Topic: Canon 8 Title: CAMACHO v PANGULAYAN Reference: AC No. 480 Marc! ""# "000
$ACT% 9 students of AMA were expelled for having apparently caused to be published objectionable features or articles in theschool paper. Denial of the appeal to AMA PresidentAguiluz gave rise to Civil Case 9!"#$%9. CAMAC&' was the hired counsel of the expelled students in an action for the(ssuance of a )rit of Preli*inary Preli*inary Mandatory Mandatory (njuction in the said civil case. )hile )hile the the civi civill case case wa was s stil stilll pend pendin ing+ g+ lett letter ers s of apol apolog ogy y and and ,e! ad*is ad*issio sion n Agree Agree*en *entsw tswer ere e separ separat ately ely execu executed ted by the expel expelled led students without the -nowledge of CAMAC&'. CAMAC&' led led a co*pla plaint int again gainst st law lawyers ers co*p co*prrisin ising g the the PA/012A A/012A3 3A/ A/D A44'C(A A44'C(A564 564 2aw r* 7lawyers 7lawyers of AMA8 AMA8 because because with withou outt his his -now -nowle ledg dge e they they proc procur ured ed and and e eec ecte ted d on se sepa para rate te occa occasi sion ons s co*p co*prro* o*is ise e agr agree ee*e *ent nts s 7let 7lette ters rs of apol apolog ogy y and and ,e! ad*ission Agree*ents8 with % of his clients which in eect re:uired the* to waive all -inds of clai*s they *ay have with AMA. CAMAC&' averred that such an act was unbeco*ing of any *e*ber of the legal profession warranting either disbar*ent or suspension. PA/01 A/012A 2A3 3A/ in his his defe defens nse e clai clai*e *ed d that that thea theagr gree ee*e *ent nts s we werre execut cuted for the solep lepurp urpose of eecti ecting ng the settl ttle* e*e ent of anad*inistrative case
)hether or not suspended;disbarred<
&%%U'% Pangulayan and
Associates
should
be
RUL&NG% 364. (t would appear that when individual letters of apology and ,e ,e!! ad*iss ad*ission ion Agree* Agree*ent ents s were were for* for*ali alized zed++ CA CAMA MAC&' C&' wa was s alrea already dy the retai etaine ned d coun counse sell of the the expe expell lled ed AMA AMA stud studen ents ts.. PA/01 A/012A 2A3 3A/ and and associates having full -nowledge of this fact still proceeded to negotiate with with the the expe expelle lled d AMA AMA stud studen ents ts and and thei theirr par parents ents with withou outt at leas leastt co**un co**unica icatin ting g the *a *atte tterr to their their law lawye yerr CA CAMA MAC&' C&'.. 5his 5his failur failure e of PA/012A A/012A3 3A/ and assoc associat iates+ es+ whethe whetherr by design design or over oversig sight+ ht+ is an excusable violation of the canons ofprofession ethics and in utter disregard of a duty duty ow owin ing g to a colle colleag ague ue.. 5he 5he excu excuse se that that agr agree ee*e *ent nts s we werre execut ecuted ed for for se sett ttli ling ng the the ad*in d*inis istr trat ativ ive e case case wa was s beli belied ed by the the Manif Manifes esta tati tion on whic which h stat states es++ =9 sign signat ator orie ies s agr agree eed d a* a*on ong g othe others rs to ter*inate A22 civil+ cri*inl and ad*inistrative ad*inistrative proceedings they *ay have against against AMA AMA arising arising fro* fro* their previous previous dis*is dis*issal. sal.> > &ence+ &ence+ PA/012A PA/012A3A/ 3A/ should be suspended for " *onth. A lawyers should not in any way co**unicate uponthe subject of controv controversy ersy with a party party repre represent sentedby edby counsel+ *uch less should he underta-e tonegotiate or co*pro*ise the *atter with hi* butshould only deal with his counsel. Topic: Canon 8 Title: (&L$R')O T. GARC&A v*. ATTY. +'N&AM&NO A. LOP', Reference: A.C. No. -4"" A/*t "8# "00
$ACT% Co*p Co *pla lain inan antt wa was s the the coun counse sell of the the late late Ange Angeli lina na 4ar 4ar*ien *iento to.. 4ar*ie 4ar*iento nto sough soughtt the regis registra tratio tion n and and conr conr*a *atio tion n of her title title over over a "?+"9 s:. *. tract of land which was granted by the court. 5he decision beca*e nal and executory executory and the ,5C directed directed the 2and ,egistration Authority 72,A8 to issue the decree of registration and certicate of title. 5he 2,A failed to co*ply+ pro*pting the co*plainant to le an urgent *otion to cite the 2,A ad*inistrator or his representative in conte*pt of court. 'n 4epte*ber @9+ ##+ respondent+ respondent+ clai*ing to be the counsel of the heir heirs s of 4ar 4ar*ien *iento to++ led led his his entr entry y of appe appear aran ance ce and and *o *oti tion on for for postpone*ent. Co*plainant alleged that he was surprised by this+ considering that he had not withdrawn fro* the case. &e contended that respondent should be sanctioned for *isrepresenting to the court that he was the counsel of all the heirs of 4ar*iento and o*itting to *ention that co*plainant was the counsel of record. According to hi*+ his attorneyBs fee was arranged on a contingent basis and therefore+ the atte*pt of respondent to enter his appea appeara rance nce at the nal nal stage stage of the proc proceed eeding ings s wa was s tanta tanta*o *ount unt to unfair harvesting of the fruit of co*plainantBs labors since @99?. Co*pl Co *plain ainant ant prese presente nted d an ada adavit vit execu executed ted by 0ina 0ina Earvi EarviFa Fa and Alfredo Gu wherein they stated that they did not engage the services of respondent and that they recognized co*plainant as their only counsel of record. (n his defense+ respondent clai*ed that he was *erely representing Henaida and )ilson Gu who sought his help and told hi* that they wanted to retain his services. 5hey allegedly did not have a lawyer to represent the* the* in a hearin hearing g schedu scheduled led the next next day. Ie Ieca cause use of the the schedu scheduled led hearing+ he had to i**ediately le an entry of appearance with *otion for postpone*ent. &e asserted that it was an honest *ista-e not to have listed the na*es of his clients. &e clai*ed it was not deliberate and did not prejud judice anyone. &e ins insist isted that he had no int intention of *isrepresenting hi*self to the court. &%%U'% )hether or not respondent is guilty of *isrepresentation and violation of ,ule J.# of the Code of Professional ,esponsibility< RUL&NG% 3es. 3es. ,e ,espondent spondent is guilty of *isrepresentation *isrepresentation and violation of ,ule J.# of the Code of Professional ,esponsibility 7CP,8 when he failed to specify in his entry of appearance the individuals he was representing. 2awy 2awyers ers are are ocer ocers s of the court court who are are e*pow e*power ered ed to appea appear+ r+ prosecute prosecute and defend the causes of their clients. 5he law i*poses on the* peculi peculiar ar duties duties++ respo responsi nsibil bilitie ities s and liabil liabilitie ities. s. Me*be Me*bersh rship ip in the bar i*poses on the* certain obligations. 5hey are duty bound to uphold the digni dignity ty of the the lega legall prof profes essi sion on.. 5hey 5hey *ust *ust act act hono honora rably bly++ fair fairly ly and and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct the*selves beyond reproach at all ti*es. Co*pl Co *plain ainant ant wa was s the couns counsel el of 4ar*ie 4ar*iento nto++ the origi original nal applica applicant. nt. 1pon her death+ the attorney!client attorney!client relationship relationship was ter*inated. ter*inated. &owever+ co*plainant was retained as counsel by 0ina EarviFa and Alfredo Gu. (n ling an entry of appearance with *otion of postpone*ent in behalf of the
