PROBLEM AREAS IN

LEGAL ETHICS
CASES:
• A.C. No. 7024
Somosot v. Atty. Lara| January 30, 2009
• A.C. No. 5338
Mendoza v. Atty. Deciembre | February 23, 2009
• A.M. No. P-99-1287
OCA v. Atty. Ladaga | January 26, 2001
• A.M. No. P-02-1639
Malayo v. Atty. Cruzat | September 18, 2002

PROFESSOR: STUDENT:
ATTY. RAHYLL S. SAGA JOANNE MARIE C. PRADAS
A.C. NO. 7024
Somosot v. Atty. Lara| January 30, 2009

This is a complaint for disbarment with the problem of a client-lawyer relationship developing into a legal action
between the lawyer and the client.

FACTS:
The complainant alleged that she retained the services of the respondent as her counsel in a civil case filed against
her and her co-defendants for the collection of a sum of money amounting to ₱1.3 Million. Her defense was that it was the
plaintiff who actually owed her ₱800,000.00. She claimed that she had the evidence to prove this defense at the trial. The
respondent agreed to handle the case and duly entered his appearance as counsel after securing his acceptance fee.

The complainant expected the respondent to perform his duty as counsel and to defend her interests to the utmost.
However, that after filing the Answer to the Complaint, the respondent failed to fully inform her of further developments in the
case. She only heard about the case when there was already a decision against her and her co-defendants. She even
belatedly learned that the respondent had sought his discharge as counsel without her knowledge and consent. Contrary to
the respondent's claim that he could no longer locate her, she claimed that the respondent knew all along where she lived
and could have easily contacted her had he been in good faith.
 After the court denied the respondent's motion to withdraw from the case, the complainant claimed that the
respondent represented her interests in a half-hearted manner, resulting in the grant of the plaintiff's motion for judgment on
the pleadings. Allegedly, the respondent failed to properly oppose the motion and she was thereafter deprived of the chance
to present her evidence. Execution of the court's decision followed, resulting in the sale of her house and lot at public auction
despite her efforts to reverse the judgment with the help of another lawyer. Thereafter, a third party to whom her property had
been mortgaged sued her.

In his comment, the respondent denied that he failed to exercise the diligence required of him as counsel. He
argued that pursuant to his oath as counsel, he pursued the complainant's case "according to his own ability and knowledge."

The respondent contended that he had good reasons not to continue as the complainant's counsel. He reasoned
out that under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer may withdraw from a case upon a good cause such as when
the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the lawyer's services, or fails to comply with the terms of the retainer
agreement, or when the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office. 8 Two of these possible causes applied to his situation;
he was appointed legal consultant at the BOI requiring full-time work and the complainant had failed to pay his legal fees to
him amounting to ₱27,000.00. He filed the formal notice of withdrawal without the conformity of the complainant because he
could not locate her.

The respondent insinuated that that the complainant's real intent was merely to harass him and his family as
indicated by her non-appearance, despite due notice, at the preliminary conference before the IBP. He argued that he could
not be disbarred considering that it was the complainant who was negligent in informing him of her whereabouts. While he
expressed regret for what happened in the case, he insisted that he exerted every effort to locate her, filed the necessary
pleadings, protected her and her company's interest as best as he could.
ISSUE:
WoN the respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that "a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence."

First, the respondent failed to contact his client about the developments of the case. Second, assuming the
non-payment of his legal services to be true, such failure should not be a reason not to inform the client of an
important development, or worse, to withhold vital information from her. Third, the respondent failed to provide details
on the developments that led to the adverse rulings on the interrogatories/admissions and the judgment on the
pleadings. However, the Supreme Court cannot also disbar the respondent as the complainant demands in light of the
complainant's own contributory faults. The complainant's failing in this regard is her failure to inform her counsel of her
change of business address, a serious lapse but one that a resourceful counsel could have easily handled.

Atty. Gerardo F. Lara is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.
A.C. NO. 5338
Mendoza v. Atty. Deciembre | February 23, 2009

Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his profession shall not be
tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority for there is perhaps no profession after that of the sacred ministry in
which a high-toned morality is more imperative than that of law.

This is a petition for disbarment against respondent for his acts of fraudulently filling up blank postdated checks
without authority and using the same for filing unfounded criminal suits against the complainant.

FACTS:
Complainant, a postal employee, is a creditor of respondent in the amount of P 20,000 payable in 6 months
at 20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks. Complainant although not faithfully paying her obligation, but made
remittances in the amount of P12,910 in respondent's Metrobank account. Not satisfied with the remitted amount,
respondent filled up two postal checks she issued in blank, in the amount of P50,000 each in which respondent
claimed was for the P100,000 cash that complainant received in Nov. 15,1999.
 Complainant denied having borrowed the P100, 000 from respondent and claimed that respondent
victimized other employees of Postal Office by filling up without authorization, blank checks issued to him as condition
for loans.

