Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Examen notarized the documents knowing that the cedula or residence certificate
A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015 number used by Ramon Examen was not actually his but the residence certificate
number of Florentina. Atty. Examen also falsely acknowledged that the two
HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO, witnesses personally appeared before him when they did not. Lastly, it is alleged that
Complainants, v. ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN, Respondent. despite knowing the infirmities of these documents, Atty. Examen introduced these
documents into evidence violating his oath as a lawyer and the CPR.
DECISION
In his defense, Atty. Examen pointed out that there was no longer any prohibition
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: under the Revised Administrative Code for a notary public to notarize a document
where one of the parties is related to him by consanguinity and affinity.14 With
Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of the regard to the use of Florentinas residence certificate as Ramons, Atty. Examen said
Philippines (IBP) by the heirs of Pedro Alilano against Atty. Roberto E. Examen for that he was in good faith and that it was office practice that the secretary type details
misconduct and malpractice for falsifying documents and presenting these as without him personally examining the output.15 In any event, he reasoned that the
evidence in court thus violating the Lawyers Oath,2 Canons 1,3 104 and 19,5 and use of anothers residence certificate is not a ground for disbarment and is barred by
Rules 1.01,6 1.02,7 10.01,8 and 19.019 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prescription based on IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-13 dated January 26, 2004
(CPR). where it was proposed that the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Discipline Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be revised to
Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the holders of Original Certificate of include a prescription period for professional misconduct: within two years from the
Title (OCT) No. P-23261 covering a 98,460 sq. m. parcel of land identified as Lot date of the act.16
cralawred
No. 1085 Pls-544-D located in Paitan, Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat. Pedro and
Florentina died on March 6, 1985 and October 11, 1989, respectively. In its Report and Recommendation,17 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
found Atty. Examen liable for breach of the Notarial Law and introducing false
It appears that on March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale10 Absolute Deeds of Sale before court proceedings. It stated that there was ample
were executed by the Spouses Alilano in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife, evidence to support the complainants contention that the Spouses Alilano did not
Edna. Both documents were notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto Examen, brother voluntarily and knowingly convey their property, i.e. denials under oath by attesting
of the vendee. Sometime in September 1984, Spouses Examen obtained possession witnesses and NBI Report by Handwriting Expert Jennifer Dominguez stating that
of the property. Pedro Alilanos signature in the September 1984 Absolute Deed of Sale was
significantly different from the specimen signatures. It also noted that Ramon
On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession Examens residence certificate number, date and place of issue were also falsified
before the Regional Trial Court of Sultan Kudarat against Edna Examen and Atty. since the residence certificate actually belonged to Florentina Pueblo. It thus
Roberto Examen.11 It was during this proceeding that Atty. Examen introduced into recommended that the penalty of disbarment be imposed.
evidence the March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale.
The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) in its June 26, 2007 Resolution18 adopted the
On November 15, 2003,12 the heirs of Alilano filed this complaint alleging that Atty. IBP CBDs report but modified the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for
Examen, based on Barretto v. Cabreza,13 violated the notarial law when he notarized a period of two years and a suspension of Atty. Examens Notarial Commission for a
the absolute deeds of sale since a notary public is prohibited from notarizing a period of two years.
document when one of the parties is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth
Atty. Examen moved for reconsideration. In its Notice of Resolution, the IBP BOG
denied the motion for reconsideration. It also modified the penalty imposed to We therefore ruled in Frias, that Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the
suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year and disqualification from IBP CBD was void and had no legal effect for being ultra vires and thus null and
re-appointment as Notary Public for a period of two years.19 cral awred void.25
cralawred
We agree with the IBP that Atty. Examen is administratively liable and hereby This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Bengco v. Bernardo,26 where the
impose a modified penalty. Court stated that putting a prescriptive period on administrative cases involving
members of the bar would only serve to embolden them to disregard the very oath
In disbarment cases the only issue that is to be decided by the Court is whether the they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant
member of the bar is fit to be allowed the privileges as such or not.20 It is not would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely
therefore the proper venue for the determination of whether there had been a proper exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for.
conveyance of real property nor is it the proper proceeding to take up whether
witnesses signatures were in fact forged. Atty. Examens defense of prescription therefore is of no moment and deserves scant
consideration.
NO PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS FOR
ACTS OF ERRING MEMBERS OF THE BAR THE SPANISH NOTARIAL LAW OF
1889 WAS REPEALED BY THE REVISED
In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada,21 the Court En Banc opined that there can be no ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917
prescription in bar discipline cases. It pointed out this has been the policy since 1967
with the Courts ruling in Calo, Jr. v. Degamo22 and reiterated in Heck v. Santos23 Prior to 1917, governing law for notaries public in the Philippines was the Spanish
where we had the chance to state: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Notarial Law of 1889. However, the law governing Notarial Practice is changed with
the passage of the January 3, 1916 Revised Administrative Code, which took effect in
If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the 1917. In 2004, the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice27 was passed by the Supreme
very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private Court.
complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being
completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer In Kapunan, et al. v. Casilan and Court of Appeals,28 the Court had the opportunity to
for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as state that enactment of the Revised Administrative Code repealed the Spanish
the administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of Notarial Law of 1889. Thus: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
the commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of the
complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm It is petitioners contention that Notary Public Mateo Canonoy, who was related to
of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous members of the parties in the donation within the fourth civil degree of affinity, was, under
the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts which violate the Code of Articles 22 and 28 of the Spanish Notarial Law, incompetent and disqualified to
Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers Oath. x x authenticate the deed of donation executed by the Kapunan spouses in favor of their
x daughter Concepcion Kapunan Salcedo. Said deed of donation, according to
petitioners, became a mere private instrument under Article 1223 of the old Civil
Thus, even the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act Code, so that under the ruling laid down in the case of Barretto vs. Cabreza (33 Phil.,
to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative 413), the donation was inefficacious. The appellate court, however, in the decision
culpability of a lawyer. (Italics supplied)24 cralawl awlibrary complained of held that the Spanish Notarial Law has been repealed with the
enactment of Act No. 496. We find this ruling to be correct. In the case of Philippine
Sugar Estate vs. Poizart (48 Phil., 536), cited in Vda. de Estuart vs. Garcia (Adm. WITH UTMOST CARE
Case No. 212, prom. February 15, 1957), this Court held that The old Spanish
notarial law and system of conveyance was repealed in the Philippines and In Nunga v. Atty. Viray,31 this Court stated: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
another and different notarial law and system became the law of the land with
the enactment of Act No. 496.29 (Emphasis supplied) cralawl awlibrary
[N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized
In this case, the heirs of Alilano stated that Atty. Examen was prohibited to notarize may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that
the absolute deeds of sale since he was related by consanguinity within the fourth those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the
civil degree with the vendee, Ramon. The prohibition might have still applied had the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general. It must be underscored
applicable rule been the Spanish Notarial Law. However, following the Courts ruling that the notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
in Kapunan, the law in force at the time of signing was the Revised Administrative document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of the
Code, thus, the prohibition was removed. Atty. Examen was not incompetent to authenticity thereof. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit
notarize the document even if one of the parties to the deed was a relative, his upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the
brother. As correctly observed by the IBP CBD: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
basic requirements in the performance of their duties.32 (Emphasis supplied;
citations omitted) cralawl awlibrary
At the time of notarization, the prevailing law governing notarization was Sections
231-259, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code and there was no Thus under the prevailing law at the time of notarization it was the duty of the notary
prohibition on a notary public from notarizing a document when one of the interested public to comply with the requirements of the Notarial Law. This includes the duty
parties is related to the notary public within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity under Chapter 11, Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. The following derelictions of
consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. cralawl awlibrary
duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first
instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission:
That Atty. Examen was not incompetent to act as a notary public in the present case
does not mean that he can evade administrative liability under the CPR in xxxx
conjunction with the provisions of the Notarial Law.
(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula
NOTARIES PUBLIC MUST PERFORM certificates. chanrobl eslaw
In Soriano v. Atty. Basco,33 the Court stated that notaries public are required to follow In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Examen also transgressed the
formalities as these are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected. Thus, the his oath as a lawyer, provisions of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Notarial Law requires them to certify that a party to the instrument acknowledged Court which provides: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
before him has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the
residence certificate) and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of the SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
certification. Failure to perform his duties results in the revocation of a notarys therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
commission. The Court said: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct
in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance a superior court, or for corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to
and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment are a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
sacrosanct. He cannot simply disregard the requirements and solemnities of the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
Notarial Law.34 (Emphasis supplied) cralawl awlibrary
malpractice.cral awlawlibrary
Here, based on the submission of the complainants, it is clear that the residence By his negligent act of not checking the work of his secretary and merely
certificate number used by Ramon Examen and as notarized by Atty. Examen in both perfunctorily notarizing documents, it cannot be said that he upheld legal processes
Absolute Deeds of Sale was not in fact the residence certificate of Ramon but thus violating Canon 1 of the CPR. Neither can it be said that he promoted
Florentinas residence certificate number.35 Atty. Examen interposes that he was in confidence in the legal system. If anything, his acts serve to undermine the functions
good faith in that it was office practice to have his secretary type up the details of the of a diligent lawyer. He thus ran afoul Rule 1.02 of the CPR. We cannot stress
documents and requirements without him checking the correctness of same. enough that as a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might
A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal
public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.36 Good faith cannot be a mitigating profession.38 A lawyers mandate includes thoroughly going over documents
circumstance in situations since the duty to function as a notary public is personal. presented to them typed or transcribed by their secretaries.39cral awred
We note that the error could have been prevented had Atty. Examen diligently
performed his functions: personally checked the correctness of the documents. To The Court notes that the case between the parties is not the first that reached this
say that it was his secretarys fault reflects disregard and unfitness to discharge the Court. In Edna Examen and Roberto Examen v. Heirs of Pedro Alilano and
functions of a notary public for it is he who personally acknowledges the document. Florentina Pueblo,40 Atty. Examen and his sister-in-law questioned via a petition for
He was behooved under Section 251, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code certiorari41 the propriety of three Court of Appeals Resolutions relating to a case
to check if the proper cedulas were presented and inspect if the documents to be involving Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D this time with respect to its fruits. There the Court
acknowledged by him reflected the correct details. This Court cannot stress enough of Appeals (CA) after giving Atty. Examen 90 days to file his appellants brief,
that notarization is not a routinary act. It is imbued with substantive public interest denied a second motion for extension of time merely on the basis of a flimsy reason
owing to the public character of his duties37. that he had misplaced some of the transcript of the witnesses testimonies. The CA
did not find the reason of misplaced transcript as good and sufficient cause to grant
Atty. Examen posits that the failure of a notary to make the proper notation of the extension pursuant to Section 12,42 Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court. It
cedulas can only be a ground for disqualification and not the proper subject for a stated that it was a flimsy and lame excuse to unnecessarily delay the
proceedings.43 The CA was of the opinion that defendant-appellants, herein myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all
respondent, motion was a mockery of the procedural rules.44 This Court denied the good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this
petition for various procedural defects.45 cralawred voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help
me God.
With respect to the penalty imposed, given that Atty. Examen not only failed to
3
uphold his duty as a notary public but also failed to uphold his lawyers oath and ran CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 1, provides:
afoul the provisions of the CPR, the Court deems it proper to suspend Atty. Examen
from the practice of law for a period of two years following this Courts decision in Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
Caalim-Verzonilla v. Pascua.46 cralawred promote respect for law and legal processes.
4
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is hereby SUSPENDED from CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 10, provides:
the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS. In addition, his present notarial
commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years from finality of this
5
Decision. He is further WARNED that any similar act or infraction in the future CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 19 provides:
shall be dealt with more severely.
Canon 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
6
appended to respondents personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 1.01 provides:
Philippines, the Department of Justice and all courts in the country for their
information and guidance. Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
SO ORDERED. cralawl awlibrary
7
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 1.02 provides:
Sereno, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur. Rule 1.02. - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
Carpio, J., on leave. or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
8
Endnotes: CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 10.01 provides:
Rule 10.01. - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
1
Docketed as CBD Case No. 03-1168. Rollo, pp. 2-11. Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
2 9
Lawyers Oath - I, _____________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 19.01 provides:
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey
the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will Rule 19.01. - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct proceeding.
29
Id. at 892-893.
10
Rollo, pp. 12-13.
30
Rollo, p. 680.
11
Docketed as Civil Case No. 1013.
31
366 Phil. 155 (1999).
12
Received by the IBP November 24, 2003.
32
Id. at 160-161.
13
33 Phil. 112 (1916).
33
507 Phil. 410, 414-415 (2005).
14
Rollo, p. 189.
34
Id. at 416.
15
Id. at 199-201.
35
Rollo, pp. 12-14.
16
Id. at 583.
36
Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos, 499 Phil. 345, 350 (2005).
17
Id. at 677-682. Signed by Commissioner Lolita A. Quisumbing.