co*pulsory heirs of the late Angelita 4ar*iento when in truth he was *erely representing representing so*e of the heirs but not all of the*+ respondent respondent was guilty of *isrepresentation which could have deceived the court. &e had no authorization to represent all the heirs. &e clearly violated his lawyerBs oath that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. )&6, )&6,6K 6K', ',6+ 6+ res espo pond nden entt Atty tty. Ie Ieni nia* a*in ino o A. 2opez pez 414P6/D6D fro* the practice of law for one 7@8 *onth
is
her hereby eby
Topic: Canon Title: CAM+AL&,A 1. CR&%TAL2 CR& %TAL2T'NOR&O T'NOR&O Reference: AC No. -"03l 54# "004 $ACT% Co*plainant Ana Marie Ca*baliza+ a for*er e*ployee of respondent Atty. Ana 2uz I. Cristal!5enorio in her law oce+ charged the latter with dece deceit it++ gros grossl sly y i**o i**ora rall cond conduc uct+ t+ and and *a *alp lpra ract ctic ice e or othe otherr gro gross *isconduct in oce. Case on deceit and grossly i**oral conduct did not pursue lac-ing clear and convincing evidence. 'n *alpractice or other gross *isconduct in oce+ the co*plainant alleged that the respondent cooperated cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husb husban and+ d+ who who is not not a *e *e*b *ber er of the the Phili Philipp ppine ine Ia Iarr and and two two othe otherr allegations. 5he respondent averred that this disbar*ent co*plaint was led by the co*plainant just to get even with her. 5he co*plainant later led a Motion to )ithdraw Co*plaint as she is no longer interested in pursuing the case. 5his *otion was not acted upon by the (IP and the case was pursued. 5he (IP found the respondent guilty of assisting in unauthorized practice of law. &%%U'% )hether or not Atty. Cristal!5enorio violated the Code of Professional ,esponsibility< RUL&NG% 364. ,espondent ,espondent was was suspended fro* fro* the practice of law for ? *onths. A lawyer who allows a non!*e*ber of the Iar to *isrepresent hi*self as a lawyer and to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and ,ule 9.#@ of the Code of Professional ,esponsibility+ which read as followsL Can Ca non 9 A law lawyer shall hall not not dir directly ctly or indi indirrectl ectly y assis ssistt in the the unauthorized practice of law. ,ule 9.#@ A lawyer shall not delegate to any un:ualied person the perf perfor or*a *anc nce e of any any tastas- whic which h by law law *a *ay y only only be perf perfor or*e *ed d by a *e*ber of the Iar in good standing. 5he lawyerNs l awyerNs duty to prevent+ or at the very least not to assist in+ the unauth unauthor orize ized d practi practice ce of law is found founded ed on public public inter interest est and policy policy. Publi ublic c poli policy cy re:ui e:uirres that that the the pra practic ctice e of law law be li*i li*ite ted d to thos those e individuals found duly :ualied in education and character. character. 5he purpose is to prot protec ectt the the publ public ic++ the the cour court+ t+ the the clie client nt++ and the the bar bar fro* fro* the the inco*petence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. (t devolves upon a lawyer to se see e that that this this purp purpos ose e is atta attaine ined+ d+ othe otherw rwis ise+ e+ the the law law *a *a-es it a *isbehavior on his part subject to disciplinary action+ to aid a lay*an in the unauthorized practice of law.
