duty to legal profession may-august 2009

8/12/2019 Duty to Legal Profession May-August 2009

1/16

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to the Legal Profession

ATTY. JONNA ESCABARTE, et al. vs. LOIDA GENABEA.M. No. P-09-2602, December 1, 2010

This is a consolidated administrative complaint on grounds of malversation, dishonesty andfalsification of court records.

Facts:Escabarte and her group alleged that Genabe continued to render service despite her 30-day

suspension by Judge Maceda and the judges recommendation, contained in his investigation,report and recommendation (IRRC), dated January 18, 2007 submitted to the Office of the Court

Administrator (OCA), that Genabe be preventively suspended and, thereafter, dismissed from theservice According to the judge, he issued the order after Genabe became unruly and highlycombative during the staff meeting in his chambers on November 29, 2006, shoutingdisrespectfully to him, hindi na ko kailangan karinyo karinyohin pa ninyo x x x ang kakapal nyo x x xhindi kagalang galang.

The IRRC, on the other hand, came about when Judge Maceda, at his own initiativeconducted an investigation of Genabe for attending the convention with an unfinished assignedtask and for conduct unbecoming, pursuant to Rule 135 of the Rules of Court. Escabarte filed areport, dated February 20, 2007, for Judge Maceda saying that Genabe, in apparent dissatisfactionof the low performance rating for the 2nd semester of 2006 she got from Escabarte, accused herand the other members of the courts staff of conspiring against her andfalsifying their DTRs.

Genabe denied the complainants allegation. Genabe admitted that she protested theperformance rating she obtained from Escabarte for July 2006 to December 2006 and claimed that

it must havebeen caused by her being observant and vocal about office decorum and practices andwhich must have drawn the ire of Atty. Escabarte. Finally, Genabe claimed that Judge Macedatreated her oppressively to drive her out of her employment in the judiciary and to get even withher on account of her intolerance of the anomalous practices prevailing in the court. She narratedthat Judge Maceda would insult her during staff meetings and, on numerous occasions, evendemanded that she resign from office; Judge Macedas alter ego, Agbayani, had been securing thesignatures of court and non-court employees of Las Pias City to substantiate the complaintsagainst her, thus isolating her and rendering her inutile since no work had been assigned to herfrom the time she reported back for work.the OCA submitted a reporton the present administrative matters. It recommended the following:

(1) Genabe be found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and conductunbecoming of a court employee and be fined in an amount equivalent to one months salary; (2)

Judge Maceda be reminded to strictly comply with A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, with a warning against asimilar violation in the future; and (3) the charge against Escabarte, Agbayani, Chavez, Gerero,Ortiz, Ramos and Villar be dismissed for lack of merit.

Issue:Whether or not there a breach of professional conduct was committed


2/16

Ruling:Genabe ought to be disciplined. Although she had already been sanctioned by Judge Maceda

for neglect of duty with a 30-day suspension we cannot close our eyes to her work ethic andquarrelsome deportment in office as shown by the December 27, 2006 incident involving her and

Agbayani. As abundantly demonstrated by the staff of the RTC,Branch 275, Las Pias City, she hadthe habit of hurling invectives at her superiors and co-employees who displeased her and whomshe suspected of having caused her suspension. Without doubt, Genabes negative attitude and

penchant for using offensive language can only prejudice the best interest of the service, not tomention that they constitute conduct unbecoming a court employee.

The Court agress with the OCA observations that while the act of Judge Maceda indisciplining Genabe with a 30-day suspension is not oppressive, capricious or despotic, that is

without color of law or reason, or without supporting facts he still had no authority to directlydiscipline her under the terms of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC. Under these terms, Judge Macedas orderof December 21, 2006 was clearly out of line. But while the Judge overstepped the limits of hisauthority, we see no reason not to ratify his action in light of its obvious merits. Thus, the 30-daysuspension he imposed should stand but he should be warned against a repetitionof the direct action he took.

The court likewise agrees with the OCA recommendation that the charge of dishonesty andthe charge of falsification against Escabarte and the other members of the staff be dismissed.

Averments, unsupported by substantial evidence, remain bare and unsubstantiated allegationsWell-settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that, in the resolution of complaints, reliance should notbe reposed on the weakness of the defense, answer or comment but on the strength of theevidence adduced by the complainant.

