RECENT JURISPRUDENCE IN LEGAL ETHICSJanuary 2012 to October 2014Judge Philip A. AguinaldoRTC Muntinlupa City

(Note : There are typographical and grammatical errors but the correctness of the summary is not affected.)

The first thing we do : LET’S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS.Shakespeare, Henry VI.

RAFAEL VS. ATTY. ALIBUTDAN DIAZPromulgated: November 2, 2014Everyone should keep in mind that the practice of law is only a privilege. It is definitely not a right. In order to enjoy this privilege, one must show that he possesses, and continues to possess, the qualifications requiredby law for the conferment of such privilege. Atty. Diaz' delay in the liquidation of the finances of Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE) and her running for reelection despite the fact that she is no longer connected with the judiciary, among other actuations, are manifestation of her lack of candor as a lawyer, though not connected in her duties as a lawyer. The affidavits executed by witnesses that she ran for reelection are sufficient evidence against her despite failure to present her certificate of candidacy.

SULTAN vs. ATTY. MACABANDING, October 8, 2014Respondent notarized a falsified affidavit. Complainant ran for the position of Mayor for the Municipality of Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur in 2007. He filed his Certificate of Candidacy and by virtue of a falsified affidavit respondent made it appear that he executed an Affidavit of Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy without the complainant’s knowledge or authorization. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year with revocation of his commission and disqualification as notary public for 2 years with stern warning.

CF SHARP VS. TORRES, SEPT. 23, 2014Respondent is a medical doctor and a lawyer by profession. It was hired as petitioners legal and claims manager to oversee the claims instituted by seafarers against complainant’s various principals.

The checks complainant issued as settlement were not delivered to the claimants but were deposited in the International Exchange Bank.

The court cannot concur with the IBP’s recommendation regarding the return of the settlement money respondent received from the complainant, considering, among others, that it was not specifically prayed for in the latter’s administrative complaint and that the civil liability of respondent therefore may already be the subject f existing cases involving the same parties. Respondent was disbarred.

VIRAY VS. ATTY. SANICAS, Sept 29, 2014Except in respondent’s self-serving allegations, he was not authorized to receive payments. There is further no proof that complainant agreed to pay him additional 25% attorney’s fee and reimbursement of all expenses he allegedly incurred. There was no retainer’s agreement or breakdown of the amounts to be reimbursed.

Assuming that he was authorized to receive payments, she should have promptly informed his client of the amounts he received.

The relationship between counsel and client imposes on a lawyer the duty to immediately account for the money or property he received. A lawyer’s lien does for his attorney’s fee does not exempt a lawyer from this obligation, He has not right to unilaterally appropriate client’s money for himself. Lawyer was suspended form practice of law for 2 years.

NAKPIL VS. ATTY. UY, Sept. 17, 2014This is an internal affair which has already been resolved by the parties. Petitioners has withdrawn her complaint, submitted motion to withdraw and filed in a compromiseAgreement.

The SC considers the failure of respondent to comply with the demands of complaint Rebecca as an invocation of her rights under the subject trust agreement –as well as respondent’s acts of mortgaging the subject property without complaint’s consent, unethical.

Complainant in her motion to withdraw states that the allegations she had previously made arose out ofa “misapprehension of the real facts surrounding their dispute” and that respondent “had fully explained to her the real nature and extent of her inheritance x x x toher entire satisfaction,” leading her to state thatshe is “now fully convinced that [her] complaint has no basis in fact and in law.”

The SC Court finds that respondent committed some form of misconduct by mortgaging the subject property notwithstanding the apparent dispute over the same. Respondent should have exhibited prudent restraint becoming of a legal exemplar. He should not have exposed himself even to the slightest risk of committing a property violation nor any action which would endanger the Bar’s reputation.

Tan vs. Atty. Diamante(En Banc) August 5, 2014For fabricating and using spurious court order and for failing to keep client informed of the status of the case, respondent was disbarred.

Nery vs. Atty. Sampana(En Banc) September 9, 2014For failing to file the petition for adoption despite receiving his legal fees and for making complainant believe that it was already filed, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS and ordered to return the collected legal fee (P100,000.00) with 12% interest per annum from the time of his receipt of the full amount of money on 17 November 2008 until 30 June 2013, then 6% interest per annum from 1 July 2013 until fully paid.

Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 51, SORSOGON CITY vs. Atty Dealca, (En Banc) September 9, 2014Respondent engaged in the unethical practice of filing frivolous administrative cases against judges and personnel and for filing motions to inhibit the complainant from hearing a pending case, the Supreme Court suspended him for one year. The SC also said : “On a final note, it cannot escape our attention that this is not the first administrative complaint to be ever brought against the lawyer”.

VILLANUEVA vs. Atty. SaguyodClerk of Court, RTC Paniqui, TarlacSeptember 8, 2014

The SC said “Time and again, we have held that clerks of court are not authorized to demand and/or receive commissioner’s fees for reception of evidence ex parte.To be entitled to reasonable compensation, a commissioner must not be an employee of the court.

Gaddi vs. Atty. Velasco, September 13, 2014Dizon vs. Atty. Cabucana, March 12, 2014The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory to the document is in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization, and personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity.Penalty : Suspension for one year in the practice of law revocation of commission and prohibition from being commission for two years with warning.

Cristobal vs. Atty. RentaSeptember 17, 2014Respondent received the full packaged price of P160,000.00 but failed to file petition for recognition. Although respondent refunded the money and the complainant executed an Affidavit of Desistance and said that respondent cried for forgiveness, respondent was reprimanded with warning.

Almazan vs. Atty. Suerte FelipeSeptember 17, 2014A notary public can only notarize a document within the jurisdiction of his commission. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six months and is disqualified from being commissioned for one year and his existing commission is revoked plus warning.

EN BANCRE: ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH ATTHE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEEHEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2013AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE GREGORYS. ONG. SEPTEMBER 23, 2014This administrative complaint was filed by the Court En Bancafter investigation into certain allegations that surfacedduring the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing. The SC established prima facie violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct by Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan Ong. The investigation was conducted motu proprio pursuant to the power of the SC of administrative supervision over members of the Judiciary.

Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez stated that the eleven checks are were given to respondent as consideration for the favorable ruling in the Kevlar case. Such finding is consistent with Luy’s testimony that Napoles spent a staggering P100 million just to “fix” the said case. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to believe that respondent went to Napoles office the second time just to have coffee. Respondent’s act of again visiting Napoles at her office, after he had supposedly merely thanked her during the first visit, tends to support Luy’s claim that respondent had a financial deal with Napoles regarding advance interest for AFPSLAI deposit. The question inevitably arises as to why would Napoles extend such an accommodation to respondent if not as consideration for her acquittal in the Kevlar case?Respondent’s controversial photograph alone had raised adverse public opinion, with the media speculating on pay-offs taking place in the courts. Regrettably, the conduct of respondent gave cause for the public in general to doubt the honesty and fairness of his participation in the Kevlar case and the integrity of our courts of justice. Before this Court, even prior to the commencement of administrative investigation, respondent was less than candid. In his letter to the Chief Justice where he vehemently denied having attended parties or social events hosted by Napoles, he failed to mention that he had in fact visited Napoles at her office. Far from being a plain omission, we find that respondent deliberately did not disclose his social calls to Napoles. It was only when Luy and Sula testified before the Senate and named him as the “contact” of Napoles in the Sandiganbayan, that respondent mentioned of only one instance he visited Napoles (“This is the single occasion that Sula was talking about in her supplemental affidavit x x x”).Respondent was found guilty of dishonesty.

Agot vs. Atty. Rivera(En Banc) August 5, 2014Respondent was charged with misrepresentation, deceit, and failure to account for and return complainant’s money despite several demands. The SC ordered the return of the amount respondent received from complaint in the amount of P350,000.00. The SC said "while the Court has previously held that disciplinary proceedings should only revolve around the determination of the respondent-lawyer's administrative and not his civil liability, it must be clarified that this rule remains applicable only to claimed liabilities which are purely civil in nature - for instance, when the claim involves moneys

received by the lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and distinct [from] and not intrinsically linked to his professional engagement." Hence, since respondent received the aforesaid amount as part of his legal fees, the Court finds the return thereof to be in order.

Ong vs. Atty. De los Reyes,March 4, 2014A lawyer's issuance of a worthless check renders him in breach of his oath to obey the laws. This is considered gross misconduct though his act involved a private dealing.

BRUNET, et al. vs. Atty. Guaren,March 10, 2014The acceptance by the lawyer of a partial payment of his acceptance fee makes him liable for his failure to file the case despite lapse of 5 years. This is a breach of duty to serve client with competence and diligence, and a neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him.

NEBREJA vs. Atty, ReonalMarch 19, 2014Respondent’s misrepresentation of the status of the case and for his use of a fictitious address make him liable for unethical conduct. He was suspended from practice of law for a period of six months and was required to render accounting of all the sums he received from his client.The Court, however, deleted the recommendation of the IPB to return the amount with 12% interest per annum he got from the complainant. The remedy is to file an independent civil or criminal action against the lawyer.

De Jesus vs. Atty. Sanchez-MalitJuly 8, 2014Respondent who was a consultant of the local government of Dinalupihan, Bataan, drafted and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage of a public market stall of a public market falsely stating that the complainant is the absolute and registered owner. As a result, the mortgagee sued complainant for perjury and for collection of sum of money. As a consultant, the respondent should be aware that the market stall was government-owned.

Respondent is also liable for (1) notarizing two contracts without the signature of the lessees; (2) drafting and notarizing a sale agreement over a property covered by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and did not advise complainant that the property was still covered by

the period within which it could not be alienated; and (3) notarizing three Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) without the signature of the principals and bore only the signature of the named attorney-in-fact.

Respondents defense complainant needed the loan proceeds and had read the documents before affixing her signature, and that the phrase “absolute and registered owner” was inadvertently copied from the computer files of respondent were set aside by the SC.

Respondent’s claim that the complainant was an experienced realty broker and, therefore, needed no advice on the repercussions of her transactions only complicated her defense because she is a lawyer who is supposed to now the law more than the complainant.

Respondent’s further defense that the submission of additional documentary evidence in a supplemental pleading during the course of the proceedings which she maintained to be inadmissible, as they were obtained illegally without observing the procedural requisites under Section 4, Rule VI of Adm. No. 02-08-13 SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice) was not considered.

Her prayer that the additional evidence should be expunged because complainant was not the proper party to question those documents was set aside.

Respondent’s plea for a mitigation of her liability due to the absence of prior disciplinary record, absence of dishonest or selfish motive, her personal and emotional problems; her timely good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of her misconduct; her full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward the proceedings; her character or reputation; her remorse; and the remoteness of prior offenses were not considered.

Where the notary public admittedly has personal knowledge of a false statement or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix the notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate.

In this case, respondent fully knew that complainant was not the owner of the mortgaged market stall. That complainant comprehended the provisions of the real estate mortgage contract does not make respondent any

less guilty. If at all, it only heightens the latter’s liability for tolerating a wrongful act.

She was suspended for one year and PERPETUALDISQUALIFICATION from being commissioned as a notary public.

JIMENEZ and VIZCONDE vs. ATTY.FELISBERTO L. VERANO, Jr.ATTY. OLIVER·0.LOZANO vs. ATTY.FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR.,JULY 15, 2014Respondent showed disrespect for the law and legal processes in drafting an order and sending it to the Secretary of Justice. His defense that that the drafted release order was not signed by the Secretary and therefore remained “a mere scrap of paper with no effect at all” was not meritorious.

This act of “feeding” the draft order with the official DOJ stationery to the DOJ Secretary was highly irregular, as it tended to influence a public official.

Atty. Paguia vs. Atty. Molina,June 2014A lawyer who gives legal advice to a client is not liable in the absence of bad faith or malice. A lawyer is not expected to know all the law.

QUIACHON vs. ATTY. RAMOSJune 2004The withdrawal of a disbarment case against a lawyer does not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and of the SC to continue an administrative proceeding against a lawyer-respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar.

The failure of respondent to file an appeal from the CA Decision without any justifiable reason deservessanction. A lawyers who disagrees with the pursuit of an appeal should properly withdraw his appearance and allow his client to retain another counsel, even if he is "honestly and sincerely" that appeal is useless. He has no right to waive the appeal without the client’s knowledge and consent.

CRISOSTOMO, et al. vs. ATTY. NAZARENO,JUNE 10, 2014Making false statement in the certificate of non-forum shopping is malpractice

Separate from the proscription against forum shopping is the violation of the certification requirement against forum shopping.

There is a difference in the treatment between failure to comply with the certification requirement and violation of the prohibition against forum shopping not only in terms of imposable sanctions but also in the manner of enforcing them. The former constitutes sufficient cause for the dismissal without prejudice to the filing of the complaint or initiatory pleading up on motion and after hearing, while the latter is a ground for summary dismissal thereof and for direct contempt.

Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission of false entries in a certification against forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, and subjects the erring counsel to the corresponding administrative and criminal sanctions.

DIZON vs. Atty. De TazaJune 10, 2014The demand and receipt of exorbitant sums from client to expedite proceedings is unethical. A lawyer may also be administratively charged for borrowing money, incurring debts and issuing bouncing checks.

Baens vs. Atty. SempioJune 9, 2014The excuse proffered by the respondent that he did not receive any orders or notices from the trial court is highly intolerable. In the first place, securing a copy of such notices, orders and case records is within the respondent’s control and is a task a lawyer undertakes. Lawyers should also update themselves of the progress of their clients’ case and should resort to available legal remedies for the protection of their interest.

Dominguez vs. Atty. Agleron, March 10, 2014Respondent’s defense that he was not able to file the complaint due to the failure of complainant to remit the full payment of the filing fee and pay his 30% attorney's fee is not a valid excuse that would exonerate him from liability.

Figueras, et al. vs. Atty. Jimenez, March 12, 14

The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. In fact, the person who called the attention of the court to a lawyer’s misconduct “is in no sense a party, and generally has no interest in the outcome.”

In Heck v. Judge Santos, the Court held that “[a]ny interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings.” The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges.

The SC imposed the penalty of suspension for one month.

Ang vs. Atty. Gupana, Feb 5, 14

The SC found that respondent did not act unethically when he sold the property in dispute as the sellers’ attorney-in-fact because there was no more notice of lis pendens annotated on the particular lot sold. Likewise, the Court finds no sufficient evidence to show that the Deed of Absolute Sale was antedated. However, the Court finds respondent administratively liable for violation of his notarial duties when he failed to require the personal presence of Candelaria Magpayo (who was already dead in 1991) when he notarized the Affidavit of Loss which Candelaria allegedly executed on April 29, 1994.

Relying on clerical staff to determine the completeness of documents for notarization and simply inquiring about the identities of the persons appearing before him, makes a notary public liable for misconduct. Penalty is revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years and suspension from the practice of law for one year.

ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG vs ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, Jan. 14, 2014.

The respondent’s act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment.

Considering respondent's propensity to disregard not only the laws of the land but also the lawful orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor.

NATIVIDAD P. NAVARRO and HILDA S. PRESBITERO vs. ATTY. IVAN M. SOLIDUM, JR., January 28, 2014

The SC disbarred respondent and changed the recommendation of the IBP to suspension of two years. Respondent agreed to pay a high interest rate on the loan he obtained from his client but when he could no longer pay his loan, he sought to nullify the same MOA he drafted on the ground that the interest rate was unconscionable.

Respondent mortgaged a 263-square-meter property for P1,000,000 but he later sold the property for only P150,000 thereby deceiving his client as to the real value of the mortgaged property. Respondent’s allegation that the sale was eventually rescinded did not distract from the fact that he did not apprise the owner as to the real value of the property.

Respondent made his clients believed that the checks he issued were his. The checks are actually owned by his son whose name is similar to his name.

His defense that the loan agreements were done in respondent’s private capacity is not meritorious.

The SC cannot sustain the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendation ordering respondent to return his unpaid obligation to complainants, except for advances for the expenses he received from his client. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. The Court’s only concern is the determination of respondent’s administrative liability.

CAMPOS, et al., vs ATTY. CAMPOS. Jan. 22, 2014

Respondent’s engagement in the scuffle inside the chamber of Judge Casals on September 14, 2009 is not befitting a member of the bar.

Previously, the SC imposed upon respondent (a former judge) a fine of Php20,000.00 for simple misconduct in A.M. MTCJ-10-1761.

In Samson v. Caballero, the Court emphasized what "automatic conversion of administrative cases against justices and judges to disciplinary proceedings against them as lawyers" means, that they must be based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.

Judgment in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.’

x x x x

‘Under the same rule, a respondent "may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint and show cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as member of the Bar." xxx In other words, an order to comment on the complaint is an order to give an explanation on why he should not be held administratively liable not only as a member of the bench but also as a member of the bar. This is the fair and reasonable meaning of "automatic conversion" of administrative cases against justices and judges to disciplinary proceedings against them as lawyers. This will also serve the purpose of A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC to avoid the duplication or unnecessary replication of actions by treating an administrative complaint filed against a member of the bench also as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a lawyer by mere operation of the rule. Thus, a disciplinary proceeding as a member of the bar is impliedly instituted with the filing of an administrative case against a justice of the Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals or a judge of a first- or second-level court.

Lastly, the SC Court views with disfavor respondent’s statement during the hearing conducted by the CBD on March 18, 2011 that he doubts Alistair to be his biological son. As a lawyer, respondent is presumably aware that ascribing illegitimacy to his son in a proceeding not instituted for that specific purpose is nothing short of defamation.

EDGARDO AREOLA vs. ATTY. MARIA VILMA MENDOZA, Jan. 15, 2014.

Atty. Mendoza, a PAO lawyer, admitted that she advised her clients to approach the judge and plead for compassion so that their motions would be granted. This admission corresponds to one of Areola’s charges against Atty. Mendoza—that she told her clients " Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon." Atty. Mendoza made it appear that the judge is easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such as begging and crying in order for their cases to be dismissed.

This improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our legal system. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors according to the merits of a case. It must be remembered that a lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice.

SPOUSES DAVID AND MARISA WILLIAMS, Complainants, vs. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent. November 17, 2013

In order for the Court to determine whether a lawyer is guilty of dishonesty, the issue in a particular case must first be settled. Complainant alleged that the owner of the property sold a portion to them. On the other hand, respondent alleged that the seller is not the real owner. This was precisely the issue in Civil Case No. 390. Unfortunately, the MCTC was not able to make a definite ruling because the complainants failed to file their answer within the prescribed period. The issue of ownership of

real property must be settled in a judicial, not administrative, case.

The Court set aside the IBP Board of Governors' Resolutions and DISMISSES without prejudice the instant administrative case.

SPOUSES WARRINER vs. ATYY. DUBLIN, November 18, 2013

Respondent deliberately mishandled Civil Case No. 23,396-95 to the prejudice of herein complainants for deliberately failing to timely file a formal offer of exhibits because he believes that the exhibits were fabricated and was hoping that the same would be refused admission by the RTC. This is improper. If respondent truly believes that the exhibits to be presented in evidence by his clients were fabricated, then he has the option to withdraw from the case.

CABAUATAN vs. ATTY. VENIDA, November 20, 2013

Complainant who was already 78 years old appeared during the IBP mandatory conference but respondent failed to do so. As an officer of the court, respondent is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers.

HON. MARIBETH RODRIGUEZ-MANAHAN, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal, Complainant, vs. ATTY. RODOLFO FLORES, Respondent. November 13, 2013

Judge Manahan issued an Order whereby she voluntarily inhibited herself from hearing Civil Case No. 1863 which reads in part, viz:

More than mere contempt do his (Atty. Flores) unethical actuations, his traits of dishonesty and discourtesy not only to his own brethren in the legal profession, but also to the bench and judges, would amount to grave misconduct, if not a malpractice of law, a serious ground for disciplinary action of a member of the bar pursuant to Rules 139 a & b.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, furnish a copy of this Order to the Bar Discipline Committee, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, to the Supreme Court en banc, for appropriate investigation and sanction.

Upon receipt of the copy of the above Order, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) deemed the pronouncements of Judge Manahan as a formal administrative Complaint against Atty. Flores.

Record shows that during the Preliminary Conference x x x, respondent Atty. Flores entered his appearance and was given time to file a Pre-Trial Brief. x x x On May 24, 2010, respondent Atty. Flores filed his Pre-Trial Brief but without proof of MCLE compliance hence it was expunged from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial Brief containing the required MCLE compliance. x x x Atty. Flores asked for ten (10) days to submit proof.

Meanwhile, respondent Atty. Flores filed a Manifestation in Court dated September 14, 2010 stating among others, the following allegations:

x x x x

4. When you took your oath as member of the Bar, you promised to serve truth, justice and fair play. Do you think you are being truthful, just and fair by serving a cheater?

5. Ignorance of the law excuses no one for which reason even Erap was convicted by the Sandiganbayan.1âwphi1 But even worse is a lawyer who violates the law.

6. Last but not the least, God said Thou shall not lie. Again the Philippine Constitution commands: Give every Filipino his due. The act of refusal by the plaintiff is violative of the foregoing divine and human laws.

x x x x

Respondent Atty. Flores later filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an MCLE number which was merely superimposed without indicating the date and place of compliance. During the preliminary conference on November 24, 2010, respondent Atty. Flores manifested that he will submit proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following day. On December 1, 2010, respondent Atty. Flores again failed to appear and to submit the said promised proof of MCLE compliance. In its stead, respondent Atty. Flores filed a Letter of even date stating as follows:

If only to give your Honor another chance to prove your pro plaintiff sentiment, I am hereby filing the attached Motion which you may once more assign to the waste basket of nonchalance.

With the small respect that still remains, I have asked the defendant to look for another lawyer to represent him for I am no longer interested in this case because I feel I cannot do anything right in your sala.

The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect to the court and employed intemperate language in his pleadings.

The SC held that since it appears that this is the first infraction committed by respondent, it was not prepared to impose on the respondent the penalty of one-year suspension for humanitarian reasons. Respondent manifested before this Court that he has been in the practice of law for half a century. Thus, he is already in his twilight years. He was fined P5,000.00 and is reminded to be more circumspect.

ATTY. EMBIDO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NBI, vs. ATTY. PE, JR., ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, SAN JOSE, ANTIQUE, October 22, 2013

A lawyer who forges a court decision and represents it as that of a court of law is guilty of the gravest misconduct and deserves the supreme penalty of disbarment.

The respondent’s insisted that the falsification had been the handiwork of Dy Quioyo.

Dy Quioyo’s categorical declaration on the respondent’s personal responsibility for the falsified decision, which by nature was positive evidence, was not overcome by the respondent’s blanket denial, which by nature was negative evidence

DE LEON vs. ATTY. PEDREÑA, October 222, 2013

A lawyer who commits overt acts of sexual harassment against a female client is guilty of reprehensible conduct that is unbecoming of a member of the Bar and should be suspended from the practice of law.

The records show that Atty. Pedreña (a PAO lawyer) rubbed the complainant’s right leg with his hand; tried to insert his finger into her firmly closed hand; grabbed her hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area; and pressed his finger against her private part. His misconduct was aggravated by the fact that he was then a Public Attorney mandated to provide free legal service to indigent litigants, and by the fact that De Leon was then such a client. He thereby took advantage of her vulnerability as a client then in desperate need of his legal assistance.

In Advincula v. Macabata, the Court held that the errant lawyer’s acts of turning his client’s head towards him and then kissing her on the lips were distasteful, but still ruled that such acts, albeit offensive and undesirable, were not grossly immoral. Hence, the respondent lawyer was reprimanded but reminded to be more prudent and cautious in his dealings with clients.

In Barrientos v. Daarol, the respondent lawyer was disbarred, but the severest penalty was imposed not only because of his engaging in illicit sexual relations, but also because of his deceit. He had been already married and was about 41 years old when he proposed marriage to a 20-year-old girl. He succeeded in his seduction of her, and made her pregnant. He not only suggested that she abort the pregnancy, but he also breached his promise to

marry her, and, in the end, even deserted her and their child.

In Delos Reyes v. Aznar, the Court adjudged the respondent lawyer, a married man with children, highly immoral for having taken advantage of his position as the chairman of the College of Medicine of his school in enticing the complainant, then a student in the college, to have carnal knowledge with him under the threat that she would flunk in all her subjects should she refuse. The respondent was disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.

In Calub v. Suller, the SC disbarred the respondent lawyer for raping his neighbor’s wife notwithstanding that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt in his criminal prosecution for the crime.

TRIA-SAMONTE vs. OBIAS, October 8, 2013

Respondent publicly held herself out as lawyer and a real estate broker. In this regard, the legal advice and/or legal documentation that she offered and/or rendered regarding the real estate transaction subject of this case should not be deemed removed from the category of legal services

Records disclose that instead of delivering the deed of sale covering the subject property to her clients, she willfully notarized a deed of sale over the same property in favor of another person.

ZABALJAUREGUI PITCHER vs. ATTY. GAGATE, October 8, 2013

Respondent did not exercise the required diligence in handling complainant’s ( a widow ) cause by failing to represent her competently and diligently by acting and proffering professional advice beyond the proper bounds of law, He later abandoned his client’s cause while the grave coercion case against them was pending.

Lawyer advised client to change the lock of the office of her deceased husband even if the right of her husband

has not been sufficiently established. He further advised complainant to go into hiding in order to evade arrest in the criminal case for coercion filed against her.

MATTUS vs. ATTY. VILLASECA, October 1, 2013

Motion to file demurrer to evidence was granted but lawyer failed to do so which the SC considered inexcusable negligence showing his lack of devotion and zeal in preserving his clients’ cause.

OROLA, ET. AL. vs. ATTY. RAMOS, Respondent. September 11, 2013

The sole issue in this case is whether or not respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code.

A lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.

In Hornilla v. Salunat, the Court explained the concept of conflict of interest, to wit:

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is" whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require

the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.

It must, however, be noted that a lawyer’s immutable duty to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer’s employment with the client. The intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the duty to protect the client’s interests only on matters that he previously handled for the former client and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated.

Records reveal that respondent was the collaborating counsel not only for the heirs of Antonio in Special Proceeding No. V-3639. In the course, the heirs in removing the administrator for having committed acts prejudicial to their interests. Hence, when respondent proceeded to represent Emilio for the purpose of seeking his reinstatement as administrator in the same case, he clearly worked against the very interest of the heirs.

Respondent's justification that no confidential information was relayed to him (which was admitted by the heirs) cannot fully exculpate him for the charges against him since the rule on conflict of interests even if it was only a friendly accommodation. He cannot also invoked good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests.

Neither can respondent's asseveration that his engagement by the removed administrator was more of a mediator than a litigator and for the purpose of forging a settlement among the family members. To do so, he should have obtained the written consent of all concerned before he may act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes. He was also remiss in his duty to make a full disclosure of his impending engagement as the administrator’s counsel and to secure their express written consent before consummating the same.

Lawyer suspended for three months.

PENILLA vs. ATTY. ALCID, JR., September 4, 2013

Complainant entered into an agreement with Spouses Rey and Evelyn Garin (the spouses) for the repair of his Volkswagen automobile. Despite full payment, the spouses defaulted in their obligation. Thus, complainant decided to file a case for breach of contract against the spouses where he engaged the services of respondent as counsel.

Respondent sent a demand letter and advised complainant to file a criminal case for estafa. Respondent charged P30,000 as attorney’s fees and P10,000 as filing fees. Complainant alleges that when the case was submitted for resolution, respondent told him that they have to give a bottle of Carlos Primero I to Asst. City Prosecutor Fortuno to expedite a favorable resolution of the case.

Respondent failed to "serve his client with competence and diligence" by filing a criminal case for estafa when the facts of the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract. After the complaint for estafa was dismissed, respondent committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages before the RTC. The complaint, having an alternative prayer for the payment of damages, should have been filed with the Municipal Trial Court which has jurisdiction over complainant’s claim which amounts to only P36,000.

Respondent cannot use as an excuse why he failed to update complainant of the status of the cases he filed because their time did not always coincide. Respondent owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr. was found GUILTY of gross misconduct and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS.

JOVEN, et al. vs. ATTYS. CRUZ and MAGSALIN III, Respondents. July 31, 2013

The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the complainant. The Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the complaint by clearly preponderant evidence that warrants the imposition of the harsh penalty. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges made against him until the contrary is proved. An attorney is further presumed as an officer of the Court to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath.

ATTY. NUIQUE vs. ATTY. SEDILLO, July 29, 2013

The Complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Nuique (complainant) against Atty. Eduardo Sedillo (respondent) who is charged with: ( 1) violating the prohibition on representing conflicting interests; (2) using abusive language against and disrespecting the court; and (3) spreading rumors against a colleague in the legal profession is meritorious.

In Quiambao v. Atty. Bamba, the Court explained the concept of conflict of interest. Thus:

In broad terms, lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose. Developments in jurisprudence have particularized various tests to determine whether a lawyer’s conduct lies within this proscription. One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyer’s argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.

Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or

double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment.

Facts show that respondent represented Estrelieta against her husband Kiyoshi, notwithstanding that he was still the counsel of Kiyoshi and Estrelieta in another case against Amasula. This creates a suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of his duty towards his clients. Under the circumstances, the decent and ethical thing which the respondent should have done was to advise Estrelieta to engage the services of another lawyer.

Repondent’s defense that the civil case instituted by Kiyoshi and Estrelieta against Amasula is totally unrelated to the subsequent cases in which he represented Estrelieta against Kiyoshi is immaterial. The representation of opposing clients in said cases, even if unrelated, is tantamount to representing conflicting interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which the SC Court cannot allow.

Moreover, in Aniñon v. Sabitsana, Jr., the Court stated:

The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. The prohibition also applies even if the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. To be held accountable under this rule, it is enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.

Conflict of interest applies if the present client is merely the agent of the former client.

SONIC STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., vs. ATTY. CHUA, July 17, 2013

Lawyers are officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration of justice. The Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers from committing or consenting to any falsehood in court or from allowing the courts to be misled by any artifice.

In the present case, it appears that respondent claimed or made to appear that STEELCORP was the licensee of the technical information and the patentee on Hot Dip Coating of Ferrous Strands or Philippine Patent No. 16269. However, an extensive investigation made by the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline showed that STEELCORP only has rights as a licensee of the technical information and not the rights as a licensee of the patent.

It is worth underscoring that when Judge Sadang addressed his questions solely to Mr. Lorenzana, respondent was conveniently quick to interrupt and manifest his client’s reservation to present the trademark license. Respondent was equally swift to end Judge Sadang’s inquiry over the patent by reserving the right to present the same at another time. It logically appears that respondent was trying to conceal facts facilitate the grant of the search warrant in favor of STEELCORP. This is contrary to the exacting standards of conduct required from a member of the Bar.

SAMSON vs. ATTY. ERA, July 16, 2013.

Complainant Samson and his relatives were among the investors who fell prey to the pyramiding scam. They engaged Atty. Era to represent and assist them in the criminal prosecution. In April 2003, Atty. Era called a meeting with complainant to discuss the possibility of an amicable settlement with the accused. Respondent lawyer guaranteed the turnover to complainant a certain property located in Antipolo City in exchange for their desistance which they executed. They acceded and executed the affidavit of desistance he prepared, and in turn they received a deed of assignment covering land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-4475. It turned out that the title was fake. Respondent later appeared as counsel for the accused.

Respondent’s contention that the lawyer-client relationship ended when complainant and his group entered into the compromise settlement is not correct as it only settled the civil aspect, and not to the criminal case.

In the absence of the express consent from complainant after full disclosure to them of the conflict of interest, the most ethical thing for respondent was either to outrightly decline representing and entering his appearance as counsel for the accused or to advice accused to engage another lawyer. Unfortunately, he did neither, and should now suffer the proper sanction. Atty. Era was suspended from the practice of law for two years.

ROSARIO, JR. vs, DE GUZMAN, et al., July 10, 2013Spouses Pedro and Rosita de Guzman (parents of herein respondent) engaged the legal services of Atty. Francisco L.Rosario, Jr. (petitioner) as defense counsel in the complaint filed against them involving a parcel of land. The spouses won their case at all levels. While the case was pendingbefore the SC, the spouses died in a vehicular accident.Thereafter, they were substituted by their children (herein respondents). Petitioner filed the Motion to DetermineAttorney’s Fees before the RTC alleging that he had averbal agreement with the deceased spouses of25% of the market value of the subject land. Respondents refused his written demand for payment of the contracted attorney’s fees. Petitioner insisted that he wasentitled based on quantum meruit. The RTC denied the claimon the ground that it was filed out of time as it had already lost jurisdiction over the case because a final decision could not be amended or corrected except for clerical errors or mistakes.

The petitioner opted to file his claim as an incident in the main action, which is permitted by the rules. As to the timeliness of the

filing, SC held that the questioned motion to determine attorney’sfees was seasonably filed. The records show that the August 8, 1994 RTC decision became final and executory on October 31, 2007. There is no dispute that petitioner

filed his Motion to Determine Attorney’s Fees on September 8, 2009, which wasonly about one (1) year and eleven (11) months from the finality of the RTC decision. Because petitioner claims to have had an oral contract of attorney’s fees, Article 1145 of the Civil Codeallows him a period of six (6) years within which to file an action to recover professional fees for services rendered. Petitioner’s cause of action began to run only from the time the respondents refused to pay him his attorney’s fees.

Quantum meruit – literally meaning as much as hedeserves – is used as basis for determining an attorney’sprofessional fees in the absence of an express agreement. Therecovery of attorney’s fees on the basis of quantum meruit is adevice that prevents an unscrupulous client from running awaywith the fruits of the legal services of counsel without paying for it and also avoids unjust enrichment on the part of the attorneyhimself. An attorney must show that he is entitled to reasonablecompensation for the effort in pursuing the client’s cause.

(Miranda vs. Atty. Carpio, Sept. 26, 2011, Earlier case

involving attorney’s lien and concept of quantum meruit)

Respondent's submission that he is entitled to the payment of additional professional fees on the basis of the principle of quantum meruit has no merit. "Quantum meruit, meaning `as much as he deserved' is used as a basis for determining the lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract but recoverable by him from his client." The principle of quantum meruit applies if a lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon for his services. In such a case, he would be entitled to receive what he merits for his services, as much as he has earned.1 In the present case, the parties had already entered into an agreement as to the attorney's fees of the respondent, and thus, the principle of quantum meruit does not fully find application because the respondent is already compensated by such agreement.

1

The SC noted that respondent did not inform complainant that he will be the one to secure the owner's duplicate of the OCT from the RD and failed to immediately inform complainant that the title was already in his possession. Complainant, on April 3, 2000, went to the RD of Las Piñas City to get the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94, only to be surprised that the said title had already been claimed by, and released to, respondent on March 29, 2000. A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach.  His relationship with his clients should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness. By keeping secret with the client his acquisition of the title, respondent was not fair in his dealing with his client. Respondent could have easily informed the complainant immediately of his receipt of the owner's duplicate of the OCT on March 29, 2000, in order to save his client the time and effort in going to the RD to get the title. Lawyer suspended for 6 months.

Respondent's inexcusable act of withholding the property belonging to his client and imposing unwarranted fees in exchange for the release of said title deserve the imposition of disciplinary sanction. Hence, the ruling of the IBP Board of Governors, adopting and approving with modification the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months and that respondent be ordered to return the complainant's owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 is hereby affirmed. However, the fifteen-day period from notice given to respondent within which to return the title should be modified and, instead, respondent should return the same immediately upon receipt of the Court's decision.