6ven though Cabliza later on withdrew her co*plaint+ (IP still pushed through with the investigation because such is a disciplinary proceeding. 5here is no private interest aected such that desistance of the co*plainant will ter*inate the proceedings. 5he purpose is to protect the bar fro* those unt to practice law. Topic: Canon Title: TUM+O6ON v* P'$&ANCO Refferen Re erenc ce: AC No. No. -55-55A/*t /*t 5# "05" "05" $ACT% Co*plainant referred the case of spouses A*able and ,osalinda 3ap to Atty. Peanco in an action for partition of the estate of the late Ienja*in 3ap+ 3ap+ for a #O co**ission+ which was later reduced to @#O+ which agree*ent was reduced in writing. Atty. Peanco failed to pay the agreed co**ission despite his receipt of attorneyNs fees a*ounting to @O of the tota totall es esta tate te or abou aboutt P%# P%# *ill *illio ion. n. 4ubs 4ubse: e:ue uent ntly ly++ co*p co*pla lain inan ant+ t+ wa was s infor infor*ed *ed that that 4ps 3ap shall shall assu* assu*e e to pay pay his co** co**iss ission ion after after the attorne attorneyNs yNs fee was reduced reduced fro* $O to @O. @O. Despite Despite de*and+ de*and+ Atty. Atty. Peanco refused to pay co*plainant. Co*plainant further alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high *oral standards re:uired of his profession for having abandoned his legal wife+ Milagros &ilado+ with who* he has two children+ and cohabited with Mae Klor 0alido+ with who* he has four children. &e also accused respondent of engaging in *oney!lending business without the re:uired authorization authorizati on fro* the t he I4P. I4P. (n his defense+ he averred that he accepted the case of the spouses on a $O contingent fee basis+ and advanced all the expenses. 5he letter! agree*ent according to hi* was a forgery+ and it was the spouses who pro*ised to assu*e the pay*ent of 0ilbertNs co**ission. 5he (IP reco**ended reco**ended suspension for one 7@8 year fro* the active practice of law+ for violation of the 2awyerBs 'ath+ ,ule @.#@+ Canon @ ,ule .#" .#"++ Ca Cano non n and and ,ule 9.# 9.#++ Ca Cano non n 9 of the the Co Code de of Prof Profes essi sion onal al ,esponsibility 7Code8. &%%U'% )hether or not Atty. Peanco is violated the 2awyerNs 'ath and the Code of Professional ,esponsibility< RUL&NG% 364. ,espondent ,espondent has violated ,ule 9.#+@ Canon Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer fro* dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law+ except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar. ,espondent also violated the 2awyerBs 'ath and ,ule @.#@+ Canon @ of the Code which proscribes proscribes a lawyer fro* engaging in =unlawful+ dishonest+ i**o i**ora rall or dece deceit itfu full cond conduc uct+ t+> > for for aban abando donin ning g his his lega legall fa*i fa*ily ly and and cohabiting with his *istress. *istress. 5he practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the 4tate on those those who show that that they they posse possess ss and conti continue nue to posse possess ss the legal legal :ualications for the profession. As such+ lawyers are expected to *aintain at all all ti*e ti*es s a high high stan standa darrd of lega legall pro proci cien ency cy++ *o *ora ralit lity+ y+ hone honest sty+ y+ integrity and fair dealing+ and *ust perfor* their four!fold four!fold duty to society+ the legal profession+ the courts and their clients+ in accordance with the
valu values es and and nor nor*s e* e*bo bodi die ed in the the Co Code de.. 2awy 2awyer ers s *a *ay+ y+ thus thus++ be disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of the above standards standards whether in their professional or in their private capacity. TOP&C: Canon 50 Title: HU'Y%U(AN2$LOR&)O v* $LOR&)O Reference: AC No. 7-"43anar "0# "004 $ACT% 5his is an ad*inistrative co*plaint for the disbar*ent of respondent respondent Atty. Ea*es Ienedict C. Klorido and his eventual re*oval fro* the ,oll of Attorneys for allegedly violating his oath as a lawyer =by *anufacturing+ Qaunting and using a spurious and bogus Court of Appeals ,esolution. ,esolution. /atasha R. &eysuwan!Klorido+ the co*plainant+ averred that she was the legiti*ate spouse of the respondent Atty. Ea*es Ienedict Klorido+ the respondent+ but because of the estranged relation+ they lived separately. 