Adjudication:Loida Marcelina J. Genabe, Legal Researcher, RTC, Branch 275, City of Las Pias, is

declared guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and conduct unbecoming ofa court employee; is ordered to pay a fine equivalent to her one months salary; and iswarned that asimilar violation in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda is warned against a similar violation in the future of A.M. No03-8-02-SC, and is advised to avoid any appearance of impropriety in the handling of financialassistance from the local government.

The charges of dishonesty and falsification of public documents against Jonna M. EscabarteLeticia Agbayani, Nelly Chavez, Josefino Ortiz, Claire Gerero, Sotera Javier, Ana Ramos andEdgar Villar are dismissed for lack of merit.


3/16

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to the Legal Profession

ATTY. PERSEVERANDA RICON vs. JUDGE PLACIDO MARQUEZA.M. No. RTJ-10-2253, December 8 , 2010

This is a consolidated administrative complaint on grounds of grave abuse of discretionconduct unbecoming a judge, gross mismanagement and neglect.

Facts:Atty. Ricon alleged that before Judge Sablan retired, the two of them paid a courtesy call on

Judge Marquez, then the pairing judge of Branch 39. The first thing Judge Marquez askedat the meeting was who among the staff had already rendered five (5) years of service in thegovernment. Most of the staff proudly raised their hands, but they felt insulted when JudgeMarquez said that employees who have been in the public service for five years are corrupt, gago,tamad at makakapal ang mga mukha.

The first thing Judge Marquez asked at the meeting was who among the staff had alreadyrendered five (5) years of service in the government. Most of the staff proudly raised their handsbut theyfelt insulted when Judge Marquez said that employees who have been in the publicservicefor five years are corrupt, gago, tamad at makakapal ang mga mukha.

Further, Atty. Ricon claimed that she received the biggest blow in her life when JudgeMarquez gave her an unsatisfactory rating, together with other members of the staff. Atty. Riconbewailed Judge Marquezs negative evaluation, stressing that in her 27 years in the governmentservice, the lowest rating that she got from the previous judges was very satisfactory and, beforeshe retired, Judge Sablan gave her a rating of outstanding.

Judge Marquez submitted his Comment. He contended that the present complaint is AttyRicons countercharge against him for the unsatisfactory rating she received from him. He alleged

that the outrageous state of records of Branch 39 was not the product of only a semester ofgross mismanagement, neglect and incompetence, but had been going on for many years and iscontinuing until the present.

Judge Marquez, in turn, accused Atty. Ricon of having falsified the Urgent Motion to LiftOrder of Warrant of Arrest and Order of Forfeiture of Bail dated May 14, 2002 filed by theaccuseds counsel in Criminal Case No. 00- 80098, People v. Benigno Salvador, et al., pending in Branch39; it appeared that Atty. Ricon noted the Motion for hearing on May 20, 2002 at 8:30 a.m., atthe upper left-hand corner of page one of the motion, following the intercalation or May 20, 2002at 8:30 a.m., made after the period (.) on page two of the motion, which intercalation was notthere when the motion was filed on May 15, 2002, and when earlier signed by the counsel for the

accused, thereby curing the deficiency in the scrap of paper, as it then had a notice of hearing.The case was referred to Justice Rosmari Carandang of the Court of Appeals, for

investigation, report and recommendation.

Issue:Whether or not a breach of professional misconduct was commited

Ruling:


4/16


5/16

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to SocietyDuty to ClientDuty to CourtsDuty to the Legal Profession

DOLORES C. BELLEZA vs. ATTY. ALAN MACASAA.C. no. 7815, July 23 2009

This is a complaint for disbarment for unprofessional and unethical conduct in connectionwith handling a criminal case.

Facts:On November 10, 2004, complainant went to see respondent on referral of their mutual

friend, Joe Chua. Complainant wanted to avail of respondents legal services in connection with thecase of her son, Francis John Belleza, who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City earlier thatday for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) 9165. Respondent agreed to handle the case forP30,000.

The following day, complainant made a partial payment of P15,000 to respondent thru theirmutual friend Chua. On November 17, 2004, she gave him an additional P10,000. She paid theP5,000 balance on November 18, 2004. Both payments were also made thru Chua. On all threeoccasions, respondent did not issue any receipt.