TABANG, et al. vs. ATTY. GACOTT, July 9, 2013

Complainants were advised to put the tiles of the parcels they want to purchase under the names of fictitious persons since the government’s agrarian reform programs prohibits the transfer of land to them.

Pretending to be the "authorized agent-representative" of the fictitious owners of the seven parcels, Lilia Tabang filed petitions for re-issuance of titles which was later

withdrawn since the public prosecutor noticed similarities in the signatures of the supposed owners that were affixed on the Special Powers of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed in favor of Lilia Tabang. The public prosecutor, acting on his observation, asked the court to have the supposed owners summoned.

Respondent picked up from this scenario. He executed several documents and caused the publication of notices where he represented himself as the owner of the parcels and announced that these were for sale. Respondent succeeded in selling the seven parcels.

While it may be true that complainant Lilia Tabang herself engaged in illicit activities, the complainant’s own complicity does not negate, or even mitigate, the repugnancy of respondent’s offense. Quite the contrary, his offense is made even graver. He is a lawyer who is held to the highest standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Perverting what is expected of him, he deliberately and cunningly took advantage of his knowledge and skill of the law to prejudice and torment other individuals. Not only did he countenance illicit action, he instigated it. Not only did he acquiesce to injustice, he orchestrated it. Thus, the SC imposes upon respondent the supreme penalty of disbarment.

In Sabayle v. Tandayag, One of the respondents, Atty. Carmelito B. Gabor, was disbarred for having acknowledged a Deed of Sale in the absence of the purported vendors and for taking advantage of his position as Assistant Clerk of Court by purchasing one-half (1/2) of the land covered by said Deed of Sale knowing that the deed was fictitious.

In Daroy v. Legaspi, respondent was disbarred for having converted to his personal use the funds that he received for his clients.

VDA. DE SALDIVAR vs. ATTY. CABANES, JR., July 8, 2013

Respondent failed to justify his absence during the scheduled preliminary conference. The fact that respondent had an important commitment during that day hardly exculpates him from his omission since the prudent course of action would have been for him to send a substitute counsel to appear on his behalf.

ABELLA vs. BARRIOS, JR., June 18, 2013

Respondent, a labor arbiter, was merely tasked to recompute the monetary awards due to the complainant who sought to execute the CA Decision which had already been final and executory. Respondent slept on the same for more than a year and it was only when complainant paid respondent a personal visit that the latter speedily issued a writ of execution which casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of his denial that he did not extort money from the complainant.

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that he had already been disbarred in a previous administrative case and imposed a fine in the amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondent’s transgressions to deter the commission of the same or similar acts in the future.

LEE vs. ATTY. SIMANDO, July 10, 2013

Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of complainant. He offered to be the co-maker of Mejorado and assured complainant that Mejorado is a good payer. Mejorado failed to pay. Respondent claimed that complainant is a money-lender exacting high interest rates from borrowers. There is a conflict of interest.

Clearly, it is improper for respondent to appear as counsel for one party (complainant as creditor) against the adverse party (Mejorado as debtor) who is also his client, since a lawyer is prohibited from representing conflicting interests even after the relationship is terminated.

The Court held in Nombrado v. Hernandez that the termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The reason for the rule is that the client’s confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the expiration of the professional employment. Consequently, a lawyer should not, even after the severance of the relation with his client, do anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he previously represented

him nor should he disclose or use any of the client's confidences acquired in the previous relation.

ANITA C. PENA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO, Respondent. July 2013

Respondent betrayed the trust reposed upon her by complainant by executing a bogus deed of sale while she was entrusted with complainant's certificate of title, and that respondent also notarized the spurious deed of sale. The investigating IBP Commissioner stated that there was no evidence showing that respondent actively conspired with any party or actively participated in the forgery of the signature of complainant but there is evidence to supports the conclusion that complainant’s signature on the said Deed of Sale was forged.

Although no copy of the said Deed of Sale could be produced notwithstanding diligent search in the National Archives and the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, the interlocking testimonies of the complainant and her witness proved that the original copy of the owner's duplicate certificate of title was delivered to respondent.

The criminal case of estafa from which respondent was acquitted, as her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, is different from this administrative case, and each must be disposed of according to the facts and the law applicable to each case.

For the aforementioned deceitful conduct, respondent is disbarred from the practice of law.

DAGOHOY vs. ATTY. SAN JUAN, June 3, 2013

The failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. The SC cannot accept as an excuse the alleged lapse committed by his client in failing to provide him a copy of the case records.

In the first place, securing a copy of the case records was within Atty. San Juan’s control and is a task that the lawyer undertakes. Second, Atty. San Juan, unlike his client, knows or should have known, that filing an

appellant’s brief within the reglementary period is critical in the perfection of an appeal.

BERENGUER-LANDERS, et al., vs. ATTY. FLORIN, et al., April 17, 2013

Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar.

Florin’s issuance of the writ of execution and writ of possession in order to fully implement Regional Director’s Order even if it has not yet become final and executory clearly constitutes ignorance of the law.

TENOSO vs. ATTY. ECHANEZ, April 11, 2013

Respondent was found guilty of engaging in notarial practice without a notarial commission, and accordingly, was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction.

JANDOQUILE vs. ATTY. REVILLA, JR., April 10, 2013

Respondent did not require the affiants to present valid identification cards since he knows them personally.

Indeed, Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule for notarizing the complaint-affidavit signed by his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants.

On the second charge, we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows the affiants personally, he need not require them to show

their valid identification cards. However, it must be stated that he knows the three affiants personally.

Respondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr., was REPRIMANDED and DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public, or from performing any notarial act if he is presently commissioned as a notary public, for a period of three (3) months. Atty. Revilla, Jr. is further DIRECTED to INFORM the Court, through an affidavit, once the period of his disqualification has lapsed.

TAPAY, et al. vs. ATTY. BANCOLO, et al. March 20, 2013

Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and it constitutes a misbehavior subject to disciplinary action to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.

PESTO vs. Atty. MILLO, March 13, 2013

An attorney who conceals his inefficiency and lack of diligence by giving wrong information to his client regarding the matter subject of their professional relationship is guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court.

As respondent was found guilty, he moved for a reconsideration, stating that he had honestly believed that complainant had already caused the withdrawal of the complaint prior to her own death; that he had already caused the preparation of the documents necessary for the transfer of the certificate of title, and had also returned the P14,000.00 paid he received; that the adoption case had been finally granted by the trial court; that he had lost contact with complainant who resided in Canada; and that the charge arose from a simple misunderstanding.

Respondent was suspended for 6 months. The SC says that respondent ought to refund the amount of P15,643.75 representing the penalty for the late payment of the capital gains tax, but it cannot order him to refund that amount because it is not a collection agency.

RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT OF AMA LAND, INC. (REPRESENTED BY JOSEPH B. USITA) AGAINST COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES HON. DANTON Q. BUESER, HON. SESINANDO E. VILLON AND HON. RICARDO R. ROSARIO. EN BANC, MARCH 11, 2014

Unfounded administrative charges against sitting judges truly degrade their judicial office, and interfere with the due performance of their work for the Judiciary. The complainant may be held liable for indirect contempt of court as a means of vindicating the integrity and reputation of the judges and the Judiciary.

AMA Land, Inc., brought this administrative complaint charging the Justices with knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, gross misconduct, and violation of their oaths on account of their promulgation of the decision in C.A.–G.R. SP No. 118994 entitled Wack Wack Residents Association, Inc. v. The Honorable Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 264, Assigned in San Juan, and AMA Land, Inc.

The SC stressed that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions brought against any judge in relation to the performance of his official functions are neither complementary to nor suppletory of appropriate judicial remedies, nor a substitute for such remedies. Any party who may feel aggrieved should resort to these remedies, and exhaust them, instead of resorting to disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions.

It appears that AMALI is prone to bringing charges against judicial officers who rule against it in its cases. That impression is not at all devoid of basis. The complaint herein is actually the second one that AMALI has brought against respondent Justices in relation to the performance of their judicial duty in the same case.

The SC ORDERED the Senior Assistant Vice President Usita of AMA Land, Inc., and all the members of the Board of Directors of AMA Land, Inc. who had authorized Usita

to bring the administrative complaint against respondent Associate Justices to show cause in writing within 10 days from notice why they should not be punished for indirect contempt of court for degrading the judicial office of respondent Associate Justices, and for interfering with the due performance of their work for the Judiciary.

BALDADO vs. ATTY. MEJICA, March 11, 2013

Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. The Court notes that this is the first case respondent handled after he passed the bar examinations. His prayer for compassionate justice as he is the only breadwinner in the family was considered.

Respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.

JINON vs. ATTY. JIZ, March 5, 2013

Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for the processing of transfer of land title, but not used for the purpose, should be immediately returned. "A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed to him by his client.

Furthermore, respondent’s infractions were aggravated by his failure to comply with CBD’s directives for him to file his pleadings on time and to religiously attend hearings, demonstrating not only his irresponsibility but also his disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers.

