o# the #ormers introducing the latter
to the !udge& The respondent stated that Manuel did notmention $hat transpired et$een the latter and the !udgeA
and that the !udge did not tell him 3respondent6 $hat
transpired in that con"ersation&
T$o days later, the respondent again "isited the
complainants at their house in eneral .antos City on oard
the !udges )issan pic>-up dri"en y the !udges dri"er, in order
to recei"e the P0,000&00 #rom the complainants& The amount
$as eing orro$ed y the !udge #or his s$imming pool& =ater
on, the !udge told the respondent to >eep P*0,000&00 as a
to>en o# their #riendship& '#ter Manuel handed theP0,000&00,
the respondent and the !udges dri"er headed
to$ards 8a"ao City, $here, according to the !udges
instruction, they redeemed the !udges $rist$atch
#or P15,000&00 #rom a pa$nshop& The dri"er rought the
remaining amount o# P*5,000&00 to the !udge in his home&
4n anuary 2, 1, udge 8i9on, r& "isited the
respondent at the latters house to as> him to execute an
a(da"it& 8eclining the reEuest at %rst, the respondent
relented only ecause the !udge ecame physically $ea> in
his presence and $as on the "erge o# collapsing& )onetheless,
the respondent re#used to notari9e the document&
7n that a(da"it dated anuary 2, 1,11;the
respondent denied that udge 8i9on, r& as>ed money #rom the
complainantsA and stated that he did not see the
complainants handing the money to the !udge& @e admitted
that he $as the one $ho had reEuested the !udge to
personally collect his unpaid attorneys #ees #rom the
complainants $ith respect to their pre"ious and terminated
caseA and that the !udge did not as> money #rom the
complainants in exchange #or a #a"orale decision in their
case&
4n anuary 2, 1, the respondent returned to the
complainants residence, ut $as surprised to %nd
complainant =olita crying aloud& .he in#ormed him that the
!udge $as again as>ing an additionalP*0,000&00 although
they had gi"en him P*0,000&00 only the $ee> e#ore& .he
di"ulged that the !udge had told her that their case $ould
surely lose ecause: 3a6 they had engaged a counsel $ho
$as #ahinang&laseA 36 the !udge hearing Ci"il Case )o& 5?+5
in 7loilo and the $oman $ho had testi%ed in Ci"il Case )o&
?02 had not een presentedA and 3c6 they $ould ha"e to
spend at least P10,000&00 #or said !udges accommodations in
eneral .antos City&12;
4n anuary *1, 1, udge 8i9on, r& $ent to the
house o# the respondent, ut the latter $as not home& The
!udge le#t a note addressed to the complainants, and
instructed the respondents secretary to deli"er the note to the
complainants along $ith a gi#t 3imported tale cloc>6&1*;'ccording to the respondent, the complainants consistently
re#used to accept the gi#t se"eral timesA it $as later stolen
#rom his house in Ceu City&
4n eruary 1, 1, the respondent deli"ered the note and
gi#t to the complainants, ut the latter re#used to recei"e it,
telling him that they $ere no longer interested to continue
$ith the case& 't the same time, the complainants assured
him that they ore no personal grudge against him, ecause
they had a prolem only $ith udge 8i9on, r&
4n eruary 2+, 1, the respondent $ent to the
)ational /ureau o# 7n"estigation Regional 4(ce, Region G7,
and the Philippine )ational Police Regional 4(ce, Region G7,
oth in 8a"ao City, to reEuest the in"estigation o# the matter&
1+;
4n March 2, 1, the respondent paid udge 8i9on,
r& a "isit upon the latters reEuest& 7n that meeting, the
respondent told the !udge aout the re#usal o# the
complainants to accept the !udges gi#t and aout their
decision not to continue $ith the case& 15;
4n the next day, udge 8i9on, r& sent a note to the
respondent to in#orm him that the !udge had raised the
amount that he had orro$ed #rom the complainants&1?;The
!udge reEuested the respondent to tell the complainants that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn16 -
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
4/32
he 3udge 8i9on, r&6 $as going to return $hate"er he had
orro$ed #rom them& @o$e"er, the complainants in#ormed the
respondent that he should tell the !udge that they $ere no
longer interested in getting ac> the money&
The respondent made a #ollo$-up at the )/7 and P)P
Regional 4(ces in 8a"ao City o# his reEuest #or assistance
a#ter Manuel mentioned to him that he 3Manuel6 >ne$ o#
many armed men ready at any time to help him in his
prolem $ith the !udge&
Re!)' and Rec!--enda'i!n !* '+e OBC
7n its Report and Recommendation dated May 15,
200,1;the 4/C opined that the administrati"e case against
the respondent could not e dismissed on the ground o#
#ailure to prosecute due to the complainants #ailure to appear
in the scheduled hearing despite due notice&
/ased on the #acts already estalished and identi%ed,
as rendered in the decision dated anuary 21,
200? in ManuelRafols and Lolita B. Rafols v.
Judge Teodoro '. Dizon,1;the 4/C re!ected the respondents
denial o# any >no$ledge o# the transaction et$een his clients
and the !udge&
The 4/C recommended:
F@R4R, in the light o# the#oregoing premises, it is respect#ullyrecommended that respondent 'TTH&R7C'R84 /'RR74., r& e .D.P)88 #romthe practice o# la$ #or three 3*6 years $ith astern $arning that a repetition o# similar actin the #uture $ill e dealt more se"erely&
Ruling !* '+e C!u)'
Fe appro"e and adopt the report and
recommendations o# the 4/C, $hich $e %nd to e #ully and
competently supported y the e"idence adduced y the
complainants and their $itnesses, ut $e impose the supreme
penalty o# disarment, $hich $e elie"e is the proper penalty&
I
.ection 2, Rule 1* o# the Rules of Court,$hich
go"erns the disarment and suspension o# attorneys,
pro"ides:
.ection 2& Dis(ar#ent and
sus"ension of attorneys (y theSu"re#eCourt) grounds therefor& 'memer o# the ar may e disarred orsuspended #rom his o(ce as attorney y the.upreme Court #or any deceit, malpractice,or other gross misconduct in such o(ce,grossly immoral conduct, or y reason o# hiscon"iction #or a crime in"ol"ing moralturpitude, or #or any "iolation o# the oath$hich he is reEuired to ta>e e#ore
admission to practice, or #or a $ill#uldisoedience o# any la$#ul order o# asuperior court, or #or corruptly or $ill#ullyappearing as an attorney #or a party to acase $ithout authority to do so& The practiceo# soliciting cases at la$ #or the purpose o#gain, either personally or through paidagents or ro>ers constitute malpractice&
The urden o# proo# in disarment and suspension
proceedings al$ays rests on the shoulders o# the complainant&
The Court exercises its disciplinary po$er only i# the
complainant estalishes the complaint y clearly
preponderant e"idence that $arrants the imposition o# the
harsh penalty&1;'s a rule, an attorney en!oys the legal
presumption that he is innocent o# the charges made against
him until the contrary is pro"ed& 'n attorney is #urther
presumed as an o(cer o# the Court to ha"e per#ormed his
duties in accordance $ith his oath&20;
@ere, the complainants success#ully o"ercame the
respondents presumed innocence and the presumed
regularity in the per#ormance o# his duties as an attorney o#
the complainants& The e"idence against him $as sustantial,
and $as not contradicted&
To egin $ith, the respondents denial o# >no$ledge
o# the transaction et$een the complainants and udge 8i9on,
r& $as not only implausile, ut also unsustantiated& 7t $as
the respondent himsel# $ho had introduced the complainants
to the !udge& @is act o# introducing the complainants to the
!udge strongly implied that the respondent $as a$are o# the
illegal purpose o# the !udge in $anting to tal> $ith the
respondents clients& Thus, $e unEuali%edly accept the
aptness o# the #ollo$ing e"aluation made in the 4/Cs Report
and Recommendation, viz*
