January

DUTY TO THE PUBLIC

Ligaya Santos v. Judge Rolando How
A.M. no. RTJ-05-1946, 513 SCRA 25, January 26, 2007
Before us is an administrative complaintdated January 31, 2005 filed
by Ligaya V. Santos, Edna Cortez, Girlie Castillo and Christopher Castillo
(complainants) against Judge Rolando G. How (respondent), Regional Trial
Court, Branch 257, Paraaque City, for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Manifest
Partiality and Serious Misconduct, relative to Criminal Case Nos. 01-0921,
entitled People of the Philippines v. Ligaya V. Santos, and 01-0425, entitled
People of the Philippines v. Rolly Tonion, Jhunrey Soriano, Christopher
Castillo, Girlie Castillo, Robert Bunda and Pedro Jimenez.
Facts:
Complainants were accused of 2 separate criminal cases involving
successive ambush incidents. The judge who handles the said criminal cases
inhibited himself and as a result, the cases were re-raffled and eventually
assigned to respondent judge before whose court complainants filed their
petition for bail. Complainants then filed for petition for bail; however,
respondent issued an Order denying bail to the accused. Complainants then
assailed the order for being based on a one-sentence conclusion that the
evidence of guilt is strong, without any supporting evaluation or consideration
of the issues raised.
Issue:
Whether or not the acts committed by respondent judge constitute gross
ignorance of the law, manifest partiality and serious misconduct.
Ruling:
Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a
judge shall be faithful to the laws and maintain professional competence. He is
mandated to be conversant with the law and to have more than a cursory
acquaintance with the rules and authoritative doctrines. When the law is
elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance thereof. Judges
are expected to have more than just a modicum of acquaintance with the
statutes and procedural rules.In this case, respondent's act of cutting short the
hearing after the prosecution presented its evidence, without affording the
defense to adduce evidence in rebuttal together with his outright denial of
complainants request to offer proof, is a clear disregard of the right of the
accused to disprove that the evidence of guilt is strong. It is of no moment that

respondent required complainants to submit their memorandum. What is

significant is that complainants were deprived of their constitutional right to
present evidence during the hearing which the respondent may intelligently
appreciate and evaluate in the light of the circumstances then obtaining.
The Court also held that respondent was not motivated by malice or
corrupt motives to deny the application for bail. Complainants failed to
substantiate their other allegations with competent proof besides their own
bare allegations. Respondent did what he thought was right under the law and
established principles. Hence, respondent could not be held liable for manifest
partiality and serious misconduct. The Court cannot presume partiality based
on the circumstances alleged in the complaint.
In sum, the act of respondent in denying the complainants the right to
present evidence constitutes simple ignorance of the law; but in the absence of
malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations on the part of the
respondent, the penalty of reprimand recommended by the OCA is just and
reasonable.
Adjudication:
Accordingly, the Court finds Judge Rolando G. How guilty of simple
ignorance of the law and REPRIMANDS him with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Clarita J. Samala vs. Atty. Luciano D. Valencia

A.C. No. 5439; January 22, 2007
Austria-Martinez, J.

Facts:

Clarita J. Samala (complainant) filed a complaint against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia (respondent) for
Disbarment on the following grounds:

1.
2.
3.
4.

serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties;

knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence;
initiating numerous cases in exchange for non-payment of rental fees; and
having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

After respondent filed his Comment, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation.
After a series of hearings, the parties filed their respective memoranda and the case was deemed
submitted for resolution.
The Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for six months.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of Commissioner
Reyes but increased the penalty of suspension from six months to one year.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
This Court adopts the report of the IBP Board of Governors except as to the issue on immorality and as
to the recommended penalty.
(a) On serving as counsel for contending parties.

Respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel for the tenants
Lagmay, Valencia, Bustamante and Bayuga by filing an Explanation and Compliance before the RTC.
The Presiding Judge warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of being counsel of record of
both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts.
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose
interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. He may not also undertake to discharge
conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded on
the principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from the relation of attorney and client which is
one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected 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.
One of the tests 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.
(b) On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence.
Complainant alleges that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 filed before MTC, Branch 75 for ejectment,
respondent submitted TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership despite the fact that a new
TCT No. 275500 was already issued in the name of Alba on February 2, 1995.
During the hearing before Commissioner Raval, respondent avers that when the Answer was filed in the
said case, that was the time that he came to know that the title was already in the name of Alba; so that
when the court dismissed the complaint, he did not do anything anymore. Respondent further avers
that Valdez did not tell him the truth and things were revealed to him only when the case for rescission
was filed in 2002.
Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead,
or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice. It matters not that the trial court was not misled by
respondent's submission of TCT No. 273020 in the name of Valdez, as shown by its decision dated
January 8, 2002 dismissing the complaint for ejectment. What is decisive in this case is respondent's
intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was
already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of Alba.
(c) On initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees.
Complainant alleged that respondent filed the following cases: (a) Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK at the
RTC, Branch 272; (b) Civil Case No. 00-7137 at the MTC, Branch 75; and (c) I.S. Nos. 00-4439 and 01036162 both entitled "Valencia v. Samala" for estafa and grave coercion, respectively, before the

Marikina City Prosecutor. Complainant claims that the two criminal cases were filed in retaliation for the
cases she filed against Lagmay docketed as I.S. No. 00-4306 for estafa and I.S. No. 00-4318 against Alvin
Valencia (son of respondent) for trespass to dwelling.
As culled from the records, Valdez entered into a retainer agreement with respondent. As payment for
his services, he was allowed to occupy the property for free and utilize the same as his office pursuant to
their retainer agreement.
The Court finds the charge to be without sufficient basis. The act of respondent of filing the aforecited
cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and his own interest, on the other, cannot be
made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown that the same was being done
to abuse judicial processes to commit injustice.
The filing of an administrative case against respondent for protecting the interest of his client and his
own right would be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is obligated to defend and prosecute
the right of his client.
(d) On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
The Court finds respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
During the hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who are all
over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has eight children by his
first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his wife died in 1997, he married
Lagmay in 1998. Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was staying in one of the apartments being
claimed by complainant. However, he does not consider his affair with Lagmay as a relationship and
does not consider the latter as his second family. He reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay
because he has two houses, one in Muntinlupa and another in Marikina.
Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree of moral
delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral
conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a
moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct and violation
of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt of herein Resolution.

