Republic of the Philippines

TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
S.Y. 2015-2016

DIGESTED CASES
IN
PROBLEM
AREAS IN LEGAL
ETHICS

SUBMITTED BY:

NERRIZA P. BALMORES

SUBMITTED TO:
ATTY ADENN L. SIGUA

1.) Teodoro R. Rivera vs. Atty. Sergio Angeles

A.C. No. 2519. August 29, 2000
Facts: Atty. Sergio Angeles was the legal counsel of Teodoro Rivera and 2
others in a civil case. Rivera and his 2 co-plaintiffs received a favorable
decision. Atty. Angeles received almost PhP 50,000 from one of the
defendants in the case as partial fulfillment of the judgement against the
latter. Atty. Angeles, however, never told his clients of the amount he had
received and never remitted the same to him, leaving them to discover such
fact on their own. Rivera and his co-plaintiffs filed an administrative
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Angeles.

Held: GUILTY. Atty. Angeles was not disbarred but the Court ruled that his
act amounted to serious misconduct. The Court has repeatedly stressed the
importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyers
equipment in the practice of his profession. For it cannot be denied that the
respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a

member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence. The Court is not
oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has
extended to his client but such right should not be exercised whimsically by
appropriating to himself the money intended for his clients. There should
never be an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to
the fees of his own lawyer. For deceit in dealing with his client, Atty. Angeles
was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.

Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P.

Salayon
A.C. No. 4690. August 29, 2000
Facts: Attys. Antonio Llorente and Ligaya Salayon were election officers of
the COMELEC and held the position of Chairman and Vice-Chairman
respectively for the Pasig City Board of Candidates. The respondents helped
conduct and oversee the 1995 elections. Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino
Pimentel, Jr. alleged that the respondents tampered with the votes received

by them by either adding more votes for particular candidates in their

Statement of Votes (SoV) or reducing the number of votes of particular
candidates in their SoV. Pimentel filed an administrative complaint for their
disbarment. Respondents argued that the discrepancies were due to honest
mistake, oversight and fatigue. Respondents also argued that the IBP Board
of Governors had already exonerated them from any offense and that the
motion for reconsideration filed by Pimentel was not filed in time.
Held:

GUILTY. Respondents

do

not

dispute

the

fact

that

massive

irregularities attended the canvassing of the Pasig City election returns. The
only explanation they could offer for such irregularities is that the same
could be due to honest mistake, human error, and/or fatigue on the part of
the members of the canvassing committees who prepared the SoVs. There is
a limit, we believe, to what can be construed as an honest mistake or
oversight due to fatigue, in the performance of official duty. The sheer
magnitude of the error renders the defense of honest mistake or oversight
due to fatigue, as incredible and simply unacceptable. Indeed, what is
involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of
votes per precinct as reflected in the election returns and the subsequent
entry of the erroneous figures in one or two SoVs but a systematic scheme to
pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at the expense of the
petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in the election returns. A
lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member
of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government
official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility or the lawyers oath or is of such character as to
affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part,
such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such
misconduct. Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question,
respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates
that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. By express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers
in the government service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of
office as lawyers to do no falsehood. The Court found the respondents
guilty of misconduct and fined them PhP 10,000 each and issued a stern
warning that similar conduct in the future will be severely punished.

2.)ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON vs. ATTY. RAMIL E.MACALALAD

A.C. No. 8158FACTS:

Atty. Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Divisionof the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources(DENR), Regional Office 8, Tacloban City.
Although he isin public service, the DENR Secretary has given him
theauthority to engage in the practice of law.While on official visit to Eastern
Samar
in
October
2005, Atty. Macalalad was introduced to Atty. Solidon so Atty.Solidon
asked
Atty. Macalalad to handle the judicial titlingof a parcel of land located in
Borongan, Eastern Samar
and owned by Atty. Solidons relatives. For a
consideration of Eighty Thousand Pesos , Atty. Macalaladaccepted the task to
be completed within a period of eight(8) months. Atty. Macalalad received
Fifty ThousandPesos (P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remainingbalance
of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) was tobe paid when Atty. Solidon
received the certificate of titleto the property.In the Complaint, Atty. Solidon
claimed that he tried tocontact Atty. Macalalad to follow-up on the status of
thecase six (6) months after he paid the initial legal fees. Hedid this through
phone calls and text messages to theirknown acquaintances and relatives,
and, finally, througha letter sent by courier to Atty. Macalalad. However,
hedid not receive any communication from Atty. Macalalad.In the Answer,
Atty. Macalalad posited that the delay inthe filing of the petition for the titling
of the property wascaused
by his clients failure to communicate with him.
Healso explained that he had no intention of reneging on hisobligation, as he
had already prepared the draft of thepetition. He failed to file the petition
simply because hestill lacked the needed documentary evidence that
hisclients should have furnished him. Lastly, Atty. Macalaladdenied that Atty.
Solidon tried to communicate with him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Macalalad is guilty ofnegligence in handling his case.
HELD:
We fully considered the evidence presented and we are fully satisfied that
the complainants evidence, as
outlined above, fully satisfies the required quantum ofproof in provin
g Atty. Macalalads negligence, thus,
violating
Rule
18.03,
Canon
18
of
the
Code
ofProfessional
Responsibility. A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bears the
responsibility of protecting the latters interest with utmost
diligence. The lawyer bears the duty to serve his clientwith competence and
diligence, and to exert his bestefforts to protect, within the bounds of the