xxx /eing the 4(cer o# the Court, he mustha"e >no$n that meeting litigants outside
the court is something eyond the oundso# the rule and that it can ne"er e !usti%edy any reason& @e must ha"e >no$n thepurpose o# udge 8i9on in reEuesting him tomeet the complainants-litigants outside thechamer o# udge 8i9on& /y his o"ert act inarranging the meeting et$een
udge 8i9on and complainants- litigants inthe Co
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
5/32
pro"ed that the respondent had >no$n all along o# the illegal
transaction et$een the !udge and the complainants, and
elied his #eigned lac> o# >no$ledge o# the deli"ery o# the
money to the !udge&
Thirdly, his attempt to explain that the complainants
had gi"en the money to the !udge as a loan, #ar #rom
so#tening our strong impression o# the respondents liaility,
con%rmed his a$areness o# the gross impropriety o# the
transaction& /eing the complainants attorney in the ci"il case
eing heard e#ore the !udge, the respondent could not ut
>no$ that #or the !udge to orro$ money #rom his clients $as
highly irregular and outrightly unethical& 7# he $as innocent o#
$rongdoing, as he claimed, he should ha"e desisted #rom
ha"ing anypart in the transaction& Het, he did not, $hich
rendered his explanation unelie"ale& Compounding the
un$orthiness o# his explanation $as his admission o# ha"ing
retained P*0,000&00 o# the orro$ed money upon the !udges
instruction&
'nd, lastly, the 4/C has pointed out that the
respondents act o# reEuesting the )/7 Regional 4(ce
in 8a"ao City to in"estigate $as an a#terthought on his part&
Fe agree $ith the 4/C, #or the respondent o"iously acted in
order to anticipate the complainants mo"es againsthim and
the !udge& To e sure, the respondent sensed that thecomplainants $ould not simply #orgi"e and #orget the
mulcting they had su their
money despite their eing "ery angry at the !udges greed&
4"erall, the respondent denials $ere $orthless and
una"ailing in the #ace o# the uncontradicted e"idence sho$ing
that he had not only personally arranged the meeting
et$een Manuel and udge 8i9on, r&, ut had also
communicated to the complainants the !udges illegal reason
#or the meeting& 7t is axiomatic that any denial, to e accepted
as a "iale de#ense in any proceeding, must e sustantiated
y clear and con"incing e"idence& This need deri"es #rom the
nature o# a denial as e"idence o# a negati"e and sel#-ser"ing
character, $eightless in la$ and insu(cient to o"ercome the
testimony o# credile $itnesses on a(rmati"e matters& 2*;
II
The practice o# la$ is a pri"ilege hea"ily urdened
$ith conditions&2+;The attorney is a "anguard o# our
legal system, and, as such, is expected to
maintain not only legal pro%ciency ut also a "ery high
standard o# morality, honesty, integrity, and #air dealing in
order that the peoples #aith and con%dence in the legal
system are ensured&25;Thus, he must conduct himsel#,
$hether in dealing $ith his clients or $ith the pulic at large,
as to e eyond reproach at all times& 2?;'ny "iolation o# the
high moral standards o# the legal pro#ession !usti%es the
imposition on the attorney o# the appropriate penalty,
including suspension and disarment&2;
.peci%cally, the Code of +rofessional
Res"onsi(ilityen!oins an attorney #rom engaging in unla$#ul,
dishonest, or deceit#ul conduct&2;Corollary to this in!unction
is the rule that an attorney shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity o# the =egal Pro#ession and support the
acti"ities o# the 7ntegrated /ar&2;
The respondent did not measure up to the exacting
standards o# the =a$ Pro#ession, $hich demanded o# him as
an attorney the asolute adication o# any personal
ad"antage that conIicted in any $ay, directly or indirectly,
$ith the interest o# his clients& or monetary gain, he
disregarded the "o$ to delay no man #or money or malice and
to conduct mysel# as a la$yer according to the est o# my
>no$ledge and discretion, $ith all good %delity as $ell to the
courts as to my clients that he made $hen he too> the
=a$yers 4ath&*0;@e also disoeyed the explicit command to
him as an attorney to accept nocompensation in connection
$ith his clients usiness
except #rom him or $ith his >no$ledge and appro"al&
*1;
@econ"eniently ignored that the relation et$een him and his
clients $as highly %duciary in nature and o# a "ery delicate,
exacting, and con%dential character&*2;
Berily, the respondent $as guilty o# gross
misconduct, $hich is improper or $rong conduct, the
transgression o# some estalished and de%nite rule o# action,
a #oridden act, a dereliction o# duty, $ill#ul in character, and
implies a $rong#ul intent and not mere error o# !udgment&
**;'ny gross misconduct o# an attorney in his pro#essional or
pri"ate capacity sho$s him un%t to manage the ae in this administrati"e case& 'nd, eing
conspirators, they oth deser"e the highest penalty& The
disarment o# the respondent is in order, ecause such
sanction is on par $ith the dismissal o# udge 8i9on, r&
/0EREFORE, 'tty& Ricardo & /arrios, r& is
disarred&
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn34 -
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
6/32
This decision shall e entered in the records o# 'tty&
/arrios, r& as a memer o# the Philippine /ar&
Copies o# the decision shall e #urnished to the /ar
Con%dant and the 7ntegrated /ar o# the Philippines #or record
purposesA and to the Court 'dministrator, #or circulation to all
courts nation$ide&
SO ORDERED.
In'e-e)a'e Language
Repulic o# the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
.C4)8 87B7.74)
A.C. N!. 1#2" N!e-3e) 4%, 564%
0ON. MARIBET0 RODRIUE78MANA0AN, P)e(iding
Judge, Municial T)ial C!u)', San Ma'e!,
Ri9al,Complainant,
"s&
ATTY. RODOLFO FLORES,Respondent&
R . 4 = D T 7 4 )
DEL CASTILLO,J.:
Respondent 'tty& Rodolto lores 3'tty& lores6 $as counsel #orthe de#endant in Ci"il Case )o& 1?* captioned as Marsha
'ranas plainti< "ersus 'rnold /almores de#endant a suit #or
damages %led e#ore the Municipal Trial Court o# .an Mateo,
Ri9al and presided y herein complainant udge Marieth
Rodrigue9-Manahan 3udge Manahan6& 8uring the proceedings
in Ci"il Case )o& 1?*, udge Manahan issued an 4rder 1dated
anuary 12, 2011, $herey she "oluntarily inhiited #rom
hearing Ci"il Case )o& 1?*& The said 4rder reads in part, "i9:
More than mere contempt do his 3'tty& lores6 unethical
actuations, his traits o# dishonesty and discourtesy not only to
his o$n rethren in the legal pro#ession, ut also to the ench
and !udges, $ould amount to gra"e misconduct, i# not a
malpractice o# la$, a serious ground #or disciplinary action o#a memer o# the ar pursuant to Rules 1* a J &
7) B7F F@R4, #urnish a copy o# this 4rder to the /ar
8iscipline Committee, 7ntegrated /ar o# the Philippines, to the
.upreme Court en anc, #or appropriate in"estigation and
sanction&2
Dpon receipt o# the copy o# the ao"e 4rder, the 4(ce o# the
/ar Con%dant 34/C6 deemed the pronouncements o# udge
Manahan as a #ormal administrati"e Complaint against 'tty&
lores& 8oc>eted as '&C& )o& 5+, the case $as re#erred to
the xecuti"e udge o# the Regional Trial Court o# Ri9al #or
in"estigation, report and recommendation&*
7n her 7n"estigation, Report and
Recommendation,+7n"estigating udge osephine Karate
ernande9 37n"estigating udge6 narrated the antecedents o#
the case as #ollo$s:
' complaint #or 8amages $as %led e#ore the Municipal Trial
Court 3MTC6 o# .an Mateo, Ri9al doc>eted as Ci"il Case )o&
1?*, entitled Marsha 'ranas "s& 'rnold /almores& The Pulic
'ttorneyLs 4(ce 3P'46 thru 'tty& erdinand P& Censon
represented the complainant $hile 'tty& Rodol#o lores
appeared as counsel #or the de#endant&
x x x 8uring the Preliminary Con#erence x x x, respondent
'tty& lores entered his appearance and $as gi"en time to %le
a Pre-Trial /rie#& x x x 4n May 2+, 2010, respondent 'tty&
