consolidated cases in pale.docx

7/25/2019 CONSOLIDATED CASES IN PALE.docx

1/196

Republic of the PhilippinesISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAWCauayan Campus

CASE DIGEST inPractical Areas in Legal Ethics PALE!

S"#$itte% #&'

(r%&r) LLB st"%entsS)Y) *+,-.*+,/

IST OF CASES

Cases 0r1$ 2an"ar& t1 Dece$#er *+,+


2/196

Atty. Elmer Solidon Vs. Atty. Ramil Macalalad, A.C. No. 8!8, "ebruary#$, #%%

Rural &an' (f Calape, )nc. *Rbci+ &ohol Vs.Atty. ames &enedict "loridoA.C. No. !-/, une 8, #%%

Spouses Vir0ilio And An0elina Aranda Vs. Atty. Emmanuel ". Elayda,

A.C. No. -1%-, 2ecember !, #%%

Cases 0r1$ 2an"ar& t1 Dece$#er *+,,

Atty. Conrado 3ande4a, r. Vs ud0e Maria Clarita 5abin, A.M. No. Mt67%17-/, uly #!, #%

Valentin C. Miranda V. Atty. Macario 2. Carpio, A.C. /#8, September/, #%

2alisay Capili Vs Atty. Alfredo &entulan, A.C. No. !8/#, (ctober #,#%

rban &an', )nc. Vs Atty. Ma0daleno Pe9a, 3.R. No. $!8-, (ctober1, #% Elpidio 5ion0 Vs Atty. 3eor0e "lorendo, A.C. No. $$#8, 2ecember #,

#%

Cases 0r1$ 2an"ar& t1 Dece$#er *+,*

Cora4on Ne:ada Vs Atty. Rodolfo Casu0a,

A.C. No. -!1, March #%,#%#

Re; Report (n "inancial Audit Conducted At MC5C, Santia0o7SanEsteban, )locos Sur. A.M. No. P77#1!%. anuary -, #%#

Cresencio C. Milla Vs. People (f 5he Philippines And Carlo V.


3/196

Atty. Rene Medina, Et Al. Vs. ud0e Victor Canoy, Et Al. A.M. R577##18, "ebruary ##, #%#.

Sheila 3. 2el Rosario, Court Steno0rapher ))), R5C, &r. /, Santia0o City,)sabela Vs. Mary Anne C. Pascua, Court Steno0rapher ))), Same Court.A.M. No. P77#111. "ebruary #-, #%#.

(Dce (f 5he Court Administrator Vs. ud0e 3o, Et Al. A.M. No. M57%-7//-, April %, #%#.

Maria Vs. Corte4. A.C. No. -88%, April , #%#.

(Dce (f 5he Court Administrator Vs. Araya. A.M. No. P7#7%!, April, #%#.

Attys. 3on4ale4, Et Al. Vs. Calo. A.M. No. P7#7%#8, April , #%#.

Su4ette 2el Mundo Vs. Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, April /, #%#

Su4ette 2el Mundo Vs. Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano. A.C. No. /1%, April/, #%#.

ud0e Sal:ador R. Santos, r. Vs. Editha R. Man0ahas. A.M. No. P7%17#-#%, April -, #%#.

)n Re; Supreme Court Resolution 2ated #8 April #%% )n 3.R. Nos.$!8- And $!8##. A.C. No. /#, April -, #%#.

ud0e Andre? P. 2ulnuan Vs. Esteban 2. 2acsi0, Cler' (f Court )),MC5C, Ma0ddela7Na0tipunan, Buirinio. A.M. No. P77%%$, April 8,#%#.

Ramoncito And uliana


4/196

Eladio 2.Perfecto Vs. ud0e Alma Consuelo 2esales7Esideria, A.M. No.

R577##!8, une #%, #%#

State Prosecutors )) osef Albert 5. Comilan0 And Ms. Victoria Sune0a7


5/196

3race M. Anacta Vs. Atty. Eduardo 2. Resurrecction. A.C. No. 1%-$,Au0ust $, #%#.

Astor0a And Repol


6/196

Patrocinio V. A0bulos Vs. Atty. Roseller A. Viray, A.C. No. -!%. "ebruary

8, #%

5hel?oldo E. "ernande4, Antonio A. =enson F An0el S. (n0 Vs. Court

(f Appeals Asso. ustices Ramon M. &ato, r., )saias P. 2icdican, A.M.

(CA )P) No. #7#%7CA7. "ebruary 1, #%

Ray Antonio C. Sasin0 Vs. Celestial Venus 3. 3elbolin0o, Sheri> )V, R5C,

&ranch #%, Ca0ayan 2e (ro City, A.M. No. P7#7%#. "ebruary #%,

#%

Missin0 EGhibits And Court Properties )n Re0ional 5rial Court, &r. $,

Panabo City, 2a:ao 2el Norte, A.M. No. %7#7$7R5C. "ebruary #-, #%

Anonymous Vs.ud0e Rio C. Achas, M5CC &ranch #, (4ami4 City,Misamis (ccidental, A.M. No. M5778%. "ebruary #-, #%

Verleen 5rinidad, "lorentina


7/196

Rodolfo C. Sabidon0 V. Nicolasito S. Solas.A.M. No. P7%7$$8, une #!,#%.

ose@na Caran4a Vda 2e Saldi:ar V. Atty. Ramon S3 Cabanes, r., A.C.No. --$1, uly 8, #%

(Dce (f 5he Court Administrator V. Noel R. (n0, 2eputy Sheri>, &r. $1,

Et Al., A.M. No. P7%17#/1%, uly 1, #%. Concerned Citi4en V. Nonita V. Catena, Court Steno0rapher ))), R5C, &r.

!%, Puerto Princesa, Pala?an, A.M. (CA )P) No. %#7#7P, uly /,#%.

"erdinand A. Samson V. Atty. Ed0ardo (. Era, A.C. No. ///$, uly /,#%.

Sonic Steel )ndustries, )nc. V. Atty. Nonnatus P. Chua, A.C. No. /1$#, uly-, #%.

2e:elopment &an' (f 5he Philippines, Etc. Vs. 2am:in V. "amero,Sheri> )V, R5C, &r. $, RoGas, (riental Mindoro, A.M. No. P7%7#-81, uly

, #% aime o:en And Reynaldo C. Rasin0 V. Atty. Pablo R. Cru4 And "ran'ie

(. Ma0salin ))), A.C. No. -/8/, uly , #%. Re; Cases Submitted "or 2ecision &efore =on. 5eo@lo 2. &aluma,

"ormer ud0e, &ranch , Re0ional 5rial Court, 5a0bilaran City, &ohol,A.M. No. R577#!!, September #, #%.

2anilo E.


8/196

Ma. ennifer 5ria7Samonte V. Epifania J"annyK (bias, A.C. No. $1$!,(ctober 8, #%.

Maria Cristina Labal6aure0ui Pitcher V. Atty. Rustico &. 3a0ate, A.C. No.1!#, (ctober 8, #%.

Atty. Vladimir Alariue 5. Cabi0ao V. Naeptali An0elo V. Nery, Sheri> ))),

&ranch %, Metropolitan 5rial Court, Manila, A.M. No. P7!, (ctober$, #%.

oe@l &a0uio V. Maria "e Arne6o, Steno0rapher ))), Re0ional 5rial Court,&ranch #$, Cebu City, A.M. No. P77!!, (ctober #, #%.

Atty. (scar


9/196

Mamasa? Sultan Ali V. ud0e &a0uinda7Ali Pacalna, Et Al., A.M. No. M57%7!%!, No:ember #-, #%

Sps. 2a:id Iilliams And Marissa Iilliams V. Atty. Rudy 5. Enriue4, A.C.No. -#1, No:ember #-, #%.

ud0e Manahan V. Atty. "lores, A.C. No. 81!$, No:ember , #%

Cabuatan V. Atty. Venida, A.C. No. %%$, No:ember #%, #% Conchita &alta4ar,Et Al. V. Atty. uan &. &a9e4, r., A.C. No. 1%1,

2ecember , #%

Cases 0r1$ 2an"ar& t1 Dece$#er *+,4

Rose &una0an7&ansi0 Vs. Atty. Ro0elio uan A. Celera A.C. No. !!8 an.$, #%$

Rose &una0an7&ansi0 V. Atty. Ro0elio uan A. Celera, A.C. No. !!8,anuary $, #%$.

Ed0ardo Areola V. Atty. Maria Vilma Mendo4a, A.C. No. %!, anuary!, #%$.

5he Con6u0al Partnership (f 5he Spouses Vicente Cada:edo And &enitaArcoy7Cada:edo *&oth 2eceased+, Substituted &y 5heir =eirs, Namely;=erminia, Pastora, =eirs (f "ructiosa, =eirs (f Rauel, E:an0eline,Vicente, r., And Armand, All Surnamed Cada:edo, 3.R. No. -88.anuary !, #%$.

Atty. Vir0illo P. Alconera V. Alfredo 5. Pallanan, A.M. No. P7#7%/1,anuary #%, #%$.

Atty. Rhea R. Alcantara7Auino V. Mylene =. 2ela Cru4, Etc., A.M. No. P77$. anuary #, #%$.

(Dce (f 5he Court Administrator V. Atty. Mona


10/196

EGecuti:e ud0e Ma. (felia S. Contreras7Soriano V. Cler' )))


11/196

12ce 13 The Court Aministrator V. 4arah P. Ampong, tc.,A.(. No. P5

&656&6), June +, )*&+.

Erlinda "oster Vs. aime A0tan0, A.C. No. %!-1, 2ecember %, #%$

ATTY) EL5ER SOLIDON VS) ATTY) RA5IL 5ACALALAD3 A)C) NO) 6,-63Fe#r"ar& *43 *+,+

FACTS'

)n #%%!, Atty. Elmer Solidon en0a0ed the ser:ices of Atty. RamilMacalalad for the latter to handle the 6udicial titlin0 of a parcel of land o?ned

by the Solidons in &oron0an, Samar. 5hey a0reed for a fee of P8%'. Solidon

0a:e P!%' as do?npayment to Macalalad and the remainin0 P%' shall be

paid after Solidon shall recei:e the title o:er the said property.

&ut for / months after the P!%' ?as 0i:en, Atty. Macalalad ne:er 0a:e

an update to Solidon. )t turns out that Macalalad ne:er @led any petition to

re0ister the land.

Solidon then @led an administrati:e case a0ainst Macalalad. Solidonalle0ed that Macalalad ne0lected his duties and e:en a:oided tal'in0 to him

despite e>orts from Solidon to communicate ?ith Macalalad.

)n his defense, Macalalad a:erred that he did not @le the petition

because Solidon failed to update him and that Solidon ne:er 0a:e the

documents he ?as as'in0 for.

E:entually, the Commission on &ar 2iscipline recommended Macalalad

to be suspended for three months.

ISSUE'

Ihether or not Atty. Macalalad should be suspended.

Att&) GIL P) VILORIA3 2r)PALE Instr"ct1r3 S)Y) *+,-.*+,/
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/june2014/P-13-3132.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/june2014/P-13-3132.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/june2014/P-13-3132.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/june2014/P-13-3132.pdf


12/196

7ELD'

Hes. Macalalad is 0uilty of ne0li0ence ?hen he ne0lected his clients

cause. 5his is a :iolation of Rule 8.%, Canon 8 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility. A la?yer is ne0li0ent if he failed to do anythin0 to protect his

clients interest after recei:in0 his acceptance fee. "urther, there is also

ne0li0ence ?hen he failed to update his client about the status of the case.

E:en if assumin0 that Solidon ?as also ne0li0ent, Macalalad cannot

shift the blame to his client for failin0 to follo? up on his case because it ?as

the la?yers duty to inform his client of the status of the case. E:en if the

client has been eually at fault for the lac' of communication, the main

responsibility remains ?ith the la?yer to inuire and 'no? the best means to

acuire the reuired information. 5he act of recei:in0 money as acceptance

fee for le0al ser:ices in handlin0 Solidons case, and subseuently failin0,

?ithout :alid eGcuse, to render the ser:ices, is a clear :iolation of Canon 8

of the Coe o3 Pro3essional Responsibility.

5he Supreme Court also found that not only did Macalalad :iolated

Canon 8, he also :iolated Canon / ?hen he failed to account for Solidons

money. )t appears he failed to return Solidons do?npayment of P!%'. A

la?yer, ?hen he fails to render le0al ser:ices, shall immediately account for

and promptly return the money he recei:ed from his client. =ence, on top ofthe recommended months suspension, Macalald ?as suspended for an

additional months or for a total of / months.

RURAL BAN8 OF CALAPE3 INC) RBCI! BO7OL 9s)ATTY) 2A5ESBENEDICT FLORIDO A)C) N1) -:(/3 2"ne ,63 *+,+

FACTS'

Accordin0 to R&C), respondent and his clients*Na4areno7Relampa0os0roup+, throu0h force and intimidation, ?ith the use of armed men, forciblytoo' o:er the mana0ement and the premises of R&C). 5hey also forciblye:icted Cirilo A. 3aray *3aray+, the ban' mana0er, destroyed the ban's:ault, and installed their o?n sta> to run the ban'.



13/196

)n his comment, respondent denied R&C)s alle0ations. RespondenteGplained that he acted in accordance ?ith the authority 0ranted upon himby the Na4areno7Relampa0os 0roup, the la?fully and :alidly elected &oard of2irectors of R&C). Moreo:er, respondent claimed that R&C) failed to presentany e:idence to pro:e their alle0ations.

Respondent added that the aDda:its attached to the complaint ?erene:er identi@ed, aDrmed, or con@rmed by the aDants and that none of thedocumentary eGhibits ?ere ori0inals or certi@ed true copies. )&P, throu0h itsCommissioner, said that respondent had no le0al basis to implement theta'eo:er of R&C) and that it ?as a Jna'ed po?er 0rab ?ithout any semblanceof le0ality ?hatsoe:er.K Respondent appealed from the )&Ps decision.ISSUE'Ihether or not Atty. "lorido :iolated Canon 1 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

7ELD'Canon 1 of the Code pro:ides that a la?yer shall represent his client ?ith4eal ?ithin the bounds of the la?. "or this reason, Rule !.%- of the Codereuires a la?yer to impress upon his client compliance ?ith the la? andprinciples of fairness. A la?yer must employ only fair and honest means toattain the la?ful ob6ecti:es of his client. )t is his duty to counsel his clients touse peaceful and la?ful methods in see'in0 6ustice and refrain from doin0 anintentional ?ron0 to their ad:ersaries. A la?yers duty is not to his clientbut to the administration of 6ustice. 5o that end, his clients success is ?hollysubordinate. =is conduct ou0ht to and must al?ays be scrupulously

obser:ant of the la? and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest?hich is resorted to by the la?yer, e:en in the pursuit of his de:otion to hisclients cause, is condemnable and unethical.

I=ERE"(RE, ?e @nd respondent Atty. ames &enedict "lorido 3)ecti:e upon @nality of this 2ecision.

SPOUSES VIRGILIO an% ANGELINA ARANDA 9s) ATTY) E55ANUEL F)ELAYDA3 A)C) N1) :;+:3 Dece$#er ,-3 *+,+

FACTS'

)n the Complaint of the spouses Aranda, they alle0ed that Atty.Elaydas handlin0 of their ci:il case ?asJsorely inadeuate, as sho?n by his



14/196

failure to follo? elementary norms of ci:il procedure and e:idence. =o?e:er,they ?ere surprised that an ad:erse 6ud0ment ?as rendered a0ainst themresultin0 to the loss of their Mitsubishi Pa6ero. Apparently, Atty. Elayda failedto inform the spouses of the date of hearin0 as ?ell as the order of6ud0ment. No motion for reconsideration or appeal ?as interposed by the

la?yer as ?ell. )n his reply, Atty. Elayda said that the spouses did not botherto 'eep in touch ?ith him and they ?ere the ones ?ho ne0lected their casein court.

ISSUE'Ihether or not Atty. Elayda should be sanctioned by the court.

7ELD'

"rom the fore0oin0, it is clear that Atty. Elayda is duty bound to upholdand safe0uard the interests of his clients. =e should be conscientious,competent anddili0ent in handlin0 his clients cases. Atty. Elayda should 0i:e adeuateattention, care, and time to all the cases heis handlin0. As the spouses Arandas counsel, Atty. Elayda is eGpected to monitor the pro0ress of saidspouses case and is obli0ated to eGert all e>orts to present e:ery remedy ordefense authori4ed by la? to protect the cause espoused by the spousesAranda. Re0rettably, Atty. Elayda failed in all these. Atty. Elayda e:enadmitted that the spouses Aranda ne:er 'ne? of the scheduled hearin0sbecause said spouses ne:er came to him and that he did not 'no? the

spouses ?hereabouts. Ihile it is true that communication is a sharedresponsibility bet?een a counsel and his clients, it is the counsels primaryduty to inform his clients of the status of their case and the orders ?hichha:e been issued by the court. =e cannot simply ?ait for his clients to ma'ean inuiry about the de:elopments in their case. Close coordination bet?eencounsel and client is necessary for them to adeuately prepare for the case,as ?ell as to e>ecti:ely monitor the pro0ress of the case. &esides, it iselementary procedure for a la?yer and his clients to eGchan0e contactdetails at the initial sta0es in order to ha:e constant communication ?itheach other. A0ain, address is simply unacceptable.

E:idently, Atty. Elayda ?as remiss in his duties and responsibilities as amember of the le0al profession. =is conduct sho?s that he not only failed toeGercise due dili0ence in handlin0 his clients case but in fact abandoned hisclients cause. =e pro:ed himself un?orthy of the trust reposed on him by hishelpless clients. Moreo:er, Atty. Elayda o?es fealty, not only to his clients,but also to the Court of ?hich he is an oDcer. (n a @nal note, it must bestressed that ?hene:er a la?yer accepts a case, it deser:es his fullattention, dili0ence, s'ill and competence, re0ardless of its importance and?hether or not it is for a fee or free. 5he )&P &oard of 3o:ernorsrecommended a / month suspension. 5his ?as adopted by the court.



15/196

ATTY) CONRADO GANDE


16/196

=er bein0 concern of her nephe? is 6ust but natural but as member of

the 6udiciary, she should 'no? that she should not interfere in the conduct of

an in:esti0ation. She should al?ays appear impartial this did not happen

?hen she interfered ?ith the in:esti0ation and ?hen she borro?ed the

records as ?ell as ?hen she ?as at the mediation center inuirin0 about the

records of the case. She may ha:e the best intention de:oid of any malicious

moti:e but sadly her actions, ho?e:er, spa?ned the impression that she ?as

usin0 her oDce to unduly inOuence or pressure the concerned people to

conduct the medical eGamination as ?ell as the in:esti0ation in their fa:or.

)ndeed, ?hile ud0e 5abins concern o:er the safety of her nephe? and

the outcome of his criminal case is understandable, she should not ha:e

disre0arded the rules on proper decorum at the eGpense of the inte0rity of

the court. Althou0h concern for family members is deeply in0rained in the

"ilipino culture, she, bein0 a 6ud0e, should bear in mind that she is also calledupon to ser:e the hi0her interest of preser:in0 the inte0rity of the entire

udiciary.

VALENTIN C) 5IRANDA 9) ATTY) 5ACARIO D) CARPIO3 A)C) /*6,3Se=te$#er ,/3 *+,,

FACTS'

Complainant Valentin C. Miranda is one of the o?ners of a parcel ofland located at &aran0ay


17/196

2eeds *R2+ of


18/196

immediately upon receipt of this decision. =e is IARNE2 that a repetition ofthe same or similar act shall be dealt ?ith more se:erely.

DALISAY CAPILI VS ATTY) ALFREDO BENTULAN3

A)C) NO) -6/*3

OCTOBER ,*3 *+,,

FACTS'

Capili en0a0ed the le0al ser:ices of Atty. Alfredo &entulan as her

counsel in a ci:il case. Capili lost in the trial court. She ?anted to appeal but

despite her payment for the preparation and @lin0 of an appeal brief, Atty.

&entulan failed to @le the said pleadin0. 5his resulted to the dismissal of her

appeal. 5en years after said dismissal, Capili @led a disbarment case a0ainst

&entulan.

)n his defense, &entulan said that Capilis action is already barred by lachesW

that in the @rst place, Capili 'ne? that the appeal ?as unmeritoriousW that

she ne:er actually paid &entulan for the preparation and @lin0 of said appeal.



19/196

ISSUE'

Ihether or not Atty. Alfredo &entulan should be disciplined.

7ELD'

Hes. 5he lapse of ten years from the alle0ed misconduct does not barthe @lin0 of this case. (rdinary statutes of limitation had no application to

disbarment or suspension proceedin0s a0ainst members of the &ar. 5hese

proceedin0s are sui 0eneris. 5hey are not a'in to the trials of actions or suits

in ?hich interests and ri0hts are enforced by the plainti>s a0ainst the

defendants, but are rather in:esti0ations into the conduct of the members of

the &ar made by the Supreme Court ?ithin the conteGt of its plenary po?ers

eGpressly 0ranted by the Constitution to re0ulate the practice of la?.

)n preparin0 and @lin0 the appeal brief, the uestion of ?hether or not

&entulan ?as paid his le0al ser:ices is of no moment. As a la?yer, he o?es

@delity to both cause and client, e:en if he is not paid any fee for the

attorney7client relationship. "urther, if he belie:ed that Capilis case ?as

unmeritorious, he should ha:e ad:ised Capili accordin0ly.

5he failure to @le a brief resultin0 in the dismissal of an appeal

constitutes ineGcusable ne0li0ence. 5his :iolates Rule 8.%, Canon 8 of theCode of Professional Responsibility ?hich pro:ides;

Canon 8 A la?yer shall ser:ice his client ?ith competence and dili0ence.

Rule 8.%; A la?yer shall not ne0lect a matter entrusted to him, and his

ne0li0ence in connection there?ith shall render him liable.



20/196

URBAN BAN83 INC) VS ATTY) 5AGDALENO PE>A3

G)R) NO) ,4-6,: 3

OCTOBER ,;3 *+,,

FACTS'

)n 11$, )sabel Su0ar Company, )nc. *)SC)+ sold a parcel of land to

rban &an', )nc. *&)+. 5he land ?as sold forP*4+ $illi1n. As the land ?asoccupied by unauthori4ed sub7tenants, )SC)s la?yer, Atty. Ma0daleno Pe9a

had to ne0otiate ?ith them for them to relocate. &ut the said occupants,

'no?in0 that the land ?as already transferred to &), refused to reco0ni4e

Pe9a. )SC) then communicated ?ith &) so that the latter may authori4e Pe9a

to ne0otiate ?ith the tenants. Pe9a had to barricade himself inside theproperty to 'eep the tenants out ?ho ?ere forcin0 their ?ay in especially so

that the local cops are no? sympathetic to them. Pe9a then had a phone

con:ersation ?ith 5eodoro &orlon0an, president of &), ?here Pe9a eGplained

to him the situation. )n said con:ersation, Pe9a as'ed authori4ation from

&orlon0an to ne0otiate ?ith the tenants. Pe9a also as'ed that he be paid

%Q of the purchase price or *P*4 $illi1n+ for his e>orts. &orlon0an a0reedo:er the phone on the condition that Pe9a should be able to settle ?ith the

tenants other?ise he forfeits said %Q fee. Pe9a also as'ed that said

authori4ation be put into ?ritin0.

5he authori4ation ?as put into ?ritin0 but no mention ?as made as

re0ards the %Q fee, *in short, that part ?as not ?ritten in the ?ritten

authori4ation released by &)+. Pe9a ?as able to settle and relocate the

tenants. After e:erythin0 ?as settled and the property is no? formally under

the possession of &), Pe9a be0an sendin0 demands to &) for the latter to

pay him the P#$ million fee a0reed upon, plus his eGpenses for the relocation

of the tenants and the hirin0 of security 0uards or an additional P million.

&ut &) refused to ma'e payment hence Pe9a @led a complaint for reco:ery

a0ainst &).

5he trial court ruled in fa:or of Pe9a as it found there indeed ?as a contract

of a0ency created bet?een and &) and that Pe9a is entitled to the %Q fee

plus the eGpenses he incurred includin0 liti0ation eGpenses. )n sum, the trial

court a?arded him P*6 $illi1n.

5he Court of Appeals ho?e:er re:ersed the order of the trial court. )t

ruled that no a0ency ?as formed but for his le0al ser:ices, Pe9a is entitled to

payment but applyin0 the principle of un6ust enrichment and uantum

meruit, Pe9a should only be paid P( $illi1n.



21/196

ISSUE'

Ihether or not Atty. Ma0daleno Pe9a is entitled to recei:e the P#8

million.

7ELD'

No. 5he Supreme Court ruled that said amount is unconscionable.Pe9a is entitled to payment for compensation for ser:ices rendered as a0ent

of rban &an', but on the basis of the principles of un6ust enrichment

and 7uantum meruit. )n the @rst place, other than the self7ser:in0 testimony

of Pe9a, there ?as no other e:idence presented to support his claim that

&orlon0an a0reed to pay him that %Q o:er the phone. 5he ?ritten

authori4ation later issued merely con@rms the po?er 0ranted him to

ne0otiate ?ith the tenants. 5he ?ritten authori4ation pro:ed the eGistence of

a0ency but not the eGistence of any a0reement as to ho? much Pe9a should

be paid.

Absent any such a0reement, the principle of uantum meruit should be

applied. )n this case, Pe9a is entitled to recei:e ?hat he merit for his

ser:ices, or as much as he has earned. )n dealin0 ?ith the tenants, Pe9a

didnt ha:e to perform any eGtraordinary acts or le0al maneu:erin0. =ence,

he is entitled to recei:e P.! million for his le0al ser:ices. =e is also entitledto reimbursement for his eGpenses in securin0 the property, to ?it, P.!

million for the security 0uards he had to hire and another P.! million for

settlin0 and relocatin0 the # tenants. 5otal of P$.! million.

5he Supreme Court emphasi4ed that la?yerin0 is not a businessW it is a

profession in ?hich duty to public ser:ice, not money, is the primary

consideration.



22/196

ELPIDIO TIONG VS ATTY) GEORGE FLORENDO3

A)C) NO) 44*6 3

DECE5BER ,*3 *+,,

FACTS'

Atty. 3eor0e "lorendo has been ser:in0 as the la?yer of spouses

Elpidio and Ma. Elena 5ion0. Elpidio, a S citi4en is often times a?ay. "or t?o

years, he suspected that his ?ife and Atty. "lorendo ?ere ha:in0 an a>air.

"inally in 11!, he ?as able to listen to a telephone con:ersation ?here he

heard Atty. "lorendo mention amorous ?ords to Ma. Elena. Atty. "lorendo

confronted the t?o and both e:entually admitted to their illicit relationship.Atty. "lorendo and Ma. Elena then eGecuted and si0ned an aDda:it, ?hich

?as later notari4ed, statin0 that they admit of their illicit relationshipW that

they are see'in0 the for0i:eness of their respecti:e spouse. Elpidio for0a:e

"lorendo and Ma. Elena. &ut ne:ertheless, Elpidio @led a disbarment case

a0ainst "lorendo.



23/196

"lorendo said he can no lon0er be sanctioned because he ?as already

pardoned.

ISSUE'

Ihether or not Atty. "lorendo is correct.

7ELD'

No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a la?yer is a sui 0eneris

case. 5his class of cases is meant to protect the public and the courts of

undesirable members of the le0al profession. As such, pardon by theo>ended party of the act complained of does not operate to o>set the

0round for disbarment or suspension. "lorendos act of ha:in0 an a>air ?ith

his clients ?ife manifested his disrespect for the la?s on the sanctity of

marria0e and his o?n marital :o? of @delity. )t sho?ed his utmost moral

depra:ity and lo? re0ard for the ethics of his profession. =e :iolated the

trust reposed upon him by his client *Canon -, Code of Professional

Responsibility+. =is illicit relationship ?ith Ma. Elena amounts to a dis0raceful

and 0rossly immoral conduct ?arrantin0 disciplinary action. Section #-, Rule

8 of the Rules of Court pro:ides that an attorney may be disbarred orsuspended from his oDce for any deceit, malpractice, or other 0ross

misconduct in oDce, gr1ssl& i$$1ral c1n%"ct, amon0 others. )t cannot bealso said, as he claims, that their relationship is merely a moment of

indiscretion considerin0 that their a>air ?ent on for more than t?o years.

"lorendo ?as suspended for / months.



24/196

CORA


25/196

() Vi1lati1n 10 N1tarial R"les' =e si0ned a document *contract of lease+in behalf of another person ?ithout authori4ation. =is for0ery made him anactual party to the contract. )n e>ect he ?as notari4in0 a document in ?hichhe is party in :iolation of the notarial rules *Secs. and , Rule )V+.4) 5al=ractice 10 La?' As a summation of all the abo:e :iolations, Casu0a

is 0uilty of Malpractice and Misconduct. Such act is punishable under Sec. #-,Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. =o?e:er, the Supreme Court deemed thatdisbarment is too se:ere a punishment a0ainst Casu0a. =e ?as suspendedfor $ years from the practice of la?. =is notarial commission ?as li'e?isere:o'ed and he is disuali@ed to be a notary public ?hile ser:in0 hissuspension. 5he Supreme Court emphasi4ed; the penalty of disbarment shallbe meted out only ?hen the la?yers misconduct borders on the criminalandor is committed under scandalous circumstance.



26/196

SUenseW and that his profession is the only means ofhis and his familys li:elihood. =e also prayed that the ad6ud0ed amount ofPhP$%,%%%.%% be reduced to PhP-,!%%.%% representin0 the amount ofPhP-8,!%%.%% he recei:ed less his payment of the sum of PhP!,%%%.%%.Conseuently, Commissioner Buisumbin0 and the )&P7C&2 &oard of3o:ernors correctly recommended the appropriate penalty of one yearsuspension from the practice of la? for :iolatin0 the pertinent pro:isions of

the Canons of Professional Responsibility. As stated under Canon


27/196

professional ethics and betrayal of public con@dence in the le0al professionI=ERE"(RE, respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, ha:in0 clearly :iolatedCanons / and 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is SSPEN2E2from the practice of la? for one year ?ith a stern ?arnin0 that a repetition ofthe same or similar acts shall be dealt ?ith more se:erely. =e is (R2ERE2 to

return to Su4ette 2el Mundo the full amount of PhP-,!%%.%% ?ithin % daysfrom notice hereof and 2)REC5E2 to submit to the Court proof of suchpayment.

IN RE' RODOLFO PACTOLIN 3

A)C) NO) :;4+3

APRIL *43 *+,*

FACTS')n May #%%8, the Supreme Court, in 3.R. No. /$!! *Pactolin :s

Sandi0anbayan+, aDrmed the con:iction of Atty. Rodolfo Pactolin for :iolation

of Article -# of the Re:ised Penal Code *"alsi@cation by a Pri:ate )ndi:idual+.

)t ?as duly pro:ed that Pactolin falsi@ed a letter, and presented said letter as

e:idence in a court of la?, in order to ma'e it appear that his fello? councilor

actin0 as ()C7Mayor ille0ally caused the disbursement of public funds. )n said

decisions, the Supreme Court referred the case to the )nte0rated &ar of the

Philippines for appropriate administrati:e actions a0ainst Pactolin.

ISSUE'

Ihat administrati:e sanctions can be imposed upon Atty. Pactolin

considerin0 his con:ictionY

7ELD'

Rodolfo Pactolin should be, and is henceforth disbarred. 5he crime offalsi@cation of public document is contrary to 6ustice, honesty, and 0ood

morals and, therefore, in:ol:es moral turpitude. Moral turpitude includes

e:erythin0 ?hich is done contrary to 6ustice, honesty, modesty, or 0ood

morals. )t in:ol:es an act of baseness, :ileness, or depra:ity in the pri:ate

duties ?hich a man o?es his fello?men, or to society in 0eneral, contrary to

the accepted and customary rule of ri0ht and duty bet?een man and

?oman, or conduct contrary to 6ustice, honesty, modesty, or 0ood morals.

