You are on page 1of 9

KRISTINA MARIE A.

CLAVERO
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
MWF 6:30-7:30 PM
Atty. Dexter Zeno Achilles Pascua

PALE DIGESTS

December 2017
I. The Lawyer and the Society

1. Brion, Jr. vs. Brilliantes, Jr. Adm. Case No. 5305; March 17, 2003

Facts: Respondent judge was dismissed from the service with forfeiture
of all leave and retirement benefits and with prejudice to reappointment in
any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including
government owned and controlled corporations. He thereafter accepted
employment as consultant at the local water utilities administration (LWUA)
from 1998-2000. Finding him guilty of disobeying a lawful order of the Court,
Judge Brilliantes was suspended from the practice of law for one year and
ordered to pay a fine of P10,000 with a stern warning that repetition of the
same or similar act should be dealt with more severely.

Ruling: The lawyer’s primary duty as enunciated in the Attorney’s Oath is to


uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for
law and legal processes. That duty in its irreducible minimum entails
obedience to the legal orders of the court. Respondent’s disobedience to the
Court’s order prohibiting his reappointment to any branch, instrumentality, or
agency of government, including GOCC’s, cannot be camouflaged by a legal
consultancy or a special consultancy contract. By performing duties and
functions of a contractual employee of LWUA, by way of a consultancy, and
receiving compensation and perquisites as such, he displayed acts of open
defiance to the Court’s authority, and deliberate rejection of his oath as an
officer of the court.
2. People vs. Tuanda Adm. Case No. 3360; January 30, 1989

Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

Facts: Atty. Tuanda issued three checks covering the price of unsold
pieces of jewelry that she was supposed to be selling for complainant
Marquez. All three checks bounced. She was charged and convicted of estafa
and violation of BP Blg. 22. Affirming her conviction by the trial court, the CA
meted out the additional penalty of suspension from the practice of law until
further action from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed her
suspension.

Ruling: The offense of which she is found guilty involves moral turpitude.
The Court noted the deleterious effect of the offense on public interest and
public order. While violation of BP 22 may not relate to the exercise of the
lawyer’s profession, it certainly relates to the good moral character of a
person convicted of such offense.
3. In Re: SC Decision Dated May 20, 2008 in GR No. 161455 Under
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court vs. Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin
Adm. Case No. 7940; April 24, 2012

Facts: Atty. Pactolin, then a Sangguniang Panlalawigan member of


Misamis Occidental, was found guilty of submitting a falsified letter that he
used as evidence to charge the OIC of the city for illegal disbursement of
funds (actually approved by the mayor for financial assistance to the city’s
volleyball team).

Issue: Whether the conviction of a lawyer for a falsification of


public document constitutes sufficient ground for his disbarment from the
practice of law.

Ruling: Yes. Under Sec. 27, Rule 138, a lawyer may be removed or
suspended on the following grounds: (1) Deceit; (2) Malpractice; (3) Gross
misconduct in office; (4) Grossly immoral conduct; (5) Conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude; (6) Violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) Willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) Corruptly or
willfullu appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority to do
so. The crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice,
honesty and good morals, and therefore, involves moral turpitude. Pactolin
was disbarred.
4. In Re: Terrell GR 1203; May 15, 1903

Facts: Howard Terrel was charged (1) with assisting the


organization of the “Centro Bellas Artes” Club, after he had been notified that
the said organization was made for the purpose of evading the laws then in
force; and (2) with a acting as attorney for said organization.

Ruling: The Court finding him guilty held, “The promoting of


organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for the purpose of violating or
evading laws against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part of the
attorney, an officer of the court, as amouts to malpractice or gross
misconduct in his office, and for which he may be removed or suspended.
The assisting of a client in a scheme which the attorney knows to be
dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of law, are acts which justify
disbarment.
5. Ledesma vs. Climaco GR L-23815; June 28, 1974

Facts: The Court denied petitioner’s motion to withdraw as counsel


de oficio on the grounds of his appointment as Election Registrar. He claimed
that he was no longer in a position to devote full time to the defense of his
clients.

Ruling: What is easily discernible is the obvious reluctance of


petitioner to comply with the responsibilities incumbent upon him as counsel
de oficio. The law is a profession, not a trade or craft. Those enrolled in its
ranks are called upon to aid in the performance of one of the basic purposed
of the State, the administration of justice. To avoid any frustration thereof,
especially in the case of an indigent defendant, a lawyer may be required to
act as counsel de oficio. The fact that his services are rendered without
renumeration should not occasion a diminution in his zeal. Rather the
contrary.
II. The Lawyer and the Legal Profession

1. Tan vs. Sabandal Bar Matter No. 44; February 24, 1992

Facts: An employee of the Bureau of Lands and an applicant to the


bar, who was also earlier foud to be guilty of unlawful practie of law,
procured a bogus certificate for free patent over a parcel of land belonging to
the public domain and used it as a security for mortagage. He was deemed
unworthy to join the bar.

Ruling: While the term “good moral character” has a broad


dimension, it has been defined as “including at least common honesty”. The
Court further said that “no moral qualification for bar membership is more
important than truthfulness and candor”.
2. Tapucar vs. Tapucar Adm. Case No. 4148; July 30, 1998

Facts: The lawyer was disbarred on the ground of gross immoral


behaviour over a long period of time and a cavalier attitude and moral
indifference to scandal. He was found to have continued illicit liaison with a
woman not his wife. According to the court this shows a serious flaw in his
character.

Ruling: There is perhaps no profession after that of the sacred


ministry, in which a high-toned morality is more imperative than that of the
law. A lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession by faithfully performing bis duties to society, to the bar,
to the courts and his clients. On these considerations the court may disbar or
suspend a lawyer for his misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to eb wanting in moral character, in honesty, in
probity, and good demeanor, thus proving unworthy to continue as an officer
of the court.
3. Alawi vs. Alauya Adm. Matter SDC-97-2-P; February 24, 1997

Ruling: Person who passed the Shari’a Bar may only practice before
Shari’a courts. Their use of the title “attorney” is not allowed because they
are not members of the Philippine Bar. The title of attorney is reserved for
those who have successfully passed the Bar examinations and have been
admitted to the Integrated Bar and remain members thereof in good
standing.

4. US vs. Ney
5. Republic vs. Kenrick Development Corporation

III. The Lawyer and the Courts

1. Masinsin vs. Albano


2. Libit vs. Oliva
3. Insular Life Assurance Co. Employees Assn. vs. Insular Life
Assurance Co.
4. COMELEC vs. Noynay
5. Cobb- Perez vs. Lantin

IV. The Lawyer and the Client

1. Santiago, et al. vs. Fojas


2. Gamilla, et al. vs. Marino, Jr.
3. Abragan, et al. vs. Rodriguez
4. Nakpil vs. Valdez
5. Dee vs. Court of Appeals

You might also like