On November 21, 2004, respondent received P18,000 from complainant for the purpose ofposting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her (complainants) son. Again, respondent didnot issue any receipt. When complainant went to the court the next day, she found out thatrespondent did not remit the amount to the court.

Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but

respondent ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of complainants son andcomplainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Attorneys Office for her sonsdefense. Hence she filed this case.

In an order dated July 13, 2005the Commission on Bar Discipline required respondent tosubmit his answer within 15 days from receipt thereof. Respondent, in an urgent motion forextension of time to file an answer dated August 10, 2005, simply brushed aside the complaint forbeing baseless, groundless and malicious without, however, offering any explanation. He alsoprayed that he be given until September 4, 2005 to submit his answer. Respondent subsequentlyfiled urgent motionsfor second and third extensions of time praying to be given until November 42005 to submit his answer. He never did.

Issue:Whether or not a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility was committed

Ruling:Respondent was given more than enough opportunity to answer the charges against him.

Yet, he showed indifference to the orders of the CBD for him to answer and refute the accusationsof professional misconduct against him. In doing so, he failed to observe Rule 12.03 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility. Respondents unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of the CBD


6/16

was not only irresponsible but also constituted utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellowlawyers. His conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon to obey court orders andprocesses and is expected to stand foremost in complying

with court directives as an officer of the court.A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to devote himself (particularly his time

knowledge, skills and effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidencereposed in him, constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the

interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his clients rights and theexertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheldfrom his client, save by the rules of law legally applied.In this case, after accepting the criminal caseagainst complainants son and receiving his attorneys fees, respondent did nothing that could beconsidered as effective and efficient legal assistance. For all intents and purposes, respondentabandoned the cause of his client. Indeed, on account of respondents continued inaction,complainant was compelled to seek the services of the Public Attorneys Office. Respondentslackadaisical attitude towards the case of complainants son was reprehensible. Not only did itprejudice complainants son, it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel.Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure theprovisional liberty of his client, respondent unduly impeded the latters constitutional right to bail.

When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose (such asfor filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he should promptly account tothe client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, hemust immediately return it to the client.His failure either to render an accounting or to return themoney (if the intended purpose of the money does not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregardof Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

For his failure to comply with the exacting ethical standards of the legal profession,respondent failed to obey Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Lawyers should

always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as embodied in the Code ofProfessional Responsibility. Public confidence in law and in lawyers may be eroded by theirresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act andcomport himself in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legalprofession.

Adjudication:Atty. Alan S. Macasa is hereby found guilty not only of dishonesty but also of professiona

misconduct for prejudicing Francis John Bellezas right to counsel and to bail under Sections 13and 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, and for violating Canons 1, 7, 17, 18 and 19 and Rules

12.03, 16.01, 16.02, 16.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is thereforedisbarred from the practice of law effective immediately.

Respondent is hereby ordered to return to complainant Dolores C. Belleza the amounts ofP30,000 and P18,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of thisdecision until full payment. Respondent is further directed to submit to the Court proof ofpayment of the amount within ten days from payment. Failure to do so will subject him to criminalprosecution.


7/16

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to SocietyDuty to the Legal Profession

FOODSPHERE, INC. vs. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO, JR.A.C. no. 7199, July 22, 2009

This is an administrative complaint against respondent for breach of the Code of

Professional Responsibility for (1) grossly immoral conduct; (2) violation of lawyers oath and (3)disrespect to the courts and to investigating prosecutors.

Facts:A certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City

canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. On June 27, 2004, as Cordero and his relativeswere eating bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soondiscovered a colony of worms inside the can. the BFAD conducted a conciliation hearing on July27, 2004 during which the spouses Cordero demanded P150,000 as damages from complainant.Complainant refused to heed the demand, however, as being in contravention of company policyand, in any event, outrageous.

