CANON 3 CANON 5

DACANAY v. BAKER & MCKENZIE

(G.R. No. L-41862, February 7, 1992) DE ROY v. COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988)
FACTS:
A case is filed by complainant Adriano E. Dacanay against Juan G. Collas Jr. FACTS:
and nine other lawyers engaging the practice of law under the firm name Baker & The firewall of a burned out building owned by petitioners collapsed and
Mckenzie. In November 16, 1979, one of the respondent lawyers, Vicente A. Torres sent destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of the private respondents resulting in
a letter using the Baker & Mckenzie letterhead to Rosie Clurman, a client of herein injuries to private respondents had been warned by petitioners to vacate their shop in
complainant, demanding the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do. In the RTC,
H.E. Gabriel, a client of herein respondents. Complainant’s response to the letter denied petitioners were found guilty of gross negligence. On the last day of the 15 days period to
any liability of Clurman to respondent’s client. He also questioned respondent’s use of a file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was again denied. The
letterhead belonging to a different law office. Not receiving a reply, complainant filed the Supreme Court finds that Court of Appeal did not commit a grave abuse of discretion
instant case assailing the respondent’s use of a foreign law office name. when it denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. It correctly applied the rule laid
down in Habulaya’s vs Japzon. Counsel for petitioner contends that the said case should
ISSUE: not be applied non-publication in the Official Gazette.
Whether or not herein respondents violated Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. ISSUE:
Whether or not Supreme Court decisions must be published in the Official
HELD: Gazette before they can be binding.
Yes, the use of a foreign law office name is misleading towards the public and
the clients. Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “In the choice HELD:
of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The continued use of There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decision in the
the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming
communications that said partner is deceased.” The respondents, being associates of the effective. It is bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of
firm Baker & Mckenzie are not authorized to use the said firm’s name which may tend to decisions of the Supreme Court as embedded in Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
mislead clients. Respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a Responsibility, particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated and
representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the published in the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions and in such publications as
highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade the SCRA and law journals.
and investment." This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to
practice law here.
 CANON 9 his clients, he apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind consideration, pardon and
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. & GARCIA v. ATTY. REVILLA, JR. forgiveness.
(A.C. No. 7056, February 11, 2009)
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not respondent guilty of violating the attorney’s oath, Canon 9 and
A Petition for Disbarment was filed by Plus Builders Inc. and Edgardo C. Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Garcia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Anastacio E.
Revilla, Jr. for committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court; misusing HELD:
court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment; and collaborating The Court held that Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby found guilty of gross
with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. misconduct. Taking the cudgels from the former lawyer in this case is rather
commendable, but respondent should not forget his first and foremost responsibility as an
On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator officer of the court. In support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to
of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law. This obligation,
tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al., who were the clients of respondent Atty. however, is not to be performed at the expense of truth and justice. This is the criterion
Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondent’s clients were mere tenants that must be borne in mind in every exertion a lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code
and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the way of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
up to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining complainant’s rights over the land. administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding
Continuing to pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent was found to have committed execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes. After a careful consideration of
intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the herein respondent’s motion for reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his
execution of the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary misfeasance, the Court was persuaded to extend a degree of leniency towards the
restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. respondent by reducing his suspension period from two years to six months.
Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law –
holding themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm. PCGG vs Sandiganbayan, et al

G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005

Respondent denied all allegations and believes that the courses of action he took
were valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights and interests of Facts:
Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. The lawyer-client relationship with the former lawyer was
terminated because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their former counsel did not On February 1991, Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoz, who has currently

explain/argue their position very well, refused to listen to them and, in fact, even resumed the private practice of law, was sought to be disqualified from representing the

castigated them. As the new counsel, respondent relied on what the tenants/farmers told Lucio Tan group, in the 1987 case involving General Bank and Trust Company

him in the course of his interview. He avers that he merely exhausted all possible (GENBANK) as one of those properties subject to a writ of sequestration by PCGG being

remedies and defenses to which his clients were entitled under the law. He submitted that alleged to be ill –gotten wealth acquired during the Marcos Regime. It was averred by the

if he was indeed guilty of violating the rules in the courses of action he took in behalf of PCGG that there exists an adverse interest on Mendoza since he was the one who filed a
petition praying for assistance and supervision of the court in the liquidation of “matter” of the special proceeding, therefore, is not the same nor is related to
GENBANK when he was still a Solicitor General, which bank was subsequently owned but is different from the subject “matter” in the civil case. The civil case
by the Lucio Tan group when it submitted the winning bid. involves the sequestration of the stocks owned by respondents Tan, et al., in
Allied Bank on the alleged ground that they are ill-gotten. The case does not
PCGG invokes Rule 6.03of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits
involve the liquidation of GENBANK. Nor does it involve the sale of
former government lawyers from accepting “engagement or employment in connection
GENBANK to Allied Bank. Whether the shares of stock of the reorganized
with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.”
Allied Bank are ill-gotten is far removed from the issue of the dissolution and

