Barrios v.

Francisco Martinez complaint because of the compensation that the victim had received from
sulpicio lines which was later deducted by atty. Martinez. On Sept. 27, 2003
A.C. No. 4585 the ibp board of governors passed a resolution approving the report and the
recommendation of its investigating commissioner. on dec. 3, 2003
Facts: respondent filed an mr and reinvestigation.
For disbarment filed against Atty. Francisco Martinez for having Issue: is the crime of issuing worthless check constituting moral turpitude?
been convicted by final judgment in Criminal Case No. 6608 of a crime Is the act of the respondent considered to be a ground for disbarment?
involving moral turpitude by Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Tacloban City. Ruling:

Several dates for the hearing of the case were scheduled but none of the Yes, the court finds the respondent guilty of bp 22 which imports
parties appeared before the Commission, until finally it was considered deceit and violation of his attorney’s oath and code of professional
submitted for resolution last 27 June 2002.On the same date respondent responsibility. In this case, the court also finds disbarment as the
filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the appropriate penalty and ordered that the name of the respondent be stricken
complainant died sometime in June 1997 and that dismissal is warranted from the roll of attorneys.
because the case filed by him does not survive due to his demise; as a
matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his death.

In the present case, respondent has been found guilty and convicted by final
judgment for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing a worthless check in the
amount of P8,000. The issue with which we are now concerned is whether
Ui vs. Bonifacio
or not the said crime is one involving moral turpitude.

Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000
honesty, modesty, or good morals.[23] It involves an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow Facts:
men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of
right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying
honesty, modesty, or good morals. out an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he
begot two children. Hence, a complaint for disbarment was filed by
complainant against respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline
Barrios vs. Atty. Francisco Martinez of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on the ground of immorality, more
particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainant’s
A.c.no.4585, november 12, 2004
husband. It is respondent’s contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is
Facts: not illicit because they were married abroad(Hawaii, USA on 1985) and that
after June 1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true civil status,
Atty. Martinez was convicted of the crime involving bp 22. He was she cut off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never
also involved in another estafa case pertaining to his legal services rendered lived with her.
on the victim of dona paz tragedy. the victim he represented filed a
Issue: Patricia pointed out that Simeon did not fulfill promise to marry her. She
claimed that Simeon spoke to her about marriage around 20 to 30 times.
Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which During this time, she said he only gave ten pesos to their child on his
she deserves to be barred from the practice of law. birthdays. Pilar eventually gave up on Simeon when she learned that he had
married another woman.
Held:
Simeon was prevented from taking the lawyer's oath in 1971 because of the
The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for charges of gross immorality made by complainant.
alleged immorality, was dismissed.
Court Document Excerpt: "We cannot help viewing the instant complaint
All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that as an act of revenge of a woman scorned, bitter and unforgiving to the end.
respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the It is also intended to make respondent suffer severely and it seems,
fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with perpetually, sacrificing the profession he worked very hard to be admitted
what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered into. Even assuming that his past indiscretions are ignoble, the twenty-six
immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the years that respondent has been prevented from being a lawyer constitute
moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of sufficient punishment therefor. During this time there appears to be no other
the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, indiscretion attributed to him."
the same must be “grossly immoral,” that is, it must be so corrupt and false Outcome: The SC ruled in favor of Simeon and said he could take the
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a lawyer's oath. The catch: Simeon was already 62 years old when he
high degree. officially became a lawyer.

PATRICIA FIGUEROA vs. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR. Ruling:

No, the charges required to constitute a disbarment not only be

July 31, 1997
immoral, but grossly immoral. In the case at hand, the allegation on
respondent merely suggest a doubtful moral character. Furthermore,
Facts: In 1971, Patricia filed a petition to prevent Simeon from being complainant continued to see respondent for a while, even after giving birth
admitted to the legal profession. Patricia claimed that she and Simeon had to the child, thus suggesting that the sexual relations were consensual and
been in a relationship since 1953, when they were in their teens and both not forced.
living in Janiuay, Iloilo.
Cordova vs. Cordova
The court document noted: "Simeon even acted as escort to Patricia when 179 SCRA 680
she reigned as Queen at the 1953 town fiesta. Patricia first acceded to Facts:
sexual congress with Simeon sometime in 1960. Their son, Rafael In 1985, Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being married to Salvacion Delizo
Barranco, was born on December 11, 1964." and with two children, left his wife and children to cohabit with another
married woman. In 1986, Salvacion and Cordova had a reconciliation where
Cordova promised to leave his mistress. But apparently, Cordova still
continued to cheat on her wife as apparently, Cordova again lived with After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that
another woman and worse, he took one of his children with him and hid the from January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent
child away from Salvacion. Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read “I love you,” “I miss
you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He also noticed that Irene habitually
In 1988, Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for disbarment against Cordova.
went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day,
Eventually, multiple hearing dates were sent but no hearing took place
and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her
because neither party appeared. In 1989, Salvacion sent a telegraphic
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parent’s house in Binangonan,
message to the Commission on Bar Discipline intimating that she and her
Rizal or she was busy with her work.
husband has reconciled. The Commission, since Salvacion failed to submit
her evidence ex parte, merely recommended the reprimand and
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent
admonishment of Cordova.
together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them
ISSUE: Whether or not Cordova should be merely reprimanded. following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001
complainant went uninvited to Irene’s birthday celebration at which he saw
HELD: No. He should be suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence
her and the respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of
that he has been morally reformed and that there was true reconciliation
embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately.
between him and his wife. Before a person can be admitted to the bar, one Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all
requirement is that he possesses good moral character. That requirement is her personal belongings. Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated
not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar.
October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw
On the contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing condition for
respondent’s car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street,
membership in the Bar in good standing. The moral delinquency that affects
New Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was
the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that
already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene
outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert, she
for instance, which makes “a mockery of the inviolable social institution or was pregnant.
marriage” such was the case in the case at bar
Issue:

Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for
the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.
A.C. No. 7136
Ruling:
August 1, 2007
Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution
Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice, or
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in any
Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral conduct and crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused
unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any
met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is
Tantoco with whom he had three children. not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished
by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of
ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the A Complain-Affidavit for disbarment was filed by Soriano before
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state. Respondent’s the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that he Philippines (IBP). Dizon was declared in default and an ex-parte hearing
as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose was held. The Commissioner of the CBD recommended to the IBP the
Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of disbarment of Dizon for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
his oath of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule Professional Responsibility and for conviction of a crime involving moral
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. turpitude. The IBP adopted the recommendation of the Commissioner and
sent its resolution to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1.Whether the crime committed by Atty Dizon involved moral

ROBERTO SORIANO v. ATTY MANUEL DIZON turpitude.
2. Whether Atty Dizon violated the Code of Professional
AC no. 6792 | January 25, 2006 Responsibility, warranting his disbarment.
RULING

The Supreme Court approved the Resolution of the Integrated Bar

FACTS: of the Philippines and ordered the disbarment of Atty Manuel Dizon.
Atty Manuel Dizon was driving under the influence of alcohol 1st Issue
along Abanao st. in Baguio city when a taxi overtook him. Enraged, Dizon
tailed the taxi, pulled it over and berated and threatened Roberto Soriano, The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Commissioner that
the taxi driver. To stop the aggression, Soriano opened his door which the frustrated homicide committed by Atty Dizon was attended by moral
caused Dizon to fall to the pavement. Soriano tried to help Dizon up but had turpitude. The Court defined moral turpitude as everything which is done
to punch Dizon because he was going to punch him. Soriano prevented contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or
another attempt by Dizon to hit him. Dizon went back to his car to get his depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen,
gun, the handle wrapped in handkerchief. Dizon shot Soriano who was then or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
picking up Dizon’s eyeglasses to return it to him. After shooting Soriano, morals.
Dizon sped off with his car and left him to die on the street. The bullet hit
Soriano in the neck and lacerated his carotid artery. According to the Atty Dizon exhibited moral turpitude when he shot a taxi driver for
doctors who treated Soriano, he would have easily died if not for the timely no valid reason. His act did not constitute self-defense. In fact, he was the
medical assistance. Nevertheless, the left side of Soriano’s body was aggressor. It was him who first tried to punch the other. Soriano was merely
paralyzed, leaving him unable to drive anymore. defending himself and fending off the aggression when he counterpunched
Dizon. Furthermore, the trial court also ruled that the crime was committed
A complaint for Frustrated Homicide was filed against Dizon by with treachery. Dizon shot Soriano when he was not in a position to defend
Soriano. Dizon was eventually found guilty but was allowed probation. One himself. Soriano was picking up Dizon’s eyeglasses which fell on the road
of the conditions of the probation is the payment of the civil liabilities. Four when Dizon fell to return it to him when he was shot. Furthermore, Dizon
years after the judgment was rendered, Dizon has not yet fulfilled his civil tried to escape punishment by wrapping the handle of his gun in
obligation to Soriano. handkerchief. He intended not to leave fingerprints on the gun he used.
2nd Issue 3, 1993 the board of governors,ibp issued a resolution recommending a one
(01) year suspension of the practice of law.
The Supreme Court also ruled that there was indeed a violation of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 provides that
lawyers must obey the laws of the land and promote respect or law and
legal processes. Atty Dizon was in violation of the law because he was in Issue: is the one (01) year suspension sufficient penalty for a lawyer’s
illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm. He also failed to obey the lawful
immoral act?
orders of the trial court when he failed to settle his civil liabilities, a
condition for the grant of the probation.