The SC suspended Atty. Jiz from the practice of law for two (2) years. With respect to the amount that he should refund to Gloria, only the sum of P45,000.00 plus legal interest should be returned to her, considering the finding that the initial payment of P17,000.00 was reasonable

and sufficient remuneration for the actual legal services he rendered.

TRINIDAD, et al vs. ATTY. VILLARIN, February 27, 2013

The HLURB ordered the respondent Realty owner and developer to accept the payments of the complainant buyers under the old purchase price and to deliver the Deeds of Sale and the Transfer Certificates of Title to the complainant winning litigants. The Decision did not evince any directive for the buyers to vacate the property. Thereafter, the HLURB issued a Writ of Execution. It was at this point that respondent Villarin entered his special appearance to represent the Realty. He sent demand letters to herein complainants as “illegal occupants”. In all of these letters, he demanded that they immediately vacate the property and surrender it to the Realty within five days from receipt. Otherwise, he would file the necessary action against them.

Lawyers should only make such defense only when they believe it to be honestly debatable under the law.

Lawyers must not present and offer in evidence any document that they know is false

AGBULOS vs. ATTY. VIRAY, February 18, 2013

Respondent prepared and notarized and affidavit but he without the affiant’s personal appearance. He explained that he did so merely upon the assurance of his client Dollente that the document was executed by complainant. He was meted the penalties of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.

YLAYA vs. ATTY. GACOTT, January 30, 2012

Respondent allegedly deceived the complainant and her late husband into signing a "preparatory" Deed of Sale that the respondent converted into a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of his relatives

Complainant’s Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw the Verified Complaint and To Dismiss the Case and her Affidavit affirming and confirming the existence, genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, are immaterial to the resolution of the instant complainat. The complainant explains that this disbarment complaint was filed because of a "misunderstanding, miscommunication and improper appreciation of facts"; she erroneously accused the respondent of ill motives and bad intentions, but after being enlightened, she is convinced that he has no personal or pecuniary interests over the properties in Civil Case No. 2902; that such misunderstanding was due to her unfamiliarity with the transactions of her late husband during his lifetime.

The SC noted that complainant would receive P5,000,000.00, or half of the just compensation under the Compromise Agreement, and thus agreed to withdraw all charges against the respondent. From this perspective, the SC considered the complainant’s desistance to be suspect; it is not grounded on the fact that the respondent did not commit any actual misconduct; rather, because of the consideration, the complainant is now amenable to the position of the respondent and/or Reynold.

TEODORO III vs. vs. ATTY. GONZALES, January 30, 2013

In Special Proceeding No. 99-95587, the heirs of Manuela prayed for the issuance of letters of administration, the liquidation of Manuela’s estate, and its distribution among her legal heirs.

Meanwhile, in Civil Case No. 00-99207, the heirs of Manuela asked for the annulment of the deed of absolute sale Manuela executed in favor of Anastacio. They likewise asked the court to cancel the resulting Transfer Certificate of Title issued in favor of the latter, and to issue a new one in their names.

While the reliefs prayed for in the initiatory pleadings of the two cases are different in form, a ruling in one case would have resolved the other, and vice versa since the facts upon which it is based, and the parties are substantially similar in the two cases. As the elements of litis pendentia and res judicata are present, Atty. Gonzales committed forum shopping when he filed Civil Case No. 00-99207 without indicating that Special Proceeding No. 99-95587 was still pending.

Respondent was fully aware, since he was the counsel for both cases, that he raised the issue of trust with respect to the Malate property in the 1999 Letters of Administration case and that he was raising the same similar issue of trust in the 2000 annulment case. To advise his client therefore to execute the affidavit of non-forum shopping for the second case (annulment case) and state that there is no pending case involving the same or similar issue would constitute misconduct which should be subject to disciplinary action. It was his duty to advise his client properly, and his failure to do so, in fact his deliberate assertion that there was no falsity in the affidavit is indicative of a predisposition to take lightly his duty as a lawyer to promote respect and obedience to the law.

The Court found basis for the complaint meritorious and accordingly CENSURED respondent.

SPOUSES BAUTISTA, et al. vs. ATTY. CEFRA, January 28, 2013

Respondent failed to submit a formal offer of documentary evidence within the period given by the RTC which denied his motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. He did not exert any effort to protect the right of his clients. He was suspended for one year.

MACARUBBO vs. ATTY. MACARUBBO, January 23, 2013

RE: PETITION (FOR EXTRAORDINARY MERCY) OF EDMUNDO L. MACARUBBO.

Records show that in the Decision1 dated February 27, 2004, the Court disbarred respondent from the practice of law for having contracted a bigamous marriage with complainant Florence Teves and a third marriage with one Josephine Constantino while his first marriage to Helen Esparza was still subsisting, which acts constituted gross immoral conduct.

The Court notes the eight (8) long years that had elapsed from the time respondent was disbarred and recognizes his remorse and achievement.

BUENO vs. ATTY. RAÑESES, December 11, 2012

Complainant alleges that she hired respondent who on several hearings would either be absent or late. The lawyer asked P10,000.00 allegedly be divided between him and the judge hearing the case so that they would not lose. Respondent told complainant not to tell anyone about the matter. She immediately sold a pig and a refrigerator to raise the demanded amount, and gave it to him. He again asked for another P5,000.00 because the amount she had previously given was inadequate. Bueno then sold her sala set and colored television to raise the demanded amount, which she again delivered to respondent.

Complainant lost her case.

Lawyer’s act is fraudulent because the professed purpose of the exaction was the crime of bribery. Beyond these, he maligned the judge and the Judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are won, not on the merits, but through deceitful means – a decidedly black mark against the Judiciary.

Respondent was disbarred.

VENTURA vs. ATTY. SAMSON, December 2012

Complainant executed a Sworn Statement dated 19 April 2002 and a Supplemental-Complaint stating therein that respondent raped her when she was merely thirteen (13)

years old. Respondent then thirty eight (38) years old, married and resident of Barangay 5, San Francisco, Agusan Del Sur. Respondent admitted that sexual intercourse butit was consensual.

From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of respondent himself, the Court found that respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession.

Respondent was DISBARRED for Gross Immoral Conduct.

SEARES JR. vs. ATTY. GONZALES-ALZATE, November 14, 2012

Atty. Saniata Liwliwa V. Gonzales-Alzate is charged with incompetence and professional negligence, and a violation of the prohibition against representing conflicting interests. Complainant was her former client.

The SC found the complaint against respondent unfounded and devoid of substance.

For administrative liability under Canon 18 to attach, the negligent act of the attorney should be gross and inexcusable as to lead to a result that was highly prejudicial to the client’s interest. Accordingly, the Court has imposed administrative sanctions on a grossly negligent attorney for unreasonable failure to file a required pleading, or for unreasonable failure to file an appeal, especially when the failure occurred after the attorney moved for several extensions to file the pleading and offered several excuses for his nonfeasance. The Court has found the attendance of inexcusable negligence when an attorney resorts to a wrong remedy,

or belatedly files an appeal, or inordinately delays the filing of a complaint, or fails to attend scheduled court hearings. Gross misconduct on the part of an attorney is determined from the circumstances of the case, the nature of the act done and the motive that induced the attorney to commit the act.

The SC wondered why complainant would denounce respondent only after nearly five years have passed. The motivation for the charge becomes suspect, and the charge is thereby weakened all the more.

As it turned out, the charge of representing conflicting interests leveled against respondent was imaginary. The charge was immediately unworthy of serious consideration because it was clear from the start that respondent did not take advantage of her previous engagement by complainant in her legal representation of her present client in the latter’s administrative charge against complainant. There was no indication whatsoever of her having gained any confidential information during her previous engagement by complainant that could be used against him. Her engagement by complainant related only to the election protest in 2007, but her present client’s complaint involved complainant’s supposedly unlawful interference in ousting her present client as the president of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Dolores, Abra in 2010. There is no question that both charges were entirely foreign to one another.

Moreover, the prohibition against representing conflicting interests further necessitated identity of the parties or interests involved in the previous and present engagements. But such identity was not true here.

The SC emphasized that an attorney enjoys the presumption of innocence, and whoever initiates administrative proceedings against the attorney bears the burden of proof to establish the allegation of professional misconduct. When the complainant fails to discharge the burden of proof, the Court has no alternative but to dismiss the charge and absolve the attorney.

The SC underscored the need to shield attorneys as officers of the Court from the mindless assaults intended to vex or harass them in their performance of duty, stating:

According to Justice Cardozo, "xxx the fair fame of a lawyer, however innocent of wrong, is at the mercy of the tongue of ignorance or malice. Reputation in such a calling is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored."

In Lim v. Antonio, the SC censured the complainant because revenge and bad faith had motivated him into filing a baseless complaint against an attorney, stressing:

Considering the circumstances attendant, the SC sternly warned him that he shall be dealt with more severely should he commit a similar act against a member of the Bar.

The Court DISMISSED the administrative complaint against respondent for utter lack of merit.

VOLUNTAD-RAMIREZ vs. ATTY. BAUTISTA, October 10, 2012

Complainant alleged that respondent failed to a complaint against her siblings for encroachment of her right of way despite payment of acceptance fee.