ROGELIO H. VILLANUEVA vs. ATTY. AMADO B. DELORIA

FACTS:
A Complaint for Disbarment was filed against Atty. Deloria, a former full-time
Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), appeared as
counsel for the spouses De Gracia.
Villanueva avers that a decision in that case was rendered by Housing and Land
Use Arbiter,2 Atty. Teresita R. Alferez, requiring the Estate of Jaime Gonzales to, among
other things, refund to the spouses De Gracia the amount of P69,000.00 plus interest at the
prevailing commercial interest rates. The case was eventually assigned to Villanueva upon
the latters designation as Arbiter.
It appears that Atty. Deloria filed a Motion for Issuance of Substitute Judgment and
for Consignation claiming that the Estate of Jaime Gonzales does not want to pay interest
based on commercial interest rates. Villanueva asserts, however, that Atty. Delorias
allegation is belied by two motions filed by counsel for the Estate of Jaime Gonzales which
merely seek to clarify the precise interest rate applicable to the case in order for it to fully
comply with the decision.
Atty. Delorias misrepresentation is allegedly a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code), particularly Canons 1, 410, 5 126 and 197 thereof, the Attorneys
Oath of Office and Art. 19 of the Civil Code. Atty. Deloria also allegedly violated Canon 118
of the Code because he sought the substitution of a decision which he knew had already
become final and partially executed.
Villanueva notes that Atty. Deloria enclosed with his motion a check in the amount
of P69,000.00 payable to the order of the Estate of Jaime Gonzales and Corazon Gonzales,
representing the principal refunded to the spouses De Gracia in compliance with the
decision. Villanueva states that the check was drawn against Atty. Delorias personal
checking account in violation of Canon 169 of the Code.
Moreover, according to Villanueva, Atty. Deloria offered him 50% of the recoverable
amount in the case if he resolves the latters motion favorably.10 Atty. Delorias conduct
allegedly violates the previously cited canons of the Code, Canon 13,11 Rule 15.06,12
Canon 15 of the Code, Art. 212 of the Revised Penal Code, the Attorneys Oath of Office and
Art. 19 of the Civil Code.
Villanueva also alleges that Atty. Deloria used his influence as former Commissioner
of the HLURB to persuade Atty. Alferez to impose interest based on commercial rates instead
of the interest rate fixed which provide a uniform rate of interest in decisions involving
refunds. Atty. Deloria also allegedly used his connections in the HLURB to prevent
Villanueva from releasing an Order denying the formers motion and to prevail upon the
agencys Legal Services Group to interpret the term "commercial rate of interest" in a way
that is favorable to his clients case, again in violation of the Code.
Further, Villanueva claims that Atty. Deloria assisted his client in filing an
unfounded criminal case against him before the Office of the Ombudsman with the purpose

of getting even with Villanueva for denying their motion. When his client pursued this
course of action, Atty. Deloria allegedly should have withdrawn his services in accordance
with Rule 22.01,16 Canon 22 of the Code.
Atty. Deloria denies any wrongdoing and sought the dismissal of the Complaint for
lack of merit. He avers that the refusal of the Estate of Jaime Gonzales to pay the interest
stipulated in the decision is evident from the various motions it has filed. On the alleged
commingling of his funds with those of his clients, Atty. Deloria claims that the spouses De
Gracia requested him to advance the amount intended for consignation as they were then
on vacation in the United States. He also maintains that he did not exert any influence on
the HLURB to rule in his clients favor, adding that the draft order which he filed in the
case is required under the rules of the agency.
HELD:
Investigating Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan submitted a Report20 dated
September 29, 2005, finding merit in the Complaint and recommending that Atty. Deloria
be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and/or be fined in the amount of
P20,000.00. This recommendation was annulled and set aside by the IBP in its Resolution
No. XVII-2006-279 dated May 26, 2006. The case was instead dismissed for lack of merit.
The report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner appears to be
based solely on the Rollo of the case which the Court sent to the IBP pursuant to the
Resolution dated February 19, 2001. The Investigating Commissioner did not conduct any
hearing to determine the veracity of the allegations in Villanuevas Complaint and the
truthfulness of Atty. Delorias answers thereto.
A formal investigation is a mandatory requirement which may not be dispensed
with except for valid and compelling reasons.21 In Baldomar v. Paras,22 we held:
Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If, at the
outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly dismisses
the case. If, however, the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made,
such as when the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings
submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which
the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex-parte investigation may only be
conducted when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice. x x x
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for investigation in disbarment and
disciplinary proceedings against attorneys before the IBP, thus:
Sec. 8. Investigation.Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer,
the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He
shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be
given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf, and be heard by
himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the
investigation shall proceed ex-parte.
The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of
its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior
application.

Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the
Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of court. The corresponding charge
shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the
alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP Board of
Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure
set forth in this Rule for hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as
practicable be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the
IBP Baord of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution
setting forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to
the Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.
We find that due observance of the foregoing rules is necessary for the proper resolution of
this case.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative case is REMANDED to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines for further proceedings. The IBP is also directed to act on this referral with
deliberate dispatch.

DUTY TO THE COURT

Marissa Mondala v. Judge Rebecca Mariano
A.M. no. RTJ-06-2010, 512 SCRA 585, January 25, 2007
This is an administrative matter concerning the letter-complaint of
Marissa R. Mondala, Legal Researcher of the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City, Branch 136, against Presiding Judge Rebecca R. Mariano of the same
court.
Facts:
Complainant Mondala charged respondent judge with misrepresenting in
her "Report of Pending Cases for January 2005" that she had already decided
Civil Case No. 00-564 entitled "Amanet Inc. v. Eastern Telecommunications
Philippines, Inc." when in fact the case was still with Mondala for research and
drafting of the decision. On the other hand, Judge Mariano denied Mondala's
allegations and insisted that at the time she prepared the monthly report, a
decision had actually been prepared in the Amanet case and it was mere
"oversight" on her part, not misrepresentation, when she reported the status of
the subject case as decided. Notwithstanding this, Judge Mariano
subsequently prepared and signed "another decision" on the same case. Judge
Mariano averred that Mondala should have called her attention regarding the
status of the subject case to enable her to address the situation; that
Mondala's failure to inform her of the status of the case showed her inefficiency
and unworthiness as a public servant. Moreover, respondent judge insisted
that what prompted Mondala to write the letter-complaint was to seek revenge
and harrassment due to their quarrel which transpired on August 22, 2005.
Issues:
a.
Whether or not Judge Mariano is liable for misrepresentation when she
included in the January 2005 monthly report the case of "Amanet Inc. v.
Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc." as among the decided cases;
b.
Whether or not respondent judge made inaccurate entries in the monthly
reports and failed to decide the other cases within the 90-day reglementary
period.
Ruling:
a.
The Court held that Judge Mariano is liable for misrepresenting that she
had decided the case of "Amanet Inc. v. Eastern Telecommunications
Philippines, Inc." before it was drafted, printed and signed by her. It is
elementary that a draft of a decision does not operate as judgment on a case

until the same is duly signed and delivered to the clerk for filing and
promulgation. Hence, rendition of judgment is not effected and completed until
after the decision and judgment signed by the trial judge. In this case, Judge
Mariano misrepresented herself regarding the date of the promulgation of the
decision in the Amanet case. While the January 2005 monthly report of Branch
136 was submitted on March 7, 2005, the subject decision in the Amanet case
had not yet been printed. Amanet had obviously not yet been decided in
January 2005.
b.
Judge Mariano is likewise guilty of other administrative transgressions.
The January 2005 monthly report of Branch 136 reveals that there were cases
submitted for decision but remained undecided beyond the 90-day
reglementary period without any request for extension of time within which to
decide the same being submitted. In implementing constitutional mandate that
all cases or matters must be decided or resolved within 24 months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme
Court, 12 months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other
lower courts, Sec. 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct exhorts in
the section on "Competence and Diligence" that judges shall perform all judicial
duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with
reasonable promptness. Judges should therefore be prompt in the performance
of their judicial duties for delay in the administration of justice is a common
complaint. They are enjoined to strictly comply with the reglementary period of
90 days in disposing of a case submitted for decision
Under Sec. 1, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges
ought to ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is
perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. Integrity is essential not
only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal
demeanor of judges. In the instant case, respondent was guilty of intentional
misrepresentation of her records resulting in a breach of trust and confidence,
amounting to the serious charge of gross misconduct due to violations of the
Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and provisions of Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No. 4-2004; as well as of making untruthful statements
in the monthly reports, as provided in Sec. 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
Adjudication:
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Rebecca R. Mariano of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 136, is found guilty of the serious charge of
gross misconduct due to violations of the Canons of the Code of Judicial
Conduct and provisions of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 4-2004,
as well as of making untruthful statements in the monthly reports; and ordered
to pay a FINE in the amount of P40,000.00 directly to this Court, with a stern
warning that a commission of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.

Judge Dismissed for Neglect of Duty, Inefficiency

By Arcie M. Sercado
A JUDGE WAS DISMISSED from the service recently by the
Supreme Court.
Judge Ramon R. Legaspi, Jr. of the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court
of Kinoguitan- Sugbongcogon, Misamis Oriental was found liable for gross
neglect of judicial duty for failing to decide or resolve within the
reglementary period 228 cases assigned to his sala. The Office of the
Court Administrator discovered this in an audit conducted in October
2002. Judge Legaspi was given several opportunities to decide the cases,
which stretched over more than two years, but he still failed to comply.
After more than three years, Judge Legaspi still had 89 cases left
to be decided, all of which have been submitted for decision since 1996
but were not stated in the judges Monthly Report of Cases for the third
and fourth quarters of 2004. The Court dismissed Judge Legaspi, saying,
The wheels of justice would hardly move if respondent is allowed to
continue working in the judiciary. (AM No. MTJ-06-1661, Office of the Court
Administrator v. Hon. Ramon R. Legaspi, Jr., January 25, 2007)

