1) TORRES VS ATTY.

ORDEN
A.C NO. 4646 ; April 06, 2000
FACTS:
Atty. Orden represented the complainant Rosita Torres in an action for recovery of
possession of a market stall from Spouses Gayo before the RTC, Branch 6 of Baguio City.
The RTC decided in favor of Torres and eventually the case was appealed by Spouses Gayo
to the Court of Appeals. Being the lawyer of Torres, Atty. Orden failed to submit the
corresponding brief for the case before the Court of Appeals prompting it to decide the
case in favor of the spouses. As a result of the Court of Appeals decision, a notice of
petition for review on certiorari was then filed by Atty. Orden before the Supreme Court,
however, no corresponding petition for review on certiorari have been filed by him. The
Supreme Court decided to terminate the case and declared that the ruling of the Court of
Appeals as final and executor to the prejudice of his client Rosita Torres.
ISSUE:
Wheteher or not Atty. Ordens failure to submit his pleadings required in his clients
case entails disciplinary action.
RULING:
Yes, the act of Atty. Orden in not submitting his pleadings on time warrants
disciplinary action.
A counsel must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions, even malfeasance or
nonfeasance, would be binding on his client. Verily, a lawyer owes to the client the exercise of utmost
prudence and capability in that representation.Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of
law and legal procedure, and anyone who deals with them has the right to expect not just a good amount of
professional learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to the client's cause.
Upon appeal, the appellate court, not being in a position to hear firsthand the testimony of the
parties, can only place great reliance on the briefs and memoranda of parties. The failure to submit these
pleadings could very well be fatal to the cause of a client. Respondent's failure to submit the brief to the
appellate court within the reglementary period entails disciplinary action. Not only is it a dereliction of duty to
his client but also to the court as well. His shortcomings before the Court of Appeals is, in itself, already
deplorable but to repeat that same infraction before this Court constitutes negligence of contumacious
proportions. It is even worse that respondent has attempted to mitigate his liability by professing ignorance
of appellate procedures, a matter that, too, is inexcusable.
hi1

PENALTY: Atty. Amado Orden was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year upon receipt the
Supreme Courts judgment on his case.
2) Radjaievs Alovera
A.C No. 4748 ; August 04, 2000
FACTS:

Atty. Alovera, former RTC Judge, faces disbarment for having penned a Decision long
after his retirement from the Judiciary, which ultimately divested complainant, Victoria
Radjaie of her property.The series of anomalies committed by the respondent judge are:
(1) The case was not tried.
What transpired was a mock or simulated trial inside his chambers where only the lawyer
of the
plaintiffs and a court stenographer from another court were present. No Judge or court
personnel were present as there was actual Court session in open court going on at that
time;
(2) The records of the case were with Judge Alovera and remained with him even after his
retirement. He did not return the record to the Court Clerk in Charge of Civil Cases; (3) The
record of the case turned up on the table of the Court Clerk together with the Offer of
Exhibits
of the lawyer of the plaintiffs and the Order, after the retirement of Judge Alovera. Both
the
Offer and the Order admitting the exhibits were not properly filed and do not bear
markings of
having been received by the court; (4) The decision of Judge Alovera was filed with the
court
by Judge Alovera himself and because he was no longer a judge his submission was
refused.

Upon learning of how the case was disposed of, complainant Radjaie decided to go
home from Japan, causing her to lose her job abroad and filed a petition for relief from

She also prayed "that disciplinary and contempt proceedings be taken against
those involved in the anomalous decision causing the taking of her property.
order.

constitute deceit, malpractice,

serious and grave misconduct as lawyer justifying his suspension from the practice
of law and ultimately his disbarment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Aloveras series of acts

RULING:
Yes, the acts exhibited by Atty. Alovera in the above-cited case warrants the ultimate penalty of
disbarment.

Respondent sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to remain in the
exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession. The testimonies of Nenita M. Aluad,
Teresita V. Bauzon and Concepcion Alcazar were all quite telling on how respondent acted in a
grossly reprehensible manner in having the questioned decision dated January 30, 1995 come
to fore, leading ultimately to its execution divesting the complainant of her
property. Respondent gravely abused his relationship with his former staff, pompously flaunting
his erstwhile standing as a judge. Respondent disregarded his primary duty as an officer of the
court, who is sworn to assist the courts and not to impede or pervert the administration of
justice to all and sundry.[47] In so doing, he made a mockery of the judiciary and eroded public
confidence in courts and lawyers.
The Lawyers Oath to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to
dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice, is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing
law to be forgotten afterwards nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that
every lawyer must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. This oath is firmly echoed and
reflected in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
PENALTY: Atty. JOSE O. ALOVERA was DISBARRED.
3) Edrial et al vs. Quilat-Quilat et al
G.R. No. 133625; September 06, 2000
FACTS:
An action for recovery of parcel of land was filed by Pedro, Gabriela, Isidra and Estanislao all surnamed
Quilat-Quilat against Remedios, Mauro Jr., Marylene, Ildefonso, Rosalind, Mary Jean all surnamed Edrial
and Susan Edrial-Valenzuela. The case

YEAR 2001 CASES

1) Tan vs. Atty. Lapak
G.R. No. 93707 ; January 23, 2001

FACTS: