cases set 6

8/9/2019 Cases Set 6

1/51

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 1608 August 14, 1981

MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA complainant,vs.SEGUNDINO D. MANIWANG respon ent .

AQUINO, J.:

Ma! alena ". #rci!a in her complaint of $ebruar% &', ()*+ as e for the isbarment of la-%er Se!un ino D.Mani-an! a mitte to the /ar in ()*0 1 on the !roun of !rossl% immoral con uct because he refuse to fulfill his promise of marria!e to her."heir illicit relationship resulte in the birth on September ', ()*2 of their chil , Michael Dino Mani-an!.

Ma! alena an Se!un ino !ot ac3uainte sometime in October, ()*4 at Cebu Cit%. Ma! alena -as then a me icaltechnolo!% stu ent in the Cebu Institute of Me icine -hile Se!un ino -as a la- stu ent in the San 5ose RecoletosColle!e. "he% became s-eethearts but -hen Ma! alena refuse to have a tr%st -ith Se!un ino in a motel in5anuar%, ()*(, Se!un ino stoppe visitin! her.

"heir paths crosse a!ain urin! a Valentine6s Da% part% in the follo-in! month. "he% rene-e their relationship. #fter the% ha inner one ni!ht in March, ()*( an fin in! themselves alone li e # am an Eve1 in her boar in!house since the other boar ers ha !one on vacation, the% ha se7ual con!ress. 8hen Se!un ino as eMa! alena -h% she ha refuse his earlier proposal to have se7ual intercourse -ith him, she 9o in!l% sai that she-as in love -ith another man an that she ha a chil -ith still another man. Se!un ino remar e that even if that

be the case, he i not min because he love her ver% much.

"hereafter, the% ha repeate acts of cohabitation. Se!un ino starte tellin! his ac3uaintances that he anMa! alena -ere secretl% marrie .

In ()*& Se!un ino transferre his resi ence to Pa a a, Davao el Sur. :e continue his la- stu ies in DavaoCit%. .Ma! alena remaine in Cebu. :e sent to her letters an tele!rams professin! his love for her E7h. ; to


2/51

Se!un ino a mits in his ans-er that he an Ma! alena -ere lovers an that he is the father of the chil Michael.:e also a mits that he repeate l% promise to marr% Ma! alena an that he breache that promise because ofMa! alena6s sha % past. She ha alle!e l% been accuse in court of oral efamation an ha alrea % anille!itimate chil before Michael -as born.

"he Solicitor ?eneral recommen s the ismissal of the case. In his opinion, respon ent6s cohabitation -ith thecomplainant an his rene!in! on his promise of marria!e o not -arrant his isbarment.

#n applicant for a mission to the bar shoul have !oo moral character. :e is re3uire to pro uce before this Courtsatisfactor% evi ence of !oo moral character an that no char!es a!ainst him, involvin! moral turpitu e, have beenfile or are pen in! in an% court.

If !oo moral character is a sine qua non for a mission to the bar, then the continue possession of !oo moralcharacter is also a re3uisite for retainin! membership in the le!al profession. Membership in the bar ma% beterminate -hen a la-%er ceases to have !oo moral character Ro%on! vs. Oblena, ((* Phil. @+01.

# la-%er ma% be isbarre for !rossl% immoral con uct, or b% reason of his conviction of a crime involvin! moralturpitu eA. # member of the bar shoul have moral inte!rit% in a ition to professional probit%.

It is ifficult to state -ith precision an to fi7 an infle7ible stan ar as to -hat is A!rossl% immoral con uctA or tospecif% the moral elin3uenc% an obli3uit% -hich ren er a la-%er un-orth% of continuin! as a member of the bar."he rule implies that -hat appears to be unconventional behavior to the strai!ht>lace ma% not be the immoralcon uct that -arrants isbarment.

Immoral con uct has been efine as Athat con uct -hich is -illful, fla!rant, or shameless, an -hich sho-s amoral in ifference to the opinion of the !oo an respectable members of the communit%A * C.5.S. )0)1.

8here an unmarrie female -arf possessin! the intellect of a chil became pre!nant b% reason of intimac% -ith amarrie la-%er -ho -as the father of si7 chil ren, isbarment of the attorne% on the !roun of immoral con uct -as

9ustifie In re :ic s &4 Pac. &n @)+1.

"here is an area -here a la-%er6s con uct ma% not be inconsonance -ith the canons of the moral co e but he is notsub9ect to isciplinar% action because his misbehavior or eviation from the path of rectitu e is not !larin!l%scan alous. It is in connection -ith a la-%er6s behavior to the opposite se7 -here the 3uestion of immoralit% usuall%arises. 8hether a la-%er6s se7ual con!ress -ith a -oman not his -ife or -ithout the benefit of marria!e shoul becharacteri=e as A!rossl% immoral con uct,A -ill epen on the surroun in! circumstances.

"his Court in a ecision ren ere in ()&0, -hen ol >fashione moralit% still prevaile , observe that Athe le!islator-ell no-s the frailt% of the flesh an the ease -ith -hich a man, -hose sense of i!nit%, honor an moralit% is not-ell cultivate , falls into temptation -hen alone -ith one of the fair se7 to-ar -hom he feels himself attracte . #noccasion is so in ucive to sin or crime that the sa%in! A# fair boot% ma es man% a thiefA or A#n open oor ma% tempta saintA has become !eneral.A People vs. De la Cru=, '@ Phil. 022, 0201.

Disbarment of a la-%er for !rossl% immoral con uct is illustrate in the follo-in! casesB

(1 8here la-%er #rturo P. ope= succee e in havin! carnal no-le !e of Vir!inia C. #lmire=, un er promise ofmarria!e, -hich he refuse to fulfill, althou!h the% ha alrea % a marria!e license an espite the birth of a chil inconse3uence of their se7ual intercourse he marrie another -oman an urin! Vir!inia6s pre!nanc%, ope= ur!eher to ta e pills to hasten the flo- of her menstruation an he trie to convince her to have an abortion to -hich shei not a!ree. #lmire= vs. ope=, # ministrative Case No. '@(, $ebruar% &@, ()+), &* SCR# (+). See Sarmientovs. Cui, (44 Phil. ((4&1.

&1 8here la-%er $rancisco #!ustin ma e #nita Cabrera believe that the% -ere marrie before eoncio V. #!lubat inthe Cit% :all of Manila, an , after such fa e marria!e, the% cohabite an she later !ive birth to their chil Cabreravs. #!ustin, (4+ Phil. &0+1.

21 8here la-%er 5esus /. "ole o aban one his la-ful -ife an cohabite -ith another -omen -ho ha borne hima chil "ole o vs. "ole o, ((* Phil. *+@. #s to isbarment for contractin! a bi!amous marria!e, see Villasanta vs.Peralta, (4( Phil. 2(21.

'1 "he con uct of #belar o Simbol in ma in! a upe of Concepcion /olivar b% livin! on her bount% an allo-in! her to spen for his schoolin! an other personal necessities, -hile an!lin! before her the mira!e of a marria!e,


3/51

marr%in! another !irl as soon as he ha finishe his stu ies, eepin! his marria!e a secret -hile continuin! toeman mone% from the complainant, an tr%in! to spon!e on her an persua e her to resume their bro enrelationship after the latter6s iscover% of his perfi % are in icative of a character not -orth% of a member of the bar/olivar vs. Simbol, (&2 Phil. '041.

01 8here $lora uin!-a, a public school teacher, -ho -as en!a!e to la-%er #rman o Puno, -as prevaile uponb% him to have se7ual con!ress -ith him insi e a hotel b% tellin! her that it -as alri!ht to have se7ual intercoursebecause, an%-a%, the% -ere !oin! to !et marrie . She use to !ive Puno mone% upon his re3uest. #fter she

became pre!nant an !ave birth to a bab% bo%, Puno refuse to marr% her. uin!-a vs. Puno, # ministrative CaseNo. 2@), $ebruar% &@, ()+*, () SCR# '2)1.

+1 8here la-%er #nacleto #spiras, a marrie man, misrepresentin! that he -as sin!le an ma in! a promise ofmarria!e, succee e in havin! se7ual intercourse -ith. 5osefina Mortel. #spiras fa e a marria!e bet-een 5osefinaan his o-n son Cesar. #spiras -rote to 5osefinaB AFou are alone in m% life till the en of m% %ears in this -orl . I -illbrin! %ou alon! -ith me before the altar of matrimon%.A A"hrou!h thic an thin, for better or for -orse, in life or ineath, m% 5osephine %ou -ill al-a%s be the first, mi le an the last in m% life.A Mortel vs. #spiras, (44 Phil. 0@+1.

*1 8here la-%er #riston Oblena, -ho ha been havin! a ulterous relations for fifteen %ears -ith /riccia #n!eles, amarrie -oman separate from her husban , se uce her ei!hteen>%ear>ol niece -ho became pre!nant an

be!ot a chil . Ro%on! vs. Oblena, ((* Phil. @+01.

