ethics 2 set 4 case briefs

1. Catu vs. Rellosa

A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008
Facts: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon
located in Manila. His mother and brother contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu
and Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands for them to
vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of the barangay. Respondent, as punong barangay, summoned the parties to
conciliation meetings. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, respondent
issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Respondent entered his
appearance as counsel for the defendants in the subsequent ejectment case. Complainant filed
the instant administrative complaint, claiming that respondent committed an act of impropriety
as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact
that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Rellosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling: Yes.Respondent was found guilty of professional misconduct for violating his oath as a
lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to be fully at the
disposal of the government can engage in the private practice of law only with the written
permission of the head of the department concerned in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII
of the Revised Civil Service Rules.
Respondent was strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word
delicadeza.
.
2. PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan et al. (Rule 6.03)
G.R. No. 151809, April 12, 2005
Facts:
1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial difficulties.
Central Bank extended loans to Genbank in the hope of rehabilitating it (P310M).
Nonetheless, Genbank failed to recover.
1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbanks assets was held
with the Lucio Tan Group winning the bid. Solicitor General Mendoza, representing the
government, intervened with the liquidation of Genbank.
1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of
Marcos, his family and cronies.
1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta marami sila).
In relation to this case, PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties
allegedly acquired by the respondents by taking advantage of their close relationship
and influence with Marcos. Sandiganbayan heard the case.
Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented the
respondents.
1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his participation in the
liquidation of Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is
seeking to be sequestered from the Lucion Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Sandiganbayan denied PCGGs motion. According to the Sandiganbayan, Mendoza did
not take an adverse position to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank. And Mendozas
appearance as counsel was beyond the 1 year prohibitory period since he retired in
1986.
Issue: W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to Estelito Mendoza.
Ruling:
No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed.
The matter (see 3rd note), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the
Central Bank on how to proceed with the liquidation of Genbank. This is not the matter
contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the matter
involved in the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group.
The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important. The
role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial.

ethics 2 set 4 case briefs

SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion to
disqualify Mendoza. Apparently, PCGG already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza.
Kyles interpretation: PCGG getting desperate
Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6.03 will make it
harder for the government to get good lawyers in the future to work for them because of
the prohibition of accepting cases in the future that were related to ones work as a
government counsel.

Concurring Opinions:

Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 should have a
prescriptive period
Tinga: Rule 6.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza (when he was Solicitor General,
no Rule 6.03 yet)
Bottom line, they are all questioning the unfairness of the rule if applied without any
prescriptive period and if applied retroactively

Notes:

Adverse-interest conflicts where the matter in which the former government lawyer
represents a client in private practice is substantially related to a matter that the lawyer
dealt with while employed with the government and the interests of the current and
former are adverse
Congruent-interest conflicts the use of the word conflict is a misnomer, it does not
involve conflicts at all, as it prohibits lawyers from representing a private person even if
the interests of the former government client and the new client are entirely parallel
Matter any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or conduct
involving a particular situation and specific party and not merely an act of drafting,
enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or
briefing abstract principles of law.
Intervention interference that may affect the interests of others.
Revolving door doctrine - the process by which lawyers and others temporarily enter
government service from private life and then leave it for large fees in private practice,
where they can exploit information, contacts, and influence garnered in government
service.
3. Samaniego vs. Ferrer
A.C. No. 7022, June 18, 2008

Facts: Early in 1996, Ms. Samaniego was referred to Atty. Ferrer as a potential client and the
latter agreed to handle her case and soon their lawyer-client relationship became intimate.
Subsequently, they cohabited as husband and wife from 1996 to 1997 and had a daughter. The
affair ended in 2000 and since then, respondent failed to support his daughter. Ms. Samaniego
filed a complaint against the respondent before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.
Issue: Does the act of the respondent constitute a lack of morality as required of a
member of the bar?
Ruling: Yes, the court finds the respondents illicit affair as disgraceful and immoral conduct
subject to disciplinary action. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Conduct as well as the
Canon 7 explicitly prohibits acts which discredit of the legal profession, thus the court in
sustained the recommendation of the bar confidant that the respondent be suspended for 6
months in the practice of law.
4. St. Louis University Laboratory High School and Staff vs. dela Cruz
A.C. No. 6010, August 28, 2006
Facts: This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint Louis
University-Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of
SLU-LHS,
for:
(a) pending criminal case for child abuse and a labor case against him in the NLRC
(b) contracting a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage
(c) notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission.

ethics 2 set 4 case briefs

Issue: WON Atty. Dela Cruz must be disbarred?

