Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Case Digests

7/25/2019 Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Case Digests

1/12

Problem Area in Legal EthicsAssignment (Feb. 2, 2016)

Jimenez vs Francisco (2014)

Facts:

Atty. Edgar Francisco as the legal co!nsel o" #ar$%imene&. 'hat haened as #ar$ %imene& led acomlaint "or esta"a against *aroline %imene&(comlainant) and se+eral others. %imene& alleged thathe as the tr!e and benecial oner o" the shares o"stoc$ in *larion ealty and -e+eloment *ororation,hich as incororated secically "or the !rose o"!rchasing a residential ho!se located in Forbes Par$,#a$ati. n order to achie+e its !rose o" !rchasingthe Forbes roerty, *larion sim!lated a loan "rom thecomlainant in the amo!nt o" P/0,0,000.00.herea"ter, *larion !rchased the Forbes roerty inthe amo!nt o" P11,000,000.00 "rom 3erardo*ontreras. o e4ect the sale, #yla handed a chec$ inthe said amo!nt hich as "!nded entirely by %imene&.he sale, hoe+er, as !nder+al!ed. n the deed o"sale, it as made to aear that the Forbes roertyas !rchased "or P/,000,000.00 only. F!rther, the

money !sed as the !rchase rice as not re5ected inthe boo$s o" *larion.

*aroline (comlainant) as shoc$ed ith thecomlaint. #ore so, she "elt betrayed by Atty. Franciscoho heled %imene& led the esta"a case. o, *arolineled a comlaint against Atty. Francisco "or m!ltile+iolations o" the *ode o" Pro"essional resonsibilitybe"ore the *ommission on 7ar -isciline (*7-).*aroline claimed that Atty. F reresented con5ictinginterests. According to her, she !s!ally con"erred ithAtty. Francisco regarding the legal imlications o"*larion8s transactions. #ore signicantly, the rincialdoc!ments relati+e to the sale and trans"er o" *larion8sroerty ere all reared and dra"ted by Atty.

Francisco or the members o" his la o9ce.

n his de"ense, Atty. F denied that he as e+er theersonal layer o" *aroline. e admitted that he actedas legal co!nsel o" *larion, b!t then again, thecororation has a ersonality searate "rom that o"*aroline. e also said that he heled *aroline !nderthe imression that it as hat %imene& o!ld ha+eanted.

he *7- sided ith *aroline and recommended thatAtty. F be s!sended "rom the ractice o" la "or oneyear. his as !held by the 7P.

ss!e: 'hether or not Atty. F as g!ilty o" +iolations o"

the *P.

eld: *anon 1 and !le 1.0 as +iolated, b!t he asnot g!ilty o" reresenting con5icting interests.

*A;


2/12


as to the secic condential in"ormation allegedlydi+!lged by Atty. Francisco itho!t her consent. t is,there"ore, di9c!lt, i" not imossible, to determine i"there as any +iolation o" the r!le on ri+ilegedcomm!nication. As held in #ercado, s!ch condentialin"ormation is a cr!cial lin$ in establishing a breach o"the r!le on ri+ileged comm!nication beteen

attorney and client. t is not eno!gh to merely assertthe attorneyCclient ri+ilege.0 t cannot be gainsaidthen that comlainant, ho has the b!rden o" ro+ingthat the ri+ilege alies, "ailed in this regard.

Foster vs Agtang (2014)

Facts:

*omlainant Erlinda Foster had a legal roblemo+er a deed o" sale she entered ith ierra ealty. Atty.%aime Agtang agreed to reresent her as her co!nsel

"or the ling o" the aroriate case in co!rt, e+entho!gh he as the one ho notari&ed the deed o" sale.

n the co!rse o" being Foster8s layer, Agtangcommitted the "olloing acts: (1) 7orroed money"rom Foster in the amo!nt o" P100,000 an P220,000D(2) #isreresented the amo!nt (P10,000) o" ling "eeD() As$ed "or P0,000 !rortedly to be gi+en to theB!dge as a bribeD and (G) Failed to noti"y Foster that thecase as dismissed in etember 2010. Foster "o!ndo!t hen he chec$ed it hersel" in -ecember o" thatsame year. Also, it t!rned o!t that Agtang had legalrelationshis ith ierrar ealty.

ence, Foster led a comlaint against Agtang ith

the *ommission o" 7ar -isciline (*7-) hich "o!ndAgtang g!ilty o" ethical imroriety and recommendedhis s!sension "rom the ractice o" la "or one (1)year. he 7PC7