37
Under Section 241 of the Revised Administrative Code, notary public has the
18
Id. at 676. Signed by Assistant National Secretary Tomas N. Prado. following powers:
19
Id. at 674. SEC. 241. Powers of notary public. Every notary public shall have power to
administer all oaths and affirmations provided for by law, in all matters incident to
20
Pimentel, Jr. v. Atty. Llorente, 393 Phil. 544, 551 (2000). his notarial office, and in the execution of affidavits, depositions, and other
documents requiring an oath, and to receive the proof or acknowledgment of all
21
523 Phil. 17, 19 (2006). writings relating to commerce or navigation, such as bills of sale bottomries,
mortgages, and hypothecations of ships, vessels, or boats, charter parties of
22
126 Phil. 802 (1967). affreightments, letters of attorney, deeds, mortgages, transfers and assignments of
land or buildings, or an interest therein, and such other writings as are commonly
23
467 Phil. 798, 824-825 (2004). proved or acknowledged before notaries; to act as a magistrate, in the writing of
affidavits or depositions, and to make declarations and certify the truth thereof under
24
Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada, supra note 21, at 19-20. his seal of office, concerning all matters done by him by virtue of his office.
25 38
Id. at 20. Caalim-Verzonilla v. Pascua, A.C. No. 6655, October 11, 2011, 658 SCRA 762,
771-772.
26
A.C. No. 6368, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 8, 17.
39
Adez Realty, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100643, October 30, 1992,
27
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. 215 SCRA 301, 305.
28 40
109 Phil. 889 (1960). Docketed as G.R. No. 179896.
41
Under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
42
REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 44, Section 12 provides:
SEC. 12. Extension of time for filing briefs. - Extension of time for the filing of briefs
will not be allowed, except for good and sufficient cause, and only if the motion for
extension is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.
43
Rollo (G.R. No. 179896), pp. 93 and 96.
44
Id. at 93.
45
Id. at 113-114. Dismissed for violation of Section 3, Rule 46, Section 1 and 4, Rule
65 and Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court and no showing of
grave abuse of discretion.
46
Supra note 38, at 774
EN BANC ...
[A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657. February 23, 2004] WHEREFORE in light of the foregoing complainant pray[s] to order respondent:
HEINZ R. HECK, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANTHONY E. SANTOS, REGIONAL 1. To disbar Judge Anthony E. Santos and to prohibit him from all future
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY,1[1] respondent. public service.
2. To forfeit [the] retirement benefits of Judge Santos.
DECISION 3. To prohibit Judge Santos from future practice of Law.
4. To file a criminal suit against Judge Santos.
CALLEJO SR., J.: 5. To conduct a speedy investigation and not to grant/accept any delaying
tactics from Judge Santos or any agency and or public servants involved
May a retired judge charged with notarizing documents without the requisite notary in this administrative case.
commission more than twenty years ago be disciplined therefor? This is the novel 6. To pay all costs and related costs involved in this administrative case.
issue presented for resolution before this Court.
and prays for other relief in accordance with equity and fairness based on the
The instant case arose when in a verified Letter-Complaint dated March 21, 2001 premises.3[3]
Heinz R. Heck prayed for the disbarment of Judge Anthony E. Santos, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 19, Cagayan de Oro City. The complainant submitted a certification from Clerk of Court, Atty. Beverly Sabio-
Beja, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, which contained the following:
The complainant alleged that prior to the respondents appointment as RTC judge on
April 11, 1989, he violated the notarial law, thus: THIS CERTIFIES that upon verification from the records found and available in this
office, the following data appear:
Judge Santos, based on ANNEX A, was not duly commissioned as
notary public until January 9, 1984 but still subscribed and forwarded (on a 1. The name Atty. Anthony E. Santos is listed as a duly commissioned notary public
non-regular basis) notarized documents to the Clerk of Court VI starting in the following years:
January 1980 uncommissioned until the 9th of January 1984.
a. January 9, 1984 to December 31, 1985
a) Judge Santos was commissioned further January 16th 1986 to December 31st 1987 b. January 16, 1986 to December 31, 1987
and January 6th 1988 to December 31st 1989 but the records fail to show any entry at c. January 6, 1988 to December 31, 1989
the Clerk of Court after December 31st 1985 until December 31st 1989.
2. Based on the records of transmittals of notarial reports, Atty. Anthony
b) Judge Santos failed to forward his Notarial Register after the expiration of his E. Santos submitted his notarial reports in the ff. years:
commission in December 1989.2[2] a. January 1980 report - was submitted on Feb. 6, 1980
b. February to April 1980 report - was submitted on June 6, 1980
c. May to June 1980 report - was submitted on July 29, 1980
d. July to October 1980 report - submitted but no date of submission
1[1] The respondent compulsorily retired from the judiciary on May 22, 2002.
5[5] Rollo, p. 16. 9[9] Resolutions dated July 8, 2002 and November 13, 2002.
The investigation may thereafter commence either before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), in accordance with Sections 2 to Sections 12 of Rule 139-B, or 15[15] Bautista v. Gonzales, 182 SCRA 151 (1990).
before the Supreme Court in accordance with Sections 13 and 14, thus:
16[16] Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all
courts and the personnel thereof.
14[14] As amended by Bar Matter No. 1960, May 1, 2000. 17[17] See Section 1, Rule 139-B, supra.
The Retirement Or Resignation Sandiganbayan or any Judge of the lower courts filed in connection with a case in
Of A Judge Will Not Preclude court is shown to be clearly unfounded and baseless and intended to harass the
The Filing Thereafter Of An respondent, such a finding should be included in the report and recommendation of
Administrative Charge Against the Office of the Court Administrator. If the recommendation is approved or affirmed
Him For Which He Shall Still by the Court, the complainant may be required to show cause why he should not be
Be Held Answerable If Found held in contempt of court. If the complainant is a lawyer, he may further be required
Liable Therefor to show cause why he or she should not be administratively sanctioned as a member
of the Bar and as an officer of the court.
The fact that a judge has retired or has otherwise been separated from the service
does not necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction to determine the veracity of 2. If the complaint is (a) filed within six months before the compulsory retirement of
the allegations of the complaint, pursuant to its disciplinary authority over members a Justice or Judge; (b) for an alleged cause of action that occurred at least a year
of the bench. As we held in Gallos v. Cordero:18[18] before such filing and (c) shown prima facie that it is intended to harass the
respondent, it must forthwith be recommended for dismissal. If such is not the case,
The jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint the Office of the Court Administrator must require the respondent to file a comment
was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent, had ceased in office during the within ten (10) days from receipt of the complaint, and submit to the Court a report
pendency of his case. The Court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce the and recommendation not later than 30 days from receipt of the comment. The Court
respondent public official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A shall act on the recommendation before the date of compulsory retirement of the
contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and respondent, or if it is not possible to do so, within six (6) months from such date
dangerous implications... If innocent, respondent public official merits vindication of without prejudice to the release of the retirement benefits less such amount as the
his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and Court may order to be withheld, taking into account the gravity of the cause of action
faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty alleged in the complaint.
proper and imposable under the situation.19[19]
Thus, in order for an administrative complaint against a retiring or retired judge or
However, recognizing the proliferation of unfounded or malicious administrative or justice to be dismissed outright, the following requisites must concur: (1) the
criminal cases against members of the judiciary for purposes of harassment, we complaint must have been filed within six months from the compulsory retirement of
issued A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC20[20] which took effect on November 3, 2003. It reads the judge or justice; (2) the cause of action must have occurred at least a year before
in part: such filing; and, (3) it is shown that the complaint was intended to harass the
respondent.
1. If upon an informal preliminary inquiry by the Office of the Court Administrator,
an administrative complaint against any Justice of the Court of Appeals or In this case, the Administrative Complaint dated March 21, 2001 was received by the
Office of the Court Administrator on March 26, 2001.21[21] The respondent retired
compulsorily from the service more than a year later, or on May 22, 2002. Likewise,
18[18] 245 SCRA 218 (1995). the ground for disbarment or disciplinary action alleged to have been committed by
the respondent did not occur a year before the respondents separation from the
19[19] Id. at 226. service. Furthermore, and most importantly, the instant complaint was not prima
facie shown to be without merit and intended merely to harass the respondent.
20[20] RESOLUTION PRESCRIBING MEASURES TO PROTECT MEMBERS OF
THE JUDICIARY FROM BASELESS AND UNFOUNDED ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLAINTS. 21[21] Rollo, p. 5.
Clearly, therefore, the instant case does not fall within the ambit of the foregoing In the case of Alfonso v. Juanson,26[26] we held that proof of prior immoral conduct
resolution. cannot be used as basis for administrative discipline against a judge if he is not
charged with immorality prior to his appointment. We ratiocinated, thus:
A Judge May Be Disciplined
For Acts Committed Before His ...[I]t would be unreasonable and unfair to presume that since he had wandered from
Appointment To The Judiciary the path of moral righteousness, he could never retrace his steps and walk proud and
tall again in that path. No man is beyond information and redemption. A lawyer who
It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for acts committed prior to his aspires for the exalted position of a magistrate knows, or ought to know, that he must
appointment to the judiciary.22[22] In fact, even the new Rule itself recognizes this, as pay a high price for that honor - his private and official conduct must at all times be
it provides for the immediate forwarding to the Supreme Court for disposition and free from the appearance of impropriety. ...27[27]
adjudication of charges against justices and judges before the IBP, including those
filed prior to their appointment to the judiciary.23[23] It need not be shown that the The Court ruled in that case that the complainant failed to prove the charges by
respondent continued the doing of the act or acts complained of; it is sufficient that substantial evidence.28[28] The complainant therein presented evidence pertaining to
the evidence on record supports the charge on the respondent, considering the gravity the respondents previous indiscretion while still a practicing lawyer; no evidence
of the offense. was, however, adduced to prove that the latter continued to engage in illicit acts after
being appointed to the bench. Thus, the respondent was exonerated in this case
Indeed, there is jurisprudence to the effect that the act complained of must be because the complainant failed to present evidence that the indiscretion continued
continuing in order for the respondent judge to be disciplined therefor. In Sevilla v. even after the respondent was appointed to the judiciary.
Salubre,24[24] the respondent judge was charged with violating Canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, for acts committed while he was still a practicing The practice of law is so ultimately affected with public interest that it is both the
lawyer. The respondent therein refused to turn over the funds of his client despite right and duty of the State to control and regulate it in order to promote the public
demands, and persisted in his refusal even after he was appointed as a judge. welfare. The Constitution vests this power of control and regulation in this Court.29[29]
However, the Court also stated in this case that the respondents subsequent The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary
appointment as a judge will not exculpate him from taking responsibility for the power over attorneys, which authority is not only a right but a bounden duty as well.
consequences of his acts as an officer of the court.25[25] This is why respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members.30[30]
22[22] Sevilla v. Salubre, 348 SCRA 592 (2000). 27[27] Id. at 254.
23[23] Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, as amended by Bar Matter No. 28[28] Id. at 254.
1960, May 1, 2000.
29[29] Sevilla v. Salubre, supra, citing Fernando Cruz and Amelia Cruz v. Atty.
24[24] 348 SCRA 592 (2000). Ernesto Jacinto, 328 SCRA 636 (2000).
25[25] Id. at 601. 30[30] Dumadag v. Lumaya, 334 SCRA 512 (2000).
The Requisite Commission In the case of Nunga v. Viray,36[36] the Court had the occasion to state -
Therefore Constitutes
Malpractice, If Not The Crime Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a
Of Falsification Of Public time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be
Documents subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial [act] without such
commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the
It must be remembered that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he
On the contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood,
who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.31[31] Notarization by a which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the
notary public converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
execution.32[32] deceitful conduct.37[37]
The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be The importance of the function of a notary public cannot, therefore, be over-
treated as a mere casual formality.33[33] The Court has characterized a lawyers act of emphasized. No less than the public faith in the integrity of public documents is at
notarizing documents without the requisite commission therefore as reprehensible, stake in every aspect of that function.38[38]
constituting as it does not only malpractice, but also the crime of falsification of
public documents.34[34] For such reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned The Charge Against The
erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial Respondent Is Supported By
commission and disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment.35[35] The Evidence On Record
The respondent did not object to the complainants formal offer of evidence,
31[31] Ma. Corazon D. Fulgencio v. Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin, A.C. 3223, May 29, prompting the Investigating Justice to decide the case on the basis of the pleadings
2003. filed.39[39] Neither did he claim that he was commissioned as notary public for the
years 1980 to 1983, nor deny the accuracy of the first certification. The respondent
32[32] Ruiz, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 362 SCRA 40 (2001). merely alleged in his answer that there was no proper recording of the commissioned
lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro nor of the submitted Notarized
33[33] Section 2632 of the Notarial Law, provides: Documents/Notarial Register. Furthermore, as found by the Investigating Justice, the
respondent presented no evidence of his commission as notary public for the years
SEC. 2632. Certification of document after expiration of authority of notary. Any
person who, after the expiration of his commission as notary or after the termination
of his authority to act as such, shall affix his seal or official signature to any 36[36] 306 SCRA 487 (1999).
document with intent to impart the appearance of notarial authenticity thereto, shall
be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos or imprisonment for a period 37[37] Id. at 491-492.
not exceeding one year, or both.