5hey have two children who* the co*plainant has the custody. custody. Co*plainant led a case for the annul*ent of her *arriage *eanwhile there+ was another related case pending in the Court of Appeals. 4o*e 4o*eti ti*e *e in the the *idd *iddle le of De Dece ce*b *ber er ##@ ##@++ res espo pond nden entt we went nt to co*plaina co*plainantNs ntNs residen residence ce in 5anjay anjay City+ City+ /egros /egros 'riental 'riental and de*anded de*anded that the custody of their two *inor children be surrendered to hi*. &e showed co*plainant a photocopy of an alleged ,esolution issued by the Court of Appeals which supposedly granted his *otion for te*porary te*porary child custody. custody. Co*plainant called up her lawyer but the latter infor*ed infor*ed her that he had not not recei received ved any *otion *otion for for te*por te*porar ary y child child custo custody dy led led by respondent. Co*plain Co* plainant ant as-ed as-ed respon respondent dent for the original original copy of the alleged alleged resolution of the Court of Appeals+ but respondent failed to give it to her. Co*plainant then exa*ined the resolution closely and noted that it bore two two date datesL sL /ove /ove*b *ber er @+ @+ ##@ ##@ and /ove /ove*b *ber er 9+ 9+ ##@ ##@.. 4ens 4ensin ing g so*e so *eth thin ing g a* a*is iss+ s+ she she refus efused ed to give give cust custod ody y of thei theirr chil childr dren en to respondent. 5he co*plainant veried the authenticity of the ,esolution and obtained obtained a certica certication tion dated dated Eanuary Eanuary @J+ ##$Sf ##$Sfro ro* * the Court of Appeals stating that no such resolution ordering co*plainant to surrender custody of their children to respondent had been issued. &%%U'% )het )hethe herr or not not Atty tty. Klo Klorido rido wa was s liab liable le for for *a-i *a-ing ng fals false e cour courtt resolution< RUL&NG% 364. A lawyer who used a spurious ,esolution ,esolution of the Court of Appeals is presu*ed to have participated in its fabrication. Candor and fairness are de*anded of every lawyer. 5he burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not ta-e at face value what is asserted by counsel. 5he ti*e that will have to be devoted just to the tas- of verication of allegations sub*itted could easily be i*agined. 6ven with due recognition then that counsel is expected to display the ut*ost zeal in the defense of a clientNs cause+ it *ust never be at the expense of the truth. 5hus+ the Code of professional ,esponsibility statesL
CA/'/ @#. A 2A)36, ')64 CA/D',+ KA(,/644 A/D 0''D KA(5& 5' 5&6 C'1,5 C'1,5.
,ule @#.#@ ! A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court nor shall he *islead+ or allow the Court to be *isled by any artice. ,ule @#.# ! A lawyer shall not -nowingly *is:uote or *isrepresent the cont conten ents ts of a pape paper+ r+ the the lang langua uage ge or the the argu argu*e *ent nt of an oppo opposi sing ng counsel+ or the text of a decision or authority+ or -nowingly cite as a law a provision provision already already rendered inoperative by repeal or a*end*ent+ a*end*ent+ or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. 5he records records show show that respondent respondent used oensive oensive language language in his pleadings in describing co*plainant and her relatives. A lawyers language should be forceful but dignied+ e*phatic but respectful as betting an advoca advocate te and in -eeping eeping with with the dignit dignity y of the legal legal prof profess ession ion.. 5he lawyers argu*ents whether written or oral should be gracious to both cour courtt and and oppo opposi sing ng coun counse sell and and shou should ld be of such such wo word rds s as *a *ay y be properly addressed by one gentle*en to another. Iy calling co*plainant+ a sly *anipulator of truth as well as a vindictive congenital prevaricator+ hardly *easures to the sobriety of speech de*anded of a lawyer.