"he instant case can easil% be ifferentiate from the fore!oin! cases. "his case is similar to the case of Soberanovs. Villanueva, ((+ Phil. (&4+, -here la-%er Eu!enio V. Villanueva ha se7ual relations -ith Merce es :. Soberanobefore his a mission to the bar in ()0'. "he% in ul!e in fre3uent se7ual intercourse. She -rote to him in ()04 an()0( several letters ma in! reference to their tr%sts in hotels.

On letter in ()0( contain e7pressions of such a hi!hl% sensual, tantali=in! an vul!ar nature as to ren er themun3uotable an to impart the firm conviction that, because of the close intimac% bet-een the complainant an therespon ent, she felt no restraint -hatsoever in -ritin! to him -ith impu icit%.

#ccor in! to the complainant, t-o chil ren -ere born as a conse3uence of her lon! intimac% -ith the respon ent. In()00, she file a complaint for isbarment a!ainst Villanueva.

"his Court foun that respon ent6s refusal to marr% the complainant -as not so corrupt nor unprinciple as to-arrant isbarment. See Montana vs. Rua o, # ministrative Case No. 04*, $ebruar% &', ()*0, +& SCR# 2@&Re%es vs. 8on!, # ministrative Case No. 0'*, 5anuar% &), ()*0, +2 SCR# ++*, Vio9an vs. Duran, ((' Phil. 2&&

#bai!ar vs. Pa=, # ministrative Case No. ))*, September (4, ()*),)2 SCR# )(1.

Consi erin! the facts of this case an the aforecite prece ents, the complaint for isbarment a!ainst therespon ent is hereb% ismisse .

SO ORDERED.


4/51


Manila

":IRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 6 1 S!"t!#$!% &, '006

CAT(ERINE )OIE P. *ITUG, complainant,vs.ATT+. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL, respon ent.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J .

"he alle!ations raise in this complaint for isbarment are more sor i , if not ta- r%, from the usual. #s such, closescrutin% of these claims is calle for. Disbarment an suspension of a la-%er, bein! the most severe forms ofisciplinar% sanction, shoul be impose -ith !reat caution an onl% in those cases -here the miscon uct of thela-%er as an officer of the court an a member of the bar is establishe b% clear, convincin! an satisfactor% proof. (

Gn er consi eration is the a ministrative complaint for isbarment file b% Catherine 5oie P. Vitu! complainant1a!ainst #tt%. Dios a o M. Ron!cal respon ent1. # classic case of Ahe sai , she sai ,A the parties6 conflictin!versions of the facts as culle from the recor s are hereinafter presente .

Complainant narrates that she an respon ent met sometime in December &444 -hen she -as loo in! for a la-%er to assist her in suin! #rnulfo #3uino A#3uinoA1, the biolo!ical father of her minor au!hter, for support. :er formerclassmate -ho -as then a /aran!a% Secretar% referre her to respon ent. #fter several meetin!s -ith complainant,respon ent sent a eman letter & in her behalf to #3uino -herein he as e for the continuance of the monthl% chilsupport #3uino use to !ive, plus no less than P244,444.44 for the sur!ical operation their au!hter -oul nee forher con!enital heart ailment.

#t aroun this point, b% complainant6s o-n a mission, she an respon ent starte havin! a se7ual relationship. Shenarrates that this t-ist in the events be!an after respon ent starte callin! on her shortl% after he ha sent theeman letter in her behalf. Respon ent alle!e l% starte courtin! her, !ivin! her financial ai . Soon he hapro!resse to ma in! se7ual a vances to-ar s complainant, to the accompaniment of s-eet in ucements such asthe promise of a 9ob, financial securit% for her au!hter, an his services as counsel for the prospective claim forsupport a!ainst #3uino. Complainant ac no-le !es that she succumbe to these a vances, assure b%respon ent6s claim that the la-%er -as free to marr% her, as his o-n marria!e ha alrea % been annulle .

On ) $ebruar% &44(, respon ent alle!e l% convince complainant to si!n an #ffi avit of Disclaimer 2 A#ffi avitA1cate!oricall% statin! that even as #3uino -as enote as the father in the birth certificate ' of her au!hter, he -as,in truth, not the real father. She -as not allo-e to rea the contents of the #ffi avit, she claims. Respon entsuppose l% assure her that the ocument meant nothin!, necessar% as it -as the onl% -a% that #3uino -oula!ree to !ive her au!hter me ical an e ucational support. Respon ent purporte l% assure complainant thatespite the #ffi avit, she coul still pursue a case a!ainst #3uino in the future because the #ffi avit is not a public
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt1


5/51

ocument. /ecause she completel% truste him at this point, she si!ne the ocument A-ithout even ta in! a !lanceat it.A0

On (' $ebruar% &44(, respon ent alle!e l% a vise complainant that #3uino !ave him P(04,444.44 cashan P0@,444.44 in t-o &1 post ate chec s to ans-er for the me ical e7penses of her au!hter. Instea of turnin!them over to her, respon ent han e her his personal chec + in the amount of P(04,444.44 an promise to !iveher the balance of P0@,444.44 soon thereafter. :o-ever, sometime in #pril or Ma% &44(, respon ent informe herthat he coul not !ive her the sai amount because he use it for his political campai!n as he -as then runnin! for

the position of Provincial /oar Member of the &n District of Pampan!a.

Complainant maintains that inspite of their se7ual relationship an the fact that respon ent ept part of the mone%inten e for her au!hter, he still faile in his promise to !ive her a 9ob. $urthermore, he i not file the case a!ainst

#3uino an referre her instea to #tt%. $e erico S. "olentino, 5r. A#tt%. "olentinoA1.

Sometime in &44&, assiste b% #tt%. "olentino, complainant file a criminal case for chil abuse as -ell as a civilcase a!ainst #3uino. 8hile the criminal case -as ismisse , the civil case -as eci e on 24 #u!ust &44' b% virtueof a compromise a!reement. * It -as onl% -hen sai cases -ere file that she finall% un erstoo the import of the

#ffi avit.

Complainant avers that respon ent faile to protect her interest -hen he personall% prepare the #ffi avit ancause her to si!n the same, -hich obviousl% -or e to her isa vanta!e. In ma in! false promises that all herproblems -oul be solve , a!!ravate b% his assurance that his marria!e ha alrea % been annulle , respon entalle!e l% eceive her into %iel in! to his se7ual esires. "a in! a vanta!e of the trust an confi ence she ha inhim as her counsel an paramour, her -ea emotional state, an ire financial nee at that time, respon ent -asable to appropriate for himself mone% that ri!htfull% belon!e to her au!hter. She ar!ues that respon ent6saforementione acts constitute a violation of his oath as a la-%er as -ell as the Co e of Professional Responsibilit%ACo eA1, particularl% Rule (.4(, Rule (.4&, Rule (+.4(, Rule (+.4&, an Canon *. @ :ence, she file the instantcomplaint ) ate & $ebruar% &44'.

E7pecte l%, respon ent presents a ifferent version. #ccor in! to him, complainant nee e a la-%er -ho -oul file

the aforementione action for support. Complainant6s former hi!h school classmate Reinil a /ansil Morales, -ho-as also his fello- baran!a% official, referre her to him. :e a mits sen in! a eman letter to her former lover,

#3uino, to as support for the chil . (4 Subse3uentl%, he an #3uino communicate throu!h an emissar%. :e learnethat because of #3uino6s infi elit%, his relationship -ith his -ife -as straine so that in or er to settle thin!s thespouses -ere -illin! to !ive complainant a lump sum provi e she -oul e7ecute an affi avit to the effect that

#3uino is not the father of her au!hter.

Respon ent rela%e this proposal to complainant -ho as e for his a vice. :e then a vise her to stu % theproposal thorou!hl% an -ith a practical min set. :e also e7plaine to her the pros an cons of pursuin! the case.

#fter several a%s, she re3ueste that he ne!otiate for an out>of>court settlement of no less thanP044,444.44. 8hen #3uino re9ecte the amount, ne!otiations ensue until the amount -as lo-ere toP&44,444.44. #3uino alle!e l%

offere to issue four post ate chec s in e3ual amounts -ithin four months. Complainant isa!ree . #3uino thenpropose to re iscount the chec s at an interest of 'H a month or a total ofP(&,444.44. "he resultin! amount-as P(@@,444.44.

Complainant finall% a!ree to this arran!ement an voluntaril% si!ne the #ffi avit that respon ent prepare , thesame #ffi avit a verte to b% complainant. :e enies forcin! her to si!n the ocument an stron!l% refutes heralle!ation that she i not no- -hat the #ffi avit -as for an that she si!ne it -ithout even rea in! it, as he !aveher the raft before the actual pa%ment -as ma e. :e notes that complainant is a colle!e !ra uate an a formerban emplo%ee -ho spea s an un erstan s En!lish. :e li e-ise vehementl% enies poc etin!P0@,444.44 of thesettlement procee s. 8hen complainant alle!e l% si!ne the #ffi avit, the emissar% han e to her the sumof P(04,444.44 in cash an she alle!e l% tol respon ent that he coul eep the remainin!P 2@,444.44,not P0@,444.44 as alle!e in the complaint. #lthou!h she i not sa% -h%, he assume that it -as for his attorne%6sfees.