38[38] Mena U. Gerona vs. Atty. Alfredo Datingaling, A.C. No. 4801, February 27,
34[34] Buensuceso v. Barrera, 216 SCRA 309 (1992). 2003.
35[35] Joson v. Baltazar, 194 SCRA 114 (1991). 39[39] Rollo, Vol. II, p. 514; Report and Recommendation, p. 6.
1980 to 1983, as well as proof of submission of notarial reports and the notarial The qualification of good moral character is a requirement which is not dispensed
register.40[40] with upon admission to membership of the bar. This qualification is not only a
condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession
The respondent in this case was given an opportunity to answer the charges and to is essential to maintain ones good standing in the profession. It is a continuing
controvert the evidence against him in a formal investigation. When the integrity of a requirement to the practice of law and therefore does not preclude a subsequent
member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he deny the charges; he must judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning ones mental or
meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him.41[41] moral fitness before he became a lawyer. This is because his admission to practice
merely creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all the qualifications to become a
The respondents allegation that the complainant was not a party in any of the lawyer.44[44] The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any
documents so notarized, and as such was not prejudiced thereby, is unavailing. An misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be
attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Possession of good
as an attorney and counselor which include the statutory grounds under Section 27, moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a
Rule 13842[42] of the Revised Rules of Court. Any interested person or the court motu continuing requirement to the practice of law.45[45]
proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings. There can be no doubt as to the right of
a citizen to bring to the attention of the proper authority acts and doings of public Furthermore, administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own,
officers which citizens feel are incompatible with the duties of the office and from distinct from and may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.46[46] As we
which conduct the citizen or the public might or does suffer undesirable held in the leading case of In re Almacen:47[47]
consequences.43[43]
[D]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor
An Administrative Complaint purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather
Against A Member Of The Bar investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended
Does Not Prescribe to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly,
there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the
Court motu proprio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and the real question
40[40] Report and Recommendation, p. 10. for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the
privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely
41[41] Radjaie v. Alovera, 337 SCRA 244 (2000). calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the
Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the
42[42] Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members
therefore. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct
in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime 44[44] Carmelita I. Zaguirre v. Atty. Alfredo Castillo, Adm. Case No. 4921, March 6,
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to 2003.
take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting 45[45] Nakpil v. Valdes, 286 SCRA 758 (1998).
cases at law, for the purpose of gain, either personally or through pad agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice. ... 46[46] Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406 (1999).
43[43] Marcelo v. Javier, Sr., 214 SCRA 1 (1992). 47[47] 31 SCRA 562 (1970).
who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted seriousness of the matter involved - the respondents dishonesty and the sanctity of
with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. ....48[48] notarial documents.
In a case involving a mere court employee49[49] the Court disregarded the Court Thus, even the lapse of considerable time, from the commission of the offending act
Administrators recommendation that the charge for immorality against the to the institution of the administrative complaint, will not erase the administrative
respondent be dismissed on the ground that the complainants failed to adduce culpability of a lawyer who notarizes documents without the requisite authority
evidence that the respondents immoral conduct was still ongoing. Aside from being therefor.
found guilty of illicit conduct, the respondent was also found guilty of dishonesty for
falsifying her childrens certificates of live birth to show that her paramour was the At Most, The Delay In The
father. The complaint in this case was filed on August 5, 1999, almost twenty years Institution Of The
after the illicit affair ended.50[50] The Court held that administrative offenses do not Administrative Case Would
prescribe.51[51] Merely Mitigate The
Respondents Liability
Pursuant to the foregoing, there can be no other conclusion than that an
administrative complaint against an erring lawyer who was thereafter appointed as a Time and again, we have stressed the settled principle that the practice of law is not a
judge, albeit filed only after twenty-four years after the offending act was committed, right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the
is not barred by prescription. If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in
emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty,
fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar.52[52] By his
stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability actuations, the respondent failed to live up to such standards;53[53] he undermined the
they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the confidence of the public on notarial documents and thereby breached Canon I of the
practice of law as well as the administration of justice. No matter how much time has Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the
elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complained of and the time of the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal
institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the processes. The respondent also violated Rule 1.01 thereof which proscribes lawyers
disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is aimed at from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.54[54] In
unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts representing that he was possessed of the requisite notarial commission when he was,
which violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, in fact, not so authorized, the respondent also violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of
or the Lawyers Oath. This should particularly apply in this case, considering the Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer that he shall do no falsehood.
The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct
48[48] Cited in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza, supra. that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., join Mr. Justice J. C. Vitug in his separate opinion.
56[56] Sanlakas ng Barangay Julo, San Antonio, Incorporated v. Empaynado, Jr., 351
SCRA 201 (2001).
57[57] Sanlakas ng Barangay Julo, San Antonio, Inc. v. Empaynado, Jr., 351 SCRA
201 (2001).
Republic of the Philippines The respondent refused to return the whole amount of P95,000.00 to the
SUPREME COURT complainant.1awp++i1 He argued that a complaint2 for annulment of title against
Manila Ard Cervantes had actually been filed in court, though not by him, but by another
lawyer, Atty. Edgar M. Abitria. Thus, he was willing to return only what was left of
EN BANC the P95,000.00 after deducting therefrom the P50,000.00 that he paid to Atty. Abitria
as acceptance fee for handling the case.
A.C. No. 6484 June 16, 2015
The complainant refused to recognize the complaint for annulment of title filed by
ADELITA B. LLUNAR, Complainant, Atty. Abitria and claimed that she had no knowledge of Atty. Abitria's engagement as
vs. counsel. Besides, the complaint was filed three (3) years late and the property could
ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT, Respondent. no longer be redeemed from the bank. Also, the complainant discovered that the
respondent had been suspended indefinitely from the practice of law since May 29,
DECISION 2002, pursuant to this Court's decision in Administrative Case No. 5054,3 which the
complainant suspected was the reason another lawyer, and not the respondent, filed
PER CURIAM: the complaint for annulment of title in court.
The present administrative case stemmed from the complaint-affidavit1 that Adelita In a resolution4 dated February 2, 2005, the Court referred the case to the Integrated
B. Llunar (complainant) filed against Atty. Romulo Ricafort (respondent) for gross Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
and inexcusable negligence and serious misconduct.
In a report5 dated May 22, 2009, IBP Investigating Commissioner Cecilio C.
Antecedents Villanueva found the respondent to have been grossly negligent in handling the
complainant's case and to have gravely abused the trust and confidence reposed in
In September 2000, the complainant, as attorney-in-fact of Severina Baez, hired the him by the complainant, thereby, violating Canons 156 and 17,7 and Rules 1.01,8
respondent to file a case against father and son Ricardo and Ard Cervantes (Ard) for 16.03,9 18.03,10 and 18.0411 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
the recovery of a parcel of land allegedly owned by the Baez family but was
fraudulently registered under the name of Ricardo and later was transferred to Ard. Also, the Investigating Commissioner found the respondent to have erred in not
informing his client that he was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
The property, which Ard had mortgaged with the Rural Bank of Malilipot, Albay, Due to these infractions, Commissioner Villanueva recommended that the respondent
was the subject of foreclosure proceedings at the time the respondent was hired. The remain suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.
respondent received from the complainant the following afuounts: (a) P70,000.00 as
partial payment of the redemption price of the property; (b) P19,000.00 to cover the In Resolution No. XIX-2011-224 dated May 14, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors
filing fees; and (c) P6,500.00 as attorney's fees. agreed with the Investigating Commissioner's findings on the respondent's liability
but modified the recommended penalty from indefinite suspension to disbarment.12
Three years later, the complainant learned that no case involving the subject property It also ordered the respondent to return to the complainant the amount of P95,000.00
was ever filed by the respondent with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Legaspi within thirty (30) days from notice. The respondent moved for reconsideration.
City. Thus, the complainant demanded that the respondent return to her the amount of
P95,000.00. In his motion for reconsideration,13 the respondent argued that his referral of the
complainant's case to Atty. Abitria was actually with the complainant's knowledge
and consent; and that he paid Atty. Abitria P50,000.00 for accepting the case. These In addition, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds or property he holds
facts were confirmed by Atty. Abitria in an affidavit14 dated November 17, 2004, but for his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated these funds or
were alleged to have been overlooked by Commissioner Villanueva in his report. The property for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in
IBP Board . of Governors, in Resolution No. XX-2013-710 dated June 21, 2013, him by his client.18
denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration.15
Third, the respondent committed dishonesty by not being forthright with the
Our Ruling complainant that he was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The
respondent should have disclosed this fact at the time he was approached by the
We find the respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct in his dealings with his client and complainant for his services. Canon 15 of the CPR states that "a lawyer shall observe
in engaging in the practice of law while under indefinite suspension, and thus impose candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients." The
upon him the ultimate penalty of DISBARMENT. respondent lacked the candor expected of him as a member of the Bar when he
accepted the complainant's case despite knowing that he could not and should not
The respondent in this case committed several infractions making him liable for practice law.
grave misconduct. First, the respondent did not exert due diligence in handling the
complainant's case. He failed to act promptly in redeeming the complainant's Lastly, the respondent was effectively in the practice of law despite the indefinite
property within the period of redemption. What is worse is the delay of three years suspension imposed on him. This infraction infinitely aggravates the offenses he
before a complaint to recover the property was actually filed in court. The respondent committed. Based on the above facts alone, the penalty of suspension for five (5)
clearly dilly-dallied on the complainant's case and wasted precious time and years from the practice of law would have been justified, but the respondent is not an
opportunity that were then readily available to recover the complainant's property. ordinary violator of the profession's ethical rules; he is a repeat violator of these
Under these facts, the respondent violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional rules. In Nunez v. Atty. Ricafort,19 we had adjudged the respondent liable for grave
Responsibility (CPR), which states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter misconduct in failing to turn over the proceeds of the sale of a property owned by his
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." client and in issuing bounced checks to satisfy the alias writ of execution issued by
the court in the case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 filed against him by his
Second, the respondent failed to return, upon demand, the amounts given to him by client. We then suspended him indefinitely from the practice of law - a penalty short
the complainant for handling the latter's case. On three separate occasions, the of disbarment. Under his current liability - which is no different in character from his
respondent received from the complainant the amounts of P19,000.00, P70,000.00, previous offense - we have no other way but to proceed to decree his disbarment. He
and P6,500.00 for purposes of redeeming the mortgaged property from the bank and has become completely unworthy of membership in our honorable profession.
filing the necessary civil easels against Ard Cervantes. The complainant approached
the respondent several times thereafter to follow up on the easels to be filed With respect to the amount to be returned to the complainant, we agree with the IBP
supposedly by the respondent who, in turn, reassured her that actions on her case had that the respondent should return the whole amount of P95,000.00, without
been taken. deductions, regardless of whether the engagement of Atty. Abitria as counsel was
with the complainant's knowledge and consent.
After the complainant discovered three years later that the respondent had not filed
any case in court, she demanded that the respondent return the amount of P95,000.00, In the first place, the hiring of Atty. Abitria would not have been necessary had the
but her demand was left unheeded. The respondent later promised to pay her, but respondent been honest and diligent in handling the complainant's case from the start.
until now, no payment of any amount has been made. These facts confirm that the The complainant should not be burdened with the expense of hiring another lawyer to
respondent violated Canon 16 of the CPR, which mandates every lawyer to "hold in perform the services that the respondent was hired to do, especially in this case where
trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession"16 and there was an inexcusable non-delivery of such services.
to "account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client."17
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort is hereby DISBARRED from the
Associate Justice
practice of law and his name REMOVED from the Roll of Attorneys, effective
immediately upon his receipt of this Decision. Also, he is ORDERED to RETURN
the amount of P95,000.00 to complainant Adelita B. Llunar, within thirty (30) days (On official leave)
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
from notice of this Decision. MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the respondent's personal record and
furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and Footnotes
the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. This
Decision should likewise be posted on the Supreme Court website for the * On official leave.
information of the general public.
1 Rollo, pp. 1-6.
SO ORDERED.
2 Dated October 11, 2003; id. at 11-13.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice 3 Nuez v. Ricafort, 432 Phil. 131 (2002).
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE 6 ANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
ARTURO D. BRION dealings and transactions with his clients.
