1. A.C. No.

11256
FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA, Complainant RULING:
vs Yes.
ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, Respondent The Supreme Court upheld the IBP’s
recommendation of disbarment. Rivera
DOCTRINE: admitted to drafting the petition and simulating
A lawyer may be disbarred for deceit, the court decision and certificate of finality. His
malpractice, gross misconduct, or violation of excuse of acting upon the client’s insistence did
the Lawyer’s Oath. Falsifying or simulating the not absolve him from responsibility. Simulating
court papers amounted to deceit, malpractice or legal documents amounts to deceit and gross
misconduct in office, any of which was already a misconduct, reflecting moral turpitude. As an
ground sufficient for disbarment under Section officer of the court, Rivera was bound by ethical
27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. standards and the Lawyer’s Oath, which he
blatantly violated.
FACTS: The Court emphasized that falsifying
In November 2002, Flordeliza Madria court decisions and certificates is criminal, and
consulted respondent Atty. Carlos P. Rivera in Rivera's actions eroded public confidence in the
Tuguegarao City for the annulment of her legal profession. Given the severity of the
marriage. Rivera assured her that she had a offense, and Rivera’s prior suspension for
strong case and that his services would cost notarizing documents without authority, the
₱25,000. After paying the initial amount of Court ruled that he should be disbarred.
₱4,000, Madria was shown the petition for
annulment on November 19, 2002. She made
NOTE:
further payments to Rivera in December 2002.
Rivera assured her that there was no need to
The respondent directly contravened the letter
appear in court and that he would update her on
and spirit of Rules 1. 01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and
the proceedings.
Rule 15.07, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
In April 2003, Rivera informed Madria
Responsibility, to wit:
that her petition had been granted by Judge
Lyliha Abella Aquino of the Regional Trial Court CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL
(RTC), Branch 4, Tuguegarao City. He later UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
provided a "certificate of finality" dated OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
September 26, 2003. Madria used the purported AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
annulment decision to apply for passport LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
renewal. However, she became the subject of a
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) inquiry Rule 1.01 - A lawyer
when her former partner accused her of shall not engage in
fabricating the annulment decision. unlawful, dishonest,
Madria later discovered that the immoral or deceitful
annulment petition was dismissed on April 6, conduct.
2004, and that the documents given to her by
Rivera were forged. The RTC Clerk of Court Rule 1.02 - A lawyer
confirmed that no such decision existed in their shall not counsel or
records. abet activities aimed
In response, Rivera claimed that Madria at defiance of the law
had coerced him into simulating the annulment or at lessening
decision and assured him that the falsified confidence in the
documents would remain confidential. He legal system.
argued that he had filed the petition in April
2003, but she never attended hearings. The xxxx
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL
investigated the matter, recommending Rivera’s
OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS
suspension for two years. The IBP Board of
AND LOY AL TY IN ALL HIS
Governors later modified this to disbarment.
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS
WITH HIS CLIENTS.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Carlos P. Rivera should be Rule 15.07. - A lawyer
disbarred for falsifying court documents and
shall impress upon
violating the Lawyer’s Oath.
his client compliance

1|P a g e
 with the laws and the Artuz was unfit for the position as she failed to
principles of fairness. disclose multiple pending criminal and
administrative cases against her in her Personal
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Data Sheets (PDS).
a lawyer may be disbarred on any of the
following grounds, namely: (1) deceit; (2) In 2017, the Court found Atty. Artuz guilty of
malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification
grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a of Official Documents related to her failure to
crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of disclose these cases and dismissed her from the
the lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of any judiciary. Her retirement benefits were forfeited,
lawful order of a superior court; and (8)
and she was barred from future employment in
corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for
any government agency. The Court then ordered
a party to a case without authority so to do.
Atty. Artuz to explain why she should not be
disbarred for the same misconduct that led to
her dismissal.
2. [ A.C. No. 7253, February 18, 2020 ]
In response, Atty. Artuz denied the allegations in
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, COMPLAINANT,
the disbarment complaint, claiming that the
VS ATTY. OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ,*
omissions in her PDS were an honest error, as
RESPONDENT. [A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717
she believed she did not need to disclose the
(FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 07-1911-MTJ)]
pending cases due to a DOJ clearance. She sought
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, COMPLAINANT,
reconsideration of her dismissal and the
VS. JUDGE OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ, MUNICIPAL
penalties imposed, but the Court denied her
TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 5, ILOILO
motion in 2018. The Office of the Bar Confidant
CITY, ILOILO, RESPONDENT
(OBC) later recommended that Atty. Artuz be
Doctrine: A lawyer's misconduct, dishonesty, disbarred, citing her violations of the Code of
and use of offensive language in professional Professional Responsibility and the Rules of
conduct are grounds for disbarment. Court, as well as her misconduct and failure to
Membership in the Bar is a privilege, not a right, comply with court directives. Despite her filing
and lawyers are required to adhere strictly to of a second motion for reconsideration, asserting
ethical standards set by the Code of Professional she was denied due process, the Court remained
Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath. Violations, focused on her previous actions and the
such as dishonesty, falsification of documents, or sufficiency of grounds for disbarment.
disrespectful behavior toward others in the legal
Issue: Whether or not Judge Artuz should be
profession, degrade the integrity of the legal
disbarred
system and warrant disciplinary action,
including suspension or disbarment, to preserve Ruling:
public trust in the legal profession.
Yes.
Facts:
The Supreme Court applied several legal
Two disbarment complaints were filed against provisions to determine her administrative
Atty. Ofelia M. D. Artuz. The first complaint (A.C. liability. The Lawyer’s Oath mandates all
No. 7253) was filed by Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II in lawyers to uphold the law, demonstrate honesty,
2006, accusing Atty. Artuz of maliciously and act with integrity. Violations of this oath are
maligning him and his father in a comment grounds for disciplinary actions, including
related to a request for inhibition in a case. Nava disbarment. The Court also cited the Code of
II claimed that Artuz insulted and scorned them Professional Responsibility (CPR),
and falsely imputed a crime against him. He particularly Canon 1, which requires lawyers to
further alleged that Artuz filed malicious uphold the Constitution and avoid deceitful
criminal cases against him and others, intending conduct, as well as Canon 7, mandating the
to harass and humiliate them. In 2006, despite preservation of the integrity of the legal
these accusations, Atty. Artuz was appointed as profession. Furthermore, Canon 10 obliges
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in lawyers to act with fairness and candor, while
Iloilo City, a nomination which Nava II opposed, Canon 11 emphasizes maintaining respect
filing a complaint to nullify her appointment toward courts. Atty. Artuz’s falsification of
(A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717). He argued that Atty. documents and use of offensive language

2|P a g e
violated these provisions, specifically Rule 1.01 SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS
under Canon 1 and Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, which AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
forbids the use of abusive or improper language. o Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language
The Court also referenced Section 27, Rule 138
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
of the Rules of Court, which allows disbarment improper.
for gross misconduct and deceit. Given the o CANON 11 – A LAWYER SHALL
gravity of her violations, the Court found these OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
breaches sufficient to warrant her immediate RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO
disbarment from the practice of law. JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD
INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
Here, Atty. Artuz was found guilty of Grave OTHERS.
Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of o Rule 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from
Official Documents in an earlier decision. She scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
deliberately lied in her Personal Data Sheets
(PDS) to make it appear she was qualified for a FACTS:
judicial position by failing to disclose multiple Complainants Aurora R. Ladim, Angelito A.
pending cases. This dishonesty violates the Ardiente, and Danilo S. Dela Cruz, employees of
canons of professional responsibility and Lirio Apartments Condominium in Makati City,
constitutes grounds for disbarment under filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Perla
D. Ramirez following multiple incidents from
Section 27 of Rule 138. Moreover, in her defense
1990 to 2007. The incidents involved Atty.
against the disbarment charges, she failed to Ramirez’s rude and offensive behavior, including
show cause as to why she should not be asking personal questions, using offensive
disbarred, instead attacking the complainant's language, and entering units during repairs. Her
credibility. Her conduct violated various rules, behavior culminated in denying association dues
including using offensive language against Atty. from 2004. In 2007, the complainants filed the
initial disbarment complaint. The Integrated Bar
Nava II and his father, which was unprofessional
of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a
and unbecoming of a lawyer. Such behavior reprimand, which the Supreme Court upgraded
erodes public trust in the legal profession, and as to a six-month suspension.
a result, disbarment was warranted.
On April 21, 2016, Atty. Ramirez attempted to lift
The Supreme Court found that Atty. Artuz's her suspension by submitting a handwritten
actions were unbecoming of a lawyer and letter and service record but did not file a
violated ethical standards, leading to her required sworn statement. She questioned the
disbarment. requirements set by the Office of the Bar
Confidant. During a visit to the OBC on March 15,
2017, to follow up on her request, Atty. Ramirez
insulted Atty. Cristina B. Layusa, including
calling her offensive names. An incident report
3. [ AC. No. 10372, Feb 21, 2023 ] was filed, and Atty. Ramirez was required
multiple times to comment on it, which she
AURORA R. LADIM v. ATTY. PERLA ignored.
D. RAMIREZ
ISSUE:
DOCTRINE: Whether respondent should be disbarred from
o CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL the practice of law.
TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL RULING:
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE YES. This Court finds it proper to impose upon
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Atty. Ramirez the ultimate penalty of disbarment
o Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in based on the following grounds: First, Atty.
the conduct that adversely reflects on Ramirez brazenly insulted the Bar Confidant, an
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he official of this Court, in front of her staff in the
whether in public or private life, behave confines of this office. Second, she neither
in a scandalous manner to the discredit confirmed nor denied the charges against her,
of the legal profession. and ignored the two opportunities given her to
o CANON 8 – A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT answer the reports. Moreover, the records of this
HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS case are bereft of any manifestation of apology
AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS or remorse from Atty. Ramirez.Third, this is not
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND Atty. Ramirez's first offense.