#s re!ar s their illicit relationship, respon ent a mits of his se7ual liaison -ith complainant. :e, ho-ever, enieslurin! her -ith s-eet -or s an empt% promises. #ccor in! to him, it -as more of a Achemistr% of sic1 t-oconsensual sic1 a ults,A (( complainant then bein! in her thirties. :e enies that he tric e her into believin! that hismarria!e -as alrea % annulle . Stran!el%, respon ent evotes consi erable effort to emonstrate that complainantver% -ell ne- he -as marrie -hen the% commence -hat -as to him, an e7tra>marital liaison. :e points out that,first, the% ha met throu!h his collea!ue, Ms. Morales, a frien an former hi!h school classmate of hers. Secon ,the% ha alle!e l% first met at his resi ence -here she -as actuall% intro uce to his -ife. Subse3uentl%,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt11


6/51

complainant calle his resi ence several times an actuall% spo e to his -ife, a circumstance so isturbin! torespon ent that he ha to be! complainant not to call him there. "hir , he -as the Punon! /aran!a% from ())' to&44&, an -as electe Presi ent of the #ssociation of /aran!a% Council A#/CA1 an as such -as an ex-officio member of the San!!unian! /a%an of ?ua!ua, Pampan!a. :e ran for the position of Provincial /oarMember in &44(. "hus, he -as no-n in his localit% an it -as impossible for complainant not to have no-n of hismarital status especiall% that she live no more than three 21 ilometers a-a% from his house an even activel%helpe him in his campai!n.

Respon ent further alle!es that -hile the eman for support from #3uino -as bein! -or e out, complainantmove to a rente house in Olon!apo Cit% because a suitor ha promise her a 9ob in the Subic Naval /ase. /utmonths passe an the promise 9ob never came so that she ha to return to ubao, Pampan!a. #s the mone% shereceive from #3uino -as about to be e7hauste , she alle!e l% starte to pester respon ent for financial assistancean ur!e him to file the Petition for Support a!ainst #3uino. 8hile respon ent acce e to her pleas, he alsoa vise her Ato loo for the ri!ht manA (& an to stop epen in! on him for financial assistance. :e also informe herthat he coul not assist her in filin! the case, as he -as the one -ho prepare an notari=e the #ffi avit. :e,ho-ever, referre her to #tt%. "olentino.

In #u!ust &44&, respon ent finall% en e his relationship -ith complainant, but still he a!ree to !ive her monthl%financial assistance of P+,444.44 for si7 +1 months. Since then, the% have cease to meet an have communicate

onl% throu!h an emissar% or b% cellphone. In &442, complainant be!!e him to continue the assistance until 5une-hen her alle!e fianc from the Gnite States -oul have arrive . Respon ent a!ree . In 5ul% &442, she a!ainas e for financial assistance for the last time, -hich he turne o-n. Since then he ha stoppe communicatin! toher.

Sometime in 5anuar% &44', complainant alle!e l% -ent to see a frien of respon ent. She tol him that she -as innee of P0,444.44 for a sari>sari store she -as puttin! up an she -ante him to rela% the messa!e to respon ent.

#ccor in! to this frien , complainant sho-e him a prepare complaint a!ainst respon ent that she -oul file -iththe Supreme Court shoul the latter not acce e to her re3uest. Sensin! that he -as bein! blac maile , respon enti!nore her eman . "rue enou!h, he alle!es, she file the instant complaint.

On &( 5ul% &44', the case -as referre to the Inte!rate /ar of the Philippines AI/PA1 for investi!ation, report anrecommen ation. (2 #fter the parties submitte their respective position papers an supportin! ocuments, theInvesti!atin! Commissioner ren ere his Report an Recommen ation (' ate & September &440. #fter presentin!the parties6 conflictin! factual versions, the Investi!atin! Commissioner !ave cre ence to that of complainant anconclu e that respon ent clearl% violate the Co e, reportin! in this -ise, to -itB

Respon ent, throu!h the above mentione acts, clearl% sho-e that he is -antin! in !oo moral character,puttin! in oubt his professional reputation as a member of the /#R an ren ers him unfit an un-orth% ofthe privile!es -hich the la- confers to him. $rom a la-%er, are sic1 e7pecte those 3ualities of truth>spea in!, hi!h sense of honor, full can or, intellectual honest% an the strictest observance of fi uciar%responsibilit% all of -hich throu!hout the passa!e of time have been compen iousl% escribe as MOR#

C:#R#C"ER.

Respon ent, unfortunatel% too a vanta!e an sic1 ever% opportunit% to entice complainant to his lascivioushun!erness sic1. On several occasionsJ,K respon ent ept on callin! complainant an roppe b% her housean !ave P&,444.44 as ai -hile -aitin! alle!e l% for the repl% of sic1 their eman letter for support. Itsi!nals the numerous visits an re!ular calls all because of JlKe- esi!n. :e too a vanta!e of herseemin! financial -oes an emotional epen enc%.

7 7 7 7

8ithout oubt, a violation of the hi!h moral stan ar s of the le!al profession 9ustifies the impositions sic1 ofthe appropriate penalt%, inclu in! suspension an isbarment. 7 7 7 (0

It -as then recommen e that respon ent be suspen e from the practice of la- for si7 +1 months an that he beor ere to return to complainant the amount of P0@,444.44 -ithin t-o months. "he I/P /oar of ?overnors a optean approve the sai Report an Recommen ation in a Resolution (+ ate (* December &440, fin in! the same tobe full% supporte b% the evi ence on recor an the applicable la-s an rules, an Aconsi erin! Respon ent6sobviousl% ta in! a vanta!e of the la-%er>client relationship an the financial an emotional problem of his client anattemptin! to mislea the Commission,A (* respon ent -as mete out the penalt% of suspension for one (1 %ear -itha stern -arnin! that a repetition of similar acts -ill merit severe sanctions. :e -as li e-ise or ere toreturn P0@,444.44 to complainant.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt17


7/51

Respon ent file a Motion for Reconsi eration -ith Motion to Set Case for Clarificator% uestionin! (@ AMotionA1ate ) March &44+ -ith the I/P an a Motion to ReopenLReman Case for Clarificator% uestionin! ate &&March &44+ -ith the Supreme Court. :e reiterates his o-n version of the facts, !ivin! a more etaile account ofthe events that transpire bet-een him an complainant. #lto!ether, he portra%s complainant as a shre- anmanipulative -oman -ho epen s on men for financial support an -ho -oul stop at nothin! to !et -hat she-ants. #r!uin! that the I/P base its Resolution solel% on complainant6s bare alle!ations that she faile to prove b%clear an convincin! evi ence, he posits the case shoul be re>opene for clarificator% 3uestionin! in or er toetermine -ho bet-een them is tellin! the truth.

In a Resolution () ate &* #pril &44+, the I/P enie the Motion on the !roun that it has no more 9uris iction overthe case as the matter ha alrea % been en orse to the Supreme Court.

8hile -e fin respon ent liable, -e a 9u icate the matter ifferentl% from -hat the I/P has recommen e .

On the char!e of immoralit%, respon ent oes not en% that he ha an e7tra>marital affair -ith complainant, albeitbrief an iscreet, an -hich act is not Aso corrupt an false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprinciple as tobe reprehensible to a hi!h e!reeA &4 in or er to merit isciplinar% sanction. 8e isa!ree.

One of the con itions prior to a mission to the bar is that an applicant must possess !oo moral character. Sai

re3uirement persists as a continuin! con ition for the en9o%ment of the privile!e of la- practice, other-ise, the lossthereof is a !roun for the revocation of such privile!e. &( #s officers of the court, la-%ers must not onl% in fact be of!oo moral character but must also be seen to be of !oo moral character an lea in! lives in accor ance -ith thehi!hest moral stan ar s of the communit%. && "he Court has hel that to 9ustif% suspension or isbarment the actcomplaine of must not onl% be immoral, but !rossl% immoral. &2 # !rossl% immoral act is one that is so corrupt anfalse as to constitute a criminal act or so unprinciple or is!raceful as to be reprehensible to a hi!h e!ree. &' It is a-illful, fla!rant, or shameless act that sho-s a moral in ifference to the opinion of the !oo an respectablemembers of the communit%. &0

8hile it is has been hel in isbarment cases that the mere fact of se7ual relations bet-een t-o unmarrie a ults isnot sufficient to -arrant a ministrative sanction for such illicit behavior, &+ it is not so -ith respect to betra%als of the

marital vo- of fi elit%. &* Even if not all forms of e7tra>marital relations are punishable un er penal la-, se7ualrelations outsi e marria!e is consi ere is!raceful an immoral as it manifests eliberate isre!ar of the sanctit%of marria!e an the marital vo-s protecte b% the Constitution an affirme b% our la-s. &@

/% his o-n a mission, respon ent is obviousl% !uilt% of immoralit% in violation of Rule (.4( of the Co e -hich statesthat a la-%er shall not en!a!e in unla-ful, ishonest, immoral or eceitful con uct. "he ne7t 3uestion to consi er is-hether this act is a!!ravate b% his alle!e eceitful con uct in lurin! complainant -ho -as then in lo- spirits anin ire financial nee in or er to satisf% his carnal esires. 8hile the I/P conclu e the 3uestion in the affirmative,-e fin other-ise.

