sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/9259.pdf
"x x x.
At the outset, Atty. Espejo was well aware that Rodica was represented by another counsel in the RTC case. As a practicing lawyer, he should know that it is the said counsel, Atty. Ibutnande, who has the duty to prepare the said motion. In fact, he himself stated that it is Atty. Ibutnande who is in a better position to evaluate the merit of the withdrawal of the Motion for Reconsideration.
Atty. Espejo’s claim that he drafted and signed the pleading just to extend assistance to Rodica deserves scant consideration. It is true that under Rules 2.01 and 2.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed, and in such cases, even if he does not accept a case, shall not refuse to render legal
advise to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s right. However, in this case, Rodica cannot be considered as defenseless or oppressed considering that she is properly represented by counsel in the RTC case.
Needless to state, her rights are amply safeguarded. It would have been different had Rodica not been represented by any lawyer, which, however, is not the case.
Moreover, the Court wonders why Atty. Espejo, knowing fully well that Rodica is not their law firm’s client and without the knowledge and consent of his superiors, gave in to Rodica’s request for him to indicate in the said motion the names of his law firm, Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle for the purpose of “giving more weight and credit to the pleading.” As a member of the bar, Atty. Espejo ought to know that motions and pleadings filed in courts are acted upon in accordance with their merit or lack of it, and not on the reputation of the law firm or the lawyer filing the same. More importantly, he should have thought that in so doing, he was actually assisting Rodica in misrepresenting before the RTC that she was being represented by the said law firm and lawyers, when in truth she was not.
It is well to remind Atty. Espejo that before being a friend to Rodica, he is first and foremost an officer of the court.43 Hence, he is expected to maintain a high standard of honesty and tair dealings and n1ust conduct himself beyond
reproach at all times . .J-1 He must likewise ensure that he acts within the bounds of reason and common sense, always aware that he is an instrument of truth and justice. 15 As shown by his actuations, Atty. Espejo fell shm1 of what is expected of him. Under the circumstances, Atty. Espejo should have exercised prudence by first diligently studying the soundness of Rodica's pleas and the repercussions of
his acts.
We note that on August 5, 201 1, or even before the filing of the disbarment complaint, Atty. Espejo already caused the filing of his Motion to Withdraw Appearance before the RTC. Therein, Atty. Espejo already expressed remorse and sincere apologies to the RTC for wrongly employing the mime of the Lazaro Law Office. Considering that Atty. Espejo is newly admitted to the Bar (2010), we deem it proper to warn him to be more circumspect and prudent in his actuations.
x x x."