3|P a g e
Despite the warning given to Atty. Ramirez, she Atty. Paña provided her with fraudulent
continues to show offensive behavior which documents, which ultimately led to the denial of
"evinces a serious flaw in her moral fiber her K-1 visa application in the U.S. This conduct
justifying the extreme penalty of disbarment" directly contradicts the Lawyer's Oath, which
(Domingo-Agaton v. Cruz, A.C. No. 11023, May 4, mandates integrity and honesty in the practice of
2021). To stress, "[p]osession of good moral law, and reflects a fundamental unworthiness to
character is not only a prerequisite to admission remain a member of the Bar.
to the bar, but also a continuing requirement to
the practice of law" (AAA v. De Los Reyes, 840 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Phil. 212, 230 , 2018). Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
investigated the claims and found substantial
In a disbarment proceeding, the object is not to evidence against Atty. Paña, concluding that his
punish the individual Attorney himself or actions displayed a gross lack of morality and
herself, but rather "to safeguard the integrity, fundamental principles outlined in the
administration of justice by protecting the Court Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
and the public from the misconduct of officers of
the Court." It is "intended to cleanse the ranks of The IBP CBD initially recommended a two-year
the legal profession of its undesirable members” suspension; however, upon further review, the
(AAA v. De Los Reyes, supra note 91), especially Board of Governors decided to escalate the
those who have disregarded their oath and have penalty to disbarment, emphasizing that the
proved to be "unfit to continue discharging the severity of Atty. Paña's misconduct—
trust reposed in them as members of the bar," particularly the falsification of judicial
(Bihag v. Era, supra note 83), just like Atty. documents—warrants a more stringent
Ramirez in this case. response.

ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds and declares Disbarment was deemed necessary not only as a
respondent Atty. Perla D. Ramirez GUILTY of punishment for Atty. Paña’s actions but also as a
violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 7.03 of safeguard for the integrity of the legal profession
Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, and Rule 11.03 of and the judicial system. The IBP Board
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional highlighted the responsibility lawyers hold in
Responsibility. She is DISBARRED from the ensuring the legitimacy of documents processed
practice of law and her name is in their practice.
ordered STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys,
effective immediately. By engaging in deceitful behavior and facilitating
forgery, Atty. Paña not only harmed his client but
also undermined the trust placed in legal
professionals. This case serves as a stark
4. A.C. No. 12353, February 06, reminder of the ethical obligations lawyers must
2024 MELODY H. SANTOS, uphold to maintain public confidence in the legal
COMPLAINANT VS. system.
ATTY. EMILIO S. PAÑA, JR., RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE:
Lawyers must uphold integrity, honesty, and ISSUE:
propriety in their professional conduct. Whether or not Atty. Emilio S. Paña, Jr. should be
Engaging in unlawful or deceitful actions, such as held administratively liable for violations of the
the falsification of court documents, not only Lawyer's Oath and the ethical rules.
violates these ethical obligations but also
undermines public confidence in the legal RULING:
system. The courts have consistently maintained The Court found him guilty of violating both the
that any breach of these standards, especially Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
involving moral turpitude, can result in severe Responsibility and Accountability.
disciplinary measures, including disbarment.
Under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR provides
FACTS: that lawyers should not engage in unlawful,
The case against Atty. Emilio S. Paña, Jr. dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Rule
highlights serious breaches of ethical standards 7.03, Canon 7 thereof also states that they should
within the legal profession, specifically involving not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
the falsification of court documents. Melody H. their fitness to practice law. Similarly, both the
Santos filed a complaint against Atty. Paña, Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the
alleging that he, along with a court interpreter, CPR mandate lawyers to not do any falsehood,
deceived her into believing she could obtain a nor consent to the doing of any in court.
quick annulment of her marriage.

4|P a g e
In this case, the Court underscored that lawyers complaint stemmed from an incident in which
are expected to maintain high ethical standards Atty. Ramon provided a fake decision to her
and strictly follow professional rules. Failing to client, Maria Rossan De Jesus, claiming that her
do so can lead to disciplinary action to uphold
cousin, Tirso Fajardo, had been acquitted in a
the integrity of the legal profession and the
justice system. criminal case. Ramon informed De Jesus that the
promulgation of the decision depended on the
The falsification of court documents is payment of a large sum of money. The decision
considered an act of high moral turpitude, was later discovered to be fraudulent, and Atty.
representing unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful Ramon was caught in an entrapment operation
conduct that erodes public trust in the legal receiving marked money in connection with the
system.
fake decision.
The Court found substantial evidence proving
that Atty. Paña knowingly facilitated the creation ISSUE: Whether Atty. Ramon's actions violated
of spurious legal documents and misled his her Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional
client. His defense—that he merely referred his Responsibility.
client to another party—was not credible.
RULING:
The ruling referenced previous cases where
lawyers were disbarred for similar offenses, Yes. The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Marie
reinforcing the principle that participation in the Frances E. Ramon for grave misconduct,
falsification of documents warrants severe
including creating a fake Court of Appeals
penalties.
decision and defrauding her clients by promising
Based on the gravity of the offenses and the an acquittal in exchange for money. She was
substantial evidence presented, the Court caught in an entrapment operation by the
disbarred Atty. Paña and ordered his name National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) while
struck from the Roll of Attorneys, effective receiving marked money for the fraudulent
immediately. decision. The Court ruled that Ramon violated
her Lawyer’s Oath and several canons of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, including
those requiring honesty, integrity, and respect
5. **A.C. No. 12415 (2018) - JUSTICE for the law. Her actions not only demonstrated
FERNANDA LAMPAS corruption and deceit but also discredited the
legal profession, making her unfit to practice
DOCTRINE: law, leading to her immediate disbarment.

The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyers

must conduct themselves with integrity, uphold
the rule of law, and maintain the dignity of the
legal profession. Any deliberate violation of 6. A.C. No. 12012. July 02, 2018
these duties, such as drafting a fake court Geronimo J. Jimeno, Jr. vs. Atty. Flordeliza M.
decision or defrauding clients for personal gain, Jimeno
constitutes grave misconduct and renders a
lawyer unfit to practice law. The Court also DOCTRINE:
reaffirmed that the practice of law is a privilege The Court reiterated that lawyers must observe
conditioned on adherence to ethical standards, honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in their
and serious breaches, like those committed by dealings, as mandated by the Lawyer's Oath and
Atty. Ramon, warrant the ultimate penalty of the CPR. Lawyers are bound to uphold the law
disbarment to protect the public and preserve and legal processes and must not engage in or
trust in the legal system. consent to falsehoods, employ dishonest or
deceitful conduct, or violate client confidences.
FACTS:
FACTS:
The case involves a disbarment complaint
This case stems from a complaint filed by
against Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon, filed by
Gerónimo J. Jimeno, Jr. (complainant) against
three Court of Appeals (CA) justices: Justice
his cousin, Atty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno
Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, Justice Stephen C.
(respondent), before the Integrated Bar of the
Cruz, and Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando. The

5|P a g e
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline admission as a bona fide member of the Law
(CBD) on July 10, 2012. The complainant Profession.
accused the respondent of unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, and deceitful conduct, particularly The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer not
falsification of a public document, and violation only to obey the laws of the land but also to
of client-confidences under the Code of refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of
Professional Responsibility (CPR). court or from consenting to the doing of any in
court, and to conduct himself according to the
The contention revolves around a Deed of best of his knowledge and discretion with all
Absolute Sale dated September 8, 2005, through good fidelity to the courts as well as to his
which the respondent, acting as the attorney-in- clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and
fact, purportedly sold a property belonging to has to observe and maintain the rule of law, as
the late spouses Geronimo P. Jimeno, Sr. and well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by
Perla de Jesus Jimeno, the complainant’s others.
parents. The complainant alleged the deed was
falsified due to the signature of his already In this case, while seemingly aware of the
deceased mother, incorrect marital status of his demise of Perla that rendered the Malindang
father, misrepresentation of property property a co-owned property of Geronimo Sr.
ownership, and inaccuracies in Geronimo Sr.’s and the Jimeno children, instead of advising the
residence and postal address. latter to settle the estate of Perla to enable the
proper registration of the property in their
The respondent defended her actions by names preliminary to the sale to Aquino, she
asserting her lack of involvement in the voluntarily signed the subject deed, as attorney-
document’s preparation and maintained that in-fact of Geronimo Sr., despite the patent
the sale was with consent from all Jimeno irregularities in its execution. These
children. The IBP-CBD initially recommended a irregularities are: (a) the fact that it bore the
reprimand, but upon the complainant’s motion signature of Perla, who was already deceased;
for reconsideration, escalated the penalty to a (b) the erroneous description of Geronimo Sr.
six-month suspension from legal practice, a as married to Perla despite the latter's demise
decision affirmed by the IBP Board of and as being the absolute owner in fee simple of
Governors and eventually the Supreme Court of the Malindang property which is a co-owned
the Philippines. property; and (c) the erroneous statement of
Geronimo Sr.'s residence and postal address.