In the meantime or on August 6, 2004, respondent sent complainant via fax a copy of thefront page of the would-be August 10-16, 2004 issue of the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS,Vol. 1No. 12which complainant found to contain articles maligning, discrediting and imputing vices anddefects to it and its products. Respondent threatened to publish the articles unless complainantgave in to the P150,000 demand of the Corderos. Complainant thereupon reiterated its counter-offer earlier conveyed to the Corderos, but respondent turned it down. Respondent later proposedto settle the matter for P50,000, P15,000 of which would go to the Corderos and P35,000 to hisBATAS Foundation. And respondent directed complainant to place paid advertisements in the

tabloids and television program.The Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUANseeking the withdrawal of their complaintbefore the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint.Respondent, who affixed his signatureto the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that heprepared the document. On August 11, 2004, respondent sent complainant an AdvertisingContractasking complainant to advertise in the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS forits next 24 weekly issues at P15,000 per issue or a total amount of P360,000, and a Program Profileof the television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS also asking complainant to place spotadvertisements with the following rate cards: (a) spot buy 15-second TVC at P4,000; (b) spot buy30-second TVC at P7,700; and (c) season buy [13 episodes, 26 spots] of 30-second TVC for

P130,000. As a sign of goodwill, complainant offered to buy three full-page advertisements in thetabloid amounting to P45,000 at P15,000 per advertisement, and three spots of 30-second TVC inthe television program at P7,700 each or a total of P23,100. Acting on complainants offer,respondent relayed to it that he and his Executive Producer were disappointed with the offer andthreatened to proceed with the publication of the articles/columns.

Thus, respondent wrote in his columns in the tabloids articles which putcomplainant in bad light. Respondent continued his tirade against complainant in his othercolumns.


8/16

Complainant thus filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libeand Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before theOffice of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. in a Motion to Dismiss [thecase] for Lack of Jurisdictionwhich respondent filed, as counsel for his therein co-respondents-staffers of the newspaper before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, respondentused the words If the Complainant or its lawyer merely used even a little of whateveris inside their thick skulls, they would have clearly deduced that this Office has no jurisdiction over

this action.Hence, complainant filed this present recourse.

Issue:Whether or not a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility was committed

Ruling:Respondent engaged in deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking advantage of the complaint

against CDO to advance his interest to obtain funds for his BATAS Foundation and seeksponsorships and advertisements for the tabloids and his television program. By the above-recitedacts, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandateslawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. He also

violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for despite the pendency of the civilcase against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishingtelevising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continued

with his attacks against complainant and its products. At the same time, respondent violated Canon1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to uphold theConstitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. For hedefied said status quo order, despite his (respondents) oath as a member of the legal profession to

obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.Respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility byusing intemperate language.

By failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legalprofession, respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, whichdirects a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.

Adjudication:Atty. Melanio Mauricio is, for violation of the lawyers oath and breach of ethics of the legal

profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspendedfrom the practice of

law for three years effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition ofthe same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.


9/16

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to the Legal ProfessionCanons of Judicial Conduct

CONCERNED LAWYERS OF BULACAN vs. JUDGE VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS

A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183, July 7, 2009

This a complaint charged against respondent for allege violations of the Canons of JudicialConduct, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Rules of Court, Rule 140, Sections 1, 8(pars. 1-4, 6-9) and 9 (pars. 2, 4), as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.

Facts:It is alleged in the anonymous complaint that Respondent has a notorious history of

committing graft and corruption by fixing cases and selling decisions or orders, such asreceiving P5 million from Lorna Silverio, extorting P6 million from Romeo Estrella, and obtainingP200,000 from Leonardo de Leon and asking him to pay her electric bills while simultaneouslyextorting from de Leons detractors, all relative to the election protests involving the mayoralty raceat San Rafael, Baliuag and Angat, respectively.

Respondent is maintaining amorous relationships with her driver and bodyguards, borrowingmoney from her staff and other court officers to cover up her corruption, vindictively detailingalmost all of her staff to other offices, and bragging about her associations with former classmatesnow working in the judiciary.

Respondent reports to court only twice a week. She became mentally ill when her husbandpassed away in 1993 and experienced mental trauma when her alleged lover was killed.

The complaint was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to conduct aiscreet investigation of the charges and to submit a report thereon within 30 days from notice. The

OCA, which submitted its report by Memorandum of November 24, 2005, concluded that theallegations of corruption and extortion were based on hearsay; and absent any evidence fromreliable witnesses, it found the same to be difficult to prove; and as long as no one is willing tocome forward and testify based on personal knowledge, the charges of corruption must fail.Respecting respondents alleged reporting to court twice a week, the team noted that a perusal ofthe guards logbook indicating the Malolos judges time of arrival and departure shows that out ofthe 29 working days for the period from September 1, 2005 to October 11, 2005, respondentreported to court only for 20 days. Respondent notably arrived late in court and departedtherefrom almost always earlier than 4:30 p.m.

