CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF

THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Society has entrusted to the legal profession the administration of law and the
dispensing of justice. This requires lawyers to be in the forefront in the observance and
maintenance of the rule of law and the preservation of its democratic institutions and
liberties.
For a lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has
entrusted the administration of law and the dispensing of justice.
ZALDIVAR V GONZALES
PER CURIAM; October 7, 1988
NATURE
Petition to review the decision of the Sandiganbayan
FACTS
Enrique A. Zaldivar had a pending case for graft and corruption in the Sandiganbayan
initiated by Tanodbayan Gonzalez. Zaldivar filed a petition in the SC alleging that
Gonzalez, as Tanodbayan and under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, was no
longer vested with power and authority independently to investigate and to institute
criminal cases for graft and corruption against public officials and employees, and hence
the information filed in his criminal cases were all null and void. The SC issued a
temporary restraining order. Petitioner later filed another petition because Gonzalez filed
additional criminal charges against petitioner and five other individuals. Gonzalez
instituted another criminal case in the Sandiganbayan. Four days later, the SC issued
another TRO. Zaldivar then filed a petition to cite in contempt Special Prosecutor
Gonzalez for filing new information before the Sandiganbayan and for making
contemptuous statements to the media. In a news art in the Phil Daily Globe, Gonzalez
made the ff. statements: (1) while the rich and influential persons get favorable actions
from the SC, its difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course,
(2) while Pres. Aquino had been prodding him to prosecute graft cases even if they
involve the high and mighty, the SC had been restraining him, (3) while he doesnt wish
to discuss the merits of the Zaldivar petition before the SC, He was disturbed that the
order can aggravate the thinking of some people that affluent persons can prevent the
progress of a trial. The SC ordered the nullification of the criminal cases and for
Gonzalez to cease and desist from further acting on Zaldivars case In the motion for
reconsideration, Gonzales claimed that 3 handwritten notes, sent by some members of
the SC interceding for cases pending before his office, were in his possession. He said
that he doubts whether the judges will remain impartial to him, there being at least 4
members who definitely wont, and prayed that these 4 inhibit themselves in the
deliberation. When this was denied, he filed a motion to transfer administrative
proceedings to the IBP. He also released statements to the press saying, in effect, that
the SC deliberately rendered an erroneous decision, that members of the SC have
improperly pressured him to render decisions favorable to their friends and colleagues,
and that the Sc dismisses judges without rhyme or reason and disbars lawyers without
due process. Gonzalez didnt deny he said/wrote those statements. His defense is that
he was just exercising his freedom of speech.
ISSUES

1. WON the SC should punish Gonzalez for contempt of court and give administrative
sanctions
2. WON Gonzales is not liable because he was just using his constitutional right of
freedom of speech.
HELD
1. YES
Ratio Statements which constitute gross disrespect of the Court, and degrade the SC
and the entire system of justice are clearly contemptuous. The SC should exercise its
disciplinary authority over the source.
Reasoning The SC cited several cases wherein the Court held that the statements were
contemptuous and warranting the exercise of the courts authority. These are:
(1). Monteciollo v. Gica Atty del Mar moved to reconsider a decision of the CA with a
veiled threat that he should interpose his next appeal to the President. He said the court
knowingly rendered an unjust judgment thru negotiations. He was convicted of contempt
of court.
(2) Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel counsel asked CJ Concepcion and J
Castro to inhibit themselves from judging the case since the brother of Castro was the
VP of favored party and CJs son was the Secretary of the Board of Investments. He
even threatened that if he didnt get a favorable decision, hed bring the case to the
World Court and invoke the Hickenlooper Amendment requiring the cutting off of all aid
to the Philippines. 3. In re Almacen the SC committed a great unjust to his client;
justice administered by the SC wasnt only blind, but also deaf and dumb; hell argue the
cause of his client in the peoples forum (published in Manilla Times). Almacen was
suspended from the practice of law because he exceeded the boundaries of fair
criticism.
4. Paragas v. Cruz counsel alleged that the SC violated the Constitution, which was a
ground for impeachment; hoped that an incident wherein 2 SC employees were killed
wouldnt happen again (covert threat upon the members of the Court)
5. In re Sotto a newspaper reporter refused to divulge his source and was sent to jail.
Atty. Sotto published in a newspaper that the SC erroneously interpreted the law, theyre
narrow- minded, and that the members of the SC should be changed. He was held in
contempt of Court.
6. Salcedo v. Hernandez Atty Francisco: the Courts resolution is erroneous and is a
mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls.
2. NO
Ratio A lawyers right of free expression may have to be more limited than that of a
layman.
Reasoning The freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is
not absolute and that the freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted and
accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. One of the
fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of
the administration of justice. The lawyers duty to render respectful subordination to the
courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. [Discussion on the SCs power
to discipline its lawyers] The SC, as the regulator and guardian of the legal profession,
has plenary disciplinary auth over attorneys. This stems from the Courts Constitutional
mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to
regulate the practice itself. This is an inherent power incidental to the proper
administration of justice and essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. It also
has inherent power to punish for contempt, to control in the furtherance of justice the