3/12


the +ery transaction !nder @!estion. ;either his !naidnotarial "ees nor the articiation o" a collaboratingco!nsel o!ld ec!se him "rom s!ch indiscretion. t isaarent that resondent as retained by clients hohad close dealings ith each other. #ore signicantly,there is no record o" any ritten consent "rom any o"the arties in+ol+ed. he reresentation o" con5icting

interests is rohibited Hnot only beca!se the relation o"attorney and client is one o" tr!st and condence o" thehighest degree, b!t also beca!se o" the rinciles o"!blic olicy and good taste. An attorney has the d!tyto deser+e the "!llest condence o" his client andreresent him ith !ndi+ided loyalty. !lo

con+inced her sister, ;a+arro, to nance the eenses

"or the registration o" the roerty. esondent

!ndertoo$ to register the roerty in consideration o"

0N o" the +al!e o" the roerty once it is registered.

esondent obtained P200,000 "rom ;a+arro "or the

registration eenses. ;a+arro later learned that the

registration decree o+er the roerty as already

iss!ed in the name o" one eodoro >!lo. ;a+arro

alleged that she o!ld not ha+e sent "or the

registration o" the roerty i" resondent only arised

her o" the real sit!ation o" the roerty.

!lo.


4/12


led etitions "or the B!dicial "oreclos!re o" the

mortgages eec!ted by resondent in their "a+or.

esondent co!ntered that the 10N monthly interest

on the loan as !s!rio!s and illegal. *omlainants also

led cases "or esta"a and +iolation o" 7atas Pambansa

7lg. 22 against resondent.

*omlainants alleged that resondent ind!ced them to

grant him loans by o4ering +ery high interest rates. e

also reared and signed the chec$s hich t!rned o!t

to be dran against his son8s acco!nts. *omlainants

"!rther alleged that resondent decei+ed them

regarding the identity and +al!e o" the roerty he

mortgaged beca!se he shoed them a di4erent

roerty "rom that hich he oned. Presbitero "!rther

alleged that resondent mortgaged his 26Cs@!areC

meter roerty to her "or P1,000,000 b!t he later sold

it "or only P10,000.

ISS!

'hether or not resondent +iolated the *PO

"#IN$

he records sho that resondent +iolated at least "o!r

ro+isions o" the *ode o" Pro"essional esonsibility.

!le 1.01 o" the *ode o" Pro"essional esonsibility

ro+ides:

!le 1.01. C A layer shall not engage in !nla"!l,

dishonest, immoral or deceit"!l cond!ct.

'ith resect to his client, Presbitero, it as established

that resondent agreed to ay a high interest rate on

the loan he obtained "rom her. e dra"ted the #et,

hen he co!ld no longer ay his loan, he so!ght to

n!lli"y the same #!lo8s lotresondent and ;a+arro had no layerCclient

relationshi. oe+er, resondent as Presbitero8s

co!nsel at the time she granted him a loan. t as

established that resondent misled Presbitero on the

+al!e o" the roerty he mortgaged as a collateral "or

his loan "rom her. o aease Presbitero, resonden

e+en made a -eed o" ?nderta$ing that he o!ld gi+e

her another 1,000Cs@!areCmeter lot as additiona

collateral b!t he "ailed to do so.

*learly, resondent is g!ilty o" engaging in dishonest

and deceit"!l cond!ct, both in his ro"essional caacity

ith resect to his client, Presbitero, and in his ri+atecaacity ith resect to comlainant ;a+arro. 7oth

Presbitero and ;a+arro alloed resondent to dra"t the

terms o" the loan agreements. esondent dra"ted the

#


5/12


recei+ed "or or "rom his client. 'e agree ith the 7PC

*7- that resondent "ailed to "!lll this d!ty. n this

case, the 7PC*7- ointed o!t that resondent recei+ed

+ario!s amo!nts "rom comlainants b!t he co!ld not

acco!nt "or all o" them.

;a+arro, ho nanced the registration o" >!lo8s 1/./C

hectare lot, claimed that resondent recei+ed P26,000

"rom her. esondent co!ntered that P10,000 as

aid "or real estate taes b!t he co!ld not resent any

receit to ro+e his claim. esondent also claimed

that he aid P0,000 to the s!r+eyor b!t the receit

as only "or P1,000. esondent claimed that he

aid P0,000 "or ling "ee, !blication "ee, and other

eenses b!t again, he co!ld not s!bstantiate his

claims ith any receit. As ointed o!t by the 7PC*7-,

resondent had been less than diligent in acco!nting

"or the "!nds he recei+ed "rom ;a+arro "or the

registration o" >!lo8s roerty.

