CANON 1 DUTY TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND

OBEY THE LAW

People v. Tuanda, Adm. Case No. 3360, January 30, 1989

Facts: Respondent Atty. Fe Tuanda seeks to lift the suspension from

the practice of law imposed upon her by the Court of Appeals. The
trial court found the respondent guilty of violating BP Blg. 22 for
issuing three checks for the payment of the jewelries. Said jewelries
was given by Ms. Marquez on the agreement that these jewelries are
to be sold with a commission basis with a condition that unsold items
would be returned to Ms. Marquez on or before 14 feb 1984.
However, instead of returning said jewelries, respondent atty tuanda,
issued three checks. The issued checks were dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. Respondent made no effort to
settle her obligation. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the
trial court in toto but in addition, suspended respondent from the
practice of law because the offense which she is found guilty
involved moral turpitude and that violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a serious
criminal offense which deleteriously affects public interest and public
order. Respondent argued that she had not violated her oath as a
member of the Philippine Bar upon the ground that when she issued
the checks which bounced, she did not intend to cause damage to
complainant Ms. Marquez.

Issue: WON should be suspended from the practice of law.

Held: Yes. The crime in which she is charged involved moral

turpitude rendering her suspension from the practice of law tenable
because the violation of BP Blg. 22 is a serious criminal offense which
deleteriously affects public interest adnd public order. We should
add that the crimes of which respondent was convicted also import
deceit and violation of her attorney's oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound to
"obey the laws of the land." Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude might not (as in the instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22
does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; however,
it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person
convicted of such offense.

Reyes v. Gaa, Adm. Matter No. 1048, July 14, 1995

Facts: The present case involves a disbarment case against

respondent Atty. Salvador Gaa, a former assistant city fiscal of
manila for malpractice and willful violation of his oath as an
attorney. Complainant reported to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) that he had been a victim of extortion by
respondent, an Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, who was investigating
a complaint for estafa filed by complainant's business rival. An
entrapment was then set by the NBI where they produced several
peso bills for marking. Subsequently, the Respondent's hands were
found positive of the yellow florescent powder applied earlier to the
marked money. Thus, subjecting him to be captured by the NBI. The
NBI recommended the prosecution of the respondent for violation of
Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 and the institution of the disbarment
proceedings against respondent. As a defense, the respondent
contends that complainant surreptitiously planted the marked money
in his pocket without his knowledge and consent. By virtue of Rule
139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas
of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) recommended that respondent be disbarred. Said
recommendation was approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its
resolution dated March 26, 1994.

Issue: WON respondent atty. Gaa can be disbarred.

Held: YES. In the case at bench, respondent was caught in flagrante

delicto in the act of receiving the marked money from complainant
during the entrapment conducted by the NBI agents, which resulted
in his arrest and the subsequent filing of administrative and criminal
cases against him. Anent his defense, when the integrity of a member
of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the charges
against him; he must show proof that he still maintains that degree
that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of
him. The extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct
as a public official, which also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer. The lawyer's oath (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section
18; People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968 [1958]), imposes upon every
lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's
oath is a source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his
suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action (Agpalo, Legal
Ethics 66-67 [1983]).

CANON 2 LEGAL SERVICES COMPATIBLE WITH

INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY OF PROFESSION

Re: Request Of National Committee On Legal Aid To Exempt

Legal Aid Clients From Paying Filing, Docket And Other
Fees, Adm. Matter No. 08-11-7-SC. August 28, 2009.

Facts:The Misamis Oriental Chapter of Integrated Bar of the

Philippines promulgated a resolution. The resolution requested the
IBPs National Committee on Legal Aid to ask for the exemption
from payment of filing, docket and other fees of clients of the legal
aid offices in the various IBP chapters.

Issue: WON such request should be granted.

Held: Yes. It is guaranteed by no less than the fundamental law:

Article 3, Section 11 of the Constitution states that Free access to the
courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. The Court
recognizes the right of access to justice as the most important pillar of
legal empowerment of the marginalized sectors of our
society. Among others, it has exercised its power to promulgate rules
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights to
open the doors of justice to the underprivileged and to allow them to
step inside the courts to be heard of their plaints.
 Yes. The Constitution guarantees the rights of the poor to free
access to the courts and to adequate legal assistance. The legal aid
service rendered by the NCLA and legal aid offices of IBP chapters
nationwide addresses only the right to adequate legal assistance.
Recipients of the service of the NCLA and legal aid offices of IBP
chapters may enjoy free access to courts by exempting them from the
payment of fees assessed in connection with the filing of a complaint
or action in court. With these twin initiatives, the guarantee of Section
11, Article III of Constitution is advanced and access to justice is
increased by bridging a significant gap and removing a major
roadblock.