conduct of ministerial officers of the court including lawyers and all other persons
connected in any manner with a case before the Court. This is necessary for its own
protection against improper interference with the due administration of justice and not
dependent upon the complaint of the litigant. There are two related powers here: (1)
Courts inherent power to discipline attorneys broader than contempt power; lawyer
doesnt need to be in contempt of court to be punished under this; (2) contempt power may be committed by both lawyers and non- lawyers, in and out of court; if this is done
by a lawyer, its usually accompanied with professional misconduct.
A lawyer is not just a professional but also an officer of the court and as such, is called
upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving disputes
in society. Any act which tends to obstruct the administration of justice constitutes both
professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him and
conduct warranting application of the contempt power.
Disposition Atty. Raul M. Gonzales was found guilty of contempt of court in facie curiae
and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. He was
suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.
LAQUINDANUM V. QUINTANA
Facts: Judge Laquindanum charged Atty. Quintana with the offense of notarizing
documents beyond the jurisdiction of his notarial license and with notarizing documents
not known to him to be based on actual facts. It was also found that his wife sometimes
notarized the documents herself.
Issue: Is Atty. Quintana guilty of violating Canon 9?
Held: Yes. He was found to have assisted in the unauthorized practice of law by
negligently letting his wife notarize documents herself in his absence. His contention that
he rectified this error by slapping his wife is of no moment because he did not in the first
place take the necessary steps to prevent this. He was also charged with violations of
the notarial law.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful conduct
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
- A lawyer shall make himself an exemplar for others to emulate with respect to the duty
to uphold the Constitution.
- Unlawful conduct act or omission which is against the law
- Dishonest act act of lying or cheating
- Immoral or deceitful conduct one that involves moral turpitude, anything done
contrary to justice, modesty or good morals.
UI V BONIFACIO
DE LEON; June 8, 2000
NATURE
Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
FACTS
Mrs. Ui filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bonifacio on the
ground of immorality, for allegedly carrying on an illicit relationship with her husband Mr.
Ui. In the proceeding before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Bonifacio

attached a photocopy of a marriage certificate that said that she and Mr. Ui got married
in 1985, but according to the certificate of marriage obtained from the Hawaii State
Department of Health, they were married in 1987. She claims that she entered the
relationship with Mr. Ui in good faith and that her conduct cannot be considered as
willful, flagrant, or shameless, nor can it suggest moral indifference. She fell in love with
Mr. Ui whom she believed to be single, and, that upon her discovery of his true civil
status, she parted ways with him.
ISSUE
WON Atty. Bonifacio conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to
be barred from the practice of law
HELD
- No. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy
the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a
privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer
violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. One of the conditions prior to the
admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. More
importantly, possession of good character must be continuous as a requirement to the
enjoyment of the privilege of law practice. Otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the
revocation of such privilege.
- A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, which has been defined as the
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. Lawyers, as
keepers of the public faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and
thus must handle their affairs with great caution. Atty. Bonifacio was imprudent in
managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Mr.
Ui, clothed as it was with what she believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered
immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of
society. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be
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.
- A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from
adulterous relationships but must also behave himself so as to avoid scandalizing the
public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. Atty. Bonifacios act
of immediately distancing herself from Mr. Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies
just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she fad no intention of flaunting the
law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. On the matter of the falsified
certificate of marriage, it is contrary to human experience and highly improbable that she
did not know the year of her marriage or that she failed to check that the information in
the document which she attached to her Answer were correct. Lawyers are called upon
to safeguard the integrity of the bar, free from misdeeds and acts of malpractice.
FIGUEROA V BARRANCO, JR.
ROMERO; July 31, 1997
FACTS
- In 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that Simeon Barranco, Jr. be denied admission to
the legal profession. Barranco passed the 1970 bar exams on the fourth attempt.

- Figueroa avers that she and Barranco had been sweethearts, that a child was born to
them out of wedlock and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry
her.
- Figueroa and Barranco were townmates in Janiuay, Iloilo and were steadies since
1953. Figueroa first acceded to sexual congress in 1960. A son, Rafael Barranco, was
born on Dec 11, 1964. Barranco promised to marry Figueroa after he passes the bar
exams. Their relationship continued, with more than 20 or 30 promises of marriage.
Barranco gave only P10 for the child on Rafaels birthdays. In 1971, Figueroa learned
Barranco married another woman.
- From 1972 to 1988, several motions to dismiss and comments were filed.
- On Sept 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for failure of
complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of time and to allow
Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyers oath.
- Nov 17, 1988, the Court, in response to Figueroas opposition, resolved to cancel
Barrancos scheduled oath-taking.
- June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the IBP. On May 17, 1997, IBP
recommended the dismissal of the case and that respondent be allowed to take the
lawyers oath
ISSUE
WON the facts constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of
Barranco from the legal profession
HELD
No. To justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral,
but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high
degree. It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless acts which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of respectable members of the community.
- Barrancos engaging in premarital sexual relations with Figueroa and promises to
marry suggest a doubtful moral character on his part but it does not constitute grossly
immoral conduct.
- Barranco and Figueroa were sweethearts whose sexual relations were evidently
consensual.
- Respondent, at the time of this decision, is already 62. Disposition Petition is
dismissed. Simeon Barranco, Jr. is allowed to take his oath as a lawyer upon payment of
proper fees.
Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C. No. 7136 , August 1, 2007
Facts: Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel
M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated
violation of the lawyer's oath."
The complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) thenfiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent Atty. Eala, a lawyer and a sportscaster,
to him as her friend who was married to Mary Ann Tantoco with whom he had three
children.

After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that Irene had been receiving from
respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I
miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall." He also noticed that Irene habitually went home
very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go
home from work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at
her parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work. More so,
complainant has seen Irene and respondent together on two occasions. On the second
occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
Moreover, Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card
bearing the words "I Love You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained a
handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene. Also, it was
revealed that Irene gave birth to a girl in 2002 and Irene named respondent in the
Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father.
In his answer, Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous
relationship with Irene, the truth of the matter being that their relationship was low profile
and known only to the immediate members of their respective families. He also said that
his special relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor
tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for disbarment.
Issue: Whether the respondent be disbarred from the practice of Law.
Held: YES. The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a
married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out
discreetly.
While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations
between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such
illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if
not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations
outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate
disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution
and affirmed by our laws.
Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice
law. Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law."
As a lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and a woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage. In carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene
prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and
despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect for an institution held
sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.
CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG, complainant, vs.
ATTY. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL, respondent.

A.C. No. 6313

September 7, 2006
TINGA, J.:
FACTS: Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M.
Rongcal who was introduced to her by a common friend. Complainant asked Atty.
Rongcal to represent her in the support case she was going to file against her former
lover, Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after, herein complainant and respondent started having
sexual relationship with each other. According to Vitug, respondent also gave her sweet
inducements such as the promise of a job, financial security for her daughter, and his
services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino.
On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign an Affidavit of
Disclaimer which the latter signed without reading the said affidavit. It was said that
Aquino will give complainant a lump sum provided she would execute an affidavit to the
effect that Aquino is not the father of her daughter.
Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
She filed an administrative case against Rongcal which was referred to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines which recommended the suspension of Rongcal from the practice
of law. The same was approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for
Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP and a Motion to Reopen/Remand Case for
Clarificatory Questioning with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: WON respondent be disbarred for immorality.
RULING: One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must
possess good moral character. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for
the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for
the revocation of such privilege.
ON SEXUAL RELATION AND ON RESPONDENTS SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE:
By his own admission, respondent is obviously guilty of immorality in violation of Rule
1.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
We find credence in respondent's assertion that it was impossible for her not to have
known of his subsisting marriage.
We believe that complainants allegations of deceit were not established by clear
preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases. We are left with the most logical
conclusion that she freely and wittingly entered into an illicit and immoral relationship
with respondent sans any misrepresentation or deceit on his part.
ON THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED:
Complainant does not deny being a college graduate or that she knows and understands
English. The Affidavit is written in short and simple sentences that are understandable
even to a layman. The inevitable conclusion is that she signed the Affidavit voluntarily
and without any coercion whatsoever on the part of respondent.