Sandiganbayan rejects PCGG’s motion by arguing that CGG failed to prove the existence liquidation of GENBANK. GENBANK was liquidated by the Central Bank

of an inconsistency between respondent Mendoza’s former function as Solicitor General due, among others, to the alleged banking malpractices of its owners and

and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group and that Mendoza’s officers.

appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one-year prohibited
period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor 3) Mendoza’s intervention in the liquidation of Genbank is not substantial and

General in the year 1986. significant to warrant disqualification.

The petition in the special proceedings is an initiatory pleading, hence, it has to
Issue: WON Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent be signed by respondent Mendoza as the then sitting Solicitor General. For
Mendoza another, the record is arid as to the actual participation of respondent Mendoza
in the subsequent proceedings. Moreover, the petition filed merely seeks
Ruling:
the assistance of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role
No, Rule 6.03 of the CPR is inapplicable in the case. Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after of the court in this type of proceedings is to assist the Central Bank in
leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with determining claims of creditors against the GENBANK.
any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. The motion for It is worthy to note that in construing the words of such rule in this case, the Court
disqualification should be dismissed for the following reasons: balanced the two policy considerations of having a chilling effect on government
recruitment of able legal talent and the use of former government employment as
1) After discussing the history of the present Code of Professional Responsibility
a litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel.
which revealed that the word “intervene” is applicable to both adverse interest
conflicts and congruent interest conflicts, it has been found that neither of these
conflicts exists in the liquidation case and the sequestration case.
PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN
2) The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration
cases. *kalokohan na kaso to, 140++ pages (disclaimer) main decision – 28 pages lang
The “matter” where he got himself involved was in informing Central Bank on ** merong history of Rule 6.03 and other historical stuff sa case
the procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK through the courts and
in filing the necessary petition in the then Court of First Instance. The subject Facts:
  1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
difficulties. Central Bank extended loans to Genbank in the hope of Responsibility.
rehabilitating it (P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed to recover.  The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the
 1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbank’s assets matter involved in the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group.
was held with the Lucio Tan Group winning the bid. Solicitor General  The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important.
Mendoza, representing the government, intervened with the liquidation of The role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial.
Genbank.  SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion
 1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth to disqualify Mendoza. Apparently, PCGG already lost a lot of cases against
of Marcos, his family and cronies. Mendoza. Kyle’s interpretation: PCGG getting desperate
 1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta  Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6.03 will
marami sila). In relation to this case, PCGG issued several writs of make it harder for the government to get good lawyers in the future to work for
sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents by taking them because of the prohibition of accepting cases in the future that were
advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos. Sandiganbayan related to one’s work as a government counsel.
heard the case.
 Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented the Concurring Opinions:
respondents.  Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 should have a
 1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his participation prescriptive period
in the liquidation of Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is one of the  Tinga: Rule 6.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza (when he was Solicitor
properties that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from the Lucion Tan group. General, no Rule 6.03 yet)
PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Bottom line, they are all questioning the unfairness of the rule if applied without
 Sandiganbayan denied PCGG’s motion. According to the Sandiganbayan, any prescriptive period and if applied retroactively
Mendoza did not take an adverse position to that taken on behalf of the Central
Bank. And Mendoza’s appearance as counsel was beyond the 1 year prohibitory Notes:
period since he retired in 1986.  Adverse-interest conflicts – where the matter in which the former government
lawyer represents a client in private practice is substantially related to a matter
Issue: that the lawyer dealt with while employed with the government and the interests
 W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito of the current and former are adverse
Mendoza  Congruent-interest conflicts – the use of the word “conflict” is a misnomer, it
does not involve conflicts at all, as it prohibits lawyers from representing a
Held: private person even if the interests of the former government client and the new
 No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed. client are entirely parallel
 rd
The matter (see 3 note), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising  Matter – any discrete, isolatable act as well as indentifiable transaction or
the Central Bank on how to proceed with the liquidation of Genbank. This is not conduct involving a particular situation and specific party
 Intervention – interference that may affect the interests of others function as SolGen and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan
group. PCGGs recourse to this court assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN
ISSUE
FACTS
Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent
In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial Mendoza. The prohibition states: “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