In this case, respondent attributes his delay in filing the appropriate criminal case to the absence of conciliation proceedings between complainant and her siblings before the barangay as required under Article 222 of the Civil Code and the Local Government Code. However, this excuse is belied by the Certification to File Action by the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, Office of the Barangay Council, Barangay Daanghari, Navotas.

The Court found ADMONISHED to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duty to his clients. Atty. Bautista is ordered to RESTITUTE to complainant P 14,000 out of the P 15,000 acceptance fee.

VIRTUSIO vs. ATTY. VIRTUSIO, September 5, 2012

Complainant alleged that that respondent (her husband’s relative) convinced her to buy a house and lot. They agreed that respondent would use her personal checks in paying the seller with complainant reimbursing her. Complainant deposited the amounts corresponding to the checks issued by respondent.

Respondent admitted that she misused the money. To cover up her misdeeds, respondent executed a deed of sale covering her car in favor of complainant return the money she defalcated. But, again acting with guile, she withheld possession of the car and transferred its registration in the name of her children.

Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct that warrants her suspension for one year from the practice of law.

The Court cannot also discovered that respondent’s notarial commission had expired and was not a subject matter of the complaint. Her defense is that she thought that she had renewed her commission. Respondent indulged in deliberate falsehood that the lawyer’s oath forbids. She was suspended for one year.

RODICA vs. vs. ATTY. MANUEL "LOLONG" M. LAZARO, et al. August 23, 2012

An associate cannot use the law name of the firm without its consent. Jr. Associate Atty. Espejo’s claimed that he drafted and signed a pleading just to extend assistance to Rodica deserves scant consideration. It is true that under Rules 2.01 and 2.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed, and in such cases, even if he does not accept a case, shall not refuse to render legal advise to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s right. However, in this case, Rodica cannot be considered as defenseless or oppressed considering that she is properly represented by counsel in the RTC case. Needless to state, her rights are amply safeguarded. It would have been different had Rodica not been represented by any lawyer, which, however, is not the case.

The SC notes that on August 5, 2011, or even before the filing of the disbarment complaint, Atty. Espejo already caused the filing of his Motion to Withdraw Appearance before the RTC. Therein, Atty. Espejo already expressed remorse and sincere apologies to the RTC for wrongly employing the name of the Lazaro Law Office. Considering that Atty. Espejo is newly admitted to the Bar (2010), the SC deems it proper to warm him to be more circumspect and prudent in his actuations.

The Complaint for disbarment against respondents Atty. Manuel "Lolong" M. Lazaro, Atty. Edwin M. Espejo, Atty. Abel M. Almario, Atty. Michelle B. Lazaro and Atty. Joseph C. Tan is DISMISSED. Atty. Edwin M. Espejo is WARNED to be more circumspect and prudent in his actuations.

Note : A later motion for reconsideration filed by complainant was denied by the Supreme Court.

SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC., vs. ATTY. FUNK, Respondent. August 15, 2012

Complainant alleged that respondent used to work as its corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee from 1983 to 1985.1 He also served as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases.

On November 25, 2006 respondent filed an action for quieting of title and damages against complainant on behalf of Mabalacat Institute, Inc. (Mabalacat Institute). Complainant alleges that respondent used information that he acquired while serving as its counsel in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and in breach of attorney-client relationship.

In his answer, Atty. Funk averred that Don Teodoro V. Santos (Santos) organized Mabalacat Institute in 1950 and Hocorma Foundation in 1979. Santos hired him in January 1982 to assist Santos and the organizations he established, including the Mabalacat Institute, in its legal problems. In 1983 the Mabalacat Institute made Atty. Funk serve as a director and legal counsel.

A lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable that respondent was formerly the legal counsel of complainant. Years after terminating his relationship with complainant, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of another client, the Mabalacat Institute, without complainant’s written consent.

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge of his former client's doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not have acquired were it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their relationship.

The Court SUSPENDED Atty. Richard Funk from the practice of law for one year.

TUMBOKON vs. ATTY. PEFIANCO, August 1, 2012

It is unethical for respondent lawyer to undertake to give complainant, a non lawyer, commission of 20%, later reduced to 10%, of the attorney's fees the lawyer would receive from the client referred by the complainant.

Respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards required of his profession for having abandoned his legal

wife with whom he has two children, and cohabited with another woman with whom he has four children.

Respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar.

Furthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children.

Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

DHALIWAL vs. ATTY. DUMAGUING, August 1, 2013

Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as payment for the balance of the purchase price of a parcel of land as in the present case, but not used for the purpose, should be immediately returned. "A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment."

ATTY. CATALAN, JR. vs. ATTY. SILVOSA, July 24, 2012

This is a complaint filed by Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan, Jr. (Atty. Catalan) against Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa (Atty. Silvosa). Atty. Catalan has three causes of action against Atty. Silvosa; (1) Atty. Silvosa appeared as counsel for the accused in the same case for which he previously appeared as prosecutor; (2) Atty. Silvosa bribed his then colleague Prosecutor Phoebe Toribio (Pros.Toribio) for P30,000; and (3) the Sandiganbayan convicted Atty. Silvosa in Criminal Case No. 27776 for direct bribery. Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ (IBP) Commissioner for Bar Discipline Dennis A.B. Funa (Comm. Funa) held Atty.

Silvosa liable only for the first cause of action and recommended the penalty of reprimand. The Board of Governors of the IBP twice modified Comm. Funa’s recommendation: first, to a suspension of six months, then to a suspension of two years.

Respondent was an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Bukidnon and a Prosecutor in Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon who appeared as public prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 10256-00, "People of the Philippines v. SPO2 Elmor Esperon y Murillo, et al." (Esperon case), for the complex crime of double frustrated murder, in which case complainant was one of the private complainants. Complainant took issue with respondent’s manner of prosecuting the case, and requested the Provincial Prosecutor to relieve him.

The SC disbarred respondent in appearing the accused who are his relatives in a case where he previously appeared as public prosecutor. Respondent displayed manifest bias in the accused’s favor when he caused numerous delays in the trial by arguing against the position of the private prosecutor. The RTC rendered judgment convicting the accused. Respondent counsel for the accused filed a motion to reinstate bail pending finality of judgment.

Respondent also presented the affidavit of Pros. Toribio who was offered by respondent P30,000 to reconsider her findings and uphold the charge of frustrated murder against complainant’s relative.

Complainant presented the Sandiganbayan’s decision in Criminal Case No. 27776 convicting respondent of direct bribery.

The SC Court disagrees with IBP Comm. Funa’s ruling that the findings in a criminal proceeding are not binding in a disbarment proceeding.

First, disbarment proceedings may be initiated by any interested person. There can be no doubt of the right of a citizen to bring to the attention of the proper authority acts and doings of public officers which a citizen feels are incompatible with the duties of the office and from which conduct the public might or does suffer undesirable consequences.

Second, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment.

Third, the crime of direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude.

IN RE: PETITION RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES, EPIFANIO B. MUNESES, Petitioner. July 2012.

On June 8, 2009, a petition was filed by petitioner with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) praying that he be granted the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. He alleged that he lost his privilege to practice law when he became a citizen of the United States of America but re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225. The petitioner submitted the following:

1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship; 2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship); 3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; 4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine Citizenship issued by the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of the IC; 5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City Chapter attesting to his good moral character as well as his updated payment of annual membership dues; 6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010; 7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd compliance period; and 8. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program, University of Cebu, College of Law attesting to his compliance with the MCLE. The OBC recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his practice of law, which the Court granted.

BASILIO, et al. vs. ATTY. CASTRO, July 11, 2012

Complainants claim that respondent failed to prosecute their cases despite receipt of acceptance fee and filing fee resulting in their dismissal.

Respondent claims that the petitioners themselves ordered him to abandon the appeal he filed on their

behalf on the ground that they were unable to file the supersedeas bond and ordered him to concentrate on another case.

If it were true in this case that petitioners directed respondent to abandon their appeal, the prudent action should have been for him to file a motion to withdraw appeal In this regard, his failure to file the appellants' brief" could indeed be construed as negligence on his part.

VILLATUYA vs. ATTY. TABALINGCOS, July 10, 2012

Respondent was disbarred for gross immorality for marrying two other women while his first marriage was subsisting. He was also admonished for unlawful solicitation of cases.

Respondent set up two financial consultancy firms and used them as fronts to advertise his legal services and solicit cases.

The SC set aside respondent’s objection to the introduction of the certifications issued by the NSO claiming that they were submitted after the administrative case had been submitted for resolution, thus giving him no opportunity to controvert them.

The SC has consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus, the SC explained in Garrido v. Garrido:

Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure — such as the verification of pleadings and prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of desistance by the complainant — do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to the public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the privilege

to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for the practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into through this Court.