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
7 CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
(On official leave)
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA*
Associate Justice 8 Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
Associate Justice
deceitful conduct.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
9 Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
Associate Justice Associate Justice
when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and
may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also
Associate Justice Associate Justice have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured
for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES ESTELA M. PERLAS-
Associate Justice BERNABE
10 Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
11 Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
13 Id. at 156-158.
14 Id. at 159.
15 Id. at 183.
19 Supra note 3.
FIRST DIVISION
Promulgated:
Complainant,
x---------------------------------------------------------
--x
Present:
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
PANGANIBAN, C.J., Chairman, Before this Court is a complaint filed by Leticia Gonzales (Gonzales)
praying that Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, (respondent) be disbarred for
YNARES-SANTIAGO, representing conflicting interests.
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, and On January 8, 2004, Gonzales filed a petition before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that: she was the complainant in a case
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
for sum of money and damages filed before the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City, docketed as Civil Case No. 1-567
where she was represented by the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA,
DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar On January 9, 2004, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline ordered
Cabucana handling the case and herein respondent as an Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. to submit his Answer to the complaint.[7]
associate/partner; on February 26, 2001, a decision was rendered in the
In his Answer, respondent averred: He never appeared and represented
civil case ordering the losing party to pay Gonzales the amount of
complainant in Civil Case No. 1-567 since it was his brother, Atty.
P17,310.00 with interest and P6,000.00 as attorneys fees; Sheriff Romeo
Edmar Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales in said case.
Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ of execution issued in
He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the
connection with the judgment which prompted Gonzales to file a
cases filed against them but claimed that his appearance is pro bono and
complaint against the said sheriff with this Court; in September 2003,
that the spouses pleaded with him as no other counsel was willing to take
Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales; they
their case. He entered his appearance in good faith and opted to represent
harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance
the spouses rather than leave them defenseless. When the Gatchecos
regarding her complaint before this Court; Gonzales thereafter filed
asked for his assistance, the spouses said that the cases filed against them
against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave
by Gonzales were merely instigated by a high ranking official who
oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation; notwithstanding
wanted to get even with them for their refusal to testify in favor of the
the pendency of Civil Case No. 1-567, where respondents law firm was
said official in another case. At first, respondent declined to serve as
still representing Gonzales, herein respondent represented the Gatchecos
counsel of the spouses as he too did not want to incur the ire of the high-
in the cases filed by Gonzales against the said spouses; respondent
ranking official, but after realizing that he would be abdicating a sworn
should be disbarred from the practice of law since respondents
duty to delay no man for money or malice, respondent entered his
acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos violates the lawyer-client
appearance as defense counsel of the spouses free of any charge. Not
relationship between complainant and respondents law firm and renders
long after, the present complaint was crafted against respondent which
respondent liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
shows that respondent is now the subject of a demolition job. The civil
particularly Rules 10.01,[1] 13.01,[2] 15.02,[3] 15.03,[4] 21.01[5] and
case filed by Gonzales where respondents brother served as counsel is
21.02.[6]
different and distinct from the criminal cases filed by complainant
against the Gatcheco spouses, thus, he did not violate any canon on legal which is a violation of the CPR; and that respondent continues to use the
ethics. [8] name of De Guzman in their law firm despite the fact that said partner
has already been appointed as Assistant Prosecutor of Santiago City,
Gonzales filed a Reply contending that the civil case handled by
again in violation of the CPR.[13]
respondents brother is closely connected with the cases of the Gatchecos
which the respondent is handling; that the claim of respondent that he is Respondent filed his Position Paper restating his allegations in his
handling the cases of the spouses pro bono is not true since he has his Answer.[14]
own agenda in offering his services to the spouses; and that the
On August 23, 2004, Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes issued an
allegation that she is filing the cases against the spouses because she is
Order notifying both parties to appear before his office on October 28,
being used by a powerful person is not true since she filed the said cases
2004 for a clarificatory question regarding said case.[15] On the said
out of her own free will.[9]
date, only respondent appeared[16] presenting a sworn affidavit executed
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP sent to the parties a Notice by Gonzales withdrawing her complaint against respondent. It reads:
of Mandatory Conference dated March 1, 2004.[10] On the scheduled
SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY
conference, only a representative of complainant appeared.[11] TUNGKOL SA PAG-UURONG NG DEMANDA
Commissioner Demaree Raval of the IBP-CBD then directed both Ako, si LETICIA GONZALES, nasa tamang edad, Pilipino, may
parties to file their respective verified position papers.[12] asawa, at nakatira sa Barangay Dubinan East, Santiago City,
makaraang manumpa ayon sa batas ay nagsasabing:
Ako ang nagdedemanda o petitioner sa CBD Case No. 04-1186 na
Complainant filed a Memorandum reiterating her earlier assertions and may pamagat na Leticia Gonzales versus Atty. Marcelino C.
Cabucana, Jr. na kasalukuyang nahaharap sa Commission on Bar
added that respondent prepared and notarized counter-affidavits of the Discipline ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Gatcheco spouses; that the high-ranking official referred to by Ang pagkakahain ng naturang demanda ay nag-ugat sa di-
respondent is Judge Ruben Plata and the accusations of respondent pagkakaintindihan na namamagitan sa akin at nina Mr. and Mrs.
Romeo and Anita Gatcheco.
against the said judge is an attack against a brother in the profession
Dahil sa aking galit sa naturang mag-asawa, idinawit ko si Atty. On February 24, 2005, Commissioner Reyes submitted his Report and
Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. sa sigalot na namamagitan sa akin at sa
mag-asawang Gatcheco, gayong nalalaman ko na si Atty. Marcelino Recommendation, portions of which are quoted hereunder:
C. Cabucana ay walang nalalaman sa naturang di pagkakaintindihan.
The Undersigned Commissioner believes that the respondent made a
Makaraang pag-isipang mabuti ang paghain ko ng demanda kontra
mistake in the acceptance of the administrative case of Romeo
kay Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr., nakumbinsi ako na ang
Gatcheco, however, the Commission (sic) believes that there was no
pagdedemanda ko kay Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. ay isang
malice and bad faith in the said acceptance and this can be shown by
malaking pagkakamali dahil siya ay walang kinalalaman (sic) sa di
the move of the complainant to unilaterally withdraw the case which
pagkakaintindihan naming(sic) ng mag-asawang Gatcheco.
she filed against Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. However, Atty.
Cabucana is reminded to be more careful in the acceptance of cases as
Si Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. ay di ko rin naging abogado sa
conflict of interests might arise.
Civil Case No. 1-567 (MTCC Br. I Santiago City) na inihain ko
It is respectfully recommended that Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr.
kontra kay Eduardo Mangano.
(be) sternly warned and reprimanded andadvised to be more
circumspect and careful in accepting cases which might result in
conflict of interests.[21]
Nais kong ituwid ang lahat kung kayat aking iniuurong ang naturang kasong inihain
ko kontra kay Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. at dahil dito ay hindi na ako
interesado pang ituloy and naturang kaso, at aking hinihiling sa kinauukulan na On June 25, 2005, a Resolution was passed by the Board of Governors of
dismisin na ang naturang kaso. the IBP, to wit:
Ginawa ko ang sinumpaang salaysay na ito upang patotohanan sa RESOLUTION NO. XVI-2005-153
lahat ng nakasaad dito.[17]
CBD CASE NO. 03-1186
Before going to the merits, let it be clarified that contrary to the One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the
report of Commissioner Reyes, respondent did not only represent acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the
the Gatcheco spouses in the administrative case filed by Gonzales lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
against them. As respondent himself narrated in his Position Paper, suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of
he likewise acted as their counsel in the criminal cases filed by that duty.[27] As we expounded in the recent case of Quiambao vs.
Gonzales against them.[23] Bamba,[28]
With that settled, we find respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of The proscription against representation of conflicting interests
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit: applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in
the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that the
lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which
the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no
occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the
disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyers
facts. respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance
of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.[29]
It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing
The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of interests in this
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given
case, as the civil case handled by their law firm where Gonzales is
after a full disclosure of the facts.[24] Such prohibition is founded on
the complainant and the criminal cases filed by Gonzales against the
principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-
Gatcheco spouses are not related, has no merit. The representation
client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.[25]
of opposing clients in said cases, though unrelated, constitutes
Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence,
but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only
conflict of interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double- prosper as it is settled that while there may be instances where
dealing which this Court cannot allow.[30] lawyers cannot decline representation they cannot be made to labor
under conflict of interest between a present client and a prospective
Respondent further argued that it was his brother who represented
one.[34] Granting also that there really was no other lawyer who
Gonzales in the civil case and not him, thus, there could be no
could handle the spouses case other than him, still he should have
conflict of interests. We do not agree. As respondent admitted, it was
observed the requirements laid down by the rules by conferring with
their law firm which represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such
the prospective client to ascertain as soon as practicable whether the
being the case, the rule against representing conflicting interests
matter would involve a conflict with another client then seek the
applies.
written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts.
As we explained in the case of Hilado vs. David:[31] [35] These respondent failed to do thus exposing himself to the
charge of double-dealing.
[W]e can not sanction his taking up the cause of the adversary
of the party who had sought and obtained legal advice from his firm;
this, not necessarily to prevent any injustice to the plaintiff but to keep We note the affidavit of desistance filed by Gonzales. However, we
above reproach the honor and integrity of the courts and of the bar. are not bound by such desistance as the present case involves public
Without condemning the respondents conduct as dishonest, corrupt, or
fraudulent, we do believe that upon the admitted facts it is highly interest.[36] Indeed, the Courts exercise of its power to take
inexpedient. It had the tendency to bring the profession, of which he is
a distinguished member, into public disrepute and suspicion and cognizance of administrative cases against lawyers is not for the
undermine the integrity of justice.[32]
purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties, but to protect
The claim of respondent that he acted in good faith and with the court and the public against an attorney guilty of unworthy
honest intention will also not exculpate him as such claim does not practices in his profession.[37]
render the prohibition inoperative.[33]
In similar cases where the respondent was found guilty of representing
In the same manner, his claim that he could not turn down the conflicting interests a penalty ranging from one to three years suspension
spouses as no other lawyer is willing to take their case cannot was imposed.[38]
We shall consider however as mitigating circumstances the fact that commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt
he is representing the Gatcheco spouses pro bono and that it was his with more severely.
firm and not respondent personally, which handled the civil case of
SO ORDERED.
Gonzales. As recounted by complainant herself, Atty. Edmar
Cabucana signed the civil case of complainant by stating first the
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
name of the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN
AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, under which, his name and Associate Justice
signature appear; while herein respondent signed the pleadings for WE CONCUR:
the Gatcheco spouses only with his name,[39] without any mention ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
of the law firm. We also note the observation of the IBP
Chief Justice
Commissioner Reyes that there was no malice and bad faith in
respondents acceptance of the Gatchecos cases as shown by the move
CONSUELO YNARES- ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
of complainant to withdraw the case. SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Thus, for violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and taking into consideration the aforementioned
mitigating circumstances, we impose the penalty of fine of P2,000.00.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVI-2005-153 of the Integrated Bar
Associate Justice
of the Philippines is APPROVED with MODIFICATION that
respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. is FINED the amount of
[1] Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
[2] Rule 13.01 A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor [13] Id., pp. 37-41.
seek opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with judges.
[14] Id., pp. 46-50.
[3] Rule 15.02 A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in
respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client. [15] Id., p. 54.
[4] Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written [16] Id., p. 55.
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
[17] Id., p. 56.
[5] Rule 21.01 A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client
except: [18] Id., p. 58.
a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences [19] Id., p. 60.
of the disclosure;
[20] Id., p. 63.
b) When required by law;
[21] Id., pp. 68-69.
c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or
associates or by judicial action. [22] Id., p. 65.
[6] Rule 21.02 A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information [23] Id., pp. 46-49.
acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own
advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of [24] See Rule 15.03, Code of Professional Responsibility.
the circumstances consents thereto.
[25] Quiambao vs. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708 (CBD Case No. 01-874), August 25, 2005.
Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[26] Ibid.
[7] Rollo, p. 10.
[27] Santos, Sr. vs. Beltran, A.C. No. 5858, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 17, 25-26.
[8] Id., pp. 12-16.
[28] A.C. No. 6708 (CBD Case No. 01-874), August 25, 2005.
[9] Id., pp. 19-21.
[29] Ibid.
[10] Id., p. 29.
[30] Ibid.
[11] Id., p. 33.
[31] 84 Phil. 569 (1949).
[12] Id., p. 53.
[32] Id., p. 579.
[34] Ibid.
[36] Mercado vs. Vitriolo, 459 SCRA 1, 8; Rangwani vs. Dio, 443 SCRA 408, 417.
[38] Quiambao vs. Bamba, Adm. Case No. 6708, August 25, 2005; Vda de Alisbo vs.
Jalandoni, A.C. No. 1311, July 18, 1991, 199 SCRA 321; PNB vs. Cedo, 312
Phil. 904 (1995); Maturan vs. Gonzales, 350 Phil. 882 (1998); Northwestern
University, Inc. vs. Arguillo, A.C. No. 6632, August 2, 2005.