The case was referred to the IBP where it was initially found out in the Report dated Sept. 6, 2002, finding
respondent guilty of dishonesty.

The Supreme Court remanded the case, and a second report was made by Commissioner Funa stating
among others, that respondent's allegations are mere fabrications for there were contradicting allegations. The loan
alleged by respondent to have happened on November 15, 1999never took place as it was respondent's modus
operandi to demand a certain amount as "settlement" for the dropping of estafa complaints against his borrowers. The
IBP in its Resolution indefinitely suspended Deciembre from practice of law.

ISSUE/S:
• WoN the respondent violated Canon 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
• WoN the indefinite suspension against respondent is proper
RULING:

Yes. The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP but finds that disbarment and not just indefinite
suspension is in order.

The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that
they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. A high
sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of members of the bar. They must conduct
themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times.

The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by
respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability.

A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring
reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. Indeed, there is no distinction as to
whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not
divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.
 In this case, evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards required of members of
the legal profession. Specifically, respondent has transgressed provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
to wit:

CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes.
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
xxx
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities
of the integrated bar.
xxx
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

While the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld whenever a lesser penalty could
accomplish the end desired, the seriousness of respondent's offense compels the Court to wield its supreme power of
disbarment. Indeed, the Court will not hestitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of
lawyers where the evidence calls for it.

Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken off the
Roll of Attorneys.
A.M. NO. P-99-1287
OCA v. Atty. Ladaga | January 26, 2001

FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, requested the Court Administrator, Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, for
authority to appear as pro bono counsel of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, in a criminal case for Falsification of
Public Document. While respondent's letter-request was pending action, Lisa Payoyo Andres, the private complainant,
sent a letter to the Court Administrator, requesting for a certification with regard to respondent's authority to appear as
counsel for the accused in the said criminal case. The Office of the Court Administrator referred the matter to
respondent for comment.

In his Comment, respondent admitted that he had appeared in the criminal without prior authorization. He
reasoned out that the factual circumstances surrounding the criminal case compelled him to handle the defense of his
cousin who did not have enough resources to hire the services of a counsel de parte; while, on the other hand, private
complainant was a member of a powerful family who was out to get even with his cousin. Furthermore, he rationalized
that his appearance in the criminal case did not prejudice his office nor the interest of the public since he did not take
advantage of his position. In any case, his appearances in court were covered by leave applications approved by the
presiding judge.
 On December 8, 1998, the Court issued a Resolution denying respondent's request for authorization to
appear as counsel and directing the Office of the Court Administrator to file formal charges against him for appearing
in court without the required authorization from the Court. 5 On January 25, 1999, the Court Administrator filed the
instant administrative complaint against respondent for violating Sec. 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise
known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees," which provides:

Sec. 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. – In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now
prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any
public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

xxx

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. – Public officials and employees during their incumbency
shall not:

xxx
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, Provided, that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.
ISSUE:
WoN the respondent violated Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees"

RULING:

Yes. The Court agrees to the investigating Judge’s recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION

In the light of the foregoing, it appearing that the respondent appeared as counsel for his cousin without first
securing permission from the Court, and considering that this is his first time to do it coupled with the fact
that said appearance was not for a fee and was with the knowledge of his Presiding Judge, it is hereby
respectfully recommended that he be REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that any repetition of such act
would be dealt with more severely.

Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the private practice of their profession. A similar
prohibition is found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which disallows certain attorneys from
engaging in the private practice of their profession. The said section reads:
 SEC. 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. – No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the
Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advise to clients.

However, it should be clarified that "private practice" of a profession, specifically the law profession in this case,
which is prohibited, does not pertain to an isolated court appearance; rather, it contemplates a succession of acts of the same
nature habitually or customarily holding one's self to the public as a lawyer.

Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the isolated instances when respondent appeared as pro bono counsel of
his cousin in Criminal Case No. 84885 does not constitute the "private practice" of the law profession contemplated by law.

Nonetheless, while respondent's isolated court appearances did not amount to a private practice of law, he failed to
obtain a written permission therefor from the head of the Department, which is this Court as required by Section 12, Rule XVIII
of the Revised Civil Service Rules, thus:
Sec 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be
connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of
the Department: Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties and
responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the Government; Provided, further, That if an employee is
granted permission to engage in outside activities, time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the agency to the
end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee: And provided, finally, That no permission is
necessary in the case of investments, made by an officer or employee, which do not involve real or apparent conflict between
his private interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in
the management of the enterprise or become an officer of the board of directors.

Respondent Atty. Misael M. Ladaga is REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that any repetition of such act would be
dealt with more severely.
A.M. NO. P-02-1639
Malayo v. Atty. Cruzat | September 18, 2002

FACTS:
In a sworn letter-complaint dated March 6, 2001, Lyn A. Malayo and Rowena P. Ripdos, employees of
the local government of Makati City, detailed to Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 146, Makati City, charged
Atty. Leila I. Cruzat, Branch Clerk of Court, with conduct unbecoming of a public officer and a member of the
judiciary, and with falsification of a public document.