lores %led his Pre-Trial /rie# ut $ithout proo# o# MC=
compliance hence it $as expunged #rom the records $ithout
pre!udice to the %ling o# another Pre-Trial /rie# containing the
reEuired MC= compliance& x x x 'tty& lores as>ed #or ten 3106
days to sumit proo#&
The preliminary con#erence $as reset se"eral times 3'ugust
11, .eptemer 6 #or #ailure o# respondent 'tty& lores toappear and sumit his Pre-Trial /rie# indicating thereon his
MC= compliance& The court a Euo li>e$ise issued 4rders
dated .eptemer 15 and 4ctoer 20, 2010 gi"ing respondent
'tty& lores a last chance to sumit his Pre-Trial /rie# $ith stern
$arning that #ailure to do so shall e considered a $ai"er on
his part&
Mean$hile, respondent 'tty& lores %led a Mani#estation in
Court dated .eptemer 1+, 2010 stating among others, the
#ollo$ing allegations:
x x x x
+& Fhen you too> your oath as memer o# the /ar,
you promised to ser"e truth, !ustice and #air play& 8o
you thin> you are eing truth#ul, !ust and #air y
ser"ing a cheater
5& 7gnorance o# the la$ excuses no one #or $hich
reason e"en rap $as con"icted y the
.andiganayan&-%"hi/ut e"en $orse is a la$yer
$ho "iolates the la$&
?& =ast ut not the least, od said Thou shall not lie&
'gain the Philippine Constitution commands: i"e
e"ery ilipino his due& The act o# re#usal y the
plainti< is "iolati"e o# the #oregoing di"ine andhuman la$s&
x x x x
Respondent 'tty& lores later %led his Pre-Trial /rie# earing an
MC= numer $hich $as merely superimposed $ithout
indicating the date and place o# compliance& 8uring the
preliminary con#erence on )o"emer 2+, 2010, respondent
'tty& lores mani#ested that he $ill sumit proo# o# compliance
o# his MC= on the #ollo$ing day& 4n 8ecemer 1, 2010,
respondent 'tty& lores again #ailed to appear and to sumit
the said promised proo# o# MC= compliance& 7n its stead,
respondent 'tty& lores %led a =etter o# e"en date stating as
#ollo$s:
7# only to gi"e your @onor another chance to pro"e your pro
plainti< sentiment, 7 am herey %ling the attached Motion
$hich you may once more assign to the $aste as>et o#
nonchalance&
Fith the small respect that still remains, 7 ha"e as>ed the
de#endant to loo> #or another la$yer to represent him #or 7 am
no longer interested in this case ecause 7 #eel 7 cannot do
anything right in your sala&5
The 7n"estigating udge #ound 'tty& lores to ha"e #ailed to
gi"e due respect to the court y #ailing to oey court orders,y #ailing to sumit proo# o# his compliance $ith the
Mandatory Continuing =egal ducation 3MC=6 reEuirement,
and #or using intemperate language in his pleadings& The
7n"estigating udge recommended that 'tty& lores e
suspended #rom the practice o# la$ #or one year& ?
The 4/C adopted the %ndings and recommendation o# the
7n"estigating udge&
4ur Ruling
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt7 -
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
7/32
There is no dout that 'tty& lores #ailed to oey the trial
courtLs order to sumit proo# o# his MC= compliance
not$ithstanding the se"eral opportunities gi"en him& NCourt
orders are to e respected not ecause the !udges $ho issue
them should e respected, ut ecause o# the respect and
consideration that should e extended to the !udicial ranch
o# the o"ernment& This is asolutely essential i# our
o"ernment is to e a go"ernment o# la$s and not o# men&
Respect must e had not ecause o# the incuments to the
positions, ut ecause o# the authority that "ests in them&
8isrespect to !udicial incuments is disrespect to that ranc
the o"ernment to $hich they elong, as $ell as to the .tate
$hich has instituted the !udicial system&N
'tty& lores also employed intemperate language in his
pleadings& 's an o(cer o# the court, 'tty& lores is expected to
e circumspect in his language& Rule 11&0*, Canon 11 o# the
Code o# Pro#essional Responsiility en!oins all attorneys to
astain #rom scandalous, o
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
8/32
T+e C!u)'?( Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious&
The practice o# la$ is a pri"ilege esto$ed on la$yers $homeet high standards o# legal pro%ciency and morality&207t is aspecial pri"ilege urdened $ith conditions e#ore the legalpro#ession, the courts, their clients and the society such that ala$yer has the duty to comport himsel# in a manner as touphold integrity and promote the pulicOs #aith in thepro#ession&21ConseEuently, a la$yer mustat all ti#es, $hetherin pulic or pri"ate li#e, act in a manner eyond reproach
especially $hen dealing $ith #ello$la$yers&22ChanRolesBirtuala$lirary
7n this relation, Rule &0* o# Canon as $ell as Canon o# theCPR pro"ides:
Rule &0* ' la$yer shall not engage in conduct thatad"ersely reIects on his %tness to practice la$, nor shall he,$hether in pulic or pri"ate li#e, eha"e in a scandalousmanner to the discredit o# the legal pro#ession&
Canon ' la$yer shall conduct himsel# $ith courtesy,#airness and candor to$ard his pro#essional colleagues, andshall a"oid harassing tactics against opposing counsel&Rule &01 - ' la$yer shall not, in his pro#essional dealings, uselanguage $hich is ausi"e, oe it appear that he notari9ed it e#ore hisadmission to the /ar&
4n the alleged #alsi%cation o# his notarial entries, 'tty& Kaidecontended that he needed to simultaneously use se"eral
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
9/32
notarial registers in his separate satellite o(ces in order toetter cater to the needs o# his clients and accommodate theirgro$ing numer&1+This explains the irregular and non-seEuential entries in his notarial registers&
urther, 'tty& Kaide argued that imeno $as ne"er his clientsince she did not personally hire him as her counsel& imenoengaged the ser"ices o# KMK $here he pre"iously $or>ed asan associate& The real counsel o# imeno and her relati"es intheir annulment o# title case $as 'tty& =eo MontalanKarago9a, one o# KMKOs partners&154n this asis, therespondent should not e held liale #or representing
conIicting clientsO interests&
inally, he denied that he used any intemperate, oeep, maintain, protect and pro"ide#or la$#ul inspection as pro"ided in theseRules, a c+)!n!l!gical !@cial n!'a)ial )egi('e) !*n!'a)ial ac'(consisting o# a permanently ound oo> $ithnumered pages&N The same section #urther pro"ides that Nanotary pulic shall >eep !nl< !ne ac'ie n!'a)ial )egi('e)a' an< gien 'i-e&N24n this asis, 'tty& KaideOs act o#simultaneously >eeping se"eral acti"e notarial registers is alatant "iolation o# .ection 1, Rule B7&
The )otarial Practice Rules strictly reEuires a notary pulic to
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
10/32
maintain only one acti"e notarial register and ensure that theentries in it are chronologically arranged& The None acti"enotarial registerN rule is in place to deter a notary pulic #romassigning se"eral notarial registers to di spaces in the notarialregister to allo$ the antedating o# notari9ations&
7n these lights, $e cannot accept 'tty& KaideOs explanationthat he needed to maintain se"eral acti"e notarial registers inseparate o(ces so he could accommodate the increasingnumer o# his clients reEuiring his notarial ser"ices&
T+i( C!u)' (')e((e( '+a' a n!'a)< u3lic (+!uld n!'')iiali9e +i( *unc'i!n( a( +i( !e)( and du'ie( a)ei-)e((ed i'+ u3lic in'e)e('.*0' notary pulicOs o(ce isnot merely an income-generating "enture& 7t is a pulic dutythat each la$yer $ho has een pri"ileged to recei"e a notarialcommission must #aith#ully and conscientiously per#orm&
'tty& Kaide should ha"e een acutely a$are o# thereEuirements o# his notarial commission& @is Iagrant "iolationo# .ection 1, Rule B7 o# the )otarial Practice Rules is notmerely a simple and excusale negligence& 7t amounts to aclear "iolation o# Canon 1 o# the Code o# Pro#essionalResponsiility, $hich pro"ides that Na la$yer should; upholdthe constitution, !3e< '+e la( !* '+e land and )!-!'e)e(ec' *!) la and legal )!ce((e(&N