february
Vda. de Enriquez v atty. San Jose, AC No. 3569, Feb. 23, 2007 (VELASCO)
This is an administrative complaintfor disbarment filed by Fidela Vda. De Enriquez against respondent Atty. Manuel G. San Jose
for gross negligence.
Facts:
Petitioner hired the services of respondent for filing an unlawful detainer case against a lessee who defaulted in the
payment of monthly rentals on petitioners property. Respondent failed to file the appropriate civil case, despite payment of
attorneys fees, so the case was withdrawn from him. Petitioner demanded the return of documents, but despite repeated
demands, respondent refused and failed to return the documents. Thus, the action for unlawful detainer prescribed. Petitioner
alleged further that her daughter who worked for respondent was not paid her salary.
Respondent, in his Comment, denied being negligent. He alleged that petitioner sent him a letter informing him that the
lessee already agreed to vacate the premises, thus filing the case became unnecessary. He also explained that there was a
vacancy in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, therefore he did not file the case because the case could not be filed until a new
judge was appointed. He also claimed that petitioners daughter was paid her salary.
The case was referred to the IBP. The investigating officer found that respondent was indeed remiss in the performance
of his professional duties as counsel. It concluded that respondent was guilty of negligence. The Commissioner recommended
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months. However, the penalty imposed by the IBP Board of
Governors was only one-month suspension.
Respondent filed a petition to dismiss the case against him. The petition was dismissed by the IBP for lack of merit.
Issue: WON respondent was negligent.
Held: Yes.
The Court agrees with the IBPs decision. It cites Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that enjoins a
lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence therewith shall render him liable.
A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latters interest with utmost
diligence. It is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect,
within the bounds of the law, the interest of his client. It is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to handle a legal matter; he is also
required to prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to his legal work.
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly
stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. However, respondent in this case failed to file the appropriate civil case after sending a
demand letter. The failure to file a pleading is by itself inexcusable negligence on the part of respondent. The Court finds
reprehensible respondents failure to heed the request of his client for the return of the case documents. That respondent gave
no reasonable explanation for that failure makes his neglect patent.
Respondent aggravates his misconduct by blaming the courts. Respondents excuse that the MCTC having jurisdiction
over the case was vacant; that filing of a case would be useless; and that the best thing to do was to wait for the vacancy to be
filled, finds no support in the practice of law. The vacancy in court did not suspend the courts official existence, much less
render it functus oficio.
Respondent also relies in vain on complainants letter dated August 16, 1990, wherein complainant informed respondent of
her decision to withdraw the case. Because of the respondents failure to file the appropriate case, and his refusal to return the
documents, time ran out and the action for unlawful detainer case was barred by prescription. Damage and prejudice to the
clients cause was undeniable.
The Court revised the one-month suspension to six months.

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Manuel G. San Jose is hereby declared guilty of violation of Canon 18 specifically Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months
effective upon notice of this Resolution.

CANON 16by Carlo Mayo Antalan

SMALL v. ATTY. BANARES

(A.C. No. 7021, February 21, 2007)FACTS:Melvin Small sought for the services of Atty. Jerry
Banares on August of 2001 inconnection with several complaints against a certain Lyneth Amar.
P20,000 as acceptance feewas made. Complainant gave another P60,000 payment as filing fee on
September of 2001.Respondent then informed complainant that he shall be preparing documents
for the cases theyare to file. Complainant made several inquiry on the status of the cases but
respondent repeatedlytold complainant to wait as respondent was still preparing the documents.
A complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines against therespondent
was filed after the respondent failed to refund the initial payments made. The requestfor refund
was due to the failure of the respondent to present all the documents for the casesagainst Amar
the complainant has demanded. October 15, 2004, IBP Director for Bar DisciplineRogelio A.
Vinluan ordered respondent to submit his answer to the complaint. Respondent didnot file an
answer despite receipt of the order. Mandatory conferences were set on March 3,March 30, April
14 of 2005 but respondent failed to appear. On April 14, 2005 conference, only
complainant appeared despite respondents receipt of the notice. The Commission on Bar
Discipline considered the case submitted for resolution.
ISSUE:Whether or not respondent violated Canons 16, 18, and 19 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility and is subject for disbarment.
HELD:
Yes. The Report considered complainants evidence sufficient to find respondent guilty
of violating Canons 16, 18, and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Codeprovides
that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. The Code states thata lawyer
shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the clients request for information.
IBP Commissioner Reyes recommended the imposition on respondent of a penalty
of suspension from the practice of law for two years and that respondent be ordered to return

complainants P80,000. The court sustained the findings and recommendations of the IBP

DUTY TO HIS CLIENT

Francisco Rayos v. Atty. Ponciano Hernandez
G.R. no. 169079, 515 SCRA 517, February 12, 2007
This is a Petition for Review of the Resolution dated 12 March 2005 of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), dismissing petitioner Francisco
Rayos's complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Ponciano
Hernandez.
Facts:
Respondent was the counsel of petitioner for a civil case against
NAPOCOR. The case was dismissed and was later appealed before the Court of
Appeals which reversed the lower court's decision and awarded damages in
favor of the petitioner. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision and
became final and executory.
NAPOCOR then issued a check for the damages to respondent. Petitioner
demanded to turn over the check from respondent, but the latter refused.
Petitioner then filed a motion to direct respondent to deliver to him the check
issued by NAPOCOR. Subsequently, the RTC issued an order directing
respondent to deliver the check but despite of the court order, the respondent
still refused to deliver the said check. Thereafter, respondent deposited the
amount of P502,838.79 with Farmers Savings and Loan Bank, Inc.,
Norzagaray, Bulacan, in the name of petitioner which was eventually received
by the latter. Thus, petitioner initiated this complaint for disbarment for the
failure of respondent to return the rest of the award in the amount of
P557,961.21.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is justified in retaining the amount awarded
to petitioner to assure payment of his attorney's fees.
Ruling:
The Court held that a lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate
his client's money for himself by the mere fact alone that the client owes him
attorney's fees. The failure of an attorney to return the client's money upon
demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his
own use to the prejudice and violation of the general morality, as well as of
professional ethics; it also impairs public confidence in the legal profession and
deserves punishment. In short, a lawyer's unjustified withholding of money
belonging to his client, as in this case, warrants the imposition of disciplinary
action. In the case at bar, when respondent withheld and refused to deliver the