Respondent filed her 34-page Comment, devoting the first five pages thereof to imputing to

former Judge Florentino Floro the malicious filing of the anonymous complaint. She prayed for theimmediate dismissal of all the false charges engineered by petitioner herein for lack of merit, withcosts against him.

Issue:Whether or not respondent committed a preach of the professional conduct

Held:The Court finds no evidence to sustain the charges of corruption and


10/16

Immorality. The Court, however, finds well-taken the audit teams observation that Branch 10 lacksproper monitoring of cases. While respondent provided the Court the latest issued orders in all butone (Criminal Case No. 1385-M-2004) of the listed cases, she failed to justify her failure to act onthe incidents thereon despite the lapse of a considerable period. A judge being expected to keep hisown record of cases so that he may act on them promptly without undue delay, it is incumbentupon him to devise an efficient recording and filing system in his court so that no disorderlinesscan affect the flow of cases and their speedy disposition.

Administrative Circular No. 1-99 enunciates that in inspiring public respect for the justicesystem, court officials and employees must strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue,absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible. As shown by the logbook maintained by the securitypersonnel, respondent was absent for nine out of the 29 working days for the period fromSeptember 1, 2005 to October 11, 2005, and for eight out of the 24 working days for the periodfrom July 1, 2007 to August 2, 2007. In both periods, respondent usually arrived at around 9:30a.m. and mostly stayed for less than four hours in office. absenteeism and tardiness, even if such donot qualify as "habitual" or "frequent," shall be dealt with severely.

More severely prohibited is the serious charge of borrowing money or property fromlawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court.In this case, the loan extended t orespondent remains unpaid, yet was unilaterally condoned by the lawyer-creditor. Notably, theinvestigation team did not inquire whether the Malolos-based lawyer-creditor has handled a casepending before Branch 10 of the RTC of Malolos City, over which respondent presides. A perusalof the court calendar submitted by respondent to this Court reveals, however, that the lawyer-creditor has at least two cases pending before respondents sala. The impropriety of borrowingmoney from unsuitable sources is underscored by the broad tenets of Canon 5 of the Code of

Judicial Conduct. It bears noting that this is the third time that respondent has been haled to facean administrative complaint. Considering that respondent is not a first-time offender and takinginto account respondents less serious violations as aggravating circumstances, the Court imposes

the penalty of dismissal from service.

Adjudication:Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos, Presiding Judge of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court

of Malolos City, is found guilty of violating paragraph 7, Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court(borrowing money from a lawyer in a case pending before her court) which is also a grossmisconduct constituting violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, aggravated by, inter alia, unduedelay in rendering decisions or orders, and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives andcirculars. She is dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accruedleave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality.


11/16

Reyes, Jareed C. Canons of Judicial Conduct

ATTY. FLORENCIO ALAYBINALAY VS. JUDGE ELIAS LELINAA.M. No. RTJ-08-2132, July 31, 2009

This is a complaint against respondent for violation of Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules ofCourt and Rule 5.07, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Facts:The Court, by Order of August 5, 1998, preventively suspended respondent on account of

an earlier administrative complaint charging respondent with harassment in connection with thecriminal complaint for Rape filed against him. He was acquitted of the criminal charges. respondentfiled a Motion for Early Resolution of A.M. No. RTJ-98-1415 praying for a resolution in his favorgiven his acquittal in the criminal cases against him appealing to the Courts sense ofunderstanding, charity and justice to grant him the permission to practice lawduring the remainder of his preventive suspension or, if such cannot be granted, to consider himresigned from the judiciary. It turned out that before he filed the above-said Manifestation, Appealand Omnibus Motion, respondent engaged in the private practice of law. the OCA, byMemorandum of August 17, 2006, directed respondent to desist from engaging in the practice oflaw pending the Courts resolution of his above-stated Manifestation, Appeal and OmnibusMotion.

The OCA, in the present complaint, finds respondent guilty of unauthorized practice of lawsince by being merely suspended and not dismissed from [the] service, he remains to be bound bythe prohibition to practice conformably with the provision of the code. The OCAthus recommends a penalty of three-month suspension from the service without pay.