Complainant6s alle!ations that she succumbe to respon ent6s se7ual a vances ue to his promises of financial

securit% an because of her nee for le!al assistance in filin! a case a!ainst her former lover, are insufficient toconclu e that complainant eceive her into havin! se7ual relations -ith her. Surel%, an e ucate -oman li eherself -ho -as of sufficient a!e an iscretion, bein! at that time in her thirties, -oul not be easil% foole intose7ual con!ress b% promises of a 9ob an of free le!al assistance, especiall% -hen there is no sho-in! that she issufferin! from an% mental or ph%sical isabilit% as to 9ustif% such rec lessness an Lor helplessness on herpart. &)Respon ent6s numerous visits an re!ular calls to complainant o not necessaril% prove that he tooa vanta!e of her. #t best, it proves that he courte her espite bein! a marrie man, precisel% the fact on -hich thefin in! of immoralit% is roote . Moreover, the circumstance that he !ave her P&,444.44 as ai oes not in uce belief that he fuele her financial epen ence as she never enie plea in! -ith, if not ba !erin!, him for financialsupport.

Neither oes complainant6s alle!ation that respon ent lie to her about his marital status inspire belief. 8e fincre ence in respon ent6s assertion that it -as impossible for her not to have no-n of his subsistin! marria!e. Sheherself a mitte that the% -ere intro uce b% her frien an former classmate, Ms. Morales -ho -as a fello-baran!a% official of respon ent. She a mitte that she ne- his resi ence phone number an that she ha callehim there. She also ne- that respon ent is an active baran!a% official -ho even ran as Provincial /oar Memberin &44(. Curiousl%, she never refute respon ent6s alle!ations that she ha met an tal e to his -ife on severaloccasions, that she live near his resi ence, that she helpe him in his campai!n, or that she ne- a lot of hisfrien s, so as not to have no-n of his marital status. Consi erin! that she previousl% ha an affair -ith #3uino, -ho-as also a marrie man, it -oul be unnatural for her to have 9ust plun!e into a se7ual relationship -ithrespon ent -hom she ha no-n for onl% a short time -ithout verif%in! his bac !roun , if it -ere true that she
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt29


8/51

preferre Ato chan!e JherK life for the better,A 24 as alle!e in her complaint. 8e believe that her aforementionealle!ations of eceit -ere not establishe b% clear prepon erant evi ence re3uire in isbarment cases. 2( 8e areleft -ith the most lo!ical conclusion that she freel% an -ittin!l% entere into an illicit an immoral relationship -ithrespon ent sans an% misrepresentation or eceit on his part.

Ne7t, complainant char!e respon ent of ta in! a vanta!e of his le!al s ills an moral control over her to force herto si!n the clearl% isa vanta!eous #ffi avit -ithout lettin! her rea it an -ithout e7plainin! to her itsrepercussions. 8hile actin! as her counsel, she alle!e that he li e-ise acte as counsel for #3uino.

8e fin complainant6s assertions ubious. She -as clearl% in nee of financial support from #3uino especiall% thather au!hter -as sufferin! from a heart ailment. 8e cannot fathom ho- she coul aban on all cares to respon ent-ho she ha met for onl% a couple of months an thereb% ris the -elfare of her chil b% si!nin! -ithout evenrea in! a ocument she ne- -as relate to the support case she inten e to file. "he #ffi avit consists of fourshort sentences containe in a sin!le pa!e. It is unli el% she -as not able to rea it before she si!ne it.

i e-ise obscure is her assertion that respon ent i not full% e7plain to her the contents of the #ffi avit an theconse3uences of si!nin! it. She alle!e that respon ent even ur!e her Ato use her hea as #rnulfo #3uino -ill not!ive the mone% for #le7an ra6s me ical an e ucational support if she -ill not si!n the sai #ffi avit ofDisclaimer.A 2& If her o-n alle!ation is to be believe , it sho-s that she -as a-are of the on>!oin! ne!otiation -ith

#3uino for the settlement of her claim for -hich the latter eman e the e7ecution of the #ffi avit. It also !oes tosho- that she -as pon erin! on -hether to si!n the same. $urthermore, she oes not en% bein! a colle!e!ra uate or that she no-s an un erstan s En!lish. "he #ffi avit is -ritten in short an simple sentences that areun erstan able even to a la%man. "he inevitable conclusion is that she si!ne the #ffi avit voluntaril% an -ithoutan% coercion -hatsoever on the part of respon ent.

"he 3uestion remains as to -hether his act of preparin! an notari=in! the #ffi avit, a ocument isa vanta!eous tohis client, is a violation of the Co e. 8e rule in the ne!ative.

It -as not unla-ful for respon ent to assist his client in enterin! into a settlement -ith #3uino after e7plainin! allavailable options to her. "he la- encoura!es the amicable settlement not onl% of pen in! cases but also of isputes

-hich mi!ht other-ise be file in court. 22 Moreover, there is no sho-in! that he ne- for sure that #3uino is thefather of complainant6s au!hter as paternit% remains to be proven. #s complainant voluntaril% an intelli!entl%a!ree to a settlement -ith #3uino, she cannot later blame her counsel -hen she e7periences a chan!e of heart./esi es, the recor is bereft of evi ence as to -hether respon ent also acte as #3uino6s counsel in the settlementof the case. #!ain, -e onl% have complainant6s bare alle!ations that cannot be consi ere evi ence. 2' Suspicion, nomatter ho- stron!, is not enou!h. In the absence of contrar% evi ence, -hat -ill prevail is the presumption that therespon ent has re!ularl% performe his ut% in accor ance -ith his oath. 20

Complainant further char!e respon ent of misappropriatin! part of the mone% !iven b% #3uino to her au!hter.Instea of turnin! over the -hole amount, he alle!e l% issue to her his personal chec in the amountofP(04,444.44 an poc ete the remainin! P0@,444.44 in violation of his fi uciar% obli!ation to her as her counsel.

"he I/P i not ma e an% cate!orical fin in! on this matter but simpl% or ere respon ent to return the amountof P0@,444.44 to complainant. 8e feel a iscussion is in or er.

8e note that there is no clear evi ence as to ho- much #3uino actuall% !ave in settlement of complainant6s claimfor support. "he parties are in a!reement that complainant receive the amount of P(04,444.44. :o-ever,complainant insists that she shoul have receive more as there -ere t-o post ate chec s amountin!toP0@,444.44 that respon ent never turne over to her. Respon ent essentiall% a!rees that the amount is in factmore than P(04,444.44 but onl% P2@,444.44 more an complainant sai he coul have it an he assume it -asfor his attorne%6s fees.

8e scrutini=e the recor s an foun not a sin!le evi ence to prove that there e7iste t-o post ate chec s issueb% #3uino in the amount of P0@,444.44. On the other han , respon ent a mits that there is actuall% an amountof P2@,444.44 but presente no evi ence of an a!reement for attorne%6s fees to 9ustif% his presumption that he caneep the same. Curiousl%, there is on recor a photocop% of a chec issue b% respon ent in favor of complainantfor P(04,444.44. It -as onl% in his Motion for Reconsi eration -here respon ent belate l% proffers an e7planation.:e avers that he cannot recall -hat the chec -as for but he supposes that complainant re3ueste for it as she inot -ant to travel all the -a% to Olon!apo Cit% -ith a hu!e sum of mone%.

8e fin the circumstances rather suspicious but evi ence is -antin! to sustain a fin in! in favor of either part% inthis respect. 8e cannot an shoul not rule on mere con9ectures. "he I/P relie onl% on the -ritten assertions of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt35


9/51

parties, apparentl% fin in! no nee to sub9ect the veracit% of the assertions throu!h the 3uestion an ans-ermo alit%. 8ith the inconclusive state of the evi ence, a more in> epth investi!ation is calle for to ascertain in-hose favor the substantial evi ence level tilts. :ence, -e are constraine to reman the case to the I/P for furtherreception of evi ence solel% on this aspect.

8e also are unable to !rant complainant6s pra%er for respon ent to be ma e liable for the cost of her chil 6s DN#test absent proof that he misappropriate fun s e7clusivel% earmar e for the purpose.

Neither shall -e entertain complainant6s claim for moral ama!es an attorne%6s fees. Suffice it to state that ana ministrative case a!ainst a la-%er is sui generis, one that is istinct from a civil or a criminal action. 2+ It is aninvesti!ation b% the Court into the fitness of a la-%er to remain in the le!al profession an be allo-e the privile!esas such. Its primar% ob9ective is to protect the Court an the public from the miscon uct of its officers -ith the en invie- of preservin! the purit% of the le!al profession an the proper an honest a ministration of 9ustice b% re3uirin!that those -ho e7ercise this important function shall be competent, honorable an reliable men an -omen in -homcourts an clients ma% repose confi ence. 2* #s such, it involves no private interest an affor s no re ress for private!rievance .2@ "he complainant or the person -ho calle the attention of the court to the la-%er6s alle!e miscon uctis in no sense a part%, an has !enerall% no interest in the outcome e7cept as all !oo citi=ens ma% have in theproper a ministration of 9ustice. 2)

Respon ent6s miscon uct is of consi erable !ravit%. "here is a strin! of cases -here the Court mete out thee7treme penalt% of isbarment on the !roun of !ross immoralit% -here the respon ent contracte a bi!amousmarria!e , '4 aban one his famil% to cohabit -ith his paramour, '( cohabite -ith a marrie -oman, '& lure aninnocent -oman into marria!e, '2 or -as foun to be a -omani=er .'' "he instant case can be easil% ifferentiatefrom the fore!oin! cases. 8e, therefore, hee the stern in9unction on ecreein! isbarment -here an% lesserpenalt%, such as temporar% suspension, -oul accomplish the en esire . '0 In Zaguirre v. Castillo , '+ respon ent -asfoun to have sire a chil -ith another -oman -ho ne- he -as marrie . :e therein sou!ht un erstan in! fromthe Court pointin! out the pol%!amous nature of men an that the illicit relationship -as a pro uct of mutual lust anesire. #ppalle at his reprehensible an amoral attitu e, the Court suspen e him in efinitel%. :o-ever,in Fr . Sinnott v. Judge arte, '* -here respon ent 9u !e consorte -ith a -oman not his -ife, but there -as noconclusive evi ence that he sire a chil -ith her, he -as fine P(4,444.44 for his con uct unbecomin! a

ma!istrate espite his retirement urin! the pen enc% of the case.

8e note that from the ver% be!innin! of this case, herein respon ent ha e7presse remorse over his in iscretionan ha in fact en e the brief illicit relationship %ears a!o. 8e ta e these as si!ns that his is not a character ofsuch severe epravit% an thus shoul be ta en as miti!atin! circumstances in his favor. '@ Consi erin! further thatthis is his first offense, -e believe that a fine of P(0,444.44 -oul suffice. "his, of course, is -ithout pre9u ice to theoutcome of the aspect of this case involvin! the alle!e misappropriation of fun s of the client.

8:ERE$ORE, premises consi ere , -e fin #tt%. Dios a o M. Ron!cal ?GI "F of immoralit% an impose on him a$INE of P(0,444.44 -ith a stern -arnin! that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future -ill be ealt -ithmore severel%.

"he char!e of misappropriation of fun s of the client is REM#NDED to the I/P for further investi!ation, report anrecommen ation -ithin ninet% )41 a%s from receipt of this Decision.

et a cop% of this ecision be entere in the personal recor of respon ent as an attorne% an as a member of the/ar, an furnishe the /ar Confi ant, the Inte!rate /ar of the Philippines an the Court # ministrator for circulationto all courts in the countr%.

SO ORDERED.


Manila

EN /#NC

A.C. No. 8 91 No-!#$!% ' , '010/o%#!% C2D C3s! No. 06 16 15
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6313_2006.html#fnt48


10/51

MANUEL C. +U(ICO, Complainant,vs.ATT+. /RED L. GUTIERRE , Respon ent.

D E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM:

/efore us is a Complaint ( ate 5anuar% (4, &44+ for isciplinar% action a!ainst respon ent #tt%. $re . ?utierre=?utierre=1 file b% Manuel C. Fuhico Fuhico1 for violation of Rule (.4( of the Co e of Professional Responsibilit%.

"he antece ent facts of the case are as follo-sB

Complainant Fuhico alle!e that he met ?utierre= at the Office of the Cit% Prosecutor in Pasi! Cit% on Ma% ', &440.Fuhico -as there to testif% at the preliminar% investi!ation of a Complaint for Estafa a!ainst one 5ose S. Chicharro,-ho -as then bein! represente b% ?utierre=. :e claime that the% eventuall% became ac3uainte as the%fre3uentl% sa- each other urin! the hearin!s of the case.

On 5une &', &440, Fuhico averre that ?utierre= phone him an as e for a cash loan of P24,444.44. ?utierre=

then claime that he nee e mone% to pa% for the me ical e7penses of his mother -ho -as seriousl% ill. Fuhicoimme iatel% han e the mone%. In turn, ?utierre= promise to pa% the loan ver% soon, since he -as e7pectin! tocollect his attorne%6s fees from a 5apanese client.

On 5une &@, &440, ?utierre= a!ain as e Fuhico for a loan, this time in the amount of P+4,444.44, alle!e l% to pa%the me ical e7penses of his -ife -ho -as also hospitali=e . #!ain, Fuhico rea il% issue to #tt%. ?utierre= anE3uitable PCI /an chec amountin! to P+4,444.44 .& #!ain, ?utierre= promise to pa% his t-o loans totallin!toP)4,444.44 A-ithin a short time.A

On 5ul% (&, &440, Fuhico as e ?utierre= to pa% his loans. #tt%. ?utierre= faile to pa%. In a te7t messa!e on 5ul%(&, &440 at &B'* p.m., #tt%. ?utierre= state B

I reall% on6t no- ho- to sa% this as I on6t -ant to thin that I ma% be ta in! a vanta!e of our frien ship. Fou seei6ve lon! e7pecte as substantial attorne%6s fees since last -ee from m% client O!ami from 9apan. It6s more or lessmore than 0m an its release is ela%e ue to ta7 an the la- on mone% laun erin!. $rom m% estimate it -u becollecte b% me on or b' au!ust 0. N the meantime I am 3uite in a financial ifficult% as ever%one is.

ater, Fuhico alle!e that ?utierre= attempte to borro- mone% from him a!ain. :e sai ?utierre= claime that hisau!hter nee e P*4,444.44 to pa% the fees re3uire to ta e the licensure e7amination in the G.S. Me ical /oar .?utierre= assure him that he -ill pa% all his ebts on or before #u!ust (4, &440. In his te7t messa!e on 5ul% (&,&440 at 2B40 p.m., #tt%. ?utierre= sai B

#s %ou are a-are of these past fe- a%s -ere reall% !reat trials ' me. M% mother ie , m% -ife !ot sic an no- m%bro in la- ie . "hese events le me to stru!!lin! finances. "o !et me !oin! I trie to sel m% car but m% bu%erbac e out. No- m% imme iate problem is the amt of *4thousan -hich m% au!hter nee s for her pa%ment sa GSme ical boar . I nt -ant her to miss this opportunit%. Can u help me a!ain I -ill pa% all m% ebts on or b' #u!.(4pls. "han s.

:o-ever, this time, Fuhico refuse to len ?utierre= an% amount of mone%. Instea , he eman e from ?utierre=the pa%ment of his ebts. ?utierre= then sent another te7t messa!e to Fuhico on 5ul% (&, &440 an re3ueste himto !ive him another -ee to pa% his ebts. ?utierre= faile to ma e the pa%ment.

Fuhico repeate l% re3ueste the pa%ment of loans from ?utierre= from #u!ust to December &440. ?utierre=, on theother han , for numerous times promise to pa%, but al-a%s faile to o so. #t one point, ?utierre= even as eFuhico6s account number an promise to eposit his pa%ment there, but he never eposite the pa%ment.

On December 0, &440, Fuhico6s counsel sent a eman letter 2 to ?utierre= to pa% his ebts, but to no avail.

"hus, Fuhico file the instant complaint a!ainst ?utierre= before the Inte!rate /ar of the Philippines>Commissionon /ar Discipline I/P>C/D1.

On 5anuar% (&, &44+, the I/P>C/D irecte ?utierre= to submit his #ns-er on the complaint a!ainst him. '
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt4


11/51

In his #ns-er, 0 ?utierre= claime that Fuhico -as the one -ho offere to len him mone% in !ratitu e for theassistance he e7ten e to the latter -hen he -as un er threat b% his clients. :e, ho-ever, a mitte that heaccepte the loan ue to compellin! circumstances. ?utierre= a e that he has no intention of eva in! hisobli!ation to pa% his ebts, but he is currentl% in financial istress, thus, he cannot pa% his ebts %et. :e claime he-ill pa% his ebts -hen his financial con ition improves.

On March &', &44+, both parties -ere irecte to appear at the man ator% conference before the I/P>C/D.?utierre= faile to atten on t-o occasions.

On 5une ), &44+, the I/P>C/D irecte both parties to submit their respective position papers.

i e-ise, urin! the clarificator% hearin! before the I/P>C/D, onl% the complainant6s counsel atten e . "here -asno appearance on the part of ?utierre=.