NAPOCOR check representing the amount awarded by the court in Civil Case
No. SM-951, which he received on behalf of his client (petitioner herein), he
breached the trust reposed on him. It is only after an Order was issued by the
RTC ordering the delivery of the check to petitioner that the respondent
partially delivered the amount of P502,838.79 to the former, but still retaining
for himself the amount of P557,961.21 as payment for his attorney's fees. The
claim of the respondent that petitioner failed to pay his attorney's fees is not an
excuse for respondent's failure to deliver the amount to the petitioner.
Adjudication:
WHEREFORE the Court resolves that respondent is guilty of violation of
the attorney's oath and of serious professional misconduct and shall be
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and WARNED that
repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

March

DUTY TO COURT
Remberto Kara-an v. Atty. Reynaldo Pineda
A.C. no. 4306, 519 SCRA 143, March 28, 2007
A Complaint for Disbarment was filed by herein complainant Remberto
C. Kara-an against respondent-lawyer Reynaldo A. Pineda for gross misconduct
as an officer of the court and member of the Bar for violation of the lawyer's
oath, specifically his failure to abide by his duties: (1) to maintain allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the
laws of the Philippines; (2) to observe and maintain the respect due the courts
of justice and judicial officers; and (3) not to delay any man's cause, for any
corrupt motive or interests.
Facts:
Complainant Remberto C. Kara-an filed a Complaint for Injunction and
Damages against one Amado M. Bulauitan and several John Does. Respondent
Atty. Reynaldo A. Pineda entered his appearance as counsel for the defendant.
On July 12, 1994, the respondent moved for the resetting of the hearing from
July 13, 1994 to July 20, 1994 due to a prior professional engagement. In the
same pleading, the respondent manifested that he was still in the process of
preparing his formal written opposition to the case. On July 20, 1994, the
respondent failed to submit any answer or written opposition but instead made
an agreement with the judge and the complainant to reset the hearing to
August 1, 1994. On August 1, 1994, as the respondent failed to appear, the
RTC deferred the hearing to August 15, 1994.[4] On this account, the
complainant filed a Motion for Contempt dated August 2, 1994 before the RTC.
The complainant then filed this Complaint for Disbarment against the
respondent, alleging therein that the respondent failed to appear on August 1,
1994 before the RTC, despite his agreement to set the hearing of the injunction
case on the said date, to file his answer or written opposition to the complaint
for injunction.
Issue:
Whether or not the disbarment case filed by the complainant will
prosper.
Ruling:
No. Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as
such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only for

the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the
standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and
member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any
punishment less severe - such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine - would
accomplish the end desired. As aptly observed by the Investigating
Commissioner, the complainant failed to establish by clear and convincing
proof that the respondent's failure to appear in the hearing on August 1, 1994
before the RTC was made oppressively or with ill-motives as to qualify the same
to gross misconduct, willful disobedience or improper conduct tending to
obstruct the administration of justice. Moreover, the penalty of disbarment
sought by the complainant is unduly harsh, taking into account that this
appears to be the respondent's first offense.
Adjudication:
The prayer for disbarment is DENIED for lack of merit. Nevertheless,
respondent Atty. Reynaldo A. Pineda is hereby REPRIMANDED with STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be
dealt with severely. Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the
respondent's personal records in the Office of the Bar Confidant.

A.M. No. 06-6-8-CA March 20, 2007RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST JUSTICE ELVI
JOHN S. ASUNCION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
x----------------------------x
A.M. No. 06-44-CA-J March 20, 2007ATTY. ROBERTO C. PADILLA,
Complainant,vs.
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ELVI JOHN S. ASUNCION, COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondent.
FACTS:
These are 2 administrative cases against Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion of the Court of Appeals.
The first one stemmed from an unsigned letter complaining that Justice Asuncion has been
sitting on motions for reconsideration forsix months to more than one year unless the
parties come across. Justice Asuncion strongly denied this charge of inaction
butadmitted to somedelays in the resolution for some MRs and cited justifiable reasons such
as the CAs reorganization and his heavycaseloads.
An investigating committee asked Justice Asuncion to make a report on his
backlogs and he only reported 9 cases allegedlyunresolved by and pending with
him. The findings of the investigator belie this assertion. The record shows that, as of
September30, 2006, the respondent had not resolved seventy-one (71) motions for reconsideration within the
prescribed ninety-day period, andhe had resolved one hundred seventy-nine (179) motions for
reconsideration beyond the reglementary period. As of the same date,eighty-two (82) cases
submitted for decision were still undecided, even after the lapse of the twelve-month period
prescribed by theConstitution. He had also decided four hundred nine (409) cases beyond the
one-year period. Notably, of the seventy-one (71)motions for reconsideration pending
resolution, forty-six were filed in 2004 or earlier, with one dating all the way back to
2000. Fivewere filed in 2001, sixteen in 2002, ten in 2003, and thirteen in 2004
The second case is based on a verified complaint filed by Atty. Roberto C. Padilla, charging Justice Elvi John S.
Asuncion with "culpabledereliction of duty, malicious delay in the administration of justice and gross
ignorance of the law", in connection with CA-G.R. SP No.60573, entitled "Philippine National
Bank vs. NLRC and Erlinda Archinas". To better follow the complaint, the gist of the
abovementioned case is the following:
OnMay 28, 2001, with respondent Justice as ponente, the First Division of the Court of
Appeals dismissed the PNB petitionfor certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction, affirming in its entirety the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. On June 13,
2001, PNB filed a motion for reconsideration. On June 25, 2001, Archinas (private respondent
inthe petition for certiorari) filed her opposition to PNBs motion for reconsideration. On July 24, 2001, acting
upon PNBs urgent motionfor issuance of a TRO, respondent issued the resolution enjoining the public
respondent from implementing the Writ of Execution. OnOctober 30, 2001, the resolution ordering the
maintenance of the status quo was issued. On November 5, 2001, Archinas filed her motion
seeking reconsideration of the October 30, 2001 resolution. Archinas filed four (4) urgent
motions for early resolution of the pending motion/s for reconsideration, on December
28, 2001, June 13, 2002, September 24, 2002, and August 23, 2005, Meantime,on July
5, 2004, respondent Justice Asuncion was assigned to CA Cebu
Station. With this transfer, respondents caseload wasassigned to Justice Zenarosa. On
November 3, 2004, respondent was reassigned back to Manila. It was only on