It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into a settlement with
Aquino after explaining all available options to her. The law encourages the amicable
settlement not only of pending cases but also of disputes which might otherwise be filed
in court.
This court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and imposes on him a
FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in
the future will be dealt with more severely.
Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel illegal activities
A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
- He shouldnt subvert the law by counseling or assisting in activities which are in
defiance of the law.
- He should not promote an organization known to be violating the law nor assist in a
scheme which he knows is dishonest.
- He should not allow his services to be engaged by an organization whose members
are violating the law, to defend them when they get caught.
- An example would be the anomalous election of IBP Officers in 1989 where the SC
nullified its results after finding that the election was characterized by electioneering
activities and extravagance on the part of the candidates.
ESTRADA V SANDIGANBAYAN
PER CURIAM; November 25, 2003 (boots tirol)
NATURE
RESOLUTION of the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
FACTS
-Joseph Estrada, through Atty Alan Paguia, filed a Petition for Certiorari under the Rules
of Court against Sandiganbayan, which prayed 1. That Chief Justice Davide and the
rest of the members of the Honorable Court disqualify themselves from hearing and
deciding the petition; 2. That the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be vacated
and set aside; and 3.That Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 pending
before the Sandiganbayan be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
-Atty Paguia, speaking for Estrada, asserted that the inhibition of the members of the SC
from hearing the petition is called for under Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
prohibiting justices or judges from participating in any partisan political activity which
proscription, according to him, the justices have violated by attending the EDSA 2 Rally
and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the
Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner contended that the justices
have thereby prejudged a case that would assail the legality of the act taken by
President Arroyo. The subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo is,
according to petitioner, a patent mockery of justice and due process.
-The SC dismissed the petition for lack of merit (Sandiganbayan committed no grave
abuse of discretion) and the SC warned Atty Paguia of his conduct -- his attacks on the
Court and making public statements on the case (violating Rule 13.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility). He was given 10 days SHOW CAUSE why he should not
be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
- On 10 October 2003, Atty. Paguia submitted his compliance with the show-cause order.
In a three-page pleading, Atty. Paguia, in an obstinate display of defiance, repeated his
earlier claim of political partisanship against the members of the Court (for discussion on
political partisanship please see original case), and continued to make public statements
about Estradas case.

ISSUES
WON Atty Paguia should be suspended from the practice of law
HELD
YES.
-Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed,
should insist on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and devious
motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the
Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the
dispensation of justice.
-The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce criticism made by
anyone against the Court for, if well- founded, can truly have constructive effects in the
task of the Court, but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of the
peoples faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to
practice law in the Philippines.
-The attention of Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar from making such
public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
Regrettably, Atty. Paguia has persisted in ignoring the Courts well-meant admonition.
The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to become
mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court.
Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.
Disposition Atty Paguia indefinitely suspended from the practice of law
Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not encourage lawsuits
A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any mans cause.
- A lawyer owes to society and to the court the duty not to stir up litigation.
- Unprofessional acts which come within the prohibition:
a. Volunteering advice to bring lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood,
relationship or trust make it his duty to do so
b. Hunting up defects in titles or other causes of action and informing thereof in
order to be employed to bring suit or collect judgment
c. Employing agents or runners for like purposes
d. Paying reward to those who bring or influence the bringing of such cases to his
office
e. Remunerating policemen, court or prison officials, physicians, hospital
attaches or others who may succeed under the guise of giving disinterested
friendly advice
f. Searching for unknown heirs and soliciting their employment of him
g. Initiating a meeting of the members of club and inducing them to organize and
contest legislation under his guidance
h. Purchasing notes to collect them by litigation at a profit
i. Furnishing credit reports in expectation of possible employment
j. Agreeing with a purchaser of future interests to invest therein in consideration
of his services.
- Purpose of the prohibition prevent ambulance chasing a solicitation of almost any
kind of legal business by laymen employed by an attorney for the purpose or by the
attorney himself.

