A.C.No.

L1117March20,1944
THEDIRECTOROFRELIGIOUSAFFAIRS,complainant,
vs.
ESTANISLAOR.BAYOT,respondent.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralDelaCostaandSolicitorFeriaforcomplainant.
FranciscoClaravallforrespondent.
OZAETA,J.:
Therespondent,whoisanattorneyatlaw,ischargedwithmalpracticeforhavingpublishedanadvertisementintheSunday
TribuneofJune13,1943,whichreadsasfollows:
Marriage
license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage
arrangedtowishesofparties.Consultationonanymatterfreeforthepoor.Everythingconfidential.
Legalassistanceservice
12Escolta,Manila,Room,105
Tel.24160.
Appearinginhisownbehalf,respondentatfirstdeniedhavingpublishedthesaidadvertisement;butsubsequently,thruhis
attorney,headmittedhavingcauseditspublicationandprayedfor"theindulgenceandmercy"oftheCourt,promising"not
torepeatsuchprofessionalmisconductinthefutureandtoabidehimselftothestrictethicalrulesofthelawprofession."In
furthermitigationheallegedthatthesaidadvertisementwaspublishedonlyonceinthe Tribuneandthatheneverhadany
caseatlawbyreasonthereof.
UponthatpleathecasewassubmittedtotheCourtfordecision.
Itisundeniablethattheadvertisementinquestionwasaflagrantviolationbytherespondentoftheethicsofhisprofession,
itbeingabrazensolicitationofbusinessfromthepublic.Section25ofRule127expresslyprovidesamongotherthingsthat
"thepracticeofsolicitingcasesatlawforthepurposeofgain,eitherpersonallyorthrupaidagentsorbrokers,constitutes
malpractice."Itishighlyunethicalforanattorneytoadvertisehistalentsorskillasamerchantadvertiseshiswares.Lawis
aprofessionandnotatrade.Thelawyerdegradeshimselfandhisprofessionwhostoopstoandadoptsthepracticesof
mercantilismbyadvertisinghisservicesorofferingthemtothepublic.Asamemberofthebar,hedefilesthetempleof
justicewithmercenaryactivitiesasthemoneychangersofolddefiledthetempleofJehovah."Themostworthandeffective
advertisementpossible,evenforayounglawyer,...istheestablishmentofawellmeritedreputationforprofessional
capacityandfidelitytotrust.Thiscannotbeforcedbutmustbetheoutcomeofcharacterandconduct."(Canon27,Codeof
Ethics.)
InInreTagorda,53Phil.,therespondentattorneywassuspendedfromthepracticeoflawfortheperiodofonemonthfor
advertisinghisservicesandsolicitingworkfromthepublicbywritingcircularletters.Thatcase,however,wasmoreserious
thanthisbecausetherethesolicitationswererepeatedlymadeandweremoreelaborateandinsistent.
Consideringhispleaforleniencyandhispromisenottorepeatthemisconduct,theCourtisoftheopinionandsodecided
thattherespondentshouldbe,asheherebyis,reprimanded.

March23,1929
InreLUISB.TAGORDA,
Duran&Limforrespondent.
AttorneyGeneralJaranillaandProvincialFiscalJosefortheGovernment.
MALCOLM,J.:
Therespondent,LuisB.Tagorda,apractisingattorneyandamemberoftheprovincial boardofIsabela,admitsthat
previoustothelastgeneralelectionshemadeuseofacardwritteninSpanishandIlocano,which,intranslation,readsas
follows:
LUISB.TAGORDA
Attorney
NotaryPublic
CANDIDATEFORTHIRDMEMBER
ProvinceofIsabela
(NOTE.Asnotarypublic,hecanexecuteforyouadeedofsaleforthepurchaseoflandasrequiredbythecadastral
office;canrenewlostdocumentsofyouranimals;canmakeyourapplicationandfinalrequisitesforyourhomestead;and
canexecuteanykindofaffidavit.Asalawyer,hecanhelpyoucollectyourloansalthoughlongoverdue,aswellasany
complaintfororagainstyou.Comeorwritetohiminhistown,Echague,Isabela.Heoffersfreeconsultation,andiswilling
tohelpandservethepoor.)
Therespondentfurtheradmitsthatheistheauthorofaletteraddressedtoalieutenantofbarrioinhishomemunicipality
writteninIlocano,whichletter,intranslation,readsasfollows:
ECHAGUE,ISABELA,September18,1928
MYDEARLIEUTENANT:Iwouldliketoinformyouoftheapproachingdateforourinductionintoofficeasmemberof
theProvincialBoard,thatisonthe16thofnextmonth.BeforemyinductionintoofficeIshouldbeverygladtohearyour
suggestionsorrecommendationsforthegoodoftheprovinceingeneralandforyourbarrioinparticular.Youcancometo
myhouseatanytimehereinEchague,tosubmittomeanykindofsuggestionorrecommendationasyoumaydesire.
IalsoinformyouthatdespitemymembershipintheBoardIwillhavemyresidencehereinEchague.Iwillattendthe
sessionoftheBoardofIlagan,butwillcomebackhomeonthefollowingdayhereinEchaguetoliveandservewithyouas
alawyerandnotarypublic.DespitemyelectionasmemberoftheProvincialBoard,Iwillexercisemylegalprofessionasa
lawyerandnotarypublic.Incaseyoucannotseemeathomeonanyweekday,Iassureyouthatyoucanalwaysfindme
thereoneverySunday.IalsoinformyouthatIwillreceiveanyworkregardingpreparationsofdocumentsofcontractof
salesandaffidavitstobesworntobeforemeasnotarypublicevenonSundays.
Iwouldlikeyoualltobeinformedofthismatterforthereasonthatsomepeopleareinthebeliefthatmyresidenceas
memberoftheBoardwillbeinIlaganandthatIwouldthenbedisqualifiedtoexercisemyprofessionaslawyerandas
notarypublic.SuchisnotthecaseandIwouldmakeitclearthatIamfreetoexercisemyprofessionasformerlyandthatI
willhavemyresidencehereinEchague.
I would request you kind favor to transmit thisinformationto yourbarrio people inany of your meetings or social
gatheringssothattheymaybeinformedofmydesiretoliveandtoservewithyouinmycapacityaslawyerandnotary
public.Ifthepeopleinyourlocalityhavenotasyet contractedtheservicesofotherlawyersinconnectionwiththe

registrationoftheirlandtitles,Iwouldbewillingtohandletheworkincourtandwouldchargeonlythreepesosforevery
registration.
Yoursrespectfully,
(Sgd.)LUISTAGORDA
Attorney
NotaryPublic.
Thefactsbeingconceded,itisnextinordertowritedowntheapplicablelegalprovisions.Section21oftheCodeofCivil
Procedureasoriginallyconceivedrelatedtodisbarmentsofmembersofthebar.In1919attheinstigationofthePhilippine
BarAssociation,saidcodalsectionwasamendedbyActNo.2828byaddingattheendthereofthefollowing:"Thepractice
of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice."
The statute as amended conforms in principle to the Canons of Professionals Ethics adopted by the American Bar
Associationin1908andbythePhilippineBarAssociationin1917.Canons27and28oftheCodeofEthicsprovide:
27.ADVERTISING,DIRECTORINDIRECT.Themostworthyandeffectiveadvertisementpossible,evenforayoung
lawyer,andespeciallywithhisbrotherlawyers,istheestablishmentofawellmeritedreputationforprofessionalcapacity
andfidelitytotrust.Thiscannotbeforced,butmustbetheoutcomeofcharacterandconduct.Thepublicationorcirculation
ofordinarysimplebusinesscards,beingamatterofpersonaltasteorlocalcustom,andsometimesofconvenience,isnot
perseimproper.Butsolicitationofbusinessbycircularsoradvertisements,orbypersonalcommunicationsorinterviewnot
warrantedbypersonalrelations,isunprofessional.Itisequallyunprofessionaltoprocurebusinessbyindirectionthrough
toutersofanykind,whetheralliedrealestatefirmsortrustcompaniesadvertisingtosecurethedrawingofdeedsorwillsor
offeringretainersinexchangeforexecutorshipsortrusteeshipstobeinfluencedbythelawyer.Indirectadvertisementfor
businessbyfurnishingorinspiringnewspapercommentsconcerningthemanneroftheirconduct,themagnitudeofthe
interestinvolved,theimportanceofthelawyer'sposition,andallotherlikeselflaudation,defythetraditionsandlowerthe
toneofourhighcalling,andareintolerable.
28.STIRRINGUPLITIGATION,DIRECTLYORTHROUGHAGENTS.Itisunprofessionalforalawyertovolunteer
advicetobringalawsuit,exceptinrarecaseswheretiesofblood,relationshiportrustmakeithisdutytodoso.Stirringup
strifeandlitigationisnotonlyunprofessional,butitisindictableatcommonlaw.Itisdisreputabletohuntupdefectsin
titlesorothercausesofactionandinformthereofinordertotheemployedtobringsuit,ortobreedlitigationbyseekingout
thosewithclaimsforpersonalinjuriesorthosehavinganyothergroundsofactioninordertosecurethemasclients,orto
employagentsorrunnersforlikepurposes,ortopayorrewarddirectlyorindirectly,thosewhobringorinfluencethe
bringingofsuchcasestohisoffice,ortoremuneratepolicemen,courtorprisonofficials,physicians,hospitalattachesor
otherswhomaysucceed,undertheguiseofgivingdisinterestedfriendlyadvice,ininfluencingthecriminal,thesickandthe
injured,theignorantorothers,toseekhisprofessionalservices.Adutytothepublicandtotheprofessiondevolvesupon
everymemberofthebarhavingknowledgeofsuchpracticesuponthepartofanypractitionerimmediatelytoinform
thereoftotheendthattheoffendermaybedisbarred.
Commonbarratryconsistingoffrequentlystirringupsuitsandquarrelsbetweenindividualswasacrimeatthecommon
law,andoneofthepenaltiesforthisoffensewhencommittedbyanattorneywasdisbarment.Statutesintendedtoreachthe
sameevilhavebeenprovidedinanumberofjurisdictionsusuallyattheinstanceofthebaritself,andhavebeenupheldas
constitutional.Thereasonbehindstatutesofthistypeisnotdifficulttodiscover.Thelawisaprofessionandnotabusiness.
Thelawyermaynotseekorobtainemploymentbyhimselforthroughothersfortodosowouldbeunprofessional.(State
vs.Rossman[1909],53Wash.,1;17Ann.Cas.,625;Peoplevs.MacCabe[1893],19L.R.A.,231;2R.C.L.,1097.)
Itbecomesourdutytocondemninnouncertaintermstheuglypracticeofsolicitationofcasesbylawyers.Itisdestructive
of the honor of agreat profession.It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against the confidence of the
communityintheintegrityofthemembersofthebar.Itresultsinneedlesslitigationandinincentingtostrifeotherwise
peacefullyinclinedcitizens.

The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. That should be distinctly
understood.
GivingapplicationofthelawandtheCanonsofEthicstotheadmittedfacts,therespondentstandsconvictedofhaving
solicitedcasesindefianceofthelawandthosecanons.Accordingly,theonlyremainingdutyofthecourtistofixuponthe
actionwhichshouldherebetaken.TheprovincialfiscalofIsabela,withwhomjoinedtherepresentativeoftheAttorney
Generalintheoralpresentationofthecase,suggeststhattherespondentbeonlyreprimanded.Wethinkthatouraction
should go further than this if only to reflect our attitude toward cases of this character of which unfortunately the
respondent'sisonlyone.Thecommissionofoffensesofthisnaturewouldamplyjustifypermanenteliminationfromthe
bar.Butasmitigating,circumstancesworkinginfavoroftherespondentthereare,first,hisintimationthathewasunaware
oftheimproprietyofhisacts,second,hisyouthandinexperienceatthebar,and,third,hispromisenottocommitasimilar
mistakeinthefuture.Amodestperiodofsuspensionwouldseemtofitthecaseoftheerringattorney.Butitshouldbe
distinctly understood that this result is reached in view of the considerations which have influenced the court to the
relativelylenientinthisparticularinstanceandshould,therefore,notbetakenasindicatingthatfutureconvictionsof
practiceofthiskindwillnotbedealtwithbydisbarment.
Inviewofallthecircumstancesofthiscase,thejudgmentofthecourtisthattherespondentLuisB.Tagordabeandis
herebysuspendedfromthepracticeasanattorneyatlawfortheperiodofonemonthfromApril1,1929,
Street,Johns,Romualdez,andVillaReal,JJ.,concur.
Johnson,J.,reserveshisvote.

A.C.No.6252October5,2004
JONARSANTIAGO,complainant,
vs.
Atty.EDISONV.RAFANAN,respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:
Notariespublicareexpectedtoexertutmostcareintheperformanceoftheirduties,whichareimpressedwithpublic
interest.TheyareenjoinedtocomplyfaithfullywiththesolemnitiesandrequirementsoftheNotarialLaw.ThisCourtwill
nothesitatetometeoutappropriatesanctionstothosewhoviolateitorneglectobservancethereof.
TheCaseandtheFacts
BeforeusisaverifiedComplaint 1filedbyJonarSantiago,anemployeeoftheBureauofJailManagementandPenology
(BJMP),forthedisbarmentofAtty.EdisonV.Rafanan.TheComplaintwasfiledwiththeCommissiononBarDiscipline
(CBD)oftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)onJanuary16,2001.ItchargedAtty.Rafananwithdeceit;malpractice
orothergrossmisconductinofficeunderSection27ofRule138 2oftheRulesofCourt;andviolationofCanons1.01,1.02
and1.033,Canon54,andCanons12.075and12.08oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility(CPR).
InhisReport,IBPInvestigatingCommissionerLelandR.VilladolidJr.summarizedtheallegationsofthecomplainantin
thiswise:
"xxx.InhisLetterComplaint,Complainantalleged,amongothers,thatRespondentinnotarizingseveraldocumentson
differentdatesfailedand/orrefusedto:a)makethepropernotationregardingthecedulaorcommunitytaxcertificateofthe
affiants;b)enterthedetailsofthenotarizeddocumentsinthenotarialregister;andc)makeandexecutethecertificationand

enterhisPTRandIBPnumbersinthedocumentshehadnotarized,allinviolationofthenotarialprovisionsoftheRevised
AdministrativeCode.
"ComplainantlikewiseallegedthatRespondentexecutedanAffidavitinfavorofhisclientandofferedthesameasevidence
inthecasewhereinhewasactivelyrepresentinghisclient.Finally,Complainantallegesthatonacertaindate,Respondent
accompaniedbyseveralpersonswaitedforComplainantafterthehearingandafterconfrontingthelatterdisarmedhimof
hissidearmandthereafterutteredinsultingwordsandveiledthreats." 6
OnMarch23,2001,pursuanttotheJanuary19,2001OrderoftheCBD, 7 Atty.RafananfiledhisverifiedAnswer. 8 He
admitted having administered the oath to the affiants whose Affidavits were attached to the verified Complaint. He
believed,however,thatthenonnotationoftheirResidenceCertificatesintheAffidavitsandtheCounteraffidavitswas
allowed.
Heopinedthatthenotationofresidencecertificatesappliedonlytodocumentsacknowledgedbyanotarypublicandwas
notmandatoryforaffidavitsrelatedtocasespendingbeforecourtsandothergovernmentoffices.Hepointedoutthatinthe
latter,theaffidavits,whichweresworntobeforegovernmentprosecutors,didnothavetoindicatetheresidencecertificates
oftheaffiants.NeitherdidothernotariespublicinNuevaEcijasomeofwhomwereolderpractitionersindicatethe
affiants residence certificates on the documents they notarized, or have entries in their notarial register for these
documents.
AstohisallegedfailuretocomplywiththecertificationrequiredbySection3ofRule112 9 oftheRulesofCriminal
Procedure,respondentexplainedthatascounseloftheaffiants,hehadtheoptiontocomplyornotwiththecertification.To
nullifytheAffidavits,itwascomplainantwhowasdutyboundtobringthesaidnoncompliancetotheattentionofthe
prosecutorconductingthepreliminaryinvestigation.
AstohisallegedviolationofRule12.08oftheCPR,respondentarguedthatlawyerscouldtestifyonbehalfoftheirclients
"on substantial matters, in cases where [their] testimony is essential to the ends of justice." Complainant charged
respondentsclientswithattemptedmurder.Respondentaverredthatsincetheywereinhishousewhentheallegedcrime
occurred,"histestimonyisveryessentialtotheendsofjustice."
Respondentallegedthatitwascomplainantwhohadthreatenedandharassedhisclientsafterthehearingoftheircasebythe
provincialprosecutoronJanuary4,2001.RespondentrequestedtheassistanceoftheCabanatuanCityPolicethefollowing
day,January5,2001,whichwasthenextscheduledhearing,toavoidarepetitionoftheincidentandtoallaythefearsofhis
clients.Insupportofhisallegations,hesubmittedCertifications 10fromtheCabanatuanCityPoliceandtheJointAffidavit 11
ofthetwopoliceofficerswhohadassistedthem.
Lastly,hecontendedthatthecasehadbeeninitiatedfornootherpurposethantoharasshim,becausehewasthecounselof
BarangayCaptainErnestoRamosinthecasesfiledbythelatterbeforetheombudsmanandtheBJMPagainstcomplainant.
AfterreceiptofrespondentsAnswer,theCBD,throughCommissionerTyroneR.Cimafranca,setthecaseforhearingon
June5,2001,attwooclockintheafternoon.Notices 12ofthehearingweresenttothepartiesbyregisteredmail.Onthe
scheduleddateandtimeofthehearing,onlycomplainantappeared.Respondentwasunabletodoso,apparentlybecausehe
hadreceivedtheNoticeonlyonJune8,2001.13ThehearingwasresettoJuly3,2001attwooclockintheafternoon.
Onthesameday,June5,2001,complainantfiledhisReply 14totheverifiedAnswerofrespondent.ThelattersRejoinder
wasreceivedbytheCBDonJuly13,2001.15ItalsoreceivedcomplainantsLetterRequest16todispensewiththehearings.
Accordingly,itgrantedthatrequestinitsOrder 17datedJuly24,2001,issuedthroughCommissionerCimafranca.Itthereby
directedthepartiestosubmittheirrespectivememorandawithinfifteendaysfromreceiptoftheOrder,afterwhichthecase
wastobedeemedsubmittedforresolution.
TheCBDreceivedcomplainantsMemorandum18onSeptember26,2001.Respondentdidnotfileany.
TheIBPsRecommendation
OnSeptember27,2003,theIBPBoardofGovernorsissuedResolutionNo.XVI2003172 19approvingandadoptingthe
Investigating Commissioners Report that respondent had violated specific requirements of the Notarial Law on the

execution of a certification, the entry of such certification in the notarial register, and the indication of the affiants
residencecertificate.TheIBPBoardofGovernorsfoundhisexcusefortheviolationsunacceptable.Itmodified,however,
therecommendation20oftheinvestigatingcommissionerbyincreasingthefineto"P3,000withawarningthatanyrepetition
oftheviolationwillbedealtwithaheavierpenalty."
TheotherchargesviolationofSection27ofRule138oftheRulesofCourt;andCanons1.01to1.03,12.07and12.08of
theCPRweredismissedforinsufficiencyofevidence.
TheCourtsRuling
WeagreewiththeResolutionoftheIBPBoardofGovernors.
RespondentsAdministrativeLiability
ViolationoftheNotarialLaw
TheNotarialLawisexplicitontheobligationsanddutiesofnotariespublic.Theyarerequiredtocertifythatthepartyto
everydocumentacknowledgedbeforethemhaspresentedtheproperresidencecertificate(orexemptionfromtheresidence
tax);andtoenteritsnumber,placeofissueanddateaspartofsuchcertification. 21Theyarealsorequiredtomaintainand
keepanotarialregister;toenterthereinallinstrumentsnotarizedbythem;andto"givetoeachinstrumentexecuted,sworn
to,oracknowledgedbefore[them]anumbercorrespondingtotheonein[their]register[andtostatetherein]thepageor
pagesof[their]register,onwhichthesameisrecorded." 22Failuretoperformthesedutieswouldresultintherevocationof
theircommissionasnotariespublic.23
Theseformalitiesaremandatoryandcannotbesimplyneglected,consideringthedegreeofimportanceandevidentiary
weightattachedtonotarizeddocuments.Notariespublicenteringintotheircommissionsarepresumedtobeawareofthese
elementaryrequirements.
InVda.deRosalesv.Ramos,24theCourtexplainedthevalueandmeaningofnotarizationasfollows:
"Theimportanceattachedtotheactofnotarizationcannotbeoveremphasized.Notarizationisnotanempty,meaningless,
routinaryact.Itisinvestedwithsubstantivepublicinterest,suchthatonlythosewhoarequalifiedorauthorizedmayactas
notariespublic.Notarizationconvertsaprivatedocumentintoapublicdocumentthusmakingthatdocumentadmissiblein
evidencewithoutfurtherproofofitsauthenticity.Anotarialdocumentisbylawentitledtofullfaithandcredituponits
face.Courts,administrativeagenciesandthepublicatlargemustbeabletorelyupontheacknowledgmentexecutedbya
notarypublicandappendedtoaprivateinstrument."
Forthisreason,notariespublicshouldnottakeforgrantedthesolemndutiespertainingtotheiroffice.Slipshodmethodsin
their performance of the notarial act are never to be countenanced. They are expected to exert utmost care in the
performanceoftheirduties,25whicharedictatedbypublicpolicyandareimpressedwithpublicinterest.
ItisclearfromthepleadingsbeforeusandrespondenthasreadilyadmittedthatheviolatedtheNotarialLawbyfailing
toenterinthedocumentsnotationsoftheresidencecertificate,aswellastheentrynumberandthepagesofthenotarial
registry.
Respondentbelieves,however,thatnoncompliancewiththoserequirementsisnotmandatoryforaffidavitsrelativetocases
pendingbeforethecourtsandgovernmentagencies.HepointstosimilarpracticesofoldernotariesinNuevaEcija.
Wecannotgivecredenceto,muchlesshonor,hisclaim.Hisbeliefthattherequirementsdonotapplytoaffidavitsis
patentlyirrelevant.Nolawdispenseswiththeseformalities.Aucontraire,theNotarialLawmakesnoqualificationor
exception.Itisappallingandinexcusablethathedidawaywiththebasicsofnotarialprocedureallegedlybecauseothers
weredoingso.Beingswayedbythebadexampleofothersisnotanacceptablejustificationforbreakingthelaw.
WenotefurtherthatthedocumentsattachedtotheverifiedComplaintaretheJointCounterAffidavitofrespondents
clientsErnestoRamosandReyGeronimo,aswellastheirwitnessesAffidavitsrelativetoCriminalCaseNo.692000for

attemptedmurder,filedbycomplainantsbrotheragainsttheaforementionedclients.Thesedocumentsbecamethebasisof
thepresentComplaint.
Ascorrectlypointedoutbytheinvestigatingcommissioner,Section3ofRule112oftheRulesofCriminalProcedure
expresslyrequiresrespondentasnotaryintheabsenceofanyfiscal,stateprosecutororgovernmentofficialauthorizedto
administertheoathto"certifythathehaspersonallyexaminedtheaffiantsandthatheissatisfiedthattheyvoluntarily
executedandunderstoodtheiraffidavits."RespondentfailedtodosowithrespecttothesubjectAffidavitsandCounter
Affidavitsinthebeliefthatascounselfortheaffiantshewasnotrequiredtocomplywiththecertificationrequirement.
Itmustbeemphasizedthattheprimarydutyoflawyersistoobeythelawsofthelandandpromoterespectforthelawand
legalprocesses.26Theyareexpectedtobeintheforefrontintheobservanceandmaintenanceoftheruleoflaw.Thisduty
carrieswithittheobligationtobewellinformedoftheexistinglawsandtokeepabreastwithlegaldevelopments,recent
enactmentsandjurisprudence.27Itisimperativethattheybeconversantwithbasiclegalprinciples.Unlesstheyfaithfully
complywithsuchduty,theymaynotbeabletodischargecompetentlyanddiligentlytheirobligationsasmembersofthe
bar.Worse,theymaybecomesusceptibletocommittingmistakes.
Wherenotariespublicarelawyers,agraverresponsibilityisplaceduponthembyreasonoftheirsolemnoathtoobeythe
laws.28Nocustomorageoldpracticeprovidessufficientexcuseorjustificationfortheirfailuretoadheretotheprovisions
ofthelaw.Inthiscase,theexcusegivenbyrespondentexhibitedhisclearignoranceoftheNotarialLaw,theRulesof
CriminalProcedure,andtheimportanceofhisofficeasanotarypublic.
Nonetheless,wedonotagreewithcomplainantspleatodisbarrespondentfromthepracticeoflaw.Thepowertodisbar
mustbeexercisedwithgreatcaution. 29 Disbarmentwillbeimposedasapenaltyonlyinaclearcaseofmisconductthat
seriouslyaffectsthestandingandthecharacterofthelawyerasanofficerofthecourtandamemberofthebar.Whereany
lesserpenaltycanaccomplishtheenddesired,disbarmentshouldnotbedecreed. 30Consideringthenatureoftheinfraction
and the absence of deceit on the part ofrespondent, we believe that the penalty recommended bythe IBP Board of
Governorsisasufficientdisciplinarymeasureinthiscase.
LawyerasWitnessforClient
ComplainantfurtherfaultsrespondentforexecutingbeforeProsecutorLeonardoPadolinaanaffidavitcorroboratingthe
defenseofalibiprofferedbyrespondentsclients,allegedlyinviolationofRule12.08oftheCPR:"Alawyershallavoid
testifyinginbehalfofhisclient."
Rule12.08ofCanon12oftheCPRstates:
"Rule12.08Alawyershallavoidtestifyinginbehalfofhisclient,except:
a)onformalmatters,suchasthemailing,authenticationorcustodyofaninstrumentandthelike;
b)onsubstantialmatters,incaseswherehistestimonyisessentialtotheendsofjustice,inwhicheventhemust,duringhis
testimony,entrustthetrialofthecasetoanothercounsel."
Parenthetically,underthelaw,alawyerisnotdisqualifiedfrombeingawitness, 31exceptonlyincertaincasespertainingto
privilegedcommunicationarisingfromanattorneyclientrelationship.32
Thereasonbehindsuchruleisthedifficultyposeduponlawyersbythetaskofdissociatingtheirrelationtotheirclientsas
witnessesfromthatasadvocates.Witnessesareexpectedtotellthefactsastheyrecallthem.Incontradistinction,advocates
arepartisansthosewhoactivelypleadanddefendthecauseofothers.It isdifficulttodistinguishthefairnessand
impartiality of a disinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate. The question is one of propriety rather than of
competencyofthelawyerswhotestifyfortheirclients.
"Actingorappearingtoactinthedoublecapacityoflawyerandwitnessfortheclientwillprovokeunkindcriticismand
leavemanypeopletosuspectthetruthfulnessofthelawyerbecausetheycannotbelievethelawyerasdisinterested.The
peoplewillhaveaplausiblereasonforthinking,andiftheirsympathiesareagainstthelawyersclient,theywillhavean

opportunity,notlikelytobeneglected,forcharging,thatasawitnesshefortifieditwithhisowntestimony.Thetestimony
ofthelawyerbecomesdoubtedandislookeduponaspartialanduntruthful."33
Thus,althoughthelawdoesnot forbidlawyersfrom beingwitnessesandat thesametimecounselsforacause,the
preferenceisforthemtorefrainfromtestifyingaswitnesses,unlesstheyabsolutelyhaveto;andshouldtheydoso,to
withdrawfromactivemanagementofthecase.34
NotwithstandingthisguidelineandtheexistenceoftheAffidavitexecutedbyAtty.Rafananinfavorofhisclients,we
cannothastilymakehimadministrativelyliableforthefollowingreasons:
First,weconsideritthedutyofalawyertoasserteveryremedyanddefensethatisauthorizedbylawforthebenefitofthe
client,especiallyinacriminalactioninwhichthelatterslifeandlibertyareatstake. 35Itisthefundamentalrightofthe
accusedtobeaffordedfullopportunitytorebutthechargesagainstthem.Theyareentitledtosuggestallthosereasonable
doubtsthatmayarisefrom theevidenceastotheirguilt;andtoensurethatiftheyareconvicted,suchconvictionis
accordingtolaw.
Havingundertakenthedefenseoftheaccused,respondent,asdefensecounsel,wasthusexpectedtosparenoefforttosave
hisclientsfromawrongconviction.Hehadthedutytopresentbyallfairandhonorablemeanseverydefenseand
mitigatingcircumstancethatthelawpermitted,totheendthathisclientswouldnotbedeprivedoflife,libertyorproperty,
exceptbydueprocessoflaw.36
TheAffidavitexecutedbyAtty.Rafananwasclearlynecessaryforthedefenseofhisclients,sinceitpointedoutthefact
thatontheallegeddateandtimeoftheincident,hisclientswereathisresidenceandcouldnothavepossiblycommittedthe
crimechargedagainstthem.Notably,inhisAffidavit,complainantdoesnotdisputethestatementsofrespondentorsuggest
thefalsityofitscontents.
Second,paragraph(b)ofRule12.08contemplatesasituationinwhichlawyersgivetheirtestimoniesduringthetrial.Inthis
instance,theAffidavitwassubmittedduringthepreliminaryinvestigationwhich,assuch,wasmerelyinquisitorial. 37Not
beingatrialofthecaseonthemerits,apreliminaryinvestigationhastheoftrepeatedpurposesofsecuringinnocentpersons
againsthasty,maliciousandoppressiveprosecutions;protectingthemfromopenandpublicaccusationsofcrimeandfrom
the trouble as well as expense and anxiety of a public trial; and protecting the State from useless and expensive
prosecutions.38Theinvestigationisadvisedlycalledpreliminary,asitisyettobefollowedbythetrialproper.
Nonetheless,wedeemitimportanttostressandremindrespondenttorefrainfromacceptingemploymentinanymatterin
whichheknowsorhasreasontobelievethathemaybeanessentialwitnessfortheprospectiveclient.Furthermore,in
futurecasesinwhichhistestimonymaybecomeessentialtoservethe"endsofjustice,"thecanonsoftheprofessionrequire
himtowithdrawfromtheactiveprosecutionofthesecases.
NoProofofHarassment
The charge that respondent harassed complainant and uttered insulting words and veiled threats is not supported by
evidence.Allegationisneverequivalenttoproof,andabarechargecannotbeequatedwithliability. 39 Itisnottheself
servingclaimofcomplainantbuttheversionofrespondentthatismorecredible,consideringthatthelattersallegationsare
corroboratedbytheAffidavitsofthepoliceofficersandtheCertificationsoftheCabanatuanCityPolice.
WHEREFORE, Atty.EdisonV.RafananisfoundguiltyofviolatingtheNotarial LawandCanon5oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibilityandisherebyFINEDP3,000withawarningthatsimilarinfractionsinthefuturewillbedealt
withmoreseverely.
SOORDERED.
G.R.No.80718January29,1988
FELIZAP.DEROYandVIRGILIORAMOS,petitioners,

vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandLUISBERNAL,SR.,GLENIABERNAL,LUISBERNAL,JR.,HEIRSOFMARISSA
BERNAL,namely,GLICERIADELACRUZBERNALandLUISBERNAL,SR.,respondents.
RESOLUTION

CORTES,J.:
Thisspecialcivilactionforcertiorariseekstodeclarenullandvoidtwo(2)resolutionsoftheSpecialFirstDivisionofthe
CourtofAppealsinthecaseofLuisBernal,Sr.,etal.v.FelisaPerdosaDeRoy,etal.,CAG.R.CVNo.07286.Thefirst
resolution promulgated on 30 September 1987 denied petitioners' motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsiderationanddirectedentryofjudgmentsincethedecisioninsaidcasehadbecomefinal;andthesecondResolution
dated27October1987deniedpetitioners'motionforreconsiderationforhavingbeenfiledoutoftime.
Attheoutset,thisCourtcouldhavedeniedthepetitionoutrightfornotbeingverifiedasrequiredbyRule65section1ofthe
Rules of Court. However, even if the instant petition did not suffer from this defect, this Court, on procedural and
substantivegrounds,wouldstillresolvetodenyit.
Thefactsofthecaseareundisputed.Thefirewallofaburnedoutbuildingownedbypetitionerscollapsedanddestroyedthe
tailoringshopoccupiedbythefamilyofprivaterespondents,resultingininjuriestoprivaterespondentsandthedeathof
MarissaBernal,adaughter.Privaterespondentshadbeenwarnedbypetitionerstovacatetheirshopinviewofitsproximity
totheweakenedwallbuttheformerfailedtodoso.Onthebasisoftheforegoingfacts,theRegionalTrialCourt.First
JudicialRegion,BranchXXXVIII,presidedbytheHon.AntonioM.Belen,renderedjudgmentfindingpetitionersguiltyof
grossnegligenceandawardingdamagestoprivaterespondents.Onappeal,thedecisionofthetrialcourtwasaffirmedin
totobytheCourtofAppealsinadecisionpromulgatedonAugust17,1987,acopyofwhichwasreceivedbypetitionerson
August25,1987.OnSeptember9,1987,thelastdayofthefifteendayperiodtofileanappeal,petitionersfiledamotion
for extensionof time tofile amotionforreconsideration,which waseventuallydenied bythe appellate court inthe
ResolutionofSeptember30,1987.PetitionersfiledtheirmotionforreconsiderationonSeptember24,1987butthiswas
deniedintheResolutionofOctober27,1987.
ThisCourtfindsthattheCourtofAppealsdidnotcommitagraveabuseofdiscretionwhenitdeniedpetitioners'motionfor
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, directed entry of judgment and denied their motion for
reconsideration.ItcorrectlyappliedtherulelaiddowninHabaluyasEnterprises,Inc.v.Japzon,[G.R.No.70895,August
5,1985,138SCRA461,thatthefifteendayperiodforappealingorforfilingamotionforreconsiderationcannotbe
extended.InitsResolutiondenyingthemotionforreconsideration,promulgatedonJuly30,1986(142SCRA208),this
Courtenbancrestatedandclarifiedtherule,towit:
BeginningonemonthafterthepromulgationofthisResolution,theruleshall bestrictlyenforcedthat nomotionfor
extensionoftimetofileamotionforreconsiderationmaybefiledwiththeMetropolitanorMunicipalTrialCourts,the
RegionalTrialCourts,andtheIntermediateAppellateCourt.Suchamotionmaybefiledonlyincasespendingwiththe
SupremeCourtasthecourtoflastresort,whichmayinitssounddiscretioneithergrantordenytheextensionrequested.(at
p.212)
Lacsamanav.SecondSpecialCasesDivisionoftheintermediateAppellateCourt,[G.R.No.7314653,August26,1986,
143SCRA643],reiteratedtheruleandwentfurthertorestateandclarifythemodesandperiodsofappeal.
Bacaya v. Intermediate Appellate Court, [G.R. No. 74824, Sept. 15, 1986,144 SCRA 161],stressed the prospective
applicationofsaidrule,andexplainedtheoperationofthegraceperiod,towit:
Inotherwords,thereisaonemonthgraceperiodfromthepromulgationonMay30,1986oftheCourt'sResolutioninthe
clarificatoryHabaluyascase,oruptoJune30,1986,withinwhichtherulebarringextensionsoftimetofilemotionsfor
newtrialorreconsiderationis,asyet,notstrictlyenforceable.

SincepetitionershereinfiledtheirmotionforextensiononFebruary27,1986,itisstillwithinthegraceperiod,which
expiredonJune30,1986,andmaystillbeallowed.
Thisgraceperiodwasalsoappliedin Missionv.IntermediateAppellateCourt [G.R.No.73669,October28,1986,145
SCRA306].]
Intheinstantcase,however,petitioners'motionforextensionoftimewasfiledonSeptember9,1987,morethanayear
aftertheexpirationofthegraceperiodonJune30,1986.Hence,itisnolongerwithinthecoverageofthegraceperiod.
ConsideringthelengthoftimefromtheexpirationofthegraceperiodtothepromulgationofthedecisionoftheCourtof
AppealsonAugust25,1987,petitionerscannotseekrefugeintheignoranceoftheircounselregardingsaidrulefortheir
failuretofileamotionforreconsiderationwithinthereglementaryperiod.
PetitionerscontendthattheruleenunciatedintheHabaluyascaseshouldnotbemadetoapplytothecaseatbarowingto
thenonpublicationofthe HabaluyasdecisionintheOfficialGazetteasofthetimethesubjectdecisionoftheCourtof
Appeals was promulgated. Contrary to petitioners' view, there is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court
decisionsintheOfficialGazettebeforetheycanbebindingandasaconditiontotheirbecomingeffective.Itisthebounden
dutyofcounselaslawyerinactivelawpracticetokeepabreastofdecisionsoftheSupremeCourtparticularlywhereissues
havebeenclarified,consistentlyreiterated,andpublishedintheadvancereportsofSupremeCourtdecisions(G.R.s)and
insuchpublicationsastheSupremeCourtReportsAnnotated(SCRA)andlawjournals.
ThisCourtlikewisefindsthattheCourtofAppealscommittednograveabuseofdiscretioninaffirmingthetrialcourt's
decisionholdingpetitionerliableunderArticle2190oftheCivilCode,whichprovidesthat"theproprietorofabuildingor
structureisresponsibleforthedamageresultingfromitstotalorpartialcollapse,ifitshouldbeduetothelackofnecessary
repairs.
Norwasthereerrorinrejectingpetitionersargumentthatprivaterespondentshadthe"lastclearchance"toavoidthe
accidentifonlytheyheededthe.warningtovacatethetailoringshopand,therefore,petitionerspriornegligenceshouldbe
disregarded,sincethedoctrineof"lastclearchance,"whichhasbeenappliedtovehicularaccidents,isinapplicabletothis
case.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,theCourtResolvedtoDENYtheinstantpetitionforlackofmerit.
G.R.Nos.15180912.April12,2005
PRESIDENTIALCOMMISSIONONGOODGOVERNMENT(PCGG),Petitioners,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division), LUCIO C. TAN, CARMEN KHAO TAN, FLORENCIO T. SANTOS,
NATIVIDAD P. SANTOS, DOMINGO CHUA, TAN HUI NEE, MARIANO TAN ENG LIAN, ESTATE OF
BENITOTANKEEHIONG(representedbyTARCIANAC.TAN),FLORENCION.SANTOS,JR.,HARRYC.
TAN,TANENGCHAN,CHUNGPOEKEE,MARIANOKHOO,MANUELKHOO,MIGUELKHOO,JAIME
KHOO, ELIZABETH KHOO, CELSO RANOLA, WILLIAM T. WONG, ERNESTO B. LIM, BENJAMIN T.
ALBACITA,WILLYCO,ALLIEDBANKINGCORP.,ALLIEDLEASINGANDFINANCECORPORATION,
ASIABREWERY,INC.,BASICHOLDINGSCORP.,FOREMOSTFARMS,INC.,FORTUNETOBACCOCORP.,
GRANDSPAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., HIMMEL INDUSTRIES, IRIS HOLDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT
CORP., JEWEL HOLDINGS, INC., MANUFACTURING SERVICES AND TRADE CORP., MARANAW
HOTELSANDRESORTCORP.,NORTHERNTOBACCOREDRYINGPLANT,PROGRESSIVEFARMS,INC.,
SHAREHOLDINGS,INC.,SIPALAYTRADINGCORP.,VIRGOHOLDINGS&DEVELOPMENTCORP.,and
ATTY.ESTELITOP.MENDOZA,Respondents.
DECISION
PUNO,J.:

Thiscaseisprimaimpressionesanditisweightedwithsignificanceforitconcernsononehand,theeffortsoftheBarto
upgradetheethicsoflawyersingovernmentserviceandontheother,itseffectontherightofgovernmenttorecruit
competentcounseltodefenditsinterests.
In 1976,GeneralBankandTrustCompany(GENBANK)encounteredfinancialdifficulties.GENBANKhadextended
considerablefinancialsupporttoFilcapitalDevelopmentCorporationcausingittoincurdailyoverdrawingsonitscurrent
accountwiththeCentralBank. 1 ItwaslaterfoundbytheCentralBankthatGENBANKhadapprovedvariousloansto
directors,officers,stockholdersandrelatedintereststotalingP172.3million,ofwhich59%wasclassifiedasdoubtfuland
P0.505 million as uncollectible. 2 As a bailout, the Central Bank extended emergency loans to GENBANK which
reachedatotalofP310million.3Despitethemegaloans,GENBANKfailedtorecoverfromitsfinancialwoes.OnMarch
25,1977,the CentralBankissuedaresolutiondeclaringGENBANK insolvent andunabletoresumebusinesswith
safetytoitsdepositors,creditorsandthegeneralpublic,andorderingitsliquidation.4ApublicbiddingofGENBANKs
assets washeldfromMarch26to28,1977,whereintheLucioTangroupsubmittedthewinningbid. 5 Subsequently,
formerSolicitorGeneralEstelitoP.Mendozafiledapetition withthethenCourtofFirstInstance prayingforthe
assistanceandsupervisionofthecourtinGENBANKsliquidationasmandatedbySection29ofRepublicActNo.265.
InFebruary1986,theEDSAIrevolutiontoppledtheMarcosgovernment.OneofthefirstactsofPresidentCorazonC.
AquinowastoestablishthePresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernment(PCGG)torecovertheallegedillgottenwealth
offormerPresidentFerdinandMarcos,hisfamilyandhiscronies.Pursuanttothismandate,thePCGG,onJuly17,1987,
filedwiththeSandiganbayanacomplaintfor"reversion,reconveyance,restitution,accountinganddamages"against
respondents Lucio Tan, Carmen Khao Tan, Florencio T. Santos, Natividad P. Santos, Domingo Chua, Tan Hui Nee,
MarianoTanEngLian,EstateofBenitoTanKeeHiong,FlorencioN.Santos,Jr.,HarryC.Tan,TanEngChan,ChungPoe
Kee,MarianoKhoo,ManuelKhoo,MiguelKhoo,JaimeKhoo,ElizabethKhoo,CelsoRanola,WilliamT.Wong,Ernesto
B. Lim, Benjamin T. Albacita, Willy Co, Allied Banking Corporation (Allied Bank), Allied Leasing and Finance
Corporation,AsiaBrewery,Inc.,BasicHoldingsCorp.,ForemostFarms,Inc.,FortuneTobaccoCorporation,Grandspan
Development Corp., Himmel Industries, Iris Holdings and Development Corp., Jewel Holdings, Inc., Manufacturing
ServicesandTradeCorp.,MaranawHotelsandResortCorp.,NorthernTobaccoRedryingPlant,ProgressiveFarms,Inc.,
Shareholdings, Inc., Sipalay Trading Corp., Virgo Holdings & Development Corp., (collectively referred to herein as
respondentsTan,etal.),thenPresidentFerdinandE.Marcos,ImeldaR.Marcos,PanfiloO.Domingo,CesarZalamea,Don
Ferry and Gregorio Licaros. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 0005 of the Second Division of the
Sandiganbayan.6Inconnectiontherewith,thePCGGissuedseveralwritsofsequestrationonpropertiesallegedlyacquired
bytheabovenamedpersonsbytakingadvantageoftheircloserelationshipandinfluencewithformerPresidentMarcos.
RespondentsTan,etal.repairedtothisCourtandfiledpetitionsforcertiorari,prohibitionandinjunctiontonullify,among
others,thewritsofsequestrationissuedbythePCGG. 7 Afterthefilingofthepartiescomments,thisCourtreferredthe
casestotheSandiganbayanforproperdisposition.ThesecasesweredocketedasCivilCaseNos.00960099.Inallthese
cases,respondentsTan,etal.wererepresentedbytheircounsel,formerSolicitorGeneralEstelitoP.Mendoza,whohasthen
resumedhisprivatepracticeoflaw.
OnFebruary5,1991,thePCGGfiledmotionstodisqualifyrespondentMendozaascounselforrespondentsTan,etal.
withtheSecondDivisionoftheSandiganbayaninCivilCaseNos.00058and00960099.9Themotionsallegedthat
respondentMendoza,asthenSolicitorGeneral10andcounseltoCentralBank,"activelyintervened"intheliquidationof
GENBANK,whichwassubsequentlyacquiredbyrespondentsTan,etal.andbecameAlliedBankingCorporation.
RespondentMendozaallegedly"intervened"intheacquisitionofGENBANKbyrespondentsTan,etal.when,inhis
capacityasthenSolicitorGeneral,headvisedtheCentralBanksofficialsontheproceduretobringaboutGENBANKs
liquidationandappearedascounselfortheCentralBankinconnectionwithitspetitionforassistanceintheliquidationof
GENBANKwhichhefiledwiththeCourtofFirstInstance(nowRegionalTrialCourt)ofManilaandwasdocketedas
SpecialProceedingNo.107812.ThemotionstodisqualifyinvokedRule6.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
Rule6.03prohibitsformergovernmentlawyersfromaccepting"engagementoremploymentinconnectionwithany
matterinwhichhehadintervenedwhileinsaidservice."
OnApril22,1991theSecondDivisionoftheSandiganbayanissuedaresolutiondenyingPCGGsmotiontodisqualify
respondentMendozainCivilCaseNo.0005. 11 ItfoundthatthePCGGfailedtoprovetheexistenceofaninconsistency
betweenrespondentMendozasformerfunctionasSolicitorGeneralandhispresentemploymentascounseloftheLucio

Tangroup.ItnotedthatrespondentMendozadidnottakeapositionadversetothattakenonbehalfoftheCentralBank
duringhistermasSolicitorGeneral.12 ItfurtherruledthatrespondentMendozasappearanceascounselforrespondents
Tan,etal.wasbeyondtheoneyearprohibitedperiodunderSection7(b)ofRepublicActNo.6713sinceheceasedtobe
SolicitorGeneralintheyear1986.Thesaidsectionprohibitsaformerpublicofficialoremployeefrompracticinghis
profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with within one year from his resignation,
retirementorseparationfrompublicoffice.13ThePCGGdidnotseekanyreconsiderationoftheruling.14
It appearsthat Civil CaseNos.00960099were transferred from the Sandiganbayans SecondDivisiontotheFifth
Division.15InitsresolutiondatedJuly11,2001,theFifthDivisionoftheSandiganbayandeniedtheotherPCGGsmotion
todisqualifyrespondentMendoza.16ItadoptedtheresolutionofitsSecondDivisiondatedApril22,1991,andobserved
thattheargumentswerethesameinsubstanceasthemotiontodisqualifyfiledinCivilCaseNo.0005.ThePCGGsought
reconsiderationoftherulingbutitsmotionwasdeniedinitsresolutiondatedDecember5,2001. 17
Hence,therecoursetothisCourtbythePCGGassailingtheresolutionsdatedJuly11,2001andDecember5,2001ofthe
FifthDivisionoftheSandiganbayanviaapetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionunderRule65ofthe1997RulesofCivil
Procedure.18ThePCGGallegedthattheFifthDivisionactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessof
jurisdictioninissuingtheassailedresolutionscontendingthat:1)Rule6.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility
prohibitsaformergovernmentlawyerfromacceptingemploymentinconnectionwithanymatterinwhichheintervened;2)
theprohibitionintheRuleisnottimebound;3)thatCentralBankcouldnotwaivetheobjectiontorespondentMendozas
appearanceonbehalfofthePCGG;and4)theresolutioninCivilCaseNo.0005wasinterlocutory,thusresjudicatadoes
notapply.19
Thepetitionatbarraisesproceduralandsubstantiveissuesoflaw.Inview,however,oftheimportandimpactofRule6.03
oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitytothelegalprofessionandthegovernment,weshallcutourwayandforthwith
resolvethesubstantiveissue.
I
SubstantiveIssue
ThekeyissueiswhetherRule6.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityappliestorespondentMendoza.Again,the
prohibitionstates:"Alawyershallnot,afterleavinggovernmentservice,acceptengagementoremploymentinconnection
withanymatterinwhichhehadintervenedwhileinthesaidservice."
I.A.ThehistoryofRule6.03
AproperresolutionofthiscasenecessitatesthatwetracethehistoricallineageofRule6.03oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility.
Intheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,ethicalstandardsforlawyerswerepervasiveinEnglandandotherpartsof
Europe.Theearlystatementsofstandardsdidnotresemblemoderncodesofconduct.Theywerenotdetailedorcollectedin
onesourcebutsurprisinglywerecomprehensivefortheirtime.Theprincipalthrustofthestandardswasdirectedtowards
thelitigationconduct oflawyers.It underscoredthecentral dutyoftruthandfairnessinlitigationassuperiortoany
obligation to the client. The formulations of the litigation duties were at times intricate, including specific pleading
standards,anobligationtoinformthecourtoffalsehoodsandadutytoexploresettlementalternatives.Mostofthelawyer's
otherbasicdutiescompetency,diligence,loyalty,confidentiality,reasonablefeesandservicetothepoororiginatedin
thelitigationcontext,butultimatelyhadbroaderapplicationtoallaspectsofalawyer'spractice.
TheformsoflawyerregulationincolonialandearlypostrevolutionaryAmericadidnotdiffermarkedlyfromthosein
England.Thecoloniesandearlystatesusedoaths,statutes,judicialoversight,andproceduralrulestogovernattorney
behavior.ThedifferencefromEnglandwasinthepervasivenessandcontinuityofsuchregulation.Thestandardssetin
Englandvariedovertime,butthevariationinearlyAmericawasfargreater.TheAmericanregulationfluctuatedwithina
singlecolonyanddifferedfromcolonytocolony.Manyregulationshadtheeffectofsettingsomestandardsofconduct,but
theregulationwassporadic,leavinggapsinthesubstantivestandards.Onlythreeofthetraditionalcoredutiescanbefairly

characterizedaspervasiveintheformal,positivelawofthecolonialandpostrevolutionaryperiod:thedutiesoflitigation
fairness,competencyandreasonablefees.20
Thenineteenthcenturyhasbeentermedthe"darkages"oflegalethicsintheUnitedStates.Bymidcentury,American
legalreformerswerefillingthevoidintwoways.First,DavidDudleyField,thedrafterofthehighlyinfluentialNewYork
"FieldCode,"introducedanewsetofuniformstandardsofconductforlawyers.Thisconcisestatementofeightstatutory
dutiesbecamelawinseveralstatesinthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury.Atthesametime,legaleducators,suchas
DavidHoffmanandGeorgeSharswood,andmanyotherlawyerswereworkingtofleshoutthebroadoutlineofalawyer's
duties.Thesereformerswroteaboutlegalethicsinunprecedenteddetailandthusbroughtanewlevelofunderstandingtoa
lawyer's duties. A number of midnineteenth century laws and statutes, other than the Field Code, governed lawyer
behavior.Afewformsofcolonialregulationse.g.,the"donofalsehood"oathandthedeceitprohibitionspersistedin
somestates.Procedurallawcontinuedtodirectly,orindirectly,limitanattorney'slitigationbehavior.Thedevelopinglaw
ofagencyrecognizedbasicdutiesofcompetence,loyaltyandsafeguardingofclientproperty.Evidencelawstartedto
recognizewithlessequivocationtheattorneyclientprivilegeanditsunderlyingtheoryofconfidentiality.Thus,allofthe
coreduties,withthelikelyexceptionofservicetothepoor,hadsomebasisinformallaw.Yet,asinthecolonialandearly
postrevolutionaryperiods,thesestandardswereisolatedanddidnotprovideacomprehensivestatementofalawyer's
duties.Thereformers,bycontrast,weremorecomprehensiveintheirdiscussionofalawyer'sduties,andtheyactually
usheredanewerainAmericanlegalethics.21
Towardtheendofthenineteenthcentury,anewformofethicalstandardsbegantoguidelawyersintheirpracticethe
barassociationcodeoflegalethics.Thebarcodesweredetailedethicalstandardsformulatedbylawyersforlawyers.They
combinedthetwoprimarysourcesofethicalguidancefromthenineteenthcentury.Liketheacademicdiscourses,thebar
associationcodesgavedetailtothestatutorystatementsofdutyandtheoathsofoffice.Unliketheacademiclectures,
however,thebarassociationcodesretainedsomeoftheofficialimprimaturofthestatutesandoaths.Overtime,thebar
associationcodesbecameextremelypopularthatstatesadoptedthemasbindingrulesoflaw.Criticaltothedevelopmentof
thenewcodeswasthereemergenceofbarassociationsthemselves.Localbarassociationsformedsporadicallyduringthe
colonialperiod,buttheydisbandedbytheearlynineteenthcentury.Inthelatenineteenthcentury,barassociationsbeganto
formagain,pickingupwheretheircolonialpredecessorshadleftoff.Manyofthenewbarassociations,mostnotablythe
AlabamaStateBarAssociationandtheAmericanBarAssociation,assumedonthetaskofdraftingsubstantivestandardsof
conductfortheirmembers.22
In1887,Alabamabecamethefirststatewithacomprehensivebarassociationcodeofethics.The1887AlabamaCodeof
Ethicswasthemodelforseveralstatescodes,anditwasthefoundationfortheAmericanBarAssociation's(ABA)1908
CanonsofEthics.23
In1917,thePhilippineBarfoundthattheoathanddutiesofalawyerwereinsufficienttoattainthefullmeasureofpublic
respecttowhichthelegalprofessionwasentitled.Inthatyear,thePhilippineBarAssociationadoptedasitsown,Canons1
to32oftheABACanonsofProfessionalEthics.24
Asearlyas1924,someABAmembershavequestionedtheformandfunctionofthecanons.Amongtheirconcernswasthe
"revolvingdoor"or"theprocessbywhichlawyersandotherstemporarilyentergovernmentservicefromprivatelifeand
thenleaveitforlargefeesinprivatepractice,wheretheycanexploitinformation,contacts,andinfluencegarneredin
governmentservice."25Theseconcernswereclassifiedasadverseinterestconflicts"and"congruentinterestconflicts."
"Adverseinterestconflicts"existwherethematterinwhichtheformergovernmentlawyerrepresentsaclientinprivate
practiceissubstantiallyrelatedtoamatterthatthelawyerdealtwithwhileemployedbythegovernmentandtheinterestsof
thecurrentandformerareadverse.26 Ontheotherhand, "congruentinterestrepresentationconflicts" areuniqueto
governmentlawyersandapplyprimarilytoformergovernmentlawyers. 27Forseveralyears,theABAattemptedtocorrect
andupdatethecanonsthroughnewcanons,individualamendmentsandinterpretativeopinions.In1928,theABAamended
onecanonandaddedthirteennewcanons.28Todealwithproblemspeculiartoformergovernmentlawyers,Canon36was
mintedwhichdisqualifiedthembothfor"adverseinterestconflicts"and"congruentinterestrepresentationconflicts." 29The
rationalefordisqualificationisrootedinaconcernthatthegovernmentlawyerslargelydiscretionaryactionswouldbe
influencedbythetemptationtotakeactiononbehalfofthegovernmentclientthatlatercouldbetotheadvantageofparties
whomightlaterbecomeprivatepracticeclients.30Canon36provides,viz.:
36.Retirementfromjudicialpositionorpublicemployment

Alawyershouldnotacceptemploymentasanadvocateinanymatteruponthemeritsofwhichhehaspreviouslyactedina
judicialcapacity.
Alawyer,havingonceheldpublicofficeorhavingbeeninthepublicemployshouldnot,afterhisretirement,accept
employmentinconnectionwithanymatterhehasinvestigatedorpasseduponwhileinsuchofficeoremploy.
Overthenextthirtyyears,theABAcontinuedtoamendmanyofthecanonsandaddedCanons46and47in1933and1937,
respectively.31
In1946,thePhilippineBarAssociationagainadoptedasitsownCanons33to47oftheABACanonsofProfessional
Ethics.32
Bythe middleofthetwentiethcentury,therewasgrowingconsensusthattheABACanonsneededmoremeaningful
revision.In1964,theABAPresidentelectLewisPowellaskedforthecreationofacommitteetostudythe"adequacyand
effectiveness" of the ABA Canons. The committee recommended that the canons needed substantial revision, in part
becausetheABACanonsfailedtodistinguishbetween"theinspirationalandtheproscriptive"andwerethusunsuccessful
in enforcement. The legal profession in the United States likewise observed that Canon 36 of the ABA Canons of
ProfessionalEthicsresultedinunnecessarydisqualificationoflawyersfornegligibleparticipationinmattersduringtheir
employmentwiththegovernment.
TheunfairnessofCanon36compelledABAtoreplaceitinthe1969ABAModelCodeofProfessional
Responsibility.33ThebasicethicalprinciplesintheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityweresupplementedbyDisciplinary
Rulesthatdefinedminimumrulesofconducttowhichthelawyermustadhere. 34InthecaseofCanon9,DR9101(b)35
becametheapplicablesupplementarynorm.ThedraftingcommitteereformulatedthecanonsintotheModelCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility,and,inAugustof1969,theABAHouseofDelegatesapprovedtheModelCode.36
Despitetheseamendments,legalpractitionersremainedunsatisfiedwiththeresultsandindefinitestandardssetforthbyDR
9101(b)andtheModelCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityasawhole.Thus,inAugust1983,theABAadoptednew
ModelRulesofProfessionalResponsibility.TheModelRulesusedthe"restatementformat,"wheretheconductstandards
weresetoutinrules,withcommentsfollowingeachrule.Thenewformatwasintendedtogivebetterguidanceandclarity
forenforcement"becausetheonlyenforceablestandardsweretheblackletterRules."TheModelRuleseliminatedthe
broadcanonsaltogetherandreducedtheemphasisonnarrativediscussion,byplacingcommentsaftertherulesandlimiting
commentdiscussiontothecontentoftheblackletterrules.TheModelRulesmadeanumberofsubstantiveimprovements
particularlywithregardtoconflictsofinterests. 37Inparticular,theABAdidawaywithCanon9,citingthehopeless
dependenceoftheconceptofimproprietyonthesubjectiveviewsofanxiousclientsaswellasthenormsindefinite
nature.38
Incadencewiththesechanges,theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)adoptedaproposedCodeofProfessional
Responsibilityin1980whichitsubmittedtothisCourtforapproval.TheCodewasdraftedtoreflectthelocalcustoms,
traditions,andpracticesofthebarandtoconformwithnewrealities. OnJune21,1988,thisCourtpromulgatedthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.39Rule6.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitydealsparticularlywithformer
governmentlawyers,andprovides,viz.:
Rule6.03Alawyershallnot,afterleavinggovernmentservice,acceptengagementoremploymentinconnectionwithany
matterinwhichhehadintervenedwhileinsaidservice.
Rule6.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityretainedthegeneralstructureofparagraph2,Canon36oftheCanons
ofProfessionalEthicsbutreplacedtheexpansivephrase"investigatedandpassedupon"withtheword"intervened."It
is,therefore,properlyapplicabletoboth"adverseinterestconflicts"and"congruentinterestconflicts."
Thecaseatbardoesnotinvolvethe"adverseinterest"aspectofRule6.03.RespondentMendoza,itisconceded,hasno
adverseinterestproblemwhenheactedasSolicitorGeneralinSp.Proc.No.107812andlaterascounselofrespondents
Tan,etal.inCivilCaseNo.0005andCivilCaseNos.00960099beforetheSandiganbayan.Nonetheless,thereremains

the issue of whether there exists a "congruentinterest conflict" sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from
representingrespondentsTan,etal.
I.B.The"congruentinterest"aspectofRule6.03
ThekeytounlockRule6.03liesincomprehendingfirst,themeaningof"matter"referredtointheruleand,second,the
metesandboundsofthe "intervention" madebytheformergovernmentlawyeronthe"matter."TheAmericanBar
AssociationinitsFormalOpinion342,defined"matter"asanydiscrete,isolatableactaswellasidentifiabletransactionor
conductinvolvingaparticularsituationandspecificparty, andnotmerely anactofdrafting,enforcingorinterpreting
governmentoragencyprocedures,regulationsorlaws,orbriefingabstractprinciplesoflaw.
Firstly,itiscriticalthatwepinpointthe"matter"whichwasthesubjectofinterventionbyrespondentMendozawhilehe
wastheSolicitorGeneral.ThePCGGrelatesthefollowingactsofrespondentMendozaasconstitutingthe"matter"where
heintervenedasaSolicitorGeneral,viz:40
ThePCGGsCaseforAtty.MendozasDisqualification
ThePCGGimputesgraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartofthe Sandiganbayan (FifthDivision)inissuingtheassailed
ResolutionsdatedJuly11,2001andDecember5,2001denyingthemotiontodisqualifyAtty.Mendozaascounselfor
respondentsTan,etal.ThePCGGinsiststhatAtty.Mendoza,asthenSolicitorGeneral,activelyintervenedintheclosureof
GENBANKbyadvisingtheCentralBankonhowtoproceedwiththesaidbanksliquidationandevenfilingthepetitionfor
itsliquidationwiththeCFIofManila.
Asproofthereof,thePCGGcitestheMemorandumdatedMarch29,1977preparedbycertainkeyofficialsoftheCentral
Bank, namely, then Senior Deputy Governor Amado R. Brinas, then Deputy Governor Jaime C. Laya, then Deputy
GovernorandGeneralCounselGabrielC.Singson,thenSpecialAssistanttotheGovernorCarlotaP.Valenzuela,then
AsistanttotheGovernorArnulfoB.AurellanoandthenDirectorofDepartmentofCommercialandSavingsBankAntonio
T. Castro, Jr., where they averred that on March 28, 1977, they had a conference with the Solicitor General (Atty.
Mendoza),whoadvisedthemonhowtoproceedwiththeliquidationofGENBANK.Thepertinentportionofthesaid
memorandumstates:
Immediatelyaftersaidmeeting,wehadaconferencewiththeSolicitorGeneralandheadvisedthatthefollowingprocedure
shouldbetaken:
1.ManagementshouldsubmitamemorandumtotheMonetaryBoardreportingthatstudiesandevaluationhadbeenmade
sincethelastexaminationofthebankasofAugust31,1976anditisbelievedthatthebankcannotbereorganizedor
placedinaconditionsothatitmaybepermittedtoresumebusinesswithsafetytoitsdepositorsandcreditorsandthe
generalpublic.
2.IfthesaidreportisconfirmedbytheMonetaryBoard,itshallordertheliquidationofthebankandindicatethemannerof
itsliquidationandapprovealiquidationplan.
3.TheCentralBankshallinformtheprincipalstockholdersofGenbankoftheforegoingdecisiontoliquidatethebankand
theliquidationplanapprovedbytheMonetaryBoard.
4.TheSolicitorGeneralshallthenfileapetitionintheCourtofFirstInstancerecitingtheproceedingswhichhadbeen
takenandprayingtheassistanceoftheCourtintheliquidationofGenbank.
ThePCGGfurthercitestheMinutesNo.13datedMarch29,1977oftheMonetaryBoardwhereitwasshownthatAtty.
MendozawasfurnishedcopiesofpertinentdocumentsrelatingtoGENBANKinordertoaidhiminfilingwiththecourtthe
petitionforassistanceinthebanksliquidation.Thepertinentportionofthesaidminutesreads:
TheBoarddecidedasfollows:
...

E.ToauthorizeManagementtofurnishtheSolicitorGeneralwithacopyofthesubjectmemorandumoftheDirector,
DepartmentofCommercialandSavingsBankdatedMarch29,1977,togetherwithcopiesof:
1.MemorandumoftheDeputyGovernor,SupervisionandExaminationSector,totheMonetaryBoard,datedMarch25,
1977,containingareportonthecurrentsituationofGenbank;
2.AideMemoireontheAntecedentFactsRe:GeneralBankandTrustCo.,datedMarch23,1977;
3.MemorandumoftheDirector,DepartmentofCommercialandSavingsBank,totheMonetaryBoard,datedMarch24,
1977,submitting,pursuanttoSection29ofR.A.No.265,asamendedbyP.D.No.1007,arepotonthestateofinsolvency
ofGenbank,togetherwithitsattachments;and
4.SuchotherdocumentsasmaybenecessaryorneededbytheSolicitorGeneralforhisuseinthenCFIprayingthe
assistanceoftheCourtintheliquidationofGenbank.
Beyonddoubt,therefore,the"matter"ortheactofrespondentMendozaasSolicitorGeneralinvolvedinthecaseatbaris
"advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said banks liquidation and even filing the petition for its
liquidationwiththeCFIofManila."Infine,theCourtshouldresolvewhetherhisactofadvisingtheCentralBankonthe
legalproceduretoliquidateGENBANKisincludedwithintheconceptof"matter"underRule6.03.Theprocedureof
liquidationisgiveninblackandwhiteinRepublicActNo.265,section29,viz:
Theprovisionreadsinpart:
SEC.29. Proceedingsuponinsolvency.Whenever,uponexaminationbytheheadoftheappropriatesupervisingor
examining department or his examiners or agents into the condition of any bank or nonbank financial intermediary
performingquasibankingfunctions,itshallbedisclosedthattheconditionofthesameisoneofinsolvency,orthatits
continuanceinbusinesswouldinvolveprobablelosstoitsdepositorsorcreditors,itshallbethedutyofthedepartmenthead
concernedforthwith,inwriting,toinformtheMonetaryBoardofthefacts,andtheBoardmay,uponfindingthestatements
ofthedepartmentheadtobetrue,forbidtheinstitutiontodobusinessinthePhilippinesandshalldesignateanofficialof
theCentralBankorapersonofrecognizedcompetenceinbankingorfinance,asreceivertoimmediatelytakechargeofits
assetsandliabilities,asexpeditiouslyaspossiblecollectandgatheralltheassetsandadministerthesameforthebenefitof
its creditors, exercising all the powers necessary for these purposes including, but not limited to, bringing suits and
foreclosingmortgagesinthenameofthebankornonbankfinancialintermediaryperformingquasibankingfunctions.
...
IftheMonetaryBoardshalldetermineandconfirmwithinthesaidperiodthatthebankornonbankfinancialintermediary
performingquasibankingfunctionsisinsolventorcannotresumebusinesswithsafetytoitsdepositors,creditorsandthe
generalpublic,itshall,ifthepublicinterestrequires,orderitsliquidation,indicatethemannerofitsliquidationandapprove
aliquidationplan.TheCentralBankshall,bytheSolicitorGeneral,fileapetitionintheCourtofFirstInstancerecitingthe
proceedingswhichhavebeentakenandprayingtheassistanceofthecourtintheliquidationofsuchinstitution.Thecourt
shall have jurisdiction in the same proceedings to adjudicate disputed claims against the bank or nonbank financial
intermediaryperformingquasibankingfunctionsandenforceindividualliabilitiesofthestockholdersanddoallthatis
necessarytopreservetheassetsofsuchinstitutionandtoimplementtheliquidationplanapprovedbytheMonetaryBoard.
TheMonetaryBoardshalldesignateanofficialoftheCentralBank,orapersonofrecognizedcompetenceinbankingor
finance,asliquidatorwhoshalltakeoverthefunctionsofthereceiverpreviouslyappointedbytheMonetaryBoardunder
thisSection.Theliquidatorshall,withallconvenientspeed,converttheassetsofthebankinginstitutionornonbank
financialintermediaryperformingquasibankingfunctionstomoneyorsell,assignorotherwisedisposeofthesameto
creditorsandotherpartiesforthepurposeofpayingthedebtsofsuchinstitutionandhemay,inthenameofthebankor
nonbankfinancialintermediaryperformingquasibankingfunctions,institutesuchactionsasmaybenecessaryinthe
appropriatecourttocollectandrecoveraccountsandassetsofsuchinstitution.
Theprovisionsofanylawtothecontrarynotwithstanding,theactionsoftheMonetaryBoardunderthisSectionandthe
secondparagraphofSection34ofthisActshallbefinalandexecutory,andcanbesetasidebythecourtonlyifthereis
convincingproofthattheactionisplainlyarbitraryandmadeinbadfaith.Norestrainingorderorinjunctionshallbeissued
bythecourtenjoiningtheCentralBankfromimplementingitsactionsunderthisSectionandthesecondparagraphof

Section34ofthisAct,unlessthereisconvincingproofthattheactionoftheMonetaryBoardisplainlyarbitraryandmade
inbadfaithandthepetitionerorplaintifffileswiththeclerkorjudgeofthecourtinwhichtheactionispendingabond
executedinfavoroftheCentralBank,inanamounttobefixedbythecourt.Therestrainingorderorinjunctionshallbe
refusedor,ifgranted,shallbedissolveduponfilingbytheCentralBankofabond,whichshallbeintheformofcashor
CentralBankcashier(s)check,inanamounttwicetheamountofthebondofthepetitionerorplaintiffconditionedthatit
willpaythedamageswhichthepetitionerorplaintiffmaysufferbytherefusalorthedissolutionoftheinjunction.The
provisionsofRule58oftheNewRulesofCourtinsofarastheyareapplicableandnotinconsistentwiththeprovisionsof
thisSectionshallgoverntheissuanceanddissolutionoftherestrainingorderorinjunctioncontemplatedinthisSection.
Insolvency, under this Act, shall be understood to mean the inability of a bank or nonbank financial intermediary
performingquasibankingfunctionstopayitsliabilitiesastheyfalldueintheusualandordinarycourseofbusiness.
Provided,however,Thatthisshallnotincludetheinabilitytopayofanotherwisenoninsolventbankornonbankfinancial
intermediaryperformingquasibankingfunctionscausedbyextraordinarydemandsinducedbyfinancialpaniccommonly
evidencedbyarunonthebankornonbankfinancialintermediaryperformingquasibankingfunctionsinthebankingor
financialcommunity.
TheappointmentofaconservatorunderSection28AofthisActortheappointmentofareceiverunderthisSectionshall
be vested exclusively with the Monetary Board, the provision of any law, general or special, to the contrary
notwithstanding.(AsamendedbyPDNos.72,1007,1771&1827,Jan.16,1981)
WeholdthatthisadvicegivenbyrespondentMendozaontheproceduretoliquidateGENBANKis notthe"matter"
contemplatedbyRule6.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.ABAFormalOpinionNo.342isclearasdaylight
instressingthatthe"drafting,enforcingorinterpretinggovernmentoragencyprocedures,regulationsorlaws,orbriefing
abstractprinciplesoflaw"areactswhichdonotfallwithinthescopeoftheterm"matter"andcannotdisqualify.
Secondly,itcanevenbeconcededforthesakeofargumentthattheaboveactofrespondentMendozafallswithinthe
definitionofmatterperABAFormalOpinionNo.342.Bethatasitmay,thesaidactofrespondentMendozawhichisthe
"matter"involvedinSp.Proc.No.107812isentirelydifferentfromthe"matter"involvedinCivilCaseNo.0096.
Again,theplainfactsspeakforthemselves.ItisgiventhatrespondentMendozahadnothingtodowiththedecisionofthe
CentralBanktoliquidateGENBANK.ItisalsogiventhathedidnotparticipateinthesaleofGENBANKtoAlliedBank.
The"matter"wherehegothimselfinvolvedwasininformingCentralBankontheprocedureprovidedbylawto
liquidateGENBANKthruthecourtsandinfilingthenecessarypetitioninSp.Proc.No.107812inthethenCourtofFirst
Instance.Thesubject"matter"ofSp.Proc.No.107812,therefore,isnotthesamenorisrelatedtobutisdifferent
fromthesubject"matter"inCivilCaseNo.0096.CivilCaseNo.0096involvesthesequestrationofthestocksowned
byrespondentsTan,etal.,inAlliedBankontheallegedgroundthattheyareillgotten.Thecasedoesnotinvolvethe
liquidationofGENBANK.NordoesitinvolvethesaleofGENBANKtoAlliedBank.Whetherthesharesofstockofthe
reorganizedAlliedBankareillgottenisfarremovedfromtheissueofthedissolutionandliquidationofGENBANK.
GENBANKwasliquidatedbytheCentralBankdue,amongothers,totheallegedbankingmalpracticesofitsownersand
officers.Inotherwords,thelegalityoftheliquidationofGENBANKisnotanissueinthesequestrationcases.Indeed,the
jurisdictionofthePCGGdoesnotincludethedissolutionandliquidationofbanks.ItgoeswithoutsayingthatCode6.03of
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitycannotapplytorespondentMendozabecausehisallegedinterventionwhilea
SolicitorGeneralinSp.Proc.No.107812isaninterventiononamatterdifferentfromthematterinvolvedinCivil
CaseNo.0096.
Thirdly,wenowslidetothemetesandboundsofthe"intervention"contemplatedbyRule6.03."Intervene"means,viz.:
1:toenterorappearasanirrelevantorextraneousfeatureorcircumstance...2:tooccur,fall,orcomeinbetweenpointsof
timeorevents...3:tocomeinorbetweenbywayofhindranceormodification:INTERPOSE...4:tooccurorlie
betweentwothings(Paris,wherethesamecitylayonbothsidesofaninterveningriver...) 41
Ontheotherhand,"intervention"isdefinedas:
1:theactorfactofintervening:INTERPOSITION;2:interferencethatmayaffecttheinterestsofothers. 42

There are, therefore, two possible interpretations of the word "intervene." Under the first interpretation,"intervene"
includesparticipationinaproceedingeveniftheinterventionisirrelevantorhasnoeffectorlittleinfluence. 43Underthe
second interpretation, "intervene" only includes an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject
proceedings.44Weholdthatthissecondmeaningismoreappropriatetogivetotheword"intervention"underRule6.03of
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityinlightofitshistory.TheevilssoughttoberemediedbytheRuledonotexist
wherethegovernmentlawyerdoesanactwhichcanbeconsideredasinnocuoussuchas"xxxdrafting,enforcingor
interpretinggovernmentoragencyprocedures,regulationsorlaws,orbriefingabstractprinciplesoflaw."
In fine, the intervention cannot be insubstantial and insignificant. Originally, Canon 36 provided that a former
governmentlawyer"shouldnot,afterhisretirement,accept employment inconnectionwithanymatter whichhehas
investigatedorpasseduponwhileinsuchofficeoremploy."Asaforediscussed,thebroadsweepofthephrase"whichhe
hasinvestigatedorpassedupon"resultedinunjustdisqualificationofformergovernmentlawyers.The1969Coderestricted
itslatitude,hence,inDR9101(b),theprohibitionextendedonlytoamatterinwhichthelawyer,whileinthegovernment
service,had "substantialresponsibility." The1983ModelRulesfurtherconstrictedthereachoftherule.MR1.11(a)
providesthat"alawyershallnotrepresentaprivateclientinconnectionwithamatterinwhichthelawyer participated
personallyandsubstantiallyasapublicofficeroremployee."
Itis,however,allegedthattheinterventionofrespondentMendozainSp.Proc.No.107812issignificantandsubstantial.
Wedisagree.Forone,thepetitioninthespecialproceedingsisan initiatorypleading,hence,ithastobesignedby
respondentMendozaasthethensittingSolicitorGeneral.Foranother,therecordisaridastotheactualparticipationof
respondentMendozainthesubsequentproceedings.Indeed,thecasewasinslumbervilleforalongnumberofyears.None
ofthepartiespushedforitsearlytermination.Moreover,wenotethatthepetitionfiledmerelyseeksthe assistanceofthe
courtintheliquidationofGENBANK.TheprincipalroleofthecourtinthistypeofproceedingsistoassisttheCentral
BankindeterminingclaimsofcreditorsagainsttheGENBANK.Theroleofthecourtisnotstrictlyasacourtofjusticebut
asanagenttoassisttheCentralBankindeterminingtheclaimsofcreditors.Insuchaproceeding,theparticipationofthe
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralisnotthatoftheusualcourtlitigatorprotectingtheinterestofgovernment.
II
BalancingPolicyConsiderations
Tobesure,Rule6.03ofourCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityrepresentsacommendableeffortonthepartoftheIBPto
upgradetheethicsoflawyersinthegovernmentservice.Asaforestressed,itisatakeofffromsimilareffortsespeciallyby
theABAwhichhavenotbeenwithoutdifficulties.Todate,thelegalprofessionintheUnitedStatesisstillfinetuningits
DR9101(b)rule.
InfathomingthedepthandbreadthofRule6.03ofourCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,the Courttookaccountof
variouspolicyconsiderationstoassurethatitsinterpretationandapplicationtothecaseatbarwillachieveitsendwithout
necessarilyprejudicingothervaluesofequalimportance.Thus,therulewasnotinterpretedtocausea chillingeffecton
governmentrecruitmentofablelegaltalent.Atpresent,itisalreadydifficultforgovernmenttomatchcompensation
offeredbytheprivatesectoranditisunlikelythatgovernmentwillbeabletoreversethatsituation.Theobservationisnot
inaccuratethattheonlycardthatthegovernmentmayplaytorecruitlawyersishavethemdeferpresentincomeinreturnfor
theexperienceandcontactsthatcanlaterbeexchangedforhigherincomeinprivatepractice. 45 Rightly,JudgeKaufman
warnedthatthesacrificeofenteringgovernmentservicewouldbetoogreatformostmentoendureshouldethicalrules
preventthemfromengaginginthepracticeofatechnicalspecialtywhichtheydevotedyearsinacquiringandcausethefirm
withwhichtheybecomeassociatedtobedisqualified. 46Indeed,"tomakegovernmentservicemoredifficulttoexitcanonly
makeitlessappealingtoenter."47
IninterpretingRule6.03,theCourtalsocastaharsheyeonitsuseasalitigationtactictoharassopposingcounselaswell
asdeprivehisclientofcompetentlegalrepresentation.Thedangerthattherulewillbemisusedtobludgeonanopposing
counselisnotamereguesswork.TheCourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbiahasnoted"thetacticaluseofmotionsto
disqualifycounsel inordertodelayproceedings,deprivetheopposingpartyofcounsel ofitschoice,andharassand
embarrasstheopponent,"andobservedthatthetacticwas"soprevalentinlargecivilcasesinrecentyearsastoprompt
frequentjudicialandacademiccommentary."48EventheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtfoundnoquarrelwiththeCourtof

Appealsdescriptionofdisqualificationmotionsas"adangerousgame." 49Inthecaseatbar,thenewattempttodisqualify
respondentMendozaisdifficulttodivine.ThedisqualificationofrespondentMendozahaslongbeenadeadissue.Itwas
resuscitatedafterthelapseofmanyyearsandonlyafterPCGGhaslostmanylegalincidentsinthehandsofrespondent
Mendoza.Forafact,therecycledmotionfordisqualificationinthecaseatbarwasfiled morethanfouryearsafterthe
filingofthepetitionsforcertiorari,prohibitionandinjunctionwiththeSupremeCourtwhichweresubsequentlyremanded
totheSandiganbayananddocketedasCivilCaseNos.00960099. 50Attheveryleast,thecircumstancesunderwhichthe
motiontodisqualifyinthecaseatbarwererefiledputpetitionersmotiveashighlysuspect.
Similarly,theCourtininterpretingRule6.03wasnotunconcernedwiththeprejudicetotheclientwhichwillbe
causedbyitsmisapplication.Itcannotbedoubtedthatgrantingadisqualificationmotioncausestheclienttolosenotonly
thelawfirmofchoice,butprobablyanindividuallawyerinwhomtheclienthasconfidence.51Theclientwithadisqualified
lawyermuststartagainoftenwithoutthebenefitoftheworkdonebythelatter. 52Theeffectsofthisprejudicetotherightto
chooseaneffectivecounselcannotbeoverstatedforitcanresultindenialofdueprocess.
TheCourthastoconsideralsothepossibleadverseeffectofatruncatedreadingoftheruleontheofficial
independenceoflawyersinthegovernmentservice.AccordingtoProf.Morgan:"Anindividualwhohasthesecurityof
knowingheorshecanfindprivateemploymentuponleavingthegovernmentisfreetoworkvigorously,challengeofficial
positionswhenheorshebelievesthemtobeinerror,andresistillegaldemandsbysuperiors.Anemployeewholacksthis
assuranceofprivateemploymentdoesnotenjoysuchfreedom."53Headds:"Anysystemthataffectstherighttotakeanew
jobaffectstheabilitytoquittheoldjobandanylimitontheabilitytoquitinhibitsofficialindependence." 54Thecaseat
barinvolvesthepositionofSolicitorGeneral,theofficeonceoccupiedbyrespondentMendoza.Itcannotbeoverly
stressedthatthepositionofSolicitorGeneralshouldbeendowedwithagreatdegreeofindependence.Itisthis
independencethatallowstheSolicitorGeneraltorecommendacquittaloftheinnocent;itisthisindependencethatgives
himtherighttorefusetodefendofficialswhoviolatethetrustoftheiroffice.Anyunduedimunitionoftheindependenceof
theSolicitorGeneralwillhaveacorrosiveeffectontheruleoflaw.
Nolesssignificantaconsiderationisthedeprivationoftheformergovernmentlawyerofthefreedomtoexercisehis
profession.Giventhecurrentstateofourlaw,thedisqualificationofaformergovernmentlawyermayextendtoall
membersofhislawfirm.55Formergovernmentlawyersstandindangerofbecomingthelepersofthelegalprofession.
Itis,however,profferedthatthemischiefsoughttoberemediedbyRule6.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityis
thepossibleappearanceofimproprietyandlossofpublicconfidenceingovernment.Butaswellobserved,theaccuracy
ofgaugingpublicperceptionsisahighlyspeculativeexerciseatbest 56whichcanleadtountowardresults. 57Nolessthan
JudgeKaufmandoubtsthatthelesseningofrestrictionsastoformergovernmentattorneyswillhaveanydetrimentaleffect
on that free flow of information between the governmentclient and its attorneys which the canons seek to protect. 58
Notably,theappearanceofimproprietytheoryhasbeenrejectedinthe1983ABAModelRulesofProfessional
Conduct59 andsomecourtshaveabandoned per se disqualificationbasedonCanons4and9whenanactualconflictof
interestexists,anddemandanevaluationoftheinterestsofthedefendant,government,thewitnessesinthecase,andthe
public.60
ItisalsosubmittedthattheCourtshouldapplyRule6.03inallitsstrictnessforitcorrectlydisfavorslawyerswho"switch
sides." It is claimed that "switching sides" carries the danger that former government employee may compromise
confidentialofficialinformation intheprocess.Butthisconcerndoesnotcastashadowinthecaseatbar.Asafore
discussed,theactofrespondentMendozaininformingtheCentralBankontheprocedurehowtoliquidateGENBANKisa
different matter from the subject matter of Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the sequestration of the shares of
respondentsTan,etal.,inAlliedBank.Consequently,thedangerthatconfidentialofficialinformationmightbedivulgedis
nil,ifnotinexistent.Tobesure,therearenoinconsistent"sides"tobebotheredaboutinthecaseatbar.Forthereisno
questionthatinlawyeringforrespondentsTan,etal.,respondentMendozaisnotworkingagainsttheinterestofCentral
Bank.Onthecontrary,heisindirectlydefendingthevalidityoftheactionofCentralBankinliquidatingGENBANKand
sellingitlatertoAlliedBank.Theirinterestscoincideinsteadofcolliding.ItisforthisreasonthatCentralBankoffered
noobjectiontothelawyeringofrespondentMendozainCivilCaseNo.0005indefenseofrespondentsTan,etal.Thereis
noswitchingofsidesfornotwosidesareinvolved.

It is also urged that the Court should consider that Rule 6.03 is intended to avoid conflict of loyalties, i.e., that a
governmentemployeemightbesubjecttoaconflictofloyaltieswhilestillingovernmentservice. 61Theexamplegivenby
theproponentsofthisargumentisthatalawyerwhoplanstoworkforthecompanythatheorsheiscurrentlychargedwith
prosecuting might be tempted to prosecute less vigorously. 62 In the cautionary words of the Association of the Bar
Committeein1960:"Thegreatestpublicrisksarisingfrompostemploymentconductmaywelloccurduringtheperiodof
employment through the dampening of aggressive administration of government policies." 63 Prof. Morgan, however,
considersthisconcernas"probablyexcessive." 64Heopines"xxxitishardtoimaginethataprivatefirmwouldfeelsecure
hidingsomeonewhohadjustbeendisloyaltohisorherlastclientthegovernment.Interviewswithlawyersconsistently
confirmthatlawfirmswantthebestgovernmentlawyerstheoneswhowerehardesttobeatnottheleastqualifiedor
leastvigorousadvocates."65 Butagain, thisparticularconcernisanonfactorinthecaseatbar.Thereisnocharge
againstrespondentMendozathatheadvisedCentralBankonhowtoliquidateGENBANKwithaneyeinlaterdefending
respondentsTan,etal.ofAlliedBank.Indeed,hecontinuesdefendingboththeinterestsofCentralBankandrespondents
Tan,etal.intheabovecases.
Likewise,theCourtisnudgedtoconsidertheneedtocurtailwhatisperceivedasthe "excessiveinfluenceofformer
officials"ortheir"clout."66Prof.Morganagainwarnsagainstextendingthisconcerntoofar.Heexplainstherationalefor
hiswarning,viz:"Muchofwhatappearstobeanemployeesinfluencemayactuallybethepowerorauthorityofhisorher
position,powerthatevaporatesquicklyupondeparturefromgovernmentxxx." 67More,hecontendsthattheconcerncan
bedemeaningtothosesittingingovernment.Toquotehimfurther:"xxxTheideathat,presentofficialsmakesignificant
decisionsbasedonfriendshipratherthanonthemeritsaysmoreaboutthepresentofficialsthanabouttheirformerco
workerfriends.Itimpliesalackofwillortalent,orboth,infederalofficialsthatdoesnotseemjustifiedorintended,andit
ignores the possibility that the officials will tend to disfavor their friends in order to avoid even the appearance of
favoritism."68
III
Thequestionoffairness
Mr.JusticesPanganibanandCarpioareoftheview,amongothers,thatthecongruentinterestprongofRule6.03ofthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibilityshouldbesubjecttoaprescriptiveperiod.Mr.JusticeTingaopinesthattherulecannot
apply retroactively to respondent Mendoza. Obviously, and rightly so, they are disquieted by the fact that (1) when
respondentMendozawastheSolicitorGeneral,Rule6.03hasnotyetadoptedbytheIBPandapprovedbythisCourt,and
(2)thebidtodisqualifyrespondentMendozawasmadeafterthelapseoftimewhoselengthcannot,byanystandard,
qualifyasreasonable.Atbottom,thepointtheymakerelatestotheunfairnessoftheruleifappliedwithoutanyprescriptive
periodandretroactively,atthat.TheirconcernislegitimateanddeservestobeinitiallyaddressedbytheIBPandour
CommitteeonRevisionoftheRulesofCourt.
INVIEWWHEREOF,thepetitionassailingtheresolutionsdatedJuly11,2001andDecember5,2001oftheFifth
DivisionoftheSandiganbayaninCivilCaseNos.00960099isdenied.
Nocost.
SOORDERED.
A.M.No.RTJ082103February23,2009
(FormerlyOCAI.P.I.No.072664RTJ)
EDNAS.V.OGKABENITO,Complainant,
vs.
RASADG.BALINDONG,PresidingJudge,RegionalTrialCourt,Malabang,LanaodelSur,Branch12,Respondent.
RESOLUTION

CORONA,J.:
InacomplaintdatedApril30,2007,complainantDr.EdnaS.V.OgkaBenito,thenactingmayoroftheMunicipalityof
Balabagan,LanaodelSur,chargedrespondentJudgeRasadG.BalindongoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Malabang,
LanaodelSur,Branch12,withgrossignoranceofthelaw.
ComplainantallegedthatonMay3,2005,shefiledadministrativeandcriminalcomplaintsagainstMamarintaG.Macabato,
thenmunicipaltreasurerofBalabagan,LanaodelSur,forgravemisconductintheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanMindanao
(Ombudsman)docketedasOMBMA05175E.OnSeptember15,2005,theOmbudsmanimpleadedthenMayorHadji
AmerR.Sampianoascorespondent.Complainantclaimedthattheserespondentsrefusedtopayhersalaryasvicemayor
sinceJuly1,2004despiterepeateddemands.1
OnMay16,2006,theOmbudsmanrenderedadecisioninthatcasefindingrespondentsthereinguiltyofconductprejudicial
tothebestinterestoftheserviceandimposingonthemthepenaltyofsuspensionfromofficewithoutpayforaperiodof
nine months. It further directed the Regional Secretary 2 of the Department of the Interior and Local Government,
AutonomousRegioninMuslimMindanao(DILGARMM)inCotabatoCitytoimmediatelyimplementthedecision. 3
IncompliancewiththedecisionoftheOmbudsman,theRegionalSecretaryoftheDILGARMMissuedDepartmentOrder
(D.O.)No.200638datedSeptember1,2006implementingsaiddecision. 4 DuetothesuspensionofMayorSampiano,
complainantwassworninasactingmayor.5
Meanwhile,onSeptember4,2006,respondentsinOMBMA05175Efiledapetitionforcertiorariandprohibition 6inthe
RTCofMalabang,LanaodelSur,Branch12.Thepetitionwasraffledtothesalaofhereinrespondentanddocketedas
SpecialCivilAction(SCA)No.12181.TheirprayerwastoannulandsetasideD.O.No.200638oftheDILGARMMand
prohibititsimplementation.7
Onthesamedate,respondentissuedanordergrantingatemporaryrestrainingorder(TRO)effectivefor72hoursdirecting
theRegionalSecretaryoftheDILGARMMtocease,desistandrefrainfromimplementingtheD.O. 8
InanorderdatedSeptember6,2006,respondentextendedtheTROforaperiodof20days.9
OnSeptember25,2006,respondentissuedanotherorderfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunctiondirectingthe
RegionalSecretarytocease,desistandrefrainfromimplementingD.O.No.200638.
OnOctober5,2006,respondentrenderedan"order"/decisionannullingD.O.No.200638. 10Thisdecisionandthewritof
preliminaryinjunctionwereannulledbytheCourtofAppeals(CA)initsFebruary8,2007decision. 11TheCAheldthatthe
RTChadnojurisdictionoverthepetitionfiledbytherespondentsinOMBMA05175EpursuanttoSections14and27
ofRepublicActNo.(RA)677012 (OmbudsmanActof1989)andSection7,RuleIIIoftheRulesofProcedureofthe
Ombudsman,asamendedbyAdministrativeOrderNo.1703.
Complainantassertedthat,despitetheclearprovisionsofthelawandprocedure,respondenttookcognizanceofSCANo.
12181andissuedtheTROs,writofpreliminaryinjunctionandOctober5,2006decision.Hence,shesubmittedthat
respondentshouldbeadministrativelydisciplinedbecauseofhisgrossignoranceofthelawwhichprejudicedtherightsof
herconstituentsinBalabagan,LanaodelSur.13
Respondent countered that he issued the orders in good faith. He was not moved by corrupt motives or improper
considerations.Thiscouldbeshownbythefactthatcomplainantfiledthiscomplaintonlyaftereightmonthsfromthe
resolutionofSCANo.12181.Consideringthatcomplainantfailedtoestablishbadfaithormalevolenceonhispart,the
complaintagainsthimshouldbedismissed.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its evaluation dated September 24, 2007, found that the pertinent
provisionsofthelawwereclear.Itstatedthat:
theissuanceofaTROandwritofpreliminaryinjunctionisnotameredeficiencyinprudence,orlapseofjudgmentby
respondentjudgebutisablatantdisregardofbasicrulesconstitutiveofgrossignoranceofthelaw.Inthefirstplace,

respondentJudgeshouldhaverefrainedfromtakingcognizanceofthesaidspecialcivilactionwhenitwasraffledtohis
court,heoughttoknowthis,yethedidotherwise.lawphil.net
ItrecommendedthatrespondentbeheldadministrativelyliableforgrossignoranceofthelawandfinedP21,000.14
WeagreewiththefindingsandevaluationoftheOCAbutwemodifythepenalty.
Apatentdisregardofsimple,elementaryandwellknownrulesconstitutesgrossignoranceofthelaw. 15Judgesareexpected
toexhibitmorethanjustcursoryacquaintancewithlawsandproceduralrules. 16 Theymustknowthelawandapplyit
properlyingoodfaith.17Theyarelikewiseexpectedtokeepabreastofprevailingjurisprudence. 18Forajudgewhoisplainly
ignorantofthelawtaintsthenobleofficeandgreatprivilegevestedinhim.Respondentsgrossignoranceofthelaw
constitutedinexcusableincompetencewhichwasanathematotheeffectivedispensationofjustice.
InSCANo.12181,respondentsinOMBMA05175EsoughttoannulandsetasideD.O.No.200638oftheDILG
ARMMandprohibititsimplementation.SinceD.O.No.200638wasissuedmerelytoimplementthedecisionofthe
Ombudsman, respondents in OMBMA05175E were actually questioning this decision and seeking to enjoin its
implementationbyfilingapetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionintheRTC.
Thisisnotallowedunderthelaw,rulesandjurisprudence.UnderSections14and27ofRA6770,nocourtshallhearany
appealorapplicationforaremedyagainstthedecisionorfindingsoftheOmbudsman,excepttheSupremeCourt,onapure
questionoflaw.
Section14.Restrictions.Nowritofinjunctionshallbeissuedbyanycourttodelayaninvestigationbeingconductedby
theOmbudsmanunderthisAct,unlessthereisaprimafacieevidencethatthesubjectmatteroftheinvestigationisoutside
thejurisd7ictionoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsman.
NocourtshallhearanyappealorapplicationforremedyagainstthedecisionorfindingsoftheOmbudsman,except
theSupremeCourt,on[a]purequestionoflaw.
xxxxxxxxx
Section27.EffectivityandFinalityofDecisions.(1)AllprovisionaryordersoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanare
immediatelyeffectiveandexecutory.Amotionforreconsiderationofanyorder,directiveordecisionoftheOfficeofthe
Ombudsmanmustbefiledwithinfive(5)daysafterreceiptofwrittennoticeandshallbeentertainedonlyonanyofthe
followinggrounds:
xxxxxxxxx
FindingsoffactbytheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanwhensupportedbysubstantialevidenceareconclusive.Anyorder,
directiveordecisionimposingthepenaltyofpubliccensureorreprimand,suspensionofnotmorethanone(1)month's
salaryshallbefinalandunappealable.
Inalladministrativedisciplinarycases,orders,directives,ordecisionsoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanmaybe
appealedtotheSupremeCourtbyfilingapetitionforcertiorariwithinten(10)daysfromreceiptofthewritten
noticeoftheorder,directiveordecisionordenialofthemotionforreconsiderationinaccordancewithRule45of
theRulesofCourt.1avvphi1
TheaboverulesmaybeamendedormodifiedbytheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanastheinterestofjusticemayrequire.
However, in Fabian v. Desierto,19 we enunciated the rule that appeals from the decisions of the Ombudsman in
administrativedisciplinarycases shouldbetakentotheCA.Followingourrulingin Fabian,theOmbudsmanissued
AdministrativeOrderNo.1720amendingSection7,RuleIII21ofAdministrativeOrderNo.07:22
Section7.Finalityandexecutionofdecision.Wheretherespondentisabsolvedofthecharge,andincaseofconviction
wherethepenaltyimposedispubliccensureorreprimand,suspensionofnotmorethanonemonth,orafinenotequivalent

toonemonthsalary,thedecisionshallbefinal,executoryandunappealable.Inallothercases,thedecisionmaybe
appealedtotheCourtofAppealsonaverifiedpetitionforreviewundertherequirementsandconditionssetforthin
Rule43oftheRulesofCourt,withinfifteen(15)daysfromreceiptofthewrittenNoticeoftheDecisionorOrder
denyingtheMotionforReconsideration.
Anappealshallnotstopthedecisionfrombeingexecutory.Incasethepenaltyissuspensionorremovalandtherespondent
winssuchappeal,heshallbeconsideredashavingbeenunderpreventivesuspensionandshallbepaidthesalaryandsuch
otheremolumentsthathedidnotreceivebyreasonofthesuspensionorremoval.
AdecisionoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsmaninadministrativecasesshallbeexecutedasamatterofcourse.TheOfficeof
theOmbudsmanshallensurethatthedecisionshallbestrictlyenforcedandproperlyimplemented.Therefusalorfailureby
anyofficerwithoutjustcausetocomplywithanorderoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsmantoremove,suspend,demote,fine,or
censureshallbeagroundfordisciplinaryactionagainstsaidofficer.(Emphasissupplied)
Theseprovisionsclearlyshowthat respondent had nojurisdiction totakecognizance ofthe petitionand toissue his
subsequentorders.Heproceededagainstsettleddoctrine,anactconstitutinggrossignoranceofthelaworprocedure. 23
Respondentsdefenseofgoodfaithhasnomerit.Indeed,goodfaithandabsenceofmalice,corruptmotivesorimproper
considerations,aresufficientdefensesinwhichajudgechargedwithignoranceofthelawcanfindrefuge. 24However
goodfaithinsituationsoffalliblediscretioninheresonlywithintheparametersoftolerablejudgmentanddoesnotapply
wheretheissuesaresosimpleandtheapplicablelegalprinciplesevidentandbasicastobebeyondpossiblemarginsof
error.25
Ifordinarypeoplearepresumedtoknowthelaw, 26judgesaredutyboundtoactuallyknowandunderstandit.Acontrary
rulewillnotonlylessenthefaithofthepeopleinthecourtsbutwillalsodefeatthefundamentalroleofthejudiciaryto
renderjusticeandpromotetheruleoflaw.
GrossignoranceofthelaworprocedureisaseriouschargeunderSection8,Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,asamendedby
A.M.No.01810SC,27 punishablebyeitherdismissalfromservice,suspensionorafineofmorethan P20,000butnot
exceedingP40,000.28Sincethisisrespondentsfirstoffense,wedeemitpropertoimposeuponhimafineofP30,000.
Membersofthebenchareenjoinedtobehaveatalltimesinawaythatpromotespublicconfidenceintheintegrityand
impartialityofthejudiciary.29 Respondent'sactoftakingcognizanceofacasewhichwasplainlynotwithinhiscourts
jurisdictionfailedtomeetthehighstandardsofjudicialconduct.
PursuanttoA.M.No.02902SC,30thisadministrativecaseagainstrespondentasajudge,basedongroundswhicharealso
groundsfordisciplinaryactionagainstmembersoftheBar,shallbeconsideredasdisciplinaryproceedingsagainstsuch
judgeasamemberoftheBar.31
WhenrespondententertainedSCANo.12181,issuedaTROandwritofpreliminaryinjunctionandsubsequentlygranted
thepetition,heactedcontrarytolaw,rulesandjurisprudence.Indoingso,heconsentedtothefilingofanunlawfulsuit,in
violationoftheLawyersOath.Ajudgewhofallsshortoftheethicsofthejudicialofficetendstodiminishthepeoples
respectforthelawandlegalprocesses. 32Healsofailstoobserveandmaintaintheesteemduetothecourtsandtojudicial
officers.33Thus,respondentviolatedCanons1and11oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility(CPR):
Canon1.AlawyershallupholdtheConstitution,obeythelawsofthelandand promoterespectforlawandlegal
processes.
xxxxxxxxx
Canon11.Alawyershallobserveandmaintaintherespectduetothecourtsandtojudicialofficersandshouldinsist
onsimilarconductbyothers.(Emphasissupplied)
RespondentsgrossignoranceofthelawalsorunscountertoCanons5and6oftheCPR:

Canon5.Alawyershallkeepabreastoflegaldevelopments,participateincontinuinglegaleducationprograms,support
efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in
disseminatinginformationregardingthelawandjurisprudence.
Canon6.TheseCanonsshallapplytolawyersingovernmentserviceinthedischargeoftheirofficialtasks.(Emphasis
supplied)
Judgesshouldbewellinformedofexistinglaws,recentamendmentsandcurrentjurisprudence,inkeepingwiththeirsworn
dutyasmembersofthebar(andbench)tokeepabreastoflegaldevelopments.
ForsuchviolationoftheLawyersOathandCanons1,5,6and11oftheCPR,respondentisfinedintheamountof
P10,000.34
WHEREFORE,RasadG.Balindong,PresidingJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Malabang,LanaodelSur,Branch12is
herebyfoundGUILTYofgrossignoranceofthelaw.HeisFINEDP30,000.
RespondentisfurtherherebyFINEDP10,000forhisviolationoftheLawyersOathandCanons1,5,6and11oftheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibility.
HeisSTERNLYWARNEDthatthecommissionofthesameorsimilaractsshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.
LetthisresolutionbeattachedtothepersonalfilesofrespondentintheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorandtheOfficeof
theBarConfidant.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.8392June29,2010
[FormerlyCBDCaseNo.082175]
ROSARIOT.MECARAL,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.DANILOS.VELASQUEZ,Respondent.
DECISION
PerCuriam:
Rosario T. Mecaral (complainant) charged Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines(IBP)CommitteeonBarDiscipline(CBD) 1 withGrossMisconductandGrossImmoralConductwhichshe
detailedinherPositionPaper2asfollows:
After respondent hired her as his secretary in 2002, she became his lover and commonlaw wife. In October 2007,
respondentbroughthertothemountainousUpperSanAgustininCaibiran,Biliranwhereheleftherwithareligiousgroup
knownastheFaithHealersAssociationofthePhilippines,ofwhichhewastheleader.Althoughhevisitedherdaily,his
visitsbecamescarceinNovembertoDecember2007,promptinghertoreturnhometoNaval,Biliran.Furious,respondent
broughtherbacktoSanAgustinwhere,onhisinstruction,hisfollowerstortured,brainwashedandinjectedherwithdrugs.
WhenshetriedtoescapeonDecember24,2007,themembersofthegrouptiedherspreadeagledtoabed.Madetowear
onlyaTshirtanddiapersandfedstalefood,shewasguarded24hoursadaybythewomenmembersincludingacertain
BernarditaTadeo.
Hermother,DeliaTambisVda.DeMecaral(Delia),havingreceivedinformationthatshewasweak,paleandwalking
barefootalongthestreetsinthemountainousareaofCaibiran,soughtthehelpoftheProvincialSocialWelfareDepartment

whichimmediatelydispatchedtwowomenvolunteerstorescueher.Thereligiousgrouprefusedtoreleaseher,however,
withouttheinstructionofrespondent.IttookPO3DelanG.Lee(PO3Lee)andPO1ArnelS.Robedillo(PO1Robedillo)to
rescueandreuniteherwithhermother.
Hence,thepresentdisbarmentcomplaintagainstrespondent.Additionally,complainantchargesrespondentwithbigamyfor
contractingasecondmarriagetoLenyH.AzuronAugust2,1996,despitethesubsistenceofhismarriagetohisfirstwife,
Ma.ShirleyG.Yunzal.
Insupportofhercharges,complainantsubmitteddocumentsincludingthefollowing:Affidavit 3ofDeliadatedFebruary5,
2008; Affidavit of PO3 Lee and PO1 Robedillo4 dated February 14, 2008; photocopy ofthe Certificate of Marriage 5
betweenrespondentandLenyH.Azur;photocopyoftheMarriageContract 6betweenrespondentandShirleyG.Yunzal;
NationalStatisticsOfficeCertification7datedApril23,2008showingthemarriageofMa.ShirleyG.Yunzaltorespondent
onApril27,1990inQuezonCityandthemarriageofLenyH.AzurtorespondentonAugust2,1996inMandaueCity,
Cebu;andcertifiedmachinecopyoftheResolution 8oftheOfficeoftheProvincialProsecutorofNaval,Biliranandthe
Information9lodgedwiththeRTCBranch37Caibiran,Naval,Biliran,forSeriousIllegalDetentionagainstrespondentand
BernarditaTadeooncomplaintofhereincomplainant.
DespiterespondentsreceiptoftheFebruary22,2008Order 10 oftheDirectorforBarDisciplineforhimtosubmithis
Answer within 15 days from receipt thereof, and his expressed intent to "properly make [his] defense in a verified
pleading,"11hedidnotfileanyAnswer.1avvphi1
On the scheduled Mandatory Conference set on September 2, 2008 of which the parties were duly notified, only
complainantscounselwaspresent.Respondentandhiscounselfailedtoappear.
InvestigatingCommissionerFelimonC.AbelitaIIIoftheCBD,inhisReportandRecommendation 12datedSeptember29,
2008,foundthat:
[respondents]actsofconvertinghissecretaryintoamistress;contractingtwomarriageswithShirleyandLeny,aregrossly
immoralwhichnocivilizedsocietyintheworldcancountenance.Thesubsequentdetentionandtortureofthecomplainant
isgrossmisconduct[which]onlyabeastmaybeabletodo.Certainly,therespondenthad violatedCanon1oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibilitywhichreads:
CANON1Alawyershallupholdtheconstitution,obeythelawsofthelandandpromoterespectforlawandlegal
processes.
xxxx
Inthelonglineofcases,theSupremeCourthasconsistentlyimposedseverepenaltyforgrosslyimmoralconductofa
lawyerlikethecaseatbar.InthecelebratedcaseofJoselanoGuevarravs.Atty.JoseManuelEala,the[Court]orderedthe
disbarmentoftherespondentformaintainingextramaritalrelationswithamarriedwoman,andhavingachildwithher.In
theinstantcase,notonlydidtherespondentcommitbigamyforcontractingmarriageswithShirleyYunzalin1990and
LenyAzurin1996,buttherespondentalsomadehissecretary(complainant)hismistressandsubsequently,torturedherto
thepointofdeath.Allthesecircumstancesshowedthemoralfiberrespondentismadeof,which[leave]theundersigned
withnochoicebuttorecommendthedisbarmentofAtty.DaniloS.Velasquez.13(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
The IBP Board of Governors of Pasig City, by Resolution 14 dated December 11, 2008, ADOPTED the Investigating
CommissionersfindingsandAPPROVEDtherecommendationforthedisbarmentofrespondent.
AsdidtheIBPBoardofGovernors,theCourtfindstheIBPCommissionersevaluationandrecommendationwelltaken.
Thepracticeoflawisnotarightbutaprivilegebestowedbythestateuponthosewhoshowthattheypossess,andcontinue
topossess,thequalificationsrequiredbylawfortheconfermentofsuchprivilege. 15 Whenalawyersmoralcharacteris
assailed,suchthathisrighttocontinue
practicinghischerishedprofessionisimperiled,itbehooveshimtomeetthechargessquarelyandpresentevidence,tothe
satisfactionoftheinvestigatingbodyandthisCourt,thatheismorallyfittokeephisnameintheRollofAttorneys. 16

Respondenthasnotdischargedtheburden.HeneverattendedthehearingsbeforetheIBPtorebutthechargesbrought
againsthim,suggestingthattheyaretrue. 17DespitehisletterdatedMarch28,2008manifestingthathewouldcomeupwith
hisdefense"inaverifiedpleading,"heneverdid.
AsidethenfromtheIBPsfindingthatrespondentviolated Canon1 oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,healso
violatedtheLawyersOathreading:
I_________,havingbeenpermittedtocontinueinthepracticeoflawinthePhilippines,dosolemnlyswearthatIrecognize
thesupremeauthorityoftheRepublicofthePhilippines;Iwill supportitsConstitutionandobeythelawsaswellasthe
legalordersofthedulyconstitutedauthoritiestherein;Iwilldonofalsehood,norconsenttothedoingofanyincourt;Iwill
notwittinglyorwillinglypromoteorsueanygroundless,falseorunlawfulsuit,norgiveaidnorconsenttothesame;Iwill
delaynomanformoneyormalice,andwillconductmyselfasalawyeraccordingtothebestofmyknowledgeand
discretionwithallgoodfidelityaswellastothecourtsastomyclients;andIimposeuponmyselfthisvoluntaryobligation
withoutanymentalreservationorpurposeofevasion.SohelpmeGod,(underscoringsupplied),
andRule7.03,Canon7ofthesameCodereading:
Rule7.03Alawyershallnotengageinconductthatadverselyreflectsonhisfitnesstopracticelaw,norshallhe,whether
inpublicorprivatelife,behaveinascandalousmannertothediscreditofthelegalprofession.
TheApril30,2008Resolution18 oftheProvincialProsecutoroncomplainantschargeagainstrespondentandBernardita
TadeoforSeriousIllegalDetentionbearsspecialnoting,viz:
[T]hecounteraffidavitofxxxBernarditaC.Tadeo(coaccusedinthecomplaint)hastheeffectofstrengtheningthe
allegationsagainstAtty.DaniloVelasquez.Indeed,itisclearnowthattherewasreallyphysicalrestraintemployedbyAtty.
VelasquezuponthepersonofRosarioMecaral.Evenasheclaimedthatonthedayprivatecomplainantwasfetchedbythe
twowomenandpoliceofficers,complainantwasalreadyfreelyroamingaroundtheplaceandthus,couldnothavebeen
physicallydetained.However,itisnotreallynecessarythatRosariobephysicallykeptwithinanenclosuretorestricther
freedomoflocomotion.Infact,shewasalwaysaccompaniedwherevershewouldwander,thatitcouldbeimpossiblefor
hertoescapeespeciallyconsideringtheremotenessandthedistancebetweenUpperSanAgustin,Caibiran,Biliranto
Naval,Biliranwheresheisaresident.ThepeoplefromtheFaithHealersAssociationhadtheexpressandimpliedorders
comingfromrespondentAtty.DaniloVelasqueztokeepguardingRosarioMecaralandnottolethergofreely.Thatcanbe
gleanedfromtheaffidavitofcorespondentBernarditaTadeo.ThelatterbeingreprimandedwheneverAtty.Velasquez
wouldlearnthatcomplainanthaduntangledtheclothtiedonherwristsandfeet.19(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
That, as reflected in the immediatelyquoted Resolution in the criminal complaint against respondent, his therein co
respondentcorroboratedthetestimoniesofcomplainantswitnesses,andthattheallegationsagainsthimremainunrebutted,
sufficiently prove the charges against him by clearly preponderant evidence, the quantum of evidence needed in an
administrativecaseagainstalawyer.20
Infine,byengaginghimselfinactswhicharegrosslyimmoralandactswhichconstitutegrossmisconduct,respondenthas
ceasedtopossessthequalificationsofalawyer.21
WHEREFORE,respondent,Atty.DaniloS.Velasquez,isDISBARRED,andhisnameORDEREDSTRICKENfromthe
RollofAttorneys.ThisDecisionisimmediatelyexecutoryandorderedtobepartoftherecordsofrespondentintheOffice
oftheBarConfidant,SupremeCourtofthePhilippines.
LetcopiesoftheDecisionbefurnishedtheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesandcirculatedtoallcourts.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.5700January30,2006
PHILIPPINEAMUSEMENTANDGAMINGCORPORATION,representedbyAtty.CarlosR.Bautista,Jr.,
Complainant,

vs.
ATTY.DANTEA.CARANDANG,Respondent.
DECISION
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:
BeforeusisaverifiedcomplaintfordisbarmentfiledbythePhilippineAmusementandGamingCorporation(PAGCOR)
againstAtty.DanteA.Carandang.
ThecomplaintallegesthatAtty.Carandang,respondent,isthepresidentofBingoRoyale,Incorporated(BingoRoyale),a
privatecorporationorganizedunderthelawsofthePhilippines.
OnFebruary2,1999,PAGCORandBingoRoyaleexecuteda"GrantofAuthoritytoOperateBingoGames."ArticleVof
thisdocumentmandatesBingoRoyaletoremit20%ofitsgrosssalestoPAGCOR.This20%isdividedinto15%to
PAGCORand5%franchisetaxtotheBureauofInternalRevenue.
Inthecourseofitsoperations,BingoRoyaleincurredarrearsamountingtoP6,064,833.14asofNovember15,2001.Instead
ofdemandingthepaymenttherefor,PAGCORallowedBingoRoyaleandrespondentAtty.Carandangtopaythesaid
amountinmonthlyinstallmentofP300,000.00fromJuly2001toJune2003.
BingoRoyalethenissuedtoPAGCORtwentyfour(24)BankofCommercechecksinthesumof P7,200,000.00signedby
respondent.
However,whenthechecksweredepositedaftertheendofeachmonthattheLandBank,U.N.AvenueBranch,Manila,
theywerealldishonoredbyreasonofBingoRoyales"ClosedAccount."
DespitePAGCORsdemandlettersdatedNovember12andDecember12,2001,andFebruary12,2002,respondentfailed
to pay the amounts of the checks. Thus, PAGCOR filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila criminal
complaintsforviolationsofBatasPambansa(B.P.)Blg.22againstrespondent.
PAGCORcontendsthatinissuingthosebouncingchecks,respondentisliableforseriousmisconduct,violationofthe
AttorneysOathandviolationoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility;andpraysthathisnamebestrickenfromtheRoll
ofAttorneys.
Inhis"Opposition"tothecomplaint,respondentaverredthatheisnotliableforissuingbouncingchecksbecausetheywere
drawnbyBingoRoyale.Hisactofdoingso"isnotrelatedtotheofficeofalawyer."
Respondentexplainedthatsincethestartofitsoperations,BingoRoyalehasbeenexperiencingfinancialdifficultiesdueto
meagersales.Hence,itincurredarrearagesinpayingPAGCORssharesandfailedtopaytheamountsofthechecks.
OnNovember20,2001,PAGCORclosedtheoperationsofBingoRoyale.ThispromptedthelattertofilewiththeRegional
TrialCourt,Branch59,MakatiCity,acomplaintfordamagesagainstPAGCOR,docketedasCivilCaseNo.011671.
Subsequently,BingoRoyalebecamebankrupt.Respondentnowmaintainsthatthedishonorofthecheckswascausedby
circumstancesbeyondhiscontrolandpleadsthatourpowertodisbarhimmustbeexercisedwithgreatcaution.
OnFebruary24,2003,weresolvedtoreferthiscasetotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)forinvestigation,report
andrecommendation.1
InhisReportandRecommendation,Atty.DoroteoB.Aguila,theInvestigatingIBPCommissioner,madethefollowing
findingsandobservations:
Whethertoissueornotchecksinfavorofapayeeisavoluntaryact.Itisclearlyachoiceforanindividual(especiallyone
learnedinthelaw),whetherinapersonalcapacityorofficerofacorporation,todosoafterassessingandweighingthe

consequencesandrisksfordoingso.AsPresidentofBRI,hecannotbesaidtobeunawareoftheprobabilitythatBRI,the
companyheruns,couldnotraisefunds,totallyorpartially,tocoverthechecksastheyfelldue.Thedesiretocontinuethe
operationsofhiscompanydoesnotexcuserespondentsactofviolatingthelawbyissuingworthlesschecks.Moreover,
inabilitytopayisnotaground,undertheCivilCode,tosuspendnorextinguishanobligation.Specifically,respondent
contendsthatbecauseofbusinessreversesorinabilitytogeneratefunds,BRIshouldbeexcusedfrommakinggoodthe
paymentofthechecks.Ifthistheoryissustained,debtorswillmerelystatethattheynolongerhavethecapacitytopayand,
consequently,notobligedtopayontime,norfullyorpartially,theirdebttocreditors.Surely,undersignedcannotagree
withthiscontention.
Ascorrectlypointedoutbycomplainant,violationofB.P.Blg.22isanoffensethatinvolvespublicinterest.Intheleading
caseofPeoplev.Taada,theHonorableSupremeCourtexplainedthenatureoftheoffense,thus
xxx
ThegravamenoftheoffensepunishedbyB.P.Blg.22istheactofmakingandissuingaworthlesscheckoracheckthatis
dishonoreduponitspresentationforpaymentxxx.Thethrustofthelawistoprohibitunderpainofpenalsanctionsthe
makingofworthlesschecksandputtingthemincirculation.Becauseofitsdeleteriouseffectsonthe publicinterest,the
practiceisproscribedbylaw.Thelawpunishestheactnotasanoffenseagainstpropertybutanoffenseagainst public
order.
xxx
Theeffectsoftheissuanceofaworthlesschecktranscendstheprivateinterestsofthepartiesdirectlyinvolvedinthe
transactionandtouchestheinterestofthecommunityatlarge.Themischiefitcreatesisnotonlyawrongtothepayeeor
holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation,
multipliedathousandfold,canverywellpollutethechannelsoftradeandcommerce,injurethebankingsystem and
eventuallyhurtthewelfareofsocietyandthepublicinterest.xxx(Emphasissupplied)
TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityrequiresalawyertoobeythelawsofthelandandpromoterespectforlawandthe
legalprocesses.Italsoprohibitsalawyerfromengaginginunlawfulconduct(Canon1&Rule1.01).Byissuingthe
bouncingchecksinblatantviolationofB.P.Blg.22,respondentclearlywasirresponsibleanddisplayedlackofconcernfor
therightsofothersnorforthecanonsofprofessionalresponsibility(Castillov.Taguines,254SCRA554).Atty.Carandang
deservestobesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofoneyear.ConsistentwiththerulinginthisCastillocase,
suspensionforoneyearisthedeservedminimumpenaltyfortheoutrageousconductofalawyerwhohasnoconcernforthe
propertyrightsofothersnorforthecanonsofprofessionalresponsibility.Moreover,convictionfortheoffenseofviolation
ofB.P.Blg.22isnotevenessentialfordisbarment(DeJesusv.Collado,216SCRA619).
CommissionerAguilathenrecommendedthatrespondentbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawforone(1)year.
On September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVI2003177 adopting and approving
Commissioner AguilasReport andRecommendationwithmodificationinthesense that therecommended penaltyis
reducedtosuspensionofsix(6)months,thus:
RESOLVEDTOADOPTandAPPROVE,asitisherebyADOPTEDandAPPROVED,theReportandRecommendationof
theInvestigatingCommissioneroftheaboveentitledcase,hereinmadepartoftheResolution/DecisionasAnnex"A"and,
findingtherecommendationfullysupportedbytheevidenceonrecordandtheapplicablelawsandrules,withmodification,
andconsideringthattheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityrequiresalawyertoobeythelawsofthelandandpromote
respectoflawandthelegalprocesses,andalsoprohibitsalawyerfromengaginginunlawfulconduct,Atty.DanteA.
CarandangisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)months.2
Section1,B.P.Blg.22provides:
Wherethecheckisdrawnbyacorporation,companyorentity,thepersonorpersonswhoactuallysignedthecheckon
behalfofsuchdrawershallbeliableunderthisAct.(Emphasissupplied)
Clearly,evenifthecheckwasdrawnbyBingoRoyale,stillrespondentisliable.

