Case Title and

Facts Issues Ruling Canons and Rules Used

Citation
Manalang hired Atty. Buendia to expedite
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (unlawful,
the nullity of his marriage for ₱275,000.00
GUILTY of violating the Code of dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
in fees. Manalang paid ₱225,000.00. Atty.
Manalang vs. Professional Responsibility (CPR). conduct); Canon 1, Rule 1.02 (abet
Buendia later gave Manalang a copy of a Whether Atty. Buendia should
Atty. DISBARRED and ordered to return defiance of law or lessen confidence
decision and a Certificate of Finality from be disbarred for
BuendiaA.C. No. ₱270,000.00 plus interest. She in legal system); Canon 18, Rule
the RTC in Ballesteros, Cagayan. misrepresentations and
12079, 10 deliberately misled and deceived her 18.03 (neglect legal matter); Canon
Manalang discovered no case was filed deceiving her client.
November 2020 client by fabricating a court 18, Rule 18.04 (keep client
for the dissolution of his marriage and the
decision. informed); Rule 16.01 (account for
documents were fabricated. Atty. Buendia
money).
claimed she was only an intermediary.
Atty. Eliseo B. Ceniza, Jr. abandoned his
legitimate wife and two children in 2008 to
live and cohabit with Anna Fe Flores Should Atty. Ceniza be GUILTY of gross immorality. Rule 1.01 (unlawful, dishonest,
Ceniza vs. Atty.
Binoya, a married woman. Evidence, disciplined for gross DISBARRED from the practice of immoral or deceitful conduct); Rule
CenizaA.C. No.
including affidavits from his daughter and immorality/immoral conduct law. Abandonment of family to 7.03 (conduct adversely reflects on
8335, 10 April
others, showed he frequently stayed for abandoning his family to cohabit with a married person is fitness to practice law/scandalous
2019
overnight at Binoya's house and was seen cohabit with a married woman. gross immorality. manner).
half-naked there. Atty. Ceniza denied
having an illicit relationship.
Atty. Oblena was charged with rape, but
the investigation found the sexual relations
(resulting in a child) were repeated and
consensual. Atty. Oblena admitted to illicit GUILTY. His name was
relations with the complainant, Josefina STRICKEN from the roll of Requires maintenance of good
Whether Atty. Oblena's illicit
Royong (his common-law wife's niece), attorneys. His conduct showed moral character. (The ruling relies
Royong vs. Atty. relations and open adulterous
and had been continuously living moral depravity and unfitness for on general principles of moral
OblenaA.C. No. cohabitation constitute
adulterously with Briccia Angeles (a the profession, especially as he character and fitness, pre-dating the
376, 30 April 1963 sufficient grounds for
married woman) since 1942. He allegedly schemed to avoid criminal liability formal Code of Professional
disbarment.
filed a false petition for the bar stating he (waiting until the complainant was Responsibility).
was of "good moral character". He took 18).
advantage of his moral ascendancy over
Royong, who regarded him as an uncle
("tata").
 Atty. Artuz (then a Prosecutor) responded
to a request for her inhibition by filing a
comment where she willfully and viciously GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's
Lawyer's Oath; Canon 1, Rule
maligned, insulted, and scorned Atty. Whether Atty. Artuz violated Oath and several Canons.
Atty. Nava vs. 1.01; Canon 7; Canon 8 (courtesy,
Nava II and his father, calling them the CPR by using abusive DISBARRED. Her use of
Atty. ArtuzA.C. fairness, avoid harassing tactics);
"barbaric, nomadic, and outrageous". She language and exhibiting intemperate language and aspersions
No. 7253, 18 Rule 8.01 (avoid abusive, offensive
also baselessly imputed that Atty. Nava II conduct unbecoming of a violates the mandate of courtesy and
February 2020 language); Canon 10, Rule 10.01;
was using influence as the godson of the lawyer (A.C. No. 7253). dignity toward professional
Canon 11.
City Prosecutor. (Case consolidated with colleagues.
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 involving
dishonesty in her PDS).
Atty. Tumanda borrowed ₱500,000.00
from Andaya and issued a worthless, post- GUILTY of violating Canon 1.