Two complaints for disbarment were filed by Dr. Melvyn G. Garcia (Garcia) against A day prior to the filing of A.C. No. 7973, or on 29 July 2008, Garcia filed a
Atty. Raul H. Sesbrefio (Sesbrefio). The two cases, docketed as A.C. No. 7973 and complaint for disbarment against Sesbreo before the IBP-CBD. He alleged that
A.C. No. 10457, were consolidated in the Court's Resolution dated 30 September Sesbreo is practicing law despite his previous conviction for homicide in Criminal
2014. Case No. CBU-31733, and despite the facts that he is only on parole and that he has
not fully served his sentence. Garcia alleged that Sesbreo violated Section 27, Rule
A.C. No. 7973 138 of the Rules of Court by continuing to engage in the practice of law despite his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Upon the directive of the IBP-CBD,
On 30 July 2008, Garcia filed a complaint for disbarment against Sesbreo before the Garcia submitted his verified complaint against Sesbreo alleging basically the same
Office of the Bar Confidant. The case was docketed as A.C. No. 7973. Garcia alleged facts he alleged in A.C. No. 7973.
that in 1965, he married Virginia Alcantara in Cebu. They had two children, Maria
Margarita and Angie Ruth. In 1971, he and Virginia separated. He became a dentist In his answer to the complaint, Sesbreo alleged that his sentence was commuted and
and practiced his profession in Cabanatuan City. Garcia alleged that in1992, Virginia the phrase "with the inherent accessory penalties provided by law" was deleted.
filed a petition for the annulment of their marriage, which was eventually granted. Sesbreo argued that even if the accessory penalty was not deleted, the
disqualification applies only during the term of the sentence. Sesbreo further alleged
Garcia alleged that in 2005 while he was in Japan, Sesbreo, representing Maria that homicide does not involve moral turpitude. Sesbreo claimed that Garcias
Margarita and Angie Ruth, filed an action for support against him and his sister complaint was motivated by extreme malice, bad faith, and desire to retaliate against
Milagros Garcia Soliman. At the time of the filing of the case, Maria Margarita was him for representing Garcias daughters in court.
already 39 years old while Angie Ruth was 35 years old. The case was dismissed. In
2007, Garcia returned from Japan. When Sesbreo and Garcias children learned The IBP-CBD consolidated A.C. No. 7973 with CBD Case No. 08-2273. The parties
abouthis return, Sesbreo filed a Second Amended Complaint against him. Garcia agreed on the sole issue to be resolved: whether moral turpitude is involved in a
alleged that he learned that Sesbreo was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of conviction for homicide. The IBP-CBD ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Cebu
found Sesbreo guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. On appeal, this Court downgraded the crime to homicide and sentenced On 6 May 2013, Sesbreo filed a motion for reconsideration before the IBP-CBD.
Sesbreo to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for 9 years and 1 day of prision Sesbreo alleged that the IBP-CBD misunderstood and misapplied Soriano v. Atty.
mayor as minimum to 16 years and 4 months of reclusion temporalas maximum. The Dizon. He alleged that the attendant circumstances in Sorianoare disparate, distinct,
IBP-CBD found that Sesbreo was released from confinement on 27 July 2001 and different from his case. He further alleged that there was no condition set on the
following his acceptance of the conditions of his parole on 10 July 2001. grant of executive clemency to him; and thus, he was restored to his full civil and
political rights. Finally, Sesbreo alleged that after his wife died in an ambush, he
The IBP-CBD ruled that conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground already stopped appearing as private prosecutor in the case for bigamy against Garcia
for disbarment or suspension. Citing International Rice Research Institute v. National and that he already advised his clients to settle their other cases. He alleged that
Labor Relations Commission,1 the IBPCBD further ruled that homicide may or may Garcia already withdrew the complaints against him.
not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. The IBP-CBD
reviewed the decision of this Court convicting Sesbreo for the crime of homicide, On 11 February 2014, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XX-2014-
and found that the circumstances leading to the death of the victim involved moral 31 denying Sesbreos motion for reconsideration. The IBPCBD transmitted the
turpitude. The IBP-CBD stated: records of the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant on 20 May 2014. CBD Case
No. 08-2273 was redocketed as A.C. No. 10457. In the Courts Resolution dated 30
Neither victim Luciano Amparadon or his companion Christopher Yapchangco was September 2014, the Court consolidated A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457.
shown to be a foe of respondent and neither had the victim Luciano nor his
companion Christopher shown to have wronged the respondent. They simply The only issue in these cases is whether conviction for the crime of homicide
happened to be at the wrong place and time the early morning of June 3, 1993. involves moral turpitude.
The circumstances leading to the death of Luciano solely caused by respondent, bear We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD and approve Resolution
the earmarks of moral turpitude. Paraphrasing what the Supreme Court observed in No. XX-2013-19 dated 12 February 2013 and Resolution No. XX-2014-31 dated 11
Soriano v. Dizon, supra, the respondent, by his conduct, displayed extreme arrogance February 2014 of the IBP Board of Governors.
and feeling of self-importance. Respondent acted like a god who deserved not to be
slighted by a couple of drunks who may have shattered the stillness of the early Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar may be
morning with their boisterous antics, natural display of loud bravado of drunken men disbarred or suspended as attorney by this Court by reason of his conviction of a
who had one too many. Respondents inordinate over reaction to the ramblings of crime involving moral turpitude. This Court has ruled that disbarment is the
drunken men who were not even directed at respondent reflected poorly on his fitness appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral
to be a member of the legal profession. Respondent was not only vindictive without a turpitude.4 Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private
cause; he was cruel with a misplaced sense of superiority.2 duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contraryto
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.5
Following the ruling of this Court in Soriano v. Atty. Dizon3 where the respondent
was disbarred for having been convicted of frustrated homicide, the IBP-CBD The question of whether conviction for homicide involves moral turpitude was
recommended that Sesbreo be disbarred and his name stricken from the Roll of discussed by this Court in International Rice Research Institute v. NLRC6 where it
Attorneys. ruled:
In its Resolution No. XX-2013-19 dated 12 February 2013, the IBP Board of This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of homicide do not involve moral
Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD. turpitude.1wphi1 Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on
the degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is
not shown by every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any
particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and justified the indiscriminate firing done by Sesbreo that eventually led to the death of
frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances. While x x x generally but Amparado.
not always, crimes mala in seinvolve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibitado
not, it cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by We cannot accept Sesbreos argument that the executive clemency restored his full
classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum, since there are crimes civil and political rights. Sesbreo cited In re Atty. Parcasio10 to bolster his
which are mala in se and yet rarely involve moral turpitude and there are crimes argument. In thatcase, Atty. Parcasio was granted "an absolute and unconditional
which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. It follows therefore, that pardon"11 which restored his "full civil and political rights,"12 a circumstance not
moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must present inthese cases. Here, the Order of Commutation13 did not state that the pardon
be left to the process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached.7 was absolute and unconditional. The accessory penalties were not mentioned when
the original sentence was recited in the Order of Commutation and they were also not
In People v. Sesbreo,8 the Court found Sesbreo guilty of homicide and ruled: mentioned in stating the commuted sentence. It only states: By virtue of the authority
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, conferred upon me by the Constitution and upon the recommendation of the Board of
Branch 18, in Criminal Case No. CBU-31733 is hereby MODIFIED. Appellant Raul Pardons and Parole, the original sentence of prisoner RAUL SESBREO Y HERDA
H. Sesbreois hereby found GUILTY of HOMICIDE and hereby sentenced to suffer convicted by the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City and Supreme Court and sentenced
a prison term of 9 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as a minimum, to 16 years and 4 to an indeterminate prison term of from 9 years and 1 day to 16 years and 4 months
months of reclusion temporal, as a maximum, with accessory penalties provided by imprisonment and to pay an indemnity of P50,000.00 is/are hereby commuted to an
law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Luciano Amparado in the amount of indeterminate prison term of from 7 years and 6 months to 10 years imprisonment
P50,000.00 and to pay the costs. and to pay an indemnity of P50,000.00.14
SO ORDERED.9 Again, there was no mention that the executive clemency was absolute and
unconditional and restored Sesbreo to his full civil and political rights.
We reviewed the Decision of this Court and we agree with the IBPCBD that the
circumstances show the presence of moral turpitude. There are four acts of executive clemency that the President can extend: the President
can grant reprieves, commutations, pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after
The Decision showed that the victim Luciano Amparado (Amparado) and his conviction by final judgment.15 In this case, the executive clemency merely
companion Christopher Yapchangco (Yapchangco) were walking and just passed by "commuted to an indeterminate prison term of 7 years and 6 months to 10 years
Sesbreos house when the latter, without any provocation from the former, went out imprisonment" the penalty imposed on Sesbrefio. Commutation is a mere reduction
of his house, aimed his rifle, and started firing at them. According to Yapchangco, of penalty.16 Commutation only partially extinguished criminal liability.17 The
theywere about five meters, more or less, from the gate of Sesbreo when they heard penalty for Sesbrefio' s crime was never wiped out. He served the commuted or
the screeching sound of the gate and when they turned around, they saw Sesbreo reduced penalty, for which reason he was released from prison. More importantly, the
aiming his rifle at them. Yapchangco and Amparado ran away but Amparado was hit. Final Release and Discharge18 stated that "[i]t is understood that such x x x
An eyewitness, Rizaldy Rabanes (Rabanes), recalled that he heard shots and opened accessory penalties of the law as have not been expressly remitted herein shall
the window of his house. He saw Yapchangco and Amparado running away while subsist." Hence, the Parcasio case has no application here. Even if Sesbrefio has been
Sesbreo was firing his firearm rapidly, hitting Rabanes house in the process. granted pardon, there is nothing in the records that shows that it was a full and
Another witness, Edwin Parune, saw Amparado fall down after being shot, then saw unconditional pardon. In addition, the practice of law is not a right but a privilege.19
Sesbreo in the middle of the street, carrying a long firearm, and walking back It is granted only to those possessing good moral character.20 A violation of the high
towards the gate of his house. The IBP-CBD correctly stated that Amparado and moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate
Yapchangco were just at the wrong place and time. They did not do anything that penalty against a lawyer, including the penalty of disbarment.21
WHEREFORE, respondent Raul H. Sesbrefio is DISBARRED effective immediately Footnotes
upon his receipt of this Decision.
* On leave.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters, and the Office of 1 G.R. No. 97239, 12 May 1993, 221 SCRA 760.
the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts all over the country. Let a
copy of this Decision be attached to the personal records of respondent. 2 Rollo (A.C. No. 10457), pp. 275-276.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO 4 Re: SC Decision Dated May 20, 2008 in G.R. No. 161455 Under Rule 139-
Chief Justice B of the Rules of Court v. Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin, A.C. No. 7940, 24 April
2012, 670 SCRA 366.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
ANTONIO T. CARPIO 5 Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa, A.C. No. 7360, 24 July 2012, 677 SCRA 352.
JR.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
6 Supra note 1.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE (On leave) 7 Supra note 1, at 768.
CASTRO ARTURO D. BRION*
Associate Justice Associate Justice
8 372 Phil. 762 (1999).
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN 9 Id. at 795.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
10 161 Phil. 437 (1976).
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice 11 Id. at 441.
20 Id.
21 Id.
Republic of the Philippines On March 22, 2007, Atty. Baliga, also the Regional Director of the Commission on
SUPREME COURT Human Rights Regional Office for Region II, filed the undated ex parte clarificatory
Manila pleading with leave of court.9
THIRD DIVISION In his ex parte clarificatory pleading, Atty. Baliga alleged that on July 14, 2006,
complainant Lingan wrote the Commission on Human Rights. Lingan requested the
A.C. No. 5377 June 30, 2014 Commission to investigate Atty. Baliga following the latter's suspension from the
practice of law.