Atty Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, Ruling:
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Dizon tried to reach an out-of-
court settlement with the family of Soriano but when the negotiations failed, no, the court decided that the said suspension is not sufficient
he instead made it look like it was the family who approached him to get a punishment for the immoral act of the respondent. The rape he committed
referral to a neurosurgeon. In addition, Dizon fabricated a story saying that though he was acquitted on the grounds of not proven beyond reasonable
it was Soriano and two other persons who mauled him. According to three doubt is not determinative of the administrative case at bar. the testimonies
doctors, there was no proof of assault on Soriano. of the complainant show that the respondent acted in a grossly reprehensible
manner in having carnal knowledge of his neighbor’s wife without her
consent in her very home. The court further states that the said offense
Adm. Case no. 1474, jan. 28, 2000 constitutes serious moral depravity and the respondent is not worthy to
remain member of the bar. wherefore, respondent is disbarred from the
Cristino g. Calub, complainant v. Atty. Abraham a. Suller, respondent practice of law. ( show that respondent acted in a grossly reprehensible
manner in having carnal knowledge of his neighbor's wife without her
Facts:
consent in her very home.)
In the morning of jan. 20, 1975 while the complainant was awa, atty. Suller
went to complainant’s house in aringay la union to borrow a blade. the
respondent was a neighbor and a family friend with the complainant. as he
entered the house,the respondent started touching the private parts of the
wife and threatened her and forced her to have sexual intercourse.as the EN BANC [G.R. No. 159486-88. November 25, 2003]
complainant returned home to get money for the payment of the real estate PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. THE
taxes, he saw his wife with the respondent having a sexual intercourse.on HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL DIVISION], HON.
jan. 23, 1975,the complainant filed a case of rape in mtc of aringay, la union MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO, HON. EDILBERTO SANDOVAL,
and later remanded to the cfi of agoo, la union.on june 3, 1975,the HON. TERESITA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and THE PEOPLE OF
complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent before the THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
supreme court.the cfi rendered an acquittal of the respondent and on march
Facts: -The petitioner also asked the Court to include in its Joint Resolution the
TRUTH of the acts of Chief Justice Davide, et al., last January 20, 2001 in:
-Attorney Alan F. Paguia, as counsel for Estrada, averred that the
respondent justices have violated Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct ‘a) going to EDSA 2;
by attending the ‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by authorizing the assumption of
Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of ‘b) authorizing the proclamation of Vice-President
the 1987 Constitution. Arroyo as President on the ground of ‘permanent
disability’ even without proof of compliance
with the corresponding constitutional conditions,
“Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on e.g., written declaration by either the President or
political questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, majority of his cabinet; and
a judge shall not make political speeches, contribute to party
funds, publicly endorse candidates for political office or ‘c) actually proclaiming Vice-President Arroyo on
participate in other partisan political activities.” that same ground of permanent disability.