HERNANDEZ vs. ATTY. PADILLA, June 20, 2012

Respondent failed to file appellants brief in an ejectment case filed against complainant. Respondent insists that he had never met complainant prior to the mandatory conference set for the disbarment complaint she filed against him. However, a perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal filed in the appellate court revealed that he had signed as counsel for the defendant-appellants therein, including complainant and her husband.

It is further claimed by respondent that the relation created between him and complainant’s husband cannot be treated as a "client-lawyer" relationship.

Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer’s duty to serve the client with competence and diligence. Respondent has failed to fulfill this duty.

According to respondent, he merely drafted the pleading that complainant’s husband asked from him. Respondent also claims that he filed a Memorandum of Appeal, because he "honestly believed" that this was the pleading required, based on what complainant’s husband said.

In his MR, respondent begged for the consideration of the IBP, claiming that the reason for his failure to file the proper pleading was that he "did not have enough time to acquaint himself thoroughly with the factual milieu of the case." The IBP reconsidered and thereafter significantly reduced the penalty originally imposed.

Respondent’s plea for leniency was not granted.

The supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse his negligence. He was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS and STERNLY WARNED.

BENGCO, et al. vs. ATTY. BERNARDO, June 13, 2012

Respondent was suspended for one year for conniving with a certain Magat for committing fraudulent act with intent to defraud herein complainants Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco by using false pretenses, deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of the land belonging to the Miranda family of Tagaytay City who are the acquaintance of complainants herein and they convinced herein complainant[s] that if they will finance and deliver to him the amount of [P]495,000.00 as advance money he would expedite the titling of the subject land and further by means of other similar deceit like misrepresenting himself as lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the subject land.

Complainants filed a Manifestation stating that the RTC rendered a decision in the criminal case for Estafa finding the accused, Atty. Bernardo and Magat "guilty of conspiracy in the commission of Estafa.

Complainant Fidela sought the resolution of the present action as she was already 86 years of age and prayed for the restitution of the amount of P200,000.00 so she can use the money to buy her medicine and other needs.

It is first worth mentioning that the respondent’s defense of prescription is untenable. The SC has held that administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe.

It is likewise settled that a disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a lawyer despite having involved the same set of facts. Jurisprudence has it "that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, the respondent’s acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him administratively."

MOLINA vs. vs. ATTY. MAGAT, June 13, 2012

In a charge and counter charge cases, respondent lawyer was the private prosecutor and defense counsel. He moved to quash the case against his client on the ground of double jeopardy which was maliciously done to mislead

the court. Respondent likewise appeared in court while he was suspended to practice law.

Respondent alleged that he was moved by altruistic intentions when he appeared before the trial court despite having been suspended. He could have informed the Presiding Judge of his plight and explained why the party he was representing could not attend. On the contrary, he kept his silence and proceeded to represent his client as counsel.

Respondent Atty. Ceferino R. Magat was ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months with a WARNING that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.

RE: SC DECISION DATED MAY 20, 2008 IN G.R. NO. 161455 UNDER RULE 139-B OF THE RULES OF COURT, vs. ATTY. RODOLFO D. PACTOLIN, Respondent. June 2012

On November 12, 2003 the Sandiganbayan found Atty. Pactolin guilty of falsification under Article 172 and sentenced him to the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional as minimum to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days of prision correccional as maximum, to suffer all the accessory penalties of prision correccional, and to pay a fine of P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The only issue presented in this case is whether or not Atty. Pactolin should be disbarred after conviction by final judgment of the crime of falsification.

The SC ruled that the crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude.

As a rule, the SC exercises the power to disbar with great caution yet it has consistently pronounced that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude.

Note : Administrative case is not an opportunity to review the decision.

BRENNISEN vs. ATTY. CONTAWI, April 24, 2012

Complainant is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in San Dionisio, Parañaque City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 211762 of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal. Being a resident of the United States of America (USA), he entrusted the administration of the subject property to respondent, together with the corresponding owner's duplicate title.

Respondent who the administrator of complainant (a resident of USA) executed a spurious Special Power of Attorney (SPA) mortgaged and subsequently sold the subject property owned by complainant to one Roberto Ho ("Ho"), as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. As a result, TCT No. 21176 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 150814 issued in favor of Ho.

Respondent was disbarred.

His argument that there was no formal lawyer-client relationship between him and complainant will not serve to mitigate his liability. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private or professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.

IN RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED 28 APRIL 2003 IN G.R. NOS. 145817 AND 145822. April 17, 2012

This administrative case originated when respondent Atty. Magdaleno M. Peña filed an Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondent’s Urgent Omnibus Motion. This motion is directed against the then ponente of the consolidated petitions, Justice Antonio T. Carpio, and reads in part: As parting words, the Court herein highlights the disorder caused by respondent Peña’s actions in the administration of justice. In order to foreclose resort to such abhorrent practice or strategy in the future, the Court finds the need to educate the public and the Bar.

Lawyers shall conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their professional colleagues. They shall not, in their professional dealings, use language that is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Lawyers shall use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of a judicial forum.

The Court cannot countenance the ease with which lawyers, in the hopes of strengthening their cause in a motion for inhibition, make grave and unfounded accusations of unethical conduct or even wrongdoing against other members of the legal profession. It is the duty of members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justness of the cause with which they are charged.

It has not escaped the Court’s attention that respondent Peña has manifested a troubling history of praying for the inhibition of several members of this Court or for the re-raffle of the case to another Division, on the basis of groundless and unfounded accusations of partiality.

As held in Mateo, Jr. v. Hon. Villaluz, the invitation for judges to disqualify themselves need not always be heeded. It is not always desirable that they should do so. It might amount in certain cases to their being recreant about their duties. It could also be an instrument whereby a party could inhibit a judge in the hope of getting another more amenable to his persuasion.

The SC DISBARRED respondent Atty. Magdaleno M. Peña from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

DEL MUNDO vs. ATTY. CAPISTRANO, April 16, 2012

When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may come to his possession. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand. Failure to

return gives rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him.

The Court, taking into account Atty. Capistrano’s admission of his fault and negligence, imposed the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law. The Court ordered the return to Suzette the amount of P73,500.00 from the P140,000.00.

MARIA vs. ATTY. WILFREDO R. CORTEZ, April 11, 2012

The respondent’s excuse that the SPA was never used or has been replaced during the registration of the subject lands is of no moment. The fact remains that the SPA was notarized without complying with the requirements of the law for the parties to appear before the notary public.

ANIÑON vs. ATTY. SABITSANA, JR., April 11, 2012

In her complaint, Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) related that she previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained from her in filing the civil case.

On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, the Court found substantial evidence to support Atty. Sabitsana’s violation of his oath of office as a lawyer.

The SC imposed the penalty of suspension for one (1) year from the practice of law. The SC notes that Atty. Sabitsana takes exception to the IBP recommendation on the ground that the charge in the complaint was only for his alleged disclosure of confidential information, not for representation of conflicting interests which is a violation of his due process rights since he only answered the designated charge.

The SC found no violation of Atty. Sabitsana’s due process rights. Although there was indeed a specific charge in the complaint, the Court is not unmindful that the complaint itself contained allegations of acts sufficient to constitute a violation of the rule on the prohibition against representing conflicting interests.

As disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, respondent was found GUILTY of misconduct for representing conflicting interests and was SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law

NEVADA vs. ATTY. CASUGA, Respondent. March 20, 2012

There is a clear breach of lawyer-client relations when a lawyer receives money or other property from a client for a particular purpose and fails to render an accounting showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client.

Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them, case law has it that an attorney may be removed, or otherwise disciplined, not only for malpractice and dishonesty in the profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties, making him unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him.

Moreover, the defense of respondent that he is an agent cannot be given due course. Agency cannot be presumed. It is entered into between the parties for a purpose.

The Court found Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga GUILTY of gross misconduct. He is was SUSPENDED for a period of four (4) years from the practice of law. The notarial commission of Atty. Casuga, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as Notary Public also for four (4) years. Additionally, he is ordered to return the amount of PhP 90,000, the pieces of jewelry subject of this case or their

equivalent of PhP 300,000, and the Rolex watch valued at USD 12,000 or its equivalent in Philippine Peso to Corazon T. Nevada within thirty (30) days from finality of this Decision; otherwise, he shall be cited for contempt. Lastly, Atty. Casuga is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

CERDAN vs. ATTY. GOMEZ, March 19, 2012

A lawyer represents a client and should not exceed his authority by entering into a compromise agreement when it is not within his power to do so. Furthermore, he has to account for the money he received in behalf of his client and deliver the same without any deduction.

The SC said that it does not tolerate such acts. Atty. Gomez has no right to unilaterally retain his lawyer’s lien. Having obtained the funds in the course of his professional employment, Atty. Gomez had the obligation to account and deliver such funds to his client when they became due, or upon demand. Moreover, there was no agreement between him and complainant that he could deduct therefrom his claimed attorney’s fees.

LAHM III, et al. vs. LABOR ARBITER MAYOR, JR., February 15, 2012

Respondent failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby occasioning sanction from the SC.

In stubbornly insisting that he has the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order contrary to the clear import of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to "obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes".

The SC SUSPENDED respondent from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months with a WARNING.