VICTOR C. LINGAN, Complainant,
vs. After this court had suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law, the Commission
ATTYS. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB and JIMMY P. BALIGA, Respondents. on Human Rights En Banc issued the resolution10 dated January 16, 2007,
suspending him from his position as Director/Attorney VI of the. Commission on
RESOLUTION Human Rights Regional Office for Region II. According to the Commission on
Human Rights En Banc, Atty. Baliga's suspension from the practice of law
LEONEN, J.: "prevent[ed] [him] from assuming his post [as Regional Director] for want of
eligibility in the meantime that his authority to practice law is suspended."11
This court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. When this
court orders a lawyer suspended from the practice of law, the lawyer must desist from Atty. Baliga argued that he cannot be suspended for acts not connected with his
performing all functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the functions as Commission on Human Rights Regional Director. According to Atty.
period of suspension. This includes desisting from holding a position in government Baliga, his suspension from the practice of law did not include his suspension from
requiring the authority to practice law. public office. He prayed for clarification of this court's resolution dated June 15,
2006 "to prevent further injury and prejudice to [his] rights."12
For our resolution is respondent Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga's motion to lift one-year
suspension from the practice of law.1 This court noted without action Atty. Baliga's ex parte clarificatory pleading as this
court does not render advisory opinions.13
In the resolution2 dated June 15, 2006, this court found Attys. Romeo I. Calubaquib
and Jimmy P. Baliga guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of On May 8, 2009, this court received a letter from complainant Lingan. In his letter14
Professional Responsibility3 and of the Lawyer's Oath.4 Respondents allowed their dated May 4, 2009, Lingan alleged that Atty. Baliga continued practicing law and
secretaries to notarize documents in their stead, in violation of Sections 2455 and discharging his functions as Commission on Human Rights Regional Director, in
2466 of the Notarial Law. This court suspended respondents from the practice of law violation of this court's order of suspension.
for one year, revoked their notarial commissions, and disqualified them from
reappointment as notaries public for two years. Complainant Lingan allegedly received a copy of the Commission on Human Rights
En Banc 's resolution suspending Atty. Baliga as Regional Director. On Atty. Baliga's
Complainant Victor C. Lingan filed his motion for reconsideration,7 praying that motion, the ommission reconsidered Atty. Baliga's suspension and instead
respondents be disbarred, not merely suspended from the practice of law. In the admonished him for "[violating] the conditions of his commission as a notary
resolution8 dated September 6, 2006, this court denied complainant Lingan's motion public."15 According to complainant Lingan, he was not served a copy of Atty.
for reconsideration for lack of merit. Baliga's motion for reconsideration.16
Complainant Lingan claimed that the discharge of the functions of a Commission on On July 17, 2009, Atty. Baliga filed a manifestation,24 arguing that his suspension
Human Rights Regional Director necessarily required the practice of law. A from the practice of law did not include his suspension from public office. Atty.
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director must be a member of the bar and is Baliga said, "[t]o stretch the coverage of [his suspension from the practice of law] to
designated as Attorney VI. Since this court suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice [his] public office would be tantamount to [violating] his constitutional rights [sic] to
of law, Atty. Baliga was in effect "a non-lawyer . . . and [was] disqualified to hold the due process and to the statutory principle in law that what is not included is deemed
position of [Regional Director] [during the effectivity of the order of suspension]."17 excluded."25
The Commission on Human Rights, according to complainant Lingan, should have
ordered Atty. Baliga to desist from performing his functions as Regional Director. In the resolution26 dated September 23, 2009, this court required respondents to file
Complainant Lingan prayed that this court give "favorable attention and action on the their respective motions to lift order of suspension considering the lapse of the period
matter."18 of suspension. This court further ordered Atty. Baliga and the Commission on Human
Rights to comment on complainant Lingari's allegation that Atty. Baliga continued
This court endorsed complainant Lingan's letter to the Office of the Bar Confidant for performing his functions as Regional Director while he was suspended from the
report and recommendation.19 practice of law. The resolution dated September 23, 2009 provides:
In its report and recommendation20 dated June 29, 2009, the Office of the Bar Considering that the period of suspension from the practice of law and
Confidant found that the period of suspension of Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga had disqualification from being commissioned as notary public imposed on respondents
already lapsed. It recommended that respondents be required to file their respective have [sic] already elapsed, this Court resolves:
motions to lift order of suspension with certifications from the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Executive Judge of the court where they might appear as counsel (1) to require both respondents, within ten (10) days from notice, to FILE
and state that they desisted from practicing law during the period of suspension. their respective motions to lift relative to their suspension and disqualification
from being commissioned as notary public and SUBMIT certifications from
On the claim that the Commission on Human Rights allowed Atty. Baliga to perform the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and Executive Judge of the Court where
his functions as Regional Director during the period of suspension, the Office of the they may appear as counsel, stating that respondents have actually ceased and
Bar Confidant said that the Commission "deliberate[ly] disregard[ed]"21 this court's desisted from the practice of law during the entire period of their suspension
order of suspension. According to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Commission and disqualification, unless already complied with in the meantime;
on Human Rights had no power to "[alter, modify, or set aside any of this court's
resolutions] which [have] become final and executory. "22 (2) to require Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga to SUBMIT a certification from the
Commission on Human Rights [CHR] stating that he has been suspended
Thus, with respect to Atty. Baliga, the Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that from office and has stopped from the performance of his functions for the
this court require him to submit a certification from the Commission on Human period stated in the order of suspension and disqualification, within ten (10)
Rights stating that he desisted from performing his functions as Regional Director days from notice hereof;
while he was suspended from the practice of law.23
(3) to require respondent Atty. Baliga and the CHR to COMMENT on the
The Office of the Bar Confidant further recommended that Atty. Baliga and the allegations of complainant against them, both within ten (10) days from
Commission .on Human Rights be required to comment on complainant Lingan's receipt of notice hereof; ...27 (Emphasis in the original)
allegation that Atty. Baliga continued to perform his functions as Regional Director
while he was suspended from the practice of law. In compliance with this court's order, Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga filed their
respective motions to lift order of suspension.28 Atty. Baliga also filed his comment
on complainant Lingan's allegation that he continued performing his functions as Lingan reiterated that the position of Regional Director/ Attorney VI requires the
Regional Director during his suspension from the practice of law. officer "to be a lawyer [in] good standing."45 Moreover, as admitted by Atty. Baliga,
he had supervision and control over Attorneys III, IV, and V. Being a "lawyer-
In his comment29 dated November 13, 2009, Atty. Baliga alleged that as Regional manager," Atty. Baliga practiced law while he held his position as Regional Director.
Director, he "perform[ed], generally, managerial functions,"30 which did not require
the practice of law. These managerial functions allegedly included ."[supervising] ... With respect to Atty. Baliga's claim that he was in good faith in reassuming his
the day to day operations of the regional office and its personnel";31 "monitoring position as Regional Director, complainant Lingan countered that if Atty. Baliga were
progress of investigations conducted by the [Commission on Human Rights] really in good faith, he should have followed the initial resolution of the Commission
Investigation Unit";32 "monitoring the implementation of all other services and on Human Rights suspending him from office. Atty. Baliga did not even furnish this
assistance programs of the [Commission on Human Rights] by the different units at court a copy of his motion for reconsideration of the Commission on Human Right's
the regional level";33 and "[supervising] . . . the budgetary requirement preparation resolution suspending him from office. By "playing ignorant on what is 'practice of
and disbursement of funds and expenditure of the [Regional Office]."34 The law', twisting facts and philosophizing,"46 complainant Lingan argued that Atty.
Commission allegedly has its own "legal services unit which takes care of the legal Baliga "[no longer has that] moral vitality imperative to the title of an attorney."47
services matters of the [Commission]."35 Compfainant Lingan prayed that Atty. Baliga be disbarred.
Stating that his functions as Regional Director did not require the practice of law, On February 17, 2010, this court lifted the order of suspension of Atty.
Atty. Baliga claimed thaf he "faithful[ly] [complied] with [this court's resolution Calubaquib.48 He was allowed to resume his practice of law and perform notarial
suspending him from the practice of law]."36 acts subject to compliance with the requirements for issuance of a notarial
commission.
The Commission on Human Rights filed its comment37 dated November 27, 2009. It
argued that "the penalty imposed upon Atty. Baliga as a member of the bar is separate On the other hand, this court referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for
and distinct from any penalty that may be imposed upon him as a public official for evaluation, report, and recommendation Atty. Baliga's motion to lift one-year
the same acts."38 According to the Commission, Atty. Baliga's suspension from the suspension and the respective comments of Atty. Baliga and the Commission on
practice of law is a "bar matter"39 while the imposition of penalty upon a Human Rights.49
Commission on Human Rights official "is an entirely different thing, falling as it
does within the exclusive authority of the [Commission as] disciplining body."40 In its report and recommendation50 dated October 18, 2010, the Office of the Bar
Confidant stated that Atty. Baliga "should not [have been] allowed to perform his
Nevertheless, the Commission manifested that it would defer to this court's resolution functions, duties, and responsibilities [as Regional Director] which [required acts
of the issue and would "abide by whatever ruling or decision [this court] arrives at on constituting] practice .of law."51 Considering that Atty. Baliga claimed that he did
[the] matter. "41 In reply42 to Atty. Baliga's comment, complainant Lingan argued not perform his functions as Regional Director which required the practice of law, the
that Atty. Baliga again disobeyed this. court. Atty. Baliga failed to submit a Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the Commission on Human Rights be
certification from the Commission on Human Rights stating that he was suspended required to comment on this claim. The Office of the Bar Confidant also
from office and desisted from performing his functions as Regional Director. recommended holding in abeyance the resolution of Atty. Baliga's motion to lift
suspension "pending [the Commission on Human Right's filing of comment]."52
As to Atty. Baliga's claim that he did not practice law while he held his position as
Regional Director and only performed generally managerial functions, complainant In the resolution53 dated January 12, 2011, this court held in abeyance the resolution
Lingan countered that Atty. Baliga admitted to defying the order of suspension. Atty. of Atty. Baliga's motion to lift one-year suspension. The Commission on Human
Baliga admitted to performing the functions of a "lawyer-manager,"43 which under Rights was ordered to comment on Atty. Baliga's claim that he did not practice law
the landmark case of Cayetano v. Monsod44 constituted practice of law. Complainant while he held his position as Regional Director.
In its comment54 dated April 6, 2011, the Commission on Human Rights reiterated b. To issue mission orders in their respective regional offices;66
that the penalty imposed on Atty. Baliga as a member of the bar is separate from the
penalty that might be imposed on him as Regional Director. The Commission added c. To conduct preliminary evaluation or initial investigation of human rights
that it is "of honest belief that the position of [Regional Director] is managerial and complaints in the absence of the legal officer or investigator;67
does not [require the practice of law]."55 It again manifested that it will "abide by
whatever ruling or decision [this court] arrives on [the] matter."56 d. To conduct dialogues or preliminary conferences among parties and discuss
"immediate courses of action and protection remedies and/or possible
The issue for our resolution is whether Atty. Baliga's motion to lift order of submission of the matter to an alternative dispute resolution";68
suspension should be granted.
e. To issue Commission on Human Rights processes, including notices, letter-
We find that Atty. Baliga violated this court's order of suspension. We, therefore, invitations, orders, or subpoenas within the territorial jurisdiction of the
suspend him further from the practice of law for six months. regional office;69 and
Practice of law is "any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of f. To review and approve draft resolutions of human rights cases prepared by
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience."57 It includes the legal officer.70
"[performing] acts which are characteristics of the [legal] profession"58 or
"[rendering any kind of] service [which] requires the use in any degree of legal These powers and functions are characteristics of the legal profession. Oaths and
knowledge or skill."59 affirmations are usually performed by members of the judiciary and notaries public71
- officers who are necessarily members of the bar.72 Investigating human rights
Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered practice. complaints are performed primarily by the Commission's legal officer.73 Discussing
of law. In Cayetano v. Monsod,60 this court cited the deliberations of the 1986 immediate courses of action and protection remedies and reviewing and approving
Constitutional Commission and agreed that work rendered by lawyers in the draft resolutions of human rights cases prepared by the legal officer require the use of
Commission on Audit requiring "[the use of] legal knowledge or legal talent"61 is extensive legal knowledge.
practice of law.
The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on Human Rights
The Commission on Human Rights is an independent office created under the Regional Director constitutes practice of law. Thus, the Regional Director must be an
Constitution with power to investigate "all forms of human rights violations attorney - a member of the bar in good standing and authorized to practice law.74
involving civil and political rights[.]"62 It is divided into regional offices with each When the Regional Director loses this authority, such as when he or she is disbarred
office having primary responsibility to investigate human rights violations in its or suspended from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a necessary
territorial jurisdiction.63 Each regional office is headed by the Regional Director qualification to the position he or she is holding. The disbarred or suspended lawyer
who is given the position of Attorney VI. must desist from holding the position of Regional Director.
Under the Guidelines and Procedures in the Investigation and Monitoring of Human This court suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law for one year on June 15,
Rights Violations and Abuses, and the Provision of CHR Assistance,64 the Regional 2006, "effective immediately."75 From the time Atty. Baliga received the court's
Director has the following powers and functions: order of suspension on July 5, 2006,76 he has been without authority to practice law.