-Also, petitioner contended that the justices have prejudged a case that -In a letter, dated 30 June 2003, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G.
would assail the legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. The Davide, Jr., and Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, he has
subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo (353 SCRA 452 demanded, in a clearly disguised form of forum shopping, for several
and 356 SCRA 108) is, petitioner states, a patent mockery of justice and due advisory opinions on matters pending before the Sandiganbayan.
process.
-Subsequently, the court ruled that the instant petition assailing the
-According to Atty. Paguia, during the hearing of his ‘Mosyong foregoing orders must be DISMISSED for gross insufficiency in substance
Pangrekonsiderasyon’ on 11 June 2003, the three justices of the Special and for utter lack of merit. The Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of
Division of the Sandiganbayan made manifest their bias and partiality discretion, an indispensable requirement to warrant a recourse to the
against his client. extraordinary relief of petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure.
-Thus, he averred, Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario supposedly
employed foul and disrespectful language when she blurted -In a resolution, dated 08 July 2003, the Court strongly warned Attorney
out, ‘Magmumukha naman kaming gago,’ (Rollo, p. 13.) and Justice Alan Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to desist from further making,
Teresita Leonardo-De Castro characterized the motion as insignificant even directly or indirectly, similar submissions to this Court or to its Members.
before the prosecution could file its comments or opposition thereto, (Rollo,
p. 12.) remarking in open court that to grant Estrada’s motion would result -Unmindful of the well-meant admonition to him by the Court, Attorney
in chaos and disorder. (Ibid.) Prompted by the alleged ‘bias and partial Paguia appears to persist on end. In fact, on the 7th September 2003 issue of
attitude’ of the Sandiganbayan justices, Attorney Paguia filed, on 14 July the Daily Tribune, Atty. Paguia wrote to say -
2003, a motion for their disqualification.
 “What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada’s right by any incoming President of the Republic before the Chief Justice of
to due process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo the Philippines is a traditional official function of the Highest Magistrate.
unconstitutional and void. The rudiments of fair play were not The assailed presence of other justices of the Court at such an event could
observed. There was no fair play since it appears that when President be no different from their appearance in such other official functions as
Estrada filed his petition, Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices attending the Annual State of the Nation Address by the President of
had already committed to the other party - GMA - with a judgment the Philippines before the Legislative Department.
already made and waiting to be formalized after the litigants shall
-The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; but it will not countenance
have undergone the charade of a formal hearing. After the justices had
any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith in the judicial
authorized the proclamation of GMA as president, can they be
system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in
expected to voluntarily admit the unconstitutionality of their own
the Philippines.
act?”
-Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the
Issue: WON Atty. Paguia committed a violation of the Code of lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and
Professional Responsibility. judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In
liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the
Held: impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty.
Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the
-Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness, dispensation of justice.
soundness or unsoundness, of a decision of the Court would be welcome
-The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary
for, if well-founded, such reaction can enlighten the court and contribute to
sanction, to become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as
the correction of an error if committed. (In Re Sotto, 82 Phil 595.)
an officer of the Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.
However, Attorney Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of
his client’s case within the judicial forum. Indeed, he has repeated his -WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely suspended
assault on the Court in both broadcast and print media. from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt hereof, for conduct
unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
“Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a
member of the bar from making such public statements on any pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. By his acts, Mr. And mrs. Venustiano g. Saburnido v. Atty. Florante madrono
Attorney Paguia may have stoked the fires of public dissension and posed a
potentially dangerous threat to the administration of justice.” A.C. No. 4497

-It should be clear that the phrase “partisan political activities,” in its Facts:
statutory context, relates to acts designed to cause the success or the defeat
of a particular candidate or candidates who have filed certificates of For disbarment of respondent, Atty. Florante E. Madroño filed by
spouses Venustiano and Rosalia Saburdino. Complainants allege that
candidacy to a public office in an election. The taking of an oath of office
respondent has been harassing them by filing numerous complaints against WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Florante E. Madroño is found
them, in addition to committing acts of dishonesty. GUILTY of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one year with a WARNING that a repetition the same or similar
Complainant Venustiano Saburnido is a member of the Philippine National act will be dealt with more severely. Respondent's suspension is effective
Police stationed at Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, while his wife Rosalia is a upon his receipt of notice of this decision. Let notice of this decision be
public school teacher. Respondent is a former judge of the Municipal
spread in respondent's record as an attorney in this Court, and notice of the
Circuit Trial Court, Balingasag-Lagonglong, Misamis Oriental.
same served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of
Previous to this administrative case, complainants also filed three separate the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned.
administrative cases against respondent.