August 7, 2006
that respondent finally resolved the PNB motion for reconsideration. The Investigating Justicein
his Report also found out that: "Hisinterest in the case is manifest in that, despite his
assignment in Cebu City on July 7, 2004, he did not unload the case to Justice Zenarosa (Office
Order No. 212-04-CG). Worse, he recalled the case upon his return to the CA Manila station."
ISSUE:
Whether or not the failure of a Judge/justice to decide a case within the required period
constitutes gross inefficiency andwould later on become serious misconduct that would justify dismissal
from the service?
RULING:
In this case of Justice Asuncion, the prolonged delay in deciding or resolving such a staggering
number of cases/matters assigned tohim, borders on serious misconduct which could subject the
respondent to the maximum administrative sanction. To the Court, theseare badges of bad faith and
manifest undue interest attributable only to the respondent, and not to the other two justices of
the CADivision. Accordingly, only the respondent must be made to suffer the consequences.
Besides, the five-year delay in the resolution of the PNB motion for reconsideration would
already constitute serious misconduct thatwould justify dismissal from the service. Such failure
to follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the Rules constitutesgross ignorance
of the law, from which no one is excused, and surely not a judge. While a judge is presumed to
act with regularityand good faith in the performance of judicial functions, a blatant disregard of
the clear and unmistakable provisions of a statute, aswell as Supreme Court circulars enjoining
strict compliance therewith, upends this presumption and subjects the magistrate toadministrative
sanctions.
WHEREFORE, in A. M. No. 06-6-08, for having incurred undue delay in the disposal of pending motions for
reconsideration in severalcases, as recommended by the Investigating Justice, Associate Justice Elvi John S.
Asuncion of the Court of Appeals is SUSPENDEDfrom office without pay, allowances and other monetary
benefits for a period of THREE MONTHS.
In A. M. No. 06-44-CA-J, for gross ignorance of the law and manifest undue interest, Associate Justice Elvi John
S. Asuncion of theCourt of Appeals is hereby ordered DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of
retirement benefits, except leave credits.

DUTY TO THE COURT AND TO THE PUBLIC

Julio Verzosa v. Judge Manuel Contreras
A.M. no. MTJ-06-1636, 518 SCRA 94, March 12, 2007
A Verified Complaintwas filed by Julio B. Verzosa (complainant) charging
Judge Manuel E. Contreras (respondent) with Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave
Misconduct (Harassment and Oppression), and Violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, relative to Criminal Case No. 2071, entitled "People of the
Philippines v. Rodrigo E. Candelaria.
Facts:
Verzosa alleges that he is a forest ranger of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Protected Area Office. While
conducting surveillance on treasure hunting activities in Mt. Isarog Natural
Park, Ocampo, Camarines Sur, he and his co-forest rangers discovered an open
pit left in damaged condition, allegedly in violation of Republic Act No. 7586.
They likewise found and confiscated in favor of the Government two metal
chains used to overturn huge stones in the treasure hunting site. He found out
later that the alleged treasure hunters were led by a certain Jose Credo (Credo)
a.k.a. "Labaw" and BasilioSumalde (Sumalde) a.k.a. "Moren". The Executive
Director of the DENR Region V Office thereafter ordered Verzosa to continue
monitoring the said treasure hunting site. Because of his involvement in the
treasure hunting activities and on the basis of the testimony of Credo, he was
implicated as an accessory in Criminal Case No. 2071 against Rodrigo
Candelaria (Candelaria), et al. for robbery. The said case arose from the alleged
information relayed by Judge Contreras to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Officers of Ocampo, Camarines Sur which led to the arrest of the principal
accused. Judge Contreras did not inhibit himself from conducting the
preliminary investigation despite his proven bias against all of the accused, in
apparent violation of the guiding principles of Judicial Ethics and
Responsibilities. Verzosa was not among the persons on board the truck when
the same was apprehended by members of the PNP. On the basis of the
affidavit executed by Credo, Judge Contreras hastily issued an order for
Verzosa's arrest. After the information reducing the charge from robbery to
simple theft was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Judge
NiloMalanyaon, in an Order dated September 13, 2004 dismissed the case due
to lack of probable cause. Judge Contreras is the mastermind behind the
treasure hunting activities in Ocampo, Camarines Sur and the robbery case for
which complainant was implicated as an accessory was a way of harassing
anybody who opposes the activities.
Judge Contreras contends that while at Mt. Isarog, he received
information that Candelariawas looting by dismantling the tower antennae of
the Philippine Long Distance and Telephone Company (PLDT) used as a relay