In his Position Paper, Fuhico manifeste that the Supreme Court, in !u"ssen v. Att". #utierre$, + ha alrea %isbarre ?utierre= from the practice of la- for !ross miscon uct, in vie- of his failure to pa% his ebts an hisissuance of -orthless chec s.

Subse3uentl%, in a Resolution ate December ((, &44@, the, I/P>C/D foun ?utierre= !uilt% of non>pa%ment of

9ust ebts an or ere him to return the amount of Ninet% "housan Pesos P)4,444.441 to Fuhico, -ith interestuntil full pa%ment.

In vie- of the previous isbarment of ?utierre=, the I/P>C/D recommen e to the Court that, instea of ren erin!the instant case moot, ?utierre= shoul be isbarre ane- effective upon the e7piration of the sanction pursuant tothe March &+, &44' Supreme Court Decision. "he I/P>C/D e7plaine that -hile -e o not have 9urispru ence onthe issue of ouble or multiple isbarment, the #merican 9urispru ence, ho-ever, reco!ni=es ouble or multipleisbarments as -ell as the minimum re3uirement of five 01 %ears for rea mission to the /ar.

On December ((, &44@, the I/P /oar of ?overnors, in Resolution No. VIII>&44@>+'), resolve to a opt the reportan recommen ation of the I/P>C/D an approve it -ith mo ification as to the pa%ment of the amount of Ninet%

"housan Pesos P)4,444.441, this time, %ithout interest .

8e sustain the fin in!s of the I/P, but -ith mo ification as to its recommen ations.

8e have hel that eliberate failure to pa% 9ust ebts constitute !ross miscon uct, for -hich a la-%er ma% besanctione -ith suspension from the practice of la-. a-%ers are instruments for the a ministration of 9ustice anvan!uar s of our le!al s%stem. "he% are e7pecte to maintain not onl% le!al proficienc%, but also a hi!h stan ar ofmoralit%, honest%, inte!rit% an fair ealin! so that the people s faith an confi ence in the 9u icial s%stem isensure . "he% must, at all times, faithfull% perform their uties to societ%, to the bar, the courts an to their clients,-hich inclu e prompt pa%ment of financial obli!ations. "he% must con uct themselves in a manner that reflects thevalues an norms of the le!al profession as embo ie in the Co e of Professional Responsibilit% .*

In the instant case, there is no 3uestion as to ?utierre=6s !uilt. :is a mission of the loan he contracte an hisfailure to pa% the same leaves no room for interpretation. Neither can he 9ustif% his act of non>pa%ment of ebt b% hisire financial con ition. ?utierre= shoul not have contracte loans -hich are be%on his financial capacit% to pa%. &avv'hi&

i e-ise, -e cannot overloo ?utierre=6s propensit% of emplo%in! eceit an misrepresentations for the purpose ofobtainin! ebts -ithout the intention of pa%in! them. Recor s sho- ?utierre=6s pattern of habituall% ma in!promises of pa%in! his ebts, %et repeate l% failin! to eliver. "he series of te7t messa!es he sent to Fuhicopromisin! to pa% his loans, -hile simultaneousl% !ivin! e7cuses -ithout actuall% ma in! !oo of his promises, isclearl% reprehensible. Gn oubte l%, his acts emonstrate lac of moral character to satisf% the responsibilities anuties impose on la-%ers as professionals an as officers of the court.

8e also note that in !u"ssen v. Att". #utierre$, @ the Court ha alrea % isbarre ?utierre= from the practice of la-for !ross miscon uct ue to non>pa%ment of 9ust ebts an issuance of bouncin! chec s.

In vie- of the fore!oin!, -hile -e a!ree -ith the fin in!s of the I/P, -e cannot, ho-ever, a opt its recommen ationto isbar ?utierre= for the secon time, consi erin! that ?utierre= ha alrea % been previousl% isbarre . In ee ,as the I/P pointe out, -e o not have ouble or multiple isbarment in our la-s or 9urispru ence. Neither o -ehave a la- man atin! a minimum 0>%ear re3uirement for rea mission, as cite b% the I/P. "hus, -hile ?utierre=6sinfraction calls for the penalt% of isbarment, -e cannot isbar him ane-.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/ac_8391_2010.html#fnt8


12/51

W(ERE/ORE, Resolution No. VIII>&44@>+') ate December ((, &44@, of the I/P, -hich foun $RED .?G"IERRE< !uilt% of GROSS MISCONDUCT, is A//IRMED . :e is ORDERED to P#F the amount of Ninet%"housan Pesos P)4,444.441 to the complainant imme iatel% from receipt of this ecision -ith interest.

et a cop% of this Decision be furnishe an properl% recor e in the Office of the /ar Confi ant, to be appen e tothe personal recor of ?utierre= the Inte!rate /ar of the Philippines an the Office of the Court # ministrator, forcirculation to all courts in the countr% for their information an !ui ance.

"his Decision shall be imme iatel% e7ecutor%.

SO ORDERED.


13/51


Manila

SECOND DIVISION

ADM. CASE NO. 68&6 M3%7 &, '008

(EIRS O/ L+DIO )ERR+ /ALAME, :3#! MEL2A /ALAME, LEO /ALAME 3:; )ERR+/ALAME, petitioners,vs.ATT+. EDGAR ). 2AGUIO, respon ent.

R E S O L U T I O N

TINGA,J.

On Petition for Revie- ( is the Resolution of the Inte!rate /ar of the Philippines I/P1 /oar of ?overnorsismissin! the isbarment complaint file b% the :eirs of % io A5err%A $alame complainants1 a!ainst #tt%. E !ar 5./a!uio respon ent1, oc ete as C/D Case No. 4'>(()(.

In their Complaint & a!ainst respon ent, complainants alle!e that on (0 5ul% ())(, their father, the late % io A5err%A$alame % io1, en!a!e the services of respon ent to represent him in an action for forcible entr% oc ete as CivilCase No. #>&+)' the first civil case1 an entitle A !eirs of Emilio (. S", re'resented )" Anastacia *ela"o *da. +eS" and elen *. S" vs. "dio Jerr" Falame, aleigh Falame and Four /01 John +oes ,A in -hich % io -as one ofthe efen ants. 2

Complainants recounte that respon ent, as counsel for the efen ants, file the ans-er to the complaint in the firstcivil case. Subse3uentl%, -hen the parties to the first civil case -ere re3uire to file their respective position papers,respon ent use an submitte in evi ence the follo-in!B (1 a special po-er of attorne% ate ( 5ul% ()@@e7ecute b% % io in favor of his brother, Ralei!h $alame, appointin! the latter to be his attorne%>in>fact an &1 theaffi avit of Ralei!h $alame ate &2 5ul% ()@@, e7ecute before respon ent, in -hich Ralei!h state that % ioo-ne the propert% sub9ect of the first civil case . '

Complainants claime that even after the Municipal "rial Court of Dipolo! Cit% ha rule in favor of the efen antsin the first civil case, % io retaine the services of respon ent as his le!al a viser an counsel for his businessesuntil % io6s eath on @ September ())+. 0

:o-ever, on &2 October &444, in representation of spouses Ralei!h an Noemi $alame, respon ent file a casea!ainst complainants alle!e l% involvin! the propert% sub9ect of the first civil case, entitle 2S'ouses all" F. Falameand 3oemi F. Falame v. 4el)a A. Falame, eo A. Falame, Jerr" A. Falame, Jr., Sugni ealt" !oldings and+evelo'ment Cor'orations, their re'resentatives, agents and 'ersons acting in their )ehalf2 an oc ete as CivilCase No. 00+@ the secon civil case1 before the Re!ional "rial Court of Dipolo! Cit%, /ranch +. "he complaintsou!ht the eclaration of nullit% of the ee of sale, its re!istration in the re!istr% of ee s, "ransfer Certificate of"itle No. &4&'( issue as a conse3uence of the re!istration of the ee of sale, an the real estate mort!a!e on thesai propert%. #lternativel%, it pra%e for specific performance an reconve%ance or le!al re emption an ama!es-ith preliminar% in9unction an restrainin! or er .+

$irstl%, complainants maintaine that b% actin! as counsel for the spouses $alame in the secon civil case -hereinthe% -ere implea e as efen ants, respon ent violate his oath of office an ut% as an attorne%. Plainl%, the%conten e that the spouses $alame6s interests are a verse to those of his former client, % io. *

Secon l%, complainants claime that respon ent no-in!l% ma e false statements of fact in the complaint in thesecon civil case to mislea the trial court. In so oin!, respon ent violate para!raph 1, Section &4 @ of Rule (2@of the Rules of Court, ) complainants asserte further.

astl%, complainants alle!e that the secon civil case is a baseless an fabricate suit -hich respon ent file ascounsel for complainants6 uncle a!ainst the heirs of respon ent6s ecease client. Specificall%, the% averre that
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt9