Canon 1 (uphold law); Rule 1.01
dated check (account closed). He then SUSPENDED from the practice of
Whether Atty. Tumanda (unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
Andaya vs. Atty. executed a Deed of Sale over his car as law for THREE (3) YEARS.
violated the CPR for issuing a deceitful conduct); Canon 7 (uphold
TumandaA.C. payment but later sold the same car to a Issuing a worthless check, acting in
worthless check, defrauding integrity and dignity); Rule 7.03
No. 12209, 18 third party. Atty. Tumanda deliberately bad faith by selling the car twice,
complainant regarding the car, (conduct adversely reflects on fitness
February 2020 failed to settle his obligation, repeatedly and evading responsibility
and evading obligations. to practice law); Violation of Batas
changed addresses to evade service, and constituted deceitful and grossly
Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22).
failed to participate in the IBP misconduct.
proceedings.
Atty. Salvado convinced Aca to invest
money in his business. Atty. Salvado
issued post-dated checks totaling over ₱6 GUILTY. SUSPENDED from the
Whether Atty. Salvado violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (unlawful,
million, representing principal plus practice of law for two (2) years.
Aca vs. Atty. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon dishonest, immoral or deceitful
interest. The checks were subsequently Issuing worthless checks constitutes
SalvadoA.C. No. 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR by conduct); Canon 7, Rule 7.03
dishonored (insufficient funds/closed gross misconduct and indicates lack
10952, 26 January issuing worthless checks and (conduct adversely reflects on fitness
account). Atty. Salvado tried to evade of moral character, even when
2016 using deceitful ways to evade to practice law); Violation of B.P.
payment, instructed his staff to lie about unrelated to professional duties. His
obligations. 22.
his whereabouts, and refused to receive acts of evasion were dishonest.
demand letters. He later sold property to
the complainant.
Atty. Pe, an Assistant Provincial GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (unlawful,
Atty. Embido vs.
Prosecutor, facilitated the issuance of a Whether Atty. Pe was guilty of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7. dishonest, immoral or deceitful
Atty. PeA.C. No.
falsified court decision for a fee of grave misconduct for falsifying DISBARRED. Deliberate conduct); Canon 7 (uphold dignity
6732, 22 October
₱60,000.00. The decision was a forgery of a court decision. falsification of a court decision and integrity); Rule 7.03 (conduct
2013
a real case's format but used fake names reflects a high degree of moral adversely reflects on fitness to
 and facts. Atty. Pe invoked his right to turpitude and mocks the practice law); Lawyer’s Oath (do
remain silent during investigation. administration of justice. no falsehood).
Atty. Ferrer, Sr. imputed falsification onto
Atty. Barandon, Jr. in a legal pleading GUILTY of violating Canon 8 and Canon 8 (courtesy, fairness, avoid
using abusive, offensive, and improper Canon 7. SUSPENDED from the harassing tactics); Rule 8.01 (avoid
**Barandon, Jr. v. Whether Atty. Ferrer violated
language. Furthermore, Atty. Ferrer, while practice of law for one (1) year. A abusive, offensive language); Canon
Ferrer, Sr.**A.C. professional ethics through
allegedly drunk in the courthouse, shouted lawyer must use dignified language; 7 (uphold dignity and integrity);
No. 5768, March abusive language, threats, and
threats and invectives at Atty. Barandon, the use of intemperate language is Rule 7.03 (conduct adversely
26, 2010 scandalous behavior.
saying things like, "Laban kung laban, conduct unbecoming a member of reflects on fitness to practice
patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat the legal profession. law/scandalous manner).
ng pamilya...".
Atty. Calayan engaged in the
indiscriminate, relentless filing of
numerous pleadings, motions, and GUILTY of violating the CPR and
Lawyer's Oath; Canon 8 (courtesy,
administrative, civil, and criminal cases Lawyer's Oath. STERNLY
fairness, avoid harassing tactics);
Hon. De Leon- against judges (including Judge Diaz and WARNED (no separate penalty
Whether Atty. Calayan's Canon 10, Rule 10.03 (observe
Diaz vs. Atty. Judge Alpajora) and opposing imposed, due to prior penalty for the
rampant and incessant filing of rules of procedure, don't misuse
CalayanA.C. No. parties/counsels involved in his intra- same conduct in Alpajora v.
suits and pleadings constituted them); Canon 12 (assist in speedy
9252, 28 corporate dispute (CEFI case). This Calayan). His actions demonstrated
misconduct violating the CPR. administration of justice); Rule
November 2019 harassing conduct led to judges inhibiting a "rebellious, disruptive, and
12.04 (not unduly delay case, misuse
themselves and hindered the boisterous attitude" and grossly
court processes).
administration of justice. He even sent abused court processes.