station but already inoperational. He directed the police of Ocampo, Camarines

Sur to investigate the looting of the steel trusses and bars of the PLDT Tower.
The second time that he went on mountain hiking at Tinablanan River on April
18, 2004, he was again informed that the steel trusses and bars of the PLDT
Tower were already being loaded in a truck bound for the junkshop in Naga
City. He then immediately called the PNP Regional Intelligence Group and in a
checkpoint set up by the police, the truck was apprehended with Candelaria
and several men aboard.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge is guilty for violation of Canon 3,
Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Ruling:
Yes. Respondent judge failed to consider the proscription under Rule
3.12(a) of Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that A judge
should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might
reasonably be questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings
where: (a) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding xxx. A judge should possess proficiency in law so
that he can competently construe and enforce the law. However, it is more
important that he should act and behave in such a manner that the parties
before him have confidence in his impartiality. Indeed, even conduct that gives
rise to the mere appearance of partiality is proscribed. The records of the case
reveal that respondent had prior knowledge of the looting and dismantling at
the PLDT Tower in Ocampo, Camarines Sur and he was instrumental in the
apprehension of the robbers. Respondent should have been aware of the
impropriety of conducting the preliminary investigation considering that Rule
3.12(a), Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins a judge from taking
part in proceedings where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. Respondent ignored said rule, warranting disciplinary sanction
from this Court. In sum, the Court finds that respondent is merely guilty of
violating the Code of Judicial Conduct in not recusing himself from conducting
preliminary investigation.
Adjudication:
The Court finds Judge Manuel E. Contreras, MTC, Ocampo, Camarines
Sur guilty of violation of Rule 3.12(a), Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
and is REPRIMANDED with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
in the future shall be dealt with more severely

DUTY TO THE COURT

RufaSuan v. Atty. Ricardo Gonzalez
A.C. no. 6377, 518 SCRA 82, March 12, 2007
The instant administrative complaint filed by Rufa C. Suan charges
respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez with violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, perjury and forum shopping, and prays for his suspension or
disbarment.
Facts:
Respondent filed a case for Mandamus, Computation of Interests,
Enforcement of Inspection, Dividend and Appraisal Rights, Damages and
Attorney's Fees against the Rural Green Bank of Caraga, Inc. and the members
of its Board of Directors praying that a temporary restraining order be issued
enjoining the conduct of the annual stockholders' meeting and the holding of
the election of the Board of Directors. He also posted a bond for the issuance of
the TRO together with a certification issued by Court Administrator that SICI
has no pending obligation and/or liability to the government insofar as
confiscated bonds in civil and criminal cases are concerned.
Based on the foregoing, Suan filed this complaint alleging that
respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct when
he submitted the certification to the RTC despite knowing that the same is
applicable only for transactions before the MTCC; and that the bond was
defective because it was released by SICI despite respondent's failure to put up
the required P100,000.00 collateral.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Gonzalez violated the the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court was not persuaded with the argument of the
complainant that the act of the respondent of submitting a wrong certification
to the RTC, relative to SICI's capacity to issue bonds, was deliberate and with
intent to mislead, thereby constituting a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It is well-settled that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant and the case against the respondent must be
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious
consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this
Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to
justify the imposition of the administrative penalty. In the instant case,

complainant Suan failed to show that respondent willfully and deliberately

resorted to falsehood and unlawful and dishonest conduct. She failed to show
not only the dubious character of the act done but the motivation as well.
Adjudication:
The Court affirmed the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
recommending
the
dismissal
of
the
instant
complaint
for
disbarment/suspension against respondent ATTY. RICARDO D. GONZALEZ for
lack of merit.

CYNTHIA ADVINCULA vs. ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA

A.C. Mo. 7204; March 7, 2007

FACTS:

Cynthia Advincula filed a disbarmnent case against Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata on the ground of gross
immorality. She alleged that sometime in December 2004 she sought the legal advice of the Atty.
Macabata, regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours. On February 10, 2005, met at
Zensho Restaurant in Tomas Morato, Quezon City to discuss the possibility of filing the complaint against
Queensway Travel and Tours because they did not settle their accounts as demanded. After the dinner,
Atty. Macabanta sent Cynthia home and while she is about to step out of the car, held her arm and kissed
her on the cheek and embraced her very tightly.

On March 6, 2005, Cynthia met Atty. Macabanta at Starbucks coffee shop in West Avenue, Quezon City
to finalize the draft of the complaint to be filed in Court. After the meeting, Atty. Macabanta offered again
a ride, which he usually did every time they met. Along the way, Cynthia was wandering why she felt so
sleepy where in fact she just got up from bed a few hours ago. At along Roosevelt Avenue , Quezon City,
when she was almost restless Atty. Macabanta stopped his car and forcefully held her face and kissed
her lips while the other hand was holding her breast. Cynthia succeeded in resisting his criminal attempt
and immediately managed to get out of the car.
In the late afternoon, Cynthia sent a text message to Atty. Macabanta informing him that she decided to
refer the case with another lawyer and needs to get back the case folder from him.

ISSUE:

WON the exchange of text messages between Atty. Macabanta and Cynthia are admissible in evidence.

HELD:

In the case at bar, respondent admitted kissing complainant on the lips. However, it is difficult to state
with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is grossly immoral conduct or to specify the

moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar.
The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the
immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.

Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or
indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant, or shameless
conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community, and an
inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.

Guided by the definitions above, we perceived acts of kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks as mere
gestures of friendship and camaraderie, forms of greetings, casual and customary. The acts of
respondent, though, in turning the head of complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips are
distasteful. However, such act, even if considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be considered
grossly immoral.