Representing conicting interests
The in"estigating commissioner properly noted that 'tty&Kaide should not e held liale #or representing conIictingclientsO interests&
Rule 15&0*, Canon 15 o# the Code o# Pro#essionalResponsiility pro"ides:chanroles"irtualla$liraryRule 15&0* - ' la$yer shall not represent conIicting interestsexcept y $ritten consent o# all concerned gi"en a#ter a #ulldisclosure o# the #acts&7n'ninon v. Sa(itsana,*1the Court laid do$n the tests todetermine i# a la$yer is guilty o# representing conIictinginterests et$een and among his clients&
4ne o# these tests is +e'+e) '+e acce'ance !* a ne)ela'i!n !uld )een' '+e *ull di(c+a)ge !* a la
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
11/32
D E C I S I O N
:ELASCO, JR.,J.&
7n his s$orn letterQcomplaint dated 8ecemer 22, 200?, $ith
enclosures, 'ntero & Pore in"ites the Courts attention to the
#ollo$ing excerpts o# .enator Miriam 8e#ensor-.antiagos
speech deli"ered on the .enate Ioor:
x x x 7 am not angry& 7 am irate& 7 am#oaming in the mouth& 7 am homicidal& 7 amsuicidal& 7 am humiliated, deased,degraded& 'nd 7 am not only that, 7 #eel li>ethro$ing up to e li"ing my middle years ina country o# this nature& 7 am nauseated& 7spit on the #ace o# Chie# ustice 'rtemioPanganian and his cohorts in the .upremeCourt, 7 am no longer interested in theposition o# Chie# ustice; i# 7 $as to esurrounded y idiots& 7 $ould rather e inanother en"ironment ut not in the.upreme Court o# idiots x x x&
To Pore, the #oregoing statements reIected a total disrespect
on the part o# the spea>er to$ards then Chie# ustice 'rtemio
Panganian and the other memers o# the Court and
constituted direct contempt o# court& 'ccordingly, Pore as>s
that disarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions e
ta>en against the lady senator&
7n her comment on the complaint dated 'pril 25,
200, .enator .antiago, through counsel, does not deny
ma>ing the a#oreEuoted statements& .he, ho$e"er, explained
that those statements $ere co"ered y the constitutional
pro"ision on parliamentary immunity, eing part o# a speech
she deli"ered in the discharge o# her duty as memer o#
Congress or its committee& The purpose o# her speech,
according to her, $as to ring out in the open contro"ersial
anomalies in go"ernance $ith a "ie$ to #uture remedial
legislation& .he a"erred that she $anted to expose $hat she
elie"ed to e an un!ust act o# the udicial /ar Council /C;,
$hich, a#ter sending out pulic in"itations #or nomination to
the soon to-e "acated position o# Chie# ustice, $ould
e"entually in#orm applicants that only incument !ustices o#
the .upreme Court $ould Euali#y #or nomination& .he #elt that
the /C should ha"e at least gi"en an ad"anced ad"isory that
non-sitting memers o# the Court, li>e her, $ould not e
considered #or the position o# Chie# ustice&
The immunity .enator .antiago claims is rooted
primarily on the pro"ision o# 'rticle B7, .ection 11 o# the
Constitution, $hich pro"ides: ' .enator or Memer o# the
@ouse o# Representati"e shall, in all o
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
12/32
the Court, the lady senator has undoutedly crossed the limits
o# decency and good pro#essional conduct& 7t is at once
apparent that her statements in Euestion $ere intemperate
and highly improper in sustance& To reiterate, she $as
Euoted as stating that she $anted to spit on the #ace o# Chie#
ustice 'rtemio Panganian and his cohorts in the .upreme
Court, and calling the Court a .upreme Court o# idiots&
The lady senator alluded to /n Re* 3icente Sotto&?;Fe
dra$ her attention to the ensuing passage in Sottothat she
should ha"e ta>en to heart in the %rst place:
x x x 7;# the people lose their
con%dence in the honesty and integrity o#this Court and elie"e that they cannotexpect !ustice there#rom, they might edri"en to ta>e the la$ into their o$n hands,and disorder and perhaps chaos $ould ethe result&
)o la$yer $ho has ta>en an oath to maintain the
respect due to the courts should e allo$ed to erode the
peoples #aith in the !udiciary& 7n this case, the lady senator
clearly "iolated Canon , Rule &01 and Canon 11 o# the Code
o# Pro#essional Responsiility, $hich respecti"ely pro"ide:
Canon , Rule &01&' la$yer shallnot, in his pro#essional dealings, uselanguage $hich is ausi"e, oes the Court as an a#terthought
in light o# the insulting tenor o# $hat she said& Fe Euote the
passage once more:
x x x Iam not angry& I am
irate& I am #oaming in the mouth& Iamhomicidal& I am suicidal& Iam humiliated,deased, degraded& 'nd Iam not only that,
7 #eel li>e thro$ing up to e li"ing my middleyears in a country o# this nature& I amnauseated& Ispit on the #ace o# Chie#
ustice 'rtemio Panganian and his cohortsin the .upreme Court, Iam no longerinterested in the position o# Chie# ustice; i#7 $as to e surrounded y idiots& I $ouldrather e in another en"ironment ut not inthe .upreme Court o# idiots x x x& 3mphasisours&6
' care#ul re-reading o# her utterances $ould readily
sho$ that her statements $ere expressions o# personal anger
and #rustration at not eing considered #or the post o# Chie#
ustice& 7n a sense, there#ore, her remar>s $ere outside the
pale o# her o(cial parliamentary #unctions& "en
parliamentary immunity must not e allo$ed to e used as a
"ehicle to ridicule, demean, and destroy the reputation o# the
Court and its magistrates, nor as armor #or personal $rath
and disgust& 'uthorities are agreed that parliamentary
immunity is not an indi"idual pri"ilege accorded the indi"idual
memers o# the Parliament or Congress #or their personal
ene%t, ut rather a pri"ilege #or the ene%t o# the people and
the institution that represents them&
To e sure, .enator .antiago could ha"e gi"en "ent
to her anger $ithout indulging in insulting rhetoric and
oed, .enator .antiagos outurst
$as directly traceale to $hat she considered as an un!ust act
the /C had ta>en in connection $ith her application #or the
position o# Chie# ustice& /ut $hile the /C #unctions under the
Courts super"ision, its indi"idual memers, sa"e perhaps #or
the Chie# ustice $ho sits as the /Cs e4o5ciochairperson,
;ha"e no o(cial duty to nominate candidates #or
appointment to the position o# Chie# ustice& The Court is,
thus, at a loss to understand .enator .antiagos $holesale and
indiscriminate assault on the memers o# the Court and her
choice o# critical and de#amatory $ords against all o# them&
't any e"ent, eEually important as the speech and
deate clause o# 'rt& B7, .ec& 11 o# the Constitution is .ec&
5356 o# 'rt& B777 o# the Constitution that pro"ides:
.ection 5& The .upreme Court shall ha"e the#ollo$ing po$ers:
x x x x
356 Promulgate rules concerning theprotection and en#orcement o# constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure inall courts, the admission to the practice o#the la$, '+e In'eg)a'ed Ba), and legalassistance to the underpri"ileged&3mphasis ours&6
The Court, esides eing authori9ed to promulgate
rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts, exercises speci%c authority to promulgate rules
go"erning the 7ntegrated /ar $ith the end in "ie$ that the
integration o# the /ar $ill, among other things:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn9 -
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
13/32
3+6 .hield the !udiciary, $hich
traditionally cannot de#end itsel# except$ithin its o$n #orum, #rom the assaults thatpolitics and sel# interest may le"el at it, andassist it to maintain its integrity, impartialityand independenceA
x x x x3116 n#orce rigid ethical standards
x x x&;
7n Re* Letter Dated 6 7e(ruary 6889 of 'tty. $oel S.