Judge Diaz an advanced copy of a
complaint he filed against her.
Atty. Calayan relentlessly filed repetitive
and baseless pleadings and multiple cases
Lawyer's Oath; Canon 8, Rule
(civil, criminal, administrative) against
GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's 8.01; Canon 10, Rule 10.01-10.03;
opposing parties, their counsels, and Whether Atty. Calayan's
Ret. Judge Oath and CPR. SUSPENDED from Canon 11 (respect due to courts);
judges handling his intra-corporate case. harassing litigation, dishonesty,
Alpajora vs. Atty. the practice of law for two (2) Rule 11.04 (not attribute
He attributed unsupported ill-motives and misrepresentation, and
CalayanA.C. No. years. Filing cases against opposing unsupported motives to Judge);
partiality to Judge Alpajora, alleging the disrespect towards the judge
8208, 10 January counsel showed malice. Unfounded Canon 12, Rule 12.02 (not file
judge was coaching adverse counsel and warranted
2018 charges against the judge violated multiple actions); Canon 12, Rule
acting without legal basis. He also discipline/disbarment.
the duty to maintain respect. 12.04 (not unduly delay case/misuse
committed misrepresentation by
court processes).
misquoting and misinterpreting legal
provisions.
 Atty. Battung shouted at Judge Baculi
during a court hearing, arguing a motion. GUILTY of violating Rule 11.03,
Judge Baculi vs. When warned, he shouted, "Then cite me!" Canon 11. SUSPENDED from the
Whether Atty. Battung violated Canon 11 (observe and maintain
Atty. and was cited for contempt. He then re- practice of law for one (1) year. His
the CPR by shouting, respect due the courts); Rule 11.03
BattungA.C. No. entered the courtroom and shouted threats scandalous, offensive, and menacing
threatening, and disrupting (abstain from scandalous, offensive
8920, 28 (e.g., "Judge, I will file gross ignorance behavior, disrespecting the judge
court proceedings. or menacing language or behavior).
September 2011 against you!") and challenged the judge and disrupting court proceedings,
outside. Atty. Battung claimed he was cannot be tolerated.
provoked by the judge.
Atty. Puti made discourteous remarks
against opposing counsel, calling private GUILTY of violating Canons 8 and
Canon 8; Rule 8.01 (avoid abusive,
prosecutor Atty. Tan "bakla" (gay) in a 11 and pertinent Rules.
offensive language); Canon 11;
Canete vs. Atty. derogatory manner. He also implied public Did Atty. Puti violate the CPR REPRIMANDED with a stern
Rule 11.03 (abstain from
PutiA.C. No. prosecutors were bribed ("Malaki siguro by using inappropriate language warning. Use of derogatory
scandalous, offensive or menacing
10949, 14 August bayad sa inyo"). He repeatedly bullied and and disrespecting the language against colleagues (Rule
language/behavior); Rule 11.04 (not
2019 threatened the judge in open court, court/judge. 8.01) and accusing the judge of bias
attribute unsupported motives to
accusing him of abuse of discretion, bias, (Rule 11.04) violated the dignity of
Judge).
and partiality, and threatened to the legal profession.
withdraw/walk out.
Atty. Rivera simulated a court decision Lawyer's Oath (do no falsehood);
granting annulment and a certificate of GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (unlawful,
Madria vs. Atty. finality for his client, Madria, after Violation of the Lawyer's Oath. dishonest, immoral or deceitful
Should Atty. Rivera be
RiveraA.C. No. receiving payment. Madria later learned DISBARRED. His conduct conduct); Canon 1, Rule 1.02;
disbarred for simulating court
11256, 07 March the decision was fabricated and the constituted criminal falsification and Canon 15 (candor, fairness, loyalty);
documents.
2017 original case had been dismissed. Atty. breached the high standards of Rule 15.07 (impress compliance
Rivera claimed he created the simulation honesty required in the profession. with laws); Canon 17 (fidelity to
only upon Madria's request. client cause).
Atty. Valdes (CPA-lawyer), acting as
lawyer/accountant for Jose Nakpil’s estate, GUILTY of misconduct.
held the Moran property in trust for the Whether Atty. Valdes violated SUSPENDED from the practice of
Nakpil v.