difficulties. GENBANK had extended considerable financial support to Filcapital accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
Development Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current account intervened while in the said service.”
with Central Bank. Despite the mega loans GENBANK failed to recover from its
financial woes. The Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and HELD
unable to resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and the general public,
and ordering its liquidation. A public bidding of GENBANK’s assets was held where The case at bar does not involve the “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6.03. Respondent
Lucio Tan group submitted the winning bid. Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza filed a Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest problem when he acted as SOlGen and
petition with the CFI praying for the assistance and supervision of the court in later as counsel of respondents et.al. before the Sandiganbayan. However there is still the
GENBANK’s liquidation as mandated by RA 265. After EDSA Revolution I Pres issue of whether there exists a “congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify
Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of former Pres respondent Mendoza from representing respondents et. al. The key is unlocking the
Marcos, his family and cronies. Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG filed with the meaning of “matter” and the metes and bounds of “intervention” that he made on the
Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution against respondents matter. Beyond doubt that the “matter” or the act of respondent Mendoza as SolGen
Lucio Tan, at.al. PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly involved in the case at bar is “advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said
acquired by them by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with bank’s liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation in CFI of Manila. The
former Pres. Marcos. The abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al are represented as their Court held that the advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate
counsel, former Solicitor General Mendoza. PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent GENBANK is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing that “drafting,
Mendoza as then Sol Gen and counsel to Central Bank actively intervened in the enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations and laws, or
liquidation of GENBANK which was subsequently acquired by respondents Tan et. al., briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the scope of the term
which subsequently became Allied Banking Corporation. The motions to disqualify “matter” and cannot disqualify. Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision
invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits former of the Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He also did not participate in the sale of
government lawyers from accepting “engagement” or employment in connection with GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue
any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service. The Sandiganbayan in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the
issued a resolution denyting PCGG’s motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza. It failed dissolution and liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional
to prove the existence of an inconsistency between respondent Mendoza’s former Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention
while SolGen is an intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in the
Civil case of sequestration. In the metes and bounds of the “intervention”. The applicable FACTS:
meaning as the term is used in the Code of Professional Ethics is that it is an act of a
person who has the power to influence the subject proceedings. The evil sought to be Rose Bunagan-Bansig filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera
remedied by the Code do not exist where the government lawyer does not act which can for Gross Immoral Conduct.
be considered as innocuous such as “ drafting, enforcing, or interpreting government or
agency procedures, regulations or laws or briefing abstract principles of law.” The court On May 8, 1997, Atty. Celera and Gracemarie R. Bunagan (Bunagan), entered into a
rules that the intervention of Mendoza is not significant and substantial. He merely contract of marriage, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage
petitions that the court gives assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. The role of issued by the City Civil Registry of Manila. Bansig is the sister of Gracemarie, legal wife
court is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in of respondent. However, Atty. Celera contracted another marriage on January 8, 1998
determining the claims of creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the SolGen is not with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the
that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest of government. certificate of marriage issued by the City Registration Officer of San Juan, Manila.
Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is denied.
Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo: Bansig stressed that the marriage between Atty. Celera and Bunagan was still valid and in
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics: “ A lawyer, full legal existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first
having once held public office or having been in the public employ, should not after his marriage had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority.
retirement accept employment in connection with any matter which he has investigated or
passed upon while in such office or employ.” Despite repeated summons and resolutions issued by the Court, Atty. Celera failed to
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his public position as a vehicle properly answer the complaint. The complaint dragged on for over a decade.
to promote or advance his private interests extends beyond his tenure on certain matters
in which he intervened as a public official. Rule 6.03 makes this restriction specifically ISSUE:
applicable to lawyers who once held public office.” A plain reading shows that the
interdiction 1. applies to a lawyer who once served in the government and 2. relates to his Whether or not Atty. Celera is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and willful
accepting “engagement or employment” in connection with any matter in which he had disobedience of lawful orders.
intervened while in the service.
RULING:

Yes. In the instant case, there is a preponderance of evidence that respondent contracted a
A.C. No. 5581 January 14, 2014 second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage.
ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A.
CELERA, Respondent. The certified xerox copies of the marriage contracts, issued by a public officer in custody
thereof, are admissible as the best evidence of their contents, as provided for under
Legal Ethics: Rule 1.01, Canon 7; Rule 7.03 Section 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the name cannot, however, feign ignorance that there is a complaint against him that is pending
of respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed before this Court which he could have easily obtained a copy had he wanted to.
bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar.
Clearly, respondent's acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is in itself alone a
sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment. Respondent’s cavalier attitude in
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the
deceitful conduct. judicial institution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. We
have repeatedly held that a Court’s Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request,
Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively." Respondent’s
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in
his character; it also underscores his disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which is only
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his too deserving of reproof."
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. Considering respondent's propensity to disregard not only the laws of the land but also
the lawful orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character,
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a honesty, probity and good demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an officer of
member of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding the court.
respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is
subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under The respondent ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA is guilty of grossly immoral
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. conduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of continuing
membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of
This case cannot be fully resolved, however, without addressing rather respondent’s law and his name stricken of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
defiant stance against the Court as demonstrated by his repetitive disregard of its
Resolution requiring him to file his comment on the complaint. This case has dragged on CASE DOCTRINE RULING

since 2002. In the span of more than 10 years, the Court has issued numerous directives
for respondent's compliance, but respondent seemed to have pre-selected only those he 1. In Re: Ramon - The court disbarred Respondents

will take notice of and the rest he will just ignore. The Court has issued several Galang Lanuevo – has no were

resolutions directing respondent to comment on the complaint against him, yet, to this authority to request disbarred.

day, he has not submitted any answer thereto. He claimed to have not received a copy of Administrative the examiners to re-

the complaint, thus, his failure to comment on the complaint against him. Ironically, proceeding against evaluate grades of

however, whenever it is a show cause order, none of them have escaped respondent's Victorio Lanuevo examinees w/o prior

attention. Even assuming that indeed the copies of the complaint had not reached him, he for disbarment. authority from
1. Admitted having Supreme Court. He in 5 subjects namely application to take the
brought the five does not possess any in (Political, Civil, Bar examinations of
examination discretion with Mercantile, the fact that he had
notebooks of respect to the matter Criminal & been with, or indicted
Ramon E. Galang of admission of Remedial). for an alleged crime,
back to the examinees to the bar. 4. Galang on the as a ground for
respective He does not a have otherhand, denied of revocation of his
examiners for re- any business having charged of license to practice
evalution or re- evaluating the Slight Physical law, is well settled
checking. answers of the Injuries on
2. The five examiners examinees. Eufrosino de Vera, a
admitted having re- - Consequently, Galang law student of
evaluated or re- was also disbarred MLQU.
checked the Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of
notebook to him by the Revised Rules of
the Bar Confidant, Curt of 1964,
stating that he has candidates for
the authority to do admission to the bar A.C. No. 10031 July 23, 2014