The complaints alleged that:

(1) respondent abused her authority, often broke into tantrums and gave them mouthfuls of insults
and curses every time respondent’s assigned parking space was occupied by another vehicle; in one
instance on January 29, 2001, respondent arrived at their office at past 10:00 o’clock in the morning,
fuming over the fact that her parking space was occupied by another vehicle; respondent burst into
anger and verbally abused them; as a result, they filed a complaint against respondent in the Office
of the Executive Judge, RTC, Branch 139, Makati City for threats, conduct unbecoming of a public
official and violation of the anti-graft law.
 (2) falsification of her Certification of Services Rendered for the month of June 2000; respondent certified
that she rendered full time service from June 1 to June 30, 2000, except June 29, when, in truth and in fact,
she left the country at 2:50 p.m. on June 9, 2000 on a Philippine Air Lines flight (PR 306) to Hongkong, as
reported by the Bureau of Immigration on February 8, 2001; respondent failed to secure any clearance or
authority to travel;

(3) during her roughly two years’ stay in the judiciary, respondent was able to acquire two expensive cars (a
Mitsubishi Lancer and a Nissan Frontier), as well as an expensive house and lot located in Balatbat, Lobo,
Batangas; complainants also reported the close relationship of respondent and Atty. Marilyn Guzman who at
that time was a Vice-President of United Coconut Planters Bank representing the said bank in its civil cases
pending before the Makati City RTC, Branch 146, where respondent was the Clerk of Court.

In her Comment, respondent vehemently denied the accusations against her.

ISSUE:
• WoN the respondent violated Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act"
• WoN the respondent violated Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees"
RULING:

No. The Court finds the charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act to be baseless.
Respondent was able to disprove the allegations in connection therewith. The Mitsubishi Lancer was the fruit of her
work from the time she started working in 1992 with no family to support. The Nissan Frontier was owned by a close
friend as evidenced by the Certificate of Registration and Official Receipt. The house and lot located in Lobo,
Batangas was owned by respondent’s parents as indicated in the tax declaration presented to the OCA.

However, that the altercation between respondent and complainants tended to degrade the dignity and good
image of the judiciary. RA 6713, otherwise known as “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees,” states that:

It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and
employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility,
integrity, competence, loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over
personal interest.

In the case of Apaga v. Ponce, we ruled that shouting at each other in the workplace during office hours is
discourtesy and disrespect not only to one’s co-workers but also to the court itself. Such conduct also exhibits failure
on the part of both parties to discharge their duties with the required degree of professionalism, to respect the rights of
others and to refrain from acts contrary to good morals and good customs as demanded by RA 6713.
 Respondent claimed that she was present the whole day of June 9, 2000, as indicated in the Certificate of
Service submitted to the Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator, when, as admitted by her, her flight
left for Hongkong at 2:50 p.m. that same day. This must have meant that she left for the airport at noon or shortly
thereafter. Respondent contends though that the government was not prejudiced by her leaving early that day as she
oftentimes rendered overtime work without the corresponding overtime pay. On this point, however, while it is true that
the Presiding Judge gave her permission to leave the office early, it was no blanket authority for her to falsify her
Certificate of Service by indicating that she rendered eight hours of work on that particular date. At any rate,
respondent failed to candidly reflect the fact of her early departure, in violation of Sec. 4 of Rule XVII of the Civil
Service Law and Rules which provides:

Falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records will render the guilty officer or employee administratively
liable without prejudice to criminal prosecution as the circumstances warrant.

To compound her problems, respondent left the country without first securing permission or authority to
travel from the Court, in violation of its en banc resolution in A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC. No evidence of such travel
authority was ever presented by respondent.

As Branch Clerk of Court, respondent must be reminded of the constitutional provision that “a public office is
a public trust and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.” Every government employee, specially of the judiciary, should be
an example of integrity and proper behavior.
 The Court has also admonished court personnel that their conduct “should be geared towards maintaining
the prestige and integrity of the court, for the image of the court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official
or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel; hence,
it becomes the imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing
as a temple of justice.”

Although the Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA that respondent should be punished for her
malfeasance as above discussed, we also cannot turn a blind eye to the unwarranted viciousness and hostility
displayed by the complainants against the respondent. We take note of the disrespectful and insolent manner with
which they addressed the respondent, as well as the pettiness with which they accused her of unfounded corruption
when they themselves admitted having borrowed money from her. No doubt the complainants’ behavior was just as
reprehensible.

Respondent Atty. Leila I. Cruzat is hereby ABSOLVED of the charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. However, she is SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for conduct unbecoming of a public officer
and member of the judiciary. She is likewise SUSPENDED for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day
without pay for making an untruthful statement in her Certificate of Service Rendered for June 2000 and
SUSPENDED for another period of one (1) month without pay for leaving the country and traveling abroad
without first securing from the Supreme Court the required authority therefor.
“
THANK YOU!
”