Moreover, while respondent admitted having kissed complainant on the lips, the same was not motivated
by malice. We come to this conclusion because right after the complainant expressed her annoyance at
being kissed by the respondent through a cellular phone text message, respondent immediately extended
an apology to complainant also via cellular phone text message. The exchange of text messages
between complainant and respondent bears this out.

All told, as shown by the above circumstances, respondents acts are not grossly immoral nor highly
reprehensible to warrant disbarment or suspension.

April
MARINA B. SCHROEDER vs. ATTYS. MARIO A. SALDEVAR and ERWIN C.
MACALINO
G.R. No. 163656
April 27, 2007

Facts:
For review on certiorari. Petitioner Marina B. Schroeder owns a liquor store in
Robinsons Galleria, Pasig City. Respondents Mario A. Saldevar and Erwin C. Macalino are the
Legal Division Chief and Attorney II, respectively, of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Sometime in 1998, respondents were arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) in an entrapment operation conducted upon petitioners complaint. After inquest, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217, an
information for direct bribery against respondents. The case was remanded to the DOJ for
preliminary investigation. The DOJ issued a Resolution4 finding probable cause to indict
respondents for direct bribery. Aggrieved, respondents filed in the DOJ a petition for review of
the said Resolution. The DOJ, however, endorsed the petition to the Ombudsman. The
Ombudsman treated the petition for review as a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid DOJ
Resolution. It denied the petition for review for lack of merit. Respondents filed in the Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari and mandamus. The appellate court found no probable cause
against respondent Saldevar, but upheld the finding of probable cause against respondent
Macalino.
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT SUBSTITUTED
ITS OWN FINDINGS FOR THE FINDINGS OF PROBABLE CAUSE BY THE
PROSECUTORIAL ARMS OF THE GOVERNMENT?
Held: We find the petition meritorious. The public prosecutor exercises wide latitude of
discretion in determining whether a criminal case should be filed in court. Courts must respect
the exercise of such discretion when the information filed against the person charged is valid on
its face, and no manifest error or grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public
prosecutor.8 As a rule, courts cannot interfere with the Ombudsmans discretion in the conduct of
preliminary investigations. In the determination of probable cause, the Ombudsmans discretion
prevails over judicial discretion.
In this case, there being no clear showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion
committed by the Ombudsman in finding probable cause against Saldevar for direct bribery, the
Court of Appeals erred in supplanting the Ombudsmans discretion with its own.

JUAN DULALIA, JR. v. ATTY. PABLO C. CRUZ

(2007)
The primary duty of lawyers is to be well-informed of the existing laws, o keep abreast
with legal developments, recent enactments, and jurisprudence, and be conversant
with basic legal principles.
Susan Soriano Dulalia (Susan), wife of Juan, applied for a permit in the Municipal
Government to build a high rise building in Bulacan. The permit was not released due to
the opposition of Atty. Cruz who sent a letter to the Municipal Engineers office, claiming
that the building impedes the airspace of their property which is adjacent to the
Dulalias property. Juan Dulalia (Juan) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Pablo Cruz (Cruz) for immoral conduct.
Juan also claimed that Cruzs illicit relationship with a woman while still married is in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Cruz invokes good faith, claiming to
have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the
Civil Code, for while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shall have
retroactive application, there is a qualification.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
Cruzs claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3,
1988 as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to
the Philippines together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as
ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility, as opposed to grossly immoral conduct, connotes conduct
that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. Gross immoral conduct on the other hand
must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.

ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES v. ATTY. JACINTO D. JIMENEZ

A.C. No. 6691, 27 April 2007, THIRD DIVISION (Austria-Martinez, J.)

Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the Estate of Luz J. Henson while Atty. Jacinto D.
Jimenez is the counsel for the Heirs of Henson. After the probate proceedings, the RTC issued an order
directing Jimenez to deliver the residue of the estate to the Heirs in proportion to their shares. Atty
Briones refused to deliver the estate.

Consequently, Atty. Jimenez and the Heirs filed a criminal complaint and executed an affidavit
against Atty Briones for resisting and seriously disobeying the RTC Order. Atty. Briones filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Jimenez for forum shopping and violation of Canons 19 and 12 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent claims that he acted in good faith and in fact, did
not violate Rule 19.01 because he assisted the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint against herein
complainant after the latter ignored the demand letters sent to him; and that a lawyer owes his client
the exercise of utmost prudence and capability.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Jimenez violated Canons 19 and 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD:
A lawyer must represent his client with zeal, however, the performance of his duties
towards his clients must be within the bounds of law.

The Court agrees with the OBC that respondent is not guilty of forum shopping. Records show
that respondent, as counsel for the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson, filed a special civil action docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 70349 assailing the Order of March 12, 2002 appointing the accounting firm of Alba,
Romeo and Co. as auditor; and, a regular appeal docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 71488 assailing the Order of
April 3, 2002, insofar as it directed the payment of commission to complainant. It is evident that there is
identity of parties but different causes of action and reliefs sought. Hence, respondent is not guilty of
forum shopping

There is sufficient ground in support of complainants claim that respondent violated Rule 19.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering that complainant did not reply to the demand

letters, respondent opted to file said criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the
lawful order of the court.

Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer to represent his client with
zeal. However, the same Canon provides that a lawyers performance of his duties towards his client
must be within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Canon requires, among others, that a
lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. Canon 15,
Rule 15.07 also obliges lawyers to impress upon their clients compliance with the laws and the principle
of fairness. To permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed
rights of their clients is to defeat one of the purposes of the state the administration of justice. While
lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their clients
right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every
effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

A.M. No. RTJ-02-1735

A.M. No. MTJ-07-1674

A.M. No. P-06-2103

A.C. No. 6323