the same and that must be of good

RAUL M. FRANCIA vs. ATTY. REYNALDO V. ABDON
the examinee moral character.
concerned failed Galang has a pending FACTS: November 2006, he had a meeting with the respondent at the Makati Cinema
only in his particular criminal cases of Square to seek his assistance with respect to a pending case in the Court of Appeals (CA)
subject and was on Physical Injuries, he involving the labor union of Nueva Ecija III Electric Cooperative (NEECO III). The said
the borderline of committed perjury case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 96096 and raffled to the 6th Division then chaired
passing. when he declared by Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Justices Edgardo Sundiam (Justice Sundiam) and
3. Ramon galang was under oath that he had Celia Librea-Leagogo as members. The respondent, who is a LA at the National Labor
able to pass the no pending criminal Relations Commission, San Fernando, Pampanga, told the complainant that he can
1971 bar exam case this resulted him facilitate, expedite and ensure the release of a favorable decision, particularly the award
because of to revoked his of assets and management of NEECO III to the union. To bolster his representation, he
Lanuevo’s move but license. told him that the same regional office where he was assigned had earlier rendered a
the exam results - concealment of an decision in favor of the labor union and against the National Electrification
bears that he failed attorney in his Administration.4 With the respondent’s assurance, the complainant yielded. In December
2006, the complainant met the respondent to discuss their plan and timetable in securing
a favorable ruling from the CA. The respondent told him that in order to facilitate the told him that the properties of NEECO III were sold at public auction but the union
release of such favorable decision, the union must produce the amount of P1,000,000.00, members were yet to obtain the proceeds because of a temporary restraining order issued
a considerable portion of which is intended for Justice Sundiam, the ponente of the case by the CA. He inquired if he knew anyone from the CA who can help the union members
and the two member justices of the division, while a fraction thereof is allotted to his in their case as he was assisting them in following up their case. The respondent
costs. Shortly thereafter, the complainant met the respondent again and handed him the answered in the negative but told him that he can refer him to his former client, a certain
amount of P350,000.00,which was raised out of the individual contributions of the Jaime "Jimmy" Vistan (Vistan), who may be able to help him. At that very moment, he
members of the union, as partial payment for the agreed amount and undertook to pay the called Vistan using his mobile phone and relayed to him the complainant’s predicament.
balance as soon as the union is finally allowed to manage and operate the electric After giving Vistan a brief background of the case, he handed the mobile phone to the
cooperative. In turn, the respondent assured him that a favorableruling will be rendered complainant, who expounded on the details. After their conversation,the complainant told
by the CA in no time. A week before Christmas of the same year, the complainant made him that he will be meeting Vistan on the following day and asked him if he could
several follow-ups with the respondent about the status of the decision. In response to his accompany him. He politely declined and just gave him Vistan’s mobile number so that
inquiries, the respondent would tell him that: (1) the decision is being routed for signature they can directlycommunicate with each other.14
of the members of the three-man CA division; (2) the lady justice was the only one left to
Sometime thereafter, he received a call from Vistan who told him that he was given
sign; and (3) the lady justice went to a Christmas party and was not able to sign the
P350,000.00 as facilitation fee. After their conversation, he never heard from Vistan
decision. Ultimately, the promised favorable decision before the end of that year was not
again.15
issued by the CA, with no explanation from the respondent. On January 4, 2007, the
union was advised by their counsel that the CA has already rendered a decision on their In January 2007, he received a text from the complainant, asking him to call him through
case and the same was adverse to them. This infuriated the union members who then his landline. Over the phone, the complainant told him about his arrangement with
turned to the complainant and demanded for the return of the 350,000.00 that they raised Vistan insecuring a favorable decision for the union but the latter failed to do his
as respondent’s facilitation fee. The respondent promised to return the money but asked undertaking. The complainant blamed him for the misfortune and even suspected that he
for a few weeks to do so. After two weeks, the respondent turned over the amount of was in connivance with Vistan, which he denied. The complainant then asked for his help
P100,000.00, representing the unspent portion of the money given to him and promised to to recover the money he gave to Vistan.
pay the balance of P250,000.00 as soon as possible. The respondent, however, reneged on
his promise and would not even advise the complainant of the reason for his failure to
return the money. Thus, the complainant was constrained to give his car to the union to
ISUUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of Violation of lawyers oath and Code of
settle the remaining balance which the respondent failed to return
professional responsibility?

He admitted that he had a chance meeting with the complainant at the Makati Cinema
In the Report and Recommendation18 of the IBP-CBD dated September 30, 2008, the
Square in December 2006. Since they have not seen each other for a long time, they had a
Investigating Commissioner recommended for the dismissal of the complaint, holding
short conversation over snacks upon the complainant’s invitation. In the course of their
that there is no proof that the respondent received money from the complainant.19 The
conversation, the complainant asked if he knew of the case involving the union of the
report reads, as follows:
NEECO III. He told him that he was not familiar with the details but knew that the same
is already pending execution before the office of LA Mariano Bactin. The complainant The case is dismissible.
There is no proof that respondent Reynaldo Abdon received any amount of money from Also, the respondent, as a member of the legal profession, has a further responsibility to
complainant Raul Francia. safeguard the dignity of the courts which the public perceives as the bastion of justice.
Hemust at all times keep its good name untarnished and not be instrumental to its
While it is true that respondentReynaldo Abdon admitted that he introduced the
disrepute. In Berbano v. Atty. Barcelona,36 the Court reiterated the bounden duty of
complainant to Jaime Vistan, there is no proof that the respondent received any money
lawyers to keep the reputation of the courts unscathed, thus:
from the complainant Raul Francia or from Jaime Vistan.
A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, "like the court itself, an instrument or agency to
The case is now before this Court for confirmation.
advance the endsof justice.["] [x x x] His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of