Issue:Whether or not the accused committed the alleged violations

Ruling:Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemos. Where the law does not distinguish, the courts

should not distinguish.Since Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of Courtand Section 11, Canon 4of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciarydoes not make any distinction inprohibiting judges from engaging in the private practice of law while holding judicial office, nodistinction should be made in its application. In the present case, respondenthaving been merely suspended and not dismissed from the service, he was still bound under the

prohibition. As a member of the judiciary, albeit a suspended one, he still had the duty to complywith the Rules and the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

That respondent tried to secure an authorization to engage in private practice pending theresolution of A.M. No. RTJ-98-1415 shows his awareness of the proscription against engaging inthe private practice of law.

Additionally, a judge should not permit a law firm, of which he was formerly an activemember, to continue to carry his name in the firm name as that might create the impression thatthe firm possesses an improper influence with the judge which consequently is likely to impel thosein need of legal services in connection with matters before him to engage the services of the firm.


12/16

A judge cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits directly, in accordance with the legamaxim, quando aliquid prohibitur ex directo, prohibitur et per obliquum or what is prohibited directly isprohibited indirectly. By allowing his name to be included in the firm name Bartolome LelinaCalimag Densing & Associates Law Officeswhile holding a judicial office, he held himself to thepublic as a practicing lawyer, in violation of the Rules and thenorms of judicial ethics.

Given that respondent is not a first-time offender, he having been previously faulted for

gross misconduct with warning of stiffer penalties on future infractions,the Court finds the penaltyrecommended by the OCA in order.

Adjudication:Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr. of Branch 32, Regional Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino is

guilty of unauthorized practice of law, and is suspendedfrom office for Three (3) Months.


13/16

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to SocietyDuty to the Legal ProfessionDuty to Client

KELD STEMMERIK vs. ATTY. LEONUEL N. MASA.C. No. 8010, June 16 2009

This disbarment case against respondent for flagrant violations of the Code of ProfessionaResponsibility.

Facts:Complainant Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. He consulted

respondent who advised him that he could legally acquire and own real property in the Philippines.Trusting respondent, complainant agreed to purchase the property through respondent as hisrepresentative or attorney-in-fact. Complainant also engaged the services of respondent for thepreparation of the necessary documents. For this purpose, respondent demanded and received aP400,000 fee. Confident that respondent would faithfully carry out his task, complainant returnedto Denmark, entrusting the processing of the necessary paperwork to respondent.

Thereafter, respondent prepared a contract to sell the property between complainantrepresented by respondent, and a certain Bonifacio de Mesa, the purported owner of the propertySubsequently, respondent prepared and notarized a deed of sale in which de Mesa sold andconveyed the property to a certain Ailyn Gonzales for P3.8 million. Respondent also drafted andnotarized an agreement between complainant and Gonzales stating that it was complainant whoprovided the funds for the purchase of the property. Complainant then gave respondent the fullamount of the purchase price (P3.8 million) for which respondent issued an acknowledgmentreceipt. After the various contracts and agreements were executed, complainant tried to get in

touch with respondent to inquire about when the property could be registered in his name.However, respondent suddenly became scarce and refused to answer complainants calls ande-mail messages. Thereafter, complainant, through his attorneys-in-fact, exerted diligent efforts tolocate respondent for purposes of holding him accountable for his fraudulent acts. Complainantfiled a complaint for disbarment against respondent in the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) ofthe IBP. He deplored respondents acts of serious misconduct. In particular, he sought theexpulsion of respondent from the legal profession for gravely misrepresenting that a foreignercould legally acquire land in the Philippines and for maliciously absconding with complainants P3.8million.

Issue:Whether or not respondent is liable for the infractions of the Code of Professiona

Responsibility

Ruling:Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. He is also guilty of culpable

violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics of the legal profession. Bymaking it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that de Mesa


14/16

thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf of complainant,he falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law.

Respondents misconduct did not end there. By advising complainant that a foreigner couldlegally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant that theproperty was alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client. He did not givedue regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant. Instead, he deceivedcomplainant and misled him into parting with P400,000 for services that were both illegal and

unprofessional. Moreover, by pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given bycomplainant for the purchase of the property, respondent committed a fraudulent act that wascriminal in nature.