ISSUE: As a lawyer, respondent is fully aware of the

Whether or not the respondent’s actions in requisites for the legality of a voluntary
relation to the falsified Deed of Absolute Sale conveyance of property, particularly, the scope
constitute violations of the CPR. of the rights, interests, and participation of the
parties/signatories to the deed of sale, and the
consequent transfer of title to the properties
involved, yet, she chose to disregard the patent
RULING: irregularities in the subject deed and
YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s voluntarily affixed her signature thereon.
findings and held the respondent’s actions in Notably, respondent did not specifically admit
relation to the falsified Deed of Absolute Sale nor deny knowledge of the demise of Perla, but
constitute violations of the CPR. her claim of such strong ties to complainant's
family bolsters knowledge thereof.
Fundamental is the rule that in his dealings with
his client and with the courts, every lawyer is All told, respondent is found guilty of violating
expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule
and trustworthy. These expectations, though 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19
high and demanding, are the professional and of the CPR by allowing herself to become a
ethical burdens of every member of the party to the subject deed which contained
Philippine Bar, for they have been given full falsehood and/or inaccuracies.
expression in the Lawyer's Oath that every
lawyer of this country has taken upon

6|P a g e
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Flordeliza M.
Jimeno (respondent) is found GUILTY of
violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon
1, Rule 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of RULING:
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Yes, Atty. Causing violated the CPR and the
Responsibility. Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED
Lawyer's Oath. The defenses of Atty. Causing
for six (6) months from the practice of law, with
are untenable. He cannot justify his infractions
a STERN WARNING that any repetition of the by hiding behind the rights of freedom of the
same or similar acts will be punished more press and freedom of expression under the
severely. Constitution as such are not absolute.

As a member of the Bar, Atty. Causing ought to

know that Facebook--or any other social
medium, for that matter-is not the proper
forum to air out his grievances, for a lawyer
7. JACKIYA LAO, Complainant, vs.
who uses extra-legal fora is a lawyer who
ATTY. BERTENI CAUSING, Respondent weakens the rule of law. In this case, Atty.
Causing knew that the proper forum for his
EN BANC A.C. NO. 13453 | October 4, 2022 complaint is the Office of the ombudsman.
PER CURIAM Atty. Causing also violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR
FACTS: and the Lawyer's Oath when he accused Lao
and the other respondents of stealing funds
January 2019, Atty. Causing published in his intended for evacuees. Rule 8.01 provides:
Facebook account a draft and yet to be filed
copy of his Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder, Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his
accusing Lao and other persons of the crime of professional dealings, use language which is
Plunder. Atty. Causing's publication in his abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Facebook account of such defamatory XXXXX
accusation of Plunder subjected Lao to public
hate, contempt and ridicule. Lawyer's Oath provides:

Atty. Causing named and referfed to Lao as the Xxx; I will delay no man for money or malice,
"Chairperson of the Bids and Awards and will condued ge and discretiony, ta a ging
Committee (BAC) of the DSWD Regional Office feity a best to the courts as to my clients;xxx
No. XII and the one that handled the bidding
Such oath mandates lawyers to conduct
that ended up in the awarding of these food
themselves in a manner which would keep the
packs to Tacurong Fit Mart, Inc.,"5 which
integrity of the legal profession intact.
allegation, per Lao's submission in her
complaint, is completely and absolutely wrong. Considering that Atty. Causing was already
Lao insisted that Atty. Causing made false suspended for one year with a stern warning
imputations against her in the final copy of the that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
complaint-affidavit he filed before the Office of be dealt with more severely, this Court believes
the Ombudsman. that the appropriate penalty to be imposed
herein is the ultimate penalty of disbarmen:
Atty. Causing submitted that the Facebook posts
are an exercise of his freedom of the press and The Court finds Atty. Causing GUILTY of
his freedom of expression. violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
Thus, this Complaint filed by Jackiya Lao
DISBARRED from the practice of law. The Office
charging Atty. Causing with violation of the
of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to remove the
Lawyer's Oath as well as the Code of
name of Berteni Causing from the Roll of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Attorneys.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. Causing violated
PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINE:
the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath when he posted
his Complaint for Plunder on his Facebook Lawyer's Oath: 1, do solemnly swear that I will
account to the detriment of the complainant. maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, I will support the Constitution and
obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein;

7|P a g e
I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing San Jose, Antique, which was forwarded to the
of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Antique.
promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit. or give aid nor consent to the On April 13, 2010, Prosecutor Marilou R.
same; I will delay no man for money or malice, Garachico-Fabila found probable cause to file a
and will conduct myself as a lawyer according case against Randy for violating Section 5(e)(2)
of R.A. 9262. Randy Segura filed an
to the best of my knowledge and discretion,
administrative complaint against Fabila,
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to accusing her of bias and partiality for inquiring
my clients; and 1 impose upon myself these into his employment even before issuing a
voluntary obligations without any mental subpoena. He also alleged that Fabila ignored the
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me evidence he submitted, proving he supported his
God. nie ethicanda the of truth funes, fair play family. He claimed this violated the Lawyer’s
and hobilay ters toourse of this practice of law. Oath and Canon 6.01 of the Code of Professional
A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for Responsibility, which states that the duty of a
any neen into a lawyer motioned by ate public prosecutor is to ensure that justice is
esponsie ai served, not merely to convict.

improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, Fabila, in her defense, stated that she was merely
every lawyer should act and comport himself in trying to serve the second subpoena and denied
such a manner that would promote public any bias. She asserted that the evidence Randy
confidence in the integrity of the legal provided was insufficient.
profession. IBP Investigation: Upon referral of the case to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
the Investigating Commissioner Erwin L.
Aguilera recommended dismissing the
complaint. The IBP found that Fabila was acting
within her discretion as a public prosecutor and
had taken steps to ensure that Randy was given
8. A.C. No. 9837 (September 2, 2019): The
the opportunity to respond to the complaint
court addressed issues of promoting or suing
against him.
in groundless, false, or unlawful suits,
emphasizing the ethical obligations of
On June 29, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors
lawyers not to consent to such actions
adopted the findings and dismissed the
complaint
Doctrine: In administrative cases against
government lawyers, particularly those
Issue: Whether the IBP has jurisdiction over
involving acts performed in the discharge of
administrative complaints against government
their official functions, jurisdiction lies with the
lawyers related to their official duties.
Office of the Ombudsman or the government
lawyer’s superior (e.g., the Secretary of Justice),
Ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed the
not with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
administrative complaint for lack of
(IBP). This principle is based on Republic Act No.
jurisdiction. It held that the Integrated Bar of
6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), which
the Philippines (IBP) has no authority to
empowers the Ombudsman to investigate and
investigate government lawyers, like public
prosecute public officials for misconduct or any
prosecutors, for actions related to their official
improper acts in the performance of their duties.
functions. Jurisdiction over such matters belongs
to the Office of the Ombudsman or the superior
The doctrine differentiates between the
of the government lawyer, in this case, the
accountability of government lawyers as public
Secretary of Justice.
officials and their accountability as members of
the Philippine Bar. While the IBP handles ethical
In the case of Alicias vs. Atty. Macatangay, et
violations of lawyers as members of the Bar, it
al.,[12] the Court pronounced that jurisdiction
lacks jurisdiction over acts committed by
over administrative cases against government
government lawyers in their official capacities.
lawyers relating to acts committed in the
performance of their official functions, lies with
Facts: In March 2008, Maria Erna A. Segura filed
the Ombudsman which exercises administrative
a complaint against her husband, Randy N.
supervision over them;thus:
Segura, for violating Section 5(e)(2) and (4) of
R.A. No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-
Republic Act No. 6770 (sic) (R.A. No. 6770),
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of
of 2004. This was dismissed in June 2008.
1989," prescribes the jurisdiction of the Office of
Dissatisfied, Maria Erna filed another complaint,
the Ombudsman. Section 15, paragraph 1 of R.A.
this time with the Philippine National Police in
No. 6770 provides:

8|P a g e
Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. — The In the years 1998 and 1999, Atty. Marapao
Office of the Ombudsman shall have the represented Gertrudes' husband, Venancio Ang
following powers, functions and duties: (Venancio), in the various criminal cases filed by
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on Venancio against Gertrudes for bigamy, adultery,
complaint by any person, any act or omission of concubinage, perjury, libel, numerous counts of
any public officer or employee, office or agency, violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142, and
when such act or omission appears to be illegal, several counts of falsification of public and
unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary commercial documents. The cases were
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the eventually dismissed as Gertrudes and Venancio
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his reconciled, paving the way for Gertrudes to hire
primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any Atty. Marapao as her lawyer in the two cases of
stage, from any investigatory agency of Estafa which she filed against Rosita Mawili
Government, the investigation of such cases. (Rosita) and Genera Legetimas (Genera) on 3
December 2001 and 10 December 2001,
In this case, complainant imputes to respondent respectively
manifest bias and partiality in the conduct of the
preliminary investigation and issuance of the Eight years later, Gertrudes was entangled in
Resolution which recommended the filing of a another court litigation. This time, she was sued
criminal case against him. The acts complained by Eufronia Estaca Guitan and Victoria Huan. As
of arose from respondent's performance or it happened, Gertrudes discovered that Atty.
discharge of official duties as a public Marapao appeared as counsel for Eufronia and
prosecutor. Hence, the authority to investigate Victoria in the said civil case. Meanwhile, from
and discipline respondent exclusively pertains 2009 to 2011, Atty. Marapao continued to render
to her superior, the Secretary of JusticeThe legal services in favor of Eufronia and the latter's
authority may also pertain to the Office of the niece, Rosario Galao Leyson (Rosario). More
Ombudsman which similarly exercises tellingly, Atty. Marapao had assisted Eufronia
disciplinary jurisdiction over public prosecutors and Rosario in lodging more than thirty (30)
as public officials pursuant to Section 15, criminal cases against Gertrudes – again for
paragraph 1, of R.A. No. 6770.Indeed, various crimes involving falsification of public
respondent's accountability as an official and private documents, perjury, violation of the
performing or discharging her official duties is "Anti-Alias Law," and violation of the National
always to be differentiated from her Building Code.
accountability as a member of the Philippine
Bar.[ For this reason, the IBP has no jurisdiction Dismayed, Gertrudes denounced Atty. Marapao's
to investigate respondent as such government propensity of filing frivolous suits. She accused
lawyer. him of violating the Lawyer's Oath, decrying that
his act of representing Eufronia, Victoria, and
Rosario in the cases filed against her
transgressed the ethical injunction which
prohibits lawyers from engaging in any conflict
of interest given that she was a former client of
9.GERTRUDES MAHUNOT ANG @ Atty. Marapao. Gertrudes bemoaned Atty.
GERTRUDES Marapao's failure to preserve the confidence and
M. SIMONETTI VS. ATTY. LORD M. MARAPAO secrets of a client when he used privileged
[A.C. No. 10297. March 09, 2022 information to file cases against her eight years
later. She vehemently characterized the filing of
DOCTRINE: Civil Case No. 7688 as a form of harassment,
made possible by the complicity of Atty.
Lawyers are equally bound to advise a client, Marapao, as a means to coerce her and Venancio
ordinarily a layman, on the intricacies and to give up their rights and interests in the parcels
vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of land which are subject of the said case
of a person's case. If the lawyer finds that his or
her client's cause is defenseless, then it is the ISSUE:
lawyer's bounden duty to advise the client to
acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the Whether the defendant Atty Lord Marapao has
incontrovertible. Lawyers must resist the failed to exhibit the degree of ethical
whims and caprices of their clients and to temperament in filing civil and criminal case
temper their propensities to litigate. against complainant.

FACTS:
RULING:

9|P a g e
 Yes, Atty Lord Marapao has failed to
exhibit the degree of ethical temperant in filing DOCTRINE:
civil and criminal cases against Gertrudes. A lawyer who misrepresents themselves
as having the authority to practice law or
The Lawyer's Oath commands that deceives the public into believing they are
lawyers should maintain the nobility of the legal authorized to provide legal services, despite
profession by not "wittingly or willingly
being previously disbarred, violates the Code of
promot[ing] or su[ing] any groundless, false or
Professional Responsibility and is guilty of grave
unlawful suit, or [by not] giv[ing] aid nor
consenting] to the same." This deterrence misconduct.
against lawyer's proclivity to stir up litigation,
whether borne by an ardent quest for justice or FACTS:
lured only by the promise of profit, finds The case stems from a complaint filed by
articulation in Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the CPR, Myriam Tan-Te Seng against Atty. Dennis C.
which states that: "A lawyer shall not, for any Pangan, alleging that he continued to engage in
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or the practice of law despite being disbarred by
proceeding or delay any [person's] cause." the Supreme Court in 2008.
Complainant Tan-Te Seng claimed that
In this case, the Court punctiliously Pangan had offered legal services to her and her
observed that Atty. Marapao failed to exhibit that
husband. They were introduced to Pangan by his
degree of ethical temperament in the manner by
wife, who presented him as a practicing lawyer.
which he facilitated the bombardment of civil
and criminal cases against Gertrudes. The Believing that he was authorized to provide legal
criminal cases filed by Atty. Marapao even services, the complainant engaged his services in
involved several counts for the same crime. As drafting contracts, handling legal documents,
borne by the records, he assisted Eufronia and and providing legal advice.
Rosario in filing 30 criminal cases against The complainant eventually discovered
Gertrudes on top of at least 50 criminal cases that Pangan had been disbarred and filed a
filed by Venencio against Gertrudes from 1998 complaint before the Integrated Bar of the
to 1999. While admittedly, a number of the Philippines (IBP), claiming that Pangan violated
criminal cases proceeded to court, a finding of the rule that only members in good standing of
probable cause in some of the criminal charges the Philippine Bar are authorized to practice law.
will not justify Atty. Marapao's propensity to be In his defense, Pangan claimed that he
litigious. A lawyer's duty to uphold the cause of
had merely assisted the complainant as a
justice is superior to his duty to his or her client.
"paralegal," arguing that his actions did not
Besides, a lawyer must not take advantage of the
strong emotions that his or her client has constitute the practice of law.
towards the latter's adversaries. A lawyer, in Lower Court and IBP Proceedings: The IBP
assisting his client, must take into consideration Investigating Commissioner found Pangan guilty
the additional expenses, the amount of time, and of unauthorized practice of law and
the effort that clients spend in pursuing their recommended the imposition of a penalty. The
contemplated action. The sheer number of cases IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and
filed by Atty. Marapao against his clients' recommended that Pangan be fined for his
adversaries unfortunately bordered on continued practice of law despite being
harassment and power play. disbarred.
Pangan appealed the recommendation,
maintaining that his actions were merely
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISQUISITION,
advisory in nature.
petitioner Atty. Lord M. Marapao is hereby
ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the
performance of his duties as an officer of the ISSUE:
Court. He is STERNLY WARNED that a similar Whether Atty. Dennis C. Pangan engaged
infraction in the future shall be dealt with more in the unauthorized practice of law after his
severely disbarment.

RULING:
10. [ A.C. No. 12829 [Formerly CBD Case No. The Supreme Court found Pangan guilty
15- 4821], September 16, 2020 ] of unauthorized practice of law and held that his
MYRIAM TAN-TE SENG, COMPLAINANT, V. actions clearly constituted the practice of law.
ATTY. DENNIS C. PANGAN, RESPONDENT. The Court reiterated that drafting legal
documents, providing legal advice, and
representing oneself as a lawyer are all acts that
require a valid and active license to practice law.