InPeoplev.Tuanda,3weexplainedthenatureofviolationofB.P.Blg.22asfollows:
ThegravamenoftheoffensepunishedbyB.P.Blg.22istheactofmakingandissuingaworthlesscheckoracheckthatis
dishonoreduponitspresentationforpaymentxxx.Thethrustofthelawistoprohibitunderpainofpenalsanctions,the
makingofworthlesschecksandputtingthemincirculation.Becauseofitsdeleteriouseffectsonthepublicinterest,the
practiceisproscribedbythelaw.Thelawpunishestheactnotasanoffenseagainstpropertybutanoffenseagainstpublic
order.
Theeffectsoftheissuanceofaworthlesschecktranscendstheprivateinterestsofthepartiesdirectlyinvolvedinthe
transactionandtouchestheinterestsofthecommunityatlarge.Themischiefitcreatesisnotonlyawrongtothepayeeor
holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation,
multipliedathousandfold,canverywellpollutethechannelsoftradeandcommerce,injurethebankingsystem and
eventuallyhurtthewelfareofsocietyandthepublicinterest.
Asa lawyer, respondent isdeemed toknowthelaw,especiallyB.P.Blg.22.Byissuingchecks inviolationofthe
provisionsofthislaw,respondentisguiltyofseriousmisconduct.InCamusv.CivilServiceBoardofAppeals,4wedefined
misconductasfollows:
Misconducthasbeendefinedas"wrongorimproperconduct;"and"gross"hasbeenheldtomean"flagrant;shameful"
(Webster).ThisCourtonceheldthatthewordmisconductimpliesawrongfulintentionandnotamereerrorofjudgment.
InLizasov.Amante,5weheldthatalawyermaybedisciplinednotonlyformalpracticeinconnectionwithhisprofession,
butalsoforgrossmisconductoutsideofhisprofessionalcapacity,thus:
Thenatureoftheoffice,thetrustrelationwhichexistsbetweenattorneyandclient,aswellasbetweencourtandattorney,
andthestatutoryruleprescribingthequalificationsofattorney,uniformlyrequirethatanattorneyshallbeapersonofgood
moralcharacter.xxxSoitisheldthat anattorneywillberemovednotonlyformalpracticeanddishonestyinhis
profession,butalsoforgrossmisconductnotconnectedwithhisprofessionalduties,whichshowshimtobeunfitfor
theofficeandunworthyoftheprincipleswhichhislicenseandthelawconferuponhim.(Underscoringsupplied)
RespondentlikewiseviolatedtheAttorneysOaththathewill,amongothers,obeythelaws;andtheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility,specificallythefollowingprovisions:
Cannon1AlawyershallupholdtheConstitution,obeythelawsofthelandandpromoterespectforthelawandlegal
processes.
Rule1.01Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct.
Canon7Alawyershallatalltimesupholdtheintegrityanddignityofthelegalprofessionandsupporttheactivities
oftheIntegratedBar.
Rule7.03Alawyershallnotengageinconductthatadverselyreflectsonhisfitnesstopracticelaw,norshallhe,whether
inpublicorprivatelife,behaveinascandalousmannertothediscreditofthelegalprofession.
WHEREFORE,Atty.DanteA.Carandangisdeclared GUILTYofseriousmisconductandviolationsoftheAttorneys
OathandtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.AsrecommendedbytheIBPBoardofGovernors,heisSUSPENDED
fromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)monthseffectivefromnotice.
LetacopyofthisDecisionbefurnishedtheOfficeoftheBarConfidant,theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,andallcourts
inthelandfortheirinformationandguidance.TheOfficeoftheBarConfidantis DIRECTEDtospreadacopyofthis
DecisiononthepersonalrecordofAtty.Carandang.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.5148July1,2003

ATTY.RAMONP.REYES,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.VICTORIANOT.CHIONGJR.,respondent.
PANGANIBAN,J.:
Lawyersshouldtreateachotherwithcourtesy,dignityandcivility.Thebickeringandthehostilityoftheirclientsshouldnot
affecttheirconductandrapportwitheachotherasprofessionalsandmembersofthebar.
TheCase
BeforeusisaSwornComplaint 1filedbyAtty.RamonP.ReyeswiththeOfficeoftheBarConfidantofthisCourt,seeking
the disbarment of Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. for violation of his lawyers oath and of Canon 8 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility.AftertheThirdDivisionofthisCourtreferredthecasetotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines
(IBP),theIBPCommissiononBarDisciplineresolvedtosuspendhimasfollows:
"xxx[C]onsideringthatrespondentisboundbyhisoathwhichbindshimtotheobligationthathewillnotwittinglyor
willinglypromoteorsueanygroundless,falseorunlawfulsuit,norgiveaidnorconsenttothesame.Inaddition,Canon8
oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityprovidesthatalawyershallconducthimselfwithcourtesy,fairnessandcandor
towardshisprofessionalcolleagues,andshallavoidharassingtacticsagainstopposingcounsel.Inimpleadingcomplainant
andProsecutorSalangainCivilCaseNo.4884,whenitwasapparentthattherewasnolegalgroundtodoso,respondent
violatedhisoathofofficeaswellastheabovequotedCanonoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,[r]espondentis
herebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawfortwo(2)years."2
TheFacts
InhisComplaint,Atty.ReyesallegesthatsometimeinJanuary1998,hisserviceswereengagedbyoneZonggiXu, 3 a
ChineseTaiwanese,inabusinessventurethatwentawry.Xuinvested P300,000onaCebubasedfishball,tempuraand
seafoodproductsfactorybeingsetupbyacertainChiaHsienPan,anotherChineseTaiwaneseresidinginZamboangaCity.
Eventually,theformerdiscoveredthatthelatterhadnotestablishedafishballfactory.WhenXuaskedforhismoneyback,
Panbecamehostile,makingitnecessaryfortheformertoseeklegalassistance.
Xu, through herein complainant, filed a Complaint for estafa against Pan, who was represented by respondent. The
Complaint,docketedasIS98J51990,wasassignedtoAssistantManilaCityProsecutorPedroB.Salanga,whothenissued
asubpoenaforPantoappearforpreliminaryinvestigationonOctober27and29,1998.Thelatterneitherappearedonthe
twoscheduledhearingsnorsubmittedhiscounteraffidavit.Hence,ProsecutorSalangafiledaCriminalComplaint 4 for
estafaagainsthimbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofManila. 5OnApril8,1999,theManilaRTCissuedaWarrantof
Arrest6againstPan.
Thereafter,respondentfiledanUrgentMotiontoQuashtheWarrantofArrest. 7HealsofiledwiththeRTCofZamboanga
CityaCivilComplaintforthecollectionofasumofmoneyanddamagesaswellasforthedissolutionofabusinessventure
againstcomplainant,XuandProsecutorSalanga.
Whenconfrontedbycomplainant,respondentexplainedthatitwasPanwhohaddecidedtoinstitutethecivilactionagainst
Atty.Reyes.Respondentclaimedhewouldsuggesttohisclienttodropthecivilcase,ifcomplainantwouldmoveforthe
dismissaloftheestafacase.However,thetwolawyersfailedtoreachasettlement.
InhisComment8datedJanuary27,2000,respondentarguedthathehadshownnodisrespectinimpleadingAtty.Reyesas
codefendantinCivilCaseNo.4884.Heclaimedthattherewasnobasistoconcludethatthesuitwasgroundless,andthatit
hadbeeninstitutedonlytoexactvengeance.HeallegedthatProsecutorSalangawasimpleadedasanadditionaldefendant
becauseoftheirregularitiesthelatterhadcommittedinconductingthecriminalinvestigation.Specifically,Prosecutor
SalangahadresolvedtofiletheestafacasedespitethependencyofPansMotionforanOpportunitytoSubmitCounter
AffidavitsandEvidence,9oftheappeal10tothejusticesecretary,andoftheMotiontoDefer/SuspendProceedings.11

Ontheotherhand,complainantwasimpleaded,becauseheallegedlyconnivedwithhisclient(Xu)infilingtheestafacase,
which the former knew fully well was baseless. According to respondent, the irregularities committed by Prosecutor
Salangainthecriminalinvestigationandcomplainantsconnivancethereinwerediscoveredonlyaftertheinstitutionofthe
collectionsuit.
TheThirdDivisionofthisCourtreferredthecasetotheIBPforinvestigation,reportandrecommendation. 12Thereafter,the
BoardofGovernorsoftheIBPpasseditsJune29,2002Resolution.13
ReportandRecommendationoftheIBP
InherReportandRecommendation,14CommissionerMilagrosV.SanJuan,towhomthecasewasassignedbytheIBPfor
investigationandreport,averredthatcomplainantandProsecutorSalangahadbeenimpleadedinCivilCaseNo.4884on
thesolebasisoftheCriminalComplaintforestafatheyhadfiledagainstrespondentsclient.InhisComment,respondent
himselfclaimedthat"thereasonxxxwasxxxtheirregularitiesofthecriminalinvestigation/connivanceandconsequent
damages."
CommissionerSanJuanmaintainedthatthecollectionsuit withdamageshadbeenfiledpurposelytoobtainleverage
againsttheestafacase,inwhichrespondentsclientwasthedefendant.Therewasnoneedtoimpleadcomplainantand
ProsecutorSalanga,sincetheyhadneverparticipatedinthebusinesstransactionsbetweenPanandXu.Improperandhighly
questionablewastheinclusionoftheprosecutorandcomplainantinthecivilcaseinstitutedbyrespondentonthealleged
proddingofhisclient.Verily,thesuitwasfiledtoharasscomplainantandProsecutorSalanga.
CommissionerSanJuanheldthatrespondenthadnogroundtoimpleadProsecutorSalangaandcomplainantinCivilCase
No.4884.Insodoing,respondentviolatedhisoathofofficeandCanon8oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.The
IBPadoptedtheinvestigatingcommissionersrecommendationforhissuspensionfromthepracticeoflawfortwo(2)
years.
ThisCourtsRuling
WeagreewiththeIBPsrecommendation.
Lawyersarelicensedofficersofthecourtswhoareempoweredtoappear,prosecuteanddefend;anduponwhompeculiar
duties,responsibilitiesandliabilitiesaredevolvedbylawasaconsequence. 15Membershipinthebarimposesuponthem
certainobligations.Mandatedtomaintainthedignityofthelegalprofession,theymustconductthemselveshonorablyand
fairly.Moreover,Canon8oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityprovidesthat"[a]lawyershallconducthimselfwith
courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel."
RespondentsactionsdonotmeasureuptothisCanon.CivilCaseNo.4884wasforthe"collectionofasumofmoney,
damagesanddissolutionofanunregisteredbusinessventure."IthadoriginallybeenfiledagainstSpousesXu,butwaslater
modifiedtoincludecomplainantandProsecutorSalanga.
TheAmendedandSupplementalComplaints16allegedthefollowing:
"27.TheinvestigatingprosecutordefendantPedroSalangaknowinglyanddeliberatelyrefusedandfailedtoperformhis
dutyenjoinedbythelawandtheConstitutiontoaffordplaintiffChiaHsienPandueprocessbyviolatinghisrightsunder
theRulesonpreliminaryinvestigations;healsofalselymadeaCertificationunderoaththatpreliminaryinvestigationwas
dulyconductedandplaintiff[was]dulyinformedofthechargesagainsthimbutdidnotanswer;hemaliciouslyandxxx
partiallyruledthattherewasprobablecauseandfiledaCriminalInformationforestafaagainstplaintiffChiaHsienPan,
knowingfully[well]thattheproceedingswerefatallydefectiveandnullandvoid;xxx;
"28.Saidassistantprosecutor,knowingalsothatplaintiffChiaHsienPanfiledsaidappealandmotiontodeferforthevalid
groundsstatedthereindeliberatelyrefusedtocorrecthiserrorsandconsentedtothearrestofsaidplaintiffunderaninvalid
informationandwarrantofarrest.

"29.DefendantAtty.RamonReyes,knowingthatthesuitofdefendantZongoiXuisbaselessconnivedwiththelatterto
harassandextortmoneyfromplaintiffChiaHsienPanbysaidcriminalprosecutioninthemannercontrarytolaw,morals
andpublicpolicy,resultingtothearrestofsaidplaintiffandcausingplaintiffsgraveirreparabledamages[.]" 17
WeconcurwiththeIBPthattheamendmentoftheComplaintandthefailuretoresorttotheproperremediesstrengthen
complainantsallegationthatthecivilactionwasintendedtogainleverageagainsttheestafacase.Ifrespondentorhisclient
did not agree with Prosecutor Salangas resolution, they should have used the proper procedural and administrative
remedies.RespondentcouldhavegonetothejusticesecretaryandfiledaMotionforReconsiderationoraMotionfor
ReinvestigationofProsecutorSalangasdecisiontofileaninformationforestafa.
Inthetrialcourt,aMotiontoDismisswasavailabletohimifhecouldshowthattheestafacasewasfiledwithoutbasis.
Moreover,hecouldhaveinstituteddisbarmentproceedingsagainstcomplainantandProsecutorSalanga,ifhebelievedthat
thetwohadconspiredtoactillegally.Asalawyer,respondentshouldhaveadvisedhisclientoftheavailabilityofthese
remedies.Thus,thefilingofthecivilcasehadnojustification.
ThelackofinvolvementofcomplainantandProsecutorSalangainthebusinesstransactionsubjectofthecollectionsuit
showsthattherewasnoreasonfortheirinclusioninthatcase.Itappearsthatrespondenttooktheestafacaseasapersonal
affrontandusedthecivilcaseasatooltoreturntheinconveniencesufferedbyhisclient.Hisactionsdemonstrateamisuse
ofthelegalprocess.Theaimofeverylawsuitshouldbetorenderjusticetothepartiesaccordingtolaw,nottoharass
them.18
Lawyersshouldtreattheiropposingcounselsandotherlawyerswithcourtesy,dignityandcivility.Agreatpartoftheir
comfort,aswellasoftheirsuccessatthebar,dependsupontheirrelationswiththeirprofessionalbrethren.Sincetheydeal
constantlywitheachother,theymusttreatoneanotherwithtrustandrespect.Anyundueillfeelingbetweenclientsshould
notinfluencecounselsintheirconductanddemeanortowardeachother.Mutualbickering,unjustifiedrecriminationsand
offensivebehavioramonglawyersnotonlydetractfromthedignityofthelegalprofession, 19 butalsoconstitutehighly
unprofessionalconductsubjecttodisciplinaryaction.
Furthermore,theLawyersOathexhortslawpractitionersnotto"wittinglyorwillinglypromoteorsueanygroundless,false
orunlawfulsuit,norgiveaidnorconsenttothesame."
RespondentclaimsthatitwashisclientwhoinsistedinimpleadingcomplainantandProsecutorSalanga.Suchexcuseis
flimsyandunacceptable.Whilelawyersoweentiredevotiontotheinterestsoftheirclients,theirofficedoesnotpermit
violationofthelaworanymanneroffraudorchicanery. 20 Theirrenditionofimproperserviceinvitessternandjust
condemnation.Correspondingly,theyadvancethehonoroftheirprofessionandthebestinterestsoftheirclientswhenthey
renderserviceorgiveadvicethatmeetsthestrictestprinciplesofmorallaw. 21
Thehighestrewardthatcanbebestowedonlawyersistheesteemoftheirprofessionalbrethren.Thisesteemcannotbe
purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born ofsharp contestsand thrives despite
conflicting interests. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skill in the honorable performance of
professionalduty.22
WHEREFORE,respondentisfoundguiltyaschargedandisherebySUSPENDEDfortwo(2)yearsfromthepracticeof
law,effectiveimmediately.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.5398December3,2002
ANTONIOA.ALCANTARA,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.MARIANOPEFIANCO,respondent.
DECISION

MENDOZA,J.:
ThisisacomplaintagainstAtty.MarianoPefiancoforconductunbecomingamemberofthebarforusingimproperand
offensivelanguageandthreateningandattemptingtoassaultcomplainant.
Thecomplainant,Atty.AntonioA.Alcantara,istheincumbentDistrictPublicAttorneyofthePublicAttorneysOfficein
SanJose,Antique.HeallegedthatonMay18,2000,whileAtty.RamonSalvaniIIIwasconferringwithaclientinthe
PublicAttorneysOffice(PAO)attheHallofJusticeinSanJose,Antique,awomanapproachedthem.Complainantsaw
thewomanintears,whereuponhewenttothegroupandsuggestedthatAtty.Salvanitalkwithheramicablyasahearing
wastakingplaceinanotherroom.Atthispoint,respondentAtty.MarianoPefianco,whowassittingnearby,stoodupand
shoutedatAtty.Salvaniandhisclient,saying,"Ngaaginaareglomoina,ipapresoangimongakliyenteparamahibalan
naanangsala."("Whydoyousettlethatcase?Haveyourclientimprisonedsothathewillrealizehismistake.")
ComplainantsaidhewassurprisedatrespondentPefiancosoutburstandaskedhimtocooloff,butrespondentcontinuedto
fulminateatAtty.Salvani.Atty.Salvanitriedtoexplaintorespondentthatitwasthewomanwhowasaskingifthecivil
aspectofthecriminalcasecouldbesettledbecauseshewasnolongerinterestedinprosecutingthesame.Respondent
refusedtolistenandinsteadcontinuedtoscoldAtty.Salvaniandthelattersclient.
AsheadoftheOffice,complainantapproachedrespondentandaskedhimtotakeiteasyandleaveAtty.Salvanitosettlethe
matter.Respondentatfirstlistened,butshortlyafterheagainstartedshoutingatandscoldingAtty.Salvani.Toavoidany
scenewithrespondent,complainantwentinsidehisoffice.Heaskedhisclerktoputanoticeoutsideprohibitinganyone
frominterferingwithanyactivityinthePublicAttorneysOffice.
Complainantsaidthathethenwentouttoattendahearing,butwhenhecamebackheheardrespondentPefiancosaying:
"NagsilingsiAtty.AlcantarangapagwaonnakunoakodyasaPAO,buyonngaklasekatawo."("Atty.Alcantarasaidthat
hewouldsendmeoutofthePAO,whatanidiot.")Then,uponseeingcomplainant,respondentpointedhisfingerathimand
repeatedhisstatementfortheotherpeopleintheofficetohear.Atthispoint,accordingtocomplainant,heconfronted
respondentPefiancoandtoldhimtoobservecivilityorelsetoleavetheofficeifhehadnobusinessthere.Complainantsaid
respondentresentedthisandstartedhurlinginvectivesathim.Accordingtocomplainant,respondenteventookamenacing
stancetowardshim.
Thiscausedacommotionintheoffice.Atty.PepinMarfilandMr.RobertMinguez,theChiefoftheProbationOffice,tried
topacifyrespondentPefianco.TwoguardsoftheHallofJusticecametotakerespondentoutoftheoffice,butbeforethey
coulddoso,respondenttriedtoattackcomplainantandevenshoutedathim,"Gagoka!"("Yourestupid!")Fortunately,the
guardswereabletofendoffrespondentsblowandcomplainantwasnotharmed.
ComplainantalsosubmittedtheaffidavitsofAtty.RamonSalvaniIII,FelizardoDelRosario,Atty.PepinJoeyMarfil,
RobertMinguez,HerbertYsulatandRamonQuintayotocorroboratehisallegations.
InhisCommentandCounterComplaint,respondentPefiancosaidthatthesightofthecryingwoman,whosehusbandhad
beenmurdered,movedhimandpromptedhimtotakeupherdefense.Hesaidthatheresentedthefactthatcomplainanthad
orderedanemployee,NapoleonLabonete,toputasignoutsideprohibiting"standbys"fromhangingroundinthePublic
AttorneysOffice.
RespondentclaimedthatwhiletalkingwithAtty.Salvaniconcerningthewomanscase,complainant,withhisbodyguard,
arrivedandshoutedathimtogetoutofthePublicAttorneysOffice.Heclaimedthattwosecurityguardsalsocame,and
complainantorderedthemtotakerespondentoutoftheoffice.Contrarytocomplainantsclaims,however,respondentsaid
thatitwascomplainantwhomovedtopunchhimandshoutathim,"Gagoka!"("Yourestupid!")
Prior to the filing of the present complaint, respondent Pefianco had filed before the Office of the Ombudsman an
administrativeandcriminalcomplaintagainstcomplainant.However,thecomplaintwasdismissedbythesaidoffice.
TheCommitteeonBarDisciplineoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesfoundthatrespondentcommittedtheactsalleged
inthecomplaint andthat heviolatedCanon8oftheCodeofProfessional Responsibility.TheCommitteenotedthat
respondentfailednotonlytodenytheaccusationsagainsthimbutalsotogiveanyexplanationforhisactions.Forthis

reason,itrecommendedthatrespondentbereprimandedandwarnedthatrepetitionofthesameactwillbedealtwithmore
severelyinthefuture.
WefindtherecommendationoftheIBPCommitteeonBarDisciplinetobewelltaken.
TheevidenceonrecordindeedshowsthatitwasrespondentPefiancowhoprovokedtheincidentinquestion.Theaffidavits
ofseveraldisinterestedpersonsconfirmcomplainantsallegationthatrespondentPefiancoshoutedandhurledinvectivesat
himandAtty.Salvaniandevenattemptedtolayhandsonhim(complainant).
Canon8oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility 1admonisheslawyerstoconductthemselveswithcourtesy,fairnessand
candortowardtheirfellowlawyers.Lawyersaredutyboundtoupholdthedignityofthelegalprofession.Theymustact
honorably,fairlyandcandidlytowardeachotherandotherwiseconductthemselveswithoutreproachatalltimes. 2
Inthiscase,respondentsmeddlinginamatterinwhichhehadnorighttodosocausedtheuntowardincident.Hehadno
righttodemandanexplanationfromAtty.Salvaniwhythecaseofthewomanhadnotorcouldnotbesettled.Evenso,
Atty.Salvaniinfacttriedtoexplainthemattertorespondent,butthelatterinsistedonhisviewaboutthecase.
Respondentsaidhewasmovedbytheplightofthewomanwhosehusbandhadbeenmurderedasshewaspleadingforthe
settlementofhercasebecausesheneededthemoney.Bethatasitmay,respondentshouldrealizethatwhathethoughtwas
righteousdidnotgivehimtherighttodemandthatAtty.Salvaniandhisclient,apparentlytheaccusedinthecriminalcase,
settlethecasewiththewidow.Evenwhenhewasbeingpacified,respondentdidnotrelent.Insteadheinsultedandberated
thosewhotriedtocalmhimdown.Twoofthewitnesses,Atty.PepinMarfilandRobertMinguez,whowenttothePublic
AttorneysOfficebecausetheyheardthecommotion,andtwoguardsattheHallofJustice,whohadbeensummoned,failed
tostoprespondentfromhisverbalrampage.Respondentoughttohaverealizedthatthissortofpublicbehaviorcanonly
bringdownthelegalprofessioninthepublicestimationanderodepublicrespectforit.Whatevermoralrighteousness
respondenthadwasnegatedbythewayhechosetoexpresshisindignation.Aninjusticecannotberightedbyanother
injustice.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and, considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FINED in the amount of P1,000.00 and
REPRIMANDEDwithawarningthatsimilaractioninthefuturewillbesanctionedmoreseverely.
SOORDERED.
Adm.CaseNo.6290July14,2004
ANAMARIECAMBALIZA,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.ANALUZB.CRISTALTENORIO,respondent.
RESOLUTION
DAVIDE,JR.,C.J.:
InaverifiedcomplaintfordisbarmentfiledwiththeCommitteeonBarDisciplineoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines
(IBP)on30May2000,complainantAnaMarieCambaliza,aformeremployeeofrespondentAtty.AnaLuzB.Cristal
Tenorio in her law office, charged the latter with deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and malpractice or other gross
misconductinoffice.
Ondeceit,thecomplainantallegedthattherespondenthasbeenfalselyrepresentingherselftobemarriedtoFelicisimoR.
Tenorio, Jr., who has a prior and subsisting marriage with another woman. However, through spurious means, the

respondentandFelicisimoR.Tenorio,Jr.,wereabletoobtainafalsemarriagecontract, 1whichstatesthattheyweremarried
on10February1980inManila.CertificationsfromtheCivilRegistryofManila 2andtheNationalStatisticsOffice(NSO) 3
provethatnorecordofmarriageexistsbetweenthem.Thefalsedateandplaceofmarriagebetweenthetwoarestatedinthe
birthcertificatesoftheirtwochildren,DonnabelTenorio 4andFelicisimoTenorioIII.5Butinthebirthcertificatesoftheir
twootherchildren,OliverTenorio6andJohnCedricTenorio,7anotherdateandplaceofmarriageareindicated,namely,12
February1980inMalaybalay,Bukidnon.
Astogrosslyimmoralconduct,thecomplainantallegedthattherespondentcausedthedisseminationtothepublicofa
libelousaffidavit derogatorytoMakatiCityCouncilorDivinaAloraJacome.Therespondent wouldoftenopenlyand
sarcasticallydeclaretothecomplainantandhercoemployeestheallegedimmoralityofCouncilorJacome.
Onmalpracticeorothergrossmisconductinoffice,thecomplainantallegedthattherespondent(1)cooperatedintheillegal
practiceoflawbyherhusband,whoisnotamemberofthePhilippineBar;(2)convertedherclient'smoneytoherownuse
andbenefit,whichledtothefilingofanestafacaseagainsther;and(3)threatenedthecomplainantandherfamilyon24
January2000withthestatement"Isangbalakalang"todeterthemfromdivulgingrespondent'sillegalactivitiesand
transactions.
Inheranswer,therespondentdeniedalltheallegationsagainsther.Astothechargeofdeceit,shedeclaredthatsheis
legallymarriedtoFelicisimoR.Tenorio,Jr.Theyweremarriedon12February1980asshownbytheirCertificateof
Marriage,RegistryNo.20009108oftheCivilRegistryofQuezonCity. 8Herhusbandhasnopriorandsubsistingmarriage
withanotherwoman.
Astothechargeofgrosslyimmoralconduct,therespondentdeniedthatshecausedthedisseminationofalibelousand
defamatoryaffidavitagainstCouncilorJacome.Onthecontrary,itwasCouncilorJacomewhocausedtheexecutionofsaid
document.Additionally,thecomplainantandhercohortsaretherumormongerswhowentaroundthecityofMakationthe
pretextofconductingasurveybutdidsotobesmirchrespondent'sgoodnameandreputation.
Thechargeofmalpracticeorothergrossmisconductinofficewaslikewisedeniedbytherespondent.Sheclaimedthather
CristalTenorioLawOfficeisregisteredwiththeDepartmentofTradeandIndustryasasingleproprietorship,asshownby
itsCertificateofRegistrationofBusinessName. 9Hence,shehasnopartnersinherlawoffice.Astotheestafacase,the
samehadalreadybeendroppedpursuanttotheOrderof14June1996issuedbyBranch103oftheRegionalTrialCourtof
QuezonCity.10Therespondentlikewisedeniedthatshethreatenedthecomplainantwiththewords"Isangbalakalang"on
24January2000.
Further,therespondentaverredthatthisdisbarmentcomplaintwasfiledbythecomplainanttogetevenwithher.She
terminated complainant's employment after receiving numerous complaints that the complainant extorted money from
differentpeoplewiththepromiseofprocessingtheirpassportsandmarriagestoforeigners,butsherenegedonherpromise.
Likewise,thisdisbarmentcomplaintispoliticallymotivated:somepoliticiansofferedtorehirethecomplainantandher
cohortsshouldtheyinitiatethiscomplaint,whichtheydidandforwhichtheywererehired.Therespondentalsoflaunted
thefactthatshehadreceivednumerousawardsandcitationsforcivicworksandexemplaryservicetothecommunity.She
thenprayedforthedismissalofthedisbarmentcaseforbeingbaseless.
TheIBPreferredthiscasetoInvestigatingCommissionerAtty.KennyH.Tantuico.
Duringthehearingon30August2000,thepartiesagreedthatthecomplainantwouldsubmitaReplytorespondent's
Answer,whiletherespondentwouldsubmitaRejoindertotheReply.ThepartiesalsoagreedthattheComplaint,Answer,
andtheattachedaffidavitswouldconstituteastherespectivedirecttestimoniesofthepartiesandtheaffiants. 11
InherReply,thecomplainantbolsteredherclaimthattherespondentcooperatedintheillegalpracticeoflawbyher
husbandbysubmitting(1)theletterheadofCristalTenorioLawOffice12wherethenameofFelicisimoR.Tenorio,Jr.,is
listedasaseniorpartner;and(2)aSagipCommunicationRadioGroupidentificationcard 13signedbytherespondentas
Chairpersonwhereherhusbandisidentifiedas"Atty.FelicisimoR.Tenorio,Jr."Sheaddedthatrespondent'shusbandeven
appearedincourthearings.
InherRejoinder,respondentaverredthatsheneitherformedalawpartnershipwithherhusbandnorallowedherhusbandto
appearincourtonherbehalf.Iftherewasaninstancethatherhusbandappearedincourt,hedidsoasarepresentativeof

herlawfirm.Theletterheadsubmittedbythecomplainantwasafalsereproductiontoshowthatherhusbandisoneofher
lawpartners.Butuponcrossexamination,whenconfrontedwiththeletterheadofCristalTenorioLawOfficebearingher
signature,sheadmittedthatFelicisimoR.Tenorio,Jr.,isnotalawyer,butheandacertainGerardoA.Panghulan,whois
alsonotalawyer,arenamedasseniorpartnersbecausetheyhaveinvestmentsinherlawoffice. 14
TherespondentfurtherdeclaredthatshemarriedFelicisimoR.Tenorio,Jr.,on12February1980inQuezonCity,butwhen
shelaterdiscoveredthattheirmarriagecontractwasnotregisteredsheappliedforlateregistrationon5April2000.She
thenpresentedasevidenceacertifiedcopyofthemarriagecontractissuedbytheOfficeoftheCivilRegistrarGeneraland
authenticatedbytheNSO.Theerroneousentriesinthebirthcertificatesofherchildrenastotheplaceanddateofher
marriageweremerelyanoversight.15
SometimeafterthepartiessubmittedtheirrespectiveOfferofEvidenceandMemoranda,thecomplainantfiledaMotionto
Withdraw Complaint on 13 November 2002 after allegedly realizing that this disbarment complaint arose out of a
misunderstandingandmisappreciationoffacts.Thus,sheisnolongerinterestedinpursuingthecase.Thismotionwasnot
acteduponbytheIBP.
InherReportandRecommendationdated30September2003,IBPCommissioneronBarDisciplineMilagrosV.SanJuan
foundthatthecomplainantfailedtosubstantiatethechargesofdeceitandgrosslyimmoralconduct.However,shefoundthe
respondentguiltyofthechargeofcooperatingintheillegalpracticeoflawbyFelicisimoR.Tenorio,Jr.,inviolationof
Canon9andRule9.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitybasedonthefollowingevidence:(1)theletterheadof
CristalTenorioLawOffice,whichlistsFelicisimoR.Tenorio,Jr.,asaseniorpartner;(2)theSagipCommunicationRadio
Groupidentificationcardof"Atty.FelicisimoR.Tenorio,Jr.,"signedbyrespondentasChairperson;(3)andtheOrder
dated18June1997issuedbytheMetropolitanTrialCourtinCriminalCasesNos.2072920734,whereinFelicisimoR.
Tenorio,Jr.,enteredhisappearanceascounselandevenmovedfortheprovisionaldismissalofthecasesforfailureofthe
private complainants to appear and for lack of interest to prosecute the said cases. Thus, Commissioner San Juan
recommendedthattherespondentbereprimanded.
InitsResolutionNo.XVI2003228dated25October2003,theIBPBoardofGovernorsadoptedandapprovedwith
modificationtheReportandRecommendationofCommissionerSanJuan.Themodificationconsistedinincreasingthe
penaltyfromreprimandtosuspensionfromthepracticeoflawforsixmonthswithawarningthatasimilaroffenseinthe
futurewouldbedealtwithmoreseverely.
WeagreewiththefindingsandconclusionofCommissionerSanJuanasapprovedandadoptedwithmodificationbythe
BoardofGovernorsoftheIBP.
Attheoutset,wefindthattheIBPwascorrectinnotactingontheMotiontoWithdrawComplaintfiledbycomplainant
Cambaliza.InRayosOmbacvs.Rayos,16wedeclared:
Theaffidavitofwithdrawalofthedisbarmentcaseallegedlyexecutedbycomplainantdoesnot,inanyway,exoneratethe
respondent.Acaseofsuspensionordisbarmentmayproceedregardlessofinterestorlackofinterestofthecomplainant.
Whatmattersiswhether,onthebasisofthefactsborneoutbytherecord,thechargeofdeceitandgrosslyimmoralconduct
hasbeendulyproven.Thisruleispremisedonthenatureofdisciplinaryproceedings.Aproceedingforsuspensionor
disbarmentisnotinanysenseacivilactionwherethecomplainantisaplaintiffandtherespondentlawyerisadefendant.
Disciplinaryproceedingsinvolvenoprivateinterestandaffordnoredressforprivategrievance.Theyareundertakenand
prosecutedsolelyforthepublicwelfare.Theyareundertakenforthepurposeofpreservingcourtsofjusticefromthe
officialministrationofpersonsunfittopracticeinthem.Theattorneyiscalledtoanswertothecourtforhisconductasan
officerofthecourt.Thecomplainantorthepersonwhocalledtheattentionofthecourttotheattorney'sallegedmisconduct
isinnosenseaparty,andhasgenerallynointerestintheoutcomeexceptasallgoodcitizensmayhaveintheproper
administrationofjustice.Hence,iftheevidenceonrecordwarrants,therespondentmaybesuspendedordisbarreddespite
thedesistanceofcomplainantorhiswithdrawalofthecharges.
Hence,notwithstandingtheMotiontoWithdrawComplaint,thisdisbarmentcaseshouldproceedaccordingly.
TheIBPcorrectlyfoundthatthechargesofdeceitandgrosslyimmoralconductwerenotsubstantiated.Indisbarment
proceedings,thecomplainanthastheburdenofprovinghiscasebyconvincingevidence. 17Withrespecttotheestafacase
whichisthebasisforthechargeofmalpracticeorothergrossmisconductinoffice,therespondentisnotyetconvicted

thereof.In Geronavs.Datingaling,18 weheldthatwhenthecriminalprosecutionbasedonthesameactchargedisstill

pendingincourt,anyadministrativedisciplinaryproceedingsforthesameactmustawaittheoutcomeofthecriminalcase
toavoidcontradictoryfindings.
We,however,affirmtheIBP'sfindingthattherespondentisguiltyofassistingintheunauthorizedpracticeoflaw.Alawyer
whoallowsanonmemberoftheBartomisrepresenthimselfasalawyerandtopracticelawisguiltyofviolatingCanon9
andRule9.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whichreadasfollows:
Canon9Alawyershallnotdirectlyorindirectlyassistintheunauthorizedpracticeoflaw.
Rule9.01Alawyershallnotdelegatetoanyunqualifiedpersontheperformanceofanytaskwhichbylawmayonlybe
performedbyamemberoftheBaringoodstanding.
Theterm"practiceoflaw"impliescustomarilyorhabituallyholdingoneselfouttothepublicasalawyerforcompensation
asasourceoflivelihoodorinconsiderationofhisservices.Holdingone'sselfoutasalawyermaybeshownbyacts
indicativeofthatpurposelikeidentifyingoneselfasattorney,appearingincourtinrepresentationofaclient,orassociating
oneselfasapartnerofalawofficeforthegeneralpracticeoflaw.19Suchactsconstituteunauthorizedpracticeoflaw.
Inthiscase,FelicisimoR.Tenorio,Jr.,isnotalawyer,butheholdshimselfoutasone.Hiswife,therespondentherein,
abettedandaidedhimintheunauthorizedpracticeofthelegalprofession.
Atthehearing,therespondentadmittedthattheletterheadofCristalTenorioLawOfficelistedFelicisimoR.Tenorio,Jr.,
GerardoA.Panghulan,andMaricrisD.Battungasseniorpartners.Sheadmittedthatthefirsttwoarenotlawyersbut
paralegals.Theyarelistedintheletterheadofherlawofficeasseniorpartnersbecausetheyhaveinvestmentsinherlaw
office.20Thatisablatantmisrepresentation.
TheSagipCommunicationRadioGroupidentificationcardisanotherproofthattherespondentassistedFelicisimoR.
Tenorio,Jr.,inmisrepresentingtothepublicthatheisalawyer.Notably,theidentificationcardstatingthatheis"Atty.
FelicisimoTenorio,Jr.,"bearsthesignatureoftherespondentasChairpersonoftheGroup.
Thelawyer'sdutytoprevent,orattheveryleastnottoassistin,theunauthorizedpracticeoflawisfoundedonpublic
interestandpolicy.Publicpolicyrequiresthatthepracticeoflawbelimitedtothoseindividualsfounddulyqualifiedin
educationandcharacter.Thepermissiverightconferredonthelawyerisanindividualandlimitedprivilegesubjectto
withdrawalifhefailstomaintainproperstandardsofmoralandprofessionalconduct.Thepurposeistoprotectthepublic,
thecourt,theclient,andthebarfromtheincompetenceordishonestyofthoseunlicensedtopracticelawandnotsubjectto
thedisciplinarycontroloftheCourt.Itdevolvesuponalawyertoseethatthispurposeisattained.Thus,thecanonsand
ethicsoftheprofessionenjoinhimnottopermithisprofessionalservicesorhisnametobeusedinaidof,ortomake
possibletheunauthorizedpracticeoflawby,anyagency,personalorcorporate.And,thelawmakesitamisbehavioronhis
part,subjecttodisciplinaryaction,toaidalaymanintheunauthorizedpracticeoflaw. 21
WHEREFORE,forculpableviolationofCanon9andRule9.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,respondent
Atty.AnaLuzB.CristalTenorioisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofsix(6)monthseffective
immediately,withawarningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractinthefuturewillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
LetcopiesofthisResolutionbeattachedtorespondentCristalTenorio'srecordasattorneyinthisCourtandfurnishedtothe
IBPandtheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorforcirculationtoallcourts.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.7056September13,2006
PLUSBUILDERS,INC.andEDGARDOC.GARCIA,complainants,
vs.

ATTY.ANASTACIOE.REVILLA,JR.,respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,CJ:
BytheiroathandundertheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,lawyersmustupholdtruthandjusticeaboveeverything
else,evenabovetheirownandtheirclient'sinterests.Theymustbewillingandabletostandfortheirconvictionsagainstall
odds;tocarryoninspiteofseeminglyinsurmountableopposition;andtobebeaconsfortheweak,theoppressedandthe
marginalized.ForfailingmiserablytolivebythisoathandCode,respondentmustbesanctioned.
TheCaseandtheFacts
ThisadministrativecaseoriginatedfromaVerifiedPetitionforDisbarment 1 filedbyPlusBuildersInc.andEdgardoC.
Garcia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Complainants charged Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. with
committinga willful and intentional falsehood before the court; misusing court procedure and processes todelay the
executionofajudgment;andcollaboratingwithnonlawyersintheillegalpracticeoflaw.
ThematerialavermentsoftheComplaintareasfollows:
"OnApril7,1999,PlusBuildersInc.filedbeforetheProvincialAdjudicatorofCavite(PARAD)ofDAR,DARABCASE
NOS. R40202799 up to R40203199, inclusive, against Leopoldo De Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido De Guzman,
ApolonioIlas andGloria MartirezSiongco,Heirs ofFaustinoSiongco; SerafinSantarin, BenignoAlvarezandMaria
Esguerra,etal;hereinaftercalled[tenants/farmers]xxx.
"OnNovember15,1999,theProvincialAdjudicatorofCavite(PARAD)renderedaconsolidatedDecisioninfavorof
petitioner/complainant[PlusBuilders,Inc.],andagainst[tenants/farmers].xxx.
"[Tenants/farmers]filedseveralverifiedpleadingsaspartoftherecordsofDARABcasesabovementionedallegingunder
oaththattheywere'MAGSASAKANGNAMUMUWISAN'ormeretenantsofsubjectproperties,acknowledgingtherights
oftheregisteredownersatthattime,evenbeforetheownershipandtitleweretransferredtoPetitioner/ComplainantPlus
Builders,Inc.xxx.
"OnDec[ember]17,1999,counselforTENANTS/FARMERSwhoatthattimewasAtty.DamianS.J.Vellaseca,fileda
proformaMotionforReconsiderationandManifestationxxx.Asaresult,PARADdidnotgiveduecoursetothesamexx
x.
"OnMarch27,2000,anothercounselforTENANTS/FARMERS,bythenameofAtty.WillyG.Roxas,whorepresented
himselfascounselforTENANTS/FARMERS,filedamanifestationstatingthatheisrepresentingTENANTS/FARMERS
andallegedthattheywere'bonafide'membersofthe[KalayaanDevelopmentCooperative](KDC).Thereafter,hefileda
NoticeofAppealonMarch27,2000statingthattheyreceivedtheDecisiononMarch14,2000andallegedthat the
Decisionisagainstthelawandjurisprudencexxx.
"OnMay31,2001,RespondentAnastacioRevillaJr.,knowingthattherewasamonetaryjudgmentbywayofDisturbance
CompensationgrantedtoTenants/Farmers,xxxfileda'MotionforLeaveofCourttoAllowCorrectionofCaptionand
AmendmentofJudgment'(referringtotheDecisionofPARADofCavitedatedNovember15,1999xxx)withaprayer'xx
xtoincludethenameoftheKALAYAANDEVELOPMENTCORPORATIONrepresentingthefollowingrespondents
hereinabovestatedinthecaptionof[the]pleading.'Also,aContractofRetainershipdatedApril4,2001wasattachedtothe
MotionxxxtomakexxxKDCrepresentedbyRespondent,[the]retainedxxx'counselonrecord'xxx.
"AfterrealizingthathismotionfailedtogivehimbeneficialmonetarygainfromthePARADjudgment,aPetitionfor
PreliminaryInjunctionwithprayerforIssuanceofTemporaryRestrainingOrderandtoQuashAliasWritofExecutionwith
DemolitionplusDamagesdatedJuly18,2001wasfiledbyRespondentxxxbeforetheDARABCentralOffice,Quezon
City,notwithstandingthefactthatthisinstantcasewasappealedbyanotherlawyer(Atty.WillyRoxas).xxx.

"OnthebasisofthisPetition,aTemporaryRestrainingOrderbytheDARABCentralOffice,QuezonCity,wasissuedon
July25,2001andanextensionoforanotherTemporaryRestrainingOrderwasissueddatedAugust24,2001,asaresultof
theactiveparticipationofRespondentxxx.
"Emboldenedbythetwo(2)TRO'scomingfromDARABCentralOffice,RespondentxxxfiledanIndirectContemptcase
datedAugust28,2001againstPlusBuildersInc.andtheirBoardofDirectors,EdgardoGarciaand[its]counselAtty.
LeopoldoS.GonzalezbeforethesameOffice.xxx.
"SensingaseriesofordersagainsthereinPetitionersandconsidering,further,thattheDARABCentralOfficerefusedto
hearargumentsfromPetitionersonthetwo(2)questionableTRO's,PetitionersdecidedtoelevatethemattertotheCourtof
AppealsbywayofaPetitionforCertiorari.ADecisionwasrenderedbytheCourtofAppealson[December]20,2001
statingthat:
'WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheassailedordersissuedbytheDARABareherebydeclaredNULLAND
VOID for having been issued without jurisdiction. Consequently, this Court sees no impediment for the
IMPLEMENTATIONofthe15November1999Decisionoftheprovincialadjudicator.
'SOORDERED.'
"ThisincidentwasfurtherelevatedtotheSupremeCourtbyRespondentxxxthroughaPetition,butsaidPetitionwas
dismissedwithfinalityxxx.
"Enragedbyhisdefeat,Respondentxxxfiledaverified"ActiontoQuietTitle"beforetheRegionalTrialCourtofImus,
Cavite praying for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), among others, to deliberately and maliciously stop the
enforcementoftheDecisionsofthehighercourtstoimplementthePARADDecisiondatedNovember15,1999.xxx.
xxxxxxxxx
"Respondent signedhispleadingunderagroupofnonlawyersjoininghim inthepracticeoflawas[KDC]LEGAL
SERVICES,LAWOFFICERSANDASSOCIATESwhichincludedKDCaslawpartnersinviolationoftheRulesonthe
practiceoflawwithnonlawyers.Asamatteroffact,undertheRetainershipContractsubmittedbyRespondentbeforethe
PARAD of Cavite, it was specifically mentioned that legal fees were to be collected as counsel on record for the
cooperativeandrespondent.Therefore,thiscontractwaseffectivelyused[for]unlawfulsolicitationofclientsinthepractice
oflawwithnonlawyers,beingthecooperative(KDC)tobecome"counselonrecord[sic]xxx.
"OnMarch6,2003,theRegionalTrialCourtofImus,CavitequashedtheearlierissuedTROanddismissedthecaseonthe
groundof'resjudicata'becausetheCourtofAppealsruledthat,'xxxtheDecisionoftheProvincialAdjudicatorofDAR
datedNovember15,1999hasalreadybecomefinalxxx'andthat,prescriptiondoesnotrunagainstregisteredland.xxx." 2
InhisAnswer3datedMarch29,2004,respondentdeniedthechargesagainsthim.Heaverredthatbyfilingtheactionto
quiettitleinCivilCaseNo.276303,hehadmerelywantedtoprotecttherightsandinterestsofhisclients.Accordingto
him,theysincerelyandhonestlybelievedthattheirpossessionofthelitigatedlandhadalreadyripenedintoownership.He
explainedthus:
"Notwithstandingtheclaimofsaidfarmersoftenancyrelationshipwith[the]previousownerinthedecisionsofPARA[D],
CourtofAppealsandSupremeCourtintheDISTURBANCECOMPENSATIONCASES,(DARABCASENO.R402
02599;R40202699;R40202799;R40202899;R40202999;R40203099;R40203199)thesaidfarmers,are
notprecluded,byanylaworjurisprudence,fromentertainingingoodfaithanopinionorbeliefthattheycouldlegallybe
consideredasownersofthesubjectpropertypreciselybecauseoftheundisputedfactthattheyhavebeeninpossession
thereofinanopen,continuous,public,uninterruptedpossessionformorethanfifty(50)years.xxx.
"Itwasonthebasisof[a]sincereandhonestbeliefandopiniono[f]acquiringownershipofthelandthroughprescription
thatthesaidfarmershaddecidedtopursueandfiletheActiontoQuietTitleinCivilCaseNo.276303,beforetheRTCof
Imus,Cavite,Branch20xxx.
xxxxxxxxx

"ItshouldbestressedthatthedecisionsofthePARA[D],CourtofAppealsandtheSupremeCourtinDARABCASENo.
R40202599;R40202699;R40202799;R40202899;R40202999;R40203099;R40203199,[i]ndisputably
referonlytothefixingofdisturbancecompensations.Theydidnotinanyway,involve[the]questionofownershipofthe
subjectproperty,whichisthesubjectmatterofCivilCaseNo.276303,(ActiontoQuietTitle),filedbeforetheRTCof
Imus,Cavite,Branch20.
xxxxxxxxx
"Asnewcounselofthesaidfarmersxxx,respondenthasthecompletediscretion[of]whatlegalstrategyorcauseofaction
toundertakeontheirbehalfandthecomplainantandtheircounselhavenobusinessorrighttointerferewithordictate
[upon]therespondentonhowtoprotecttherightsandinterestsofsaidfarmersundertheapplicablelawandjurisprudence.
xxxxxxxxx
"Respondentrespectfullysubmitsthathehasnotcommittedanyillegal,unlawful,unjust,wrongfulorimmoralactstowards
thecomplainant.Respondent,ingoodfaithfiledtheaforesaidcases(ActiontoQuietTitle,RTC,Imus,Cavite,Branch20;
andPetitionforIssuanceofPreliminaryInjunctionandTRO,andComplaintbeforetheOmbudsman),asalawyerswornto
upholdjusticeandthelawwhowastheboundendutytoexertutmosteffortstodefendhisclientandprotecthisright,no
matterhowguiltyorevilheappearstobe,especiallyiftheyarepooranduneducatedlikethesaidfarmers." 4
In a Reply5 dated April 12, 2004, complainants emphasized that the nature of the possession of the subject land by
respondent'sclientshadalreadybeensettledinthecasefordisturbancecompensation.Complainantsmaintainedthatthe
PARADDecision,whichwassustainedbytheCourtofAppealsandtheSupremeCourt,clearlystatedthattheseclients
weremeretenantsoftheland.Thus,adversepossessioncouldnotbeclaimedbyrespondentingoodfaith,especiallywhen
hehadpreviouslyacknowledgedtherightsofcomplainantsaslandowners.
OnAugust4,2004,bothpartiesappearedatahearingscheduledbyEdmundT.Espina,commissioneroftheIntegratedBar
ofthePhilippinesCommissiononBarDiscipline(IBPCBD).Duringthehearing,thepartiesweredirectedtosubmittheir
respectiveMemoranda.
ReportandRecommendationoftheIBPCBD
InhisApril30,2005Report,6InvestigatingCommissionerEspinafoundrespondentguiltyofviolatingtheattorney'soath
andtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility. 7Allegedly,respondenthad"maliciouslyconcealedthedefeatofhisclientsin
thecasebeforethePARADofCaviteandthehighercourts," 8inordertosecureatemporaryrestrainingorderfromtheRTC
ofImus,Cavite.Asaresult,hewasabletodelaytheexecutionoftheprovincialadjudicator'sDecisiondatedNovember15,
1999.
Moreover,CommissionerEspinaopinedthatthechargethatrespondenthadbeenengagedintheunlawfulpracticeoflaw
wasneithersatisfactorilyexplainednorspecificallydeniedbythelatter.Thefailureofrespondenttodosoledtothe
presumptionthattheallegationwastrue.
Thus,hissuspensionfrom thepracticeoflawfortwoyearswasrecommendedbytheinvestigatingcommissioner.In
ResolutionNo.XVII2005172,9 theboardofgovernorsoftheIBP adoptedthefindingsandrecommendationofIBP
CommissionerEspina.
TheResolution,togetherwiththerecordsofthecase,wastransmittedtothisCourtforfinalaction, 10pursuanttoRule139B
Section12(b).
TheCourt'sRuling
WeagreewiththefindingsandrecommendationoftheIBPboardofgovernors.
AdministrativeLiabilityofRespondent

Lawyersareofficersofthecourt,calledupontoassistintheadministrationofjustice.Theyactasvanguardsofourlegal
system,11protectingandupholdingtruthandtheruleoflaw.12Theyareexpectedtoactwithhonestyinalltheirdealings,
especiallywiththecourts.Verily,theCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityenjoinslawyersfromcommittingorconsenting
toanyfalsehoodincourtorfromallowingthecourtstobemisledbyanyartifice. 13Moreover,theyareobligedtoobserve
therulesofprocedureandnottomisusethemtodefeattheendsofjustice. 14
Goodfaith,fairnessandcandorconstitutetheessenceofmembershipinthelegalprofession. 15 Thus,whilelawyersowe
fidelitytothecauseoftheirclient,theymustneverabusetheirrightofrecoursetothecourtsbyarguingacasethathas
repeatedlybeenrejected.Neithershouldtheyusetheirknowledgeofthelawasaninstrumenttoharassapartyortomisuse
judicialprocesses.Theseactsconstituteserioustransgressionoftheirprofessionaloath. 16
Inthepresentcase,respondentclaimsgoodfaithinpursuingthecauseofhisclients.Therecordsshow,however,thathis
courseoflegalactionwasobviouslyastratagem.Itwasmeanttodelayundulytheexecutionoftheprovincialadjudicator's
DecisiondatedNovember15,1999.
ItmustbenotedthatwhentheCourtofAppealsandthisCourtupheldthatDecision,respondentresortedtoadifferent
forumtopursuehisclients'lostcause.Inthedisturbancecompensationcase,herepresentedhisclientsastenantsand
acknowledgedthatcomplainantsweretheownersofthesubjectland.Intheactiontoquiettitle,however,heconveniently
repudiatedhispreviousadmissionbyfalselyallegingthathisclientswereadversepossessorsclaimingbonafideownership.
Consequently,hewasabletoobtainatemporaryrestrainingorderpreventingtheexecutionoftheprovincialadjudicator's
Decision.
Clearly,hewasshieldinghisclientsfromtheOrderofexecution.Contrarytohislaterclaimofownershipoftheland,he
cannotfeignignoranceofhispreviousadmissionofatenancyrelationshipexistingbetweenhisclientsandcomplainants,as
correctlyobservedbyIBPCommissionerEspina.
Thepropensityofrespondentfordoublespeakwasalsorevealedinhisdeclarationthathisclientswerepauperlitigants.His
prayerforanexemptiontopaycourtfees,onthegroundthattheydidnothavesufficientincome, 17wasgrantedbythetrial
court.Earlier,however,headmittedthattheyhadengagedtheservicesofhislegalofficeforafeeofP20,000,inadditionto
P2,500perappearanceincourt.Also,intheactiontoquiettitle,heevenallegedthattheywerewillingtopostabondto
answerfordamages,intheeventthatthecourtruledinfavorofthedefendants.Thesefactscontravenehisclaimthathis
clientscouldnotaffordtopaytheappropriatecourtfees.
Insupportofthecauseoftheirclients,lawyershavethedutytopresenteveryremedyordefensewithintheauthorityofthe
law.Thisobligation,however,mustneverbeattheexpenseoftruthandjustice,18asexplainedinChoav.Chiongson:19
"Whilealawyerowesabsolutefidelitytothecauseofhisclient,fulldevotiontohisgenuineinterest,andwarmzealinthe
maintenanceanddefenseofhisrights,aswellastheexertionofhisutmostlearningandability,hemustdosoonlywithin
theboundsofthelaw.Hemustgiveacandidandhonestopiniononthemeritsandprobableresultsofhisclient'scasewith
theendinviewofpromotingrespectforthelawandlegalprocesses,andcounselormaintainsuchactionsorproceedings
onlyasappeartohimtobejust,andsuchdefensesonlyashebelievestobehonestlydebatableunderthelaw.Hemust
alwaysremindhimselfoftheoathhetookuponadmissiontotheBarthathe'willnotwittinglyorwillinglypromoteorsue
anygroundless,falseorunlawfulsuitnorgiveaidnorconsenttothesame';andthathe'willconduct[himself]asalawyer
accordingtothebestof[his]knowledgeanddiscretionwithallgoodfidelityaswelltothecourtsasto[his]clients.'
Needlesstostate,thelawyer'sfidelitytohisclientmustnotbepursuedattheexpenseoftruthandtheadministrationof
justice,anditmustbedonewithintheboundsofreasonandcommonsense.Alawyer'sresponsibilitytoprotectand
advancetheinterestsofhisclientdoesnotwarrantacourseofactionpropelledbyillmotivesandmaliciousintentions
againsttheotherparty."20
Moreover,weagreewiththefindingofIBPCommissionerEspinathatthesilenceorfailureofrespondenttochallengethe
allegationthatheallowednonlawyerstoengageintheunauthorizedpracticeoflawmaybedeemedanadmissionofthe
truthoftheaccusation.Wenotethatcomplainantssuccessfullysubstantiatedtheirclaimthatrespondent,whoheldhimself
outasalawpartnerofthe"KDCLegalServices,LawOfficesandAssociates,"wasrenderinglegalservicestogetherwith
personsnotlicensedtopracticelaw.Hissilenceonthisaccusationisdeemedanadmission,especiallybecausehehadevery
chancetodenyit.21

Canon9andRule9.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityprovidethus:
"Canon9Alawyershallnotdirectlyorindirectlyassistintheunauthorizedpracticeoflaw.
'Rule9.01Alawyershallnotdelegatetoanyunqualifiedpersontheperformanceofanytaskwhichbylawmayonlybe
performedbyamemberoftheBaringoodstanding.'"
ThesignificanceofthisprofessionalnormwasemphasizedinCambalizav.CristalTenorio,22whichwequote:
"Thelawyer'sdutytoprevent,orattheveryleastnottoassistin,theunauthorizedpracticeoflawisfoundedonpublic
interestandpolicy.Publicpolicyrequiresthatthepracticeoflawbelimitedtothoseindividualsfounddulyqualifiedin
educationandcharacter.Thepermissiverightconferredonthelawyerisanindividualandlimitedprivilegesubjectto
withdrawalifhefailstomaintainproperstandardsofmoralandprofessionalconduct.Thepurposeistoprotectthepublic,
thecourt,theclient,andthebarfromtheincompetenceordishonestyofthoseunlicensedtopracticelawandnotsubjectto
thedisciplinarycontroloftheCourt.Itdevolvesuponalawyertoseethatthispurposeisattained.Thus,thecanonsand
ethicsoftheprofessionenjoinhimnottopermithisprofessionalservicesorhisnametobeusedinaidof,ortomake
possibletheunauthorizedpracticeoflawby,anyagency,personalorcorporate.And,thelawmakesitamisbehavioronhis
part,subjecttodisciplinaryaction,toaidalaymanintheunauthorizedpracticeoflaw." 23
Respondentfailedtoliveuptotheexactingstandardsexpectedofhimasavanguardoflawandjustice.Inlinewith
jurisprudence,heisheldliableforgrossmisconductandissuspendedfromthepracticeoflaw. 24
WHEREFORE,AnastacioE.Revilla,Jr.isherebyfoundguiltyofgrossmisconductandisSUSPENDED fortwoyears
fromthepracticeoflaw,effectiveuponhisreceiptofthisDecision.Heiswarnedthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilar
actswillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
LetcopiesofthisDecisionbeenteredintherecordofrespondentasattorneyandservedontheIBP,aswellasonthecourt
administratorwhoshallcirculateittoallcourtsfortheirinformationandguidance.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.2655October12,2010
LEONARDW.RICHARDS,Complainant,
vs.
PATRICIOA.ASOY,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PerCuriam:
ForconsiderationisthepetitionofPatricioA.Asoy(respondent)forreinstatementtotheBar.Recordsdisclosethatthe
MinistryofTourism,by1stIndorsementofJuly2,1984,forwardedtotheCourta June28,1984 lettercomplaintof
LeonardRichards(complainant)againstrespondent.
ByResolutionofNovember11,1985,theCourt,notingrespondentsfailuretocomply,despitenotice,withitsResolution
ofAugust8,1984requiringhimtocommentoncomplainantsletter,resolvedtorequirehimtoshowcausewhyheshould
notbedisciplinarilydealtwithorheldincontemptandtocomplywiththesaidResolutionofAugust8,1984,bothwithin
tendaysfromnotice.
InthesameResolutionofNovember11,1985,theCourtnotedseveralattempts,whichwereallfutile,toservecopyofthe
August 8, 1984 Resolution at respondents other addresses, viz: B.F. Homes, Paraaque; the Central Bank Legal
Department;Suite306,FilmanbankBuilding,PlazaSta.Cruz,Sta.Cruz;AsiaInternationalBuildersCorp.,5thFloor,ADC

Bldg.,AyalaAvenue,Makati(theaddressgiveninrespondentscallingcard);andrespondentsprovincialaddressatthe
BarOfficewhichwascoursedthroughtheIBPTaclobanChapter.1
StillinthesameResolutionofNovember11,1985,theCourtnotedthat"unquestionably,respondenthadgoneintohiding
andwasevadingserviceofpleadings/orders/processesofthisCourt." 2TheCourtaccordinglysuspendedrespondentfrom
thepracticeoflawuntilfurtherordersfromthisCourt.Thusitdisposed:
ACCORDINGLY,respondent,Atty.PatricioA.Asoy,isherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawuntilfurtherOrders
ofthisCourt.LetcopiesofthisResolutionbecircularizedtoallCourts.
ShouldrespondentappearbeforeanylowerCourt,thelattershallserveuponhimacopyofthisResolutionandrequirehim
toappear,withinfive(5)days,beforetheDeputyClerkofCourtandBarConfidant,whoshallfurnishhimwithacopyof
theAdministrativeComplaintandrequirehimtofileanAnswerthereto,withinfive(5)daysthereafter.ThelowerCourt
concernedshallfurnishthisCourtwithcopyofitsOrderimmediately. 3(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
On January 9, 1986, respondent filed before the Court a MANIFESTATION/MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
allegingthatonDecember2,1985,he"learnedandsecuredacopyofSupervisoryCircularNo.17whereintheResolution
ofthe...Court, promulgatedonNovember11,1985 isquoted...";thathewasvoluntarilysubmittinghimselftothe
jurisdictionoftheCourtevenifhehadnotbeenformallyservedacopyoftheResolutionandhadnotbeenorderedbyany
lowercourt toappearbeforetheDeputyClerkofCourt andBarConfidant;thatonaccount ofdistanceandfinancial
constraints,hecouldnotpossiblycomplywiththeOrderofthisCourtforhimtoappearbeforetheDeputyClerkofCourt
andBarConfidantwithinthefivedayperiodstated;thathewastotallyunawareoftheexistenceofthecomplaintuntil
December2,1985;andthattothebestofhisknowledge,hehadnotviolatedhisoathasanattorneyatlawnorisheguilty
ofanyoffensetowarranthissuspensionfromthepracticeoflaw.
RespondentthusprayedfortheliftingofhissuspensionandforexcusinghimfrompersonallyappearingbeforetheBar
Confidantupontheundertakingthathewouldanswerthecomplaintinfivedaysfromreceiptthereof.
OnthedirectiveoftheCourt,theBarConfidantformalizedthecomplaintagainstrespondentonApril29,1986.
ByResolutionofOctober1,1986,theCourt,notingrespondentsfailuretofilecommentontheadministrativecomplaint
withintheperiodwhichexpiredonMay21,1986,directedthesendingoftheadministrativecomplainttorespondentathis
addressinIliganCityforcompliancewiththeResolutionrequiringhimtofileAnswertotheComplaint.
OnDecember18,1986,theCourtreceivedrespondentsANSWERWITHMOTIONTOLFITORDEROFSUSPENSION,
allegingthathereceivedcopyofthecomplaintonlyonNovember19,1986,"thoughthesamewasservedandreceivedat
thispresentaddress(Rm.302AalosBuilding,AguinaldoSt.,IliganCity)onMay6,1986andNovember5,1986";andthat
hewasbeggingtheindulgenceoftheCourtandofthecomplainantforthe delayinthefilingofhisAnswerduetohis
temporarytransfertoTubud,LanaodelNorteinviewofhistemporaryappointmentasProvincialAdministrator.
ByResolutionofFebruary10,1986,theCourtdeniedrespondentsprayertolifttheorderofsuspensionfromthepractice
oflawbutexcusedhimfromappearingbeforetheDeputyClerkofCourtandBarConfidant.
TheCourt,byResolutionofJuly9,1987,afternotingrespondentsunquestionableactofgoingintohidingandevading
serviceofpleadings/orders/processesoftheCourtwhichresultedinhissuspension,andafterrecitingthefactsofthecase
whichrequirednofurtherevidentiaryhearingastheyspokeforthemselves,foundrespondentguiltyofgraveprofessional
misconduct,viz:
Respondentisguiltyofgraveprofessionalmisconduct.Hereceivedfromcomplainant,hisclient,compensationtohandle
hiscaseintheTrialCourt,butthesamewasdismissedforlackofinterestandfailuretoprosecute. Hehadabandonedhis
client inviolationofhiscontractignoringthemostelementaryprinciplesofprofessionalethics.ThatRespondenthad
ignoredtheprocessesofthisCourtanditwasonlyafterhewassuspendedfromthepracticeoflawthathesurfaced ,is
highly indicative of his disregard of an attorneys duties to the Court. All the facts and circumstances taken into
consideration,Respondenthasprovenhimself unworthyofthetrustreposedinhimbylawasanofficerofthecourt.4
(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)

TheCourtthereuponresolvedtoDISBARhimandorderhimtoreimbursecomplainantthesumofP16,300withinthirty
(30)daysfromnotice.ThustheCourtdisposed:
ACCORDINGLY,formalpracticeandviolationofhisoathasalawyer,1)respondentAtty.PatricioA.Asoyishereby
ordered DISBARRED; and 2) he is hereby ordered to reimburse complainant, Leonard W. Richards, in the sum of
P16,300.00(P15,000.00+1,300.00),theonlysumssubstantiatedbytheevidenceonrecord,withinthirty(30)daysfrom
noticehereof.
CopiesofthisResolutionshallbecirculatedtoallCourtsofthecountryandspreadonthepersonalrecordofrespondent
Atty.PatricioA.Asoy.
CopiesofthisResolutionshalllikewisebefurnishedComplainantLeonardW.Richards,viaairmail,athisaddressof
record, 4/169AvocaStreet,RandwickNSW2031,Australia,withcopyfurnishedtheDepartmentofForeignAffairsfor
onwardtransmittaltothePhilippineConsulateGeneral,Sydney,Australia.
SOORDERED.5(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
AfterthepromulgationoftheJuly9,1987Resolution,complainant,byletterdatedNovember3,1987whichwasreceived
bytheCourtonNovember11,1987,6complainedthatrespondenthadnotreimbursedhimtheP16,300.00.
ByResolutionof March15,1988,theCourt,notingrespondentsfailuretocomplywithitsResolutionofJuly9,1987,
resolvedtorequirerespondentstoshowcausewhyhefailedtoreimbursetheP16,300.00tocomplainantasrequiredinits
ResolutionofJuly9,1987,andtocomplywithsaidResolutionofJuly9,1987,bothwithintendaysfromnotice.
Complainant,byanotherletterofJanuary13,1989 7whichwasreceivedbytheCourtonJanuary20,1989,informedthat
respondentstillfailedtocomplywiththeorderforreimbursementtohimofP16,300.00.
ThirteenyearsafterthepromulgationoftheCourtsResolutiondisbarringrespondentoronJuly18,2000,respondentfiled
aPetitionfor"readmissiontothepracticeoflaw"stating,amongotherthings,thatonJanuary2,1996orabout nineyears
after his disbarment and directive to reimbursement complainant was made, he effected payment of P16,300 via
consignationwiththisCourtsOfficeoftheCashier.ByResolutionofDecember12,2000,theCourtDENIEDthepetition
forlackofmerit.1avvphi1
MorethannineyearsaftertheCourtdeniedhispetitionfor"readmissiontothepracticeoflaw"oronAugust2,2010,the
Court received another Petitionfrom respondent, for"Reinstatement tothe Bar," statingthat,amongother things,on
January2,1996,heeffectedpaymentofP16,300.00infavorofcomplainantbyconsignationoftheamountwiththeOffice
oftheCashieroftheSupremeCourtascomplainantcouldnolongerbefoundorlocated;thathehadalreadysufferedand
agonizedforhisshortcomings;andthatas"positiveevidenceofhisrepentanceandrehabilitation,"heattachedtestimonials
of"credibleinstitutionsandpersonalities."
Respondentjustifieshisbelated nineyears compliancewiththisCourtsorderforhimtoreimbursecomplaintthe
amountwithhisallegedinabilitytolocatecomplainant.Ifthatwerethecase,respondentcouldhaveobtainedcomplainants
addressfromthisCourt,eitherthroughtheOfficeoftheClerkofCourtortheOfficeoftheBarConfidant.Recallthatinhis
lettersofNovember3,1987andJanuary20,1989,complainantsgivenaddresswasthesameasthatstatedintheCourts
July9,1987Resolution4/169AvocaStreet,RandwickNSW2031,Australia.
Respondentsjustificationforhis9yearbelated"compliance"withtheorderforhimtoreimbursecomplainantglaringly
speaksofhislackofcandor,ofhisdishonesty,ifnotdefianceofCourtorders,qualitiesthatdonotendearhimtothe
esteemedbrotherhoodoflawyers.Thesolemnoathwhichalllawyerstakeuponadmissiontothebartodedicatetheirlives
tothepursuitofjusticeisneitheramereformalitynorhollowwordsmeanttobetakenlightly,butasacredtrustthat
lawyersmustupholdandkeepinviolableatalltimes. 8Thelackofanysufficientjustificationorexplanationforthenine
yeardelayincomplyingwiththeCourtsJuly9,1987andMarch15,1988Resolutionstoreimbursecomplainantbetraysa
clearandcontumaciousdisregardforthelawfulordersofthisCourt.Suchdisrespectonthepartofrespondentconstitutesa
clearviolationofthelawyersCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichmaintainsthat:

CANON7Alawyershallatalltimesupholdtheintegrityanddignityofthelegalprofession,andsupporttheactivities
oftheIntegratedBar.
......
CANON10Alawyerowescandor,fairnessandgoodfaithtothecourt.
Rule10.01Alawyershallnotdoanyfalsehood,norconsenttothedoingofanyincourt;norshallhemisleadorallow
thecourttobemisledbyanyartifice.
RespondentdenigratesthedignityofhiscallingbydisplayingalackofcandortowardsthisCourt.Bytakinghissweettime
toeffectreimbursementoftheP16,300.00andthroughconsignationwiththisCourtatthathesentoutastrongmessage
thatthelegalprocessesandordersofthisCourtcouldbetreatedwithdisdainorimpunity.
Parenthetically,respondentsconsignationcouldnotevenbedeemedcompliancewiththeCourtsdirectivetoreimburse.
The Court does not represent complainant; the latters postal address was readily ascertainable from the records had
respondentwishedtocommunicatewithcomplainantforthepurposeofmakingamends.Therecordsarebereftofproof
that respondent had actually resorted to reimbursing the complainant directly. In short, evidence of atonement for
respondentsmisdeedsissorelywanting.
WHEREFORE,respondentPatricioA.AsoyspetitionforreinstatementintheRollofAttorneysisDENIED.
SOORDERED.
Re: LetteroftheUPLawFacultyentitledRestoringIntegrity:AStatementbytheFacultyoftheUniversityofthe
PhilippinesCollegeofLawontheAllegationsofPlagiarismandMisrepresentationintheSupremeCourt.
A.M.No.10104SC
Promulgated:
October19,2010
xx
RESOLUTION
VILLARAMA,JR.,J.:
Plagiarismistheactofappropriatingtheliterarycompositionofanother,orpartsorpassagesofhiswritings,orthe
ideasorlanguageofthesame,andpassingthemoffastheproductofonesownmind.[1]
AllegationsofthisintellectualoffensewerehurledbyAtty.HarryL.Roque,Jr.andAtty.RomelR.Bagaresagainst
JusticeMarianoC.DelCastilloforhisponenciainthecaseofVinuyav.ExecutiveSecretary,G.R.No.162230,April28,
2010.Insaidcase,theCourtdeniedthepetitionforcertiorarifiledbyFilipinocomfortwomentocompelcertainofficersof
theexecutivedepartment[2]toespousetheirclaimsforreparationanddemandapologyfromtheJapanesegovernmentfor
theabusescommittedagainstthembytheJapanesesoldiersduringWorldWarII.Attys.RoqueandBagaresrepresentthe
comfortwomeninVinuyav.ExecutiveSecretary,whichispresentlythesubjectofamotionforreconsideration.
Theauthorsandtheirpurportedlyplagiarizedarticlesare:(1)EvanJ.CriddleandEvanFoxDecentfromtheirarticle,
AFiduciaryTheoryofJusCogenspublishedin2009intheYaleJournalofInternationalLaw;(2)ChristianJ.Tamsfrom
hisbook,EnforcingErgaOmnesObligationsinInternationalLawpublishedbytheCambridgeUniversityPressin2005;
and(3)MarkEllisfromhisarticle,BreakingtheSilence:OnRapeasanInternationalCrimepublishedintheCase

WesternReserveJournalofInternationalLawin2006. TheallegationsofplagiarismcenteredonJusticeDelCastillos
discussionoftheprinciplesofjuscogensandergaomnes.
On August 9, 2010,Attys. Marvic M.V.F.Leonen, Froilan M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin, Merlin M.
Magallona,SalvadorT.Carlota,CarmeloV.Sison,PatriciaR.P.SalvadorDaway,DanteB.Gatmaytan,TheodoreO.Te,
FlorinT.Hilbay,JayL.Batongbacal,Evelyn(Leo)D.Battad,GwenG.DeVera,SolomonF.Lumba,RommelJ.Casis,
JoseGerardoA.Alampay,MiguelR.Armovit,ArthurP.Autea,RosaMariaJ.Bautista,MarkR.Bocobo,DanP.Calica,
TristanA.Catindig,SandraMarieO.Coronel,RosarioO.Gallo,ConcepcionL.Jardeleza,AntonioG.M.LaVia,Carina
C.Laforteza,JoseC.Laureta,OwenJ.Lynch,RodolfoNoelS.Quimbo,AntonioM.Santos,GmeleenFayeB.Tomboc,
NicholasFelixL.Ty,EvalynG.Ursua,RaulV.Vasquez,SusanD.Villanueva,andDinaD.Lucenario,membersofthe
facultyoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesCollegeofLawpublishedastatementontheallegationsofplagiarismand
misrepresentationrelativetotheCourtsdecisionin Vinuyav.ExecutiveSecretary. Essentially,thefacultyoftheUP
CollegeofLaw,headedbyitsdean,Atty.MarvicM.V.F.Leonen,callsfortheresignationofJusticeMarianoC.Del
Castillointhefaceofallegationsofplagiarisminhiswork.
Notably,whilethestatement wasmeant toreflect theeducatorsopiniononthe allegations ofplagiarism
againstJusticeDelCastillo,theytreatedsuchallegationnotonlyasanestablishedfact,butatruth. Inparticular,they
expresseddissatisfactionoverJusticeDelCastillosexplanationonhowhecitedtheprimarysourcesofthequotedportions
andyetarrivedatacontraryconclusiontothoseoftheauthorsofthearticlessupposedlyplagiarized.
Beyondthis,however,thestatementborecertainremarkswhichraiseconcernfortheCourt. Theopening
sentencealoneisagrimpreambletotheinstitutionalattackthatlayahead.Itreads:
AnextraordinaryactofinjusticehasagainbeencommittedagainstthebraveFilipinaswhohadsufferedabuseduringatime
ofwar.
ThefirstparagraphconcludeswithareferencetothedecisioninVinuyav.ExecutiveSecretaryasareprehensibleact
ofdishonestyandmisrepresentationbytheHighestCourtoftheland.TheauthorsalsonotonlyassumedthatJusticeDel
Castillocommittedplagiarism,theywentfurtherbydirectlyaccusingtheCourtofperpetratingextraordinaryinjusticeby
dismissingthepetitionofthecomfortwomeninVinuyav.ExecutiveSecretary.TheyfurtherattempttoeducatethisCourt
onhowtogoaboutthereviewofthecase.
TheinsulttothemembersoftheCourtwasaggravatedbyimputationsofdeliberatelydelayingtheresolutionof
thesaidcase,itsdismissalonthebasisofpollutedsources,theCourtsallegedindifferencetothecauseofpetitioners,as
wellasthesupposedalarminglackofconcernofthemembersoftheCourtforeventhemostbasicvaluesofdecencyand
respect.Paragraph9oftheirpublishedstatementreads,
Butinsteadofactingwithurgencyonthiscase,theCourtdelayeditsresolutionforalmostseven
years,oblivioustothedeathsofmanyofthepetitionersseekingjusticefromtheCourt. Whenitdismissedthe
Vinuyapetitionbasedonmisrepresentedandplagiarizedmaterials,theCourtdecidedthiscasebasedon
pollutedsources.Bydoingso,theSupremeCourtaddedinsulttoinjurybyfailingtoactuallyexerciseits
powertourgeandexhorttheExecutiveDepartmenttotakeuptheclaimsoftheVinuyapetitioners.Itscallous
disposition,coupledwithfalsesympathyandnonchalance,belies(sic)[betrays]amorealarming lackof
concernforeventhemostbasicvaluesofdecencyandrespect.(Emphasissupplied).
ThepublicationofastatementbythefacultyoftheUPCollegeofLawregardingtheallegationsofplagiarism
andmisrepresentationintheSupremeCourtwastotallyunnecessary,uncalledforandarashactofmisplacedvigilance. Of
publicknowledgeistheongoinginvestigationpreciselytodeterminethetruthofsuchallegations.Moreimportantly,the
motionforreconsiderationofthedecisionallegedtocontainplagiarizedmaterialsisstillpendingbeforetheCourt. We

madeitclearinthecaseofInreKelly[3]thatanypublication,pendingasuit,reflectinguponthecourt,thejury,theparties,
theofficersofthecourt,thecounselwithreferencetothesuit,ortendingtoinfluencethedecisionofthecontroversy,is
contemptofcourtandispunishable.
Whilemostagreethattherighttocriticizethejudiciaryiscriticaltomaintainingafreeanddemocraticsociety,
thereisalsoageneralconsensusthathealthycriticismonlygoessofar.Manytypesofcriticismleveledatthejudiciary
crossthelinetobecomeharmfulandirresponsibleattacks.Thesepotentiallydevastatingattacksandunjustcriticismcan
threatentheindependenceofthejudiciary.[4]Thecourtmustinsistonbeingpermittedtoproceedtothedispositionofits
businessinanorderlymanner,freefromoutsideinterferenceobstructiveofitsfunctionsandtendingtoembarrassthe
administrationofjustice.[5]
TheCourtcouldhardlyperceiveanyreasonablepurposeforthefacultyslessthanobjectivecommentsexcept
todiscredittheApril28,2010DecisionintheVinuyacaseandunderminetheCourtshonesty,integrityandcompetencein
addressingthemotionforitsreconsideration.Asifthecaseonthecomfortwomensclaimsisnotcontroversialenough,the
UPLawfacultywouldfantheflamesandinviteresentmentagainstaresolutionthatwouldnotreversethesaiddecision.
ThisrunscontrarytotheirobligationaslawprofessorsandofficersoftheCourttobethefirsttoupholdthedignityand
authorityofthisCourt,towhichtheyowefidelityaccordingtotheoaththeyhavetakenasattorneys,andnottopromote
distrustintheadministrationofjustice.[6] TheiractionslikewiseconstituteviolationsofCanons10,11,and13[7] and
Rules1.02and11.05[8]oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.[9]
WHEREFORE,inlightoftheforegoing,Attys.MarvicM.V.F.Leonen,FroilanM.Bacungan,PacificoA.
Agabin,MerlinM.Magallona,SalvadorT.Carlota,CarmeloV.Sison,PatriciaR.P.SalvadorDaway,DanteB.Gatmaytan,
TheodoreO.Te,FlorinT.Hilbay,JayL.Batongbacal,Evelyn(Leo)D.Battad,GwenG.DeVera,SolomonF.Lumba,
RommelJ.Casis,JoseGerardoA.Alampay,MiguelR.Armovit,ArthurP.Autea,RosaMariaJ.Bautista,MarkR.Bocobo,
DanP.Calica,TristanA.Catindig,SandraMarieO.Coronel,RosarioO.Gallo,ConcepcionL.Jardeleza,AntonioG.M.La
Via,CarinaC.Laforteza,JoseC.Laureta,OwenJ.Lynch,RodolfoNoelS.Quimbo,AntonioM.Santos,GmeleenFayeB.
Tomboc,NicholasFelixL.Ty,EvalynG.Ursua,RaulV.Vasquez,SusanD.Villanueva,andDinaD.Lucenario,members
ofthefacultyoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesCollegeofLaw,aredirectedto SHOWCAUSE,withinten(10)days
fromreceiptofacopyofthisResolution,whytheyshouldnotbedisciplinedasmembersoftheBarforviolationofCanons
10,11,and13andRules1.02and11.05oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
Further,DeanMarvicM.V.F.LeonenisdirectedtoSHOWCAUSE,withinten(10)daysfromreceiptofthis
Resolution,whyheshouldnotbedisciplinarilydealtwithforviolationofCanon10,Rules10.01,10.02and10.03for
submitting, through his letter dated August 10,2010, duringthe pendency of G.R. No. 162230, Vinuya v. Executive
SecretaryandoftheinvestigationbeforetheCommitteeonEthicsandEthicalStandards,fortheconsiderationoftheCourt
EnBanc,adummywhichisnotatrueandfaithfulreproductionofthepurportedstatement,entitledRestoringIntegrity:A
Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
MisrepresentationintheSupremeCourt.Enclosedarecopiesofthesaiddummyandsignedstatement,respectively,
attachedtothesaidletterdatedAugust10,2010andtotheCompliancedatedAugust31,2010filedbyRoque&Butuyan
LawOfficeswiththeCommitteeonEthicsandEthicalStandards.
LetthismatterbeDOCKETEDasaregularadministrativematter.
Let serviceofthisResolutionupontheabovenamedUP CollegeofLawfacultymembersbeeffectedby
personaldelivery.
SOORDERED.
A.M.No.011203SCJuly29,2002

INRE:PUBLISHEDALLEGEDTHREATSAGAINSTMEMBERSOFTHECOURTINTHEPLUNDERLAW
CASEHURLEDBYATTY.LEONARDDEVERA
KAPUNAN,J.:
OnDecember11,2001,thecourtEnBancissuedthefollowingResolutiondirectingrespondentAtty.LeonardDeVerato
explainwhyheshouldnotbecitedforindirectcontemptofcourtforutteringsomeallegedlycontemptuousstatementsin
relationtothecaseinvolvingtheconstitutionalityofthePlunderLaw(RepublicActNo.7080) 1whichwasthenpending
resolution:
QuotedhereunderarenewspaperarticleswithcontemptuousstatementsattributedtoAtty.LeonardDeVeraconcerningthe
PlunderLawcasewhilethesamewasstillpendingbeforetheCourt.Thestatementsareitalicizedforreadyidentification:
PHILIPPINEDAILYINQUIRER
Tuesday,November6,2001
ErapcampblamedforoustBadoymaneuvers
PlunderLaw
DeVeraaskedtheSupremeCourttodispelrumorsthatitwouldvoteinfavorofapetitionfiledbyEstradaslawyersto
declaretheplunderlawunconstitutionalforitssupposedvagueness.
DeVerasaidheandhisgroupwere"greatlydisturbed"bytherumorsfromSupremeCourtinsiders.
ReportssaidthatSupremeCourtjusticesweretied66overtheconstitutionalityofthePlunderLaw,withtwootherjustices
stillundecidedandutteredmostlikelytoinhibit,saidPlunderWatch,acoalitionformedbycivilsocietyandmilitantgroups
tomonitortheprosecutionofEstrada.
"WeareafraidthattheEstradacampsefforttocoerce,bribe,orinfluencethejusticesconsideringthatithasaP500
millionslushfundfromtheabortedpowergrabthatMaywillmostlikelyresultinproEstradadecisiondeclaringthe
PlunderLaweitherunconstitutionalorvague,"thegroupsaid.
PHILIPPINEDAILYINQUIRER
Monday,November19,2001
SCunderpressurefromErappals,foes
xxx
"Peoplearegettingdangerouslypassionate...emotionallycharged."SaidlawyerLeonarddeVeraoftheEqualJusticeforAll
MovementandaleadingmemberoftheEstradaResignmovement.
Hevoicedhisconcernthatadecisionbythehightribunalrenderingtheplunderlawunconstitutionalwouldtriggermass
actions,probablymoremassivethanthosethatledtoPeoplePowerII.
xxx
DeVerawarnedofacrisisfarworsethanthe"jueteng"scandalthatledtoPeoplePowerIIiftherumorturnedouttobe
true.
"PeoplewouldntjustswallowanySupremeCourtdecisionthatisbasicallywrong.Sovereigntymustprevail."

WHEREFORE,thecourtresolvedtodirectAtty.LeonardDeVeratoexplainwithinanonextendibleperiodoften(10)
daysfromnoticewhyheshouldnotbepunishedforcontemptofcourt.
SOORDERED.2
InhisAnswer,respondentadmittedthereportintheNovember6,2002issueofthe Inquirer thathe"suggestedthatthe
Courtmusttakestepstodispelonceandforalltheseuglyrumorsandreports"that"theCourtwouldvoteinfavorofor
againstthevalidityofthePlunderLaw"toprotectthecredibilityoftheCourt. 3Heexplainedtherein:
(4)Inshort,theintegrityoftheCourt,includingthenamesoftheHonorableMemberswhowerebeingunfairlydraggedand
maliciouslyrumoredtobeinfavororagainstonesideoftheissue,wasbeingviciouslyattacked.Toremainsilentatthis
timewhentheHonorableCourtwasundersiegebywhatappearedtobeanorganizedefforttoinfluencethecourtintheir
decisionwouldandcouldlendcredencetothesereportscomingfromanonymoussources.4
Respondentadmittedfurtherto"havingappealedtotheSupremeCourttodispelrumorsthatitwouldvoteinfavorofa
petitionby[former President Joseph] Estradas lawyers todeclare the plunder[law]unconstitutional for itssupposed
vagueness"becauseheandhisgroupwere"greatlydisturbed"bysuchrumors. 5
Anent theNovember19,2001report inthe Inquirer quotingrespondentashavingsaidthat thepeoplewere"getting
dangerouslypassionate...emotionallycharged,"pendingthecourtsresolutiononthepetitionfiledbyformerPresident
EstradaassailingthevalidityofthePlunderLaw,respondentclaimedthatsuchstatementwas"factuallyaccurate." 6Healso
arguedthathewasmerelyexercisinghisconstitutionallyguaranteedrighttofreedomofspeechwhenhesaidthatadecision
bytheCourtdeclaringthePlunderLawunconstitutional"wouldtriggermassactions,probablymoremassivethanthose
thatledtoPeoplePowerII."7
Furthermore,respondentjustifiedhisstatementandsaidthat"thepeoplewouldntjustswallowanySupremeCourtdecision
thatisbasicallywrong"asanexpressionofhisopinionandas"historicallycorrect,"citingtheousterofformerPresident
FerdinandE.Marcosthroughpeoplepowerin1986,andtheresignationofformerPresidentEstradafromofficeasaresult
ofpressurefromthepeoplewhogatheredatEDSAtodemandtheimpeachmentprocessbestoppedforbeingafarce,and
thatEstradastepdownbecausehenolongerhadthemandateoftheFilipinopeople.8
Whileheadmittedtohavingutteredtheaforecitedstatements,respondentdeniedhavingmadethesametodegradethe
Court,todestroypublicconfidenceinitandtobringitintodisrepute.9
Afteracarefulconsiderationofrespondentsarguments,theCourtfindshisexplanationunsatisfactoryandherebyfindshim
guiltyofindirectcontemptofcourtforutteringstatementsaimedatinfluencingandthreateningtheCourtindecidingin
favoroftheconstitutionalityofthePlunderLaw.
The judiciary,as thebranchof government tasked toadministerjustice,tosettle justiciable controversiesor disputes
involvingenforceableanddemandablerights,andtoaffordredressofwrongsfortheviolationofsaidrights 10 mustbe
allowedtodecidecasesindependently,freeofoutsideinfluenceorpressure.Anindependentjudiciaryisessentialtothe
maintenanceofdemocracy,aswellasofpeaceandorderinsociety.Further,maintainingthedignityofcourtsandenforcing
thedutyofcitizenstorespectthemarenecessaryadjunctstotheadministrationofjustice. 11
Thus,Rule71,Section3(d)oftheRevisedRulesofCourtauthorizesthecourtstoholdliableforcriminalcontempta
person guilty of conduct that is directed against the dignity or authority of the court, or of an act obstructing the
administrationofjusticewhichtendstobringthecourtintodisreputeordisrespect. 12
RespondentcannotjustifyhiscontemptuousstatementsaskingtheCourttodispelrumorsthatitwoulddeclarethePlunder
Lawunconstitutional,andstatingthatadecisiondeclaringitassuchwasbasicallywrongandwouldnotbeacceptedbythe
peopleasutterancesprotectedbyhisrighttofreedomofspeech.
Indeed,freedom ofspeechincludestherighttoknowanddiscussjudicial proceedings,butsuchrightdoesnotcover
statementsaimedatunderminingtheCourtsintegrityandauthority,andinterferingwiththeadministrationofjustice.
Freedomofspeechisnotabsolute,andmustoccasionallybebalancedwiththerequirementsofequallyimportantpublic
interests,suchasthemaintenanceoftheintegrityofthecourtsandorderlyfunctioningoftheadministrationofjustice. 13

Thus,themakingofcontemptuousstatementsdirectedagainsttheCourtisnotanexerciseoffreespeech;rather,itisan
abuseofsuchright.Unwarrantedattacksonthedignityofthecourtscannotbedisguisedasfreespeech,fortheexerciseof
saidrightcannotbeusedtoimpairtheindependenceandefficiencyofcourtsorpublicrespectthereforandconfidence
therein.14Itisatraditionalconvictionofcivilizedsocietyeverywherethatcourtsshouldbeimmunefromeveryextraneous
influenceastheyresolvetheissuespresentedbeforethem.15Thecourthaspreviouslyheldthat
xxx As important as the maintenance of an unmuzzled press and the free exercise of the right of the citizen, is the
maintenanceoftheindependenceofthejudiciary.xxxThisCourtmustbepermittedtoproceedwiththedispositionofits
businessinanorderlymannerfreefromoutsideinterferenceobstructiveofitsconstitutionalfunctions.Thisrightwillbe
insisteduponasvitaltoanimpartialcourt,and,asalastresort,asanindividualexercisestherightofselfdefense,itwillact
topreserveitsexistenceasanunprejudicedtribunal.16
InPeoplevs.Godoy,17thisCourtexplainedthatwhileacitizenmaycommentupontheproceedingsanddecisionsofthe
courtanddiscusstheircorrectness,andevenexpresshisopinionsonthefitnessorunfitnessofthejudgesfortheirstations,
andthefidelitywithwhichtheyperformtheimportantpublictrustsreposedinthem,hehasnorighttoattempttodegrade
thecourt,destroypublicconfidenceinit,andencouragethepeopletodisregardandsetnaughtitsorders,judgmentsand
decrees.Suchpublicationsaresaidtobeanabuseofthelibertyofspeechandofthepress,fortheytendtodestroythevery
foundationofgoodorderandwellbeinginsocietybyobstructingthecourseofjustice. 18
Clearly,respondentsutterancespressuringtheCourttoruleinfavoroftheconstitutionalityofthePlunderLaworrisk
anotherseriesofmassactionsbythepubliccannotbeconstruedasfallingwithintheambitofconstitutionallyprotected
speech,becausesuchstatementsarenotfaircriticismsofanydecisionoftheCourt,butobviouslyarethreatsmadeagainstit
toforcetheCourttodecidetheissueinaparticularmanner,orriskearningtheireofthepublic.Suchstatementsshow
disrespectnotonlyfortheCourtbutalsoforthejudicialsystemasawhole,tendtopromotedistrustandunderminepublic
confidenceinthejudiciary,bycreatingtheimpressionthattheCourtcannotbetrustedtoresolvecasesimpartiallyand
violatetherightofthepartiestohavetheircasetriedfairlybyanindependenttribunal,uninfluencedbypublicclamorand
otherextraneousinfluences.19
Itisrespondentsdutyasanofficerofthecourt,toupholdthedignityandauthorityofthecourtsandtopromoteconfidence
inthefairadministrationofjustice 20andintheSupremeCourtasthelastbulwarkofjusticeanddemocracy.Respondents
utterancesasquotedabove,whilethecaseofEstradavs.SandiganbayanwaspendingconsiderationbythisCourt,belies
hisprotestationofgoodfaithbutwereclearlymadetomobilizepublicopinionandbringpressureontheCourt.
WHEREFORE, Atty.LeonardDeVeraisfound GUILTY ofindirectcontemptofcourtandishereby FINED inthe
amountofTwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00)tobepaidwithinten(10)daysfromreceiptofthisDecision.
SOORDERED.
G.R.No.75209September30,1987
NESTLEPHILIPPINES,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
HON.AUGUSTOS.SANCHEZ,MINISTEROFLABORANDEMPLOYMENTandTHEUNIONOFFILIPRO
EMPLOYEES,respondents.
No.78791September30,1987
KIMBERLYINDEPENDENTLABORUNIONFORSOLIDARITY,ACTIVISMANDNATIONALISMOLALIA,
petitioner,
vs.

NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION,MANUELAGUILAR,MA.ESTRELLAALDAS,CAPT.REY
L.LANADA,COL.VIVENCIOMANAIGandKIMBERLYCLARKPHILIPPINES,INC.,respondents.
RESOLUTION

PERCURIAM:
DuringtheperiodJuly810.1987,respondentinG.R.No.75029,UnionofFiliproEmployees,andpetitionerinG.R.No.
78791,KimberlyIndependentLaborUnionforSolidarity,ActivismandNationalismOlaliaintensifiedtheintermittent
picketstheyhadbeenconductingsinceJune17,1987infrontofthePadreFauragateoftheSupremeCourtbuilding.They
setuppickets'quartersonthepavementinfrontoftheSupremeCourtbuilding,attimesobstructingaccesstoandegress
fromtheCourt'spremisesandofficesofjustices,officialsandemployees.Theyconstructedprovisionalsheltersalongthe
sidewalks,setupakitchenandlitteredtheplacewithfoodcontainersandtrashinutterdisregardofproperhygieneand
sanitation.Theywavedtheirredstreamersandplacardswithslogans,andtookturnsharanguingthecourtalldaylongwith
theuseofloudspeakers.
TheseactsweredoneevenaftertheirleadershadbeenreceivedbyJusticesPedroL.YapandMarceloB.Fernanas
ChairmenoftheDivisionswheretheircasesarepending,andAtty.JoseC.Espinas,counseloftheUnionofFilipro
Employees,hadbeencalledinorderthatthepicketsmightbeinformedthatthedemonstrationmustceaseimmediatelyfor
thesameconstitutesdirectcontemptofcourtandthattheCourtwouldnotentertaintheirpetitionsforaslongasthepickets
weremaintained.Thus,onJuly10,1987,theCourtenbancissuedaresolutiongivingthesaidunionstheopportunityto
withdrawgraciouslyandrequiringMessrs.TonyAvelino.LitoPayabyab,EugeneSanPedro,DanteEscasura,EmilSayao
andNelsonCenteno,unionleadersofrespondentUnionofFiliproEmployeesintheNestlecaseandtheircounselofrecord,
Atty.JoseC.Espinas;andMessrs.ErnestoFacundo,FaustoGapuz,Jr.andAntonioGonzales,unionleadersofpetitioner
KimberlyIndependentLaborUnionforSolidarity,ActivismandNationalismOlaliaintheKimberlycasetoappearbefore
theCourtonJuly14,1987at10:30A.M.andthenandtheretoSHOWCAUSEwhytheyshouldnotbeheldincontemptof
court.Atty.JoseC.EspinaswasfurtherrequiredtoSHOWCAUSEwhyheshouldnotbeadministrativelydealtwith.
Ontheappointeddateandtime,theabovenamedindividualsappearedbeforetheCourt,representedbyAtty.JoseC.
Espinas,intheabsenceofAtty.PotencianoFlores,counselofrecordofpetitionerinG.R.No.78791,whowasstill
recuperatingfromanoperation.
Atty.Espinas,forhimselfandinbehalfoftheunionleadersconcerned,apologizedtotheCourtfortheabovedescribed
acts,togetherwithanassurancethattheywillnotberepeated.HelikewisemanifestedtotheCourtthathehadexperienced
tothepicketerswhytheiractionswerewrongandthatthecitedpersonswerewillingtosuffersuchpenaltyasmaybe
warrantedunderthecircumstances.1He,however,prayedfortheCourt'sleniencyconsideringthatthepicketwasactually
spearheadedbytheleadersofthe"PagkakaisangMangagawasaTimogKatagalogan"(PAMANTIK),anunregisteredloose
allianceofaboutseventyfive(75)unionsintheSouthernTagalogarea,andnotbyeithertheUnionofFiliproEmployeesor
theKimberlyIndependentLaborUnion.2
Atty.Espinasfurtherstatedthathehadexplainedtothepicketersthatanydelayintheresolutionoftheircasesisusuallyfor
causesbeyondthecontroloftheCourtandthattheSupremeCourthasalwaysremainedsteadfastinitsroleastheguardian
oftheConstitution.
Toconfirmfortherecordthatthepersoncitedforcontemptfullyunderstoodthereasonforthecitationandthattheywig
abidebytheirpromisethatsaidincidentwillnotberepeated,theCourtrequiredtherespondentstosubmitawritten
manifestationtothiseffect,whichrespondentscompliedwithonJuly17,1987.
Weaccepttheapologiesofferedbytherespondentsandatthistime,foregotheimpositionofthesanctionwarrantedbythe
contemptuousactsdescribedearlier.TheliberalstancetakenbythisCourtinthesecasesaswellasintheearliercaseof
AHS/PHILIPPINESEMPLOYEESUNIONvs.NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION,etal.,G.R.No.73721,
March30,1987,shouldnot,however,beconsideredinanyotherlightthananacknowledgmentoftheeuphoriaapparently
resultingfromtherediscoveryofalongrepressedfreedom.TheCourtwillnothesitateinfuturesimilarsituationstoapply

thefullforceofthelawandpunishforcontemptthosewhoattempttopressuretheCourtintoactingonewayortheotherin
anycasependingbeforeit.Grievances,ifany,mustbeventilatedthroughtheproperchannels,i.e.,throughappropriate
petitions,motionsorotherpleadingsinkeepingwiththerespectduetotheCourtsasimpartialadministratorsofjustice
entitledto"proceedtothedispositionofitsbusinessinanorderlymanner,freefromoutsideinterferenceobstructiveofits
functionsandtendingtoembarrasstheadministrationofjustice."3
Therightofpetitionisconcededtobeaninherentrightofthecitizenunderallfreegovernments.However,suchright,
naturalandinherentthoughitmaybe,hasneverbeeninvokedtoshatterthestandardsofproprietyentertainedforthe
conductofcourts.For"itisatraditionalconvictionofcivilizedsocietyeverywherethatcourtsandjuries,inthedecisionof
issuesoffactandlawshouldbeimmunefromeveryextraneousinfluence;thatfactsshouldbedecideduponevidence
producedincourt;andthatthedeterminationofsuchfactsshouldbeuninfluencedbybias,prejudiceorsympathies." 4
Moreover,"partieshaveaconstitutionalrighttohavetheircausestriedfairlyincourtbyanimpartialtribunal,uninfluenced
bypublicationorpublicclamor.Everycitizenhasaprofoundpersonalinterestintheenforcementofthefundamentalright
tohavejusticeadministeredbythecourts,undertheprotectionandformsoflawfreefromoutsidecoercionorinterference."
5
TheaforecitedactsoftherespondentsarethereforenotonlyanaffronttothedignityofthisCourt,butequalityaviolation
oftheabovestatedrightoftheadversepartiesandthecitizenryatlarge.
Werealizethattheindividualshereincitedwhoarenonlawyersarenotknowledgeableinherintricaciesofsubstantiveand
adjectivelaws.TheyarenotawarethatevenastherightsoffreespeechandofassemblyareprotectedbytheConstitution,
anyattempttopressureorinfluencecourtsofjusticethroughtheexerciseofeitherrightamountstoanabusethereof,isno
longerwithintheambitofconstitutionalprotection,nordidtheyrealizethatanysucheffortstoinfluencethecourseof
justiceconstitutescontemptofcourt.6Thedutyandresponsibilityofadvisingthem,therefore,restprimarilyandheavily
upontheshouldersoftheircounselofrecord.Atty.JoseC.Espinas,whenhisattentionwascalledbythisCourt,didhisbest
todemonstratetothepicketstheuntenabilityoftheiractsandposture.Letthisincidentthereforeserveasaremindertoall
membersofthelegalprofessionthatitistheirdutyasofficersofthecourttoproperlyapprisetheirclientsonmattersof
decorumandproperattitudetowardcourtsofjustice,andtolaborleadersoftheimportanceofacontinuingeducational
programfortheirmembers.
WHEREFORE,thecontemptchargesagainsthereinrespondentsareDISMISSED.Henceforth,nodemonstrationsor
picketsintendedtopressureorinfluencecourtsofjusticeintoactingonewayortheotheronpendingcasesshallbeallowed
inthevicinityand/orwithinthepremisesofanyandallcourts.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.6323April13,2007
PABLOR.OLIVARESand/orOLIVARESREALTYCORPORATION,Complainants,
vs.
ATTY.ARSENIOC.VILLALON,JR.,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
CORONA,J.:
Thisisacomplaint1fordisbarmentandsuspension2againstrespondentAtty.ArsenioC.Villalon,Jr.byPabloR.Olivares
and/orOlivaresRealtyCorporationforviolationofRule12.02,Canon12oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandthe
ruleonforumshopping.
Inhiscomplaint,Olivaresallegedthatrespondentsclient,SarahDivinaMoralesAlRasheed,repeatedlysuedhimfor
violationsoftheleasecontractwhichtheyexecutedoveracommercialapartmentinOlivaresBuildinginParaaque.3

In1993,AlRasheedfiledanactionfordamagesandprohibitionwithprayerforpreliminarymandatoryinjunctioninthe
RegionalTrialCourtofManila.4Thecasewasdismissedforimpropervenue.5
Sixyearslater,onJuly1,1999,AlRasheedfiledanactionforbreachofcontractwithdamagesintheRegionalTrialCourt
ofParaaque,Branch274. 6 Thecase,docketedasCivilCaseNo.990233,wasdismissedforfailuretoprosecute. 7 Al
Rasheed,throughcounselAtty.Villalon,soughtareviewoftheorderdismissingCivilCaseNo.990233buttheCourtof
Appealsdidnotgiveduecoursetoherappeal. 8ThesubsequentpetitionforreviewoncertiorarifiledintheSupremeCourt
waslikewisedenied.9
OnJanuary29,2004,AlRasheedrefiledthe1999suitintheRegionalTrialCourtofParaaque,Branch274 10whereitwas
docketedasCivilCaseNo.0J04009.11Itwasdismissedonthegroundsofresjudicataandprescription.12
Respondent,ontheotherhand,assertsthathewasonlyperforminghislegalobligationasalawyertoprotectandprosecute
theinterestsofhisclient.13Hedeniedthathewasforumshoppingashisclient,inhercertificateofnonforumshopping, 14
disclosedthetwopreviouscasesinvolvingthesamecauseofactionwhichhadbeenfiledanddismissed. 15 Respondent
furtherclaimshecouldnotrefusehisclientsrequesttofileanewcasebecauseAlRasheedwasthe"oppressedparty"in
thetransaction.16
ThisCourtreferredthecomplaint,togetherwithrespondentscomment,totheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)for
investigation,reportandrecommendation.17
TheCommissiononBarDiscipline(CBD)oftheIBPfoundthat respondent assistedAlRasheedinrepeatedlysuing
Olivaresforthesamecauseofactionandsubjectmatter. 18Itopinedthatrespondentshouldhavenotedthatthe1999case
wasdismissedforlackofinteresttoprosecute.19UnderRule17,Section3oftheRulesofCourt,suchdismissalhadthe
effectofanadjudicationonthemerits. 20 TheCBDrecommendedthesuspensionofrespondentforsixmonthswitha
warningthatanysimilarinfractioninthefuturewouldbedealtwithmoreseverely.21
TheIBPadoptedandapprovedthefindingsoftheCBDthatrespondentviolatedRule12.02,Canon12oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibilityaswellastheproscriptiononforumshopping.It,however,modifiedtherecommendedpenalty
toreprimand.22
WeadoptthefindingsoftheIBPexceptitsrecommendationastothepenalty.1a\^/phi1.net
Alllawyersmustbearinmindthattheiroathsareneithermerewordsnoranemptyformality.Whentheytaketheiroathas
lawyers,theydedicatetheirlivestothepursuitofjustice.Theyacceptthesacredtrusttoupholdthelawsoftheland. 23As
thefirstCanonoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitystates,"[a]lawyershallupholdtheconstitution,obeythelawsof
thelandandpromoterespectforlawandlegalprocesses." 24Moreover,accordingtothelawyersoaththeytook,lawyers
should"notwittinglyorwillinglypromoteorsueanygroundless,falseorunlawfulsuit,norgiveaidnorconsenttothe
same."25
Withallthisinmind,respondentshouldhaverefrainedfromfilingthesecondcomplaintagainstOlivares.Heoughttohave
knownthatthepreviousdismissalwaswithprejudicesinceithadtheeffectofanadjudicationonthemerits.Therewasno
excusenottoknowthiselementaryprincipleofprocedurallaw.
ThefactsofthiscaserevealthatAtty.Villalonpurposelyfiledthesecondcomplaint.Respondentappealedthe1999caseto
the Court of Appeals and subsequently to this Court. Both actions were dismissed for lack of merit, not on mere
technicality.Thecertificateofnonforumshoppingattachedtothe2004complaintdisclosedthatAlRasheedpreviously
sued Olivares for violating their lease contract. As if such disclosure was a sufficient justification, Atty. Villalon
unapologeticallyreproducedhis199926argumentsandassertionsinthe200427complaint.Respondentobviouslyknewthe
lawandtriedtogoaroundit.ThisCourtthereforeconcludesthatrespondentwillfullyviolatedRule12.02,Canon12which
providesthat:
Alawyershallnotfilemultipleactionsarisingfromthesamecause.
Furthermore,heviolatedRule10.03,Canon10oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility:

Alawyershallobservetherulesofprocedureandshallnotmisusethemtodefeattheendsofjustice.
Alawyersfidelitytohisclientmustnotbepursuedattheexpenseoftruthandjustice. 28Lawyershavethedutytoassistin
thespeedyandefficientadministrationofjustice.FilingmultipleactionsconstitutesanabuseoftheCourtsprocesses.It
constitutesimproperconduct thattendstoimpede,obstructanddegradejustice.Thosewhofilemultipleorrepetitive
actionssubjectthemselvestodisciplinaryactionforincompetenceorwillfulviolationoftheirdutiesasattorneystoactwith
allgoodfidelitytothecourts,andtomaintainonlysuchactionsthatappeartobejustandconsistentwithtruthandhonor. 29
Everythingconsidered,thisCourtfindsthatareprimandisinsufficientandrulesinsteadthatCBDsrecommendationfora
sixmonthsuspensionfromthepracticeoflawtobemorecommensuratetotheviolationcommitted.However,inviewof
respondentsdeathonSeptember27,2006,30thepenaltycannolongerbeimposedonhim.Thisdevelopmenthas,ineffect,
renderedthisdisciplinarycasemootandacademic.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.5054May29,2002
SOLEDADNUEZ,RepresentedbyANANIASB.CO,AttorneyinFactforComplainant,petitioner,
vs.
ATTY.ROMULORICAFORT,respondent.
RESOLUTION
PERCURIAM:
Thisisanadministrativecomplaintfiledon21April1999bySoledadNuez,aseptuagenarianrepresentedbyherattorney
infactAnaniasB.Co,Jr.,seekingthedisbarmentofrespondentAtty.RomuloRicafortonthegroundofgravemisconduct.
Fromthedocumentssubmittedbythecomplainant,itappearsthatsometimeinOctober1982sheauthorizedrespondentto
sellhertwoparcelsoflandlocatedinLegazpiCityforP40,000.Sheagreedtogiverespondent10percentofthepriceas
commission.Respondentsucceededinsellingthelots,butdespitecomplainantsrepeateddemands,hedidnotturnoverto
hertheproceedsofthesale.Thisforcedcomplainanttofileagainstrespondentandhiswifeanactionforasumofmoney
beforetheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity.ThecasewasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.Q9315052.
Forhisfailuretofileananswer,respondentwasdeclaredindefaultandcomplainantwasrequiredtopresentexparteher
evidence.On29September1993,thecourtrendereditsdecision(Annex"C"oftheComplaint)orderingrespondentherein
topaycomplainantthesumofP16,000asprincipalobligation,withinterestthereonatthelegalratefromthedateofthe
commencementoftheaction,i.e.,8March1993,untilitisfullypaid,andtopaythecostsofsuit.1wphi1.nt
RespondentandhiswifeappealedfromthedecisiontotheCourtofAppeals.However,theappealwasdismissedforfailure
topaytherequireddocketfeewithinthereglementaryperioddespitenotice.
On23October1995complainantfiledinCivilCaseNo.Q9315052amotionfortheissuanceofanaliaswritofexecution,
which the court granted on 30 October 1995. The next day, the alias writ of execution was issued (Annex "B" of
Complaint). It appears that only a partial satisfaction of the P16,000 judgment was made, leaving P13,800 thereof
unsatisfied.Inpaymentforthelatter,respondentissuedfourpostdatedchecksdrawnagainsthisaccountinChinaBanking
Corporation,LegazpiCity.
Uponpresentment,however,thechecksweredishonoredbecausetheaccountagainstwhichtheyweredrawnwasclosed
(Annexes"D"and"E"ofComplaint).Demandsforrespondenttomakegoodthechecksfellondeafears,thusforcing
complainanttofilefourcriminalcomplaintsforviolationofB.P.Blg.22beforetheMetropolitanTrialCourtofQuezon
City(Annexes"F,""G,""H"and"I"oftheComplaint).

Inthe"JointAffidavit"ofrespondentandhiswifefiledwiththeOfficeoftheProsecutor,QuezonCity,respondentadmitted
havingdrawnandissuedsaidfourpostdatedchecksinfavorofcomplainant.Allegedlybelievingingoodfaiththatsaid
checks had already been encashed by complainant, he subsequently closed his checking account in China Banking
Corporation,LegazpiCity,fromwhichsaidfourchecksweredrawn.Hewasnotnotifiedthatthechecksweredishonored.
Hadhebeennotified,hewouldhavemadethenecessaryarrangementswiththebank.
Werequiredrespondenttocommentonthecomplaint.Butheneverdiddespiteourfavorableactiononhisthreemotions
forextensionoftimetofilethecomment.Hisfailuretodosocompelledcomplainanttofileon10March2000amotionto
citerespondentincontemptonthegroundthathisstrategytofilepiecemealmotionsforextensionoftimetosubmitthe
comment"smacksofadelayingtacticschemethatisunworthyofamemberofthebarandalawdean."
Inourresolutionof14June2000,wenotedthemotionforcontempt;consideredrespondenttohavewaivedthefilingofa
comment;andreferredthiscasetotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippine(IBP)forinvestigation,reportandrecommendation
ordecisionwithinninetydaysfromnoticeoftheresolution.
InherReportandRecommendationdated12September2000,InvestigatingCommissionerAtty.MilagrosV.SanJuan
concludedthatrespondenthadnointentionto"honor"themoneyjudgmentagainsthiminCivilCaseNo.Q9315052as
canbegleanedfromhis(1)issuanceofpostdatedchecks;(2)closingoftheaccountagainstwhichsaidchecksweredrawn;
and(3)continuedfailuretomakegoodtheamountsofthechecks.Shethenrecommendsthatrespondentbedeclared"guilty
ofmisconductinhisdealingswithcomplainant"andbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawforatleastoneyearandpaythe
amountofthechecksissuedtothecomplainant.
InitsResolutionNo.XV2001244of27October2001,theBoardofGovernorsoftheIBPapprovedandadoptedAtty.San
JuansReportandRecommendation.
WeconcurwiththefindingsoftheInvestigatingCommissioner,asadoptedandapprovedbytheBoardofGovernorsofthe
IBP,thatrespondentAtty.RomuloRicafortisguiltyofgravemisconductinhisdealingswithcomplainant.Indeed,the
recordshowsrespondentsgravemisconductandnotoriousdishonesty.
Thereisnoneedtostretchonesimaginationtoarriveataninevitableconclusionthatrespondentgravelyabusedthe
confidencethatcomplainantreposedinhimandcommitteddishonestywhenhedidnotturnovertheproceedsofthesaleof
herproperty.Worse,withpalpablebadfaith,hecompelledthecomplainanttogotocourtfortherecoveryoftheproceeds
ofthesaleand,intheprocess,tospendmoney,timeandenergytherefor.Then,despitehisdeliberatefailuretoanswerthe
complaintresultinginhishavingbeendeclaredindefault,heappealedfromthejudgmenttotheCourtofAppeals.Again,
badfaithattendedsuchastepbecausehedidnotpaythedocketfeedespitenotice.Needlesstostate,respondentwantedto
prolongthetravailsandagonyofthecomplainantandtoenjoythefruitsofwhatrightfullybelongstothelatter.Unsatisfied
withwhathehadalreadyunjustlyandunlawfullydonetocomplainant,respondentissuedcheckstosatisfythealiaswritof
execution.But,remainingunrepentantofwhathehaddoneandincontinuedpursuitofaclearlymaliciousplannottopay
complainantofwhathadbeenvalidlyandlawfullyadjudgedbythecourtagainsthim,respondentclosedtheaccountagainst
whichthechecksweredrawn.Therewasdeceitinthis.Respondentneverhadtheintentionofpayinghisobligationas
provedbythefactthatdespitethecriminalcasesforviolationofB.P.Blg.22,hedidnotpaytheobligation.
AlltheforegoingconstitutedgraveandgrossmisconductinblatantviolationofRule1:01ofCanon1oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibilitywhichprovides:
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonestandimmoralordeceitfulconduct.
Respondentsclaimofgoodfaithinclosinghisaccountbecausehethoughtcomplainanthasalreadyencashedallchecksis
preposterous.Theaccountwasclosedonorbefore26February1996.Heknewthattherewerestillotherchecksdueon29
February1996and15March1996whichcouldnotbeencashedbeforetheirmaturitydates.
ByviolatingRule1:01ofCanon1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,respondentdiminishedpublicconfidencein
thelawandthelawyers(Busiosv.Ricafort,283SCRA407[1997];Ducatv.Villalon,337SCRA622[2000]).Insteadof
promotingsuchconfidenceandrespect,hemiserablyfailedtoliveuptothestandardsofthelegalprofession(Gonatov.
Adaza,328SCRA694[2000];Ducatv.Villalon,supra).