As a rule, the Supreme Court eGercises the po?er to disbar ?ith 0reat

caution. &ein0 the most se:ere form of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed

only for the most imperati:e reasons and in clear cases of misconduct

a>ectin0 the standin0 and moral character of the la?yer as an oDcer of the

court and a member of the bar. &ut it has al?ays been held that it is



28/196

appropriate to disbar a la?yer if he is con:icted by @nal 6ud0ment for a crime

in:ol:in0 moral turpitude. "urther, Pactolins situation is a00ra:ated by the

fact that althou0h his con:iction has been aDrmed, he has not ser:ed his

sentence yet.

E5ILIA O) D7ALIWAL 9s) ATTY) ABELARDO B) DU5AGUING3 A)C) N1);(;+ A"g"st ,3 *+,*

FACTS'Emilia (. 2hali?al *complainant+ she en0a0ed the ser:ices of Atty. Aberlardo&. 2uma0uin0 *respondent+ connection ?ith the purchase of a parcel of landfrom "il7Estate 2e:elopment, )nc. *"il7Estate+. Atty. 2uma0uin0 ?as then0i:en P$#,%%%.%% for him to consi0n ?ith the =ousin0 and


29/196

Hes. )t ?as established that Atty. 2ima0uin0 submitted a false and fabricatedpiece of e:idence because it did not contain proof that the same ?as @led?ith the =


30/196

ISSUE'Ihether or not Atty. Mariano Pe@anco be suspended from the practice ofla?.

RULING'5he practice of la? is considered a pri:ile0e besto?ed by the State on those?ho sho? that they possess and continue to possess the le0al uali@cationsfor the profession. As such, la?yers are eGpected to maintain at all times ahi0h standard of le0al pro@ciency, morality, honesty, inte0rity and fairdealin0, and must perform their four7fold duty to society, the le0alprofession, the courts and their clients, in accordance ?ith the :alues andnorms embodied in the Code.


31/196

In Pe1=le 9s) C1rneli1 5alici1"s5ischie0!

7 ud0e a:ellana issued ?arrant

of arrest after the @lin0 of acertain criminal case despiteSec. / of the Re:ised Rules onSummary Procedure.

In Pe1=le 9s) L1=e 5alici1"s5ischie0!

7 ud0e a:ellana did not applythe Re:ised Rules on SummaryProcedure and instead

conducted a preliminaryeGamination and in:esti0ationin accordance ?ith the Re:isedRules of Criminal Procedure,then set the case forarrai0nment and free trial,despite con@rmin0 thatcomplainant and her ?itnesseshad no personal 'no?led0e ofthe material facts alle0ed intheir aDda:its, ?hich should

had been a 0round fordismissal of said case.

7

In Tres=ass t1 D?elling

7 ud0e a:ellana did not 0rantthe motion to dismiss for non7compliance ?ith the


32/196

Clearly, these t?o cases should be 0o:erned by the Re:ised Rule onSummary Procedure.

ANASTACIO N) TEODORO III 9s) ATTY) RO5EO S) GON


33/196

proceedin0 ?as pendin0, Atty. 3on4ales assisted 5eodord7Marcial in @lin0Ci:il Case No. %%711#%-, for Annulment of 2ocument, Recon:eyance and2ama0es, ?ithout indicatin0 the special proceedin0 earlier tiled. 5he tilin0 ofthe ci:il cases, accordin0 to Anastacio, ?as a deliberate act of forumshoppin0 that ?arrants the disbarment of Atty. 3on4ales. Atty. 3on4ales

admitted that he assisted 5eodoro7Marcial in tilin0 the t?o cases. =easserted, ho?e:er,, that he did not :iolate the forum shoppin0 rule as thecases ?ere not identical in terms of parties, sub6ect matter and remedies.Atty. 3on4ales also opined that the complainant only @led the disbarmentcase to harass him. 5he )n:esti0atin0 Commissioners "indin0s )n ourResolution dated March , #%%/, ?e referred the disbarment complaint tothe Commission on &ar 2iscipline of the )nte0rated &ar of the Philippines*)&P+ for in:esti0ation, report and recommendation. )n his Report andRecommendation dated uly !, #%%, Commissioner Caesar R. 2ulay foundAtty. 3on4ales administrati:ely liable for forum shoppin0. Accordin0 toCommissioner 2ulay, both Special Proceedin0 No. 1171!!8- and Ci:il Case

No. %%711#%- hin0ed on the same substantial issue, i.e., on ?hether Manuelaheld the Malate property in trust for Carmen 5eodoro7Reyes, 2onato 5.5eodoro, or0e ). 5eodoro and 5eodoro7Marcial. )n Special Proceedin0 No. 1171!!8-, Carmen, 2onato, or0e ). 5eodoro, or0e 5. 5eodoro and 5eodoro7Marcial claimed that they are the heirs of Manuela. 2urin0 her lifetime,Manuela ?as the re0istered o?ner of a parcel of land located in Malate,Manila. Accordin0 to the heirs, Manuela held the lot in trust for them, but shesold it to Anastacio and Ro0elio N0. 5hus, the heirs prayed for the issuance ofletters of administration so that Manuelas properties could be in:entoriedand settled in accordance ?ith la?. )n Ci:il Case No. %%711#%-, the heirs ofManuela claimed to be the bene@ciaries of a trust held by Manuela o:er the

same parcel of land contested in Special Proceedin0 No. 1171!!8-. 5heyalle0ed that durin0 her lifetime, Manuela sold a portion of this land toAnastacio. 5hey as'ed the trial court to annul the 2eed of Absolute SaleeGecuted by ManuelaW to cancel the resultin0 5ransfer Certi@cate of 5itle inthe name of AnastacioW and to issue a ne? one in their names. 5hecommissioner found that a rulin0 in either case ?ould result in res 6udicatao:er the other. 5hus, Atty. 3on4ales committed forum shoppin0 ?hen heinstituted Ci:il Case No. %%711#%- ?ithout indicatin0 that Special Proceedin0No. 1171!!8- ?as still pendin0. )n committin0 forum shoppin0, Atty.3on4ales disre0arded the Supreme Court Circular prohibitin0 forum shoppin0and thus :iolated Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Commissioner 2ulay recommended that Atty. 3on4ales be suspended for onemonth from the practice of la?, ?ith a ?arnin0 that a repetition of a similaro>ense ?ould merit a more se:ere penalty. 5he &oard of 3o:ernors of the)&P re:ersed the commissioners recommendation. )n a resolution dated2ecember %, #%, the &oard of 3o:ernors dismissed the case a0ainst Atty.3on4ales for lac' of merit.

ISSUE' Ihether or not Atty. 3on4ales committed forum shoppin0 andthereby :iolated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

7ELD'HES, "orum shoppin0 eGists ?hen, as a result of an ad:erse decision

in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party see's a fa:orable opinion inanother forum throu0h means other than appeal or certiorari. 5here is forumshoppin0 ?hen the elements of litis pendencia are present or ?here a @nal6ud0ment in one case ?ill amount to res 6udicata in another. 5hey are asfollo?s; *a+ identity of parties, or at least such parties that represent thesame interests in both actions, *b+ identity of ri0hts or causes of action, and*c+ identity of relief sou0ht. nder this test, ?e @nd that Atty. 3on4ales



34/196

committed forum shoppin0 ?hen he @led Ci:il Case No. %%711#%- ?hileSpecial Proceedin0 No. 1171!!8- ?as pendin0. Respondent ?as fully a?are,since he ?as the counsel for both cases, that he raised the issue of trust ?ithrespect to the Malate property in the 111


35/196

A)C) N1) :(-+ Fe#r"ar& ,63 *+,( PATROCINIO V) AGBULOS 9s) ATTY)ROSELLER A) VIRAY

FACTS '5he case stemmed from a Complaint @led before the (Dce of the &arCon@dant *(&C+ by complainant Mrs. Patrocinio V. A0bulos a0ainstrespondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray of Asin0an, Pan0asinan, for alle0edlynotari4in0 a document denominated as ADda:it of Non75enancy in :iolationof the Notarial


36/196

more pronounced ?hen the notary public is a la?yer because of his solemnoath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the la?s and to dono falsehood or consent to the doin0 of any.


37/196

A)C) N1) ;(,+ Fe#r"ar& *:3 *+,( VERLEEN TRINIDAD3 FLORENTINALANDER3 WALLY CASUBUAN3 5INERVA 5ENDO


38/196

must not present and o>er in e:idence any document that they 'no? isfalse.

A)C) N1) ;/,- 5arch -3 *+,( GLORIA P) 2INON 9s) ATTY) LEONARDO E)2Iense is so serious in itscharacter as to endan0er or threaten public ?elfare. 5he marria0edocuments eGamined by the audit team sho? that correspondin0 oDcialreceipts for the solemni4ation fee ?ere missin0 or payment by batches ?asmade for marria0es performed on di>erent dates. 5hird, ud0es Necessario,5ormis, and Rosales also solemni4ed marria0es ?here a contractin0 party is aforei0ner ?ho did not submit a certi@cate of le0al capacity to marry from hisor her embassy. 5he irre0ularity in the certi@cates of le0al capacity that arereuired under Article # of the "amily Code displayed the 0ross ne0lect ofduty of the 6ud0es. 5hey should ha:e been dili0ent in scrutini4in0 thedocuments reuired for the marria0e license issuance. Any irre0ularities?ould ha:e been pre:ented in the uali@cations of parties to contractmarria0e.


