Digests for Ethics Canons1-7

8/9/2019 Digests for Ethics Canons1-7

1/24

LAWYERS OATH

IN RE: ARGOSINO, 270 SCRA 26

FACTS:

Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but was denied of taking

the Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys due to his conviction of reckless

imprudence resulting in homicide from a hazing incident. Later in his sentence, he wasgranted probation by the court. He filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying that he

be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath and sign the Rolls of Attorneys. As a proof of the

required good moral character he now possess, he presented no less than fifteen (15)

certifications among others from: two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6)

members of religious order. In addition, he, together with the others who were convicted,

organized a scholarship foundation in honor of their hazing victim.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath, sign

the Rolls of Attorneys, and practice law.

HELD:

YES. Petition granted.

RATIO:

Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent proof that he possessed

the required good moral character as required before taking the Lawyers Oath and to

sign the Rolls of Attorneys, the Supreme Court considered the premises that he is not

inherently in bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally

reminded that the Lawyers Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality before the

practice of law, and that the community assistance he had started is expected to continue

in serving the more unfortunate members of the society.

SPOUSES OLBES VS. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE

AC-5365. APRIL 27, 2005

FACTS:

Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes for

security of a loan. After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up

four of the five checks for P50, 000 with different maturity date. All checks were

dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case for estafa against the spouses Olbes. This

prompted the spouses Olbes to file a disbarment case against Atty. Deciembre with theOffice of the Bar Confidant of this Court. In the report, Commissioner Dulay

recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years for

violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in accord with his fault.


2/24


3/24

Yes. It was complainant who retained respondent to form a corporation. She

appeared as counsel in behalf of the complainant. There was also evidence of collusion

between the board of directors and respondent. Indeed, the board of directors now

included respondent as the president. It was also upon her advice that the delinquent

shares of complainant were sold at public auction. The present situation shows a clear

case of conflict of interests of the respondent.

CANON1

Heirs of the Late Spouses Lucas vs. Atty. Beradio, AC No. 6270, Jan. 22, 2007

CARPIO, J.

FACTS:

During their lifetime, the spouses Villanueva acquired several parcels of land in

Pangasinan. Their 5 children, Simeona, Susana, Maria, Alfonso, and Florencia, survived

them.

Alfonso executed an Affidavit of Adjudication stating that as "the only surviving

son and sole heirs of the spouses Villanueva. Alfonso then executed a Deed of AbsoluteSale, conveying the property to Adriano Villanueva. Respondent appeared as notary

public on both the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale.

Contrary to the misrepresentations of Alfonso, his sister Florencia was still alive

at the time he executed the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale, as were

descendants of the other children of the spouses Villanueva. Complainants claimed that

respondent was aware of this fact, as respondent had been their neighbor in Balungao,

Pangasinan, from the time of their birth, and respondent constantly mingled with their

family. Complainants accused respondent of knowing the "true facts and surrounding

circumstances" regarding the properties of the spouses Villanueva, yet conspiring with

Alfonso to deprive his co-heirs of their rightful shares in the property.

Commissioner Villadolid found that respondent violated the provisions of theCode of Professional Responsibility and the spirit and intent of the notarial law when she

notarized the affidavit knowing that Alfonso was not the sole compulsory heir of the

spouses Villanueva. It was recommended that respondent be reprimanded or suspended

from the practice of law for up to 6 months.

ISSUE:

W/N respondent should be suspended for his actions.

HELD:

REVOKE the commission as Notary Public, if still existing, and DISQUALIFYfrom being commissioned a notary public for 1 year. SUSPEND from the practice of law

for 6 months.

YES.

Notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common

of which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of a document or instrument. In the

performance of such notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance


4/24

of the notarial seal as affixed on a document. The notarial seal converts the document

from private to public, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof

of its genuineness and due execution.

By this instrument, Alfonso claimed a portion of his parents estate all to himself,

to the exclusion of his co-heirs. Shortly afterwards, respondent notarized the deed of sale,

knowing that the deed took basis from the unlawful affidavit of adjudication.

Respondent never disputed complainants allegation of her close relationship withthe Villanueva family spanning several decades. Respondent even underscored this

closeness by claiming that Lucas himself requested her to come to his house the day

Lucas handed to Alfonso a copy of OCT No. 2522, allegedly so she could hear the

conversation between them.

Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement

or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or her

notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly

as the circumstances of the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the

notarization process may be undermined and public confidence on notarial documents

diminished.

In this case, respondents conduct amounted to a breach of Canon 1 of the Code

of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land and

promote respect for the law and legal processes. Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of

the Code which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or

deceitful conduct.

We also view with disfavor respondents lack of candor before the IBP

proceedings. The transcript of hearings shows that respondent denied preparing or

notarizing the deed of sale, when she already admitted having done so in her Comment.