Nakpils. Atty. Valdes subsequently professional ethics by excluding law for one (1) year. He violated Canon 17 (fidelity to client cause);
ValdesA.C. No.
excluded this property from the estate trust property from the estate fidelity to his client's cause, Canon 15 (candor, fairness, loyalty
2040, March 4,
inventory and transferred title to his family and representing conflicting prioritizing his own pecuniary gain. in dealings).
1998
corporation. His accounting firm charged interests. He was guilty of representing
loans he took for the property against the conflicting interests.
estate. His firms also represented the estate
 while preparing claims against it for
creditors, presenting a conflict of interest.
Atty. Ailes sent text messages to his
GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 of
brother (the opposing party represented by
Canon 7 and Canon 8. Canon 7, Rule 7.03 (conduct
Atty. Noble III) insulting and maligning
Noble III vs. Whether Atty. Ailes violated ADMONISHED and STERNLY adversely reflects on fitness to
Atty. Noble III, referring to him as
Atty. AilesA.C. Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Canon WARNED. Use of intemperate practice law/scandalous manner);
"incompetent" and using the word
No. 10628, 01 8 by insulting opposing language and insulting opposing Canon 8 (courtesy, fairness, avoid
"polpol" (stupid) to dissuade the brother
July 2015 counsel. counsel constitutes unprofessional harassing tactics); Rule 8.01 (avoid
from retaining his services. Atty. Ailes
conduct, regardless of whether the abusive, offensive language).
later voluntarily pleaded guilty to unjust
communication was private.
vexation for texting insulting words.
Falcis, petitioner and counsel, challenged
Petition DISMISSED (lack of Lawyer's Oath; Code of
the constitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of
actual controversy and standing). Professional Responsibility
the Family Code. During the preliminary Whether the Petition was
Falcis III v. Civil Found GUILTY of Direct and (maintain respectful attitude,
conference, Falcis appeared in casual attire justiciable (lack of actual
Registrar Indirect Contempt. Falcis was dignity); Canon 17 (fidelity to client
(jacket, cropped jeans, loafers without controversy/standing). Also,
GeneralG.R. No. FINED P5,000.00; co-counsels and cause); Canon 18 (competence and
socks), failing to observe proper decorum. whether Falcis and co-counsels
217910, 03 July intervenor-oppositor Atty. Perito diligence); Rule 18.02 (adequate
He was found guilty of direct contempt. failed to observe court decorum
2018 REPRIMANDED and STERNLY preparation). (Rule 11.01 regarding
Later, he and his co-counsels failed to file and professional diligence.
WARNED for lack of diligence and proper attire is impliedly relevant for
their memorandum on time despite court
contemptuous acts. decorum).
order, further showing lack of diligence.

Case Case Title

Facts Issue(s) Ruling Canons and Rules Used
# (Citation Date)
Atty. Gadon recorded and disseminated Yes. Found GUILTY of Code of Professional Responsibility and
a video online using highly offensive, violating the Code of Accountability (CPRA): Canon II, Section
In Re: Atty. Whether Atty. Gadon
misogynistic, and obscene language Professional Responsibility 2 (Avoid scandalous behavior), Section 3
Lorenzo G. should be disbarred for his
("puki ng ina mo," "putang ina mo," and Accountability (CPRA) (Avoid harassment), Section 4 (Use of
1 Gadon (A.C. No. conduct in the viral video
"magpakantot ka sa aso") against and was DISBARRED. He dignified language/gender-fair language);
13521, June 27, and for his submissions to
journalist Raissa Robles for questioning was also found GUILTY of Canon II, Section 14 (Insinuation of
2023) the Court.
Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr.'s direct contempt of court for improper motive without evidence). Rules
taxes. He also filed motions seeking unfounded accusations of Court: Rule 71, Section 1 (Direct
 inhibition of Justices Leonen and against Justices and fined Contempt fine); Rule 137, Section 1
Caguioa, making unfounded ₱2,000.00. (Disqualification of judges); R.A. No.
accusations of partiality against them. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act).