In A. M. No. MTJ-90-383,3 complainant Venustiano Saburnido filed CASTANEDA V AGO

charges of grave threats and acts unbecoming a member of the judiciary
against respondent. Respondent was therein found guilty of pointing a high- CASTRO; July 30, 1975
powered firearm at complainant, who was unarmed at the time, during a
heated altercation. Respondent was accordingly dismissed from the service (glaisa po)
with prejudice to reemployment in government but without forfeiture of
retirement benefits. NATURE

Respondent was again administratively charged in the consolidated cases - Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
of Sealana-Abbu v. Judge Madroño, A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC and Sps.
Saburnido v. Judge Madroño, A.M. No. MTJ-90-486.4 In the first case, FACTS
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Florencia Sealana-Abbu charged that
respondent granted and reduced bail in a criminal case without prior notice - 1955 – Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI
to the prosecution. In the second case, the spouses Saburnido charged that of Manila to recover certain machineries.
respondent, in whose court certain confiscated smuggled goods were
deposited, allowed other persons to take the goods but did not issue the -1957 – judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson
corresponding memorandum receipts. Some of the goods were lost while
others were substituted with damaged goods. Respondent was found guilty - 1961 – SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution;
of both charges and his retirement benefits were forfeited.
Ago’s motion denied, levy was made on Ago’s house and lots; sheriff
advertised the sale, Ago moved to stop the auction; CA dismissed the
Issue:
petition; SC ffirmed dismissal
Whether or not respondent be disbarred?
- Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain
sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied

Ruling: - 1963 – sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago
failed to redeem
- 1964 – sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ of possession to technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the
the properties primacy of truth and moral justice.

- 1964 – Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in - A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his
the replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife ½ client’s cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what the SC
share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy made; does not and cannot countenance is a lawyer’s insistence despite the patent
CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda the futility of his client’s position.
Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the final deed of sale; the
battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the restraining order continued It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his
case. If he finds his client’s cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to
- 1966 – Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the
incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client,
from enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed it; Agos filed a similar
and temper his client’s propensity to litigate
petition with the CA which also dismissed the
LEDESMA v. CLIMACO
petition; Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition

- Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA G.R. No. No. L-23815, 28 June 1974
which gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction.
FERNANDO, J.:
ISSUE

WON the Agos’ lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy FACTS:

HELD On 13 October 1964, Adelino Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar

for the Municipality of Cadiz, Province of Negros Occidental, thus
- No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the discharged his duties. As he was counsel de parte for one of the accused
annulment of the sheriff’s sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long pending in the court, he filed a motion to withdraw, but was denied by the
denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, respondent Judge Rafael Climaco. He was also appointed by the Judge as
for, the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have counsel de oficio for the two defendants. As a result, he filed an urgent
misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, premised on the
policy of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to render full time
satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners.
service. The volume of work will also prevent him from handling
adequately the defense. However, the Judge still denied the said motion, as
- Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted
well as the motion for reconsideration.
position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to
become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a
mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of
ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT Ledesma, a member of the bar, may withdraw as

counsel de oficio, due to an appointment as Election Registrar.

RULING:

NO, Ledesma may not withdraw as counsel de oficio for the sole reason of
his appointment as Election Registrar.
The provision in the Constitution states that, “Any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain
silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence,
threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be
used against them. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall
be inadmissible in evidence.”

This manifests the indispensable role of a member of the bar in the defense
of an accused. What is incumbent upon him as counsel de oficiomust be
fully fulfilled. The ends of justice would be served by allowing and
requiring Ledesma to continue as counsel the officio, since the prosecution
has already rested its case—the case being postponed at least eight (8)
times. It was also noted that there was no incompatibility between his duty
to the accused and to the court and the performance of his task as Election
Registrar.
Hence, because of these considerations, it is suffice for petitioner not being
allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio.