22 SCRA 491 – Legal Ethics – High Degree of Irresponsibility a Ground for Disbarment In 1957, the spouses Emilio and Cirila Capulong lost a civil case. They were represented by Atty. Manuel Aliño. The spouses then gave P298.00 (then a significant amount of money) in order for the lawyer to use the money in paying […]
↧
Emilio Capulong vs Manuel Aliño
↧
Ma. Libertad Cantiller vs Atty. Humberto Potenciano
180 SCRA 246 – Legal Ethics – Lawyer’s Duties to His Client – Due Diligence In 1987, the sisters Ma. Libertad Cantiller and Peregrina Cantiller lost an ejectment case. The two were later introduced by a friend to Atty. Humberto Potenciano. Potenciano said he can help the sisters because the judge handling the case was […]
↧
↧
Blandina Hilado vs Jose Gutierrez David
84 Phil 569 – Legal Ethics – Existence of Attorney-Client Relationship In April 1945, Blandina Hilado filed a complaint to have some deeds of sale annulled against Selim Assad. Attorney Delgado Dizon represented Hilado. Assad was represented by a certain Atty. Ohnick. In January 1946, Atty. Vicente Francisco replaced Atty. Ohnick as counsel for Assad […]
↧
Francisco Chavez vs Public Estates Authority (May 2003)
403 SCRA 1 – Legal Ethics – Judicial Ethics – Inhibition; Supreme Court Justice In July 2002, Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation lost a case (PEA-Amari Scandal) before the Supreme Court involving certain reclaimed lands. Upon receipt of the adverse decision, Amari filed a Motion for Inhibition asking the ponente of said case, Justice Antonio Carpio, […]
↧
Regino Aro vs Arsenio Nañawa
27 SCRA 1090 – Legal Ethics – Attorney’s Fees; Right Thereto – Contingent Fees In 1964, Luis and Pablo Magtibay engaged the services of Atty. Regino Aro in a partition case. The Magtibays have no money to pay Atty. Aro and so a contingent fee agreement was reduced in writing. Atty. Aro did his part in […]
↧
↧
Commission on Elections vs Tomas Noynay
292 SCRA 264 – Legal Ethics – Duty of Lawyers To Properly Quote The Supreme Court Judicial Ethics – Duty of the Judge to be Studious of the Principles of Law In 1996, the Commission on Elections filed criminal cases against certain individuals for violations of the Omnibus Election Code. The cases were filed with a […]
↧
Erlinda Foster vs Jaime Agtang
A.C. No. 10579 – Legal Ethics – Borrowing From Clients Not Appropriate Civil Claims Cannot Be Litigated in a Disbarment Suit In 2009, Erlinda Foster engaged the services of Atty. Jaime Agtang in a realty dispute in Ilocos Norte. Agtang’s acceptance fee was P20,000.00 plus P5,000.00 for incidental expenses. For the case, Agtang collected P150,000.00 […]
↧
Gloria Jinon vs Atty. Leonardo Jiz
692 SCRA 348 – Legal Ethics – Duty To Return Client’s Fund In 2003, Gloria Jinon engaged the services of Atty. Leonardo Jiz to help her recover a land title from her sister-in-law. Jinon paid Atty. Jiz Php17,000.00 as acceptance fee. After accepting the case, Atty. Jiz sent demand letters to Jinon’s sister-in-law, collected rents from […]
↧
Ceferino De Los Santos, Sr. vs Sebastian Palanca
8 SCRA 764 – Legal Ethics – Attorney’s Fees- Quantum Meruit; When Not Applicable – Negligence of Counsel In 1952, Atty. Ceferino De Los Santos, Sr. and his son, also a lawyer, was engaged by Sebastian Palanca to represent the latter in an estate proceedings case. Their written agreement only covered the estate case. However, […]
↧
↧
Gregorio Dimarucot vs People of the Philippines
630 SCRA 659 – Remedial Law – Criminal Procedure/Civil Procedure – Appellant’s Brief; Failure to File – Abandonment of Appeal Legal Profession – Negligence of Counsel Binds Client In 2006, Gregorio Dimarucot was convicted of frustrated homicide. Dimarucot, through counsel de parte (unnamed in the SC Decision), filed an appeal. The Court of Appeals then […]
↧
Eduardo Bago vs Joel Feraren
410 SCRA 282 – Political Law – Administrative Law – Civil Service Commission – “Just Debts” Defined Legal Profession – Court Employees – High Ethical Standards Law on Public Officers – Civil Service – Duties of Public Officers In 1997, Joel Feraren, Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 67, borrowed […]
↧
Vivian Villanueva vs Atty. Cornelius Gonzales
544 SCRA 410 – Legal Ethics – Lawyer’s Duties to Clients; Case Update In 2000, Vivian Villanueva engaged the services of Atty. Cornelius Gonzales to help her transfer a title to her name. Villanueva gave Atty. Gonzales Php8,000.00 as acceptance fee. She also gave her the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) subject of the legal services […]
↧
Pedro Linsangan vs Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
598 SCRA 133 – Legal Ethics – Unethical Solicitation of Legal Business In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino alleging that Atty. Tolentino, through his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, “pirated” a client of Atty. Linsangan. Said client later executed an affidavit in support of Atty. Linsangan’s allegations. Atty. Linsangan […]
↧
↧
In Re: Atty. Saturnino Parcasio
69 SCRA 336 – Legal Ethics – Effect of Pardon on Pending Disbarment Case In 1966, Atty. Saturnino Parcasio was convicted for robbery with intimidation. His appeals were denied. He began serving his sentence in November 1970. Meanwhile, a disbarment case was filed against him on the ground that he was convicted of a crime […]
↧
Natividad Navarro vs Ivan Solidum, Jr.
A.C. No. 9872 – Legal Ethics – Duty of Lawyer to Account for Client’s Money Canon 16 applies sans lawyer-client relationship In April 2006, Hilda Presbitero engaged the services of Atty. Ivan Solidum, Jr. to help her in the quieting of her title over a parcel of land. Presbitero paid Solidum P50,000.00 as acceptance fee. […]
↧
Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs Gaudencio Cloribel (1970)
31 SCRA 1 – Legal Ethics – Duty to Respect Judicial Authorities – Contempt of Court In Re: Contempt Proceedings Against Attorneys Vicente L. Santiago, Jose Beltran Sotto, Graciano C. Regala and Associates, Erlito R. Uy, Juanito M. Caling; and Morton F. Meads In 1968, the Supreme Court promulgated a unanimous decision (24 SCRA 491; […]
↧
Jose Alcala vs Honesto De Vera
56 SCRA 30 – Legal Ethics – Duty of a lawyer to update his client of the status of the case Jose Alcala engaged the services of Atty. Honesto De Vera to defend him in a civil case. On April 17, 1963, the court rendered a decision against Alcala. On April 19, 1963, Atty. De […]
↧
↧
On BLawgs, Online Legal Forums, Law Websites, Social Media Pages, and Legal Ethics
At this age, almost all products and services are advertised online. Like they say, everything is just a click away. Including legal services. For legal services however, regulations therefor have always been restrictive. In fact, as a rule, a lawyer is not allowed to advertise his legal services because as we have been told, the […]
↧
Atty. Conrado Gandeza, Jr. vs Judge Maria Clarita Tabin
In November 2007, the cars of Atty. Conrado Gandeza, Jr. and Paul Casuga collided with each other. Later at the scene of the collision, Judge Maria Clarita Tabin arrived. She was the aunt of Casuga. Atty. Gandeza observed that the judge kept on reminding the investigating officer that the driver of Gandeza was drunk.
Later at the hospital, blood alcohol test was conducted on the driver of Gandeza. The initial result returned negative. But Judge Tabin insisted that the doctor do a second test. This time, the result was positive.