Sorreda,10;$e reiterated our pronouncement in Rhee# of the
+hili""ines v. 7errer11;that the duty o# attorneys to the courts
can only e maintained y rendering no ser"ice in"ol"ing any
disrespect to the !udicial o(ce $hich they are ound to
uphold& The Court $rote in Rhee# of the +hili""ines:
x x x 's explicit is the %rst canon o#legal ethics $hich pronounces that i;t is theduty o# a la$yer to maintain to$ards the
Courts a respect#ul attitude, not #or the sa>eo# the temporary incument o# the !udicialo(ce, ut #or the maintenance o# itssupreme importance& That same canon, as acorollary, ma>es it peculiarly incumentupon la$yers to support the courts againstun!ust criticism and clamor& 'nd more& Theattorneys oath solemnly inds him to aconduct that should e $ith all good %delityx x x to the courts&
'lso, in Sorreda, the Court re"isited its holding
in Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Clori(el12;that:
' la$yer is an o(cer o# the courtsA
he is, li>e the court itsel#, an instrument oragency to ad"ance the ends o# !ustice& @isduty is to uphold the dignity and authorityo# the courts to $hich he o$es %delity, notto promote distrust in the administration o#
!ustice& aith in the courts, a la$yer shouldsee> to preser"e& or, to undermine the
!udicial edi%ce is disastrous to the continuityo# go"ernment and to the attainment o# thelierties o# the people& Thus has it een saido# a la$yer that a;s an o(cer o# the court,it is his s$orn and moral duty to help uildand not destroy unnecessarily that highesteem and regard to$ards the courts soessential to the proper administration o#
!ustice&1*;
The lady senator elongs to the legal pro#ession
ound y the exacting in!unction o# a strict Code& .ociety has
entrusted that pro#ession $ith the administration o# the la$
and dispensation o# !ustice& enerally spea>ing, a la$yer
holding a go"ernment o(ce may not e disciplined as a
memer o# the /ar #or misconduct committed $hile in the
discharge o# o(cial duties, unless said misconduct also
constitutes a "iolation o# hisQher oath as a la$yer&1+;
=a$yers may e disciplined e"en #or any conduct
committed in their pri"ate capacity, as long as their
misconduct reIects their $ant o# proity or good demeanor,
15;a good character eing an essential Euali%cation #or the
admission to the practice o# la$ and #or continuance o# such
pri"ilege& Fhen the Code o# Pro#essional Responsiility or the
Rules o# Court spea>s o# conduct or misconduct, the re#erence
is not con%ned to ones eha"ior exhiited in connection $ith
the per#ormance o# la$yers pro#essional duties, ut also
co"ers any misconduct, $hichaleit unrelated to the actual
practice o# their pro#ession$ould sho$ them to e un%t #or the
o(ce and un$orthy o# the pri"ileges $hich their license and
the la$ in"est in them&1?;
This Court, in its unceasing Euest to promote the
peoples #aith in courts and trust in the rule o# la$, has
consistently exercised its disciplinary authority on la$yers
$ho, #or male"olent purpose or personal malice, attempt to
ostruct the orderly administration o# !ustice, triIe $ith the
integrity o# courts, and emarrass or, $orse, malign the men
and $omen $ho compose them& Fe ha"e done it in the case
o# #ormer .enator Bicente .otto in Sotto, in the case o#'tty&
)oel .orreda inSorreda, and in the case o# 'tty& rancisco /&
Cru9inTacordan v. 'ng1;$ho repeatedly insulted and
threatened the Court in a most insolent manner&
The Court is not hesitant to impose some #orm o#
disciplinary sanctions on .enatorQ'tty& .antiago #or $hat
other$ise $ould ha"e constituted an act o# utter disrespect on
her part to$ards the Court and its memers& The #actual and
legal circumstances o# this case, ho$e"er, deter the Court
#rom doing so, e"en $ithout any sign o# remorse #rom her&
/asic constitutional consideration dictates this >ind o#
disposition&
Fe, ho$e"er, $ould e remiss in our duty i# $e let
the .enators o
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
14/32
her peers ent ac>$ards and a"oided imposing their o$n
rules on her&
inally, the lady senator Euestions Pores moti"es in
%ling his complaint, stating that disciplinary proceedings must
e underta>en solely #or the pulic $el#are& Fe cannot agree
$ith her more& Fe cannot o"erstress that the senators use o#
intemperate language to demean and denigrate the highest
court o# the land is a clear "iolation o# the duty o# respect
la$yers o$e to the courts&21;
inally, the .enator asserts that complainant Pore
has #ailed to pro"e that she in #act made the statements in
Euestion& .u(ce it to say in this regard that, although she has
not categorically denied ma>ing such statements, she has
uneEui"ocally said ma>ing them as part o# her pri"ilege
speech& @er implied admission is good enough #or the Court&
/0EREFORE, the letter-complaint o# 'ntero & Pore
against .enatorQ'tty& Miriam 8e#ensor-.antiago
is, con#ormaly to 'rt& B7, .ec& 11 o# the
Constitution, DISMISSED&
SO ORDERED.
La
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
15/32
their respecti"e motions to li#t order o# suspension $ith
certi%cations #rom the 7ntegrated /ar o# the Philippines and
the xecuti"e udge o# the court $here they might appear as
counsel and state that they desisted #rom practicing la$
during the period o# suspension&
4n the claim that the Commission on @uman Rights allo$ed
'tty& /aliga to per#orm his #unctions as Regional 8irector
during the period o# suspension, the 4(ce o# the /ar
Con%dant said that the Commission Ndelierately;
disregarded;N21
this courtOs order o# suspension& 'ccording tothe 4(ce o# the /ar Con%dant, the Commission on @uman
Rights had no po$er to Nalter, modi#y, or set aside any o# this
courtOs resolutions; $hich ha"e; ecome %nal and executory&
N22
Thus, $ith respect to 'tty& /aliga, the 4(ce o# the /ar
Con%dant recommended that this court reEuire him to sumit
a certi%cation #rom the Commission on @uman Rights stating
that he desisted #rom per#orming his #unctions as Regional
8irector $hile he $as suspended #rom the practice o# la$&2*
The 4(ce o# the /ar Con%dant #urther recommended that
'tty& /aliga and the Commission &on @uman Rights e
reEuired to comment on complainant =inganOs allegation that'tty& /aliga continued to per#orm his #unctions as Regional
8irector $hile he $as suspended #rom the practice o# la$&
4n uly 1, 200, 'tty& /aliga %led a mani#estation,2+arguing
that his suspension #rom the practice o# la$ did not include his
suspension #rom pulic o(ce& 'tty& /aliga said, Nt;o stretch
the co"erage o# his suspension #rom the practice o# la$; to
his; pulic o(ce $ould e tantamount to "iolating; his
constitutional rights sic; to due process and to the statutory
principle in la$ that $hat is not included is deemed
excluded&N25
7n the resolution
2?