?n"ort!nately, the records are not clear hetherresondent rendered an acco!nting to >!lo ho had

since assed aay.

As regards Presbitero, it as established d!ring the

claricatory hearing that resondent recei+ed P0,000

"rom Presbitero. As the 7PC*7- ointed o!t, the

records do not sho ho resondent sent the "!nds

beca!se he as not transarent in li@!idating the

money he recei+ed "rom Presbitero.

*learly, resondent had been negligent in roerly

acco!nting "or the money he recei+ed "rom his client,

Presbitero. ndeed, his "ail!re to ret!rn the ecessmoney in his ossession gi+es rise to the res!mtion

that he has misaroriated it "or his on !se to the

reB!dice o", and in +iolation o" the tr!st reosed in him

by, the client.

!le 16.0G o" the *ode o" Pro"essional esonsibility

ro+ides:

!le 16.0G. C A layer shall not borro money "rom his

client !nless the client8s interests are "!lly rotected by

the nat!re o" the case or by indeendent ad+ice.

;either shall a layer lend money to a client ecet,

hen in the interest o" B!stice, he has to ad+ancenecessary eenses in a legal matter he is handling "or

the client.

ere, resondent does not deny that he

borroed P1,000,000 "rom his client Presbitero. At the

time he sec!red the loan, resondent as already the

retained co!nsel o" Presbitero.

'hile resondent8s loan "rom Presbitero as sec!red

by a #resondent8s administrati+e liability.

action hich the arties may choose to le against

each other. ;e+ertheless, hen a layer recei+es

money "rom a client "or a artic!lar !rose in+ol+ing

the clientCattorney relationshi, he is bo!nd to rende

an acco!nting to the client shoing that the money

as sent "or that artic!lar !rose. " the laye

does not !se the money "or the intended !rose, he

m!st immediately ret!rn the money to hisclient. esondent as gi+en an oort!nity to rende

an acco!nting, and he "ailed. e m!st ret!rn the "!l

amo!nt o" the ad+ances gi+en him by Presbitero

amo!nting to P0,000.

Ta%ang vs $acott (201&)

*omlainants alleged that sometime in 1/G and 1/

comlainant Lilia abang so!ght the ad+ice o" %!dge


6/12


E!sta@!io 3acott, resondent Atty. 3lenn 3acott8s

"ather. Lilia abang intended to !rchase a total o"

thirty (0) hectares o" agric!lt!ral land located in

7arangay 7ac!ngan, P!erto Princesa, Palaan, hich

consisted o" se+eral arcels belonging to di4erent

oners. %!dge 3acott noted that !nder the

go+ernment8s agrarian re"orm rogram, abang as

rohibited "rom ac@!iring +ast tracts o" agric!lt!ralland as she already oned other arcels. h!s, %!dge

3acott ad+ised her to !t the titles o" the arcels !nder

the names o" ctitio!s ersons.2

E+ent!ally, Lilia abang as able to !rchase se+en

arcels and obtained the corresonding rans"er

*erticates o" itle (*) !nder the names o" ctitio!s

ersons.

Later, comlainants Lilia and *oncecion abang

decided to sell the se+en arcels as they ere in need

o" "!nds "or their medication and other eenses.

*laiming that he o!ld hel comlainants by o4eringthe arcels to rosecti+e b!yers, resondent 3lenn

3acott borroed "rom Lilia abang the *s co+ering

the arcels.G

Abo!t a year a"ter resondent borroed the titles and

a"ter he "ailed to negotiate any sale, comlainants

con"ronted resondent. esondent then told the

comlainants that he had lost all se+en titles.


7/12


'e Jesus vs Sancez*alit (2014)

FACTS

n the A9da+itC*omlaint led by comlainant be"orethe


8/12


resondent also +iolated !le 10.01 o" the *ode o"

Pro"essional esonsibility and her oath as a layer

that she shall do no "alsehood. *ertainly, resondent is

!nt to contin!e enBoying the solemn o9ce o" a notary

!blic. n se+eral instances, the *o!rt did not hesitate

to disbar layers ho ere "o!nd to be !tterly

obli+io!s to the solemnity o" their oath as notaries

!blic. E+en so, the r!le is that disbarment is metedo!t only in clear cases o" miscond!ct that serio!sly

a4ect the standing and character o" the layer as an

o9cer o" the co!rt and the *o!rt ill not disbar a

layer here a lesser enalty ill s!9ce to accomlish

the desired end. he blatant disregard by resondent

o" her basic d!ties as a notary !blic arrants the less

se+ere !nishment o" s!sension "rom the ractice o"

la and eret!al dis@!alication to be commissioned

as a notary !blic.