10 | P a g e
 The Court emphasized that Pangan’s allegedly never paid the remaining amount nor
claim of merely acting as a paralegal was a weak returned the original titles. He suggested that the
defense. His continuous engagement in legal Deed of Absolute Sale may have been forged,
work and presenting himself as a lawyer misled especially since the signature of one of the
the public, violating the rules of the legal sellers, Fatima Toribio, was present despite her
profession. having passed away. Following an investigation,
In view of the gravity of the offense, the
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Supreme Court imposed a fine of ₱40,000.00 on
recommended dismissing the complaint due to
Pangan. Additionally, the Court reiterated that
lack of merit.
disbarred lawyers are not allowed to engage in
any activity that involves the practice of law, Issue:Whether Atty. Freddie B. Feir violate
even in an indirect manner. Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 of the Code of
The Court warned that further Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's
infractions could lead to more severe penalties,
Oath, warranting disbarment
including imprisonment for contempt of court.
Ruling:

No, Atty. Freddie B. Feir did not violate Canon 19

and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility or the Lawyer's Oath.
11. POTENCIANO R. MALVAR, COMPLAINANT,
VS. ATTY. FREDDIE B. FEIR, RESPONDENT. According to Canon 19 and Rule 19.01, a lawyer
must represent their client with zeal and employ
Doctrine:
only fair means to achieve lawful objectives,
A lawyer may be disbarred for violating the
refraining from presenting unfounded criminal
Lawyer’s Oath or the Code of Professional
charges.
Responsibility, specifically regarding the misuse
of legal threats to extort or blackmail an In this case, Feir's demand letters were not
adversary. However, demands made in good unfounded; they were based on legitimate
faith based on legitimate claims do not constitute concerns regarding the alleged failure of Malvar
grounds for disbarment, as lawyers have a duty to pay the remaining balance for the properties
to protect their clients' interests within the sold by his client, Amurao. The letters sought to
bounds of the law. clarify the status of the sale and protect
Amurao's rights, indicating a valid legal basis
Facts:
rather than an intention to extort. Thus, the
On February 13, 2015, Potenciano R. Malvar filed
Court found that Feir was acting within his rights
a disbarment complaint against Atty. Freddie B.
as a lawyer, leading to the dismissal of the
Feir, alleging that Feir sent him threatening
disbarment petition against him.
letters demanding ₱18,000,000.00 to settle
claims involving Malvar's purchase of real estate
from Feir’s client, Rogelio M. Amurao. The letters
implied that failure to pay would lead to criminal
charges for Falsification of Public Documents 12. JACKIYA A. LAO, COMPLAINANT, VS.
and Estafa, as well as a civil complaint for ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT.
Annulment of a Transfer Certificate of Title, Doctrine: lawyers must conduct themselves
which Malvar contended amounted to blackmail with the utmost integrity, both in their
or extortion. Malvar supported his complaint professional duties and personal conduct, as
with affidavits from his staff and Amurao, their actions directly affect public confidence in
asserting the legitimacy of the Deed of Absolute the legal profession. The freedoms of speech and
Sale concerning the properties involved. Feir expression, while constitutionally protected, are
responded by claiming that his letters were not absolute and must be exercised with
intended to prompt Malvar to explain how the responsibility, particularly by legal practitioners
properties were registered in his name without who have sworn an oath to uphold justice and
a legitimate sale and to recover the unpaid truth. Further, any unlawful, dishonest, or
balance of the purchase price. Feir detailed a immoral conduct, including defamatory
2008 transaction wherein Malvar had initially statements made through social media, can lead
paid ₱3,200,000.00 for the properties but to severe disciplinary measures, including
disbarment, especially when such actions reflect

11 | P a g e
a pattern of misconduct. It reminds lawyers that Rule 7.03. The Court determined that there was
their ethical obligations extend beyond legal substantial evidence supporting Lao's claims,
practice to their interactions with the public and including documentation of public ridicule and
the media. negative comments directed at her resulting
from Atty. Causing's posts. Although Atty.
Facts:
Causing sought to defend his actions by invoking
Jackiya A. Lao filed a complaint against Atty. his rights to freedom of expression, the Court
Berteni C. Causing, alleging violations of the noted that such freedoms are not absolute and
Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional must be exercised responsibly, particularly by
Responsibility (CPR) due to Atty. Causing's lawyers who are obligated to uphold the
social media posts. On January 18, 2019, Atty. integrity of their profession. His behavior on
Causing published a draft Complaint-Affidavit social media was deemed intentionally
for Plunder on Facebook, accusing Lao and provocative, aimed at eliciting negative public
others of the crime without having filed the reactions against Lao, further violating Rule
complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. 8.01, which prohibits the use of abusive or
This publication was purportedly aimed at improper language in professional dealings.
promoting his sister's political campaign and
The Court also considered Atty. Causing's
resulted in significant public backlash against
previous misconduct, including a prior
Lao, damaging her reputation. Atty. Causing
suspension for similar violations, which
repeated these allegations on January 31, 2019,
influenced its decision to impose the severe
claiming he had filed the complaint. In his
penalty of disbarment. It emphasized that repeat
defense, he acknowledged authorship of the
offenders necessitate harsher penalties to
posts, arguing they were based on investigative
maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
reports and were an exercise of his freedom of
Ultimately, Atty. Causing was found guilty of
expression. Following a conference and
violating the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR, leading
investigation, the Integrated Bar of the
to his disbarment from the practice of law.
Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a six-
month suspension. However, this was later
modified to a reprimand, as the IBP Board of
Governors determined that Atty. Causing
ultimately filed the complaint through
appropriate legal channels. 12.A.C. No. 13453 (Formerly CBD Case
No. 19- 5956). October 04, 2022
Issue: Whether Atty. Causing violated the CPR JACKIYA A. LAO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
and the Lawyer's Oath when he posted his BERTENI C. CAUSING, Respondent.
Complaint for Plunder on his Facebook account
to the detriment of herein complainant DOCTRINE:
o Lawyer’s oath
Ruling:
o Rule 8.01 of the CPR: A lawyer shall not,
Yes. in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or
Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional otherwise improper.
Responsibility prohibits lawyers from engaging o Freedom of Expression Limits:
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful Constitutional rights must yield where
conduct, as well as conduct that adversely injustice occurs, particularly in
reflects on their fitness to practice law. professional ethical conduct; Lawyers
Additionally, the Lawyer's Oath mandates that must retain integrity and not misuse
lawyers maintain integrity, act with justice, and public platforms to air grievances.
refrain from any form of deceit or malice. o Escalation for Repeat Offender:
In this case, Atty. Causing admitted to posting a Repetition of infractions leads logically
draft of the Complaint for Plunder against Lao on to heightened disciplinary actions,
Facebook while the complaint was unfiled at that culminating in disbarment if continued
time. This act was characterized as unlawful and violations are evident.
immoral, violating Rule 1.01, and it was found to
adversely affect his professional integrity under FACTS:

12 | P a g e
Atty. Causing allegedly resorted to the use of Rule 8.01 provides that “A lawyer shall not, in his
social media to make his sister, Lyndale Causing, professional dealings, use language which is
one of the candidates for Representative of the abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.” The
2nd District of South Cotabato, known to the Lawyer's Oath provides that: “…and will
public. Atty. Causing's publication in his conduct myself as a lawyer according to the
Facebook account of such defamatory accusation best of my knowledge and discretion…”
of Plunder subjected Lao to public hate,
contempt and ridicule. The case at hand show that Atty. Causing has the
propensity to divulge sensitive information in
Atty. Causing named and referred to Lao as the online platforms, such as Facebook, to the
"Chairperson of the Bids and Awards Committee detriment of the people involved in the said
(BAC) of the DSWD Regional Office No. XII and cases. Thus, considering that Atty. Causing was
the one that handled the bidding that ended up already suspended for one (1) year with a stem
in the awarding of these food packs to Tacurong warning that a repetition of the same or similar
Fit Mart, Inc.," which allegation, per Lao's acts will be dealt with more severely, We believe
submission in her complaint, is completely and that the appropriate penalty to be imposed
absolutely wrong. herein is the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

In his Answer-Affidavit Atty. Causing did not Well-settled is the rule in our jurisdiction that
deny that he is the author of the questioned disbarment ought to be meted out only in clear
Facebook posts. He admitted that his main basis cases of misconduct that seriously affect the
in filing the Plunder case was the investigative standing and character of the lawyer as an officer
reports from the Philippine Center for of the court and that the Court will not disbar a
Investigative Journalism (PCIJ). The fact that the lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice to
instant complaint for Plunder is supported by accomplish the desired end. The Court,
evidence, as cited in his Answer-Affidavit, was however, does not hesitate to impose the
already a sufficient justification to dismiss the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party
administrative complaint. He submitted that the has become a repeat offender.
Facebook posts are an exercise of the freedom of
the press and freedom of expression. As a final note, while freedom of expression is
guaranteed by the Constitution, the lawyer's
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) oath and his duties and responsibilities
recommended that Atty. Causing be suspended ultimately serve as a limit thereto.
from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months. In a resolution, the IBP Board of WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Berteni C.
Governors resolved to modify the Report and Causing GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath
Recommendation and instead, imposed the and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
penalty of REPRIMAND. is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.