14/51

respon ent file the case for the sole purpose of retainin!, maintainin! an Lor -ithhol in! the possession of thesub9ect propert% from complainants -ho are its true o-ners. Complainants conclu e that respon ent violatepara!raph !1, Section &4 (4 of Rule (2@ of the Rules of Court. ((

In his #ns-er -ith Motion to Dismiss, (& respon ent controverte complainants6 alle!ations. :e emphasi=es that it-as onl% Ralei!h $alame -ho personall% en!a!e his le!al services for him an on % io6s behalf an that, in fact, it-as Ralei!h -ho pai him the attorne%6s fees. :e also state that he si!ne the 5urat in Ralei!h6s affi avit, -hich-as submitte as evi ence in the first civil case, believin! to the best of his no-le !e that there is !oo !roun to

support it. Insistin! that he i not betra% the confi ence repose in him b% % io as the latter6s counsel in the firstcivil case, respon ent maintaine that he i not reveal or use an% fact he ac3uire no-le !e of urin! thee7istence of the attorne%>client relation in the first civil case as he ha never even conferre -ith nor tal e to % ioin the first place. Respon ent li e-ise conten e that he i not no-in!l% ma e an% mislea in! or untruthfulstatement of fact in the complaint in the secon civil case an neither i he emplo% an% means inconsistent -ithtruth an honor in the hearin! of the case. (2

Respon ent vi!orousl% averre that % io ha not retaine him as counsel in an% case or transaction. Stressin! thelon! interval of t-elve %ears separatin! the termination of the first civil case an his acceptance of the secon civilcase, respon ent pointe out that the first civil case -as not bet-een % io an Ralei!h but rather bet-een theheirs of Emilio ". S% on one han an % io an Ralei!h on the other -here ph%sical possession of propert% -as at

sta e. Respon ent further averre that in contrast the secon civil case is one involvin! the spouses Ralei!h anNoemi $alame as plaintiffs, an Melba, eo an 5err% 5r., all surname $alame, an Su!ni Realt% :ol in!s anDevelopment Corporation, as efen antsQa case -hich arose from the -ron!ful acts committe b% Melba, eo an5err% 5r. after % io6s eath. ('

Respon ent maintaine that since the secon civil case -as still pen in! before the trial court, the I/P ha no 9uris iction over the instant a ministrative case. :e a e that complainants file this a ministrative case -henRalei!h coul no lon!er testif% in his o-n favor as he ha ie a %ear earlier. (0

In their Position Paper (+ ate * September &44', in a ition to their previous char!es a!ainst respon ent,complainants claime that respon ent violate Rule (0.42 (* of the Co e of Professional Responsibilit% -hen he

represente the cause of the spouses $alame a!ainst that of his former client, % io. (@

On &0 5une &440, the I/P /oar of ?overnors passe Resolution No. VI>&440>(+* a optin! an approvin!Investi!atin! Commissioner 8inston D. #bu%uan6s report an recommen ation for the ismissal of thisa ministrative case, thus B()

7 7 7 "he char!e lac s specification as to -hat part of the la-%er6s oath -as violate b% the respon ent an-hat confi ence -as isclose . "he complainants ma% have in min the prohibition a!ainst isclosure ofsecret information learne in confi ence, but there is no specification in the complaint -hat secret orinformation learne in confi ence un er Civil Case No. #>&+)' -as isclose or -ill be isclose b%respon ent in Civil Case No. 00+@. In a ministrative complaints for isbarment or suspension a!ainst

la-%ers, the complainant must specif% in the affi avit>complaint the alle!e secrets or confi entialinformation isclose or -ill be isclose in the professional emplo%ment 6" v. #on$ale$ , '&+ SCR# '&&'2(1. In the absence of such specification, the complaint must fail.

In the complaint, there is no specific char!e a!ainst respon ent for violation of Canon (0, Rule (0.42 of theCo e of Professional Responsibilit% about the prohibition a!ainst representation of conflictin! interest. So,the alle!ation in para!raph (, pa!e @ an ) of complainants6 position paper statin!B 7ith all due res'ect, it issu)mitted that res'ondent violated Canon &8, ule &8.9: of the Code of ;rofessional es'onsi)ilit"2 cannotbe countenance . "he reason bein! that it is an elementar% principle of ue process to -hich therespon ent is entitle that onl% those char!e in the complaint can be prove b% the complainants. # char!enot specifie in the complaint cannot be prove G% v. ?on=ales, i .1

7 7 7 /ut still this char!e -ill not proper for lac of sufficient bases.

7 7 7

Civil Case No. 00+@, -hich -as commence on 42 October &444, or three %ears since the complainantsbecame o-ners of % io $alame6s properties, is a suit a!ainst the complainants, not as representatives of% io $alame, but as o-ners of their respective ali3uot interests in the propert% in 3uestion #a"on v.#a"on , 2+ SCR# (4' (4*>(4@1. "he complainants are sue not on the basis of the acts, ri!hts, obli!ationsan interest of % io $alame on the material possession of the improvements foun on ot 2'0 liti!ate in
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt19


15/51

Civil Case No. #>&+)' nor even on such lan itself, but rather on the facts alle!e in the secon amen ean supplemental complaint -hich !ive rise to their cause of action a!ainst them.

8hile the complainants coul not specif% un er -hat circumstances the respon ent committe JtheK alle!ebreach of confi ence, breach of secrec% or revelation of secret or confi ential informationJ,K the respon enthas sho-n that he i not commit an% violation of such uties or obli!ations of an attorne%.

It is clear that onl% Ralei!h $alame en!a!e the le!al services of the respon ent for his an % io $alame6s

efense in Civil Case No. #>&+)'.

7 7 7

"he other alle!ations of the complainants that the respon ent violate para!raph 1, Section &4 of Rule(2), Rules of Court, an his la-%er6s oath -hen he alle!e l% betra%e the trust an confi ence of his former client b% en%in! no-le !e of the fact that the lan -as o-ne b% % io $alame an -hen he i notisclose to the Court that at one time his present clients cate!oricall% eclare an uncon itionall%reco!ni=e the full o-nership of the late % io $alame an complainant Melba $alame over sub9ect matterof both cases e3uall% lac s evi entiar% basis.

7 7 7

It is be%on the competence of the complainants to conclu e an is outsi e the 9uris iction of this :onorableCommission to rule as to -hether or nor sic1 the complaint in Civil Case No.00+@ is baseless or fabricate .It is onl% the :onorable Court -hich has the e7clusive 9uris iction to etermine the same an cannot be thesub9ect of an a ministrative complaint a!ainst the respon ent.

7 7 7

8:ERE$ORE, premises consi ere , it is respectfull% recommen e that this complaint be ismisse on!roun s of prescription, the same havin! been file four '1 %ears after the alle!e miscon uct too place

an for lac of merit.

RESPEC"$G F SG/MI""ED. &4

Dissatisfie , complainants file the instant petition for revie- un er Rule '0 of the Rules of Court reiteratin! theiralle!ations in the complaint an their position paper. &( "he% li e-ise assert that the I/P erre in hol in! that theinstant a ministrative complaint ha been file out of time since it -as file on (+ 5anuar% &44', or three 21 %ears,four '1 months an si7teen (+1 a%s after the secon civil case -as file on &2 October &444. && In a ition, in theirConsoli ate Comment shoul be Consoli ate Repl%1, &2 complainants invo e the Court6s rulin! in Frias v.autista- o$ada &'to support their contention that a ministrative complaints a!ainst members of the bar o notprescribe. &0

In his Comment ,&+ respon ent principall% maintains that the char!es impute to him have never been proven b%clear, convincin! an satisfactor% evi ence -hich is the 3uantum of proof re3uire in a ministrative cases a!ainstla-%ers, an that complainants have the bur en to prove their accusations as he en9o%s the presumption ofinnocence. &* Respon ent li e-ise asserts that in accusin! him of violation of Rule (0.42 of the Co e of ProfessionalResponsibilit% onl% in their position paper an in the instant petition, complainants infrin!e his ri!ht to ue processan to be informe of the nature an cause of accusation a!ainst him. &@

"here is merit in the petition.

#t the outset, the Court hol s that the instant a ministrative action is not barre b% prescription. #s earl% as ()'*,the Court hel in Calo, Jr. v. +egamo ,&) to -itB

"he or inar% statutes of limitation have no application to isbarment procee in!s, nor oes the circumstancethat the facts set up as a !roun for isbarment constitute a crime, prosecution for -hich in a criminalprocee in! is barre b% limitation, affect the isbarment procee in! 7 7 7 0 #m. 5ur. '2'1 24

"his octrine -as reaffirme in the relativel% recent case of Frias v. autista- o$ada 2( -here the Court hel that RuleVII, Section ( of the Rules of Proce ure of the C/D>I/P, -hich provi es for a prescriptive perio for the filin! ofa ministrative complaints a!ainst la-%ers, shoul be struc o-n as voi an of no le!al effect for bein! ultravires. 2&
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt32


16/51

Prescin in! from the unavailabilit% of the efense of prescription, the Court concurs -ith the Investi!atin!Commissioner6s opinion that some of the char!es raise b% complainants in their complaint are unsubstantiate .