About a week later, a criminal case was filed against the driver of Gandeza. The wife of Atty. Gandeza, also a lawyer, later observed that a court employee was bringing the records of the case outside the premises of the court where the case was filed. The court employee said that the records were requested by Judge Tabin. The case also went to mediation where Gandeza also learned that Judge Tabin went to the mediation center and inquired about the case.
All these acts of the judge led to Gandeza’s filing of an administrative case against Judge Tabin for Gross Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge.
In her defense, Judge Tabin said that she never publicly made known that she was a judge when she was at the collision scene. But she did admit that the investigating officer as well as the doctor knew her to be such. She also said that she merely borrowed the records of the case because she learned that her nephew still did not have a lawyer. She also said that when she was at the mediation center, she merely went there to assist her sister (Casuga’s mom) as the latter did not know where the mediation center was located.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Tabin is guilty of Gross Misconduct or Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge.
HELD: No. But she is guilty of impropriety in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Her being concern of her nephew is just but natural but as member of the judiciary, she should know that she should not interfere in the conduct of an investigation. She should always appear impartial – this did not happen when she interfered with the investigation and when she borrowed the records as well as when she was at the mediation center inquiring about the records of the case. She may have the best intention devoid of any malicious motive but sadly her actions, however, spawned the impression that she was using her office to unduly influence or pressure the concerned people to conduct the medical examination as well as the investigation in their favor.
Indeed, while Judge Tabin’s concern over the safety of her nephew and the outcome of his criminal case is understandable, she should not have disregarded the rules on proper decorum at the expense of the integrity of the court. Although concern for family members is deeply ingrained in the Filipino culture, she, being a judge, should bear in mind that she is also called upon to serve the higher interest of preserving the integrity of the entire Judiciary.
↧
Bernardita Macariola vs Judge Elias Asuncion
In 1963, Bernardita Macariola and her step sister and other kins (Priscilla Reyes et al) had a dispute over their inheritance involving parcels of land located in Leyte. A trial ensued and Judge Elias Macariola, after determining the legibility of the parties to inherit rendered a decision in the civil case. Thereafter, the counsels of the parties submitted a project partition reflecting the preference of the parties. The project partition was, however, unsigned by Macariola. But her lawyer assured Asuncion that he is duly authorized by Macariola as counsel. The judge then approved the project partition. The decision became final in 1963 as well.
Reyes et al sold some of their shares to Arcadio Galapon, who later sold the property to Judge Asuncion in 1965.
In August 1968, Macariola filed a complaint against Judge Asuncion with “acts unbecoming a judge” on the ground that he bought a property (formerly owned by Macariola) which was involved in a civil case decided by him; this act by Asuncion is averred by Macariola to be against Art. 1491, par. 5 of the Civil Code which provides:
“Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial action, either in person or through the mediation of another:
xxx xxx xxx
“(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession”.
Also, Macariola said that Asuncion’s act tainted his earlier judgment. Macariola said that the project partition was unsigned by her and that what was given to her in the partition were insignificant portions of the parcels of land.
Further, Macariola alleged that the act of Asuncion engaging in commerce is said to be a violation of pars. 1 and 5, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges in active service (among others) to do so within the limits of the place where they discharge their duties.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated the said Civil Code provision.
2. Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated the said Code of Commerce provision.
HELD:
1. No. The prohibition only applies if the litigation is under pendency. The judge bought the property in 1965 – 2 years after his decision became final. Further, Asuncion did not buy the property directly from any of the parties since the property was directly bought by Galapon, who then sold the property to Asuncion. There was no showing that Galapon acted as a “dummy” of Asuncion.
Also, Macariola did not show proof that there was a gross inequality in the partition; or that what she got were insignificant portions of the land.
The Supreme Court however admonished Judge Asuncion to be more discreet in his personal transactions.
2. No. Article 14 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, effective August 1888) of the Code of Commerce, prohibiting judges from engaging in commerce was political in nature and so was automatically abrogated with the end of Spanish rule in the country (Change of Sovereignty to the US by virtue of cession, 1898 – Treaty of Paris).
↧