Respondentsactofissuingbadchecksinsatisfactionofthealiaswritofexecutionformoneyjudgmentrenderedbythe
trialcourtwasaclearattempttodefeattheendsofjustice.Hisfailuretomakegoodthechecksdespitedemandsandthe
criminalcasesforviolationofB.P.Blg.22showedhiscontinueddefianceofjudicialprocesses,whichhe,asanofficerof
thecourt,wasundercontinuingdutytouphold.
Tofurtherdemonstratehisverylowregardforthecourtsandjudicialprocesses,respondentevenhadthetemerityof
makingamockeryofourgenerositytohim.Wegrantedhisthreemotionsforextensionoftimetofilehiscommentonthe
complaintinthiscase.Yet,notonlydidhefailtofilethecomment,heaswelldidnotevenbothertoexplainsuchfailure
notwithstandingourresolutiondeclaringhimashavingwaivedthefilingofthecomment.TotheHighestCourtoftheland,
respondent openly showed a high degree of irresponsibility amounting to willful disobedience to its lawful orders
(ThermochemIncorporatedv.Naval,344SCRA76,82[2000];SipinNaborv.Atty.Baterina,Adm.CaseNo.4073,28
June2001).
Respondent then knowingly and willfully violated Rules 12.04 and 12:03 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility,whichrespectivelyprovidethatlawyersshouldavoidanyactionthatwouldundulydelayacase,impedethe
executionofajudgmentormisusecourtprocesses;andthatlawyers,afterobtainingextensionsoftimetofilepleadings,
memorandaorbriefs,shouldnotlettheperiodlapsewithoutsubmittingthesameorofferinganexplanationfortheirfailure
todoso.1wphi1.nt
Thepenaltyofsuspension"foratleastone(1)year"imposedbytheBoardofGovernorsoftheIBPisbothvagueand
inadequate.Asuspensionmayeitherbeindefiniteorforaspecificduration.Besides,underthecircumstancesofthiscasea
suspensionforayearisplainlyverylightandinadequate.ForhisdeliberateviolationordefianceofRule1.01ofCanon1
andRules12:03and12:04ofCanon12oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,coupledwithhispalpablebadfaithand
dishonestyinhisdealingswiththecomplainant,respondentdeservesagraverpenalty.Thatgraverpenaltyisindefinite
suspensionfromthepracticeoflaw.
INVIEWOFALLTHEFOREGOING,respondentAtty.RomuloRicafortisherebyINDEFINITELYSUSPENDED
fromthepracticeoflaw,andisdirectedtopaycomplainantSoledadNueztheamountof P13,800withinten(10)days
fromnoticeofthisresolution.
Thisresolutionshalltakeeffectimmediately.CopiesthereofshallbefurnishedtheOfficeoftheBarConfidant,tobe
appendedtorespondentspersonalrecord;theOfficeofthePresident;theDepartmentofJustice;theCourtofAppeals;the
Sandiganbayan;andtheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines.TheCourtAdministratorshallalsofurnishalllowercourtswith
copiesofthisResolution.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.7815July23,2009
DOLORESC.BELLEZA,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.ALANS.MACASA,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PerCuriam:
Thistreatsofthecomplaint fordisbarmentfiledbycomplainantDoloresC.Bellezaagainstrespondent Atty.AlanS.
Macasa for unprofessional and unethical conduct in connection with the handling of a criminal case involving
complainantsson.
OnNovember10,2004,complainantwenttoseerespondentonreferraloftheirmutualfriend,JoeChua.Complainant
wantedtoavailofrespondentslegalservicesinconnectionwiththecaseofherson,FrancisJohnBelleza,whowas

arrestedbypolicemenofBacolodCityearlierthatdayforallegedviolationofRepublicAct(RA)9165. 1Respondentagreed
tohandlethecaseforP30,000.
The followingday,complainant madea partial payment of P15,000torespondent thrutheir mutual friendChua. On
November17,2004,shegavehimanadditional P10,000.Shepaidthe P5,000balanceonNovember18,2004.Both
paymentswerealsomadethruChua.Onallthreeoccasions,respondentdidnotissueanyreceipt.
OnNovember21,2004,respondentreceived P18,000fromcomplainantforthepurposeofpostingabondtosecurethe
provisionallibertyofher(complainants)son.Again,respondentdidnotissueanyreceipt.Whencomplainantwenttothe
courtthenextday,shefoundoutthatrespondentdidnotremittheamounttothecourt.
Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but respondent ignored her.
Moreover,respondentfailedtoactonthecaseofcomplainantssonandcomplainantwasforcedtoavailoftheservicesof
thePublicAttorneysOfficeforhersonsdefense.
Thereafter,complainantfiledaverifiedcomplaint 2fordisbarmentagainstrespondentintheNegrosOccidentalchapterof
theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP).Attachedtotheverifiedcomplaintwastheaffidavit 3ofChuawhichread:
I,JOECHUA,oflegalage,FilipinoandresidentofPurokSawmill,Brgy.Bata,BacolodCity,afterhavingbeensworntoin
accordancewithlaw,herebydeposeandstate:
1.ThatIamtheonewhointroduce[d]Mrs.DoloresC.Belleza[to]Atty.AlanMacasawhenshelookedforalawyertohelp
hersoninthecasethatthelatterisfacingsometime[i]n[the]firstweekofNovember2004;
2.Thatbyreasonofmymutualclosenesstobothofthem,IamtheonewhofacilitatedthepaymentofMrs.DOLORESC.
BELLEZAtoAtty.AlanMacasa;
3.ThatasfarasIknow,IreceivedthefollowingamountfromMrs.DoloresBellezaaspaymentforAtty.AlanMacasa:
Date
Amount
November11,2004
P15,000.00
Aweekafter
10,000.00
November18,2004
5,000.00
4.ThattheabovementionedamountswhichIsupposedasAttorneysFeeswereimmediatelyforwardedbymetoAtty.
[Macasa];
5.ThatIamexecutingthisaffidavitinordertoattesttothetruthofalltheforegoingstatements.
xxxxxxxxx4
InaletterdatedMay23,2005,5theIBPNegrosOccidentalchaptertransmittedthecomplainttotheIBPsCommissionon
BarDiscipline(CBD).6
InanorderdatedJuly13,2005,7theCBDrequiredrespondenttosubmithisanswerwithin15daysfromreceiptthereof.
Respondent,inanurgentmotionforextensionoftimetofileananswerdatedAugust10,2005, 8simplybrushedasidethe
complaintforbeing"baseless,groundlessandmalicious"without,however,offeringanyexplanation.Healsoprayedthat
hebegivenuntilSeptember4,2005tosubmithisanswer.
Respondentsubsequentlyfiledurgentmotions9forsecondandthirdextensionsoftimeprayingtobegivenuntilNovember
4,2005tosubmithisanswer.Heneverdid.

WhenbothpartiesfailedtoattendthemandatoryconferenceonApril19,2006,theywereorderedtosubmittheirrespective
positionpapers.10
InitsreportandrecommendationdatedOctober2,2007, 11theCBDruledthatrespondentfailedtorebutthechargesagainst
him.Heneveransweredthecomplaintdespiteseveralchancestodoso.
TheCBDfoundrespondentguiltyofviolationofRule1.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichprovides:
Rule1.01Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoral,ordeceitfulconduct.
ItalsofoundhimguiltyofviolationofRules16.01and16.02oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility:
Rule16.01Alawyershallaccountforallmoneyorpropertycollectedorreceivedfororfromtheclient.
Rule16.02Alawyershallkeepthefundsofeachclientseparateandapartfromhisownandthoseotherskeptbyhim.
TheCBDruledthatrespondentlackedgoodmoralcharacterandthathewasunfitandunworthyoftheprivilegesconferred
bylawonhimasamemberofthebar.TheCBDrecommendedasuspensionofsixmonthswithasternwarningthat
repetitionofsimilaractswouldmeritamoreseveresanction.Italsorecommendedthatrespondentbeorderedtoreturnto
complainanttheP18,000intendedfortheprovisionallibertyofthecomplainantssonandtheP30,000attorneysfees.
TheBoardofGovernorsoftheIBPadoptedandapprovedthereportandrecommendationoftheCBDwiththemodification
thatrespondentbeorderedtoreturntocomplainantonlytheamountofP30,000whichhereceivedasattorneysfees.12
WeaffirmtheCBDsfindingofguiltasaffirmedbytheIBPBoardofGovernorsbutwemodifytheIBPsrecommendation
astotheliabilityofrespondent.
RespondentDisrespected
LegalProcesses
Respondentwasgivenmorethanenoughopportunitytoanswerthechargesagainsthim.Yet,heshowedindifferencetothe
ordersoftheCBDforhimtoanswerandrefutetheaccusationsofprofessionalmisconductagainsthim.Indoingso,he
failedtoobserveRule12.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility:
Rule12.03Alawyershallnot,afterobtainingextensionsoftimetofilepleadings,memorandaorbriefs,lettheperiod
lapsewithoutsubmittingthesameorofferinganexplanationforhisfailuretodoso.
RespondentalsoignoredtheCBDsdirectiveforhimtofilehispositionpaper.Hispropensitytoflouttheordersofthe
CBDshowedhislackofconcernanddisrespectfortheproceedingsoftheCBD.Hedisregardedtheoathhetookwhenhe
wasacceptedtothelegalprofession"toobeythelawsandthelegalordersofthedulyconstitutedlegalauthorities."He
displayedinsolencenotonlytotheCBDbutalsotothisCourtwhichisthesourceoftheCBDsauthority.
RespondentsunjustifieddisregardofthelawfulordersoftheCBDwasnotonlyirresponsiblebutalsoconstitutedutter
disrespectforthejudiciaryandhisfellowlawyers. 13Hisconductwasunbecomingofalawyerwhoiscalledupontoobey
courtordersandprocessesandisexpectedtostandforemostincomplyingwithcourtdirectivesasanofficerofthecourt. 14
RespondentshouldhaveknownthattheordersoftheCBD(astheinvestigatingarmoftheCourtinadministrativecases
against lawyers) were not mere requests but directives which should have been complied with promptly and
completely.151avvph!1
RespondentGrosslyNeglected
TheCauseofHisClient
Respondentundertooktodefendthecriminalcaseagainstcomplainantsson.Suchundertakingimposeduponhimthe
followingduties:

CANON17ALAWYEROWESFIDELITYTOTHECAUSEOFHISCLIENTANDHESHALLBEMINDFULOF
THETRUSTANDCONFIDENCEREPOSEDINHIM.
CANON18ALAWYERSHALLSERVEHISCLIENTWITHCOMPETENCEANDDILIGENCE.
xxxxxxxxx
Rule18.03Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedtohim,andhisnegligenceinconnectiontherewithshall
renderhimliable.
xxxxxxxxx
CANON19ALAWYERSHALLREPRESENTHISCLIENTWITHZEALWITHINTHEBOUNDSOFTHELAW.
Alawyerwhoacceptsthecauseofaclientcommitstodevotehimself(particularlyhistime,knowledge,skillsandeffort)to
suchcause.Hemustbeevermindfulofthetrustandconfidencereposedinhim,constantlystrivingtobeworthythereof.
Accordingly,heowesfulldevotiontotheinterestofhisclient,warmzealinthemaintenanceanddefenseofhisclients
rightsandtheexertionofhisutmostlearning,skillandabilitytoensurethatnothingshallbetakenorwithheldfromhis
client,savebytherulesoflawlegallyapplied.16
A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client undertakes to serve his client with competence and
diligence.17 He must conscientiously perform his duty arising from such relationship. He must bear in mind that by
acceptingaretainer,heimpliedlymakesthefollowingrepresentations:thathepossessestherequisitedegreeoflearning,
skillandabilityotherlawyerssimilarlysituatedpossess;thathewillexerthisbestjudgmentintheprosecutionordefenseof
the litigation entrusted to him; that he will exercise reasonable care and diligence in the use of his skill and in the
applicationofhisknowledgetohisclientscause;andthathewilltakeallstepsnecessarytoadequatelysafeguardhis
clientsinterest.181avvphi1
Alawyersnegligenceinthedischargeofhisobligationsarisingfromtherelationshipofcounselandclientmaycausedelay
intheadministrationofjusticeandprejudicetherightsofalitigant,particularlyhisclient.Thus,fromtheperspectiveofthe
ethics of the legal profession, a lawyers lethargy in carrying out his duties to his client is both unprofessional and
unethical.19
Ifhisclientscaseisalreadypendingincourt,alawyermustactivelyrepresenthisclientbypromptlyfilingthenecessary
pleading or motion and assiduously attending the scheduled hearings. This is specially significant for a lawyer who
representsanaccusedinacriminalcase.
TheaccusedisguaranteedtherighttocounselundertheConstitution. 20However,thisrightcanonlybemeaningfulifthe
accusedisaccordedamplelegalassistancebyhislawyer:
...Therighttocounselproceedsfromthefundamentalprincipleofdueprocesswhichbasicallymeansthatapersonmustbe
heardbeforebeingcondemned.Thedueprocessrequirementisapartofaperson'sbasicrights;itisnotamereformality
thatmaybedispensedwithorperformedperfunctorily.
Therighttocounselmustbemorethanjustthepresenceofalawyerinthecourtroomorthemerepropoundingofstandard
questionsandobjections.Therighttocounselmeansthattheaccusedisamplyaccordedlegalassistanceextendedbya
counselwhocommitshimselftothecauseforthedefenseandactsaccordingly.Therightassumesanactiveinvolvementby
thelawyerintheproceedings,particularlyatthetrialofthecase,hisbearingconstantlyinmindofthebasicrightsofthe
accused, his beingwellversed onthe case, and his knowingthe fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing
jurisprudence.21

[T]herightofanaccusedtocounselisbeyondquestionafundamentalright.Withoutcounsel,therighttoafairtrialitself
wouldbeoflittleconsequence,foritisthroughcounselthattheaccusedsecureshisotherrights.Inotherwords,therightto
counselistherighttoeffectiveassistanceofcounsel. 22

Therightofanaccusedtocounselfindssubstanceintheperformancebythelawyerofhissworndutyoffidelitytohis
client.23 Tersely put, it means an effective, efficient and truly decisive legal assistance, not a simply perfunctory
representation.24
Inthiscase,afteracceptingthecriminalcaseagainstcomplainantssonandreceivinghisattorneysfees,respondentdid
nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal assistance. For all intents and purposes, respondent
abandonedthecauseofhisclient.Indeed,onaccountofrespondentscontinuedinaction,complainantwascompelledto
seektheservicesofthePublicAttorneysOffice.Respondentslackadaisicalattitudetowardsthecaseofcomplainantsson
wasreprehensible.Notonlydiditprejudicecomplainantsson,italsodeprivedhimofhisconstitutionalrighttocounsel.
Furthermore,infailingtousetheamountentrustedtohimforpostingabondtosecuretheprovisionallibertyofhisclient,
respondentundulyimpededthelattersconstitutionalrighttobail.
RespondentFailedtoReturn
HisClientsMoney
Thefiduciarynatureoftherelationshipbetweencounselandclientimposesonalawyerthedutytoaccountforthemoney
orpropertycollectedorreceivedfororfromtheclient.25
Whenalawyercollectsorreceivesmoneyfromhisclientforaparticularpurpose(suchasforfilingfees,registrationfees,
transportationandofficeexpenses),heshouldpromptlyaccounttotheclienthowthemoneywasspent.Ifhedoesnotuse
themoneyforitsintendedpurpose,hemustimmediatelyreturnittotheclient. 26Hisfailureeithertorenderanaccountingor
toreturnthemoney(iftheintendedpurposeofthemoneydoesnotmaterialize)constitutesablatantdisregardofRule16.01
oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.27
Moreover,alawyerhasthedutytodeliverhisclientsfundsorpropertiesastheyfalldueorupondemand. 28Hisfailureto
returntheclientsmoneyupondemandgivesrisetothepresumptionthathehasmisappropriateditforhisownusetothe
prejudiceofandinviolationofthetrustreposedinhimbytheclient. 29Itisagrossviolationofgeneralmoralityaswellas
ofprofessionalethics;itimpairspublicconfidenceinthelegalprofessionanddeservespunishment. 30Indeed,itmayborder
onthecriminalasitmayconstituteaprimafaciecaseofswindlingorestafa.
RespondentneverdeniedreceivingP18,000fromcomplainantforthepurposeofpostingabondtosecuretheprovisional
libertyofherson.Heneverusedthemoneyforitsintendedpurposeyetalsoneverreturnedittotheclient.Worse,he
unjustifiablyrefusedtoturnovertheamounttocomplainantdespitethelattersrepeateddemands.
Moreover,respondentrenderednoservicethatwouldhaveentitledhimtotheP30,000attorneysfees.Asarule,therightof
alawyertoareasonablecompensationforhisservicesissubjecttotworequisites:(1)theexistenceofanattorneyclient
relationshipand(2)therenditionbythelawyerofservicestotheclient. 31Thus,alawyerwhodoesnotrenderlegalservices
isnotentitledtoattorneysfees.Otherwise,notonlywouldhebeunjustlyenrichedattheexpenseoftheclient,hewould
alsoberewardedforhisnegligenceandirresponsibility.
RespondentFailedtoUpholdtheIntegrityandDignityoftheLegalProfession
Forhisfailuretocomplywiththeexactingethicalstandardsofthelegalprofession,respondentfailedtoobeyCanon7of
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility:
CANON7. ALAWYERSHALLATALLTIMESUPHOLDTHEINTEGRITYANDTHEDIGNITYOFTHE
LEGALPROFESSIONANDSUPPORTTHEACTIVITIESOFTHEINTEGRATEDBAR.(emphasissupplied)
Indeed,alawyerwhofailstoabidebytheCanonsandRulesoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitydisrespectsthesaid
Codeandeverythingthatitstandsfor.Insodoing,hedisregardstheethicsanddisgracesthedignityofthelegalprofession.
LawyersshouldalwaysliveuptotheethicalstandardsofthelegalprofessionasembodiedintheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility.Publicconfidenceinlawandinlawyersmaybeerodedbytheirresponsibleandimproperconductofa

memberofthebar.32Thus,everylawyershouldactandcomporthimselfinamannerthatwouldpromotepublicconfidence
intheintegrityofthelegalprofession.33
Respondentwasundeservingofthetrustreposedinhim.Insteadofusingthemoneyforthebondofthecomplainantsson,
hepocketedit.Hefailedtoobservecandor,fairnessandloyaltyinhisdealingswithhisclient. 34Hefailedtoliveuptohis
fiduciary duties. By keeping the money for himself despite his undertaking that he would facilitate the release of
complainantsson,respondentshowedlackofmoralprinciples.Histransgressionshowedhimtobeaswindler,adeceitful
personandashametothelegalprofession.
WHEREFORE,respondentAtty.AlanS.MacasaisherebyfoundGUILTYnotonlyofdishonestybutalsoofprofessional
misconductforprejudicingFrancisJohnBellezasrighttocounselandtobailunderSections13and14(2),ArticleIIIofthe
Constitution,andforviolatingCanons1,7,17,18and19andRules12.03,16.01,16.02,16.03and18.03oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility.HeisthereforeDISBARREDfromthepracticeoflaweffectiveimmediately.
RespondentisherebyORDEREDtoreturntocomplainantDoloresC.BellezatheamountsofP30,000andP18,000with
interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of this decision until full payment. Respondent is further
DIRECTEDtosubmittotheCourtproofofpaymentoftheamountwithintendaysfrompayment.Failuretodosowill
subjecthimtocriminalprosecution.
LetcopiesofthisresolutionbefurnishedtheOfficeoftheBarConfidanttobeenteredintotherecordsofrespondentAtty.
AlanS.MacasaandtheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratortobefurnishedtothecourtsofthelandfortheirinformationand
guidance.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.7054December4,2009
CONRADOQUE,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.ANASTACIOREVILLA,JR.Respondent.
DECISION
PERCURIAM:
Inacomplaintfordisbarment,1 ConradoQue(complainant)accusedAtty.AnastacioRevilla,Jr.(respondent)beforethe
IntegratedBarofthePhilippinesCommitteeonBarDiscipline(IBPCommitteeonBarDisciplineorCBD)ofcommitting
thefollowingviolationsoftheprovisionsoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandRule138oftheRulesofCourt:
(1)TherespondentsabuseofcourtremediesandprocessesbyfilingapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals
(CA),twopetitionsforannulmentoftitlebeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),apetitionforannulmentofjudgment
beforetheRTCandlastly,apetitionfordeclaratoryreliefbeforetheRTC(collectively,subjectcases)toassailandoverturn
thefinaljudgmentsoftheMetropolitanTrialCourt 2(MeTC)andRTC3intheunlawfuldetainercaserenderedagainstthe
respondentsclients.Therespondentinthisregard,repeatedlyraisedtheissueoflackofjurisdictionbytheMeTCandRTC
knowingfullywellthatthesecourtshavejurisdictionovertheunlawfuldetainercase.Therespondentalsorepeatedly
attackedthecomplainantsandhissiblingstitlesoverthepropertysubjectoftheunlawfuldetainercase;
(2)Therespondentscommissionofforumshoppingbyfilingthesubjectcasesinordertoimpede,obstruct,andfrustrate
theefficientadministrationofjusticeforhisownpersonalgainandtodefeattherightofthecomplainantandhissiblingsto
executetheMeTCandRTCjudgmentsintheunlawfuldetainercase;
(3) The respondents lack of candor and respect towards his adversary and the courts by resorting to falsehood and
deceptiontomisguide,obstructandimpedethedueadministrationofjustice.Therespondentassertedfalsehoodinthe

motionforreconsiderationofthedismissalofthepetitionforannulmentofjudgmentbyfabricatinganimaginaryorder
issuedbythepresidingjudgeinopencourtwhichallegedlydeniedthemotiontodismissfiledbytherespondentsinthesaid
case.Thecomplainantallegedthattherespondentdidthistocoveruphislackofpreparation;therespondentalsodeceived
hisclients(whowereallsquatters)insupportingtheabovefalsehood. 4
(4)Therespondentswillfulandrevoltingfalsehoodthatunjustlymalignedanddefamedthegoodnameandreputationof
thelateAtty.AlfredoCatolico(Atty.Catolico),thepreviouscounseloftherespondentsclients.
(5)Therespondentsdeliberate,fraudulentandunauthorizedappearancesincourtinthepetitionforannulmentofjudgment
for15litigants,threeofwhomarealreadydeceased;
(6)Therespondentswillfulandfraudulentappearanceinthesecondpetitionforannulmentoftitleascounselforthe
RepublicofthePhilippineswithoutbeingauthorizedtodoso.
Additionally,thecomplaintaccusedtherespondentofrepresentingfiftytwo(52)litigantsinCivilCaseNo.Q0348762
whennosuchauthoritywasevergiventohim.
TheCBDrequiredtherespondenttoanswerthecomplaint.
InhisAnswer,5therespondentdeclaredthatheisamemberoftheKalayaanDevelopmentCooperative(KDC)thathandles
probonocasesfortheunderprivileged,thelessfortunate,thehomelessandthoseinthemarginalizedsectorinMetro
Manila.HeagreedtotakeoverthecasesformerlyhandledbyotherKDCmembers.Oneofthesecaseswastheunlawful
detainer case handled by the late Atty. Catolico where the complainant and his siblings were the plaintiffs and the
respondentspresentclientswerethedefendants.
Withrespecttoparagraph1ofthedisbarmentcomplaint,therespondentprofessedhissincerity,honestyandgoodfaithin
filingthepetitionscomplainedof;hefiledthesepetitionstoprotect theinterestsofhisclientsintheirproperty.The
respondentassertedthatthesepetitionswereallbasedonvalidgroundsthelackofjurisdictionoftheMeTCandtheRTC
overtheunderlyingunlawfuldetainercase,theextrinsicfraudcommittedbythelateAtty.Catolico,andtheextrinsicfraud
committedbythecomplainantandhisfamilyagainsthisclients;hediscoveredthattheallegedlydetainedpropertydidnot
reallybelongtothecomplainantandhisfamilybutisaforestland.Therespondentalsoassertedthathisresorttoapetition
forannulmentofjudgmentandapetitionfordeclaratoryrelieftocontestthefinaljudgmentsoftheMeTCandRTCwereall
partsofhislegalstrategytoprotecttheinterestsofhisclients.
Ontheallegationsoffalsehoodinthemotionforreconsiderationoftheorderofdismissalofthepetitionforannulmentof
judgment(coveredbyparagraph3ofthedisbarmentcomplaint),therespondentmaintainedthathisallegationswerebased
onhisobservationsandthenoteshehadtakenduringtheproceedingsonwhatthepresidingjudgedictatedinopencourt.
Therespondentdeniedthathehadmadeanyunauthorizedappearanceincourt(withrespecttoparagraphs5and6ofthe
disbarmentcomplaint).Heclaimedthatthe52litigantsinCivilCaseNo.Q0348762wereimpleadedbyinadvertence;he
immediatelyrectifiedhiserrorbydroppingthemfromthecase.Onthepetitionforannulmentofjudgment,therespondent
claimedthatamajority(31outof49)ofthelitigantswhosignedthecertificationconstitutedsufficientcompliancewiththe
rulesonforumshopping.TherespondentlikewisedeniedhavingrepresentedtheRepublicofthePhilippinesinthesecond
petitionforannulmentoftitle.Therespondentpointedoutthattherewasnoallegationwhatsoeverthathewasthesole
representativeofboththecomplainants(hisclients)andtheRepublicofthePhilippines.Therespondentpointedoutthatthe
petitionembodiedarequesttotheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneraltorepresenthisclientsinthecase. 6
Therespondent submittedthathedidnotcommitanyillegal,unlawful,unjust,wrongful orimmoralactstowardsthe
complainant andhissiblings.He stressed that heactedingoodfaith inhisdealings withthem and hisconduct was
consistentwithhissworndutyasalawyertoupholdjusticeandthelawandtodefendtheinterestsofhisclients.The
respondentadditionallyclaimedthatthedisbarmentcasewasfiledbecausethecomplainantscounsel,Atty.CesarP.Uy
(Atty.Uy),hadanaxetogrindagainsthim.
Lastly,the respondent posited inhispleadings 7 before theIBP that thepresent complaint violatedthe ruleonforum
shoppingconsideringthatthesubjectcaseswerealsotheonesonwhichacomplaintwasfiledagainsthiminCBDCaseNo.
031099filedbyAtty.UybeforetheIBPCommitteeonBarDiscipline.Therespondentalsopositedthatthepresent

complaintwasfiledtoharass,ridiculeanddefamehisgoodnameandreputationand,indirectly,toharasshisclientswho
aremarginalizedmembersoftheKDC.
TheFindingsoftheInvestigatingCommissioner
Exceptforthelastchargeofunauthorizedappearanceonbehalfof52litigantsinCivilCaseNo.Q0348762,Investigating
CommissionerRenatoG.Cunanan8(InvestigatingCommissionerCunanan)foundallthechargesagainsttherespondent
meritorious.InhisReportandRecommendation,hestated:
Whileanattorneyadmittedlyhasthesolemndutytodefendandprotectthecauseandrightsofhisclientwithallthefervor
andenergywithinhiscommand,yet,itisequallytruethatitistheprimarydutyofthelawyertodefendthedignity,
authorityandmajestyofthelawandthecourtswhichenforceit.Alawyerisnotatlibertytomaintainanddefendthecause
ofhisclientsthrumeans,inconsistentwithtruthandhonor.Hemaynotandmustnotencouragemultiplicityofsuitsor
brazenlyengageinforumshopping.9
Onthefirstchargeonabuseofcourtprocesses,InvestigatingCommissionerCunanannotedtheunnecessaryusebythe
respondentoflegalremediestoforestalltheexecutionofthefinaldecisionsoftheMTCandtheRTCintheunlawful
detainercaseagainsthisclients.10
Onthesecondcharge,theInvestigatingCommissionerruledthattheactoftherespondent infilingtwopetitionsfor
annulmentoftitle,apetitionforannulmentofjudgmentandlateronapetitionfordeclaratoryreliefwerealldonetoprevent
theexecutionofthefinaljudgmentintheunlawfuldetainercaseandconstitutedprohibitedforumshopping. 11
Onthethirdandfourthcharges,InvestigatingCommissionerCunananfoundampleevidenceshowingthattherespondent
wasdishonestindealingwiththecourtasshowninhispetitionforannulmentofjudgment;heresortedtofalsitiesand
attributedactstoAtty.Catolicoandtothepresidingjudge,allofwhichwereuntrue.12
Onthefifthandsixthcharges,theInvestigatingCommissionerdisregardedtherespondentsexplanationthathehadno
intention to represent without authority 15of the litigants (three of whom were already deceased) inthe petitionfor
annulmentofjudgment(CivilCaseNo.Q0145556).TotheInvestigatingCommissioner,therespondentmerelyglossed
over the representation issue by claiming that the authority given by a majority of the litigants complied with the
certificationofnonforumshoppingrequirement.TheInvestigatingCommissionerlikewisebrushedasidetherespondents
argumentregardinghismisrepresentationinthesecondcomplaintforannulmentoftitlesinceheknewverywellthatonly
the Solicitor General can institute an action for reversion on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. Despite this
knowledge,therespondentsolelysignedtheamendedcomplaintforandonbehalfofhisclientsandoftheRepublic.
TheBoardofGovernorsoftheIBPCommitteeonBarDiscipline,throughitsResolutionNo.XVII2005164onCBDCase
No. 031100, adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Cunanan and
recommendedthattherespondentbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawfortwo(2)years. 13Onreconsideration,theBoard
ofGovernorsreducedtherespondentssuspensionfromthepracticeoflawtoone(1)year.14
TheIssue
Thecaseposestousthecoreissuesofwhethertherespondentcanbeheldliablefortheimputedunethicalinfractionsand
professionalmisconduct,andthepenaltythesetransgressionsshouldcarry.
TheCourtsRuling
Exceptforthepenalty,weagreewiththeReportandRecommendationofInvestigatingCommissionerCunananandthe
BoardofGovernorsoftheIBPCommitteeonBarDiscipline.
Wetakejudicialnoticethatthisdisbarmentcomplaintisnottheonlyonesofarfiledinvolvingtherespondent;another
complaint invoking similar grounds has previously been filed. In Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia v. Atty.
AnastacioE.Revilla,Jr.,15wesuspendedtherespondentfromthepracticeoflawforhiswillfulandintentionalfalsehood
beforethecourt;formisuseofcourtproceduresandprocessestodelaytheexecutionofajudgment;andforcollaborating

withnonlawyersintheillegalpracticeoflaw.Weinitiallyimposedasuspensionoftwo(2)years,butinanactofleniency
subsequentlyreducedthesuspensiontosix(6)months.16
Abuseofcourtproceduresandprocesses
Thefollowingundisputedfactsfullysupporttheconclusionthattherespondentisguiltyofseriousmisconductforabusing
courtproceduresandprocessestoshieldhisclientsfromtheexecutionofthefinaljudgmentsoftheMeTCandRTCinthe
unlawfuldetainercaseagainsttheseclients:
First,therespondentfiledapetitionforcertiorari(docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.53892)withprayerfortheissuanceof
preliminaryinjunctionandtemporaryrestrainingordertoquestionthefinaljudgmentsoftheMeTCandRTCforlackof
jurisdiction.Indismissingtherespondentspetition,theCAheld:
Evenforthesakeofargumentconsideringthatthepetitioncasebetheproperremedy,stillitmustberejectedforfailureof
petitionerstosatisfactorilydemonstratelackofjurisdictiononthepartoftheMetropolitanTrialCourtofQuezonCityover
theejectmentcase.17
Second,notwithstandingtheCAsdismissalofthepetitionforcertiorari,therespondentagainquestionedtheMeTCsand
theRTCslackofjurisdictionovertheunlawfuldetainercaseinapetitionforannulmentofjudgment(docketedasCivil
Case No. Q0145556) before the RTC with an ancillary prayer for the grant of a temporary restraining order and
preliminaryinjunction.TheRTCdismissedthispetitiononthebasisofthemotiontodismissfiled. 18
Third,therespondentsuccessivelyfiledtwopetitions(docketedasCivilCaseNo.Q9938780andCivilCaseNo.Q02
46885)forannulmentofthecomplainantstitletothepropertyinvolvedintheunlawfuldetainercase.Therecordsshow
thatthesepetitionswerebothdismissed"forlackoflegalpersonalityonthepartoftheplaintiffs"tofilethepetition.19
Fourth,afterthedismissalsofthepetitionforannulmentofjudgmentandthepetitionsforannulmentoftitle,therespondent
thistimefiledapetitionfordeclaratoryreliefwithprayerforawritofpreliminaryinjunctiontoenjointhecomplainantand
hissiblingsfromexercisingtheirrightsoverthesamepropertysubjectoftheunlawfuldetainercase.Therespondentbased
thepetitionontheallegednullityofthecomplainantstitlebecausethepropertyisapartofforestland.
Fifth,thepersistentapplicationsbytherespondentforinjunctivereliefinthefourpetitionshehadfiledinseveralcourts
thepetitionforcertiorari,thepetitionforannulmentofjudgment,thesecondpetitionforannulmentofcomplainantstitle
andthepetitionfordeclaratoryreliefrevealtherespondentspersistenceinpreventingandavoidingtheexecutionofthe
finaldecisionsoftheMeTCandRTCagainsthisclientsintheunlawfuldetainercase.
Underthecircumstances,therespondents repeatedattempts gobeyondthelegitimatemeansallowed byprofessional
ethicalrulesindefendingtheinterestsofhisclient.Thesearealreadyuncalledformeasurestoavoidtheenforcementof
finaljudgmentsoftheMeTCandRTC.Intheseattempts,therespondentviolatedRule10.03,Canon10oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibilitywhichmakesitobligatoryforalawyerto"observetherulesofprocedureand...not[to]misuse
themtodefeattheendsofjustice."Byhisactions,therespondentusedproceduralrulestothwartandobstructthespeedy
andefficientadministrationofjustice,resultinginprejudicetothewinningpartiesinthatcase. 20
Filingofmultipleactionsandforumshopping
TherespondentlikewiseviolatedRule12.02andRule12.04,Canon12oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility, 21aswell
astheruleagainstforumshopping,bothofwhicharedirectedagainstthefilingofmultipleactionstoattainthesame
objective.Bothviolationsconstituteabuseofcourtprocesses;theytendtodegradetheadministrationofjustice;wreak
havoconorderlyjudicialprocedure;22andaddtothecongestionoftheheavilyburdeneddocketsofthecourts.23
Whilethefilingofapetitionforcertioraritoquestionthelowercourtsjurisdictionmaybeaprocedurallylegitimate(but
substantivelyerroneous)move,therespondentssubsequentpetitionsinvolvingthesamepropertyandthesamepartiesnot
onlydemonstratehisattemptstosecurefavorablerulingusingdifferentfora,buthisobviousobjectiveaswellofpreventing
theexecutionoftheMeTCandRTCdecisionsintheunlawfuldetainercaseagainsthisclients.Thisintentismostobvious
withrespecttothepetitionsforannulmentofjudgmentanddeclaratoryrelief,bothgearedtowardspreventingtheexecution
oftheunlawfuldetainerdecision,longafterthisdecisionhadbecomefinal.

Willful,intentionalanddeliberate
falsehoodbeforethecourts
Therecordsalsorevealthattherespondentcommittedwillful,intentionalanddeliberatefalsehoodinthepleadingshefiled
withthelowercourts.
First,inthepetitionforannulmentofjudgmentfiledbeforetheRTC,Branch101,QuezonCity,therespondentcited
extrinsicfraudasoneofthegroundsfortheannulmentsought.Theextrinsicfraudwasallegedinthelastparagraphofthe
petition,asfollows:
Inhere,counselforthepetitioners(defendantstherein),deliberatelyneglectedtofiletheproperremedythenavailableafter
receiptofthedenialoftheirMotionforReconsiderationthuscorruptlysoldouttheinterestofthepetitioners(defendants
therein)bykeepingthemawaytotheCourtandincompleteignoranceofthesuitbyafalsepretenseofcompromiseand
fraudulentactsofallegingrepresentingthemwhenintruthandinfact,haveconnivedwiththeattorneyoftheprevailing
partyathisdefeattotheprejudiceofthepetitioner(defendantstherein)24
Yet,inparagraph35ofthesamepetition,therespondentallegedthatnosecondmotionforreconsiderationorfornewtrial,
ornootherpetitionwiththeCAhadbeenfiled,ashebelieved"thatthedecisionsrenderedbothbytheMeTCandtheRTC
arenullandvoid."25 Theseconflictingclaims,nodoubt,involveafabricationmadeforthepurposeofsupportingthe
petitionforannulment.Worse,itinvolvedadirectandunsubstantiatedattackonthereputationofalawofficecolleague,
anotherviolationweshallseparatelydiscussbelow.
Second,therespondentemployedanotherobvioussubterfugewhenhefiledhissecondpetitionforannulmentoftitle,which
wasanunsuccessfulattempttocircumventtherulethatonlytheSolicitorGeneralmaycommencereversionproceedingsof
publiclands26 onbehalfoftheRepublicofthePhilippines.Thissecondpetition,filedbyaprivatepartyandnotbythe
Republic,showedthat:(a)therespondentandhisclientsrequestedthattheyberepresentedbytheSolicitorGeneralinthe
proceedings;(b)theRepublicofthePhilippineswassimplyimpleadedintheamendedpetitionwithoutitsconsentasa
plaintiff;and(c)therespondentsignedtheamendedpetitionwherehealonestoodascounselforthe"plaintiffs."Inthis
underhandedmanner,therespondentsoughttocompeltheRepublictolitigateandwasteitsresourcesonanunauthorized
andunwantedsuit.
Third,therespondentalsocommittedfalsehoodinhismotionforreconsiderationoftheorderdismissinghispetitionfor
annulmentofjudgmentwherehemisrepresentedtothecourtandhisclientswhatactuallytranspiredinthehearingofJune
28,2002inthiswise:
Likewise, the proceedings on saiddate of hearing (June 28,2002) show, that after both counsel have argued onthe
aforesaidpendingincident, theHonorablePresidingJudge,inopencourt,andinthepresenceandwithinthehearing
distanceofalltheplaintiffsandtheircounselaswellasthecounselofthedefendantsresolved:TODENYTHEMOTION
TODISMISSFILEDANDDIRECTEDDEFENDANTSCOUNSELTOFILEANANSWERTOTHECOMPLAINT
WITHINTHEREMAININGPERIOD.27[Underscoringandemphasistheirs]
Therecords,however,disclosethatthescheduledhearingforJune28,2002wasactuallyfortherespondentsapplication
fortemporaryrestrainingorderandwasnotahearingontheadversepartysmotiontodismiss. 28Therecordsalsoshowthat
RTCBranch101heldinabeyancetherespondentsapplicationforinjunctivereliefpendingtheresolutionofthemotionto
dismissfiledbytheadverseparty.29AsstatedintheorderofthePresidingJudgeofRTCBranch101:
BrowsingovertherecordsofthiscasespecificallythetranscriptsofstenographicnotesastranscribedbytheStenographer,
thesamewillindicatethattheallegationsintheMotionforReconsiderationarenottrue.
howcanthisCourtmakearulingonthematterevenwithoutstatingthefactualandlegalbasesasrequired/mandatedby
theRules.Moreover,therearenoindicationsoriotaofirregularityinthepreparationbyStenographerofthetranscripts,and
bytheCourtinterpreteroftheMinutesoftheopenCourtsession.[Underscoringtheirs]

Therecordsfurtherdisclosethatdespiteknowledgeofthefalsityofhisallegations,therespondenttookadvantageofhis
positionandthetrustreposedinhimbyhisclients(whoareallsquatters)toconvincethemtosupport,throughtheir
affidavits,hisfalseclaimsonwhatallegedlytranspiredintheJune28,2002hearing.30
Fortheseacts,wefindtherespondentliableunderRule10.01ofCanon10theCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityfor
violatingthelawyersdutytoobservecandorandfairnessinhisdealingswiththecourt.Thisprovisionstates:
CANON10ALAWYEROWESCANDOR,FAIRNESSANDGOODFAITHTOTHECOURT
Rule10.01Alawyershallnotdoanyfalsehood,norconsenttothedoingofanyinCourt,norshallhemisleadorallow
theCourttobemisleadbyanartifice.
Likewise,therespondentviolatedhisdutyasanattorneyandhisoathasalawyer" nevertomisleadthejudgeorany
judicialofficerbyanartificeorfalsestatementoffactorlaw."31 Therespondentfailedtorememberthathisdutyasan
officerofthecourtmakeshimanindispensableparticipantintheadministrationofjustice, 32andthatheisexpectedtoact
candidly,fairlyandtruthfullyinhiswork. 33Hisdutyasalawyerobligateshimnottoconcealthetruthfromthecourt,orto
misleadthecourtinanymanner,nomatterhowdemandinghisdutiestohisclientsmaybe. 34Incaseofconflict,hisduties
tohisclientyieldtohisdutytodealcandidlywiththecourt.35
Indefendinghisclientsinterest,therespondentalsofailedtoobserveRule19.01,Canon19oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility,whichreads:
CANON19ALAWYERSHALLREPRESENTHISCLIENTWITHZEALWITHINTHEBOUNDSOFLAW
Rule19.01Alawyershallemployonlyfairandhonestmeanstoattainthelawfulobjectivesofhisclientsxxx
ThisCanonobligatesalawyer,indefendinghisclient,toemployonlysuchmeansasareconsistentwithtruthandhonor. 36
Heshouldnotprosecutepatentlyfrivolousandmeritlessappealsorinstituteclearlygroundlessactions. 37Therecitalofwhat
therespondentdidtopreventtheexecutionofthejudgmentagainsthisclientsshowsthatheactuallycommittedwhatthe
aboveruleexpresslyprohibits.
Maligningthenameofhisfellowlawyers
Tosupportthechargeofextrinsicfraudinhispetitionforannulmentofjudgment,therespondentattacked(asquoted
above)thenameandreputationofthelateAtty.Catolicoandaccusedhimofdeliberateneglect,corrupt motivesand
connivancewiththecounselfortheadverseparty.
WefinditsignificantthattherespondentfailedtodemonstratehowhecameuponhisaccusationagainstAtty.Catolico.The
respondent,byhisownadmission,onlyparticipatedinthecasespreviouslyassignedtoAtty.Catolicoafterthelatterdied.
At the same time, the respondents petition for annulment of judgment also represented that no second motion for
reconsiderationorappealwasfiledtocontesttheMeTCandRTCdecisionsintheunlawfuldetainercaseforthereasonthat
therespondentbelievedthesaiddecisionswerenullandvoidabinitio.
Underthesecircumstances,webelievethattherespondenthasbeenlessthanfairinhisprofessionalrelationshipwithAtty.
CatolicoandisthusliableforviolatingCanon8oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whichobligatesalawyerto
"conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues." He was unfair because he
imputedwrongdoingtoAtty.Catolicowithoutshowinganyfactualbasistherefor;heeffectivelymalignedAtty.Catolico,
whoisnowdeadandunabletodefendhimself.
Unauthorizedappearances
WesupportInvestigatingCommissionerCunanansfindingthattherespondenttwicerepresentedpartieswithoutproper
authorization:first,inthepetitionforannulmentofjudgment;andsecond,inthesecondpetitionforannulmentoftitle. 38
Inthefirstinstance,therecordsshowthattherespondentfiledthepetitionforannulmentofjudgmentonbehalfof49
individuals,31ofwhomgavetheirconsentwhiletheother15individualsdidnot.Wecannotagreewiththerespondents

offhand explanation that he truly believed that a majority of the litigants who signed the certification of nonforum
shoppinginthepetitionalreadygavehimthenecessaryauthoritytosignfortheothers.Wefindithighlyimprobablethat
thiskindoflapsecouldhavebeencommittedbyaseasonedlawyerliketherespondent,whohasbeenengagedinthe
practiceoflawformorethan30yearsandwhoreceivedrigidandstricttrainingashesoproudlydeclares,fromthe
UniversityofthePhilippinesCollegeofLawandinthetwolawfirmswithwhichhewaspreviouslyassociated. 39 As
InvestigatingCommissionerCunananfound,therespondentsexplanationofcompliancewiththeruleonthecertificationof
nonforumshoppingglossedovertherealchargeofappearingincourtwithouttheproperauthorizationofthepartieshe
allegedlyrepresented.
Inthesecondinstance,whichoccurredinthesecondcomplaintforannulmentoftitle,therespondentknewthatonlythe
SolicitorGeneralcanlegallyrepresenttheRepublicofthePhilippinesinactionsforreversionofland.Nevertheless,hefiled
anamendedpetitionwhereheimpleadedtheRepublicofthePhilippinesasplaintiffwithoutitsauthorityandconsent,asa
surreptitiouswayofforcingtheRepublictolitigate.Notably,hesignedtheamendedcomplaintonbehalfofalltheplaintiffs
hisclientsandtheRepublic.
Inbothinstances,therespondentviolatedSections21and27,Rule138oftheRulesofCourtwhenheundertookthe
unauthorizedappearances.Thesettledruleisthatalawyermaynotrepresentalitigantwithoutauthorityfromthelatteror
fromthelattersrepresentativeor,intheabsencethereof,withoutleaveofcourt. 40Thewillfulunauthorizedappearancebya
lawyerforapartyinagivencaseconstitutescontumaciousconductandalsowarrantsdisciplinarymeasuresagainstthe
erringlawyerforprofessionalmisconduct.41
TheRespondentsDefenses
Wefindnomeritintherespondentsdefenses.
"Goodfaithconnotesanhonestintentiontoabstainfromtakingunconscientiousadvantageofanother.Accordingly,in
Universityof theEast v.Jader wesaid that "[g]oodfaith connotesan honest intentiontoabstain from takingundue
advantageofanother,eventhoughtheformsandtechnicalitiesoflaw,togetherwiththeabsenceofallinformationorbelief
offacts,wouldrenderthetransactionunconscientious." 42 Badfaith,ontheotherhand,isastateofmindaffirmatively
operatingwithfurtivedesignorwithsomemotiveofselfinterest,illwillorforanulteriorpurpose. 43Asbothconceptsare
statesofmind,theymaybededucedfromtheattendantcircumstancesand,moreparticularly,fromtheactsandstatements
ofthepersonwhosestateofmindisthesubjectofinquiry.
Inthiscase,wefindthattherespondentactedinbadfaithindefendingtheinterestsofhisclients.Wedrawthisconclusion
fromthemisrepresentationsandthedubiousrecourseshemade,allobviouslygearedtowardsforestallingtheexecutionof
thefinaljudgmentsoftheMeTCandRTC.Thathetookadvantageofhislegalknowledgeandexperienceandmisreadthe
Rulesimmeasurablystrengthenthepresenceofbadfaith.
Wefindneithersinceritynorhonestbeliefonthepartoftherespondentinpleadingthesoundnessandmeritofthecases
thathefiledincourttopreventtheexecutionoftheMeTCandRTCdecisions,consideringhisownconductofpresenting
conflictingtheoriesinhispetitions.Thesuccessionofcaseshefiledshowsadesperationthatnegatesthesincereandhonest
beliefheclaims;thesearesimplyscattershotmeanstoachievehisobjectiveofavoidingtheexecutionoftheunlawful
detainerjudgmentagainsthisclients.
Ontherespondentsallegationsregardinghisdiscretiontodeterminelegalstrategy,itisnotamisstonotethatthiswasthe
samedefenseheraisedinthefirstdisbarmentcase. 44AsweexplainedinPlusBuilders,theexerciseofalawyersdiscretion
inactingforhisclientcanneverbeattheexpenseoftruthandjustice.Inthewordsofthiscitedcase:
Whilealawyerowesabsolutefidelitytothecauseofhisclient,fulldevotiontohisgenuineinterest,andwarmzealinthe
maintenanceanddefenseofhisrights,aswellastheexertionofhisutmostlearningandability,hemustdosoonlywithin
theboundsofthelaw.Hemustgiveacandidandhonestopiniononthemeritsandprobableresultsofhisclientscasewith
theendinviewofpromotingrespectforthelawandlegalprocesses,andcounselormaintainsuchactionsorproceedings
onlyasappeartohimtobejust,andsuchdefensesonlyashebelievestobehonestlydebatableunderthelaw.Hemust
alwaysremindhimselfoftheoathhetookuponadmissiontotheBarthathewillnotwittinglyorwillinglypromoteorsue
anygroundless,falseorunlawfulsuitnorgiveaidnorconsenttothesame;andthathewillconduct[himself]asalawyer
accordingtothebestof[his]knowledgeanddiscretionwithallgoodfidelityaswelltothecourtsasto[his]clients.

Needlesstostate,thelawyersfidelitytohisclientmustnotbepursuedattheexpenseoftruthandtheadministrationof
justice,anditmustbedonewithintheboundsofreasonandcommonsense.Alawyersresponsibilitytoprotectand
advancetheinterestsofhisclientdoesnotwarrantacourseofactionpropelledbyillmotivesandmaliciousintentions
againsttheotherparty.45
We cannot give credence to the respondents claim that the disbarment case was filed because the counsel of the
complainant,Atty.Uy,hadanaxetogrindagainsthim.Werejectthisargument,consideringthatitwasnotAtty.Uywho
filedthepresentdisbarmentcaseagainsthim;Atty.Uyisonlythecounselinthiscase.Infact,Atty.Uyhasfiledhisown
separatedisbarmentcaseagainsttherespondent.
Thesuigenerisnatureofadisbarmentcaserenderstheunderlyingmotivesofthecomplainantsunimportantandwithvery
littlerelevance.Thepurposeofadisbarmentproceedingismainlytodeterminethefitnessofalawyertocontinueactingas
anofficerofthecourtandaparticipantinthedispensationofjusticeanissuewherethecomplainantspersonalmotives
havelittlerelevance.Forthisreason,disbarmentproceedingsmaybeinitiatedbytheCourtmotupropriouponinformation
ofanallegedwrongdoing.AswealsoexplainedinthecaseInre:Almacen:
...disciplinaryproceedingslikethepresentaresuigeneris.Neitherpurelycivilnorpurelycriminal,thisproceedingisnot
anddoesnotinvolveatrialofanactionorasuit,butisratheraninvestigationbytheCourtintotheconductofoneofits
officers.Notbeingintendedtoinflictpunishment,itisinnosenseacriminalprosecution.
xxx
ItmaybeinitiatedbytheCourtmotuproprio.Publicinterestisitsprimaryobjective,andtherealquestionfordetermination
iswhetheror not the attorneyisstill a fit person tobe allowedthe privilegesas such.Hence,intheexerciseof its
disciplinarypowers,theCourtmerelycallsuponamemberoftheBartoaccountforhisactuationsasanofficeroftheCourt
withtheendinviewofpreservingthepurityofthelegalprofessionandtheproperandhonestadministrationofjusticeby
purgingtheprofessionofmemberswhobytheirmisconducthaveprovedthemselvesnolongerworthytobeentrustedwith
thedutiesandresponsibilitiespertainingtotheofficeofanattorney.Insuchposture,therecanthusbenooccasiontospeak
ofacomplainantoraprosecutor.461avvphi1
Hence,wegivelittleornoweighttotheallegedpersonalmotivationthatdrovethecomplainantQueandhiscounseltofile
thepresentdisbarmentcase.
Conclusion
Basedontheforegoing,weconcludethattherespondentcommittedvariousactsofprofessionalmisconductandthereby
failedtoliveuptotheexactingethicalstandardsimposedonmembersoftheBar.Wecannotagree,however,thatonlya
penaltyofoneyearsuspensionfrom thepracticeoflawshouldbeimposed.Neithershouldwelimitourselvestothe
originallyrecommendedpenaltyofsuspensionfortwo(2)years.
Giventherespondentsmultipleviolations,hispastrecordaspreviouslydiscussed,andthenatureoftheseviolationswhich
showsthereadinesstodisregardcourtrulesandtoglossoverconcernsfortheorderlyadministrationofjustice,webelieve
andsoholdthattheappropriateactionofthisCourtistodisbartherespondenttokeephimawayfromthelawprofession
andfromanysignificantroleintheadministrationofjusticewhichhehasdisgraced.Heisacontinuingrisk,too,tothe
publicthatthelegalprofessionserves.Notevenhisardorandoverzealousnessindefendingtheinterestsofhisclientcan
save him. Such traits at the expense of everything else, particularly the integrity of the profession and the orderly
administrationofjustice,thisCourtcannotacceptnortolerate.
Additionally,disbarmentismeritedbecausethisisnottherespondentsfirstethicalinfractionofthesamenature.We
penalizedhiminPlusBuilders,Inc.andEdgardoGarciaversusAtty.AnastacioE.Revillaforhiswillfulandintentional
falsehoodbeforethecourt;formisuseofcourtproceduresandprocessestodelaytheexecutionofajudgment;andfor
collaborating with nonlawyers in the illegal practice of law. We showed leniency then by reducing his penalty to
suspensionforsix(6)months.Wecannotsimilarlytreattherespondentthistime;itisclearthathedidnotlearnanylesson
fromhispastexperienceandsincethenhasexhibitedtraitsofincorrigibility.Itistimetoputafinistotherespondents
professionallegalcareerforthesakeofthepublic,theprofessionandtheinterestofjustice.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,weherebyAFFIRMResolutionNo.XVII2005164datedDecember17,2005and
Resolution No. XVII2008657 dated December 11, 2008 of the Board of Governors of the IBP Committee on Bar
DisciplineinsofarasrespondentAtty.AnastacioRevilla,Jr.isfoundliableforprofessionalmisconductforviolationsofthe
LawyersOath;Canon8;Rules10.01and10.03,Canon10;Rules12.02and12.04,Canon12;Rule19.01,Canon19ofthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibility;andSections20(d),21and27ofRule138oftheRulesofCourt.However,wemodify
thepenaltytheIBPimposed,andholdthattherespondentshouldbeDISBARREDfromthepracticeoflaw.
SOORDERED.
A.M.No.10104SCMarch8,2011
RE:LETTEROFTHEUPLAWFACULTYENTITLED"RESTORINGINTEGRITY:ASTATEMENTBYTHE
FACULTYOFTHEUNIVERSITYOFTHEPHILIPPINESCOLLEGEOFLAWONTHEALLEGATIONSOF
PLAGIARISMANDMISREPRESENTATIONINTHESUPREMECOURT"
DECISION
LEONARDODECASTRO,J.:
FordispositionoftheCourtarethevarioussubmissionsofthe37respondentlawprofessors 1inresponsetotheResolution
datedOctober19,2010(theShowCauseResolution),directingthemtoshowcausewhytheyshouldnotbedisciplinedas
membersoftheBarforviolationofspecificprovisionsoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityenumeratedtherein.
Attheoutset,itmustbestressedthattheShowCauseResolutionclearlydocketsthisasanadministrativematter,nota
special civil action for indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, contrary to the dissenting opinion of
AssociateJusticeMariaLourdesP.A.Sereno(JusticeSereno)tothesaidOctober19,2010ShowCauseResolution.
Neitheristhisadisciplinaryproceedinggroundedonanallegedlyirregularlyconcludedfindingofindirectcontemptas
intimatedbyAssociateJusticeConchitaCarpioMorales(JusticeMorales)inherdissentingopinionstoboththeOctober19,
2010ShowCauseResolutionandthepresentdecision.
Withthenatureofthiscaseaspurelyabardisciplinaryproceedingfirmlyinmind,theCourtfindsthatwiththeexceptionof
onerespondentwhosecompliancewasadequateandanotherwhomanifestedhewasnotamemberofthePhilippineBar,
thesubmittedexplanations,beingmeredenialsand/ortangentialtotheissuesathand,aredecidedlyunsatisfactory.The
proffereddefensesevenmoreurgentlybehoovethisCourttocalltheattentionofrespondentlawprofessors,whoare
membersoftheBar,totherelationshipoftheirdutiesassuchundertheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitytotheircivil
rightsascitizensandacademicsinourfreeanddemocraticrepublic.
TheprovisionsoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityinvolvedinthiscaseareasfollows:
CANON1Alawyershallupholdtheconstitution,obeythelawsofthelandandpromoterespectforlawandlegal
processes.
RULE1.02Alawyershallnotcounselorabetactivitiesaimedatdefianceofthelaworatlesseningconfidenceinthe
legalsystem.
CANON10Alawyerowescandor,fairnessandgoodfaithtothecourt.
Rule10.01Alawyershallnotdoanyfalsehood,norconsenttothedoingofanyincourt;norshallhemislead,orallowthe
Courttobemisledbyanyartifice.
Rule10.02Alawyershallnotknowinglymisquoteormisrepresentthecontentsofpaper,thelanguageortheargumentof
opposingcounsel,orthetextofadecisionorauthority,orknowinglyciteaslawaprovisionalreadyrenderedinoperativeby
repealoramendment,orassertasafactthatwhichhasnotbeenproved.
Rule10.03Alawyershallobservetherulesofprocedureandshallnotmisusethemtodefeattheendsofjustice.

CANON11Alawyershallobserveandmaintaintherespectduetothecourtsandtojudicialofficersandshouldinsist
onsimilarconductbyothers.
RULE11.05AlawyershallsubmitgrievancesagainstaJudgetotheproperauthoritiesonly.
CANON13Alawyershallrelyuponthemeritsofhiscauseandrefrainfromanyimproprietywhichtendstoinfluence,
orgivestheappearanceofinfluencingthecourt.
Establishedjurisprudencewillundeniablysupportourviewthatwhenlawyersspeaktheirminds,theymusteverbemindful
oftheirswornoathtoobserveethicalstandardsoftheirprofession,andinparticular,avoidfoulandabusivelanguageto
condemntheSupremeCourt,oranycourtforthatmatter,foradecisionithasrendered,especiallyduringthependencyofa
motionforsuchdecisionsreconsideration.TheaccusationofplagiarismagainstamemberofthisCourtisnottherealissue
herebutratherthisplagiarismissuehasbeenusedtodeflecteveryonesattentionfromtheactualconcernofthisCourtto
determinebyrespondentsexplanationswhetherornotrespondentmembersoftheBarhavecrossedthelineofdecencyand
acceptableprofessionalconductandspeechandviolatedtheRulesofCourtthroughimproperinterventionorinterferenceas
thirdpartiestoapendingcase.Preliminarily,itshouldbestressedthatitwasrespondentsthemselveswhocalleduponthe
SupremeCourttoactontheirStatement, 2 whichtheyformallysubmitted,throughDeanMarvicM.V.F.Leonen(Dean
Leonen),fortheCourtsproperdisposition.Consideringthedefensesoffreedomofspeechandacademicfreedominvoked
bytherespondents,itisworthdiscussingherethatthelegalreasoningusedinthepastbythisCourttorulethatfreedomof
expressionisnotadefenseinadministrativecasesagainstlawyersforusingintemperatespeechinopencourtorincourt
submissions can similarly be applied to respondents invocationof academic freedom. Indeed, it isprecisely because
respondentsarenotmerelylawyersbutlawyerswhoteachlawandmouldthemindsofyoungaspiringattorneysthat
respondentsownnonobservanceoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,evenifpurportedlymotivatedbythepurestof
intentions,cannotbeignorednorglossedoverbythisCourt.
Tofullyappreciatethegraverepercussionsofrespondentsactuations,itisapropostorevisitthefactualantecedentsofthis
case.
BACKGROUNDOFTHECASE
AntecedentFactsandProceedings
On April 28,2010, the ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo(Justice Del Castillo) in Vinuya, et al. v.
ExecutiveSecretary(G.R.No.162230)waspromulgated.OnMay31,2010,thecounsel 3forVinuya,etal.(the"Malaya
Lolas"),filedaMotionforReconsiderationoftheVinuyadecision,raisingsolelythefollowinggrounds:
I.OurownconstitutionalandjurisprudentialhistoriesrejectthisHonorableCourts(sic)assertionthattheExecutives
foreignpolicyprerogativesarevirtuallyunlimited;precisely,undertherelevantjurisprudenceandconstitutionalprovisions,
suchprerogativesareproscribedbyinternationalhumanrightsandhumanitarianstandards,includingthoseprovidedforin
therelevantinternationalconventionsofwhichthePhilippinesisaparty.4
II.ThisHonorableCourthasconfuseddiplomaticprotectionwiththebroader,iffundamental,responsibilityofstatesto
protectthehumanrightsofitscitizensespeciallywheretherightsassertedaresubjectofergaomnesobligationsand
pertaintojuscogensnorms.5
OnJuly19,2010,6counselfortheMalayaLolas,Attys.H.HarryL.Roque,Jr.(Atty.Roque)andRomelRegaladoBagares
(Atty.Bagares),filedaSupplementalMotionforReconsiderationinG.R.No.162230,wheretheypositedforthefirsttime
theirchargeofplagiarismasoneofthegroundsforreconsiderationoftheVinuyadecision.Amongotherarguments,Attys.
RoqueandBagaresassertedthat:
I.
INTHEFIRSTPLACE,ITISHIGHLYIMPROPERFORTHISHONORABLECOURTSJUDGMENTOFAPRIL28,
2010TOPLAGIARIZEATLEASTTHREESOURCESANARTICLEPUBLISHEDIN2009INTHEYALELAW
JOURNALOFINTERNATIONALLAW,ABOOKPUBLISHEDBYTHECAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITYPRESSIN
2005 AND AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN 2006 IN THE CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MAKE IT APPEAR THAT THESE SOURCES SUPPORT THE JUDGMENTS
ARGUMENTSFORDISMISSINGTHEINSTANTPETITIONWHENINTRUTH,THEPLAGIARIZEDSOURCES
EVENMAKEASTRONGCASEFORTHEPETITIONSCLAIMS.7
Theyalsoclaimedthat"[i]nthiscontroversy,theevidencebearsoutthefactnotonlyofextensiveplagiarismbutof(sic)
alsooftwistingthetrueintentsoftheplagiarizedsourcesbytheponenciatosuittheargumentsoftheassailedJudgmentfor
denyingthePetition."8
AccordingtoAttys.RoqueandBagares,theworksallegedlyplagiarizedintheVinuyadecisionwerenamely:(1)EvanJ.
CriddleandEvanFoxDecentsarticle"AFiduciaryTheoryofJusCogens;" 9(2)ChristianJ.TamsbookEnforcingErga
OmnesObligationsinInternationalLaw;10and(3)MarkEllisarticle"BreakingtheSilence:OnRapeasanInternational
Crime."11
OnthesamedayasthefilingoftheSupplementalMotionforReconsiderationonJuly19,2010,journalistsAriesC.Rufo
and Purple S. Romero posted an article, entitled "SC justice plagiarized parts of ruling on comfort women," on the
Newsbreakwebsite.12ThesamearticleappearedontheGMANewsTVwebsitealsoonJuly19,2010.13
OnJuly22,2010,Atty.Roquescolumn,entitled"PlagiarizedandTwisted,"appearedintheManilaStandardToday. 14In
thesaidcolumn,Atty.RoqueclaimedthatProf.EvanCriddle,oneoftheauthorspurportedlynotproperlyacknowledgedin
theVinuyadecision,confirmedthathiswork,coauthoredwithProf.EvanFoxDecent,hadbeenplagiarized.Atty.Roque
quotedProf.CriddlesresponsetothepostbyJulianKuregardingthenewsreport 15 ontheallegedplagiarisminthe
internationallawblog,OpinioJuris.Prof.CriddlerespondedtoKusblogentryinthiswise:
The newspapers16 [plagiarism] claims are based on a motion for reconsideration filed yesterday with the Philippine
SupremeCourtyesterday.Themotionisavailablehere:
http://harryroque.com/2010/07/18/supplementalmotionallegingplagiarisminthesupremecourt/
ThemotionsuggeststhattheCourtsdecisioncontainsthirtyfoursentencesandcitationsthatareidenticaltosentencesand
citationsinmy2009YJILarticle(coauthoredwithEvanFoxDecent).ProfessorFoxDecentandIwereunawareofthe
petitioners[plagiarism]allegationsuntilafterthemotionwasfiledtoday.
Speakingformyself,themosttroublingaspectofthecourtsjuscogensdiscussionisthatitimpliesthattheprohibitions
againstcrimesagainsthumanity,sexualslavery,andtorturearenotjuscogensnorms.Ourarticleemphaticallyassertsthe
opposite.

The

Supreme

Courts

decision

is

available

here:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/162230.htm17
Onevendate,July22,2010,JusticeDelCastillowrotetohiscolleaguesontheCourtinreplytothechargeofplagiarism
containedintheSupplementalMotionforReconsideration.18
InaletterdatedJuly23,2010,anotherpurportedlyplagiarizedauthorintheVinuyadecision,Dr.MarkEllis,wrotethe
Court,towit:
YourHonours:
Iwriteconcerningamostdelicateissuethathascometomyattentioninthelastfewdays.
MuchasIregrettoraisethismatterbeforeyouresteemedCourt,Iamcompelled,asaquestionoftheintegrityofmywork
asanacademicandasanadvocateofhumanrightsandhumanitarianlaw,totakeexceptiontothepossibleunauthorizeduse
ofmylawreviewarticleonrapeasaninternationalcrimeinyouresteemedCourtsJudgmentinthecaseofVinuyaetal.v.
ExecutiveSecretaryetal.(G.R.No.162230,Judgmentof28April2010).
MyattentionwascalledtotheJudgmentandtheissueofpossibleplagiarismbythePhilippinechapteroftheSoutheastAsia
MediaLegalDefenceInitiative(SEAMLDI),19 anaffiliateoftheLondonbasedMediaLegalDefenceInitiative(MLDI),
whereIsitastrustee.

Inparticular,Iamconcernedaboutalargepartoftheextensivediscussioninfootnote65,pp.2728,ofthesaidJudgment
ofyouresteemedCourt.IamalsoconcernedthatyouresteemedCourtmayhavemisreadtheargumentsImadeinthe
articleandemployedthemforcrosspurposes.Thiswouldbeironicsincethearticlewaswrittenpreciselytoargueforthe
appropriatelegalremedyforvictimsofwarcrimes,genocide,andcrimesagainsthumanity.
IbelieveafullcopyofmyarticleaspublishedintheCaseWesternReserveJournalofInternationalLawin2006hasbeen
madeavailabletoyouresteemedCourt.ItrustthatyouresteemedCourtwilltakethetimetocarefullystudytheargumentsI
madeinthearticle.
IwouldappreciatereceivingaresponsefromyouresteemedCourtastotheissuesraisedbythisletter.
Withrespect,
(Sgd.)
Dr.MarkEllis20
InMemorandumOrderNo.352010issuedonJuly27,2010,theCourtformedtheCommitteeonEthicsandEthical
Standards(theEthicsCommittee)pursuanttoSection13,Rule2oftheInternalRulesoftheSupremeCourt.InanEnBanc
Resolutionalso dated July27, 2010,the Court referred the July 22,2010 letter of Justice Del Castillotothe Ethics
Committee.ThematterwassubsequentlydocketedasA.M.No.10717SC.
OnAugust2,2010,theEthicsCommitteerequiredAttys.RoqueandBagarestocommentontheletterofJusticeDel
Castillo.21
OnAugust9,2010,astatementdatedJuly27,2010,entitled"RestoringIntegrity:AStatementbytheFacultyofthe
UniversityofthePhilippinesCollegeofLawontheAllegationsofPlagiarismandMisrepresentationintheSupremeCourt"
(theStatement),waspostedinNewsbreakswebsite 22andonAtty.Roquesblog.23Areportregardingthestatementalso
appearedonvariousonlinenewssites,suchastheGMANewsTV 24 andtheSunStar25 sites,onthesamedate.The
statementwaslikewisepostedattheUniversityofthePhilippinesCollegeofLawsbulletinboardallegedlyonAugust10,
201026andatsaidcollegeswebsite.27
OnAugust11,2010,DeanLeonensubmittedacopyoftheStatementoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesCollegeofLaw
Faculty(UPLawfaculty)totheCourt,throughChiefJusticeRenatoC.Corona(ChiefJusticeCorona).Thecoverletter
datedAugust10,2010ofDeanLeonenread:
TheHonorable
SupremeCourtoftheRepublicofthePhilippines
Through:
Hon.RenatoC.Corona
ChiefJustice
Subject:
Statementoffaculty
fromtheUPCollegeofLaw
onthePlagiarisminthecaseof
VinuyavExecutiveSecretary
YourHonors:
Weattachforyourinformationandproperdispositionastatementsignedbythirty[]eight(38) 28membersofthefacultyof
theUPCollegeofLaw.WehopethatitspointscouldbeconsideredbytheSupremeCourtenbanc.
Respectfully,
(Sgd.)

MarvicM.V.F.Leonen
DeanandProfessorofLaw
(Emphasessupplied.)
ThecopyoftheStatementattachedtotheabovequotedletterdidnotcontaintheactualsignaturesoftheallegedsignatories
butonlystatedthenamesof37UPLawprofessorswiththenotation(SGD.)appearingbesideeachname.Forconvenient
reference,thetextoftheUPLawfacultyStatementisreproducedhere:
RESTORINGINTEGRITY
ASTATEMENTBYTHEFACULTYOF
THEUNIVERSITYOFTHEPHILIPPINESCOLLEGEOFLAW
ONTHEALLEGATIONSOFPLAGIARISMANDMISREPRESENTATION
INTHESUPREMECOURT
AnextraordinaryactofinjusticehasagainbeencommittedagainstthebraveFilipinaswhohadsufferedabuseduringatime
ofwar.Aftertheycourageouslycameoutwiththeirverypersonalstoriesofabuseandsufferingas"comfortwomen",
waitedforalmosttwodecadesforanymeaningfulrelieffromtheirowngovernmentaswellasfromthegovernmentof
Japan,gottheirhopesupforasemblanceofjudicialrecourseinthecaseofVinuyav.ExecutiveSecretary,G.R.No.
162230 (28 April 2010), they only had these hopes crushed by a singularly reprehensible act of dishonesty and
misrepresentationbytheHighestCourtoftheland.
It iswithinthisframethattheFacultyoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesCollegeofLawviewsthechargethat an
AssociateJusticeoftheSupremeCourtcommittedplagiarismandmisrepresentationinVinuyav.ExecutiveSecretary.The
plagiarism and misrepresentation are not only affronts to the individual scholars whose work have been appropriated
withoutcorrectattribution,butalsoaseriousthreattotheintegrityandcredibilityofthePhilippineJudicialSystem.
Incommonparlance,plagiarismistheappropriationandmisrepresentationofanotherpersonsworkasonesown.Inthe
fieldofwriting,itischeatingatbest,andstealingatworst.Itconstitutesatakingofsomeoneelsesideasandexpressions,
includingalltheeffortandcreativitythatwentintocommittingsuchideasandexpressionsintowriting,andthenmakingit
appearthatsuchideasandexpressionswereoriginallycreatedbythetaker.Itisdishonesty,pureandsimple.Ajudicial
systemthatallowsplagiarisminanyformisonethatallowsdishonesty.Sincealljudicialdecisionsformpartofthelawof
theland,toallowplagiarismintheSupremeCourtistoallowtheproductionoflawsbydishonestmeans.Evidently,thisis
acompleteperversionandfalsificationoftheendsofjustice.
AcomparisonoftheVinuyadecisionandtheoriginalsourcematerialshowsthattheponentemerelycopiedselectportions
ofotherlegalwritersworksandinterspersedthemintothedecisionasiftheywerehisown,originalwork.Underthe
circumstances,however,becausetheDecisionhasbeenpromulgatedbytheCourt,theDecisionnowbecomestheCourts
andnolongerjusttheponentes.ThustheCourtalsobearstheresponsibilityfortheDecision.Intheabsenceofany
mentionoftheoriginalwritersnamesandthepublicationsfromwhichtheycame,thethingspeaksforitself.
SofartherehavebeenunsatisfactoryresponsesfromtheponenteofthiscaseandthespokesmanoftheCourt.
Itisargued,forexample,thattheinclusionofthefootnotesfromtheoriginalarticlesisareferencetotheprimarysources
reliedupon.Thiscursoryexplanationisnotacceptable,becausetheoriginalauthorswritingsandtheefforttheyputinto
findingandsummarizingthoseprimarysourcesarepreciselythesubjectofplagiarism.Theinclusionofthefootnotes
togetherwithportionsoftheirwritingsinfactaggravates,insteadofmitigates,theplagiarismsinceitprovidesadditional
evidenceofadeliberateintentiontoappropriatetheoriginalauthorsworkoforganizingandanalyzingthoseprimary
sources.

ItisalsoarguedthattheMembersoftheCourtcannotbeexpectedtobefamiliarwithalllegalandscholarlyjournals.This
isalsonotacceptable,becausepersonalunfamiliaritywithsourcesallthemoredemandscorrectandcarefulattributionand
citationofthematerialreliedupon.ItisamatterofdiligenceandcompetenceexpectedofallMagistratesoftheHighest
CourtoftheLand.
Butafarmoreseriousmatteristheobjectionoftheoriginalwriters,ProfessorsEvanCriddleandEvanFoxDescent,that
theHighCourtactuallymisrepresentstheconclusionsoftheirworkentitled"AFiduciaryTheoryofJusCogens,"themain
sourceoftheplagiarizedtext.Inthisarticletheyarguethattheclassificationofthecrimesofrape,torture,andsexual
slaveryascrimesagainsthumanityhaveattainedthestatusofjuscogens,makingitobligatoryupontheStatetoseek
remediesonbehalfofitsaggrievedcitizens.Yet,theVinuyadecisionusespartsofthesamearticletoarriveatthecontrary
conclusion.Thisexacerbatestheintellectualdishonestyofcopyingworkswithoutattributionbytransformingitintoanact
ofintellectualfraudbycopyingworksinordertomisleadanddeceive.
ThecaseisapotentiallandmarkdecisioninInternationalLaw,becauseitdealswithStateliabilityandresponsibilityfor
personalinjuryanddamagesufferedinatimeofwar,andtheroleoftheinjuredpartieshomeStatesinthepursuitof
remediesagainstsuchinjuryordamage.Nationalcourtsrarelyhavesuchopportunitiestomakeaninternationalimpact.
ThatthepetitionerswereFilipino"comfortwomen"whosufferedfromhorrificabuseduringtheSecondWorldWarmadeit
incumbentontheCourtoflastresorttoaffordthemeverysolicitude.Butinsteadofactingwithurgencyonthiscase,the
Courtdelayeditsresolutionforalmostsevenyears,oblivioustothedeathsofmanyofthepetitionersseekingjusticefrom
theCourt.WhenitdismissedtheVinuyapetitionbasedonmisrepresentedandplagiarizedmaterials,theCourtdecidedthis
casebasedonpollutedsources.Bysodoing,theSupremeCourtaddedinsulttoinjury byfailingtoactuallyexerciseits
"powertourgeandexhorttheExecutiveDepartmenttotakeuptheclaimsoftheVinuyapetitioners.Itscallousdisposition,
coupledwithfalsesympathyandnonchalance,beliesamorealarminglackofconcernforeventhemostbasicvaluesof
decencyandrespect. ThereputationofthePhilippineSupremeCourtandthestandingofthePhilippinelegalprofession
beforeotherJudiciariesandlegalsystemsaretrulyatstake.
TheHighCourtcannotaccommodatelessthanabsolutehonestyinitsdecisionsandcannotacceptexcusesforfailureto
attainthehigheststandardsofconductimposeduponallmembersoftheBenchandBarbecausetheseunderminethevery
foundationofitsauthorityandpowerinademocraticsociety.GiventheCourtsrecenthistoryandthecontroversythat
surroundedit,itcannotallowthechargesofsuchclearandobviousplagiarismtopasswithoutsanctionasthiswouldonly
furthererodefaithandconfidenceinthejudicialsystem.Andinlightofthesignificanceofthisdecisiontothequestfor
justicenotonlyofFilipinowomen,butofwomenelsewhereintheworldwhohavesufferedthehorrorsofsexualabuseand
exploitationintimesofwar,theCourtcannotcoldlydenyreliefandjusticetothepetitionersonthebasisofpilferedand
misinterpretedtexts.
TheCourtcannotregainitscredibilityandmaintainitsmoralauthoritywithoutensuringthatitsownconduct,whether
collectivelyorthroughitsMembers,isbeyondreproach.Thisnecessarilyincludesensuringthatnotonlythecontent,but
alsotheprocessesofpreparingandwritingitsowndecisions,arecredibleandbeyondquestion.TheVinuyaDecisionmust
beconscientiouslyreviewedandnotcasuallycastaside,ifnotforthepurposeofsanction,thenatleastforthepurposeof
reflectionandguidance.Itisanabsolutelyessentialsteptowardtheestablishmentofahigherstandardofprofessionalcare
andpracticalscholarshipintheBenchandBar,whicharecriticaltoimprovingthesystemofadministrationofjusticeinthe
Philippines. It is also a very crucial step in ensuring the position of the Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter of all
controversies:apositionthatrequirescompetenceandintegritycompletelyaboveanyandallreproach,inaccordancewith
theexactingdemandsofjudicialandprofessionalethics.
Withtheseconsiderations,andbearinginmindthesolemndutiesandtrustreposeduponthemasteachersintheprofession
ofLaw,itistheopinionoftheFacultyoftheUniversityofthePhilippineCollegeofLawthat:
(1)TheplagiarismcommittedinthecaseofVinuyav.ExecutiveSecretaryisunacceptable,unethicalandinbreachofthe
highstandardsofmoralconductandjudicialandprofessionalcompetenceexpectedoftheSupremeCourt;
(2)SuchafundamentalbreachendangerstheintegrityandcredibilityoftheentireSupremeCourtandunderminesthe
foundationsofthePhilippinejudicialsystembyallowingimplicitlythedecisionofcasesandtheestablishmentoflegal
precedentsthroughdubiousmeans;

(3)ThesamebreachandconsequentdispositionoftheVinuyacasedoesviolencetotheprimordialfunctionoftheSupreme
Courtastheultimatedispenserofjusticetoallthosewhohavebeenleftwithoutlegalorequitablerecourse,suchasthe
petitionerstherein;
(4)Inlightoftheextremelyseriousandfarreachingnatureofthedishonestyandtosavethehonoranddignityofthe
SupremeCourtasaninstitution,itisnecessaryforthe ponente ofVinuyav.ExecutiveSecretarytoresignhisposition,
withoutprejudicetoanyothersanctionsthattheCourtmayconsiderappropriate;
(5)TheSupremeCourtmusttakethisopportunitytoreviewthemannerbywhichitconductsresearch,preparesdrafts,
reachesandfinalizesdecisionsinordertopreventarecurrenceofsimilaracts,andtoprovideclearandconciseguidanceto
theBenchandBartoensureonlythehighestqualityoflegalresearchandwritinginpleadings,practice,andadjudication.
MalcolmHall,UniversityofthePhilippinesCollegeofLaw,QuezonCity,27July2010.
(SGD.)MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
DeanandProfessorofLaw
(SGD.)FROILANM.BACUNGAN
Dean(19781983)
(SGD.)PACIFICOA.AGABIN
Dean(19891995)
(SGD.)MERLINM.MAGALLONA
Dean(19951999)
(SGD.)SALVADORT.CARLOTA
Dean(20052008)andProfessorofLaw
REGULARFACULTY
(SGD.)CARMELOV.SISON
Professor
(SGD.)JAYL.BATONGBACAL
AssistantProfessor
(SGD.)PATRICIAR.P.SALVADORDAWAY
AssociateDeanandAssociateProfessor
(SGD.)EVELYN(LEO)D.BATTAD
AssistantProfessor
(SGD.)DANTEB.GATMAYTAN
AssociateProfessor
(SGD.)GWENG.DEVERA
AssistantProfessor
(SGD.)THEODOREO.TE
AssistantProfessor
(SGD.)SOLOMONF.LUMBA
AssistantProfessor
(SGD.)FLORINT.HILBAY
AssistantProfessor
(SGD.)ROMMELJ.CASIS
AssistantProfessor
LECTURERS
(SGD.)JOSEGERARDOA.ALAMPAY
(SGD.)JOSEC.LAURETA
(SGD.)ARTHURP.AUTEA
(SGD.)DINAD.LUCENARIO

(SGD.)ROSAMARIAJ.BAUTISTA
(SGD.)OWENJ.LYNCH
(SGD.)MARKR.BOCOBO
(SGD.)ANTONIOM.SANTOS
(SGD.)DANP.CALICA
(SGD.)VICENTEV.MENDOZA
(SGD.)TRISTANA.CATINDIG
(SGD.)RODOLFONOELS.QUIMBO
(SGD.)SANDRAMARIEO.CORONEL
(SGD.)GMELEENFAYEB.TOMBOC
(SGD.)ROSARIOO.GALLO
(SGD.)NICHOLASFELIXL.TY
(SGD.)CONCEPCIONL.JARDELEZA
(SGD.)EVALYNG.URSUA
(SGD.)ANTONIOG.M.LAVIA
(SGD.)RAULT.VASQUEZ
(SGD.)CARINAC.LAFORTEZA
(SGD.)SUSAND.VILLANUEVA29
(Underscoringsupplied.)
Meanwhile,inaletterdatedAugust18,2010,Prof.ChristianJ.Tamsmadeknownhissentimentsontheallegedplagiarism
issuetotheCourt.30WequoteProf.Tamsletterhere:
Glasgow,18August2010
Vinuya,etal.v.ExecutiveSecretaryetal.(G.R.No.162230)
Hon.RenatoC.Corona,ChiefJustice
YourExcellency,
MynameisChristianJ.Tams,andIamaprofessorofinternationallawattheUniversityofGlasgow.Iamwritingtoyouin
relationtotheuseofoneofmypublicationsintheabovementionedjudgmentofyourHonourableCourt.
Therelevantpassageofthejudgmentistobefoundonp.30ofyourCourtsJudgment,inthesectionaddressingthe
conceptofobligationsergaomnes.Asthetableannexedtothislettershows,therelevantsentencesweretakenalmostword
bywordfromtheintroductorychapterofmybookEnforcingObligationsErgaOmnesinInternationalLaw(Cambridge
UniversityPress2005).Inotethatthereisagenericreferencetomyworkinfootnote69oftheJudgment,butasthisisin
relationtoacitationfromanotherauthor(BrunoSimma)ratherthanwithrespecttothesubstantivepassagesreproducedin
theJudgment,Idonotthinkitcanbeconsideredanappropriateformofreferencing.
IamparticularlyconcernedthatmyworkshouldhavebeenusedtosupporttheJudgmentscautiousapproachtotheerga
omnesconcept.Infact,amostcursoryreadingshowsthatmybookscentralthesisispreciselytheopposite:namelythatthe
erga omnes concept has been widely accepted and has a firm place in contemporary international law. Hence the
introductorychapternotesthat"[t]hepresentstudyattemptstodemystifyaspectsoftheverymysteriousconceptand
therebytofacilitateitsimplementation"(p.5).Inthesamevein,theconcludingsectionnotesthat"theprecedingchapters
showthattheconceptisnowapartoftherealityofinternationallaw,establishedinthejurisprudenceofcourtsandthe
practiceofStates"(p.309).
WithduerespecttoyourHonourableCourt,Iamatalosstoseehowmyworkshouldhavebeencitedtosupportasit
seeminglyhastheoppositeapproach.Moregenerally,IamconcernedatthewayinwhichyourHonourableCourts
Judgmenthasdrawnonscholarlyworkwithoutproperlyacknowledgingit.
Onbothaspects,IwouldappreciateapromptresponsefromyourHonourableCourt.

Iremain
Sincerelyyours
(Sgd.)
ChristianJ.Tams31
InthecourseofthesubmissionofAtty.RoqueandAtty.BagaresexhibitsduringtheAugust26,2010hearingintheethics
caseagainstJusticeDelCastillo,theEthicsCommitteenotedthatExhibit"J"(acopyoftheRestoringIntegrityStatement)
wasnotsignedbutmerelyreflectedthenamesofcertainfacultymemberswiththeletters(SGD.)besidethenames.Thus,
theEthicsCommitteedirectedAtty.RoquetopresentthesignedcopyofthesaidStatementwithinthreedaysfromthe
August26hearing.32
ItwasuponcompliancewiththisdirectivethattheEthicsCommitteewasgivenacopyofthesignedUPLawFaculty
StatementthatshowedonthesignaturepagesthenamesofthefullrosteroftheUPLawFaculty,81facultymembersinall.
IndubitablefromtheactualsignedcopyoftheStatementwasthatonly37ofthe81facultymembersappearedtohave
signedthesame.However,the37actualsignatoriestotheStatementdidnotincludeformerSupremeCourtAssociate
JusticeVicenteV.Mendoza(JusticeMendoza)asrepresentedinthepreviouscopiesoftheStatementsubmittedbyDean
LeonenandAtty.Roque.ItalsoappearedthatAtty.MiguelR.Armovit(Atty.Armovit)signedtheStatementalthoughhis
namewasnotincludedamongthesignatoriesinthepreviouscopiessubmittedtotheCourt.Thus,thetotalnumberof
ostensiblesignatoriestotheStatementremainedat37.
TheEthicsCommitteereferredthismattertotheCourtenbancsincethesameStatement,havingbeenformallysubmitted
byDeanLeonenonAugust11,2010,wasalreadyunderconsiderationbytheCourt.33
InaResolutiondatedOctober19,2010,theCourtenbancmadethefollowingobservationsregardingtheUPLawFaculty
Statement:
Notably,whilethestatementwasmeanttoreflecttheeducatorsopinionontheallegationsofplagiarismagainstJusticeDel
Castillo,theytreatedsuchallegationnotonlyasanestablishedfact,butatruth.Inparticular,theyexpresseddissatisfaction
overJusticeDelCastillosexplanationonhowhecitedtheprimarysourcesofthequotedportionsandyetarrivedata
contraryconclusiontothoseoftheauthorsofthearticlessupposedlyplagiarized.
Beyondthis,however,thestatementborecertainremarkswhichraiseconcernfortheCourt.Theopeningsentencealoneis
agrimpreambletotheinstitutionalattackthatlayahead.Itreads:
AnextraordinaryactofinjusticehasagainbeencommittedagainstthebraveFilipinaswhohadsufferedabuseduringatime
ofwar.
ThefirstparagraphconcludeswithareferencetothedecisioninVinuyav.ExecutiveSecretaryasareprehensibleactof
dishonestyandmisrepresentationbytheHighestCourtoftheland.xxx.
TheinsulttothemembersoftheCourtwasaggravatedbyimputationsofdeliberatelydelayingtheresolutionofthesaid
case,its dismissalonthebasisof"pollutedsources,"theCourts allegedindifference tothecauseofpetitioners[inthe
Vinuyacase],aswellasthesupposedalarminglackofconcernofthemembersoftheCourtforeventhemostbasicvalues
ofdecencyandrespect.34xxx.(Underscoringours.)
InthesameResolution,theCourtwentontostatethat:
Whilemostagreethattherighttocriticizethejudiciaryiscriticaltomaintainingafreeanddemocraticsociety,thereisalso
ageneralconsensusthathealthycriticismonlygoessofar.Manytypesofcriticismleveledatthejudiciarycrossthelineto
become harmful and irresponsible attacks. These potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the
independenceofthejudiciary.Thecourtmust"insistonbeingpermittedtoproceedtothedispositionofitsbusinessinan
orderlymanner,freefromoutsideinterferenceobstructiveofitsfunctionsandtendingtoembarrasstheadministrationof
justice."

TheCourtcouldhardlyperceiveanyreasonablepurposeforthefacultyslessthanobjectivecommentsexcepttodiscredit
theApril28,2010DecisionintheVinuyacaseandunderminetheCourtshonesty,integrityandcompetenceinaddressing
themotionforitsreconsideration.Asifthecaseonthecomfortwomensclaimsisnotcontroversialenough,theUPLaw
facultywouldfantheflamesandinviteresentmentagainstaresolutionthatwouldnotreversethesaiddecision.Thisruns
contrarytotheirobligationaslawprofessorsandofficersoftheCourttobethefirsttoupholdthedignityandauthorityof
thisCourt,towhichtheyowefidelityaccordingtotheoaththeyhavetakenasattorneys,andnottopromotedistrustinthe
administrationofjustice.35xxx.(Citationsomitted;emphasesandunderscoringsupplied.)
Thus,theCourtdirectedAttys.MarvicM.V.F.Leonen,FroilanM.Bacungan,PacificoA.Agabin,MerlinM.Magallona,
SalvadorT.Carlota,CarmeloV.Sison,PatriciaR.P.SalvadorDaway,DanteB.Gatmaytan,TheodoreO.Te,FlorinT.
Hilbay,JayL.Batongbacal,Evelyn(Leo)D.Battad,GwenG.DeVera,SolomonF.Lumba,RommelJ.Casis,JoseGerardo
A.Alampay,MiguelR.Armovit,ArthurP.Autea,RosaMariaJ.Bautista,MarkR.Bocobo,DanP.Calica,TristanA.
Catindig, Sandra Marie O. Coronel, Rosario O. Gallo, Concepcion L. Jardeleza, Antonio G.M. La Via, Carina C.
Laforteza,JoseC.Laureta,OwenJ.Lynch,RodolfoNoelS.Quimbo,AntonioM.Santos,GmeleenFayeB.Tomboc,
NicholasFelixL.Ty,EvalynG.Ursua,RaulT.Vasquez,SusanD.VillanuevaandDinaD.Lucenariotoshowcause,within
ten(10)daysfromreceiptofthecopyoftheResolution,whytheyshouldnotbedisciplinedasmembersoftheBarfor
violationofCanons1,3611and13andRules1.02and11.05oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.37
DeanLeonenwaslikewisedirectedtoshowcausewithinthesameperiodwhyheshouldnotbedisciplinarilydealtwithfor
violationofCanon10,Rules10.01,10.02and10.03forsubmittingthroughhisletterdatedAugust10,2010,duringthe
pendencyofG.R.No.162230andoftheinvestigationbeforetheEthicsCommittee,fortheconsiderationoftheCourten
banc,adummywhichisnotatrueandfaithfulreproductionoftheUPLawFacultyStatement. 38
InthesameResolution,thepresentcontroversywasdocketedasaregularadministrativematter.
SummariesofthePleadingsFiledbyRespondentsinResponsetotheOctober19,2010ShowCauseResolution
OnNovember19,2010,withintheextensionforfilinggrantedbytheCourt,respondentsfiledthefollowingpleadings:
(1)CompliancedatedNovember18,2010bycounselsfor35ofthe37respondents,excludingProf.OwenLynchandProf.
RaulT.Vasquez,inrelationtothechargeofviolationofCanons1,11and13andRules1.02and11.05oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility;
(2)ComplianceandReservationdatedNovember18,2010byProf.RosaMariaT.JuanBautistainrelationtothesame
chargeinpar.(1);
(3)CompliancedatedNovember19,2010bycounselforProf.RaulT.Vasquezinrelationtothesamechargeinpar.(1);
(4)CompliancedatedNovember19,2010bycounselsforDeanLeonen,inrelationtothechargeofviolationofCanon10,
Rules10.01,10.02and10.03;and
(5)ManifestationdatedNovember19,2010bycounselforProf.OwenLynch.
CommonComplianceof35Respondents(ExcludingProf.OwenLynchandProf.RaulVasquez)
Thirtyfive(35)oftherespondentUPLawprofessorsfiledonNovember19,2010acommoncompliancewhichwassigned
bytheirrespectivecounsels(theCommonCompliance).Inthe"Preface"ofsaidCommonCompliance,respondentsstressed
that"[they]issuedtheRestoringIntegrityStatementinthedischargeofthesolemndutiesandtrustreposeduponthemas
teachersintheprofessionoflaw,andasmembersoftheBartospeakoutonamatterofpublicconcernandonethatisof
vitalinteresttothem."39Theylikewiseallegedthat"theyactedwiththepurestofintentions"andpointedoutthat"noneof
themwasinvolvedeitheraspartyorcounsel" 40intheVinuyacase.Further,respondents"notewithconcern"thattheShow
CauseResolutionsfindingsandconclusionswere"aprejudgmentthatrespondentsindeedareincontempt,havebreached
theirobligationsaslawprofessorsandofficersoftheCourt,andhaveviolatedCanons[1],11and13andRules1.02and
11.05oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility."41
Bywayofexplanation,therespondentsemphasizedthefollowingpoints:

(a)Respondentsallegednobleintentions
Inresponsetothechargesoffailuretoobserveduerespecttolegalprocesses 42andthecourts43andoftendingtoinfluence,
orgivingtheappearanceofinfluencingtheCourt 44intheissuanceoftheirStatement,respondentsassertthattheirintention
wasnottomaligntheCourtbutrathertodefenditsintegrityandcredibilityandtoensurecontinuedconfidenceinthelegal
system.TheirnoblemotivewaspurportedlyevidencedbytheportionoftheirStatement"focusingonconstructiveaction." 45
RespondentscallintheStatementfortheCourt"toprovideclearandconciseguidancetotheBenchandBartoensureonly
the highest qualityof legal research andwritinginadjudication," was reputedly "inkeepingwithstrictures enjoining
lawyerstoparticipateinthedevelopmentofthelegalsystembyinitiatingorsupportingeffortsinlawreformandinthe
improvementoftheadministrationofjustice"(underCanon4oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility)andto"promote
respectforthelawandlegalprocesses"(underCanon1,id.). 46Furthermore,asacademics,theyallegedlyhavea"special
interestanddutytovigilantlyguardagainstplagiarismandmisrepresentationbecausetheseunwelcomeoccurrenceshavea
profoundimpactintheacademe,especiallyinourlawschools."47
Respondentsfurther"[called]onthisCourtnottomisconstruetheRestoringIntegrityStatementasaninstitutionalattackx
xxonthebasisofitsfirstandninthparagraphs." 48 TheyfurtherclarifiedthatatthetimetheStatementwasallegedly
draftedandagreedupon,itappearedtothem theCourt"wasnotgoingtotakeanyactiononthegraveandstartling
allegationsofplagiarismandmisrepresentation." 49 Accordingtorespondents,thebasesfortheirbeliefwere(i)thenews
articlepublishedonJuly21,2010inthePhilippineDailyInquirerwhereinCourtAdministratorJoseMidasP.Marquezwas
reportedtohavesaidthatChiefJusticeCoronawouldnotorderaninquiryintothematter; 50and(ii)theJuly22,2010letter
ofJusticeDelCastillowhichtheyclaimed"didnothingbuttodownplaythegravityoftheplagiarismandmisrepresentation
charges."51 Respondents claimed that it was their perception of the Courts indifference to the dangers posed by the
plagiarismallegationsagainstJusticeDelCastillothatimpelledthemtourgentlytakeapublicstandontheissue.
(b) The "correctness" of respondents position that Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism and should be held
accountableinaccordancewiththestandardsofacademicwriting
A significant portionof the Common Compliance is devoted toa discussion of the merits of respondents charge of
plagiarismagainstJusticeDelCastillo.RelyingonUniversityofthePhilippinesBoardofRegentsv.CourtofAppeals 52and
foreignmaterialsandjurisprudence,respondentsessentiallyarguethattheirpositionregardingtheplagiarismchargeagainst
JusticeDelCastilloisthecorrectviewandthattheyarethereforejustifiedinissuingtheirRestoringIntegrityStatement.
AttachmentstotheCommonComplianceincluded,amongothers:(i)theletterdatedOctober28,2010ofPeterB.Payoyo,
LL.M,Ph.D.,53senttoChiefJusticeCoronathroughJusticeSereno,allegingthattheVinuyadecisionlikewiseliftedwithout
properattributionthetextfromalegalarticlebyMarianaSalazarAlbornozthatappearedintheAnuarioMexicanoDe
DerechoInternacionalandfromanInternationalCourtofJusticedecision;and(ii)a2008HumanRightsLawReview
Articleentitled"SexualOrientation,GenderIdentityandInternationalHumanRightsLaw"byMichaelOFlahertyandJohn
Fisher,insupportoftheirchargethatJusticeDelCastilloalsoliftedpassagesfromsaidarticlewithoutproperattribution,
butthistime,inhisponenciainAngLadladLGBTPartyv.CommissiononElections.54
(c)Respondentsbeliefthattheyarebeing"singledout"bytheCourtwhenothershavelikewisespokenonthe"plagiarism
issue"
In the Common Compliance, respondents likewise asserted that "the plagiarism and misrepresentation allegations are
legitimatepublicissues."55Theyidentifiedvariouspublishedreportsandopinions,inagreementwithandinoppositionto
thestanceofrespondents,ontheissueofplagiarism,specifically:
(i)NewsbreakreportonJuly19,2010byAriesRufoandPurpleRomero;56
(ii)ColumnofRamonTulfowhichappearedinthePhilippineDailyInquireronJuly24,2010;57
(iii)EditorialofthePhilippineDailyInquirerpublishedonJuly25,2010;58
(iv)LetterdatedJuly22,2010ofJusticeDelCastillopublishedinthePhilippineStaronJuly30,2010; 59
(v)ColumnofFormerIntellectualPropertyOfficeDirectorGeneralAdrianCristobal,Jr.publishedintheBusinessMirror
onAugust5,2010;60

(vi)ColumnofFormerChiefJusticeArtemioPanganibanpublishedinthePhilippineDailyInquireronAugust8,2010; 61
(vii)NewsreportregardingSenatorFrancisPangilinanscallfortheresignationofJusticeDelCastillopublishedinthe
DailyTribuneandtheManilaStandardTodayonJuly31,2010;62
(viii)NewsreportsregardingthestatementofDeanCesarVillanuevaoftheAteneodeManilaUniversitySchoolofLawon
thecallsfortheresignationofJusticeDelCastillopublishedinTheManilaBulletin,thePhilippineStarandtheBusiness
MirroronAugust11,2010;63
(ix)NewsreportonexpressionsofsupportforJusticeDelCastillofromaformerdeanofthePamantasanngLungsodng
Maynila, the Philippine Constitutional Association, the Judges Association of Bulacan and the Integrated Bar of the
PhilippinesBulacanChapterpublishedinthePhilippineStaronAugust16,2010;64and
(x)LetteroftheDeanoftheLiceodeCagayanUniversityCollegeofLawpublishedinthePhilippineDailyInquireron
August10,2010.65
Inviewoftheforegoing,respondentsallegedthatthisCourthassingledthemoutforsanctionsandthechargeintheShow
Cause Resolution dated October 19, 2010 that they may have violated specific canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibilityisunfairandwithoutbasis.
(d)Freedomofexpression
In paragraphs28to30of the CommonCompliance, respondentsbrieflydiscussed theirpositionthat inissuingtheir
Statement,"theyshouldbeseenasnotonlytobeperformingtheirdutiesasmembersoftheBar,officersofthecourt,and
teachersoflaw,butalsoascitizensofademocracywhoareconstitutionallyprotectedintheexerciseoffreespeech." 66In
supportofthiscontention,theycitedUnitedStatesv.Bustos, 67Inre:Atty.VicenteRaulAlmacen, 68andIntheMatterof
PetitionforDeclaratoryReliefRe:ConstitutionalityofRepublicAct4880,Gonzalesv.CommissiononElections. 69
(e)Academicfreedom
Inparagraphs31to34oftheCommonCompliance,respondentsassertedthattheirStatement wasalsoissuedinthe
exercise of their academic freedom as teachers in an institution of higher learning. They relied on Section 5 of the
UniversityofthePhilippinesCharterof2008whichprovidedthat"[t]henationaluniversityhastherightandresponsibility
toexerciseacademicfreedom."TheylikewiseadvertedtoGarciav.TheFacultyAdmissionCommittee,LoyolaSchoolof
Theology70 whichtheyclaimedrecognizedtheextentandbreadthofsuchfreedomastoencourageafreeandhealthy
discussionandcommunicationofafacultymembersfieldofstudywithoutfearofreprisal.Itisrespondentsviewthathad
theyremainedsilentontheplagiarismissueintheVinuyadecisiontheywouldhave"compromised[their]integrityand
credibilityasteachers;[theirsilence]wouldhavecreatedacultureandgenerationofstudents,professionals,evenlawyers,
who would lack the competence and discipline for research and pleading; or, worse, [that] their silence would have
communicatedtothepublicthatplagiarismandmisrepresentationareinconsequentialmattersandthatintellectualintegrity
hasnobearingorrelevancetoonesconduct."71
Inclosing,respondentsCommonComplianceexhortedthisCourt toconsiderthefollowingportionofthedissenting
opinionofJusticeGeorgeA.MalcolminSalcedov.Hernandez,72towit:
Respectforthecourtscanbetterbeobtainedbyfollowingacalmandimpartialcoursefromthebenchthanbyanattemptto
compelrespectforthejudiciarybychastisingalawyerforatoovigorousorinjudiciousexpositionofhissideofacase.The
Philippinesneedslawyersofindependent thoughtandcourageousbearing,jealousoftheinterestsoftheirclientsand
unafraidofanycourt,highorlow,andthecourtswilldowelltolerantlytooverlookoccasionalintemperatelanguagesoon
toberegrettedbythelawyerwhichaffectsinnowaytheoutcomeofacase. 73
Onthematterofthereliefstowhichrespondentsbelievetheyareentitled,theCommonCompliancestated,thus:
WHEREFORE:

A.Respondents,ascitizensofademocracy,professorsoflaw,membersoftheBarandofficersoftheCourt,respectfully
praythat:
1.theforegoingbenoted;and
2.theCourt reconsiderandreverseitsadversefindingsintheShowCauseResolution,includingitsconclusionsthat
respondentshave:[a]breachedtheir"obligationaslawprofessorsandofficersoftheCourttobethefirsttoupholdthe
dignityandauthorityofthisCourt,andnottopromotedistrustintheadministrationofjustice;"and[b]committed
"violationsofCanons10,11,and13andRules1.02and11.05oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility."
B.IntheeventtheHonorableCourtdeclinestogranttheforegoingprayer,respondentsrespectfullypray,inthealternative,
andinassertionoftheirdueprocessrights,thatbeforefinaljudgmentberendered:
1.theShowCauseResolutionbesetforhearing;
2.respondentsbegivenafairandfullopportunitytorefuteand/oraddressthefindingsandconclusionsoffactintheShow
CauseResolution(includingespeciallythefindingandconclusionofalackofmaliciousintent),andinthatconnection,that
appropriateproceduresandschedulesforhearingbeadoptedanddefinedthatwillallowthemthefullandfairopportunity
torequiretheproductionofandtopresenttestimonial,documentary,andobjectevidencebearingontheplagiarismand
misrepresentationissuesinVinuyav.ExecutiveSecretary(G.R.No.162230,April28,2010)andIntheMatterofthe
ChargesofPlagiarism,etc.AgainstAssociateJusticeMarianoC.DelCastillo(A.M.No.10717SC);and
3.respondentsbegivenfairandfullaccesstothetranscripts,records,drafts,reportsandsubmissionsinorrelatingto,and
accordedtheopportunitytocrossexaminethewitnesseswhowereorcouldhavebeencalledinInTheMatterofthe
ChargesofPlagiarism,etc.AgainstAssociateJusticeMarianoC.DelCastillo(A.M.No.10717SC). 74
ComplianceandReservationofProf.RosaMariaT.JuanBautista
AlthoughalreadyincludedintheCommonCompliance,Prof.RosaMariaT.JuanBautista(Prof.JuanBautista)fileda
separateComplianceandReservation(theBautistaCompliance),whereinsheadoptedtheallegationsintheCommon
Compliancewithsomeadditionalaverments.
Prof.JuanBautistareiteratedthatherdueprocessrightsallegedlyentitledhertochallengethefindingsandconclusionsin
theShowCauseResolution.Furthermore,"[i]ftheRestoringIntegrityStatementcanbeconsideredindirectcontempt,under
Section3ofRule71oftheRulesofCourt,suchmaybepunishedonlyafterchargeandhearing."75
Prof.JuanBautistastressedthatrespondentssignedtheStatement"ingoodfaithandwiththebestintentionstoprotectthe
SupremeCourtbyaskingonemembertoresign." 76Forherpart,Prof.JuanBautistaintimatedthatherdeepdisappointment
andsadnessfortheplightoftheMalayaLolaswerewhatmotivatedhertosigntheStatement.
Onthepointofacademicfreedom,Prof.JuanBautistacitedjurisprudence 77whichinherviewhighlightedthatacademic
freedomisconstitutionallyguaranteedtoinstitutionsofhigherlearningsuchthatschoolshavethefreedomtodeterminefor
themselveswhomayteach,whatmaybetaught,howlessonsshallbetaughtandwhomaybeadmittedtostudyandthat
courtshavenoauthoritytointerfereintheschoolsexerciseofdiscretioninthesemattersintheabsenceofgraveabuseof
discretion.SheclaimstheCourthasencroachedontheacademicfreedomoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesandother
universitiesontheirrighttodeterminehowlessonsshallbetaught.
Lastly,Prof.JuanBautistaassertedthattheStatementwasanexerciseofrespondentsconstitutionalrighttofreedomof
expressionthatcanonlybecurtailedwhenthereisgraveandimminentdangertopublicsafety,publicmorale,publichealth
orotherlegitimatepublicinterest.78
ComplianceofProf.RaulT.Vasquez
OnNovember19,2010,Prof.RaulT.Vasquez(Prof.Vasquez)filedaseparateCompliancebyregisteredmail(theVasquez
Compliance).InsaidCompliance,Prof.VasqueznarratedthecircumstancessurroundinghissigningoftheStatement.He
allegedthattheVinuyadecisionwasatopicofconversationamongtheUPLawfacultyearlyinthefirstsemester(of

academicyear201011)becauseitreportedlycontainedcitationsnotproperlyattributedtothesources;thathewasshowna
copyoftheStatementbyaclerkoftheOfficeoftheDeanonhiswaytohisclass;andthat,agreeinginprinciplewiththe
mainthemeadvancedbytheStatement,hesignedthesameinutmostgoodfaith.79
InresponsetothedirectivefromthisCourttoexplainwhyheshouldnotbedisciplinedasamemberoftheBarunderthe
ShowCauseResolution,Prof.Vasquezalsotookthepositionthatalawyerhastheright,likeallcitizensinademocratic
society,tocommentonactsofpublicofficers.HeinvitedtheattentionoftheCourttothefollowingauthorities:(a)Inre:
VicenteSotto;80(b)Inre:Atty.VicenteRaulAlmacen; 81and(c)adiscussionappearinginAmericanJurisprudence(AmJur)
2d.82Heclaimsthathe"neverhadanyintentiontoundulyinfluence,norentertainedanyillusionthathecouldorshould
influence,[theCourt]initsdispositionoftheVinuyacase" 83andthat"attackingtheintegrityof[theCourt]wasthefarthest
thingonrespondentsmindwhenhesignedtheStatement." 84Unlikehiscolleagues,whowishtoimpressuponthisCourt
thepurportedhomogeneityoftheviewsonwhatconstitutesplagiarism,Prof.VasquezstatedinhisCompliancethat:
13.BeforethisHonorableCourtrendereditsDecisiondated12October2010,someespousedtheviewthatwillfuland
deliberateintenttocommitplagiarismisanessentialelementofthesame.Others,likerespondent,wereoftheopinionthat
plagiarismiscommittedregardlessoftheintentoftheperpetrator,thewayithasalwaysbeenviewedintheacademe.This
uncertaintymadetheissueafairtopicforacademicdiscussionintheCollege.Now,thisHonorableCourthasruledthat
plagiarismpresupposesdeliberateintenttostealanothersworkandtopassitoffasonesown.85(Emphasessupplied.)
Alsoincontrasttohiscolleagues,Prof.Vasquezwaswillingtoconcedethathe"mighthavebeenremissincorrectly
assessingtheeffectsofsuchlanguage[intheStatement]andcouldhavebeenmorecareful." 86Heendshisdiscussionwitha
respectfulsubmissionthatwithhisexplanation,hehasfaithfullycompliedwiththeShowCauseResolutionandthatthe
CourtwillrulethathehadnotinanymannerviolatedhisoathasalawyerandofficeroftheCourt.
SeparateComplianceofDeanLeonenregardingthechargeofviolationofCanon10inrelationtohissubmissionofa
"dummy"oftheUPLawFacultyStatementtothisCourt
InhisCompliance,DeanLeonenclaimedthattherewerethreedrafts/versionsoftheUPLawFacultyStatement,whichhe
describedasfollows:
"RestoringIntegrityI"whichbearstheentirerosterofthefacultyoftheUPCollegeofLawinitssigningpages,andthe
actualsignaturesofthethirtyseven(37)facultymemberssubjectoftheShowCauseResolution.Acopywasfiledwiththe
HonorableCourtbyRoqueandButuyanon31August2010inA.M.No.10717SC.
"RestoringIntegrityII"whichdoesnotbearanyactualphysicalsignature,butwhichreflectsassignatoriesthenamesof
thirtyseven(37)membersofthefacultywiththenotation"(SGD.)".AcopyofRestoringIntegrityIIwaspubliclyand
physicallypostedintheUPCollegeofLawon10August2010.AnothercopyofRestoringIntegrityIIwasalsoofficially
receivedbytheHonorableCourtfromtheDeanoftheUPCollegeofLawon11August2010,almostthreeweeksbefore
thefilingofRestoringIntegrityI.
"RestoringIntegrityIII"whichisareprintingofRestoringIntegrityII,andwhichpresentlyservesastheofficialfilecopyof
theDeansOfficeintheUPCollegeofLawthatmaybesignedbyotherfacultymemberswhostillwishto.Itbearsthe
actualsignaturesofthethirtysevenoriginalsignatoriestoRestoringIntegrityIabovetheirprintednamesandthenotation
"(SGD.")and,inaddition,theactual signaturesofeight(8)othermembersofthefacultyabovetheirhandwrittenor
typewrittennames.87
Forpurposesofthisdiscussion,onlyRestoringIntegrityIandRestoringIntegrityIIarerelevantsincewhatDeanLeonen
hasbeendirectedtoexplainarethediscrepanciesinthesignaturepagesofthesetwodocuments.RestoringIntegrityIIIwas
neversubmittedtothisCourt.
OnhowRestoringIntegrityIandRestoringIntegrityIIwerepreparedandcameabout,DeanLeonenalleged,thus:
2.2On27July2010,sensingtheemergenceofarelativelybroadagreementinthefacultyonadraftstatement,Dean
Leoneninstructedhisstafftoprintthedraftandcirculateitamongthefacultymemberssothatthosewhowishedtomay
sign.Forthispurpose,thestaffencodedthelawfacultyrostertoserveastheprinteddraftssigningpages.Thusdidthefirst
printeddraftoftheRestoringIntegrityStatement,RestoringIntegrityI,comeintobeing.