Respondent spun an intricate web of lies. In the process, he committed unethical act afterunethical act, wantonly violating laws and professional standards. For all this, respondent violatednot only the lawyers oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He alsotransgressed the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit, Canon 7,Canon 15, 16 and 17.

Adjudication:Respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is disbarred. The Clerk of Court is directed to

immediately strike out the name of respondent from the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent is herebyordered to return to complainant Keld Stemmerik the total amount of P4.2 million with interest at12% per annum from the date of promulgation of this resolution until full payment. Respondent isfurther directed to submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within ten days frompayment.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is ordered to locate Atty. Mas and file theappropriate criminal charges against him. The NBI is further directed to regularly report theprogress of its action in this case to this Court through the Bar Confidant.


15/16

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to SocietyDuty to the Legal Profession

QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN SILVERIO-BUFFEA.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC, August 19, 2009

This is an administrative matter arising from a letter-query by Atty. Karen Silverio-Buffe.

Facts:This administrative matter started as a letter-query dated March 4, 2008 of Atty. Karen M

Silverio-Buffe (Atty. Buffe) addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator, which query thelatter referred to the Court for consideration. In the course of its action on the matter, the Courtdiscovered that the query was beyond pure policy interpretation and referred to the actual situationof Atty. Buffe, and, hence, was a matter that required concrete action on the factualsituation presented.

The query, as originally framed, related to Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713as amended (or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)

This provision places a limitation onpublic officials and employees during their incumbencyand those already separated from government employment for a period of one (1) year afterseparation, in engaging in the private practice of their profession. Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713.

The query arose because Atty. Buffe previously worked as Clerk of Court VI of the RegionaTrial Court (RTC), Branch 81 of Romblon; she resigned from her position effective February 12008. Thereafter (and within the one-year period of prohibition mentioned in the above-quotedprovision), she engaged in the private practice of law by appearing as private counsel in severalcases before RTC Branch 81 of Romblon.

Issue:Whether or not Atty. Buffe is liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:Atty. Buffesadmitted appearance, before the very same branch she served and immediately

after her resignation, is a violation that we cannot close our eyes to and that she cannot run awayfrom under the cover of the letter-query she filed and her petition for declaratory relief, whosedismissal she manifested she would pursue up to our level. We note that at the time she filed herletter-query (on March 4, 2008), Atty. Buffe had already appeared before Branch 81 in at least three(3) cases. The terms of Section 7 (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 did not deter her in any way and her

misgivings about the fairness of the law cannot excuse any resulting violation she committed. Inother words, she took the risk of appearing before her own Branch and should suffer theconsequences of the risk she took.

Parenthetically, in the case of court employees, Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 is not theonly prohibition to contend with; Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnelalso applies. In both the above discussed aspect of R.A. No. 6713 and the quoted Canon 3, thepractice of law is covered; the practice of law is a practice of profession, while Canon 3 specificallymentions any outside employment requiring the practice of law. After separation from the service,Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel ceases to apply as it applies


16/16

specifically to incumbents, but Section 7 and its subsection (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 continue toapply to the extent discussed above. Atty. Buffes situation falls under Section 7.

A worrisome aspect of Atty. Buffes approach to Section 7 (b)(2) is herawareness of the lawand her readiness to risk its violation because of the unfairness she perceives in the law. We find itdisturbing that she first violated the law before making any inquiry. She also justifies her positionby referring to the practice of other government lawyers known to her who, after separation fromtheir judicial employment, immediately engaged in the private practice of law and appeared as

private counsels before the RTC branches where they were previously employed. Again we findthis a cavalier attitude on Atty. Buffes part and, to our mind, only emphasizes her own willful orintentional disregard of Section 7 (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713.

By acting in a manner that R.A. No. 6713 brands as unlawful,Atty. Buffe contravened Rule1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We also find that Atty. Buffe alsofailed to live up to her lawyers oath and thereby violated Canon 7 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility when she blatantly and unlawfully practised law within the prohibited period byappearing before the RTC Branch she had just left.

Adjudication:Premises considered, Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe guilty of professional misconduct for

violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She ishereby fined in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), and sternly warned that arepetition of this violation and the commission of other acts of professional misconduct shall bedealt with more severely.

duty to legal profession may-august 2009

Documents