dated .eptemer 2*, 200, this courtreEuired respondents to %le their respecti"e motions to li#t
order o# suspension considering the lapse o# the period o#
suspension& This court #urther ordered 'tty& /aliga and the
Commission on @uman Rights to comment on complainant
=ingariOs allegation that 'tty& /aliga continued per#orming his
#unctions as Regional 8irector $hile he $as suspended #rom
the practice o# la$& The resolution dated .eptemer 2*, 200
pro"ides:
Considering that the period o# suspension #rom the practice o#
la$ and disEuali%cation #rom eing commissioned as notary
pulic imposed on respondents ha"e sic; already elapsed,
this Court resol"es:
316 to reEuire oth respondents, $ithin ten 3106 days
#rom notice, to 7= their respecti"e motions to li#t
relati"e to their suspension and disEuali%cation #rom
eing commissioned as notary pulic and .D/M7T
certi%cations #rom the 7ntegrated /ar o# the
Philippines and xecuti"e udge o# the Court $here
they may appear as counsel, stating that
respondents ha"e actually ceased and desisted #rom
the practice o# la$ during the entire period o# their
suspension and disEuali%cation, unless already
complied $ith in the meantimeA
326 to reEuire 'tty& immy P& /aliga to .D/M7T a
certi%cation #rom the Commission on @uman RightsC@R; stating that he has een suspended #rom o(ce
and has stopped #rom the per#ormance o# his
#unctions #or the period stated in the order o#
suspension and disEuali%cation, $ithin ten 3106 days
#rom notice hereo#A
3*6 to reEuire respondent 'tty& /aliga and the C@R to
C4MM)T on the allegations o# complainant against
them, oth $ithin ten 3106 days #rom receipt o# notice
hereo#A &&&23mphasis in the original6
7n compliance $ith this courtOs order, 'ttys& CaluaEui and
/aliga %led their respecti"e motions to li#t order o#
suspension&2'tty& /aliga also %led his comment on
complainant =inganOs allegation that he continued per#orming
his #unctions as Regional 8irector during his suspension #rom
the practice o# la$&
7n his comment2dated )o"emer 1*, 200, 'tty& /aliga
alleged that as Regional 8irector, he Nper#ormed;, generally,
managerial #unctions,N*0$hich did not reEuire the practice o#
la$& These managerial #unctions allegedlyincluded &Nsuper"ising; &&& the day to day operations o# the
regional o(ce and its personnelNA*1Nmonitoring progress o#
in"estigations conducted y the Commission on @uman
Rights; 7n"estigation DnitNA*2Nmonitoring the implementation
o# all other ser"ices and assistance programs o# the
Commission on @uman Rights; y the di
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
16/32
4n eruary 1, 2010, this court li#ted the order o# suspension
o# 'tty& CaluaEui&+@e $as allo$ed to resume his practice o#
la$ and per#orm notarial acts su!ect to compliance $ith the
reEuirements #or issuance o# a notarial commission&
4n the other hand, this court re#erred to the 4(ce o# the /ar
Con%dant #or e"aluation, report, and recommendation 'tty&
/aligaOs motion to li#t one-year suspension and the respecti"e
comments o# 'tty& /aliga and the Commission on @uman
Rights&+
7n its report and recommendation50dated 4ctoer 1, 2010,
the 4(ce o# the /ar Con%dant stated that 'tty& /aliga Nshould
not ha"e een; allo$ed to per#orm his #unctions, duties, and
responsiilities as Regional 8irector; $hich reEuired acts
constituting; practice &o# la$&N51Considering that 'tty& /aliga
claimed that he did not per#orm his #unctions as Regional
8irector $hich reEuired the practice o# la$, the 4(ce o# the
/ar Con%dant recommended that the Commission on @uman
Rights e reEuired to comment on this claim& The 4(ce o# the
/ar Con%dant also recommended holding in aeyance the
resolution o# 'tty& /aligaOs motion to li#t suspension Npending
the Commission on @uman RightOs %ling o# comment;&N52
7n the resolution5*dated anuary 12, 2011, this court held inaeyance the resolution o# 'tty& /aligaOs motion to li#t one-
year suspension& The Commission on @uman Rights $as
ordered to comment on 'tty& /aligaOs claim that he did not
practice la$ $hile he held his position as Regional 8irector&
7n its comment5+dated 'pril ?, 2011, the Commission on
@uman Rights reiterated that the penalty imposed on 'tty&
/aliga as a memer o# the ar is separate #rom the penalty
that might e imposed on him as Regional 8irector& The
Commission added that it is No# honest elie# that the position
o# Regional 8irector; is managerial and does not reEuire the
practice o# la$;&N557t again mani#ested that it $ill Naide y
$hate"er ruling or decision this court; arri"es on the;
matter&N5?
The issue #or our resolution is $hether 'tty& /aligaOs motion to
li#t order o# suspension should e granted&
Fe %nd that 'tty& /aliga "iolated this courtOs order o#
suspension& Fe, there#ore, suspend him #urther #rom the
practice o# la$ #or six months&
Practice o# la$ is Nany acti"ity, in or out o# court, $hich
reEuires the application o# la$, legal procedure, >no$ledge,
training and experience&N57t includes Nper#orming; acts
$hich are characteristics o# the legal; pro#essionN5or
Nrendering any >ind o#; ser"ice $hich; reEuires the use inany degree o# legal >no$ledge or s>ill&N5
For> in go"ernment that reEuires the use o# legal >no$ledge
is considered practice& o# la$& 7n Cayetano "& Monsod,?0this
court cited the delierations o# the 1? Constitutional
Commission and agreed that $or> rendered y la$yers in the
Commission on 'udit reEuiring Nthe use o#; legal >no$ledge
or legal talentN?1is practice o# la$&
The Commission on @uman Rights is an independent o(ce
created under the Constitution $ith po$er to in"estigate Nall
#orms o# human rights "iolations in"ol"ing ci"il and political
rights&;N?27t is di"ided into regional o(ces $ith each o(ce
ha"ing primary responsiility to in"estigate human rights
"iolations in its territorial !urisdiction&?*ach regional o(ce is
headed y the Regional 8irector $ho is gi"en the position o#
'ttorney B7&
Dnder the uidelines and Procedures in the 7n"estigation and
Monitoring o# @uman Rights Biolations and 'uses, and the
Pro"ision o# C@R 'ssistance,?+the Regional 8irector has the
#ollo$ing po$ers and #unctions:
a& To administer oaths or a(rmations $ith respect to
NCommission on @uman Rights; mattersAN?5
& To issue mission orders in their respecti"e regional
o(cesA??
c& To conduct preliminary e"aluation or initial
in"estigation o# human rights complaints in the
asence o# the legal o(cer or in"estigatorA?
d& To conduct dialogues or preliminary con#erences
among parties and discuss Nimmediate courses o#
action and protection remedies andQor possile
sumission o# the matter to an alternati"e disputeresolutionNA?
e& To issue Commission on @uman Rights processes,
including notices, letter-in"itations, orders, or
supoenas $ithin the territorial !urisdiction o# the
regional o(ceA?and
#& To re"ie$ and appro"e dra#t resolutions o# human
rights cases prepared y the legal o(cer&0
These po$ers and #unctions are characteristics o# the legal
pro#ession& 4aths and a(rmations are usually per#ormed y
memers o# the !udiciary and notaries pulic1
- o(cers $hoare necessarily memers o# the ar&27n"estigating human
rights complaints are per#ormed primarily y the
CommissionOs legal o(cer&*8iscussing immediate courses o#
action and protection remedies and re"ie$ing and appro"ing
dra#t resolutions o# human rights cases prepared y the legal
o(cer reEuire the use o# extensi"e legal >no$ledge&
The exercise o# the po$ers and #unctions o# a Commission on
@uman Rights Regional 8irector constitutes practice o# la$&
Thus, the Regional 8irector must e an attorney - a memer
o# the ar in good standing and authori9ed to practice
la$&+Fhen the Regional 8irector loses this authority, such as
$hen he or she is disarred or suspended #rom the practice o#
la$, the Regional 8irector loses a necessary Euali%cation tothe position he or she is holding& The disarred or suspended
la$yer must desist #rom holding the position o# Regional
8irector&
This court suspended 'tty& /aliga #rom the practice o# la$ #or
one year on une 15, 200?, Need a necessary Euali%cation to his position as
Commission on @uman Rights Regional 8irectorQ 'ttorney B7&
's the Commission on @uman Rights correctly resol"ed in its
resolution dated anuary 1?, 200:
F@R'., this suspension under ethical standards, in e
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
17/32
'tty& /aligaOs per#ormance o# generally managerial #unctions
$as not supported y the record& 7t $as also
immaterial&-%"hi@e held the position o# Commission on
@uman Rights Regional 8irector ecause o# his authority to
practice la$& Fithout this authority, 'tty& /aliga $as
disEuali%ed to hold that position&
'll told, per#orming the #unctions o# a Commission on @uman
Rights Regional 8irector constituted practice o# la$& 'tty&
/aliga should ha"e desisted #rom holding his position as
Regional 8irector&
Dnder .ection 2, Rule 1* o# the Rules o# Court, $ill#ul
disoedience to any la$#ul order o# a superior court is a
ground #or disarment or suspension #rom the practice o# la$:
.C& 2& 8isarment or suspension o# attorneys y .upreme
CourtA grounds there#or& - ' memer o# the ar may e
disarred or suspended #rom his o(ce as attorney y the
.upreme Court #or any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such o(ce, grossly immoral conduct, or y
reason o# his con"iction o# a crime in"ol"ing moral turpitude,
or #or any "iolation o# the oath $hich he is reEuired to ta>e
e#ore admission to practice, or #or a $ill#ul disoedience o#
any la$#ul order o# a superior court, or #or corruptly or $ill#ullyappearing as an attorney #or a party to a case $ithout
authority so to do& The practice o# soliciting cases at la$ #or
the purpose o# gain, either personally or through paid agents
or ro>ers, constitutes malpractice&
7n Molina "& 'tty& Magat,this court suspended #urther 'tty&
Ce#erino R& Magat #rom the practice o# la$ #or six months #or
practicing his pro#ession despite this courtOs pre"ious order o#
suspension&
Fe impose the same penalty on 'tty& /aliga #or holding his
position as Regional 8irector despite lac>&o# authority to
practice la$&
Fe note that the Commission on @uman Rights n /anc
issued the resolution dated 'pril 1*, 200, reconsidering its
%rst resolution suspending 'tty& /aliga as Regional 8irectorQ
'ttorney B7& 7nstead, the Commission admonished 'tty& /aliga
and sternly $arned him that repeating the same o
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
18/32
Conduct and thical .tandards #or Pulic 4(cials and
mployees against 'tty& 'steria & Cru9ara 3respondent6& 7n
his a(da"it-complaint2dated May 2002, complainant
charged respondent $ith engaging in pri"ate practice $hile
employed in the go"ernment ser"ice&
Complainant alleged that respondent $as admitted to the
Philippine /ar on *0 May 1? and $as appointed as 8eputy
Register o# 8eeds o# eneral .antos City on 11 'ugust
1&*Complainant asserted that as 8eputy Register o#
8eeds, respondent %led a petition #or commission as a notarypulic and $as commissioned on 2 eruary 1 $ithout
otaining prior authority #rom the .ecretary o# the
8epartment o# ustice 3846&+Complainant claimed that
respondent has notari9ed some *,000
documents&5Complainant pointed out that respondent only
stopped notari9ing documents $hen she $as reprimanded y
the Chie# o# the 7n"estigation 8i"ision o# the =and Registration
'uthority&?