!craela vs +angalangan (201,)

FACTS

*omlainant and resondent ere best "riends and

both grad!ated "rom the ?ni+ersity o" the Philiines

(?P) *ollege o" La in 10, here they ere art o" a

eer gro! or bar$ada ith se+eral o" their classmates.

A"ter assing the bar eaminations and being admitted

as members o" the 7ar in 11, they ere both

registered ith the 7P !e&on *ity.

esondent as "ormerly married to heila P. %ardiolin

(%ardiolin) ith hom he has three () children.*omlainant a+ers that hile married to %ardiolin,

resondent had a series o" ad!ltero!s and illicit

relations ith married and !nmarried omen beteen

the years 10 to 200.

hese alleged illicit relations in+ol+ed:

a. AAA, ho is the so!se o" a colleag!e in the ?P

*ollege o" La, "rom 10 to 12, hich comlainant

had ersonal $noledge o" s!ch illicit relationsD

b. 777, sometime d!ring the eriod "rom 12 to 1G

or "rom 1G to 16, desite being already married to

%ardiolinD

c. ***, desite being married to %ardiolin and hile

also being romantically in+ol+ed ith ---D

d. ---, sometime d!ring the eriod "rom 2000 to

2002, desite still being married to %ardiolin and hile

still being romantically .in+ol+ed ith ***D R

e. EEE, ho is related to comlainant, sometime d!ring

the eriod "rom #ay 200G !ntil the ling o" the Petition,

hile still being romantically in+ol+ed ith ***.

*omlainant claims that resondent, ith malice and

itho!t remorse, decei+ed *** and --- by

reresenting himsel" to be a bachelor, thereby

con+incing the to omen to start a lo+e a4air ith

him, hen in. tr!th, he as then still married to

%ardiolin.

Aside "rom these illicit a4airs, comlainant a+ers that

sometime d!ring the eriod o" 1/ to 2000

resondent, as a layer o" the


9/12


*A;E ALL A ALL #E ?P A;- -3;>


10/12


>ears later, -r. Pere& came to $no that her marriageto Atty. *atindig is a n!llity since the di+orce decreethat as obtained "rom the -ominican e!blic by thelatter and 3ome& is not recogni&ed by Philiine las.'hen she con"ronted Atty. *atindig abo!t it, the latterallegedly ass!red -r. Pere& that he o!ld legali&e their

!nion once he obtains a declaration o" n!llity o" hismarriage to 3ome& !nder the las o" the Philiines.e also romised to legally adot their son.

ometime in 1, -r. Pere& reminded Atty. *atindig o"his romise to legali&e their !nion by ling a etition ton!lli"y his marriage to 3ome&. Atty. *atindig told herthat he o!ld still ha+e to get the consent o" 3ome& tothe said etition.

ometime in 2001, -r. Pere& alleged that she recei+edan anonymo!s letterin the mail in"orming her o" Atty.*atindig8s scandalo!s a4air ith Atty. 7aydo, and thatsometime later, she came !on a lo+e letter rittenand signed by Atty. *atindig "or Atty. 7aydo dated Aril2, 2001. n the said letter, Atty. *atindig ro"essed hislo+e to Atty. 7aydo, romising to marry her once hisHimediment is remo+ed.K Aarently, +e months intotheir relationshi, Atty. 7aydo re@!ested Atty. *atindigto !t a halt to their a4air !ntil s!ch time that he isable to obtain the ann!lment o" his marriage.


11/12


IJhe re@!irement o" good moral character is o" m!chgreater imort, as "ar as the general !blic isconcerned, than the ossession o" legal learning. 3oodmoral character is not only a condition recedent "oradmission to the legal ro"ession, b!t it m!st alsoremain intact in order to maintain one8s good standingin that ecl!si+e and honored "raternity. 3ood moral

character is more than B!st the absence o" badcharacter. !ch character eresses itsel" in the ill todo the !nleasant thing i" it is right and the resol+e notto do the leasant thing i" it is rong. his m!st be sobeca!se H+ast interests are committed to his careD heis the reciient o" !nbo!nded tr!st and condenceD hedeals ith his client8s roerty, re!tation, his li"e, hisall.K

HA layer may be s!sended or disbarred "or anymiscond!ct shoing any "a!lt or deciency in his moralcharacter, honesty, robity or gooddemeanor.K mmoral cond!ct in+ol+es acts that areill"!l, 5agrant, or shameless, and that sho a moralindi4erence to the oinion o" the !right and

resectable members o" the comm!nity. mmoralcond!ct is gross hen it is so corr!t as to constit!te acriminal act, or so !nrinciled as to be rerehensibleto a high degree, or hen committed !nder s!chscandalo!s or re+olting circ!mstances as to shoc$ thecomm!nity8s sense o" decency. he *o!rt ma$es thesedistinctions, as the s!reme enalty o" disbarmentarising "rom cond!ct re@!ires grossly immoral, notsimly immoral, cond!ct.