Atty. Mallari, acting as counsel and Lawyer's Oath. Code of Professional
Whether Atty. Mallari
litigant, engaged in a series of Responsibility (CPR): Canon 10 (Candor,
wittingly violated the
worthless, vexatious legal maneuvers fairness to the court); Rule 10.03 (Observe
Lawyer's Oath and the Code Found GUILTY of violating
Eligio P. Mallari (e.g., requesting extensions, filing rules of procedure, not misuse them to
of Professional the Lawyer's Oath and several
v. GSIS (A.C. No. motion to quash, commencing a second defeat justice); Canon 12 (Assist in
3 Responsibility (CPR) by canons/rules. He was
11111, January case for consignation despite res speedy/efficient administration of justice);
deliberate disregard and suspended from the practice
10, 2018) judicata, filing motions for contempt) Rule 12.02 (Not file multiple actions arising
misuse of court processes to of law for two (2) years.
to obstruct the execution of a final and from the same cause); Rule 12.04 (Not
stall execution of a final
executory decision granting a writ of unduly delay a case, impede execution, or
judgment.
possession to GSIS. misuse Court processes).
The Court affirmed the IBP
findings: the name "Patrick
Whether the IBP erred in
Richard A. Caronan assumed the name, A. Caronan" (Roll No.
Patrick A. ordering that (a) the name
identity, and academic records 49069) was DROPPED and Rules of Court: Rule 138, Section 6 (Pre-
Caronan v. "Patrick A. Caronan" be
(specifically, from the University of STRICKEN OFF the Roll of law requirements/admission prerequisites).
Richard A. stricken off the Roll of
4 Makati) of his younger brother, Patrick Attorneys. Richard A. (Implied violation of CPR Rule 7.01
Caronan (A.C. Attorneys; and (b) the name
A. Caronan, to enroll in law school, Caronan was PROHIBITED regarding false statements in Bar
No. 11316, July "Richard A. Caronan" be
take the Bar Examinations, and gain from practicing law and application).
12, 2016) barred from being admitted
admission to the Bar. BARRED from being
to the Bar.
admitted as a member of the
Philippine Bar in the future.
Code of Professional Responsibility
Atty. Roxas, following an adverse (CPR): Canon 11 (Maintain respect due to
Whether Atty. Romeo G. Atty. Roxas was found
ruling, wrote a letter to the Justice- courts and judicial officers); Rule 11.03
Roxas should be held in GUILTY of indirect
Roxas v. De ponente (copied to other Justices) (Abstain from scandalous, offensive and
contempt of court and contempt of court. He was
Zuzuarregui, Jr. intimating that the decision was based menacing language); Rule 11.04 (Not
5 subjected to disciplinary fined ₱30,000.00 and warned
(G.R. No. 152072, on "considerations other than the pure attribute to a Judge motives not supported
action for his statements against repetition. He was
July 12, 2007) merits" and called the Supreme Court a by the record or have no materiality to the
concerning a concluded also found to have violated
"dispenser of injustice." He also case). Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 71,
litigation. Canon 11 of the CPR.
mocked the Justice. Section 3 (Indirect contempt); Rule 71,
Section 7 (Penalty for indirect contempt).
Cleo B. Dongga- Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler received Whether Attys. Cruz- Both attorneys were found Code of Professional Responsibility
6 as v. Atty. Rose ₱350,000.00 from the complainant to Angeles and Paler should be GUILTY of violating (CPR): Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (Unlawful,
Beatrix Cruz- handle his marriage annulment case but held administratively liable multiple rules of the CPR. dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct);
 Angeles and neglected the matter for over five for violating the CPR due to They were SUSPENDED Canon 7 (Uphold integrity/dignity); Canon
Atty. Wylie M. months, failing even to draft or file the negligence, from the practice of law for 11 (Maintain respect for courts; implied
Paler (A.C. No. petition. They falsely claimed they misrepresentation, and three (3) years each, and violation for seeking "friendly" court);
11113, August 9, were looking for a "friendly" refusal to return fees. ORDERED to return the Canon 16, Rule 16.01 (Account for money);
2016) court/judge/prosecutor, and later failed ₱350,000.00 legal fees. Rule 16.03 (Deliver funds upon demand);
to return the fees upon termination of Canon 18 (Competence/diligence); Rule
engagement. 18.03 (Not neglect legal matter).
Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR): Canon 3 (Use only true, honest,
fair, dignified, and objective information);
Atty. Tolentino was accused of Atty. Tolentino was found
Rule 1.03 (Not encourage groundless
solicitation of clients and GUILTY of violating
Linsangan v. Whether Atty. Tolentino suit/delay man's cause for corrupt motive);
encroachment. His agent distributed multiple CPR rules and the
Atty. Nicomedes violated ethical rules against Rule 2.03 (Not solicit legal business); Rule
7 calling cards offering Rules of Court. He was
Tolentino (A.C. solicitation and 8.02 (Not encroach upon professional
"CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SUSPENDED from the
No. 6672) encroachment. employment); Rule 16.04 (Not lend money
SERVICES W/ FINANCIAL practice of law for a period
to client, except to advance necessary legal
ASSISTANCE" for seamen's claims. of one year.
expenses). Rules of Court: Rule 138,
Section 27 (Malpractice/soliciting cases for
gain).