Ruling: NO. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but
is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a
lawyer in a criminal action is not determinative of an administrative case against him, or if an
affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does not affect its course, then neither will the
judgment of annulment of respondents second marriage also exonerate him from a wrongdoing
actually committed. So long as the quantum of proof clear preponderance of evidence in
disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is met, then liability attaches.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court cites grossly immoral conduct as a ground for
disbarment. Immoral conduct is that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community and what is grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
Yes, there was immoral conduct. But, it was not as gross as to warrant his disbarment because:
(a) His second marriage was a show of his noble intentions and total love for his wife
(b) He never absconded from his obligations to support his wife and child
(c) After his first failed marriage and prior to his second marriage or for a period of almost seven
(7)
years,
he
has
not
been
romantically
involved
with
any
woman
(d) Since then up to now, respondent remained celibate.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notaries public. Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one
making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by
law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must
observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
DECISION: 4 YEARS SUSPENSION ONLY.
5. Reyes vs. Chiong (Canon 8)
A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003
Facts: Complainant Atty. Reyes filed a case for disbarment against respondent Atty. Chiong
because of the latters violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility dealing
with the idea that lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. Chiongs
client did not appear upon the court when Prosecutor Salonga issued a subpoena for their
preliminary investigation, the Prosecutor filed a criminal complaint for estafa against said client.
After which Chiong made an urgent motion to quash the warrant concomitant with his filing for a
civil complaint and collection for a sum of money and damages against Atty. Reyes, Xu (the
complainants client) and the Prosecutor. Upon their confrontation, no settlement was reached.
Chiong argues that there was no disrespect impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil
Case No. 4884 and no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless. He argues that he
impleaded the Prosecutor because the criminal investigation had irregularities due to the action
of the Prosecutor to file estafa case despite the pendency for his clients motion for an
opportunity to submit counter affidavit and evidence.
Issue: Did respondent violate Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Ruling: Yes, it was recommended by the IBP that defendants purpose of filing for the collection
suit with damages was to be able to obtain leverage against the estafa case of his client. Clearly
there was no need to implead complainant and Prosecutor Salonga because they never had
any participation in the business transactions between Pan and Xu, clearly it was for the mere
harassment of the two. Chiong was suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law and
was implemented immediately.

ethics 2 set 4 case briefs

6. Galiciano vs. Castro (Canon 8, Rule 7.03)

A.C. No. 6398, Oct. 25, 2005
Facts: Atty. Virgil R. Castro is a private practitioner and Vice-President of IBP- Nueva Vizcaya
Chapter. On May 5, 2003 he went to the office of complainant Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galiciano,
Clerk of Court of the RTC-Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya to inquire whether the records of Civil Case
No. 784 had already been remanded to the Court of origin. Atty. Castro was not the counsel of
record of either party however. Complainant informed respondent that the records have yet to
be transmitted since a certified true copy of the SC decision should first be presented to transmit
the records to the court of origin. To this the respondent explained: "Who will certify the CA's
decision, the CA? You mean to say, I would still have to go to Manila to get a certified true
copy?" Complainant then explained that such is the rule and that he could show a copy of the
CA decision if he has one given by the CA to the party he is representing. Respondent became
angry at such remark as he was not notified by the complainant before of such requirement.
Complainant explained that it is not her duty to inform him of such requirement. Repondent then
said "You mean to say you don't care anymore? Is that the way it is? before turning his back on
complainant and banging the door behind him as he left the office.
After a few minutes, respondent returned to complainants office and shouted while pointing his
finger at complainant: "Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill feelings against my client,
don't turn your ire on me!" He then left the office again and as he passed complainants window
uttered the words: "Vulva of your mother, you woman!"
Issue: Did respondent violate the CPR?
Ruling: YES. In the first place, respondent was not even the counsel of record of either party in
Civil Case No. 784, violating Rule 8.02 of CPR, in addition, his public outburst in complainant's
office also violated Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01. Nevertheless, the penalty imposed
should be tempered being that respondent apologized to the complainant and the latter
accepted it.
Respondent is fined 10,000 with a warning that the same or similar action will be dealt with
more severely.
7. Laquindanum vs. Quintana (Canon 7)
A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009
Facts: Executive Judge Lily Laquindanum of the RTC of Midyasap, Cotabato requested that a
disciplinary action be taken against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana for notarizing documents beyond
his notarial commission jurisdiction (Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao) and for
allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence. Despite a letter penned by Judge
Laquindanum imploring Atty. Quintana to stop notarizing documents beyond his notarial
commission area he has continued to do so.
Quintana alleged that he did not act outside the province of Cotabato since Midyasap and
Kabacan, Cotabato, where he practices law, is part of the province of Cotabato.
Issue: Is Quintana guilty of violating the CPR?
Ruling: YES. Atty. Quintana is only commissioned for the City of Cotabato and the Province of
Maguindanao hence violating Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Commission, evidence also
points that his wife notarized certain documents herself, which is inexcusable since the SC in
Lingan vs. Calubaquib et al. held that a notary public is personally responsible for all entries in
his notarial register. Respondent also notarized a Deed of Sale in 2004 in which an affiant was
already dead at the time of notarization, violating Sec. 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Commission and finally, he performed notarial acts with an expired commission.
In sum, Quintana violated Rule 1.01, Canon 9 and Canon 7.

ethics 2 set 4 case briefs

Respondent's notarial commission is REVOKED for two years and SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for 6 MONTHS with a warning that the same or similar action will be dealt more
severely.