Contracting a marriage during the subsistence ofa previous one amounts to a grossly immoralconduct.

he "acts gathered "rom the e+idence add!ced by thearties and, ironically, "rom Atty. *atindig8s onadmission, indeed establish a attern o" cond!ct that isgrossly immoralD it is not only corr!t and !nrinciled,b!t rerehensible to a high degree.

Atty. *atindig as +alidly married to 3ome& tice = aedding in the *entral #ethodist *h!rch in 16/,hich as then "olloed by a *atholic edding. n1/, Atty. *atindig started !rs!ing -r. Pere& hentheir aths crossed again. *!rio!sly, 1 years into hisrst marriage and "o!r children a"ter, Atty. *atindigclaimed that his rst marriage as then already "allingaart d!e to 3ome&8 serio!s intimacy roblems.

A year a"ter !rs!ing -r. Pere&, Atty. *atindig had a defactosearation "rom 3ome&, dissol+ed their conB!gal

artnershi o" gains, obtained a di+orce decree "rom aco!rt in the -ominican e!blic, and married -r. Pere&in the ?A all in the same year. Atty. *atindig as soenchanted ith -r. Pere& at that time that he mo+edhea+en and earth B!st so he co!ld marry her right aay= a marriage that has at least a semblance o" legality.

From his on admission, Atty. *atindig $ne that thedi+orce decree he obtained "rom the co!rt in the-ominican e!blic as not recogni&ed in o!rB!risdiction as he and 3ome& ere both Filiino citi&ensat that time. e $ne that he as still +alidly marriedto 3ome&D that he cannot marry ane !nless hisre+io!s marriage be roerly declared a n!llity.


12/12


standing and character o" the layer as an o9cer o"the *o!rt and as a member o" the bar. 'here a lesserenalty, s!ch as temorary s!sension, co!ldaccomlish the end desired, disbarment sho!ld ne+erbe decreed. ;e+ertheless, in this case, the serio!snesso" the o4ense comels the *o!rt to ield its oer todisbar, as it aears to be the most aroriate

enalty.Atty. *atindig8s claim that -r. Pere&8s allegationsagainst him are not credible since they are!ncorroborated and not s!orted by a9da+itscontrary to ection 1, !le 1C7 o" the !les o" *o!rt,deser+es scant consideration. Merily, Atty. *atindighimsel" admitted in his leadings that he indeedmarried -r. Pere& in 1/G hile his re+io!s marriageith 3ome& still s!bsisted. nd!bitably, s!ch admissionro+ides amle basis "or the *o!rt to renderdiscilinary sanction against him.

There is insucient evidence to prove the aairbetween the respondents.

he *o!rt li$eise agrees ith the n+estigating*ommissioner that there is a dearth o" e+idence toro+e the claimed amoro!s relationshi beteen the

resondents. As it is, the e+idence that as resentedby -r. Pere& to ro+e her claim as mere allegation, ananonymo!s letter in"orming her that the resondentsere indeed ha+ing an a4air and the !rorted lo+eletter to Atty. 7aydo that as signed by Atty. *atindig.

he *o!rt has consistently held that in s!sension odisbarment roceedings against layers, the layeenBoys the res!mtion o" innocence, and the b!rdeno" roo" rests !on the comlainant to ro+e theallegations in his comlaint. he e+idence re@!ired ins!sension or disbarment roceedings isreonderance o" e+idence.

he resentation o" the anonymo!s letter that asrecei+ed by -r. Pere& only ro+es that the latter indeedrecei+ed a letter in"orming her o" the alleged relationsbeteen the resondentsD it does not ro+e the+eracity o" the allegations therein. imilarly, thes!osed lo+e letter, i" at all, only ro+es that Atty*atindig rote Atty. 7aydo a letter ro"essing his lo+e"or her. t does not ro+e that Atty. 7aydo is indeed in arelationshi ith Atty. *atindig.

Documents

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Case Digests