He lacked a necessary qualification to his position as Commission on Human Rights
a. To administer oaths or affirmations with respect to "[Commission on Regional Director/ Attorney VI. As the Commission on Human Rights correctly
Human Rights] matters;"65 resolved in its resolution dated January 16, 2007:
WHEREAS, this suspension under ethical standards, in effect, prevents Atty. Baliga without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
from assuming his post, for want of eligibility in the meantime that his authority to gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
practice law is suspended. This is without prejudice to the investigation to be
conducted to the practice of law of Atty. Baliga, which in the case of all Regional In Molina v. Atty. Magat,79 this court suspended further Atty. Ceferino R. Magat
Human Rights Directors is not generally allowed by the Commission; from the practice of law for six months for practicing his profession despite this
court's previous order of suspension.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Commission on Human Rights of
the Philippines resolved to put into effect and implement the legal implications of the We impose the same penalty on Atty. Baliga for holding his position as Regional
SC decision by decreeing the suspension of Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga in the discharge of Director despite lack.of authority to practice law.1wphi1
his functions and responsibilities as Director/Attorney VI of CHRP-Region II in
Tuguegarao City for the period for which the Supreme Court Resolution is in We note that the Commission on Human Rights En Banc issued the resolution dated
effect.77 (Emphasis in the original) April 13, 2007, reconsidering its first resolution suspending Atty. Baliga as Regional
Director/ Attorney VI. Instead, the Commission admonished Atty. Baliga and sternly
In ordering Atty. Baliga suspended from office as Regional Director, the Commission warned him that repeating the same offense will cause his dismissal from the service.
on Human Rights did not violate Atty. Baliga's right to due process. First, he was The resolution with CHR (III) No. A2007-045 dated April 13, 2007 reads:
only suspended after: investigation by the Commission on Human Rights Legal and
Investigation Office.78 Second, the Commission gave Atty. Baliga an opportunity to In his Motion for Reconsideration dated March 15, 2007, respondent Atty. Jimmy P.
be heard when he filed his motion for reconsideration. Baliga prays before the Honorable Commission to recall and annul his suspension as
Regional Director/ Attorney VI of the Commission on Human Rights - Regional
Atty. Baliga's performance of generally managerial functions was not supported by Office No. II, per 16 January 2007 Commission en Banc Resolution CHR (III) No.
the record. It was also immaterial.1wphi1 He held the position of Commission on A2007-013.
Human Rights Regional Director because of his authority to practice law. Without
this authority, Atty. Baliga was disqualified to hold that position. The grounds relied upon the motion are not sufficient to convince the Commission
that Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga is totally blameless and should not suffer the appropriate
All told, performing the functions of a Commission on Human Rights Regional penalty for breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his Lawyer's oath.
Director constituted practice of law. Atty. Baliga should have desisted from holding
his position as Regional Director. The Commission, in the exercise of its authority to discipline, is concerned with the
transgression by Atty. Baliga of his oath of office as government employee. As
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, willful disobedience to any lawful records have it, the Commission granted Atty. Baliga authority to secure a
order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice commission as a notary public. With this, he is mandated to act as a notary public in
of law: accordance with the rules and regulations, to include the conditions expressly set
forth by the Commission.
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor.
- A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by With the findings clearly enunciated in the Supreme Court resolution in SC
the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such Administrative Case No. 5277 dated 15 June 2006, the Commission cannot close its
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving eyes to the act of Atty. Baliga that is clearly repugnant to the conduct of an officer
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before reposed with public trust.
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
This is enough just cause to have this piece of word, short of being enraged, and of suspension from the practice of law, effective upon service on Atty. Baliga of a
censure Atty. Baliga for having contravened the conditions of his commission as a copy of this resolution.
notary public. What was granted to Atty. Baliga is merely a privilege, the exercise of
which requires such high esteem to be in equal footing with the constitutional SERVE copies of this resolution to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office
mandate of the Commission. Clearly, Atty. Baliga should keep in mind that the of the Bar Confidant, and the Commission on Human Rights.
Commission exacts commensurate solicitude from whatever privilege the
Commission grants of every official and employee. SO ORDERED.
The Commission notes that by now Atty. Baliga is serving the one year suspension MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
imposed on him pursuant to the Supreme Court resolution. The Commission believes Associate Justice
that the further suspension of Atty. Baliga from the office may be too harsh in the
meantime that the Supreme Court penalty is being served. This Commission is WE CONCUR:
prevailed upon that the admonition of Atty. Baliga as above expressed is sufficient to
complete the cycle of penalizing an erring public officer. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA*
Associate Justice
WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby modifies its ruling in Resolution CHR (III)
No. A2007-013 and imposes the penalty of admonition with a stem warning that a MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.** JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
repetition of the same will merit a penalty of dismissal from the service.80 (Emphasis Associate Justice Associate Justice
in the original)
BIENVENIDO L. REYES***
The Commission on Human Rights erred in issuing the resolution dated April 13, Associate Justice
2007. This resolution caused Atty. Baliga to reassume his position as Regional
Director/ Attorney VI despite lack of authority to practice law.
We remind the Commission on Human Rights that we have the exclusive jurisdiction Footnotes
to regulate the practice of law.81 The Commission cannot, by mere resolutions and
.other issuances, modify or defy this court's orders of suspension from the practice of * Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta was designated as Acting
law. Although the Commission on Human Rights has the power to appoint its officers Chairperson of the Third Division per Special Order No. 1707 dated June 17,
and employees,82 it can only retain those with the necessary qualifications in the 2o'1t1, vice Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., in view of the latter's
positions they are holding. official trip to Nairobi, Kenya on June 22 to 25, 2014 and to South Africa on
June 26 to 29, 2014.
As for Atty. Baliga, we remind him that the practice of law is a "privilege burdened
with conditions."83 To enjoy the privileges of practicing law, lawyers must "[adhere] ** Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. was designated as Acting
to the rigid standards of mental fitness, [maintain] the highest degree of morality[,] Member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014, in view of the
and [faithfully comply] with the rules of [the] legal profession."84 vacancy in the Third Division.
WHEREFORE, we further SUSPEND Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga from the practice of law *** Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes was designated as Acting Member
for six ( 6) months. Atty. Baliga shall serve a total of one (1) year and six (6) months of the Third Division per Special Order No. 1704 dated June 17, 2014, vice
Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., in view of the latter's official trip instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the
to Nairobi, Kenya on June 22 to 25, 2014 and to South Africa on June 26 to person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the
29, 2014. witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of the execution, oath, or
acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees collected by hint for his
1 Rollo, pp. 558-566. This motion is dated November 16, 2009. services as notary in connection therewith. and when the instrument is
a contract, he shall keep a co1Tect copy thereof as part of his records,
2 Id. at 240-;2.55. and shall likewise enter in said records a brief description of the
substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number,
3 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY' Canon 1, Rule 1.01 beginning with number one in each calendar year. The notary shall
states: give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before
him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral state on the instrument the page or pages of his register on which the
or deceitful conduct. same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.
4 "I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the When a notary public shall protest any draft, bill of exchange, or
Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the promissory note, he shall make a full and true record in his notarial
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, register of all his proceedings in relation thereto, and shall note therein
nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly whether the demand or the sum of money therein mentioned was
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent made, of whom, when, and where; whether he presented such draft,
to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct bill, or note: whether notices were given, to whom, and in what
myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, manner; where the same was made, and when, and to whom, and
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon where directed: and of every other fact touching the same.
myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion. So help me God." At the end of each week the notary shall certify in his register the
number of instruments executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or
5 REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917, book 1, title IV, chap. 11, protested before him; or if none such, certificate shall show this fact.
art. V, sec. 245 states:
7 Rollo, pp. 256-293.
SECTION 245. Notarial register. - Every notary public shall keep a
register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be 8 Id. at 295 ..
made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified
copy of such record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for it 9 Id. at 296-343.
and paying the legal fees therefor.
10 Id. at 322-325, Resolution CHR (III) No. A2007-013.
6 REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917, book I, title IV, chap. 11,
art. V, sec. 246 states: 11 Id. at 323.
SECTION 246. Matters to be entered therein - The notary public shall 12 Id. at 307.
enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each
13 Id. at 346, Resolution dated July 16, 2007. 32 Id. at 545.
14 Id at 397-413. 33 Id.
15 Id. at 407, Resolution CHR (Ill) No. A2007-045 dated April 13, 2007. 34 Id.
17 Id. 36 Id.
19 Id. at 396, 1st Indorsement dated May 13, 2009. 38 Id. at 490
57 Cayetano v. Monsod, 278 Phil. 235, 243 (1991) [Per J. Paras, En Banc]. 69 GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND
MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES, AND
58 Id. THE PROVISION OF CHRASSISTANCE, rule 4, sec. 11.
62 CONST!., art. XIII, sec. 18 (1); Cario v. Commission on Human Rights, 72 CONSTI., Art. VIII, sec. 7; REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF
G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991, 204 SCRA 483, 494 [Per J. Narvasa, En 1917, book I, title IV, chap. II, art. I, sec. 233.
Banc].
73 GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND
63 GUIDEUNES AND PROCEDURES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES, AND
MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES, AND THE PROVISION OF CHR ASSISTANCE, rule 4, sec. 6.
THE PROVISION OF CHR ASSISTANCE, rule 4, sec. 7.
74 RULES OF COURT, rule 138, sec. 1.
64 This set of guidelines was approved in April 2012. Available at
<http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/about%20us/PDF/FINAL 75 Rollo, p. 254.
APPROVED 8.31.2012.pdt> (visited March 21, 2014).
76 Id. at 418.
65 GUIDEUNES AND PROCEDURES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND
MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES, AND 77 Id. at 323.
THE PROVISION OF CHRASSISTANCE, rule 3, sec. l(n)
78 Id. at 298.
79 A.C. No. 1900, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA I [Per J. Mendoza, Third
Division].
84 Id.
EN BANC
JOSELANO GUEVARRA, A.C. No. 7136 In his complaint, Guevarra gave the following account:
Complainant,
PUNO, C.J., He first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainants) then-
QUISUMBING, fiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent to him as her friend who
YNARES-SANTIAGO, was married to Marianne (sometimes spelled Mary Ann) Tantoco with whom
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, he had three children.
CARPIO,
versus AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant noticed that from
CORONA, January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent cellphone
CARPIO MORALES, calls, as well as messages some of which read I love you, I miss you, or Meet
AZCUNA, you at Megamall.
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO, Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or
GARCIA, early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL VELASCO, JR., and from work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept
EALA, NACHURA, JJ. at her parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.
Respondent. Promulgated:
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and respondent together
on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following
August 1, 2007 which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint for Complainant later found, in the masters bedroom, a folded social card bearing
Disbarment58[1] before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee the words I Love You on its face, which card when unfolded contained a
on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene,
Eala (respondent) for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of reading:
the lawyers oath.
My everdearest Irene,
Sometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to find In his ANSWER,60[3] respondent admitted having sent the I LOVE YOU card
fleeting happiness but experience eternal pain? Is it only for us to find a true on which the above-quoted letter was handwritten.
love but then lose it again? Or is it because theres a bigger plan for the two of
us? On paragraph 14 of the COMPLAINT reading:
I hope that you have experienced true happiness with me. I 14. Respondent and Irene were even FLAUNTING THEIR
have done everything humanly possible to love you. And today, as you make ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP as they attended social functions together.
your vows . . . I make my own vow to YOU! For instance, in or about the third week of September 2001, the couple
attended the launch of the Wine All You Can promotion of French wines, held
I will love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the first at the Mega Strip of SM Megamall B at Mandaluyong City. Their attendance
time I laid eyes on you, to the time we spent together, up to the final moments was reported in Section B of the Manila Standard issue of 24 September
of your single life. But more importantly, I will love you until the life in me is 2001, on page 21. Respondent and Irene were photographed together; their
gone and until we are together again. picture was captioned: Irene with Sportscaster Noli Eala. A photocopy of the
report is attached as Annex C.61[4] (Italics and emphasis in the original;
Do not worry about me! I will be happy for you. I have enough CAPITALIZATION of the phrase flaunting their adulterous relationship
memories of us to last me a lifetime. Always remember though that in my supplied),
heart, in my mind and in my soul, YOU WILL ALWAYS
respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:
. . . AND THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU DO!
4. Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous
BE MINE . . . . AND MINE ALONE, and I WILL ALWAYS BE YOURS relationship with Irene as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the truth
AND YOURS ALONE! of the matter being that their relationship was low profile and known only to
the immediate members of their respective families, and that Respondent,
I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR ALWAYS. AS LONG as far as the general public was concerned, was still known to be legally
AS IM LIVING MY TWEETIE YOULL BE!59[2] married to Mary Anne Tantoco.62[5] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied
NOLI
Complainant soon saw respondents car and that of Irene constantly parked at 60 [3] Id. at 31-35.
No. 71-B 11th Street, New Manila where, as he was to later learn sometime in
61 [4] Id. at 6.