Atty. Causing admitted in his Answer-Affidavit

that he posted the complaint for Plunder on his
Facebook account. In his defense, he invokes his
rights to freedom of expression and of the press. 13.A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, February 08, 2011

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF

ISSUE:
PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE
Whether Atty. Causing violated the CPR and the JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO.
Lawyer's Oath when he posted his Complaint for
Plunder on his Facebook account to the
detriment of herein complainant. DOCTRINE:

RULING: Judges are tasked with resolving disputes and

YES. Atty. Causing also violated Rule 8.01 of the providing justice rather than producing original
CPR and the lawyer’s oath when he accused Lao scholarly works. The legal framework
emphasizes that while plagiarism is a serious
and the other respondents of stealing around
offense in academic contexts, the judiciary
P226 Million intended for evacuees.
operates under the doctrine of stare decisis,

13 | P a g e
which encourages the citation of precedents and malicious intent typically associated with
established legal opinions without necessarily plagiarism.
attributing every borrowed idea. The focus is on
Under the Judicial Opinion Writing Handbook by
the fairness and correctness of judicial decisions
rather than their originality. Joyce C. George, whom Justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno cites in her dissenting opinion, a judge
writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or
appellate, is exempted from a charge of
FACTS:
plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from
Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya and other a law review article, novel thoughts published in
members of the Malaya Lolas Organization a legal periodical or language from a party's brief
sought reconsideration of the Supreme Court's are used without giving attribution. Thus judges
October 12, 2010 decision, which dismissed are free to use whatever sources they deem
their allegations of plagiarism and gross neglect appropriate to resolve the matter before them,
against Justice Mariano Del Castillo related to his without fear of reprisal. This exemption applies
ruling in Vinuya v. Romulo. to judicial writings intended to decide cases for
two reasons: the judge is not writing a literary
They argued that the Court's dismissal work and, more importantly, the purpose of the
effectively legalized plagiarism in the writing is to resolve a dispute. As a result, judges
Philippines, a claim the Court deemed absurd adjudicating cases are not subject to a claim of
since it unequivocally condemns such acts. legal plagiarism.
The concept of plagiarism is commonly In this case, the omissions in attribution were
understood as the malicious appropriation of attributed to an accidental deletion during the
another's work, defined by various dictionaries final drafting process.
as a deliberate act of presenting someone else's
ideas as one's own. The Court underscored the distinction between
academic writing and judicial decision-making,
The Court emphasized that for an act to qualify noting that judges are not expected to produce
as plagiarism, it must involve intent to deceive, original scholarship. Their primary role is to
distinguishing it from accidental or good faith apply established laws and precedents, adhering
errors in attribution. Such intent is crucial in to the doctrine of stare decisis. In this context,
determining the nature of the misconduct decisions are meant to resolve disputes rather
alleged against judges. than showcase literary originality.
Furthermore, the Court noted that while some The ruling stressed that judicial writings should
educational institutions may have different serve the public interest by providing fair and
definitions that do not consider intent, this just resolutions to conflicts. Thus, the lack of
perspective does not apply to legal standards for attribution, while regrettable, did not meet the
judges. threshold for misconduct. The Court affirmed
that the judiciary has historically not regarded
The ruling clarified that unintentional mistakes
such omissions as plagiarism and reiterated that
do not constitute plagiarism, thereby setting a
judges should not be penalized for unintentional
higher threshold for disciplinary actions against
errors in their work.
judicial figures. This approach ensures that only
those who engage in fraudulent conduct face Thus, the Court denied the petitioners' motion
consequences, reinforcing the integrity of the for reconsideration, concluding that Justice Del
judicial system. Castillo's work was honest and fell within the
accepted norms of judicial writing, reinforcing
the principle that justice should not be delayed
ISSUE: for personal or trivial disputes.

Whether or not Justice Mariano Del Castillo's

actions constituted plagiarism, gross neglect, or
misconduct sufficient to warrant disciplinary
action. 14. **G.R. Nos. 236177-210 JOAN V.
ALARILLA, PETITIONER
RULING:

The Court rejected the petitioners' claims of DOCTRINE:

plagiarism against Justice Mariano Del Castillo, Although delay is not to be determined solely
highlighting that his actions did not exhibit the from the length of time taken for the conduct of

14 | P a g e
the preliminary investigation, a long delay is investigation violated Alarilla’s right to the
inordinate unless the Office of the Ombudsman speedy disposition of cases. The Court
suitably justifies it. The lapse of almost nine (9) emphasized that malicious prosecution can
years to conduct a preliminary investigation indeed be a ground for dismissal, in line with the
does not, by itself, immediately equate to a legal principle that no party should be subjected
violation of a person's right to speedy to undue delay for reasons of malice. The Court
disposition of cases. However, courts must take cited the case of Cagang v. Sandiganbayan,
such unusually long periods into careful explaining that when delays are politically
consideration when determining whether motivated or filed with insufficient evidence,
inordinate delay exists. Otherwise, the such delays are deemed malicious. The
Constitutionally guaranteed right to speedy prosecution has the burden to justify such
disposition of cases would be reduced to nothing delays, but in Alarilla’s case, they failed to
but an illusory promise. provide a valid justification for the extended
delay. As a result, the Court found that the delay
FACTS: was unjustified, amounting to a denial of
Joan V. Alarilla, former mayor of Meycauayan, Alarilla's right, and ordered the dismissal of the
Bulacan, faced charges of malversation of public criminal charges against her.
funds through falsification and violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
The case was filed after a complaint by Rolando
Lorenzo, who alleged that Alarilla and her late 15.[ G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018 ]
husband, former mayor Eduardo Alarilla, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
misappropriated over ₱5 million of public funds. REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE
C. CALIDA, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA LOURDES
The funds were taken through the issuance of 43
P. A. SERENO, RESPONDENT.
checks for goods and services that were never
delivered. DOCTRINE:
“Proven integrity” is an essential qualification for
The complaint was filed in 2008, and after a joint membership in the Judiciary, and failure to comply
counter-affidavit was submitted by Alarilla and with the requirement of filing SALNs can be a
her husband, the Ombudsman took nearly nine ground to challenge the validity of an
appointment.
years to issue a resolution finding probable
cause. Alarilla filed motions claiming that this FACTS:
delay violated her right to a speedy disposition Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno was appointed Chief
of the case. Despite the delay, the Ombudsman Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
proceeded to file 33 charges of malversation and by then-President Benigno S. Aquino III in 2012.
one charge of graft against her. Alarilla’s motions Prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court,
to dismiss based on inordinate delay were Sereno served as a faculty member of the
University of the Philippines College of Law and
denied by the Sandiganbayan, leading her to file
as legal counsel in various government agencies,
a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court including serving as legal counsel for the
Republic in international arbitrations.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Ombudsman’s delay The Republic of the Philippines, represented by
of nearly nine years in conducting the Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, filed a quo
warranto petition before the Supreme Court
preliminary investigation against Joan V.
seeking to declare the appointment of Sereno as
Alarilla amounted to a violation of her Chief Justice void. The basis for the petition was
constitutional right to the speedy the alleged failure of Sereno to file her
disposition of cases Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth
2. Whether or not this delay constitutes (SALNs) required for government positions.
malicious prosecution that can be These filings were for the period when she was a
grounds for the dismissal of the charges. professor at the UP College of Law and while
employed as legal counsel for the government.

The Solicitor General argued that Sereno’s

RULING: failure to file and submit her SALNs
demonstrated a lack of integrity, making her
The Supreme Court ruled that the inordinate ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice.
delay in the Ombudsman’s preliminary The petition was anchored on the notion that

15 | P a g e
“proven integrity” is an indispensable In this case, it was found that respondent is
requirement for appointment to the Judiciary as ineligible to hold the Chief Justice of the Supreme
mandated by the Constitution of the Philippines. Court position for lack of integrity on account of
her failure to file a substantial number of SALNs
Sereno countered that, as an impeachable and also, her failure to submit the required
officer, she can only be removed through the SALNs to the JBC during her application for the
impeachment process provided by the position.
Constitution, and that the remedy of quo
warranto is inapplicable. Again, one of the Constitutional duties of a public
officer is to submit a declaration under oath of
The case that led to the ouster of Sereno from the his or her assets, liabilities, and net worth upon
position of Chief Justice involved a series of legal assumption of office and as often thereafter as
maneuverings initiated by the Office of the may be required by law. When the Constitution
Solicitor General. and the law exact obedience, public officers must
comply and not offer excuses. When a public
ISSUE: officer is unable or unwilling to comply, he or she
Whether or not the filing of SALNs bear no must not assume office in the first place, or if
relation to the Constitutional qualification of already holding one, he or she must vacate that
integrity. public office because it is the correct and
honorable thing to do. A public officer who
RULING: ignores, trivializes or disrespects Constitutional
NO. The filing a SALN is an essential requirement and legal provisions, as well as the canons of
to one's assumption of a public post. It has ethical standards, forfeits his or her right to hold
Constitutional, legal and jurisprudential bases. and continue in that office.