SAMALA VS. ATTY. VALENCIA, AC 5439, JAN. 22, 2007

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

FACTS:

Complainant Clarita J. Samala filed against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for

Disbarment on the following grounds: serving on 2 separate occasions as counsel for

contending parties knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary

evidence initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees having a

reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code

of Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for 6 months.

IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation ofCommissioner Reyes but increased the penalty of suspension from 6 months to 1 year.

ISSUE:

W/N respondent should be suspended.

HELD:

Respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct and violation of


5/24

Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. SUSPENDED for 3

years.

YES.

In Civil Case No. 98-6804 filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court entitled "Editha

S. Valdez and Joseph J. Alba, Jr. v. Salve Bustamante and her husband" for ejectment,

respondent represented Valdez against Bustamante, 1 of the tenants in the property

subject of the controversy. Presiding Judge warned respondent to refrain from repeatingthe act of being counsel of record of both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK.

Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a

lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned

given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of

professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of

his present or former client. This stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy

and good taste. One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of

a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity

and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the

performance of that duty.

Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility "a lawyer shall preserve the

confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated."

Respondent's representation of:

Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and her husband

Valdez against Alba is a clear case of conflict of interests which merits a

corresponding sanction from this Court.

Respondent may have withdrawn his representation in Civil Case No. 95-105-

MK upon being warned by the court, but the same will not exculpate him from the charge

of representing conflicting interests in his representation in Civil Case No. 2000-657-

MK.

Respondent is reminded to be more cautious in accepting professionalemployments, to refrain from all appearances and acts of impropriety including

circumstances indicating conflict of interests, and to behave at all times with

circumspection and dedication befitting a member of the Bar, especially observing

candor, fairness and loyalty in all transactions with his clients.

Respondent cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the title he submitted was

already cancelled in lieu of a new title issued in the name of Alba in 1995 yet, as proof of

the latter's ownership.

What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court

by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled and a

new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of Alba.

The act of respondent of filing the aforecited cases to protect the interest of hisclient, on one hand, and his own interest, on the other, cannot be made the basis of an

administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown that the same was being done to

abuse judicial processes to commit injustice.

Respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

Respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who are all

over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has eight


6/24

children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his wife

died in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998.

In this case, the admissions made by respondent are more than enough to hold

him liable on the charge of immorality. He even justified his transgression by saying that

he does not have any relationship with Lagmay and despite the fact that he sired 3

children by the latter, he does not consider them as his second family

Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyershall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult

to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for

purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct

which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the

opinion of respectable members of the community.

ADVINCULA VS. ATTY. MACABATA, AC NO. 7204, MARCH 7, 2007

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

FACTS:The complainant, Cynthia Advincula, sought the legal advice of the respondent

Atty. Macabata, regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours. After their

dinner, respondent sent complainant home and while she is about to step out of the car,

respondent hold her arm and kissed her on the cheek and embraced her very tightly.

After the meeting at Starbucks coffee shop in West Avenue, Quezon City,

respondent offered again a ride, which he usually did every time they met. When she was

almost restless respondent stopped his car and forcefully hold her face and kissed her lips

while the other hand was holding her breast. Complainant even in a state of shocked

succeeded in resisting his criminal attempt and immediately manage to go out of the car.

In the late afternoon, complainant sent a text message to respondent informing

him that she decided to refer the case with another lawyer and needs to get back the casefolder from him.

Respondent replied "talk to my lawyer in due time." Then another message was

received by her at 4:06:33 pm saying "Ano k ba. Im really sri. Pls. Nxt ime bhave n me."

(Ano ka ba. Im really sorry. Please next time behave na ko), which is a clear

manifestation of admission of guilt.

By way of defense, respondent further elucidated that:

there was a criminal case for Acts of Lasciviousness filed by complainant against

respondent pending legal name of complainant is Cynthia Advincula Toriana since she

remains married to a certain Jinky Toriana. Complainant was living with a man not her

husband. Complainant never bothered to discuss respondents fees and it was respondentwho always paid for their bills every time they met and ate at a restaurant.

Commissioner recommended the imposition of the penalty of 1 month suspension

on respondent for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP passed

Resolution No. XVII-2006-117, approving and adopting, with modification that Atty.

Ernesto A. Macabata is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 3 months

ISSUE:


7/24

Whether respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral or which constitute

serious moral depravity that would warrant his disbarment or suspension from the

practice of law.

HELD:

Atty. Ernesto Macabata, for alleged immorality, is DISMISSED. However,

REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING.

NO.

Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective

reality. Requirement of good moral character has 4 ostensible purposes:

to protect the public

to protect the public image of lawyers

to protect prospective clients

to protect errant lawyers from themselves.

It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is

"grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which

render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that

what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral

conduct that warrants disbarment.

ROGER POSADAS, ROSARIO TORRES-YU, and MARICHU LAMBINO,

petitioners, vs. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN, THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, and

ORLANDO V. DIZON, respondents., G.R. No. 131492, 2000 September 29, 2nd

Division

FACTS:

Dennis Venturina, a member of Sigma Rho at the University of the Philippines,

was killed in a rumble between his fraternity and another fraternity on December 8, 1994.

In a letter dated December 11, 1994, petitioner Roger Posadas, then Chancellor of U.P.

Diliman in Quezon City, asked the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation for

assistance in determining the persons responsible for the crime. In response to the

request, respondent Orlando V. Dizon, Chief of the Special Operations Group of the NBI,

and his men went to U.P. on December 12 and, on the basis of the supposed positive

identification of two alleged eyewitnesses, Leandro Lachica and Cesar Mangrobang, Jr.,

attempted to arrest Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag, officers/members of the

Scintilla Juris Fraternity, as suspects in the killing of Venturina. It appears that the two

suspects had come that day to the U.P. Police Station for a peace talk between their

fraternity and the Sigma Rho Fraternity.Petitioners Posadas, Marichu Lambino, and Rosario Torres-Yu, also of U.P., and

a certain Atty. Villamor, counsel for the suspects, objected on the ground that the NBI did

not have warrants of arrest with them. Posadas and Atty. Villamor promised to take the

suspects to the NBI Office the next day. As a result of their intervention, the NBI agents

did not arrest Taparan and Narag on that day. However, criminal charges were filed later

against the two student suspects.


8/24

Later, on motion of petitioners, the Special Prosecutor's Office recommended the

dismissal of the case. But the recommendation was disapproved. In a memorandum,

dated September 8, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman directed the Special Prosecutor

to proceed with the prosecution of petitioners in the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the honorable ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretionwhen he ruled that: 1) students could be arrested without warrant on mere suspicion; 2)

pd 1829 includes arrests without warrants on mere suspicion.

HELD:

1. The rule is that no arrest may be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by

a judge after examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce

and after finding probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has

committed the crime. The NBI agents in the case at bar tried to arrest Narag

and Taparan four days after the commission of the crime. They had no

personal knowledge of any fact which might indicate that the two studentswere probably guilty of the crime. What they had were the supposed positive

identification of two alleged eyewitnesses, which is insufficient to justify the

arrest without a warrant by the NBI. At the time Dennis Venturina was killed,

these agents were nowhere near the scene of the crime. When respondent

Dizon and his men attempted to arrest Taparan and Narag, the latter were not

committing a crime nor were they doing anything that would create the

suspicion that they were doing anything illegal.

2. There is no probable cause to charge Posadas, Torres-Yu, Lambino, Bentain

and Atty. Villamor of violating Section 1(c) of P.D. 1829. The absence of an

arrest warrant, the absence of knowledge or reasonable ground on the part ofthe accused to believe that the students had committed a crime, the absence of

any law punishing refusal to attend an investigation at the NBI, all show that

there is no sufficient ground to charge the accused with Obstruction of Justice.

Petitioners had a right to prevent the arrest of Taparan and Narag at the time

because their attempted arrest was illegal.

The petition is GRANTED and the Ombudsman and his agents are hereby

prohibited from prosecuting petitioners for violation of P.D. No. 1829 1(c) as a result of

the incident complained of in Criminal Case No. 22801 and the Sandiganbayan is

ORDERED to dismiss the information in Criminal Case No. 22801 against petitioners.

PAGCOR VS. ATTY. DANTE A. CARANDANG

FACTS:

Atty. Carandang, respondent, is the president of Bingo Royale, Incorporated

(Bingo Royale), a private corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines. On

February 2, 1999, PAGCOR and Bingo Royale executed a Grant of Authority to

Operate Bingo Games. Article V of this document mandates Bingo Royale to remit


9/24

20% of its gross sales to PAGCOR. This 20% is divided into 15% to PAGCOR and 5%

franchise tax to the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

In the course of its operations, Bingo Royale incurred arrears amounting to

P6,064,833.14 as of November 15, 2001. Instead of demanding the payment therefor,

PAGCOR allowed Bingo Royale and respondent Atty. Carandang to pay the said

amount in monthly installment of P300,000.00 from July

2001 to June 2003. Bingo Royale then issued to PAGCOR twenty four (24) Bank ofCommerce checks in the sum of P7,200,000.00 signed by respondent. However, when the

checks were deposited after the end of each month at the LandBank, U.N. Avenue

Branch, Manila, they were all dishonored by reason of Bingo Royales Closed

Account.

Despite PAGCORs demand letters dated November 12 and December 12,

2001, and February 12, 2002, respondent failed to pay the amounts of the checks. Thus,

PAGCOR filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila criminal complaints for

violations of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 against respondent.

PAGCOR contends that in issuing those bouncing checks, respondent is liable for

serious misconduct, violation of the Attorneys Oath and violation of the Code of

Professional Responsibility; and prays that his name be stricken from the Roll of

Attorneys -In his Opposition to the complaint, respondent averred that he is not

liable for issuing bouncing checks because they were drawn by Bingo Royale. His act of

doing so is not related to the office of a lawyer.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Atty. Carandang is liable for serious misconduct and

violated the Attorneys oath and code of professional responsibility.

HELD:

Whether to issue or not checks in favor of a payee is a voluntary act. It is clearly achoice for an individual (especially one learned in the law), whether in a personal

capacity or officer of a corporation, to do so after assessing and weighing the

consequences and risks for doing so. As President of BRI, he cannot be said to be

unaware of the probability that BRI, the company he runs, could not raise funds, totally

or partially, to cover the checks as they fell due. The desire to continue the operations

of his company does not excuse respondents act of violating the law by issuing

worthless checks. Moreover, inability to pay is not a ground, under the Civil Code, to

suspend nor extinguish an obligation. Specifically, respondent contends that because of

business reverses or inability to generate funds, BRI should be excused from making

good the payment of the checks. If this theory

is sustained, debtors will merely state that they no longer have the capacity to pay and,

consequently, not obliged to pay on time, nor fully or partially, their debt to creditors.

Surely, undersigned cannot agree with this contention.

As correctly pointed out by complainant, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is an offense that

involves public interest. Atty Carandang is suspended from practice of law for 6 months.

Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Atty.


10/24

Raquel G. Kho, Clerk of Court IV, Regional Trial Court, Oras, Eastern Samar, 521

SCRA 25 (2007)

A clerk of courts failure to remit judiciary funds for over a year, an omission contrary to

the mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93, is a breach of his oath to obey the laws

as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities, and of his duties under

Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

It is no accident that Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 are the first edicts laid down in the Code of

Professional Responsibility for these are a lawyers foremost duties. Lawyers should

always keep in mind that, although upholding the Constitution and obeying the law is an

obligation imposed on every citizen, a lawyers responsibilities under Canon 1 mean

more than just staying out of trouble with the law. As servants of the law and officers of

the court, lawyers are required to be at the forefront of observing and maintaining the rule

of law, making themselves exemplars worthy of emulation. This, in fact, is what a

lawyers obligation to promote respect for law and legal processes entails.

The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging inunlawful conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary to law is unlawful. It does

not necessarily imply the element of criminality although it is broad enough to include it.

The presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his

act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01.

Guevara vs. Atty. Eala, AC No. 7136, Aug 1, 2007

PUNO, C.J.

FACTS:

After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that Irene had been receivingfrom respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read I love you, I

miss you, or Meet you at Megamall. Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually

went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes

did not go home from work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she

slept at her parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.

Complainant saw Irene and respondent together on two occasions. On the second

occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. Irene

was already residing and she was pregnant

The Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred for violating Rule

1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.The IBP Board of Governors

annulled and set aside the Recommendation by Resolution XVII-2006-06 CBD Case No.02-936

ISSUE:

W/N Respondent is should be disbarred.

HELD:


11/24

Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral

conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7,

Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

YES.

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are

distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. In a

criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; in an administrative case fordisbarment or suspension, clearly preponderant evidence is all that is required.

As a lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and a woman deporting

themselves as husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have entered

into a lawful contract of marriage. In carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene prior

to the judicial declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and

despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect for an institution held

sacred by the law. Their illicit affair that was carried out there bore fruit a few months

later when Moje gave birth to a girl. It bears emphasis that adultery is a private offense

which cannot be prosecuted de officio and thus leaves the DOJ no choice but to grant

complainants motion to withdraw his petition for review. But even if respondent and

Irene were to be acquitted of adultery after trial, if the Information for adultery were filed

in court, the same would not have been a bar to the present administrative complaint.

GARRIDO VS. GARRIDO

FACTS:

The petitioner, the respondents legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a

supplemental affidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and

Atty. Romana P. Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on

Discipline, charging them with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of

the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caughtwind through her daughter that her husband was having an affair with a woman other

than his wife and already had a child with her; and the same information was confirmed

when one of her daughters saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the

other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in tow. After a much further

investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded results telling her that

Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong. Moreover, on

June 1993, her husband left their conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida

Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much needed financial support.

In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when they

committed the supposed immorality, so as such, they were not guilty of a violation of

Canon 1, Rule 1.01.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Garridos and Valencias actions constitute a violation of

Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the

offense being supposedly committed when they were not lawyers.

HELD:


12/24

Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law

through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where

circumstances show the lawyers lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers,

be they academic or moral.

In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty.

Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation

of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commands thata lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Furthermore, The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got

married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character was

already required as a condition precedent to admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, a person

whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia were shouldered with the

expectation that they would set a good example in promoting obedience to the

Constitution and the laws. When they violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own

personal needs and selfish motives, not only did their actions discredit the legal

profession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the fact of Garridos

abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the petitioner;

or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other marriages to two

other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values not

consistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such,

their disbarment is affirmed.

ATTY FLORITA S. LINCO VS JIMMY D. LACEBAL

The fact that the affiant previously appeared in person and signed the Deed of

Donation before the respondent notary public does not justify the respondents act of

notarizing the Deed of Donation, considering the affiants absence on the very day the

document was actually notarized. In the notarial acknowledgment of the Deed of

Donation, respondent attested that Atty. Linco personally came and appeared before himon July 30, 2003. Yet obviously, Atty. Linco could not have appeared before him on July

30, 2003, because the latter died on July 29, 2003 a day before the Deed of Donation

was notarized, and respondent was aware of that fact. Clearly, respondent made a false

statement and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath

as a lawyer. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in

an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Respondent should not notarize a document

unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and

personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated

therein.

MARITES FREEMAN VS. ATTY. ZENAIDA P. REYES AC NO. 6246 , NOV. 15,

2011

Before this Court is an Administrative Complaint, filed by complainant Marites E.

Freeman, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes, for gross dishonesty in

obtaining money from her, without rendering proper legal services, and appropriating the

proceeds of the insurance policies of her deceased husband. Complainant also seeks

recovery of all the amounts she had given to respondent and the insurance proceeds,


13/24

which was remitted to the latter, with prayer for payment of moral and exemplary

damages.

In the report and recommendation dated August 28, 2003, Investigating

Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found

respondent to have betrayed the trust of complainant as her client for being dishonest in

her dealings and appropriating herself the insurance proceeds intended for complainant.

On September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the

recommendation. The Court agrees with the observation of the Investigating

Commissioner Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes should be disbarred. The object of the disbarment

proceeding is not so much to punish the individual attorney himself, as to safeguard the

administration of justice by protecting the court and the public from the misconduct of

officers of the court, and to remove from the profession of law persons whose disregard

for their oath of office have proved them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in

them as members of the bar.

Be as it may, assuming that respondent acted within the scope of her authority to

represent the complainant in pursuing the insurance claims, she should never deviate

from the benchmarks set by Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes is found guilty of gross

misconduct and DISBARRED from the practice of law. Let her name be stricken off the

Roll of Attorneys. This Decision is immediately executory.

Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, Integrated Bar of

the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Decision and be it

duly recorded in the personal file of the respondent.

Respondent is ORDERED to turn over to complainant Marites E. Freeman theproceeds of the insurance policies remitted to her by Lincoln Financial Group, in the

amount of 10,489.57, and Eagle Star Life Assurance Company Limited, 471.06, or in

the total amount of 10,960.63, which is approximately equivalent to P700,000.00,

pursuant to the prevailing exchange rate at the time of the subject transaction.

SO ORDERED.

Re: SC Decision date May 20, 2008 in G.R. No. 161455 under Rule 139-B of the

Rules of Court vs. Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or

suspended on the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in

office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;

(6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a

superior court; and (8) corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case

without authority so to do.

The crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice, honesty, and

good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude. Moral turpitude includes

everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It


14/24

involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes

his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of

right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty,

modesty, or good morals.

Disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime

involving moral turpitude.

Manuel C. Yuhico vs. Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez

Deliberate failure to pay just debts constitute gross misconduct, for which a

lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are

instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They

must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to

their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations.

MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA VS ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON


15/24

CANON5

SPOUSES DAVID AND WILLIAMS VS. ENRIQUEZ [A.C. NO. 6353 FEBRUARY

27, 2006]

FACTS:

The respondent is the counsel of record of the plaintiffs in the case pending before

the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Dumaguete City where complainants are the

defendants. According to the complainant-spouses, Marisa Williams bought the lot

subject of the controversy.

In the case at bar, complainant argued that the counsel of the spouses acted inmalicious violation of the rules governing the practice of law, the counsel cited outdated

material in his complaint-affidavit and in his comments to counter-affidavit. He then

knowingly applied this stale law in a perverse fashion to argue that Marisa Batacan

Williams automatically lost her Filipino citizenship when she married an American, and

was thus prohibited to own land in the Philippines, thereby making her guilty of

falsification in the Deed she executed to buy property in Negros Oriental. As such, Atty.

Rudy T. Enriquez was charged with "unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful acts in

violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional

Ethics, and with conduct unbecoming an attorney."

On December 1, 2004, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Forthwith, the IBP

Commission on Bar Discipline scheduled the case for mandatory conference/hearing.

However, only the respondent appeared. The parties were then directed to submit their

verified position papers.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent is guilt of violation of Canon 5 of the code of


16/24

professional responsibility

HELD:

Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be

updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence. Indeed, when the law is so elementary, not

to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. As a

retired judge, respondent should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a

client.

In this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the Constitution,

the most basic law of the land. Implicit in a lawyers mandate to protect a clients interest

to the best of his/her ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the

law and legal developments, and participate in continuing legal education programs.

Thus, in championing the interest of clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not only

be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyers oath, but should likewise

espouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the latters cause be dismissed on a

technical ground. As such, for gross ignorance of the law, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is

REPRIMANDED and ADVISED to carefully study the opinions he may give to his

clients. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with

more severely.

JUAN DULALIA VS. ATTY. PABLO C. CRUZ

FACTS:

Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, Bulacan,

respondent, ischarged by Juan Dulalia, Jr., complainant, of violation of the Code of

ProfessionalResponsibility. Complainants wife Susan Soriano Dulalia filed an

application for buildingpermit for the construction of a warehouse. Despite compliance

with all the requirements for the purpose, she failed to secure a permit, she attributing thesame to the opposition of respondents who wrote a letter to Carlos J. Abacan, Municipal

Engineer and concurrentBuilding Official of Meycauayan saying that unbearable

nuisances that the constructioncreates and its adverse effects particularly the imminent

danger and damage to their properties, health and safety of the neighbours adjoining the

site. By complainants claim,respondent opposed the application for building permit

because of a personal grudgeagainst his wife Susan who objected to respondents

marrying her first cousin ImeldaSoriano while respondents marriage with Carolina

Agaton is still subsisting.

Respondent married Imelda Soriano at the Clark County, Nevada, USA, when the

FamilyCode of the Philippines had already taken effect. He invokes good faith, however,heclaiming to have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time was

Article 83of the Civil Code. For while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the

Code shall haveretroactive application, there is a qualification there under that it should

not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or

other laws. Inrespondents case, he being out of the country since 1986, he can be given

the benefit of thedoubt on his claim that Article 83 of the Civil Code was the applicable

provision when he contracted the second marriage abroad. From 1985 when allegedly his


17/24

first wife abandonedhim, an allegation which was not refuted, until his marriage in 1989

with Imelda Soriano,there is no showing that he was romantically involved with any

woman. And, it is undisputedthat his first wife has remained an absentee even during the

pendency of thiscase. Respondents misimpression that it was the Civil Code provisions

which applied at thetime he contracted his second marriage and the seemingly unmindful

attitude of hisresidential community towards his second marriage notwithstanding,

respondent may not goscot free.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Responsibility?

HELD:

Yes. Respondents claim that he was not aware that the Family Code because he

was in theUnited Stated does not lie, as "ignorance of the law excuses no one from

compliancetherewith." It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey

the laws of theland and promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are

expected to be in theforefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This

duty carries with it theobligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keepabreast with legaldevelopments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative

that they be conversantwith basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with

such duty, they may not be ableto discharge competently and diligently their obligations

as members of the bar. Worse, theymay become susceptible to committing mistakes.

CANON6

GISELLA HUYSSEN VS ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ

The Supreme Court ordered Wednesday the disbarment of a former lawyer of the

Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) who was found to have collected $20,000

from an American missionary supposedly to facilitate the issuance of Philippine visas.

In a 16-page decision, the high court also ordered Lawyer Fred L. Gutierrez toreturn the $20,000 to World Mission of Jesus member Gisela Huyssen, along with legal

interest from his receipt of the money until payment.

Court records showed that in 1995, Huyssen and her three sons, who are all

American citizens, applied for Philippine visas, for which Gutierrez asked for payoff.

The high court also referred Gutierrezs case to the Ombudsman for criminal

prosecution for violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act and to the Department

of Justice for appropriate administrative action.

"Respondents (Gutierrez) acts constitute gross misconduct. Consistent with the

need to maintain the high standards of the Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in

the legal profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty of expulsion from theesteemed brotherhood of lawyers" the high court said.

The High Court said Gutierrez violated Rule 1.011 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility which prohibits members of the Bar "from engaging or participating in

any unlawful, dishonest or deceitful acts and Rule 6.02 of the Code of professional

responsibility which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private

interest."

Gutierrez told Huyssen that in order for their visas to be favorably acted upon by


18/24

the BID they needed to deposit a certain sum of money for a period of one year, which

could be withdrawn after one year.

Believing that the deposit was indeed required by law, Huyssen deposited with

Gutierrez on six different occasions from April 1995 to April 1996 a total amount of

$20,000.

Gutierrez then prepared receipts and vouchers as proofs that he received the

amounts deposited by the complainant, but refused to give her copies of official receipts.A year later, Huyssen demanded that Gutierrez return the $20,000.

After Gutierrez repeatedly failed to return the money to the World Mission for

member, the former immigration lawyer was charged in court.

In November 2004, investigating commissioner Milagros V. San Juan submitted

her report recommending Gutierrezs disbarment, citing that "there is no question that

respondent received the amount of $20,000 from complainant, as respondent himself

admitted that he signed the vouchers showing his receipt of said amount from

complainant."

The Supreme Court said Gutierrez was given the opportunity to answer the

charges and controvert the evidence against him in a formal investigation, but failed to do

so without any plausible reason to appear several times whenever the case was set for

reception of his evidence despite due notice.

PCGG VS SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS

In 1976 the General Bank and TrustCompany (GENBANK) encountered

financial difficulties. GENBANK had extended considerable financial support to

Filcapital Development Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current

account with Central Bank. Despite the mega loans GENBANK failed to recover from its

financial woes. The Central Bank issued a resolution declaringGENBANK insolvent and

unable to resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and the general public,and ordering its liquidation. A public bidding of GENBANKs assets was held where

Lucio Tan group submitted the winning bid. Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza filed a

petition with the CFIpraying for the assistance and supervision of the court in

GENBANKs liquidation as mandated by RA 265.

After EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino established the PCGG to recover the

alleged ill-gotten wealth of former Pres Marcos, his family and cronies. Pursuant to this

mandate, the PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion,

reconveyance, restitution against respondents Lucio Tan, at.al. PCGG issued several writs

of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by them by taking advantage of their

close relationship and influence with former Pres. Marcos. The abovementioned

respondents Tan, et. al are represented as their counsel, former Solicitor General

Mendoza. PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondentMendoza as counsel for

respondents Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan.

It was alleged that Mendoza as then Sol Gen and counsel to Central Bank actively

intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK which was subsequently acquired by

respondents Tan et. al., which subsequently became Allied Banking Corporation. The

motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Codeof Professional Responsibility


19/24

which prohibits former government lawyers from accepting engagement or

employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said

service. The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denyting PCGGs motion to disqualify

respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between

respondent Mendozas former 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.

ISSUE

Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to

respondent Mendoza. The prohibition states: A lawyer shall not, after leaving

government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in

which he had intervened while in the said service.

HELD

The case atbar does not involve the adverse interest aspect of Rule 6.03.

Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest problem when he acted asSOlGen and later as counsel of respondents et.al. before the Sandiganbayan. However

there is still the issue of whether there exists a congruent-interest conflict sufficient to

disqualify respondent Mendoza from representing respondents et. al. The key is

unlocking the meaning ofmatter and the metes and bounds of intervention that he

made on the matter. Beyond doubt that the matter or the act of respondent Mendoza as

SolGen involved in the case at bar is advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with

the said banks liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation in CFI of

Manila.

The Court held that the advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to

liquidate GENBANK is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressingthatdrafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations and

laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the scope of

the term matter and cannot disqualify. Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the

decision of the Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He also did not participate in the

sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not

an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include

the dissolution and liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional

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 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 remedied by the Code

do not exist where the government lawyer does not act which can 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 rules

that the intervention of Mendoza is not significant and substantial. He merely petitions


20/24

that the court gives assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. The role of court is not

strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in determining the

claims of creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the SolGen is not that of the usual

court litigator protecting the interest of government.

Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is denied.

Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo:Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canonsof Professional Ethics: A

lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public employ, should not

after his retirement accept employment in connection with any matter which he has

investigated or passed upon while in such office or employ.

Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his public position as a vehicle

to promote or advance his private interests extends beyond his tenureon certain matters

in which he intervened as a public official. Rule 6.03 makes this restriction specifically

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

accepting engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had

intervened while in the service.

RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO vs ATTY. CARLOS SAGUCIO

FACTS:

Atty. Sagucio was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat

industries,Inc. until his appointment as Asst. Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao,

Cagayan in 1992.Employees of Taggat filed a criminal complaint, they alleged that

complainant, who took overthe management and control of Taggat after the death of her

father, withheld payment of their salaries and wages without valid cause. Complainant

now charges respondent with the violationsRule 15.03 of CPR and engaging in the

private practice of law while working as a govt prosecutor.

ISSUE:

WON respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR. WON being a former lawyer of

Taggatconflicts with his role as Asst. Provincial Prosecutor

HELD:

The Supreme Court finds no conflict of interests when respondent handled

preliminaryinvestigation of criminal complaint filed by Taggat employees in 1997. The

issue in the criminalcomplaint pertains to non-payment of wages that occurred from

April 1 1996 to July 15, 1997.Clearly, respondent was no longer connected with Taggat

during that period since he resignedsometime in 1992. In order to change respondent for

representing conflicting interests, evidencemust be presented to prove that respondent

used against Taggat, his former client, any confidential information acquired thru his

previous employment. It does not necessarily followthat respondent used any

confidential information from his previous employment withcomplainant or Taggat in

resolving the criminal complaint.

As the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat and the case


21/24

he resolved asGovt prosecutor was labor-related is not a sufficient basis to charge

respondent for representingconflicting interests. A lawyers immutable duty to a former

client does not cover transactions

that occurred beyond the lawyers employment with the client. The intent of the law is to

imposeupon the lawyer the duty to protect the clients interests only on matters that he

previouslyhandled for the former client and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-

client relationshiphas terminated.Thus, respondent is NOT guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code.

As to the second issue, respondent clearly violated the prohibition in Ra 6718 which

constitutes aviolation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which mandates that a lawyer shall not

engage in unlawful,dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.. The respondent here

performed acts that are usuallyrendered by lawyers with the use of their legal

knowledge, the same falls within the ambit of theterm practice of law. Respondents

admission that he received from Taggat fees for legalservices while serving as a govt

prosecutor is unlawful conduct, which constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01.

MARTIN LAHN III AND JAMES P. CONCEPCION VS LABOR ARBITER


22/24


23/24

CANON7

Joseph Samala vs. Atty. Palaa, AC No. 6395, April 15, 2005

ADM. CASE No. 6595. April 15, 2005. AZCUNA, J.

FACTS:

The complainant was looking for a company where he could invest his dollar

savings. He met Raymond Taino, a trader-employee of First Imperial Resources, Inc.

(FIRI), a company located at Legaspi Village, Makati City. Taino introduced him to

FIRI Manager Jun Agustin, Chief Trader Diosdado Bernal, and Legal Officer Antonuitti

K. Palaa, the respondent herein. The Respondent assured him that through FIRI he

would be directly putting his investment with Eastern Vanguard Forex Limited, areputable company based in the Virgin Islands which has been in the foreign exchange

business for 13 years. Subsequently, complainant decided to pull out his investment. He

sent FIRI a letter requesting the withdrawal of his investment amounting to US$10,000

and giving FIRI 10 days to prepare the money.

On April 15, 2001, complainant asked Agustin when his money would be

returned. Agustin told him that the request was sent to Thomas Yiu of Eastern Vanguard

at Ortigas Center. Yiu was surprised when he saw the documents involving

complainants investment. On the same day, in the presence of respondent, Agustin

delivered to complainant a check in the amount of P574,045.09, as the peso equivalent of

complainants investment with FIRI. The said check was dishonored because it wasdrawn against insufficient funds.

On June 1, 2001, respondent, as legal officer of FIRI, gave complainant P250,000

in cash and a check in the amount of P329,045.09. The check was dishonored because it

was drawn against insufficient funds.

Complainant charged Paul Desiderio of Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambansa

Bilang 22 at the Prosecutors Office of Makati. A warrant of arrest was issued against

Paul Desiderio. Complainant alleged that respondents act of representing himself to be


24/24

the legal officer of FIRI and his assurance that the check he personally delivered to him

was signed in his presence by FIRI Officer Paul Desiderio, when no such person appears

to exist, is clearly fraudulent and violative of the Canons of Professional Ethics.

Complainant requested the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for a thorough

investigation of respondent as a member of the bar. Commissioner Navarro thus

recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 6 months. Board

of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of theInvestigating Commissioner with the modification that respondent should be suspended

from the practice of law for 3 years.

ISSUE:

W/N the respondent should be penalized according to the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

HELD:

Atty. Antonuitti K. Palaa is found GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 of the Code

of Professional Responsibility and hereby suspended from the practice of law for a periodof three (3) years effective from receipt of this Resolution, with a warning that a

repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

YES.

Respondent was found to have violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility, which states:

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to

practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous

manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

FIRI prohibited it from engaging in investment or foreign exchange business and

its primary purpose is to act as consultant in providing professional expertise and

reliable data analysis related to partnership and so on.Hence, it is clear that the representations of respondent as legal officer of FIRI

caused material damage to complainant. In so doing, respondent failed to uphold the

integrity and dignity of the legal profession and lessened the confidence of the public in

the honesty and integrity of the same.

Digests for Ethics Canons1-7

Documents

Transcript of Digests for Ethics Canons1-7