43/196

SONIA C) DECENA AND REY C) DECENA VS) 2UDGE NILO A)5ALANYAON

A)5 NO) RT2.,+.**,:3 APRIL 63 *+,(

FACTS'

Sonia and Rey 2ecena ha:e lod0ed an administrati:e complaint for conductunbecomin0 a 6ud0e a0ainst =on. Nilo A. Malanyaon, the Presidin0 ud0e ofthe Re0ional 5rial Court, &ranch #, in Pili, Camarines Sur. 5he complainantshad brou0ht an administrati:e case in


44/196

the Ne? Code of udicial Conduct for the Philippines udiciary. 2urin0 thehearin0 of the administrati:e case, ud0e Malanyaon sat beside his dau0hter,Atty. ristina Malanyaon, the counsel of 2r. Amelita in the administrati:ecase @led a0ainst her. ud0e Malanyaon coached her dau0hter in ma'in0manifestationsmotions before the hearin0 oDcer, by scribblin0 on some

piece of paper and 0i:in0 the same to the former, thus promptin0 herdau0hter to rise from her seat andor as' permission from the oDcer tospea', and then ma'e some manifestations ?hile readin0 or 0lancin0 on thepaper 0i:en by ud0e Malanyaon. Ihen the principal counsel of thecomplainants, Atty. Lamora, arri:ed, she inuired re0ardin0 the personalityof ud0e Malanyaon, bein0 seated at the la?yers bench beside Atty.Malanyaon, ud0e Malanyaon then proudly introduced himself andmanifested that he ?as the Jcounsel of the respondents counselK. Atty.Lamora proceeded to raise the propriety of ud0e Malanyaons sittin0 ?ithand assistin0 his dau0hter in that hearin0, bein0 a member of the 6udiciary,to ?hich ud0e Malanyaon loudly retorted that he be sho?n any particular

rule that prohibits him from sittin0 ?ith his dau0hter at the la?yers bench.=e insisted that he ?as merely Jassistin0K her dau0hter, ?ho J6ust passedthe barK, defend the respondent, and ?as li'e?ise helpin0 the latter defendherself. 5he Court administrator reiterated a recommendation byrecommendin0 that; *a+ the administrati:e case be re7doc'eted as a re0ularadministrati:e matterW and *b+ ud0e Malanyaon be found 0uilty of 0rossmisconduct and @ned P !%,%%%.%%.

ISSUES'Ihether or not the actuations of ud0e Malanyaon complained ofconstituted conduct unbecomin0 of a 6ud0e

RULING' 5he Court @nds and pronounces 23E N)


45/196

eGpressly prohibits sittin0 6ud0es li'e ud0e Malanyaon from en0a0in0 in thepri:ate practice of la? or 0i:in0 professional ad:ice to clients. Section ,Canon $ *Propriety+, of the Ne? Code of udicial Conduct and Rule !.%-% ofthe Code of udicial Conduct reiterate the prohibition from en0a0in0 in thepri:ate practice of la? or 0i:in0 professional ad:ice to clients. 5he prohibition

is based on sound reasons of public policy, considerin0 that the ri0hts,duties, pri:ile0es and functions of the oDce of an attorney are inherentlyincompatible ?ith the hi0h oDcial functions, duties, po?ers, discretion andpri:ile0es of a sittin0 6ud0e. )t also aims to ensure that 6ud0es 0i:e their fulltime and attention to their 6udicial duties, pre:ent them from eGtendin0fa:ors to their o?n pri:ate interests, and assure the public of theirimpartiality in the performance of their functions. 5hese ob6ecti:es aredictated by a sense of moral decency and desire to promote the publicinterest. 5hus, an attorney ?ho accepts an appointment to the &ench mustaccept that his ri0ht to practice la? as a member of the Philippine &ar isthereby suspended, and it shall continue to be so suspended for the entire

period of his incumbency as a 6ud0e. 5o the Court, then, ud0e Malanyaonen0a0ed in the pri:ate practice of la? by assistin0 his dau0hter at his ?ifesadministrati:e case, coachin0 his dau0hter in ma'in0 manifestations orposin0 motions to the hearin0 oDcer, and preparin0 the uestions that heprompted to his dau0hter in order to demand that Atty. Eduardo ense at my presence and accuse me of practicin0la? durin0 my stint as a 6ud0e ?hen before the bad blood bet?een my ?ifeand her siblin0 and nephe? erupted, ) helped them out ?ith their le0alproblems 0ratis et amore and they did not complain of my practicin0 la? ontheir behalf.K =e thereby manifested his tendencies to disre0ard theprohibition a0ainst the pri:ate practice of la? durin0 his incumbency on the&ench. Any propensity on the part of a ma0istrate to i0nore the ethicalin6unction to conduct himself in a manner that ?ould 0i:e no 0round forreproach is al?ays ?orthy of condemnation. Ie should abhor any

impropriety on the part of 6ud0es, ?hether committed in or out of theircourthouses, for they are not 6ud0es only occasionally. "ourth ?as ud0eMalanyaons display of arro0ance durin0 the hearin0, as reOected by hisreaction to the opposin0 counsels uery on his personality to sit at thecounsel table at the hearin0, to ?it; ) am the counsel of the complainant, ah,of the respondents counsel, ) am ud0e Malanyaon. ) am assistin0 her. Andso ?hatYZZ ud0e Malanyaons utterin0 JAnd so ?hatYK to?ards the opposin0counsel e:inced his instant resentment to?ards the ad:erse parties counselfor ri0htly challen0in0 his ri0ht to be sittin0 on a place reser:ed for counselof the parties. 5he utterance, for bein0 made in an arro0ant tone 6ust afterhe had introduced himself as a 6ud0e, ?as unbecomin0 of the 6ud0e that he

?as, and tainted the 0ood ima0e of the udiciary that he should uphold at alltimes. )t is true that the challen0e of the opposin0 counsel mi0ht ha:esli0hted him, but that ?as not enou0h to cause him to for0et that he ?as stilla 6ud0e eGpected to act ?ith utmost sobriety and to spea' ?ith self7restraint.=e thereby i0nored the presence of the hearin0 oDcer, appearin0 to pro6ectthat he could forsa'e the decorum that the time and the occasion ri0htlycalled for from him and the others 6ust because he ?as a 6ud0e and the other



46/196

side ?as not. =e should not for0et that a 6ud0e li'e himself should be the lastperson to be percei:ed by others as a petty and sharp7ton0ued tyrant. ud0eMalanyaon has insisted that his actuations ?ere eGcused by his @lialobli0ation to assist his dau0hter, then only a neophyte in the erent, for he ?as a 6udicial oDcer?ho came under the stricture that uniformly applied to all 6ud0es of all le:elsof the 6udicial hierarchy, forbiddin0 him from en0a0in0 in the pri:ate practiceof la? durin0 his incumbency, re0ardless of ?hether the bene@ciary ?as his?ife or dau0hter or other members of his o?n family.



47/196

RE POLINAR DAGO7OY 9s) ATTY) ARTE5IO V) SAN 2UAN3 A)C) N1):;443 2"ne +(3 *+,(

FACTS'Atty. San uan ?as administrati:ely char0ed for 0ross ne0li0ence, inconnection ?ith the dismissal of his clients appeal @led before the Court ofAppeals *CA+. 5omas 2a0ohoy *5omas+, his client and the father ofcomplainant ReG Polinar 2a0ohoy, ?as char0ed ?ith and con:icted of theftby the Re0ional 5rial Court, &ranch $, of Panabo City, 2a:ao del Norte.Accordin0 to the complainant, the CA dismissed the appeal for Atty. San

uans failure to @le the appellants brief.! =e further alle0ed that Atty. Sanuan did not @le a motion for reconsideration a0ainst the CAs order ofdismissal./ 5he complainant also accused Atty. San uan of bein0 untruthfulin dealin0 ?ith him and 5omas. 5he complainant, in this re0ard, alle0ed thatAtty. San uan failed to inform him and 5omas of the real status of 5omasappeal and did not disclose to them the real reason for its dismissal.

ISSUE' Ihether or not the respondent is liable for committin0 0rossne0li0ence, in connection ?ith the dismissal of his clients appeal @led beforethe Court of Appeals *CA+

7ELD'Atty. San uans ne0li0ence undoubtedly :iolates the


48/196

PENA VS) ATTY) PATERNO3 A)C) N1) 4,;,3 2"ne ,+3 *+,(

FACTS'

5his is an administrati:e case @led a0ainst respondent Atty. ChristinaC. Paterno for acts :iolati:e of the Code of Professional Responsibility and theNotarial


49/196

respondent be disbarred from the practice of la? and her name stric'en7o>the Roll of Attorneys, e>ecti:e immediately, and recommended that thenotarial commission of respondent, if still eGistin0, be re:o'ed, and thatrespondent be perpetually disuali@ed from reappointment as a notarypublic.

ISSUE'

Ihether or not there ?as clear and preponderant e:idence sho?in0that respondent :iolated the Canons of Professional Responsibility by*a+decei:in0 complainant Anita C. Pe9aW *b+ conspirin0 ?ith Estrella raus andEn0r. Ernesto


50/196

2ULIAN PENILLA3 C1$=lainant3 9) ATTY) UINTIN P) ALCID3 2R)3A)C) N1) ;,4;3 Se=te$#er +43 *+,(

FACTS'5he respondent ?as complainants counsel for the case of breach of contract?ith the 3arin spouses. =e @led a criminal case, o:erchar0ed him ?ithattorneys fees and @lin0 fee, and imposed that the Asst. City Prosecutor oseC. "ortuno ?ould be more in fa:or of the complainants case if they ?ould0i:e liuor to the said 6ud0e. 5he case ?as rendered unsuccessful. After thehearin0, the respondent as'ed for more fees, and reasoned him ?ith more@lin0 of liti0ations. =e su00ested that they should @le a ci:il case and to ha:e

the complainant follo? up about it in his oDce. Complainant asserts ha:in0made numerous and unsuccessful attempts to follo?7up the status of thecase and meet ?ith respondent at his oDce. 5he complainant ?ent to the(Dce of the Cler' of Court of the Caloocan City Metropolitan 5rial Court andRe0ional 5rial Court *R5C+ and learned that the respondent has been lyin0 tohim about the le0al fees. 5he complainant @led before the )nte0rated &ar ofthe Philippines7Commission on &ar 2iscipline *)&P7C&2+ the instantadministrati:e case prayin0 that respondent be found 0uilty of 0rossmisconduct for :iolatin0 the


51/196

. 5he respondent, Atty. Buintin P. Alcid, r. ?as found 3)


52/196

?arnin0 to the respondent and that the neGt case ?ould be dealt morese:erely

2UDGE 5ANA7AN V) ATTY) FLORES3 A)C) NO) 6;-43 NOVE5BER ,(3*+,(

FACTS'Respondent Atty. Rodolto "lores *Atty. "lores+ ?as counsel for the defendantin Ci:il Case No. 8/ captioned as Marsha Aranas plainti> :ersus Arnold&almores defendant a suit for dama0es @led before the Municipal 5rial Courtof San Mateo, Ri4al and presided by herein complainant ud0e MaribethRodri0ue47Manahan *ud0e Manahan+. GGG 2urin0 the proceedin0s in Ci:ilCase No. 8/, ud0e Manahan issued an (rder dated anuary #, #%,

?hereby she :oluntarily inhibited from hearin0 Ci:il Case No. 8/. 5he said(rder reads in part, :i4; JMore than mere contempt do his *Atty. "lores+unethical actuations, his traits of dishonesty and discourtesy not only to hiso?n brethren in the le0al profession, but also to the bench and 6ud0es, ?ouldamount to 0ra:e misconduct, if not a malpractice of la?, a serious 0round fordisciplinary action of a member of the bar pursuant to Rules 1 a F b.K2urin0 the Preliminary Conference, respondent Atty. "lores entered hisappearance and ?as 0i:en time to @le a Pre75rial &rief. (n May #$, #%%,respondent Atty. "lores @led his Pre75rial &rief but ?ithout proof of MC


53/196

respondent Atty. "lores manifested that he ?ill submit proof of compliance ofhis MC


54/196

the Court of Appeals. )t is li'e?ise :ery noticeable that the Respondent ?asnot amon0 those furnished ?ith a copy of the Entry of ud0ment hence it iscrystal clear that he ne:er submitted his Entry of Appearance ?ith the Courtof Appeals Uinsofar as the case of the Complainant is concerned. Respondentassured the Complainant that he ?as doin0 his best in dealin0 ?ith the case,

ne:ertheless, later on Complainant lost contact ?ith him. G G G includin0 thefact that he ?as not one of the parties furnished ?ith a copy of the Entry ofud0ment pro:ed the inaction and ne0li0ence of the Respondent. G G G

ISSUE')s respondent can be held liable for his 0ross ne0li0ence and inactiona0ainst his clients caseY

RULING; Hes, )t is beyond dispute that complainant en0a0ed the ser:ices ofrespondent to handle her case ?hich ?as then on appeal before the Court of

Appeals. )ndeed, ?hen a la?yer ta'es a clients cause, he co:enants that he

?ill eGercise due dili0ence in protectin0 the latters ri0hts. Complainant also

established that she made se:eral follo?7ups ?ith the respondent but thelatter merely i0nored her or made her belie:e that he ?as dili0ently handlin0

her case. 5hus, complainant ?as surprised ?hen she recei:ed a notice from

the Court of Appeals informin0 her that her appeal had been abandoned and

her case dismissed. 5he dismissal had become @nal and eGecutory. 5his is a

clear :iolation of Rule 8.%$, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility ?hich en6oins la?yers to 'eep their clients informed of the

status of their case and shall respond ?ithin a reasonable time to the clients

reuest for information. 5he Code of Professional Responsibility pertinently

pro:ides; Canon - A la?yer o?es @delity to the cause of his client and heshall be mindful of the trust and con@dence reposed on him. Canon 8 A

la?yer shall ser:e his client ?ith competence and dili0ence. G G G G Rule

8.% A la?yer shall not ne0lect a le0al matter entrusted to him, and his

ne0li0ence in connection there?ith shall render him liable. Rule 8.%$ A

la?yer shall 'eep the client informed of the status of his case and shall

respond ?ithin a reasonable time to the clients reuest for information.

I=ERE"(RE, respondent Atty. "reddie A. Venida is SSPEN2E2 from the

practice o la? for one year e>ecti:e immediately, ?ith IARN)N3 that a

similar :iolation ?ill be dealt ?ith more se:erely. =e is 2)REC5E2 to report to

this Court the date of his receipt of this Resolution to enable this Court todetermine ?hen his suspension shall ta'e e>ect.


55/196

pay him !%Q of ?hate:er ?ould be reco:ered of the properties.


56/196

)n complaint of &anasi0, she narrated that, on May 8, 11-, respondent and3racemarie R. &una0an, entered into a contract of marria0e, as e:idencedby a certi@ed GeroG copy of the certi@cate of marria0e issued by the City Ci:ilRe0istry of Manila. &ansi0 is the sister of 3racemarie R. &una0an, le0al ?ifeof respondent. =o?e:er, not?ithstandin0 respondents marria0e ?ith

&una0an, respondent contracted another marria0e on anuary 8, 118 ?ith acertain Ma. Cielo Pa4 5orres Alba, as e:idenced by a certi@ed GeroG copy ofthe certi@cate of marria0e issued by the City Re0istration (Dcer of San uan,Manila. &ansi0 stressed that the marria0e bet?een respondent and &una0an?as still :alid and in full le0al eGistence ?hen he contracted his secondmarria0e ?ith Alba, and that the @rst marria0e had ne:er been annulled orrendered :oid by any la?ful authority. &ansi0 alle0ed that respondents actof contractin0 marria0e ?ith Alba, ?hile his marria0e is still subsistin0,constitutes 0rossly immoral and conduct unbecomin0 of a member of the&ar, ?hich renders him un@t to continue his membership in the &ar. )n aResolution dated "ebruary 8, #%%#, the Court resol:ed to reuire

respondent to @le a comment on the instant complaint. Respondent failed toappear before the mandatory conference and hearin0s set by the )nte0rated&ar of the Philippines, Commission on &ar 2iscipline *)&P7C&2+, despitese:eral notices

ISSUE'. Ihether the respondent is still @t to continue to be an oDcer ofthe court due to the act of committin0 bi0amy. Violatin0 the code ofProfessional Responsibility Rule .%, Canon -, and Rule -.% =is act ofcontractin0 a second marria0e ?hile his @rst marria0e is subsistin0constituted 0rossly immoral conduct and are 0rounds for disbarment underSection #-, Rule 8 of the Re:ised Rules of Court. #. 5he failure of

respondent to ans?er the char0es a0ainst him despite numerous notices.Clearly, respondents acts constitute ?illful disobedience of the la?ful ordersof the Court, ?hich is under Section #-, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.

7ELD'5he certi@ed GeroG copies of the marria0e certi@cates, other than bein0admissible in e:idence, clearly indicate that respondent contracted thesecond marria0e ?hile the @rst marria0e is subsistin0. &y itself, the certi@edGeroG copies of the marria0e certi@cates ?ould already ha:e been suDcientto establish the eGistence of t?o marria0es entered into by respondent. 5hecerti@ed GeroG copies should be accorded the full faith and credence 0i:en topublic documents. "or purposes of this disbarment proceedin0, theseMarria0e Certi@cates bearin0 the name of respondent are competent andcon:incin0 e:idence to pro:e that he committed bi0amy, ?hich renders himun@t to continue as a member of the &ar. And respondents ca:alier attitudein repeatedly i0norin0 the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utterdisrespect to the 6udicial institution. Respondents conduct indicates a hi0hde0ree of irresponsibility. Ie ha:e repeatedly held that a Courts Resolutionis not to be construed as a mere reuest, nor should it be complied ?ithpartially, inadeuately, or selecti:ely. Respondents obstinate refusal tocomply ?ith the Courts orders not only betrays a recalcitrant Oa? in hischaracterW it also underscores his disrespect of the Courts la?ful orders?hich is only too deser:in0 of reproof. )n Vie? of all fore0oin0 , the 6ud0e@nds respondent Atty. Ro0elio uan A. Celera, 0uilty of 0rossly immoralconduct and ?illful disobedience of la?ful orders renderin0 him un?orthy ofcontinuin0 membership in the le0al profession. =e is thus ordered2)S&ARRE2 from the practice of la? and his name stric'en of the Roll ofAttorneys, e>ecti:e immediately.



57/196

EDGARDO AREOLA VS) ATTY) 5ARIA VIL5A 5ENDO


58/196

.%# and Rule !.%- of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Mendo4aadmitted that she ad:ised her clients to approach the 6ud0e and plead forcompassion so that their motions ?ould be 0ranted. Atty. Mendo4a made itappear that the 6ud0e is easily mo:ed if a party resorts to dramatic anticssuch as be00in0 and cryin0 in order for their cases to be dismissed. )t is the

mandate of Rule .%# that Ja la?yer shall not counsel or abet acti:itiesaimed at de@ance of the la? or at lessenin0 con@dence in the le0al system.KRule !.%- states that Ja la?yer shall impress upon his client compliance?ith the la?s and the principles of fairness.K Atty. Mendo4as improper ad:iceonly lessens the con@dence of the public in our le0al system. ud0es must befree to 6ud0e, ?ithout pressure or inOuence from eGternal forces or factorsaccordin0 to the merits of a case. Atty. Mendo4as careless remar' isuncalled for. )t must be remembered that a la?yers duty is not to his clientbut to the administration of 6ustice. 5o that end, his clients success is ?hollysubordinate. =is conduct ou0ht to and must al?ays be scrupulouslyobser:ant of the la? and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest

?hich is resorted to by the la?yer, e:en in the pursuit of his de:otion to hisclients cause, is condemnable and unethical. Penalty; penalty ofREPR)MAN2, ?ith the S5ERN IARN)N3 that a repetition of the same orsimilar act ?ill be dealt ?ith more se:erely &asis of the Penalty; )n se:eraladministrati:e cases, the Court has refrained from imposin0 the actualpenalties in the presence of miti0atin0 factors. "actors such as therespondents len0th of ser:ice, the respondents ac'no?led0ement of his orher infractions and feelin0 of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarianand euitable considerations, respondents ad:anced a0e, amon0 otherthin0s, ha:e had :aryin0 si0ni@cance in the Courts determination of theimposable penalty. 5he Court ta'es note of Atty. Mendo4as lac' of ill7moti:e

in the present case and her bein0 a PA( la?yer as her main source ofli:elihood. "urthermore, the complaint @led by Areola is clearly baseless andthe only reason ?hy this ?as e:er 0i:en consideration ?as due to Atty.Mendo4as o?n admission. "or these reasons, the Court deems it 6ust tomodify and reduce the penalty recommended by the )&P &oard of 3o:ernors.



59/196

NATIVIDAD P) NAVARRO VS) ATTY) IVAN 5) SOLIDU5 2R)3 A)C) ;6:*32an"ar& *63 *+,4

FACTS'

)n April #%%/, =ilda Presbitero en0a0ed the ser:ices of Atty. ):an

Solidum, r. to help her in the uietin0 of her title o:er a parcel of land.

Presbitero paid Solidum P!%,%%%.%% as acceptance fee.

)n May #%%/, Ma. 5heresa Hulo, dau0hter of Presbitero also en0a0ed

the ser:ices of Solidum for the re0istration of a parcel of land. Hulo ho?e:er

as'ed the help of her sister, Nati:idad Na:arro, to @nance the case. =ence,

Na:arro 0a:e Solidum Php#%%,%%%.%% for the re0istration eGpenses.

Mean?hile, Solidum in May and une #%%/, obtained a total of Php#

million from Na:arro. 5he loan ?as co:ered by t?o Memorandum of

A0reement *M(As+. 5he M(A ?as prepared by Solidum. 5he M(A stated that

the monthly interest shall be %Q.

Solidum also borro?ed Php million from Presbitero durin0 the same

period. =e a0ain drafted a M(A containin0 the same terms and conditions as

?ith Na:arro. As additional security for the loan, Solidum mort0a0ed his #/7

hectare land for P million in fa:or of Presbitero.

Nothin0 happened in the uietin0 of title case @eld by Presbitero since

Solidum did nothin0 after recei:in0 the acceptance fee.

)n the land re0istration case of Hulo @nanced by Na:arro, Na:arro later

found out that the land ?as already re0istered to someone else. Na:arro



60/196

claims that she should not ha:e @nanced the case if only Solidum ad:ised

her of the status of the land.

Anent the loans, Solidum failed to pay them. )nstead, he uestioned

the terms of the loans as he claimed that the interest rate of said loans at

%Q is unconscionable.

Na:arro and Presbitero later @led an administrati:e case a0ainst

Solidum.

ISSUE'

Ihether or not Atty. ):an Solidum, r. should be disbarred.

7ELD'Hes.

Althou0h Solidum acted in his pri:ate capacity ?hen he obtained a

total of Php million from Na:arro and Presbitero, he may still be disciplined

for misconduct committed either in his pri:ate capacity. 5he test is ?hether

his conduct sho?s him to be ?antin0 in moral character, honesty, probity,and 0ood demeanor, or ?hether it renders him un?orthy to continue as an

oDcer of the court. )n this case, such act displayed by Solidum merited his

disbarment.

Solidum is 0uilty of en0a0in0 in dishonest and deceitful conduct, both

in his professional capacity ?ith respect to his client, Presbitero, and in his

pri:ate capacity ?ith respect to Na:arro. &oth Presbitero and Na:arro

allo?ed Splidum to draft the terms of the loan a0reements. Solidum drafted

the M(As 'no?in0 that the interest rates ?ere eGorbitant.


61/196

that a la?yer shall not borro? money from his client unless the clients

interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent

ad:ice. E:en thou0h Solidum secured the loan ?ith a mort0a0e and a M(A,

Presbiteros interest ?as not fully protected because the property Solidum

mort0a0ed ?as o:er:alued. =e claimed that his #/7hectare land ?as ?orth

P million but in fact Solidum sold it later for only P!%,%%%.%%. Clearly,

Presbitero ?as disad:anta0ed by Solidums ability to use all the le0al

maneu:erin0s to rene0e on his obli0ation. =e too' ad:anta0e of his

'no?led0e of the la? as ?ell as the trust and con@dence reposed in him by

his client.

Solidum ?as disbarred by the Supreme Court.



62/196

CARLITO ANG V. ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA

3

A)C) NO) 4-4-)FEBRUARY -3 *+,4

)

FACTS'

5he case stemmed from an aDda:it7complaint@led by complainant Carlito

An0 a0ainst respondent. An0 alle0ed that on May , 11, he and the other

heirs of the late Candelaria Ma0payo, namely Puri@cacion 2iamante andIilliam Ma0payo, eGecuted an EGtra76udicial 2eclaration of =eirs and

Partition$in:ol:in0


63/196

)n his Comment, respondent denied any ?ron0doin0 and ar0ued that An0 is

merely usin0 the present administrati:e complaint as a tool to force the

defendants in a pendin0 ci:il case and their counsel, herein respondent, to

accede to his ?ishes.

)n:esti0atin0 Commissioner


64/196

WILBERTO C. TALISIC V. ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN,

A)C) NO) 6:/,3

FEBRUARY ,*3 *+,4

)

FACTS'

Iilberto claimed that his mother Aurora died on May -, 18-, lea:in0 behind

as heirs her spouse, Celedonio 5alisic, and their three children, namely;

Arlene 5alisic Villara4o, Iilberto and Al:in Corpu4 5alisic. )t ?as only after his

fathers death on No:ember #, #%%% that Iilberto and his siblin0s 'ne? of

the transfer of the sub6ect parcel :ia the sub6ect deed. Ihile Iilbertobelie:ed that his fathers si0nature on the deed ?as authentic, his and his

siblin0s supposed si0natures ?ere merely for0ed. Iilberto also pointed out

that e:en his name ?as erroneously indicated in the deed as Iilfredo.

"or his defense, Atty. Rinen denied the char0e a0ainst him and eGplained

that it ?as only on April -, 11$ that he came to 'no? of the transaction

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/february2014/8761.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/february2014/8761.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/february2014/8761.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/february2014/8761.pdf


65/196

bet?een the Spouses 2urante and the 5alisics, ?hen they approached him in

his oDce as the then Presidin0 ud0e of the Municipal

5rial Court, Real, Bue4on, to ha:e the sub6ect deed prepared and notari4ed.

=is cler' of court prepared the deed and upon its completion, ushered the

parties to his oDce for the administration of oath./5he deed contained hiscerti@cation that at the time of the documents eGecution, no notary public

?as a:ailable to eGpedite the transaction of the parties. Notarial fees paid

by the parties ?ere also co:ered by a receipt issued by the 5reasurer of the

Municipality of Real, Bue4on.-

After due proceedin0s, )n:esti0atin0 Commissioner "elimon C. Abelita )))

*Commissioner Abelita+ issued the Report and Recommendation8dated

No:ember #%, #%# for the cancellation of Atty. Rinens notarial commission

and his suspension from notarial practice for a period of one year.

1

5he reportindicated that per Atty. Rinens admission, the sub6ect deed ?as prepared in

his oDce and ac'no?led0ed before him. Althou0h there ?as no e:idence of

for0ery on his part, he ?as ne0li0ent in not reuirin0 from the parties to the

deed their presentation of documents as proof of identity. Atty. Rinens failure

to properly satisfy his duties as a notary public ?as also sho?n by the

inconsistencies in the dates that appear on the deed, to ?it; 11$ as to the

eGecutionW 11! ?hen notari4edW Uand entered as Series of 11# in the

notarial boo' G G G.

ISSUE'

Ihether or not Atty. Rinen be disuali@ed from bein0 commissioned as a

notary publicY

7ELD'

5he Court said yes.

)n !autista ". Atty. !ernabe, the Court held that JUa notary public should not

notari4e a document unless the persons ?ho si0ned the same are the :ery

same persons ?ho eGecuted and personally appeared before him to attest to

the contents and truth of ?hat are stated therein. 5he presence of the

parties to the deed ?ill enable the notary public to :erify the 0enuineness of

the si0nature of the aDant.K Notari4ation is not an empty, meanin0less,

routinary act. )t is in:ested ?ith substanti:e public interest, such that only

those ?ho are uali@ed or authori4ed may act as notaries public. )t con:erts

a pri:ate document into a public one, ma'in0 it admissible in court ?ithout

further proof of its authenticity. 5hus, notaries public must obser:e ?ith

utmost care the basic reuirements in the performance of their duties.

(ther?ise, the con@dence of the public in the inte0rity of public instruments

?ould be undermined.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/ac_8761_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/ac_8761_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/ac_8761_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/ac_8761_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/ac_8761_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/ac_8761_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/ac_8761_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/ac_8761_2014.html#fnt9


66/196

)n this case, Atty. Rinen did not deny his failure to personally :erify the

identity of all parties ?ho purportedly si0ned the sub6ect document and

?hom, as he claimed, appeared before him on April -, 11$. Such failure ?as

further sho?n by the fact that the pertinent details of the community taG

certi@cates of Iilberto and his sister, as proof of their identity, remained

unspeci@ed in the deeds ac'no?led0ment portion. Clearly, there ?as a

failure on the part of Atty. Rinen to eGercise the due dili0ence that ?as

reuired of him as a notary public eGoDcio. 5hus, Atty. Rinens notarial

commission as re:o'ed and he ?ere disuali@ed from bein0 commissioned

as a notary public for one year.



67/196

NESTOR FIGUERAS AND BIENVENIDO VICTORIA3 2R) V) ATTY)

DIOSDADO B) 2I5ENEer the same. E:ery employee of the udiciary should be an eGample of

inte0rity, upri0htness, and honesty. Court personnel are en6oined to adhere

to the eGactin0 standards of morality and decency in their professional and

pri:ate conduct in order to preser:e the 0ood name and inte0rity of the

courts of 6ustice. =ere, Ampon0 failed to meet these strin0ent standards set

for a 6udicial employee and does not, therefore, deser:e to remain ?ith theudiciary

ADELIA V) UIAC7ON :s. ATTY) 2OSEP7 ADORA) RA5OS3 A)C) NO);(,:3 2UNE 43 *+,4

FOR5ERLY CBD CASE NO) ,*.(/,-!

FACTS'

5his is a disbarment case @led by Adelia V. Buiachon *complainant+, a0ainst

her la?yer, Atty. oseph Ador A. Ramos *respondent+. 5he latter represented

complainant, ?ho ?as then the plainti> in a labor case @led before the

National


78/196

case @led before the Re0ional 5rial Court *R 5C+. Complainant char0es

respondent ?ith 0ross ne0li0ence and deceit in :iolation of Canon Rules

8.% and 8.%$ of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

5he


79/196

7ELD'

5he court said no.

5he Supreme Court held that the ?ithdra?al of a disbarment case a0ainst a

la?yer does not terminate or abate the 6urisdiction of the )&P and of this

Court to continue an administrati:e proceedin0 a0ainst a la?yer7respondent

as a member of the Philippine &ar. 5he complainant in a disbarment case is

not a direct party to the case, but a ?itness ?ho brou0ht the matter to the

attention of the Court. )n this case, Atty. Ramos :iolated Canon Rules 8.%

and 8.%$ of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 5hus, the appropriate

penalty should be imposed despite the desistance of complainant or the

?ithdra?al of the char0es.



80/196

ERLINDA FOSTER VS) 2AI5E AGTANG3 A)C) NO) ,+-:;3 Dece$#er ,+3*+,4



81/196

FACTS'

)n #%%1, Erlinda "oster en0a0ed the ser:ices of Atty. aime A0tan0 in a

realty dispute in )locos Norte. A0tan0s acceptance fee ?as P#%,%%%.%% plus

P!,%%%.%% for incidental eGpenses.

"or the case, A0tan0 collected P!%,%%%.%% from "oster as @lin0 fee.

=e also ad:ised "oster to shell out a total of P!%,%%%.%% for them to bribe the

6ud0e and 0et a fa:orable decision. Althou0h reluctant, "oster 0a:e in to

A0tan0s demands.

:arious occasions, A0tan0 borro?ed money from "oster for hispersonal use, i.e., car repair. Such loan amounted to P##,%%%.%%. "oster,

bein0 prudent, as'ed for receipts for all funds she handed o:er to A0tan0.


82/196

than the prescribed amount in the rules, due to fei0ned reasons such as the

hi0h :alue of the land in:ol:ed and the eGtra eGpenses to be incurred by

court employees. )n other ?ords, he resorted to o:erpricin0, an act

customarily related to depra:ity and dishonesty.

Ihen as'ed to return the balance, he failed and refused to do so ande:en had the temerity that it ?as all the clients idea. . A la?yers failure to

return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client 0i:es rise

to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his o?n use in

:iolation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a 0ross :iolation

of 0eneral morality as ?ell as of professional ethics. )t impairs public

con@dence in the le0al profession and deser:es punishment.

)t is clear that A0tan0 failed to ful@ll this duty. =e recei:ed :arious

amounts from "oster but he could not account for all of them. Iorse, hecould not deny the authenticity of the receipts presented by "oster.

