Thread by @lex_do_this

Chair’s Cases on Legal and Judicial Ethics (a thread)

· Turla v. Caringal AC 11641 (2019) – Falsehood in MCLE Compliance (Rule 1.1 of Canon 1, Rule 10.1 of Canon 10, Canon 17, Canon 18)

#incrediBar2023 #HernandoBar2023 #HernanDoIt

· Francia v. Sagario AC 10938 (2019) – Non-filing despite receipt of legal fees from client; highly fiduciary nature of an attorney-client relationship (Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18)

· Petelo v Rivera AC10408 (2019) – unauthorized practice of law (Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Rule 9.01 of Canon 9, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10)

•Valmonte v. Quesada Jr  AC 12487 (2019) – acts of signing and filing of pleading for a client in criminal case months after the promulgation of the resolution are clear proofs that an erring lawyer practiced law during the period of his suspension.

Ang v. Belaro Jr AC 12408 (2019) – the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly states that, when not in use, the official seal of the notary public must be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to him or the person duly authorized by him

· Sps. Nocuenca v. Bensi AC 12609 (2020) – while lawyers are mandated to act with dignity and in a manner that inspires confidence to the legal profession, their rights must still be protected just like every ordinary individual.

·  Andaya v. Tumanda AC 12209 (2020) – his deliberate failure to settle his obligation despite repeated demands is in itself a gross misconduct (Canon 7)

· AA Total Learning Center for Young Achievers Inc v. Caronan AC 12418 (2020) – the privilege to practice the legal profession is not a permanent right and may be taken away if one falls short of the requirements imposed by law; no disbarment since not a lawyer

· Parungao v Lacuanan AC 12071 (2020) – no conflict of interest; circumstances must concur: (a) confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment, and (b) present engagement involves transactions that the lawyer previously handled.

· Villanueva v. Alentajan AC 12161 (2020) – lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. (Canon 1, Rule 10.3 of Canon 10, and Rules 12.02 and 12.04 of Canon 12)

·Perito v. Baterina AC 12631 (2020) – Court exercises power to disbar with great caution. Being the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting standing and moral character of the lawyer

·Re: Investigation Report on the Alleged Extortion Activities of Presiding Judge Abul AM RTJ-17-2486 (2020) – death has rendered his dismissal no longer feasible, viable sanction: accessory penalty of forfeiture of all such retirement and allied benefits, except accrued leaves

Cansino v. Sederiosa AC 8522 (2020) - a lawyer who has been suspended from the practice of law by the Court must refrain from performing all functions which would require the application of his legal knowledge within the period of suspension; practice of law includes notarization

•Manzano v. Rivera AC 12173 (2020) – Notarization converts a private document into a public document and makes such document admissible as evidence without further proof of its authenticity.

· Go v. Teruel AC 11119 (2020) – committed forum shopping when he instituted two actions grounded on the same cause, the outcome in one case would necessarily have an effect in the other since both cases share the same cause of action and involve the same parties.

·Kiener v. Amores AC 9417 (2020) – notarization is invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.

· Portuguese Jr v. Centro AC 12875 (2021) – unjustifiable negligence and abandonment of his client's cause violated the Lawyer's Oath as well as the CPR (Canon 11, Rule 12.03 of Canon 12 Canon 17, Rule 18.03, Rule 18.04 of Canon 18)

· Home Guaranty Corp v. Tagayuna AC 13131 (2022) – no conflict of interest; Court has long held that a lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's money, as well as properties and documents, for himself by the mere fact that he is owed legal fees.