Burpe v. Magulta, A.C. No. 5713, June 10, 2002

Facts: Respondent lawyer was introduced to complainant at the

Respicio, Magulta and Adan Law Offices who agreed to legally
represent the latter in a money claim and a possible civil case against
certain parties for breach of contract. Upon respondent's instruction,
complainant deposited the amount of P25,000.00 allegedly for the
filing fees of the case to be filed. A week later, complainant was
informed by respondent that the complaint had already been filed in
court. In the months that followed, complainant did not receive any
notice from the court. Complainant also frequented respondent's
office to inquire, but the latter repeatedly told him each time to just
wait. Sensing that he was being given the run-around by respondent,
complainant went to the Office of the Clerk of Court to verify the
progress of the case and found out that there was no record at all
filed by respondent on his behalf. Aggrieved, complainant filed with
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines a complaint against respondent for misrepresentation,
dishonesty and oppressive conduct. The Commission submitted its
Report and Recommendation to the Court recommending that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one
(1) year.

Issue: Whether or not there is a misappropriation of funds rendering

the suspension of the respondent from the practice of law
Held: Yes. Contrary to the respondents contention that complainant
did not give him the filing fee for the Regwill complaint; hence, the
former's failure to file the complaint in court, lawyers must exert their
best efforts and ability in the prosecution or the defense of the client's
cause. They who perform that duty with diligence and candor not
only protect the interests of the client, but also serve the ends of
justice. They do honor to the bar and help maintain the respect of the
community for the legal profession. Members of the bar must do
nothing that may tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the
public in the fidelity, the honesty, and integrity of the profession.
Moreover, the practice of law is not a business but a profession.
Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture,
and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The
gaining of a livelihood is not a professional but a secondary
consideration. Duty to public service and to the administration of
justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.
The practice of law is a noble calling in which emolument is a
byproduct, and the highest eminence may be attained without
making much money.

CANON 3 MAKING KNOWN LEGAL SERVICES: FAIR,

DIGNIFIED, OBJECTIVE INFORMATION

Cabarrus, Jr. v. Bernas, A.C. No. 4634 September 24, 1997

Facts:On August 30, 1996, Complainant Mr. Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed
an administrative complaint for disbarment against Respondent
Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas for alleged violations of Article 172 of the
Revised Penal Code and Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant seeks for the disbarment of respondent for having
instigated abetted and facilitated the perversion and subversion of
truth in the said verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
Contrary to Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, Canon 10 of the
code of Professional responsibility for Lawyers,Complainant
contends that respondent Atty. Bernas who is the counsel on record
on the respondent for the civil case is the same lawyer who instigated
a criminal complaint at the NBI. The respondent argues that neither
he nor his client Pascual has commenced any criminal action since
they merely requested the NBI to assist in the investigation or
prosecution and that the letter transmitted to the NBI is not
tantamount to a proceeding or an action since the NBIs functions is
merely investigatory and informal in nature. Therefore, NBI has no
prosecutorial function or quasi-judicial power and is incapable of
granting relief or remedy.

Issue: Whether or not respondent atty. Bernas act constitutes forum

shopping. Thus can be held liable for violating pertinent provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held: No. There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an

adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion
(other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. In this case, there is no
forum shopping because Atty. Bernas merely requested the
assistance of the NBI to investigate the alleged fraud and forgery.
Moreover, the rule allows the filing of a civil case independently with
the criminal case without violating the circulars on forum shopping.
Additionally, the function of the National Bureau of Investigations
are merely investigatory and informational in nature. It has no
judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of granting any
relief to a party. It cannot even determine probable cause. It is an
investigative agency whose findings are merely recommendatory.

Atty. Khan, Jr. v. Atty Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299. August 19,
2003

Facts: Respondent Atty. Simbillo publicized his legal service in major

newspapers namely, the Philippine star, Philippine daily inquirer
and manila bulletin stating that he specializes in Annulment of
Marriage Specialist, he claims to be an expert in handling annulment
cases and guarantees a court decree within four to six months.
Complainant Atty. Khan, in his capacity as Assistant Court
Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for
improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in
violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. The
respondent argued, among others, that advertising and solicitation
per se are not prohibited acts. Thus, he prayed that he be exonerated
from all the charges against him and that the Court promulgate a
ruling that advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not
contrary to law, public policy and public order as long as it is
dignified. When the case was forwarded to the IBP for investigation
and recommendation, they found the respondent guilty of violation
of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, and suspended him from
the practice of law for one (1) year with the warning that a repetition
of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Issue:

Whether or not the act committed by the respondent constitutes

undue solicitation of legal business.