"It is well to remember that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the the courts to which he owes fidelity, ["]not to promote distrust inthe administration of

complainant. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the justice." [x x x] Faith in the courts a lawyer should seek to preserve. For, to undermine

respondent must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof." the judicial edifice "is disastrous to the continuity of the government and to the
attainment of the liberties of the people." [x x x] Thus has it been said of a lawyer that
In Aba v. De Guzman, Jr.,27 the Court reiterated that a preponderance of evidence is "[a]s an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy
necessary before a lawyer maybe held administratively liable, to wit: unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper
administration of justice."37
Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of
the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to A strong and independent judiciary is one of the key elements in the orderly
justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar. administration of justice. It holds a revered status in the society as the public perceives it
as the authority of what is proper and just, and abides by its pronouncements. Thus, it
After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the
must keep its integrity inviolable and this entails that the members of the judiciary be
evidence submitted by the complainant fell short of the required quantum of proof. Aside
extremely circumspect in their actions, whether in their public or personal dealings.
from bare allegations, no evidence was presented to convincingly establish that the
Nonetheless, the duty to safeguard the good name of the judiciary is similarly required
respondent engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct, particularly in extortion and
from all the members of the legal profession. The respondent, however, compromised the
influence-peddling.
integrity of the judiciary by his
Thus, while the respondent may not have received money from the complainant, the fact
association with a scoundrel who earns a living by dishonoring the court and maliciously
is that he has made himself instrumental to Vistan’s illegal activity. In doing so, he has
imputing corrupt motives on its members.
exposed the legal profession to undeserved condemnation and invited suspicion on the
integrity of the judiciary for which he must be imposed with a disciplinary sanction. The Court reiterates its directive tothe members of the Bar to be mindful of the sheer
responsibilities thatattach to their profession. They must maintain high standards of legal
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a "lawyer shall at all
proficiency, aswell as morality including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. For, they are
times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession." For, the strength of the
at all times subject to the scrutinizing eye of publicopinion and community approbation.
legal profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its members.35 It is every lawyer’s
Needless to state, those whose conduct – both public and private – fails this scrutiny
duty to maintain the high regard to the profession by staying trueto his oath and keeping
would have to bedisciplined and, after appropriate proceedings, penalized accordingly.38
his actions beyond reproach.
WHEREFORE, for having committed an act which compromised the public’s trust in the In re: 2003 Bar Examinations
justice system, Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon is hereby SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law
for a period of ONE (1) MONTH effective upon receipt of this Decision, with a STERN
B.M. No. 1222, February 4, 2004.
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with
severely.
Per Curiam
IN RE: VICTORIO LANUEVO(former Bar confidant)
RAMON GALANG (1971 Bar Examinee) flunked in 1969, 1966-76, 1962-64 Bar exam
FACTS:
FACTS:
Administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanuevo for disbarment.
On September 22, 2003, there was a rumored leakage in the bar examination on the
1. Admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back Mercantile Law subject. Investigation was lead back to the office of Atty. Marcial O.T.
to the respective examiners for re-evalution or re-checking. Balgos, then Mercantile Law Examiner, where the leakage started. Allegedly, Atty.
2. The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the notebook to him Danilo de Guzman (assistant lawyer in the firm of Balgos and Perez) stole a copy of Atty.
by the Bar Confidant, stating that he has the authority to do the same and that the Balgos’ file on Mercantile Law with the proposed test items, and the former sent it to
examinee concerned failed only in his particular subject and was on the borderline of some members of the Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity.
passing.
3. Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevo’s move but
ISSUE:
the exam results bears that he failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political, Civil,
Mercantile, Criminal & Remedial).
4. Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged of Slight Physical Injuries on WON Atty. Balgos and Atty. de Guzman are guilty of gross misconduct unbecoming a

Eufrosino de Vera, a law student of MLQU. member of the Bar.

RULING:
RULING:
The court disbarred Lanuevo – has no authority to request the examiners to re-evaluate
grades of examinees w/o prior authority from Supreme Court.
Yes. De Guzman abetted cheating or dishonesty by his fraternity brothers in the
He does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of admission of examinees examination, which is violative of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of the Code
to the bar. He does not a have any business evaluating the answers of the examinees. of Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar. As for Atty. Balgos’ negligence, if
Consequently, Galang was also disbarred Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Curt he had taken those simple precautions to protect the secrecy of his papers, nobody could

of 1964, candidates for admission to the bar must be of good moral character. Galang have stolen them and copied and circulated them. The integrity of the bar examinations
has a pending criminal cases of Physical Injuries, he committed perjury when he declared would not have been sullied by the scandal.

under oath that he had no pending criminal case this resulted him to revoked his license.