2.3.Asof27July2010,thedateoftheRestoringIntegrityStatement,DeanLeonenwasunawarethataMotionfor
ReconsiderationoftheHonorableCourtsDecisioninVinuyavs.ExecutiveSecretary(G.R.No.162230,28April2010)
hadalreadybeenfiled,orthattheHonorableCourtwasintheprocessofconveningitsCommitteeonEthicsandEthical
StandardsinA.M.No.10717SC.
2.4.DeanLeonensstaffthencirculatedRestoringIntegrityIamongthemembersofthefaculty.Somefacultymembers
visitedtheDeansOfficetosignthedocumentorhaditbroughttotheirclassroomsintheCollegeofLaw,ortotheiroffices
orresidences.Stillotherfacultymemberswho,foronereasonoranother,wereunabletosignRestoringIntegrityIatthat
time,neverthelessconveyedtoDeanLeonentheirassurancesthattheywouldsignassoonastheycouldmanage.
2.5.SometimeinthesecondweekofAugust,judgingthatRestoringIntegrityIhadbeencirculatedlongenough,Dean
LeoneninstructedhisstafftoreproducethestatementinastyleandmannerappropriateforpostingintheCollegeofLaw.
Followinghisownestablishedpracticeinrelationtosignificantpublicissuances,hedirectedthemtoreformatthesigning
pagessothatonlythenamesofthosewhosignedthefirstprinteddraftwouldappear,togetherwiththecorresponding
"(SGD.)"notefollowingeachname.RestoringIntegrityIIthuscameintobeing. 88
AccordingtoDeanLeonen,the"practiceofeliminatingblanksoppositeorabovethenamesofnonsignatoriesinthefinal
draftofsignificantpublicissuances,ismeantnotsomuchforaestheticconsiderationsastosecuretheintegrityofsuch
documents."89 Helikewiseclaimedthat "[p]ostingstatementswithblankswouldbeanopeninvitationtovandalsand
pranksters."90
WithrespecttotheinclusionofJusticeMendozasnameasamongthesignatoriesinRestoringIntegrityIIwheninfacthe
didnotsignRestoringIntegrityI,DeanLeonenattributedthemistaketoamiscommunicationinvolvinghisadministrative
officer.InhisCompliance,henarratedthat:
2.7.UponbeingpresentedwithadraftofRestoringIntegrityIIwiththereformattedsigningpages,DeanLeonennoticed
theinclusionofthenameofJusticeMendozaamongthe"(SGD.)"signatories.AsJusticeMendozawasnotamongthose
whohadphysicallysignedRestoringIntegrityIwhenitwaspreviouslycirculated,DeanLeonencalledtheattentionofhis
stafftotheinclusionoftheJusticesnameamongthe"(SGD.)"signatoriesinRestoringIntegrityII.
2.8.DeanLeonenwastoldbyhisadministrativeofficerthatshehadspokentoJusticeMendozaoverthephoneonFriday,
06August2010.Accordingtoher,JusticeMendozahadauthorizedthedeantosigntheRestoringIntegrityStatementfor
himasheagreedfundamentallywithitscontents.Alsoaccordingtoher,JusticeMendozawasunableatthattimetosignthe
RestoringIntegrityStatementhimselfashewasleavingfortheUnitedStatesthefollowingweek.Itwouldlaterturnout
thatthisaccountwasnotentirelyaccurate.91(Underscoringanditalicssupplied.)
DeanLeonenclaimedthathe"hadnoreasontodoubthisadministrativeofficer,however,andsoplacedfullrelianceonher
account"92 as"[t]herewereindeedotherfacultymemberswhohadalsoauthorizedtheDeantoindicatethattheywere
signatories,eventhoughtheywereatthattimeunabletoaffixtheirsignaturesphysicallytothedocument." 93
However,afterreceivingtheShowCauseResolution,DeanLeonenandhisstaffreviewedthecircumstancessurrounding
theirefforttosecureJusticeMendozassignature.Itwouldturnoutthatthiswaswhatactuallytranspired:
2.22.1.OnFriday,06August2010,whenthedeansstafftalkedtoJusticeMendozaonthephone,he[JusticeMendoza]
indeedinitiallyagreedtosigntheRestoringIntegrityStatementashefundamentallyagreedwithitscontents.However,
JusticeMendozadidnotexactlysaythatheauthorizedthedeantosigntheRestoringIntegrityStatement.Rather,he
inquiredifhecouldauthorizethedeantosignitforhimashewasabouttoleavefortheUnitedStates.Thedeansstaff
informedhimthattheywould,atanyrate,stilltrytobringtheRestoringIntegrityStatementtohim.
2.22.2.Duetosomeadministrativedifficulties,JusticeMendozawasunabletosigntheRestoringIntegrityStatementbefore
heleftfortheU.S.thefollowingweek.
2.22.3.ThestaffwasabletobringRestoringIntegrityIIItoJusticeMendozawhenhewenttotheCollegetoteachon24
September2010,adayafterhisarrivalfromtheU.S.Thistime,JusticeMendozadeclinedtosign. 94
AccordingtotheDean:

2.23.ItwasonlyatthistimethatDeanLeonenrealizedthetrueimportofthecallhereceivedfromJusticeMendozainlate
September.Indeed,JusticeMendozaconfirmedthatbythetimethehardcopyoftheRestoringIntegrityStatementwas
broughttohimshortlyafterhisarrivalfromtheU.S.,hedeclinedtosignitbecauseithadalreadybecomecontroversial.At
that time, he predicted that the Court wouldtake some form of action against thefaculty. By then, and under those
circumstances,hewantedtoshowduedeferencetotheHonorableCourt,beingaformerAssociateJusticeandnotwishing
toundulyaggravatethesituationbysigningtheStatement.95(Emphasessupplied.)
WithrespecttotheomissionofAtty.ArmovitsnameinthesignaturepageofRestoringIntegrityIIwhenhewasoneofthe
signatoriesofRestoringIntegrityIandtheerroneousdescriptioninDeanLeonensAugust10,2010letterthattheversion
oftheStatement submittedtotheCourt wassignedby38membersoftheUP LawFaculty,it wasexplainedinthe
Compliancethat:
RespondentAtty.MiguelArmovitphysicallysignedRestoringIntegrityIwhenitwascirculatedtohim.However,hisname
wasinadvertentlyleftoutbyDeanLeonensstaffinthereformattingofthesigningpagesinRestoringIntegrityII.Thedean
assumedthathisnamewasstillincludedinthereformattedsigningpages,andsomentionedinhiscovernotetoChief
JusticeCoronathat38membersofthelawfacultysigned(theoriginal37plusJusticeMendoza.)96
DeanLeonenarguesthatheshouldnotbedeemedtohavesubmittedadummyoftheStatementthatwasnotatrueand
faithfulreproductionofthesame.HeemphasizedthatthemainbodyoftheStatementwasunchangedinallitsthree
versions and only the signature pages were not the same. This purportedly is merely "reflective of [the Statements]
essentialnatureasalivepublicmanifestomeanttocontinuouslydrawadherentstoitsmessage,itssignatoryportionis
necessarilyevolvinganddynamicxxxmanyotherprintingsof[theStatement]maybemadeinthefuture,eachone
reflectingthesametextbutwithmoreandmoresignatories." 97Advertingtocriminallawbyanalogy,DeanLeonenclaims
that"thisisnotaninstancewhereithasbeenmadetoappearinadocumentthatapersonhasparticipatedinanactwhenthe
latterdidnotinfactsoparticipate" 98forhe"didnotmisrepresentwhichmembersofthefacultyoftheUPCollegeofLaw
hadagreedwiththeRestoringIntegrityStatementproperand/orhadexpressedtheirdesiretobesignatoriesthereto." 99
Inthisregard,DeanLeonenbelievesthathehadnotcommittedanyviolationofCanon10orRules10.01and10.02forhe
didnotmisleadnormisrepresenttotheCourtthecontentsoftheStatementortheidentitiesoftheUPLawfacultymembers
whoagreedwith,orexpressedtheirdesiretobesignatoriesto,theStatement.Healsoassertsthathedidnotcommitany
violation of Rule 10.03 as he "coursed [the Statement] through the appropriate channels by transmitting the same to
HonorableChiefJusticeCoronaforthelattersinformationandproperdispositionwiththehopethatitspointswouldbe
dulyconsideredbytheHonorableCourtenbanc." 100CitingRudeconManagementCorporationv.Camacho, 101DeanLeonen
positsthattherequiredquantumofproofhasnotbeenmetinthiscaseandthatnodubiouscharacterormotivationforthe
actcomplainedofexistedtowarrantanadministrativesanctionforviolationofthestandardofhonestyprovidedforbythe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.102
DeanLeonenendshisCompliancewithanenumerationofnearlyidenticalreliefsastheCommonCompliance,including
theprayersforahearingandforaccesstotherecords,evidenceandwitnessesallegedlyrelevantnotonlyinthiscasebut
alsoinA.M.No.10717SC,theethicalinvestigationinvolvingJusticeDelCastillo.
ManifestationofProf.OwenLynch(LynchManifestation)
Forhispart,Prof.OwenLynch(Prof.Lynch)manifeststothisCourtthatheisnotamemberofthePhilippinebar;butheis
amemberofthebaroftheStateofMinnesota.HeallegesthathefirsttaughtasavisitingprofessorattheUPCollegeof
Lawin1981to1988andreturnedinthesamecapacityin2010.Hefurtherallegesthat"[h]esubscribestotheprinciple,
espousedbythisCourtandtheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,that[d]ebateonpublicissuesshouldbeuninhibited,
robust and wide open and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on
governmentandpublicofficials."103InsigningtheStatement,hebelievesthat"therighttospeakmeanstherighttospeak
effectively."104CitingthedissentingopinionsinManilaPublicSchoolTeachersAssociationv.Laguio,Jr., 105Prof.Lynch
arguedthat"[f]orspeechtobeeffective,itmustbeforcefulenoughtomaketheintendedrecipientslisten" 106 and"[t]he
qualityofeducationwoulddeteriorateinanatmosphereofrepression,whentheveryteacherswhoaresupposedtoprovide
an example ofcourage andselfassertiveness totheir pupilscan speak onlyin timorous whispers." 107 Relyingon the
doctrine in In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Relief Re: Constitutionality of Republic Act 4880, Gonzales v.
CommissiononElections,108 Prof.LynchbelievedthattheStatementdidnotposeanydanger,clearorpresent,ofany
substantiveevilsoastoremoveitfromtheprotectivemantleoftheBillofRights(i.e.,referringtotheconstitutional

guaranteeonfreespeech).109Healsostatedthathe"hasreadtheComplianceoftheotherrespondentstotheShowCause
Resolution"andthat"hesignedtheRestoringIntegrityStatementforthesamereasonstheydid." 110
ISSUES
BasedontheShowCauseResolutionandaperusalofthesubmissionsofrespondents,thematerialissuestoberesolvedin
thiscaseareasfollows:
1.)DoestheShowCauseResolutiondenyrespondentstheirfreedomofexpression?
2.)DoestheShowCauseResolutionviolaterespondentsacademicfreedomaslawprofessors?
3.)DothesubmissionsofrespondentssatisfactorilyexplainwhytheyshouldnotbedisciplinedasMembersoftheBar
underCanons1,11,and13andRules1.02and11.05oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility?
4.)DoestheseparateComplianceofDeanLeonensatisfactorilyexplainwhyheshouldnotbedisciplinedasaMemberof
theBarunderCanon10,Rules10.01,10.02and10.03?
5.) Are respondents entitled to have the Show Cause Resolution set for hearing and in relation to such hearing, are
respondentsentitledtorequiretheproductionorpresentationofevidencebearingontheplagiarismandmisrepresentation
issuesintheVinuyacase(G.R.No.162230)andtheethicscaseagainstJusticeDelCastillo(A.M.No.10717SC)andto
haveaccesstotherecordsandtranscriptsof,andthewitnessesandevidencepresented,orcouldhavebeenpresented,inthe
ethicscaseagainstJusticeDelCastillo(A.M.No.10717SC)?
DISCUSSION
TheShowCauseResolutiondoesnotdenyrespondentstheirfreedomofexpression.
ItisrespondentscollectiveclaimthattheCourt,withtheissuanceoftheShowCauseResolution,hasinterferedwith
respondents constitutionally mandated right to free speech and expression. It appears that the underlying assumption
behindrespondentsassertionisthemisconceptionthatthisCourtisdenyingthemtherighttocriticizetheCourtsdecisions
andactions,andthatthisCourtseeksto"silence"respondentlawprofessorsdissentingviewonwhattheycharacterizeasa
"legitimatepublicissue."
Thisisfarfromthetruth.AreadingoftheShowCauseResolutionwillplainlyshowthatitwasneitherthefactthat
respondentshadcriticizedadecisionoftheCourtnorthattheyhadchargedoneofitsmembersofplagiarismthatmotivated
thesaidResolution.Itwasthemannerofthecriticismandthecontumaciouslanguagebywhichrespondents,whoarenot
partiesnorcounselsintheVinuyacase,haveexpressedtheiropinioninfavorofthepetitionersinthesaidpendingcasefor
the"properdisposition"andconsiderationoftheCourtthatgaverisetosaidResolution.TheShowCauseResolution
painstakinglyenumeratedthestatementsthattheCourtconsideredexcessiveanduncalledforunderthecircumstances
surrounding theissuance, publication,andlatersubmissiontothisCourt oftheUP Law facultys RestoringIntegrity
Statement.
To reiterate, it was not the circumstance that respondents expressed a belief that Justice Del Castillo was guilty of
plagiarismbutrathertheirexpressionofthatbeliefas"notonlyasanestablishedfact,butatruth" 111 whenitwas"[o]f
publicknowledge[thattherewas]anongoinginvestigationpreciselytodeterminethetruthofsuchallegations." 112Itwas
also pointed out in the Show Cause Resolution that there was a pending motion for reconsideration of the Vinuya
decision.113 The Show CauseResolutionmade noobjections tothe portionsof the RestoringIntegrity Statement that
respondentsclaimedtobe"constructive"butonlyaskedrespondentstoexplainthoseportionsofthesaidStatementthatby
nostretchoftheimaginationcouldbeconsideredasfairorconstructive,towit:
Beyondthis,however,thestatementborecertainremarkswhichraiseconcernfortheCourt.Theopeningsentencealoneis
agrimpreambletotheinstitutionalattackthatlayahead.Itreads:
AnextraordinaryactofinjusticehasagainbeencommittedagainstthebraveFilipinaswhohadsufferedabuseduringatime
ofwar.

ThefirstparagraphconcludeswithareferencetothedecisioninVinuyav.ExecutiveSecretaryasareprehensibleactof
dishonestyandmisrepresentationbytheHighestCourtoftheland.xxx.
TheinsulttothemembersoftheCourtwasaggravatedbyimputationsofdeliberatelydelayingtheresolutionofthesaid
case,its dismissalonthebasisof"pollutedsources,"theCourts allegedindifference tothecauseofpetitioners[inthe
Vinuyacase],aswellasthesupposedalarminglackofconcernofthemembersoftheCourtforeventhemostbasicvalues
ofdecencyandrespect.114xxx.(Underscoringours.)
Tobesure,theShowCauseResolutionitselfrecognizedrespondentsfreedomofexpressionwhenitstatedthat:
Whilemostagreethattherighttocriticizethejudiciaryiscriticaltomaintainingafreeanddemocraticsociety,thereisalso
ageneralconsensusthathealthycriticismonlygoessofar.Manytypesofcriticismleveledatthejudiciarycrossthelineto
become harmful and irresponsible attacks. These potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the
independenceofthejudiciary.Thecourtmust"insistonbeingpermittedtoproceedtothedispositionofitsbusinessinan
orderlymanner,freefromoutsideinterferenceobstructiveofitsfunctionsandtendingtoembarrasstheadministrationof
justice."
TheCourtcouldhardlyperceiveanyreasonablepurposeforthefacultyslessthanobjectivecommentsexcepttodiscredit
theApril28,2010DecisionintheVinuyacaseandunderminetheCourtshonesty,integrityandcompetenceinaddressing
themotionforitsreconsideration.Asifthecaseonthecomfortwomensclaimsisnotcontroversialenough,theUPLaw
facultywouldfantheflamesandinviteresentmentagainstaresolutionthatwouldnotreversethesaiddecision.Thisruns
contrarytotheirobligationaslawprofessorsandofficersoftheCourttobethefirsttoupholdthedignityandauthorityof
thisCourt,towhichtheyowefidelityaccordingtotheoaththeyhavetakenasattorneys,andnottopromotedistrustinthe
administrationofjustice.115xxx.(Citationsomitted;emphasesandunderscoringsupplied.)
Indeed,inalonglineofcases,includingthosecitedinrespondentssubmissions,thisCourthasheldthattherightto
criticizethecourtsandjudicialofficersmustbebalancedagainsttheequallyprimordialconcernthattheindependenceof
theJudiciarybeprotectedfromdueinfluenceorinterference.Incaseswherethecriticsarenotonlycitizensbutmembersof
theBar,jurisprudencehasrepeatedlyaffirmedtheauthorityofthisCourttodisciplinelawyerswhosestatementsregarding
thecourtsandfellowlawyers,whetherjudicialorextrajudicial,haveexceededthelimitsoffaircommentandcommon
decency.
Asearlyasthe1935caseofSalcedov.Hernandez,116theCourtfoundAtty.VicenteJ.Franciscobothguiltyofcontempt
andliableadministrativelyforthefollowingparagraphinhissecondmotionforreconsideration:
Weshouldlikefranklyandrespectfullytomakeitofrecordthattheresolutionofthiscourt,denyingourmotionfor
reconsideration,isabsolutelyerroneousandconstitutesanoutragetotherightsofthepetitionerFelipeSalcedoanda
mockeryofthepopularwillexpressedatthepollsinthemunicipalityofTiaong,Tayabas.Wewishtoexhaustallthemeans
withinourpowerinorderthatthiserrormaybecorrectedbytheverycourtwhichhascommittedit,becauseweshouldnot
wantthatsomecitizen,particularlysomevoterofthemunicipalityofTiaong,Tayabas,resorttothepresspubliclyto
denounce,ashehasarighttodo,thejudicialoutrageofwhichthehereinpetitionerhasbeenthevictim,andbecauseitis
ourutmostdesiretosafeguardtheprestigeofthishonorablecourtandofeachandeverymemberthereofintheeyesofthe
public.But,atthesametimewewishtostatesincerelythaterroneousdecisionslikethese,whichtheaffectedpartyandhis
thousands of voters will necessarily consider unjust, increase the proselytes of 'sakdalism' and make the public lose
confidenceintheadministrationofjustice.117(Emphasessupplied.)
ThehighlightedphraseswereconsideredbytheCourtasneitherjustifiednornecessaryandfurtherheldthat:
[I]nordertocalltheattentionofthecourtinaspecialwaytotheessentialpointsrelieduponinhisargumentandto
emphasizetheforcethereof,themanyreasonsstatedinhissaidmotionweresufficientandthephrasesinquestionwere
superfluous.Inordertoappealtoreasonandjustice,itishighlyimproperandamisstomaketroubleandresorttothreats,as
AttorneyVicenteJ.Franciscohasdone,becausebothmeansareannoyingandgoodpracticecanneversanctionthemby
reasonoftheirnaturaltendencytodisturbandhinderthefreeexerciseofasereneandimpartialjudgment,particularlyin
judicialmatters,intheconsiderationofquestionssubmittedforresolution.

ThereisnoquestionthatsaidparagraphofAttorneyVicenteJ.Francisco'smotioncontainsamoreorlessveiledthreatto
thecourtbecauseitisinsinuatedtherein,aftertheauthorshowsthecoursewhichthevotersofTiaongshouldfollowincase
hefailsinhisattempt,thattheywillresorttothepressforthepurposeofdenouncing,whatheclaimstobeajudicial
outrageof whichhisclient hasbeenthe victim; and becausehe states inathreateningmannerwiththeintentionof
predisposingthemindofthereaderagainstthecourt,thuscreatinganatmosphereofprejudicesagainstitinordertomakeit
odiousinthepubliceye,thatdecisionsofthenatureofthatreferredtoinhismotionpromotedistrustintheadministration
ofjusticeandincreasetheproselytesofsakdalism,amovementwithseditiousandrevolutionarytendenciestheactivitiesof
which,asisofpublicknowledge,occurredinthiscountryafewdaysago.Thiscannotmeanotherwisethancontemptofthe
dignityofthecourtanddisrespectoftheauthoritythereofonthepartofAttorneyVicenteJ.Francisco,becausehepresumes
thatthecourtissodevoidofthesenseofjusticethat,ifhedidnotresorttointimidation,itwouldmaintainitserror
notwithstandingthefactthatitmaybeproven,withgoodreasons,thatithasactederroneously. 118(Emphasessupplied.)
Significantly, Salcedo is the decision from which respondents culled their quote from the minority view of Justice
Malcolm.Moreover,Salcedoconcernedstatementsmadeinapleadingfiledbyacounselinacase,unliketherespondents
here,whoareneitherpartiesnorcounselsintheVinuyacaseandtherefore,donothaveanystandingatalltointerfereinthe
Vinuyacase.Insteadofsupportingrespondentstheory,Salcedoisauthorityforthefollowingprinciple:
Asamemberofthebarandanofficerofthiscourt,AttorneyVicenteJ.Francisco,asanyattorney,isindutyboundto
upholditsdignityandauthorityandtodefenditsintegrity,notonlybecauseithasconferreduponhimthehighprivilege,
notaright(Malcolm,LegalEthics,158and160),ofbeingwhathenowis:apriestofjustice(InreThatcher,80OhioSt.
Rep.,492,669),butalsobecauseinsodoing,heneithercreatesnorpromotesdistrustintheadministrationofjustice,and
prevents anybody from harboring and encouraging discontent which, in many cases, is the source of disorder, thus
underminingthefoundationuponwhichreststhatbulwarkcalledjudicialpowertowhichthosewhoareaggrievedturnfor
protectionandrelief.119(Emphasessupplied.)
Thus,thelawyerinSalcedowasfinedand reprimanded forhisinjudiciousstatementsinhispleading,byaccusingthe
Courtof"erroneousruling."Here,therespondentsStatementgoeswaybeyondmerelyascribingerrortotheCourt.
Othercasescitedbyrespondentslikewiseespouserulingscontrarytotheirposition.Inre:Atty.VicenteRaulAlmacen, 120
citedintheCommonComplianceandtheVasquezCompliance,wasaninstancewheretheCourtindefinitelysuspendeda
memberoftheBarforfilingandreleasingtothepressa"PetitiontoSurrenderLawyersCertificateofTitle"inprotestof
whatheclaimedwasagreatinjusticetohisclientcommittedbytheSupremeCourt.Inthedecision,thepetitionwas
described,thus:
HeindictsthisCourt,inhisownphrase,asatribunal"peopledbymenwhoarecallousedtoourpleasforjustice,who
ignorewithoutreasonstheirownapplicabledecisionsandcommitculpableviolationsoftheConstitutionwithimpunity."
Hisclient'shecontinues,whowasdeeplyaggrievedbythisCourt's"unjustjudgment,"hasbecome"oneofthesacrificial
victimsbeforethealtarofhypocrisy."Inthesamebreaththathealludestotheclassicsymbolofjustice,heridiculesthe
membersofthisCourt,saying"thatjusticeasadministeredbythepresentmembersoftheSupremeCourtisnotonlyblind,
butalsodeafanddumb."Hethenvowstoarguethecauseofhisclient"inthepeople'sforum,"sothat"thepeoplemay
knowofthesilent injusticescommittedbythisCourt," andthat "whatevermistakes,wrongsandinjusticesthat were
committedmustneverberepeated."Heendshispetitionwithaprayerthat
"xxxaresolutionissueorderingtheClerkofCourttoreceivethecertificateoftheundersignedattorneyandcounsellorat
lawINTRUSTwithreservationthatatanytimeinthefutureandintheeventweregainourfaithandconfidence,wemay
retrieveourtitletoassumethepracticeofthenoblestprofession."121
ItistruethatinAlmacentheCourtextensivelydiscussedforeignjurisprudenceontheprinciplethatalawyer,justlikeany
citizen,hastherighttocriticizeandcommentuponactuationsofpublicofficers,includingjudicialauthority.However,the
realdoctrineinAlmacenisthatsuchcriticismofthecourts,whetherdoneincourtoroutsideofit,mustconformto
standards of fairness and propriety. This case engaged in an even more extensive discussion of the legal authorities
sustainingthisview.1awphi1Toquotefromthatdecision:
Butitisthecardinalconditionofallsuchcriticismthatitshallbebonafide,andshallnotspilloverthewallsofdecency
andpropriety.Awidechasmexistsbetweenfaircriticism,ontheonehand,andabuseandslanderofcourtsandthejudges

thereof,ontheother.Intemperateandunfaircriticismisagrossviolationofthedutyofrespecttocourts.Itissucha
misconductthatsubjectsalawyertodisciplinaryaction.
For,membershipintheBarimposesuponapersonobligationsanddutieswhicharenotmerefluxandferment.His
investitureintothelegalprofessionplacesuponhisshouldersnoburdenmorebasic,moreexactingandmoreimperative
thanthatofrespectfulbehaviortowardthecourts.Hevowssolemnlytoconducthimself"withallgoodfidelityxxxtothe
courts;"andtheRulesofCourtconstantlyremindhim"toobserveandmaintaintherespectduetocourtsofjusticeand
judicialofficers."Thefirstcanonoflegalethicsenjoinshim"tomaintaintowardsthecourtsarespectfulattitude,notforthe
sakeofthetemporaryincumbentofthejudicialoffice,butforthemaintenanceofitssupremeimportance."
AsMr.JusticeFieldputsit:
"xxxtheobligationwhichattorneysimpliedlyassume,iftheydonotbyexpressdeclarationtakeuponthemselves,when
theyareadmittedtotheBar,isnotmerelytobeobedienttotheConstitutionandlaws,buttomaintainatalltimesthe
respectduetocourtsofjusticeandjudicialofficers.Thisobligationisnotdischargedbymerelyobservingtherulesof
courteousdemeanorinopencourt,butincludesabstainingoutofcourtfromallinsultinglanguageandoffensiveconduct
towardjudgespersonallyfortheirjudicialacts."(Bradley,v.Fisher,20Law.4d.647,652)
Thelawyer'sdutytorenderrespectfulsubordinationtothecourtsisessentialtotheorderlyadministrationofjustice.Hence,
intheassertionoftheirclients'rights,lawyerseventhosegiftedwithsuperiorintellectareenjoinedtoreinuptheir
tempers.
"Thecounselinanycasemayormaynotbeanablerormorelearnedlawyerthanthejudge,anditmaytaxhispatienceand
tempertosubmittorulingswhichheregardsasincorrect,butdisciplineandselfrespectareasnecessarytotheorderly
administrationofjusticeastheyaretotheeffectivenessofanarmy.Thedecisionsofthejudgemustbeobeyed,becausehe
isthetribunalappointedtodecide,andthebarshouldatalltimesbetheforemostinrenderingrespectfulsubmission."( In
ReScouten,40Atl.481)
xxxx
Inhisrelationswiththecourts,alawyermaynotdividehispersonalitysoastobeanattorneyatonetimeandamerecitizen
atanother.Thus,statementsmadebyanattorneyinprivateconversationsorcommunicationsorinthecourseofapolitical
campaign,ifcouchedininsultinglanguageastobringintoscornanddisreputetheadministrationofjustice,maysubjectthe
attorneytodisciplinaryaction.122(Emphasesandunderscoringsupplied.)
Inasimilarvein,Inre:VicenteSotto,123citedintheVasquezCompliance,observedthat:
[T]hisCourt,inInreKelly,heldthefollowing:
Thepublicationofacriticismofapartyorofthecourttoapendingcause,respectingthesame,hasalwaysbeenconsidered
asmisbehavior,tendingtoobstructtheadministrationofjustice,andsubjectssuchpersonstocontemptproceedings.Parties
haveaconstitutionalrighttohavetheircausestriedfairlyincourt,byanimpartialtribunal,uninfluencedbypublicationsor
publicclamor.Everycitizenhasaprofoundpersonalinterestintheenforcementofthefundamentalrighttohavejustice
administeredbythecourts,undertheprotectionandformsoflaw,freefromoutsidecoercionorinterference.xxx.
Merecriticismorcommentonthecorrectnessorwrongness,soundnessorunsoundnessofthedecisionofthecourtina
pendingcasemadeingoodfaithmaybetolerated;becauseifwellfoundeditmayenlightenthecourtandcontributetothe
correctionofanerrorifcommitted;butifitisnotwelltakenandobviouslyerroneous,itshould,innoway,influencethe
courtinreversingormodifyingitsdecision.xxx.
xxxx
To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years committing deliberately "so many blunders and
injustices,"thatistosay,thatithasbeendecidinginfavorofonepartyknowingthatthelawandjusticeisonthepartofthe
adversepartyandnotontheoneinwhosefavorthedecisionwasrendered,inmanycasesdecidedduringthelastyears,
wouldtendnecessarilytounderminetheconfidenceofthepeopleinthehonestyandintegrityofthemembersofthisCourt,

andconsequentlytolowerordegradetheadministrationofjusticebythisCourt.TheSupremeCourtofthePhilippinesis,
undertheConstitution,thelastbulwarktowhichtheFilipinopeoplemayrepairtoobtainrelieffortheirgrievancesor
protectionoftheirrightswhenthesearetrampledupon,andifthepeoplelosetheirconfidenceinthehonestyandintegrity
ofthemembersofthisCourtandbelievethattheycannotexpectjusticetherefrom,theymightbedriventotakethelawinto
theirownhands,anddisorderandperhapschaosmightbetheresult.Asamemberofthebarandanofficerofthecourts
Atty.VicenteSotto,likeanyother,isindutyboundtoupholdthedignityandauthorityofthisCourt,towhichheowes
fidelityaccordingtotheoathhehastakenassuchattorney,andnottopromotedistrustintheadministrationofjustice.
Respecttothecourtsguaranteesthestabilityofotherinstitutions,whichwithoutsuchguarantywouldberestingonavery
shakyfoundation.124(Emphasesandunderscoringsupplied.)
Thatthedoctrinalpronouncementsintheseearlycasesarestillgoodlawcanbeeasilygleanedevenfrommorerecent
jurisprudence.
InChoav.Chiongson,125 theCourtadministrativelydisciplinedalawyer,throughtheimpositionofafine,formaking
maliciousandunfoundedcriticismsofajudgeintheguiseofanadministrativecomplaintandheld,thus:
Asanofficerofthecourtanditsindispensablepartnerinthesacredtaskofadministeringjustice,graverresponsibilityis
imposeduponalawyerthananyothertoupholdtheintegrityofthecourtsandtoshowrespecttoitsofficers.Thisdoesnot
mean,however,thatalawyercannotcriticizeajudge.AswestatedinTiongcovs.Hon.Aguilar:
Itdoesnot,however,followthatjustbecausealawyerisanofficerofthecourt,hecannotcriticizethecourts.Thatishis
rightasacitizen,anditisevenhisdutyasanofficerofthecourttoavailofsuchright.Thus,inInRe:Almacen(31SCRA
562,579580[1970]),thisCourtexplicitlydeclared:
Hence,asacitizenandasofficerofthecourt,alawyerisexpectednotonlytoexercisetheright,butalsotoconsiderithis
dutytoavailofsuchright.Nolawmayabridgethisright.Norishe"professionallyanswerabletoascrutinyintotheofficial
conductofthejudges,whichwouldnotexposehimtolegalanimadversionasacitizen."(CaseofAustin,28AmDec.657,
665).
xxxx
Nevertheless,sucharightisnotwithoutlimit.For,asthisCourtwarnedinAlmacen:
Butitisacardinalconditionofallsuchcriticismthatitshallbebonafide,andshallnotspilloverthewallsofdecencyand
propriety.Awidechasmexistsbetweenfaircriticism,ontheonehand,andabuseandslanderofcourtsandthejudges
thereof,ontheother.Intemperateandunfaircriticismisagrossviolationofthedutyofrespecttocourts.Itissucha
misconduct,thatsubjectsalawyertodisciplinaryaction.
xxxx
Elsewisestated,therighttocriticize,whichisguaranteedbythefreedomofspeechandofexpressionintheBillofRights
oftheConstitution,mustbeexercisedresponsibly,foreveryrightcarrieswithitacorrespondingobligation. Freedomisnot
freedomfromresponsibility,butfreedomwithresponsibility.xxx.
xxxx
Proscribedthenare,interalia,theuseofunnecessarylanguagewhichjeopardizeshighesteemincourts,createsorpromotes
distrust in judicial administration (Rheem, supra), or tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of people in the
integrityofthemembersofthisCourtandtodegradetheadministrationofjusticebythisCourt(Inre:Sotto,82Phil.595
[1949]);orofoffensiveandabusivelanguage(Inre:RafaelClimaco,55SCRA107[1974]);orabrasiveandoffensive
language(Yangsonvs.Salandanan,68SCRA42[1975];orofdisrespectful,offensive,manifestlybaseless,andmalicious
statementsinpleadingsorinaletteraddressedtothejudge(Bajavs.Macandog,158SCRA[1988],citingtheresolutionof
19January1988inPhil.PublicSchoolsTeachersAssociationvs.Quisumbing,G.R.No.76180,andCenizavs.Sebastian,
130SCRA295[1984]);orofdisparaging,intemperate,anduncalledforremarks(Sangalangvs.IntermediateAppellate
Court,177SCRA87[1989]).

Anycriticismagainstajudgemadeintheguiseofanadministrativecomplaintwhichisclearlyunfoundedandimpelledby
ulteriormotivewillnotexcusethelawyerresponsiblethereforunderhisdutyoffidelitytohisclient.xxx. 126(Emphases
andunderscoringsupplied.)
InSaberonv.Larong,127 wherethisCourtfoundrespondentlawyerguiltyofsimplemisconductforusingintemperate
languageinhispleadingsandimposedafineuponhim,wehadtheoccasiontostate:
TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitymandates:
CANON8Alawyershallconducthimselfwithcourtesy,fairnessandcandortowardhisprofessionalcolleagues,andshall
avoidharassingtacticsagainstopposingcounsel.
Rule8.01Alawyershallnot,inhisprofessionaldealings,uselanguagewhichisabusive,offensiveorotherwiseimproper.
CANON11Alawyershallobserveandmaintaintherespectduetothecourtsandtojudicialofficersandshould
insistonsimilarconductbyothers.
Rule11.03Alawyershallabstainfromscandalous,offensiveormenacinglanguageorbehaviorbeforetheCourts.
Tobesure,theadversarialnatureofourlegalsystemhastemptedmembersofthebartousestronglanguageinpursuitof
theirdutytoadvancetheinterestsoftheirclients.
However,whilealawyerisentitledtopresenthiscasewithvigorandcourage,suchenthusiasmdoesnotjustifythe
useofoffensiveandabusivelanguage.Languageaboundswithcountlesspossibilitiesforonetobeemphaticbut
respectful,convincingbutnotderogatory,illuminatingbutnotoffensive.
Onmanyoccasions,theCourthasremindedmembersoftheBartoabstainfromalloffensivepersonality andto
advancenofactprejudicialtothehonororreputationofapartyorwitness,unlessrequiredbythejusticeofthecausewith
whichheischarged.Inkeepingwiththedignityofthelegalprofession,alawyerslanguageeveninhispleadingsmustbe
dignified.128
Verily,theaccusatoryandvilifyingnatureofcertainportionsoftheStatementexceededthelimitsoffaircommentand
cannotbedeemedasprotectedfreespeech.EvenIntheMatterofPetitionforDeclaratoryReliefRe:Constitutionalityof
RepublicAct4880,Gonzalesv.CommissiononElections, 129relieduponbyrespondentsintheCommonCompliance,held
that:
Fromthelanguageofthespecificconstitutionalprovision,itwouldappearthattherightisnotsusceptibleofanylimitation.
Nolawmaybepassedabridgingthefreedomofspeechandofthepress.Therealitiesoflifeinacomplexsocietypreclude
howeveraliteralinterpretation.Freedomofexpressionisnotanabsolute.Itwouldbetoomuchtoinsistthatatalltimesand
under all circumstances it should remain unfettered and unrestrained. There are other societal values that press for
recognition.xxx.130(Emphasissupplied.)
Onesuchsocietalvaluethatpressesforrecognitioninthecaseatbaristhethreattojudicialindependenceandtheorderly
administrationofjusticethatimmoderate,recklessandunfairattacksonjudicialdecisionsandinstitutionspose.ThisCourt
heldasmuchinZaldivarv.SandiganbayanandGonzales, 131whereweindefinitelysuspendedalawyerfromthepracticeof
lawforissuingtothemediastatementsgrosslydisrespectfultowardstheCourtinrelationtoapendingcase,towit:
RespondentGonzalesisentitledtotheconstitutionalguaranteeoffreespeech.Nooneseekstodenyhimthatright,leastof
allthisCourt.Whatrespondentseemsunawareofisthatfreedomofspeechandofexpression,likeallconstitutional
freedoms,isnotabsoluteandthatfreedomofexpressionneedsonoccasiontobeadjustedtoandaccommodatedwiththe
requirementsofequallyimportant publicinterest.Oneofthesefundamental publicinterestsisthemaintenanceofthe
integrityandorderlyfunctioningoftheadministrationofjustice.Thereisnoantinomybetweenfreeexpressionandthe
integrityofthesystemofadministeringjustice.Fortheprotectionandmaintenanceoffreedomofexpressionitselfcanbe
securedonlywithinthecontextofafunctioningandorderlysystemofdispensingjustice,withinthecontext,inotherwords,

ofviableindependentinstitutionsfordeliveryofjusticewhichareacceptedbythegeneralcommunity.xxx. 132(Emphases
supplied.)
Forthisreason,theCourtcannotupholdtheviewofsomerespondents 133thattheStatementpresentsnograveorimminent
dangertoalegitimatepublicinterest.
TheShowCauseResolutiondoesnotinterferewithrespondentsacademicfreedom.
Itisnotcontestedthatrespondentshereinare,bylawandjurisprudence,guaranteedacademicfreedomandundisputably,
theyarefreetodeterminewhattheywillteachtheirstudentsandhowtheywillteach.Wemustpointoutthatthereis
nothingintheShowCauseResolutionthatdictatesuponrespondentsthesubjectmattertheycanteachandthemannerof
theirinstruction.Moreover,itisnotinconsistentwiththeprincipleofacademicfreedomforthisCourttosubjectlawyers
whoteachlawtodisciplinaryactionforcontumaciousconductandspeech,coupledwithundueinterventioninfavorofa
partyinapendingcase,withoutobservingproperprocedure,evenifpurportedlydoneintheircapacityasteachers.
Anovelissueinvolvedinthepresentcontroversy,forithasnotbeenpasseduponinanypreviouscasebeforethisCourt,is
thequestionofwhetherlawyerswhoarealsolawprofessorscaninvokeacademicfreedomasadefenseinanadministrative
proceedingforintemperatestatementstendingtopressuretheCourtorinfluencetheoutcomeofacaseordegradethe
courts.
ApplyingbyanalogytheCourtspasttreatmentofthe"freespeech"defenseinotherbardisciplinecases,academicfreedom
cannotbesuccessfullyinvokedbyrespondentsinthiscase.Theimplicitrulinginthejurisprudencediscussedaboveisthat
theconstitutionalrighttofreedomofexpressionofmembersoftheBarmaybecircumscribedbytheirethicaldutiesas
lawyerstogiveduerespecttothecourtsandtoupholdthepublicsfaithinthelegalprofessionandthejusticesystem.To
ourmind,thereasonthatfreedomofexpressionmaybesodelimitedinthecaseoflawyersapplieswithgreaterforcetothe
academicfreedomoflawprofessors.
ItwoulddowellfortheCourttoremindrespondentsthat,inviewofthebroaddefinitioninCayetanov.Monsod, 134lawyers
whentheyteachlawareconsideredengagedinthepracticeoflaw.Unlikeprofessorsinotherdisciplinesandmorethan
lawyerswhodonotteachlaw,respondentsareboundbytheiroathtoupholdtheethicalstandardsofthelegalprofession.
Thus,theiractionsaslawprofessorsmustbemeasuredagainstthesamecanonsofprofessionalresponsibilityapplicableto
actsofmembersoftheBarasthefactoftheirbeinglawprofessorsisinextricablyentwinedwiththefactthattheyare
lawyers.
EveniftheCourtwaswillingtoacceptrespondentspropositionintheCommonCompliancethattheirissuanceofthe
Statementwasinkeepingwiththeirdutyto"participateinthedevelopmentofthelegalsystembyinitiatingorsupporting
effortsinlawreformandintheimprovementoftheadministrationofjustice"underCanon4oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility,wecannotagreethattheyhavefulfilledthatsamedutyinkeepingwiththedemandsofCanons1,11and13
togiveduerespecttolegalprocessesandthecourts,andtoavoidconductthattendstoinfluencethecourts.Membersofthe
Bar cannot be selective regarding which canons to abide by given particular situations. With more reason that law
professorsarenotallowedthisindulgence,sincetheyareexpectedtoprovidetheirstudentsexemplarsoftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibilityasawholeandnotjusttheirpreferredportionsthereof.
TheCourtsrulingsonthesubmissionsregardingthechargeofviolationofCanons1,11and13.
Havingdisposedofrespondentsmainargumentsoffreedomofexpressionandacademicfreedom,theCourtconsidershere
theotheravermentsintheirsubmissions.
Withrespecttogoodfaith,respondentsallegationspresentedtwomainideas:(a)thevalidityoftheirpositionregardingthe
plagiarismchargeagainstJusticeDelCastillo,and(b)theirpuremotivetospurthisCourttotakethecorrectactiononsaid
issue.
TheCourthasalreadyclarifiedthatitisnottheexpressionofrespondentsstaunchbeliefthatJusticeDelCastillohas
committedamisconductthatthemajorityofthisCourthasfoundsounbecomingintheShowCauseResolution.Nomatter
howfirmalawyersconvictionintherighteousnessofhiscausethereissimplynoexcusefordenigratingthecourtsand
engaginginpublicbehaviorthattendstoputthecourtsandthelegalprofessionintodisrepute.Thisdoctrine,whichwehave

repeatedlyupheldinsuchcasesasSalcedo,InreAlmacenandSaberong,shouldbeappliedinthiscasewithmorereason,as
therespondents,notpartiestotheVinuyacase,denouncedtheCourtandurgedittochangeitsdecisiontherein,inapublic
statement using contumacious language, which with temerity they subsequently submitted to the Court for "proper
disposition."
ThathumiliatingtheCourtintoreconsideringtheVinuyaDecisioninfavoroftheMalayaLolaswasoneoftheobjectivesof
theStatementcouldbeseeninthefollowingparagraphsfromthesame:
AndinlightofthesignificanceofthisdecisiontothequestforjusticenotonlyofFilipinowomen,butofwomenelsewhere
intheworldwhohavesufferedthehorrorsofsexualabuseandexploitationintimesofwar, theCourtcannotcoldlydeny
reliefandjusticetothepetitionersonthebasisofpilferedandmisinterpretedtexts.
xxxx
(3)ThesamebreachandconsequentdispositionoftheVinuyacasedoesviolencetotheprimordialfunctionoftheSupreme
Courtastheultimatedispenserofjusticetoallthosewhohavebeenleftwithoutlegalorequitablerecourse,suchasthe
petitionerstherein.135(Emphasesandunderscoringsupplied.)
WhetherornotrespondentsviewsregardingtheplagiarismissueintheVinuyacasehadvalidbasiswaswhollyimmaterial
totheirliabilityforcontumaciousspeechandconduct.Thesearetwoseparatematterstobeproperlythreshedoutin
separateproceedings.TheCourtconsidersithighlyinappropriate,ifnottantamounttodissembling,thediscussiondevoted
inoneofthecompliancesarguingtheguiltofJusticeDelCastillo.IntheCommonCompliance,respondentsevengosofar
astoattachdocumentaryevidencetosupporttheplagiarismchargesagainstJusticeDelCastillointhepresentcontroversy.
TheethicscaseofJusticeDelCastillo(A.M.No.10717SC),withthefilingofamotionforreconsideration,wasstill
pendingatthetimeofthefilingofrespondentssubmissionsinthisadministrativecase.Asrespondentsthemselvesadmit,
they are neither parties nor counsels in the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo. Notwithstanding their professed
overridinginterestinsaidethicscase,itisnotproperprocedureforrespondentstobringuptheirplagiarismargumentshere
especiallywhenithasnobearingontheirownadministrativecase.
Stillonmotive,itisalsoproposedthatthechoiceoflanguageintheStatementwasintendedforeffectivespeech;that
speechmustbe"forcefulenoughtomaketheintendedrecipientslisten." 136 Onewonderswhatsortofeffectrespondents
werehopingforinbrandingthisCourtas,amongothers,callous,dishonestandlackinginconcernforthebasicvaluesof
decencyandrespect.TheCourtfailstoseehowitcanennobletheprofessionifweallowrespondentstosendasignalto
theirstudentsthattheonlywaytoeffectivelypleadtheircasesandpersuadeotherstotheirpointofviewistobeoffensive.
ThisbringstoourmindthelettersofDr.EllisandProf.Tamswhichweredeliberatelyquotedinfullinthenarrationof
backgroundfactstoillustratethesharpcontrastbetweentheciviltenoroftheselettersandtheantagonisticirreverenceof
theStatement.Intruth,theseforeignauthorsaretheoneswhowouldexpectedlybeaffectedbyanyperceptionofmisuseof
theirworks.NotwithstandingthattheyarebeyondthedisciplinaryreachofthisCourt,theystillobviouslytookpainsto
conveytheirobjectionsinadeferentialandscholarlymanner.ItisunfathomabletotheCourtwhyrespondentscouldnotdo
thesame.Theseforeignauthorslettersunderscoretheuniversalityofthetenetthatlegalprofessionalsmustdealwitheach
otheringoodfaithandduerespect.Themarkofthetrueintellectualisonewhocanexpresshisopinionslogicallyand
soberlywithoutresorttoexaggeratedrhetoricandunproductiverecriminations.
AsfortheclaimthattherespondentsnobleintentionistospurtheCourttotake"constructiveaction"ontheplagiarism
issue,theCourthassomedoubtsastoitsveracity.ForiftheStatementwasprimarilymeantforthisCourtsconsideration,
whywasthesamepublishedandreportedinthemediafirstbeforeitwassubmittedtothisCourt?Itismoreplausiblethat
theStatementwaspreparedforconsumptionbythegeneralpublicanddesignedtocapturemediaattentionaspartofthe
efforttogenerateinterestinthemostcontroversialgroundintheSupplementalMotionforReconsiderationfiledinthe
VinuyacasebyAtty.Roque,whoisrespondentscolleagueontheUPLawfaculty.
Inthisregard,theCourtfindsthattherewasindeedalackofobservanceoffidelityandduerespecttotheCourt,particularly
whenrespondentsknewfullywellthatthematterofplagiarismintheVinuyadecisionandthemeritsoftheVinuyadecision
itself,atthetimeoftheStatementsissuance,werestillbothsubjudiceorpendingfinaldispositionoftheCourt.Thesefacts
havebeenwidelypublicized.Onthispoint,respondentsallegethatatthetimetheStatementwasfirstdraftedonJuly27,
2010,theydidnotknowoftheconstitutionoftheEthicsCommitteeandtheyhadissuedtheStatementunderthebeliefthat

thisCourtintendedtotakenoactionontheethicschargeagainstJusticeDelCastillo.Still,therewasasignificantlapseof
timefromthedraftingandprintingoftheStatementonJuly27,2010anditspublicationandsubmissiontothisCourtin
earlyAugustwhentheEthicsCommitteehadalreadybeenconvened.Ifitistruethattherespondentsoutragewasfueled
bytheirperceptionofindifferenceonthepartoftheCourtthen,whenitbecameknownthattheCourtdidintendtotake
action,there wasnothingtoprevent respondents from recalibratingtheStatement totake thissuperveningevent into
accountintheinterestoffairness.
Speakingofthepublicitythiscasehasgenerated,welikewisefindnomeritintherespondentsrelianceonvariousnews
reportsandcommentariesintheprintmediaandtheinternetasproofthattheyarebeingunfairly"singledout."Onthe
contrary,thesesameannexestotheCommonComplianceshowthatitisnotenoughforonetocriticizetheCourttowarrant
theinstitutionofdisciplinary137orcontempt138action.ThisCourttakesintoaccountthenatureofthecriticismandweighs
thepossiblerepercussionsofthesameontheJudiciary.Whenthecriticismcomesfrompersonsoutsidetheprofessionwho
maynothaveafullgraspoflegalissuesorfromindividualswhosepersonalorotherinterestsinmakingthecriticismare
obvious,theCourtmayperhapstolerateorignorethem.However,whenlawprofessorsaretheoneswhoappeartohavelost
sightoftheboundariesoffaircommentaryandworse,wouldjustifythesameasanexerciseofcivilliberties,thisCourt
cannotremainsilentforsuchsilencewouldhaveagraveimplicationonlegaleducationinourcountry.
Withrespecttothe35respondentsnamedintheCommonCompliance,consideringthatthisappearstobethefirsttime
theserespondentshavebeeninvolvedindisciplinaryproceedingsofthissort,theCourtiswillingtogivethemthebenefitof
thedoubtthattheywereforthemostpartwellintentionedintheissuanceoftheStatement.However,itisestablishedin
jurisprudencethatwheretheexcessiveandcontumaciouslanguageusedisplainandundeniable,thengoodintentcanonly
bemitigating.AsthisCourtexpoundedinSalcedo:
Inhisdefense,AttorneyVicenteJ.Franciscostatesthatitwasnothisintentiontooffendthecourtortoberecreanttothe
respecttheretobut,unfortunately,therearehisphraseswhichneednofurthercomment.Furthermore,itisawellsettledrule
inallplaceswherethesameconditionsandpracticeasthoseinthisjurisdictionobtain,thatwantofintentionisnoexcuse
fromliability(13C.J.,45).Neitheristhefactthatthephrasesemployedarejustifiedbythefactsavaliddefense:
"Wherethematterisabusiveorinsulting,evidencethatthelanguageusedwasjustifiedbythefactsisnotadmissibleasa
defense.Respectforthejudicialofficeshouldalwaysbeobservedandenforced."(InreStewart,118La.,827;43S.,455.)
Saidlackorwantofintentionconstitutesatmostanextenuationofliabilityinthiscase,takingintoconsiderationAttorney
VicenteJ.Francisco'sstateofmind,accordingtohimwhenhepreparedsaidmotion.Thiscourtisdisposedtomakesuch
concession.However,inordertoavoidarecurrencethereofandtopreventothers,byfollowingthebadexample,from
takingthesamecourse,thiscourtconsidersitimperativetotreatthecaseofsaidattorneywiththejusticeitdeserves. 139
(Emphasessupplied.)
Thus,the35respondentsnamedintheCommonComplianceshould,notwithstandingtheirclaimofgoodfaith,bereminded
oftheirlawyerlyduty,underCanons1,11and13,togiveduerespecttothecourtsandtorefrainfromintemperateand
offensivelanguagetendingtoinfluencetheCourtonpendingmattersortodenigratethecourtsandtheadministrationof
justice.
WithrespecttoProf.Vasquez,theCourtfavorablynotesthedifferencesinhisCompliancecomparedtohiscolleagues.In
ourview,hewastheonlyoneamongtherespondentswhoshowedtruecandorandsinceredeferencetotheCourt.Hewas
abletogiveastraightforwardaccountofhowhecametosigntheStatement.Hewascandidenoughtostatethathis
agreementtotheStatementwasinprincipleandthatthereasonplagiarismwasa"fairtopicofdiscussion"amongtheUP
LawfacultypriortothepromulgationoftheOctober12,2010DecisioninA.M.No.10717SCwastheuncertainty
broughtaboutbyadivisionofopiniononwhetherornotwillfulordeliberateintentwasanelementofplagiarism.Hewas
likewise willing to acknowledge that he may have been remiss in failing to assess the effect of the language of the
Statementandcouldhaveusedmorecare.Hedidallthiswithouthavingtoretracthispositionontheplagiarismissue,
withoutdemandsforundeservedreliefs(aswillbediscussedbelow)andwithoutbaselessinsinuationsofdeprivationofdue
processorofprejudgment.ThisisallthatthisCourtexpectedfromrespondents,notforthemtosacrificetheirprinciplesbut
onlythattheyrecognizethattheythemselvesmayhavecommittedsomeethicallapseinthisaffair.WecommendProf.
VaquezforshowingthatatleastoneoftherespondentscangraspthetrueimportoftheShowCauseResolutioninvolving
them.Forthesereasons,theCourtfindsProf.VasquezsCompliancesatisfactory.

AsforProf.Lynch,inviewofhisManifestationthatheisamemberoftheBaroftheStateofMinnesotaand,therefore,not
under the disciplinary authority of this Court, he should be excused from these proceedings. However, he should be
remindedthatwhileheisengagedasaprofessorinaPhilippinelawschoolheshouldstrivetobeamodelofresponsible
andprofessionalconducttohisstudentsevenwithoutthethreatofsanctionfromthisCourt.Forevenifoneisnotboundby
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityformembersofthePhilippineBar,civilityandrespectamonglegalprofessionalsof
anynationalityshouldbeaspiredforunderuniversalstandardsofdecencyandfairness.
TheCourtsrulingonDeanLeonensComplianceregardingthechargeofviolationofCanon10.
Torecall,theShowCauseResolutiondirectedDeanLeonentoshowcausewhyheshouldnotbedisciplinarydealtwithfor
violationofCanon10,Rules10.01,10.02and10.03andforsubmittinga"dummy" that wasnot atrueandfaithful
reproductionofthesignedStatement.
InhisCompliance,DeanLeonenessentiallydeniesthatRestoringIntegrityIIwasnotatrueandfaithfulreproductionof
theactualsignedcopy,RestoringIntegrityI,becauselookingatthetextorthebody,therewerenodifferencesbetween
thetwo.HeattemptstodownplaythediscrepanciesinthesignaturepagesofthetwoversionsoftheStatement(i.e.,
RestoringIntegrityI and RestoringIntegrityII)byclaimingthatitisbutexpectedin"live"publicmanifestoswith
dynamicandevolvingpagesasmoreandmoresignatoriesaddtheirimprimaturthereto.Helikewisestressesthatheisnot
administrativelyliablebecausehedidnotmisrepresentthemembersoftheUPLawfacultywho" had agreedwiththe
RestoringIntegrityStatementproperand/orwhohadexpressedtheirdesiretobesignatoriesthereto." 140
Tobeginwith,theCourtcannotsubscribetoDeanLeonensimpliedviewthatthesignaturesintheStatementarenotas
significantasitscontents.Livepublicmanifestoornot,theStatementwasformallysubmittedtothisCourtataspecific
pointintimeanditshouldreflectaccuratelyitssignatoriesatthatpoint.ThevalueoftheStatementasaUPLawFaculty
Statementliespreciselyintheidentitiesofthepersonswhohavesignedit,sincetheStatementspersuasiveauthority
mainlydependsonthereputationandstatureofthepersonswhohaveendorsedthesame.Indeed,itisapparentfrom
respondentsexplanationsthattheirownbeliefinthe"importance"oftheirpositionsasUPlawprofessorspromptedthem
topubliclyspeakoutonthematteroftheplagiarismissueintheVinuyacase.
Further,inourassessment,thetruecauseofDeanLeonenspredicamentisthefactthathedidnotfromthebeginning
submitthesignedcopy,RestoringIntegrityI,tothisCourtonAugust11,2010and,instead,submittedRestoringIntegrityII
withitsretypedor"reformatted"signaturepages.Itwouldturnout,accordingtoDeanLeonensaccount,thattherewere
errorsintheretypingofthesignaturepagesduetolapsesofhisunnamedstaff.First,anunnamedadministrativeofficerin
thedeansofficegavethedeaninaccurateinformationthatledhimtoallowtheinclusionofJusticeMendozaasamongthe
signatoriesofRestoringIntegrityII.Second,anunnamedstaffalsofailedtotypethenameofAtty.Armovitwhenencoding
thesignaturepagesofRestoringIntegrityIIwheninfacthehadsignedRestoringIntegrityI.
TheCourtcanunderstandwhyforpurposesofpostingonabulletinboardorawebsiteasigneddocumentmayhavetobe
reformattedandsignaturesmaybeindicatedbythenotation(SGD).Thisisnotunusual.Wearewillingtoacceptthatthe
reformattingofdocumentsmeantforpostingtoeliminateblanksisnecessitatedbyvandalismconcerns.
However, what is unusual is the submission to a court, especially this Court, of a signed document for the Courts
considerationthatdidnotcontaintheactualsignaturesofitsauthors.Inmostcases,itistheoriginalsigneddocumentthatis
transmittedtotheCourtorattheveryleastaphotocopyoftheactualsigneddocument.DeanLeonenhasnotofferedany
explanationwhyhedeviatedfromthispracticewithhissubmissiontotheCourtofRestoringIntegrityIIonAugust11,
2010.TherewasnothingtopreventthedeanfromsubmittingRestoringIntegrityItothisCourtevenwithitsblanksand
unsignedportions.DeanLeonencannotclaimfearsofvandalismwithrespecttocourtsubmissionsforcourtemployeesare
accountableforthecareofdocumentsandrecordsthatmaycomeintotheircustody.Yet,DeanLeonendeliberatelychose
tosubmittothisCourtthefacsimilethatdidnotcontaintheactualsignaturesandhissilenceonthereasonthereforisin
itselfadisplayoflackofcandor.
Still,acarefulreadingofDeanLeonensexplanationsyieldtheanswer.Inthecourseofhisexplanationofhiswillingnessto
accepthisadministrativeofficersclaimthatJusticeMendozaagreedtobeindicatedasasignatory,DeanLeonenadmitsin
afootnotethatotherprofessorshadlikewiseonlyauthorizedhimtoindicatethemassignatoriesandhadnotinfactsigned
theStatement.Thus,ataroundthetimeRestoringIntegrityIIwasprinted,postedandsubmittedtothisCourt,atleastone
purportedsignatorytheretohadnotactuallysignedthesame.ContrarytoDeanLeonensproposition,thatisprecisely

tantamounttomakingitappeartothisCourtthatapersonorpersonsparticipatedinanactwhensuchpersonorpersonsdid
not.
WearesurprisedthatsomeonelikeDeanLeonen,withhisreputationforperfectionandstringentstandardsofintellectual
honesty,couldproffertheexplanationthat therewasnomisrepresentationwhenheallowedatleast onepersontobe
indicatedashavingactuallysignedtheStatementwhenallhehadwasaverbalcommunicationofanintenttosign.Inthe
caseofJusticeMendoza,whathehadwasonlyhearsayinformationthattheformerintendedtosigntheStatement.IfDean
LeonenwastrulydeterminedtoobservecandorandtruthfulnessinhisdealingswiththeCourt,weseenoreasonwhyhe
couldnothavewaiteduntilalltheprofessorswhoindicatedtheirdesiretosigntheStatementhadinfactsignedbefore
transmittingtheStatementtotheCourtasadulysigneddocument.Ifitwastrulyimpossibletosecuresomesignatures,such
asthat ofJusticeMendozawhohadtoleaveforabroad,thenDeanLeonenshouldhavejust resignedhimselftothe
signaturesthathewasabletosecure.
Wecannotimaginewhaturgentconcerntherewasthathecouldnotwaitforactualsignaturesbeforesubmissionofthe
StatementtothisCourt.Asrespondentsallasserted,theywereneitherpartiestonorcounselsintheVinuyacaseandthe
ethicscaseagainstJusticeDelCastillo.TheStatementwasneitherapleadingwithadeadlinenorarequiredsubmissionto
theCourt;rather,itwasavoluntarysubmissionthatDeanLeonencoulddoatanytime.
Insum,theCourtlikewisefindsDeanLeonensComplianceunsatisfactory.However,theCourtiswillingtoascribethese
isolatedlapsesinjudgmentofDeanLeonentohismisplacedzealinpursuitofhisobjectives.IndueconsiderationofDean
Leonensprofessedgoodintentions,theCourtdeemsitsufficienttoadmonishDeanLeonenforfailingtoobservefull
candorandhonestyinhisdealingswiththeCourtasrequiredunderCanon10.
Respondents requests for a hearing, for production/presentation of evidence bearing on the plagiarism and
misrepresentationissuesinG.R.No.162230andA.M.No.10717SC,andforaccesstotherecordsofA.M.No.10717
SCareunmeritorious.
IntheCommonCompliance,respondentsnamedthereinaskedforalternativereliefsshouldtheCourtfindtheirCompliance
unsatisfactory,thatis,thattheShowCauseResolutionbesetforhearingandforthatpurpose,theybeallowedtorequirethe
productionorpresentationofwitnessesandevidencebearingontheplagiarismandmisrepresentationissuesintheVinuya
case(G.R.No.162230)andtheplagiarismcaseagainstJusticeDelCastillo(A.M.No.10717SC)andtohaveaccessto
therecordsof,andevidencethatwerepresentedormaybepresentedintheethicscaseagainstJusticeDelCastillo.The
prayerforahearingandforaccesstotherecordsofA.M.No.10717SCwassubstantiallyechoedinDeanLeonens
separateCompliance.InProf.JuanBautistasCompliance,shesimilarlyexpressedthesentimentthat"[i]ftheRestoring
IntegrityStatementcanbeconsideredindirectcontempt,underSection3ofRule71oftheRulesofCourt,suchmaybe
punishedonlyafterchargeandhearing." 141Itisthisgroupofrespondentspremisethatthesereliefsarenecessaryforthem
tobeaccordedfulldueprocess.
TheCourtfindsthiscontentionunmeritorious.
Firstly, it would appear that the confusion as to the necessity of a hearing in this case springs largely from its
characterizationasaspecialcivilactionforindirectcontemptintheDissentingOpinionofJusticeSereno(totheOctober
19,2010ShowCauseResolution)andherreliancethereinonthemajorityspurportedfailuretofollowtheprocedurein
Rule71oftheRulesofCourtashermaingroundforoppositiontotheShowCauseResolution.
However,onceandforall,itshouldbeclarifiedthatthisisnotanindirectcontemptproceedingandRule71(whichrequires
ahearing)hasnoapplicationtothiscase.AsexplicitlyorderedintheShowCauseResolutionthiscasewasdocketedasan
administrativematter.
TherulethatisrelevanttothiscontroversyisRule139B,Section13,ondisciplinaryproceedingsinitiatedmotuproprioby
theSupremeCourt,towit:
SEC. 13. Supreme Court Investigators.In proceedings initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or in other
proceedingswhentheinterestofjusticesorequires,theSupremeCourtmayreferthecaseforinvestigationtotheSolicitor
GeneralortoanyofficeroftheSupremeCourtorjudgeofalowercourt,inwhichcasetheinvestigationshallproceedinthe

samemannerprovidedinsections6to11hereof,savethatthereviewofthereportofinvestigationshallbeconducted
directlybytheSupremeCourt.(Emphasissupplied.)
Fromtheforegoingprovision,itcannotbedeniedthataformalinvestigation,throughareferraltothespecifiedofficers,is
merely discretionary, not mandatory on the Court. Furthermore, it is only if the Court deems such an investigation
necessarythattheprocedureinSections6to11ofRule139Awillbefollowed.
Asrespondentsarefullyaware,ingeneral,administrativeproceedingsdonotrequireatrialtypehearing.Wehaveheldthat:
Theessenceofdueprocessissimplyanopportunitytobeheardor,asappliedtoadministrativeproceedings,anopportunity
toexplainone'ssideoranopportunitytoseekareconsiderationoftheactionorrulingcomplainedof.Whatthelaw
prohibitsisabsoluteabsenceoftheopportunitytobeheard,hence,apartycannotfeigndenialofdueprocesswherehehad
beenaffordedtheopportunitytopresenthisside.Aformalortrialtypehearingisnotatalltimesandinallinstances
essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
opportunitytoexplaintheirsideofthecontroversy.142(Emphasessupplied.)
Inrelationtobardisciplinecases,wehavehadtheoccasiontoruleinPenav.Aparicio 143that:
Disciplinaryproceedingsagainstlawyersaresuigeneris.Neitherpurelycivilnorpurelycriminal,theydonotinvolveatrial
ofanactionorasuit,butisratheraninvestigationbytheCourtintotheconductofoneofitsofficers.Notbeingintendedto
inflictpunishment,itisinnosenseacriminalprosecution.Accordingly,thereisneitheraplaintiffnoraprosecutortherein.
ItmaybeinitiatedbytheCourtmotuproprio.Publicinterestisitsprimaryobjective,andtherealquestionfordetermination
iswhetheror not the attorneyisstill a fit person tobe allowedthe privilegesas such.Hence,intheexerciseof its
disciplinarypowers,theCourtmerelycallsuponamemberoftheBartoaccountforhisactuationsasanofficeroftheCourt
withtheendinviewofpreservingthepurityofthelegalprofessionandtheproperandhonestadministrationofjusticeby
purgingtheprofessionofmemberswhobytheirmisconducthaveprovedthemselvesnolongerworthytobeentrustedwith
thedutiesandresponsibilitiespertainingtotheofficeofanattorney.Insuchposture,therecanthusbenooccasiontospeak
ofacomplainantoraprosecutor.144(Emphasessupplied.)
InQueryofAtty.KarenM.SilverioBuffe,FormerClerkofCourtBr.81,RomblonOntheProhibitionfromEngaging
inthePrivatePracticeofLaw,145wefurtherobservedthat:
[I]nseveralcases,theCourthasdisciplinedlawyerswithoutfurtherinquiryorresorttoanyformalinvestigationwherethe
factsonrecordsufficientlyprovidedthebasisforthedeterminationoftheiradministrativeliability.
InPrudentialBankv.Castro,theCourtdisbarredalawyerwithoutneedofanyfurtherinvestigationafterconsideringhis
actionsbasedonrecordsshowinghisunethicalmisconduct;themisconductnotonlycastdishonorontheimageofboththe
BenchandtheBar,butwasalsoinimicaltopublicinterestandwelfare.Inthisregard,theCourttookjudicialnoticeof
severalcaseshandledbytheerrantlawyerandhiscohortsthatrevealedtheirmodusoperandiincircumventingthepayment
oftheproperjudicialfeesfortheastronomicalsumstheyclaimedintheircases.TheCourtheldthatthosecasessufficiently
providedthebasisforthedeterminationofrespondents'administrativeliability,withoutneedforfurtherinquiryintothe
matterundertheprincipleofresipsaloquitur.
Also on the basis of this principle, we ruled in Richards v. Asoy, that no evidentiary hearing is required before the
respondentmaybedisciplinedforprofessionalmisconductalreadyestablishedbythefactsonrecord.
xxxx
Thesecasesclearlyshowthattheabsenceofanyformalchargeagainstand/orformalinvestigationofanerrantlawyerdo
notprecludetheCourtfromimmediatelyexercisingitsdiscipliningauthority,aslongastheerrantlawyerorjudgehasbeen
giventheopportunitytobeheard.Aswestatedearlier,Atty.Buffehasbeenaffordedtheopportunitytobeheardonthe
presentmatterthroughherletterqueryandManifestationfiledbeforethisCourt.146(Emphasessupplied.)
Undertherulesandjurisprudence,respondentsclearlyhadnorighttoahearingandtheirreservationofarighttheydonot
havehasnoeffectontheseproceedings.NeitherhavetheyshownintheirpleadingsanyjustificationforthisCourttocall

forahearinginthisinstance.Theyhavenotspecificallystatedwhat relevantevidence,documentaryortestimonial,they
intendtopresentintheirdefensethatwillnecessitateaformalhearing.
Instead, it would appear that they intend to present records, evidence, and witnesses bearing on the plagiarism and
misrepresentationissuesintheVinuyacaseandinA.M.No.10717SContheassumptionthatthefindingsofthisCourt
whichwerethebasesoftheShowCauseResolutionweremadeinA.M.No.10717SC,orwererelatedtotheconclusions
oftheCourtintheDecisioninthatcase.Thisistheprimaryreasonfortheirrequestforaccesstotherecordsandevidence
presentedinA.M.No.10717SC.
Thisassumptiononthepartofrespondentsiserroneous.Toillustrate,theonlyincidentinA.M.No.10717SCthatis
relevanttothecaseatbaristhefactthatthesubmissionoftheactualsignedcopyoftheStatement(orRestoringIntegrityI,
asDeanLeonenreferredtoit)happenedthere.Apartfromthatfact,itbearsrepeatingthattheproceedingsinA.M.No.10
717SC,theethicscaseagainstJusticeDelCastillo,isaseparateandindependentmatterfromthiscase.
TofindthebasesofthestatementsoftheCourtintheShowCauseResolutionthattherespondentsissuedaStatementwith
languagethattheCourtdeemsobjectionableduringthependencyoftheVinuyacaseandtheethicscaseagainstJusticeDel
Castillo, respondents need to go no further than the four corners of the Statement itself, its various versions, news
reports/columns(manyofwhichrespondentsthemselvessuppliedtothisCourtintheirCommonCompliance)andinternet
sourcesthatarealreadyofpublicknowledge.
ConsideringthatwhatrespondentsarechieflyrequiredtoexplainarethelanguageoftheStatementandthecircumstances
surroundingthedrafting,printing,signing,dissemination, etc.,ofitsvariousversions,theCourtdoesnotseehowany
witnessorevidenceintheethicscaseofJusticeDelCastillocouldpossiblyshedlightonthesefacts.Tobesure,thesefacts
arewithintheknowledgeofrespondentsandifthereisanyevidenceonthesemattersthesamewouldbeintheirpossession.
WefinditsignificantthatinDeanLeonensCompliancehenarratedhowasearlyasSeptember2010,i.e.,beforethe
DecisionofthisCourtintheethicscaseofJusticeDelCastilloonOctober12,2010andbeforetheOctober19,2010Show
CauseResolution,retiredSupremeCourtJusticeVicenteV.Mendoza,afterbeingshownacopyoftheStatementuponhis
returnfromabroad,predictedthattheCourtwouldtakesomeformofactionontheStatement.Bysimplyreadingahard
copyoftheStatement,areasonableperson,evenonewho"fundamentallyagreed"withtheStatementsprinciples,could
foreseethepossibilityofcourtactiononthesameonanimplicitrecognitionthattheStatement,asworded,isnotamatter
thisCourtshouldsimplyletpass.Thisbeliesrespondentsclaimthatitisnecessaryforthemtorefertoanyrecordor
evidenceinA.M.No.10717SCinordertodivinethebasesfortheShowCauseResolution.
Ifrespondentshavechosennottoincludecertainpiecesofevidenceintheirrespectivecompliancesorchosennottomakea
fulldefenseatthistime,becausetheywerecountingonbeinggrantedahearing,thatisrespondentsownlookout.Indeed,
lawprofessorsoftheirstaturearesupposedtobeawareoftheabovejurisprudentialdoctrinesregardingthenonnecessityof
ahearingindisciplinarycases.Theyshouldbeartheconsequenceoftherisktheyhavetaken.
Thus,respondentsrequestsforahearingandforaccesstotherecordsof,andevidencepresentedin,A.M.No.10717SC
shouldbedeniedforlackofmerit.
Afinalword
Inademocracy,membersofthelegalcommunityarehardlyexpectedtohavemonolithicviewsonanysubject,beitalegal,
politicalorsocialissue.Evenaslawyerspassionatelyandvigorouslypropoundtheirpointsofviewtheyareboundby
certainrulesofconduct forthelegal profession.ThisCourt iscertainlynotclaimingthatitshouldbeshieldedfrom
criticism.AlltheCourtdemandsisthesamerespectandcourtesythatonelawyerowestoanotherunderestablishedethical
standards.Alllawyers,whethertheyarejudges,courtemployees,professorsorprivatepractitioners,areofficersofthe
Courtandhavevoluntarilytakenanoath,asanindispensablequalificationforadmissiontotheBar,toconductthemselves
withgoodfidelitytowardsthecourts.Thereisnoexemptionfromthissworndutyforlawprofessors,regardlessoftheir
statusintheacademiccommunityorthelawschooltowhichtheybelong.
WHEREFORE,thisadministrativematterisdecidedasfollows:
(1)WithrespecttoProf.Vasquez,afterfavorablynotinghissubmission,theCourtfindshisCompliancetobesatisfactory.

(2)TheCommonComplianceof35respondents,namely,Attys.MarvicM.V.F.Leonen,FroilanM.Bacungan,PacificoA.
Agabin,MerlinM.Magallona,SalvadorT.Carlota,CarmeloV.Sison,PatriciaR.P.SalvadorDaway,DanteB.Gatmaytan,
TheodoreO.Te,FlorinT.Hilbay,JayL.Batongbacal,Evelyn(Leo)D.Battad,GwenG.DeVera,SolomonF.Lumba,
RommelJ.Casis,JoseGerardoA.Alampay,MiguelR.Armovit,ArthurP.Autea,RosaMariaJ.Bautista,MarkR.Bocobo,
DanP.Calica,TristanA.Catindig,SandraMarieO.Coronel,RosarioO.Gallo,ConcepcionL.Jardeleza,AntonioG.M.La
Via,CarinaC.Laforteza,JoseC.Laureta,RodolfoNoelS.Quimbo,AntonioM.Santos,GmeleenFayeB.Tomboc,
NicholasFelixL.Ty,EvalynG.Ursua,SusanD.VillanuevaandDinaD.Lucenario,isfoundUNSATISFACTORY.These
35respondentlawprofessorsareremindedoftheirlawyerlyduty,underCanons1,11and13oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility,togiveduerespecttotheCourtandtorefrainfromintemperateandoffensivelanguagetendingtoinfluence
theCourtonpendingmattersortodenigratetheCourtandtheadministrationofjusticeandwarnedthatthesameorsimilar
actinthefutureshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.
(3)TheseparateComplianceofDeanMarvicM.V.F.LeonenregardingthechargeofviolationofCanon10isfound
UNSATISFACTORY.HeisfurtherADMONISHEDtobemoremindfulofhisduty,asamemberoftheBar,anofficerof
theCourt,andaDeanandprofessoroflaw,toobservefullcandorandhonestyinhisdealingswiththeCourtandwarned
thatthesameorsimilaractinthefutureshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.
(4)Prof.Lynch,whoisnotamemberofthePhilippinebar,isexcusedfromtheseproceedings.However,heisreminded
thatwhileheisengagedasaprofessorinaPhilippinelawschoolheshouldstrivetobeamodelofresponsibleand
professionalconducttohisstudentsevenwithoutthethreatofsanctionfromthisCourt.
(5)Finally,respondentsrequestsforahearingandforaccesstotherecordsofA.M.No.10717SCaredeniedforlackof
merit.
SOORDERED.
A.M.No.08811CASeptember9,2008
RE:LETTEROFPRESIDINGJUSTICECONRADOM.VASQUEZ,JR.ONCAG.R.SPNO.103692[Antonio
Rosete,etal.v.SecuritiesandExchangeCommission,etal.]
DECISION
PERCURIAM:
TheJudiciary,whichisacclaimedasthefirmestpillarofourdemocraticinstitutions,isvestedbytheConstitutionwiththe
powertosettledisputesbetweenpartiesandtodeterminetheirrightsandobligationsunderthelaw.Forjudicialdecisions,
whichformpartofthelawoftheland,tobecredibleinstrumentsinthepeacefulanddemocraticresolutionofconflicts,our
courtsmustbeperceivedtobeand,infactbe,impartial,independent,competentandjust.Toaccomplishthisend,itis
imperativethatmembersoftheJudiciaryfromitshighestmagistratestoitshumblestemployeesadheretothestrictestcode
ofethicsandthehigheststandardsofproprietyanddecorum.Indeed,itisunfortunatethatoneofthecountryssecond
highestcourts,theCourtofAppeals,shouldbepresentlyembroiledinscandalandcontroversy.ItisthisCourtsbounden
dutytodeterminetheculpabilityorinnocenceofthemembersoftheJudiciaryinvolvedinthesaidcontroversyandto
discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to the canons of judicial ethics, which uphold integrity,
independence,impartiality,competenceandproprietyintheperformanceofofficialfunctions.
The present administrative matter arose from the Letter dated August 1, 2008 of Court of Appeals Presiding Justice
ConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.(PresidingJusticeVasquez),referringtothisCourtforappropriateactionthemuchpublicized
disputeandchargesofimproprietyamongthejusticesoftheCourtofAppeals(CA)involvedinCAG.R.SPNo.103692
entitled"AntonioRosete,etal.v.SecuritiesandExchangeCommission,etal."
Toassistinitsinvestigationofthissensitivematter,theCourtinitsResolutiondatedAugust4,2008constitutedathree
personpanel(the"PanelofInvestigators")composedofretiredJusticesoftheCourt;namely,Mme.JusticeCarolinaGrio
AquinoasChairperson,Mme.JusticeFleridaRuthP.RomeroandMr.JusticeRomeoJ.Callejo,Sr.asMembers.ThePanel
ofInvestigatorswastaskedtoinvestigatethe(a)allegedimproprietiesoftheactionsoftheJusticesoftheCourtofAppeals

inCAG.R.SPNo.103692(AntonioV.Rosete,etal.v.SEC,etal.);and(b)allegedrejectedofferorsolicitationofbribe
disclosedrespectivelybyMr.JusticeJoseSabioandMr.FrancisdeBorja.
Anarrationofrelevanteventsandfacts,asfoundbytheInvestigatingPanel,follows:
OnApril15,2008,JusticeBienvenidoL.Reyes(JusticeReyes),thenChairpersonoftheNinthDivisionoftheCA,filedan
applicationforleavefromMay15,2008toJune5,2008.1
InOfficeOrderNo.14908CMVdatedMay14,2008issuedbyPresidingJusticeVasquez,JusticeJoseC.Mendoza
(JusticeMendoza)wasdesignatedbytheRaffleCommitteeasActingChairmanoftheNinthDivisionduringtheabsenceof
JusticeReyes.ApartfromhisdutiesasregularseniormemberoftheFifthDivision,JusticeMendozawasauthorized"toact
onallcasessubmittedtotheNinthDivisionforfinalresolutionand/orappropriateaction,exceptponencia,fromMay15,
2008toJune5,2008oruntilJusticeReyesreportsbackforduty."Thesaidofficeorderlikewiseappliedtotheother
Division(s)whereJusticeReyeshad"participatedortookpartasregularmemberorinanactingcapacity." 2
OnMay29,2008,AntonioV.Rosete,ManuelM.Lopez,FelipeB.Alfonso,JesusP.Francisco,ChristianS.Monsod,
ElpidioL.Ibaez,andFrancisGilesB.Puno,asofficers,directorsand/orrepresentativesoftheManilaElectricCompany
(hereinaftertobecollectivelyreferredtoas"Meralco"),filedwiththeCourtofAppealsapetitionfor certiorari and
prohibitionwithprayerfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunctionandtemporaryrestrainingorder(TRO)against
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commissioner Jesus Enrique G. Martinez, Commissioner Hubert B.
Guevarra,andtheGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem(GSIS).3Asidefromtheapplicationforimmediateissuanceofa
TRO,petitionersprayedfortheissuanceofapreliminaryinjunctionthatshouldthereafterbedeclaredpermanent,aswellas
adeclarationofnullityoftheceaseanddesistandshowcauseordersissuedbytheSECthroughCommissionerMartinez.
ThepetitionwasreceivedbytheCAat10:49a.m.onMay29,2008anddocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.103692.
Onthesameday,petitionerssimultaneouslyfiledat10:48a.m.anurgentmotionforaspecialraffle.PresidingJustice
Vasquezgrantedthemotioninahandwrittennoteonthefaceoftheurgentmotion, 4andCAG.R.No.103692wasraffled
toJusticeVicenteQ.Roxas(JusticeRoxas). 5At3:10p.m.,theOfficeofPresidingJusticeVasquezreceivedaletterfrom
Atty.EstrellaC.Elamparo(Atty.Elamparo),ChiefLegalCounseloftheGSIS,requestingthererafflingofthecase"inthe
presenceofthepartiesintheinterestoftransparencyandfairness." 6At4:10p.m.onthatday,theGSISfiledanexparte
motiontodeferactiononanyincidentinthepetitionpendingtheresolutionoftheirmotionforthereraffleofthecase. 7
Atty.Elamparo,accompaniedbyAtty.OrlandoP.Polinar,alsooftheGSISLawOffice,personallyfiledtheurgentmotion
todeferactiononthepetitionpendingtheresolutionoftheirmotiontorerafflethecase.Sincethereceivingclerkofthe
CourtofAppealscouldnotassurethemthatthemotionwouldbetransmittedtotheCourtofAppealsDivision,Attys.
ElamparoandPolinarallegedlywenttotheofficeofJusticeRoxas"forthesolepurposeofpersonallyfurnishinghima
copy"ofthemotion.8Theyinitiallytalkedtoamaleclerkwhoreferredthemtooneofthelawyers,who,however,toldthem
thatitwasnotpossibleforthemtopersonallyhandacopyofthemotiontoJusticeRoxas.Thus,Attys.Elamparoand
Polinarleftacopyofthemotiontothestaffbutnoonewantedtosignandacknowledgereceiptofthecopy. 9
OnMay30,2008,JusticeReyesfiledanapplicationfortheextensionofhisleaveuntilJune6,2008. 10Inthemeantime,
JusticeMendoza,whohadbeendesignatedtoreplaceJusticeReyesduringthelattersabsence,informedJusticeRoxas
throughaletterthathe(JusticeMendoza)wasinhibitingfromthecaseonthegroundthatheusedtobealawyerofthe
Meralco.11 Hence, in an "Emergency Request for Raffle," Justice Roxas informed the Raffle Committee about the
inhibition.12
JusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.(JusticeSabio)wasassignedasActingChairmanoftheNinthDivisionbyraffle,"inlieuofJustice
Mendoza."13 At11:30a.m.,theofficeofJusticeMyrnaDimarananVidal(JusticeDimarananVidal)receivedanoticeof
emergencydeliberationwiththenewActingChairmanoftheSpecialNinthDivision,apparentlysentbyJusticeRoxas,
statingthatherpresenceandthatofJusticeSabio,Jr.were"indispensable"onaccountofthe"nationalinterest"involvedin
CAG.R.SPNo.103692.14
Meanwhile,Atty.Elamparo"receivedatelephonecallfromsomebodywhodidnotidentifyherselfbut(who)saidthatshe
hadimportant informationregardingtheMeralcocase." TheunidentifiedcallertoldAtty.Elamparothat"aTROwas
alreadybeingpreparedandthatcertainMeralcolawyershadinfactbeentalkingtoJusticeRoxas."ThecallerwarnedAtty.

ElamparoagainstJusticeRoxaswhohad"administrativecasesandwasverynotorious,"butwhenprodded,thecaller
wouldnotdisclosemoredetails.15
Atabout1:30p.m.alsoonMay30,2008,JusticeSabioreceivedatelephonecallinhischambersfromhisolderbrother,
ChairmanCamiloSabio(ChairmanSabio)ofthePresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernment(PCGG). 16 Chairman
Sabio informed his brother that he (Justice Sabio) had been named the "third member" of the division to which the
MERALCOGSIScasehadbeenraffled.JusticeSabiowassurprisedashehadnotyetbeen"officiallyinformed"aboutthe
matter.ChairmanSabiolikewiseinformedhimthataTROhadbeenprepared.ChairmanSabiothentriedtoconvince
JusticeSabio"oftherightnessofthestandoftheGSISandtheSEC,"andaskedhisbrothertohelptheGSIS,which
"representstheinterestofthepoorpeople."JusticeSabiotoldhisbrotherthathewould"voteaccordingto[his]conscience"
andthatthemostthathecoulddowas"tohavetheissuanceoftheTROandtheinjunctivereliefscheduledfororal
arguments,"atwhichtherespondents"mustbeabletoconvince"himthattheTROindeedhadnolegalbasis.
Inhissignedtestimony,17whichhereadbeforethePanelofInvestigators,ChairmanSabionarratedthecircumstancesof
thiscalltohisbrotheronMay30,2008.ItappearstohavebeenpromptedbyacallfromamemberoftheBoardofTrustees
ofGSIS.ToquotefromChairmanSabiostestimony:
LastMay30,2008IwasinDavaoCityAirportwithmywife,Marlene,waitingforour1:25P.M.PALflighttoManila.xxx
xxxxxx.
Aswewereboarding,IreceivedacallfromAtty.JesusI.Santos,aMemberoftheBoardofTrusteesofGSIS.Wehad
knowneachotherandhadbecomefriendssincebeforeMartialLawbecauseasChiefCounseloftheFederationofFree
Farmers(FFF)wewereopposingcounselinvariouscasesinBulacan.
AttorneySantosinformedmethatthedisputebetweentheGSISandMERALCOwasnowintheCourtofAppeals;and,
thatasamatteroffact,mybrother,JusticeSabio,waschairoftheDivisiontowhichthecasehadbeenassigned.Beinga
Trustee,AttorneySantosrequestedmetohelp.Ireadilywelcomedtherequestforhelpandthankedhim.Therewasno
mysteryabouthishavingknownoftheresultsoftherafflebecausethelawyersarenotifiedthereofandarepresentthereat.
AsaTrustee,AttorneySantosshouldbeconcernedandinvolved.AssuchitishisdutytoseekassistancefortheGSIS
wherehecouldlegitimatelyfindit.Hewasrightinseekingmyassistance.
IwasawareofthecontroversybetweentheGSISandMERALCO.Inessencethiswasinfactacontroversybetweenthe
longsufferingpublicandthemightyfinanciallyandpoliticallycontrollingownersofMERALCO.MERALCOisnot
onlyapublicutilitybutalsoamonopoly.Fortunately,GSIShadtakenupthecudgelsforthelongsufferingpublic,whoare
atthemercyofMERALCO.
xxxxxxxxx.
Immediately,ItriedtocontactJusticeSabio.ButduetothenoiseIcouldnothearhim.SoIwaiteduntilwewouldarrivein
Manila.
AswewereleavingtheAirport,IagaingotintouchwithJusticeSabio.After,heconfirmedthathewasinfactinthe
DivisiontowhichthepetitionofMERALCOhadbeenraffled.Iimpresseduponhimthecharacterandessenceofthe
controversy.IaskedhimtohelpGSISifthelegalsituationpermitted.Hesaidhewoulddecideaccordingtohisconscience.
Isaid:ofcourse.
xxxxxxxxx.
Onthesameday,May30,2008,GSISfiledanurgentexpartemotiontoinhibitJusticeRoxasfromCAG.R.No.SP
103692.18TheSpecialCasesSectionoftheCourtofAppealsreceivedacopyofthemotionat11:58a.m.19
ClaimingthattheTROwasissued"topreemptthehearing"scheduledintheafternoonofthatdaybeforetheSEC,the
GSISLawOffice,throughAtty.MarcialC.Pimentel,Jr.,setforthitsreasonforthemotionforinhibitionasfollows:
3.Unfortunately,reportshavereachedrespondentGSISthattheHonorableponentehasbeenincontactwithcertainlawyers
ofMERALCOandhasinfactalreadypreparedadraftresolutiongrantingtheTROwithoutaffordingrespondentsevena

summaryhearing.Therecordsofthiscasewas(sic),perinformation,immediatelytransmittedtotheHonorableponente
uponhisinstructions.Theworriesof therespondent wereexacerbated when it learned that there are supposedlytwo
administrativecasespendingagainsttheHonorableponente,bothofwhichinvolveallegationsofbiasandprejudice.
Itturnedout,however,thatatthattime,JusticeRoxashadnotyetbeenofficiallynotifiedbytheRaffleCommitteethatthe
casewasraffledtohim.20Moreover,contrarytotheallegationofAtty.Elamparothattherafflewasrigged,JusticeRoxas
hadnohandintheraffleproceeding,whichwashandledbytheDivisionchairedbyJusticeMarianodelCastillowiththe
useofa"foolproofLasVegastambiolo,likethelottomachine."21
JusticeRoxasbroughttotheofficeofJusticeSabio,forthelatterssignature,theTROwhichhehadprepared,already
signedbyhimselfandJusticeDimarananVidal.ConvincedoftheurgencyoftheTRO,JusticeSabiosigneditoncondition
thatthecasewillbesetfororalarguments.
Thus,at2:08p.m.onMay30,2008,22theSpecialNinthDivisioncomposedofJusticesSabio,Roxas,andDimarananVidal,
issuedtheResolutiongrantingtheTROprayedforbythepetitionersanddirectingtherespondentstofiletheirrespective
comments(notamotiontodismiss)tothepetitionwithintendaysfromnotice,withthepetitionersgivenfivedaysfrom
receiptofthatcommentwithinwhichtofiletheirreply.TheSpecialNinthDivisionalsosetthehearingontheapplication
fortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunctionfor10:00a.m.onJune23and24,2008.InthesameResolution,parties
weredirectedtofiletheirrespectivememorandumofauthoritiesinconnectionwiththeapplicationforawritofpreliminary
injunctiontogetherwiththeircomments/reply.Afterthepartieshadfiledtheirmemorandumofauthoritiesrelativetothe
applicationforawritofpreliminaryinjunction,theprayerforthesaidwritwouldbeconsideredsubmittedforresolution
"fortyfive(45)daysfrompromulgationofthisResolution."TheSECreceivedacopyoftheResolutionat4:03p.m.onthat
day.23
ForJusticeRoxas,theissuanceoftheTROwasanimplieddenialofthemotionforinhibitionfiledagainsthim.Therewas
noneedtoputinwritingtheactiononthemotionforinhibition.24
At3:00p.m.,theSpecialCasesSectionoftheCourtofAppealsreceivedtheUrgentMotiontoLiftTemporaryRestraining
OrderandToHoldItsEnforcementinAbeyancefiledbytheGSIS. 25 JusticeRoxasdidnotactontheUrgentMotion
becausehedidnotconsideritmeritorious.26
OnMay31,2008,JusticeSabioreceivedacellularphonecallfromMr.FrancisDeBorja(Mr.DeBorja),apersonhehad
lostcontactwithforalmostayearalready.27Mr.DeBorjagreetedhimwith:"Mabuhayka,Justice."WhenJusticeSabio,Jr.
askedMr.DeBorjawhyhesaidthat,Mr.DeBorjatoldhimthattheMakatiBusinessClubwashappywithhishaving
signedtheTRO,towhichJusticeSabioretorted,"Ivotedaccordingtomyconscience."
OnJune5,2008,theGSISLawOfficereceivedaletterdatedJune2,2008ofPresidingJusticeVasquez,Jr.informingGSIS
ChiefLegalCounsel,Atty.Elamparo,thattheCourtofAppealscouldnotgrantherrequestforthererafflingofCAG.R.
SPNo.103692"inthepresenceofthepartiesintheinterestoftransparencyandfairness,"asthecasehadbeenraffledin
accordancewiththeprocedureundertheIRCA.28
OnJune10,2008,JusticeB.L.Reyesreportedbacktowork.29
OnJune11,2008,at3:50p.m., 30theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG),appearingfortheSEC,filedamanifestation
and motion praying for the admission of the comment (to the petition) attached thereto, as well as the advance and
additionalcopiesofthememorandumofauthorities.
OnJune12,2008,at4:53p.m.,theGSISfileditscomment/oppositiontothepetitioninCAG.R.SPNo.103692, 31aswell
asitsmemorandumofauthorities.
OnJune16,2008,theDivisionClerkofCourt,Atty.TeresitaCustodio(Atty.Custodio),deliveredtoJusticeReyesthe
cartillaoftheMeralcocase,andinformedhimthatahearingontheprayerfortheissuanceofapreliminaryinjunctionhad
beenscheduledat10:00a.m.onJune23and24,2008. 32However,onthesameday,theDivisionClerkofCourtcameback
toretrievethecartillauponinstructionsofJusticeSabio.JusticeReyesinstructedhisstafftoreturnthecartillaandwhenhe
askedtheDivisionClerkofCourtwhyshewasretrievingit,shesaidthatJusticeSabio"demanded"thatitbereturnedback
tohim."Personallyaffronted"bythe"domineeringandsuperiorstance"ofJusticeSabio,JusticeReyes"readandreread

Secs.1,2(d)&5,RuleVI(ProcessofAdjudication)"untilhewassatisfiedthatheshouldsitasDivisionChairmaninthe
Meralcocase.33
OneitherJune17or18,2008,JusticeSabiorequestedtherolloofCAG.R.SPNo.103692fromJusticeRoxassothathe
couldstudythecasebeforethehearing. 34JusticeRoxasaskedhimwhetherJusticeReyeswouldpresideoverthehearing.
Justice Sabioexplained the reason why he, not Justice Reyes, shouldpreside. Justice Roxas promised toinstruct the
DivisionClerkofCourttosendtherolloovertoJusticeSabio.Thenextday,theDivisionClerkofCourttoldJusticeSabio
thatthe rollo waswithJusticeReyes.Whenthe rollo waseventuallytransmittedtoJusticeSabio,theDivisionClerkof
CourtaskedhimwhethertherolloshouldbewithJusticeReyes.JusticeSabioexplainedwhytherolloshouldbewithhim.
OnJune18,2008,petitionersfiledamotionforanextensionoffivedaysoruntilJune23,2008withinwhichtofiletheir
consolidatedmemorandaofauthoritiesandreplytothecommentoftheSEC.35
OnJune19,2008,MERALCOfiledan exparte manifestationtogetherwiththeirreplytothecommentoftheGSIS. 36
Meanwhile,JusticeB.L.ReyesaskedAtty.Custodiotoreporton"whattranspiredbetweenherandJusticeSabio"whenshe
returnedthecartilla."Tearyeyed,"Atty.Custodiobeggedofffrommakingareport.37
JusticeReyesdecidedtoconsultthePresidingJustice"toavoidanuglyconfrontation"withtheJusticesonthe"highly
politicizedcaseinvolvinggiantsofthePhilippinesociety."HeexplainedtothePresidingJusticehisunderstandingofthe
relevantIRCArulesand"theactualpracticeinsimilarsituationsinthepast."ThePresidingJusticepromisedtotalkwith
JusticeSabioand,"forthesakeoftransparencyandfuturereference,"JusticeReyesrequestedpermissiontowritean
inquiryonthematter.38
Onthesameday,JusticeReyeswrotePresidingJusticeVasquezaletter 39callingtheattentionofJusticeEdgardoP.Cruz
("JusticeCruz"),ChairpersonoftheCommitteeonRules,tothe"dilemma"astowhobetweenhimandJusticeSabioshould
"receive"CAG.R.SPNo.103692.JusticeReyesposedthesequestionsbeforethePresidingJustice:
WillthecaseremainwithJusticeJoseSabio,Jr.asActingChairmanoftheSpecial9thDivisionandwhoparticipatedinthe
initialResolutionofthecase?
Willthecasereverttotheregular9thDivisionwiththeundersignedasChairman?
ForJusticeReyes,the"dilemma"wasengenderedbythisprovisionofSection2ofRuleVIoftheIRCA:
(2)When,inanoriginalactionorpetitionforreview,anyoftheseactionsorproceedings,namely:(1)givingduecourse;
(2)grantingwritofpreliminaryinjunction;(3)grantingnewtrial;and(4)grantingexecutionpendingappealhavebeen
taken,thecaseshallremainwiththeJusticetowhomthecaseisassignedforstudyandreportandtheJusticeswho
participatedtherein,regardlessoftheirtransfertootherDivisionsinthesamestation.
ThehearingontheapplicationforpreliminaryinjunctionhavingbeenscheduledforJune23and24,2008,JusticeReyes
consideredit"necessary"thattheissuesberesolvedbeforethatdate.Moreover,thereferralofthecontroversytothe
PresidingJusticewouldgivehimsufficienttimetoseriouslystudythecasebeforethehearing. 40
On June 20,2008, PresidingJustice Vasquez referred the letter of Justice Reyesto Justice Cruz, Chairperson of the
CommitteeonRules,noting"someurgencyinvolvedasthehearingofthecaseisonMonday,June23,2008." 41
Onthatsameday,JusticeCruzwroteJusticeReyesaletter 42quotingSection2(d),RuleVIoftheIRCAandstatingthatthe
"[i]ssuanceofaTROisnotamongtheinstanceswheretheJusticeswhoparticipatedinthecaseshallremaintherein."
Hence,JusticeCruzopinedthat"[n]otwithstandingtheissuanceoftheTRO(notwritofpreliminaryinjunction),thecase
revertedtotheregularChairman(JusticeReyes)oftheNinthDivisionuponhisreturn."JusticeReyesreceivedacopyof
theletterofJusticeCruzintheafternoonofthatday.43
Duringthehearingsofthiscase,JusticeCruzexplainedhisopinionbeforethePanel.Heopinedthatthemotiontoliftthe
TROisnotamotionforreconsiderationbecauseRule52oftheRulesofCourtstatesthatamotionforreconsiderationmay
befiledwithrespecttoadecisionorafinalresolution.ATROisnotafinalresolutionbutaninterlocutoryorder.Moreover,
sincethesubjectofthehearingonJune23,2008wasontheapplicationforpreliminaryinjunction,JusticeSabiohadno

righttoparticipateinthehearingbecauseasanActingChairman,hisauthoritywasonlytoactonthemotiontoliftthe
TRO.UndertheIRCA,thepositionofJusticeSabioinvokedtheexceptiontothegeneralruleintheIRCA.However,the
settledprincipleistoconstruearulestrictlyagainsttheexception.TheparticipationofJusticeSabiointhehearingonJune
23,2008wasa"passport"toparticipationinthedecisionmakingprocess,inviolationoftheIRCA. 44
JusticeReyeshavingconsultedwithhim,thePresidingJusticereferredthemattertoJusticeSabiowhointurn,opinedthat
"atemporaryrestrainingorderispartoftheinjunctiverelieforatleastitsinitialactionsuchthatheshouldbetheoneto
chairtheDivision."45InhisofficeafterthatconsultationwiththePresidingJustice,JusticeReyesfoundthattheDivision
ClerkofCourthadgivenhimacopyofthe cartilla justincasehewouldpresideoverthehearing.Intheevening,the
PresidingJusticecalledupJusticeReyestoinformhimthatJusticeSabio"insistedthathewouldpresideoverthehearingof
thecase,"andthattheopinionofJusticeCruz,whowas"junior"toJusticeSabio"wasnobetterthanhisownopinion." 46
Itturnedoutthat,uponreceiptofacopyoftheletterofJusticeCruz,JusticeSabiotoldthePresidingJusticebytelephone
thathedisagreedwiththeopinionofJusticeCruz"becausehedidnotsigninanofficialcapacityasChairmanoftheRules
Committee,butinhispersonalcapacity"andhence,theopinionofJusticeSabio"wasasgoodashis,asinfactI(Justice
Sabio,Jr.)amevenmoreseniorthanhe." 47JusticeSabiotoldthePresidingJusticethathe"smelledsomethingfishy"about
themovetotransferthecasetotheNinthDivisionespeciallybecauseJusticeReyesdidnotinformhimaboutitdespitethe
factthattheywereseatedtogetheronthreeoccasions.
JusticeSabio"smelledsomethingfishy"becauseacoupleorsoweeksago,heattendedaChairpersonsmeetingregarding
theleakageoftheponenciaofJusticeBato,withJusticeReyesasChairpersonandJusticeJoseMendozaasseniormember.
ThemeetingwascalledbecausepriortothepromulgationofthedecisionofJusticeBato,thelosingpartyalreadyfileda
motionfortheinhibitionoftheponente.AccordingtoJusticeSabioinformationonthedecisioncouldnothavebeenleaked
byJusticeBatobutbyamemberoftheDivision.48
ThePresidingJustice"didnotdoanythinganymore"topreventan"unpalatable"situationatthescheduledJune23,2008
hearing,notwithstandingthe"conflictingopinions"ofJusticesReyesandSabio.The"personalview"ofthePresiding
Justicewasatthetime"withJusticeCruz"butJusticeSabiohada"differentinterpretation."NeitherdidthePresiding
JusticesuggestthattheRulesCommitteebeconvenedbecausetheCommitteethenhadonlytwomembers.Hefeltthatit
wouldbe"better"ifJusticesReyesandSabio"couldsettleitbetweenthemselves."ThePresidingJusticewasseeingthe
Justices"practically"everydaybecausehedidnotwant"thesethingstoblowup."However,neitherdiditenterthemindof
thePresidingJusticethatthehearingonJune23couldbereset.HadheknownthattherewasamotiontoinhibitJustice
Roxas,hewouldhavechangedhisposition"thatitshouldbetheSabiogroup."49
AlsoonJune20,2008,theGSISrequestedpermissiontoconductapowerpointpresentationduringthehearing. 50Likewise
theSEC,throughtheOSGprayedthatitbeallowedtheuseofMicrosoftPowerpointApplicationattheJune23and24,
2008hearings.51JusticeRoxasdidnotactonthemotions.
OnJune21,2008,JusticeSabiocametoknowthatitwastheDivisionchairedbyJusticeReyesthatwouldhandlethecase
onaccountoftheopinionofJusticeCruz.52
InthemorningofJune23,2008,JusticeSabioconsultedwithJusticeMartinVillarama,Jr.("JusticeVillarama")who
advisedhim,"innouncertainterms,"thathisstandwas"correct"andthatheshouldremaininthecase. 53JusticeVillarama
saidthatthecaseshouldremainwiththeSpecialNinthDivision"regardlessofthetransferofthe ponente totheEighth
DivisionbecauseofthependingmotiontoliftTRO,"whichtheSpecialNinthDivisionshouldresolve"followingthe
generalrulethatwhenadecisionorresolutionisrenderedbyadivision,amotionforreconsiderationthereofshouldbe
acteduponbyalltheMembersofthatdivision,whetherregularorspecial,whichparticipatedintherenditionofthe
decisionorresolution,exceptincaseofdeath,retirementorresignationofsuchMember." 54
Thatmorning,JusticeRoxasalsoconsultedJusticeVillarama.Thelattertoldtheformerthatsincetherewasamotiontolift
theTRO,JusticeRoxasshouldfirstruleonthemotion.HealsoadvisedJusticeRoxastoinhibithimselffromthecase,as
theremightbeaproblem(maginhibitkabakamagkaproblema).JusticeRoxastoldJusticeVillaramathathewouldfollow
his"suggestion."55
JusticeReyesalsowenttotheofficeofJusticeVillaramatotellhimofhis"strongconvictionthattheissuanceofaTROis
notamongtheinstancesprovidedinSec.2(d),RuleVIwhenthecaseshallremainwiththoseJusticeswhoparticipatedin

thecaseregardlessoftheirtransfertootherdivision(s)."JusticeVillaramatoldJusticeReyesthatperhis"understanding
andinterpretationofsaidprovision,xxxthecaseshouldremainwiththeSpecialNinthDivision." 56
At9:50a.m.,theOfficeoftheDivisionClerkofCourtcalledJusticeReyestoinformhimthatthepartiesandtheircounsels
were already in the hearing room. Justice Reyes informed the caller that he could not preside as Justice Sabio had
"apparentlyhardenedhisposition"andhewantedtoavoidan"uglyspectacle."Hisnameplatewasdisplayedinthehearing
roombutJusticeSabiomovedtoanotherhearingroom. 57Allegedly,theremovalofthenameplateofJusticeReyeswasthe
talkoftheCourtofAppealsforweeks.58
Villaraza Cruz Marcelo and Angangco entered its appearance as counsel for Meralco. 59 At the hearing, Justice Sabio
presidedwithJusticesRoxasandDimarananVidalinattendance.JusticeRoxas,theponente,didnotaskasinglequestion.60
NotoneoftheJusticesinattendancebroughtupthemotionforinhibitionfiledbytheGSISagainstJusticeRoxas. 61Inopen
court,thepartiesinCAG.R.SPNo.103692agreedtosubmit,within15days,simultaneousmemorandaontheinjunctive
reliefprayedforbythepetitioners,afterwhichtheapplicationforpreliminaryinjunctionwouldbedeemedsubmittedfor
resolution.62
OnJune25,2008,orabouttwodaysaftertheseparateconversationsofJusticeVillaramwithJusticesSabioandReyes,the
PresidingJusticealsoconsultedJusticeVillaramaabouttheletterqueriesofJusticesRoxasandReyesonwhichDivision
shouldresolve"thematterofinjunctiverelieforissuethedecision"inCAG.R.SPNo.103692. 63
ThePresidingJusticeissuedOfficeOrderNo.19608CMVreconstitutingtheCommitteeonRulesanddesignatingJustice
CruzastheChairperson,withJusticesRebeccaDeGuiaSalvador,Reyes,HakimAbdulwahid,andNoelG.Tijam,as
members.64TheCommitteeonRuleswastaskedtoproposeamendmentstotheIRCAonorbeforeAugust15,2008"for
submissionandadoptionoftheCourtenbanc."(TheofficeorderwaslateramendedbyOfficeOrderNo.19608CMVon
August4,2008toincludeasmembersJusticesMarioL.GuariaIII,LucasP.Bersamin,andTeresitaDyLiaccoFlores. 65)
TheRulesCommitteeusedtobecomposedofonlythreemembers,namely:JusticesCruz,Abdulwahid,andRoberto
Barrios,nowdeceased,asmembers,withJusticeCruzaschairperson. 66
ItwasalsoonJune25,2008thatPresidingJusticeVasquezissuedOfficeOrderNo.20008CMVstatingthat,inviewof
the retirement of Justices Enrique Lanzanas, Lucenito N. Tagle, Agustin S. Dizon, and Rodrigo Cosico, and the
appointmentsofJusticesRubenC.AysonandEdgardoL.delosSantos,theDivisionswouldhaveanewcomposition
effectiveJuly4,2008.67 Underthatofficeorder,JusticeSabiobecametheChairmanoftheSixthDivision,withJustice
DimarananVidal as a member. Justice Reyes became the Chairman of the Eighth Division, with Justices Roxas and
ApolinarioD.Bruselas,Jr.("JusticeBruselas")asmembers.
OnJune29,2008,JusticeReyeswentonofficialleaveofabsencetouseabusinessclassairplaneticket toSydney,
Australia that he had won in an APT Golf Tournament in January 2008. He was still on official leave when the
reorganizationoftheCourtofAppealstookplaceonJuly4,2008.68
OnJuly1,2008,JusticeRoxastoldJusticeSabiothathedidnotattendthe AccesstoCourts(sic)summitonJune30and
July1,2008attheCourtofAppealsAuditoriumbecausehewasbusywiththeMeralcocase.JusticeSabiowastakenaback
becauseatthattimethepartieshadnotyetsubmittedtheirmemoranda. 69
Thatsameafternoon,Mr.DeBorjaagaincalledupJusticeSabio,seekingtomeetwithhimforan"important"matter.
BecauseJusticeSabiohad68p.m.classesattheAteneoLawSchool,theyagreedtomeetafterhisclassesbutnotforlong
becausehiswifeandhisdaughter,Atty.SilviaJoSabiowhoisanAttorneyVIintheOfficeoftheChiefJustice, 70wouldbe
waitingforhim.71AccordingtoJusticeSabio,theconversationatthatmeetingwithFrancisdeBorjawentasfollows:
17.Bythetimemyclasswasfinishedat8pm,Mr.DeBorjawasalreadywaitingformeattheLobbyLoungeofthe3rd
FlooroftheAteneoLawSchool.Hisfirstwordstomewere: AlammoJusticekungsinoangkasamakosakotse?Si
ManoloLopez.Thenhesaid:Noongtinatawagankitaatsinabikong"MabuhaykaJustice,"siManoloLopezangkatabiko
noon.NasaAmerikasiya,kayaakonalangangpumuntaditoparamakiusapsayo.Alammo,itongkasonaitoisamatter
oflifeanddeathfortheLopezes.AndalammonamanwhattheMarcosesdidtothem,whichisbeingdonenowbythe
Arroyos.

At that point hementionedtheimpassebetweenJusticeBienvenidoReyesandmyself.Hesaid: Alamnamingmay

problemakayoniJusticeReyestungkolsachairmanship.
Iwassurprisedhowhecametoknowaboutit,asthiswasaninternalmatteroftheCourtofAppealswhichonlyhappened
fairlyrecentlyandmanyassociatejusticesoftheCAwerenotevenawareofthis.Justthesame,Iexplainedmystandand
whyIcouldnotrelinquishthechairmanshiptoJusticeReyes.
Hethenreplied: Alammo,JusticeangopinionditoniNonongCruzayichallengeangstandmo.Kayalang,mayroon
namangnagsabinaitmightbecomemessy.
Thenhebraggedtome:AkodinangresponsiblesapagrecommendatpaghirengVillarazaLawFirm.
Thenheexplainedthathewastheretooffermeawinwinsituation.
Hesaid:Justice,mayroonkamingP10million.Ready.JustgivewaytoJusticeReyes.
ThenIsaid:Bakitganun.Nakasisigurosilasakanya,saakinhindi?
Hesaid:Maskomportablelangsilasakanya.
Atthatpoint,Iwasshockedthathehadaverylowregardforme.Hewastreatingmeliketherewasapriceonmyperson.
Icouldnotdescribemyfeelings.Iwasstunned.Butatthesametime,hindikorinmagawangbastusinsiyabecauseIhad
knownhimsince1993andthiswasthefirsttimethathehadevertreatedmelikethis,orshownthathebelievedIcouldbe
bought.
SoIjusttoldhim:Francis,Icannotinconscienceagreetothat.
Hisanswerwas:Sabikongasakanila,mahirapkatalagapapayag.KasimayanakiyangOpusDei.Numerarypa.
Atthispoint,Ijustwantedtoleave,soItoldhimIcouldnotstaylong.Itoldhimmywifeandlawyerdaughterwere
waiting.
Eventhen,hewasalreadyinsistent.HispartingwordsbeforeIleftwere:Justthinkaboutit,Justice.72
Atthattime,Mr.DeBorjawascarryinga"sealed"brownpaperbag,whichhewashandling"asifsomethingimportant"
wasinside.However,JusticeSabiodidnotknowifthebagcontainedP10million.73
Inhiscar,JusticeSabiotoldhiswifeandhisdaughter,SilviaJo,abouttheofferofMr.DeBorjaforMeralco. 74
InhisaffidavitsubmittedtothePanelofInvestigators,Mr.DeBorjadescribeshimselfasabusinessman,adealmaker,and
projectpackager.OnJuly1,2008,heinvitedJusticeSabiofordinner"totouchbase"andforchismisabouttheMERALCO
GSIScase.AsthelatterwouldhaveeveningclassesattheAteneoLawSchool,andhiswifeanddaughterwouldbewaiting
intheircarafterhisclasses,theyjustagreedtomeetatthelobbyloungeoftheSchool.WhatMr.DeBorjaknewaboutthe
MERALCOcaseallegedlycamefromnewsreportsbuthewasinterestedinthenewsbecauseheisa"confirmedfree
enterpriser."Moreover,DeBorjathoughtthattherewas"[n]othinglikehearingthingsdirectlyfromthehorsesmouth." 75
WhenMr.DeBorjaandJusticeSabiomet,Mr.DeBorjaaverredhewasindeedcarryingabag,notanexpensivelooking
luggage.AfterparkinghiscarattheRockwellbasement,hetooktheescalator,intendingtowalkoutofthemall.Onhis
way,hepassedbytheKennethColeshopand,sinceitwasstillearly,helookedinandsawaTshirtheliked.Heboughtthe
Tshirt,whichhebroughtbeforethePanelofInvestigatorsinthegrey"KennethColeReaction"bag.Thephotographsof
thebagandtheTshirtcostingP1,650.00aremarkedExhibits"ADeBorja"and"A1DeBorja"andattachedtothe rollo
ofA.M.No.08811CA,whilethephotographofthereceiptissuedbytheKennethColeBoutique,markedasExhibit"A
2DeBorja,"showsthatthepurchasewasmadeonJuly1,2008at19:47.HestressedthebagdidnotcontainP10million.
BeforethePanel,JusticeSabioclaimedthatthebagMr.DeBorjabroughtduringthehearingwasnotthebagthatMr.De
BorjawascarryingwhenJusticeSabiosawhimonJuly1,2008.WhatMr.DeBorjaallegedlybroughtwithhimtothe

lobbyloungeoftheAteneoLawSchoolwasabrownbagwithpaperhandle"about2/3(oftheKennethColebag)insize."
JusticeSabiowastoldbythePanelthatitcouldbethesubjectofrebuttalevidencebuthedidnotpresentsuchevidence.
AccordingtoMr.DeBorja,ManoloLopez(Mr.Lopez),theownerofMERALCOwhosewifewasamemberofMarthas
VineyardjustlikeMr.DeBorjaswife,wasalsoanacquaintanceofMr.DeBorjaattheAteneogradeschool.Mr.Lopez
didnotaskhim(Mr.DeBorja)tocontactJusticeSabio.AtapartywhereMr.DeBorjametMr.Lopez,Mr.DeBorja
informedhimthatheknewJusticeSabiobutMr.Lopezdidnotsayanything.
Mr.DeBorjadeniedhavingofferedP10milliontoJusticeSabio.Instead,heclaimedthatJusticeSabioinformedhimthat
thegovernmenthasofferedhim(JusticeSabio)moneyandapromotiontotheSupremeCourttofavorGSIS.WhenMr.De
BorjaaskedwhatwouldittakeforJusticeSabiotoresistthegovernmentsoffer,JusticeSabioallegedlyreplied:"Fifty
Million."76HeallegedthatitwasJusticeSabiowhocalledupafterthatJuly1,2008meetingto"feel"hisreactiontothe
"P50millionsolicitation."JusticeSabioaskedhim:"O,ano,kumusta,anoangnangyayari."
Mr.DeBorjaadmittedhavinggivenP300,000toJusticeSabio,some15yearsago,asabalatobecausehecametovaluethe
friendshipofJusticeSabiothatdevelopedwhilethelatterwashelpingtheRoafamilyinabusinesstransaction.Mr.De
Borjaearned"morethanP25million"althoughhereceivedonlyP3millionasdownpaymentoutofthesaleof100hectares
oftheRoaproperty.Hegavethe balato of10%oftheP3milliontoJusticeSabioincashattheRoaownedbankin
CagayandeOro.SincetheRoashadalotof"legalproblems,"JusticeSabiorenderedadviceandconsultationatthetime
thathewasanRTCjudgeinCagayandeOro.AfterthepromotionofJusticeSabiototheCourtofAppeals,Mr.DeBorja
invitedhimfordinner.TheywouldseeeachotheratgettogethersoftheRoaswithwhomMr.DeBorjaisrelated,evenata
gatheringinthehouseofMr.DeBorjasmother.77
OnJuly2,2008,JusticeSabiothatinformedPresidingJusticeVasquezthathe(JusticeSabio)wasofferedabribe(whichhe
rejected)tohavehimoustedfromtheMeralcocase.ThenewsallegedlyshockedthePresidingJustice.JusticeSabioalso
wenttoJusticeVillaramawhowasboth"shockedandamused."JusticeSabio.didnottellthemwhothe"offeror"was.
However,adayortwolater,JusticeSabiofoundoutthatMr.DeBorjahadcalledtheirmutualfriend,Mrs.EvelynClavano,
whowasalsoshockedthatMr.DeBorjahad"thegalltoaskher"toconvinceJusticeSabiotoacceptthebribe. 78
AlthoughJusticeSabiotoldthePresidingJusticethattheofferofP10milliontoaJusticewas,inthewordsofJusticeSabio,
bastusannaito,andheknewthatbribingaJusticeisacriminalact,thePresidingJusticedidnothingbecausehecouldnot
"adviseafellowJusticeonwhattodo"theJusticewouldknowwhatheshoulddo.Neitherdidhethinkofconsulting
JusticesRoxasandDimarananVidalonthechairmanshipimpasse. 79
OnJuly3,2008,tostopMr.DeBorjafrompesteringhimwithphonecallsandtextmessages,JusticeSabiocalledupMr.
DeBorjawhotoldhim:MabutinamanJusticetumawagka,kasimalapitnaangdeadlinengsubmissionngmemorandum.
Pinagisipanmobangmabutiangoffernamin?Kasisayangdinkungdimotatanggapin,Kasikahitaabotitongkasosa
SupremeCourt,matatalokadin.SayanglangyungP10million.Bakasisihinkapangmgaanakmo. Shockedbywhathe
heard,JusticeSabiosaid"No."SinceMr.DeBorjadidnotseemtounderstandwhyhekeptsaying"No,"JusticeSabio
explainedtohim:IfIacceptthat,myconsciencewillbothermeforever.HowcanIfacemywifeandtwodaughters?Onea
lawyerandtheotheraNumerarymemberofOpusDei?Andbesides,howcanIreconcilemybeingamemberofPHILJAs
EthicsandJudicialConductDepartment;beingalectureroftheMCLE;andbeingaprebarrevieweroftheAteneoLaw
SchoolonLegalandJudicialEthics?Mr.DeBorjaretorted:Walanamankamingpinapagawasaiyonaillegal,eh.Thenhe
added:YouknowJustice,aftertwoorthreeweeks,makakalimutannaitongmgatao.MeronnamandiyangmgaAtenista
natumatanggap.JusticeSabiosaid:Idontknowaboutthem,butIamdifferent.Mr.DeBorjathensaid:Well,ifyouwill
notaccept,wewillbeforcedtolookforotherways.Tothis,JusticeSabiosaid:Buttheywillhavetocontendwithme.In
parting,Mr.DeBorjasaid:Justice,nomatterwhat,saludotalagaakosaiyo.
Mr.DeBorjaadmittedthatJusticeSabiocalledhimup,butdeniedtheaboveconversationwithJusticeSabio.
OnJuly4,2008,thereorganizationoftheCourtofAppealsbecameeffectiveandbroughtJusticesReyes,Roxasand
BruselastotheEighthDivision.JusticeReyeswenttoseethePresidingJusticeabouttheurgentmotionforhimtoassume
thechairmanshipoftheDivision,whichshowsonitsfacethattheUrgentMotiondatedJuly10,2008wasreceivedbythe
CourtofAppealsat2:08p.m.onJuly10,2008andbyAtty.TeresitaC.CustodioonJuly9,2008.JusticeReyesexpressed
tothePresidingJusticehisapprehensionthatshouldhefailtoassumethechairmanship,hewouldfaceadministrative
liabilityfornonfeasanceorderelictionofduty.ThePresidingJusticesuggestedthattherespondentsinthecaseberequired

tocommentontheUrgentMotion"inaresolutiontobeissuedbytheformer9thDivisionofJusticeJ.L.Sabio,Jr.sinceto
allowthenewDivisionofJusticeB.L.Reyestoissuetheresolutionxxxwouldrendermootandacademic"thesame
motion.JusticeReyesagreedandtoldthePresidingJusticethathewouldbesendingovertherecordstohimsothatthe
PresidingJusticecouldplaceanotethereonastowhathadbeenagreedupon.However,therecordsofthecasedidnot
reachthePresidingJustice.80
ForJusticeRoxas,theJuly4,2008reorganizationwasmandatoryandtheMeralcocasefollowedhimasits ponentetothe
EighthDivision.Bythereorganization,JusticeSabiowasmovedfromthedisbandedSpecialNinthDivisiontotheSixth
Division,asthereorganizationdidnotspareanyJustice. 81Moreover,theIRCAdoesnotrequirethattheJusticesthatissued
aTRObethesameJusticesthatwillrenderthedecision. 82ThisisbecausetheTROdoesnotappearinSection2(d),Rule
VIIoftheIRCA.Accordingly,onlytheissuanceofapreliminaryinjunctioncouldbeanexceptiontotheJuly4,2008
reorganizationoftheCA.83HebelievestheIRCAdoesnotrequirethattheJusticeswhoheardthecaseshouldalsodecideit
becausetheCAisacourtofrecordandJusticesmayrelyonthetranscriptofstenographicnotes. 84Andso,oncethethree
Justiceshavesignedthedecision,theponentehasthe"pressingduty"topromulgatethedecision.85
SinceJuly4,2008,JusticeBruselasallegedthatheacted"onalltheponencias"ofJusticesReyesandRoxas,"justasthey
hadacted"onhisponencias.86
OnJuly7,2008,theGSISfileditsmemorandum.
OnoraboutJuly8,2008,Atty.SilviaSabio,tohelpherfather,soughttheadviceofAtty.JoseMidasMarquez("Atty.
Marquez")regardingthebriberyattempt.Atty.MarquezadvisedthatJusticeSabioshouldwritetheChiefJusticeaboutthe
incident,detailingnotonlythebriberyattemptbutallthathastranspiredrelativetothechairmanshipissue.Atty.Silvia
SabioimmediatelycalledherfatherandrelayedAtty.Marquezsadvice.Laterthatdate,JusticeSabiohandedhisdaughter,
Silvia,ahandwrittenletterforhertodelivertotheChiefJustice. 87Thehandwrittenletter,inessence,requestedpermission
forJusticeSabioto"unburden"himselfbeforetheChiefJusticeontheMeralcocase. 88
Ataround2:30p.m.,JusticeReyeswenttoseeJusticeSabio.Theconversationbetweenthem,asrecalledbyJusticeSabio,
wasasfollows:
Assoonashecamein,Isaid:"Whydidyoustabmebehindmyback?"Hesaid,"Why,whatdidIdo?IaskedhimWhyis
itthatyouhavetoresorttothatstrategyofseekingtheopinionofEdCruz,inhispersonalcapacity,whenwecouldhave
discussedthematterwiththePJ?
I reminded him that we were seated three times near each other on different occasionsonly recentlyand he never
mentionedtomeabouttheplantooustme.
Hesaid:Perhapsthatwasmyfault.Ishouldhavetalkedtoyou.
Itoldhim,that allthewhileIthoughtwewerefriends.Whydidyouhavetodothesethingsbehindmybackandnot
discussthematterwithmefacetoface?
Thenhesaiditjustcameaboutduetotheurgentmotion;thathewasafraidMeralcowouldtakeactionagainsthimfor
nonfeasancefornotdoinghisjob.
ItwasthenthatIsaid:AreyouawarethatIwasoffered10Mformetogivewaytoyou?
Ifurtheraskedhimthefollowing:Inthefirstplace,howwastheMeralcoemissaryabletoknowthattherewasanimpasse
betweenyouandmewhenthatwassupposedtobeaninternalmatter?
IfyouwillnowinsistonassumingthechairmanshipafterItoldyouofthe10Millionoffer,whatwillIthinkofyou?
AreyouaTrojanhorse?CanyoublamemeifIthinkyouarepartofthiswholeschemeorshenanigan?
Doesnotthetimingalonestinkofcorruption?Aftertheyfailedtoconvincemeoftheiroffer,nowtheywilluseyouto
oustme?Isitbecausetheyarecertainofyourloyaltyandtheyareuncertainwithmine?