The Court found jurisdiction. Constitution: Article VIII, Section 7(3)
Respondent Sereno was appointed
1. Whether the Court has The petition was not time- (Must possess proven competence,
Chief Justice despite failing to file a
jurisdiction over a quo barred as prescription does integrity, probity, and independence);
substantial number of mandatory
warranto petition against an not run against the State when Article XI, Section 2 (Impeachable
Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and
Republic v. impeachable officer. 2. suing for public interest. The officers); Article XI, Section 8(1) (JBC
Net Worth (SALNs) during her 20
Maria Lourdes Whether the petition is time- Court declared Sereno's Creation). R.A. No. 6713 (Code of
8 years in government service (1986-
P.A. Sereno (G.R. barred. 3. Whether appointment as Chief Conduct): Section 8 (SALN requirement);
2006). This demonstrated a lack of
No. 237428) respondent is eligible for the Justice VOID ab initio for Section 11 (Penalties/disqualification). R.A.
proven integrity, an indispensable
position of Chief Justice lack of proven integrity. She No. 3019 (Anti-Graft): Section 7. JBC
qualification. She also failed to submit
(specifically, proven was OUSTED and Rules: JBC-009 Rule 4 (Integrity). Rules
the complete required SALNs to the
integrity). EXCLUDED from the of Court: Rule 66, Section 1 (Quo warranto
JBC.
position. action by Government).
Atty. Virgilio A. Atty. Sevandal, despite having a Atty. Sevandal was found
Whether Atty. Sevandal
Sevandal v. Atty. retainer contract covering only RTC GUILTY of Encroaching Code of Professional Responsibility
should be held
Melita B. Adame cases, filed an entry of appearance in an the Professional Services of (CPR): Canon 8, Rule 8.02 (Not directly or
9 administratively liable for
(A.C. No. 10571, NLRC case already handled by Atty. Atty. Adame. He was indirectly encroach upon the professional
encroaching on the
November 11, Adame. He opposed Adame's SUSPENDED from the employment of another lawyer).
professional services of
2020) appearance and subsequently received practice of law for ONE (1)
 ₱300,000.00 as attorney’s fees for a another lawyer and YEAR and directed to
case in which he had no authority to receiving unauthorized fees. RETURN ₱300,000.00 to the
appear, in order to stop his "meddling". client.
The Court found the law firm
Petitioner's counsel, the law firm of guilty of inexcusable
Whether the Court of
B. R. Sebastian Baizas, Alberto & Associates, failed to negligence. The death of the
Appeals gravely abused its (The ruling rests on principles of lawyer
Enterprises, Inc. file the Appellant's Brief after the death senior partner did not
discretion in denying competence and responsibility to the
10 v. CA (G.R. No. of the senior partner, Atty. Crispin extinguish the lawyer-client
petitioner's motion to client/court, emphasizing negligence of
L-41862, February Baizas. The firm cited "confusion" and relationship with the firm or
reinstate its appeal due to counsel binds the client).
7, 1992) the subsequent departure of the excuse the remaining
the negligence of counsel.
handling associate as excuses. associates. The petition was
DISMISSED.
Rules of Court: Rule 138, Section 27
(Removal/suspension for gross
Labor Arbiter Mayor, Jr. issued a status
Lahm III v. Whether the respondent, as misconduct/violation of oath). Code of
quo ante order effectively granting a Found GUILTY of gross
Labor Arbiter a lawyer and Labor Arbiter, Professional Responsibility (CPR): Canon
temporary restraining order (TRO). ignorance of the law. Labor
Jovencio Ll. committed gross misconduct 1 (Obey laws and promote respect for
Under the 2005 NLRC Rules of Arbiter Mayor, Jr. was
11 Mayor, Jr. (A.C. and violated the lawyer's law/legal processes); Canon 6 (Application
Procedure, only the NLRC itself (not SUSPENDED from the
No. 7430, oath by issuing an order in to lawyers in government service). 2005
the LA) had the authority to issue practice of law for a period
February 15, grave ignorance of basic NLRC Rules of Procedure: Rule X,
injunctions/TROs, but the respondent of six (6) months.