To recapitulate, Section 7, Article VIII of the WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo
Constitution requires that a member of the Warranto is GRANTED. Respondent Maria
Judiciary must be of proven integrity. To be of Lourdes P.A. Sereno is
proven integrity means that the applicant must found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby
have established a steadfast adherence to moral adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING
and ethical principles. and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF
JUSTICE. Accordingly, Respondent Maria
The necessity of having integrity among the Lourdes P. A. Sereno
members of the judiciary is clearly discussed in is OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom.
the Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of
Judicial Conduct:

Integrity is the attribute of rectitude and

16.ANGELITA C. ORCINO, Complainant, v.
righteousness. The components of
ATTY. JOSUE GASPAR, Respondent.
integrity are honesty and judicial
morality. A judge should always, not only A.C. No. 3773. September 24, 1997, Puno, J.
in the discharge of official duties, act (Second Division)
honourably and in a manner befitting the
judicial office; be free from fraud, deceit FACTS
and falsehood; and be good and virtuous
in behaviour and in character. There are Angelita Orcino filed a letter-complaint praying
no degrees of integrity as so defined. for disciplinary sanctions against Atty. Josue
Integrity is absolute. In the judiciary, Gaspar, her former counsel, for abandoning his
integrity is more than a virtue; it is a duties and for failing to return the legal fees she
necessity. fully paid for his Services. The complainant
engaged Atty. Gaspar to prosecute a criminal
Failure to file the SALN is clearly a violation of case she intended to file against several
the law. The offense is penal in character and is a suspects in the slaying of her husband. Several
clear breach of the ethical standards set for payments for Atty. Gaspar’s legal fees were
public officials and employees. It disregards the
already given by Angelita and their agreement
requirement of transparency as a deterrent to
graft and corruption. For these reasons, a public was embodied in a contract executed on
official who has failed to comply with the February 22, 1991. As such, Atty. Gaspar
requirement of filing the SALN cannot be said to entered into his duties. He interviewed
be of proven integrity and the Court may witnesses and gathered evidence to build a case
consider him/her disqualified from holding against the suspects. He drew up the necessary
public office. sworn statements and dutifully attended the
preliminary investigation. The case was
thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court,

16 | P a g e
Branch 37, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. As Canon 22 provides that – A lawyer shall
private prosecutor, respondent religiously withdraw his services only for good cause and
attended the bail hearings for the accused upon notice
although these hearings were postponed on appropriate in the circumstances. The valid
motion of the accused's counsel. Respondent reasons for withdrawal are stated in Rule 22.01.
however failed to attend the hearing scheduled
in August 1991. It was at this hearing that the In the given case, Atty. Gaspar’s reasons was
court, over complainant's objections, granted "there no longer existed the xxx confidence"
bail to all the accused. After the hearing, between
complainant immediately went to respondent's them and that there had been "serious
residence and confronted him with his absence. differences between them relating to the manner
Respondent explained that he did not receive of private
formal notice of the hearing. Complainant
prosecution”. The said reason was evidently not
became belligerent and started accusing him of
valid grounds under Rule 22.01. Neither can this
jeopardizing the case by his absence.
be
Respondent said that her suspicions were based
on rumors and intrigues fed to her by her considered analogous to the grounds
relatives. Complainant, however, continued enumerated. Assuming, nevertheless, that
accusing him belligerently. She asked for the respondent was
records of the case saying that she could refer justified in terminating his services, he, however,
them to another lawyer. Stung by her words, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the
respondent gave her the records. cold
Complainant never returned the records nor unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume
did she see respondent. On September 18, 1991, that his petition for withdrawal will be granted
by the
respondent filed before the trial court a "Motion
to Withdraw as Counsel." The motion did not court. Until his withdrawal shall have been
bear the approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record
who is
consent of complainant. On October 23, 1991,
the court issued an order directing respondent expected by his client as well as by the court to
to secure do what the interests of his client require. He
must still
complainant's consent to the motion "and his
appear on the date of hearing for the attorney-
appearance as private prosecutor shall continue
client relation does not terminate formally until
until he there is
has secured this consent." Complainant refused a withdrawal of record.
to sign her conformity to respondent's
withdrawal.

Meanwhile, the hearings in the criminal case 17. **SC Finds Lawyer Guilty of Misconduct
continued. Respondent did not appear at the for Sponsoring Trips of IBP Officers**: This
hearings nor case highlights a violation of ethical conduct
as a lawyer, resulting in disciplinary action
did he contact complainant. Complainant was
under the Code of Professional
thus compelled to engage the services of Responsibility.
another

lawyer. Hence, the letter-complaint. The case arises from an Anonymous Letter
dated March 24, 2023, filed against Atty. Nilo T.
ISSUE Divina, alleging his involvement in illegal
campaigning activities concerning the election
Whether Atty. Gaspar violated Canon 22 of for the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
the Code of Professional Responsibility for (IBP)-Central Luzon Region Governor. The
letter claims that Atty. Divina harbors ambitions
abandoning his duties to ascend to the position of IBP-Central Luzon
HELD Governor, intending to use it as a stepping stone
to eventually become the IBP National
YES. Atty. Gaspar violated Canon 22 of the President.
Code of Professional Responsibility. The Anonymous Letter details several purported
instances of prohibited campaign activities
allegedly conducted by Atty. Divina, including:

17 | P a g e
 1. Balesin Island Trip (Summer 2022): profession consistent with the high standards of
Atty. Divina allegedly hosted IBP-Central ethical behavior.
Luzon Officers at the Balesin Island SECTION 1. Proper conduct. - A lawyer shall not
Club in Quezon, purportedly using this engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
trip to cultivate support. deceitful conduct.
2. Cash and Gift Checks (December SECTION 2. Dignified conduct. A lawyer shall
2022): The letter claims that Atty. respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other
Divina distributed cash and gift checks government agencies, their officials, employees,
amounting to hundreds of thousands of and processes, and act with courtesy, civility,
pesos to the IBP-Central Luzon Officers fairness, and candor towards fellow members of
as part of his campaign strategy. the bar. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
3. Bali Trip (February 2023): It is alleged adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice
that Atty. Divina organized a trip for the law, nor behave in a scandalous manner,
IBP-Central Luzon Officers to Bali, whether in public or private life, to the discredit
Indonesia. The letter identifies several of the legal profession.
officers who were present during this
trip, including Winston Ginez, Buko Thus, if an individual is willing to contribute,
dela Cruz, Peng dela Rama, and Jade donate, or volunteer to further the efforts of the
Molo. IBP, it must be tempered by the nature and
In response to the allegations, various parties, purpose of the activity. The support should be in
including Atty. Clemente, Atty. Maglalang (the furtherance of the goals and. objectives of the
incumbent Governor), and others, submitted IBP and for the direct benefit of its members and
comments disputing the claims. Atty. Clemente should not solely be for the interest, usie, and
characterized the Balesin trip as a legitimate enjoyment of its officers.
team-building activity and provided context on
the traditional election process for IBP officers. In the present case, Atty. Divina does not deny
Atty. Maglalang confirmed that Atty. Divina's that he sponsored the trips of the IBP-Central
activities were aimed at supporting the region Luzon Officers to Bale~in Island Club and Bali,
and clarified that the trips were not intended to Indonesia. These "gifts" are undoubtedly not of
influence votes. insignificant or nominal value. Atty. Divina
characterizes these as acts of generosity to
Atty. Divina himself denied any wrongdoing, support the IBP and its role in the legal
asserting that his sponsorship of IBP activities profession. Atty. Divinq may claim that these do
was a gesture of goodwill and that he was not not come with strings attached, but this ''gift':
actively campaigning for any position at the time necessarily creates a sense of obligation on the
of the accusations. He highlighted his ongoing recipient to repay his gratitude in the future.
contributions to the legal community and Notably however, these activities sponsored by
expressed his concerns about the demands of the Atty. Divina were primarily and solely for the
Governor's role conflicting with his benefit of the officers of IBP-Central Luzon. It
responsibilities as Dean of the University of does not support a particular activity of the IBP
Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law. for the benefit of its constituent members, nor
does it further a purpose or objective of the IBP.
Due to the pending investigation and to prevent Although Atty. Divina claims his intentions in
disenfranchisement of IBP-Central Luzon, the supporting the IBP and its activities are out of
election for Governor originally scheduled for generosity; the sponsorship of the trips of the
May 5, 2023, was suspended. Atty. Maria Imelda IBP-Central I " Luzon Officers to Balesin Island
Quiambao-Tuazon was appointed as Officer-in- Club and to Bali, Indonesia crossed the borders
Charge to manage the region's representation in on excessive and overstepped the line of
the interim. propriety.