"here is, ho-ever, sufficient basis to hol respon ent accountable for violation of Rule (0.42 of the Co e ofProfessional Responsibilit%. 8hile this char!e -as not raise in the initiator% plea in!, it -as put for-ar incomplainants6 position paper file -ith the I/P an in the petition file -ith the Court. In fact, respon ent profferehis efenses to the char!e in his position paper before the I/P an li e-ise in his comment before the Court. In hisver% first plea in! before the I/P, the ans-er -ith motion to ismiss, he enie havin! % io as his client. Such

absence of attorne%>client relationship is the essential element of his efense to the char!e of conflict of interest, asarticulate in his subse3uent submissions.

"he Court, therefore, rules an so hol s that respon ent has been a e3uatel% apprise of an hear on the issue.In a ministrative cases, the re3uirement of notice an hearin! oes not connote full a versarial procee in!s. #ctuala versarial procee in!s onl% become necessar% for clarification -hen there is a nee to propoun searchin!3uestions to -itnesses -ho !ive va!ue testimonies. Due process is fulfille -hen the parties -ere !iven reasonableopportunit% to be hear an to submit evi ence in support of their ar!uments. 22

Rule (0.42 of the Co e of Professional Responsibilit% provi esB

# la-%er shall not represent conflictin! interests e7cept b% -ritten consent of all concerne !iven after a fullisclosure of the facts.

# la-%er ma% not, -ithout bein! !uilt% of professional miscon uct, act as counsel for a person -hose interestconflicts -ith that of his present or former client. 2' "he test is -hether, on behalf of one client, it is the la-%er6s ut%to contest for that -hich his ut% to another client re3uires him to oppose or -hen the possibilit% of such situation -illevelop. 20 "he rule covers not onl% cases in -hich confi ential communications have been confi e , but also thosein -hich no confi ence has been besto-e or -ill be use . 2+ In a ition, the rule hol s even if the inconsistenc% isremote or merel% probable or the la-%er has acte in !oo faith an -ith no intention to represent conflictin!interests .2*

"he rule concernin! conflict of interest prohibits a la-%er from representin! a client if that representation -ill beirectl% a verse to an% of his present or former clients. In the same -a%, a la-%er ma% onl% be allo-e to representa client involvin! the same or a substantiall% relate matter that is materiall% a verse to the former client onl% if theformer client consents to it after consultation. "he rule is !roun e in the fi uciar% obli!ation of lo%alt%. 2@ In thecourse of a la-%er>client relationship, the la-%er learns all the facts connecte -ith the client6s case, inclu in! the-ea an stron! points of the case. "he nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust an confi ence of thehi!hest e!ree. 2)

"he termination of attorne%>client relation provi es no 9ustification for a la-%er to represent an interest a verse to orin conflict -ith that of the former client. "he client6s confi ence once repose shoul not be iveste b% meree7piration of professional emplo%ment. Even after the severance of the relation, a la-%er shoul not o an%thin!

-hich -ill in9uriousl% affect his former client in an% matter in -hich he previousl% represente him nor shoul heisclose or use an% of the client6s confi ences ac3uire in the previous relation. '4

In relation to this, Canon (* of the Co e of Professional Responsibilit% provi es that a la-%er o-es fi elit% to thecause of his client an shall be min ful of the trust an confi ence repose on him. :is hi!hest an mostun3uestione ut% is to protect the client at all ha=ar s an costs even to himself. '( "he protection !iven to the clientis perpetual an oes not cease -ith the termination of the liti!ation, nor is it affecte b% the part%6s ceasin! toemplo% the attorne% an retainin! another, or b% an% other chan!e of relation bet-een them. It even survives theeath of the client. '&

In the case at bar, respon ent a mitte havin! 9ointl% represente % io an Ralei!h as efen ants in the first civilcase. Evi entl%, the attorne%>client relation bet-een % io an respon ent -as establishe espite the fact that it-as onl% Ralei!h -ho pai him. "he case of !ilado v. +avid '2 tells us that it is immaterial -hether such emplo%ment-as pai , promise or char!e for. ''

#s efense counsel in the first civil case, respon ent a vocate the stance that % io solel% o-ne the propert%sub9ect of the case. In the secon civil case involvin! the same propert%, respon ent, as counsel for Ralei!h an hisspouse, has pursue the inconsistent position that Ralei!h o-ne the same propert% in common -ith % io, -ithcomplainants, -ho inherite the propert%, committin! acts -hich ebase respon ent6s ri!hts as a co>o-ner.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/ac_6876_2008.html#fnt44


17/51

"he fact that the attorne%>client relation ha cease b% reason of % io6s eath or throu!h the completion of thespecific tas for -hich respon ent -as emplo%e is not reason for respon ent to a vocate a position oppose tothat of % io. '0 Prece ents tell us that even after the termination of his emplo%ment, an attorne% ma% not act ascounsel a!ainst his client in the same !eneral matter, even thou!h, -hile actin! for his former client, he ac3uire nono-le !e -hich coul operate to his client6s isa vanta!e in the subse3uent a verse emplo%ment. '+ #n -hilecomplainants have never been respon ent6s clients, the% erive their ri!hts to the propert% from % io6s o-nership of it -hich respon ent maintaine in the first civil case.

$or representin! Ralei!h6s cause -hich is a verse to that of his former clientQRalei!h6s suppose co>o-nership ofthe sub9ect propert%Q respon ent is !uilt% of representin! conflictin! interests. :avin! previousl% un erta en 9ointrepresentation of % io an Ralei!h, respon ent shoul have ili!entl% stu ie an anticipate the

potential conflict of interest. #ccor in!l%, isciplinar% action is -arrante . '* :eretofore, respon ent is en9oine to looat an% representation situation from Athe point of vie- that there are possible conflictsA an further, Ato thin in termsof impaire lo%alt%A that is to evaluate if his representation in an% -a% -ill impair lo%alt% to a client. '@Consi erin!,ho-ever, that this is respon ent6s first offense, the Court resolves to repriman respon ent, -ith a monition toobserve a hi!her e!ree of fi elit% in the practice of his profession. ')

8:ERE$ORE, respon ent #tt%. E !ar 5. /a!uio is foun ?GI "F of representin! conflictin! interests an mete

out the penalt% of REPRIM#ND. :e is further a monishe to observe a hi!her e!ree of fi elit% in the practice of hisprofession an to bear in min that a repetition of the same or similar acts -ill be ealt -ith more severel%.

SO ORDERED.


Manila

EN /#NC

G.R. No. L '&6


18/51

of 9ustice, he ri icules the members of this Court, sa%in! Athat 9ustice as a ministere b% the present members of theSupreme Court is not onl% blin , but also eaf an umb.A :e then vo-s to ar!ue the cause of his client Ain thepeople6s forum,A so that Athe people ma% no- of the silent in9ustice6s committe b% this Court,A an that A-hatevermista es, -ron!s an in9ustices that -ere committe must never be repeate .A :e en s his petition -ith a pra%erthat

... a resolution issue or erin! the Cler of Court to receive the certificate of the un ersi!ne attorne%an counsellor>at>la- IN "RGS" -ith reservation that at an% time in the future an in the event -e

re!ain our faith an confi ence, -e ma% retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblestprofession.

:e reiterate an isclose to the press the contents of the aforementione petition. "hus, on September &+, ()+*,the 4anila (imes publishe statements attribute to him, as follo-sB

Vicente Raul #lmacen, in an unprece ente petition, sai he i it to e7pose thetribunal6s2unconstitutional and o)noxious2 practice of arbitraril% en%in! petitions or appeals -ithoutan% reason.

/ecause of the tribunal6s 2short-cut 5ustice,2 #lmacen eplore , his client -as con emne to pa%

P(&4,444, -ithout no-in! -h% he lost the case.

777 777 777

"here is no use continuin! his la- practice, #lmacen sai in this petition, 2%here our Su'reme Courtis com'osed of men %ho are calloused to our 'leas for 5ustice, %ho ignore %ithout reason their o%na''lica)le decisions and commit cul'a)le violations of the Constitution %ith im'unit" .

777 777 777

:e e7presse the hope that b% ivestin! himself of his title b% -hich he earns his livin!, the present

members of the Supreme Court 2%ill )ecome res'onsive to all cases )rought to its attention %ithoutdiscrimination, and %ill 'urge itself of those unconstitutional and o)noxious 2lac< of merit2 or 2denied resolutions . Emphasis supplie 1

#tt%. #lmacen6s statement that

... our o-n Supreme Court is compose of men -ho are callouse to our pleas of JsicK 9ustice, -hoi!nore their o-n applicable ecisions an commit culpable violations of the Constitution -ithimpunit%

-as 3uote b% columnist Vicente #lbano Pacis in the issue of the 4anila Chronicle of September &@, ()+*. Inconnection

cases set 6

Documents