Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
GAA
florescent powder applied earlier to the marked money. Respondent was thereafter taken to
the Office of the Anti-Organized Crime Division of the NBI where he was photographed,
fingerprinted and record checked. Respondent declined to give a sworn statement to explain
his side of the case, invoking his right against self-incrimination. Thereafter, the NBI
recommended the prosecution of respondent for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019.
The NBI recommended to the Secretary of Justice the filing of administrative charges and the
institution of disbarment proceedings against him. An administrative complaint for disbarment
charges respondent with malpractice and willful violation of his oath as an attorney. In an answer to
such complaint, respondent asserted that complainant surreptitiously planted the marked money in his
pocket without his knowledge and consent. He further said that the criminal case (IS No. 71-6558)
filed against him by the NBI was still pending preliminary investigation by the City Fiscal of Manila.
In connection with the incident of March 30, 1971, he said that he had filed a criminal complaint for
incriminatory machination, perjury and attempted corruption of a public official against complainant
with the City Fiscal of Manila. In reply to the answer, complainant denied that the several cases
against respondent were motivated by revenge, malice or personal ill will. He said that the
investigating fiscal had recommended the dismissal of the charges filed by his business rival. In a
resolution dated December 23, 1971, this Court resolved to refer the disbarment case to the Solicitor
General for investigation, report and recommendation. However, upon the adoption of Rule 139-B of
the Revised Rules of Court, the case was transferred to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation
and disposition. On March 15, 1993, Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas of the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that respondent be disbarred.
ISSUE
Whether or not the extortion committed by Atty. Salavador Gaa, a respondent lawyer,
shall be considered as a ground for disbarment?
HELD
YES. The extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct as a public
official, which also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyers oath (Revised
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 18; People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968 [1958]) imposes
upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyers oath is a
source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action. Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a
character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds (Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634
[1989]). The respondent is DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of
Attorneys.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Atty. Cedo, a former Asst. Vice-President act of PNB, may be
suspended by acting as a counsel of other party in a case against PNB, his former employer?
HELD
YES. The Court finds the occasion appropriate to emphasize the paramount
importance of avoiding the representation of conflicting interests. The alleged set-up of the
firm is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Having been an
executive of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the opposite
side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction which he formerly handled
while still an employee of complainant, in violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics on adverse influence and conflicting interests. ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to
SUSPEND respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE
(3) YEARS, effective immediately.
refused to surrender the said titles to the rightful owners, the complainants which act is
tantamount to willful and malicious defiance of legal and moral obligations emanating from
his professional capacity as a lawyer who had sworn to uphold law and justice, to the
prejudice and damage of the complainants. In an answer, the respondent admitted having met
Salud Pantanosas but claims that, to his recollection, Nicanor Gonzales/Serdan has never been to
his office. Respondent likewise denied that he challenged anyone to file a case in any court, much less
the Supreme Court. He also claims that he referred complainant Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto
M. Uy of Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City, for whom he worked out the segregation of the titles, two of
which are the subject of the instant case. Respondent likewise submitted xerox copies of certain
certificates of title in an effort to explain why he kept the certificates of title of complainants, that is,
supposedly for the purpose of subdividing the property. However, an examination of the same does
not show any connection thereof to respondents claim. In fact, the two sets of certificates of title
appear to be entirely different from each other.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Sabacajan have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
for his refusal without just cause to return/ give to complainants their certificates of titles?
HELD
YES. The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not exercised the good faith
and diligence required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their clients. If complainants
did have the alleged monetary obligations to his client, that does not warrant his summarily
confiscating their certificates of title since there is no showing in the records that the same
were given as collaterals to secure the payment of a debt. Neither is there any intimation that
there is a court order authorizing him to take and retain custody of said certificates of title.
Apparently, respondent has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall impress upon his client the need for
compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Instead, he unjustly refused to give to
complainants their certificates of titles supposedly to enforce payment of their alleged
financial obligations to his client and presumably to impress the latter of his power to do so.
In addition, Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to
present unfounded charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Respondent
has closely skirted this proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the same.
Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until he can duly show to
this Court that the disputed certificates of title have been returned to and the receipt thereof duly
acknowledged by complainants, or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal authority justifying
the possession by him or his client of said certificates. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar or any other administrative misconduct will be punished more severely.