Rule /.%$, Canon / of the Code of Professional Responsibility states

that Ja la?yer shall not borro? money from his client unless the clients

interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent

ad:ice. Neither shall a la?yer lend money to a client eGcept, ?hen in the

interest of 6ustice, he has to ad:ance necessary eGpenses in a le0al matter

he is handlin0 for the client.K

)n the @rst place, A0tan0 should ha:e ne:er borro?ed from "oster, hisclient. Second, his refusal to pay reOects his baseness. 2eliberate failure to

pay 6ust debts constitutes 0ross misconduct, for ?hich a la?yer may be

sanctioned ?ith suspension from the practice of la?. erence to his duty

to his client, the courts and society render him un@t to continue dischar0in0

the trust reposed in him as a member of the &ar.

SIDE ISSUE'May the Court order A0tan0 to return the money he borro?edfrom "osterY

No. 5he Court held that it cannot order the la?yer to return money to

complainant if he or she acted in a pri:ate capacity because its @ndin0s in

administrati:e cases ha:e no bearin0 on liabilities ?hich ha:e no intrinsic

lin' to the la?yers professional en0a0ement. )n disciplinary proceedin0s

a0ainst la?yers, the only issue is ?hether the oDcer of the court is still @t to

be allo?ed to continue as a member of the &ar. 5he only concern of the

Court is the determination of respondents administrati:e liability. )ts @ndin0sAtt&) GIL P) VILORIA3 2r)

PALE Instr"ct1r3 S)Y) *+,-.*+,/


83/196

ha:e no material bearin0 on other 6udicial actions ?hich the parties may

choose a0ainst each other. 5o rule other?ise ?ould in e>ect depri:e

respondent of his ri0ht to appeal since administrati:e cases are @led directly

?ith the Court.

AttorneyW 2isbarment casesW )nitiation. Complainants ?ho are members of

the Con0ressional Villa0e =omeo?ners Association, )nc. @led a Complaint for

2isbarment a0ainst Atty. imene4 for :iolatin0 Rule #.%, Canon #, Canon-, Rule 8.%, and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for

his ne0li0ence in handlin0 an appeal in a case in:ol:in0 the Association and

?illful :iolation of his duties as an oDcer of the court.

5he Supreme Court held that the complainants ha:e personality to @le the

disbarment case. )n -ec8 ". Juge 4antos, the Court held that JUany

interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary

proceedin0s.K 5he ri0ht to institute disbarment proceedin0s is not con@ned

to clients nor is it necessary that the person complainin0 su>ered in6ury from

the alle0ed ?ron0doin0. 5he procedural reuirement obser:ed in ordinaryci:il proceedin0s that only the real party7in7interest must initiate the suit

does not apply in disbarment cases. 2isbarment proceedin0s are matters of

public interest and the only basis for the 6ud0ment is the proof or failure of

proof of the char0es. "urther, the Supreme Court held that a la?yer en0a0ed

to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protectin0 the



84/196

latters interest ?ith utmost dili0ence. )n failin0 to @le the appellants brief on

behalf of his client, Atty. imene4 had fallen far short of his duties as counsel

as set forth in Rule #.%$, Canon # of the Code of Professional Responsibility

?hich eGhorts e:ery member of the &ar not to unduly delay a case and to

eGert e:ery e>ort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and

eDcient administration of 6ustice. =o?e:er, the Supreme Court only

suspended Atty. imene4 from the practice of la? for one month. Nestor

Figueras an !ien"enio Victoria, Jr. ". Atty. #iosao !. Jimene$, A.C. No.

1/, March #, #%$.

AttorneyW "idelity to Client. Atty. 3uaren ?as char0ed ?ith :iolatin0 the

Canon of Professional Responsibility ?hen he accepted the titlin0 of

complainants lot and despite the acceptance of P-,%%%, failed to perform his

obli0ation and allo?in0 ! years to elapse ?ithout any pro0ress in the titlin0

of complainants lot. 5he Supreme Court reiterated that the practice of la? isnot a business. )t is a profession in ?hich duty to public ser:ice, not money,

is the primary consideration.


85/196

ha:e found a ?ay to spea' to his client and inform him about the

insuDciency of the @lin0 fee so he could @le the complaint. Atty. A0leron

ob:iously lac'ed professionalism in dealin0 ?ith complainant and sho?ed

incompetence ?hen he failed to @le the appropriate char0es. A la?yer should

ne:er ne0lect a le0al matter entrusted to him, other?ise his ne0li0ence

renders him liable for disciplinary action such as suspension ran0in0 from

three months to t?o years. )n this case, Atty. A0leron ?as suspended from

the practice of la? three months. rmelina 9a Va. #e #omingue$,

represente by her Attorney5in5Fact, Vicente A. Pichon ". Atty. Arnul3o (.

Agleron 4r.,A.C. No. !!1, March %, #%$.

AttorneyW Notari4ationW Personal Appearance. A petition for disbarment ?as

@led a0ainst Atty. Cabucana, r. for falsi@cation of public document. 5he

reuirement of personal appearance of the aDant is reuired under the

Notarial


86/196

ud0eW 3ross )0norance of the


87/196

to the person, and to 0i:e eual ri0ht to the poor and rich. 5here should be

clear and con:incin0 e:idence to pro:e the char0eW mere suspicion of

partiality is not enou0h. )n this case, aside from bein0 speculati:e and

6udicial in character, the circumstances cited by the complainant ?ere

0rounded on mere opinion and surmises. 5he complainant also failed to

adduce proof indicatin0 the 6ud0es predisposition to decide the case in fa:or

of one party.Antonio (. 9oren$ana ". Juge (a. Cecilia >. Austria, RTC, !r. ),

!atangas City,A.M. No. R57%17##%%, April #, #%$.

ud0esW decision7ma'in0W 1%7day reuirement. An administrati:e case ?as

@led a0ainst ud0e &ustamante ?hen it ?as found out upon 6udicial audit

that he had a number of cases pendin0 for decision, some of ?hich the

re0lementary period ha:e already lapsed. 5he Court held that decision7

ma'in0, amon0 other duties, is the primordial and most important duty of a

member of the bench. 5he speedy disposition of cases in the courts is aprimary aim of the 6udiciary so the ends of 6ustice may not be compromised

and the 6udiciary ?ill be true to its commitment to pro:ide liti0ants their

constitutional ri0ht to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of their cases.

5he Constitution, Code of udicial Conduct, and 6urisprudence consistently

mandate that a 6ud0e must decide cases ?ithin 1% days from submission. A

member of the bench cannot pay mere lip ser:ice to the 1%7day reuirementW

heshe should instead perse:ere in its implementation. =ea:y caseload and

demandin0 ?or'load are not :alid reasons to fall behind the mandatory

period for disposition of cases. =a:in0 failed to decide a case ?ithin the

reuired period, ?ithout any order of eGtension 0ranted by the Court, ud0e

&ustamante ?as held liable for undue delay that merits administrati:e

sanction. 12ce o3 the Court Aministrator ". Juge !orromeo R. !ustamante,

(unicipal Trial Court in Cities, Alaminos City, Pangasinan,A.M. No. M57#7

8%/, April -, #%$.

ud0esW impropriety. An administrati:e complaint ?as @led a0ainst ud0e

Austria for impropriety for postin0 her details as 6ud0e in "riendster and

postin0 a picture ?ith an indecent attire for the publics consumption. 5he

Court held that she ?as 0uilty of impropriety. Ihile 6ud0es are not prohibitedfrom becomin0 members of and from ta'in0 part in social net?or'in0

acti:ities, they do not shed o> their status as 6ud0es. 5hey carry ?ith them

in cyberspace the same ethical responsibilities and duties that e:ery 6ud0e is

eGpected to follo? in hisher e:eryday acti:ities. ud0e Austria ?as 0uilty of

impropriety ?hen she posted her pictures in a manner :ie?able by the

public. oinin0 "riendster per sedoes not :iolate the Ne? Code of udicial

Conduct. =o?e:er, ud0e Austria disre0arded the propriety and appearance

of propriety reuired of her ?hen she posted "riendster photos of herself

?earin0 an Jo>7shoulderedK su00esti:e dress and made this a:ailable for

public :ie?in0.Antonio (. 9oren$ana ". Juge (a. Cecilia >. Austria, RTC, !r.), !atangas City,A.M. No. R57%17##%%, April #, #%$.

ud0esW irre0ular or erroneous order or decisionW appropriate remedy. 5he

Court held that in administrati:e cases, the complainant bears the onus of

pro:in0 the a:erments of his complaint by substantial e:idence. )n this case,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/april2014/RTJ-09-2200.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/april2014/MTJ-12-1806.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/april2014/MTJ-12-1806.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/april2014/RTJ-09-2200.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/april2014/RTJ-09-2200.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/april2014/MTJ-12-1806.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/april2014/MTJ-12-1806.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/april2014/RTJ-09-2200.pdf


88/196

the alle0ations of 0ra:e abuse of authority, irre0ularity in the performance of

duty, 0ra:e bias and partiality, and lac' of circumspection are de:oid of

merit because the complainant failed to establish ud0e Austrias bad faith,

malice or ill ?ill. 5he complainant merely pointed to circumstances based on

mere con6ectures and suppositions. 5hese, by themsel:es, ho?e:er, are not

suDcient to pro:e the accusations. E:en 0rantin0 that the 6ud0e erred in the

eGercise of her 6udicial functions, these are le0al errors correctible not by a

disciplinary action, but by 6udicial remedies that are readily a:ailable to the

complainant. An administrati:e complaint is not the appropriate remedy for

e:ery irre0ular or erroneous order or decision issued by a 6ud0e ?here a

6udicial remedy is a:ailable, such as a motion for reconsideration or an

appeal. Antonio (. 9oren$ana ". Juge (a. Cecilia >. Austria, RTC, !r. ),

!atangas City,A.M. No. R57%17##%%, April #, #%$.

AttorneyW 2isbarmentW E>ect of ?ithdra?al. A disbarment case ?as @led byBuiachon a0ainst her la?yer Atty. Ramos ?ho represented her in a labor case

before N


89/196

one 2ecir. nder section !8*a+ of the niform Rules on Administrati:e Cases

in the Ci:il Ser:ice *RACCS+, the penalty of dismissal carries ?ith it the

follo?in0 administrati:e disabilities; *a+ cancellation of ci:il ser:ice eli0ibilityW

*b+ forfeiture of retirement bene@tsW and *c+ perpetual disuali@cation from

re7employment in any 0o:ernment a0ency or instrumentality, includin0 any

0o:ernment7o?ned and controlled corporation or 0o:ernment @nancial

institution. Ampon0 should be made to similar

consolidated cases in pale.docx

Documents