 Andwhydidtheyfilethisstupidurgentmotiontoassume?Inmynineyearsinthiscourt,Ihaveneverseensuchan
animalasthis.Thisisacowardlyact,andwhoeveradvisedthisstupidmotionisalsostupid.Whydoyouhavetodignify
suchafoolishmotion?Theyshouldfileamotionformetoinhibitorrecusemyself.
WhyisitthatMeralcoactivelyparticipatedinthehearingonthe23rdandneverraisedanyquestiononthealleged
irregularityofmyhavingpresidedoverthehearing?
Whydoyouinsistonassumingthecase?AreyounotawarethatseveraldaysaftertheissuanceoftheTRO,respondents
filedamotionforinhibitionofJusticeVicenteRoxasandamotiontolifttheTRO.Whothenhadtherighttoresolvesuch
motion?
Underthecircumstances,anongiisipinkosayo?Anoangtinginkongayonsaiyo?
Hisfeebleanswerwas:you.Hethensaidhedidnotknowofthosependingmotions.(Incidentally,thesemotionswere
neverresolved.)Healsosaid,walatalagaakonginterestditokundiayawkolangmachargengnonfeasanceforfailingto
domyduty.
Iansweredhim:Malayoyungnonfeasance.Hindiitononfeasance.Itaughtthesubjectformanyyearsandthisisnotone
ofthem.
SoItoldhim,Ihavemademydecisiononthematter.Bahalakana.ThenIstooduptoshowhimtothedoor.Hewassilent
afterthatandbeforeheleft,heputhisarmaroundme.
Forhispart,JusticeReyeskeptonrepeating:"Walatalagaakodito,walaakonginterestkungdiyunlanghindiakoma
nonfeasance.JusticeSabiothoughtotherwise.
Meanwhile,JusticeRoxasbroughttotheofficeofJusticeDimarananVidal"thefinaldecisionontheMERALCOcase"
bearing his signature, which he gave to Justice DimarananVidal for "concurrence/dissent." According to Justice
DimarananVidal,JusticeRoxasexplainedtoherthe"rationaleforhisconclusion."JusticeRoxaswentoutforawhileand
returned"withanexpensivelookingtravellingbag"fromwherehepulledoutthe"purportedfinaldecision."Beforethe
closeofofficehours,JusticeRoxasreturnedtothechambersofJusticeDimarananVidaltocheckifhe(JusticeRoxas)had
signedhisdecision.Whensherepliedthatyes,hehadsignedit,JusticeRoxassaidhewouldpickitupthenextday. 89
Justice DimarananVidal signed the decision notwithstanding that on July 8, 2008 the Court of Appeals had been
reorganizedbecauseshebelievedthattheSpecialNinthDivisionwasstillexistingonaccountofitshavingissuedthe
TRO.90 She also concurred with the portion of the decision recommending administrative sanctions against the GSIS
lawyersbecauseshebelievedtheOSGortheOGCCshouldhaveappearedfortheGSIS.91
Alsolatethatday,JusticeVillaramatoldJusticeSabiothathehadadvisedJusticeReyesto"layoffthecase"andallow
Justice Sabio "to continue" and to resolve the urgent motion for Justice Reyes to assume the chairmanship. Justice
VillaramarecalledthatJusticeReyesrepeatedlysaid:"WalatalagaakoditoJun,Walaakongpersonalinterestdito."
After"acarefulandjudiciousstudy"ofthemorethan56pagedecisionofJusticeRoxas,JusticeDimarananVidalsignedit.
Truetohisword,JusticeRoxaspersonallypickedupthedecisionthat day"purportedlyfortheactionoftheActing
Chairman,JusticeSabio,"whowasthenonleaveofabsenceuntilJuly11,200. 92Notwithstandingthefactthattheparties
hadnotsubmittedtheirrespectivememoranda,JusticeDimarananVidalsignedthe"convincing"ponencia,includingthree
copiesofthesignaturepage,becauseJusticeRoxaswasinsistentoftheurgencyofthesigningofthedecisionduetothe
impendinglapseoftheTROonJuly29,2008.93JusticeSabiothoughtotherwise.94
However,JusticeRoxasdeniedthatthedecisionhegavetoJusticeDimarananVidalwasthefinaldecision.Hedeniedthat
hegaveittoherforhersignature.Hesaiditwasonlyforhertoreadbecausesheaskedtoreadit.Hesaiditwasamere
draftas"everythingwasunofficial"therewasnorolloorlogbookwithit,itwasnotplacedinanenvelope,anditdidnot
havethe"specialseal"ofJusticeRoxas.Itallegedly"wasthrowninthegarbagecan."
OnJuly9,2008,theOSGfiledthememorandumfortheSEC.

OnJuly10,2008,MeralcofiledanurgentmotionprayingthatJusticeReyesassumethechairmanshipoftheDivision, 95
allegingthereasonsfortheurgentmotionasfollows:
5.Atthescheduledoralargumentson23June2008intheinstantcase,thepartieswerefirstdirectedtooneoftheHearing
RoomsoftheCourtofAppeals.Atthesaidroom,thenameplateofJusticeReyeswasalreadyplacedonthetableforthe
justices.Thus,petitionerswereoftheimpressionthattheleaveofabsenceofJusticeReyeswasoverandthathewouldbe
presidingovertheoralargumentsasChairmanoftheNinthDivisionoftheHonorableCourt.
6.However,whenthepartiesweredirectedtotransfertoanotherRoomoftheCourtofAppealsfortheoralargumentsin
theinstantcase,petitionerssawthatthenameplatesonthetableforthejusticesincludedthatofJusticeSabio,Jr.,together
with that (sic) ofJustices Roxas and DimarananVidal. Thereafter, Justice Sabiopresided over the oral arguments as
ChairmanoftheSpecialNinthDivisionoftheHonorableCourt.Petitionerswere,thus,oftheimpressionthattheregular
ChairmanoftheNinthDivision,JusticeReyes,wasstillontemporaryleaveofabsence.
7.Subsequently,ithascometotheattentionofthepetitionersthatJusticeReyeshasalreadyreturnedfromhistemporary
leaveofabsenceandhasresumedhisdutiesasChairmanoftheNinthDivisionoftheHonorableCourt.
8.UndertheInternalRulesoftheCourtofAppeals,JusticeSabio,Jr.shouldnowrefrainfromactingasthechairmanofthe
DivisionhearingtheinstantcaseasheisalreadydisqualifiedfromactingassuchuponthereturnofJusticeReyes.
8.1.Withduerespect,JusticeReyescannotshirkfromhisboundenjudicialresponsibilityofperforminghisdutiesand
functionsasChairmanoftheNinthDivisionoftheHonorableCourt.
8.2.Specifically,underSection3(d),RuleIVofthe2002InternalRulesoftheCourtofAppeals,acasecanremainwith
thejusticeswhoparticipatedthereinonlywhenanyofthefollowingactionshavebeentaken:(a)givingduecourse;(b)
grantingofawritofpreliminaryinjunction;(c)grantingofanewtrial;or(d)grantingofexecutionpendingappeal:
xxxxxxxxx.
9.NoneoftheforegoinginstancesapplywithrespecttoJusticeSabio,Jr.scontinuingholdonthecase.AlthoughJustice
Sabio,Jr.wasoneoftheJusticeswhoissuedthetemporaryrestrainingorderinfavourofthepetitionersintheinstantcase,
thiscircumstanceisnotamongthegroundsasabovequoted,whenajusticeoftheCourtofAppealsmayremaininthe
Division.
10.Asabovequoted,theruleiscategoricalthatitisnotthegrantofatemporaryrestrainingorderbutratherthegrantofa
writofpreliminaryinjunctionthatsanctionsajusticesremainingwiththeDivision.Thus,thecontinuedparticipationof
JusticeSabio,Jr.,intheinstantcase,consideringtheclearRulesoftheHonorableCourt,isnotonlyirregularbutmaylead
onetoconcludethatheisexhibitingundueinterestintheinstantcase.
Onthisday,JusticeReyesreportedbacktoworkafterhistriptoAustralia.96
OnJuly11,2008,JusticeSabiowasonleavewhenJusticeRoxascalledhimupforameetingtodiscussthecase.Justice
Sabiotoldhimthatheneededampletimetoreadthememorandaoftheparties.JusticeRoxaspromisedtosendtoJustice
Sabiothememorandaimmediately.97
At4:00p.m.,JusticeReyesreceivedfromtheEighthDivisionClerkofCourtacopyofMeralcosUrgentMotionforhimto
assumethechairmanshipoftheNinthDivision.
OnMonday,July14,2008attheflagceremony,JusticeSabiorequestedJusticeRoxastomeetwithhimashehadbythen
readthememorandaoftheparties.JusticeRoxasinitiallyagreedtothemeetingbuthelaterinformedJusticeSabiothathe
hadanothermattertoattendto;neitherwasheavailableintheafternoon.JusticeRoxashadbecomescarce.JusticeSabio
learnedthatJusticeDimarananVidalwasalsolookingforJusticeRoxas.98
JusticeSabiopreparedaresolutiononthemotionforthereconsiderationoftheTROandinformedJusticesRoxasand
DimarananVidalthathewantedtodiscussitwiththem.Theresolutionheprepared"neversawlight." 99

At10a.m.,JusticeRoxas,withhismessenger,broughttherolloofCAG.R.SPNo.103692toJusticeReyes,andtoldthe
latterthatheandJusticeBruselaswouldbecomingovertodeliberateonthecase.Tenminuteslater,theEighthDivision
deliberatedonthecase.100Afteracursoryexaminationoftherollo,JusticeReyesfoundthatthedecisionhadbeensignedby
JusticesRoxasandBruselasbutJusticeReyesaskedformoretimetostudythecase. 101
Atranscriptofthe"FinalDeliberation"onJuly14,2008isattachedtopage1926ofVolumeIIIoftherolloofCAG.R.SP
No.103692andmarkedasExh.2Roxasonpage279oftherolloofA.M.No.08811CA.AccordingtoJusticeRoxas,it
washewhopreparedthetranscriptfrommemoryto"lendcredence"tothecertificationofJusticeReyesattheendofthe
decisionpursuanttoArticleVIII,Section13oftheConstitution. 102JusticeReyesdeniedhavingseenitorhavingauthorized
itstranscription.JusticeBruselasdidnotsignanytranscriptofthedeliberationashewasnotawarethatatranscriptwas
beingtaken.Therewasnostenographerpresent,asonlythethreeofthem,JusticesReyes,Roxas,andBruselaswerepresent
at the deliberation. Neither was there a recording machine. Justice Roxas admittedly prepared the transcript "from
memory."103
ThestatementattributedtoJusticeReyesinthetranscriptthattherewere"previousdeliberations"were"reallymeetings,"
whichtheyhadtwice,intheofficeofJusticeReyes,accordingtoJusticeRoxas.104
OnJuly15,2008,whenshefeltthatthetimingwasright,Atty.SilviaSabiotestifiedthatshehandedherfathersletterto
theChiefJusticethroughhisprivatesecretary,Ms.JasminMateo. 105Afewdayslater,however,PresidingJusticeVasquez
toldJusticeSabiothattheChiefJusticewouldnolongermeetwithhim,asthePresidingJusticehadapprisedtheChief
Justiceaboutthematter.106
AccordingtoJusticeReyes,at2:00p.m.thatday,theOfficeofthePresidingJusticeinformedhimthatJusticeSabiowas
waitingforhiminhisoffice.AssoonasJusticeReyeswasseated,JusticeSabio"berated"him andaccusedhim of
"orchestratingmatters."JusticeSabiotoldhimthatanemissaryofMERALCOhadofferedhimP10milliontodropoffthe
case,hence,heaskedthatifhewasofferedthatmuch,howmuchcouldhavebeenoffered"totheprincipals?" 107
OnJuly17,2008,JusticeReyeswentbacktotheofficeofthePresidingJusticeandinformedhimoftheepisodeinthe
officeofJusticeSabio.HealsowenttoaskJusticeVillaramaforhisopinionastowhowas"therightfulclaimant"tothe
chairmanshipoftheDivisionthatshoulddecidetheMeralcocase.JusticeVillaramaallegedlyrepliedthatthey"wereboth
correct."
OnJuly18,2008,attheprelaunchingmeetingfortheCACMIS,JusticeVillaramahada"briefchat"withJusticeBruselas.
Theformertoldthelatterthat"bothJusticesSabioandReyesarecorrectinthesensethatone(1)[of]themcanproperly
assumechairmanshipeitherundertheexceptionprovidedinSec.2(d),RuleVIofthe2002IRCAdependingonthefinal
dispositionoftheprayerforinjunctiverelief,orpursuanttothegeneralruleenshrinedinSec.7(b),RuleVI." 108
OnJuly21,2008,JusticeRoxaspersonallyfiledwiththePresidingJustice 109 an"InterpleaderPetition"110 prayingthat
PresidingJusticeVasquez"decidewhichdivisionChairman(JusticeSabiosFormerSpecial9thDivisionorJusticeB.L.
Reyes8thDivision)shouldsignthePreliminaryInjunctionorDecision." 111 JusticeRoxasaverredthat"[t]heimpasse
betweentwoChairmenfromtwoDivisionshastoberesolvedmuchearlierthanJuly30,2008becauseJuly30,2008isthe
expirationdateoftheTROissuedbytheSpecial9thDivision(signedbyJusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.,JusticeVicenteQ.Roxas
[ponente]andJusticeMyrnaDimarananVidal)."HeopinedthatthetwoChairpersonsdifferedintheinterpretationof
Sections1and2(d)inrelationtoSection5ofRuleVIonProcessofAdjudicationofthe InternalRulesoftheCourtof
Appeals(IRCA).112HisstandwasthattheIRCA"shouldbestrictlyapplied"because"[w]hentheprovisionsareclear,there
isnoroomforinterpretation."
Justice Roxas endorsed his "Interpleader Petition" to Justice Reyes for his "signature or dissent" to the "finalized
MERALCODecision,"whichhadbeeninJusticeReyespossessionsinceJuly14,2008. 113Healsogavetherolloofthe
casetoJusticeReyes.114
Presiding Justice Vasquez allegedly told Justice Roxas that as Presiding Justice, he had no authority to rule on the
InterpleaderPetition,whichisnotanadministrativeconcernoverwhichthePresidingJusticemustintervene.Nevertheless,
toavoidfurtherdiscussion,thePresidingJusticetoldJusticeRoxasthathewouldstudythematter. 115

OnJuly22,2008,JusticeReyeswrotethePresidingJusticealetteron"whatwasdiscussedbetweenuslast17July2008at
around3:30p.m."116 ApparentlythePresidingJusticehadsuggested"toendorsethecaseandhavetheSpecialNinth
DivisiondirecttherespondentstofiletheirsimultaneouscommentsonthepetitionersUrgentMotion(ForHonorable
BIENVENIDOL.REYEStoAssumeChairmanshipoftheDivisionintheInstantCase)dated10July2008."
JusticeReyesexpressed"doubts" thatthesuggestionwas"most prudent,"asthedispute"revolvesaroundthecorrect
interpretation" of the IRCA. He believed that since the question was "purely internal," the CA should not seek
"enlightenment"fromthelitigantsforitwouldonlybeconstruedagainstits"competence."HesharedJusticeCruzsand
RoxasinterpretationoftheIRCA.Hence,heurgedthePresidingJusticetodecidethematter;otherwise,hewouldinterpret
therulesaccordingtohis"bestlightsandactaccordingly."
OnJuly23,2008,PresidingJusticeVasquezaskedfortherolloofCAG.R.No.SPNo.103692sohecould"properly
submittherequestedopinion."ItwasthenthathecameacrosstheunresolvedmotionprayingfortheinhibitionofJustice
Roxas and the pending urgent motion to lift the TRO or to hold its enforcement in abeyance. The Presiding Justice
consideredthelatterasamotionforreconsiderationoftheResolutionissuingtheTRO. 117
Meanwhile,atnoonofthatday,asJusticeReyeshadnotyetreceived"anyreaction"fromthePresidingJustice,hesigned
thedecisionaswellastheCertification.Itwaspromulgatedonthesameday.
ThedecisionwaspromulgatedwithoutwaitingforthePresidingJusticesopiniononwhetheritwastheEighthorSpecial
NinthDivisionthatshoulddecidethecase.JusticeRoxasallegedthathedidnotexpectthePresidingJusticeto"answer"or
resolvethematteranyway.
OnJuly24,2008,PresidingJusticeVasquezissuedhisreplytoJusticeReyesletterandJusticeRoxas"Interpleader
Petition." The Presiding Justice claimed having doubts on whether he possessed "the authority to decide the subject
conflict"simplybecauseundertheIRCA,thePresidingJusticehascontrolandsupervisiononlyoveradministrativeaffairs
oftheCourt.ThecontroversywascertainlynotanadministrativematterbutSection11ofRuleVIIIoftheIRCAprovides
thatthePresidingJustice"hastheauthoritytoactonanymatternotcovered"bytheRulesalthoughsuchactionshouldbe
reportedtotheCourtenbanc.
ThePresidingJusticeexpressedinhislettertheviewthat"the(SpecialNinth)Divisionthatissuedthetemporaryrestraining
ordershouldcontinueresolvingtheinjunctiveprayerinthepetition"becauseitwastheDivisionthatissuedtheResolution
grantingtheTROandsettingthehearingontheapplicationfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunction,asidefrom
thefactthatthepartiesdidnotcontesttheauthorityofJusticeSabioasDivisionChairmanatthetime,althoughJustice
Reyeshadreportedbacktowork.Moreover,themotionforinhibitionandtheurgentmotiontolifttheTRO"havea
bearing"ontheapplicationofSection2ofRuleVIoftheIRCA,especiallybecauseSection7(b)ofRuleVI 118pointstothe
retentionofthecasebytheSpecialNinthDivision.Furthermore,thenewDivisionheadedbyJusticeReyesmaynotbe
allowedtoresolvethependingincidentsbecausetwoofitsmembers,JusticesReyesandBruselasdidnotparticipateinthe
hearingonJune23,2008.HedidnotbelievethatJusticeReyeswouldbechargedwithderelictionofdutyshouldhenot
assumethechairmanship.ThePresidingJusticeendedhisletterwiththehopethatthematterwouldbe"laidtorest"and
thatwhoeverwouldbedissatisfied"withitsoutcomemayelevatethemattertotheSupremeCourt."
At2:00p.m.thatday,JusticeSabioinformedthePresidingJusticethatadecisionhadbeenpromulgatedintheMeralco
casethepreviousday.ThePresidingJusticewassurprisedbecauseJusticesRoxasandReyeshadaskedhimtoresolvethe
impasse on the Division chairmanship. Upon inquiry, the Presiding Justice found that the decision had indeed been
promulgatedat4:10p.m.onJuly23,2008.119
ItwasalsoonJuly24,2008thatJusticeDimarananVidalreceivedacallfromJusticeSabio,informingherthatMeralco
hadofferedhimabribeofP10million"inexchangeforhisvoluntarysteppingoutfromtheMeralcocaseinordertogive
waytoJusticeB.L.Reyes,"andthatthedecisionintheMeralcocasehadbeenpromulgatedbytheEighthDivision. 120
ShockedthatJusticeRoxasdidnotinformher"asamatterofjudicialcourtesy"ofthescrappingofthedecisionwhichshe
signedonJuly8,2008,JusticeDimarananVidalwrotealettertothePresidingJusticedatedJuly24,2008, 121bringingtohis
attention"theapparentandobviousirregularitiesinthehandingofCAG.R.SPNo.103692,"andcomplainingaboutJustice
Roxas"lackofjudicialcourtesy"indiscardingforreasonsshewouldnotknow,his"purportedfinalDecision"thathehad
askedhertosignandwhichshesigned"afterajudiciousstudyoftherecordsandrollothereof."JusticeRoxasgavethe
lameexcusethathehad"toincorporatethereinsometenpageswhichheforgottoincludeinhisDecision."

JusticeDimarananVidalexpressed"surpriseandconsternation"whenshelearned"onevendatethataDecision"inthecase
hadbeenpromulgatedonJuly23,2008bytheEighthDivisionchairedbyJusticeReyes,withJusticesRoxasandBruselas
asmembers.Shesaid:
MydeepestregretisthattheundersignedwhoalreadysignedthesupposedfinaldraftoftheDecisionintheinstantcase
whichbearsthesignatureoftheponente,wasnoteveninformedbythelatterasajudicialcourtesyatleast,ofthehurried
easingoutoftheundersignedfromthecase.Thisinevitablyposedeventoanunprejudicedmindthefollowingquestions:
underwhatbasiswasthecasesuddenlytransferredtothe8thDivisionandwhyisitthatneithertheundersignednorthe
ActingChairmanJusticeSABIO,oftheSpecial9thDivisionnotconsultedthereof?and,foremost,whathappenedtothe
Decisionwhichtheundersignedsignedafterdevotingherprecioustimeandeffortincarefullyandlaboriouslyexamining
thevoluminousrecordsandrolloofthecase?
SadtosaythecircumstanceobtaininghereinconstituteaflagrantviolationoftheprovisionofCanon5particularlySections
2and3thereofoftheNewCodeofJudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciary(A.M.No.030501SC).
OnJuly25,2008,JusticeBruselaswrotethePresidingJusticealetter, 122whichwas"promptedbyadisturbingtelephone
call"hereceivedfromJusticeSabiointhemorningofJuly24,2008.JusticeSabioinformedJusticeBruselasthat,"afterthe
injunctionhearing"onJune23,2008,MeralcoofferedhimP10Million"toeitherfavorthemoryieldthechair"toJustice
Reyes.JusticeSabiotoldJusticeBruselasthathehadinformedthePresidingJusticeofthe"briberyincident"andthathe
"wasdisgustedovertheturnofeventsbecauseheshouldhaveremainedchairoftheSpecial9thDivisionthatissuedthe
TROonthecase."JusticeBruselasinformedJusticeSabiothatitwasthefirsttimethatheheardofthematterandthathe
had "participated in the deliberation on the case and concurred with the ponencia" of Justice Roxas "without such
informationeverbeingtakenup."JusticeSabiotoldJusticeBruselasthathewouldnotleavethematter"asitis"becausehe
wouldbringitupinthe"open,tomedia,etc."JusticeSabioaskedJusticeBruselasthatifP10Mwasofferedtohim,how
muchwouldhavebeenofferedtothe"others."
Troubled bytheinformation, Justice Bruselaswent tothePresidingJusticewhere Justice DimarananVidal,whohad
receivedthesamecallfromJusticeSabio,joinedthem.AfterthatmeetingwiththePresidingJustice,JusticeBruselascalled
upJusticeReyeswhoconfirmedthathehadheardaboutthe"bribeoffer"butthathedidnotrevealthesametoJustice
Bruselasasit"escaped"hismind.TheeffortofJusticeBruselas"togetintouch"withJusticeRoxasprovedfutile.
Allegedlypromptedby"themannerbywhichthedecisionxxxwasarrivedat,andhowthedecisionwaspromulgated,"
andthatunlessan"immediateandthoroughinvestigationthereonbeundertaken" bytheCourtofAppeals,"boththe
individualandinstitutionalintegrityofthejustices"andoftheCourtofAppealswould"undoubtedlybetarnished,"Justice
SabiowroteonJuly26,2008aletter123tothePresidingJustice,whichprecipitatedthepresentinvestigation.
On July28, 2008,the Philippine Daily Inquirer "carried an account" of the letter of Justice DimarananVidal to the
PresidingJustice,withoutherknowinghowherconfidentiallettertothePresidingJusticeleakedout. 124
BeforeJusticeBruselasdeliveredhislettertothePresidingJustice,hereceivedacopyoftheletterofJusticeSabioand,
throughatelephonecall,reiteratedhis"fullagreementwithhisdesiredinvestigation."
ThePresidingJusticecalledtheCourtofAppealstoan"emergencyenbancsessionat10:00a.m.onJuly31,2008atthe
SessionHalltoelicitthereactionoftheCourtandonthe"possibleeffect"onthedecisionrendered.Thesessionwasalso
calledinorderthatthe"predicamentexperiencedinCAG.R.SPNo.103692"couldbedeliberateduponbytheCommittee
onRuleswithaviewtoamendingtheIRCAonthereorganizationoftheCourtofAppeals.TheExecutiveJusticesofCebu
andCagayandeOro,JusticesAntonioL.VillamorandRomuloV.Borja,respectively,wereinstructedtoattendtheenbanc
sessiontoreporttotheotherJusticesintheirstationswhattranspiredatthesession,andto"collectthepersonalreaction,
commentorview"oftheJusticesonthematter.125
Initscloseddoor enbanc sessiononJuly31,2008,"afteratorriddiscussionofalltheissues,"theCourtofAppeals
decided,asfollows:
(1)RefertheproprietyoftheactionsoftheJusticesconcernedtotheSupremeCourt,throughtheOfficeofthe
CourtAdministrator;

(2)Leavethematterregardingthevalidityofthedecisionrenderedintheaboveentitledcasetothepartiesforthemtotake
whateverlegalstepstheymaydeemappropriateintheusualcourseofprocedure;and
(3)RefertheconflictintheinterpretationofourInternalRulestotheCommitteeonRulesoftheCourtofAppealsinorder
topreventtherecurrenceofasimilarsituation.126
Aftertheenbancsession,JusticeDimarananVidalexpressedinaletterforthePresidingJustice 127her"strongreaction"to
thepaperofJusticeRoxas"falsely"imputingtoher"grandstandingbeforethemediaorresortingtomediarecourseinstead
ofjustfilinganadministrativecomplaintbeforetheSupremeCourt,"andtakingexceptionto"theequallyoutrageous,
revoltingandbaselessaccusationthatsheisallegedlyclinging"tothecase.Sheassertedthatsheneverleakedacopyofher
lettertothePhilippineDailyInquirer,asherletterwasonlyintendedtobringtotheattentionofthePresidingJustice"the
impropriety done by Justice Roxas in the MERALCO case" that resulted in her having been eased out of the case
notwithstandingthatshe"carefullyandjudiciously"examinedthe ponencia withmorethan50pages,afterdevotingher
"precioustime"tosuchstudy,andaffixingherconcurrencethereto.JusticeDimarananVidalreiteratedherprayerforan
investigationofthematter.
Meanwhile,onthatday,Mr.DeBorja,executedanaffidavitadmittingthathewasthebusinessmanreferredtobyJustice
Sabio,Jr.inhislettertoPresidingJusticeVasquez.Mr.DeBorjapubliclyclaimedhavinglearned"fromthenews"that
JusticeSabiowas"oneofthejustices"inthecasearisingfromtheorderoftheSECtonullifytheproxiesissuedinfavorof
the MERALCOmanagement. He also alleged that Justice Sabio toldhim about the "blandishments coming from the
governmentside,"thathewasbeingofferedapromotiontotheSupremeCourtandmoneytofavortheGSISposition.Mr.
DeBorjaaskedJusticeSabio,Jr.,"Whatwouldittakeforyoutoresistthegovernmentsoffer?"andthattheresponseof
JusticeSabio,Jr.was"FiftyMillion."
JusticeSabioaskedpermissionfrom thePresidingJusticetoholdapressconferencethenext dayonaccount ofthe
publicizedaffidavitofMr.DeBorja.ThePresidingJusticetoldJusticeSabiothat"thisisamatterofselfdefenseonhis
part,"hence,thePresidingJusticecannotstophimfromdoingso.
JusticeSabioissuedasignedstatementasan"initialresponse"totheaffidavitofMr.DeBorja,"vehemently"denyingthat
Mr.DeBorjaaskedhimwhatitwouldtakeforhimtoinhibitfromthecase,andthathe"neveraskedformoney"from
him.128
OnAugust1,2008, JusticeSabiocalledthepressconferencetoreadasignedstatemententitled"MyReactiontoMr.
FrancisDeBorjasAffidavitdatedJuly31,2008ontheMeralcoSECCase."
Expressing anger at the "filthy lie" of Mr. De Borja, Justice Sabio decided to narrate "almost word for word" his
"conversations"withMr.DeBorja.
InanaffidavitdatedAugust1,2008,whichEvelynClavano129executedinDavaoCity,shestatedthat
FrancisdeBorjarequestedmeifIhavethecellphonenumberofJusticeJoseL.SabioJr.Herelatedthatbecausehewas
veryclosetotheLopezesofMeralco,hewantedtocallhimregardinghispossibleinhibitioninacertainMeralcocase,
whereinhewasdesignatedasasubstitutememberofthedivisionviceajusticewhowastemporarilyonleavebyreasonof
sickness.HefurthersaidthattheLopezesdesirethatthesameJustice,withwhomtheLopezesaremorecomfortable,tosit
inthedivision.
So,IgaveFrancisdeBorjathecellphonenumberofJusticeJose.L.Sabio,Jr.throughbusinesscard.
xxxxxxxxx.
OnAugust4,2008,theSupremeCourtconstitutedthePanelofInvestigatorstoinvestigate"(1)allegedimproprietiesofthe
actionsoftheJusticesoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.103692(AntonioV.Rosete,etal.v.SEC,etal.)and(2)
theallegedrejectedofferorsolicitationofbribedisclosedrespectivelybyMr.JusticeJoseSabioandMr.FrancisdeBorja."
ThePanelofInvestigatorsheldhearingsfromAugust8to23,2008.AffidavitsweresubmittedtothePaneltoserveasthe
partiesdirecttestimoniesuponwhichtheywerecrossexaminedbythePanelandtheotherparties.

OnSeptember4,2008,thePanelofInvestigatorssubmitteditsReportofevendatetotheCourtenbanc.
AccordingtotheReport,"theinvestigationhasrevealedirregularitiesandimproprietiescommittedbytheCourtofAppeals
Justices in connection with the MERALCO case, CAG.R. SP No. 103692, which are detrimental to the proper
administrationofjusticeanddamagingtotheinstitutionalintegrity,independenceandpublicrespectfortheJudiciary." 130
FindingsregardingtheconductofAssociateJusticeVicenteQ.Roxas
JusticeRoxasinexcusablyfailedtoactonanumberofmotionsofthepartiespriortothepromulgationoftheDecision.
AsfoundbythePanelofInvestigators,severalmotionswerenotresolvedoracteduponbyJusticeRoxas.Thesewere
enumeratedintheReportasfollows:
(a)The"UrgentExParteMotiontoDeferActiononanyIncidentofthePetitionPendingResolutionofReRaffle"filedby
GSISonMay29,2008soonafterthiscasewasfiledonthatdate(Rollo,pp.185186).
b)GSIS"UrgentExParteMotiontoInhibit"JusticeRoxas,whichwasfiledonMay30,2008.Asthemotionraiseda
prejudicialquestion,JusticeRoxasshouldhaveresolveditbeforeissuingtheTROsoughtbyMeralco,buthenever
did(Rollo,pp.220223).
(c)GSISMotiontoLiftTROwhichwasfiledonMay30,2008(Rollo,pp.187210)
(d)GSISMotionfiledonJune18,2008,prayingthatitbeallowedtousePowerpointatthehearingonJune23,2008.On
June20,2008,theSECfiledasimilarmotion.BothmotionswerenotacteduponbyJusticeRoxas(Rollo,pp.593621,)
(e) Meralcos "Motion for Extension of Time to file their Consolidated Memorandum of Authorities and Reply to
RepondentSECsComment"filedonJune25,2008(Rollo,pp.981987).
(f)Meralcos"UrgentMotionforHonorableJusticeBienvenidoL.ReyestoAssumeChairmanshipoftheDivisioninthe
InstantCase,"whichwasfiledonJuly10,2008(Rollo,pp.12621274).131(emphasissupplied)
WeagreewiththePanelofInvestigatorsthat"byignoringorrefusingtoactonthemotionforhisinhibition,JusticeRoxas
violatedRuleV,Section3,thirdparagraphoftheIRCA,whichprovidesthatheshouldresolvesuchmotioninwritingwith
copiesfurnishedtheothermembersoftheDivision,thePresidingJustice,theRaffleCommittee,andtheDivisionClerkof
Court."Thepertinentportionofthesaidprovisionstates:
Sec.3.MotiontoInhibitaDivisionoraJustice.xxx
xxx
AmotionforvoluntaryinhibitionofaJusticeshall beacteduponbyhim aloneinwriting,copyfurnishedtheother
membersoftheDivision,thePresidingJustice,theRaffleCommitteeandtheDivisionClerkofCourt.
ThisCourtcannotagreewithJusticeRoxaspropositionthattheissuanceoftheTROconstitutesanimplieddenialofthe
motiontoinhibitsinceunderIRCAtheobligationoftheJusticetoactonsuchamotionismandatory.
Furthermore,theCourtfindswelltakenthePanelsfindingthat"JusticeRoxasfailuretoactontheothermotionsofthe
partiesviolatedCanon3,Rule3.05ofthe1989CodeofJudicialConduct(whichappliesinasuppletorymannertotheNew
CodeofJudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciary)providingthat:
"Rule3.05.Ajudgeshalldisposeofthecourtsbusinesspromptlyanddecidecaseswithintherequiredperiods."
EvenSection5,Canon6ofthe NewCodeofJudicialConduct mandatesthat"[j]udgesshallperformalljudicialduties,
includingthedeliveryofreserveddecisions,efficiently,fairlyandwithreasonablepromptness."Thus,ithasbecomewell
settledinjurisprudencethatevenjustunduedelayintheresolvingpendingmotionsorincidentswithinthereglamentary

periodfixedbylawisnotexcusableandconstitutesgrossinefficiency. 132Withmorereason,thisCourtfindssuspiciousand
reprehensiblethefailureofJusticeRoxastoactatallonpendingmotionsandincidentsinCAG.R.SPNo.103692.
ThisisinfactnotthefirsttimethatJusticeRoxashasbeencitedadministrativelyforfailuretoresolvependingincidentsin
casesassignedtohim.InOrociov.Roxas,A.M.Nos.07115CAJandCA0846J,thisCourtimposedaP15,000fineon
JusticeRoxasforunwarranteddelayinresolvingtwomotionsforreconsiderationinanothercaseandsternlywarnedhim
thatfuturecommissionanyactofimproprietywillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
JusticeRoxasisguiltyofgrossdishonesty.
ApartfromJusticeRoxasinexcusableinactiononpendingincidentsintheMeralcocase,thePanelofInvestigatorsfound
thathehadbeendishonestanduntruthfulinrelationtothesaidcase.TheCourtadoptsthefollowingfindingsofthePanel:
2.JusticeRoxaswasdishonestanduntruthful.
(a)JusticeRoxasadmittedthatthe"TranscriptofFinalDecision,"whichissupposedtobeatranscriptofthedeliberationon
July14,2008oftheEighthDivisiononthefinaldecisionintheMeralcocasewasnotatrue"transcript"oftheminutesof
themeeting,butpurelya"transcriptfrommemory"becausenonotesweretaken,nostenographerwaspresent,andnotape
recorderwasused.Itwasinfactadramawhichhecomposed"frommyrecollection"tocomplywithSec.9,RuleVIofthe
IRCA which requires that "minutes of the meeting, i.e., deliberation, shall be kept." The socalled "transcript" is a
fabricationdesignedtodeceivethattherehadbeencompliancewhenactuallytherewasnonewiththeprerequisiteof
theIRCAthatconsultationand/ordeliberationamongthemembersoftheDivisionmustprecedethedraftingofadecision.
(b)Thestatementinthe"transcript"thatitwasa"recapfromourpreviousdeliberations" wasanotherfalsehoodbecause
therehadbeennopreviousdeliberations.
(c)Thereferenceinthe"transcript"toa"FinalReportofJusticeRoxas"wasalsofalseforJusticeRoxasadmittedlydidnot
submita"report"asponente,asrequiredbySec.9,RuleVIoftheIRCA,fordeliberationbytheEighthDivisiononJuly14,
2008. The"FinalReport"whichhesubmittedwasadmittedlythedecisionitself whichheandJusticeBruselas,Jr.had
alreadysigned.The"FinalReport"wasmerelythetitleofthepagethatservedasthecoverofthedecision.Hence,Justice
B.L.Reyessupposedclosingstatementinthe"transcript"that"WehavecoveredeveryangleoftheFinalReportof
JusticeRoxasextensively"isalsofalse.JusticeB.L.Reyestestifiedattheinvestigationthathehadnotseenthe"transcript"
untilthecopyintherollowasshowntohimbyJusticeCallejo,Sr.duringhiscrossexaminationofJusticeB.L.Reyeson
August26,2008.
xxxxxxxxx
(e)JusticeRoxastestimonythatwhenhebroughttheMeralcodecisiontoJusticeDimarananVidalonJuly8,2008,itwas
onlyadraftforhertoread,becausesheaskedifshemayreadit,notforhertosignit,is completelyfalse.Thistestimony
waslabelledbyJusticeDimarananVidalasalie,andshecalledJusticeRoxasaliar,becauseshedidnotasktoborrowthe
decisionforherreadingpleasure,butJusticeRoxaspersonallybroughtittoherofficeforhertosignasamemberofthe
SpecialNinthDivision.Afterporingoveritthewholenight,shesignedit,aswellasthree(3)additionalsignaturepages
whichweretobeattachedtothree(3)othercopiesofthedecision.133
xxxxxxxxx
Indeed,thefabricationsandfalsehoodsthatJusticeRoxasblithelyproferredtothePanelinexplanation/justificationofhis
questionedhandlingoftheMeralcocasedemonstratedthathelacksthequalificationofintegrityandhonestyexpectedofa
magistrateandamemberoftheappellatecourt.
UnderRule140oftheRulesofCourt,dishonestyisconsideredaseriousoffensethatmaywarrantthepenaltyofdismissal
from theservice.UndertheRuleIV,Section52oftheUniform RulesonAdministrativeCasesintheCivilService,
dishonestyislikewiseconsideredagraveoffenseandwarrantsthepenaltyofdismissalevenforthefirstoffense.Inthepast,
theCourthashadtheoccasiontorulethat:

dishonestyandfalsificationareconsideredgraveoffenseswarrantingthepenaltyofdismissalfromserviceuponthe
commissionofthefirstoffense.Onnumerousoccasions,theCourtdidnothesitatetoimposesuchextremepunishmenton
employeesfoundguiltyoftheseoffenses.
Dishonesty,beinginthenatureofagraveoffense,carriestheextremepenaltyofdismissalfromtheservicewithforfeiture
ofretirementbenefitsexceptaccruedleavecredits,andperpetualdisqualificationforreemploymentinthegovernment
service.Dishonestyhasnoplaceinthejudiciary.134
JusticeRoxasshowedalackofcourtesyandrespectforhiscolleaguesintheCourtofAppeals.
ThePanelofInvestigatorsreportedonthismatterinthiswise:
xxxxxxxxx
(f)JusticeRoxaswasthoughtlesslydisrespectfultoacolleagueandaladyatthat,whenheunceremoniouslydiscarded,
shredded, and burned the decision that Justice DimarananVidal had signed, because he allegedly forgot that Justice
DimarananVidalandJusticeSabio,Jr.hadalreadybeen"reorganizedout"oftheSpecialNinthDivisionasofJuly4,2008,
hence,outoftheMeralcocase.Outofcourtesy,heshouldhaveexplainedtoJusticeDimarananVidalthereasonwhyhe
wasnotpromulgatingthedecisionwhichshehadsigned.
Thetruth,itseems,isthatJusticeRoxas,whohadconsultedJusticeVillarama,Jr.onwhichDivisionshoulddecidethe
Meralcocase,mayhavebeenconvincedthatitshouldbetheSpecialNinthDivision.Thatiswhyhebroughthisdecisionto
JusticeDimarananVidalforhersignature.However,somehow,somewhere,duringthenight,whileJusticeDimaranan
Vidalwaspatientlyporingoverhisdecision,JusticeRoxaswaspersuadedtobringhisdecisiontotheEighthDivision(to
whichheandJusticeB.L.ReyesbelongaftertheJuly4,2008reorganizationoftheCourt),itmayhavedawnedonhimthat
ifthecaseremainedintheSpecial NinthDivision,JusticeSabio,Jr.mightdissent,requiringthePresidingJusticeto
constituteaspecialdivisionoffive.Ifhe(JusticeRoxas)shouldfailtoobtainamajorityoftheDivisiononhisside,he
wouldlosehisponencia;someoneelsewouldbecometheponente(perhapsJusticeSabio,Jr.).Thatmaybethereasonwhy
hejunkedJusticesSabio,Jr.andDimarananVidal(evenifthelatterconcurredwithhisdecision)becausehewasunsureof
JusticeSabio,Jr.HechosetocasthislotwithhiscompanionsintheEighthDivisionJusticesB.L.ReyesandBruselas,
Jr.withwhomheandMeralcowere"comfortable".
(g)J.RoxaswasdisrespectfultoPresidingJusticeVasquez,Jr.whoserulingonhis"InterpleaderPetition"hesoughton
July21,2008,buthepromulgatedtheMeralcodecisiontwo(2)dayslater,onJuly23,2008,withoutwaitingforPresiding
JusticeVasquez,Jr.srulingwhichcameoutonJuly24,2008,onlythree(3)daysaftertheInterpleaderPetitionwasfiled
byhim,andtwo(2)daysafterJusticeB.L.ReyesalsoreiteratedinwritinghisrequestforPresidingJusticeVasquez,Jr.to
resolve the same chairmanship issue raised in the Interpleader. Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. was embarrassed and
humiliatedbyJusticesB.L.ReyesandRoxaslackofcourtesyandrespectforhispositionasheadoftheCourt.
xxxxxxxxx
Thereisanoldadagewhichsaystogainrespectonemustlearntogiveit.Ifjudgesandjusticesareexpectedtotreat
litigants,counselsandsubordinateswithrespectandfairness,withmorereason,thatjudgesandjusticesshouldgivetheir
fellowmagistratesthecourtesyandprofessionalregardduetothemastheircolleaguesintheJudiciary.Thus,inCanon5,
Section3oftheNewCodeofJudicialConduct,judgesareexpectedto" carryoutjudicialdutieswithappropriate
consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without
differentiationonanyirrelevantground,immaterialtotheproperperformanceofsuchduties."
ThisCourtcannotviewlightlythediscourteousmannerthatJusticeRoxas,inhisapparenthastetopromulgatehisdecision
intheMeralcocase,treatedhiscolleaguesintheCourtofAppeals.ItbehoovestheCourttoremindallmagistratesthattheir
highofficedemandscompliancewiththemostexactingstandardsofproprietyanddecorum.
JusticeRoxasquestionablehandlingoftheMeralcocasedemonstrateshisundueinteresttherein.

IntheReport,thePanelofInvestigatorsobservedthatJusticeRoxasinfactbegandraftinghisdecisionevenpriortothe
submissionofthepartiesmemoranda.AsdiscussedintheReport:
xxxxxxxxx
(d)Althoughthepartiesweregiven15daysafterthehearingonJune23,2008,oruptoJuly8,2008,tosimultaneously
submittheirmemorandaandmemorandaofauthorities,andactuallysubmitted:
OnJuly7,2008GSISs39pagememorandum
OnJuly9,2008SECs62pagememorandum
OnJuly10,2008MERALCOs555pagememorandum(bymessenger)withmemorandumofauthorities
JusticeRoxaspreparedthedecisionbeforethepartieshadfiledtheirmemorandainthecaseandsubmittedittoJustice
DimarananVidal for her signature on July 8, 2008. His "rush to judgment" was indicative of "undue interest and
unseemlyhaste,"accordingtoJ.Romero.
He cheated thepartiescounselofthetime,effort,andenergythattheyinvestedinthepreparationoftheirponderous
memorandawhich,asitturnedout,neitherhenortheothermembersoftheEighthDivisionbotheredtoreadbeforesigning
hisdecision.Hemadeamockeryofhisownorderforthepartiestosubmitmemoranda,andrenderedtheircompliancea
futileexercise.
xxxxxxxxx
(underscoringsupplied)
WeagreewithMme.JusticeRomerosobservationthatthe"rushtojudgment"(evenbeforethefilingoftheparties
memoranda)wasindicativeofJusticeRoxas undueinterest andunseemlyhaste,especiallywhentakentogetherwith
othercircumstances.ThisinexplicablehasteinresolvingthecaseonthemeritsislikewiseapparentinJusticeRoxasfailure
toresolvetheseveralpendingincidentsandinsteadjumpingaheadtodecidingthecaseonthemerits;his"rushing"of
JusticeDimarananVidalintosigninghisdraftDecisiononJuly8,2008whenthepartiesmemorandahavenotyetallbeen
filedwiththeCA;hisprecipitatetransferofthecasetotheEighthDivisionforpromulgationofdecision,withoutnoticeto
Justice DimarananVidal of the Special Ninth Division who had already signed his draft Decision and despite the
unresolvedChairmanshipdisputebetweenJusticeReyesandJusticeSabiowhichhe(JusticeRoxas)evensubmittedtothe
PresidingJusticeforappropriateaction,justafewdaysbeforethepromulgation.
Wereiterateherethatasthevisiblerepresentationofthelawandjustice,judgesareexpectedtoconductthemselvesina
mannerthatwouldenhancerespectandconfidenceofthepeopleinthejudicialsystem.TheNewCodeofJudicialConduct
forthePhilippineJudiciarymandatesthatjudgesmustnotonlymaintaintheirindependence,integrityandimpartiality;but
theymustalsoavoidanyappearanceofimproprietyorpartiality,whichmayerodethepeoplesfaithinthejudiciary.This
standardappliesnotonlytothedecisionitself,butalsototheprocessbywhichthedecisionismade. 135ThisCourtwillnot
hesitatetosanctionwiththehighestpenaltymagistrateswhoexhibitmanifestundueinterestintheirassignedcases. 136
Insum,thisCourtfindsthatJusticeRoxasmultipleviolationsofthecanonsoftheCodeofJudicialConductconstitute
gravemisconduct,compoundedbydishonesty,undueinterestandconductprejudicialtothebestinterestoftheservice,
whichwarranthisDISMISSALfromtheservice.
FindingsregardingtheconductofAssociateJusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.
IntheReport,thePanelfoundthatJusticeSabiolikewisecommittedimproprietiesinrelationtotheMeralcocase.
ThecircumstancesofthetelephonecallofChairmanSabiotohisbrotherJusticeSabioshowedthatJusticeSabiofailedto
upholdthestandardofindependenceandproprietyexpectedofhimasamagistrateoftheappellatecourt.

InhistestimonybeforethePanel,ChairmanSabioadmitsthathecalledupJusticeSabioonMay30,2008fromDavaoCity,
inresponsetoaresquestforhelpfromamemberoftheBoardofTrusteesofMeralco.Notwithstandingthefactthat
ChairmanSabiocalledtorelaytoJusticeSabiothe"rightness"oftheGSIScauseandaskedhim"tohelpGSIS"andthat
JusticeSabioallegedlytoldhisbrotherthathewouldactinaccordancewithhisconscience,thesamestillconstituteda
violationofCanon13oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityforlawyers,whichprovidesthat:
"Alawyershallxxxrefrainfromanyimproprietywhichtendstoinfluence,orgivestheappearanceofinfluencing
theCourt."
AstheywerebothmembersoftheBar,itisincomprehensibletothisCourthowthebrotherscanjustifytheirimproper
conversationregardingtheMeralcocase.AsthePanelobservedinitsReport:
Ironically,bothofthemfoundnothingwrongwithbrotherCamilosefforttoinfluencehisyoungerbrothersactioninthe
Meralcocase,becausebothbelievethatourFilipinocultureallowsbrothertobrotherconversation,evenifthepurposeof
oneistoinfluencetheother,providedthelatterdoesnotagreetodosomethingillegal.137
ForthePanel,JusticeSabioviolatedSections1,4,and5,Canon1ofthe NewCodeofJudicialConductforthePhilippine
Judiciary,whichprovidethat
Sec.1.Judgesshallexercisethejudicialfunctionindependentlyxxxfreefromextraneousinfluence,inducement,
pressure,threatorinterference,directorindirect,fromanyquarterorforanyreason.
xxxxxxxxx
Sec.4.Judgesshallnotallowfamily,social,orotherrelationshipstoinfluencejudicialconductorjudgment.The
prestigeofjudicialofficeshallnotbeusedorlenttoadvancetheprivateinterestsofothers,norconveyorpermit
otherstoconveytheimpressionthattheyareinaspecialpositiontoinfluencethejudge.
Sec. 5.Judgesshall notonlybefreefrominappropriate connectionswith,and influenceby,theexecutiveand
legislativebranchesofgovernment,butmustalsoappeartobefreetherefromtoareasonableobserver.
IntheInvestigatorsmind,althoughJusticeSabiosignedtheTROinfavourofMeralcocontrarytohisbrothersadvice,
JusticeSabios"unusualinterestinholdingontotheMeralcocase,"seemedtoindicatethathemayhavebeenactually
influencedbyhisbrother"tohelpGSIS."Inarrivingatthisconclusion,thePanelnotedthefollowingcircumstances:(1)
JusticeSabioadamantlyrefusedtoyieldthechairmanshipoftheSpecialNinthDivisionalthoughtheregularchairman,
JusticeReyeshadreturnedtodutyonJune10,2008;and,(2)JusticeSabioofficiouslypreparedandsignedaresolution(a
chorefortheponenteJusticeV.Roxastoperform),requiringtheGSISandtheSECtocommentonMeralcos"Motionfor
JusticeB.ReyestoAssumetheChairmanshipofthe9thDivision,"whichheprobablyintendedtodelaythedecisiononthe
preliminaryinjunctionbeyondthelifeoftheTROtotheprejudiceofMeralcoandtheadvantageoftheGSIS.
Basedonthefactsonrecord,theCourtiswaryofdeclaringthatJusticeSabiohadbeeninfluencedbyhisbrotherby
speculatingthathewouldhavefavoredGSIShadhebeenapartofthedivisionwhichrenderedthedecisionintheMeralco
case.However,wedofindthatitwasimproperforJusticeSabiotoholdontothechairmanshipoftheNinthDivisionthe
despitethereturnofJusticeReyes,whenJusticeSabiosdesignationasactingchairmanwasclearlyonlyforthedurationof
JusticeReyesleaveofabsence.Welikewisenotewithdisfavorhisstubborninsistenceonhisowninterpretationofthe
IRCAandhostile,dismissiveattitudetowardsequallywellreasonedpositionsofhiscolleaguesontheproperinterpretation
oftheirrules.SuchconductonthepartofJusticeSabiodidnothingtoaidintheswiftandamicableresolutionofhisdispute
withJusticeReyesbutratherfannedtheflamesofresentmentbetweenthem.Wedeemthissortofbehaviorunbecomingfor
amagistrateofhisstature.
JusticeSabiosconversationswithMr.DeBorjawereimproperandindiscreet.
Onthismatter,theCourtacceptsthefollowingfindingsintheReport:

KnowingthenatureofDeBorjasprofession,JusticeSabio,Jr.shouldhavebeenwaryoftheformer.Heshouldhave
foreseen that De Borja had the Meralco case on his mind when he called Justice Sabio, Jr. True enough, De Borja
mentionedtheMeralcocaseandcongratulatedJusticeSabio,Jr.forhavingsignedtheTROinfavourofMeralco.
ButthatwasnotthelasttimeJusticeSabio,Jr.wouldhearfromDeBorja.Amonthlater,afterJusticeSabio,Jr.had
presidedatthehearingofMeralcosprayerforpreliminaryinjunctiononJune23,2008,andthecasewasripeningfor
decisionorresolution,DeBorjaagaincalledupJusticeSabio,Jr.andaskedtomeethimoverdinnerto"chitchat"aboutthe
Meralcocase.
InsteadoftellingoffDeBorjathathecouldnot,andwouldnot,talkabouttheMeralcocase,JusticeSabio,Jr.agreedto
meetDeBorjainthelobbyloungeoftheAteneoLawSchoolafterhiseveningclassinLegalEthicsinsaidschool.
JusticeSabioJr.sactionofdiscussingtheMeralcocasewithDeBorjawashighlyinappropriateandindiscreet.First,in
talkswithhisbrother;thesecondtimeinconversationwithDeBorja,JusticeSabio,Jr.broketheshieldof confidentiality
thatcoversthedispositionofcasesintheCourtinordertopreserveandprotecttheintegrityandindependenceoftheCourt
itself.HeignoredtheinjunctioninCanon1,Section8oftheNewCodeofJudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciary
that: "Judgesshallexhibitandpromotehighstandardsofjudicialconduct(anddiscretion)inordertoreinforce
publicconfidenceinthejudiciarywhichisfundamentaltothemaintenanceofjudicialindependence."
ItwasduringthatmeetingwithDeBorjainthelobbyloungeoftheAteneoLawSchool,thatDeBorjaallegedlyoffered
him P10 million, in behalf of Meralco, to step out of the case and allow Justice Bienvenido Reyes to assume the
chairmanshipoftheSpecialNinthDivisionbecauseMeralcowas"not comfortable" withhim(JusticeSabio,Jr.).He
rejectedthebribeofferbecausehe"couldnotinconscienceacceptit."
JusticeSabio,Jr.wasallegedlyshockedandinsultedthatDeBorjawouldthinkthathe(JusticeSabio,Jr.)couldbebribed
orbought.ThePanelis,however,honestlyperplexedwhyinspiteofhisoutragedrespectability,JusticeSabio,Jr.calledup
De Borjatwo(2) dayslater (onJuly3,2008),totell De Borja tostop"pestering" him withhiscalls.ThePanel is
nonplussedbecause,normally,apersonwhohasbeeninsultedwouldneverwanttosee,muchlessspeakagain,tothe
personwhohaddisrespectedhim.HecouldhavejustshutoffhiscellphonetoDeBorjascalls.DeBorjadeniedthathe
reiteratedhisofferofP10milliontoJusticeSabio,Jr.HedeniedsayingthatevenifthecaseshouldgouptotheSupreme
Court,GSISwouldstilllose,hence,"sayinglangyungP10million;bakasisihinkapangmgaanakmo."Hetestifiedthat
hisreplytoJusticeSabio,Jr.scallwas"deadma"orindifference.JusticeSabio,Jr.blamedthatcallofhistoa"lapsein
judgment"onhispart.
Bethatasitmay,theInvestigatingPanelfindsmorecredibleJusticeSabio,Jr.sstoryaboutDeBorjasP10millionbribe
offeronbehalfofMeralco,thanDeBorjasdenialthathemadesuchanoffer.WhydoesthePanelbelievehim,andnotDe
Borja?
First,becauseJusticeSabio,Jr.verballyreportedtherejectedbribeoffertoCAPresidingJusticeConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.
thenextdayafactadmittedbyPresidingJusticeVasquez,Jr.
Second,eventhoughJusticeSabio,Jr.didnotmentionthebribeofferorsnameinbothhisverbalandwrittenreportsto
PresidingJusticeVasquez,Jr.,DeBorjaidentifiedhimselftothemediaasthepersonalludedto.
Third,DeBorjasallegation,thatJusticeSabio,Jr.wantedP50million,notP10million,isnotbelievable,for,ifJustice
Sabio,Jr.quotedP50millionashisprice,hewouldnothavereportedtheP10millionbribeoffertoPresidingJustice
Vasquez,Jr.HewouldhavewaitedforMeralcosreplytohiscounteroffer.138
xxxxxxxxx
Indeed,theCourt agreeswiththePanelthattheallegationofsolicitationonthepartofJusticeSabioisnotcredible.
Nevertheless,thecontinuedcommunicationsbetweenJusticeSabioandMr.DeBorjaevenafterthelattersrejectedbribery
attemptishighlyinappropriateandshowspoorjudgmentonthepartofJusticeSabiowhoshouldhaveactedinpreservation
ofthedignityofhisjudicialofficeandtheinstitutiontowhichhebelongs.

Premisesconsidered,thisCourtisoftheviewthatJusticeSabiosindiscreetandimprudentconversationsregardingthe
MeralcocasewithhisbrotherandMr.DeBorjaandhisactuationsinthechairmanshipdisputewithJusticeReyesconstitute
simplemisconductandconductunbecomingofajusticeoftheCourtofAppealswhichwarrantthepenaltyoftwo(2)
monthssuspensionwithoutpay.
FindingsregardingtheconductofAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.Reyes.
Aspreviouslydiscussed,JusticeReyesappealedtoPresidingJusticeVazquezinaletterdatedJuly22,2008,reiteratinghis
(JusticeReyes)requestthatthePresidingJusticerenderanopinionwhichDivisionoftheCourtofAppealstheEighth
Divisionwithhimaschairman,ortheSpecialNinthDivisionchairedbyJusticeSabioshouldresolvetheMeralcocase.
ThiswasinconjunctionwithanInterpleaderfiledbyJusticeRoxasonthesameissuewiththePresidingJustice.Yet,
despitethefactthatthePresidingJusticeinformedJusticesReyesandRoxasthathewouldstudythematter,JusticesReyes
andJusticeRoxas,togetherwithJusticeBruselas,promulgatedthedecisionintheMeralcocaseonJuly23,2008.Justice
ReyesandJusticeRoxasdidnotwithdrawtheirrequestforarulingnordideitherofthemadvisethePresidingJustice
beforehandoftheirintentiontoproceedwiththeresolutionoftheMeralcocase.Thus,whenthePresidingJusticeissuedhis
rulingonthechairmanshipdisputeonJuly24,2008,hewasunawareofthepromulgationoftheMeralcodecisiononJuly
23,2008,undertheaegisofJusticeReyesEighthDivision.AsfoundbythePanel,"PresidingJusticeVasquez,Jr.was
completely taken aback when he learned about it on July 24, 2008, the same day that he issued his opinion on the
chairmanshipissuewhichbythenhadbecomefunctusoficio.Hefeltbelittledandhumiliatedbythediscourtesyofthetwo
justicestohim."
ItbearsrepeatingherethatunderCanon5,Section3oftheNewCodeofJudicialConduct,judgesaremandatedtoshowthe
appropriateconsiderationandrespectfortheircolleaguesintheJudiciary.
Thus,weadoptthefindingofthePanelonthispointandfindJusticeReyesguiltyofsimplemisconduct,whichismitigated
bythefactthatherepeatedlyaskedPresidingJusticeVasqueztoactonhisrequesttoruleontheconflictinginterpretation
oftheIRCA.However,JusticeReyesshouldbereprimandedfortakingpartinthedecisionofthesubjectcasewithout
awaitingtherulingofthePresidingJustice.
FindingsregardingtheconductofJusticeMyrnaDimarananVidal
TheCourtfindswelltakenandadoptsthefindingsofthePanelofInvestigators,towit:
JusticeDimarananVidaldeviatedfromtheIRCAwhensheallowedherselftoberushedbyJusticeRoxastosignthe
MeralcodecisiononJuly8,2008,withoutreadingthepartiesmemorandaandwithoutthedeliberationamongmembersof
theDivisionrequiredbytheIRCA.SheknewthattheTROwouldnotexpireuntilJuly30,2008somethree(3)weeks
awayfromJuly8,2008yetsheallowedherselftobelieveJusticeRoxasmisrepresentationthatsigningthedecisionwas
urgent.HercompliancewithcertaindissemblingpracticesofotherjusticesoftheCourt,inviolationoftheIRCA,showed
weaknessandlackofindependenceonherpart.139
ThefollowingsectionsofCanon1oftheCodeofJudicialConductareinstructiveinthisregard:
SEC.1.Judgesshallexercisethejudicial functionindependentlyonthebasisoftheirassessmentofthefactsandin
accordancewithaconscientiousunderstandingofthelaw,freeofanyextraneousinfluence,inducement,pressure,threator
interference,directorindirect,fromanyquarterorforanyreason.
SEC.2.Inperformingjudicialduties,judgesshallbeindependentfromjudicialcolleaguesinrespectofdecisionswhichthe
judgeisobligedtomakeindependently.
Allowingafellowjusticetoinducehertodeviatefromestablishedprocedureconstitutesconductunbecomingajusticefor
whichJusticeDimarananVidalshouldbeADMONISHEDtobemorecircumspectintheperformanceofherjudicial
duties.
FindingsregardingtheconductofPresidingJusticeConradoM.Vasquez

ItistheviewofthePanelofInvestigatorsthatPresidingJusticeVasquezfailedtoprovidetheleadershipexpectedofhimas
headoftheCourtofAppeals.ThefollowingquotefromtheReportsummarizestheperceivedlapsesonthepartofthe
PresidingJustice:
Clearly,PresidingJusticeVasquez,Jr.hadbeenindecisiveindealingwiththeturmoilarisingfromtheMeralcocase.He
vacillated and temporized on resolving the impasse between Justice Sabio, Jr. and Justice B. L. Reyes over the
chairmanshipoftheDivisionthatshouldhearanddecidetheMeralcocase.Hefailedtotakeactiononthereportedbribe
offerbyMeralcotoJ.Sabio,Jr.HehesitatedtoasserthisleadershipoftheCourtevenwhenthepartiesrepeatedlyurged
himtolaydowntheruleforthemtofollow.Washehamperedbythefactthathehasrelativestwodaughtersemployed
intheGSIS,andasisterwhoisaconsultantthereof?Hepleadedlackofauthority.Washenotawarethen,ordidhe
discovertoolate,thatunderSection11,RuleVIIIoftheIRCA,heisinfactauthorizedtoact"onanymatter"involving
theCourtanditsmembers?ThatRuleprovides:
Sec.11.xxxthePresidingJusticeoranyoneactinginhisplaceisauthorizedtoactonanymatternotcoveredby
theseRules.Suchactionshall,however,bereportedtotheCourtenbanc.
HeshouldhaveconvenedtheCourtenbancassoonastheallegedbriberyattemptonJusticeSabio,Jr.wasreportedtohim,
foritwasanattempttocorruptamemberoftheCourt,callingforthe"protectionandpreservationoftheintegrityofthe
judicialprocesses"oftheCourt,hence,anadministrativemattercognizablebytheCourtenbanc.Section5(c),RuleIof
theIRCA,provides:
Sec.5.MatterscognizablebytheCourtenbanc.TheCourtenbanc
shall,interalia:
(a)xxx
(b)Adoptuniformadministrativemeasures,procedures,andpoliciesfortheprotectionandpreservationofthe
integrityofthejudicialprocesses,xxx.
PresidingJusticeVasquezadmittedhis"lapsesinjudgment."140
InthelightoftheforegoingobservationsofthePanel,thisCourtisoftheviewthatmuchofthetroublenowbeingfacedby
theCourtofAppealscouldhavebeenavertedbytimely,judiciousanddecisiveactiononthepartofthePresidingJustice.
Certainly,thisunpleasantandtryingepisodeinfailuretoactintheearlypartofhistenureasPresidingJusticehasindelibly
impresseduponhimwhatisrequiredofhimasleaderofthesecondhighestcourtintheland.Nevertheless,Presiding
JusticeVasquezisherebyseverelyreprimandedforhisfailuretoactpromptlyanddecisivelyonthecontroversyasrequired
ofhimbytheIRCA.
FindingsregardingotherpersonalitiesinvolvedintheMeralcocase
AlthoughthePresidingJusticeinhisletterdatedAugust1,2008onlyreferredtothisCourt"theproprietyoftheactionsof
theJusticesconcerned"intheMeralcocase,wecannotsimplyturnablindeyetothefactsbroughttolightduringthe
investigationthatrelatetopotentialliabilitiesofotherpersonalitiesintheMeralcocase.
WithrespecttoChairmanSabio,thisCourthasthepowertodisciplinemembersoftheBarandhisattempttoinfluencea
memberoftheJudiciary,hisbrotheratthat,shouldbereferredtotheBarConfidantforappropriateaction.
WithrespecttoMr.DeBorja,thepresentinvestigationhasgiventhisCourtreasontobelievethatMr.DeBorjamaybe
criminallyliableforhisattempt tobribeamagistrateoftheCourt ofAppeals.Thismattershouldbereferredtothe
DepartmentofJusticeforappropriateaction.
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,thispercuriamdecisionwasreachedafterdeliberationoftheCourt
enbanc.Attheoutset,theofferofthree(3)membersoftheCourttorecusethemselveswasdeniedbytheCourt.Exceptfor
twomembersoftheCourtwhowereallowedtoinhibitthemselvesfromthecase,theJusticesvotedasfollows:Twelve

JusticesvotedforthedismissalfromserviceofAssociateJusticeVicenteQ.Roxasandone(1)votedforhissuspension
fromtheserviceforsix(6)months.Ten(10)Justicesvotedfortwo(2)monthsuspensionfromservicewithoutpayof
AssociateJusticeJoseL.Sabio,one(1)votedforsixmonthsuspension,one(1)forreprimandonlyasheshouldbecredited
forbeinga"whistleblower"andone(1)forhisdismissalfromtheservice.Eight(8)JusticesvotedtoreprimandAssociate
JusticeBienvenidoL.Reyesandfive(5)forhissuspensionfromtheserviceforone(1)month.Astotherest,thevoting
wasunanimous.
WHEREFORE,theCourtRESOLVESasfollows:
(1)AssociateJusticeVicenteQ.RoxasisfoundguiltyofmultipleviolationsofthecanonsoftheCodeofJudicialConduct,
gravemisconduct,dishonesty,undueinterestandconductprejudicialtothebestinterestoftheservice,andisDISMISSED
from the service, with FORFEITURE of all benefits, except accrued leave credits if any, with prejudice to his re
employmentinanybranchorserviceofthegovernmentincludinggovernmentownedandcontrolledcorporations;
(2)AssociateJusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.isfoundguiltyofsimplemisconductandconductunbecomingofajusticeofthe
CourtofAppealsandisSUSPENDEDfortwo(2)monthswithoutpay,withasternwarningthatarepetitionofthesameor
similaractswillwarrantamoreseverepenalty;
(3) Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. is SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for his failure to act promptly and
decisivelyinordertoaverttheincidentsthatdamagedtheimageoftheCourtofAppeals,withasternwarningthata
repetitionofthesameorsimilaractswillwarrantamoreseverepenalty;
(4) Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes is found guilty of simple misconduct with mitigating circumstance and is
REPRIMANDED,withasternwarningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractswillwarrantamoreseverepenalty;
(5)AssociateJusticeMyrnaDimarananVidalisfoundguiltyofconductunbecomingaJusticeoftheCourtofAppealsand
isADMONISHEDtobemorecircumspectinthedischargeofherjudicialduties.
(6)PCGGChairmanCamiloL.SabiosacttoinfluencethejudgmentofamemberoftheJudiciaryinapendingcaseis
herebyreferredtotheBarConfidantforappropriateaction;
(7)JusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.schargeagainstMr.FrancisR.DeBorjaforattemptedbriberyofamemberoftheJudiciaryis
herebyreferredtotheDepartmentofJusticeforappropriateaction.
ThisDecisionshalltakeeffectimmediately.
SOORDERED.

A.C.No.6155March14,2006
MA.GINAL.FRANCISCO,JOSEPHINES.TANandCARLOSM.JOAQUIN,Complainants,
vs.
ATTY.JAIMEJUANITOP.PORTUGAL,Respondent.
DECISION
TINGA,J.:
ComplainantsfiledbeforethisCourtanaffidavitcomplaint 1 on15August2003againstAtty.JaimeJuanitoP.Portugal
(respondent)forviolationoftheLawyersOath,grossmisconduct,andgrossnegligence.Complainantsarerelatedto

petitionersinG.R.No.15262123entitledSPO1ErnestC.Francisco,SPO1DonatoF.TanandPO3RolandoM.Joaquinv.
PeopleofthePhilippines,inwhosebehalfrespondentfiledthePetitionforReviewonCertiorari(AdCautelam)inthecase.
The complaint against respondent originated from his alleged mishandling of the abovementioned petition which
eventuallyledtoitsdenialwithfinalitybythisCourttotheprejudiceofpetitionerstherein.
Thefactsareasfollows:
On21March1994,SPO1ErnestoC.Francisco,SPO1DonatoF.TanandPO3RolandoM.Joaquin(eventuallypetitioners
inG.R.No.15262123,collectivelyreferredtohereinastheaccused)wereinvolvedinashootingincidentwhichresulted
inthedeathoftwoindividualsandtheseriousinjuryofanother.Asaresult,Informationswerefiledagainstthembeforethe
Sandiganbayanformurderandfrustratedmurder.Theaccusedpleadednotguiltyandtrialensued.Afterduetrial,the
Sandiganbayan2foundtheaccusedguiltyoftwocountsofhomicideandonecountofattemptedhomicide.
Atthatjuncture,complainantsengagedtheservicesofhereinrespondentfortheaccused.RespondentthenfiledaMotion
forReconsiderationwiththeSandiganbayanbutitwasdeniedinaResolutiondated21August2001.Unfazedbythedenial,
respondentfiledanUrgentMotionforLeavetoFileSecondMotionforReconsideration,withtheattachedSecondMotion
forReconsideration.3PendingresolutionbytheSandiganbayan,respondentalsofiledwiththisCourtaPetitionforReview
onCertiorari(AdCautelam)on3May2002.
Thereafter,complainantsneverheardfromrespondentagaindespitethefrequenttelephonecallstheymadetohisoffice.
Whenrespondentdidnotreturntheirphoneinquiries,complainantswenttorespondentslastknownaddressonlytofind
outthathehadmovedoutwithoutanyforwardingaddress.
Morethanayearafterthepetitionwasfiled,complainantswereconstrainedtopersonallyverifythestatusofthe ad
cautelampetitionastheyhadneithernewsfromrespondentaboutthecasenorknowledgeofhiswhereabouts.Theywere
shockedtodiscoverthattheCourthadalreadyissuedaResolution 4dated3July2002,denyingthepetitionforlatefiling
andnonpaymentofdocketfees.
ComplainantsalsolearnedthatthesaidResolutionhadattainedfinalityandwarrantsofarrest 5 hadalreadybeenissued
againsttheaccusedbecauserespondent,whosewhereaboutsremainedunknown,didnothingtopreventthereglementary
periodforseekingreconsiderationfromlapsing.
InhisComment,6respondentstatesthatitisofvitalsignificancethattheCourtnotesthathewasnottheoriginalcounselof
theaccused.HeonlymettheaccusedduringthepromulgationoftheSandiganbayandecisionconvictingtheaccusedoftwo
countsofhomicideandonecountofattemptedhomicide.Hewasmerelyrequestedbytheoriginalcounseltobeonhand,
assisttheaccused,andbepresentatthepromulgationoftheSandiganbayandecision.
Respondentclaimsthattherewasnoformalengagementundertakenbytheparties.Butonlybecauseofhissincereeffort
andintruespiritoftheLawyersOathdidhefiletheMotionforReconsideration.Thoughadmittingitshighlyirregular
character,respondentalsomadeinformalbuturgentandpersonalrepresentationwiththemembersoftheDivisionofthe
Sandiganbayanwhopromulgatedthedecisionofconviction.Heassertsthatbecauseofalltheeffortsheputintothecaseof
theaccused,hisotherprofessionalobligationswereneglectedandthatalltheseweredonewithoutproperandadequate
remuneration.
Astotheadcautelampetition,respondentmaintainsthatitwasfiledontime.Hestressesthatthelastdayoffilingofthe
petitionwason3April2002andonthatveryday,hefiledwiththisCourtaMotionforExtensionofTimetoFilePetition
forReview,7seekinganadditionalthirty(30)daystofilethepetition.Subsequently,on3May2002,hefiledthepetitionby
registeredmailandpaidthecorrespondingdocketfees.Hence,soheconcludes,itwasfiledwithinthereglementaryperiod.
Soonthereafter,respondentrecountedallthe"herculean"effortshemadeinassistingtheaccusedforalmostayearafterthe
promulgationoftheSandiganbayandecision.Heconsideredthefactthatitwasacasehehadjustinheritedfromtheoriginal
counsel;theeffectofhishandlingthecaseonhisotherequallyimportantprofessionalobligations;thelackofadequate
financialconsiderationforhandlingthecase;andhisplanstotraveltotheUnitedStatestoexplorefurtherprofessional
opportunities.Hethendecidedtoformallywithdrawascounselfortheaccused.HewrotealettertoPO3RolandoJoaquin
(PO3Joaquin),whoservedasthecontactpersonbetweenrespondentandcomplainants,explaininghisdecisiontowithdraw

astheircounsel,andattachingtheNoticetoWithdrawwhichrespondentinstructedtheaccusedtosignandfilewiththe
Court.Hesenttheletterthroughregisteredmailbutunfortunately,hecouldnotlocatetheregistryreceiptissuedforthe
letter.
RespondentstatesthathehasaskedtheaccusedthathebedischargedfromthecaseandendorsedtheNoticeofWithdrawal
toPO3JoaquinforthelattertofilewiththeCourt.Unfortunately,PO3Joaquindidnotdoso,ashewaskeenlyawarethatit
wouldbedifficulttofindanewcounselwhowouldbeasequallyaccommodatingasrespondent.Respondentsuggeststhis
mighthavebeenthereasonfortheseveralcallscomplainantsmadetohisoffice.
On9February2004,theCourtresolvedtoreferthemattertotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)forinvestigation,
reportandrecommendation.1awph!l.net
ThecasewasassignedtoInvestigatingCommissionerLelandR.Villadolid,Jr.(CommissionerVilladolid)whosentnotices
ofhearingtothepartiesbutofthethreecomplainants,onlycomplainantCarlosJoaquinappeared.Thus,inthemandatory
conferenceheld,theothertwocomplainantsweredeclaredashavingwaivedtheirrightstofurtherparticipateintheIBP
proceedings.8
Thepartiesweredirectedtofiletheirrespectivepositionpapersandon27May2005,CommissionerVilladolidsubmitted
hisReportandRecommendationfindingrespondentguiltyofviolationoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility 9 and
recommendedtheimpositionofpenaltyrangingfrom reprimandtosuspensionofsix(6)months.1awph!l.net10 On12
November 2005, the Board of Directors of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve Commissioner Villadolids
recommendationtofindrespondentguiltyandspecificallytorecommendhissuspensionforsix(6)monthsaspenalty.
Theonlyissuetoberesolvedinthecaseatbaris,consideringallthefactspresented,whetherrespondentcommittedgross
negligenceormisconductinhandlingG.R.No.15262123,whicheventuallyledtothe adcautelam petitionsdismissal
withfinality.
Aftercarefulconsiderationoftherecordsofthecase,theCourtfindsthesuspensionrecommendedbytheIBPproper.
Inacriminalcaselikethathandledbyrespondentinbehalfoftheaccused,respondenthasahigherdutytobecircumspect
indefendingtheaccusedforitisnotonlythepropertyoftheaccusedwhichstandstobelostbutmoreimportantly,their
righttotheirlifeandliberty.AsheldinRegalav.Sandiganbayan:11
Thus,inthecreationoflawyerclientrelationship,therearerules,ethicalconductanddutiesthatbreathelifeintoit,among
those,thefiduciarydutytohisclientwhichisofverydelicate,exactingandconfidentialcharacter,requiringaveryhigh
degreeoffidelityandgoodfaith,thatisrequiredbyreasonofnecessityandpublicinterestxxx.
Itisalsothestrictsenseoffidelityofalawyertohisclientthatdistinguisheshimfromanyotherprofessioninsociety.xx
x12
Attheonset,theCourttakesnoticethattheadcautelampetitionwasactuallyfiledoutoftime.Thoughrespondentfiled
withtheSandiganbayananUrgentMotionforLeavetoFileSecondMotionforReconsiderationwiththeattachedSecond
MotionforReconsideration,heshouldhaveknownthatasecondmotionforreconsiderationisaprohibitedpleading 13andit
rests on the sound discretion of the Sandiganbayan to admit it or not. Thus, in effect, the motion did not toll the
reglementaryperiod toappeal. Havingfailed todoso,the accusedhad alreadylost theirright toappeal longbefore
respondentfiledhismotionforextension.Therefore,respondentcannotnowsayhefiledtheadcautelampetitionontime.
Also important to note is the allegation of complainants that the Sandiganbayan denied the second motion for
reconsiderationinitsResolutiondated7February2002.Thisrespondentdoesnotdispute.
Astorespondentsconductindealingwiththeaccusedandcomplainants,hedefinitelyfellshortofthehighstandardof
assiduousnessthat acounsel must perform tosafeguardtherightsofhisclients.AsaptlyobservedbyCommissioner
Villadolid,respondenthadnotbeenquitecandidinhisdealingswiththeaccusedorcomplainants.TheCourtnotesthat
thoughrespondentrepresentedtotheaccusedthathehadchangedhisofficeaddress,still,fromtheexaminationofthe
pleadings14hefiled,itcanbegleanedthatallofthepleadingshavethesamemailingaddressasthatknowntocomplainants.
Presumably,atsomepoint,respondentsofficewouldhavereceivedtheCourtsResolutiondismissingthepetition.Of
course,theprudentsteptotakeinthatsituationwastoatleastinformtheclientoftheadverseresolutionsincetheyhad

constantlycalledrespondentsofficetocheckthestatusofthecase.Evenwhenheknewthatcomplainantshadbeencalling
hisoffice,heoptednottoreturntheircalls.
RespondentprofessedaninklingthattheseveralphonecallsofcomplainantsmayhavebeenabouttheletterhesentPO3
Joaquinregardinghisdesiretobedischargedascounselofthecase.However,thoughawareofsuchlikelihood,respondent
stilldidnotreturntheircalls.Hadhedoneso,heandcomplainantscouldhavethreshedoutallunresolvedmattersbetween
them.
Hadrespondenttrulyintendedtowithdrawhisappearancefortheaccused,heasalawyerwhoispresumablysteepedin
courtproceduresandpractices,shouldhavefiledthenoticeofwithdrawalhimselfinsteadoftheaccused.Attheveryleast,
heshouldhaveinformedthisCourtthroughtheappropriatemanifestationthathehadalreadygiveninstructionstohis
clientsontheproperwaytogoaboutthefilingoftheNoticeofWithdrawal,assuggestedbyCommissionerVilladolid.In
notsodoing,hewasnegligentinhandlingthecaseoftheaccused.
Certainly,respondentoughttoknowthathewastheonewhoshouldhavefiledtheNoticetoWithdrawandnottheaccused.
His tale that he sent a registered letter to the accused and gave them instructions on how to go about respondents
withdrawalfromthecasedefiescredulity.Itshouldhavebeenrespondentwhoundertooktheappropriatemeasuresforthe
properwithdrawalofhisrepresentation.Heshouldnothavereliedonhisclienttodoitforhimifsuchwastrulythecase.
Withoutthepresentationoftheallegedregistryreceipt(orthereturncard,whichconfirmsthereceiptofthemailbythe
recipient)oftheletterheallegedlysenttoPO3Joaquin,theCourtcannotlendcredencetorespondentsnakedclaim,
especiallysothatcomplainantshavebeenresoluteintheirstandthattheydidnothearfromrespondentafterthelatterhad
filedtheadcautelampetition.Hecouldrelievehimselfofhisresponsibilityascounselonlyfirstbysecuringthewritten
conformityoftheaccusedandfilingitwiththecourtpursuanttoRule138,Section26oftheRulesofCourt. 15
Theruleinthisjurisdictionisthataclienthastheabsoluterighttoterminatetheattorneyclientrelationatanytimewithor
withoutcause.Therightofanattorneytowithdraworterminatetherelationotherthanforsufficientcauseis,however,
considerablyrestricted.Amongthefundamentalrulesofethicsistheprinciplethatanattorneywhoundertakestoconduct
anactionimpliedlystipulatestocarryittoitsconclusion.Heisnotatlibertytoabandonitwithoutreasonablecause.A
lawyersrighttowithdrawfromacasebeforeitsfinaladjudicationarisesonlyfromtheclientswrittenconsentorfroma
goodcause.16
WeagreewithCommissionerVilladolidthatthedismissalofthe adcautelam petitionwasprimarilyduetothegross
negligenceofrespondent.TheCourthasstressedinArominv.Boncavil17that:
Onceheagreestotakeupthecauseoftheclient,thelawyerowesfidelitytosuchcauseandmustalwaysbemindfulofthe
trustandconfidencereposedinhim.Hemustservetheclientwithcompetenceanddiligence,andchampionthelatters
causewithwholeheartedfidelity,care,anddevotion.Elsewisestated,heowesentiredevotiontotheinterestoftheclient,
warmzealinthemaintenanceanddefenseofhisclientsrights,andtheexertionofthehisutmostlearningandabilitytothe
endthatnothingbetakenorwithheldfromhisclient,savebytherulesoflaw,legallyapplied.Thissimplymeansthathis
clientisentitledtothebenefitofanyandeveryremedyanddefensethatisauthorizedbythelawofthelandandhemay
expecthislawyertoasserteverysuchremedyordefense.Ifmuchisdemandedfromanattorney,itisbecausetheentrusted
privilegetopracticelawcarrieswithitthecorrelativedutiesnotonlytotheclientbutalsotothecourt,tothebar,andtothe
public.Alawyerwhoperformshisdutywithdiligenceandcandornotonlyprotectstheinterestofhisclient;healsoserves
theendsofjustice,doeshonortothebar,andhelpsmaintaintherespectofthecommunitytothelegalprofession. 18
Respondenthastimeandagainstatedthathedidalltheendeavorsheenumeratedwithoutadequateorproperremuneration.
However,complainantshavesufficientlydisputedsuchclaimwhentheyattachedintheirpositionpaperfiledbeforetheIBP
amachinevalidateddepositslipintheamountofP15,500.00fortheMetroBanksavingsaccountofoneJaimePortugal
withaccountnumber7186509273.19Respondenthasneitheradmittednordeniedhavingclaimedthedepositedamount.
TheCourtalsorejectsrespondentsclaimthattherewasnoformalengagementbetweenthepartiesandthathemadeallhis
effortsforthecasewithoutadequateandproperconsideration.InthewordsofthenJusticePanganiban(presentlyChief
Justice)inBurbev.Atty.Magulta:20

Afteragreeingtotakeupthecauseofaclient,alawyerowesfidelitytobothcauseandclient,eveniftheclientneverpaid
anyfeefortheattorneyclientrelationship.Lawyeringisnotabusiness;itisaprofessioninwhichdutyofpublicservice,
notmoney,istheprimaryconsideration.21
AlsotothepointisanothercasewherethisCourtruled,thus:
Awrittencontractisnotanessentialelementintheemploymentofanattorney;thecontractmaybeexpressorimplied.To
establishtherelation,itissufficientthattheadviceandassistanceofanattorneyissoughtandreceivedinanymatter
pertinenttohisprofession.xxx22
Hence,evenifrespondent feltundercompensatedinthecaseheundertooktodefend,hisobligationembodiedinthe
LawyersOathandtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitystillremainsunwavering.Thezealandthedegreeoffervorin
handlingthecaseshouldneitherdiminishnorceasejustbecauseofhisperceivedinsufficiencyofremuneration.
Lastly,theCourtdoesnotappreciatetheoffensiveappellationrespondentcalledtheshootingincidentthattheaccusedwas
engagedin.Hedescribedtheincident,thus:"theaccusedpoliceofficerswhohadbeenconvictedof[h]omicideforthe
salvageofFroilanG.CabilingandJoseM.Chuaand[a]ttempted[h]omicideofMarioC.Macato." 23Rule14.0124ofthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibilityclearlydirectslawyersnottodiscriminateclientsastotheirbeliefoftheguiltofthe
latter.Itisironicthatitisthedefensecounselthatactuallybrandedhisownclientsasbeingtheculpritsthat"salvaged"the
victims.Thoughhemightthinkofhisclientsasthat,stillitisunprofessionaltobelabelinganeventassuchwheneventhe
Sandiganbayanhadnotdoneso.
TheIBPBoardofGovernorsrecommendedthesuspensionofrespondentforsix(6)months,themostseverepenalty
recommendedbyCommissionerVilladolid,butdidnotexplainwhysuchpenaltywasjustified.Inafairlyrecentcasewhere
thelawyerfailedtofileanappealbriefwhichresultedtothedismissaloftheappealofhisclientintheCourtofAppeals,
theCourtimposedupontheerringlawyerthepenaltyofthree(3)monthssuspension. 25TheCourtfindsitfittoimposethe
sameinthecaseatbar.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,respondentisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforthree(3)months.Let
acopyoftheResolutionbefurnishedtheBarConfidantforappropriateannotationintherecordofrespondent.
SOORDERED.
G.R.Nos.154297300February15,2008
PUBLICATTORNEYSOFFICE,MAXIMOB.USITA,JR.andWILFREDOC.ANDRES,petitioners,
vs.
THEHON.SANDIGANBAYAN,SPECIALDIVISION,respondent.
DECISION
AZCUNA,J.:
Thisisapetitionfor certiorari allegingthattheSandiganbayan,SpecialDivision,committedgraveabuseofdiscretion
amountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictioninissuingtheResolutionsdatedMay28,2002andJune11,2002retaining
petitioners,Atty.MaximoB.Usita,Jr.andAtty.WilfredoC.AndresofthePublicAttorneysOffice(PAO),ascounselsde
oficioofthenaccusedPresidentJosephEstradaandhisson,Jose"Jinggoy"Estrada.
Thefactsareasfollows:
OnMarch15and18,2002,Atty.PersidaV.RuedaAcosta,ChiefPublicAttorneyofPAOpersonallyappearedbefore
respondentSpecialDivisionoftheSandiganbayan 1torequestthereliefoftheappearanceofPAOasdeoficiocounselfor

accusedPresidentJosephEstradaandJoseEstradaintheircriminalcasesbeforetheSandigabayan.However,therequest
wasdenied.
OnMay8,2002,theChiefPublicAttorneyfiledanUrgentand ExParte MotiontobeRelievedasCourtAppointed
CounselwiththeSpecialDivisionoftheSandiganbayan,prayingthatsheberelievedofherdutiesandresponsibilitiesas
counseldeoficioforthesaidaccusedonthegroundthatshehadaswellingworkloadconsistingofadministrativematters
andthattheaccusedarenotindigentpersons;hence,theyarenotqualifiedtoavailthemselvesoftheservicesofPAO.
OnMay9,2002,respondentCourtfoundthereasonsoftheChiefPublicAttorneytobeplausibleandrelievedtheChief
PublicAttorneyascounseldeoficioofformerPresidentJosephEstradaandMayorJoseEstrada.
On May 14, 2002, the remaining eight PAO lawyers filed an ExParte Motion To Be Relieved As CourtAppointed
CounselswithrespondentCourtonthegroundthattheaccused,formerPresidentJosephEstradaandJoseEstrada,arenot
indigents;therefore,theyarenotqualifiedtoavailthemselvesoftheservicesofPAO.
OnMay28,2002,respondentCourtissuedaResolutiondenyingthemotion,butretainingtwooftheeightPAOlawyers,
namely,thepetitionersAtty.Usita,Jr.andAtty.Andres.ThepertinentportionoftheResolutionreads:
...TherebeingnocompellingandsufficientreasonstoabandontheCourtspreviousrulings,theinstantmotionishereby
DENIED.WhileitistruethatasimilarmotionfiledbythePAOChiefPublicAttorneyPersidaRuedaAcostawasgranted
perCourtsResolutionofMay9,2002,therationalizationadvancedbyAtty.RuedawasfoundmeritoriousbytheCourtin
thattherewasunexpectedupsurgeinheradministrativeworkloadasheadoftheofficeincludingtheadministrationand
supervisionofmoreorless1,000PAOlawyersand700staffnationwideandmanyotherfunctionswhichrequireher
immediateattentionandundividedtime.
Nonetheless,consideringthatthereareeight(8)deoficiocounselsfromthePublicAttorneysOffice(PAO),theCourt,in
theexerciseofitssounddiscretion,deemsitpropertoreducetheirnumberandretainonlytwo(2)ofthem,namely:Atty.
WilfredoC.AndresandAtty.MaximoB.Usitatocontinuetheirdutiesandresponsibilitiesascounselsdeoficioforaccused
JosephandJose"Jinggoy"Estrada.2
TheretainedlawyersofPAOjoinedthefourCourtappointedcounselsfromtheprivatesector,namely,ProsperoCrescini,
JusticeManuelPamaran,IreneJuradoandNoelMalaya.
OnJune4,2002,petitionersfiledamotionforreconsiderationoftheResolutiondatedMay28,2002.
InaResolutiondatedJune10,2002,respondentdeniedthemotionforreconsideration,thus:
xxxxxxxxx
ItappearingthatthegroundraisedbythemovantsPAOlawyersaremererehashes/reiterationsoftheirpreviousarguments
whichtheCourtfindstobenotvalidjustificationforthemtoberelieved,eithertemporarilyorpermanentlyoftheirduties
andresponsibilitiesascounselsdeoficiointhesecases,theinstantmotioninherebyDENIED.3
Hence,thispetitionforcertiorarialleginggraveabuseofdiscretionbyrespondentinrenderingtheResolutionsdatedMay
28,2002andJune10,2002.
OnSeptember21,2004,PAOfiledaManifestationandCompliancewhichinformedtheCourtthatpetitionersAtty.Usita
andAtty.AndreswereappointedasAssistantCityProsecutorsoftheQuezonCityProsecutorsOfficesometimeinAugust
2002,andthatPAOisleftasthelonepetitionerinthiscase.
Theissueiswhetherornotrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionin
issuingthesubjectResolutionsretainingtwoPAOlawyerstoactascounselsdeoficiofortheaccusedwhoarenotindigent
persons.

PAOcontendsthatitisundeniablethatinretainingitstwoPAOlawyersascounselsdeoficioofformerPresidentEstrada
andJoseEstrada,respondent CourtreliedupontheprovisionsofSec.7,Rule116oftheRevisedRulesofCriminal
Procedure,thus:
Sec.7. Appointmentofcounseldeoficio.TheCourt,consideringthegravityoftheoffenseandthedifficultyofthe
questionsthatmayarise,shallappointascounseldeoficiosuchmembersofthebaringoodstanding,who,byreasonof
theirexperienceandability,cancompetentlydefendtheaccused.
PAO,however,submitsthatthepowerofrespondenttoappointandretainPAOlawyersascounselsdeoficioislimitedby
Sec.20ofLetterofImplementation(LOI)No.20datedDecember31,1972andPresidentialDecree(PD)No.1725dated
September26,1980,thus:
LOINo.20
Sec.20.TheCitizensLegalAssistanceOfficeshallrepresent,freeofcharge,indigentpersonsmentionedinRepublicAct
No. 6035,or the immediate members of their family, inall civil,administrative, and criminal cases where after due
investigationtheinterestofjusticewillbeservedthereby,exceptagrarianreformcasesasdefinedbyRepublicAct3844,as
amended,whichshallbehandledbytheBureauofAgrarianLegalAssistanceoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReform,and
suchcasesasarenowhandledbytheDepartmentofLabor.
PDNo.1725
WHEREAS,theCitizensLegalAssistanceOfficeasthelawofficeoftheGovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippines
forindigentandlowincomepersons,performsavitalroleintheimplementationofthelegalaidprogramoftheState,in
upholdingtheruleoflaw,intheprotectionandsafeguardingoftheinstitutionalandstatutoryrightsofthecitizenry,andin
theefficientandspeedyadministrationofjustice.
TheRevisedAdministrativeCodeof1987renamedtheCitizensLegalAssistanceOfficeasthePublicAttorneysOffice
andretaineditspowersandfunctions.Section14,Chapter5,TitleIII,BookVofthesaidCodeprovides:
Sec.14.PublicAttorneysOffice(PAO).TheCitizensLegalAssistanceOffice(CLAO)isrenamedPublicAttorneys
Office(PAO).ItshallexercisethepowersandfunctionsasarenowprovidedbylawfortheCitizensLegalAssistance
Officeormayhereafterbeprovidedbylaw.
Intheimplementationoftheforegoingprovisionsoflaw,PAOissuedMemorandumCircularNo.5,Seriesof1997,as
amendedbyMemorandumCircularNo.12,Seriesof2001,andsubsequentlybyMemorandumCircularNo.18,Seriesof
2002,definingwhoareindigentpersonsqualifiedtoavailthemselvesoftheservicesofPAO,thus:
Section3.IndigencyTest.TakingintoconsiderationrecentsurveysontheamountneededbyanaverageFilipinoto1)buy
itsfoodconsumptionbasketandb)payforitshouseholdandpersonalexpenses,thefollowingshallbeconsideredindigent
persons:
1.ThoseresidinginMetroManilawhosefamilyincomedoesnotexceedP14,000.00amonth;
2.ThoseresidinginothercitieswhosefamilyincomedoesnotexceedP13,000.00amonth;
3.ThoseresidinginallotherplaceswhosefamilyincomedoesnotexceedP12,000.00amonth.
Theterm"familyincome"ashereinemployedshallbeunderstoodtorefertothegrossincomeofthelitigantandthatofhis
orherspouse,butshallnotincludetheincomeoftheothermembersofthefamily.
PAOstatesthattheStatementofAssetsandLiabilitiesattachedtotherecordsofthecasesoftheaccusedshowthatthey
werenotqualifiedtoavailthemselvesoftheservicesofPAO,sincetheycouldaffordtheservicesofprivatecounselsof
theirownchoice.ItnotedthatthewifeofformerPresidentEstradahadanincomeexceedingP14,000.

PAOarguesthattheonlyexceptionwhenitcanappearonbehalfofanonindigentclientiswhenthereisnoavailable
lawyertoassistsuchclientinaparticularstageofthecase,thatis,duringarraignmentorduringthetakingofthedirect
testimonyofanyprosecutionwitnesssubjecttocrossexaminationbytheprivatecounselonrecord.TheappearanceofPAO
isonlyprovisionalinthoseinstances.
PAOassertsthat thesolerelianceofrespondentonSec.7,Rule116oftheRevisedRulesofCriminal Procedureis
improper.RespondentshouldhavenotonlyconsideredthecharacterofPAOlawyersasmembersoftheBar,butespecially
their mandate to serve only indigent persons. In so doing, the contradiction in the exercise of PAOs duties and
responsibilitiescouldhavebeenavoided.
PAO asserts that while its lawyers are also aware of their duties under Rule 14.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility,4PAOlawyersarelimitedbytheirmandateasgovernmentlawyers.
Hence,PAOsubmitsthatthesubjectResolutionsofrespondentarenotinaccordancewiththemandateofPAOandaffect
therenditionofeffectivelegalservicetoalargenumberofitsdeservingclients.
Indefense,respondentSpecialDivisionoftheSandiganbayan,representedbytheOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutor,stated
thatitdidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretionsinceitdidnotactinanarbitrary,capriciousandwhimsicalmannerin
issuingthesubjectResolutions.
ItexplainedthatitwasfacingacrisiswhenrespondentissuedthesubjectResolutions.Atthattime,theaccused,former
PresidentJosephEstrada,relievedtheservicesofhiscounselsonnationwidetelevision.Subsequently,thecounselsof
recordofcoaccusedJoseEstradawithdrew,andbothaccusedwereadamantagainsthiringtheservicesofnewcounsels
becausetheyallegedlydidnotbelieveinandtrusttheSandiganbayan.TheSandiganbayanhadthedutytodecidethecases,
butcouldnotproceedwiththetrialsincetheaccusedwerenotassistedbycounsel.
Respondentstatedthat,boundbyitsdutytoprotecttheconstitutionalrightoftheaccusedtobeheardbyhimselfand
counsel,itexerciseditsprerogativeunderSec.7,Rule116oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure, 5 andappointed
ChiefPublicAttorneyPersidaV.RuedaAcostaofthePAOandeightotherPAOlawyers,includingpetitioners,toactas
counselsdeoficioforthesaidaccused.Asnotedearlier,theChiefPublicAttorneyandsixPAOlawyerswerelaterrelieved
fromsuchduty,butrespondentretainedtwoPAOlawyersascounselsdeoficiofortheaccused.
ConsideringtheattendantsituationatthetimeoftheissuanceofthesubjectResolutions,respondentassertsthatitdidnot
actinanarbitrary,despotic,capriciousorwhimsicalmannerinissuingthesubjectResolutions.InappointingthePAO
lawyerstoactascounselsforthesaidaccused,respondentmerelyactedwithintheprerogativegrantedtoitbytheRulesof
Courtinordertoprotecttheconstitutionalrightoftheaccusedtobeheardbyhimselfandcounsel.Respondentalsomerely
requiredpetitionerstoperformtheirdutyasmembersoftheBarandofficersofthecourttoassistthecourtintheefficient
administrationofjustice.
Graveabuseofdiscretionimpliessuchcapriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentasisequivalenttolackofjurisdiction
or,inotherwords,theexerciseofthepowerinanarbitrarymannerbyreasonofpassion,prejudice,orpersonalhostility,
anditmustbesopatentorgrossastoamounttoanevasionofapositivedutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperformtheduty
enjoinedortoactatallincontemplationoflaw.6
TheCourtholdsthatrespondentdidnotgravelyabuseitsdiscretioninissuingthesubjectResolutionsastheissuanceisnot
characterizedbycapriceorarbitrariness.AtthetimeofPAOsappointment,theaccuseddidnotwanttoavailthemselvesof
anycounsel;hence,respondentexercisedajudgmentcalltoprotecttheconstitutionalrightoftheaccusedtobeheardby
themselvesandcounselduringthetrialofthecases.
Subsequently,respondentreducedthenumberofPAOlawyersdirectedtorepresenttheaccused,inviewoftheengagement
ofnewcounsels departe,butretainedtwooftheeightPAOlawyersobviouslytomeetsuchpossibleexigencyasthe
accusedagainrelievingsomeoralloftheirprivatecounsels.
Inanyevent,sincethesecasesoftheaccusedintheSandiganbayanhavebeenfinallyresolved,thispetitionseekingthat
PAO,theonlyremainingpetitioner,berelievedascounseldeoficiothereinhasbecomemoot.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSEDforbeingmoot.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.

A.C.No.4724April30,2003
GORETTIONG,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.JOELM.GRIJALDO,respondent.
PERCURIAM:
Thefiduciarydutyofalawyerandadvocateiswhatplacesthelawprofessioninauniquepositionoftrustandconfidence,
anddistinguishesitfromanyothercalling.Oncethistrustandconfidenceisbetrayed,thefaithofthepeoplenotonlyinthe
individuallawyerbutalsointhelegalprofessionasawholeiseroded.Tothisend,allmembersofthebararestrictly
requiredtoatalltimesmaintainthehighestdegreeofpublicconfidenceinthefidelity,honesty,andintegrityoftheir
profession.1Inthisadministrativecasefordisbarment,respondentAtty.JoelM.Grijaldofailedtoperformhissworndutyto
preservethedignityofthelegalprofession.
ComplainantGorettiOngisawidowresidinginTalayanVillage,QuezonCity.Sometimeintheearlypartof1996,she
engagedtheservicesofrespondent,apracticinglawyerinBacolodCity,asprivateprosecutorinCriminalCaseNo.52843
beforetheMetropolitanTrialCourtinCitiesofBacolodCity,Branch5,againstLemuelSembranoandArleneVillamilfor
violationofBatasPambansaBilang22. 2Duringoneofthehearingsofthecase,theaccusedofferedtoamicablysettletheir
civilobligationtocomplainantbypayingtheamountofP180,000.00.Complainantacceptedtheofferontheconditionthat
paymentshallbemadeincash.
AtthehearingheldonJuly17,1996,respondentadvisedcomplainanttowaitoutsidethecourtroom.Whenhecameout,he
handed to complainant cash in the amount of P100,000.00 and Metrobank Check No. 0701263862 for P80,000.00,
postdatedAugust16,1996,drawnbyAtty.RogerReyes,counselfortheaccused.Complainantobjectedtothecheck
paymentandrefusedtosettlethecase,butheassuredherthatthecheckwasdrawnbyareputablelawyer.Complainantwas
prevaileduponbyrespondentintosigninganaffidavitofdesistance,butsheinstructedhimnottofileitincourtuntilthe
checkiscleared.
Upon presentment on its maturity date, the check was dishonored due to a stoppayment order from the drawer.
Complainantimmediatelyinformedrespondentofthedishonor,andthelattertoldherthathewilltalktoAtty.Reyesabout
it.Later,whencomplainantmetwithrespondentinManila,herelayedtoherAtty.Reyes'offertoreplacethecheckwith
cash.Severalweekspassedwithoutanypaymentoftheproceedsofthecheck,despitecomplainant'srepeatedtelephone
callstorespondent.SometimeinDecember1996,shesuggestedthatrespondentmoveforahearingofthecase,buthetold
herthatcourtsarenotinclinedtosethearingsneartheChristmasseason.
OnDecember17,1996,complainantpersonallywenttoBacolodCitytoinquireabouthercase.Shewassurprisedtolearn
thatthesamewasdismissedasearlyasSeptember26,1996. 3Apparently,respondentsubmittedherAffidavitofDesistance4
and,onthebasisthereof,thepublicprosecutormovedforthedismissalofthecasewhichwasgrantedbythecourt.When
complainantconfrontedrespondent,headmittedtoherthathehadalreadyreceivedtheamountofP80,000.00fromAtty.
Reyesbutheusedthesametopayforhisfinancialobligations.
Thus,onApril2,1997,complainantfiledanAdministrativeComplaintagainstrespondentfordisbarment. 5

Complainant furtherallegedinher complaint that respondent representedher inanother case, entitled"Peopleof the
PhilippinesversusNormaMondia,"alsoforviolationofB.P.22,whereshewastheoffendedparty.Respondentapproached
theaccused,NormaMondia,andofferedtodelaythehearingofthecaseinconsiderationoftheamountofP10,000.00.
However,Mondiadidnothavethatamountofmoney.AttachedtothecomplaintistheaffidavitofNormaMondiaattesting
tothisfact.6
Furthermore,HenryTiu,aformerclientofrespondent,executedanaffidavit,whichisattachedtothecomplaint,alleging
thathegaverespondenttheamountofP3,000.00forthepurposeofpostinghisbailbond,butrespondentdidnotposthis
bailwhichresultedinTiu'sarrest.7
Likewise,acertainLuzDimailig,whoseaffidavitisalsoattachedtothecomplaint,averredthatrespondentrepresentedher
ascounselforplaintiffinacivilcasebeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofBacolodCity,Branch52;thatthecasewas
dismissedbythetrialcourt;thattheappealfiledbyrespondenttotheCourtofAppealswasdismissedduetohisfailureto
filetheappellant'sbrief;andthatthepetitionforreviewbeforetheSupremeCourtwasdeniedforlackofproofofservice
ontheCourtofAppeals,latefilingandlatepaymentofdocketfees.Moreover,Dimailigallegedthatshegaverespondent
theamountofP10,000.00forsettlingthesaidcivilcase,butshelaterlearnedthathedidnotremitthemoneytothe
defendantsortheircounsel.8
OnJune25,1997,respondentwasrequiredtofilehiscommentwithintendaysfromnotice. 9RespondentfiledaMotionfor
Extension of Time, alleging that he has not received a copy of the complaint. 10 On February 5, 1998,11 complainant
furnishedrespondentacopyofthecomplaint.However,despitereceiptofacopyofthecomplaint,respondentstillfailedto
filehiscomment.
OnOctober19,1998,respondentwasrequiredtoshowcausewhyheshouldnotbedisciplinarilydealtwithorheldin
contempt forfailingtofile hiscomment.12 Respondent fileda Compliance,statingthat thecopy ofthecomplaint he
receivedfromcomplainantwasnotlegible.Complainantagainfurnishedrespondentwithaclearerandmorelegiblecopyof
thecomplaintincludingitsannexes;butrespondentstilldidnotfilehiscomment.Consequently,onJune14,2000,another
showcauseorderwasissuedagainstrespondent. 13Respondentrepliedbystatingthatthequalityofthecopyfurnishedhim
bycomplainantwasworsethanthefirstonehereceived.
Dissatisfiedwithrespondent'sexplanation,respondentwasorderedtopayafineofP1,000.00,whichhecompliedwithon
November27,2000.14 However,heagainfailedtofilehiscommentand,instead,movedforadditionaltimetofilesaid
comment.
OnAugust13,2001,thiscasewasreferredtotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)forinvestigation,reportand
recommendation.15TherecordsoftheIBPshowthatrespondenthasnotfiledhiscommenttothecomplaint.OnJanuary18,
2002, the Investigating Commissioner, Manuel A. Tiuseco, submitted his report recommending the disbarment of
respondent.16However,initsResolutionNo.XV2002553datedOctober19,2002,theIBPBoardofGovernorsmodified
thepenaltyofdisbarmentandrecommendedinsteadrespondent'sindefinitesuspensionfromthepracticeoflawforgrossly
immoralconductanddeceit.17
Afteracarefulreviewoftherecordsofthiscase,wefindtherecommendationofCommissionerManuelA.Tiusecowell
taken.
Itisclearthatrespondentgravelyabusedthetrustandconfidencereposedinhimbyhisclient,thecomplainant.Wereitnot
forcomplainant'svigilanceininquiringintothestatusofhercase,shewouldnothaveknownthatthesamehadalready
beendismissedonSeptember26,1996.Respondentdeliberatelywithheldthisfactfromher,notwithstandingthatshetalked
tohimsometimeinDecember1996.
Canon18oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityprovidesthatalawyershallservehisclientwithcompetenceand
diligence.Morespecifically,Rule18.03andRule18.04state:
Rule18.03. Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedtohim,andhisnegligenceinconnectiontherewithshall
renderhimliable.

Rule18.04.Alawyershallkeeptheclientinformedofthestatusofhiscaseandshallrespondwithinareasonabletimeto
theclient'srequestforinformation.
Respondentbreachedhisdutytohisclientwhenhefailedtoinformcomplainantofthestatusofthecriminalcase.His
negligenceshowsaglaringlackofthecompetenceanddiligencerequiredofeverylawyer. 18Hisinfractionisrenderedall
themoredeplorablebythefactthatcomplainantisaresidentofQuezonCityandthecasewasfiledinBacolodCity.Itwas
preciselyforthisreasonthatcomplainantengagedtheservicesofrespondent,aBacolodbasedlawyer,sothatherinterests
inthecasemaybeamplyprotectedinherabsence.Respondent'sfailuretolookafterhisclient'swelfareinthecasewasa
grossbetrayalofhisfiduciarydutyandabreachofthetrustandconfidentwhichwasreposedinhim.Inasimilarcase,we
held:
Itissettledthatalawyerisnotobligedtoactascounselforeverypersonwhomaywishtobecomehisclient.Hehasthe
righttodeclineemploymentsubjecthowever,totheprovisionofCanon14oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
Onceheagreestotakeupthecauseofaclient,heowesfidelitytosuchcauseandmustalwaysbemindfulofthetrustand
confidencereposedtohim.RespondentMeneses,ascounsel,hadtheobligationtoinformhisclientofthestatusofthecase
andtorespondwithinareasonabletimetohisclient'srequestforinformation.Respondent'sfailuretocommunicatewithhis
clientbydeliberatelydisregardingitsrequestforanaudienceorconferenceisanunjustifiabledenialofitsrighttobefully
informedofthedevelopmentsinandthestatusofitscase.19
Worse,whenrespondentusedthemoneywhichhereceivedfromAtty.Reyestopayforhisownobligations,heviolated
Canon16oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whichstatesthat"[a]lawyershallholdintrustallmoneysand
propertiesofhisclientthatmaycomeintohispossession."Furthermore:
Rule16.01.Alawyershallaccountforallmoneyorpropertycollectedorreceivedfororfromtheclient.
Rule16.02.Alawyershallkeepthefundsofeachclientseparateandapartfromhisownandthoseofotherskeptbyhim.
Rule16.03.Alawyershalldeliverthefundsandpropertyofhisclientwhendueorupondemand.However,heshallhavea
lienoverthefundsandmayapplysomuchthereofasmaybenecessarytosatisfyhislawfulfeesanddisbursements,giving
noticepromptlythereaftertohisclient.Heshallalsohavealientothesameextentonalljudgmentsandexecutionshehas
securedforhisclientasprovidedforintheRulesofCourt.
Respondent'smisappropriationofthemoneyentrustedtohimandhisrefusaltoaccountforittohisclientdespiterepeated
demandswerecompetentproofofhisunfitnessfortheconfidenceandtrustreposedonhim.Hisactsshowedalackof
personalhonestyandgoodmoralcharacterastorenderhimunworthyofpublicconfidence.Heheldthemoneyintrustfor
hisclientassettlementofthecasehewashandling.Uponreceiptthereof,hewasunderobligationtoimmediatelyturnit
over,intheabsenceofashowingthathehadalienoverit.Asalawyer,heshouldhavebeenscrupulouslycarefulin
handlingmoneyentrustedtohiminhisprofessionalcapacity,becauseahighdegreeoffidelityandgoodfaithonhispartis
exacted.20
Alawyer,underhisoath,pledgeshimselfnottodelayanymanformoneyormaliceandisboundtoconducthimselfwith
allgoodfidelitytohisclients.Heisobligatedtoreportpromptlythemoneyofhisclientthathascomeintohispossession.
Heshouldnotcommingleitwithhisprivatepropertyoruseitforhispersonalpurposeswithouthisclient'sconsent.
Respondent,byconvertingthemoneyofhisclienttohisownpersonalusewithoutherconsent,wasguiltyofdeceit,
malpracticeandgrossmisconduct.Notonlydidhedegradehimselfbutasanunfaithfullawyerhebesmirchedthefairname
ofanhonorableprofession.21
AsidefromviolatingtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,respondent'sfailuretopromptlyturnoverthemoneytohis
clientandhisconversionofthesameforhispersonaluserenderedhimliableforcontemptunderRule138,Section25of
theRulesofCourt,towit:
Unlawfulretentionofclient'sfunds;contempt.Whenanattorneyunjustlyretainsinhishandsmoneyofhisclientafterit
has been demanded he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who hasmisbehaved inhisofficial
transactions;butproceedingsunderthissectionshallnotbeabartoacriminalprosecution.