law, the interestof his or her client. Accordingly, competence, not only inthe
knowledge of law, but also in the management of thecases by giving these
cases appropriate attention anddue preparation, is expected from a lawyer.
The recordsin this case tell us that Atty. Macalalad failed to act as
hecommitted when he failed to file the required petition. Hecannot now shift
the blame to his clients since it was hisduty as a lawyer to communicate with
them. At any rate,we reject
Atty. Macalalads defense that it was his clients
who failed to contact him. We consider, too, that othermotivating factors

specifically, the monetaryconsideration and the fixed period of performance

should have made it more imperative for Atty. Macalaladto promptly take
action and initiate communication withhis clients. He had been given initial
payment and shouldhave at least undertaken initial delivery of his part of
theengagement. Atty. Macalalad was suspended
for six
months and wasordered to retitn tne amount of Php 50, 000 with interestof
12% per annum.

SPOUSES VIRGILIO and ANGELINA ARANDA vs.ATTY. EMMANUEL F.

ELAYDA A.C. No. 7907FACTS:
In the Complaint of the spouses Aranda, they
alleged that Atty. Elaydas handling of their
civil case was
sorely inadequate, as shown by his failure to follow
elementary norms of civil procedure and evidence.However, they were
surprised that an adverse judgmentwas rendered against them resulting to
the loss of theirMitsubishi Pajero. Apparently, Atty. Elayda failed to informthe
spouses
of
the
date
of
hearing
as
well
as
the
order
of judgment. No motion for reconsideration or appeal wasinterposed by the
lawyer as well. In his reply, Atty. Elaydasaid that the spouses did not bother
to keep in touch withhim and they were the ones who neglected their case
incourt.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Elayda should be sanctionedby the court.
HELD:
From the foregoing, it is clear that Atty. Elayda isduty bound to uphold and
safeguard the interests of hisclients. He should be conscientious, competent
and
diligent in handling his clients cases. Atty. Elayda should
give adequate attention, care, and time to all the cases heis handling. As the
spouses Aran
das counsel, Atty.
Elayda is expected to monitor the progress of said
spouses case and is obligated to exert all efforts to
present every remedy or defense authorized by law toprotect the cause
espoused by the spouses Aranda.Regrettably, Atty. Elayda failed in all these.
Atty. Elaydaeven admitted that the spouses Aranda never knew of
thescheduled hearings because said spouses never came to
him and that he did not know the spouses whereabouts.
While it is true that communication is a sharedresponsibility between a
counsel and his clients, it is the
counsels primary duty to inform his clients of the status
of their case and the orders which have been issued bythe court. He cannot
simply wait for his clients to make aninquiry about the developments in their
case. Closecoordination between counsel and client is necessary forthem to

adequately prepare for the case, as well as toeffectively monitor the progress
of the case. Besides, it iselementary procedure for a lawyer and his clients
toexchange contact details at the initial stages in order tohave constant
communication with each other. Again,
Atty. Elaydas excuse that he did not have the spouses Arandas
contact number and that he did not know their
address is simply unacceptable.Evidently, Atty. Elayda was remiss in his
duties andresponsibilities as a member of the legal profession. Hisconduct
shows that he not only failed to exercise due
diligence in handling his clients case but in factabandoned his clients cause.
He proved himself

unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his helplessclients. Moreover, Atty.

Elayda owes fealty, not only to hisclients, but also to the Court of which he is
an officer.On a final note, it must be stressed that whenever alawyer accepts
a case, it deserves his full attention,diligence, skill and competence,
regardless of itsimportance and whether or not it is for a fee or free.The IBP
Board of Governors recommended a 6 monthsuspension. This was adopted
by the court.

Teodulfo B. Basas vs. Atty. Miguel I. Icawat

A.C. No. 4282. August 24, 2000
Facts: Atty. Miguel Icawat was the lawyer for Teodulfo Basas and some other
laborers in their complaint against their employer. The NLRC rendered an
adverse decision. Basas and his fellow workers, however, insisted that they
appeal the decision. Atty. Icawat, however, failed to file the required
memorandum of appeal. Basas filed an administrative complaint, also
alleging that Atty. Icawat issued a receipt for an amount less than that which
they had paid him.
Held: GUILTY. Respondents failure to file the memorandum of appeal
required by the NLRC Rules of Procedure reveals his poor grasp of labor law.
Respondent practically admitted that he did not file the memorandum. His
failure to file the memorandum clearly prejudiced the interests of his clients.
Respondent manifestly fell short of the diligence required of his profession, in
violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 further provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable. For his failure to issue the proper receipt for the money he
received from his clients, respondent also violated Rule 16.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for or from the client. The Court
fined Atty. Icawat in the amount of PhP 500, with a warning that a repetition
of the same offense or a similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely.