2012) procedural law. Section 1 (Authority to issue
stubbornly insisted on his authority.
injunctions/TROs vested only in NLRC
Divisions).
Whether a lawyer violates
The IBP found him
Former Judge Atencia presided over the Rule 6.03 of the CPR
In Re: Atty. administratively liable. Code of Professional Responsibility
arraignment and ordered the joint trial (conflict of interest) by
Romulo P. However, due to his (CPR): Rule 6.03 (Not accept engagement
of criminal cases. Two years after accepting engagement in a
12 Atencia (A.C. No. supervening death during in connection with any matter in which he
resigning, he accepted engagement as matter where he had
8911, July 08, the pendency of the case, the had intervened while in government
counsel for the accused in the same previously intervened while
2019) administrative complaint was service).
cases. in government service as a
DISMISSED.
judge.
Eduardo A. LA Barrios, Jr. failed to act on a motion Found GUILTY of gross Code of Professional Responsibility
Whether LA Barrios, Jr. is
Abella v. Ricardo for execution for over a year. When the immoral conduct and gross (CPR): Canon 1 (Uphold Constitution,
guilty of gross immorality
G. Barrios, Jr. complainant visited him, Barrios asked misconduct. He was ordered obey laws); Rule 1.01 (Not engage in
13 and gross misconduct for
(Adm. Case No. "how much is mine?" in exchange for to pay a FINE of ₱40,000.00 unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
violating his duties and
7332, June 18, fixing the case. After receiving a cash (since he was already conduct); Rule 1.03 (Not encourage suit or
soliciting money.
2013) advance (₱1,500.00), Barrios issued a previously disbarred). delay cause for corrupt motive or interest);
 writ, only to later recall it based on a Canon 6 (Apply canons to lawyers in
rehashed motion to quash, drastically government service); Rule 6.02 (Not use
reducing the award from ₱1,470,082.60 public position to promote/advance private
to ₱114,585.00. interests or allow them to interfere with
public duties). Rules of Court: Rule 138,
Section 27.
The Supreme Court found
that the SOJ acted within
The Secretary of Justice (SOJ) issued 1. Whether the SOJ
her authority to order a
Department Order No. 710 creating a committed grave abuse of
Secretary Leila reinvestigation (motu proprio R.A. No. 10071: Section 4 (Powers of the
Second Panel of prosecutors to conduct discretion in issuing DO
De Lima, et al. v. or upon petition) to prevent a Secretary of Justice, authority to act on
a reinvestigation of a murder case 710. 2. Whether the Petition
Mario Joel T. probable miscarriage of probable miscarriage of justice). Rules of
14 (Ortega killing) after the First Panel for Certiorari was rendered
Reyes (G.R. No. justice. The Petition for Court: Rule 112, Section 4 (SOJ may motu
refused to admit the complainant's moot by the filing of the
209330, January Review was DISMISSED for proprio reverse/modify resolution of
additional evidence. Former Governor information and judicial
11, 2016) being moot, as the trial court prosecutor).
Reyes challenged the SOJ's authority to determination of probable
had already judicially
create the Second Panel. cause.
determined probable cause
and issued a warrant of arrest.
Atty. Busmente's paralegal assistant,
The Court found Atty.
Atty. Edita Noe- Dela Rosa (a non-lawyer), repeatedly
Whether Atty. Busmente is Busmente GUILTY of
Lacsamana v. appeared in court, signed court minutes,
guilty of directly or violating Canon 9 by allowing
Atty. Yolando F. and was identified as collaborating Code of Professional Responsibility
indirectly assisting a non- the unauthorized practice of
15 Busmente (A.C. counsel for Busmente’s client in an (CPR): Canon 9 (Not, directly or indirectly,
lawyer in the unauthorized law under his auspices. He
No. 7269, ejectment case. Busmente denied assist in the unauthorized practice of law).
practice of law, violating was SUSPENDED from the
November 23, knowledge, claiming connivance
Canon 9 of the CPR. practice of law for SIX
2011) between Dela Rosa and a former
MONTHS.
secretary.
Atty. Margallo's gross negligence
Reynaldo G. resulted in the lapse of the reglementary The Court found Atty.