DE YSASI III V. NLRC

Facts:
Petitioner was employed by his father, herein private respondent, as farm administrator
of Hacienda Manucao in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental sometime in April, 1980. As farm
administrator, petitioner was responsible for the supervision of daily activities and
operations of the sugarcane farm and attending to such other tasks as may be assigned
to him by private respondent. For this purpose, he lived on the farm, occupying the
upper floor of the house there.
Following his marriage on June 6, 1982, petitioner moved to Bacolod City with his wife
and commuted to work daily. He suffered various ailments and was hospitalized on two
separate occasions in June and August, 1982. In November, 1982, he underwent
fistulectomy, or the surgical removal of the fistula, a deep sinuous ulcer. His recuperation
lasted over four months. In June, 1983, he was confined for acute gastroenteritis and,
thereafter, for infectious hepatitis from December, 1983 to January, 1984.
During the entire periods of petitioner's illnesses, private respondent took care of his
medical expenses and petitioner continued to receive compensation. However, in April,
1984, without due notice, private respondent ceased to pay the latter's salary. Petitioner
made oral and written demands for an explanation for the sudden withholding of his
salary. Both demands, however, were not acted upon.
Issues:
(1) whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed;
(2) whether or not he is entitled to reinstatement, payment of back wages, thirteenth
month pay and other benefits; and
(3) whether or not he is entitled to payment of moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees because of illegal dismissal.
Held:
The decision of NLRC is set aside. Private respondent is ORDERED to pay petitioner
back wages for a period not exceeding three (3) years, without qualification or deduction,
and, in lieu of reinstatement, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month for every year
of service, a fraction of six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that "(a) lawyer
shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair
settlement."
Counsels must be reminded that their ethical duty as lawyers to represent their clients
with zeal goes beyond merely presenting their clients' respective causes in court. It is
just as much their responsibility, if not more importantly, to exert all reasonable efforts to
smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in consideration of the
direct and immediate consanguineous ties between their clients. The useful function of a
lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by advising
settlement or withholding suit. He should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for
compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation.
Both counsels herein fell short of what was expected of them, despite their avowed
duties as officers of the court. The records do not show that they took pains to initiate
steps geared toward effecting a rapprochement between their clients. On the contrary,
their acerbic and protracted exchanges could not but have exacerbated the situation
even as they may have found favor in the equally hostile eyes of their respective clients.
In the same manner, we find that the labor arbiter who handled this regrettable case has
been less than faithful to the letter and spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a labor

arbiter "shall exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute within
his jurisdiction." If he ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records
of the proceedings in this controversy are barren of any reflection of the same.
Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage amicable settlement
A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will
admit of a fair settlement.
- Useful function of a lawyer not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it where
possible, by advising settlement, or withholding suit.
- He should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise rather than an
instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict.
CASTANEDA V AGO
CASTRO; July 30, 1975
NATURE
- Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
FACTS
- 1955 Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI of Manila to
recover certain machineries.
-1957 judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson
- 1961 SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution; Agos motion
denied, levy was made on Agos house and lots; sheriff advertised the sale, Ago moved
to stop the auction; CA dismissed the petition; SC affirmed dismissal
- Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain sheriff from
enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied
- 1963 sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago failed to redeem
- 1964 sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ of possession to the
properties
- 1964 Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in the replevin
suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife 12 share in their conjugal
house could not legally be reached by the levy made; CFI of QC issued writ of
preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda the Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from
registering the final deed of sale; the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the
restraining order continued
- 1966 Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff from enforcing
writ of possession; SC dismissed it; Agos filed a similar petition with the CA which also
dismissed the petition; Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition
- Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which gave due
course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
WON the Agos lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy
HELD
- No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment of the
sheriffs sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of their victory in
the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer

Atty. Luison, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart
the satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners.
- Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as an
officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator of
controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator
for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true
exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice.
- A counsels assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his clients cause must
be encouraged and is to be commended; what the SC does not and cannot countenance
is a lawyers insistence despite the patent futility of his clients position.
It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his case. If he finds
his clients cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to advice the latter to acquiesce
and submit rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and
caprices of his client, and temper his clients propensity to litigate.