15. Respondents adulterous conduct with the complainants wife and 18. The Rules of Court requires lawyers to support the Constitution and obey
his apparent abandoning or neglecting of his own family, demonstrate his the laws. The Constitution regards marriage as an inviolable social institution
gross moral depravity, making him morally unfit to keep his membership in and is the foundation of the family (Article XV, Sec. 2).66[9]
the bar. He flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage, calling it a
piece of paper. Morally reprehensible was his writing the love letter to And on paragraph 19 of the COMPLAINT reading:
complainants bride on the very day of her wedding, vowing to continue his
love for her until we are together again, as now they are.63[6] (Underscoring 19. Respondents grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the
supplied), Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer, has been sworn to uphold. In
pursuing obsessively his illicit love for the complainants wife, he mocked the
respondent stated in his ANSWER as follows: institution of marriage, betrayed his own family, broke up the complainants
marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and degrades the legal
5. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of the profession.67[10] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
Complaint regarding his adulterous relationship and that his acts demonstrate
gross moral depravity thereby making him unfit to keep his membership in respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:
the bar, the reason being that Respondents relationship with Irene was not
under scandalous circumstances and that as far as his relationship with his 7. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the
own family: Complaint, the reason being that under the circumstances the acts of
Respondent with respect to his purely personal and low profile special
5.1 Respondent has maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful relationship with relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor
[his wife] Mary Anne as in fact they still occasionally meet in public, even if tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for
Mary Anne is aware of Respondents special friendship with Irene. disbarment pursuant to Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.68[11]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xxxx
To respondents ANSWER, complainant filed a REPLY,69[12] alleging that
5.5 Respondent also denies that he has flaunted his aversion to the institution Irene gave birth to a girl and Irene named respondent in the Certificate of
of marriage by calling the institution of marriage a mere piece of paper Live Birth as the girls father. Complainant attached to the Reply, as Annex A,
because his reference [in his above-quoted handwritten letter to Irene] to the
marriage between Complainant and Irene as a piece of paper was merely with
respect to the formality of the marriage contract.64[7] (Emphasis and 65 [8] Id. at 31.
underscoring supplied
66 [9] Id. at 7.
67 [10] Ibid.
During the investigation before the IBP-CBD, complainants Complaint- The IBP Board of Governors, however, annulled and set aside the
Affidavit and Reply to Answer were adopted as his testimony on direct Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and accordingly
examination.73[16] Respondents counsel did not cross-examine complainant.74 dismissed the case for lack of merit, by Resolution dated January 28, 2006
[17] briefly reading
After investigation, IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2006-06
Juan, in a 12-page REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION75[18] dated
October 26, 2004, found the charge against respondent sufficiently proven. CBD Case No. 02-936
The Commissioner thus recommended76[19] that respondent be disbarred for Joselano C. Guevarra vs.
violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
reading: Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala
In other words, respondents denial is a negative pregnant, Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has
been sufficiently proven by more than clearly preponderant evidence that
a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible than
responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the other89[32]
the averments it was directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a which is the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a
form of negative expression which carries with it in affirmation or at least an lawyer.
implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant
with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are
fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.
allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held that
the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is . . . of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal case, proof beyond
admitted.84[27] (Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied) reasonable doubt is necessary; in an administrative case for disbarment or
suspension, clearly preponderant evidence is all that is required.90[33]
A negative pregnant too is respondents denial of having personal knowledge (Emphasis supplied)
of Irenes daughter Samantha Louise Irene Mojes Certificate of Live Birth. In
said certificate, Irene named respondent a lawyer, 38 years old as the childs Respondent insists, however, that disbarment does not lie because his
father. And the phrase NOT MARRIED is entered on the desired information relationship with Irene was not, under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised
on DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE. A comparison of the signature Rules of Court, reading:
attributed to Irene in the certificate85[28] with her signature on the Marriage
Certificate86[29] shows that they were affixed by one and the same person. SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
Notatu dignum is that, as the Investigating Commissioner noted, respondent grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from
never denied being the father of the child. his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
Franklin A. Ricafort, the records custodian of St. Lukes Medical Center, in his reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
January 29, 2003 Affidavit87[30] which he identified at the witness stand, violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice,
declared that Irene gave the information in the Certificate of Live Birth that
88 [31] Id. at 63, 215-219; TSN, December 2, 2003, pp. 12-14, vide p. 43.
89 [32] Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property Developer, Inc., G.R. No. 155110,
84 [27] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 453 Phil. 1059, 1107 (2003). March 31, 2003, 454 SCRA 653, 664-665, citing Municipality of Moncada v.
Cajuigan, 21 Phil. 184 (1912); Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. v. Court of
85 [28] Id. at 43; Exhibits F and F-3; TSN, December 2, 2003, pp. 226-227. Appeals, 173 SCRA 619, May 29, 1989; Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993, 223 SCRA 521, 534.
86 [29] Id. at 9; Exhibit B.
90 [33] Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza, 374 Phil. 1, 9-10
87 [30] Id. at 63. (1999).
or for a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case an element of the crime of concubinage when a married man has sexual
without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the intercourse with a woman elsewhere.
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice. Whether a lawyers sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the
benefit of marriage should be characterized as grossly immoral conduct
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a depends on the surrounding circumstances.92[35] The case at bar involves a
competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his
he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly. Apropos is
suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts hereinabove the following pronouncement of this Court in Vitug v. Rongcal:93[36]
enumerated.
On the charge of immorality, respondent does not deny that he had an extra-
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary marital affair with complainant, albeit brief and discreet, and which act is not
agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
suspension (Emphasis and underscoring supplied), reprehensible to a high degree in order to merit disciplinary sanction. We
disagree.x x x x
under scandalous circumstances.91[34]
While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual
The immediately-quoted Rule which provides the grounds for disbarment or relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant
suspension uses the phrase grossly immoral conduct, not under scandalous administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to
circumstances. Sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances is, betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-
following Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code reading marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside
marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate
ART. 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by
conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.94[37] (Emphasis and underscoring
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in supplied)
any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods. And so is the pronouncement in Tucay v. Atty. Tucay:95[38]
The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not the respondent
did contract a bigamous marriage . . . It is enough that the records of this
x x x x,
Respondent in fact also violated the lawyers oath he took before admission to Clutching at straws, respondent, during the pendency of the investigation of
practice law which goes: the case before the IBP Commissioner, filed a Manifestation98[41] on March
22, 2005 informing the IBP-CBD that complainants petition for nullity of his
I _________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the (complainants) marriage to Irene had been granted by Branch 106 of the
Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, and that the criminal complaint for
Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws adultery complainant filed against respondent and Irene based on the same set
as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do of facts alleged in the instant case, which was pending review before the
no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or Department of Justice (DOJ), on petition of complainant, had been, on motion
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid of complainant, withdrawn.
nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will
conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and The Secretary of Justices Resolution of January 16, 2004 granting
discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I complainants Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review reads:
impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion. So help me God. (Underscoring supplied) Considering that the instant motion was filed before the final resolution of the
petition for review, we are inclined to grant the same pursuant to Section 10
Respondent admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV (The Family) of of Department Circular No. 70 dated July 3, 2000, which provides that
the Constitution reading: notwithstanding the perfection of the appeal, the petitioner may withdraw the
same at any time before it is finally resolved, in which case the appealed
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the resolution shall stand as though no appeal has been taken.99[42]
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. (Emphasis supplied by complainant)
In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which echoes That the marriage between complainant and Irene was subsequently declared
this constitutional provision, obligates the husband and the wife to live void ab initio is immaterial. The acts complained of took place before the
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help marriage was declared null and void.100[43] As a lawyer, respondent should be
and support.97[40]
Parenthetically the totality of evidence adduced by complainant would, in the It bears emphasis that adultery is a private offense which cannot be
fair estimation of the Department, sufficiently establish all the elements of the prosecuted de oficio and thus leaves the DOJ no choice but to grant
offense of adultery on the part of both respondents. Indeed, early on, complainants motion to withdraw his petition for review. But even if
respondent Moje conceded to complainant that she was going out on dates respondent and Irene were to be acquitted of adultery after trial, if the
with respondent Eala, and this she did when complainant confronted her Information for adultery were filed in court, the same would not have been a
about Ealas frequent phone calls and text messages to her. Complainant also bar to the present administrative complaint.
personally witnessed Moje and Eala having a rendezvous on two occasions.
Respondent Eala never denied the fact that he knew Moje to be married to Citing the ruling in Pangan v. Ramos,103[46] viz:
complainant[.] In fact, he (Eala) himself was married to another woman.
Moreover, Mojes eventual abandonment of their conjugal home, after x x x The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a bar
complainant had once more confronted her about Eala, only served to confirm to these [administrative] proceedings. The standards of legal profession are
the illicit relationship involving both respondents. This becomes all the more not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of x
apparent by Mojes subsequent relocation in No. 71-B, 11th Street, New x x criminal law. Moreover, this Court, in disbarment proceedings is acting in
Manila, Quezon City, which was a few blocks away from the church where an entirely different capacity from that which courts assume in trying
she had exchange marital vows with complainant. criminal case104[47] (Italics in the original),
It was in this place that the two lovers apparently cohabited. Especially since
Ealas vehicle and that of Mojes were always seen there. Moje herself admits
that she came to live in the said address whereas Eala asserts that that was 102[45] Rollo, pp. 481-482.
A Filipino Lawyer Who Becomes A Citizen Of Another Country And Later Re-
Acquires His Philippine Citizenship Under R.A. No. 9225, Remains To Be A
Member Of The Philippine Bar
August 7, 2015 by The Lawyer's Post
The Facts:
Epifanio Muneses (petitioner), a member of the Philippine Bar since 1966, It can not be overstressed that:
became a citizen of the United States on August 21, 1981, hence lost his privilege
to practice law in the Philippines. On september 15, 2006, he reacquired his The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is so delicately
citizenship pursuant to Republic Act 9225 by taking his oath of allegiance as a affected with public interest that it is both the power and duty of the State
Filipino cityien before the Philippine Consulate in Washington, D.C. He filed the (through this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote
instant petition to be allowed to practice law in the Philippines, stating therein the public welfare.
that he intends to retire in the country. He submitted pertinent documents to Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest
support his petition. degree of morality, faithful observance of the legal profession, compliance with
The Issue: the mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of
Whether or not Epifanio should be allowed to resume practice of law in the membership fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions
Philippines. required for membership in good standing in the bar and for enjoying the
privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions
The Ruling: makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients
In Bar Matter No. 1678, dated December 17, 2007, the Court was confronted with repose in him for the continued exercise of his professional privilege. 4
a similar petition filed by Benjamin M. Dacanay (Dacanay) who requested leave
to resume his practice of law after availing the benefits of R.A. No. 9225. Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the practice of
Dacanay was admitted to the Philippine Bar in March 1960. In December 1998, law, the OBC required the herein petitioner to submit the original or certified true
he migrated to Canada to seek medical attention for his ailments and eventually copies of the following documents in relation to his petition:
became a Canadian citizen in May 2004. On July 14, 2006, Dacanay re-acquired 1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
his Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 after taking his oath of
allegiance before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. He 2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
returned to the Philippines and intended to resume his practice of law.
The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to 3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss 4. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration;
thereof means termination of the petitioners membership in the bar; ipso jure
the privilege to engage in the practice of law. Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born 5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired 6. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual
their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic 1. membership dues;
Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-
7. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member
of the Philippine Bar. However, as stated in Dacanay, the right to resume the 8. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.
practice of law is not automatic.2 R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who
intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted the following:
authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. 3
1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship); REYES, J.:
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad,
Villarama, Jr., Perez, Sereno, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine Citizenship issued by
the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of the IC; Brion, J., on leave.
5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City Chapter attesting Mendoza, J., on leave.
to his good moral character as well as his updated payment of annual
membership dues; EN BANC, B.M. No. 2112, July 24, 2012, IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE
PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES, EPIFANJO B. MUNESES,
6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010; PETITIONER.
7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd compliance period; Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship Any provision of law to the
and contrary notwithstanding, natural born citizens of the Philippines by reason
of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to
8. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria Estenzo-Ramos, have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of
Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program, University of Cebu, College of Law allegiance to the Republic:
attesting to his compliance with the MCLE.
I_________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance, Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders
particularly with the MCLE. After all the requirements were satisfactorily promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines and I hereby
complied with and finding that the petitioner has met all the qualifications declare that 1 recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and
and none of the disqualifications for membership in the bar, the OBC will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation
recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his practice of law. upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
Upon this favorable recommendation of the OBC, the Court adopts the same Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act,
and sees no bar to the petitioners resumption to the practice of law in the become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon
Philippines. taking the aforesaid oath.
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Epifanio B. Muneses is hereby 2
Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin Dacanay, Petitioner, B.M.
GRANTED, subject to the condition that he shall re-take the Lawyers Oath on No. 1678, December 17,2007.
a date to be set by the Court and subject to the payment of appropriate fees.
3
R.A. No. 9225, Section 5.
Furthermore, the Office of the Bar Confidant is directed to draft the necessary
guidelines for the re-acquisition of the privilege to resume the practice of law 4
Supra note 2.
for the guidance of the Bench and Bar
SO ORDERED.