4.)
Flaviano B. Cortes v. Judge Felina Bangalan
A.M. No. MTJ-97-1129. January 19, 2000

Facts: Complainant was one of the co-accused in an adultery case filed

before the sala of respondent Judge Bangalan. In a letter-complaint, he
moved for the voluntary inhibition of respondent judge on the ground that
the latter cannot be impartial over the criminal case because complainant
previously filed an opposition to the appointment of respondent as RTC
judge.

For this, respondent judge issued an order citing Complainant in direct

contempt of court, averring further that his pleading contained derogatory,
offensive or malicious statements equivalent to misbehavior committed in
the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the proceedings
before the same within the meaning of Rule 71. When complainant appealed
said order in the same court, after posting a notice of appeal, respondent
judge ordered him to submit a record on appeal. Upon failure to do so,
respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest against Complainant for which
he was arrested and jailed for 1 day with a fine of P10.00.
Thus, Complainant charges respondent judge with gross ignorance of the
law, oppressive conduct and abuse of authority when the latter held him in
contempt of court on account of the statements he made in his lettercomplaint which statements, complainant insists, are absolutely privileged in
nature. Complainant further alleges that he filed a notice of appeal from the
order of contempt but respondent directed him to submit a record on appeal
despite the fact that the same is not required under the rules.

Held: GUILTY. Judge B was fined in the amount equivalent to 1-month salary
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more
seriously. The Court said that while it is true that the complainant attached
the administrative letter-complaint in his letter for respondent judge to
inhibit in the criminal case, it was used merely to support his contention in
his motion for inhibition. A judge is bound never to consider lightly a motion
for his inhibition that questions or puts to doubt, however insignificant, his
supposed predilection to a case pending before him. Furthermore, the
alleged offensive and contemptuous language contained in the lettercomplaint was not directed to the respondent court.
A judge may not hold a party in contempt of court for expressing concern on
his impartiality even if the judge may have been insulted therein. While the
power to punish in contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve order
in judicial proceedings and to uphold the due administration of justice,
judges, however, should exercise their contempt powers judiciously and
sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing their
contempt powers for correction and preservation not for retaliation or
vindication.
Anent the charge of gross ignorance of the law in requiring complainant to
submit a record on appeal, we find the respondent judges order to be not it

accord with the established rule on the matter. Contempt proceedings is not
one of those instances where a record on appeal is required to perfect an
appeal. Thus, when the law is elementary, so elementary, not to know it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

Jesusa Santiago vs. Judge Eduardo Jovellanos

Margarita Sanchez vs. Judge Eduardo Jovellanos
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1289. August 1, 2000

Facts: Jesusa Santiago and Margarita Sanchez were complainants in two

different criminal cases before the MTC of San Ildefonso, Bulacan and the RTC
of Rosales, Pampanga, respectively. The suspects in each of the criminal
cases were caught by authorities and detained. However, both suspects were
released by order of Judge Eduardo Jovellanos, presiding judge of the MCTC
of Alcala-Bautista, Pangasinan. The complainants questioned both Orders for
Release issued by Judge Jovellanos, alleging that the requirements for the
bailbond had not been fulfilled and that the said judge had no jurisdiction to
order the release.

Held: GUILTY. There are two defects in the Orders for Release signed by
Judge Jovellanos. First, in both cases, the detainees had not registered the
bailbond in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure. One may not be
given provisional liberty if the bailbond is not registered with the proper
office. Secondly, Judge Jovellanos did not have jurisdiction to order the
release of the detainees. The Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that when

a suspect is arrested outside of the province, city or municipality where his

case is pending, he may either apply for bail with the court where his case is
pending or with any RTC in the province, city or municipality where he was
arrested. If a RTC judge is not available, he may apply for bail with any MTC
or MCTC in the place where he was arrested. In this case, Judge Jovellanos
entertained motions for bail and ordered release for suspects whose cases
were not pending in his court nor were they arrested within his jurisdiction.
As an advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law, a judge is
expected to keep abreast with and be proficient in the interpretation of our
laws. A judge should be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as
with statutes and procedural rules. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a
sign of incompetence which goes against Canon 3, specifically Rule 3.01, of
the Code of Judicial Conduct. Having accepted the exalted position of a
judge, Judge Jovellanos owes the public and the court he sits in proficiency in
the law. He must have the basic rules at the palm of his hands as he is
expected to maintain professional competence at all times. Judge Jovellanos
was suspended for 1 year without pay issued the warning that similar
conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.