Issue: W/N Atty. Nilo T. Divina GUILTY of

Simple Misconduct in violation of Canon II,
Section 1 and Section 2 of the Code of 18.ANGELITA C. ORCINO, COMPLAINANT,
Professional Responsibility and VS. ATTY. JOSUE GASPAR, RESPONDENT.
Accountability. A.C. No. 3773, September 24, 1997

Ruling: Yes.
DOCTRINE:
CANON II PROPRIETY. A lawyer shall, at all
times, act with propriety and maintain the The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the
appearance of propriety in personal and absolute right to terminate the attorney-client
professional dealings, observe honesty, respect
and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the

18 | P a g e
relation at any time with or without cause. The
right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the ISSUE:
relation other than for sufficient cause is,
however, considerably restricted. Among the Whether the respondent withdrawal from the
fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that case valid.
an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action
impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion.
He is not at liberty to abandon it without RULING:
reasonable cause. A lawyer's right to withdraw No, a lawyer must secure the consent of his client
from a case before its final adjudication arises in withdrawing from the case. A lawyer may
only from the client's written consent or from a retire at any time from any action or special
good cause. proceeding with the written consent of his client
filed in court and copy thereof served upon the
FACTS: adverse party. Should the client refuse to give his
consent, the lawyer must file an application with
On June 14, 1992, complainant Angelita C. Orcino the court. The court, on notice to the client and
filed with this Court a letter-complaint dated adverse party, shall determine whether he ought
December 10, 1991 against respondent Atty. to be allowed to retire. The application for
Josue Gaspar, her former counsel. Complainant withdrawal must be based on a good cause
prayed that this Court impose disciplinary
sanctions on respondent for abandoning his In the instant case, complainant did not give her
duties and for failing to return the legal fees she written consent to respondent's withdrawal.
fully paid for his services. The court thus ordered respondent to secure
this consent. Respondent allegedly informed the
As private prosecutor, respondent religiously court that complainant had become hostile and
attended the bail hearings for the accused refused to sign his motion. He, however, did not
although these hearings were postponed on file an application with the court for it to
motion of the accused's counsel. Respondent determine whether he should be allowed to
however failed to attend the hearing scheduled withdraw.
in August 1991. It was at this hearing that the
court, over complainant's objections, granted IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent is admonished
bail to all the accused. After the hearing, to exercise more prudence and judiciousness in
complainant immediately went to respondent's dealing with his clients. He is also ordered to
residence and confronted him with his absence. return to complainant within fifteen (15) days
from notice the amount of ten thousand pesos
Respondent explained that he did not receive (P10,000.00) representing a portion of his legal
formal notice of the hearing. [7] Complainant fees received from the latter with a warning that
became belligerent and started accusing him of failure on his part to do so will result in the
jeopardizing the case by his absence. imposition of stiffer disciplinary action
Respondent said that her suspicions were based
on rumors and intrigues fed to her by her
relatives. [8] Complainant, however, continued
accusing him belligerently. She asked for the
19.[ A.C. NO. 6424, March 04, 2005 ]
records of the case saying that she could refer
CONSORCIA S. ROLLON, COMPLAINANT, VS.
them to another lawyer. Stung by her words,
respondent gave her the records ATTY. CAMILO NARAVAL, RESPONDENT.

Complainant never returned the records nor did DOCTRINE:

she see respondent. On September 18, 1991, Lawyers owe fidelity to their clients. The
respondent filed before the trial court a "Motion money or other property coming into their
to Withdraw as Counsel." The motion did not possession must be deemed to be held in trust
bear the consent of complainant. On October 23, and should not be commingled with the lawyer’s
1991, the court issued an order directing personal funds or used for personal purposes.
respondent to secure complainant's consent to Failure to observe these ethical principles
the motion "and his appearance as private constitutes professional misconduct and
prosecutor shall continue until he has secured justifies the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
this consent." Complainant refused to sign her
conformity to respondent's withdrawal.
Meanwhile, the hearings in the criminal case FACTS:
continued. Respondent did not appear at the Consorcia S. Rollon filed a letter-
hearings nor did he contact complainant. complaint against Atty. Camilo Naraval before
Complainant was thus compelled to engage the the Davao City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of
services of another lawyer. Hence, the letter- the Philippines (IBP) on November 29, 2001.
complaint. Rollon alleged that she sought Naraval's legal

19 | P a g e
services in a case filed against her for the
collection of a sum of money (Julaton vs. Rollon) CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with
before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities competence and diligence.
(MTCC), Branch 6, Davao City. Rollon paid Atty.
Naraval P8,000 as a filing and partial service fee Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
on October 18, 2000. Despite this, Atty. Naraval matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
failed to act on her case, citing that he was busy. connection therewith shall render him liable.
After several follow-ups and more than a year of
inaction, Rollon sought the return of the P8,000 Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep his client
and her case documents, but Atty. Naraval informed of the status of his case and shall
refused, claiming he had no money and that the respond within a reasonable time to the client’s
documents were at his home. request for information.
Due to Atty. Naraval’s continued failure Hence, practising lawyers may accept only as
to return the payment and documents, Rollon many cases as they can efficiently handle.[13]
filed a complaint with the IBP. Despite being Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced.
directed to respond by the IBP Commission on Once lawyers agree to handle a case, they should
Bar Discipline (CBD) on multiple occasions, Atty. undertake the task with dedication and care. If
Naraval did not file an answer. The investigation they do any less, then they fail their lawyer’s
proceeded ex parte, and Rollon submitted her oath.
position paper. The Investigating Commissioner
recommended Naraval’s suspension from the Rule 15.05 of the Code of Professional
practice of law for one year due to his neglect of Responsibility requires that lawyers give their
duty and violation of Canons 15 and 18 of the candid and best opinion to their clients on the
Code of Professional Responsibility. merit or lack of merit of the case, neither
The IBP Board of Governors upheld the overstating nor understating their evaluation
recommendation but increased the suspension thereof. Knowing whether a case would have
period to two years. It also ordered the some prospect of success is not only a function,
restitution of the P8,000 to Rollon. but also an obligation on the part of lawyers.[15]
If they find that their client’s cause is
ISSUE: defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to
Whether Atty. Camilo Naraval violated advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather
his ethical duties under the Code of Professional than to traverse the incontrovertible.[16] The
Responsibility by neglecting his client's case and failure of respondent to fulfill this basic
failing to return the entrusted funds. undertaking constitutes a violation of his duty
to “observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
RULING: his dealings and transactions with his
The Supreme Court found Atty. Naraval clients.”[17]
guilty of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17,
and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It upheld the IBP's
recommendation to suspend him from the 20. A.C. No. 6672 September 4, 2009
practice of law for two years and ordered him to PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant, vs.
return the P8,000 with interest. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.
The Court ruled that Naraval’s failure to
act on the case and to return the money despite
Doctrine:
repeated demands showed a lack of fidelity to his
lawyers have an ethical obligation to conduct
client. His actions demonstrated a cavalier
attitude and disregard for the duties and themselves with integrity, honesty, and fairness,
obligations of a lawyer. Furthermore, lawyers as enshrined in the Code of Professional
are deemed to hold client funds in trust, and the Responsibility (CPR). Soliciting clients through
failure to return such funds upon demand deceitful means or enticing them with promises
constitutes professional misconduct and a of financial assistance constitutes a violation of
betrayal of the client’s trust. ethical rules, specifically Rule 2.03, which
prohibits soliciting legal business for personal
gain. Additionally, the independence of the legal
NOTE: profession should be maintained and clients
CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause should be protected from potential exploitation,
of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust emphasizing that any misconduct leading to the
and confidence reposed in him.
solicitation of clients, particularly through

20 | P a g e
inducements, can result in serious disciplinary Rule 1.03 of the CPR prohibits lawyers from
actions. encouraging litigation for corrupt motives, while
Rule 2.03 expressly forbids soliciting legal
Facts: business through improper means, including
The complaint for disbarment was initiated by direct solicitation or through agents. Rule 8.02
Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & further emphasizes that a lawyer must not
Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes interfere with another lawyer's client
Tolentino. Linsangan alleged that Tolentino, in relationships, reinforcing the principle of
conjunction with paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, respecting established attorney-client bonds.
actively solicited his clients to switch their legal Additionally, Rule 16.04 outlines that lawyers
representation to his office. Complainant should not borrow money from clients unless
claimed that Tolentino promised clients their interests are adequately protected,
financial assistance and expedited collection of ensuring that their judgment and independence
claims, making persistent phone calls and remain intact. These rules uphold the integrity of
sending text messages to induce them into hiring the legal profession by mandating ethical
his services. Supporting his allegations, behavior, discouraging practices that could
Linsangan presented a sworn affidavit from exploit vulnerable clients, and promoting a
James Gregorio, who attested that Labiano standard of conduct that fosters trust in legal
pressured him to terminate his attorney-client representation.
relationship with Linsangan and transfer his
In this case, the evidence presented, including
legal representation to Tolentino in exchange for
the sworn affidavit and the content of
a loan of ₱50,000. The complaint was
Tolentino's calling card, demonstrated that he
substantiated with evidence, including a calling
solicited clients unlawfully by promising
card that prominently featured Tolentino's
financial assistance and inducing them to switch
name and law office, advertising consultancy
representation. The Court emphasized that such
and maritime services with financial assistance.
actions constitute malpractice, warranting
In response, Tolentino denied any affiliation
disciplinary measures to protect the integrity of
with Labiano and the distribution of the calling
the legal profession. As a result, Tolentino was
card. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines' (IBP)
suspended from practicing law for one year and
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
received a stern warning against future
investigated the complaint, which revealed that
violations.
Tolentino had indeed encroached upon
Linsangan’s professional practice and violated
several rules of the CPR, specifically Rule 8.02
regarding client solicitation.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino engage in
unethical conduct by soliciting clients from
another lawyer and violate the ethical standards
set forth in the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino engaged in

unethical conduct by violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically
Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02, and 16.04, along with
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The
law clearly prohibits lawyers from soliciting
clients for personal gain, either directly or
through agents, and from encroaching upon
another lawyer's practice.

21 | P a g e