Complainant contended that respondent could not !usti#y her
act y pretending to e in good #aith ecause e"en non-
la$yers are not excused #rom ignorance o# the la$&
Complainant randed as incredile respondentLs claim that
she $as merely moti"ated y pulic ser"ice in notari9ing*,000 documents& Complainant pointed out that respondent
spent money to uy the )otarial Register /oo>s and spent
hours going o"er the documents suscried e#ore her,
therey pre!udicing her e(ciency and per#ormance as 8eputy
Register o# 8eeds& Complainant elie"ed that e"en i#
respondent had otained authority #rom the 84, respondent
$ould still e guilty o# "iolating .ection 36326 o# R' ?1*
ecause her practice as a notary pulic conIicts $ith her
o(cial #unctions&
7n her Comment, respondent admitted that she $as a notary
pulic #rom 2 eruary 1 to *1 8ecemer
1&Respondent stated that she $as authori9ed y her
superior, the Register o# 8eeds, to act as a notary pulic&Respondent pointed out that the Register o# 8eeds, 'tty&
Pelagio T& Tolosa, also suscried petitions and documents
that $ere reEuired to e registered&Respondent explained
that the Register o# 8eeds imposed the #ollo$ing conditions
#or her application as a notary pulic:
x x x
+& That the application #or commission $as on the condition
that respondent cannot charge #ees #or documents reEuired
y the 4(ce to e presented and under oath&10
Respondent contended that $hen she %led her petition #orcommission as a notary pulic, the reEuirement o# appro"al
#rom the 84 .ecretary $as still the su!ect o# a pending
Euery y one o# the Registrars and this #act $as not >no$n to
respondent&11Respondent maintained that she had no
intention to "iolate any rule o# la$& Respondent, as a ne$
la$yer relying on the competence o# her superior, admitted
that an honest mista>e may ha"e een committed ut such
mista>e $as committed $ithout $ill#ulness, malice or
corruption&12
Respondent argued that she $as not engaged in illegal
practice as a notary pulic ecause she $as duly
commissioned y the court&1*Respondent denied that she
"iolated .ection 36326 o# R' ?1* ecause she $asauthori9ed y her superior to act as a notary pulic&
Respondent reasoned that her eing a notary pulic
complemented her #unctions as 8eputy Register o# 8eeds
ecause respondent could immediately ha"e documents
notari9ed instead o# the registrants going out o# the o(ce to
loo> #or a notary pulic& Respondent added that she did not
charge #ees #or the documents reEuired y the o(ce to e
presented under oath&1+la%"hi
Respondent insisted that contrary to complainantLs claims,
she only notari9ed 1*5 documents as certi%ed y the Cler> o#
Court o# the 11th udicial Region, eneral .antos City& 15
7n her Report and Recommendation 3Report6 dated 25 anuary
2005, 7n"estigating Commissioner =ydia '& )a"arro
recommended to the 7/P /oard o# o"ernors the dismissal o#
the complaint against respondent #or lac> o# merit& The Report
reads in part:
@o$e"er, the #act that she applied #or commission as )otary
Pulic $ithout securing the appro"al o# the proper authority
although she $as allo$ed to do so y her superior o(cer, $as
not her o$n undoing #or ha"ing relied on the ample authority
o# her superior o(cer, respondent eing a neophyte in the la$pro#ession #or ha"ing ne$ly passed the ar a year a#ter at that
time&
Records #urther sho$ed that a#ter ha"ing een reprimanded
y 'tty& lestado #or said mista>e $hich $as done in good
#aith respondent ceased and desisted to per#orm notarial $or>
since then up to the present as could e gleaned #rom the
Certi%cation issued y Cler> o# Court B7 'tty& lmer 8&
=astimosa o# the 11th udicial Region eneral .antos CityA
dated 8ecemer 2*, 200+ that 1*5 documents ha"e een
notari9ed y the respondent #rom eruary 2, 1 to
8ecemer *1 1 and there $as no record o# any notari9ed
documents #rom anuary 1, 10 to 8ecemer 21, 11&1?
7n a Resolution dated 12 March 2005, the 7/P /oard o#
o"ernors, in adopting and appro"ing the Report, dismissed
the case #or lac> o# merit&
Complainant claims that in dismissing the complaint #or Nlac>
o# meritN despite respondentLs admission that she acted as a
notary pulic #or t$o years, the 7/P /oard o# o"ernors
committed a serious error amounting to lac> o# !urisdiction or
authority&1
.ection 36326 o# R' ?1* pro"ides:
.ection & Prohiited 'cts and Transactions& - 7n addition toacts and omissions o# pulic o(cials and employees no$
prescried in the Constitution and existing la$s, the #ollo$ing
shall constitute prohiited acts and transactions o# any pulic
o(cial and employee and are herey declared to e unla$#ul:
x x x
36 4utside employment and other acti"ities related thereto& -
Pulic o(cials and employees during their incumency shall
not:
x x x
326 ngage in the pri"ate practice o# their pro#ession unless
authori9ed y the Constitution or la$, pro"ided, that such
practice $ill not conIict or tend to conIict $ith their o(cial
#unctionsA or
x x x
Memorandum Circular )o& 11o# the xecuti"e 8epartment
allo$s go"ernment employees to engage directly in the
pri"ate practice o# their pro#ession pro"ided there is a $ritten
permission #rom the 8epartment head& 7t pro"ides:
The authority to grant permission to any o(cial or employeeshall e granted y the head o# the ministry or agency in
accordance $ith .ection 12, Rule GB777 o# the Re"ised Ci"il
.er"ice Rules, $hich pro"ides:
N.ec& 12& )o o(cer or employee shall engage directly in any
pri"ate usiness, "ocation, or pro#ession or e connected $ith
any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial underta>ing
$ithout a )i''en e)-i((i!n *)!- '+e +ead !*
Dea)'-en'A Pro"ided, That this prohiition $ill e asolute
in the case o# those o(cers and employees $hose duties and
responsiilities reEuire that their entire time e at the disposal
o# the o"ernment: Pro"ided, #urther, That i# an employee is
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt18 -
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
19/32
granted permission to engage in outside acti"ities, the time so
de"oted outside o# o(ce hours should e %xed y the chie# o#
the agency to the end that it $ill not impair in any $ay the
e(ciency o# the other o(cer or employee: 'nd pro"ided,
%nally, That no permission is necessary in the case o#
in"estments, made y an o(cer or employee, $hich do not
in"ol"e any real or apparent conIict et$een his pri"ate
interests and pulic duties, or in any $ay inIuence him in the
discharge o# his duties, and he shall not ta>e part in the
management o# the enterprise or ecome an o(cer or
memer o# the oard o# directorsN,
.u!ect to any additional conditions $hich the head o# the
o(ce deems necessary in each particular case in the interest
o# the ser"ice, as expressed in the "arious issuances o# the
Ci"il .er"ice Commission& 3/old#acing supplied6
7t is clear that $hen respondent %led her petition #or
commission as a notary pulic, she did not otain a $ritten
permission #rom the .ecretary o# the 84& RespondentLs
superior, the Register o# 8eeds, cannot issue any
authori9ation ecause he is not the head o# the 8epartment&
'nd e"en assuming that the Register o# 8eeds authori9ed her,
respondent #ailed to present any proo# o# that $ritten
permission& Respondent cannot #eign ignorance or good #aithecause respondent %led her petition #or commission as a
notary pulic a#ter Memorandum Circular )o& 1 $as issued in
1?&avv"hi
7n ;u#ol, Jr. v. 7errer Sr.,1$e suspended a la$yer employed
in the Commission on @uman Rights 3C@R6 #or #ailing to otain
a $ritten authority and appro"al $ith a duly appro"ed lea"e o#
asence #rom the C@R& Fe explained:
Crystal clear #rom the #oregoing is the #act that pri"ate
practice o# la$ y C@R la$yers is not a matter o# right&
'lthough the Commission allo$s C@R la$yers to engage in
pri"ate practice, a $ritten reEuest and appro"al thereo#, $ith
a duly appro"ed lea"e o# asence #or that matter are
indispensale& 7n the case at ar, the record is ere#t o# any
such $ritten reEuest or duly appro"ed lea"e o# asence& )o
$ritten authority nor appro"al o# the practice and appro"ed
lea"e o# asence y the C@R $as e"er presented y
respondent& Thus, he cannot engage in pri"ate practice&
's to respondentLs act o# notari9ing documents, records sho$
that he applied #or commission as notary pulic on 1+
)o"emer 2000, e#ore the Regional Trial Court 3RTC6 o# .an
ernando, Pampanga, /ranch +2& This $as granted y RTC
xecuti"e udge Pedro M& .unga, r&, on 01 8ecemer 2000&
@o$e"er, the C@R authori9ed respondent to act as notary
pulic only on 2 4ctoer 2001& Considering the acts o#
notari9ation are $ithin the amit o# the term Npractice o# la$,N
#or $hich a prior $ritten reEuest and appro"al y the C@R to
engage into it are reEuired, the crucial period to e
considered is the appro"al o# the C@R on 2 4ctoer 2001 and
not the appro"al o# the RTC on 0+ 8ecemer 2000&20
7n Muring, Jr. v. Gatcho,21$e suspended a la$yer #or ha"ing
%led petitions #or commission as a notary pulic $hile
employed as a court attorney& Fe held:
'tty& atcho should ha"e >no$n that as a go"ernment la$yer,
he $as prohiited #rom engaging in notarial practice, or in any
#orm o# pri"ate legal practice #or that matter& 'tty& atcho
cannot no$ #eign ignorance or good #aith, as he did not see>to exculpate himsel# y pro"iding an explanation #or his error&
'tty& atchoLs %ling o# the petition #or commission, $hile not
an actual engagement in the practice o# la$, appears as a
#urti"e attempt to e"ade the prohiition&22
Dnder the Dni#orm Rules on 'dministrati"e Cases in the Ci"il
.er"ice, engaging in the pri"ate practice o# pro#ession, $hen
unauthori9ed, is classi%ed as a light o
-
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
20/32
pulic o(ce, except in the case o#suparagraph 36 326 ao"e, ut thepro#essional concerned cannot practice hispro#ession in connection $ith any mattere#ore the o(ce he used to e $ith, in$hich case the one-year prohiition shallli>e$ise apply&
7n her letter-Euery, 'tty& /u(?>6?, assu#ing the sa#e does not con@ict or tend to
con@ict %ith his o5cial duties, (ut a non4incu#(ent li&e
#yself cannot, as is a""arently "rohi(ited (y the last
"aragra"h of Sec. !A =hy is the for#er allo%ed, %ho is still
occu"ying the very "u(lic "osition that he is lia(le to e"loit,
(ut a non4incu#(ent li&e #yself %ho is no longer in a "osition
of "ossi(le a(usee"loitation cannotA%&'
The Euery arose ecause 'tty& /u, #or a period o# one 316 year #rom the date o# her
separation #rom go"ernment employment&
'tty& /u o# Court
o# that /ranch&
Then 8eputy Court 'dministrator 3no$ Court
'dministrator6 ose P& Pere9 made the #ollo$ing oser"ations
$hen the matter $as re#erred to him:
The general intent o# the la$, asde%ned in its title is to uphold the time-honored principle o# pulic o(ce eing apulic trust& .ection + thereo# pro"ides #or
the norms o# conduct o# pulic o(cials andemployees, among others: 3a6 commitmentto pulic interestA 36 pro#essionalismA and3c6 !ustness and sincerity& 4# particularsigni%cance is the statement underpro#essionalism that t;hey pulic o(cialsand employees; shall endea"or todiscourage $rong perceptions o# their rolesas dispensers or peddlers o# unduepatronage&
Thus, it may e $ell to say that the
prohiition $as intended to a"oid anyimpropriety or the appearance o#impropriety $hich may occur in anytransaction et$een the retired go"ernmentemployee and his #ormer colleagues,suordinates or superiors rought aout y#amiliarity, moral ascendancy or undueinIuence, as the case may e&2;
.useEuently, in a MinuteResolution dated uly 15,
200, $e resol"ed to re#er this case to the 4(ce o# the Chie#
'ttorney 31C'T6 #or e"aluation, report and recommendation&
*;
The 4C'T too> the "ie$ that:
The premise o# the Euery is erroneous& .heinterprets .ection 36 326 as a lan>etauthority #or an incument cler> o# court topractice la$& Clearly, there is a misreadingo# that pro"ision o# la$& +;
and #urther oser"ed:The con#usion apparently lies in the use o#the term such practice a#ter the phrasepro"ided that& 7t may indeed emisinterpreted as modi#ying the phraseengage in the pri"ate practice o# theirpro#ession should e pre#atory sentencethat pulic o(cials during their incumencyshall not e disregarded& @o$e"er, read in
its entirety, such practice may only re#er topractice authori9ed y the Constitution orla$ or the exception to the prohiitionagainst the practice o# pro#ession& The termla$ $as intended y the legislature toinclude a memorandum or a circular or anadministrati"e order issued pursuant to theauthority o# la$&x x x
The interpretation that .ection 36 326 generally prohiits incument pulico(cials and employees #rom engaging inthe practice o# la$, $hich is declared thereina prohiited and unla$#ul act, accords $ith
the constitutional policy on accountaility o#pulic o(cers stated in 'rticle G7 o# theConstitutionx x x
The policy thus reEuires pulic o(cials andemployees to de"ote #ull time pulic ser"iceso that in case o# conIict et$een personaland pulic interest, the latter should ta>eprecedence o"er the #ormer&5;ootnotesomitted;
Fith respect to la$yers in the !udiciary, the 4C'T pointed to
.ection 5, Canon * o# the Code o# Conduct #or Court Personnel
the rule that deals $ith outside employment y an incument
!udicial employee and $hich limits such outside employment
to one that does not reEuire the practice o# la$& ?;The
prohiition to practice la$ $ith respect to any matter $here
they ha"e inter"ened $hile in the go"ernment ser"ice is
reiterated in Rule ?&0*, Canon ? o# the Code o# Pro#essional
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn8 -
7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service
21/32
Responsiility, $hich go"erns the conduct o# la$yers in the
go"ernment ser"ice&;
7n "ie$ o# the 4C'T %ndings and recommendations,
$e issued an nBanc Resolution dated )o"emer 11,
200 directing the Court 'dministrator to dra#t and sumit to
the Court a circular on the practice o# pro#ession during
employment and $ithin one year #rom res