Furthermore,respondentviolatedhisoathofofficeanddutiesascounselwhenheapproachedhisclient'sopponentand
offeredtodelaythecaseinexchangeformoney.Hisoffertodelaythecasewouldhavefrustratedtheinterestsofhisclient
whichhehadsworntoprotect.Asalawyer,respondentshouldavoidanyunethicalorimproperpracticesthatimpede,
obstructorpreventthespeedy,efficientandimpartialadjudicationofcases.22
Onceheagreestotakeupthecauseofaclient,thelawyerowesfidelitytosuchcauseandmustalwaysbemindfulofthe
trustandconfidencereposedinhim.Hemustservetheclientwithcompetenceanddiligence,andchampionthelatter's
causewithwholeheartedfidelity,care,anddevotion.Elsewisestated,heowesentiredevotiontotheinterestoftheclient,
warmzealinthemaintenanceanddefenseofhisclient'srights,andtheexertionofhisutmostlearningandabilitytotheend
thatnothingbetakenorwithheldfromhisclient,savebytherulesoflaw,legallyapplied.Thissimplymeansthathisclient
isentitledtothebenefitofanyandeveryremedyanddefensethatisauthorizedbythelawofthelandandhemayexpect
hislawyertoasserteverysuchremedyordefense.Ifmuchisdemandedfromanattorney,itisbecausetheentrusted
privilegetopracticelawcarrieswithitthecorrelativedutiesnotonlytotheclientbutalsotothecourt,tothebar,andtothe
public.Alawyerwhoperformshisdutywithdiligenceandcandornotonlyprotectstheinterestofhisclient;healsoserves
theendsofjustice,doeshonortothebar,andhelpsmaintaintherespectofthecommunitytothelegalprofession. 23
Respondent'sactofpropositioninghisclient'sopponentandofferingtodelaythecaseagainstherwasintendedtobenefit
thelatter.Hence,suchactamountedtodoubledealingandconflictofinterest,andwasunethicalpracticeoflaw.Attorneys,
likeCaesar'swife,mustnotonlykeepinviolatetheirclient'sconfidence,butmustalsoavoidtheappearanceoftreachery
anddoubledealing,foronlythencanlitigantsbeencouragedtoentrusttheirsecretstotheirattorneyswhichisofparamount
importanceintheadministrationofjustice.24
Finally,respondent'scavalierattitudeinrepeatedlyignoringthedirectivesofthisCourttofilehiscommentconstitutesutter
disrespecttothejudicialinstitution.Hisconductindicatesahighdegreeofirresponsibility.AresolutionofthisCourtisnot
tobeconstruedasamererequest,norshoulditbecompliedwithpartially,inadequatelyorselectively. 25 Respondent's
obstinaterefusaltocomplytherewithnotonlybetraysarecalcitrantflawinhischaracter;italsounderscoreshisdisrespect
ofourlawfulorderswhichisonlytoodeservingofreproof.
Anydeparturefromthepathwhichalawyermustfollowasdemandedbythevirtuesofhisprofessionshallnotbetolerated
bythisCourtasthediscipliningauthority.Thisisespeciallyso,asintheinstantcase,whererespondentevendeliberately
defiedthelawfulordersoftheCourtforhimtofilehiscommentonthecomplaint,therebytransgressingCanon11ofthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichrequiresalawyertoobserveandmaintaintherespectduethecourts. 26
All told, respondent's transgressions manifested dishonesty and amounted to grave misconduct and grossly unethical
behaviorwhichcauseddishonor,notonlytocomplainant,buttothenobleprofessiontowhichhebelongs,foritcannotbe
deniedthattherespectoflitigantsfortheprofessionisinexorablydiminishedwheneveramemberoftheBarbetraystheir
trustandconfidence.27 Hehasprovedhimselfunworthyofmembershipinthelegalprofessionandmust,therefore,be
disbarred.
WHEREFORE,fordishonesty,gravemisconduct,andgrosslyunethicalbehavior,respondentATTY.JOELGRIJALDOis
DISBARREDfromthepracticeoflaw.HisnameisorderedSTRICKENfromtheRollofAttorneys.Heisfurtherdirected
toPAYcomplainantGorettiOngtheamountofP80,000.00withinten(10)daysfromnoticeofthisDecision.
ThisDecisionshalltakeeffect immediately.Copiesthereofshall befurnishedtheOfficeoftheBarConfidant,tobe
appendedtorespondent'spersonalrecord;theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines;theOfficeofthePresident;theDepartment
ofJustice;theCourtofAppeals;theSandiganbayan;thePhilippinesJudgesAssociation;andallcourtsofthelandfortheir
informationandguidance.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.5948January22,2003
(FormerlyA.M.No.CBD354)
GAMALIELABAQUETA,complainant,

vs.
ATTY.BERNARDITOA.FLORIDO,respondent.
RESOLUTION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
Thisisanadministrativecomplaint1againstAtty.BernarditoA.FloridofiledwiththeIntegratedBarofthePhilippines
(IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, praying that appropriate sanctions be imposed on respondent for representing
conflictinginterests.
ComplainantisaFilipinobybirthwhohadacquiredAmericancitizenship.Heresidesat15856N.15thWay,Phoenix,
Arizona85022,U.S.A.RespondentisapracticinglawyerbasedinCebuCity.
OnNovember28,1983,complainantengagedtheprofessionalservicesofrespondenttroughhisattorneyinfact,Mrs.
CharitoY.Baclig,torepresenthiminSpecialProceedingsNo.3971R,entitled,"IntheMatteroftheIntestateEstateof
DeceasedBonifaciaAbaqueta,2SusanaUyTrazo,petitioner"beforetheRegionalTrialcourtofCebu.3
Accordingly,respondententeredhisappearanceinSpecialProceedingsNo.3971Rascounselforhereincomplainant. 4
Subsequently,hefiledcomplainant's"ObjectionsandCommentstoInventoryandAccounting,"registeringcomplainant's
objection
...totheinclusionofthepropertiesunderItems1to5containedintheinventoryoftheadministratrixdatedNovember9,
1983.Thesepropertiesarethesoleandexclusivepropertiesoftheoppositorperthelatesttaxdeclarationsalreadymarked
asExhibits"2","3","4","5"and"6"intheFormalOfferofExhibitsbyoppositorinwritingdatedAugust17,1983xxx. 5
Severalyearslater,MilagrosYapAbaquetafiledanactionforsumofmoneyagainstcomplainant,docketedasCivilCase
No.CEB11453andentitled,"MilagrosYapAbaquetavs.GamalielAbaquetaandCasianoGerona."6Respondentsigned
theComplaintascounselforplaintiffMilagrosYapAbaqueta,averring,interalia,that:
PlaintiffanddefendantGamalielAbaquetaarethe conjugalowners ofthosecertainparcelsofland,moreparticularlyas
follows...
The"parcelsofland"referredtoasconjugalpropertyofcomplainantandMilagrosYapAbaquetaaretheverysameparcels
oflandinSpecialProceedingsNo.3971Rwhichrespondent,aslawyerofcomplainant,allegedasthe"soleandexclusive
properties"ofcomplainant.Inshort,respondentlawyermadeallegationsinCivilCaseNo.CEB11453whichwerecontrary
toandindirectconflictwithhisavermentsascounselforcomplainantinSpecialProceedingsNo.3971R.
Complainantfurtheraverredthatrespondentadmittedhewasneverauthorizedbytheformertoappearascounselfor
complainant'sexwifeinCivilCaseNo.CEB11453;thatrespondentfailedtoindicateintheComplaintthetrueandcorrect
addressofhereincomplainant,whichrespondent knewasfarbackasAugust2,1990,whenhewrotealettertothe
complainantatthesaidaddress.7Consequently,complainantfailedtoreceivesummonsandwasdeclaredindefaultinCivil
CaseNo.CEB11453.Whiletheorderofdefaultwaseventuallysetaside,complainantincurredexpensestotraveltothe
Philippines,whichwereconservativelyestimatedat$10,000.00.Hearguesthatrespondent'sconductconstituteprofessional
misconductandmalpracticeaswellastriflingwithcourtprocesses.
Inhisdefense,respondentclaimsinhisAnswer 8 thathealwaysactedingoodfaithinhisprofessionalrelationshipwith
complainantinspiteofthefactthattheyhavenotpersonallymet.HebasedthemattershewroteintheComplainton
informationanddocumentssuppliedbyMrs.CharitoY.Baclig,complainant'ssisterinlawandattorneyinfact,indicating
thathewassoleandexclusiveowneroftheproperties.ThiswassometimeinNovember1983.Noaffidavitofadjudication
waseverfurnishedrespondentbycomplainantandthiswasapparentlysuppressedbecauseitwouldshowthattheproperties
formedpartoftheestate.
Eight years later, in November 1991, long after Special Proceedings No. 3971R was settled and the attorneyclient
relationshipbetweencomplainantandrespondentwasterminated,Mrs.MilagrosAbaquetathroughMrs.Baclig,engaged

hisservicestofileCivilCaseNo.CEB11453.Mrs.BacligpresentedtohimadeedofabsolutesaledatedJuly7,1975, 9
showingthatthepropertiessubjecthereofwerenotcomplainant'sexclusivepropertybuthisconjugalpropertywithhis
wife,thesamehavingbeenacquiredduringthesubsistenceoftheirmarriage.Thus,inallgoodfaith,respondentallegedin
thecomplaintthatsaidpropertieswereconjugalassetsofthespouses.
Respondentfurtherpointedoutthathislawfirmhandlesontheaverageeightynewcourtcasesannuallyandpersonally
interviewsfourorfiveclients,prospectiveclientsand/orwitnessesdailyexceptSaturdaysandSundays.Itregularlycloses
tothepublicat7:00p.m.,butworkcontinuessometimesuntil8:30p.m.Thishasbeengoingonforthelasttwentyfive
yearsoutofrespondent'sthirtythreeyearsofprivatepractice.Theabsenceofpersonalcontactwithcomplainantandthe
lapseofeightyearsresultedintheoversightoftherespondent'smemorythatcomplainantwasaformerclient.Furthermore,
thecaptionoftheSpecialProceedingwasnotinthenameofcomplainantbutwasentitled," IntheMatteroftheIntestate
EstateofBonifaciaPayahayAbaqueta."
Respondentexpressedregretovertheoversightandaverredthatimmediatelyafterdiscoveringthattheformerlyrepresented
complainantinSpecialProceedingNo.3971R,hefiledamotiontowithdrawascounselforplaintiff,whichwasgrantedby
thetrialcourt.10 Hedeniedanymaliceinhisactsandallegedthatitisnotinhischaractertodomaliceorfalsehood
particularlyintheexerciseofhisprofession.
In his Comments/Observations on Respondent's Answer,11 complainant averred that respondent's conduct was geared
towardsinsuringacourt victoryfor MilagrosYap inCivil CaseNo.CEB11453,whereinhe deliberatelystatedthat
complainant'saddresswas9203RiversideLodgeDrive,Houston,Texas77083,U.S.A.,whenheknewfullywellthat
complainant'strueandcorrectaddresswasc/oV.A.Hospital,7thStreet&ItalianSchoolRoad,Phoenix,Arizona,85013,
U.S.A.Byfalselystatingandconcealinghistrueandcorrectaddress,respondenteventuallysucceededinobtaininga
defaultjudgmentinfavorofhisclient.
DuringthependencyoftheseproceedingsbeforetheIBP,itappearedthatrespondent'ssongotmarriedtothedaughterof
IBPNationalPresidentArthurD.Lim.Thus,Atty.Liminhibitedhimselffromparticipatingintheresolutionofthecase. 12
Subsequently,aResolutionwasissuedrequiringtheIBPtoelevatetheentirerecordsofthecasewithinthirty(30)days
fromnotice.13
ThemainissuetoberesolvedinthecaseatbariswhetherornotrespondentviolatedRule15.03oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility.TheinvestigatingCommissionerfoundthatrespondentclearlyviolatedtheprohibitionagainstrepresenting
conflictinginterestsandrecommendedthathebesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofthree(3)months.
Wefindtherecommendationwelltaken.
Rule15.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityexplicitlyprovidesthat
RULE15.03.Alawyershallnotrepresentconflictinginterestsexceptbywrittenconsentofallconcernedgivenaftera
fulldisclosureofthefacts.
Thereisaconflictofinterestifthereisaninconsistencyintheinterestsoftwoormoreopposingparties.Thetestiswhether
ornotinbehalfofoneclient,itisthelawyer'sdutytofightforanissueorclaimbutitishisdutytoopposeitfortheother
client.14Inshort,ifhearguesforoneclient,thisargumentwillbeopposedbyhimwhenhearguesfortheotherclient. 15
Thereisarepresentationofconflictinginterestsiftheacceptanceofthenewretainerwillrequiretheattorneytodoanything
whichwillinjuriouslyaffecthisfirstclientinanymatterinwhichherepresentshimandalsowhetherhewillbecalledupon
inhisnewrelation,touseagainsthisfirstclientanyknowledgeacquiredthroughtheirconnection. 16
Aspointedoutbytheinvestigatingcommissioner,respondentdoesnotdenythatherepresentedcomplainantinSpecial
ProceedingsNo.3971R.HealsodoesnotdenythatheisthelawyerofMilagrosYapAbaquetainCivilCaseNo.CEB
11453,filedagainstcomplainantandinvolvingthesamepropertieswhichwerelitigatedinSpecialProceedingsNo.3971
R.RespondentalsoadmittedthathedidnotsecuretheconsentofcomplainantbeforeheagreedtoactasMilagrosYap
Abaqueta'slawyerinCivilCaseNo.CEB11453.

Thereasonsprofferedbyrespondentarehardlypersuasivetoexcusehisclearrepresentationofconflictinginterestsinthis
case.First,theinvestigatingcommissionerobservedthatthename"GamalielAbaqueta"isnotacommonname.Once
heard,itwillsurelyringabellinone'smindifhecameacrossthenameagain.
Inthiscase,respondentactivelyprosecutedthecauseofcomplainantinSpecialProceedingsNo.3971R,suchthatitwould
beimpossibleforrespondentnottohaverecalledhisname.
Second,assumingarguendothatrespondent'smemorywasindeedfaulty,stillitisincrediblethathecouldnotrecallthat
complainant washisclient,consideringthat Mrs.Charito Baclig,whowascomplainant'sattorneyinfact and the go
betweenofcomplainantandrespondentinSpecialProceedingsNo.3971R,wasthesamepersonwhobroughtMilagros
YapAbaquetatohim.EvenapersonofaverageintelligencewouldhavemadetheconnectionbetweenMrs.Bacligand
complainantundersuchcircumstances.
Lastly,thefactthatthesubjectmatterofCivilCaseNo.CEB11453andSpecialProceedingsNo.3971Rarethe same
propertiescouldnothaveescapedtheattentionofrespondent.Withsuchanabundanceofcircumstancestoaidrespondent's
memory,itsimplystrainscredulityforhimtohaveconvenientlyforgottenhispastengagementascomplainant'slawyer.
Whatratherappears,giventheprevailingfactsofthiscase,isthathechosetoignorethemontheassumptionthatthelong
periodoftimespanninghispastandpresentengagementwouldeffectivelyblurthememoriesofthepartiestosucha
discrepancy.
Itisaxiomaticthatnolawyerisobligedtoacteitherasadviseroradvocateforeverypersonwhomaywishtobecomehis
client. He has the right to decline such employment, 17 subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.18Onceheagreestotakeupthecauseoftheclient,thelawyerowesfidelitytosuchcauseandmustalways
bemindfulofthetrustandconfidencereposedinhim. 19 Hemustservetheclientwithcompetenceanddiligence 20 and
championthelatter'scausewithwholeheartedfidelity,careanddevotion.21
AlawyerMaynot,withoutbeingguiltyofprofessionalmisconduct,actascounselforapersonwhoseinterestconflictswith
thatofhisformerclient22Thereasonfortheprohibitionisfoundintherelationofattorneyandclientwhichisoneoftrust
andconfidenceofthehighestdegree. 23Indeed,aswestatedinSibulov.Cabrera,24"Therelationofattorneyandclientis
basedontrust,sothatdoubledealing,whichcouldsometimesleadtotreachery,shouldbeavoided." 25
Credencecannot,however,begiventothechargethatrespondentfraudulentlyandmaliciouslyfalsifiedthetrueandcorrect
addressofthecomplainantnotwithstandingrespondent'sknowledgethereof.Lawyersnormallydonothaveknowledgeof
thepersonalcircumstancesofapartyinacaseandusuallyrelyontheinformationsuppliedbytheirclients.Thefactthat
respondentsentalettertocomplainantatthelatter'scorrectaddress 26sixteenmonthsbeforethefilingofCivilCaseNo.
CEB11453doesnotbyitselfprovemaliceonthepartofrespondent.AnewaddresswasfurnishedbyMilagrosYap
Abaquetadaysbeforethecomplaintwasfiled.Respondenthadnoreasontodoubtthecorrectnessoftheaddressofthe
complainantgiventohimbyMilagrosYapAbaquetaconsideringthatshewascomplainant'swife.
WHEREFORE,Atty.BernarditoA.FloridoisSUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforThree(3)months.Heisfurther
ADMONISHEDtoexercisegreatercareanddiligenceintheperformanceofhisdutiestowardshisclientsandthecourt.
Heiswarnedthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaroffensewillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.4354April22,2002
LOLITAARTEZUELA,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.RICARTEB.MADERAZO,respondent.
PUNO,J.:

Forhisfailuretomeettheexactingstandardsofprofessionalethics,theBoardofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBarofthe
Philippines(IBP)initsResolutionofMay2,2000recommendedthesuspensionfromthepracticeoflawofrespondent
Atty.RicarteB.Maderazofortheperiodofsix(6)months,withasternwarningthatrepetitionofthesameactwillbedealt
with more severely. Respondent allegedly represented conflicting interests in violation of Canon 6 of the Code of
ProfessionalEthics,andCanon15andRule15.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.1
BywayofaMotionforReconsideration, 2 respondentnowcomesbeforethisCourttochallengethebasisoftheIBP's
resolution,andpraysforitsreversal.
Thefactualantecedentsofthecaseareasfollows:Onorabout3:00intheearlymorningofDecember24,1992,Allan
EchaviahadavehicularaccidentatCadumanSt.,cornerH.AbellanaSt.,MandaueCity.Atthetimeoftheaccident,
EchaviawasdrivingaFordTelstarcarownedbyaJapanesenationalnamedHirometsiKiyami,butwasregisteredinthe
nameofhisbrotherinlaw,JunAnthonyVillapez.Thecarrammedintoasmall carinderiaownedbycomplainantLolita
Artezuela.3
Thedestructionofthecomplainant'scarinderiacausedthecessationoftheoperationofhersmallbusiness,resultingtoher
financial dislocation. She incurred debts from her relatives and due to financial constraints, stopped sending her two
childrentocollege.4
ComplainantengagedtheservicesoftherespondentinfilingadamagesuitagainstEchavia,VillapezandoneBernardo
Sia.5 DocketedasCivilCaseNo.13666,thecasewasassignedtoBranch14oftheRegionalTrialCourtofCebu.An
Amended Complaint was thereafter filed, impleading Echavia, Kiyami and Villapez, and dropping Sia as a party
defendant.6Forhisservices,complainantpaidtherespondenttheamountofTenThousandPesos(P10,000.00)asattorney's
feesandTwoThousandPesos(P2,000.00)asfilingfee.7However,thecasewasdismissedonMarch22,1994,allegedly
upontheinstanceofthecomplainantandherhusband.8
BecauseofthedismissalofCivilCaseNo.13666,complainantfiledacivilcasefordamagesagainsttherespondent.Itwas
docketedasCEB18552andassignedtoBranch57,RegionalTrialCourtofCebuCity.ThecasewasdismissedonJune12,
2001.9
OnNovember24,1994,ArtezuelafiledbeforethisCourtaverifiedcomplaintfordisbarmentagainsttherespondent.She
alleged that respondent grossly neglected his duties as a lawyer and failed to represent her interests with zeal and
enthusiasm.Accordingtoher,whenCivilCaseNo.13666wasscheduledforpretrialconferenceonAugust20,1993,
respondentaskedforitspostponementalthoughallthepartieswerepresent.Notwithstandingcomplainant'spersistentand
repeatedfollowup,respondentdidnotdoanythingtokeepthecasemoving.Hewithdrewascounselwithoutobtaining
complainant'sconsent.10
Complainant alsoclaimedthat respondent engagedinactivitiesinimical toherinterests.Whileactingashercounsel,
respondentpreparedEchavia'sAnswertotheAmendedComplaint.Thesaiddocumentwasevenprintedinrespondent's
office.Complainantfurtheraverredthatitwasrespondentwhosoughtthedismissalofthecase,misleadingthetrialcourt
intothinkingthatthedismissalwaswithherconsent.11
Respondent deniedthecomplainant'sallegationsandaverredthat heconscientiouslydidhispartasthecomplainant's
lawyerinCivilCaseNo.13666.Hewithdrewascounselbecausethecomplainantwasuncooperativeandrefusedtoconfer
withhim.HealsogaveseveralnoticestothecomplainantandmadeknownhisintentionbeforehefiledhisManifestationto
withdrawascounsel.Becauseoftheseveredrelationship,thelowercourt,afterholdingaconference,decidedtogrant
respondent'smanifestationandadvisedthecomplainanttosecuretheservicesofanewlawyer.Complainant,however,
refusedandinstead,soughtthedismissalofthecase. 12
RespondentallegedthathesoughtthepostponementofthePreTrialConferencescheduledonAugust20,1993sothathe
couldfiletheAmendedComplaint.HeadmittedthatEchavia'sAnswertotheAmendedComplaintwasprintedinhisoffice
butdeniedhavingpreparedthedocumentandhavingactedascounselofEchavia.Heclaimedthatcomplainantrequested
him to prepare Echavia's Answer but he declined. Echavia, however, went back tohisoffice and asked respondent's
secretarytoprintthedocument.RespondentintimatedthatthecomplainantandEchaviahavefabricatedtheaccusations
againsthimtocompelhimtopaytheamountofP500,000.00.13

ThisCourtreferredthecomplainttotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP).TheIBPVisayasRegionalCommitteeon
BarDisciplineformedanInvestigatingCommitteetohearthedisbarmentcomplaint.
On October 6, 1999, Commissioner Gabriel T. Ingles issued a Report finding the respondent guilty of representing
conflictinginterests,inviolationofCanon15andRule15.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,aswellas,of
Canon6oftheCodeofProfessionalEthics.Herecommendedthattherespondentbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawfor
aperiodofone(1)year.14CommissionerInglesdidnotruleontheotherissues.
Asaforesaid,theBoardofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesupheldthefindingsoftheCommitteewith
modificationonlyastothepenalty.
SeekingreconsiderationoftheIBP'sresolution,respondentcontendsthattheInvestigatingCommitteedidnotconducttrial;
hence,hewasnotabletoconfrontandexaminethewitnessesagainsthim.HearguesthattheInvestigatingCommittee's
findingthatherepresentedEchaviaiscontrarytocourtrecordsandthecomplainant'sowntestimonyinCEB18552.He
alsocastsdoubtonthecredibilityoftheInvestigatingCommitteetorenderjustandfairrecommendationsconsideringthat
the Investigating Commissioner and the respondent are counseladversaries in another case, Civil Case No. R33277.
Finally,hequestionstheimpositionofasixmonthsuspension,whichheclaimstobeharshconsideringthathisprivate
practiceishisonlysourceofincome.15
Aftercarefullyexaminingtherecords,aswellastheapplicablelawsandjurisprudenceonthematter,thisCourtisinclined
toupholdtheIBP'sresolution.1wphi1.nt
Inadministrativecases,therequirementofnoticeandhearingdoesnotconnotefulladversarialproceedings,as"actual
adversarialproceedingsbecomenecessaryonlyforclarificationorwhenthereisaneedtopropoundsearchingquestionsto
witnesseswhogivevaguetestimonies." 16Dueprocessisfulfilledwhenthepartiesweregivenreasonableopportunitytobe
heardandtosubmitevidenceinsupportoftheirarguments.17
In the case at bar, records show that respondent repeatedly sought the postponement of the hearings, prompting the
InvestigatingCommissionertoreceivecomplainant'sevidenceexparteandtosetthecaseforresolutionaftertheparties
havesubmittedtheirrespectivememorandum.Hence:
"TherecordsshowthatthisisalreadythethirdpostponementfiledbyrespondentnamelyDecember12,1996(sic),January
3,1996andApril1,1996.
TheCommissionforthelasttime,willcanceltoday'shearingandcannolongertolerateanyfurtherpostponement.Notify
respondentbytelegramforthehearingfor(sic)April22,1996at2:00P.M.Saidhearingisintransferableincharacter.
Inthemeantime,complainantaffirmedhercomplaintandlikewiseherwitness,AllanEchavia,alsoaffirmedthecontentsof
hisaffidavitandfurtherstatedthathehadexecutedthesameandunderstoodthecontentsthereof." 18
Itisbyhisownnegligencethattherespondentwasdeemedtohavewaivedhisrighttocrossexaminethecomplainantand
herwitness.HecannotbelatedlyaskthisCourttograntnewtrialafterhehassquanderedhisopportunitytoexercisehis
right.
Respondent'scontentionthatthefindingoftheInvestigatingCommitteewascontrarytotherecordsandthecomplainant's
ownadmissioninCEB18552iswithoutmerit.ItistruethatAtty.AviolawasEchavia'scounselofrecordinCivilCase
No.13666asevidencedbythecertificationfromtheclerkofcourt, 19andasadmittedbythecomplainantinCEB18552,
viz:
"ATTY.MADERAZO:(TowitnessONCROSS)
Q:Madamwitness,youmentionedthatthedefendantinthiscasewasthecounselofAllanEchaviaasearlyasAugust
20,1993,whereinyoulearnedforthefirsttimeofthisfactwhenyousayheiscounselofAllanEchavia. (sic)Youmeanhe
isthecounselofrecordofAllanEchaviaintheCivilCasebeforeJudgeDacudao?Isthatwhatyoumean?

A:WhatIlearnedwasthatAtty.AlviolawasthecounselofAllanEchaviainthecasebeforeJudgeDacudaobutIheard
Atty.MaderazotellingAllanEchavianottoadmitthatAtty.Maderazoisappearingformebecausehewillbetheoneto
coordinatewithAllan'scase.
Q:SoitisclearthatthedefendantinthiscaseisnotthecounselofrecordofAllanEchavia.ItwasAtty.Alviolastated
byyounow?
A:Atty.MaderazowasnotAllanEchavia'scounselbutitwasAtty.AlviolawhowasthecounselofrecordofAllan
Echavia."20
Nevertheless,theissueinthiscaseisnotwhethertherespondentalsoactedasthecounselofrecordofEchavia.Rather,itis
whetherornothehadadirecthandinthepreparationofEchavia'sAnswertotheAmendedComplaint.
Tobeguiltyofrepresentingconflictinginterests,acounselofrecordofonepartyneednotalsobecounselofrecordofthe
adverseparty.Hedoesnothavetopubliclyholdhimselfasthecounseloftheadverseparty,normakehiseffortstoadvance
theadverseparty'sconflictinginterestsofrecordalthoughthesecircumstancesarethemostobviousandsatisfactory
proofofthecharge.Itisenoughthatthecounselofonepartyhadahandinthepreparationofthepleadingoftheother
party,claimingadverseandconflictinginterestswiththatofhisoriginalclient.Torequirethathealsobecounselofrecord
oftheadversepartywouldpunishonlythemostobviousformofdeceitandreward,withimpunity,thehighestformof
disloyalty.
Canon6oftheCodeofProfessionalEthicsstates:
"Itisthedutyofalawyeratthetimeoftheretainertodisclosetotheclientthecircumstancesofhisrelationstotheparties
andanyinterestinorinconnectionwiththecontroversy,whichmightinfluencetheclientintheselectionofthecounsel.
"It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosureofthefacts.WithinthemeaningofthisCanon,alawyerrepresentsconflictinginterestswheninbehalfofone
oftheclients,itishisdutytocontendforthatwhichdutytoanotherclientrequireshimtooppose." (emphasis
supplied)
Anattorneyoweshisclientundividedallegiance.Becauseofthehighlyfiduciarynatureoftheattorneyclientrelationship,
soundpublicpolicydictatesthatalawyerbeprohibitedfromrepresentingconflictinginterestsordischarginginconsistent
duties.Hemaynot,withoutbeingguiltyofprofessionalmisconduct,actascounselforapersonwhoseinterestconflicts
withthatofhispresentorformerclient.Indeed,goodfaithandhonestintentiononthepartoftheerringlawyerdoesnot
makethisruleinoperative.21Thelawyerisanofficerofthecourtandhisactionsaregovernedbytheuncompromisingrules
ofprofessionalethics.Thus:
"Therelationsofattorneyandclientisfoundedonprinciplesofpublicpolicy,ongoodtaste.Thequestionisnotnecessarily
oneoftherightsoftheparties,butastowhethertheattorneyhasadheredtoproperprofessionalstandard.Withthese
thoughtsinmind,itbehoovesattorneys,likeCeasar'swife,notonlytokeepinviolatetheclient'sconfidence,butalsoto
avoidtheappearanceoftreacheryanddoubledealing.Onlythuscanlitigantsbeencouragedtoentrusttheirsecretstotheir
attorneyswhichisofparamountimportanceintheadministrationofjustice." 22
Theprofessionalobligationofthelawyertogivehisundividedattentionandzealforhisclient'scauseislikewisedemanded
intheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Inherentlydisadvantageoustohisclient'scause,representationbythelawyerof
conflictinginterestsrequiresdisclosureofallfactsandconsentofallthepartiesinvolved.Thus:
"CANON15Alllawyersshallobservecandor,fairnessandloyaltyinallhisdealingsandtransactionswithhisclients.
xxx
Rule15.03Alawyershallnotrepresentconflictinginterestsexceptbywrittenconsentofallconcernedgivenafterafull
disclosureofthefacts."

While the Resolution of the IBP is purely recommendatory, we find no reason to reverse the same. In disciplinary
proceedingsagainstmembersofthebar,onlyclearpreponderanceofevidenceisrequiredtoestablishliability.Aslongas
theevidencepresentedbycomplainantorthattakenjudicialnoticeofbytheCourtismoreconvincingandworthyofbelief
thanthatwhichisofferedinoppositionthereto,theimpositionofdisciplinarysanctionisjustified. 23
AperusalofEchavia'sAnswertotheAmendedComplaintshowsthatitindeedconflictswiththecomplainant'sclaims.It
reads:
"1. The allegations (sic) in Paragraph One (1) of the Complaint is admitted in so far as it pertains to the personal
circumstanceandresidenceoftheansweringdefendant.Therest oftheallegationsinParagraphOne(1),andall the
allegations in Paragraph Two (2) , THREE (3), FOUR (4), FIVE (5), SIX (6), ELEVEN (11), TWELVE (12), and
FOURTEEN(14),oftheComplaintareDENIEDforlackofknowledgesufficienttoformabeliefastothetruthofsuch
allegations."24
Bywayofprayer,Echaviastates:
"WHEREFORE,itisrespectfullyprayedthatafterhearing,judgmentberendereddismissingplaintiff'scomplaint." 25
Anenttheauthorshipbytherespondentofthedocumentquotedabove,theInvestigatingCommitteefoundthetestimonies
of the complainant and Echavia credible as opposed to respondent's bare denial. As pointed out by Echavia, he was
approachedbyAtty.Maderazo,introducedhimselfashislawyerandaftersomesessionsinthelatter'soffice,askedhimto
returnandsignadocumentwhichhelateridentifiedastheAnswertotheAmendedComplaint.
The InvestigatingCommittee foundrespondent'sdefense weak. Respondent didnot bothertopresent hissecretary as
witness,norobtainheraffidavittoprovehisallegations.Instead,heofferedaconvenientexcusethathecannotanymore
locatehissecretary.
RespondentarguedthatitwasthecomplainantwhoaskedhimtoprepareEchavia'sAnswertotheAmendedComplaint,
afterreachinganagreementwherebyEchaviawouldtestifyinfavorofthecomplainant.Afterhedeclinedtherequest,he
claimedthatitwasthecomplainantwhopreparedthedocumentandaskedhissecretarytoprintthesame.Butasshown,
Echavia'sAnswertotheAmendedComplaintwasinnowayfavorabletothecomplainant.
WiththedismissalofCivilCaseNo.13666,Echaviaispracticallyoffthehook.WecannotfindanyreasonwhyEchavia
wouldcommitperjuryandentanglehimself,onceagain,withthelaw.Hedoesnotstandtoprofitatallbyaccusingthe
respondentfalsely.
Furthermore,consideringcomplainant'sstatureandlackoflegaleducation,wecannotseehowshecouldhaveprepared
Echavia'sAnswertotheAmendedComplaintanddevicealegalmaneuverascomplicatedasthepresentcase.
Respondent'sattackonthecredibilityofInvestigatingCommissionerInglestorenderanimpartialdecision,havingbeenan
adversaryinCivilCaseNo.R33277,doesnotconvinceustograntnewtrial.Thisisthefirsttimethatrespondentquestions
themembershipofCommissionerInglesintheInvestigatingCommittee.Ifrespondentreallybelievedingoodfaiththat
CommissionerIngleswouldbebiasedandprejudiced,heshouldhaveaskedforthelatter'sinhibitionatthefirstinstance.
Moreover,wecouldnotfindanyhintofirregularity,biasorprejudiceintheconductoftheinvestigationthatwouldleadus
tosetitaside.
Finally,weremindtherespondentthatthepracticeoflawisnotapropertyrightbutamereprivilege,andassuch,mustbow
totheinherentregulatorypoweroftheCourttoexactcompliancewiththelawyer'spublicresponsibilities. 26Thesuspension
oftherespondent'sprivilegetopracticelawmayresulttofinancialwoes.Butastheguardianofthelegalprofession,weare
constrainedtobalancethisconcernwiththeinjuryhecausedtotheverysameprofessionhevowedtoupholdwithhonesty
andfairness.1wphi1.nt
INVIEWWHEREOF,theResolutionoftheIBPfindingtherespondentguiltyofviolatingCanon6oftheCodeof
ProfessionalEthics,andCanon15andRule15.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityisaffirmed.Respondentis
suspendedfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)monthswithasternwarningthatasimilaractinthefutureshallbedealtwith
moreseverely.

SOORDERED.
G.R.No.160445February16,2006
JOSETEOFILOT.MERCADOandMA.AGNESR.MERCADO,Petitioners,
vs.
SECURITYBANKCORPORATION,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:
ThedignityoftheCourtcanneverbeprotectedwhereinfractionofethicsmeetswithcomplacencyratherthanpunishment.
Thepeopleshouldnotbegivencausetobreakfaiththatamagistrateistheepitomeofhonoramongstmen.Topreserveits
dignity,acourtofjusticeshouldnotyieldtotheassaultsofdisrespect. 1
IncidentaltothepresentpetitionforreviewoncertiorariisthecontemptproceedingsagainstpetitionerJoseTeofiloT.
MercadoarisingfromhisletterdatedOctober18,2004,insinuatingthat:(1)theponentesuccumbedtothe"tremendous
pressure"ofChiefJusticeHilarioG.Davide,Jr.indenyinghispetition;(2)theSecurityBankCorporation,respondent,
financedtheponentestraveltotheUnitedStates;and(3)theponentegaverespondenta"gosignal"tosellhisproperty.
Thefactsareasfollows:
OnDecember12,2003,JoseTeofiloT.MercadoandMa.AgnesR.Mercado,petitioners,filedwiththisCourtaPetitionfor
ReviewonCertiorariassailingtheCourtofAppeals(a)Decision2datedMay27,2003inCAG.R.SPNo.71570dismissing
their petition for annulment of judgment; and (b) its Resolution 3 dated October 23, 2003 denying their motion for
reconsideration.
On January 12,2004, we denied the petition because of petitioners failure to show that a reversible error had been
committedbytheAppellateCourt.4
PetitionersfiledamotionforreconsiderationallegingthattheCourtofAppeals,indismissingtheirpetitionforannulment
ofjudgment,merelyreliedontechnicalrulesofprocedure,therebysacrificingthegreaterinterestofjusticeandequity;and
thattheirformercounselsgrossnegligenceconstitutesextrinsicfraud,agroundforannullingthetrialcourtsjudgment.
OnMarch24,2004,weissuedaResolutiongrantingpetitionersmotionforreconsiderationandreinstatingtheirpetition.
WelikewiserequiredSecurityBankCorporation,respondent,tocommentonthepetition.
Initscomment,respondentaverredthattheissuesraisedinthepresentpetitionaremererehashoftheissuespetitioners
raisedbeforetheAppellateCourt.Astotheallegednegligenceoftheircounsel,respondentpointedoutthatthesamecannot
beconsideredanextrinsicfraudsincethroughthesamecounsel,theyactivelypursuedandrecoveredmoraldamagesand
attorneysfees.Furthermore,assumingthatpetitionerscounselrefusedtofileamotionforreconsiderationwiththetrial
court,still,theyhadtheoptiontoterminatehisservicesandhireanother;andthattheyshouldnothavewaitedforfour(4)
yearsbeforefilingthepetitionforannulmentofjudgment.
OnJune7,2004,weissuedaResolutiondenyingthepetitiononthegroundthatpetitionersindeedfailedtoshowthata
reversibleerrorhadbeencommittedbytheAppellateCourt.
Petitionersfiledamotionforreconsideration,butwedismissedthesameinourResolutiondatedSeptember15,2004,thus:
Wefindnocompellingreasontograntpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.

TheCourtofAppealswascorrectinholdingthatbeforeapetitionforannulmentofjudgmentcanprosper,petitionersmust
firstfileanappeal,amotionfornewtrialorapetitionforreliefasrequiredbytheRevisedRulesofCourt.Havingfailedto
doso,theycannotavailofanactionforannulmentofjudgment,otherwise,theywouldbenefitfromtheirinactionor
negligence.
Itbearsemphasisatthispointthatanactionforannulmentofjudgmentcannotandisnotasubstituteforthelostremedyof
appeal.
PetitionerscontentionthattheirfailuretoappealfromthetrialcourtsDecisionwasduetothenegligenceoftheirformer
counsellacksmerit.Recordsshowthattheyparticipatedactively,throughtheircounsel,intheproceedingsbeforethetrial
court.Aspartylitigants,theywereexpectedtobevigilantoftheirinterestsand,therefore,shouldmonitortheprogressof
thecase.Thus,theyshouldhaveconstantlycommunicatedwiththeircounseltobeadvisedofthestatusoftheircase.This
way,theywouldnothavelosttheiropportunitytoappeal.
Grantingthatpetitionerspetitionforannulmentofjudgmentisinorder,stillthesameisdismissible.Fortheremedyof
annulmentofjudgmenttoprosper,eitheroneofthefollowinggroundsmustbepresent:(1)extrinsicfraudor(2)lackof
jurisdictionordenialofdueprocess.Petitionerarguesthattheircounselsnegligenceconstitutesextrinsicfraud.Wearenot
convinced.Extrinsicfraudcanbecommittedbyacounselagainsthisclientwhenthelatterispreventedfrompresentinghis
casetothecourt.Thissituationisnotpresentinthiscase.
WereiteratethatinG.R.No.151816,weruledthattheCourtofAppealsdidnotcommitreversibleerrorindismissing
petitionerspetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionassailingthetrialcourtsorderofexecutionofitsDecisioninfavorof
respondentbank.
Infine,thisResolutionshouldnowwritefinistotheinstantcase. 5
Petitionersfiledasecondmotionforreconsiderationbutwasdeniedforbeingprohibited.
OnOctober18,2004,petitionerMercadowroteChiefJusticeHilarioG.Davide,Jr.statingthat:
OnMarch24,2004,theThirdDivision,initsResolution,grantedourMotionforReconsiderationandevengaveduecourse
andreinstatedourpetition.
ButwhenIreceivedtheResolutiondatedJune7,2004denyingmyPetitionforReviewonJuly12,2004,Iimmediately
calledmycounsel,Atty.JoseP.Villanueva,onthephone.Iaskedhimwhyonearththeponentedeniedagainmypetition
onthesamegroundforfailureofpetitionerstoshowthatareversibleerrorhadbeencommittedbytheappellatecourt?My
counselsaid,theponenteinformedhimthatshehastodenyourpetitiononthesamegroundbecauseofthetremendous
pressurefromtheChiefJusticetofavorSecurityBankCorporation(SBC).Bytheway,mycounselandtheponenteare
verycloseandlongtimefriendstoeachother.WhenIheardthebadnews,Iwassoshockedindisbelief.Itistrue,whatyou
didisunthinkable,ungodly,andmalicious.ItisalsoverysuspiciousthatafterafewdaysaftermyconversationwithAtty.
Villanueva,heandhisfamilyleftforLondon,leavingmycasetothecareofoneofhisAssociates.Lateron,theponente
herselfleftfortheU.S.A.tovisitherchildren.Isthisacoincidence?Asthesayinggoes,whenthereissmoke,thereisfire.
Anothercoincidence,beforethereceiptoftheResolutiondatedJune7,2004,denyingourpetitiononthebasisofSBCs
unsubstantiatedComment,SBCsoldourpropertytoM.MirandaDevelopmentCorporationandsucceededingettinga
permittodemolishthefour(4)buildingerectedinourpropertyfromtheForbesParkAssociation,evenifthecaseisstill
pendingandwehavenotevenfiledourMotionforReconsiderationwiththeSupremeCourt,nottomentiontheLis
PendensannotatedonthetitleofthepropertyinthenameofSBC.ThepersonwhoboughtourpropertyfromSBCfor
P120,000,000.00isknowntomynephewandus.Whilethebuyerisdrinkingwithmynephewandothers,notknowingthat
oneofthemismynephew,hebraggedtothemthathejustboughtthepropertyoftheMercadosinForbesPark.Thebuyer
saidIpaidalreadythepropertybecauseSBCtoldmethattheyalreadyhavethegosignalfromtheponentetosellthe
property.Fewdaysthereafter,alltheimprovementsinourpropertyweretotallydemolishedbyaconstructioncompany
ownedbymyprovincemateinPampangabythenameofMr.Bana,whomIpersonallymetatthesitewhilethedemolition
wasbeingcarriedout.
Haveyounoconscienceatall?Areyounotbotheredofthefinaljudgmentafterlife?Isthisthelegacyyouwanttoimpartto
yourchildrenandalltheFilipinopeople?WhatyoudidtomyfamilyandIisunforgivablenotonlytoGodandtohumanity.

Youhavedeprivedusofourpreciouspossessionwithoutdueprocess.Thisisalsotheabodeofmywife,mychildren,their
respectivespouses,andmy10grandchildren,nottomentiontheseveralhouseholdmembersandtheirfamilies.
IwouldliketobelievethattheSupremeCourtisthelastbulwarkoftruejustice.Ifyou,theChiefJustice,himself,arethe
firstpersontomakeamockeryofourlaws,nowonderwhyforeigninvestorsdonotwanttoinvestinourcountrybecause
theysaid,thereisnojusticeinourcourts,theSupremeCourtinparticular.Thisisinthehighestdegreeofinjustice.You
havedeprivedusofourbasicfundamentalrightsintheprotectionofourpropertywithoutdueprocess.Thereisnojusticein
ourcourts,theSupremeCourtinparticular.DoyouthinkIwillbringmycasetotheSupremeCourtbymerequestionof
facts?FromourpetitionforAnnulmentofJudgmentfiledbeforetheCourtofAppealsandnowthePetitionforReviewon
Certiorari with the Supreme Court, my wife and I as petitionersmovants have clearly invoked LACK OF
JURISDICTIONonthepartofthetrialcourttoadjudicaterespondentSBCscounterclaimforthepaymentoftheloan.
AsIunderstand,whenthegroundinvokedasbasisforAnnulment ofJudgment isLACKOF JURISDICTION,the
Petitionmaybefiledatanytimebeforeitisbarredbyestoppelorlaches,neitherofwhichisobtaininginourcase.Evenin
laymanslegalpointofview,thisPetitionofoursclearlyandundoubtedlyraisesaquestionoflaw.
PleaseIbegofyou,havealasthardlookonourPetitionandthetwo(2)MotionsforReconsiderationandletusfocusand
notevadeontherealissueonLACKOFJURISDICTIONonthepartofthetrialcourtandnotconcentrateonnegligence
ofcounselandothertrivialreasons,etc.Orbetteryet,pleaserefrainfrominfluencingthemembersoftheThirdDivision.
Letthemdeliberateregularlyonourcaseorinhibitthemselvesonthecase.PleaselettheInstitutionservejustice,andnot
individualpecuniaryinterests.SBCscounselsareexpertsinfabricationoffactsandinmisleadingthecourts.Ihavea
feelingthattheymightaswellhaveledyoutobelievesomething,whichisnottrue.Pleasedontbeaninstrumentoftheir
wickedschemes,lesttheSupremeCourtitselfbecomestheirmeanstoperpetrateinjustice.ThisistheonlyBankwhichis
notinterestedinamicablesettlementinspiteofmyseveralsincereoffersofamicablesettlementsincethecasewasfiledin
1995upto2003,andtheseareallinwritinganddulyreceivedbySBC.Unfortunately,allmyofferswererejectedbythem.
IwroteyouthisletterasalastresortbecausemyfamilyandIlookedupatyoubeforeasthemosthonestanduprightChief
Justice.Aswewouldliketoknowifyoureallyhadintervenedandputpressure,asthePonentesaidtoAtty.Villanueva,
(mycounsel)tofavorSBCbecauseifyoudid,thenwerestourcase.Pleaseenlightenusbeforeweseekanotherforumto
seekredresstheinjustices,sleeplessnights,humiliationandembarrassmentwesuffered.Ifwearewrongaboutyou,andI
hopewereallyarewrong,pleaseacceptourappealforforgivenessandapologies.GODismywitness,thatwhatIhavetold
youisthetruth.
Mr.ChiefJustice,theFilipinopeopleknowhowreligiousyouare.Pleasedowhatareligiousmanoughttodoinserving
justice.Pleaseliveuptoour,aswellasHISexpectations.(Emphasissupplied)
OnNovember2,2004,ChiefJusticeDaviderequiredMercadoslawyer,Atty.JoseP.Villanueva,tocommentontheletter
andshowcausewhyheshouldnotbeheldincontemptofcourt.6
OnNovember17,2004,theCourtsThirdDivisionorderedMercadotopersonallyappearonNovember22,2004andshow
causewhyheshouldnotbeheldincontemptofcourt.7
Onthescheduleddate,Mercado,togetherwithAtty.PabloG.Macapagal,hisnewcounsel,appearedbeforetheThird
Divisionandsworetothetruthoftheletterhewrote. 8HemanifestedthatheonlystatedthereinwhatAtty.Villanuevatold
himthathispetitionwasdeniedforthesecondtime"becauseofthetremendouspressurefromtheChiefJustice."He
furthermanifestedthatduringthewakeofAtty.Villanuevasmother,he(Atty.Villanueva)pointedtoJusticeAngelina
SandovalGutierrez,braggingthatsheis"averyverygood,closeandlongtimefriendofhis." 9However,whilestatingthis,
MercadoreferredtoJusticeConchitaCarpioMoralesasJusticeGutierrez.10
Forthwith,theThirdDivisionissuedinopencourtaResolution 11directingAtty.Macapagaltosubmitawrittenexplanation
whyMercadoshouldnotbeheldincontemptofCourt.
Forhispart,Atty.Villanuevasubmittedacomment, 12 stronglydenyingMercadosallegationsinhisletter.Hedenied
havingtoldpetitionersthattheirpetitionhadtobedeniedagain"becausetherewasatremendouspressurefromtheChief
JusticeinfavorofSecurityBankCorporation."Healsostressedthattherewasnocorrelationbetweentheponentestripto
theUnitedStatesandhistriptoLondon.HeexplainedthatheandhisfamilywenttoLondontoattendthegraduationofhis
daughter,CherriemayaVelosoVillanueva.Tosubstantiatethis,hesubmittedaphotocopyof"LondonSchoolofEconomics

(LSE)andPoliticalSciencePresentationCeremonies"wherethenameofhisdaughter,CherriemayaVelosoVillanueva,is
listedasoneofthesuccessfulgraduates.Helikewisesubmittedaphotocopyofhispassportindicatinghisdeparturefor
LondononJuly14,2004andhisarrivalinthePhilippinesonJuly27,2004.Inaddition,hesaidhenevermetanyonefrom
respondentbank,includingitslawyers,andthatthereisnotruthtoMercadosstatementregardinghisnephewsalleged
encounterwiththenewownersofthesubjectproperty.
OnDecember13,2004,Mercadosubmittedhisexplanation 13 whyheshouldnotbepunishedforcontemptofcourt.He
claimedthatthecontemptuousstatementsinhislettermerelyreiteratethetenorofAtty.Villanuevasstatements.Heoffered
anapology,explainingthathewrotetheletterwhilehewas"undertheimpulseofpersonalstress"ashewaslosinghis
residentialhouse.
OnJanuary26,2005,theThirdDivisionorderedbothMercadoandAtty.VillanuevatoappearonFebruary21,2005to
elucidatetheirrespectivepositions.
MercadotestifiedthatitwasAtty.VillanuevawhoinformedhimthattheponenteisJusticeGutierrez.Atty.Villanueva
evenbraggedthatsheishis"very,veryclosefriend."
Forhispart,Atty.VillanuevatestifiedthatitwasMercadowhoinformedhimthatJusticeGutierrezisthe ponente.Healso
confirmedthatsheattendedthewakeofhismother.ButhedeniedMercadosclaimthathepointedtoJusticeGutierrezand
saidthatsheishisclosefriend.14
Thereafter, the Third Division designated Court of Appeals Justice Renato C. Dacudao as Commissioner to receive
evidenceonthefactualissuesinvolvedinthecontemptincident.15
OnMay18,2005,JusticeDacudaosubmittedhisInvestigation,ReportandRecommendation.HefoundMercado"guiltyof
improperconducttendingtobringtheauthorityandtheadministrationofjusticebytheCourtintodisrespectwhenhe
openlybelittled,degraded,andembarrassedtheHighestCourtoftheland,particularlytheChiefJusticexxx."However,he
heldthat"therewasnoshowingthatheactedwithmaliceand/orinbadfaithorthathewasproperlymotivated."Thus,he
recommendedthatMercadobefinedinthesumoffivethousandpesos(P5,000.00).
WecannotsustainJusticeDacudaosfindingthatMercadodidnotactwithmaliceorbadfaithinimputingthosederogatory
anddisrespectfulremarksagainstChiefJusticeDavideandtheponente.
Badfaithimputesadishonestpurposeorsomemoralobliquityandconsciousdoingofawrong. 16Itcontemplatesastateof
mindaffirmativelyoperatingwithfurtivedesignorsomemotiveofselfinterestorillwillforulteriorpurposes. 17Maliceis
ofthesamegenre.Itconnotesasinistermotive.
MercadosaddressingsuchlettertoChiefJusticeDavideisaperfectillustrationofbadfaithandmalicetendingdirectlyto
degradetheadministrationofjustice.Ittransgressesthepermissibleboundsoffaircommentandcriticismsbringinginto
disrepute,notonlytheauthorityandintegrityofChiefJusticeDavideandtheponente,butalsooftheentireJudiciary.
WhilefeigningtobesearchingfortruthonwhetherChiefJusticeDavideindeedexerted"tremendouspressure"tothe
ponente,herepeatedlyhumiliatedhimandtheJudiciaryinthemostloutishandinsolentmanner.Heaccusedhimofdoing
an"unthinkable,ungodly,andmalicious"actandofdeprivinghis(Mercados)familyoftheir"basicfundamentalrightsin
theprotectionof(their)propertywithoutdueprocess."HeconcludedthatwhatChiefJusticeDavidedidtohisfamily"is
unforgivablenotonlytoGodandtohumanity."Inaninsultingandinsolenttenor,hestatedthat"iftheChiefJustice,
himself,isthefirstpersontomakeamockeryofourlaws,"thenthereis"nowonderwhyforeigninvestorsdonotwantto
investinourcountry."
Furthermore,heallegedthatanirregularityorbriberyattendedthedenialofhispetitionforreview.Heinsinuatedthatthe
travelsofAtty.Villanuevaandtheponenteabroadwerefinancedbyrespondentbank,statingthat"whenthereissmoke,
thereisfire."Healsorecklesslyaccusedtheponenteofgivingrespondentbanka"gosignal"tosellhisproperty.Inthis
backdrop, he asked Chief Justice Davide to"refrainfrom influencing the members ofthe Third Division;" "let them
deliberateregularlyonthecaseorinhibitthemselvesonthecase;"and"lettheInstitutionservejustice,andnotindividual
pecuniaryinterests."

Finally,hecondemnedtheentireJudiciarybysaying"thereisnojusticeinourcourts,theSupremeCourtinparticular."
Andwithimpudence,hethreatenedChiefJusticeDavidetoenlightenhimbeforehe"seeksanotherforumtoseekredress
fortheinjustices,sleeplessnights,humiliationandembarrassment"hisfamilysuffered.
Withoutdoubt,Mercadosletterismarkedwithmalice,badfaith,andgrossdisrespect.Hecommittedaremarkablefeatof
characterassassinationandhonorvilification.ContrarytohisclaimthatheisjustverifyingthetruthofAtty.Villanuevas
statements,thewordsinhisletteraremoreaccusatorythaninquisitorial.Whatisdisconcertingisthathisaccusationshave
nobasisinfactandinlaw.Obviously,theycausedintensepainandhumiliationonthepartofChiefJusticeDavideandthe
ponente.
TheResolutionoftheThirdDivisionofthisCourtdatedSeptember15,2004denyingMercadosmotionforreconsideration
iswellexplained.Aprinciplealmostrepeatedtosatietyisthat"anactionforannulmentofjudgmentcannotandisnota
substituteforthelostremedyofappeal."Apartymusthavefirstavailedofappeal,amotionfornewtrialorapetitionfor
reliefbeforeanactionforannulmentcanprosper.Itsobviousrationaleistopreventthepartyfrombenefitingfromhis
inactionornegligence.Also,theactionforannulmentofjudgmentmustbebasedeitheron(a)extrinsicfraudor(b)lackof
jurisdictionordenialofdueprocess. 18Havingfailedtoavailoftheremediesandtherebeingaclearshowingthatneitherof
thegroundswaspresent,thepetitionmustbedismissed.Onlyadisgruntledlitigantwouldfindsuchlegaldisposition
unacceptable.
MercadobewailsthedenialbytheThirdDivisionofhispetitionthroughamereMinuteResolutionandafterreinstating
thepetition.Apparently,hefindstheCourtsmannerofdenialandchangeofheartunusualandcastssinisterundertoneto
them.
InInReLaureta,19 weruledthat theCourt isnot "dutybound" torendersigneddecisionsallthetime.It hasample
discretiontoformulatedecisionsand/orminuteresolutions,providedalegalbasisisgivendependingonitsevaluationofa
case.Inthesamecase,weheldthat"therecallofaduecourseOrderafterareviewoftherecordsofthecaseisacommon
occurrenceintheCourt."Liketherespondentsinthesaidcase,Mercadoshouldnotthinkthatitisonlyhispetitionwhich
hasbeensubjectedtosuchrecall.
The Third Division initially denied Mercados petition because it is apparent on its face that the Court of Appeals
committed no reversible error in dismissing his petition for annulment of judgment. Considering his motion for
reconsiderationallegingthattheAppellateCourtmerelyreliedontechnicalrulesofprocedureandthathisformercounsel
committed gross negligence, the Third Division took the most prudent course by reinstating the petition. Now, after
consideringthepetitionandthecommentthereon,theThirdDivisionwasconvincedthat,indeed,theAppellateCourtdid
notcommitanyreversibleerror.Isthisirregular?Theanswerisaresounding"no."Thereinstatementofapetitiondoesnot
guaranteethatitwillbesubsequentlygranted.Otherwise,thefilingofcommentandsubsequentpleadingswouldbean
exerciseinfutility.
Now,inabidtoescapeliabilityforcontempt,Mercadoinvokesfreedomofspeechandprivacyofcommunication.
Wearenotpersuaded.
Apersonchargedwithcontemptofcourtforhisutteranceswhichclearlyconstitutecontemptmaynotordinarilyescape
liabilitybymerelyinvokingtheconstitutionalguarantyoffreedomofspeech.Libertyofspeechmustnotbeconfusedwith
abuseofsuchliberty.WhenheattributedthosecontemptuousremarkstoChiefJusticeDavideandtheponente,Mercado
abusedsuchliberty.HisstatementscastaspersionstotheirreputationandintegrityandcreateadistrusttotheJudiciary.
ThefactthatMercadosletterwasaddressedonlytotheChiefJusticedoesnotrinseitofitscontemptuouscharacter.InIn
ReLaureta,20 weruledthatlettersaddressedtoindividualJustices,inconnectionwiththeperformanceoftheirjudicial
functionsbecomepartofthejudicialrecordandareamatterofconcernfortheentirecourt.
Accordingly,weholdMercadoguiltyofindirectcontemptofcourt.
Section3,Rule71ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,provides:

Section3.Indirectcontempttobepunishedafterchargeandhearing.Afterachargeinwritinghasbeenfiled,andan
opportunitygiventotherespondenttocommentthereonwithinsuchperiodasmaybefixedbythecourtandtobeheardby
himselforcounsel,apersonguiltyofanyofthefollowingactsmaybepunishedforindirectcontempt:
xxxxxx
d.Anyimproperconducttending,directlyorindirectly,toimpede,obstruct,ordegradetheadministrationofjustice;
xxxxxx
AsforAtty.Villanueva,whileJusticeDacudaodidnotcategoricallystatethathe(Atty.Villanueva)toldMercadothat
ChiefJusticeDavideexerted"tremendouspressure"onthe ponente,thereasonwhythepetitionwasdismissedforthe
secondtime,however,weareinclinedtobelievethatAtty.VillanuevagavesuchinformationtoMercado.Notonlythat,
Atty.Villanuevaalsorevealedthenameoftheponente;thatheandtheponentehaveknowneachothersince1964;andthat
theponentewouldbeat
thewakeofhismother,thus:
Afteracarefulandconscientiousexaminationoftheevidenceadducedintheinstantcase,theundersignedinvestigatoris
fullyconvincedthatitwasonlythroughAtty.Villanuevathatpetitionercouldhavelearnedorknownthenameofthe
ponenteinthecase.
AsbetweenpetitionerandAtty.Villanueva,theundersignedinvestigatorininclinedtogivemorecredencetothetestimony
ofpetitioner.Notonlywaspetitionerconsistent,firm,andcandidanddetailedinhistestimony,buthewasalsoableto
corroboratehisclaims,bysubmittinghisdiarywhichcontainedvitalentriesandbypresentingthetestimonyofhisnephew.
xxx
Moreover,itwasadmittedbyAtty.VillanuevathatheandJusticeGutierrezhaveknowneachothersince1964andthat
JusticeGutierrezwasinthewakeofhismother.TheseadmissionstendtostrengthentheallegationsofpetitionerthatAtty.
Villanuevawastheonewhotoldhimthenameoftheponente;thatAtty.Villanuevatoldhimthatheandtheponenteare
veryclose;andthatwhenpetitionerattendedthewakeofAtty.Villanuevasmother,hewastoldbyAtty.Villanuevathat
JusticeGutierrez,theponente,wascoming.
Rule15.06ofCanon15oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitystatesthat"alawyershallnotstateorimplythatheis
abletoinfluenceanypublicofficial,tribunalorlegislativebody."Further,Rule15.07providesthat"alawyermustimpress
uponhisclientcompliancewiththelawsandtheprinciplesoffairness."Atty.Villanuevatooktheforbiddencourse.In
informingMercadothathewas"averyverygood,closeandlongtimefriend"oftheponente,Atty.Villanuevaimpressed
upontheformerthathecanobtainafavorabledispositionofhiscase.However,whenhispetitionwasdismissedtwice,
Mercadosexpectationcrumbled.Thispromptedhimtohurlunfounded,malicious,anddisrespectfulaccusationsagainst
ChiefJusticeDavideandtheponente.
We have repeatedly admonished lawyers from makingbold assurances totheir clients. Alawyer who guarantees the
successfuloutcomeofalitigationwillexertheavypressureandemployanymeanstowinthecaseatallcosts.Butwhenthe
caseislost,hewillblamethecourts,placingthem underacloudofsuspicion.Aswhathappenedinthiscase,Atty.
VillanuevasstatementsledMercado,notonlytosuspectbutalsotobelieve,thattheentireCourt,togetherwithChief
JusticeDavideandtheponente,couldbepressuredorinfluenced,
Responsibility enjoins lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to courts and the judicial officers. 21 Atty.
Villanuevasconduct,nodoubt,degradedtheintegrityanddignityofChiefJusticeDavideandtheponenteandthisCourt
aswell.
Thus,wefindAtty.Villanuevaalsoguiltyofindirectcontemptofcourt.
Ontheappropriatepenalty,thegeneralruleisthatcourtshaveinherentpowertoimposeapenaltyforcontemptreasonably
commensuratewiththegravityoftheoffense.Andthatthedegreeofpunishmentforcontemptissaidtoliewithinthe

sound discretion of the court.22 Considering the circumstances obtaining herein, we believe that Mercado and Atty.
VillanuevashouldbefinedP50,000.00eachandwarnedthatarepetitionofsimilaractswillwarrantamoreseverepenalty.
Onelastword.Thereasonfortheinherentpowerofcourtstopunishforcontemptisthatrespectforthecourtsguarantees
thestabilityofthejudicialinstitution.Withoutsuchguarantee,theinstitutionwouldberestingonaveryshakyfoundation. 23
Thus,wemustacttopreserveitshonorandintegrityfromassaultsofdisrespect.Onereasonwhyrespectofthepublicfor
theJudiciaryhasdiminishedisbecauseofunscrupulouslawyerswhoimplythatjudgesandjusticescanbeinfluencedor
bribed.Suchconducthasnoplaceinthelegalprofession.
WHEREFORE,JoseTeofiloT.MercadoandAtty.JoseP.VillanuevaaredeclaredGUILTYofindirectcontemptofcourt.
TheyareFINEDP50,000.00eachandWARNEDthatarepetitionofsimilaractswillwarrantamoreseverepenalty.
LetacopyofthisResolutionbeattachedtoAtty.VillanuevaspersonalrecordintheOfficeoftheBarConfidantandcopies
thereofbefurnishedtheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.3695February24,1992
DOMINGOC.GAMALINDA,complainant,
vs.
AYTYS.FERNANDOALCANTARAandJOSELITOLIM,respondents.
RESOLUTION

NARVASA,C.J.:
InhisverifiedlettercomplaintdatedJune19,1991, 1 complainantDomingoGamalindachargesretiredJudgeFernando
AlcantaraandAtty.JoselitoLimwithgraveabuseoftheirprofession("labisnilangpagabusosakanilangpropesyon"),
deception,threats,dishonoringandinjuringthereputationofsaidcomplainantandbringingaboutthelossofhisland.
TheCourtfindsthechargestobewithoutbasisandaccordinglydismissesthem.
TheadministrativecomplaintagainstretiredJudgeFernandoAlcantaraisafutileattempttoresurrectthechargesfiled
againsthiminAdm.MatterNo.MTJ90494,whichweredismissedbythisCourtinitsresolutionofSeptember8,1988for
havingbecomemootandacademic.Adm.MatterNo.MTJ90494wasfiledonlyonJuly22,1987,orfive(5)monthsafter
the respondent judge's retirement from the service on February 3, 1987. No motion for reconsideration having been
seasonablyfiledbycomplainant,thatresolutionhasbecomefinalandexecutory.Itservesasabartoarelitigationofthe
samechargesagainstrespondentjudge. 2Thatthosechargesarenowbeingbroughtagainstrespondentjudgeinhiscapacity
asanattorneydoesnothelpthecauseofcomplainant,forthechangeintheformofactionorremedypursueddoesnotbar
theapplicationoftheruleofresjudicata.3
Ontheotherhand,therecordestablishesthatAtty.LimwasmerelyperforminghisdutyascounselfortheplaintiffsinCivil
CaseNo.3827whenhedidwhatisnowcomplainedof.4
InCivilCaseNo.3827oftheRegionalTrialCourtofTarlac,BranchLXIII,SaludBalotandFelicidadBalothadsuedthe
heirsofApolinarioGamalinda5forreconveyance,withdamages,oftheeasternhalfofLotNo.3217ofthecadastralsurvey
ofVictoria,Tarlac,whichwasallegedlyinadvertentlyincludedintheoriginalcertificateoftitleofApolinarioGamalinda.
Inthecourseofthetrial,plaintiffswereabletosecureawritofpreliminaryinjunctionagainstthe"defendants,theiragents,
representativesorotherpersonsactingintheirbehalf,orderingthemtodesistfromthreshingandcartingawaythepalay

harvestonLotNo.3217oftheCadastralSurveyofVictoria,...untilfurtherorderofthisCourt...." 6Thisinjunctionwas
madepermanentinthedecisionofthelowercourtrenderedonJuly26,1977infavoroftheplaintiffs.
PendingappealtotheCourtofAppeals,complainanthereinenteredaportionoftheareaindispute,inthebeliefthatthe
wholeofLotNo.3217belongedtohimbyvirtueofaDeedofExtrajudicialSettlementwithQuitclaim 7executedinhis
favorbytheheirsofApolinarioGamalindaonMay6,1985.ItmustbenotedthatatthattimetitletoLotNo.3217wasstill
inthenameofApolinarioGamalinda.Thus,whenMaximianoTiburcio,ProtacioCabatinoandMaximoMateo,tenantsof
SaludBalot,enteredtheportionbeingcultivatedbycomplainant,thelatterreportedtheincidenttothepolice.
FromSaludBalot'sviewpoint,itwascomplainantwhointrudedintoherland.Relyingthereforeontheinjunctionissuedby
thelowercourt,shefiledthroughcounsel,Atty.Lim,amotiontodeclarecomplainantGamalindaincontemptofcourt.
ComplainantinterposedthedefensethattheareaindisputeinCivilCaseNo.3827wasdifferentfromtheareaoccupiedby
him.Toresolvetheissue,thelowercourtwithhisagreement,orderedaresurveyofLotNo.3217.Theresultofthe
resurveyshowedthatcontrarytocomplainant'sclaim,thelotoccupiedbyhimwastheverysamelandinvolvedinCivil
CaseNo.3827.Accordingly,thelowercourtdeclaredcomplainantincontemptinanorderdatedJuly24,1986whichwas
affirmedonappealbytheCourtofAppealsinadecisionrenderedonMarch21,1998.8
ConsideringthatTiburcio,CabatinoandMateoaretenantsofSaludBalotandcomplainantisthesuccessorininterestofthe
heirsofApolinarioGamalinda,thedefendantsinCivilCaseNo.3827,itisclearlyerroneousforcomplainanttoclaimthat
neitherhenorTiburcio,CabatinoandMateohadanythingtodowithsaidcivilcase.Beingpriviestotheparties,theyare
necessarilyboundbytheordersrenderedinsaidcase.
OnOctober12,1987,theCourtofAppealsrenderedadecision,affirmingintotothejudgmentofthelowercourtinCivil
CaseNo.3827.9Aftertheappellatecourt'sdecisionhadbecomefinal,Atty.Limmovedfortheexecutionoftheaffirmed
judgment, 10 and when the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied, filed an "Urgent Motion to Require Domingo
GamalindatoSurrenderTCT186299totheClerkofCourtandtoAuthorizetheLattertoExecuteReconveyanceofLot
3217AinFavorofPlaintiffs." 11 Thatmotionwasgrantedbythelowercourt,butcomplainantrefusedtosurrenderthe
Owner'sCopyofTCTNo.186299,promptingAtty.Limtofilethequestioned"MotiontoDeclareOwner'sCopyofTCT
186299NullandVoid,"12whichthelowercourtgrantedonJuly31,1989.
ItisclearfromtheforegoingthatthequestionedactsofAtty.Limwerealldoneinlinewithhisdutytoprosecutehis
clients'causeinCivilCaseNo.3827.Thefirstmotionwasfiledtoprotecthisclients'possessoryrightsoverthepropertyin
disputewhilethesecondmotionwasmadetoprocureexecutionofthedecisioninCivilCaseNo.3827.
Alawyerowesfidelitytothecauseofhisclientandmustbemindfulofthetrustandconfidencereposedinhim. 13Heshall
servehisclientwithcompetenceanddiligence,14andhisdutyofentiredevotiontohisclient'scausenotonlyrequires,but
entitleshimtoemployeveryhonorablemeanstosecurefortheclientwhatisjustlyduehimortopresenteverydefense
providedbylawtoenablethelatter'scausetosucceed. 15Anattorney'sdutytosafeguardtheclient'sinterestscommences
fromhisretaineruntiltheeffectivereleasefromthecase 16 orthefinaldispositionofthewholesubjectmatterofthe
litigation.17Duringthatperiod,heisexpectedtotakesuchreasonablestepsandsuchordinarycareashisclient'sinterests
mayrequire.
ThisispreciselywhatAtty.Limwasdoingwhenhefiledthemotionscomplainedof.Heshouldbecommended,not
condemned,fordiligentlyandcompetentlyperforminghisdutiesasanattorney;
Withrespecttothecomplainant'scontentionthattheDeedofSaleofUnregisteredLandrelieduponbythelowerand
appellatecourtsinCivilCaseNo.3827isaforgedorfakeinstrument,sufficeittosaythatthisisamatterthatshouldhave
beenlitigatedinsaidcaseinsteadofbeingraisedforthefirsttimeintheseproceedings.Inanycase,therebeingnoshowing
thatAtty.Limwasawareofanydefectinthatdeed,thechargeofdeceptionagainsthimwillnotlie.Absent,too,isany
showingthatAtty.Limhadanythingtodowiththepreparationofthecriminalinformation,andforthesamereasonhe
cannotbecalledtoaccountforit.
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative charges against retired Judge Fernando Alcantara and Atty. Joselito Lim are
DISMISSEDforlackofmerit.

SOORDERED.
A.C.No.4380October13,1995
NICANORGONZALESandSALUDB.PANTANOSAS,complainants,
vs.
ATTY.MIGUELSABACAJAN,respondent.

REGALADO,J.:
ThisresolvestheadministrativecasefiledbyNicanorGonzalesandSaludB.PantanosasagainstAtty.MiguelSabacajanon
February14,1995,1theverifiedcomplaintwhereforalleges:
xxxxxxxxx
4.ThatsometimeinOctober,1994,complainantswereinformedbytheRegisterofDeedsofCagayandeOroCitythatthe
complainants'owner'sduplicateoftitlecoveringtheirlands,TransferCertificateofTitleNos.T91736andT91735were
entrustedtotheofficesecretaryoftherespondentwhointornentrustedthesametorespondent;
5.Thatrespondentadmittedandconfirmedtothecomplainantsthattheirtitlesareinhiscustodyandhasevenshownthe
same(to)thecomplainantSaludB.Pantanosasbutwhendemanded(sic)todeliverthesaidtitlestothecomplainantina
formaldemandletter,markedasANNEX"A,"respondentrefusedandcontinuestorefusewithoutanyjustificationtogive
their titles (and) when confronted, respondent challenged the complainants to file any case in any court even in the
HonorableSupremeCourt;
6.Thatrespondent'sdareorchalleng(e)isamanifestationofhisarrogancetakingundueadvantageofhislegalprofession
overthesimplicity,innocenceandignoranceofthecomplainants,oneofwhomishisbloodrelative,hisaunt,forwhich
complainantsshudderwithmentalanguish;
7.Thatduetohischalleng(e),thecomplainantssentalettertotheHonorableSupremeCourtforenlightenment,copyof
which is attached as ANNEX "B", for which the Honorable Supreme Court required 19 legible copies of a verified
complaint;
8.Thatinspiteofrepeateddemands,request(s)andpleastowards(sic)respondent,respondentstillfail(ed)andstubbornly
refusedwithoutjustificationtosurrenderthesaidtitlestotherightfulowners,thecomplainantshere(in),whichact is
tantamounttowillfulandmaliciousdefianceoflegalandmoralobligationsemanatingfromhisprofessionalcapacityasa
lawyerwhohadsworntoupholdlawandjustice,totheprejudiceanddamageofthecomplainants;2
xxxxxxxxx
OnMarch22,1995,theCourtrequiredrespondenttocommentontheforegoingcomplaint.Inhisunverified"Answer"
thereto,respondentadmittedhavingmetSaludPantanosasbutclaimsthat,tohisrecollection,"NicanorGonzales/Serdan"
hasneverbeentohisoffice.Respondentlikewisedeniedthathechallengedanyonetofileacaseinanycourt,muchlessthe
SupremeCourt.HealsoclaimsthathereferredcomplainantPantanosastohisclient,Mr.SamtoM.UyofIponan,Cagayan
deOroCity,forwhomheworkedoutthesegregationofthetitles,twoofwhicharethesubjectoftheinstantcase. 3
Respondent likewise denies complainants' allegation that he is arrogant, in contrast to the innocence, simplicity and
ignoranceofsaidcomplainants.Hecontendsthatthetruthofthematteristhatcomplainantshavebeenchargedwitha
numberofcriminalandcivilcomplaintsbeforedifferentcourts.Healsoassertsthathewasholdingthecertificatesoftitlein
behalfofhisclient,SamtoM.Uy.4

Atty.Sabacajanstresses,bywayofdefense,that"theinstantactionwaschosenpreciselytobrowbeathimintodelivering
theCertificatesofTitletothemwithoutsaidcertificatespassingthehandsofMr.SamtoUywithwhomthecomplainants
havesomemonetaryobligations."5
InitsresolutiondatedJune26,1995,6forinternaladministrativepurposestheCourtreferredthiscasetotheOfficeofthe
BarConfidantforthecorrespondingevaluation,reportandrecommendation.
Fromtheforegoingproceedingstakenonthismatter,theCourtfindsthatrespondentadmittedhavingtakenpossessionof
thecertificatesoftitleofcomplainantsbutrefusedtosurrenderthesamedespitedemandsmadebythelatter.Itfollows,
therefore,thatitwasincumbentuponhimtoshowthathewaslegallyjustifiedindoingso.Instead,allhedidwastoinform
thisCourtthat"hisobligationtodeliverthecertificatestoMr.SamtoUyexcludesthedeliveryofsaidcertificatestoanyone
else."7
Respondent attached some certifications to his "Answer" to support his contention that complainants are notorious
characters.However,thecertificationsindicatethatmostofthecasesstatedtherein,especiallythoseinvolvingfraud,have
beendismissed.Withrespecttothosestillpending,thereisnoindicationastotheidentityofthepartywhoinstitutedthe
same,asidefromtheconsiderationthat theremedythereonisjudicial innature.At anyrate,theseaspersionsonthe
characterofcomplainantshavenobearingonthemisconductofrespondentchargedinthepresentcase.
Respondentlikewisesubmittedxeroxcopiesofcertaincertificatesoftitleinanefforttoexplainwhyhekeptthecertificates
oftitleofcomplainants,thatis,supposedlyforthepurposeofsubdividingtheproperty.However,anexaminationofthe
samedoesnotshowanyconnectionthereoftorespondent'sclaim.Infact,thetwosetsofcertificatesoftitleappeartobe
entirelydifferentfromeachother.
Asalawyer,respondentshouldknowthattherearelawfulremediesprovidedbylawtoprotecttheinterestsofhisclient.
Therecordsdonotshowthatheorhisclienthaveavailedofsaidremedies,insteadofmerelyresortingtounexplained,if
notcurt,refusalstoaccommodatetherequestsofcomplainants.Also,hecannotbeunawareoftheimposablesanctionsona
counselwhoresortstounlawfulmeansthatwouldcauseinjusticetotheadversariesofhisclient.
TheCourtaccordinglyfindsthatrespondenthasnotexercisedthegoodfaithanddiligencerequiredoflawyersinhandling
thelegalaffairsoftheirclients.Ifcomplainantsdidhavetheallegedmonetaryobligationstohisclient,thatdoesnotwarrant
hissummarilyconfiscatingtheircertificatesoftitlesincethereisnoshowingintherecordsthatthesameweregivenas
collateralstosecurethepaymentofadebt.Neitheristhereanyintimationthatthereisacourtorderauthorizinghimtotake
andretaincustodyofsaidcertificatesoftitle.
Apparently,respondenthasdisregardedCanon15,Rule15.07oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichprovides
thatalawyershallimpressuponhisclienttheneedforcompliancewiththelawsandprinciplesoffairness.Instead,he
unjustlyrefusedtogivetocomplainantstheircertificatesoftitlessupposedlytoenforcepaymentoftheirallegedfinancial
obligationstohisclientandpresumablytoimpressthelatterofhispowertodoso.
Canon19,Rule19.01ordainsthatalawyershallemployonlyfairandhonestmeanstoattainthelawfulobjectivesofhis
client andshall notpresent,participateinpresenting,orthreatentopresent unfoundedchargestoobtainanimproper
advantageinanycaseorproceeding.Respondenthascloselyskirtedthisproscription,ifhehasnotinfacttransgressedthe
same.
Ontheforegoingconsiderations,theCourtdesiresanddirectsthatrespondentshouldforthwithreturnthecertificatesoftitle
ofcomplainants.Toensurethesame,heshouldbeplacedundersuspensionuntilhepresentstotheCourtproofofreceiptby
complainantsoftheirrespectivecopiesofCertificatesofTitleNos.T91735andT91736orajudicialorderordocument
authorizingorjustifyingtheretentionofpossessionthereofbyrespondentorhisaforenamedclient.
WHEREFORE,Atty.MiguelSabacajanisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawuntilhecandulyshowtothis
Court that the disputed certificates of title have been returned to and the receipt thereof duly acknowledged by
complainants,orcanpresentajudicialorderorappropriatelegalauthorityjustifyingthepossessionbyhimorhisclientof
saidcertificates.HeisfurtherWARNEDthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaroranyotheradministrativemisconductwill
bepunishedmoreseverely.

Letacopyofthisresolutionbespreadonthepersonalrecordsofrespondentandhavecopiesthereoffurnishedtothe
IntegratedBarofthePhilippinesanddulycircularizedtoallcourtsinthecountry.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.7418October9,2007
ANDREABALCECELAJE,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.SANTIAGOC.SORIANO,respondent.
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:
BeforethisCourtisadisbarmentcasefiledagainstAtty.SantiagoC.Soriano(respondent)forgrossmisconduct.
In the Complaint dated June 1, 2005 filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Andrea Balce Celaje
(complainant)allegedthatrespondentaskedformoneytobeputupasaninjunctionbond,whichcomplainantfoundout
later,however,tobeunnecessaryastheapplicationforthewritwasdeniedbythetrialcourt.Respondentalsoaskedfor
moneyonseveraloccasionsallegedlytospendforortobegiventothejudgehandlingtheircase,JudgeMilagrosQuijano,
oftheRegionalTrialCourt,IrigaCity,Branch36.WhencomplainantapproachedJudgeQuijanoandaskedwhetherwhat
respondentwassayingwastrue,JudgeQuijanooutrightlydeniedtheallegationsandadvisedhertofileanadministrative
caseagainstrespondent.1
InhisAnswer,respondentdeniedthechargesagainsthimandaverredthatthesameweremerelyconcoctedbycomplainant
to destroy his character. He also contended that it was complainant who boasted that she is a professional fixer in
administrativeagenciesaswellasinthejudiciary;andthatcomplainantpromisedtopayhimlargeamountsofattorney's
feeswhichcomplainanthoweverdidnotkeep.2
BothpartiesappearedintheMandatoryConferenceandHearingonJanuary18,2006.Thereafter,thecasewassubmitted
fordecision.3
IntheReportandRecommendationdatedJanuary24,2006,IBPCommissiononBarDisciplineCommissionerDennis
A.B.FunafoundrespondentguiltyofGrossMisconductinhisrelationswithhisclientandrecommendedthatrespondentbe
suspendedforthreeyearsfromthepracticeoflaw.4
IntheReport,CommissionerFunafoundthat:
Duringthehearingconducted,ComplainantallegedthatshehasremittedtoRespondent,onvariousdates,amountsof
moneytotalingtomoreorlessP270,000.00.
AccordingtoComplainanttheamountsgiveninseveralinstanceswereallundocumentedandnotacknowledgedinwriting.
However,fortheallegedamountofP14,000.00intendedforaninjunctionbond,somedocumentsinwritingweremade.
xxxx
WhiletheamountsremittedbyComplainanttoRespondentwereneveracknowledgedinwritingandwerenotdocumented,
duecredence must be given to Complainant's allegationsespecially over the amount of P14,800.00 intended for the
injunction.Indeed,thereis noillmotiveatallonthepartofComplainanttofabricatecharges againstRespondent.
Unfortunately,noneoftheP270,000.00givenbyComplainanttoRespondentwaseverdocumentedandthereforeaccuracy
oftheamountscouldnotbeestablishedandsubstantiated.

WhathasbeendocumentedonlypertainstotheunpaidP5,800.00intendedfortheinjunctionbond.However,ithasbeen
establishedthatindeedanaccumulatedamountofP9,000.00hasbeenremittedbyRespondenttoValentinaRamosandonly
theunpaidP5,800.00remainsunaccountedforbytheRespondent.
Duringthehearingconducted,ComplainantreiteratedheraccusationsagainsttheRespondentandexpressedthatshehas
beenaggrievedandmisledbyRespondent.AccordingtoComplainant,thiswasmadepossiblebecause shewasnotaware
oforknowledgeableonlegalmattersandpractices.Respondenthasonlyoffereddenialstothecharges.However,the
circumstancesgivescredibilitytohereinComplainantintheabsenceofanyevilmotiveonherpart.
Accordingly,Respondentisclearlyguiltyofmisappropriatinghisclient'sfundsintheamountofP5,800.00.Whileother
amountsmayhavebeenmisappropriated,Complainantalleges P270,000.00,theexactnessoftheamountscouldnotbe
established.
Respondentisalsoguiltyofdeceivinghisclientandabusinghisclient'sconfidenceinrequestingforseveralamountsof
moneyonthepretensethathehadtospendforandpaythetrialjudge.
RespondentisherebyORDEREDtoimmediatelydelivertheunaccountedforamountofFiveThousandEightHundred
Pesos(P5,800.00)toComplainant,submittingaComplianceReportthereon. 5
OnSeptember8,2006,theBoardofGovernorsoftheIBPpassedaResolutionthus:
RESOLVEDtoADOPTandApprove,asitisherebyADOPTEDandAPPROVED, withmodification,theReportand
RecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissioneroftheaboveentitledcase,hereinmadepartofthisResolutionas
Annex"A;and,findingtherecommendationfullysupportedbytheevidenceonrecordandtheapplicablelawsandrules,
andconsideringthatRespondentisguiltyofgrossmisconductformisappropriatinghisclient'sfunds,Atty.SantiagoC.
SorianoisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawfortwo(2)yearsandlikewiseOrderedtoimmediatelydeliver
thatunaccountedamountofP5,800.00tocomplainant.6
TheIBPtransmittedtheNoticeofResolutionissuedbytheIBPBoardofGovernorsaswellastherecordsofthecase,
pursuanttoRule139B.7ThenincompliancewiththeCourt'sResolutiondatedFebruary20,2007,theIBPthroughDirector
forDisciplineRogelioVinluaninformedtheCourtthatperrecordsoftheIBP,noMotionforReconsiderationwasfiledby
eitherparty.
TheCourtagreeswiththeIBPResolution.
TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility(CPR),particularlyCanon16thereof,mandatesthatalawyershallholdintrustall
moneysandpropertiesofhisclientthatmaycomeintohispossession.Heshallaccountforallmoneyorpropertycollected
orreceivedfromhisclient8andshalldeliverthefundsandpropertyofhisclientwhendueorupondemand.9
AsfoundbyCommissionerFuna,itwasestablishedthatrespondentcouldnotaccountforP5,800.00whichwaspartofthe
sumgivenbycomplainanttohimforthepurposeoffilinganinjunctivebond.Respondentadmittedhavingreceivedfrom
complainantP17,800.00onApril19,2002forthepreliminaryinjunction10andadmittedtohavingabalanceofP9,000.00in
hispromissorynotetotheManilaInsuranceCo.,Inc.datedApril23,2002,whichwasreducedtoP5,800.00byreasonofan
additionalpaymentofP4,000.00,11leavinganamountofP5,800.00unaccountedfor.Theaffidavitoftheinsuranceagent,
ValentinaRamos,datedDecember8,2005alsostatesthatevenuptosaiddate,respondenthadnotyetpaidthebalanceof
P5,800.00.12
Respondent'sfailuretoreturnthemoneytocomplainantupondemandgaverisetothepresumptionthathemisappropriated
itforhisownusetotheprejudiceof,andinviolationofthetrustreposedinhimbyhisclient. 13Itisagrossviolationof
general morality and of professional ethics and impairs public confidence in the legal profession which deserves
punishment.14
AstheCourthaspronounced,whenalawyerreceivesmoneyfromtheclientforaparticularpurpose,thelawyerisboundto
renderanaccountingtotheclientshowingthatthemoneywasspentforaparticularpurpose.Andifhedoesnotusethe
moneyfortheintendedpurpose,thelawyermustimmediatelyreturnthemoneytohisclient.15

TheCourthasbeenexactinginitsdemandforintegrityandgoodmoralcharacterofmembersoftheBarwhoareexpected
atalltimestoupholdtheintegrityanddignityofthelegalprofessionandrefrainfromanyactoromissionwhichmight
lessenthetrustandconfidencereposedbythepublicinthefidelity,honesty,andintegrityofthelegalprofession.Indeed,
membershipinthelegalprofessionisaprivilege. 16Theattorneyclientrelationshipishighlyfiduciaryinnature.Assuch,it
requiresutmostgoodfaith,loyalty,fidelityanddisinterestednessonthepartofthelawyer. 17
InSmallv.Banares18therespondentwassuspendedfortwoyearsforviolatingCanon16oftheCPR,particularlyforfailing
tofileacaseforwhichtheamountofP80,000.00wasgivenhimbyhisclient,andforfailingtoreturnthesaidamountupon
demand. Considering that similar circumstances are attendant in this case, the Court finds the Resolution of the IBP
imposingonrespondentatwoyearsuspensiontobeinorder.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano is found GUILTY of violating Canon 16 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibilityandisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodoftwo(2)yearsfromnotice,
withaSTERNWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractsshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.
Respondent isfurtherorderedtorestitutetohisclientsthroughAndreaBalceCelaje,within30daysfromnotice,the
amountofP5,800.00.RespondentisdirectedtosubmittotheCourtproofofpaymentwithinfifteendaysfrompaymentof
thefullamount.
LetcopiesofthisResolutionbefurnishedallcourtsoftheland,theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,aswellastheOffice
oftheBarConfidantfortheirinformationandguidance,andletitbeenteredinrespondent'srecordinthisCourt.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.8159April23,2010
(FormerlyCBD051452)
REYNARIABARCENAS,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.ANORLITOA.ALVERO,Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA,J.:
BeforeusisaComplaint1datedMay17,2005fordisciplinaryactionagainstrespondentAtty.AnorlitoA.Alverofiledby
ReynariaBarcenaswiththeIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesCommissiononBarDiscipline(IBPCBD),docketedasCBD
CaseNo.051452,nowAdministrativeCase(A.C.)No.8159.
Thefactsasculledfromtherecordsareasfollows:
OnMay7,2004,Barcenas,throughheremployeeRodolfoSanAntonio(SanAntonio),entrustedtoAtty.Alverothe
amountof P300,000.00,whichthelatterwassupposedtogivetoacertainAmandaGastatoredeemtherightsofhis
deceasedfatherastenantofaricefieldlocatedinBarangaySanBenito,Victoria,Laguna.Thereceiptofthemoneywas
evidencedbyanacknowledgmentreceipt2datedMay7,2004.Inthesaidreceipt,Atty.Alverosaidthathewoulddeposit
themoneyincourtbecauseAmandaGastarefusedtoacceptthesame. 3
Later,BarcenasfoundoutthatAtty.Alverowaslosingalotofmoneyincockfights.TocheckifthemoneytheygaveAtty.
Alverowasstillintact,BarcenaspretendedtoborrowP80,000.00fromtheP300,000.00andpromisedtoreturntheamount
whenneededorassoonasthecasewassetforhearing.However,Atty.Alveroallegedlyreplied,"Akalanyobaaymadali
kuninangperapagnasakortena?" Subsequently,BarcenasdiscoveredthatAtty.Alverodidnotdepositthemoneyin
court,butinsteadconvertedandusedthesameforhispersonalneeds.

InhislettersdatedAugust18,20044andAugust25,2004,5Atty.Atty.AlveroadmittedthereceiptoftheP300,000.00and
promisedtoreturnthemoney.Thepertinentportionsofsaidlettersarequotedasfollows:
Dahilsakagustuhanngiyongamonamaibalikkoangperangtinanggapkosaiyo,lumakadakoagadatpilitkong
kinukuhakahitiyonmanlangnahiniramsaakinnaP80,000.00perohindikarakaprakaanglumikomnggayonghalaga.
PerotiniyaksaakinnasaMartes,ika24ngbuwanayibibigaysaakin.
Bukasaytutungoakosaaminupanglumikompangkaragdaganghalagaupangmaisaulikoangbuong P300,000.00.
Nakikiusapakosaiyodahilsaikawangnagbigaysaakinngperanabigyanmoakongkauntingpanahonupang
malikomkoangperanaipinagkatiwalamosaakin,hanggangika25ngAgosto,2004.xxx"6
Mayamayangalasnuwebe(9:00)titingnananglupangakingipinagbibilingDalawangMilyon.Gustonggustongbibili
gustolangmakitaanglupadahilmalayo,nasaCavinti.KungoknasabibilipinakamatagalnaangFridayangbayaran.
Iyongakingsinisingilnaisang P344,000.00atisang P258,000.00nautangngtagaLiliwaydaratingsaakinngayong
umagabagomagalasotso.Kungmaydalangpambayadkahitmagkanoayibibigaykosaiyongayonghapon.
xxxx
Lahatngpagkakaperahankoayakingginagawa,patianakkoaytinawagankona.Pakihintaymunalangngkauting
panahonpa,hindimatataposanglinggongito,taposangproblemakosaiyo.Pasensiyakana."7
However,asofthefilingoftheinstantcomplaint,despiterepeateddemands,Atty.Alverofailedtoreturnthesame.Thus,
BarcenasprayedthatAtty.Alverobedisbarredforbeingadisgracetothelegalprofession.
OnMarch30,2005,theIBPCBDorderedAtty.AlverotosubmithisAnswertothecomplaint. 8
Incompliance,inhisAnswer 9datedApril18,2005,Atty.AlveroclaimedthathedidnotknowBarcenaspriortothefiling
oftheinstantcomplaintnordidheknowthatSanAntoniowasanemployeeofBarcenas.Heallegedthathecametoknow
BarcenasonlywhenthelatterwenttohimtoborrowP60,000.00"fromtheamountentrustedtoRodolfoSanAntonio"who
entrustedtorespondent.ten.lihpwalAtthattime,Atty.AlveroclaimedthatSanAntoniowasreluctanttogranttherequest
becauseitmightjeopardizethemainandprincipalcauseofactionoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReformAdjudication
Board(DARAB)case.Atty.Alvero,however,admittedthathereceivedanamountof P300,000.00fromSanAntonio,
thoughheclaimedthatsaidmoneywastheprincipalcauseofactioninthereconveyanceaction. 10
Atty.AlverostressedthattherewasnolawyerclientrelationshipbetweenhimandBarcenas.He,however,insistedthatthe
lawyerclientrelationshipbetweenhimandSanAntoniostillsubsistedashisservicewasneverseveredbythelatter.He
furtheremphasizedthathehadnotbreachedthetrustofhisclient,sincehehad,infact,manifestedhiswillingnesstoreturn
thesaidamountaslongashislawyerclientrelationshipwithSanAntoniosubsisted.Finally,Atty.Alveroprayedthatthe
instantcomplaintbedismissed.
OnJune20,2005,theIBPCBDnotifiedthepartiestoappearforthemandatoryconference. 11
Meanwhile,inaseparateAffidavit 12datedSeptember19,2005,SanAntonionarratedthatheindeedsoughtAtty.Alveros
professionalservicesconcerninganagriculturallanddispute.HeclaimedthatAtty.Alveromadehimbelievethatheneeded
toprovideanamountofP300,000.00inordertofilehiscomplaint,asthesamewouldbedepositedincourt.SanAntonio
quotedAtty.Alveroassaying: "Hindipwedenghindikasabayangperasapagpafilengpapeldahiltubusanyan,kung
sakalingipatubosaynasakortenaangpera."Believingthatitwasthetruth,SanAntoniowasforcedtoborrowmoney
fromBarcenasintheamountofP300,000.00.Subsequently,SanAntoniogavethesaidamounttoAtty.Alvero,inaddition
totheprofessionalfees,asshownbyanacknowledgmentreceipt.13
SanAntoniofurthercorroboratedBarcenasallegationthattheytriedtoborrowP80,000.00fromtheP300,000.00theygave
toAtty.Alveroaftertheyfoundoutthatthelatterlostabigamountofmoneyincockfighting.HereiteratedthatAtty.
Alverodeclinedandstated,"Akalanyobaaymadalikuninangperapagnasakortena."Lateron,theyfoundoutthatAtty.
Atty.Alveroliedtothemsincethemoneywasneverdepositedincourtbutwasinsteadusedforhispersonalneeds.For

severaltimes,Atty.Alveropromisedtoreturnthemoneytothem,butconsistentlyfailedtodoso.SanAntoniosubmitted
Atty.Atty.AlveroslettersdatedAugust18,2004 14 andAugust25,200415 showingthelatterspromisestoreturnthe
amountofP300,000.00.
Duringthemandatoryconference,Atty.Alverofailedtoattenddespitenotice.Thus,hewasdeemedtohavewaivedhis
righttoparticipateinthemandatoryconference.
InitsReportandRecommendationdatedMay21,2008,theIBPCBDrecommendedthatAtty.Alverobesuspendedfrom
thepracticeoflawforaperiodofone(1)yearforgrossmisconduct.Atty.Alverowas,likewise,orderedtoimmediately
accountforandreturntheamountofP300,000.00toBarcenasand/orRodolfoSanAntonio.Thepertinentportionthereof
reads:
Therecorddoesnotshowandnoevidencewaspresentedbyrespondenttoprovethattheamountof P300,000whichwas
entrustedtohimwasalreadyreturnedtocomplainantorRodolfoSanAntonio,bywayofjustifyinghisnonreturnofthe
money,respondentclaimsinhisAnswerthattheP300,000"wasthesourceoftheprincipalcauseofactionofthepetitioner,
RodolfoSanAntonio,intheabovecitedDARABCaseNo.R0403001104asshownbyacopyoftheAmendedPetition,
copyofwhichisheretoattachedasAnnex"1"andmadeanintegralparthereof.
AreviewofAnnex1,whichintheAmendedPetitiondatedOctober31,2004andfiledonNovember3,2004,willshow
thatthePetitionerRodolfoSanAntonioisprayingthathebeallowedtocultivatethelandafterthe P300,000isconsigned
byPetitionertotheHonorableAdjudicationBoard.Uptothetimeofthefilingoftheinstantcomplaint,nosuchdeposit
orconsignmenttookplaceandnoevidencewaspresentedthatrespondentdepositedtheamountincourt.
Thefactisrespondentpromisedtoreturntheamount(Annex"B"and"C"oftheComplaint),buthefailedtodoso.
ThefailurethereforeofrespondenttoaccountforandreturntheamountofP300,000entrustedorgiventohimbyhis
clientconstitutegrossmisconductandwouldsubjecthimtodisciplinaryactionundertheCode.16
InNoticeofResolutionNo.XVIII2008342datedJuly17,2008,theIBPBoardofGovernorsadoptedandapprovedwith
modificationastopenaltytheReportandRecommendationoftheIBPCBD.Instead,it orderedthat Atty.Alverobe
suspendedfromthepracticeoflawfortwo(2)yearsand,likewise,orderedhimtoaccountforandreturntheamountof
P300,000.00tocomplainantswithinthirty(30)daysfromreceiptofnotice.
TheOfficeoftheBarConfidantredocketedtheinstantcaseasaregularadministrativecomplaintagainstAtty.Alveroand,
subsequently,recommendedthatthisCourtissueanextendedresolutionforthefinaldispositionofthecase.
WesustainthefindingsandrecommendationsoftheIBPCBD.
Undoubtedly,Atty.AlverobreachedRule1.01ofCanon1andRules16.01,16.02and16.03ofCanon16oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility,whichread:
CANON1.
ALAWYERSHALLUPHOLDTHECONSTITUTION,OBEYTHELAWSOFTHELANDANDPROMOTE
RESPECTFORLAWANDLEGALPROCESS.
Rule1.01.Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct.
CANON16.
A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COMEINTOHISPOSSESSION.
Rule16.01.Alawyershallaccountforallmoneyorpropertycollectedorreceivedfororfromtheclient.
Rule16.02.Alawyershallkeepthefundsofeachclientseparateandapartfromhisownandthoseofotherskeptbyhim.

Rule16.03.Alawyershalldeliverthefundsandpropertyofhisclientwhendueorupondemand.However,heshallhavea
lienoverthefundsandmayapplysomuchthereofasmaybenecessarytosatisfyhisunlawfulfeesanddisbursements,
givingnoticepromptlythereaftertohisclient.Heshallalsohavealientothesameextentonalljudgmentsandexecutions
hehassecuredforhisclientasprovidedforintheRulesofCourt.
Intheinstantcase,Atty.AlveroadmittedtohavingreceivedtheamountofP300,000.00fromSanAntonio,specificallyfor
thepurposeofdepositingitincourt.However,asfoundbytheIBPCBD,Atty.Alveropresentednoevidencethathehad
indeeddepositedtheamountinorconsignedittothecourt.Neitherwasthereanyevidencethathehadreturnedtheamount
toBarcenasorSanAntonio.
Fromtherecordsofthecase,thereislikewiseaclearbreachoflawyerclientrelations.Whenalawyerreceivesmoneyfrom
aclientforaparticularpurpose,thelawyerisboundtorenderanaccountingtotheclientshowingthatthemoneywasspent
foraparticularpurpose.Andifhedoesnotusethemoneyfortheintendedpurpose,thelawyermustimmediatelyreturnthe
moneytohisclient.17These,Atty.Alverofailedtodo.
Jurisprudencedictatesthatalawyerwhoobtainspossessionofthefundsandpropertiesofhisclientinthecourseofhis
professionalemploymentshalldeliverthesametohisclient(a)whentheybecomedue,or(b)upondemand.Intheinstant
case,respondentfailedtoaccountforandreturntheP300,000.00despitecomplainantsrepeateddemands.18
Atty.AlverocannottakerefugeinhisclaimthatthereexistednoattorneyclientrelationshipbetweenhimandBarcenas.
Evenifitweretruethatnoattorneyclientrelationshipexistedbetweenthem,caselawhasitthatanattorneymaybe
removed,orotherwisedisciplined,notonlyformalpracticeanddishonestyintheprofession,butalsoforgrossmisconduct
notconnectedwithhisprofessionalduties,makinghimunfitfortheofficeandunworthyoftheprivilegeswhichhislicense
andthelawconferuponhim.19
Atty.Alverosfailuretoimmediatelyaccountforandreturnthemoneywhendueandupondemandviolatedthetrust
reposedinhim,demonstratedhislackofintegrityandmoralsoundness,andwarrantedtheimpositionofdisciplinaryaction.
Itgaverisetothepresumptionthatheconvertedthemoneyforhisownuse,andthisactconstitutedagrossviolationof
professionalethicsandabetrayalofpublicconfidenceinthelegalprofession. 20Theyconstitutegrossmisconductandgross
unethicalbehaviorforwhichhemaybesuspended,followingSection27,Rule138oftheRulesofCourt,whichprovides:
Sec.27. DisbarmentorsuspensionofattorneysbySupremeCourt,groundstherefor.Amemberofthebarmaybe
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconductinsuchoffice,grosslyimmoralconduct,orbyreasonofhisconvictionofacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude,or
foranyviolationoftheoathwhichheisrequiredtotakebeforetheadmissiontopractice,orforawillfuldisobedience
appearingasattorneyforapartywithoutauthoritytodoso.
Wecometothepenaltyimposableinthiscase.
In Smallv.Banares,21 therespondentwassuspendedfortwoyearsforviolatingCanon16oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility,particularlyforfailingtofileacaseforwhichtheamountofP80,000.00wasgivenhimbytheclient,andfor
failingtoreturnthesaidamountupondemand.Consideringthatsimilarcircumstancesareattendantinthiscase,theCourt
findstheResolutionoftheIBPimposingonrespondentatwoyearsuspensiontobeinorder.
Asafinalnote,wereiterate:thepracticeoflawisnotaright,butaprivilege.Itisgrantedonlytothoseofgoodmoral
character.TheBarmustmaintainahighstandardofhonestyandfairdealing. 22Forthepracticeoflawisaprofession,a
form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess good moral
character.Thosewhoareunableorunwillingtocomplywiththeresponsibilitiesandmeetthestandardsoftheprofession
areunworthyoftheprivilegetopracticelaw.23
WHEREFORE, NoticeofResolutionNo.XVIII2008342datedJuly17,2008oftheIBPCBDBoardofGovernors,
which found respondent Atty. Anorlito A. Alvero GUILTY of gross misconduct, is AFFIRMED. He is hereby
SUSPENDED foraperiodoftwo(2)yearsfromthepracticeoflaw,effectiveuponthereceiptofthisDecision.Heis
warnedthatarepetitionofthesameorasimilaractwillbedealtwithmoreseverely.

LetacopyofthisDecisionbefurnishedtotheOfficeoftheBarConfidant,tobeappendedtothepersonalrecordofAtty.
AlveroasamemberoftheBar; theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines; andtheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorfor
circulationtoallcourtsinthecountryfortheirinformationandguidance.
ThisDecisionshallbeimmediatelyexecutory.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.6651February27,2006
EDUARDOP.MENESES,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.RODOLFOP.MACALINO,Respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO,J.:
TheCase
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Eduardo P. Meneses ("complainant") against Atty. Rodolfo P. Macalino
("respondent")forviolationofthelawyersoath.
TheFacts
ComplainantallegedthatsometimeinMarch1993,respondentofferedhislegalservicestocomplainanttohelpsecurethe
releaseofcomplainantscarfromtheBureauofCustoms.Respondentproposedtohandlethecasefora"packagedeal"of
P60,000.ComplainantagreedandinitiallygaverespondentP10,000forprocessingofthepapers.InJune1993,respondent
askedforP30,000toexpeditethereleaseofthecar.Inbothinstances,respondentdidnotissueareceiptbutpromisedto
furnishcomplainantwithareceiptfromtheBureauofCustoms.Sincethen,respondentfailedtogivecomplainantanupdate
onthematter.
Complainantrepeatedlywenttorespondentshousetoinquireonthestatusofthereleaseofthecar.Complainantwas
alwaystoldthatrespondentwasnotaroundandtojustreturnanotherday.Thiswentonformorethanayear.
InApril1994,complainantwenttotheNationalBureauofInvestigation("NBI")tofileacomplaintforestafaagainst
respondent.1TheNBIsetthecomplaintforinvestigationon27April1994.
Respondentwrotealetter2 totheNBIdated26April1994,requestingforpostponementoftheinvestigationto12May
1994.Respondentstatedinhisletterthathewouldsettlethematteramicablywithcomplainantandreturnthe P40,000.
Respondentfailedtoappearfortheinvestigationscheduledon12May1994.
Respondentsentanotherletter3totheNBIdated23May1994,requestingforthesuspensionoftheproceedingsbecausehe
hadpartiallysettledthecase.Respondentattachedtheacknowledgmentreceipt 4 signedbycomplainantrepresentingthe
partialrefundofP20,000.Respondentpromisedtopaythebalanceonorbefore8June1994.However,respondentdidnot
paythebalance.TheNBIsetthecomplaintforinvestigationtwiceandsubpoenaedrespondentbuthefailedtoappear.
On22January1996,theNBI,throughDirectorMarianoM.Mison,foundinsufficientevidencetoprosecuterespondentfor
estafa.Nevertheless,theNBIadvisedcomplainanttofileacomplaintfordisbarmentagainstrespondent. 5
On30April1996,complainantfiledaverifiedcomplaint 6fordisbarmentagainstrespondentwiththeCommissiononBar
Discipline("Commission")oftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines("IBP").Complainantchargedrespondentwithfailureto

renderlegalservices,failuretorefundbalanceoflegalfees,andfailuretoapprisethecomplainantofthestatusofthecase
allinviolationofthelawyersoathofoffice.
InanOrder7dated23July1998,InvestigatingCommissionerMa.CarminaM.AlejandroAbbas("CommissionerAbbas")
orderedrespondenttosubmithisanswertothecomplaint.Respondentwasalsowarnedthatifhefailedtofileananswer,
theCommissionwouldconsiderhimindefaultandthecasewouldbeheard exparte.AlthoughhereceivedtheOrder,
respondentfailedtofileananswer.
Thecasewassetforinitialhearingon7May2002.Despitereceiptofthenoticeofhearing,respondentfailedtoappear.
ComplainantwaspresentandheinformedCommissionerAbbasthathehadpreviouslyfiledacomplaintforestafaagainst
respondentwiththeNBI.CommissionerAbbasthenissueda subpoenaducestecum toMr.WaldoPalattao,orhisduly
authorizedrepresentative,oftheAntiFraudActionDivisionoftheNBIforthecasefolderandallthedocumentspertaining
tothecomplaint.8Mr.EmilRejano,aconfidentialagentoftheNBI,submittedallthedocumentsduringthehearingon29
July2002.9
Furtherhearingswerescheduledfor27June2002,29July2002,9September2002,8October2002and5November2002.
Despiteduenotice,respondentfailedtoappearonthesedates.
On 18 August 2004, Investigating Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa ("Commissioner Funa"), who took over the
investigation,issuedanordersubmittingthecasefordecisionbasedontheevidenceonrecord.Respondentsfailuretofile
ananswerandtoattendthehearingsweredeemedawaiverofhisrighttoparticipateintheproceedingsandpresent
evidence.10
TheIBPsReportandRecommendationlavvph!1.net
TheIBPBoardofGovernorsissuedCBDResolutionNo.XVI2004414("IBPResolution")dated7October2004adopting
withmodification11 CommissionerFunasReportandRecommendation("Report")findingrespondentguiltyofviolating
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.TheIBPBoardofGovernorsrecommendedtheimpositiononrespondentofa
penaltyofoneyearsuspensionfromthepracticeoflaw.TheReportreads:
From the records of the case, there is clearly a breach of lawyerclient relations. Moreover, [r]espondent has
continuouslyexhibitedhisadamantrefusaltocomplywithhislegalobligationstohisclient,despitemanyopportunitiesto
settlethematteramicably.Aggravatingthisis[r]espondentsutterdisregardofthelegalprocessbeforetheNBI,choosing
toignorenoticesfromtheNBIinthemiddleofaninvestigation.Inaddition,[r]espondenthascontinuouslydisregardedthe
jurisdictionofthisCommission.Itisclearfromtherecordsofthecasethat[r]espondenthasdulyreceivedtheordersand
noticesfromthisCommissionasevidencedbythe[r]egistry[r]eturn[r]eceipts.
Intheabsenceofanycounterallegationsfrom[r]espondent,whichisbyhisowndoing,theallegationsofthe[c]omplainant
shallstandandbegivenitsduecredence.12(Emphasissupplied)
TheIBPBoardofGovernorsforwardedtheinstantcasetotheCourtasprovidedunderSection12(b),Rule139B 13ofthe
RulesofCourt.
TheRulingoftheCourt
TheCourtfindsrespondentliableforviolationofCanon16, 14Rule16.01,15Rule16.03,16andRule18.0417oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility("Code").
RespondentFailedtoInformandtoRespond
toInquiriesoftheComplainant
RegardingtheStatusoftheCase

Therelationshipoflawyerclientbeingoneofconfidence,itisthelawyersdutytokeeptheclientregularlyandfully
updatedonthedevelopmentsoftheclientscase. 18TheCodeprovidesthat"[a]lawyershallkeeptheclientinformedofthe
statusofhiscaseandshallrespondwithinareasonabletimetotheclientsrequestforinformation." 19
TherecordsshowthatafterreceivingP40,000,respondentwasneverheardofagain.Respondentkeptcomplainantinthe
darkaboutthestatusofthereleaseofthecar.OnlyaftercomplainantfiledacomplaintwiththeNBIdidrespondent
communicatewithcomplainant.Moreover,itappearsthatrespondentfailedtorenderanylegalservicetofacilitatethecars
release.Infact,respondentfailedtosecurethereleaseofthecar.Respondentsfailuretocommunicatewithcomplainant
wasanunjustifieddenialofcomplainantsrighttobefullyinformedofthestatusofthecase.20
RespondentFailedtoAccountand
ReturntheMoneyHeReceivedfromComplainant
TheCodemandatesthatevery"lawyershallholdintrustallmoneysandpropertiesofhisclientthatmaycomeintohis
possession."21TheCodefurtherstatesthat"[a]lawyershallaccountforallmoneyorpropertycollectedorreceivedforor
fromtheclient."22Furthermore,"[a]lawyershalldeliverthefundsandpropertyofhisclientwhendueandupondemand."23
Whenalawyerreceivesmoneyfromtheclientforaparticularpurpose,thelawyerisboundtorenderanaccountingtothe
clientshowingthatthemoneywasspentfortheintendedpurpose. 24Consequently,ifthelawyerdoesnotusethemoneyfor
theintendedpurpose,thelawyermustimmediatelyreturnthemoneytotheclient. 25
Respondentspecificallyreceivedthe P40,000forhislegalservicesandfortheprocessingfeetofacilitatethereleaseof
complainantscar.Sincerespondentfailedtorenderanylegalservicetocomplainantandhealsofailedtosecurethecars
release,respondentshouldhavepromptlyaccountedforandreturnedthemoneytocomplainant.Butevenafterdemand,
respondentdidnotreturnthemoney.Again,respondentwaiteduntilcomplainantfiledacomplaintwiththeNBIbeforehe
refundedtheP20,000.Eventhen,respondentfailedtoreturnthebalanceofP20,000ashepromised.
Respondents failure to return the money to complainant upon demand is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and
proprietyandaviolationofthetrustreposedonhim. 26 Respondentsunjustifiedwithholdingofmoneybelongingtothe
complainantwarrantstheimpositionofdisciplinaryaction.27
RespondentFailedtoFileanAnswerand
AttendtheHearingsbeforetheIBP
TheCourtnotesthatrespondentsactuationrevealsahighdegreeofirresponsibility 28andshowshislackofrespectforthe
IBPanditsproceedings.29Respondentsattitudedemonstratesacharacterwhichstainsthenobilityofthelegalprofession. 30
OntheAppropriatePenaltytobeImposed
onRespondent
TheCourtfindsthepenaltyrecommendedbytheIBPtosuspendrespondentfromthepracticeoflawforoneyearwell
taken.FollowingtherulingsofthisCourt,thosefoundguiltyofthesameorsimilaractsweresuspendedfornotlessthansix
months from the practice of law.31 Considering respondents lack of prior administrative record, suspension from the
practiceoflawforoneyear,andnotdisbarmentasprayedforbycomplainant,servesthepurposeofprotectingtheinterest
ofthepublicandthelegalprofession.ThisCourtwillexerciseitspowertodisbaronlyinclearcasesofmisconductthat
seriouslyaffectsthestandingandcharacterofthelawyerasanofficerofthecourtandamemberofthebar. 32
WHEREFORE,wefindrespondentAtty.RodolfoP.Macalino GUILTY ofviolationofCanon16,Rule16.01,Rule
16.03,andRule18.04oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Accordingly,weSUSPENDrespondentAtty.RodolfoP.
Macalinofromthepracticeoflawforoneyeareffectiveuponfinalityofthisdecision.Respondentis ORDEREDTO
RETURNtocomplainant,within30daysfromnoticeofthisdecision,thefullamountofP20,000withinterestat12%per

annumfromthedateofpromulgationofthisdecisionuntilfullpayment.RespondentisfurtherDIRECTEDtosubmitto
theCourtproofofpaymentoftheamountwithin15daysfrompayment.
LetcopiesofthisdecisionbefurnishedtheOfficeoftheBarConfidant,tobeappendedtorespondentspersonalrecordas
attorney.Likewise,copiesshallbefurnishedtotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesandallcourtsinthecountryfortheir
informationandguidance.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.7021February21,2007
MELVIND.SMALL,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.JERRYBANARES,Respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO,J.:
TheCase
ThisisacomplaintfordisbarmentfiledbyMelvinD.Small(complainant)againstAtty.JerryBanares 1 (respondent)for
failuretorenderlegalservicesandtoreturnthemoneyreceivedforhislegalservices.
TheFacts
On30August2001,complainantengagedtheservicesofrespondentinconnectionwithseveralcomplaintstobefiled
againstoneLynethAmar(Amar).ComplainantpaidrespondentP20,000asacceptancefee.2
On4September2001,complainantgaverespondent P60,000asfilingfeesforthecasesagainstAmar.3Respondentthen
wroteademandletterforAmarandtalkedtoAmaronthephone.Respondentalsoinformedcomplainantthathewouldbe
preparingthedocumentsforthecases.Complainantconsistentlycommunicatedwithrespondentregardingthestatusofthe
cases.Butrespondentrepeatedlytoldcomplainanttowaitasrespondentwasstillpreparingthedocuments.
On5January2002,complainantrequiredrespondenttopresentallthedocumentsrespondenthadpreparedforthecases
againstAmar.Respondentwasnotabletopresentanydocument.Thispromptedcomplainanttodemandforafullrefundof
thefeeshehadpaidrespondent.4ComplainantevenhiredtheservicesofAtty.RizalinoSimbillotorecoverthemoneyfrom
respondent.Butrespondentfailedtoreturnthemoney.Hence,complainantfiledacasefordisbarmentbeforetheIntegrated
BarofthePhilippines(IBP)againstrespondent.
On15October2004,IBPDirectorforBarDisciplineRogelioA.Vinluanorderedrespondenttosubmithisanswertothe
complaint.Respondentdidnotfileananswerdespitereceiptoftheorder.
On 21January 2005, IBP Investigating Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes (IBP Commissioner Reyes) notified the
partiestoappearbeforehimforamandatoryconferenceon3March2005.Onlycomplainantappearedattheconference.As
therewasnoproofthatrespondentreceivedthenotice,IBPCommissionerReyesresetthemandatoryconferenceto30
March2005and,later,to14April2005.Respondentwaswarnedthat,ifhefailstoappearattheconference,thecasewill
beconsideredsubmittedforresolution.1awphi1.net
Onthe14April2005conference,onlycomplainantappeareddespiterespondentsreceiptofthenotice.TheCommissionon
BarDisciplineconsideredthecasesubmittedforresolution.
TheIBPsReportandRecommendation

On14July2005,IBPCommissionerReyessubmittedhisReportandRecommendation(Report)withthefindingthat
respondent failed to render any legal service to complainant despite having been paid for his services. The Report
consideredcomplainantsevidencesufficienttofindrespondentguiltyofviolatingCanons16, 518,6and197oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility(Code).IBPCommissionerReyesrecommendedtheimpositiononrespondentofapenaltyof
suspensionfromthepracticeoflawfortwoyearsandthatrespondentbeorderedtoreturncomplainantsP80,000.
InaResolutiondated12November2005,theIBPBoardofGovernorsadoptedandapprovedtheReport.TheIBPBoardof
GovernorsforwardedtheinstantcasetotheCourtasprovidedunderSection12(b),Rule139B8oftheRulesofCourt.
TheCourtsRuling
WesustainthefindingsandrecommendationoftheIBP.
TheCodeprovidesthatalawyershallservehisclientwithcompetenceanddiligence. 9TheCodestatesthatalawyershall
keeptheclientinformedofthestatusofhiscaseandshallrespondwithinareasonabletimetotheclientsrequestfor
information.10
The records show that after receiving P80,000 respondent was never heard from again. Respondent failed to give
complainantanupdateonthestatusofthecases.Moreover,itappearsthatrespondentfailedtofiletheappropriatecases
againstAmar.Respondentsfailuretocommunicatewithcomplainantwasanunjustifieddenialofcomplainantsrighttobe
fullyinformedofthestatusofthecases.Whenrespondentagreedtobecomplainantscounsel,respondentundertooktotake
allthenecessarystepstosafeguardcomplainantsinterests. 11Byhisinaction,respondentdisregardedhisdutiesasalawyer.
TheCodealsomandatesthateverylawyershallholdintrustallmoneysofhisclientthatmaycomeintohispossession. 12
Furthermore,alawyershallaccountforallmoneyreceivedfromtheclientandshalldeliverthefundsoftheclientupon
demand.13
InMenesesv.Macalino,14theCourtruledthat:
Whenalawyerreceivesmoneyfromtheclientforaparticularpurpose,thelawyerisboundtorenderanaccountingtothe
clientshowingthatthemoneywasspentfortheintendedpurpose.Consequently,ifthelawyerdoesnotusethemoneyfor
theintendedpurpose,thelawyermustimmediatelyreturnthemoneytotheclient. 15
Respondent specifically received P80,000for his legal servicesand the filingfees for the cases against Amar. Since
respondentfailedtorenderanylegalservicetocomplainantandhefailedtofileacaseagainstAmar,respondentshould
havepromptlyaccountedforandreturnedthemoneytocomplainant.Butevenafterdemand,respondentdidnotreturnthe
money.Respondentsfailuretoreturnthemoneytocomplainantupondemandisaviolationofthetrustreposedonhimand
isindicativeofhislackofintegrity.16
Moreover,respondentsmisconductisaggravatedbyhisfailuretofileananswertothecomplaintandhisrefusaltoappear
atthemandatoryconference.TheIBPrescheduledthemandatoryconferencetwicetogiverespondentachancetoanswer
thecomplaint.Still,respondentfailedtoappear,exhibitinghislackofrespectfortheIBPanditsproceedings. 17
Therelationofattorneyandclientishighlyfiduciary,requiringutmostgoodfaith,loyalty,andfidelityonthepartofthe
attorney.Inthiscase,respondentclearlyfellshortofthedemandsrequiredofhimasamemberoftheBar.
WHEREFORE,wefindrespondentAtty.JerryBanaresGUILTYofviolatingCanons16and18andRules16.01,16.03,
and18.04oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Accordingly,weSUSPENDrespondentfromthepracticeoflawfor
twoyearseffectiveuponfinalityofthisDecision.WeORDERrespondenttoRETURN,within30daysfromnoticeofthis
decision,complainantsP80,000,withinterestat12%perannumfromthedateofpromulgationofthisdecisionuntilfull
payment.WeDIRECTrespondenttosubmittotheCourtproofofpaymentwithinfifteendaysfrompaymentofthefull
amount.