Code of Professional Responsibility
Ramirez v. Atty. period for filing an Appellant’s Brief, Whether Atty. Margallo Margallo GUILTY of gross
(CPR): Canon 17 (Fidelity to client's
Mercedes leading to the dismissal of her client's violated the CPR for negligence and lack of
cause); Canon 18 (Serve client with
16 Buhayang- appeal, not on the merits. She lacked negligence and lack of candor. She was
competence and diligence); Rule 18.03 (Not
Margallo (A.C. communication and improperly candor, resulting in the loss SUSPENDED from the
neglect legal matter); Rule 18.04 (Keep
No. 10537, assumed the client no longer wanted to of her client's appeal. practice of law for two (2)
client informed of case status).
February 3, 2015) pursue the appeal, giving a false reason years.
for the dismissal.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Atty. Montero filed a total of six (CPR): Canon 12 (Assist in
Rodolfo Millare
appeals, complaints, or petitions over Whether Atty. Montero Atty. Montero was found speedy/efficient administration of justice);
v. Atty.
several years to frustrate the execution violated the CPR by filing GUILTY of malpractice, Rule 12.02 (Not file multiple actions from
Eustaquio Z.
17 of a final and executory ejectment dilatory and frivolous suits abuse of judicial process, and the same cause); Rule 12.04 (Not unduly
Montero (A.C.
judgment against his client, using to delay the execution of forum shopping. He was delay a case, impede execution, or misuse
No. 3283, July 13,
defective, dilatory, and groundless judgment. SUSPENDED for one year. court processes); Canon 19/Rule 19.01
1995)
tactics (forum shopping). (Implicit via discussion on not pursuing
unjust actions).
Atty. Samson was found
GUILTY of violating
Atty. Samson suddenly cut off all multiple canons of the CPR Code of Professional Responsibility
Whether Atty. Samson
Rafael Padilla v. communications with his client for abandonment and (CPR): Canon 15/17 (Fidelity/Loyalty to
should be held accountable
Atty. Glenn (Padilla), almost causing him to miss a indifference. He was client); Canon 18 (Competence/diligence);
for negligence, lack of
18 Samson (A.C. No. deadline. He continuously refused to SUSPENDED from the Rule 18.03 (Not neglect legal matter);
fidelity, and failure to
10253, August 22, return client documents, failed to file an practice of law for a period Canon 19/Rule 19.01 (Zeal within bounds
account for client
2017) Answer, and refused to refund an of two (2) years and ordered of law). (Violation of duty to return client
funds/property.
undisputed overpayment of ₱19,074.00. to return the ₱19,074.00 funds is impliedly under Canon 16).
overpayment and all
documents.
CPA-lawyer Valdes, acting as the
client's accountant and lawyer, secretly
claimed ownership of property (Moran Atty. Valdes was found
property) held in trust for the client's Whether Atty. Valdes GUILTY of misconduct for Code of Professional Responsibility
Imelda A. Nakpil
deceased husband, transferred it to his violated professional ethics lack of fidelity, subordinating (CPR): Canon 17 (Fidelity to the client's
v. Atty. Carlos J.
family corporation, and concealed it by claiming client client interest to his own gain, cause and trust); Canon 15/Rule 15.03
19 Valdes (A.C. No.
from the client and the intestate court. property/breaching trust and and representing conflicting (Conflict of Interests, implied via
2040, March 4,
His accounting firm (managed by him) representing conflicting interests. He was suspended discussion of common auditor/law firm
1998)
also prepared the list of claims for two interests. from the practice of law for representation).
creditors of the estate while his law a period of one (1) year.
firm represented the estate, resulting in
a conflict of interest.
Cebu Petitioner's collaborating counsel (Atty. Whether the lack of a formal The Judge's order denying the
Rules of Court: Rule 138, Section 21
Stevedoring Malilong, Jr.) timely filed the notice of written notice of appearance appeal was SET ASIDE. The
(Authority of attorney to appear;
20 Company, Inc. v. appeal, record on appeal, and appeal by the collaborating lawyer Court ruled that the entry of
presumption of authority). Rule 113,
Judge Jose R. bond five days before the deadline. at the time of filing appeal appearance is merely for
Section 2 (Papers to be filed and served).
Ramolete (G.R. Nine days later, he filed a formal notice documents affects the service of process, and a
No. L-56627, of appearance. The Judge denied the validity of the perfected lawyer is presumed
August 17, 1981) appeal and ordered execution, arguing appeal. authorized to appear. The lack
the filings were void because the of formal notice does not
lawyer was not yet the counsel of render the pleadings legally
record when they were submitted. ineffective.