Held:

Yes. It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a
business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily
meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a
capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood
should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and
to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration
of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what
they owe to themselves. The following elements distinguish the legal
profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-
product, and in which one may attain the highest eminence
without making much money;
2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the administration of
justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business
methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or
dealing directly with their clients.
Moreover, what aggravated the act committed by the respondent is
the act of advertising himself as a self-styled annulment of marriage
specialist which in effect wittingly or unwittingly erodes the and
undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of an
institution that is considered sacrosanct by the law, that is marriage.
For a proper solicitation of legal business, it must be compatible with
the dignity of legal profession. Thus, the use of simple signs stating
the name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address
and fields of practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals
bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use of calling
cards is now acceptable.

CANON 4 PARTICIPATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

LEGAL SYSTEM

Cordova v. Labayen, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033, October 10, 1995

Facts:

A judgment was rendered against the complainants Cordova

ordering their ejectment and payment of rentals until they have
vacated the subject lots. Pursuant to such judgment, a writ of
execution was issued by the court. However, Atty. Sabio with
complainants Cordova, filed an administrative complaint against
respondents seeking their disbarment, dismissal and disqualification
from office, claiming that having filed a supersedeas bond, the writ of
execution should not have been issued.

Issue: Whether or not the administrative complaint filed by Atty.

Sabio is violative of Canon 1, Rules 1.02 and 1.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Held:
 Yes. The court is convinced that the issuance of the writ of
execution was done in the valid and judicious exercise of the
functions and duties of respondent judges. There is no evidence to
prove the charge filed by Atty. Sabio. Such filing of totatlly baseless
and unfounded charges against judges and court personnel in a vain
attempt to escape the dire consequences of their own negligence or in
an effort to transgress the lawful orders of the court is reprehensible.

As an officer of the court, a lawyer has the sworn duty to assist

in, not to impede or pervert, the administration of justice. The present
administrative charge seeks to cast doubt on the integrity of
respondent judges, the judicial personnel and the court which they
represent, in flagrant abdication of the bounden responsibility of a
lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice.
Atty. Sabio thus deserves to be punished for instigating the filing of
an administrative complaint by his clients, in the guise of upholding
their rights but actually to frustrate the enforcement of lawful court
orders and consequently obstruct the desirable norms and course of
justice.

Wherefore, Atty. Sabio is suspended from practice of law for six

months.

Dulalia v. Atty. Cruz, A.C. No, 6854, April 25, 2007

Facts:

The respondent Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, was being charged with the
violation of Rules 1.01, 6.02, 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by complainant Juan Dulalia. The complainant alleged
that when his wife Susan Soriano Dulalia applied for the building
permit for the construction of a warehouse despite compliance with
the requirements for the purpose, she failed to secure a permit due to
the opposition of the respondent which the complainant attributed to
the personal grudge of the respondent against his wife Susan Dulalia
who objected to respondents marrying her first cousin, Imelda
Soriano while respondents first marriage with Carolina Agaton was
still subsisting. Upon the investigation of the IBP, the latter
recommended for the dismissal of the complaint. Hence, the petition
for review before the Supreme Court. The Complainant maintains
among others that respondent violated Rule 1.01 when he contracted
a second marriage with Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 while
his marriage with Carolina Agaton, which was solemnized on
December 17, 1967, is still subsisting. The respondent invokes good
faith, as he claims to have had the impression that the applicable
provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code.

Issue: Whether or not respondent can be made liable for violation of

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Responsibility for contracting second
marriage

Held:
Yes. Respondent married Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 at
the Clark County, Nevada, USA, when the Family Code of the
Philippines had already taken effect. Respondent's claim that he was
not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3, 1988
as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he
came back to the Philippines together with his second wife on
October 9, 1990 does not lie, as "ignorance of the law excuses no one
from compliance therewith." As settled in the case of Santiago v.
Rafanan, is that lawyers are expected to be in the forefront in the
observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with
it the obligation to be well informed of the existing laws and to keep
abreast with the legal developments, recent enactments and
jurisprudence.