LetcopiesofthisdecisionbefurnishedtheOfficeoftheBarConfidant,tobeappendedtorespondentspersonalrecordas
attorney.Likewise,copiesshallbefurnishedtotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesandallcourtsinthecountryfortheir
informationandguidance.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.7023March30,2006
BUNSIONGYAO,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.LEONARDOA.AURELIO,Respondent.
DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
OnNovember11,2004,acomplaintaffidavit 1wasfiledagainstAtty.LeonardoA.AureliobyBunSiongYaobeforethe
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)seekingfor his disbarment for alleged violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Thecomplainantallegedthatsince1987heretainedtheservicesofrespondentashispersonallawyer;thatrespondentisa
stockholderandtheretainedcounselofSolarFarms&LivelihoodCorporationandSolarTextileFinishingCorporationof
whichcomplainantisamajoritystockholder;thatcomplainantpurchasedseveralparcelsoflandusinghispersonalfunds
butwereregisteredinthenameofthecorporationsupontheadviceofrespondent;thatrespondent,whowasalsothe
brotherinlawofcomplainantswife,hadin1999adisagreementwiththelatterandthereafterrespondentdemandedthe
returnofhisinvestmentinthecorporationsbutwhencomplainantrefusedtopay,hefiledeightchargesforestafaand
falsificationofcommercialdocumentsagainstthecomplainantandhiswifeandtheotherofficersofthecorporation;that
respondentalsofiledacomplaintagainstcomplainantforallegednoncompliancewiththereportorialrequirementsofthe
SecuritiesandExchangeCommission(SEC)withtheOfficeoftheCityProsecutorofMandaluyongCityandanother
complaintwiththeOfficeoftheCityProsecutorofMalabonCityforallegedviolationofSection75oftheCorporation
Code;thatrespondentalsofiledasimilarcomplaintbeforetheOfficeoftheCityProsecutorofSanJoseDelMonte,
Bulacan.
Complainantallegedthattheseriesofsuitsfiledagainsthimandhiswifeisaformofharassmentandconstitutesanabuse
oftheconfidentialinformationwhichrespondentobtainedbyvirtueofhisemploymentascounsel.Complainantarguedthat
respondentisguiltyofrepresentingconflictinginterestswhenhefiledseveralsuitsnotonlyagainstthecomplainantandthe
otherofficersofthecorporation,butalsoagainstthetwocorporationsofwhichheisbothastockholderandretained
counsel.
RespondentclaimedthathehandledseverallaborcasesinbehalfofSolarTextileFinishingCorporation;thatthefundsused
topurchaseseveralparcelsoflandwerenotthepersonalfundsofcomplainantbutpertaintoSolarFarms&Livelihood
Corporation;thatsince1999hewasnolongerthecounselforcomplainantorSolarTextileFinishingCorporation;thathe
neverusedanyconfidentialinformationinpursuingthecriminalcaseshefiledbutonlyusedthoseinformationwhichhe
obtainedbyvirtueofhisbeingastockholder.
Hefurtherallegedthathisrequestsforcopiesofthefinancialstatementswereignoredbythecomplainantandhiswife
hencehewasconstrainedtofilecriminalcomplaintsforestafathruconcealmentofdocuments;thatwhenhewasfurnished
copiesofthefinancialstatements,hediscoveredthatseveralparcelsoflandwerenotincludedinthebalancesheetofthe
corporations;thatthefinancialstatementsindicatedthatthecorporationssufferedlosseswheninfactitpaidcashdividends
to its stockholders, hence, he filed additional complaints for falsification of commercial documents and violation of
reportorialrequirementsoftheSEC.

OnJuly19,2005,theInvestigatingCommissioner 2submittedaReportandRecommendation3findingthatfrom1987upto
1999, respondent had been the personal lawyer of the complainant and incorporator and counsel of Solar Farms &
LivelihoodCorporation.However,in1999complainantdiscontinuedavailingoftheservicesofrespondentinviewofthe
admissionofhis(complainants)sontothebar;healsodiscontinuedpayingdividendstorespondentandevenconcealed
fromhimthecorporationsfinancialstatementswhichcompelledtherespondenttofilethemultiplecriminalandcivilcases
intheexerciseofhisrightsasastockholder.
Theinvestigatingcommissionerfurthernotedthatrespondentisguiltyofforumshoppingwhenhefiledidenticalcharges
againstthecomplainantbeforetheOfficeoftheCityProsecutorofMalabonCityandintheOfficeoftheCityProsecutorof
SanJosedelMonte,Bulacan.Itwasalsoobservedthatrespondentwasremissinhisdutyascounselandincorporatorof
bothcorporationsforfailingtoadvisetheofficersofthecorporation,whichhewasincidentallyamemberoftheBoardof
Directors,tocomplywiththereportorialrequirementsoftheSECandtheBureauofInternalRevenue.Instead,hefiled
casesagainsthisclients,therebyrepresentingconflictinginterests.
Theinvestigatingcommissionerrecommendedthatrespondentbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofsix
months4whichwasadoptedandapprovedbytheIBPBoardofGovernors.
WeagreewiththefindingsandrecommendationoftheIBP.
We find that the professional relationship between the complainant and the respondent is more extensive than his
protestationsthatheonlyhandledisolatedlaborcasesforthecomplainantscorporations.Asidefrombeingthebrotherin
lawofcomplainantswife,itappearsthatevenbeforetheinceptionofthecompanies,respondentwasalreadyproviding
legalservicestothecomplainant,thus:
COMM.NAVARRO:
Wasthereaformaldesignationoryouwhereonlycalledupontodoso?
ATTY.AURELIO:
Well,IunderstandinordertoshowtotheemployeesthattheyhavelaborlawyerandatthattimeIwenttotheofficeatleast
halfdayeveryweekbutthatwascutshort.Andsowhentherearecasesthatcropupinvolvinglaborthentheycalledmeup.
xxxx
ATTY.OLEDAN:
Willcounseldenythathewasthepersonallawyerofthecomplainantlongbeforehejoinedthecompany?
ATTY.AURELIO:
Yes,withrespecttotheboundarydisputebetweenhislandandhisneighborbutthesubjectmatterofallthecasesIfiled
theyallrevolvedaroundtheFinancialStatementofthe2corporations.Ineverdevolvesanyinformationwithrespectto
laborcasesandtheMERALCOcasewithrespecttoboundarydispute,nothingIused.
ATTY.OLEDAN:
Washenotalsothelawyeratthattimeofcomplainantwhenheincorporatedthesecondcorporationin1992?
ATTY.AURELIO:
Well,IwastheonesubmittedthecorporatepapersandIthinkafterthatIhavenothingtodowiththeSECrequirements
regardingthiscorporation.JusttosubmittheincorporationpaperstotheSECandanywaytheyhavealreadydonethat
before.Theyhavealreadycreatedorestablishedthefirstcorporationwaybackbeforethesecondcorporationstartedand
therewasnoinstancewhereIdealtwiththeFinancialStatementofthecorporationwithrespecttoitsfilingwiththeSEC.

ATTY.OLEDAN:
MyonlyquestioniswhetherheincorporatedandthereforewasawareofthecorporatemattersinvolvingSolarFarms?
ATTY.AURELIO:
AsastockholderImaware.
ATTY.OLEDAN:
Asalawyer?
ATTY.AURELIO:
Well,asastockholderImaware.
xxxx
ATTY.OLEDAN:
Youarenottheonewhofiled.
ATTY.AURELIO:
IwastheonewhofiledthecorporatepaperbutthatsalltheparticipationIhadwithrespecttotherequirementoftheSEC
withrespecttothecorporation.
COMM.NAVARRO:
So,youactedaslegalcounselofthecorporationevenbeforetheinitialstageoftheincorporation?
ATTY.AURELIO:
Therearetwo(2)corporationsinvolvinginthiscase,YourHonor,andthefirstwasIthinkSolarTextileandthiswas.
COMM.NAVARRO:
Youwerealreadythelegalcounsel?
ATTY.AURELIO:
No,thiswascreatedbeforeIbecameastockholder.
COMM.NAVARRO:
WhowasthenthelegalcounselbeforeofSolar?
MR.YAO:
Siyaparinperohindipasiyastockholder.
ATTY.OLEDAN:
Because,YourHonor,hehappenstobethebrotherinlawofthewifeofthecomplainantandheisthehusbandofthewife
ofhersistersothatswhyhewas(inaudible)otherlegalmattersevenbeforethecorporationthatwasformedandhe
becamealsoastockholderandinfacthechargethecorporationcertainamountsforprofessionalservicerendereditispart

oftheResolutionoftheOfficeoftheCityProsecutorofMalabonasannextothecomplaintsohecannotsaythatheonly
presented,thatheonlyfiledthepapersatSECandasidefromthatwhenthecorporation,theSolarFarmswasalready
formedandthepropertywhichheisnowquestioningwaspurchasedbycomplainant.Hewastheonewhonegotiatedwith
thebuyer,hewasalwayswiththecomplainantandpreciselyactedascomplainantspersonallawyer.Thetruthofthematter
heisquestioningtheboundaryandinfactcomplainanthadsurveyconductedinsaidparceloflandwhichheboughtwith
theassistanceandlegaladviceofrespondentandinfactcomplainantgavehimonlyacopyofthatsurvey.Himalone.And
heusedthisparticularcopytoinsiststhatthispropertyallegedlybelongtothecorporationwhenintruthandinfacthewas
fullyawarethatitwasthecomplainantspersonalfundsthatwereusedtopayforthewholeareaandthiswassupportedby
thestockholderswhoadmittedthattheywereawarethattheparceloflandwhichheclaimsdoesnotappearintheFinancial
StatementofthecorporationwaspurchasedbythecomplainantsubjecttoreimbursementbytheBoardandshouldthe
corporationfinallyhavesufficientfundtocoverthepaymentadvancebycomplainantthenthepropertywillbetransferred
tothecorporation.Allofthesefactshewasprivytoit,YourHonor,sohecannotsaythatandheisalsoastockholderbut
thefactis,priortotheincorporationandduringthenegotiationhewasthepersonalcounselofthecomplainant. 5
Itappearsthatthepartiesrelationshipwasnotjustprofessional,buttheyarealsorelatedbyaffinity.Thedisagreement
betweencomplainantswifeandtherespondentaffectedtheirprofessionalrelationship.Complainantsrefusaltodisclose
certainfinancialrecordspromptedrespondenttoretaliatebyfilingseveralsuits.
Itisessentialtonotethattherelationshipbetweenanattorneyandhisclientisafiduciaryone. 6Canon17oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibilityprovidesthatalawyerowesfidelitytothecauseofhisclientandshallbemindfulofthetrust
andconfidencereposedonhim.Thelongestablishedruleisthatanattorneyisnotpermittedtodisclosecommunications
madetohiminhisprofessionalcharacterbyaclient,unlessthelatterconsents.Thisobligationtopreservetheconfidences
andsecretsofaclientarisesattheinceptionoftheirrelationship.Theprotectiongiventotheclientisperpetualanddoesnot
ceasewiththeterminationofthelitigation,norisitaffectedbytheparty'sceasingtoemploytheattorneyandretaining
another,orbyanyotherchangeofrelationbetweenthem.Itevensurvivesthedeathoftheclient.7
Notwithstandingtheveracityofhisallegations,respondentsactoffilingmultiplesuitsonsimilarcausesofactionin
different venuesconstitutesforumshopping,ascorrectlyfoundbytheinvestigatingcommissioner.Thishighlightshis
motivesratherthanhiscauseofaction.Respondent tookadvantageofhisbeingalawyerinordertogetbackatthe
complainant.Indoingso,hehasinevitablyutilizedinformationhehasobtainedfromhisdealingswithcomplainantand
complainantscompaniesforhisownend.
Lawyersmustconductthemselves,especiallyintheirdealingswiththeirclientsandthepublicatlarge,withhonestyand
integrityinamannerbeyondreproach.8Lawyerscannotbeallowedtoexploittheirprofessionforthepurposeofexacting
vengeanceorasatoolforinstigatinghostilityagainstanypersonmostespeciallyagainstaclientorformerclient.Aswe
statedinMarcelov.Javier,Sr.:9
Alawyershallatalltimesupholdtheintegrityanddignityofthelegalprofession.Thetrustandconfidencenecessarily
reposedbyclientsrequireintheattorneyahighstandardandappreciationofhisdutytohisclients,hisprofession,the
courtsandthepublic.Thebarshouldmaintainahighstandardoflegalproficiencyaswellasofhonestyandfairdealing.
Generallyspeaking,alawyercandohonortothelegalprofessionbyfaithfullyperforminghisdutiestosociety,tothebar,
tothecourtsandtohisclients.Tothisend,nothingshouldbedonebyanymemberofthelegalfraternitywhichmighttend
tolesseninanydegreetheconfidenceofthepublicinthefidelity,honestyandintegrityoftheprofession. 10 (Emphasis
supplied)
Insum,wefindthatrespondent'sactuationsamounttoabreachofhisdutytoupholdgoodfaithandfairness,sufficientto
warranttheimpositionofdisciplinarysanctionagainsthim.
WHEREFORE,respondentAtty.LeonardoA.AurelioisorderedSUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofSIX
(6)MONTHSeffectiveuponreceiptofthisDecision.LetacopyofthisDecisionbefurnishedtheOfficeoftheBar
ConfidantandtheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines.TheCourtAdministratorisdirectedtocirculatethisorderofsuspension
toallcourtsinthecountry.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.5162March20,2003

EMILIANOCOURTTOWNHOUSESHOMEOWNERSASSOCIATION,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.MICHAELDIONEDA,respondent.
BELLOSILLO,J.:
ALAWYEROWESFIDELITYtothecauseofhisclientmindfulalwaysofthetrustandconfidencereposedinhim. 1An
attorneyatlawmustservehisclientwithcompetenceanddiligenceatalltimes, 2andneverneglectalegalmatterentrusted
tohim,3foritishissworndutytodelaynomanformoneyormaliceandtoconducthimselfinapropermannernotjustto
hisclient,butalsotothecourt,thelegalprofessionandsocietyatlarge.
ThisisanadministrativecomplaintfordisbarmentfiledbytheEMILIANOCOURTTOWNHOUSESHOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION(ECTHA)againstATTY.MICHAELDIONEDA.
On29September1997ECTHAandrespondentDionedaenteredintoaRetainersAgreementwhereinrespondentlawyer
agreedtohandlethecaseofthecomplainantagainstLVFRealty,Mr.TinsayandBPIFamilySavingsBankbywayof
filinga ComplaintinIntervention intheRegionalTrialCourtofValenzuela,MetroManila,docketedasCivilCaseNo.
4890V96,forP20,000.00asattorneysfeesandP1,000.00asappearancefeeperhearing. 4 Itwasfurtheragreedthat
respondentlawyerwouldupdatethecomplaintandworkonthedevelopmentofthecase.5
In its Complaint ECTHA alleged that Atty. Dioneda, after receiving the amount of P20,000.00, did nothing for the
developmentofthecaseandtoupdatethecomplaintonthestatusofECTHAsintendedComplaintinIntervention.Dueto
theinsistenceofthemembersoftheAssociation,Mr.FernandoGarcia,ECTHAPresident,wascompelledtocheckthe
recordsofthecaseintheRegionalTrialCourtofValenzuela,Branch75,andsecuredacertificationfromtheBranchClerk
ofCourtdated5July1999thattherewasnomotionforinterventionfiledinthecase. 6
OnbehalfofECTHAMr.GarciarepeatedlymadeoraldemandsforrespondenttoreturntheamountofP20,000.00because
hedidnotdoanythingtoprotecttherightsandinterestsoftheAssociation.RespondentDionedaonlymadeoralpromises
topay,andinAugust1999hecouldnolongerbecontactedandthepersonnelinhisofficesimplymadeexcusestoMr.
Garcia.7
ThroughMr.GarciaECTHAreferredthemattertoAtty.AntonioL.Umali,whocontactedrespondentbytelephone.Still,
noresponsewasmadebyrespondent.On18August1999aletterdated17August1999wassenttoDioneda,butagain
therewasnoresponse.8
In his Comment filed before this Court, respondent Dioneda admitted that he and ECTHA entered into a Retainers
Agreement;however,heaverredthattheAgreementdidnotcoveronlytheComplaintinInterventionasadvertedtobythe
complainant.ItalsoincludedthecasebeforetheHousingandLandUseRegulatoryBoard(HLURB)thatthecomplainant
filedagainstthedeveloperofEmilianoCourtTownhouseswhorefusedtoreleasetothemembersoftheECTHAtheir
respectiveDeedsofSale.
At thetimehislegal serviceswereengaged,Atty.Dionedaallegedthat therewasalreadyadecisioninfavorofthe
complainant.Thereafter,respondententeredhisappearanceandfiledaMotionforExecutionwiththeHLURB.According
torespondentMr.GarciawouldgowithhimandfollowuptheissuanceoftheWritofExecutionwiththeHLURBNational
Office.RespondentDionedafurtherallegedthathewantedtopursuetheWritofExecutionsincehewouldattachittothe
ComplaintinIntervention,andthatthiswasexplainedtothemembersofECTHA.Respondentclaimedthattherewasdelay
inthefilingoftheComplaintinInterventionbecausetherewasdelayintheissuancebytheHLURBofthe Writof
Execution.
RespondentfurtheraverredthatMr.Garciawouldcallhimathisresidenceand"spewinvectives"athim.Therewouldbe
nodaythatMr.Garciawouldnot callrespondentandhurl expletivesat him andhisparents.Respondent deniedthe
allegationthatECTHAhadmadeseveraldemandsonhimandthathepromisedtopaysometimeAugust1999.

AfterreceivingthedemandletterofECTHArespondentimmediatelycalleduptheresidenceofMr.Garciaandinformed
himthathecouldgetthemoneyandtherecordsofthecaseathisoffice.However,respondentinformedECTHAthata
portionoftheamounttobereturnedwouldbedeductedasareasonablefeefortheeffortsexertedbyhim.Accordingto
respondent,norepresentativeofthecomplainantshowedupathislawoffice.
RespondentDionedadeniedthechargethatheneverattendedtothecaseofthecomplainantandthathedidnothingto
protecttheinterestofitsmembers.Heassertedthattherewasnointentiononhisparttodefraudthem.
ThematterwasreferredtotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesforinvestigation.Hearingsweresetonatleastfive(5)
separatedates.Despiteduenotice,respondentneverattendedtheIBPadministrativehearings.ThustheIBPCommissionon
BarDisciplineallowedthepresentationofcomplainantsevidenceexparteagainstrespondentonthe14December2001
hearing.9
On 13February 2002 the Commission onBar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),through the
designated Commissioner, recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility,specificallyCanons17and18.10 TheIBPheldthattheactofreceivingprofessionalfeesandthereafter
failingtorenderthecorrespondinglegalserviceisaviolationoftheCanons.Thepenaltyofthree(3)monthssuspension
fromthepracticeoflawandanorderforDionedatoreturntheamountofP20,000.00tohisclientintheinterestofjustice
wererecommended.On29June2002,ResolutionNo.XV2002252waspassedbytheIBPBoardofGovernorsadopting
andapprovingthereportandrecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissioner.
ThesoleissueinthiscaseiswhetherAtty.DionedaviolatedCanons17and18oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
AdmittedlyrespondentreceivedtheamountofP20,000.00asacceptancefeeforhandlingacasetobefiledinbehalfof
ECTHA.Despitereceiptoftheaforementionedfee,respondentallegedlyfailedtorenderthecorrespondinglegalservicesto
thecomplainant.
WeagreewiththeReportofIBPCommissionerWilfredoE.J.E.ReyesasapprovedandadoptedbytheIBPBoardof
Governors.
The ComplaintinIntervention wasneverfiledanddespitethepronouncement ofrespondent that hewouldreturnthe
attorneysfeestocomplainant,heneverdid.TheissuanceoftheWritofExecutionintheHLURBshouldneverhavebeena
requirementimposedbyrespondentbeforeaComplaintinInterventioncouldbefiled.
BeforetheIBPCommissiononBarDiscipline,respondentDionedadidnotattendasinglehearingtodefendhimself.
Despiteduenotice,hedidnotattendthehearingsscheduledon19March,9May,20June,8Augustand14December
2001.ThepartieswereorderedtosubmittheirrespectivepositionpapersintheOrderof9May2001oftheCBDIBP.
RespondentnevercompliedwiththeOrder.
Respondentslamentableattitudetowardshisclientscaseisclearlyevidentfromhisapparentdisinterestinhisowncase
fordisbarment.Dionedaneverbotheredtopresentevidenceinhisdefense.HedisregardedallnoticessenttohimbytheIBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, which were personally served at his office address. He never appeared before the
Commissiondespiteseveralopportunitiestodosoandexplainhisside.
Itisreasonabletoconcludethatunderthedoctrineofresipsaloquitur,respondentcommittedaninfringementofethical
standards.TheactofreceivingmoneyasacceptancefeeforlegalservicesinhandlingthecaseofcomplainantECTHA
againstLVFRealty,Mr.TinsayandBPIFamilyBankandsubsequentlyfailingtorendersuchserviceisaclearviolationof
Canons17and18ofthe CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Notonlythat.Theactsofinexcusablenegligenceinlegal
mattersentrustedtohimanddisloyaltytohisclientconstitutemajorbreachesofrespondentsoathasalawyer. 11Theseacts
thatareinimicaltohisclientsinterestsrenderrespondentliable.
Amemberofthelegalprofessionoweshiscliententiredevotiontohisgenuineinterest,warmzealinthemaintenanceand
defenseofhisrightsandtheexertionofhisutmostlearningandability. 12Publicinterestdemandsthatanattorneyexerthis
besteffortsandabilitytopreservehisclientscause,fortheunwaveringloyaltydisplayedtohisclientlikewiseservesthe
endsofjustice.Verily,theentrustedprivilegetopracticelawcarrieswithitthecorrespondingdutiesnotonlytotheclient
butalsotothecourt,tothebarandtothepublic.Alawyersinabilitytoproperlydischargehisdutytohisclientmayalso
meanaviolationofhiscorrelativeobligationstothecourt,tohisprofessionandtothegeneralpublic.

Thedutyofalawyertosafeguardhisclientsinterestscommencesfromhisretaineruntilhiseffectivedischargefromthe
caseorthefinaldispositionoftheentiresubjectmatteroflitigation.Acceptanceofmoneyfromaclientestablishesan
attorneyclientrelationshipandgivesrisetothedutyoffidelitytotheclientscause.Thecanonsofthelegalprofession
requirethatonceanattorneyagreestohandleacase,heshouldundertakethetaskwithzeal,careandutmostdevotion.
Indeed,respondentneglectedalegalmatterentrustedtohimbyfailingtofiletheComplaintinInterventionheundertookto
handle,thusmakinghimliableunderRule18.03ofCanon18.
InSantosv.LazarothisCourtrecognizedRule18.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityasabasicpostulateinlegal
ethicsstatingthatwhenalawyertakesaclientscause,hecovenantsthathewillexerciseduediligenceinprotectinghis
rights.13 Thefailuretoexercisethatdegreeofvigilanceandattentionexpectedofagoodfatherofafamilymakessuch
lawyerunworthyofthetrustreposedinhimbyhisclientandmakeshimanswerablenotjusttohisclientbutalsotothe
legalprofession,thecourtsandsociety.14
However,therecommendedpenaltybytheIBPisnotcommensuratetotheactscomplainedof.Jurisprudenceshowsthat
heaviersanctionshavebeenimposedforethicalviolationsofthisnature,takingintoconsiderationthegravityoftheoffense
andthenecessityofpreservingtheintegrityofthelegalprofession.
FollowingthelatestrulingsofthisCourtondisciplinaryproceedingsagainsterringattorneys,thosefoundguiltyofthe
sameorsimilaractsweresuspendedfornotlessthansix(6)monthsfromthepracticeoflaw.
ThefactsofSenciov.Calvadoresbearastrikingsimilaritytothepresentcase. 15TherespondentlawyerinSenciodidnot
returnthemoneytothecomplainantafterademandthereforwasmadefollowinghisfailuretofilethecase.ThisCourttook
totasktherespondentsattitudeofnotansweringthecomplaintandindeliberatelydisregardingtheordersandnoticesof
theIBPonmanyoccasions,holdingthatthisattitudeshowedacharacterordispositionwhichstainsthenobilityofthelegal
professionashechosenottoappearatthescheduledhearingsdespiteduenoticeandwarningsgiven. 16TheIBPappointed
Commissionerhadnootherrecoursebuttoreceivetheevidenceofthecomplainantexparte.17
Accordingly,therespondentinSenciowasfoundguiltyofviolationofthelawyersoath,malpracticeandgrossmisconduct,
suspendedforsix(6)months,andorderedtoreturntohisclienttheamountofP12,000.00withinterestat12%perannum
fromthedateofthepromulgationoftheresolutionuntilthereturnoftheamount.18
ThisCourtinGarciav.Manuelsuspendedtherespondentlawyerfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)monthsandordered
himtorenderanaccountingofallmonieshereceivedfromthecomplainant. 19Thecounseloratlawwasfoundguiltyof
grossmisconduct,especiallyforineffectivelyhandlingthecaseofhisclientandfailingtoreturnthemoneygivenbythat
sameclient.
InRabanalv.Tugade20andGalenv.Paguirigan,21therespondentlawyerswhofailedtofileabrieftothedetrimentoftheir
respectiveclientsweresuspendedbythisCourtforsix(6)monthsonthefirstoffense.
The respondent attorney in Aromin v. Boncavil was found to have violated Canons 15, 17 and 18 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility.22Hewassuspendedforsix(6)monthsandwarnedthatarepetitionofasimilaroffensewould
bedealtwithmoreseverely.
AstotheamountofAtty.Dionedascompensationforhislegalservices,thegeneralruleastotheconclusivenessofavalid
writtencontractfixingattorneysfeescannotfindapplicationinthecaseatbar.Thisisduelargelytothecomplainants
requestforafullrefundoftheattorneysfeesgiven,andtherespondentscounterproposalthataportionoftheamountbe
deductedasareasonablefeefortheeffortsexertedbyhim.Inasituationwherebothpartiesaredeemedtohaveimpliedly
disregardedthecontractandplacedthemselvesinthepositionasthoughtherewasnoexpressstipulationastotheattorneys
fees,thelawyerscompensationshallbedeterminedonthebasisofquantummeruit.23
Despitethissettledprincipleoflawonthecompensationofanattorneyforlegalservices,weruleagainstrespondentlawyer
inthepresentcase.
Todeservecompensationforhislegalservicesbasedon quantummeruit,respondentDionedamustprovebysubstantial
evidencethatheisentitledtoareasonablefeeforhiseffortsinpursuingthecomplainantscasewiththeCourttakinginto
account certain factors in fixing the amount of his fees. 24 However, due to respondents conspicuous absence at the

administrativehearingsforhisdisbarmentsetbytheIBPsCommissiononBarDisciplineonatleastfive(5)different
occasions,andtheapparentlackoffindingsoffacttosupportthepositionofrespondent,evidencerequiredtoestablish
attorneysfeeswasneveradduced.Forhavingmissedseveralopportunitiestopresentevidenceinhisfavorwithoutany
satisfactoryexplanationastohisnonappearance,weareconstrainedtodenyhimcompensationforhislegalservicesonthe
basisofquantummeruitduetothelackofanyfactualbasistodeterminethevalueofhisworkascomplainantscounsel.
Finally,Riverav.Corral25reiteratesthepurposeofadministrativecasesagainstlawyersinthismanner
Theprimaryobjectiveofadministrativecasesagainstlawyersisnotonlytopunishanddisciplinetheerringindividual
lawyersbutalsotosafeguardtheadministrationofjusticebyprotectingthecourtsandthepublicfromthemisconductof
lawyers,andtoremovefromthelegalprofessionpersonswhoseutterdisregardoftheirlawyer'soathhasproventhemunfit
tocontinuedischargingthetrustreposedinthemasmembersofthebar.Alawyermaybedisbarredorsuspendedfor
misconduct,whetherinhisprofessionalorprivatecapacity,whichshowshimtobewantinginmoralcharacter,honesty,
probityandgooddemeanororunworthytocontinueasanofficerofthecourt.
Itmustbestressedthatthepowertodisciplineadvocatesofthelawshouldbeexercisedwithextremecare,primarilyonthe
notionofpreservingthenobilityofthelawasaprofessionratherthanontheincidentalpurposeofvindicatingtherightsof
privatepartiesagainsterringlawyers.TheindispensabledutyofthisCourtastheguardianofthebenchandbarremainsthat
ofmaintainingthepeoplesrespectfortheruleoflawandtheefficientadministrationofjustice,whileatthesametime
restoringthecommunitysfaithinthelegalprofession.
WHEREFORE,respondentAtty.MichaelDionedaisSUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)months,which
shalltakeeffectfromthedateofnoticeofreceiptofthefinalityofthisDecision,witha WARNINGthatrepetitionofthe
sameorsimilaractswillmeritamoreseverepenalty,andis ORDERED to RETURN tocomplainantEmilianoCourt
TownhousesHomeownersAssociationtheamountofTwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00),withinterestoftwelvepercent
(12%)perannumfromthedateofpromulgationofthisDecisionuntilthefullamountasdirected,isreturned.
LetcopyofthisDecisionbefurnishedallcourtsoftheland,theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,theOfficeoftheBar
Confidant,andenteredintorespondentspersonalrecordsasanattorneyandasamemberofthePhilippineBar.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.6121July31,2009
TRINIDADH.CAMARA,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.OSCARAMANDYREYES,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
NACHURA,J.:
BeforeusisaLetterComplaint1filedbycomplainantTrinidadH.CamaraagainstrespondentAtty.OscarAmandyReyes.
Sometimein2003,complainanthiredtheservicesofrespondenttohandlehercase.Aspartialacceptancefee,respondent
receivedfromcomplainant P50,000.00evidencedbyareceipt2placedonhiscallingcard.Respondent,however,tookno
stepstoprotectcomplainantsinterest.Asnoservicewasrenderedbyrespondent,complainantaskedthathereturnthe
amountgivenhimsothatshecoulduseitinrepairingherhouse.Respondentofferedthathewouldtakechargeofrepairing
thehouse.Yet,heagainfailedtofulfillhispromise,whichpromptedthecomplainanttoreiterateherdemandforthereturn
ofthemoney.3Asrespondentfailedtogivebacktheamountdemanded,complainantinitiatedtheinstantcase.
InhisAnswer,respondentprayedthatthecasebeclosedandterminated,simplybecausethematterhasalreadybeen
resolvedbyallthepartiesconcerned.Headdedthatcomplainantwenttohisofficeandexplainedthatshesignedtheletter

complaintnotknowingthatitwasagainstrespondent,asshewasmadetobelievethatitwasacomplaintagainsther
neighbor.4
Complainantandrespondentfailedtoattendthemandatoryconference;andtosubmittheirrespectivepositionpapers.
OnFebruary19,2007,wereferredthecasetotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)forinvestigation,reportand
recommendation.5
InhisReportandRecommendation,IBPCommissionerSalvadorB.Hababagmadethefollowingfindings:
ThereisproofthatrespondentreceiptedtheamountofPhp50,000.00inhisownhandwriting.Evenhiscallingcardwas
giventothecomplainants.
Canon16,Rule16.01providesthatalawyershallaccountforallmoneyorpropertycollectedorreceivedfororfromthe
client.
Canon18,Rule18.03providesthatalawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedtohim,andhisnegligencein
connectiontherewithshallrenderhimliable.
Canon18,Rule18.04providesthatalawyershallkeeptheclientinformedofthestatusofhiscaseandshallrespondwithin
areasonabletimetoclientsrequestforinformation.
Usingtheaboveyardsticks,clearlytherespondentisliableandfailedtolive[up]to[the]abovementionedstandards.
While it is true that complainant Trinidad Camara allegedly executed an affidavit, the same will not save the
respondent.lavvphil
Asageneralrule,disbarmentproceedingshallnotbeinterruptedorterminatedbyreasonofthedesistance,settlement,
compromise,restitution,withdrawalofthechargesorfailureofthecomplainanttoprosecuteunlesstheCourtmotuproprio
determines that there is no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the
respondent.
Wereiteratethattherespondentdidnottraversethechargesagainsthim.Hesimplywantedthiscasetobeclosedand
terminatedallegedlybecauseheandMrs.Camarahadalreadyresolvedtheirproblemandthelattersson,whoalsosigned
thelettercomplaintasattorneyinfacthasnoauthoritytodoso.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,it[is]mostrespectfullyrecommendedthattherespondentbesuspendedforsix(6)
monthsfromtheactivepracticeoflaw.6
InitsResolutionNo.XVIII2008522,theIBPBoardofGovernorsadoptedandapprovedthereportandrecommendation
oftheinvestigatingCommissioner,thus:
RESOLVEDtoADOPTandAPPROVE,asitisherebyADOPTEDandAPPROVEDtheReportandRecommendationof
theInvestigatingCommissioneroftheaboveentitledcase,hereinmadepartofthisResolutiona[s]Annex"A";and,finding
therecommendationfullysupportedbytheevidenceonrecordandtheapplicablelawsandrules,andforrespondents
violationofCanon16,Rule16.01,Canon18,Rule18.03and18.04oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,Atty.Oscar
AmandyReyesisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)months.
Weagreewiththeforegoingrecommendation.
TheCourtnotesthatdespitetheopportunityaccordedtorespondenttorefutethechargesagainsthim,hefailedtodosoor
evenofferavalidexplanation.7Itisincumbentuponrespondenttomeettheissueandovercometheevidenceagainsthim.
Hemustshowproofthathestillmaintainsthatdegreeofmoralityandintegritywhichatalltimesisexpectedofhim.These,
respondentmiserablyfailedtodo.8

Therecordisbereftofanyevidencetoshowthatrespondenthaspresentedanycountervailingevidencetodisputethe
chargesagainsthim.Inhisanswer,hedidnotevendenycomplainantsallegations.Heonlyprayedthatthecasebeclosed
andterminated,simplybecausetheproblemwithcomplainanthadalreadybeenresolved.
The alleged compromise between complainant and respondent is not enough to exonerate the latter from the present
disciplinarycase.Acaseofsuspensionordisbarmentmayproceedregardlessoftheinterestorlackofinterestofthe
complainant.Whatmattersiswhether,onthebasisofthefactsborneoutbytherecord,thechargeofnegligencehasbeen
dulyproved.9
Disciplinaryproceedingsinvolvenoprivateinterestandaffordnoredressforprivategrievance.Theyareundertakenand
prosecutedsolelyforthepublicwelfare,andforthepurposeofpreservingcourtsofjusticefromtheofficialministrationof
personsunfittopracticeinthem.Theattorneyiscalledtoanswertothecourtforhisconductasanofficerofthecourt.The
complainantisinnosenseaparty,andhasgenerallynointerestintheoutcomeofthecase. 10Thisisalsothereasonwhy
thisCourtmayinvestigatechargesagainstlawyersregardlessofcomplainantsstanding. 11
Whenrespondentacceptedtheamountof P50,000.00fromcomplainant,itwasunderstoodthatheagreedtotakeupthe
latterscase,andthatanattorneyclientrelationshipbetweenthemwasestablished.Fromthenon,itwasexpectedthathe
would serve his client, herein complainant, with competence, and attend to her cause with fidelity, care and
devotion.121avvphi1
Theactofreceivingmoneyasacceptancefeeforlegalservicesinhandlingcomplainantscaseandsubsequentlyfailingto
rendersuchservicesisaclearviolationofCanon18oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whichprovidesthata
lawyershallservehisclientwithcompetenceanddiligence.13Specifically,Rule18.03states:
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedtohim,andhisnegligenceinconnectiontherewithshallrenderhim
liable.
Amemberofthelegalprofessionoweshiscliententiredevotiontothelattersgenuineinterest,andwarmzealinthe
maintenanceanddefenseofhisrights.Anattorneyisexpectedtoexerthisbesteffortsandabilitytopreservehisclients
cause,fortheunwaveringloyaltydisplayedtohisclient,likewise,servestheendsofjustice.Verily,theentrustedprivilege
topracticelawcarrieswithitthecorrespondingduties,notonlytotheclient,butalsotothecourt,tothebarandtothe
public.14
Thefiduciarydutyofalawyerandadvocateiswhatplacesthelawprofessioninauniquepositionoftrustandconfidence,
anddistinguishesitfromanyothercalling.Oncethistrustandconfidenceisbetrayed,thefaithofthepeople,notonlyinthe
individuallawyerbutalsointhelegalprofessionasawhole,iseroded.Tothisend,allmembersofthebararestrictly
requiredatalltimestomaintainthehighestdegreeofpublicconfidenceinthefidelity,honestyandintegrityoftheir
profession.15
ThefactualantecedentsinReyesv.Vitan 16andSenciov.Atty.Calvadores 17bearastrikingsimilaritytothepresentcase.In
Reyes,complainantengagedtheservicesofrespondentlawyerforthepurposeoffilingtheappropriatecomplaintorcharges
againsttheformerssisterinlawandthelattersniece.AfterreceivingtheamountofP17,000.00,respondentdidnottake
anyactiononcomplainantscase.InSencio,complainanttherein,likewise,engagedtheservicesofAtty.Calvadoresto
prosecutethecivilaspect ofthecaseinrelationtothedeathofhersoninavehicularaccident.Thetotalamountof
P12,000.00 was duly acknowledged and received by respondent as attorneys fees. Despite repeated assurances by
respondent,complainantdiscoveredthattheformerhadnotfiledanycaseonherbehalf.
Inbothcases,wesuspendedtherespondentlawyersforaperiodofsix(6)months.Thus,weimposethesamepenaltyon
respondentherein,asrecommendedbytheIBPBoardofGovernors.
WHEREFORE,ResolutionNo.XVIII2008522oftheIBPBoardofGovernorsisAFFIRMED.Accordingly,Atty.Oscar
AmandyReyesisherebySUSPENDEDforaperiodofSIX(6)MONTHSfromthepracticeoflaw.
LetcopiesofthisDecisionbefurnishedtheOfficeoftheBarConfidant,tobeappendedtorespondentspersonalrecordas
anattorney,theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,andallcourtsinthecountryfortheirinformationandguidance.

SOORDERED.
A.C.No.6297July13,2004
DOLORESD.PARIAS,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.OSCARP.PAGUINTO,respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO,J.:
TheCase
Alawyerhasthedutytogiveadequateattentionandtimetoeverycaseheaccepts. Alawyerimpliedlywarrantsthathe
possessesthenecessarydiligence,learningandskilltohandleeachcase.Heshouldexerthisbestjudgmentandexercise
reasonableandordinarycareanddiligenceinthepursuitordefenseofhisclient'scause.
TheFacts
SometimeinOctober2001,complainant DoloresDrydenParias("Parias")engagedtheservicesofrespondent Atty.
OscarP.Paguinto("Paguinto")toannulhermarriagetoDaniloSoriano.Theyagreedthatforthelegalservices,Parias
wouldpayPaguintoanacceptancefeeofP25,000,thefilingfeeofP2,500andotherincidentalexpenses.
On2December2001,PariaspaidPaguintoP10,000incashaspartialpaymentoftheacceptancefee.Anacknowledgment
receiptevidencedthispayment.1PariasgavePaguintoadiskettecontaininganarrationofwhathappenedbetweenherand
herestrangedhusbandDaniloSoriano.PariasalsofurnishedPaguintowithacopyofhermarriagecontractwithSoriano.
BeforetheendofDecember2001,PariasgavePaguintoP2,500forthefilingfee.
Sometime between January and April 2002, Parias inquired from Paguinto on the progress of her annulment case.
PaguintoinformedherthatthecasewasfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofManila,Branch64("RTCManila,Branch
64"),beforeJudgeRicaforteandthatthehearingwasscheduledon25April2002.Beforethehearing,Pariasrequestedfor
ameetingwithPaguintobutthesecretaryinformedherthatthehearingwascancelled. Thesecretaryfurtherinformed
Pariasthatthejudgeresetthesucceedinghearingsoriginallyscheduledon29May2002and26June2002becausethe
judgewassickoroutoftown.
OnthefirstweekofJuly2002,PariaswenttothetrialcourttoinquireabouthercasebutthecourtpersonnelinRTC
Manila,Branch64informedherthattherewasnosuchcasefiledintheircourt. PariasaskedPaguintoforthecase
number,dateoffiling,copyofthepetitionandthecourtwheretheannulmentcasewaspending.PaguintotoldPariasthat
therecordswereathisofficeandthathewasinMalolos,Bulacanattendingtoacase. Itturnedoutthattherewasno
annulment case filed in RTCManila, Branch 64. Paguinto promised to return the money that Parias paid as down
payment.However,PaguintoreturnedtheP10,000onlyafterPariasfiledwiththeCommissiononBarDiscipline("CBD")
oftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines("IBP")thepresentcomplaintfordisbarment.
IntheOrderdated14February2003,2theCBDdirectedPaguintotoanswerthecomplaint.Paguintoaskedforanextension
of15daystofilehisAnswer.TheCBDgrantedtheextensionintheOrderdated19March2003. 3However,Paguintofailed
tofilehisAnswerwithintheextendedperiodandthustheCBDdeclaredhimindefaultintheOrderdated15July2003. 4
Afterthehearing,PariassubmittedherPositionPaperprayingthattheCBDdeclarePaguintoguiltyofviolationofRule
16.01andRule18.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

On10September2003,PariasfiledanAffidavitofWithdrawal 5ofthecomplaint.PariasstatedthatPaguinto"personally
explainedexhaustivelythereasonswhyhefailedtocomplywithhisobligations"andsherealizedthatthecomplaintarose
due to a "misapprehension of facts, misunderstanding and miscommunication." Parias manifested that she was
withdrawingthecomplaint,asshewasnolongerinterestedinpursuingthecase.
Onthesamedate,PaguintofiledaManifestationandMotion 6explainingthathefailedtoattendthehearingon30July2003
becausehewasinTabuk,Kalingaattendingahearinginacriminalcaseforfrustratedhomicide.HeapologizedtoParias
forhisactuationsclaiming"himselfsolelytobeblamed."Hefurtherdeclaredthathefailedtotimelyprepareandfilethe
petitionforannulmentbecausehespendshistimemostlyinGen.MarianoAlvarez,Cavitewherehepracticeslawcatering
tothose"clientswhohavelessinlife."
Commissioner'sReport&Recommendation
TheIBPdesignatedAtty.RebeccaVillanuevaMaala("Commissioner")asCommissionertoconductaformalinvestigation
ofthecase.TheCommissionerfoundPaguintonegligentinperforminghisdutiesasalawyerandasanofficerofthecourt.
TheCommissionerdeclaredthatalawyerhasthedutytogiveadequateattention,careandtimetohiscases,acceptingonly
asmanycasesashecanhandle.Paguintofailedtocomplywiththisduty.TheCommissionerrecommendedthesuspension
ofPaguintofromthepracticeoflawforsixmonths.
TheCourt'sRuling
WeagreewiththeCommissioner.
PariasgavePaguinto P10,000cashaspartialpaymentoftheacceptancefee.PariasalsogavePaguintoP2,500forthe
filingfee.PaguintoledPariastobelievethathehadfiledtheannulmentcase.PaguintoinformedPariasthatthecasewas
filedwiththeRTCManila,Branch64,beforeJudgeRicaforte.However,PariaslaterfoundoutthatPaguintoneverfiled
theannulmentcaseincourt.
Rule16.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility("theCode")providesthatalawyershallaccountforallmoneyor
propertycollectedfororfromtheclient.Acceptanceofmoneyfromaclientestablishesanattorneyclientrelationshipand
givesrisetothedutyoffidelitytotheclient'scause. 7Moneyentrustedtoalawyerforaspecificpurpose,suchasforfiling
fee,butnotusedforfailuretofilethecasemustimmediatelybereturnedtotheclientondemand. 8Paguintoreturnedthe
moneyonlyafterPariasfiledthisadministrativecasefordisbarment.
Paguintoshouldknowthatasalawyer,heowesfidelitytothecauseofhisclient.Whenalawyeracceptsacase,his
acceptanceisanimpliedrepresentationthathepossessestherequisiteacademiclearning,skillandabilitytohandlethe
case.Thelawyerhasthedutytoexerthisbestjudgmentintheprosecutionordefenseofthecaseentrustedtohimandto
exercisereasonableandordinarycareanddiligenceinthepursuitordefenseofthecase.
Alawyershouldgiveadequateattention,careandtimetohiscase.Onceheagreestohandleacase,heshouldundertakethe
taskwithdedicationandcare.Ifhefailsinthisduty,heisnottruetohisoathasalawyer.Hence,alawyermustaccept
onlyasmuchcasesashecanefficientlyhandle,otherwisehisclients'interestswillsuffer. 9Itisnotenoughthatalawyer
possessesthequalificationtohandlethelegalmatter.Hemustalsogiveadequateattentiontohislegalwork.
Thelawyerowesittohisclienttoexercisehisutmostlearningandabilityinhandlinghiscases. Alicensetopracticelawis
aguaranteebythecourtstothepublicthatthelicenseepossessessufficientskill,knowledgeanddiligencetomanagetheir
cases.10Thelegalprofessiondemandsfromalawyerthevigilanceandattentionexpectedofagoodfatherofafamily.
InGamalindavs.Alcantara,11weruled:
Alawyerowesfidelitytothecauseofhisclientandmustbemindfulofthetrustandconfidencereposedinhim.Heshall
servehisclientwithcompetenceanddiligence,andhisdutyofentiredevotiontohisclient'scausenotonlyrequires,but
entitleshimtoemployeveryhonorablemeanstosecurefortheclientwhatisjustlyduehimortopresenteverydefense
providedbylawtoenablethelatter'scausetosucceed.Anattorney'sdutytosafeguardtheclient'sinterestscommences
fromhisretaineruntilhiseffectivereleasefromthecaseorthefinaldispositionofthewholesubjectmatterofthelitigation.
Duringthatperiod,heisexpectedtotakesuchreasonablestepsandsuchordinarycareashisclient'sinterestsmayrequire.

AndfailuretodosoviolatesCanon18oftheCode.12
Rule18.01oftheCodeisclear.Alawyershallnotundertakealegalservicethatheisnotqualifiedtorender.Rule18.02of
theCodeprovidesthatalawyershallnothandleanylegalmatterwithoutadequatepreparation.Hehasthedutytoprepare
fortrialwithdiligenceanddeliberatespeed.Rule18.03oftheCodealsoprovidesthatalawyershallnotneglectalegal
matterentrustedtohimandhisnegligenceshallrenderhimliable.
One last point. Parias executed an Affidavit of Withdrawal 13 of the complaint stating that she was withdrawing the
administrative complaint against Paguinto after realizing that "said complaint against the respondent arose due to
misapprehension of facts, misunderstanding and miscommunication." Paguinto, on the other hand, submitted a
ManifestationandMotionapologizingtoPariasforhisactuationsandadmittingthathewas"solelytobeblamed." A
compromiseorwithdrawalofchargesdoesnotterminateanadministrativecomplaintagainstalawyer, 14especiallyinthis
casewherethelawyeradmittedhismisconduct.
Parias'saffidavitofwithdrawalofthedisbarmentcasedoesnotexoneratePaguintoinanyway.Wereiterateourrulingin
RayosOmbacv.Rayos15that
[A]proceedingforsuspensionordisbarmentisnotinanysenseacivilactionwherethecomplainantisaplaintiffandthe
respondentlawyerisadefendant.Disciplinaryproceedingsinvolvenoprivateinterestandaffordnoredressforprivate
grievance.Theyareundertakensolelyforthepublicwelfare.xxxTheattorneyiscalledupontoanswertothecourtforhis
conductasanofficerofthecourt. Thecomplainantorthepersonwhocalledtheattentionofthecourttotheattorney's
allegedmisconductisinnosenseaparty,andhasgenerallynointerestintheoutcomeexceptasallgoodcitizensmayhave
intheproperadministrationofjustice
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto GUILTY of violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.Accordingly,wepenalizeAtty.OscarP.PaguintowithSUSPENSIONforSIX(6)MONTHSfromthe
practiceoflaweffectiveuponreceiptofthisDecision.
LetcopiesofthisDecisionbefurnishedtheOfficeoftheBarConfidant,tobeappendedtorespondent'spersonalrecordas
anattorney;theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines;andallcourtsinthecountryfortheirinformationandguidance.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.7298June25,2007
[FormerlyCBDCaseNo.051565]
FERNANDOMARTINO.PENA,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.LOLITOG.APARICIO,respondent.
RESOLUTION
TINGA,J.:
Inthisadministrativecomplaint,alawyerischargedwithviolationofRule19.01ofCanon19oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibilityforwritingademandletterthecontentsofwhichthreatenedcomplainantwiththefilingofcriminalcasesfor
taxevasionandfalsificationofdocuments.
Atty.LolitoG.Aparicio(respondent)appearedaslegalcounselforGraceC.Hufanainanillegaldismissalcasebeforethe
National LaborRelationsCommission(NLRC).SometimeinAugust 2005,complainant FernandoMartinO.Pena,as
PresidentofMOFCompany,Inc.(Subic),receivedanoticefromtheConciliationandMediationCenteroftheNLRCfora
mediation/conciliationconference.Intheconference,respondent,inbehalfofhisclient,submittedaclaimforseparation

payarisingfromherallegedillegaldismissal.Complainantrejectedtheclaimasbeingbaseless.Complainantthereaftersent
noticestoHufanaforthelattertoexplainherabsencesandtoreturntowork.Inreplytothisreturntoworknotice,
respondentwrotealettertocomplainantreiteratinghisclient'sclaimforseparationpay.Theletteralsocontainedthe
followingthreattothecompany:
BUTifthesearenotpaidonAugust10,2005,wewillbeconstrainedtofileandclaimbiggeramountsincludingmoral
damagestothetuneofmillionsunderestablishedprecedenceofcasesandlaws.Inadditiontoothermultiplechargeslike:
1.Taxevasionbythemillionsofpesosofincomenotreportedtothegovernment.
2.CriminalChargesforTaxEvasion
3.CriminalChargesforFalsificationofDocuments
4.Cancellationofbusinesslicensetooperateduetoviolationsoflaws.
ThesearereservedforfutureactionsincaseoffailuretopaytheaboveamountsassettlementsintheNationalLabor
RelationsCommission(NLRC).1
Believing that the contents of the letter deviated from accepted ethical standards, complainant filed an administrative
complaint2 withtheCommissiononBarDisciplineoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP).Respondentfiledan
AnswerwithImpleader(MotiontoDismissandCounterclaims) 3claimingthatAtty.EmmanuelA.Jocson,complainant's
legalcounsel,alsoplayedanimportantpartinimputingthemalicious,defamatory,andfabricatedchargesagainsthim.
Respondentalsopointedoutthatthecomplainthadnocertificationagainstforumshoppingandwasmotivatedonlyto
confusetheissuesthenpendingbeforetheLaborArbiter.Bywayofcounterclaim,respondentaskedfordamagesandfor
thedisbarmentofAtty.Jocson.RespondentalsoaskedtheIBPtoendorsetheprosecutionofAtty.JocsonforUsurpationof
PublicFunctions4andforviolationoftheNotarialLaw.5
Amandatoryconferencewasheldon6December2005butrespondentfailedtoappear. 6 Bothpartieswerethereafter
requiredtosubmittheirpositionpapers.
TheReportandRecommendation7ofInvestigatingCommissionerMilagrosV.SanJuanfoundthatcomplainant,failedto
filehispositionpaperandtocomplywithAdministrativeCircularNo.0494requiringacertificateagainstforumshopping
and,accordingly,recommendedthedismissalofthecomplaintagainstrespondent.On26May2006,theIBPBoardof
GovernorsadoptedandapprovedtheReportandRecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissioner. 8On10July2006,
theIBPCommissiononBarDisciplinetransmittedtotheSupremeCourtthenoticeofsaidResolutionandtherecordsofthe
case.9 Thereafter,on18August2006,respondentfiledwiththeIBPaMotionforReconsideration(forModificationof
Decision)10 reiterating his claim of damages against complainant in the amount of four hundred million pesos
(P400,000,000.00),oritsequivalentindollars,forfilingthe"false,malicious,defamers[sic],fraudulent,illegalfabricators
[sic],malevolent[,]oppressive,evasivefiling[of]agroundlessandfalsesuit."11
Complainant thereafter filed this Petition for Review (of the Resolution of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline) 12
allegingthathepersonallysubmittedandfiledwiththeIBPhispositionpaper,afterservingacopythereofonrespondent
byregisteredmail.HefurtherallegesthathewasdeprivedofhisrighttodueprocesswhentheIBPdismissedhiscomplaint
withoutconsideringhispositionpaperandwithoutrulingonthemeritsthereof.
Complainantaccordinglypraysforthereversalandsettingasideofthe26May2006Resolution 13 oftheIBPBoardof
GovernorsandtheremandofthecasetotheIBPCommissiononBarDisciplineforproperadjudicationanddispositionon
themerits.
Basedontherecords,thereistruthtocomplainant'sassertionthathefiledhispositionpaperon21December2005,after
servingacopyofthesametorespondent.TheIBPstamponthefrontpageofsaiddocumentshowsthatitwasreceivedby
theIBPon21December2005.Theregistryreceiptattachedtothesamedocumentalsoshowsthatitwassentbyregistered
mailtorespondentonthesamedate.14

Complainant, however, omitted to offer any explanation in his petition before this Court for his failure to attach a
certificationagainstforumshoppinginhiscomplaintagainstrespondent.
TherequirementofacertificationagainstforumshoppingwasoriginallyrequiredbyCircularNo.2891,dated8February
1994,issuedbythisCourtforeverypetitionfiledwiththeCourtortheCourtofAppeals.AdministrativeCircularNo.04
94,madeeffectiveon1April1994,expandedthecertificationrequirementtoincludecasesfiledincourtsandquasijudicial
agenciesbelowthisCourtandtheCourtofAppeals.Ultimately,theCourtadoptedparagraphs(1)and(2)ofAdministrative
CircularNo.0494tobecomeSection5,Rule7ofthe
1997RulesofCivilProcedure.15Saidrulestatesthataviolationthereofwouldconstitutecontemptofcourtandbecausefor
thesummarydismissalofbothpetitionswithoutprejudicetothetakingofappropriateactionagainstthecounseloftheparty
concerned.16
The Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors took against complainant his failure to attach the
certificationagainstforum shoppingtohiscomplaintandconsequentlydismissedhiscomplaint.ThisCourt,however,
disagrees and, accordingly, grants the petition. However, a remand of the case to the IBP would unduly prolong its
adjudication.
TheCourt'sdeterminationisanchoredonthesuigenerisnatureofdisbarmentproceedings,thereasonsforthecertification
against forum shopping requirement, complainant's subsequent compliance with the requirement, and the merit of
complainant'scomplaintagainstrespondent.
TheCourt,inthecaseofInreAlmacen,17dweltonthesuigenerischaracterofdisciplinaryproceedingsagainstlawyers,
thus:
Disciplinaryproceedingsagainstlawyersaresuigeneris.Neitherpurelycivilnorpurelycriminal,theydonotinvolvea
trialofanactionorasuit,butisratheraninvestigationbytheCourtintotheconductofoneofitsofficers.Notbeing
intendedtoinflictpunishment,itisinnosenseacriminalprosecution.Accordingly, thereisneitheraplaintiffnora
prosecutortherein.ItmaybeinitiatedbytheCourtmotuproprio.Publicinterestisitsprimaryobjective,andthereal
questionfordeterminationiswhetherornottheattorneyisstillafitpersontobeallowedtheprivilegesassuch .
Hence,intheexerciseofitsdisciplinarypowers,theCourtmerelycallsuponamemberoftheBartoaccountforhis
actuationsasanofficeroftheCourtwiththeendinviewofpreservingthepurityofthelegalprofessionandthe
properandhonestadministrationofjusticebypurgingtheprofessionofmemberswhobytheirmisconducthave
provedthemselvesnolongerworthytobeentrustedwiththedutiesandresponsibilitiespertainingtotheofficeofan
attorney.Insuchposture,therecanthusbenooccasiontospeakofacomplainantoraprosecutor .18 [Emphasis
supplied]
Inviewofthenatureofdisbarmentproceedings,thecertificationagainstforumshoppingtobeattachedtothecomplaint,if
oneisrequiredatallinsuchproceedings,mustrefertoanotheradministrativecasefordisciplinaryproceedingsagainstthe
samerespondent,becausesuchotherproceedingsor"action"isonethatnecessarilyinvolves"thesameissues"astheone
posedinthedisbarmentcomplainttowhichthecertificationissupposedlytobeattached.
Further,therationalefortherequirementofacertificationagainstforumshoppingistoapprisetheCourtofthependencyof
anotheractionorclaiminvolvingthesameissuesinanothercourt,tribunalorquasijudicialagency,andtherebyprecisely
avoidtheforumshoppingsituation.Filingmultiplepetitionsorcomplaintsconstitutesabuseofcourtprocesses, 19 which
tendstodegradetheadministrationofjustice,wreakshavocuponorderlyjudicialprocedure,andaddstothecongestionof
theheavilyburdeneddocketsofthecourts.20Furthermore,theruleproscribingforumshoppingseekstopromotecandorand
transparency among lawyers and their clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote the orderly
administrationofjustice,preventundueinconvenienceupontheotherparty,andsavetheprecioustimeofthecourts.Italso
aimstopreventtheembarrassingsituationoftwoormorecourtsoragenciesrenderingconflictingresolutionsordecisions
uponthesameissue.21
It isinthislight that wetakeafurtherlookat thenecessityofattachingacertificationagainstforum shoppingtoa
disbarment complaint.It wouldseem that thescenariosought tobeavoided, i.e.,thefilingofmultiple suitsand the
possibilityofconflictingdecisions,rarelyhappensindisbarmentcomplaintsconsideringthatsaidproceedingsareeither

"takenbytheSupremeCourtmotuproprio,orbytheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)upontheverifiedcomplaintof
anyperson."22 Thus,ifthecomplainantinadisbarmentcasefailstoattachacertificationagainstforumshopping,the
pendencyofanotherdisciplinaryactionagainstthesamerespondentmaystillbeascertainedwithease.Wehavepreviously
held that the rule requiring a certification offorum shopping toaccompany every initiatory pleading, "shouldnot be
interpretedwithsuchabsoluteliteralnessastosubvertitsownultimateandlegitimateobjectiveorthegoalofallrulesof
procedurewhichistoachievesubstantialjusticeasexpeditiouslyaspossible." 23
Atanyrate,complainant'ssubsequentcompliancewiththerequirementcuredthesupposeddefectintheoriginalcomplaint.
Therecordsshowthatcomplainantsubmittedtherequiredcertificationagainstforumshoppingon6December2006when
hefiledhisComment/Oppositiontorespondent'sMotiontoDismissthepresentpetition.
Finally,theintrinsicmeritofcomplainant'scaseagainstrespondentjustifiesthegrantofthepresentpetition.Respondent
doesnotdenyauthorshipofthethreateninglettertocomplainant,evenspiritedlycontestingthechargethattheletteris
unethical.
Canon19oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitystatesthat"alawyershallrepresenthisclientwithzealwithinthe
boundsofthelaw,"remindinglegalpractitionersthatalawyer'sdutyisnottohisclientbuttotheadministrationofjustice;
tothatend,hisclient'ssuccessiswhollysubordinate;andhisconductoughttoandmustalwaysbescrupulouslyobservant
oflawandethics.24Inparticular,Rule19.01commandsthata"lawyershallemployonlyfairandhonestmeanstoattainthe
lawfulobjectivesofhisclientandshallnotpresent,participateinpresentingorthreatentopresentunfoundedcriminal
chargestoobtainanimproperadvantageinanycaseorproceeding."UnderthisRule,alawyershouldnotfileorthreatento
fileanyunfoundedorbaselesscriminalcaseorcasesagainsttheadversariesofhisclientdesignedtosecurealeverageto
compeltheadversariestoyieldorwithdrawtheirowncasesagainstthelawyer'sclient. 25
In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its Rule proscribe. Through his letter, he threatened
complainantthatshouldthelatterfailtopaytheamountstheyproposeassettlement,hewouldfileandclaimbigger
amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and
cancellationofbusinesslicensetooperateduetoviolationsoflaws.ThethreatsarenotonlyunethicalforviolatingCanon
19,buttheyalsoamounttoblackmail.
Blackmailis"theextortionofmoneyfromapersonbythreatsofaccusationorexposureoroppositioninthepublicprints,
obtainingofvaluefromapersonasaconditionofrefrainingfrommakinganaccusationagainsthim,ordisclosingsome
secret calculatedtooperatetohisprejudice." Incommon parlanceand ingeneral acceptation, it isequivalent toand
synonymouswithextortion,theexactionofmoneyeitherfortheperformanceofaduty,thepreventionofaninjury,orthe
exerciseofaninfluence.Notinfrequently,itisextortedbythreats,orbyoperatingonthefearsorthecredulity,orby
promisestoconcealorofferstoexposetheweaknesses,thefollies,orthecrimeofthevictim. 26
InSps.Boyboyv.Atty.Yabut,Jr.

,27weheldthat"[a]naccusationforblackmailandextortionisaveryseriousonewhich,if
properlysubstantiated,wouldentailnotonlyrespondent'sdisbarmentfromthepracticeoflaw,butalsoapossiblecriminal
prosecution."28 While the respondent in Boyboy was exonerated for lack of evidence, the same may not be said of
respondentinthepresentcaseforheadmitstowritingtheoffensiveletter.
Infact,respondentdoesnotfindanythingwrongwithwhathewrote,dismissingthesameasmerelyanactofpointingout
massiveviolationsofthelawbytheotherparty,and,withboldness,assertingthat"alawyerisunderobligationtotellthe
truth,toreporttothegovernmentcommissionofoffensespunishablebytheState." 29Hefurtherassertsthatthewritingof
demandlettersisastandardpracticeandtraditionandthatourlawsallowandencouragethesettlementofdisputes.
Respondent'sassertions,however,aremisleading,foritisquiteobviousthatrespondent'sthreattofilethecasesagainst
complainantwasdesignedtosecuresomeleveragetocompel thelattertogiveintohisclient'sdemands.Itwasnot
respondent'sintentiontopointoutcomplainant'sviolationsofthelawashesogallantlyclaims.Farfromit,thelettereven
containsanimpliedpromiseto"keepsilent"aboutthesaidviolationsifpaymentoftheclaimismadeonthedateindicated.
Indeed,thewritingofdemandlettersisastandardpracticeandtraditioninthisjurisdiction.Itisusuallydonebyalawyer
pursuanttotheprincipalagentrelationshipthathehaswithhisclient,theprincipal.Thus,intheperformanceofhisroleas
agent,thelawyermaybetaskedtoenforcehisclient'sclaimandtotakeallthestepsnecessarytocollectit,suchaswritinga
letterofdemandrequiringpaymentwithinaspecifiedperiod.However,theletterinthiscasecontainsmorethanjusta

simpledemandtopay.Itevencontainsathreattofileretaliatorychargesagainstcomplainantwhichhavenothingtodo
withhisclient'sclaimforseparationpay.Theletterwasobviouslydesignedtosecureleveragetocompelcomplainantto
yieldtotheirclaims.Indeed,lettersofthisnaturearedefinitelyproscribedbytheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
Respondent cannot claim the sanctuary provided by the privileged communication rule under which a private
communicationexecutedintheperformanceofalegal dutyisnot actionable.Theprivilegednatureoftheletterwas
removedwhenrespondentusedittoblackmailcomplainantandextortfromthelattercompliancewiththedemandsofhis
client.
However,whilethewritingoftheletterwentbeyondethicalstandards,weholdthatdisbarmentistoosevereapenaltytobe
imposedonrespondent,consideringthathewrotethesameoutofhisoverzealousnesstoprotecthisclient'sinterests.
Accordingly,themoreappropriatepenaltyisreprimand.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisgranted.The26May2006ResolutionoftheIBPBoardofGovernorsis
herebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.RespondentAtty.LolitoG.AparicioisherebyfoundliableforviolationofRule
19.01ofCanon19oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,andisaccordinglymetedoutthepenaltyofREPRIMAND,
withtheSTERNWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractwillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.6691April27,2007
ATTY.GEORGEC.BRIONES,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.JACINTOD.JIMENEZ,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:
TherootofhereinadministrativecomplaintforDisbarment 1 datedAugust12,2004filedbyAtty.GeorgeS.Briones
chargingAtty.JacintoD.JimenezwithviolationofRevisedCircularNo.2891onforumshoppingandRule19.01and
Rule12.08oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,istheApril3,2002OrderoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)of
ManilainSPProc.No.9992870,entitled,"IntheMatterofthePetitionfortheAllowanceoftheWillofLuzJ.Henson",to
wit:
INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,thecourthereby:
1.ReiteratesitsdesignationoftheaccountingfirmofMessrs.Alba,Romeo&Co.toimmediatelyconductanauditofthe
administrationbyAtty.GeorgeS.BrionesoftheestateofthelateLuzJ.Henson,theexpensesofwhichshallbecharged
againsttheestate.
2.Suspendstheapprovalofthereportofthespecialadministratorexceptthepaymentofhiscommissionwhichishereby
fixedat1.8%ofthevalueoftheestate.
3.Directsthespecialadministratortodelivertheresiduetotheheirsinproportiontotheirshares.FromtheshareofLiliaJ.
HensonCruz,thereshallbedeductedtheadvancesmadetoher.
ITISSOORDERED.
Complainant Atty.BrionesistheSpecial Administrator ofthe EstateofLuz J.Henson.Respondent Atty.JacintoD.
JimenezisthecounselfortheHeirsofthelateLuzJ.Henson(Heirs).

OnApril9,2002,Atty.JimenezfiledwiththeRTCanoticeofappealfromtheOrderdatedApril3,2002,questioningthe
paymentofcommissiontoAtty.Briones.2
On April 29, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus,docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.70349assailingtheOrderdatedMarch12,2002,appointingthefirmofAlba,
Romeo&Co.toconductanauditattheexpenseofthelateLuzJ.Henson,aswellastheOrderdatedApril3,2002,insofar
asitdeniedtheirmotionforrecommendation.3
OnJuly26,2002,Atty.JimenezfiledwiththeCAaPetitionforMandamus,docketedasCAG.R.No.71844,4allegingthat
therespondentJudgethereinunlawfullyrefusedtocomplywithhisministerialdutytoapprovetheirappealwhichwas
perfectedontime.5
Atty.Briones,inhisComment,contendsthattheheirsofthelateLuzJ.Henson,representedbyAtty.Jimenez,areguiltyof
forumshoppingforwhichreason,thepetitionshouldbedismissed.6
On February 11, 2003, the CA without touching on the forum shopping issue, granted the petition and ordered the
respondentJudgetogiveduecoursetotheappealtakenbyAtty.JimenezfromtheOrderdatedApril3,2002,insofarasit
directedthepaymentofcommissiontoAtty.Briones.7
Atty.BrionesthenfiledwiththisCourtaPetitionforReviewon CertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,docketed
asG.R.No.159130,prayingforthedismissaloftheappealfromtheOrderdatedApril3,2002,insofarasitorderedthe
paymentofcommissiontohim,astheSpecialAdministratoroftheestateofthedeceasedLuzJ.Henson. 8
TheCourtgaveduecoursetothepetitionandrequiredthepartiestofiletheirrespectivememoranda.
Atty. Briones (hereinafter referred to as complainant) filed his "Memorandum with Administrative Complaint for
DisbarmentagainstAtty.JacintoJimenez,CounselforRespondents", 9 forviolationofRule19.01andRule12.08ofthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandRevisedCircularNo.2891onforumshopping.
Complainant claims that Atty. Jimenez (hereinafter referred to as respondent) and the Heirs engaged again in forum
shopping when respondent, as counsel for the Heirs, filed a criminal complaint and executed an affidavit against
complainantforresistingandseriouslydisobeyingtheRTCOrderdatedApril3,2002whichdirectedcomplainant to
delivertheresidueoftheestatetotheHeirsinproportiontotheirshares,punishableunderArticle151oftheRevisedPenal
Code.
ComplainantfurtherclaimsthatrespondentviolatedRules19.01and12.08oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,to
wit:
Rule19.01Alawyershallemployonlyfairandhonestmeanstoattainthelawfulobjectivesofhisclientandshallnot
present,participateinpresentingorthreatentopresentunfoundedcriminalchargestoobtainanimproperadvantageinany
caseofproceeding.
Rule12.08Alawyershallavoidtestifyinginbehalfofhisclient,except:
(a)onformalmatters,suchasthemailing,authenticationorcustodyofaninstrument,andthelike;or
b)onsubstantialmatters,incaseswherehistestimonyisessentialtotheendsofjustice,inwhicheventhemust,duringhis
testimony,entrustthetrialofthecasetoanothercounsel.
byfilingtheunfoundedcriminalcomplaintagainsthimtoobtainanimproperadvantageinSpecialProceedingsNo.99
92870beforetheRTC,Branch46,andcoercecomplainanttodelivertotheHeirstheresidueoftheestateofthelateLuzJ.
HensonwithoutanywritofexecutionoranypronouncementfromtheRTCastothefinalityoftheOrderdatedApril3,
2002;10andinexecutinganaffidavitinsupportofthecriminalcomplaint.

TheCourtinitsResolutiondatedJanuary24,2005,inG.R.No.159130,resolvedtodocketthecomplaintagainstAtty.
Jimenezasaregularadministrativecomplaint;referredsaidComplainttotheOfficeoftheBarConfidant(OBC);and
requiredAtty.Jimeneztocomment.11
RespondentfiledhisCommentonApril6,2005.HecontendsthatwhenheassistedtheHeirsinfilingacriminalcase
againstcomplainant,hewasmerelyfulfillinghislegaldutytotakethenecessarystepstoprotecttheinterestsofhisclients;
thatitcannotserveasbasisforfilinganadministrativecaseagainsthim. 12RespondentfurthercitesSantiagov.Rafanan13
wheretheCourtabsolvedtherespondentlawyerfromadministrativeliabilityinsubmittinganaffidavitinapreliminary
investigationindefenseofhisclients.
OnJanuary31,2007,theOBCsubmitteditsReportandRecommendationrecommendingthattheadministrativecomplaint
againstAtty.Jimenezbedismissedforlackofmerit.14
TheCourtagreeswiththeOBCthatrespondentisnotguiltyofforumshopping.Recordsshowthatrespondent,ascounsel
fortheheirsofthelateLuzJ.Henson,filedaspecialcivilactiondocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.70349assailingtheOrderof
March12,2002appointingtheaccountingfirmofAlba,RomeoandCo.asauditor;and,aregularappealdocketedasCA
G.R.SPNo.71488assailingtheOrderofApril3,2002,insofarasitdirectedthepaymentofcommissiontocomplainant.It
isevidentthatthereisidentityofpartiesbutdifferentcausesofactionandreliefssought.Hence,respondentisnotguilty
offorumshopping.15TheCourtlikewisefindsnofaultonthepartofrespondentinexecutinganaffidavitinsupportofthe
criminalcomplaintasheldintheSantiagocase.
However,thereissufficientgroundinsupportofcomplainantsclaimthatrespondentviolatedRule19.01oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility.RecordsrevealthatbeforerespondentassistedtheHeirsinfilingthecriminalcomplaintagainst
hereincomplainant,hesentdemandletterstothelattertocomplywiththeOrderofJudgeTipontodelivertheresidueofthe
estatetotheheirsofthelateLuzJ.Henson.Consideringthatcomplainantdidnotreplytothedemandletters,respondent
optedtofilesaidcriminalcomplaintinbehalfofhisclientsforrefusaltoobeythelawfulorderofthecourt.
TheOrderreferredtoisthethirdpartoftheassailedOrderdatedApril3,2002whichdirectscomplainanttodeliverthe
residuetotheHeirsinproportiontotheirshares.Asaptlypointedoutbycomplainant,respondentshouldhavefirstfiledthe
propermotionwiththeRTCforexecutionofthethirdpartofsaidOrderinsteadofimmediatelyresortingtothefilingof
criminalcomplaintagainsthim.AmereperusaloftherestoftheOrderdatedApril3,2002readilydisclosesthatthe
approvalofthereportofcomplainantasSpecialAdministratorwassuspendedpriortotheauditoftheadministrationof
complainant.Consequently,theRTCwouldstillhavetodetermineanddefinetheresiduereferredtointhesubjectOrder.
Thefilingofthecriminalcomplaintwasevidentlypremature.
Respondentclaimsthatheactedingoodfaithandinfact,didnotviolateRule19.01becauseheassistedtheHeirsinfiling
thecriminalcomplaintagainsthereincomplainantafterthelatterignoredthedemandletterssenttohim;andthatalawyer
owes his client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability. The Court is not convinced. Fair play demands that
respondentshouldhavefiledthepropermotionwiththeRTCtoattainhisgoalofhavingtheresidueoftheestatedelivered
tohisclientsandnotsubjectcomplainanttoaprematurecriminalprosecution.
AsheldinSuzukiv.Tiamson:16
Canon19oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityenjoinsalawyertorepresenthisclientwithzeal.However,thesame
Canonprovidesthatalawyersperformanceofhisdutiestowardshisclientmustbewithintheboundsofthelaw.Rule
19.01ofthesameCanonrequires,amongothers,thatalawyershallemployonlyfairandhonestmeanstoattainthelawful
objectivesofhisclient.Canon15,Rule15.07alsoobligeslawyerstoimpressupontheirclientscompliancewiththelaws
andtheprincipleoffairness.Topermitlawyerstoresorttounscrupulouspracticesfortheprotectionofthesupposedrights
oftheirclientsistodefeatoneofthepurposesofthestatetheadministrationofjustice.Whilelawyersowetheirentire
devotiontotheinterestoftheirclientsandzealinthedefenseoftheirclientsright,theyshouldnotforgetthattheyare,first
andforemost,officersofthecourt,boundtoexerteveryefforttoassistinthespeedyandefficientadministrationof
justice.17
Althoughrespondentfailedtoliveuptothisexpectation,thereisnoevidencethatheactedwithmaliceorbadfaith.
Consequently,itisbutfittoreprimandrespondentforhisactofunfairdealingwithcomplainant.Itmustbestressedthat
disbarmentisthemostsevereformofdisciplinarysanction,and,assuch,thepowertodisbarmustalwaysbeexercisedwith

greatcautionforonlythemostimperativereasonsandinclearcasesofmisconductaffectingthestandingandmoral
characterofthelawyerasanofficerofthecourtandamemberofthebar.Accordingly,disbarmentshouldnotbedecreed
whereanypunishmentlessseveresuchasreprimand,suspension,orfinewouldaccomplishtheenddesired. 18
WHEREFORE,Atty.JacintoD.JimenezisfoundguiltyofandREPRIMANDEDforviolationofRule19.01oftheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibility.
SOORDERED.
G.R.No.169079August28,2007
FRANCISCORAYOS,Petitioner,
vs.
ATTY.PONCIANOG.HERNANDEZ,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
BeforeUsisaMotionforReconsiderationdated16March2007filedbyrespondentAtty.PoncianoG.Hernandez,seeking
amodificationoftheDecisiondated12February2007.
ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionstates:
WHEREFOREtheCourtResolvesthat:
1.RespondentisguiltyofviolationoftheattorneysoathandofseriousprofessionalmisconductandshallbeSUSPENDED
fromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)monthsandWARNEDthatrepetitionofthesameorsimilaroffensewillbedealtwith
moreseverely;
2.Respondent isentitledtoattorneysfeesintheamount equivalent tothirtyfivepercent(35%)ofthetotal amount
awarded1topetitionerinCivilCaseNo.SM951;and
3.Respondent istoreturntheamount ofTwoHundredNinetyThousandOneHundredNinePesosandTwentyOne
Centavos(P290,109.21),2whichheretainedinexcessofwhatwehereindeclaredasfairandreasonableattorneysfees,plus
legalinterestfromdateoffinalityofthisjudgmentuntilfullpaymentthereof.
LetcopiesofthisDecisionbeenteredinthepersonalrecordofrespondentasmemberoftheBarandfurnishedtheOfficeof
theBarConfidant,theIBP,andtheCourtAdministratorforcirculationtoallcourtsofthecountry.
RespondentreceivedacopyoftheDecisionon5March2007.Hence,theMotionforReconsiderationwasfiledwithinthe
reglementaryperiodprovidedundertheRules.
RespondentbegsthecompassionateunderstandingandmagnanimityoftheHonorableCourtforsomeleniencyregarding
hisunintentionaltransgressionandpraysthatthepenaltyofsuspensionofsixmonthsimposeduponhimbereducedtoa
fine,invokinghisalmost15yearsofpatient,devoted,completeandsuccessfulprofessionalservicesrenderedtopetitioner;
forthebadfaithofthelatterindismissinghimascounselwithoutjustifiablecause;andhisgoodfaithinretainingthe
money"contingently"withtheviewofwinningpetitionerscause.
InlightofrespondentssincerepleaforcompassionfromtheCourt,wetakeasecondlookatthepenaltyimposed.
Inseveraladministrativecases,theCourthasrefrainedfromimposingtheactualpenaltiesinthepresenceofmitigating
factors.Factorssuchastherespondentslengthofservice,therespondentsacknowledgementofhisorherinfractionsand

feelingofremorse,familycircumstances,humanitarianandequitableconsiderations,respondentsadvancedage,among
otherthings,havehadvaryingsignificanceintheCourtsdeterminationoftheimposablepenalty. 31avvphi1
Applyingtherationaleintheaforesaidcatenaofcases,itisappropriateforthisCourt,inthecaseatbar,toconsiderthe
followingcircumstances,towit:
a)respondenthadspent15yearsindefendingpetitionerscausefromthetrialcourttotheSupremeCourt;
b)hiseffortsatdefendingtheircausewerepalpablyreal,complete,andtotal,withutmostdevotionandzealousness;
c)respondentsadvancedage;
d)thisisthefirsttimethatrespondenthasbeenfoundadministrativelyliableperavailablerecord;and
e)respondentsgoodfaithinretainingwhathesincerelybelievedtobehiscontingentfee.Ascanbegleanedfromthefacts,
petitionerandrespondententeredintoacontingentfeearrangementwherebythelatter,ascounsel,willbepaidforthelegal
servicesonlyifhesecuresajudgmentfavorableforhisclient.Whenrespondentretainedtheamountof P557,961.21and
P159,120.00outoftheP1,219,920.00,hedidsobelievingingoodfaiththatitwasareasonablepaymentforthecontingent
feeswhichhewasentitledtoretain.Itcannotbeignoredthatrespondentindeedsuccessfullydefendedpetitionerscasein
CivilCaseNo.SM951.
We are persuaded to exhibit a degree of leniency towards the respondent. We, thus, maintain a more compassionate
approach.
WHEREFORE,therespondentsMotionforReconsiderationispartlyGRANTED.TheDecisiondated12February2007is
MODIFIEDinthatthesuspensionofsixmonthsisDELETED,andinlieuthereofafineof P20,000.00isIMPOSED,
effectivefromdateofreceiptofhereinResolution,withwarningthatrepetitionofthesameorsimilaractswillbedealtwith
moreseverely.ThesaidDecisionisAFFIRMEDinallotherrespects.
SOORDERED.
A.M.No.1437April25,1989
HILARIATANHUECO,complainant,
vs.
JUSTINIANOG.DEDUMO,respondent.
A.M.No.1683April25,1989
HILARIATANHUECO,complainant,
vs.
JUSTINIANOG.DEDUMO,respondent.
RESOLUTION

PERCURIAM:
On24February1975,complainantHilariaTanhuecofiledbeforetheCourtaPetitionforDisbarment(docketedas
AdministrativeCaseNo.1437)againstrespondentJustinianoG.deDumoforhavingviolatedtheCanonsofProfessional

Ethicsbyhis(a)refusaltoremittohermoneycollectedbyhimfromdebtorsofthecomplainant;and(b)refusaltoreturn
documentsentrustedtohimascounselofcomplainantincertaincollectioncases.
InhisAnswerandCounterPetition1filedon3April1975,respondentdeniedthecharges.ComplainantfiledaRejoinder
[shouldbeReply]toAnswerwithCounterPetition,on18April1975.ByaResolution2dated16June1975,theCourt
referredthiscasetotheSolicitorGeneralforinvestigation,reportandrecommendation.
Ayearlater,on25June1976,oneJoseFlorencioN.Tanhuecoclaimingtobethenephewandrepresentativeofthe
complainant,addressedaswornlettercomplainttoMrs.ImeldaR.Marcosagainsttherespondentfor(a)refusaltoremitthe
moneycollectedbyrespondentfromdebtorsofcomplainant'saunt,Mrs.HilariaTanhuecoVda.deDavid;(b)refusalto
returndocumentsentrustedtohiminhiscapacityascounselincertaincases;and(c)abandonmentofcasesinrespectof
whichhisprofessionalserviceshadbeenengaged.On24August1976,thelettercomplaintwasforwardedbythethen
PublicInformationAssistanceStaff,DepartmentofPublicInformation,tothisCourtforappropriateaction(anddocketedas
AdministrativeCaseNo.1683).AfterrespondenthadfiledhisAnswer,theCourt,byaResolution3dated9December
1976,referredthiscasetothenActingJudicialConsultantRicardoC.Punoforstudy,reportandrecommendation.
SinceAdministrativeCaseNo.1683andAdministrativeCaseNo.1437involvedthesamepartiesandthesamesubject
matter,Hon.RicardoC.PunoreferredtheformercasetotheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforconsolidationwiththelatter
one.
TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralheldtwo(2)hearings,oneon3December1975andanotheron18April1988.Inthe
firsthearing,respondentdeDumowasabsentalthoughhehadbeennotifiedthereof.Attheendofthefirsthearing,
continuationofthehearingofthecasewassetfor14January1976.Therecordsshowthatthesecondhearingtookplaceon
18April1988butdonotindicatethereasonforthe12yearinterregnum.Bythen,complainantTanhuecohaddied.There
wasnoappearanceatthesecondhearingbycomplainantJoseFlorencioTanhuecobutrespondentdeDumowasthen
present.
ThereportoftheSolicitorGeneral,datedJune15,1988inAdministrativeCaseNo.1437summarizedtheevidenceforthe
complainantinthefollowingmanner:
EVIDENCEFORCOMPLAINANT
ComplainantHilariaTanhuecotestifiedthatshesecuredthelegalservicesofrespondenttocollectindebtednessfromher
differentdebtors.Althoughsheofferedtoexecuteadocumentevidencingtheirlawyerclientrelationship,respondenttold
herthatitwasnotnecessary.Shenonethelessofferedtogivehim15%ofwhathemaybeabletocollectfromthedebtors
(pp.47.tsn,Dec.3,1975).
ComplainantalsodeclaredthatrespondentborrowedfromherP2,000.00,Pl,300.00,andP3,000.00onthreeseparate
occasions,butshecouldnotrememberwhenshegavethoseamounts.Respondentdidnotpaythoseloans(pp.89,tsn,Id.).
Sheconfirmedthatrespondentfiledcasesagainstherdebtorsandthatoneofthem,ConstanciaMaoscapaidP12,500.00to
respondent.InformedofsuchpaymentbyMaoscaherself,complainantconfrontedrespondentbutthelatterdeniedhaving
receivedpaymentfromanyofherdebtors.ComplainantthenbroughtthemattertotheattentionofMalacaangwhich
referredhertoCampCrame.Notwithstandingsubsequentdemandsofcomplainantforthemoney,respondenthadrefused
togivehertheamount(pp.1115,tsn,Id.).
TheSolicitorGeneralthensummeduptheevidencefortherespondentinthefollowingterms:
EVIDENCEFORRESPONDENT
RespondentAtty.JustinianoG.deDumotestifiedthatcomplainantindeedsecuredhislegalservicestocollectfromher
debtors,withtheagreementthathegets50%ofwhathemaybeabletocollect.HethusfiledcollectioncasesagainstTipace
MaoscaMorena,Jr.,andothers,andwasabletoobtainfavorablejudgmentinthecasesagainstMaosca,Tipace,and
LeonilaMendoza.Theinitialpaymentsmadebythesejudgmentdebtorswereallgiventocomplainant.Withrespectto
MaoscarespondentobtainedajudgmentforP19,000.00althoughthedebtwasonlyP12,000.00(pp.39,tsn,April18,
1988).

Respondentalsodeclaredthatcomplainant,whowasthenalreadyoldandsickly,wasinfluencedbyherdebtors,whowere
alsoherfriendsintodistrustinghim.Ultimately,becausecomplainantfiledacomplaintagainsthimwithMalacaangwhich
referredthemattertoCampCrame,heterminatedhisrelationshipwithcomplainantanddemandedhisattorney'sfees
equivalentto50%ofwhathehadcollected.Complainantrefusedtopayhim,hence,hedidnotalsoturnovertoherthe
P12,000.00initialpaymentofMaoscawhichheconsidered,orapplied,aspartpaymentofhisattorney'sfee(pp.919,tsn.,
Id.).Respondentestimatedhisattorney'sfeeduefromcomplainantintheamountofP17,000.00(p.20,tsn,Id.)
RespondentdeniedhavingborrowedtheamountsofP2,000.00,P1,300.00,P3,000.00andP1,000.00,pointingoutthat
complainantdidnotevenhavemoneytopayhimsothathehandledthecasesforheroncontingentbasis(p.17,tsn,Id.)He
alsodeniedhavingreceiveddocumentaryevidencefromcomplainant.Whatevidencehehadwereallgatheredbyhimon
hisinitiative(pp.47,tsn,Id.).
TheSolicitorGeneralthensetoutthefollowing:
FINDINGS
Thereisinthecaseatbarclearadmissionsbybothcomplainantandrespondentofanattorneyclientrelationshipbetween
them,specificallyinthecollectionofdebtsowingcomplainant.Respondentalsoadmitted,inhisanswertothecomplaint
andinhistestimony,havingreceivedP12,000.00fromindebtorConstanciaManoscawithoutturningovertheamountto
hisclient,complainantherein,andapplyingitinsteadaspartofhisattorney'sfees.Ithasbeenheldthatthemoney
collectedbyalawyerinpursuanceofajudgementinfavorofhisclientheldintrust(Ayav.Bigonia,57Phil.8;Daroy
v..Legaspi65SCRA304),andthattheattorneyshouldpromptlyaccountforallfundsandpropertyreceivedorheldbyhim
fortheclient'sbenefit(Daroyv.Legaspi,supra;InreBamberger,49Phil.962).Thecircumstancethatanattorneyhasalien
forhisattorney'sfeesonthemoneyinhishandscollectedforhisclientdoesnotrelievehimfromtheobligationtomakea
promptaccounting(Domingolv.Doming[o]G.R.No.30573,Oct.29,1971;Daroyv.Legaspi,supra).Undoubtedly,
respondent'sfailuretoaccountfortheP12,000.00,representingpaymentofthejudgementdebtofMaoscaconstitutes
unprofessionalconductandsubjectshimtodisciplinaryaction.Nonetheless,ithaslikewisebeenrecognizedthatalawyeris
asmuchentitledtojudicialprotectionagainstinjustice,impositionorfraudonthepartofhisclient;andthattheattorneyis
entitledtobepaidhisjustfees.Theattorneyshouldbeprotectedagainstanyattemptonthepartofhisclienttoescape
paymentofhisjustcompensation(Fernandezv.Bello,107Phil.1140;Albanov.Coloma,G.R.Adm.CaseNo.528,Oct.
11,1967).Thiscountervailingrulemitigatestheactionsofrespondent.
Asregardsthechargesthatrespondentreceiveddocumentsevidencingthedebtstocomplainantandhadrefusedtoreturn
themtothelatter,andthatrespondentalsoborrowedsomeamountsfromher,there[is]nocompetent,conclusiveevidence
tosupportthem.Perforce,suchallegationshavenofactualbasis.(Emphasissupplied)
TheSolicitorGeneralthenrecommendedthat:
ForfailuretoturnovertheamountofP12,000.00tothecomplainant,andapplyingitashisattorney'sfees,respondentAtty.
JustinianoG.deDumobeseverelyreprimandedandadmonishedthatrepetitionofthesameorsimilaroffensewillbedealt
withmoreseverely.
WefindthefindingsoffactoftheSolicitorGeneralsupportedbytheevidenceofrecord.Weare,however,unabletoaccept
hisrecommendation.
Moneyscollectedbyanattorneyonajudgmentrenderedinfavorofhisclient,constitutetrustfundsandmust,be
immediatelypaidovertotheclient.4Canon11oftheCanonsofProfessionalEthics5theninforce,providesasfollows:
11.Dealingwithtrustproperty.
Thelawyershouldrefrainfromanyactionwherebyforhispersonalbenefitorgainheabusesortakesadvantageofthe
confidencereposedinhimbyhisclient.
Moneyoftheclientorcollectedfortheclientorothertrustpropertycomingintothepossessionofthelawyershouldbe
reportedandaccountedforpromptlyandshouldnotunderanycircumstancebecomingledwithhisownorbeusedbyhim.
(Emphasissupplied)

Whenrespondentwithheldandrefusedtodeliverthemoneyreceivedbyhimforhisclient,thedeceasedcomplainant
HilariaTanhueco,hebreachedthetrustreposeduponhim.Theclaimoftherespondentthatcomplainanthadfailedtopay
hisattorney'sfees,isnotanexcuseforrespondent'sfailuretodeliveranyamounttothecomplainants.6Itisofcoursetrue
thatunderSection37ofRule138oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,anattorneyhas
alienuponthefunds,documentsandpapersofhisclientwhichhavelawfullycomeintohispossessionandmayretainthe
sameuntilhislawfulfeesanddisbursementshavebeenpaid,andmayapplysuchfundstothesatisfactionthereof.Heshall
alsohavealientothesameextentuponalljudgmentsforthepaymentofmoneyandexecutionsissuedinpursuanceofsuch
judgments,whichhehassecuredinalitigationofhisclient,fromandafterthetimewhenheshallhavecausedastatement
ofhisclaimofsuchlientobeenteredupontherecordsofthecourtrenderingsuchjudgment,orissuingsuchexecution,and
shallhavecausedwrittennoticethereoftobedeliveredtohisclientandtotheadverseparty;andheshallhavethesame
rightandpoweroversuchjudgmentsandexecutionsashisclientwouldhavetoenforcehislienandsecurethepaymentof
hisjustfeesanddisbursements.
Thefactthatalawyerhasalienforfeesonmoneysinhishandscollectedforhisclient,doesnotrelievehimfromhisduty
promptlytoaccountforthemoneysreceived;hisfailuretodosoconstitutesprofessionalmisconduct.7
Inthepresentcase,whatrespondentcouldhaveproperlydonewastomakeanaccountwithhisclient,thecomplainant,
deducthisattorney'sfeesdueinrespectoftheamountactuallycollectedbyhim,andturnovertheremainingbalancetothe
complainant.TheCourtnotesthattheservicesofrespondentdeDumowereengagedbythecomplainantonanumberof
casesandthatthesewereondifferingstagesofcompletion.Respondentwasnotentitledtoholdontotheentireamountof
P12,000.00collectedbyhimuntilallhisfeesfortheothercaseshadalsobeenpaidandreceivedbyhim.Therewasnot
enoughevidenceintherecordtoshowhowmuchmoney,ifany,respondenthadinfactpreviously(i.e.,otherthanthe
P12,000.00fromMaosca)collectedforandturnedovertocomplainant(therebywaivinghislienthereon)without
deductingtherefromhisclaimedcontingentfeesinrespectofsuchcollections.
Therelationshipofattorneyandclienthasalwaysbeenrightlyregardedasoneofspecialtrustandconfidence.Anattorney
mustexercisetheutmostgoodfaithandfairnessinallhisrelationshipsvisavishisclient.Respondentfellfarshortofthis
standardwhenhefailedtorenderanaccountingfortheamountactuallyreceivedbyhimandwhenherefusedtoturnover
anyportionofsuchamountreceivedbyhimonbehalfofhisclientuponthepretextthathisattorney'sfeeshadnotallbeen
paid.Respondenthadinfactplacedhisprivateandpersonalinterestabovethatofhisclient.Respondent'sactconstitutesa
breachofhislawyer'soathandamerereprimandisnotanadequatesanction.
ThereisanotheraspecttothiscasewhichtheCourtcannotglossover.Respondentclaimedthathechargedcomplainant,his
client,acontingentfeeoffiftypercent(50%)oftheamountcollectedbyhim,plusinterestandwhateverattorney'sfeesmay
beawardedbythetrialcourtchargeabletotheotherparty.Inthisjurisdiction,contingentfeesarenotperseprohibitedby
law.8Butwhenitisshownthatacontractforacontingentfeeareobtainedbyundueinfluenceexercisedbytheattorney
uponhisclientorbyanyfraudorimposition,orthatthecompensationisclearlyexcessive,theCourtmustandwillprotect
theaggrievedparty.9
FromtheAnswerofrespondentdeDumoitappearsthatinthree(3)collectioncasesfiledbyhimforthecomplainantand
whichweredecidedinfavorofthecomplainant,theawardstotalledP31,390.00.Respondentassertedthathewasentitledto
attorney'sfeesamountingtoPl8,840.00outoftheaggregatetotalofP31,390.00:
7.ThattheunderstandingbetweenHilariaTanhuecoandmewasafiftyfiftyoncollectedprincipalandinterests.The
lawyerhastherighttochargeattorney'sfeestotheotherpartydefendantandthatHilariaTanhuecoshallnotinterferenor
beincludedinthecomputation.
Thatofthecasesfiled,thefollowingmadepayments:
a.HilariaTanhuecovs.ConstanciaMaosca
AmountCollectible(principal)........................................P12,000.00
InterestaddedfromMay1972oNov/73at1%amonth....P2,280.00

Attorney'sfeeschargedtothedefendantandnottobeincludedinthecomputation................P4,720.00
TOTALandAmountspecifiedintheCompromiseAgreementandSubjectoftheDecision.P19,000.00

b.HilariaTanhuecovs.MelchorTipaceetal.
Principalamountcollectible......................P7,100.00
Interestat1%permonthstartingJune/71toSept./74........................2,840.00
Attorney'sfeeschargedtothedefendantandnotincludedinthecomputation..........................1,450.00
TOTALPll,390.00.
c.HilariaTanhuecovs.Estimo
PrincipalAmountcollectible.....................Pl,000.00
SUMMATIONOFTHETHREECASESFILEDANDAMOUNTSRECEIVABLE
BYTHEUNDERSIGNEDINCLUDINGATTORNEY'SFEES:
MAOSCACASE:
Attorney'sfeestobepaidbyMaoscaandnottobeincludedinthecomputation...................P4,840.00
Fiftypercentontheprincipalamountcollectibleplusinterests..........................................P7,080.00
TOTALAMOUNTRECEIVABLEP11,920.00
TIPACESCASE:
Attorney'sfeestobepaidbyTipaceandnottobeincludedinthecomputation.............................Pl,450.00
FiftypercentontheprincipalamountcollectiblefromTipaceplusinterests..................................4,970.00
TOTALAMOUNTRECEIVABLE.............P6,420.00
8.ThetotalamountwhichIoughttoreceiveasattorney'sfeesunderparagraphseven,subparagrapha,bandcis:
Pll,920.00
P6,420.00
P500.00
P18,840.00TOTAL10
Wenotethatrespondentattorneyclaimedashiscontingentfeethefollowing:
1)fiftypercent(50%)ofthesumofprincipalandinterestcollectiblefromdifferentdebtors;and
2)attorney'sfeeschargedtothedefendant(presumablyunderpromissorynotesorwrittenagreements)and"nottobe
includedinthecomputation."

Underthisscheme,respondentwasactuallycollectingasattorney'sfeessixtypercent(60%)ormorethanhalfofthetotal
amountduefromdefendantdebtors;indeed,hewasappropriatingforhimselfmorethanwhathewas,accordingtohim,to
turnovertohisclient.
Webelieveandsoholdthatthecontingentfeehereclaimedwas,underthefactsobtaininginthiscase,grosslyexcessive
andunconscionable.11Suchafeestructure,whenconsideredinconjunctionwiththecircumstancesofthiscase,also
showsthatanunfairadvantagewastakenoftheclientandlegalfraudandimpositionperpetrateduponher.
Thecomplainantwasanoldandsicklywomanand,inrespondent'sownwords,"penniless."Shewasatthetimeshefiled
hercomplaintin1976,alreadyseventysix(76)yearsold.Inhercircumstances,andgivenherunderstandabledesireto
realizeupondebtsowedtoherbeforedeathovertookher,shewouldeasilysuccumbtothedemandsofrespondentattorney
regardinghisattorney'sfees.Itmustbestressedthatthemerefactthatanagreementhadbeenreachedbetweenattorneyand
clientfixingtheamountoftheattorney'sfees,doesnotinsulatesuchagreementfromreviewandmodificationbytheCourt
wherethefeesclearlyappeartobeexcessiveorunreasonable.InMambulaoLumberCompanyv.PhilippineNationalBank,
etal.,12thisCourtstressed:
Theprinciplethatcourtsshouldreducestipulatedattorney'sfeeswheneveritisfoundunderthecircumstancesofthecase
thatthesameisunreasonable,isnowdeeplyrootedinthisjurisdictiontoentertainanyseriousobjectiontoit.Thus,this
Courthasexplained:
Buttheprinciplethatitmaybelawfullystipulatedthatthelegalexpensesinvolvedinthecollectionofadebtshallbe
defrayedbythedebtordoesnotimplythatsuchstipulationsmustbeenforcedinaccordancewiththeterms,nomatterhow
injuriousoroppressivetheymaybe.Thelawfulpurposetobeaccomplishedbysuchastipulationistopermitthecreditorto
receivetheamountduehimunderhiscontractwithoutadeductionoftheexpensescausedbythedelinquencyofthedebtor.
Itshouldnotbepermittedforhimtoconvertsuchastipulationintoasourceofspeculativeprofitattheexpenseofthe
debtor.
xxxxxxxxx
SincethenthisCourthasinvariablyfixedcounselfeesonaquantummeruitbasiswheneverthefeesstipulatedappear
excessive,unconscionable,orunreasonable,becausealawyerisprimarilyacourtofficerchargedwiththedutyofassisting
thecourtinadministeringimpartialjusticebetweentheparties,andhence,thefeesshouldbesubjecttojudicialcontrol.Nor
shoulditbeignoredthatsoundpublicpolicydemandsthatcourtsdisregardstipulationsforcounselfees,wheneverthey
appeartobeasourceofspeculativeprofitattheexpenseofthedebtorormortgagor(See,Gorospe,etal.v.Gochangco,
supra).Anditisnotmaterialthatthepresentactionisbetweenattorneyandclient.Ascourtshavepowertofixthefeeas
betweenattorneyandclient,itmustnecessarilyhavetherighttosaywhetherastipulationlikethis,insertedinamortgage
contract,isvalid(Bachrachvs.Golingco,supra).
xxxxxxxxx13
ThisCourthaspowertoguardaclient,14especiallyanagedandnecessitousclient,15againstsuchacontract.Wehold
thatonaquantummeruitbasis,nocircumstancesofspecialdifficultyattendingthecollectioncaseshavingbeenshownby
respondent,respondentattorney'sfeesshouldbereducedfromsixtypercent(60%)totenpercent(15%)ofthetotalamount
(includingattorney'sfeesstipulatedaschargeabletothedebtors)collectedbyhimonbehalfofhisclient.
Withrespecttochargesofrefusaltoreturndocumentsentrustedtorespondentlawyerandabandonmentofcasesinwhich
hisserviceshadbeenengaged,weacceptthefindingsoftheSolicitorGeneralthattheevidenceofrecordisnotsufficientto
provetheseallegations.
WHEREFORE,theCourtResolvedthat:
1.respondentisguiltyofviolationoftheattorneys'oathandofseriousprofessionalmisconductandshallbeSUSPENDED
fromthepracticelawforsix(6)monthsandWARNEDthatrepetitionofthesameorsimilaroffensewillbemoreseverely
dealtwith;

2.theattorney'sfeesthatrespondentisentitledtoinrespectofthecollectioncaseshereinvolvedshallbeanamount
equivalenttofifteenpercent(15%)ofthetotalamountcollectedbyrespondentfromthedebtorsinthosecases;
3.respondentshallreturnforthwithtotheestateofcomplainantHilariaTanhuecotheP12,000.00respondentreceivedon
behalfofhisclientlessattorney'sfeesduetohiminrespectofthatamount(Pl2,000.00lessfifteenpercent[15%]thereof)
oranetamountofP10,200.00;and
4.respondentshallreturntotheestateofcomplainantHilariaTanhuecoanydocumentsandpapersreceivedbyhimfrom
thedeceasedcomplainantinconnectionwiththecollectioncasesforwhichhewasretained.Ifhehasinfactmadeanyother
collectionsfromdeceasedcomplainant'sdebtors,heshallpromptlyaccounttherefortocomplainant'sestateandshallbe
entitledtoreceiveinrespectthereofthefifteenpercent(15%)attorney'sfeesprovidedforherein.
LetacopyofthisResolutionbefurnishedeachtotheBarConfidantandspreadonthepersonalrecordofrespondent
attorney,andtotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines.
A.C.No.5798January20,2005
ALEXB.CUETO,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.JOSEB.JIMENEZ,JR.,respondent.
RESOLUTION
CORONA,J.:
Beforeusisacomplaint1 fordisciplinaryactionagainstAtty.JoseJimenez,Jr.filedbyEngr.AlexB.Cuetowiththe
IntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP),CommissiononBarDiscipline.
Engr.AlexCuetoallegedthatsometimeinOctober1999heengagedtheservicesofrespondentasnotarypublic,thelatter
being the father of the owner of the building subject of the Construction Agreement 2 to be notarized. He was then
accompaniedbyacertainValRivera,thebuildingadministratorofrespondentssonJoseJimenezIII.
Afternotarizingtheagreement,respondentdemanded P50,000asnotarialfee.Despitehissurpriseastothecostofthe
notarialservice,complainantinformedrespondentthatheonlyhadP30,000incash.Respondentpersuadedcomplainantto
paythe P30,000andtoissueacheckfortheremaining P20,000.Beingunfamiliarwiththecost ofnotarial services,
complainantpaidallhiscash3andissuedaFarEastBankcheckdatedDecember28,1999forthebalance.1vvphi1.nt
Beforethematuritydateofthecheck,complainantrequestedrespondentnottodepositthesameforlackofsufficientfunds.
HealsoinformedrespondentthatthelatterssonJoseJimenezIIIhadnotyetpaidhisservicesasgeneralcontractor.Still,
respondentdepositedthecheckwhichwasconsequentlydishonoredforinsufficient funds.Meanwhile,the P2,500,000
checkissuedbyrespondentssontocomplainantasinitialpaymentpursuanttotheConstructionAgreementwasitself
dishonoredforhavingbeendrawnagainstaclosedaccount.
Subsequently,Atty.JimenezlodgedacomplaintforviolationofBP22againstCuetobeforetheCityProsecutorsOfficein
AngelesCity.ThecriminalcasewastriedintheMetropolitanTrialCourtofAngelesCity,BranchI.
Inthemeantime,CuetofiledhisownadministrativecomplaintagainstJimenezonNovember16,2001.Heallegedthat
JimenezviolatedtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandCanonsofProfessionalEthicswhenhefiledthecriminalcase
againstCuetosohecouldcollectthebalanceofhisnotarialfee.
PursuanttoRule139B,Section6oftheRulesofCourt,respondentJimenezwasrequiredtoanswerthecomplaintfiled
againsthim.4Despitenotice,however,respondentfailedtofilehisanswerandtoappearbeforetheIBPCommissiononBar
Discipline.Afterhearingthecaseexparte,thecasewasdeemedsubmittedforresolution.5

Initsreport6datedApril21,2002,theIBPCommissiononBarDisciplinefoundrespondentguiltyofviolatingCanon20,
Rule20.4oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandrecommendedthatAtty.JoseB.Jimenez,Jr.bereprimanded.
OnJune29,2002,theBoardofGovernorspassedaresolution 7adoptingandapprovingthereportandrecommendationof
theInvestigatingCommissioner:8
RESOLVEDtoADOPTandAPPROVE,asitisherebyADOPTEDandAPPROVED,theReportandRecommendationof
theInvestigatingCommissioneroftheaboveentitledcase,hereinmadepartofthisResolution/DecisionasAnnex"A";and,
findingtherecommendationfullysupportedbytheevidenceonrecordandtheapplicablelawsandrules,andinviewof
respondents violation of Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent is hereby
reprimanded.
ComplainantsclaimthatrespondentsP50,000notarialfeewasexorbitantisdebatable.AsconfirmedbytheIBP,itisa
recognizedlegalpracticeinrealestatetransactionsandconstructionprojectstobasetheamountofnotarialfeesonthe
contract price. Based on the amount demanded by respondent, the fee represented only 1% of the contract price of
P5,000,000.Itcannotbesaidthereforethatrespondentnotarydemandedmorethanareasonablerecompenseforhisservice.
WearealsoconvincedthatthetwocontractingpartiesimplicitlyagreedonthecostofJimenezsnotarialservice.Itwas
Cuetosresponsibilitytofirstinquirehowmuchhewasgoingtobechargedfornotarization.Andonceinformed,hewas
freetoacceptorrejectit,ornegotiateforaloweramount.Inthiscase,complainantsconcernthattheotherpartytothe
construction agreement was the son of respondent notary and that his nonavailment of respondents service might
jeopardizetheagreement,waspurelyspeculative.Therewasnocompulsiontoavailofrespondentsservice.l^vvphi1.net
Moreover,hisfailuretonegotiatetheamountofthefeewasanimplicitacquiescencetothetermsofthenotarialservice.
Hissubsequentactofpayingincashandincheckallthemoreprovedit.
However, we agree with the IBP that respondents conduct in filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against
complainant(whenthecheckrepresentingtheP20,000balancewasdishonoredforinsufficientfunds)washighlyimproper.
Canon20,Rule20.4oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitymandatesthat"[a]lawyershallavoidcontroversieswith
clientsconcerninghiscompensationandshall resort tojudicial actiononlytoprevent imposition,injusticeorfraud."
Likewise, in Canon 14 of the Canons of Professional Ethics it states that, "[c]ontroversies with clients concerning
compensationaretobeavoidedbythelawyersofarasshallbecompatiblewithhisselfrespectandwithhisrighttoreceive
reasonable recompense for his service; and lawsuits with the clients should be resorted to only to prevent injustice,
impositionorfraud."1a\^/phi1.net
Therewasclearlynoimposition,injusticeorfraudobtaininginthiscasetojustifythelegalactiontakenbyrespondent.As
borneoutbytherecords,complainantCuetohadalreadypaidmorethanhalfofrespondentsfee.Toresorttoasuitto
recoverthebalancerevealsacertainkindofshamefulconductandinconsideratebehaviorthatclearlyunderminesthetenet
embodiedinCanon15that"[A]lawyershouldobservecandor,fairnessandloyaltyinallhisdealingsandtransactionswith
hisclient."AndwhatcanwesayaboutthefailureofrespondentssonJoseIIItopayhisownobligationtocomplainant
Cueto?ItinallprobabilityexplainswhyCuetoranshortoffunds.Respondentthereforeshouldhavebeenmoretolerantof
thedelayincurredbycomplainantCueto.
Wecannotoverstressthedutyofalawyertoupholdtheintegrityanddignityofthelegalprofession. 9Hecandothisby
faithfullyperforminghisdutiestosociety,tothebar,tothecourtsandtohisclients.Heshouldalwaysremindhimselfthat
thelegalprofessionisimbuedwithpublicservice.Remunerationisamereincident.
Althoughweacknowledgethateverylawyermustbepaidwhatisduetohim,hemustneverresorttojudicialactionto
recoverhisfees,inamannerthatdetractsfromthedignityoftheprofession.
WHEREFORE,Atty.JoseJimenez,Jr.isherebySEVERELYREPRIMANDEDforviolatingCanon20,Rule20.4ofthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
SOORDERED.
G.R.No.91958January24,1991

WILFREDOD.LICUDANandCRISTINALICUDANCAMPOS,petitioners,
vs.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSandATTY.TEODOROO.DOMALANTA,respondents.
ArnoldV.Guerrero&Associatesforpetitioners.
TeodoroO.Domalantaforandonhisbehalfasprivaterespondent.

GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.:p
The practice of law is a profession rather than trade. Courts must guard against the charging of unconscionable and
excessivefeesbylawyersfortheirserviceswhenengagedascounsel.Whetherornottheawardofattorney'sfeesinthis
caseisreasonable,beinginthenatureofcontingentfees,istheprincipalissue.
Thispetitionforreviewoncertiorariassails:
1) The Decision of the public respondent dated September 12, 1989 which dismissed the petitioners' appeal thereby
upholdingthereasonablenessoftherespondentlawyer'slienasattorney'sfeesoverthepropertiesofhisclients;and
2)TheResolutionofthepublicrespondentdatedJanuary30,1990whichdeniedthepetitioners'motionforreconsideration.
Thegroundsrelieduponbythepetitionersareasfollows:
TherespondentCourt,inupholdingtheentitlementofprivaterespondentattorneyontheattorney'sfeesheclaimed,decided
thequestioninamannernotinaccordwithlaworwiththeapplicabledecisionsofthisHonorableTribunal.
TherespondentCourt,inrefusingtoreviewanddeterminethepropriety,reasonablenessandvalidityoftheattorney'sfees
claimedbytheprivaterespondentattorney,departedfromtheusualcourseofjudicialproceedings.
TherespondentCourt,infailingtodeclaretheattorney'sfeesclaimedbytheprivaterespondentattorneyasunconscionable,
excessive,unreasonable,immoralandunethical,decidedthequestioninawaynotinaccordwithlawandwithapplicable
decisionsofthisHonorableTribunal.(Petition,pp.1213;Rollo,pp.1617)
Thefollowingaretheantecedentfactspertinenttothecaseatbar:
Therespondentlawyerwasretainedascounselbyhisbrotherinlawandsister,thenowdeceasedpetitioners'parents,
spousesAurelioandFelicidadLicudan.HisservicesascounselpertainedtotworelatedcivilcasesdocketedasCivilCase
No.Q12254forpartitionandCivilCaseNo.Q28655forasumofmoneyinconnectionwiththeredemptionofthe
propertysubjectmatterofthetwocasescoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.818oftheRegisterofDeedsofQuezon
City.Inbothcases,therespondentlawyerobtainedajudgmentinfavorofhisclients.
OnAugust13,1979,therespondent lawyerfiledaPetitionforAttorney'sLienwithNotificationtohisClientswhich
substantiallyallegedthathisclientsexecutedtwowrittencontractsforprofessionalservicesinhisfavorwhichprovided
that:
a)Theundersignedcounselisentitledtoown97.5squaremetersoftheplaintiff'sshareofthelotinquestion.
b)Theundersignedcounselshallhaveausufructuaryrightforaperiodoften(10)yearsofplaintiffs'shareofthelotin
question.
c)Andthatalldamagesaccruingtoplaintiffstobepaidbythedefendantisfortheundersignedcounsel.(Annex"H"ofthe
Petition,Rollo,p.54)

OnSeptember19,1979,thetrialcourthandlingCivilCaseNo.Q12254orderedtheannotationatthebackofTCTNo.818
oftheRegisterofDeedsofQuezonCityoftherespondentlawyer'sContractforProfessionalServicesdatedAugust30,
1979signedbypetitionerWilfredoLicudanandAurelioLicudanonhisownbehalfandonbehalfofhisdaughter,petitioner
CristinaLicudanCampos.Thesaidtrialcourt'sOrder,beingoneoftwoOrdersbeingessentiallychallengedinthispetition,
isreproducedbelow:
BeforethecourtforconsiderationisaPetitionforAttorney'sLienfiledbyAtty.TeodoroD.Domalanta,counselforthe
plaintiff,prayingthathisattorney'sfeesbeannotatedasalienatthebackofTransferCertificateofTitleNo.818ofthe
RegisterofDeedsofQuezonCity,subjectmatterofthiscase.
Fortheprotectionoftheplaintiffs,thecourtrequiredtheplaintiffAurelioLicudanaswellashissontoappearthismorning.
PlaintiffAurelioLicudantogetherwithhissonWilfredoLicudan,whoappearstobeintelligentandinfacthespeaks(the)
Englishlanguagewell,appeared.BothAurelioandWilfredoLicudanmanifestedthattheyhavefreelyandvoluntarily
signedtheContractforProfessionalServices,datedAugust30,1979andnotarizedbeforeNotaryPublicAmadoGarrovillas
asDoc.No.32,Page8,BookNo.XIX,Seriesof1979.
Consideringthemanifestationofplaintiff,AurelioLicudanandAlfredo(sic)Licudanthattheyhaveenteredfreelyand
voluntarilyinthesaidcontractofprofessionalservices,letthesamebeannotatedatthebackofTCT818oftheRegisterof
DeedsofQuezonCity,uponpaymentoftherequiredlegalfees.(CADecision,pp.78;Rollo,pp.3637)
TheContractforProfessionalServicesdatedAugust30,1979differsfromtheearliercontractualprovisionsinthatit
entitledtherespondentlawyertoonethird(1/3)ofthesubjectpropertyor90.5squaremetersandprovidedforusufructuary
rightsovertheentirelotinquestioninfavoroftherespondentlawyer'sson,TeodoroM.Domalanta,Jr.foranagreed
consideration.(Annex"J"ofthePetition;Rollo,p.59)
OnJuly25,1985,therespondentlawyerfiledamotion exparte toamendtheOrderdatedSeptember19,1979soasto
conformwithanadditionalprofessionalfeecovering31squaremetersmoreofthelotforservicesrenderedinCivilCase
No.Q28655asevidencedbyaDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedMay1,1983executedbyAurelioLicudaninfavorofthe
respondentlawyer.
OnSeptember6,1985,thetrialcourtorderedtherespondentlawyertosubmitasubdivisionplaninconformitywithhis
attorney'sfeescontractunderwhichonethird(1/3)ofthepropertyor90.5squaremeterswasallotedtohim.
OnSeptember23,1985,therespondentlawyerfiledamotionforreconsiderationprayingfortheamendmentoftheOrder
datedSeptember19,1979toconformwiththeDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedMay1,1983whichwasexecutedafterthe
annotationoftheoriginalattorney'slienof90.5squaremeters.
OnSeptember30,1985,thetrialcourtdeniedthemotiononthegroundthattherespondentlawyercannotcollectattorney's
feesforothercasesintheactionforpartition.
OnOctober4,1985,therespondentlawyerfiledasecondmotionforreconsiderationoftheOrderdatedSeptember6,1985
explainingthatwhathesoughttobeincludedintheOrderdatedSeptember19,1979istheadditionalattorney'sfeesfor
handlingtheredemptioncasewhichwasbutamereoffshootofthepartitioncaseandfurthermanifestingthattheadditional
31squaremetersascompensationfortheredemptioncasemustbemergedwiththe90.5squaremetersforthepartitioncase
toenablethesaidrespondentlawyertocomplywiththeOrderdatedSeptember6,1985whichdirectedhimtosubmita
subdivisionplanasrequired.
OnOctober21,1985,thetrialcourtissuedthesecondOrderbeingassailedinthispetition.ThesaidOrderreads:
Actingonthe"SecondMotionforReconsideration"filedbyAtty.TeodoroDomalantaandfindingthesametobejustified,
letanattorney'slienbeannotatedinthetitleofthepropertyfor31squaremetersasattorney'sfeesofsaidAtty.Teodoro
Domalantainadditiontotheoriginal90.5squaremeters.(CADecision,p.8;Rollo,p.37)
OnAugust22,1986,morethanten(10)monthsaftertheOrdersofSeptember6,1985andOctober21,1985hadbecome
finalandexecutory,thepetitionersassubstitutedheirsoftherespondentlawyers'deceasedclientsfiledamotiontosetaside

ordersonthegroundthattheawardofprofessionalfeescovering121.5squaremetersofthe271.5squaremeterlotis
unconscionableandexcessive.
AftertherespondentlawyerfiledhisOppositiontotheabovepetitioners'motion,thelowercourt,onAugust29,1986,
finding that the petitioners as substituted plaintiffs are not in full agreement with the respondent lawyer's claim for
attorney'sfees,setasideitsOrdersdatedSeptember6,1985andOctober21,1985.
OnSeptember16,1986,therespondentlawyerfiledamotionforreconsiderationstressingthefactthatthepaymentofthe
professionalserviceswaspursuanttoacontractwhichcouldnolongerbedisturbedorsetasidebecauseithasalreadybeen
implementedandhadsincethenbecomefinal.ThismotionwasdeniedonOctober3,1986.
OnNovember15,1986,therespondentlawyerfiledamotiontosetasidetheordersdatedAugust29,1986andOctober3,
1986reiteratinghispositionthattheOrdersofSeptember6,1985andOctober21,1985havebecomefinalandarealready
implemented.TherespondentlawyerfurtheraskedforthemodificationoftheOctober21,1985Ordertoreflect60.32
squaremetersinsteadof31squaremetersonlysincethestipulationintheAdditionalContractforProfessionalServices
entitledhimto60.32squaremeters.
Afterthepetitioners'Oppositiontothesaidmotionwasfiled,thetrialcourt,onFebruary26,1987,renderedanOrderwith
thefollowingdispositiveportion:
WHEREFORE,thisCourthasnoalternativebuttosetasideitsordersof29August1986and3October1986anddeclare
itsOrdersof19September1979and21October1985irrevocablyfinalandexecutory.(CADecision,p.5;Rollo,p.34)
OnAppeal,theCourtofAppealsruledinfavoroftherespondentlawyerbydismissingtheappealandtheprayedforwritof
preliminaryinjunction.Theirsubsequentmotionforreconsiderationhavingbeendenied',thepetitionersfiledtheinstant
petition.
ThepetitionersfaulttherespondentCourtforitsfailuretoexerciseitsinherentpowertoreviewanddeterminethepropriety
ofthestipulatedattorney'sfeesinfavoroftherespondentlawyerandaccusetherespondentlawyerofhavingcommittedan
unfairadvantageorlegalfraudbyvirtueoftheContractforProfessionalServicesdevisedbyhimafterthetrialcourt
awardedhimattorney'sfeesforP1,000.00onlyinsteadofrespectingthetrustandconfidenceofthehighestlevelreposedon
himconsideringtheclosebloodandaffinalrelationshipbetweenhimandhisclients.
Thepetitionerscontendthatundertheawardforprofessionalservices,theymayhavewonthecasebutwouldlosetheentire
propertywoninlitigationtotheirunclelawyer.Theywouldbetotallydeprivedoftheirhouseandlotandtherecovered
damagesconsideringthatofthe271.5squaremetersofthesubjectlot,therespondentlawyerisclaiming121.5square
metersandtheremainingportionof150squaremeterswouldalsogotoattorney'sfeessincethesaidportionpertainstothe
lawyer'ssonbywayofusufructforten(10)years.
Theaforesaidsubmissionsbythepetitionersmeritourconsideration.
Itisawellentrenchedrulethatattorney'sfeesmaybeclaimedintheveryactioninwhichtheservicesinquestionhavebeen
renderedorasanincidentofthemainaction.Thefeesmaybeproperlyadjudgedaftersuchlitigationisterminatedandthe
subjectofrecoveryisatthedispositionofthecourt.(seeCamachov.CourtofAppeals,179SCRA604[1989];Quirantev.
IntermediateAppellateCourt,169SCRA769[1989]).
Itisanequallydeeplyrootedrulethatcontingentfeesarenotperseprohibitedbylaw.TheyaresanctionedbyCanon13of
the Canons of Professional Ethics and Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the recently promulgated Code of Professional
Responsibility.However,aswehaveheldinthecaseofTanhuecov.DeDumo(172SCRA760[1989]):
...Whenitisshownthatacontractforacontingentfeewasobtainedbyundueinfluenceexercisedbytheattorneyuponhis
clientorbyanyfraudorimposition,orthatthecompensationisclearlyexcessive,theCourtmustandwillprotectthe
aggrievedparty.(Ulandayv.ManilaRailroadCo.,45Phil.540[1923];Greyv.InsularLumberCo.,97Phil.833[1955]).

Inthecaseatbar,therespondentlawyercausedtheannotationofhisattorney'sfeeslieninthemainactionforpartition
docketedasCivilCaseNo.Q12254onthebasisofaContractforProfessionalServicesdatedAugust30,1979.Wefind
reversibleerrorintheCourtofAppeals'holdingthat:
Whenthereasonablenessoftheappellee'slienasattorney'sfeesoverthepropertiesofhisclientsawardedtohimbythetrial
courthadnotbeenquestionedbytheclient,andthesaidordershadalreadybecomefinalandexecutory,thesamecouldno
longerbedisturbed,not evenbythecourt whichrenderedthem (Taadav.Court ofAppeals,139SCRA419).(CA
Decisionp.7;Rollo,p.36)
Onthecontrary,werulethatthequestionedOrdersdatedSeptember19,1979andOctober21,1985cannotbecomefinalas
theypertaintoacontractforacontingentfeewhichisalwayssubjecttothesupervisionoftheCourtwithregardtoits
reasonablenessasunequivocallyprovidedinSection13oftheCanonsofProfessionalEthicswhichreads:
13.ContingentFees.
Acontractforacontingentfee,wheresanctionedbylaw,shouldbereasonableunderallthecircumstancesofthecase
includingtheriskanduncertaintyofthecompensation,butshouldalwaysbesubjecttothesupervisionofacourt,astoits
reasonableness.(Emphasissupplied).
Thereisnodisputeintheinstantcasethattheattorney'sfeesclaimedbytherespondentlawyerareinthenatureofa
contingentfee.Thereisnothingirregularabouttheexecutionofawrittencontractforprofessionalservicesevenafterthe
terminationofacaseaslongasitisbasedonapreviousagreementoncontingentfeesbythepartiesconcernedandaslong
asthesaidcontractdoesnotcontainstipulationswhicharecontrarytolaw,goodmorals,goodcustoms,publicpolicyor
publicorder.
AlthoughtheContractforProfessional ServicesdatedAugust 30,1979wasapparentlyvoluntarilysignedbythelate
AurelioLicudan forhimselfand onbehalf ofhisdaughter, petitionerCristinaLicudanCamposand bythe petitioner
WilfredoLicudanwhobothmanifestedinopencourtthattheygavetheirfreeandwillingconsenttothesaidcontractwe
cannotallowthesaidcontracttostandasthelawbetweenthepartiesinvolvedconsideringthattherulethatinthepresence
ofacontractforprofessionalservicesdulyexecutedbythepartiesthereto,thesamebecomesthelawbetweenthesaid
partiesisnotabsolutebutadmitsanexceptionthatthestipulationsthereinarenotcontrarytolaw,goodmorals,good
customs,publicpolicyorpublicorder(seePhilippineAmericanLifeInsuranceCompanyv.Pineda,175SCRA416[1989];
Syjucov.CourtofAppeals,172SCRA111[1989]).
Under Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. In
determiningwhetherornotthelawyerfeesarefairandreasonable,Rule2001ofthesameCodeenumeratesthefactorsto
beconsideredinresolvingthesaidissue.Theyareasfollows:
a)Thetimespentandtheextentoftheservicesrenderedorrequired;
b)Thenoveltyanddifficultyofthequestionsinvolved;
c)Theimportanceofthesubjectmatter;
d)Theskilldemanded;
e)Theprobabilityoflosingotheremploymentasaresultofacceptanceoftheproferredcase;
f)ThecustomarychargesforsimilarservicesandthescheduleoffeesoftheIBPChaptertowhichhebelongs;
g)Theamountinvolvedinthecontroversyandthebenefitsresultingtotheclientfromtheservice;
h)Thecontingencyorcertaintyofcompensation;
i)Thecharacteroftheemployment,whetheroccasionalorestablished;and

j)Theprofessionalstandingofthelawyer.
AsimilarprovisioniscontainedunderSection24,Rule138oftheRevisedRulesofCourtwhichpartlystatesthat:
Sec.24. Compensationofattorneys;agreementastofees.Anattorneyshallbeentitledtohaveandrecoverfromhis
clientnomorethanareasonablecompensationforhisservices,withaviewtotheimportanceofthesubjectmatterofthe
controversy,theextentoftheservicesrendered,andtheprofessionalstandingoftheattorney....Awrittencontractfor
servicesshallcontroltheamounttobepaidthereforunlessfoundbythecourttobeunconscionableorunreasonable.
Allthattherespondentlawyerhandledforhisdeceasedsisterandbrotherinlawwasasimplecaseofpartitionwhich
necessitatednospecialskillnoranyunusualeffortinitspreparation.Thesubsequentcaseforredemptionwasadmittedly
butanoffshotofthepartitioncase.Consideringtheclosebloodandaffinalrelationshipbetweentherespondentlawyerand
hisclients,thereisnodoubtthatAtty.Domalantatookadvantageofthesituationtopromotehisownpersonalinterests
insteadofprotectingthelegalinterestsofhisclients.Acarefulperusaloftheprovisionsofthecontractforprofessional
servicesinquestionreadilyshowsthatwhatthepetitionerswonwasapyrrhicvictoryonaccountofthefactthatdespitethe
successfulturnoutofthepartitioncase,theyarenowpracticallyleftwithnothingofthewholesubjectlotwoninthe
litigation.Thisisbecauseasidefromthe121.5squaremetersawardedtoAtty.Domalantaasattorney'sfees,thesaid
contractforprofessionalservicesprovidesthattheremainingportionshallpertaintotherespondentlawyer'ssonbywayof
usufructforten(10)years.Thereshouldneverbeaninstancewherealawyergetsasattorney'sfeestheentireproperty
involvedinthelitigation.Itisunconscionableforthevictorinlitigationtoloseeverythinghewontothefeesofhisown
lawyer.
Therespondentlawyer'sargumentthatitisnothebuthissonTeodoroM.Domalanta,Jr.whoisclaimingtheusufructuary
rightovertheremainingportionofthesubjectlotisinaccurate.Therecordsshowthatthematterofusufructistiedupwith
thiscasesincethebasisforthesaidusufructuaryrightisthecontractforprofessionalservicesthereasonablenessofwhich
isbeingquestionedinthispetition.Wefindthetenyearusufructoverthesubjectlotpartandparceloftheattorney'sfees
beingclaimedbytherespondentlawyer.
Inresolvingtheissueofreasonablenessoftheattorney'sfees,weupholdthetimehonouredlegalmaximthatalawyershall
atalltimesupholdtheintegrityanddignityofthelegalprofessionsothathisbasicidealbecomesoneofrenderingservice
andsecuringjustice,notmoneymaking.Fortheworstscenariothatcaneverhappentoaclientistolosethelitigated
propertytohislawyerinwhomantrustandconfidencewerebestowedattheveryinceptionofthelegalcontroversy.We
find the Contract for Professional Services dated August 30, 1979, unconscionable and unreasonable. The amount of
P20,000.00 as attorney's fees, in lieu of the 121.5 square meters awarded to the respondent lawyer and the tenyear
usufructuaryrightovertheremainingportionof150squaremetersbytherespondentlawyer'sson,is,intheopinionofthis
Court,commensuratetotheservicesrenderedbyAtty.Domalanta.
WHEREFORE,INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,theinstantpetitionisGRANTED.TheCourtofAppeals'decisionof
September12,1989isherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.Atty.Domalantaisawardedreasonableattorney'sfeesinthe
amountofP20,000.00.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.5108May26,2005
ROSAF.MERCADO,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.JULITOD.VITRIOLO,respondent.
DECISION
PUNO,J.:

RosaF.MercadofiledtheinstantadministrativecomplaintagainstAtty.JulitoD.Vitriolo,seekinghisdisbarmentfromthe
practiceoflaw.Thecomplainantallegedthatrespondentmaliciouslyinstitutedacriminalcaseforfalsificationofpublic
documentagainsther,aformerclient,basedonconfidentialinformationgainedfromtheirattorneyclientrelationship.
Letusfirsthearkentothefacts.
ComplainantisaSeniorEducationProgramSpecialistoftheStandardsDevelopmentDivision,OfficeofProgramsand
StandardswhilerespondentisaDeputyExecutiveDirectorIVoftheCommissiononHigherEducation(CHED). 1
Complainant'shusbandfiledCivilCaseNo.40537entitled"RubenG.Mercadov.RosaC.Francisco,"forannulmentof
theirmarriagewiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofPasigCity.Thisannulmentcasehadbeendismissedbythetrial
court,andthedismissalbecamefinalandexecutoryonJuly15,1992.2
InAugust1992,Atty.AnastacioP.deLeon,counselofcomplainant,died.OnFebruary7,1994,respondententeredhis
appearancebeforethetrialcourtascollaboratingcounselforcomplainant. 3
OnMarch16,1994,respondentfiledhisNoticeofSubstitutionofCounsel, 4informingtheRTCofPasigCitythathehas
beenappointedascounselforthecomplainant,insubstitutionofAtty.deLeon.
ItalsoappearsthatonApril13,1999,respondentfiledacriminalactionagainstcomplainantbeforetheOfficeoftheCity
Prosecutor,PasigCity,entitled"Atty.JulitoVitriolo,etal.v.RoseDelaCruzF.Mercado,"anddocketedasI.S.No.PSG
999823,forviolationofArticles171and172(falsificationofpublicdocument)oftheRevisedPenalCode. 5Respondent
allegedthatcomplainantmadefalseentriesintheCertificatesofLiveBirthofherchildren,AngelicaandKatelynAnne.
More specifically, complainant allegedly indicated in said Certificates of Live Birth that she is married to a certain
FerdinandFernandez,andthattheirmarriagewassolemnizedonApril11,1979,whenintruth,sheislegallymarriedto
RubenG.MercadoandtheirmarriagetookplaceonApril11,1978.
Complainantdeniedtheaccusationsofrespondentagainsther.Shedeniedusinganyothernamethan"RosaF.Mercado."
Shealsoinsistedthatshehasgottenmarriedonlyonce,onApril11,1978,toRubenG.Mercado.
Inaddition,complainantMercadocitedotherchargesagainstrespondentthatarependingbeforeordecideduponbyother
tribunals(1)libelsuitbeforetheOfficeoftheCityProsecutor,PasigCity; 6(2)administrativecasefordishonesty,grave
misconduct,conductprejudicialtothebestinterestoftheservice,pursuitofprivatebusiness,vocationorprofessionwithout
thepermissionrequiredbyCivilServicerulesandregulations,andviolationsofthe"AntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct,"
beforethethenPresidentialCommissionAgainstGraftandCorruption; 7 (3)complaintfordishonesty,gravemisconduct,
andconductprejudicialtothebestinterestoftheservicebeforetheOfficeoftheOmbudsman,wherehewasfoundguiltyof
misconductandmetedoutthepenaltyofonemonthsuspensionwithoutpay; 8 and,(4)theInformationforviolationof
Section7(b)(2)ofRepublicActNo.6713,asamended,otherwiseknownastheCodeofConductandEthicalStandardsfor
PublicOfficialsandEmployeesbeforetheSandiganbayan.9
ComplainantMercadoallegedthatsaidcriminalcomplaintforfalsificationofpublicdocument(I.S.No.PSG999823)
disclosedconfidentialfactsandinformationrelatingtothecivilcaseforannulment,thenhandledbyrespondentVitrioloas
hercounsel.ThispromptedcomplainantMercadotobringthisactionagainstrespondent.Sheclaimsthat,infilingthe
criminalcaseforfalsification,respondentisguiltyofbreachingtheirprivilegedandconfidentiallawyerclientrelationship,
andshouldbedisbarred.
RespondentfiledhisComment/MotiontoDismissonNovember3,1999whereheallegedthatthecomplaintfordisbarment
wasallhearsay,misleadingandirrelevantbecausealltheallegationsleveledagainsthimaresubjectofseparatefactfinding
bodies.Respondentclaimedthatthependingcasesagainsthimarenotgroundsfordisbarment,andthatheispresumedto
beinnocentuntilprovenotherwise.10HealsostatesthatthedecisionoftheOmbudsmanfindinghimguiltyofmisconduct
andimposinguponhimthepenaltyofsuspensionforonemonthwithoutpayisonappealwiththeCourtofAppeals.He
addsthathewasfoundguilty,onlyofsimplemisconduct,whichhecommittedingoodfaith.11
Inaddition,respondentmaintainsthathisfilingofthecriminalcomplaintforfalsificationofpublicdocumentsagainst
complainantdoesnotviolatetheruleonprivilegedcommunicationbetweenattorneyandclientbecausethebasesofthe
falsificationcasearetwocertificatesoflivebirthwhicharepublicdocumentsandinnowayconnectedwiththeconfidence

takenduringtheengagementofrespondentascounsel.Accordingtorespondent,thecomplainantconfidedtohimasthen
counselonlymattersoffactsrelatingtotheannulmentcase.Nothingwassaidabouttheallegedfalsificationoftheentriesin
the birth certificates of her two daughters. The birth certificates are filed in the Records Division of CHED and are
accessibletoanyone.12
InaResolutiondatedFebruary9,2000,thisCourtreferredtheadministrativecasetotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines
(IBP)forinvestigation,reportandrecommendation.13
TheIBPCommissiononBarDisciplinesettwodatesforhearingbutcomplainantfailedtoappearinboth.Investigating
CommissionerRosalinaR.Datilesthusgrantedrespondent'smotiontofilehismemorandum,andthecasewassubmitted
forresolutionbasedonthepleadingssubmittedbytheparties.14
OnJune21,2003,theIBPBoardofGovernorsapprovedthereportofinvestigatingcommissionerDatiles,findingthe
respondentguiltyofviolatingtheruleonprivilegedcommunicationbetweenattorneyandclient,andrecommendinghis
suspensionfromthepracticeoflawforone(1)year.
OnAugust6,2003,complainant,uponreceivingacopyoftheIBPreportandrecommendation,wroteChiefJusticeHilario
Davide,Jr.,aletterofdesistance.Shestatedthatafterthepassageofsomanyyears,shehasnowfoundforgivenessfor
thosewhohavewrongedher.
Attheoutset,westressthatweshallnotinquireintothemeritsofthevariouscriminalandadministrativecasesfiledagainst
respondent. It is the duty of the tribunals where these cases are pending to determine the guilt or innocence of the
respondent.
WealsoemphasizethattheCourtisnotboundbyanywithdrawalofthecomplaintordesistancebythecomplainant.The
letter of complainant to the Chief Justice imparting forgiveness upon respondent is inconsequential in disbarment
proceedings.
Wenowresolvewhetherrespondentviolatedtheruleonprivilegedcommunicationbetweenattorneyandclientwhenhe
filedacriminalcaseforfalsificationofpublicdocumentagainsthisformerclient.
Abriefdiscussionofthenatureoftherelationshipbetweenattorneyandclientandtheruleonattorneyclientprivilegethat
isdesignedtoprotectsuchrelationisinorder.
Inengagingtheservicesofanattorney,theclientreposesonhimspecialpowersoftrustandconfidence.Theirrelationship
isstrictlypersonalandhighlyconfidentialandfiduciary.Therelationisofsuchdelicate,exactingandconfidentialnature
thatisrequiredbynecessityandpublicinterest. 15Onlybysuchconfidentialityandprotectionwillapersonbeencouragedto
reposehisconfidenceinanattorney.Thehypothesisisthatabstinencefromseekinglegaladviceinagoodcauseisanevil
whichisfataltotheadministrationofjustice. 16Thus,thepreservationandprotectionofthatrelationwillencourageaclient
toentrusthislegalproblemstoanattorney,whichisofparamountimportancetotheadministrationofjustice. 17Onerule
adopted to serve this purpose is the attorneyclient privilege: an attorney is to keep inviolate his client's secrets or
confidenceandnottoabusethem.18Thus,thedutyofalawyertopreservehisclient'ssecretsandconfidenceoutlaststhe
terminationoftheattorneyclientrelationship, 19 andcontinuesevenaftertheclient'sdeath. 20 Itisthegloryofthelegal
professionthatitsfidelitytoitsclientcanbedependedon,andthatamanmaysafelygotoalawyerandconversewithhim
uponhisrightsorsupposedrightsinanylitigationwithabsoluteassurancethatthelawyer'stongueistiedfromever
disclosingit.21Withfulldisclosureofthefactsofthecasebytheclienttohisattorney,adequatelegalrepresentationwill
resultintheascertainmentandenforcementofrightsortheprosecutionordefenseoftheclient'scause.
Now,wegototheruleonattorneyclientprivilege.DeanWigmorecitesthefactorsessentialtoestablishtheexistenceof
theprivilege,viz:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the
communicationsrelatingtothatpurpose,(4)madeinconfidence(5)bytheclient,(6)areathisinstancepermanently
protected(7)fromdisclosurebyhimselforbythelegaladvisor,(8)excepttheprotectionbewaived.22
Infine,thefactorsareasfollows:

(1)Thereexistsanattorneyclientrelationship,oraprospectiveattorneyclientrelationship,anditisbyreasonofthis
relationshipthattheclientmadethecommunication.
Mattersdisclosedbyaprospectiveclienttoalawyerareprotectedbytheruleonprivilegedcommunicationevenifthe
prospectiveclientdoesnotthereafterretainthelawyerorthelatterdeclinestheemployment. 23Thereasonforthisistomake
theprospectiveclientfreetodiscusswhateverhewisheswiththelawyerwithoutfearthatwhathetellsthelawyerwillbe
divulgedorusedagainsthim,andforthelawyertobeequallyfreetoobtaininformationfromtheprospectiveclient. 24
Ontheotherhand,acommunicationfroma(prospective)clienttoalawyerforsomepurposeotherthanonaccountofthe
(prospective)attorneyclientrelationisnotprivileged.InstructiveisthecaseofPfleiderv.Palanca,25wheretheclientand
hiswifeleasedtotheirattorneya1,328hectareagriculturallandforaperiodoftenyears.Intheircontract,theparties
agreed,amongothers,thataspecifiedportionoftheleaserentalswouldbepaidtotheclientlessors,andtheremainder
wouldbedeliveredbycounsellesseetoclient'slistedcreditors.Theclientallegedthatthelistofcreditorswhichhehad
"confidentially"suppliedcounselforthepurposeofcarryingoutthetermsofpaymentcontainedintheleasecontractwas
disclosedbycounsel,inviolationoftheirlawyerclientrelation,topartieswhoseinterestsareadversetothoseoftheclient.
Astheclienthimself,however,states,intheexecutionofthetermsoftheaforesaidleasecontractbetweentheparties,he
furnishedcounselwiththe"confidential"listofhiscreditors.Weruledthatthisindicatesthatclientdeliveredthelistofhis
creditorstocounsel not becauseof the professional relationthen existingbetween them,but onaccount ofthelease
agreement.Wethenheldthataviolationoftheconfidencethataccompaniedthedeliveryofthatlistwouldpartakemoreof
aprivateandcivilwrongthanofabreachofthefidelityowingfromalawyertohisclient.
(2)Theclientmadethecommunicationinconfidence.
Themererelationofattorneyandclient doesnotraiseapresumptionofconfidentiality. 26 Theclient must intendthe
communicationtobeconfidential.27
Aconfidentialcommunicationreferstoinformationtransmittedbyvoluntaryactofdisclosurebetweenattorneyandclient
inconfidenceandbymeanswhich,sofarastheclientisaware,disclosestheinformationtonothirdpersonotherthanone
reasonablynecessaryforthetransmissionoftheinformationortheaccomplishmentofthepurposeforwhichitwasgiven. 28
Ourjurisprudenceonthematterrestsonquiescentground.Thus,acompromiseagreementpreparedbyalawyerpursuantto
theinstructionofhisclientanddeliveredtotheopposingparty, 29anofferandcounterofferforsettlement, 30oradocument
givenbyaclient tohiscounsel notinhisprofessionalcapacity, 31 arenotprivilegedcommunications,theelement of
confidentialitynotbeingpresent.32
(3)Thelegaladvicemustbesoughtfromtheattorneyinhisprofessionalcapacity.33
Thecommunicationmadebyaclienttohisattorneymustnotbeintendedformereinformation,butforthepurposeof
seekinglegaladvicefromhisattorneyastohisrightsorobligations.Thecommunicationmusthavebeentransmittedbya
clienttohisattorneyforthepurposeofseekinglegaladvice.34
Iftheclientseeksanaccountingservice, 35orbusinessorpersonalassistance,36andnotlegaladvice,theprivilegedoesnot
attachtoacommunicationdisclosedforsuchpurpose.
Applyingalltheserulestothecaseatbar,weholdthattheevidenceonrecordfailstosubstantiatecomplainant'sallegations.
Wenotethatcomplainantdidnotevenspecifytheallegedcommunicationinconfidencedisclosedbyrespondent.Allher
claimswerecouchedingeneraltermsandlackedspecificity.Shecontendsthatrespondentviolatedtheruleonprivileged
communicationwhenheinstitutedacriminalactionagainstherforfalsificationofpublicdocumentsbecausethecriminal
complaintdisclosedfactsrelatingtothecivilcaseforannulmentthenhandledbyrespondent.Shedidnot,however,spell
outthesefactswhichwilldeterminethemeritofhercomplaint.TheCourtcannotbeinvolvedinaguessinggameastothe
existenceoffactswhichthecomplainantmustprove.
Indeed,complainantfailedtoattendthehearingsattheIBP.Withoutanytestimonyfromthecomplainantastothespecific
confidentialinformationallegedlydivulgedbyrespondentwithoutherconsent,itisdifficult,ifnotimpossibletodetermine
iftherewasanyviolationoftheruleonprivilegedcommunication.Suchconfidentialinformationisacruciallinkin
establishingabreachoftheruleonprivilegedcommunicationbetweenattorneyandclient.Itisnotenoughtomerelyassert

the attorneyclient privilege.37 Theburdenofproving that the privilege appliesisplaced upontheparty assertingthe
privilege.38
INVIEWWHEREOF,thecomplaintagainstrespondentAtty.JulitoD.VitrioloisherebyDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.3745October2,1995
CYNTHIAB.ROSACIA,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.BENJAMINB.BULALACAO,respondent.
RESOLUTION

FRANCISCO,J.:
ComplainantCynthiaB.Rosacia,presidentofTacma,Phils.,Inc.,adulyregisteredcorporation,filedacomplaintfor
disbarmentdatedOctober25,1991,againsthereinrespondentAtty.BenjaminB.Bulalacao.Actingonthecomplaint,the
CourtinaresolutiondatedFebruary24,1992,resolvedtoreferthecasetotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)for
investigation,reportandrecommendation.CommissionerVictorC.Fernandez,theIBPinvestigatingcommissioner,found
thatrespondentbreachedhisoathofofficeandaccordinglyrecommendedrespondent'ssuspensionfromthepracticeoflaw
forthree(3)months. 1InaresolutiondatedJuly30,1994,theIBPBoardofGovernorsresolvedtoadoptandapprovethe
commissioner'sreportandrecommendation.2
AsfoundbytheIBP,theundisputedfactsareasfollows:
OnJune1,1990,byvirtueofawrittenAgreement(Exh."3a"),respondentAtty.BenjaminB.Bulalacaowashiredas
retainedcounselofacorporationbythenameofTacmaPhils.,Inc.
OnOctober31,1990,thelawyerclientrelationshipbetweentherespondentandTacmaPhils.,Inc.wasseveredasshown
byanotheragreementofevendate(Exh."3b").
OnJuly,1991,orafteralmostnine(9)monthsfromthedaterespondent'sretaineragreementwithTacma,Phils.,Inc.was
terminated,severalemployeesofthecorporationconsultedtherespondentforthepurposeoffilinganactionforillegal
dismissal. Thereafter, he agreed to handle the case for the said employees as against Tacma, Phils., Inc. by filing a
complaintbeforetheNationalLaborRelationsCommission,andappearingintheirbehalf. 3
Thesoleissuetobeaddressediswhetherornotrespondentbreachedhisoathofofficeforrepresentingtheemployeesofhis
formerclient,Tacma,Phils.,Inc.,aftertheterminationoftheirattorneyclientrelationship.Weagreewiththefindingsof
theIBPthatrespondentbreachedhisoathofoffice.Respondentdoesnotnowdisputethis.Infact,inhismotionfor
reconsideration,respondentadmittedthathe"didcommitanactborderingongravemisconduct,ifnotoutrightviolationof
his attorney's oath". 4 However, respondent is pleading for the Court's compassion and leniency to reduce the IBP
recommended three months suspension to either fine or admonition with the following proffered grounds: that he is
relativelynewintheprofessionhavingbeenadmittedtothePhilippineBaronApril10,1990attheageof46whenthe
complainedconductwascommittedonAugust1991;thatheisofhumblebeginningsandhissuspensionwilldeprivehis
familyofitsonlysourceoflivelihoodhebeingthesolebreadwinnerinthefamily;thathehasfullyrealizedhismistake
andthegravityofhisoffenseforwhichheisfullyrepentant;thathehasseveredhisattorneyclientrelationshipwiththe
employeesofTacma,Phils.,Inc.byinhibitinghimselfandwithdrawinghisappearanceascounselinthelaborcaseagainst
Tacma,Phils.,Inc.;andthathepledgesnottocommitthesamemistakeandtohenceforthstrictlyadheretotheprofessional
standardssetforthbytheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

TheCourtreiteratesthatanattorneyowesloyaltytohisclientnotonlyinthecaseinwhichhehasrepresentedhimbutalso
aftertherelationofattorneyandclienthasterminatedasitisnotgoodpracticetopermithimafterwardstodefendin
anothercaseotherpersonagainsthisformerclientunderthepretextthatthecaseisdistinctfrom,andindependentofthe
formercase.5Itbehoovesrespondentnotonlytokeepinviolatetheclient'sconfidence,butalsotoavoidtheappearanceof
treacheryanddoubledealingforonlythencanlitigantsbeencouragedtoentrusttheirsecretstotheirattorneyswhichisof
paramountimportanceintheadministrationofjustice. 6Therelationofattorneyandclientisoneofconfidenceandtrustin
thehighestdegree.7Alawyerowesfidelitytothecauseofhisclientandheoughttobemindfulofthetrustandconfidence
reposedinhim.8Anattorneynotonlybecomesfamiliarwithallthefactsconnectedwithhisclient'scause,butalsolearns
fromhisclienttheweakandstrongpointsofthecase.Noopportunitymustbegivenattorneystotakeadvantageofthe
secretsofclientsobtainedwhiletheconfidentialrelationofattorneyandclientexists.Otherwise,thelegalprofessionwill
sufferbythelossoftheconfidenceofthepeople.9
Respondent'spleaforleniencycannotbegranted.Wenotethatrespondentisnewintheprofessionashewasjustadmitted
tothePhilippineBaronApril10,1990,whenthebreachofhisoathofofficeoccurredmorethanayearafter.Havingjust
hurdledthebarexaminationswhichincludedanexaminationinlegalethics,surelythepreceptsoftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibilitytokeepinviolatetheclient'strustandconfidenceevenaftertheattorneyclientrelationisterminated 10must
havebeenstillfreshinhismind.Alawyerstartingtoestablishhisstatureinthelegalprofessionmuststartrightand
dutifullyabidebythenormsofconductoftheprofession.Thiswillineluctablyredoundtohisbenefitandtotheupliftment
ofthelegalprofessionaswell.
ACCORDINGLY,respondentisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforthreemonths.Letthisresolutionbe
attachedtorespondent'srecordintheOfficeoftheBarConfidantandcopiesthereoffurnishedtoallcourtsandtothe
IntegratedBarofthePhilippines.

ADM.CASENo.5105August12,1999
Adm.CaseNo.419
CommissiononBarDisciplineIBP
FERNANDOSALONGA,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.ISIDROT.HILDAWA,respondent.
VITUG,J.:
In an affidavitcomplaint, dated 29 March 1996, Fernando Salonga, President of Sikap at Tiyaga Alabang Vendors
Association,Inc.,("STAVA"),ofMuntinlupaCity,chargedAtty.IsidroT.Hildawawithgrossmisconductand/ordeceit.
ComplainantaverredthatrespondentlawyerwasaretainedcounselofSTAVAforanumberofyearsand,inDecember
1993,representedtheassociationinCivilCasesNo.2406,No.2413andNo.2416,forejectmentagainst,respectively,
LindaDelRosario,AngelitaManuelandFranciscoVega,allstallholdersattheAlabangmarket,beforetheMunicipalTrial
CourtofMuntinlupa.ThedefendantsdepositedtheaccruedrentalswiththeMunicipalTrialCourtofMuntinlupa.The
defendantsdepositedtheaccruedrentalswithcourt.On14November1994,respondentlawyerfiledamotiontowithdraw
thedeposit;thus:
JOINTMOTIONTOWITHDRAWDEPOSIT
Counselforcomplainant,untothisHonorableCourt,mostrespectfullymanifest:
1.That,defendantsappellantsLindadel Rosario,AngelitaManuel andFranciscoVegamadetheirdeposit ofaccrued
rentalsontheirstallsuptoOctober15,1994,asfollows:

a.LindadelRosario

P24,440.60

b.AngelitaManuel

46,436.60

c.FranciscoVega

33,666.60
Total

P104,543.80
===========
2.That,plaintiffisentitledtosuchdepositsmadebytheappellantsinordertopayitsobligationwiththecooperativewhich
grantedtheconcessiontothetransientareafortheplaintifftooperate;
3.That,counselfortheappellantsregisternoobjectiontosuchwithdrawalasshownbyhisconformitytothehereinmotion.
Wherefore, it is prayed of this Honorable Court that plaintiff be authorized to withdraw the corresponding amounts
depositedbythedefendantsintheaboveentitledcases.
RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED.
November14,1994.
MAKATIforMuntinlupa.
HILDAWA&GOMEZ
#3484Gen.LucbanSt.,cor.South
Superhighway,Makati,MetroManila
By:
(Sgd.)ISIDROT.HILDAWA
PTRNO.9428868/12194/Muntinlupa
IBPNO.347727/50694/Makati
WithMyConformity:
(Sgd.)Atty.PATRICIOL.BONCAYAO,JR.
2ndFlr.CattleyaCommercial
NationalRoad,Alabang1
Respondentlawyerissuedareceipt,dated09December1994,thatacknowledgedhishavingreceivedthewithdrawndeposit
ofP104,543.80.ComplainantallegedthatSTAVAwasnotinformedofthefilingofthemotionnordiditauthorizeAtty.
Hildawatowithdrawtheamount.Despiterepeateddemands,respondentlawyerrefusedtoturnoverthewithdrawnsumto
STAVA.Tomakemattersevenworse,addedthecomplainant,Atty.HildawaappearedascounselforKilusangBayanng
mgaMagtitindasaPamilihangBayanngMuntinlupa("KBMBPM"),anopponentofSTAVAinCivilCaseNo.95192,for
Injunction with Urgent Prayer for Restraining Order, before Branch 276 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa.
Eventually,theRTC,actingonamotiontodisqualifyrespondentinsaidcase,directed,initsorderof26December1995,
thelatter"towithdrawfromthecaseandavoidcommittinganunethicalconduct."2

Inhisanswertothecomplaint,Atty.Hildawacounteredthatcomplainantwasfullyawareofthewithdrawaloftherentalin
arrearsdepositedbythedefendantsintheejectmentcasesandthatcomplainant,onseveraloccasions,evenaccompanied
himinfollowingupthereleaseofthemoney.Hesaidhedidnotturnovertheamountwithdrawntocomplainantsince
Salongawasthenonleave;instead,hehandedover,on10December1994,thesumtoDoloresJavinar,thetreasurerofthe
association,whoissuedthecorrespondingreceipttherefor.1wphi1.nt
Inhisreply,SalongadisclaimedthesupposedturnoverofthemoneytoJavinarandtheallegationthathewasonleaveof
absence.
ThisCourtreferredthecasetotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines("IBP")forinvestigation,reportandrecommendation.
Inaresolution,dated13March1998,theCommissiononBarDiscipline,throughCommissionerRenatoG.Cunanan,found
respondentguiltyofviolationofCanons16and21oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandrecommendedthathebe
suspendedforoneyearfromthepracticeoflaw.On25April1998,theIBPBoardofGovernors,initsResolutionNo.XIII
9872,resolvedtoadoptandapprovetherecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissioner.
Soonafterreceivingacopyoftheabovenumberedresolution,respondentrevertedtoIBPseekingareconsiderationofits
resolutiononlytobethereuponinformedthatthecasehadalreadybeenforwardedtothisCourt.Respondentsubmittedto
theCourtamemorandum,dated05August1998,asseveratingthatthefindingsoftheInvestigatingCommissionerwere
contrarytotheevidenceonrecord.HecitedtheresolutionoftheSTAVABoardofTrustees,dated30October1994,that
read:
KATITIKANNGPULONG
NG
BOARDOFTRUSTEES
NG
SIKAPATTIYAGAALABANGVENDORS
ASSOCIATION,INC.
Ginanapnoongika30ngOktubre,1994sa
TanggapannitosaAlabang

MgaDumalo:
PresidentFernandoSalonga
ExecutiveVicePres.TirsoSapar
VPinternalDomingoSilava
VPSecurityLeonardoGumapos
AuditorUndoCipriano
HindiDumalo:
VPExternalAserArevalo

TreasurerDoloresJavinar

Unangtinalakaysapagpupulongangkaayusanngsamahanatmgadapattupdinngmgakasapibilangkanilangtungkulinsa
samahanatsalugarnakanilangpinagtitindahan.Angkalinisanaypinagtutuunanngpansin.
Bagama't"onleave"angpangulonatin,sakahalagahanngpinaguusapansiyaaynaritosapagpupulong.
Tinalakay ang hindi pagbabayad ng Market Fee at gamit electrical ng 11 dating miyembro ng STAVA na tuwirang
nagbabayadngayonsakooperatiba.DahilditoaynawawalanngP450.00hanggangP500.00angsamahansangayonsataya
ngpangulo.
Dahildito,binigyanngkarapatanangabogadongsamahannaisaayosangdapatnahakbanginglegalupangmalikomang
salapiparasaSTAVAupangmakatugonitosabayarinsaKBMBPMatsaibapangpagkakagastusansahinaharapna
okasyon.
Mayroong paguusap upang wakasan ang usapin na idinulog ng STAVA laban sa Kooperatiba sapagkat sa diwa ng
magandangpagkakaunawaanatmabutingsamahan,naisngipagkaloobngKooperatibaanghinihingingSTAVAnalagyan
nghangganananglugarnaangmgamiembrongSTAVAangsiyalamangmagtitindasahalagangitatakdangbawa'tpanig.
Dito tumindig si Ester Dalde at ipinabatid sa kapulungan na siya ay kinausap ng Gen. Manager ng Kooperatiba at
tinatanongkungmaaridawayhuwagngpaalisinanglabingisang(11)tumiwalagsaSTAVA.
Tinalakayngpamunuanangbagaynaitoatanglahataynagkakaisasakanilangpaninindigannadapatlamangpalayasin
anglahatngtaksilatanayngsamahanupangmaiwasananghindipagkakaunawaanattuloymagingaralnadinsaibapa.
Isinunodnatinalakayangmga"balimbing"onagdadalawangmukhaatinatasannabumuongkommittetungkolditoupang
mabatidkungsinosinoangmgaitoatmalapatanngkaukulanglunas.
SaanomangCompromiseAgreementnagagawin,hindidapatpumayagnamanatilipaangmgataksilsaSTAVAatang
kooperatibaangsiyangmagbibigaysakanilanglugarsaalinmangpartengpalengkengunithindisaTransientArea.
Angpagpupulongayitinindigsaganapnaika2:00nghapon.
(Sgd.)
FernandoSalonga
President
(Sgd.)
TirsoSapar
ExecutiveVicePresident
(Sgd.)
DomingoSilava
VPInternal
(Sgd.)
LeonardoGumapos
VPSecurity
(Sgd.)
UndoCipriano
Auditor3
RespondentlikewisesoughttomaketheclarificationthathisservicesascounselofSTAVAwerealreadyterminatedin
February1995,longbeforeheappearedascounselforKBMBPMinDecember1995.
Afteraclosereviewoftherecords,theCourtisinclinedtopartiallygrantthemotionforreconsiderationsubmittedby
respondent.

ThebasisoftheInvestigatingCommissionerforfindingrespondentlawyertohaveviolatedCanon16 4wasthesupposed
admissionofAtty.HildawathathewithdrewtheamountofP104,543.80forSTAVA.Thisfact,however,wasneverdenied
byAtty.Hildawa.Itwouldappearthattherealfocusshouldhavebeenthenontheissueofwhetherornotthewithdrawalof
thedepositbyrespondenthadtheclient'sauthority.Apparently,hedidhavethatauthorityundertheresolution,dated30
October1994,oftheBoardofTrusteesofSTAVA.Theresolution,inpart,wastothefollowingeffect:
Dahildito,binigyanngkarapatanangabogadongsamahannaisaayosangdapatnahakbanginglegalupangmalikomang
salapiparasaSTAVAupangmakatugonitosabayarinsaKBMBPMatsaibapangpagkakagastusansahinaharapna
okasyon.5
OneofthesignatoriesoftheresolutionwascomplainantFernandoSalongahimself.Atty.Hildawadidnotkeepthemoney
butturneditoveron10December1994,orjustonedayafterreceivingit(on09December1994),toDoloresJavinar,the
STAVAtreasurer,whoissuedacorrespondingreceipttherefor.WhatthetreasurerorSTAVAmighthavedonethereafter
withthefundswasnoconcernofrespondentcounsel.
TheCourtagreeswiththeInvestigatingCommissioner,however,thatrespondentlawyerhastransgressedCanon21which
requiresalawyertopreservetheconfidencesandsecretsofhisclientevenaftertheattorneyclientrelationceases,a
mandatethathehasplacedinpossiblejeopardybyagreeingtoappearascounselforapartyhisclienthaspreviously
contendedwithinacasesimilarlyinvolvingsaidparties.
WHEREFORE,theCourtABSOLVESAtty.IsidroT.Hildawafromthechargeofhavingviolatedhisobligationtoholdin
trustthefundsofhisclientbutREPRIMANDShimforhavingplacedatriskhisobligationofpreservingtheconfidentiality
relationshipwithapreviousclient,withawarningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilarconductinthefuturewillbedealt
withmostseverely.1wphi1.nt
SOORDERED.

A.C.No.5280March30,2004
WILLIAMS.UY,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.FERMINL.GONZALES,respondent.
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:
William S. Uy filed before this Court an administrative case against Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales for violation of the
confidentialityoftheirlawyerclientrelationship.Thecomplainantalleges:
SometimeinApril1999,heengagedtheservicesofrespondentlawyertoprepareandfileapetitionfortheissuanceofa
newcertificateoftitle.Afterconfidingwithrespondentthecircumstancessurroundingthelosttitleanddiscussingthefees
andcosts,respondentprepared,finalizedandsubmittedtohimapetitiontobefiledbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtof
Tayug,Pangasinan.Whenthepetitionwasabouttobefiled,respondentwenttohis(complainants)officeatVirraMall,
Greenhillsanddemandedacertainamountfromhimotherthanwhattheyhadpreviouslyagreedupon.Respondentlefthis
officeafterreasoningwithhim.Expectingthatsaidpetitionwouldbefiled,hewasshockedtofindoutlaterthatinsteadof
filingthepetitionfortheissuanceofanewcertificateoftitle,respondentfiledalettercomplaintdatedJuly26,1999against
himwiththeOfficeoftheProvincialProsecutorofTayug,Pangasinanfor"FalsificationofPublicDocuments." 1Theletter
complaintcontainedfactsandcircumstancespertainingtothetransfercertificateoftitlethatwasthesubjectmatterofthe
petitionwhichrespondentwassupposedtohavefiled.Portionsofsaidlettercomplaintread:

TheundersignedcomplainantaccusesWILLIAMS.UY,oflegalage,Filipino,marriedandaresidentof132AGilmore
Streetcorner9thStreet,NewManila,QuezonCity,MichaelAngeloT.UY,CRISTINAEARLT.UY,minorsandresidents
oftheaforesaidaddress,LuvimindaG.Tomagos,oflegalage,married,FilipinoandaresidentofCarmayEast,Rosales,
Pangasinan,andF.Madayag,withofficeaddressatA12,2/FViraMallShoppingComplex,Greenhills,SanJuan,Metro
Manila,forESTAFATHRUFALSIFICATIONOFPUBLICDOCUMENTS,committedasfollows:
ThatonMarch15,1996,WilliamS.Uyacquiredbypurchaseaparceloflandconsistingof4.001ha.fortheamountof
P100,000.00,PhilippineCurrency,situatedatBrgy.Gonzales,Umingan,Pangasinan,fromFERMINC.GONZALES,as
evidencedbyaDeedofSaleexecutedbythelatterinfavoroftheformer;thatinthesaiddate,WilliamS.Uyreceived
theTransferCertificateofTitleNo.T33122,coveringthesaidland;
ThatinsteadofregisteringsaidDeedofSaleandTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.T33122,intheRegisterofDeeds
forthepurposeoftransferringthesameinhisname,WilliamS.UyexecutedaDeedofVoluntaryLandTransferofthe
aforesaidlandinfavorofhischildren,namely,MichaelAngeloT.UyandCristinaEarlT.Uy,whereinWilliamS.Uy
madeitappearthathissaidchildrenareoflegalage,andresidentsofBrgy.Gonzales,Umingan,Pangasinan,wheninfact
andintruth,theyareminorsandresidentsofMetroManila,toqualifythemasfarmers/beneficiaries,thusplacingthesaid
propertywithinthecoverageoftheLandReformProgram;
Thattheabovenamedaccused,conspiringtogetherandhelpingoneanotherprocuredthefalsifieddocumentswhichthey
usedassupportingpaperssothattheycansecurefromtheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsofTayug,Pangasinan,TCTNo.
T5165(CertificateofLandOwnershipAwardNo.00432930)infavorofhisabovenamedchildren.Someofthese
FalsifieddocumentsarepurportedAffidavitofSeller/TransferorandAffidavitofNonTenancy,bothdatedAugust20,
1996,withoutthesignatureofaffiant,FerminC.Gonzales,andthatonthatsaiddate,FerminC.Gonzaleswasalready
dead;
ThatonDecember17,1998,WilliamS.Uywithdeceitandevidentintenttodefraudundersigned,stillacceptedtheamount
ofP340,000.00,fromAtty.FerminL.Gonzales,P300,000.00,inPNBCheckNo.0000606,andP40,000.00,incash,asfull
paymentoftheredemptionofTCTNo.33122knowingfullywellthatatthattimethesaidTCTcannotberedeemed
anymorebecausethesamewasalreadytransferredinthenameofhischildren;
ThatWilliamS.Uyhasappropriatedtheamountcoveredbytheaforesaidcheck,asevidencedbythesaidcheckwhichwas
encashedbyhim;
Thatinspiteofrepeateddemands,bothoralandinwriting,WilliamS.Uyrefusedandcontinuetorefusetodelivertohima
TCTinthenameoftheundersignedortoreturnandrepaythesaidP340,000.00,tothedamageandprejudiceofthe
undersigned.2
Withtheexecutionofthelettercomplaint,respondentviolatedhisoathasalawyerandgrosslydisregardedhisdutyto
preserve the secrets of his client. Respondent unceremoniously turned against him just because he refused to grant
respondentsrequestforadditionalcompensation.Respondentsacttarnishedhisreputationandsocialstanding. 3
IncompliancewiththisCourtsResolutiondatedJuly31,2000, 4 respondentfiledhisCommentnarratinghisversion,as
follows:
On December 17, 1998, he offered to redeem from complainant a 4.9 hectareproperty situated in Brgy. Gonzales,
Umingan,PangasinancoveredbyTCTNo.T33122whichthelatteracquiredbypurchasefromhis(respondents)son,the
lateFerminC.Gonzales,Jr..Onthesamedate,hepaidcomplainantP340,000.00anddemandedthedeliveryofTCTNo.T
33122aswellastheexecutionoftheDeedofRedemption.Uponrequest,hegavecomplainantadditionaltimetolocatesaid
titleoruntilafterChristmastodeliverthesameandexecutetheDeedofRedemption.Afterthesaidperiod,hewentto
complainants office and demanded the delivery of the title and the execution of the Deed of Redemption. Instead,
complainantgavehimphotocopiesofTCTNo.T33122andTCTNo.T5165.Complainantexplainedthathehadalready
transferredthetitleoftheproperty,coveredbyTCTNo.T5165tohischildrenMichaelandCristinaUyandthatTCTNo.
T5165wasmisplacedandcannotbelocateddespiteeffortstolocateit.Wantingtoprotecthisinterestovertheproperty
coupledwithhisdesiretogetholdofTCTNo.T5165theearliestpossibletime,heofferedhisassistanceprobonoto
prepareapetitionforlosttitleprovidedthatallnecessaryexpensesincidenttheretoincludingexpensesfortransportation
andothers,estimatedatP20,000.00,willbeshoulderedbycomplainant.Tothese,complainantagreed.

OnApril9,1999,hesubmittedtocomplainantadraftofthepetitionforthelosttitlereadyforsigningandnotarization.On
April14,1999,hewenttocomplainantsofficeinforminghimthatthepetitionisreadyforfilingandneedsfundsfor
expenses.Complainantwhowaswithaclientaskedhimtowaitattheanteroomwherehewaitedforalmosttwohoursuntil
hefoundoutthatcomplainanthadalreadyleftwithoutleavinganyinstructionsnorfundsforthefilingofthepetition.
Complainantsconduct infuriatedhim whichpromptedhim togiveahandwrittenlettertellingcomplainant that heis
withdrawingthepetitionhepreparedandthatcomplainantshouldgetanotherlawyertofilethepetition.
Respondentmaintainsthatthelawyerclientrelationshipbetweenhimandcomplainantwasterminatedwhenhegavethe
handwrittenlettertocomplainant;thattherewasnolongeranyprofessionalrelationshipbetweenthetwoofthemwhenhe
filedthelettercomplaintforfalsificationofpublicdocument;thatthefactsandallegationscontainedinthelettercomplaint
for falsification were culled from public documents procured from the Office of the Register of Deeds in Tayug,
Pangasinan.5
InaResolutiondatedOctober18,2000,theCourtreferredthecasetotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)for
investigation,reportandrecommendation.6
CommissionerRebeccaVillanuevaMaalaorderedbothpartiestoappearonApril2,2003beforetheIBP. 7Onsaiddate,
complainantdidnotappeardespiteduenotice.Therewasnoshowingthatrespondentreceivedthenoticeforthatdays
hearingandsothehearingwasresettoMay28,2003.8
OnApril29,2003,CommissionerVillanuevaMaalareceivedaletterfromoneAtty.AugustoM.MacamdatedApril24,
2003,statingthathisclient,WilliamS.Uy,hadlostinterestinpursuingthecomplainthefiledagainstAtty.Gonzalesand
requestingthatthecaseagainstAtty.Gonzalesbedismissed.9
OnJune2,2003,CommissionerVillanuevaMaalasubmittedherreportandrecommendation,portionsofwhichreadas
follows:
ThefactsandevidencepresentedshowthatwhenrespondentagreedtohandlethefilingoftheVerifiedPetitionfortheloss
ofTCTNo.T5165,complainanthadconfidedtorespondentthefactofthelossandthecircumstancesattendantthereto.
WhenrespondentfiledtheLetterComplainttotheOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutorinTayug,Pangasinan,heviolated
Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which expressly provides that "A lawyer shall preserve the
confidencesandsecretsofhisclientevenaftertheattorneyclientrelationisterminated."Respondentcannotarguethat
therewasnolawyerclientrelationshipbetweenthemwhenhefiledtheLetterComplainton26July1999consideringthat
asearlyas14April1999,orthree(3)monthsafter,respondenthadalreadyterminatedcomplainantsperceivedlawyer
clientrelationshipbetweenthem.Thedutytomaintaininviolatetheclientsconfidencesandsecretsisnottemporarybut
permanent. It is in effect perpetual for "it outlasts the lawyers employment" (Canon 37, Code of Professional
Responsibility)whichmeansevenaftertherelationshiphasbeenterminated,thedutytopreservetheclientsconfidences
andsecretsremainseffective.LikewiseRule21.02,Canon21oftheRulesofProfessionalResponsibilityprovidesthat"A
lawyershallnot,tothedisadvantageofhisclient,useinformationacquiredinthecourseofemployment,norshallheuse
thesametohisownadvantageorthatofathirdperson,unlesstheclientwiththefullknowledgeofthecircumstances
consentsthereto."
On29April2003,theCommissionreceivedaletterdated24April2003fromAtty.AugustoM.Macam,whoclaimsto
representcomplainant,WilliamS.Uy,allegingthatcomplainantisnolongerinterestedinpursuingthiscaseandrequested
thatthesamebedismissed.Theaforesaidletterhardlydeservesconsiderationasproceedingsofthisnaturecannotbe
"interruptedbyreasonofdesistance,settlement,compromise,restitution,withdrawal of thecharges,orfailureofthe
complainanttoprosecutethesame.(Section5,Rule139B,RulesofCourt).Moreover,inBolivervs.Simbol,16SCRA
623,theCourtruledthat"anypersonmaybringtothisCourtsattentionthemisconductofanylawyer,andactionwill
usuallybetakenregardlessoftheinterestorlackofinterestofthecomplainant,ifthefactsprovensowarrant."
INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,wefindrespondentAtty.FerminL.GonzalestohaveviolatedtheCodeofProfessional
Responsibilityanditisherebyrecommendedthathebe SUSPENDED foraperiodof SIX(6)MONTHS fromreceipt
hereof,fromthepracticeofhisprofessionasalawyerandmemberoftheBar.10
OnJune21,2003,theBoardofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesissuedResolutionNo.XV2003365,
thus:

RESOLVEDtoADOPTandAPPROVE,asitisherebyADOPTEDandAPPROVED,theReportandRecommendationof
theInvestigatingCommissioneroftheaboveentitledcase,hereinmadepartofthisResolution/DecisionasAnnex"A";and
findingtherecommendationfullysupportedbytheevidenceonrecordandapplicablelawsandrules,andconsideringthat
respondentviolatedRule21.02,Canon21oftheCanonsofProfessionalResponsibility,Atty.FerminL.Gonzalesishereby
SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)months.11
Preliminarily,weagreewithCommissionerVillanuevaMaalathatthemanifestationofcomplainantUyexpressinghis
desiretodismisstheadministrativecomplainthefiledagainstrespondent,hasnopersuasivebearinginthepresentcase.
Sec.5,Rule139BoftheRulesofCourtstatesthat:
.
No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution,
withdrawalofthecharges,orfailureofthecomplainanttoprosecutethesame.
Thisisbecause:
Aproceedingforsuspensionordisbarmentisnotinanysenseacivilactionwherethecomplainantisaplaintiffandthe
respondentlawyerisadefendant.Disciplinaryproceedingsinvolvenoprivateinterestandaffordnoredressforprivate
grievance.Theyareundertakenandprosecutedsolelyforthepublicwelfare.Theyareundertakenforthepurposeof
preservingcourtsofjusticefromtheofficialministrationofpersonsunfittopracticeinthem.Theattorneyiscalledto
answertothecourtforhisconductasanofficerofthecourt.Thecomplainantorthepersonwhocalledtheattentionofthe
courttotheattorney'sallegedmisconductisinnosenseaparty,andhasgenerallynointerestintheoutcomeexceptasall
goodcitizensmayhaveintheproperadministrationofjustice.Hence,iftheevidenceonrecordwarrants,therespondent
maybesuspendedordisbarreddespitethedesistanceofcomplainantorhiswithdrawalofthecharges. 12
Nowtothemeritsofthecomplaintagainsttherespondent.
Practiceoflawembracesanyactivity,inoroutofcourt,whichrequirestheapplicationoflaw,aswellaslegalprinciples,
practice orprocedureand callsfor legal knowledge,trainingand experience. 13 While it istrue that alawyermay be
disbarredorsuspendedforanymisconduct,whetherinhisprofessionalorprivatecapacity,whichshowshimtobewanting
inmoralcharacter,inhonesty,probityandgooddemeanororunworthytocontinueasanofficerofthecourt, 14complainant
failedtoproveanyofthecircumstancesenumeratedabovethatwouldwarrantthedisbarmentorsuspensionofherein
respondent.
Notwithstandingrespondentsownperceptiononthematter,ascrutinyoftherecordsrevealsthattherelationshipbetween
complainantandrespondentstemmedfromapersonaltransactionordealingsbetweenthemratherthanthepracticeoflaw
byrespondent.Respondentdealtwithcomplainantonlybecauseheredeemedapropertywhichcomplainanthadearlier
purchasedfromhis(complainants)son.ItisnotrefutedthatrespondentpaidcomplainantP340,000.00andgavehimample
timetoproduceitstitleandexecutetheDeedofRedemption.However,despitetheperiodgiventohim,complainantfailed
tofulfillhisendofthebargainbecauseoftheallegedlossofthetitlewhichhehadadmittedtorespondentashaving
prematurelytransferredtohischildren,thuspromptingrespondenttoofferhisassistancesoastosecuretheissuanceofa
newtitletotheproperty,inlieuofthelostone,withcomplainantassumingtheexpensestherefor.
As a rule, an attorneyclient relationship is said to exist when a lawyer voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the
consultationofaperson,whoinrespecttoabusinessortroubleofanykind,consultsalawyerwithaviewofobtaining
professionaladviceorassistance.Itisnotessentialthattheclientshouldhaveemployedtheattorneyonanyprevious
occasionorthatanyretainershouldhavebeenpaid,promisedorchargedfor,neitherisitmaterialthattheattorney
consulteddidnotafterwardundertakethecaseaboutwhichtheconsultationwashad,foraslongastheadviceand
assistanceoftheattorneyissoughtandreceived,inmatterspertinenttohisprofession.15
Consideringtheattendantpeculiarcircumstances,saidrulecannotapplytothepresentcase.Evidently,thefactsallegedin
the complaint for "Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents" filed by respondent against complainant were
obtainedbyrespondentduetohispersonaldealingswithcomplainant.Respondentvolunteeredhisservicetohastenthe
issuanceofthecertificateoftitleofthelandhehasredeemedfromcomplainant.Respondentsimmediateobjectivewasto

securethetitleofthepropertythatcomplainanthadearlierboughtfromhisson.Clearly,therewasnoattorneyclient
relationship between respondent and complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was only
incidentaltotheirpersonaltransaction.
Canon21oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityreads:
Canon21ALAWYERSHALLPRESERVETHECONFIDENCEANDSECRETSOFHISCLIENTEVENAFTER
THEATTORNEYCLIENTRELATIONISTERMINATED.
Rule21.01Alawyershallnotrevealtheconfidencesorsecretsofhisclientexcept:
a)Whenauthorizedbytheclientafteracquaintinghimoftheconsequencesofthedisclosure;
b)Whenrequiredbylaw;
c)Whennecessarytocollecthisfeesortodefendhimself,hisemployeesorassociatesorbyjudicialaction.
Thealleged"secrets"ofcomplainant werenotspecifiedbyhim inhisaffidavitcomplaint.Whateverfactsallegedby
respondentagainstcomplainantwerenotobtainedbyrespondentinhisprofessionalcapacitybutasaredemptionerofa
propertyoriginallyownedbyhisdeceasedsonandtherefore,whenrespondentfiledthecomplaintforestafaagainstherein
complainant, which necessarily involved alleging facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any way,
violatingCanon21.Thereisnowaywecanequatethefilingoftheaffidavitcomplaintagainsthereincomplainanttoa
misconductthatiswantinginmoralcharacter,inhonesty,probityandgooddemeanororthatrendershimunworthyto
continueasanofficerofthecourt.Toholdotherwisewouldbeprecludinganylawyerfrominstitutingacaseagainstanyone
toprotecthispersonalorproprietaryinterests.
WHEREFORE,ResolutionNo.XV2003365datedJune21,2003oftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesisREVERSED
and SET ASIDE and the administrative case filed against Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales, docketed as A.C. No. 5280, is
DISMISSEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
ADM.CASENO.5018January26,2007
ROGELIOH.VILLANUEVA,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.AMADOB.DELORIA,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
TINGA,J.:
ThistreatsoftheComplaint1forDisbarmentdatedFebruary17,1999filedbyRogelioH.Villanueva(Villanueva)against
Atty.AmadoB.DeloriainconnectionwithHLRBCaseNo.REM0805925166,entitled"SpousesConradoDeGraciav.
EstateofJaimeGonzales,etal."Atty.Deloria,aformerfulltimeCommissioneroftheHousingandLandUseRegulatory
Board(HLURB),appearedascounselforthespousesDeGracia.
VillanuevaaversthatadecisioninthatcasewasrenderedbyHousingandLandUseArbiter, 2 Atty.TeresitaR.Alferez,
requiringtheEstateofJaimeGonzalesto,amongotherthings,refundtothespousesDeGraciatheamountof P69,000.00
plusinterestattheprevailingcommercialinterestrates.ThecasewaseventuallyassignedtoVillanuevauponthelatters
designationasArbiter.

ItappearsthatAtty.DeloriafiledaMotionforIssuanceofSubstituteJudgmentandforConsignation 3 claimingthatthe
EstateofJaimeGonzalesdoesnotwanttopayinterestbasedoncommercialinterestrates.Villanuevaasserts,however,that
Atty.DeloriasallegationisbeliedbytwomotionsfiledbycounselfortheEstateofJaimeGonzaleswhichmerelyseekto
clarifythepreciseinterestrateapplicabletothecaseinorderforittofullycomplywiththedecision.
Atty.DeloriasmisrepresentationisallegedlyaviolationoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility(Code),particularly
Canons1,4
10,5126and197thereof,theAttorneysOathofOfficeandArt.19oftheCivilCode.Atty.Deloriaalsoallegedlyviolated
Canon118 oftheCodebecausehesoughtthesubstitutionofadecisionwhichheknewhadalreadybecomefinaland
partiallyexecuted.
VillanuevanotesthatAtty.DeloriaenclosedwithhismotionacheckintheamountofP69,000.00payabletotheorderof
theEstateofJaimeGonzalesandCorazonGonzales,representingtheprincipal refundedtothespousesDeGraciain
compliancewiththedecision.VillanuevastatesthatthecheckwasdrawnagainstAtty.Deloriaspersonalcheckingaccount
inviolationofCanon169oftheCode.
Moreover,accordingtoVillanueva,Atty.Deloriaofferedhim50%oftherecoverableamountinthecaseifheresolvesthe
lattersmotionfavorably.10Atty.DeloriasconductallegedlyviolatesthepreviouslycitedcanonsoftheCode,Canon13, 11
Rule15.06,12Canon15oftheCode,Art.212oftheRevisedPenalCode,theAttorneysOathofOfficeandArt.19ofthe
CivilCode.
VillanuevaalsoallegesthatAtty.DeloriausedhisinfluenceasformerCommissioneroftheHLURBtopersuadeAtty.
Alfereztoimposeinterestbasedoncommercial ratesinsteadoftheinterest ratefixedinResolutionNo.R421 13 and
MemorandumCircularNo.19,14 bothofwhichprovideauniformrateofinterestindecisionsinvolvingrefunds.Atty.
DeloriaalsoallegedlyusedhisconnectionsintheHLURBtopreventVillanuevafromreleasinganOrderdenyingthe
formersmotionandtoprevailupontheagencysLegalServicesGrouptointerprettheterm"commercialrateofinterest"in
awaythatisfavorabletohisclientscase,againinviolationoftheCode.15
Further,VillanuevaclaimsthatAtty.Deloriaassistedhisclientinfilinganunfoundedcriminalcaseagainsthimbeforethe
OfficeoftheOmbudsmanwiththepurposeofgettingevenwithVillanuevafordenyingtheirmotion.Whenhisclient
pursuedthiscourseofaction,Atty.DeloriaallegedlyshouldhavewithdrawnhisservicesinaccordancewithRule22.01, 16
Canon22oftheCode.
In his Comment17 dated September 22, 2000, Atty. Deloria denies any wrongdoing and sought the dismissal of the
Complaintforlackofmerit.HeaversthattherefusaloftheEstateofJaimeGonzalestopaytheintereststipulatedinthe
decisionisevidentfromthevariousmotionsithasfiled.Ontheallegedcomminglingofhisfundswiththoseofhisclients,
Atty.DeloriaclaimsthatthespousesDeGraciarequestedhimtoadvancetheamountintendedforconsignationasthey
werethenonvacationintheUnitedStates.HealsomaintainsthathedidnotexertanyinfluenceontheHLURBtorulein
hisclientsfavor,addingthatthedraftorderwhichhefiledinthecaseisrequiredundertherulesoftheagency.
Atty.DeloriacountersthatitisVillanuevawhohasexhibitedpartialityinfavoroftheEstateofJaimeGonzalesbyfailingto
ruleonthemotionsforclarificationfiledbythelatter,therebyforcingthespousesDeGraciatowaitforaninordinately
longtimeforthedecisionintheirfavortobefullyimplemented.
Villanueva,inhisReply18 datedNovember10,2000,contendsthathewouldhavebeenindictedbytheOfficeofthe
OmbudsmanifitweretruethathisOrderinthecasewasmotivatedbybiasandpartialityinfavoroftheEstateofJaime
Gonzales.
In a Resolution19 dated February 19, 2001, we referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation,reportandrecommendation.
InvestigatingCommissionerRenato G.CunanansubmittedaReport 20 datedSeptember29,2005,findingmerit inthe
ComplaintandrecommendingthatAtty.Deloriabesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawfortwo(2)yearsand/orbefinedin
theamountofP20,000.00.ThisrecommendationwasannulledandsetasidebytheIBPinitsResolutionNo.XVII2006
279datedMay26,2006.Thecasewasinsteaddismissedforlackofmerit.

ThereportandrecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissionerappearstobebasedsolelyontheRolloofthecase
whichtheCourtsenttotheIBPpursuanttotheResolutiondatedFebruary19,2001.TheInvestigatingCommissionerdid
notconductanyhearingtodeterminetheveracityoftheallegationsinVillanuevasComplaintandthetruthfulnessofAtty.
Deloriasanswersthereto.
Aformalinvestigationisamandatoryrequirementwhichmaynotbedispensedwithexceptforvalidandcompelling
reasons.21InBaldomarv.Paras,22weheld:
ComplaintsagainstlawyersformisconductarenormallyaddressedtotheCourt.If,attheoutset,theCourtfindsacomplaint
tobeclearlywantinginmerit,itoutrightlydismissesthecase.If,however,theCourtdeemsitnecessarythatfurtherinquiry
shouldbemade,suchaswhenthemattercouldnotberesolvedbymerelyevaluatingthepleadingssubmitted,areferralis
madetotheIBPforaformalinvestigationofthecaseduringwhichthepartiesareaccordedanopportunitytobeheard.An
exparteinvestigationmayonlybeconductedwhenrespondentfailstoappeardespitereasonablenotice.xxx
Rule139BoftheRulesofCourtprovidestheprocedureforinvestigationindisbarmentanddisciplinaryproceedings
againstattorneysbeforetheIBP,thus:
Sec.8. Investigation.Uponjoinder ofissuesoruponfailureoftherespondenttoanswer,theInvestigatorshall,with
deliberatespeed,proceedwiththeinvestigationofthecase.Heshallhavethepowertoissuesubpoenasandadminister
oaths.Therespondentshallbegivenfullopportunitytodefendhimself,topresentwitnessesonhisbehalf,andbeheardby
himselfandcounsel.However,ifuponreasonablenotice,therespondentfailstoappear,theinvestigationshallproceed ex
parte.
TheInvestigatorshallterminatetheinvestigationwithinthree(3)monthsfrom thedateofitscommencement,unless
extendedforgoodcausebytheBoardofGovernorsuponpriorapplication.
WillfulfailureorrefusaltoobeyasubpoenaoranyotherlawfulorderissuedbytheInvestigatorshallbedealtwithasfor
indirectcontemptofcourt.ThecorrespondingchargeshallbefiledbytheInvestigatorbeforetheIBPBoardofGovernors
whichshallrequiretheallegedcontemnortoshowcausewithinten(10)daysfromnotice.TheIBPBoardofGovernors
maythereafterconducthearings,ifnecessary,inaccordancewiththeproceduresetforthinthisRuleforhearingsbeforethe
Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement.
Thereafter,theIBPBaordofGovernorsshallwithinalikeperiodoffifteen(15)daysissuearesolutionsettingforthits
findingsandrecommendations,whichshallforthwithbetransmittedtotheSupremeCourtforfinalactionandifwarranted,
theimpositionofpenalty.
Wefindthatdueobservanceoftheforegoingrulesisnecessaryfortheproperresolutionofthiscase.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative case is REMANDED to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further
proceedings.TheIBPisalsodirectedtoactonthisreferralwithdeliberatedispatch.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.4215May21,2001
FELICISIMOM.MONTANO,complainant,
vs.
INTEGRATEDBAROFTHEPHILIPPINESandAtty.JUANS.DEALCA,respondents.
KAPUNAN,J.:
InaverifiedcomplaintfiledbeforethisCourtonMarch9,1994,complaintFelicisimoM.MontanochargedAtty.Juan
Dealca with misconduct and prays that he be "sternly dealt with administratively." The complaint 1 is summarized as
follows:

1.OnNovember14,1992,thecomplainanthiredtheservicesofAtty.JuanS.Dealcaashiscounselincollaborationwith
Atty.RonandoL.GeronainacasependingbeforetheCourtofAppealsdocketedasCAG.R.CVNo.3767whereinthe
complainantwastheplaintiffappellant.
2.Thepartiesagreeduponattorney'sfeesintheamountofP15,000.00fiftypercent(50%)ofwhichwaspayableupon
acceptance of the case and the remaining balance upon the termination of the case. Accordingly, complainant paid
respondenttheamountofP7,500.00representing50%oftheattorney'sfee.
3.Thereafter,evenbeforerespondentcounselhadpreparedtheappellant'sbriefandcontrarytotheiragreementthatthe
remaining balance be payable after the termination of the case, Atty. Dealca demanded an additional payment from
complainantobligedbypayingtheamountofP4,000.00.
4.Priortothefilingoftheappellant'sbrief,respondentcounselagaindemandedpaymentoftheremainingbalanceof
P3,500.00.Whencomplainantwasunabletodoso,respondentlawyerwithdrawhisappearanceascomplainant'scounsel
withouthispriorknowledgeand/orconformity.Returningthecasefoldertothecomplainant,respondentcounselattacheda
NotedatedFebruary28,1993,2stating:
28February1994
PepeandDelMontano,
Forbreakingyourpromise,sinceyoudonotwanttofulfillyourendofthebargain,here'syourreward:
Henceforth,youlawyerforyourselves.Hereareyourpapers.
Johnny
Complainantclaimedthatsuchconductbyrespondentcounselexceededtheethicalstandardsofthelawprofessionand
praysthatthelatterbesternlydealtwithadministratively.Complainantlateronfiledmotionsprayingfortheimpositionof
themaximumpenaltyofdisbarment.
Afterrespondentcounselfiledhiscommentonthecomplaint,theCourtintheResolutionofAugust1,1994,referredthe
caseoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)forinvestigation,reportandrecommendation.
TheInvestigatingCommissionerfoundrespondentcounselguiltyofunprofessionalconductandrecommendedthathebe
"severelyreprimanded."However,inaResolution3bytheIBPBoardofGovernorsonJuly26,1997,itwasresolvedthat
the penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner meted to respondent be amended to "three (3) months
suspensionfromthepracticeoflawforhavingbeenfoundguiltyofmisconduct,whicherodedthepublicconfidence
regardinghisdutyasalawyer."
Respondent counsel sought reconsideration of the aforementioned resolution of the IBP, alleging that the latter
misapprehendedthefactsandthat,inanycase,hedidnotdeservethepenaltyimposed.Thetruefacts,accordingtohim,are
thefollowing.
1.ComplainantisbeingrepresentedbyAtty.RonandoL.Geronainhiscaseonappeal;
2.DuetotheailmentofAtty.Gerona'sdaughter,hecouldnotprepareandsubmitcomplainant'sappellant'sbriefontime;
3.Complainantwentotherespondenttodojustthat,i.e.,prepareandsubmithisappellant'sbriefontimeattheagreedfee
ofP15,000.00,50%downand50%uponitscompletion;
4.Workingovertime,respondentwasabletofinishtheappellant'sbriefaheadofitsdeadline,soheadvisedthecomplainant
aboutitscompletionwiththerequestthattheremainingbalanceofP7,500.00bepaid.ComplainantpaidP4,000.00only,
promisingtopaytheP3,500.00"tomorrow"oron"laterparticulardate."Pleasetakenotethat,atthisjuncture,therewas
alreadyabreachoftheagreementoncomplainant'spart.
5.Whenthat"tomorrow"orona"laterparticulardate"came,respondent,thruamessenger,requestedthecomplainantto
paytheP3,500.00aspromisedbutwordwassentthathewillagainpay"tomorrow"orona"laterdate."Thispromisenon

paymentcyclewentonrepeatedlyuntilthelastdayofthefilingofthebrief.Pleasetakenoteagainthatitwasnotthe
respondentbutthecomplainantwhosetsthedatewhenhewillpay,yethefailstopayaspromised;
6.Evenwithoutbeingpaidcompletely,respondent,ofhisownfreewillandaccord,filedcomplainant'sbriefontime;
7.Afterthebriefwasfiled,respondenttriedtocollectfromthecomplainanttheremainingbalanceofP3,500.00,butthe
lattermadehimselfscare.Astherecordswouldshow,suchP3,500.00remainsunpaiduntilnow;
8.Sensingthatsomethingwasamiss,respondentsenttheFebruary28,1993noteandcasefoldertothecomplainant,hoping
thatthelatterwouldseepersonallytheformeraboutittosettlethematterbetweenthem;
9.However,insteadofseeingtherespondent,complainantfiledthiscase;
10.RespondentwasconstrainedtofilehiswithdrawalwiththeCourtofAppealsbecauseofthiscasetoavoidfurther
misunderstandingsincehewastheonewhosignedtheappellant'sbriefalthoughAtty.Geronawashiscounselofrecord.
Suchwithdrawalwasaccordinglygrantedbytheappellatecourt;
xxxxxxxxx.4
Respondent counsel further averred that complainant's refusal to pay the agreed lawyer's fees, measly as it was, was
deliberateandinbadfaith;hence,hiswithdrawalascounselwas"just,ethicalandproper."Respondentcounselconcluded
thatnotonlywasthepenaltyofsuspensionharshforhisactofmerelytryingtocollectpaymentforhisservicesrendered,
butitindirectlywouldpunishhisfamilysincehewasthesolebreadwinnerwithchildreninschoolandhiswifeterminally
illwithcancer.
InitsResolutionNo.XIII97129datedOctober25,1997,theIBPdeniedAtty.Dealca'smotionforreconsideration,towit:
xxx
RESOLVEDTODENYAtty.Dealca'sMotionForReconsiderationoftheBoard'sDecisionintheaboveentitledcasethere
beingnosubstantivereasontoreversethefindingtherein.Moreover,themotionisimproperlylaidtheremedyofthe
respondentistofiletheappropriatepleadingwiththeSupremeCourtwithinfifteen(15)daysfromreceiptofnoticeofsaid
DecisionpursuanttoSec.12[c]ofRule139B.5
OnDecember10,1997,thisCourtnotedthefollowingpleadingsfiledinthepresentcomplaint,
(a)noticeandacopyofResolutionNo.XII97154datedJuly26,1997oftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesamending
therecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissionerofreprimandtothree(3)monthssuspensionofrespondentfromthe
practiceoflawforhavingbeenfoundguiltyofmisconductwhicherodedthepublicconfidenceregardinghisdutyasa
lawyer;
(a)complainant'smotionprayingfortheimpositionofthemaximumpenaltyofdisbarment;
(b)motiondatedSeptember15,1997ofrespondentforreconsiderationoftheaforesaidresolutionofJuly26,1997;
(c)comment/oppositionofrespondentprayingthatthemotionfortheimpositionofthemaximumpenaltybedenied;
(d) comment of complainant praying that the penalty of three (3) months suspension from the practice of law as
recommendedbytheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinespursuanttoresolutionNo.XII97154beraisedtoaheavierpenalty;
(e)comment/manifestation/oppositionofcomplainantprayingthattherespondentbedisbarred;and
(g)rejoinderofrespondentprayingthatthiscasebedismissedforbeingbaseless. 6
andreferredthesametotheIBPforevaluationandreport.

Incompliancetherewith,onMarch28,1998,theIBPissuedResolutionNo.XIII9842referringtheaboveentitledcaseto
CommissionerVibarforevaluation,reportandrecommendation"inviewoftheMotionforReconsiderationgrantedbythe
SupremeCourt."
TheInvestigatingCommissioner,afterreferringthecase,recommendedthathisoriginalrecommendationoftheimposition
ofthepenaltyofreprimandbemaintained,notingthatrespondentcounselhadservedtheIBPwellasPresidentofthe
SorsogonChapter.7Accordingly,onFebruary23,1999,theIBPBoardofGovernors,issuedthefollowingresolution:
RESOLUTIONNO.XIII9948
xxx
RESOLVEDtoADOPTandAPPROVE,asitisherebyADOPTEDandAPPROVED,theReportandRecommendationof
theInvestigatingCommissionerintheaboveentitledcase,hereinmadepartofthisResolution/DecisionasAnnex"A";and,
findingtherecommendationfullysupportedbytheevidenceonrecordandtheapplicablelawsandrules,theMotionfor
ReconsiderationbegrantedandthatthepenaltyofREPRIMANDearlierrecommendedbytheInvestigatingCommissioner
beimposedonAtty.JuanS.Dealca.8
ComplainantaskedtheIBPtoreconsidertheforegoingresolutionbutthemotionwasdenied.9
OnApril10,2000,complainantfiledwiththisCourtapetitionforreviewoncertiorariinconnectionwithAdministrative
CaseNo.4215againsttheIBPandrespondentcounselaverringthattheIBPBoardofGovernorscommittedgraveabuseof
discretionwhenitoverturneditsearlierresolutionandgrantedrespondentcounsel'smotionforreconsiderationonFebruary
23,1999.HeclaimedthattheearlierresolutiondenyingthemotionforreconsiderationissuedonOctober25,1997had
alreadybecomefinalandexecutory;hence,anyfurtheractionormotionsubsequenttosuchfinalandexecutoryjudgment
shallbenullandvoid.
WhentheCourtissuedtheresolutionofDecember10,1997treatingtheseveralpleadingsfiledinthepresentcomplaint,it
shouldbenotedthattheIBPresolutiondenyingrespondent'smotionforreconsideration(ResolutionNo.XIII97129)dated
October25,1997,forsomereason,hadnotyetreachedthisCourt.Asofthatdate,theonlyIBPresolutionattachedtothe
recordsofthecasewasResolutionNo.XII9754amendingtheadministrativesanctionfromreprimandtothreemonths
suspension.Hence,atthetimethepleadingswerereferredbacktotheIBPinthesameresolution,theCourtwasnotaware
thattheIBPhadalreadydisposedofthemotionforreconsiderationfiledbyrespondentcounsel.
Thus,whentheIBPwasinformedofthesaidCourtresolution,itconstruedthesameasgrantingAtty.Dealca'smotionfor
reconsiderationandasanorderforIBPtoconductareevaluationofthecase.TheIBPassumedthatitsresolutionof
October25,1997wasalreadyconsideredbythisCourtwhenitreferredthecasebacktotheIBP.Itfailedtonoticethatits
resolutiondenyingthemotionforreconsiderationwasnotamongthosepleadingsandresolutionreferredbacktoit.
Hence,onthestrengthofthisCourt'sresolutionwhichithadinadvertentlymisconstrued,theIBPconductedareevaluation
ofthecaseandcameupwiththeassailedresolutionnowsoughttobereversed.TheCourtholdsthattheerrorisnot
attributabletotheIBP.Itisregrettablethattheproceduralinfirmityallegedbycomplainantactuallyarosefromamere
oversightwhichwasattributabletoneitherparty.
Goingintothemerits,weaffirmthefindingsmadebytheIBPthatcomplainantengagedtheservicesofrespondentlawyer
onlyforthepreparationandsubmissionoftheappellant'sbriefandtheattorney'sfeeswaspayableuponthecompletionand
submissionoftheappellant'sbriefandnotupontheterminationofthecase.
There is sufficient evidence which indicates complainant's willingness to pay the attorney's fees. AS agreed upon,
complainantpaidhalfofthefeesintheamountofP7,500.00uponacceptanceofthecase.Andwhiletheremainingbalance
wasnotyetdueasitwasagreedtobepaidonlyuponthecompletionandsubmissionofthebrief,complainantnonetheless
delivered to respondent lawyer P4,000.00 as the latter demanded. This, notwithstanding, Atty. Dealca withdrew his
appearancesimplybecauseofcomplainant'sfailuretopaytheremainingbalanceofP3,500.00whichdoesnotappeartobe
deliberate.Thesituationwasaggravatedbyrespondentcounsel'snotetocomplainantwithdrawingascounselwhichwas
couchedinimpoliteandinsultinglanguage.10

Giventheabovecircumstances,wasAtty.Dealca'sconductjustandproper?
We find Atty. Dealca's conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Under Canon 22 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility,alawyershallwithdrawhisservicesonlyforgoodcauseanduponnoticeappropriateinthe
circumstances.Althoughhemaywithdrawhisserviceswhentheclientdeliberatelyfailstopaythefeesfortheservices, 11
underthecircumstancesofthepresentcase,Atty.Dealca'swithdrawalwasunjustifiedascomplainantdidnotdeliberately
fail to pay him the attorney's fees. In fact, complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation. Respondent's
contemptuousconductdoesnotspeakwellofamemberofthebarconsideringthattheamountowingtohimwasonly
P3,500.00. rule 20.4 of Canon 20, mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensationandshallresorttojudicialactiononlytopreventimposition,injusticeorfraud.Sadly,fornotsolargeasum
owedtohimbycomplainant,respondentlawyerfailedtoactinaccordancewiththedemandsoftheCode.
TheCourt,however,doesnotagreewithcomplainant'scontentionthatthemaximumpenaltyofdisbarmentshouldbe
imposed on respondent lawyer. The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of
misconductthatseriouslyaffectsthestandingandcharacterofthelawyerasanofficeroftheCourtandmemberofthebar
willdisbarmentbeimposedasapenalty.Itshouldneverbedecreedwherealesserpenalty,suchastemporarysuspension,
wouldaccomplishtheenddesired.12Inthepresentcase,reprimandisdeemedsufficient.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,respondentAtty.JuanS.Dealcais REPRIMANDED withawarningthat
repetitionofthesameactwillbedealtwithmoreseverely.1wphi1.nt
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.3773September24,1997
ANGELITAC.ORCINO,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.JOSUEGASPAR,respondent.

PUNO,J.:
OnJune14,1992,complainantAngelitaC.OrcinofiledwiththisCourtalettercomplaintdatedDecember10,1991against
respondentAtty.JosueGaspar,herformercounsel.ComplainantprayedthatthisCourtimposedisciplinarysanctionson
respondentforabandoninghisdutiesandforfailingtoreturnthelegalfeesshefullypaidforhisservices.
Thecomplaintarosefromthefollowingfacts:Complainantengagedtheservicesofrespondenttoprosecuteacriminalcase
sheintendedtofileagainstseveralsuspectsintheslayingofherhusband.Inconsiderationthereof,complainantbound
herselftopayrespondentlegalfeesofP20,000.00P10,000.00tobepaiduponsigningofthecontractandthebalanceto
bepaidonorbeforetheconclusionofthecase.ComplainantwasalsotopayP500.00perappearanceofrespondentbefore
thecourtandfiscal.ThisagreementwasembodiedinacontractexecutedonFebruary22,1991.1
In accordance with the contract, complainant paid respondent the sum of P5,000.00 on February 25, 1991, 2 another
P5,000.00onMarch31,1991,3andP10,000.00onMay21,1991,4foratotalofP20,000.00.
Forthwith,respondententeredintohisduties.Heinterviewedwitnessesandgatheredevidencetobuildacaseagainstthe
suspects.Hedrewupthenecessaryswornstatementsanddutifullyattendedthepreliminaryinvestigation.Thecasewas
thereafterfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Branch37,Baloc,Sto.Domingo,NuevaEcija. 5
As private prosecutor, respondent religiously attended the bail hearings for the accused although these hearings were
postponedonmotionoftheaccused'scounsel.RespondenthoweverfailedtoattendthehearingscheduledinAugust1991.
Itwasatthisnearingthatthecourt,overcomplainant'sobjections,grantedbailtoalltheaccused.Afterthehearing,

complainantimmediatelywenttorespondent'sresidenceandconfrontedhimwithhisabsence. 6Respondentexplainedthat
hedidnotreceiveformalnoticeofthehearing. 7Complainantbecamebelligerentandstartedaccusinghimofjeopardizing
thecasebyhisabsence.Respondentsaidthathersuspicionswerebasedonrumorsandintriguesfedtoherbyherrelatives. 8
Complainant,however,continuedaccusinghimbelligerently.Sheaskedfortherecordsofthecasesayingthatshecould
referthemtoanotherlawyer.Stungbyherwords,respondentgavehertherecords.9
Complainantneverreturnedtherecordsnordidsheseerespondent.OnSeptember18,1991,respondentfiledbeforethe
trialcourta"MotiontoWithdrawasCounsel."10Themotiondidnotbeartheconsentofcomplainant.
OnOctober23,1991,thecourtissuedanorderdirectingrespondenttosecurecomplainant'sconsenttothemotion"andhis
appearanceasprivateprosecutorshallcontinueuntilhehassecuredthisconsent."11
Complainantrefusedtosignherconformitytorespondent'swithdrawal. 12 Meanwhile,thehearingsinthecriminalcase
continued.Respondentdidnotappearatthehearingsnordidhecontactcomplainant.Complainantwasthuscompelledto
engagetheservicesofanotherlawyer.Hence,thelettercomplaint.
WereferredthelettercomplainttotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,CommissiononBarDiscipline,forinvestigation,
reportandrecommendation.
Theruleinthisjurisdictionisthataclienthastheabsoluterighttoterminatetheattorneyclientrelationatanytimewithor
withoutcause.13Therightofanattorneytowithdraworterminatetherelationotherthanforsufficientcauseis,however,
considerablyrestricted.14Amongthefundamentalrulesofethicsistheprinciplethatanattorneywhoundertakestoconduct
anactionimpliedlystipulatestocarryittoitsconclusion. 15Heisnotatlibertytoabandonitwithoutreasonablecause. 16A
lawyer'srighttowithdrawfromacasebeforeitsfinaladjudicationarisesonlyfromtheclient'swrittenconsentorfroma
goodcause.17
Section26ofRule138oftheRevisedRulesofCourtprovides:
Sec.26.ChangeofattorneysAnattorneymayretireatanytimefromanyactionorspecialproceeding,bythewritten
consentofhisclientfiledincourt.Hemayalsoretireatanytimefromanactionorspecialproceeding,withouttheconsent
ofhisclient,shouldthecourt,onnoticetotheclientandattorney,andonhearing,determinethatheoughttobeallowedto
retire.Incaseofsubstitution,thenameoftheattorneynewlyemployedshallbeenteredonthedocketofthecourtinplace
oftheformerone,andwrittennoticeofthechangeshallbegiventotheadverseparty.
xxxxxxxxx
Alawyermayretireatanytimefromanyactionspecialproceedingwiththewrittenconsentofhisclientfiledincourtand
copythereofservedupontheadverseparty.Shouldtheclientrefusetogivehisconsent,thelawyermustfileanapplication
withthecourt.Thecourt,onnoticetotheclientandadverseparty,shalldeterminewhetherheoughttobeallowedtoretire.
Theapplicationforwithdrawalmustbebasedonagoodcause.18
In the instant case, complainant did not give her written consent to respondent's withdrawal. The court thus ordered
respondent to secure this consent. Respondent allegedly informed the court that complainant had become hostile and
refusedtosignhismotion.19He,however,didnotfileanapplicationwiththecourtforittodeterminewhetherheshouldbe
allowedtowithdraw.
Grantingthatrespondent'smotionwithoutcomplainant'sconsentwasanapplicationforwithdrawalwiththecourt,wefind
thatthisreasonisinsufficienttojustifyhiswithdrawalfromthecase.Respondent'swithdrawalwasmadeonthegroundthat
"therenolongerexist[ed]the...confidence"betweenthemandthattherehadbeen"seriousdifferencesbetweenthem
relatingtothemannerofprivateprosecution."20
Rule22.01ofCanon22oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityprovides:
CANON22ALAWYERSHALLWITHDRAWHISSERVICESONLYFORGOODCAUSEANDUPONNOTICE
APPROPRIATEINTHECIRCUMSTANCES.

Rule22.01Alawyermaywithdrawhisservicesinanyofthefollowingcases:
a)Whentheclientpursuesanillegalorimmoralcourseofconductinconnectionwiththematterheishandling;
b)Whentheclientinsiststhatthelawyerpursueconductviolativeofthesecanonsandrules;
c)Whenhisinabilitytoworkwithcocounselwillnotpromotethebestinterestoftheclient;
d)Whenthementalorphysicalconditionofthelawyerrendersitdifficultforhimtocarryouttheemploymenteffectively;
e)Whentheclientdeliberatelyfailstopaythefeesfortheservicesorfailstocomplywiththeretaineragreement;
f)Whenthelawyeriselectedorappointedtopublicoffice;and
g)Othersimilarcases.
Alawyermaywithdrawhisservicesfromhisclientonlyinthefollowinginstances:(a)whenaclientinsistsuponanunjust
or immoral conduct of his case; (b) when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility;(c)whentheclienthastwoormoreretainedlawyersandthelawyerscouldnotgetalongtothe
detrimentofthecase;(d)whenthementalorphysicalconditionofthelawyermakeshimincapableofhandlingthecase
effectively;(e)whentheclientdeliberatelyfailstopaytheattorney'sfeesagreedupon;(f)whenthelawyeriselectedor
appointedtopublicoffice;(g)othersimilarcases.
Theinstantcasedoesnotfallunderanyofthegroundsmentioned.Neithercanthisbeconsideredanalogoustothegrounds
enumerated.AsfoundbytheCommissiononBarDiscipline,thiscasearosefromasimplemisunderstandingbetween
complainantandrespondent.Complainantwasupsetbyrespondent'sabsenceatthehearingwherebailwasgrantedtothe
suspectedkillersofherhusband.Shevehementlyopposedthegrantofbail.Itwasthusaspontaneousandnaturalreaction
for her to confront respondent with his absence. Her belligerence arose from her overzealousness, nothing more.
Complainant'swordsandactionsmayhavehurtrespondent'sfeelingsconsideringtheworkhehadputintothecase.Buther
wordswereutteredinaburstofpassion.Andevenatthatmoment,complainantdidnotexpresslyterminaterespondent's
services.Shemadethisclearwhensherefusedtosignhis"MotiontoWithdrawasCounsel."
Assuming,nevertheless,thatrespondentwasjustifiedinterminatinghisservices,he,however,cannotjustdosoandleave
complainantinthecoldunprotected.Thelawyerhasnorighttopresumethathispetitionforwithdrawalwillbegrantedby
thecourt. 21Untilhiswithdrawalshallhavebeenapproved,thelawyerremainscounselofrecordwhoisexpectedbyhis
clientaswellasbythecourttodowhattheinterestsofhisclientrequire. 22Hemuststillappearonthedateofhearing 23for
theattorneyclientrelationdoesnotterminateformallyuntilthereisawithdrawalofrecord. 24
Respondentexpresslyboundhimselfunderthecontracttobringthecriminalcasetoitstermination.Hewasinfactpaidin
fullforhisservices.Respondentfailedtocomplywithhisundertaking,hence,itisbutfairthathereturntocomplainanthalf
oftheamountpaidhim.Thepeculiarcircumstancesofthecasehaverendereditimpossibleforrespondentandcomplainant
tocontinuetheirrelationunderthecontract.
INVIEWWHEREOF,respondentisadmonishedtoexercisemoreprudenceandjudiciousnessindealingwithhisclients.
He is also ordered to return to complainant within fifteen (15) days from notice the amount of ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00)representingaportionofhislegalfeesreceivedfromthelatterwithawarningthatfailureonhisparttodoso
willresultintheimpositionofstifferdisciplinaryaction.
SOORDERED.
A.C.No.6166October2,2009
MARIAEARLBEVERLYC.CENIZA,Complainant,
vs.

ATTY.VIVIANG.RUBIA,Respondent.
DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
Inaverifiedcomplaint1 datedJuly25,2003filedwiththeOfficeoftheBarConfidant,MariaEarlBeverlyC.Ceniza
chargedAtty.VivianG.Rubiawithgravemisconduct,grossignoranceofthelawandfalsificationofpublicdocuments.
Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows:
OnMay3,2002,complainantsoughtthelegalservicesoftherespondentinregardtotheshareofhermotherinlawinthe
estateofherhusbandCarlosCeniza.Asshehadnomoneytopayforattorneysfeessincehermotherinlawwouldarrive
fromtheUnitedStatesonlyinJune2002,respondentmadehersignapromissorynoteforP32,000.00,whichamountwas
lentbyDomingoNatavio.Afterhermotherinlawarrivedandpaidtheloan,respondentfurnishedthemacopyofthe
complaintforpartitionandrecoveryofownership/possessionrepresentinglegitimebutwithnodocketnumberonit.They
keptonfollowinguptheprogressofthecomplaint.However,threemonthslapsedbeforerespondentinformedthemthatit
wasalreadyfiledincourt.Itwasthenthattheyreceivedacopyofthecomplaintwith"CivilCaseNo.4198"andarubber
stamped"RECEIVED"thereon.However,whencomplainantverifiedthestatusofthecasewiththeClerkofCourtofthe
RegionalTrialCourtofDavaodelSur,shewasinformedthatnocasewithsaidtitleanddocketnumberwasfiled. 2
Further,complainantallegedthatrespondentwasguiltyofgrossignoranceofthelawforintendingtofilethecomplaintin
DavaodelSurwhenthepropertiestoberecoveredwerelocatedinKoronadal,SouthCotabatoandMalungon,Sarangani
Province,inviolationoftheruleonvenuethatrealactionsshallbefiledintheplacewherethepropertyissituated.
Complainantalsoallegedthatrespondentforgedthesignatureofherhusband,CarlitoC.Ceniza,intheAffidavitofLoss
attachedtoapetitionfortheissuanceofanewownersduplicatecertificateoftitlefiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt
(RTC)ofDigosCity,Branch20,inMisc.CaseNo.1142202.3
In her comment, respondent assailed the personality of the complainant to institute the administrative complaint for
disbarmentasshewasnotapartytotheactionforpartitionandrecoveryofownership/possession.Assuch,herallegations
intheadministrativecomplaintwereallhearsay,selfservingandunsubstantiated.Further,thechargeofforgeryofthe
AffidavitofLosswasbeliedbytheMarch3,2003decisionofthetrialcourt,whereinCarlitoC.Cenizaaffirmedhis
statementsinthesaidaffidavitwhenhewascalledtotestify.4
OnFebruary2,2004,theCourtresolvedtoreferthecasetotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)forinvestigation,
reportandrecommendation.
On April 29, 2004, respondent filed a Supplemental Comment explaining the rubber stamped "RECEIVED" on the
complaint.Accordingtoher,whenherstaffJanKirtLesterSoledadwasattheRTCOfficeoftheClerkofCourt,shecalled
himthroughcellularphoneanddirectedhimtostopthefilingofthecomplaintasthesamelackedcertainattachments.
However,onecopythereofwasalreadystamped"RECEIVED"bythereceivingcourtpersonnel,whoalsoassigneda
docket number. She kept the copies of the complaint, including the one with the stamp, to be filed later when the
attachmentsarecomplete.
Meanwhile,onNovember7,2005,respondentfiledaManifestationwithUrgentMotionprayingthattheadministrative
complaintbelikewisedismissedinviewofthedismissalofthecriminalcaseduetocomplainantsapparentlackofinterest
toprosecute.
OnJanuary19,2007,theIBPInvestigatingCommissionerrecommendedthatrespondentbefoundguiltyoffalsificationof
publicdocumentandbemetedthepenaltyofsuspensionfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofthreeyears.Thereport
readsinpart,asfollows:
Aproceedingforsuspensionordisbarmentisnotinanysenseacivilaction,wherethecomplainantisaplaintiffandthe
respondentlawyerisadefendant.Itinvolvednoprivateinterest.Thecomplainantorpersonwhocalledtheattentionofthe
courttotheattorneysmisconductisinnosenseapartyandhasgenerallynointerestinitsoutcomeexceptasallgood

citizensmayhaveintheproperadministrationofjustice.Itaffordsnoredressforprivategrievance.(Tejanv.Cusi,57
SCRA154)
Prescindingfromtheaforequotedruling,itisthereforeirrelevantandimmaterialifhereincomplainantisnotapartytothe
subjectcivilcomplaintpreparedbytherespondent.Acaseofsuspensionordisbarmentmayproceedregardlessofinterest
orlackofinterestofthecomplainant.Whatmattersiswhetheronthebasisofthefactsborneoutbytherecord,thecharge
hasbeenproven.
OnthepaymentoftheacceptancefeeintheamountofP32,000.00,respondentscontentionthatsheactedasguarantorof
CarlosCeniza,complainantshusband,whenheborrowedmoneyfromamoneylender,DomingoNatavio,theamount
representingtheacceptance,doesnotinspirebelief.ThepromissorynotedatedMay3,2002,appendedasAnnex"A"ofthe
complaintaffidavit eloquently shows that consistent with the complainants allegation, she was made to borrow said
amounttobepaidasrespondentsacceptancefee.Itbearsstressthatthedateofthepromissorynoteisthesamedatewhen
respondentsserviceswereengagedleadingtothepreparationofthesubjectcivilcomplaint.Complainantsallegationis
furtherenhancedbythefactthatsuchpromissorynotewasevennotarizedbytherespondent.
Ontheallegedfilingofthesubjectcivilcomplaint,itisundisputedthatthesamewasnotfiledbeforetheOfficeoftheClerk
of Court, RTC Davao Del Sur, as evidenced by a Certification from the said office appended as Annex "A" of
complainantsManifestationdatedOctober14,2005.Thus,theclaimofcomplainantthatrespondentfalsifiedorcausedit
tofalsifythestampmarkedreceiveddatedMay10,2002includingthecasenumber"4198",findsfactualandlegalbases.
Itbearsstressthatacopyofthesubjectcivilcomplaintwasobtainedbycomplainantfromtherespondentherselfwhotried
toimpressupontheformerthatcontrarytohersuspicion,thesubjectcivilcomplaintwasalreadyfiledincourt.However,
inquirymadebythecomplainantshowsotherwise.
Respondentscontentionthatafteronecopyofthecomplaintwasalreadystampedbycourtpersonnelinpreparationfor
receivingthesameandenteringinthecourtsdocket,shecausedittobewithdrawnafterrealizingthatthesamelacked
certainattachments,isbereftofmerit.
Inthefirstplace,respondentmiserablyfailedtomentiontheselackingattachmentsthatallegedlycausedthewithdrawalof
thecomplaint.Secondly,andassumingarguendothatthewithdrawalwasduetolackingattachments,howcomethesame
wasnotfiledinthenextofficedaycompletewithattachments.Andlastly,theCertificationoftheClerkofCourtclearly
statesthatCivilCaseNo.4188isnotthecaseofMercedesCallejovda.DeCeniza,etal.vs.CharlotteCeniza,etal.
xxxx
ThefactthattheCityProsecutorsOfficeofDigos,uponmotionforreconsiderationoftherespondent,dismissedasimilar
complaintfiledbyhereincomplainantwillnotinanywayaffecttheabovecaptionedadministrativecomplaint.
Thependencyofacriminalactionagainsttherespondent,fromthefactsofwhichthedisciplinaryproceedingispredicated,
doesnotposeprejudicialquestiontotheresolutionoftheissuesinthedisbarmentcase.(Calovs.Degano,20SCRA447)
Hisconvictionisnotnecessarytoholdthelawyeradministrativelyliablebecausethetwoproceedingsandtheirobjectives
aredifferentanditisnotsoundpublicpolicytoawaitthefinalresolutionofacriminalcasebeforethecourtactona
complaintagainstalawyerasitmayemasculatethedisciplinarypowerofthecourt.(InreBrillantes,76SCRA1)Norishis
acquittal,bythisfactalone,abartoanadministrativecomplaintagainsthim.(Piattvs.Abordo,58Phil.350).
Theotherallegationsinthecomplaintaboutignoranceofthelawarefoundtobewithoutbasis.
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREFORE,itismostrespectfullyrecommendedthathereinrespondentAtty.VivianC.Rubia,befoundguiltyofthe
chargeoffalsificationofpublicdocumentandbemetedthepenaltyofsuspensionfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodof
three(3)years.
OnMay31,2007,theBoardofGovernorsoftheIBPissuedaResolutionadoptingtheInvestigatingCommissioners
recommendationwithmodification,asfollows:

RESOLUTIONNO.XVII2007237
Adm.CaseNo.6166
MariaEarlBeverlyC.Cenizavs.
Atty.VivianG.Rubia
RESOLVEDtoADOPTandAPPROVE,asitisherebyADOPTEDandAPPROVED,withmodification,theReportand
RecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissioneroftheaboveentitledcase,hereinmadepartofthisResolutionas
Annex"A";andfindingtherecommendationfullysupportedbytheevidenceonrecordandtheapplicablelawsandrules,
andconsideringRespondentsfalsificationofpublicdocument,Atty.VivianG.RubiaisherebyDISBARRED.
However,initsDecember11,2008Resolution,theBoardofGovernorsreconsidereditsMay31,2007Resolutionby
reducingtherecommendedpenaltyofdisbarmenttofiveyearssuspensionfromthepracticeoflaw,thus:
RESOLUTIONNO.XVIII2008715
Adm.CaseNo.6166
MariaEarlBeverlyC.Cenizavs.
Atty.VivianG.Rubia
RESOLVEDtoADOPTandAPPROVE,asitisherebyADOPTEDandAPPROVEDtheRecommendationoftheBoardof
GovernorsFirstDivisionoftheaboveentitledcase,hereinmadepartofthisResolutionasAnnex"A";and,findingthe
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, the Motion for
ReconsiderationisherebyDENIEDwithmodification,thatResolutionRESOLUTIONNO.XVII2007237oftheBoardof
Governorsdated31May2007recommending the Disbarment ofAtty.VivianG.RubiaisreducedtoFive(5) years
Suspensionfromthepracticeoflaw.
OnApril20,2009,theIBPforwardedtheinstantcasetothisCourtasprovidedunderRule139B,Section12(b)ofthe
RulesofCourt.
Complainantseeksthedisbarmentofrespondentfromthepracticeoflawforgrossmisconduct,ignoranceofthelawandfor
falsificationofpublicdocument.Indisbarmentproceedings,theburdenofproofrestsuponthecomplainant,andforthe
courttoexerciseitsdisciplinarypowers,thecaseagainsttherespondentmustbeestablishedbyclear,convincingand
satisfactoryproof.ConsideringtheseriousconsequenceofthedisbarmentorsuspensionofamemberoftheBar,thisCourt
hasconsistentlyheldthatclearpreponderantevidenceisnecessarytojustifytheimpositionoftheadministrativepenalty. 5
Thesoleissueinthiscaseiswhetherornotthereispreponderantevidencetowarranttheimpositionofadministrative
sanctionagainsttherespondent.
Inaccusingrespondentoffalsificationofpublicdocument,complainantallegedthatrespondentmisrepresentedtoherthat
thecomplaintwasalreadyfiledincourt,wheninfact,uponverificationwiththeRTCClerkofCourt,itwasnot.Such
misrepresentationisshownbythecopyofthecomplaintwithastamped"RECEIVED"anddocketnumberthereon.Apart
fromsaidallegations,complainanthasnotproferredanyprooftendingtoshowthatrespondentdeliberatelyfalsifieda
publicdocument.
AperusaloftherecordsshowsthatcomplainantsevidenceconsistssolelyofherAffidavitComplaintandtheannexes
attachedtherewith.Shedidnotappearinallthemandatoryconferencessetbytheinvestigatingcommissionerinorderto
giverespondentthechancetotesttheveracityofherassertions.Itisonethingtoallegegrossmisconduct,ignoranceofthe
laworfalsificationofpublicdocumentandanothertodemonstratebyevidencethespecificactsconstitutingthesame.
Indeed, complainant has no way of knowing the surrounding circumstances behind the filing of the complaint by
respondentsstaffbecauseshewasnotpresentwhenthesamewasfiledwiththetrialcourt.Complainantfailedtodisprove

bypreponderantevidencerespondentsclaimthatthecasewasnotfiledbutwasinfactwithdrawnafteritwasstampedwith
"RECEIVED"andassignedwithadocketnumber.Wefindthisexplanationsatisfactoryandplausibleconsideringthatthe
stampdidnotbearthesignatureofthereceivingcourtpersonnel,whichisnormallydonewhenpleadingsarereceivedby
thecourt.
Further,thecertificationoftheRTCClerkofCourtthatthecomplaintwasnotfiledandthat"CIVILCASENO.4198"
pertainedtoanothercase,didnotdiminishthetruthfulnessofrespondentsclaim,buteventendedtobolsterit.Necessarily,
asthecomplaintwasnotfiled,docketnumber"4198"indicatedinthecopyofthecomplaintwasassignedtoanothercase
thereafterfiledincourt.
Thus,forlackofpreponderantevidence,theinvestigatingcommissionersrulingthatrespondentwasguiltyoffalsification
ofpublicdocument,asadoptedbytheIBPBoardofGovernors,hasnofactualbasistostandon.1avvphi1
However,wefindthatrespondentcommittedsomeactsforwhichsheshouldbedisciplinedoradministrativelysanctioned.
WefindnothingillegalorreprehensibleinrespondentsactofcharginganacceptancefeeofP32,000.00,whichamount
appearstobereasonableunderthecircumstances.Theimproprietyliesinthefactthatshesuggestedthatcomplainant
borrowmoneyfromDomingoNatavioforthepaymentthereof.ThisactimpressesupontheCourtthatrespondentwoulddo
nothingtothecauseofcomplainantsmotherinlawunlesspaymentoftheacceptancefeeismade.Herdutytorenderlegal
servicestoherclientwithcompetenceanddiligenceshouldnotdependonthepaymentofacceptancefee,whichwasinthis
casepromisedtobepaiduponthearrivalofcomplainantsmotherinlawinJune2002,orbarelyamonthafterrespondent
acceptedthecase.
Respondentstransgressioniscompoundedfurtherwhensheseveredthelawyerclientrelationshipduetooverwhelming
workloaddemandedbyhernewemployerNakayamaGroupofCompanies,whichconstrainedhertoreturnthemoney
received as well as the records of the case, thereby leaving her client with no representation. Standing alone, heavy
workloadisnotsufficientreasonforthewithdrawalofherservices.
Moreover, respondent failed to maintain an open line of communication with her client regarding the status of their
complaint.
Clearly,respondentviolatedtheLawyersOathwhichimposesuponeverymemberofthebarthedutytodelaynomanfor
moneyormalice,Rules18.03and18.04ofCanon18,andCanon22oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,thus:
CANON18ALAWYERSHALLSERVEHISCLIENTWITHCOMPETENCEANDDILIGENCE.
xxxx
Rule18.03Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedtohimandhisnegligenceinconnectiontherewithshall
renderhimliable.
Rule18.04Alawyershallkeeptheclientinformedofthestatusofhiscaseandshallrespondwithinareasonabletimeto
theclientsrequestforinformation.
CANON22ALAWYERSHALLWITHDRAWHISSERVICESONLYFORGOODCAUSEANDUPONNOTICE
APPROPRIATEINTHECIRCUMSTANCES.
Whenalawyeracceptstohandleacase,whetherforafeeorgratisetamore,heundertakestogivehisutmostattention,skill
andcompetencetoit,regardlessofitssignificance.Thus,hisclient,whetherrichorpoor,hastherighttoexpectthathewill
dischargehisdutiesdiligentlyandexerthisbestefforts,learningandabilitytoprosecuteordefendhis(clients)causewith
reasonabledispatch.FailuretofulfillhisdutieswillsubjecthimtograveadministrativeliabilityasamemberoftheBar.For
theoverridingneedtomaintainthefaithandconfidenceofthepeopleinthelegalprofessiondemandsthatanerringlawyer
shouldbesanctioned.6

WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,respondentAtty.VivianG.RubiaisfoundGUILTYofviolationofRule18.03
andCanon22oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Accordingly,sheisSUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforsix
(6)monthseffectiveimmediately,withawarningthatsimilarinfractionsinthefuturewillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
Letallcourts,throughtheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator,aswellastheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesandtheOffice
oftheBarConfidant,benotifiedofthisDecision,andbeitdulyrecordedinthepersonalfileofrespondentAtty.VivianG.
Rubia.
SOORDERED.